If gunpowder was never invented, maybe we would have time to dedicate to the truly important: Sword fighting, archery, and learning to kill with your bare fists.
Yeah, but that would be revolutionary nonetheless. You'd finally be able to make your standard infantryman fully bulletproof, protecting their entire body from enemy fire without significantly hindering their movement. I'm sure the Army would love to use them. In theory, you could also make a mechanical infantryman, which would also be bulletproof and thus revolutionize infantry warfare as we know it. But that might just be a pipe dream.
I like that he mentions the fact that, save for very few situational exceptions, if you can do it with a mech, you can do it with a tank. If your mech has armor that can withstand most conventional weapons, you can just put said armor on a tank. If there is a low supply of the armor, only enough for one vehicle, then you can make more tanks with more overall firepower than however many mechs you can make with the same amount of armor. The bottom line is that, if you can make a super mech that is worthwhile as a military asset, you can make more tanks that are even better.
Well unless your in the macross setting than mechs are better since a serious consideration needs to be made for fighting 10 meter tall aliens with flight capable power armour
@@vincentnguyen6622 What?! Fighter Jets with its superior aerodynamics will be way way better than flying mechs which will a lot heavier, bigger, slower and costlier. It is better to develop conventional aircrafts with more firepower and armor with the same tech as those macross mechs against giant aliens. I bet they will be a lot better.
@ALSO-RAN ! To be fair, if you can make a mech that can carry two weapons and switch between them, you can just build two tanks that use each weapon respectively, giving them the ability to carry more ammo and use both at the same time. Also, it isn't like tanks can't use cover. In fact, save for certain urban environments, they are better at it given their lower silhouette.
What about a dog/horse/feline like robot that carries a rack of ATGMs? A small but serious throat that can climb around like an agile animal, and get into all sorts of dangerous positions infantry would not be able to, then unload hell on enemy armour. Or something insectoid, able to climb on most surfaces using either puncturing claws, or something like a gecko's foot pads and carrying an automatic weapon? You could have about a dozen of them attached to the outside of a tank to go scour buildings for ambush infantry. If both sides had such robots, I can imagine a situation where tanks just stop being used, and infantry and never deployed, since the drones would keep getting them, instead, all you have is drone on drone violence, until the drones start to become anti-drones, and that becomes the new way war is fought.
@@TheGreySpectrum wasn't the "liability" simply that quadruped robots are currently too loud, though? I'm sure that engine technology will eventually get to the point that the military will likely reconsider their position on utilizing legged robots.
@@TheGreySpectrum thats why i say until they get better I really cant see them being used in combat roles but i think in logistical or behind the front lines it would do good For ecample if they find a cheap method to make a mech for a human that cost less than a foreclift to carry around boxes and other heavy stuff more precise than a tank would Imagine lifting a 200kg box and placing it really fast and precise where you want it That would be awesome amd i know some storage unit people that would love to have it because less stress on your muscles and bones equals less pain
@@kauske OR you make it fly. Such a vehicle makes no sense, really. Most of the Earth is flat. That's also the terrain where tanks are most used. A climbing robot on flat terrain is..... just a walking robot. It's something that is more easily replaced by currently available unmanned treaded vehicles. And if you need it to get to high places for some reason, just make an attack helicopter. You can make it smaller if you want too.
Personally, i think that Titanfall did mechs the best. They're anti-infantry, not anti-armor 'vehicles'. A WW2 tank could probably kill a titan in one shot, but if there are tanks that can kill titans, you won't put titans here. You put titans against Specters, Pilots, infantry garrisons, at most small vehicles, but not tanks.
Most Titanfall maps are also very close quarters with little to no space to fit a tank let alone have it be an effective asset (Specially against the pilots)
I don't know much about Titanfall, but if their mechs are weak enough that a WW2 era tank can take them out, they'd be pretty bad against infantry, especially garrisons. We have pretty high powered rifles NOW, so imagine a future where the tech is good enough to have effecient fast moving mechs? Damn, even in the 80's/90's Styer developed an anti material rifle that doesn't fire bullets, just mini SABOT shots. Imagine how easy it would be to make anti-titan weaponry? A high caliber machinegun with special rounds etc etc. I mean hell, think about a lot of the single shot rocket weaponry modern infantrymen usually carry around.
Especially when you consider the maps in Titanfall 2's campaign. Most fighting takes place in either inside bases or outside of these bases, which are located on the sides of mountains. In fact, there's literally cliffs and mountains EVERYWHERE in TF2's campaign, terrain that isn't suited for the deployment of tanks. A mech could jump down a cliff and land on it's legs. You drive a tank off a cliff and it's gonna get flipped. Someone's raining death 200m's above you can aim up in a mech, or grab something to shield yourself with. A tank usually aren't suppose to aim up that high and usually doesn't have good top armour. A mech could rain death from above when it's on top of these cliffs. A tank, not so much. There just isn't any good place where you can utilize a tank effectively. The only real use for a tank would be as a mobile defense platform for bases. Even then its usefulness is questionable.
@@thejake1453 The biggest round we see a titan take repeatedly is 40mm, so i doubt a soldier could carry a 40mm rifle. Even if they did, titans have some form of shields which allow them to take small arms fire for some ammount of time.
@@highgrounder5238 Forget future weapons. Modern soldiers carry 40mm weapons, think 40mm HEDP (HEAT-like) grenades. They also carry weapons that can defeat tank armor with a single hit, think tandem warhead anti tank launchers. Tanks already have to be very careful in a modern battlefield, and therefore mechs (as we see them in games) wouldn't stand a chance. Mechs in Titanfall are simply not efficient enough and they don't have a unique niche use. They are very similar to the naval Dreadnaughts. Do you know why we don't see any Dreadnaughts anymore? A Dreadnaught is a large and powerful ship, pretty good on paper, but not so good at all if you consider that a relatively cheap missile can take it out in one or two hits. Similarly, a mech might be pretty powerful, but not if a grunt with a cheap disposable AT launcher can take it out in one or two hits. If you want infantry support, that's what IFVs are for. They are much more efficient in that role and their weapons would shred mechs. Again, the mech is a Dreadnaught in that role. You need to find a role in which the mech is not a Dreadnaught.
I think Mechs have a small niche place. Not as a 60 foot tank replacement or a speedy jumping machine acting like a helicopter but as troop support. A small Mech (9-15ft, more like the loader in Aliens) armed with 20mm cannons, 50cals, or rocket pods supporting infantry in regions you can't get armor. Places like Europe where some of the narrow roads are paved horse trails, mountains, forests, and possibly jungle via ease of helicopter drop off. Regions armor can't get to or as pointed out pivot to turn but where infantry need more fire power than an infantryman can carry. Again, not a tank replacement but somewhere between a rifleman and a Bradley. The mech would not replace the tank but possibly finding itself in support of it ironically.
So, Power Armor? Even the power loader counts as Power Armor instead of a Small Mech, and having mobile powered Infantry would also be more practical that Mechs. However that has problems as well such as mobility and power yada yada. A soldier with a smaller exoskeleton could work to simply carry more ammunition or heavy weapons (like a rocket launcher).
@@Myusernamerulez Yeah, but for example the Humvee has issues in Europe where again, a lot of the roads are paved horse trails and even the Humvee is to wide to easily navigate them.
The anime movies "Ghost on the Shell" and "Short Peace" have somewhat realistic unmmaned mechs, including active armor. Check them out, at least the former is a good film on its own right.
i was just about to bring Ghost on the Shell up too, now i guess i just have to talk about the other movie with a similar name called Ghost in the Shell.
Funny thing is that mechs are always associated with Japanese anime, while they did popularize the concept, it started in great Britain in a sci fi novel the war of worlds written by h.g. wells of Martians piloting tripods, the first concept of the mechs long before japan brought it to mainstream but before that their was the starship troopers novel from the 1950s.
It's usually mecha (Human like mechs.) that are usually associated with anime. Ones that belong in Avatar, Titanfall, and Mechwarrior are what you typically associate as mechs and western media.
@@seagie382 I can't believe War of the Worlds happened because the martian crown prince used his geass power on his half sister to tell her to "Kill all the Humans"
true, but I don't know if I'd call the armour suits from Starship Troopers 'mechs'. it's been a long time since I read the book, but I got the impression that they're more like big armoured exoskeletons, a bit like Space Marine or Terminator armour from WH40K.
Whilst I’m anti-mech all the way, I feel like this argument should mention that this is only if mechs are used like tanks, which given how modern militaries work, would be unlikely. You don’t use a SPA the same way you use a heavy tank, so why use a mech the same way as an MBT? It’s just something that always gets on my nerves when people put mechs in a position they most likely weren’t meant for, then proclaim the tank better cause a mech can’t do what it’s meant to do, this goes for most sci-fi, and especially for TF, which he did mention in part 1, they aren’t used like tanks, so there’s no reason to put them in the shoes of a job they weren’t built for. Edit: Expanding upon what I said.
Agreed. Assuming a sci-fi powersupply I believe mechs up to 25ish feet could be semi realistic. If they are nimble similar to Boston dynamics robots they could succeed in certain roles better than tanks. Not replacing tanks but supplementing them. Just like vtol jet fighters have never come close to replacing standard jet fighters, they serve a role.
Here is my argument in favor of mechs: "be able to carry heavier fire power..." Incorrect. The advantage of arms on a mech means it can carry the weapon as a entirely separate entity. You get more or less full rotational capacity in both the x and y axis. Which is handy for cliffs, hills, maybe there is an annoying helio you wanna swat. (An yes there are actual AA rounds tanks use or can use to take out helicopters.) An because the weapon itself is a entirely separate entity this means you can add magazines on it. Even if it was a simple semi-automatic 120mm rifle, it would be faster than loading a crewed single shot gun on a tank. "Autoloaders..." Autoloaders increase the weight and have a issue of switching ammunition on the fly. So unless you have a all purpose round what about autoloaders? If you're going to include mechanical aids as autoloaders than the abrams is a autoloader tank, but at the end of the day it is still a crewed gun and doesn't have the same problem as full autoloaders do when it comes to switching ammunition because they can just take the round out of the barrel. An a magazine on a rifle would be much easier to take out and put a different one in if you really needed to do so. An than the ammo capacity, because tank guns unless they are autocannons are single shot, a magazine that already has pre-loaded ammunition in the gun, the mech can shoot faster than a tank. The reason tanks don't have gun like magazines is because the space and weight. A issue made entirely mute for a mech because if the gun is its own entity it is not taking up space in the mech. An the added weight means little when you're talking about a increase in fire rate and fire power or the fact human hands wouldn't be touching the magazine. "Aha, but what happens when the mech needs to reload the gun, it will be slower" yes the crew or autoloader has less distance to traverse and travel, so when a mech empties a magazine it will be temporarily hindered. But everything has problems, i am not saying mechs are perfect. I am saying they are even if slightly better than you think. An mechs have greater versatility weapon wise if they are carrying their guns as separate entities. A mech could carry a rocket launcher that shoots cruise missiles or stronger/longer range SAMs. Or a giant motar for the mechs to use and act as a pseudo artillery battery if you have enough of them. At the end of the day for the military it is a question of do benefits outweight the negatives? People have already built mechs for fun and there was a competition as well. But that's very different from what a military needs. An part of the reason no one has even tried with military mechs is because no one wants to take the risk. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Also you are wrong about exo-suits. The US military has a research and weapons project for bringing exo-suits to the frontlines (as well as looking into cybrrnetically enhancing troops). True at the moment they are very primitive and require a large heavy battery, so for the time being realistically they would be purely logistical but the us military is indeed looking into it. Also who said mechs have to have legs? There is plenty of scifi material that gives mechs the lower half of a tank and the upper body of well a mech. True a full humanoid mech or animal like mech is the norm and is basically the de facto go to.
You are one of the most well informed and thought out anti-mech people I have ever seen, but to be honest, a lot of the pro mech/robot people do seem to want mechs to replace tanks, instead of realizing they would be different, and have their own sort of roles.
Well, in TF, mechs carry 20mm and 40mm mostly, yeah, I know, they have other weapons but that was to give an example. Those weapons clearly aren't meant for fighting tanks but for supporting infantry
@Slighty Psychopathic But then your impractical walking machine gets destroyed and you realise that you just wasted millions of dollars boosting your enemy's morale.
@@DarkStar14n in russia "stuka horn" only created anger, like, russians just got angry and start shooting at stuka with everything, even throwing rocks or something So, *history just repeats itself*
I’ve always seen mechs in the real world as either terror inducing statues or small fast units used against infantry and maybe light armoured targets or just for general civilian work use like construction or carrying heavy loads like the TF titans were originally
I think mechs would only really be able to shine in combat situations where you simply can't use tanks, like thick forests or dense urban environments. But they could nonetheless be revolutionary for infantry warfare, since you'd have a war machine that's not much bigger than a man, but unlike a man, they're bulletproof from head to toe.
Which is mentioned in the Gundam shows time and time again, scare factor (besides plot armor Minovsky particles and being able to switch and or pick up weapons/ammo faster)
I'd say they would go alongside troops and tanks when the aim is to absolutely clear the area of any enemies. Mechs would be better anti-infantry than tanks. Check this future warfare concept out th-cam.com/video/rcfnkScxEMI/w-d-xo.html
Its really a needless conversation. Yes. Mechs are not practical and won't ever exist. Its called Science Fiction for a reason. No one is legitimately arguing that they are the new replacement for tanks IRL. But go off on 2 video tangents no one disagreed with you about I guess.
@@GriffinKneesock they could be useful and could exist, theres no real physical or technological problem with mechs that makes them imposible to exist in real life, and really most of his points are just plain wrong (ground pressure, square cube law and mainteinance wouldnt be a real problem for mechs for several reasons i don't really want to write right now) The guy knows a fair bit about tanks and warfare in general, but knows nothing of enginering aside from the bare basics that people have been (wrongly) repeated for years now
@@AlbertWillHelmWestings2618 Well you can have a mech the size of power armor, just put a midget or a 4 limb amputee inside. That said, a mini-tank, like a futuristic Badger (1 manned SWAT tank that can fit through doors) might still be better than a small mech in many combat situations.
Interestingly enough the mechs in James Cameron's Avatar were built to be used in Cities and for logistics. I think they wouldn't be too impractical in forests although I guess the forest floor might be too soft.
The tree roots are probably why they are used Edit: and rocks but mainly terrain not yet adjusted for tracked or wheeled travel. That's probably why air transport is used so heavily
They are very light and pretty much hollow, with a glass canopy. Considering they're fighting against a primitive enemy, it's a good enough weapon of choice.
@@midgetman4206 plus navigating between trees might be a problem with thicc tanks. The Ubisoft game showed a few road-like clearings, but they wouldn't be good for anything heavier than an AFV/armored car.
@@DerpEye And having a good field of view might be more important than protection in the forest. They're pretty much the equivalent of using an excavator to wreck a village.
in games, mech can be repaired by smart "plasma" energy that instantly repair the mech in movies, mech still get repaired by human, but after some minutes scenes, the mech repaired why not? mech ppls : STONKS vehicle in real life war
@@nichsa8984 no, actually some prototype mechs cost normally like tanks, or cheaper than tanks But.... their part is so small, so unarmored, so complicated, so fragile than tanks That make soldier have difficulty to repair complicated mechs (included complicated tanks, that make complicated tanks also fail in war) Soldier trained for a war strategy not repairing something they dont understand That is why sappers or war engineer is exist but they not to many, they are harder and expensive to train, if you want train more engineer for a war training, it also cost a lot more money and efforts To put them to a fragile, complicated and slow moving mechs will make your entire country become bankrupt
Thought he did state at the end that they aren't comparable in the same way. I won't use mechs for combat, even the old man mech of them all aliens logistical heavy lifter was a non-combat Garrison support. So think about how it would work and it's purpose I see the future with both tanks on the front mechs in the rear as support units
Well, not really. Rule of cool trumps logic when your doing storytelling. You want to use logic most sci fi stuff wouldn't exist. Can be a fan of something and know you wont get it in real life.
i think the main issue would be kickback, how would a tank that hovers handle the recoil of a massive gun, it would have to re-position every time it fires
If you have sth as "futuristic" as anti - grav tech, you probably have shields as well. When you have shields, you'd rather have it be twice as strong than have your tank float
One issue with the square cube law is that it's not _always_ a detriment to making something bigger. Sometimes, the square cube law can be a friend, even to a mech. For example, since surface area doesn't increase with the same rate as volume, you can double your internal volume, without having to double your external area, thus you double the space inside for stuff, without doubling armour mass. Square cube is more a restriction on how you can build anything, versus a way to say it couldn't be. People who try and scale a human up to 25' are doing it wrong period, a 25' biped has to be built quite differently from one in the 5-7' range that most humans are in. If you're talking about directly scaling something up, then yes, square cube would destroy it, that's why you have to account for it as an engineer. You have to cut weight where you can to accommodate the restrictions of the square cube law. I say this over and over, but mechs shouldn't be a replacement for tanks, more a compliment. It's like how tanks didn't replace infantry. The way I view mechs vs tanks is more like an IFV role, something small to supplement infantry groups with heavy firepower, or something small and agile to replace infantry with tanks, ideally autonomous. You could make small, vast machine gun equipped ground drones based on insects that could get into anywhere, cheap, expendable and abile to eliminate hidden infantry threats to armour. Animal-like robots would also be particularly good in jungle combat, whereas tanks would need roads cut for them. A robot is a trade-off of durability and increased cost, for niche versatility. One role I can see combat mechs beating tanks in is as a 'beachhead' landing. A humanoid is more versatile in being air or space dropped, it can land wrong, but not be ruined. If your tank lands upside-down, it's rubbish, if your human or animal robot does, it can right itself. Think of mechs like those shitty glider tanks in WWII, not great, but better than nothing until the 'real' tanks can arrive. Being good in logistics, they would also be ideal to get on ground first, as they can both help secure LZ's for more conventional forces, and help unpack those conventional forces, meaning less mass wasted on 'easy unpack' systems to unload your tanks from whatever carried them down to the surface. Mechs would also have an advantage in that they can be used in space as well, where talks would not be versatile enough. Being able to adjust where you hold your weapon is pretty handy in zero G, as are hands to be able to remove equipment. You could deploy mechs equipped with balutes and RCS in orbit, have them navigate and deorbit on their own, and reach ground using the balute to form an on ground commando force with more heavy firepower than would be allowed with just infantry, and without the worry of a bad landing rendering tanks unusable. Tanks would also have a harder time adapting to varying planetary gravity than a humanoid. Just look at the moon buggy, they had to reinvent the car for what amounts to a golf cart. If the choice was having to reinvent your tanks for nearly every type of planet with differing gravity and atmosphere, versus using humanoids that can alter their method of locomotion due to flexibility, I imagine many would take the versatility, even if it's worse overall. But I tend to view mechs more as just another part of the larger military, versus some sort of wonder weapon that would replace tanks. If they were to replace anything, it would likely be infantry, not tanks. If you work inside the restrictions of the square cube law, and keep them more reasonably sized, you could probably do a lot of interesting things with mechs, and end up in a situation where they do change the way wars are fought, just like other major technologies before.
Well from what I’m seeing and the information I knowing, the main problem is there size and another problems are minor: more moving parts, more ground pressure on a small area, etc. so if there is a mech the size of a tank it will do a lot better that a giant mech but it will not replace the tank cuz it’s still a better vehicle to mass produce! So the small size mechs are going to be as armored support in Tight areas, like a tunnel, and if they have arms and legs that don’t go forward only and need to rotate! Forests, mid size caves and mountainous regions! Note the size I’m talking about is 2 men high and 3.5 men wide or if you want a reference go check a game called “lost plane” mechs
There’s one thing which I don’t have the expertise to answer but would like to see explored: What would make Mechs viable for combat? Not in a Main Battle Tank role, but just as a combat unit. If I had to usher a guess, Mechs would serve as a Heavy Infantry Support in more urban locations, with the Mechs being at most 2-3 times the average height of the infantry.
I found this from a Reddit thing, and to me, it makes sense for mechs in a battlefield where lasers are used for there "muzzle velocity" here, read: what if there was some type of armor with sheet resistance that increased with surface area instead of thickness? Like how conductors work: There is a resistance to the flow of an electric current through most conductors. The resistance in a wire increases as: The length of the wire increases The thickness of the wire decreases In that case, a thin, high surface-area "conductor" based armor would act as a heat sink as well as being more resistant to energy weapons than thick slabs on a box.
just pack an anti armor gun on there, and since its a thin film, any tank round would shred through it, as he said "if you can put it on a mech, you can put it on a tank"
Like the first one this video has some really good points. As someone who likes tanks and (Titanfall only) mechs I would like to see a video where you are talking about the best way to make mechs work.
Why Tanks Are Better Tanks Than Mechs (Part 2). It shouldn't be question which one is better at being a tank, it shouldn't be question if Mech could replace Tank.
@@Le-eu4bf Hiperbolic. It still doesn't change anything, wrong question was asked and we got answer for it. With mindset that mechs to ever exist, is to replace tanks, then it already failed, because tank will be always a better tank than mech. Crossbow's bolts are better at piercing certain armor than firearms and are nearly completly silent. Could there be any use of crossbows in military? Yes, there would, for example recon. Are Crossbows better sniper rifles than Sniper Rifles? No. What is better at being a sniper rifle, crossbow, or sniper rifle? Sniper rifle. Could crossbow ever replace sniper rifle? No. See the drift?
@@themaniomarian yes I can actually see it. Like for example you want to assault an armored position in a mountain you can use a mech to maneuver that makes sense
I do think that something like Code Geass knightmares are a more realistic design to conventional sci-fi mechs. I mostly refer to the standard Sutherland knightmares in this analysis and not the very “anime” ones. While dramatized it’s often used as a modestly armored cavalry type infantry, its armor isn’t much higher than that of an IFV or maybe light tank but they use their mobility to outmaneuver forces particularly in the mostly urban environments of the time. They show plenty of weaknesses that come from the weaker frames and are often supported by actual armor like tanks. The pilots have isolated pods from the frame than can be targeted, but are ejection pods as well so in the event a shot doesn’t kill it the pilot can eject and be recovered. The actual weapons on the mech itself are light small arms and they are shown to use shoulder mounted rockets, recoiless rifles, or heavy “rifles” that are mostly only useful against other knightmares, light armor, or soft targets. While I don’t make the point that mechs are better, this certainly shows a different philosophy that could have real merit if explored.
@incinerator950 scandium is a real life transformium self-configuring modular robots and tank will massive come vechiel or humanoid mode choose attacking massive
As I have commented under the previous video, mechs need to find and fill a niche on the battlefield to be a viable choice. Like the 40k Imperial Guards Sentinel walker. It can go with the infantry where tanks can't and bring the mobile firepower what the infantry can't.
They have, their role is the unit that can do everything , you have a tank division facing a mech division ? they can take to the sky and kill all the tank, or use a shield and engage the tank at point blank range and destroy them with the beam sword
Actually in Battletech lore and in the table top wargame Mechs can sidestep, they can also climb, go prone, and even crawl, and in the BT RPG AToW it's entirely possible for particularly skilled Mechwarior to flip someone the bird, dance, or otherwise gesticulate. And you want to know something fun that having legs can do that treads can't? They can lean, meaning no need to expose half your tank to look around the corner when you can just poke your sensor around it, with or without a weapon attached. And according to BT Lore, Myomers are essentially electricity reactive carbon nantubes, and you know one potential possible use for carbon nanotubes? Armor, which exists in lore for infantry on par with rifle plate. So I think you are perhaps underestimating the durability of myomer just a tad bit. Now do I think Mechs are better? No, the ground pressure, size, and cost issues are still substantially against them, but I do believe you could be better informed about the IP if nothing else.
even in the BT lore, there's some tanks that cost more than a assault mech and some mechs that are cheaper than your standard MBT. If anything the biggest reason why Mechs may be net negative is....training. Even in Battletech, it takes 4 years of training at any military college to be certified to pilot a mech, let alone certified in a specific weight class. Another year or two to have multiple weight classes and officer training. An enlisted personnel can be thrown into tank training for a year, 6 months if the house militia needs rapid deployment. A officer/tank commander would take a year to two years to complete. So when deploying forces one would need a combine army to deal with a threat. In some cases there's some units whom were wiped out an Example would be the 3rd Crusis Lancers who just recently in the lore was reactivated and slowly being rebuilt with green personnel. Not just talking mechwarriors but everything from the mess hall to the clerks themselves having to be reassigned after its deactivation. Rebuilding armies take time even if you can mass produce combat vehicles, training is still needed and sometimes one unit takes priority over another.
For Mechs I like the idea of the Tachikomas from GitS, tiny 4 legged spider tanks that can barely fit 1 man and probaply weigh less than 1 ton. The have wheels to move quick like a car in urban environments but have also grabby like fingers for heavy terraine, they also have shootable steel cables to rapell themselves like spiderman and climb buildings. They can jump multiple meters and can survive falls from great hight. They are also fully AI operated so if there is a person in it at all he basically pulerly plays the role of tank-commander. The tradeoff for the small weight and high mobility is the weaponry and armour. They are armed with 7.62mm machine guns and either a low velocity 75mm howitzer with a single shot (Heat or Smoke) or a .50cal gatling gun. The armour also only protects from rifle caliber bullets.
I think the next video of this topic should talk about the roles a mech *should* be used for instead of being a front line assault weapon as it usually is in Sci fi
@@ThePsicocat101 exept if they are russian, there is a good 50% chance it will either float or have ability to fully seal itself and have a long tube to give air to engien and crew
@@ThePsicocat101 me: *laugh in a self-reconfiguring modular robots* but m-trans lll will next generation technology vechiel will random transformation into insect or something
I know in the mechwarrior universe, people focus heavily on them mechs. But in that universe tanks are actually more common than mechs by far. Tanks and other ground vehicles can actually be extraordinarily dangerous to mechs.
Yea the Myrmidon and Manticore tanks can punch a hole in mech armor and run away into cover quickly. Then if the pilot is stupid enough to allow a Demolisher to get close its good night. However lord have mercy if you get Narc'd and a LRM 20 launcher is around....
@@everyonethinksyoureadeathm5773 Yup. The possibilities of vehicle combinations and tactics are endless. That’s why mechwarrior is the best sci fi universe in my opinion. Mechs are obviously awesome, but there is so much depth to warfare in the mechwarrior universe. Even basic infantry or guys in power armor can pose a major threat to mechs. Let alone something like a Demolisher II
If you're writing a sci-fi setting and want to earn your mechs, be prepared to introduce massive advancements in material strength, propulsion, ease of maintenance, energy production and heat dissipation, to a point where mechs have some crazy airborne mobility, so much so that it outweighs the practicality of tanks. Basically, when you're thinking about your mech, think "what advantage does this form have compared to just packing all the same equipment into a box on wheels".
I think that the best use of a mech would be in a role where it isn’t even really a mech as people would imagine it, closer to power armour. In urban or otherwise close quarter environments where there are long narrow stretches of land where snipers can pick you off, having an armoured man run out and spot the sniper without being at risk of instantly losing his head can be an incredible asset. At that point however, it’d probably just be like 7-8ft tall, big enough to provide strength that easily overpowers an infantry man but not nearly ya the scale that people imagine mechs being.
If this video makes you feel sad about the future, just remember. Mechs are cool as hell. And because they're cool as hell, _someone_ is going to host a mech-fighting tournament - purely for entertainment - where people will be able to build their own mechs (presumably within certain regulations, like Battle Bots) and fight with them. They'd probably be unmanned at first, to prevent people... ya know, getting killed. But by the time we have mech battling as a form of mere entertainment, we'd probably also have advanced enough medical technology to basically bring someone back from being turned into swiss cheese by a mounted Gatling gun. Or you would be able to simply use VR tech to feel like you're piloting your mech, even if you aren't.
Miomer could be used to drive motors if they provide better power to weight than magnetic motors, so it could be applied to tanks that way. It would also be useful for tank suspensions. The only way that force fields would make mechs viable is if there is some issue with ground clearance. The real conceptual problem that people run into is that they think that the giant mechs would move on the same time scale as humans, and they can’t quite grasp that it would be lumbering around slower than an elephant. Though it would be kind of fun to see a Mechwarrior kind of game that used the relatively realistic damage models of a game like War Thunder.
It is fallacious to assume that there needs to be a discussion on "Mechs vs Tanks". The real discussion is "Are Combat Mechs practical?" As one well-known channel put it: "To judge a mech by the criteria of a tank and declare the tank superior ignores what makes a mech unique and, in some cases, more effective" Nobody rational should assume that a Tank is more effective than a mech or vice versa. To suit that end, I will have to break down your argument against mechs not being effective in mountainous terrain. I am not sold on your argument as it only brings up sloped areas. What makes a tank less effective in mountainous terrain is two factors: Cliff faces and roads. I'll bring up the latter first: When traversing mountains access to roads become far more restricted, allowing for greater risk of ambush and sabotage i.e. guerrilla forces blowing up the roads either to prevent a tanks passage or just to destroy them. In the case of cliffs, yes, obviously tanks can't climb up them no matter how powerful the engine is. In the case of mechs, it could be possible to adapt a Titanfall-esque mech for use in mountains where road access is limited, if not nonexistent. It wouldn't be difficult to implement features like climbing spurs, winches and limited-use jump packs to more effectively traverse the difficult terrain than a tank could. Again, it's not "who can go up this slope better", it's "who can traverse this area quickest and safest" and on this level, the mechs win out. The same argument can be made in highly urbanised environments where tanks can and have been suspect to attacks from above. An attacking mech could simply climb the building and flush opponents from the top down, effectively protecting the tank division from below. Again, Mechs and Tanks aren't better than one another, they can effectively support each other.
"Are mechs practical?" No. Basically anything a mech can do can be more done more effectively or efficiently by tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armed personnel carriers, helicopters, trucks, technicals, and drones.
I don't think that power loader mechs would be useful even for logistics. We already have devices that can pickup cargo, load/unload vehicles and stack items. They're called forklifts. Modern forklifts are extremely maneuverable with some fitted with mecanum wheels allowing omnidirectional travel. Modern forklifts are incredibly dangerous and need to be treated with caution. Imagine how much more dangerous mechs would be over a forklift. I don't see it going well.
We get back to the point of psychological warfare. Having a Baneblade bearing down on your position would be scary. Having a Knight Castellan stomping across the battlefield would be terrifying
What about 4-6 legged walkers because they can walk over rocks, climb mountains, jump up buildings, jump over gaps, lower and raise their bodies, kick stuff and anything else you could imagine a robot doing. This is 100% more flexible than any wheeled vehicle, because a legged robot could be designed to do all this with just their legs.
I feel like a flat-earther being schooled on why the earth is round, accepting the facts but still clinging to this belief. Sounds weird. I like giant robots even though I know they’re unrealistic.
Well actually could make mech pretty easily it just no one does we could build mech a lot like code Geass or full metal panic there fairly small I like idea of armored core and total eclipse type mechs myself in fact my profile picture is one my own design of mech dragoon type U0 mk3
Question. What about using mech in police/riot control role ? I mean, if army captures a city, and disarms the populacion, mechs with watercanon/ light canon coud be used to add psychologic effect. Againt forces with limited AT capability, mech coud be more usefull. Big, scary looking platform,humanoid but still alien looking and using , with watercanon to intimitade rioting population. And posible with some sort of audio system to active fight-or-flight reflex as well.
dertafors It could work, but then you get into the same issues tank crews sometimes enter with major riots, people getting past your riot wall and breaking equipment, and since its effectively a giant target, it would only take one single protestor with welding tools and deathwish to bring one of them down...
He tottaly forgot one main advance of mech, they having human shape will come with control that link directly to your brain, the reaction time will be much faster than any tanks pilot, not to mention the pilot will have the advantage of all CQC and mellee skill that have been develop from entire human history, not just aim and shoot like the tank
I remember reading some 40k lore where the t'au considered building giant robots absolutely ridiculous, declaring no civilization would be fool enough to throw so many resources in such impractical weapons, years later, they had to fight the Adeptus Titanicus...
Computer scientist here. At 1:20, you say the weight increases exponentially. Thankfully, no; it only increases cubically. But cubically is still huge.
Re: large animals can barely do more than walk and run. Giraffes are prey big and very tall, and they can jump and kick prey well. T. Rex is extinct, but studies I have read suggest it could jump so high its center of mass went up by 3 meters. The re-engineering needed to compensate for the square cube law often produces surprisingly nimble giants.
I think one role mechs could potentially fulfill is a fear factor. That was the main impact of the first Mk1 tanks in WW1 after all, it was a new technology that scared the hell out of the germans. I do overall agree with your point, our modern ideas of mechs aren't viable for our modern styles of warfare. However, I think that's why we should try to explore and develop the idea until it is viable. That's what we did for the original tanks, after all. Those things were slow, easily scrapped, hard to maintain boxes. And now look where are. So if the idea of mechs goes through those same hundred years of development, combined with whatever wackass technology we invent in the meantime, who knows what might come out of it.
The problem with that is, a tanks were developed in a scenario when nothing better existed. We had no choice but to make them. Developing a mech to do a tanks job would be a waste of money, because you already have a tank. Just use the money you were using to develop the mech to improve the tank. Any new "wackass technology" that makes mechs practical can just be used to make better tanks. And mechs wouldn't provide much fear factor, because they'd be obvious targets. There's a reason why modern military vehicles are designed with low profiles, the smaller you are, the harder you are to hit. Making something like a mech that towers over the battlefield is just providing target practice to your enemy.
Here's an interesting thought: What about aircraft? As in conventional aircraft vs ornithopter. I could see those maybe replacing conventional aircraft in some combat roles.
As always crushing the dreams of many a sci fi fan. Not me though, I never saw Mechs as viable for the same reasons. Its befuddling people continue to try and justify their existence.
Im not trying to defend mech but the question is kinda useless if all you do is try to say who is the best tank between tank and mech. Mech unsurprisingly loose since its not a tank. Listening to this video you could as well say that infantry is pointless since it cant carry as big of a gun and as much armor...
@@nicolasgonin7735 That's a false equivalency. Mechs are used in place of tanks in nearly all sci-fi they appear in, so the comparison is valid, or at least justafiable. Infantry and Tanks are not used for the same things in most cases, and, unlike with tanks vs mechs, where a tank can do basically all the same things, infantry is capable of many things tanks are not.
@@Delta-es1lg I understand your argument but the comparaison is still weak You still are comparing a real life weapon with a design improved along an actual century of actual conflict, with a design made to look cool. I could also pick on a 5 year old for the way he draw his tank. In a lot of universes tank still exist and just are in the background because not as cool...
So the next *Pacific Rim* sequel will have the humans _finally_ realise and create giant tanks using Mech technology that one shot Kaijus with their main gun. That is if they even survive the gunships the size of Jumbo Jets (or bigger) that lay down the hurt as soon as they appear and even drop seeker missile/torpedoes from on high that are the size of a semitrailer and can wipe a group of Kaijus underwater. *Jaeger pilot:* So what's the new unit I've heard rumours about like, 100 metres tall Walker with a plasma gun? *Tech:* Nah, it's a Helicarrier with a plasma gun thats 100 metres long. Can _one shot a city CBD,_ we fitted a variable power dial to the gun, so you don't accidentally blow through the crust at a weak point. But it's also got a bunch of lasers for more focused firepower and aerial point defence. And enough missiles to obliterate a entire airforce and tank battalion. The autocannons are just for backup. Best part is the frame is cheaper and easier to make than a Jaeger…
Honestly, the Atlas/Triton/(Geth Primes/YMIR Mechs) in ME3 and the Hydra in MEA is how I would imagine actual mechs (as opposed to power armor) would get used where they act as relatively rare and specialized fire support platforms, they aren’t intended to replace tanks or infantry and essentially fulfill a role similar to an assault gun; particularly in circumstances in which a fire support platform is still very desirable but ground vehicles aren’t really available such as on space stations like Grissom Academy or the Citadel, inside mining facilities or inside small asteroid habitats. Areas that essentially blur the line between exterior and interior and aren’t really built for (ground) vehicles but have the room and structural support to accommodate things that are larger and heavier than infantry. Although, it should be noted that weight should be less of an issue in mass effect due to mass manipulation technologies made possible through eezo.
if its only for a civilian logistic or for a walking civilian vehicle, then its true there is a company in south korea building mech for future selling, but still prototype, but its looking cool for me link : th-cam.com/video/3ldJswGpkjY/w-d-xo.html but for a real war......., trust me, its different story, real war is harsher than hell that humans ever imagine, you need crazily strong vehicles in real war
Furiouswc mech scouts are a terrible idea. They aren’t low profile, they can get injured with small arms. They’re a terrible idea but can only be used properly in a artillery loader position.
I want a BattleTech game that focuses on the tanks and aerial vehicles, cause there are a frick ton of them and yet they are always sitting there on the sideline pretending to be useless when they should be dominating the battlefield.
Honestly, this is modeled in the Mechwarrior lore and somehow it just kind of gets ignored. The Demolisher is an 80 tonne tank is specifically lauded as being an effective counter to Battlemechs. The machine is a quarter to a third the price of an equal tonne Battlemech, is easier to produce, and yet has speed, armor, and firepower to match it. Instead of fielding a 8mil Victor with 1 AC20, you could field a pair of Demolishers (4 AC20s) and a pair of Partisans (8 AC5s).
That is true, there are a lot of vehicles designed during the Succession Wars by House militaries to deal with mechs specifically. Also before the fall of the Star League, the SLDF loved their combine force doctrine and developed fighters & vehicles to complement mechs. Half the time the SLDF never deployed mechs, they just used the warships to rain on the parade of any opposing faction. Mech's themselves are also vulnerable to infantry and when the Clans invaded, Elemental power armor (Test Tube Bundles of Rage in armor) were killing mech pilots left and right by cutting through the cockpit, chewing through the gryo or blowing legs off. I think most mecha fans outside of Warhammer and Battletech often forget...just because it looks like it cant hurt you...you shoot it dead to make sure it doesn't.
Mechs are better than tanks in precisely two circumstances: deployments to areas where there isn't infrastructure to support tanks but is too high in altitude for attack helicopters (i.e. mountains) or too much ground clutter that a tank can't necessarily crush its way through but a mech can step over (i.e. forests and jungles, or, again, mountains). This is specifically talking about a lighter mech, no heavier than a couple of dozen tons at most. A heavier mech is largely inferior to an MBT, and anything in which it's better (i.e. situations where its height matters more than ground pressure) are better done with attack helicopters or VTOL aircraft. Mechs have their place in warfare, but it's a highly specialized one. They're never going to replace tanks.
The Myomers not only make the Mech go but its also the reason why its capable of lifting its weight. Its one of the reason why Agromechs where a thing before Battlemechs is because they can lift more then a trolley could.
mechs cant even have much armor the dont have space to allow large composit armor to by put in and that means any modern APFSDS will just Rip throw the mech and destroy systems or the person in it
Umm. 3025 Battlemechs can take 25+ 120mm APFDSDS rounds and not be phased.... You wouldnt have even penetrated to internals. In 3025 you dont pen armour. You have to blast it off. Comparing 3025 battlemechs to 2030 'battlemechs' is like comparing tanks to chariots.
@@KittenGoneBad Old Apfsds or new ones new ones easily goes throw 700 to 800 mm off pure steel Not talking even with the russian 125mm vaclum 2 that thing cann go throw 1000mm
@@rayotoxi1509 The best APCR that 1,005 years of weapons tech will create. Mechs are from 3025, its now 2020. Battletech armour (from the game where the mechs come from) cannnot be penetrated by any weapons system out there. You have to blast it off before getting to the internal structure. Hence the rule of 'no crits until armour gone'.
@@KittenGoneBad Even if it dosent pennetrated The force will knock the mech off it will fall to the ground 2000m/s and a dart what Weights around 4 to 6 kg what focus all its power on One small point will Have Destructive power Tank crews even got killed becuse of pressure difents when the apfsds hits the armor and dosent penetrade Tank hatches Even Blowed out There is a video on Yt where a Leopard 2 shots a leopard 1 on testing ground the Hatch Blowed open Even when it was closed and hatches Weights 10kg or more Dont thing that Shells need to penetrate armor to kill stuff It just often need to Hit
@@rayotoxi1509 Unless I make my piloting roll. Then nothing happens. I'm in a sealed cockpit pressurized for outer space or the depths of the ocean. It doesn't get hurt unless you put that dart into the head point. Even then, I can take 3 (on average), depending on my pilot. Do you play the game "Battletech" which is the basis of this tanks vs mechs argument? They arent tanks with legs, more like giant armoured people. They can do a jumping roundhouse kick. No lie. They can do this... th-cam.com/video/lm15kjZR4HU/w-d-xo.html Yep.. Let a tank try that.
I think the Mech’s in Titanfall did a good job in showing how useful they can be. Personally I believe tanks and mechs could do good together in warfare.
Artificial musculature might actually be useful in active vehicle suspensions depending on it's properties. At the extreme end if it really was stupidly powerful and shock absorbing it might be possible to produce a combat vehicle that could 'jump' for instance.
@@the_corvid97 remotely operated biomechanical killing machines operated by tenno, in the game the warframes... (at least the prototypes for each 'Frame', it hasnt been stated yet if the mass produced type need the same method of production) are effectively a Dax (purpose bred and engineered soldier) transformed using a nano-technological virus referred to as the technocyte virus alongside extensive cybernetics and other hardware this makes the body incredibly tough but drives the Dax host insane making them conventionally unusable but tenno can render them calm and thus control them remotely. Tenno are children exposed to the void in an accident on the ship Zariman ten-zero hence the name Tenno (think warhammer 40k warp mixed with hyperspace and you get the idea) the children display a myriad of odd inexplicable abilities, but in the game they are the only ones able to control a Warframe and act as both power source and mind to the frames. In short there a type of remotely operated bio-mech commando with dozens of different types each capable of various feats that are borderline magic teleportation, dimensional phase shifting, mind control, etc there always adding new frames to the game so yeah weird :)
I have to agree with this and the previous video. Mechs would be a nightmare to design and build, and to operate in any battlefield environment. The only real advantage I could think of for using them is for a psychological intimidation factor, but even that would go out the window if both sides in a conflict had them. Plus, just like the use of battleships in world war II, the effect on morale of losing one in battle would be of such a great concern, commanders would be hesitant to commit mechs to anything but the lowest risk scenarios.
@@crazydiamondrequiem4236 come on it ain't that hard to imagine it only have be size of small car standing vertical which built like human but useing 80mm or 90mm short anti tank rifle for tanks and 30mm MG for standard combat and smoke pods it likely be useing similar tech to what Swedish working on masking the heat signature
@@dragoontype00alphaz19 but the tank will be supported by other ground forces and aircrafts surveying the area. I don't see how a giant humanoid robot will be able to get close and not be seen.
@@crazydiamondrequiem4236 it usually unlikely be aircraft recon area of conflict and what are troops and IFVs gonna do against mech that literally running and jumps from building and can't be targeted by standard missiles and can't seen on heat Vision and smoke has cover your gonna have hard time dealing with it especially in third world countries where don't have modern technology
even in support roles (the 'loader' from alien) a mech-like vehicle is impractical, compared to a conventional forklift for counter weight/balance to lift without becoming to overly complicated to use/maintain.
Congrats, you just built a future tank... minus the armor part. The brits tried that with their battle cruisers and it ended really bad. The "speed is armor" philosophy of military design has been well and truly debunked.
Even Gundam already had a solution to the skeleton strength/weight problem - by using armor as part of the skeleton itself. Brainlessly pro-tank people really don't want to admit that tank tracks, to be able to function, are extremely weak compared to pretty much anything(since you can't armor them directly unlike what you can do with mech legs; anything bigger than a HMG will tear it up), and it can be hit along a large surface area. Compared to those, mech legs are not that bad, and it has its own benefits(such as allowing mech to have a relatively stable firing position on more highly-sloped surfaces where tanks would have been limited by elevation/depression long ago). A hit to tank hull can easily hit the tracks(when fired from the side) where as a hit to mech's critical areas(generally the torso) won't touch the legs, so hits to kill and disable are separated instead of combined in most cases for tanks, resulting in better survivability for mechs(assuming it didn't blow up instantly, which is unlikely due to ammunition being stored away from torso in many cases) where weapons can penetrate the hull of tanks after damaging the tracks. Basically, shooting a MBT gun at a tank from the side can result in a mobility kill if not outright kill it dead; shooting a mech requires the decision to shoot for the torso for a k-kill or shoot legs for a mobility-kill, pretty much never both. Another common way to cause catastrophic damage to tanks is via tiltrod/sensor-equipped mines and top-down attacks, both of which mechs are less vulnerable to seeing as mechs have a smaller vertical surface to attack(at least while standing up) as well as having more stuff in the way(perhaps a "head" of sensor packages) on top of simply being taller, and mech foot would be a lot more resistant to mines in general(as opposed to tanks which might have a mine explode directly under the crew area and cause serious damage if not outright kill a few/all of them, there's a reason why today's irregular-warfare-oriented tank upgrade packages generally incorporated reinforced floor armor), also would take much more force to disable than tracks that can be thrown off by the likes of cheap/plentiful 60-years-old pressure plate mines. Yes tanks are more practical IRL as of today; but that doesn't mean mechs do not have their place, it just means science hasn't become advanced enough for viable mechs(both in effectiveness and cost) to be used(either to replace or support tanks in irregular terrains...etc. as I addressed in comment section of part 1 video).
I think what is being pushed for is that mecha can't replace tanks. Fir what you said about tank tracks, tracks have already proven superior to wheels as wheels cannot support the weight, so would cause heavier tanks to sink into ground (not an issue for lighter vehicles a la APCs). Also, my personal issue with mechs is that there are too many moving parts, which would severely inhibit reliability in the long term as individual parts wear down, debris gets caught, etc.. I do have to say you made an excellent point about mechs having height advantage, as tanks are indeed weak on top.
@@the_corvid97 It can replace tanks if a few things line up: 1. need for unified logistics for saving cost; especially considering mechs can be the recovery-vehicle for other mechs, where as tanks need dedicated recovery and bridge-laying vehicles 2. changing battlefield conditions(perhaps in future there won't be many open fields to fight in if we're building man-made structures all over face of earth, or fighting rapidly transitions between many terrains, half of which tanks are less suited for - such as mountainous areas between China and India - maybe there will be big city with hard structures for cover around that area in the future, maybe battle will rapidly transition to forests of south east asia where tanks are just not meant to be...etc.) 3. differing threats and perhaps the need for versatility in dealing with many different types There are probably more reasons than 3. Not saying mechs will be better at everything(no design is perfect) but there is more to military than combat value. (for example, today there are dedicated light tanks for underdeveloped terrain that MBT can't cross effectively, but it's extra strain on logistics in addition to extra development cost so not many countries want them, if any; so they're mostly for tech demo and export to poor countries to use as substitute-mbts where applicable) Sure mechs have more moving parts by today's design; but that doesn't necessarily mean a lot in near/far future, since artificial muscles might replace actuators in the future for mechs, and their limitations might fit mechs like a glove. This video tried to make artificial muscles more complicated but it's pretty much guaranteed that you can use software to find out which muscles are malfunctioning and can replace them much more quickly than waiting for human muscle to heal IRL. And much of what we already know of human kinestheology can be applied to the design. Or just replace with spare arms/legs; tanks have spare tracks, engines...etc. in reserve so no reason mechs can't have spare arms...etc.
Why do you interpret legs in a so overpowered way? It's not that mech just wouldn't be able to walk when hit in the leg, it falls down because all the sensitive equipment has been blown apart. Tank stays put and if damage is not critical, it can still fire. Ammunition isn't being stored in the hull (atleast in western tanks) since the 80s. They're in a separate compartment with a blowout panel so detonation wouldn't kill the crew. Why would mechs have less surface area from top? Even if they do, the difference would be negligable and you're presenting a big and tall torso section you can just use any other ammunition on. Tank can have sloped surface where majority of hits will be coming from. Yea, just build tank further away from ground and install more armour on the bottom, easy solution. Why go for legs? Tracks can also be easily replaces and if they are blown, they don't threathen the integrity of the rest of the tank since it just stays put. The point is not that you can't make mechs or they would be effective in the future, the point is that tank is even more effective, no matter what tech do you have. You can just mount it on a tank.
@@anderlillemaa4392 Human can crawl with 3 limbs. Let's be real, tanks can't really move much without tracks on vast majority of terrain. You're blatantly wrong, even Abrams has hull ammorack. Because it's standing up... Hilarious how you try to mention western tanks without recognizing the massive top-down profile that abrams has. Torso section isn't necessarily big/tall...it doesn't need to 100% follow human body proportions. Implying mechs can't have sloped surfaces? Funny how you try to mention tanks since 80s without realizing that slopes do not mean as much as they did in WW2. (funfact: NERA arrays are generally pre-sloped on the inside) "build tank further away from ground" - congratulations you have massive transmission that is even more fragile/complex than mech legs. (see: Object 279) Installing more armor on the bottom will still never be good enough, considering above, you also have ground clearance issues. Today's MBT urban packages are bandaid fixes. Tracks are simply too easily hit/damaged. Once again many side hull hits will also damage tracks where as on mechs one must choose either mobility kill or possibly k-kill. Corner-shot: not on tanks unless you want a complex arm/shifting weights for blance. Mech can just lean weapon out of cover without exposing rest of it. Steep cliff: tanks don't have the depression(unless you, once again, choose massively complex/impractical designs in attempt to pretend mbt is useful there while ironically increasing complexity) to shoot down from top of cliff, or do the reverse, mech isn't really affected. Stop pretending to not know the limitations of mbt. Why do you think unmanned/less-armored turret is a thing today with T-14(and also soviet cold-war projects). This is the first step towards disposable/easily-replaceable armaments.
@@EcchiRevenge *"Human can crawl with 3 limbs."* What do you expect a mech to be like? *"even Abrams has hull ammorack."* Do we talk about the Abrams or do we talk about the super advanced technology of "not keeping ammo in the hull"? *"Hilarious how you try to mention western tanks without recognizing the massive top-down profile that abrams has."* Why would mech have so much smaller one that would change anything and why would it matter when it's presenting a taller torso for the enemy to shoot at? *"Implying mechs can't have sloped surfaces?"* You can, but it's going to make your top down silouette even bigger. *"NERA arrays are generally pre-sloped on the inside"* Depends on the composite array, but so what? You have to armour a significantly bigger surface on a mech to reach the same level as a tank and by them you're several times heavier on an unstable platform. *"congratulations you have massive transmission that is even more fragile/complex than mech legs."* How would installing few more gears make it more complex and fragile than legs which literally topple you if they're destroyed or even just disabled? *"Installing more armor on the bottom will still never be good enough"* How so? How stong are mines in your scify universe? *"Today's MBT urban packages are bandaid fixes."* Working bandaids. *"Tracks are simply too easily hit/damaged."* As opposed to legs which you're unable to cover, show even bigger surface area than a tank itself and are a threat to the entire machine if anything goes wrong? *"Once again many side hull hits will also damage tracks where as on mechs one must choose either mobility kill or possibly k-kill."* You shoot legs you're already killing the entire vehicle. If your external systems (including guns) aren't all damaged by the fall you're already lucky. *"Corner-shot: not on tanks unless you want a complex arm/shifting weights for blance."* So... just like a mech but on a more stable chasse? *"unless you, once again, choose massively complex/impractical designs"* Like all your mech designs have? *"Why do you think unmanned/less-armored turret is a thing today with T-14(and also soviet cold-war projects). This is the first step towards disposable/easily-replaceable armaments."* Soviet turret armour was king in the cold war and Armata only has the turret which is badly armoured. Easily replacable. Mechs are vastly more complex than you can imagine.
I see the only time a mech would be good is in an urban area. Let be explain: For a tank, let's say, M1a1 Abrams, to move from one side of a building to shoot from the corner, would have to expose at least 50% percent of itself to whatever it's shooting at. A mech however, could(If your mech supplier is stupid and dosent give you a gunsight independent of the mech's main camera) peek out and shoot, exposing minimal parts, the guns, and the head. Or even better, use the gun camera/gunsight independently of the main camera to see, and if needed, shoot. Is this sound?
Moving a mech is difficult. 1.that huge size will make a mech slow 2.tanks can lead the mech into a trap 3.play cat and mouse with the mech and wait until its fuel runs out
@@sateayyam3192 I get your point. That's why I also see mechs working more as a defensive type, working very close to allied bases to protect them as well as have a handy fuel reload.
After watching this eye opening video and the first one, I went straight to the comments. Just I suspected, the comments are full of butt hurt fan boys in denial of the massive holes you put in their mecha fantasies! So many people in the comments are side stepping your points or using make believe future science as counter arguments. And you’re just using basic physics and practical reasons to prove why mechs don’t work in real life. It’s sad but the reaction to your videos show how a lot of hard core science fiction geeks and nerds have little understanding of real math, science and engineering!
it because this video's comparison of mechs are the american bastardised version of what mech would function like. Besides missiles fuck both over and tanks are obsolete now.
@@beefueater4586 How exactly is using math, physics, and engineering to explain why mechs wouldn't work an "American bastardized version of what mechs would function like?"
@@beefueater4586 I did, and all it had was that American bastardization, no details. And that is a far more realistic image than the Japanese style mechs that go flying around all over the place with no regard for physics.
@@addisonwelsh japanese mechs are diverse in that theyre split between america's cape shit and relatively realistic. Watch 86 and patlabor for good depictions of mechs. But otherwise americans have archaic way of thinking when it comes to mechanical designs. Just ask the bradley...
If it's expensive.
If it breaks a lot.
If it takes a lot of resources.
The Germans will make it.
Did someone say Ratte tank?
"But Hans! How can ve add _more parts?"_
Am German, can confirm.
Currently building one in my basement
@@sprachedergamer2469 oh shit
And they will make a thousand variants of it.
tanks, mechs, it's all wrong and worthless. the moment we deviated away from horse-drawn chariots was the moment we failed.
aah a man of culture aswell. the thrill of cavalry charges are completely gone, and man don't know how to ride horses.... such a shame...
I'd much rather have a tank with a trained crew at my disposal than a 1000 chariots with riders, thank you very much
@@ishitrealbad3039 *[LAUGHS IN TRENCH WARFARE]*
If gunpowder was never invented, maybe we would have time to dedicate to the truly important:
Sword fighting, archery, and learning to kill with your bare fists.
@@DonVigaDeFierro Yeah, and we'd still be living in oppressive monarchies. No, thanks.
So basically, if we did have mechs, they'd be smaller, and have less fire power. Basically just power armor, or exoskeletons.
Yeah, but that would be revolutionary nonetheless. You'd finally be able to make your standard infantryman fully bulletproof, protecting their entire body from enemy fire without significantly hindering their movement. I'm sure the Army would love to use them.
In theory, you could also make a mechanical infantryman, which would also be bulletproof and thus revolutionize infantry warfare as we know it. But that might just be a pipe dream.
So VOTOMS.
@@dragonslair951167 That would be pretty cool. I think I'll use that in my own science fiction.
@@GriffinKneesock Basically. If their armor is bulletproof, they could work. If not, it's a waste of resources.
@@dragonslair951167 If the show and its Hobby Magazine lore is to go buy. They are pretty much impervious to small arms fire.
I like that he mentions the fact that, save for very few situational exceptions, if you can do it with a mech, you can do it with a tank. If your mech has armor that can withstand most conventional weapons, you can just put said armor on a tank. If there is a low supply of the armor, only enough for one vehicle, then you can make more tanks with more overall firepower than however many mechs you can make with the same amount of armor. The bottom line is that, if you can make a super mech that is worthwhile as a military asset, you can make more tanks that are even better.
Well unless your in the macross setting than mechs are better since a serious consideration needs to be made for fighting 10 meter tall aliens with flight capable power armour
@@vincentnguyen6622 What?! Fighter Jets with its superior aerodynamics will be way way better than flying mechs which will a lot heavier, bigger, slower and costlier. It is better to develop conventional aircrafts with more firepower and armor with the same tech as those macross mechs against giant aliens. I bet they will be a lot better.
@@vincentnguyen6622 If you can make a mech fly, you can make a tank fly.
Tank can jump jet to the top of a mountain or traverse deep ocean water? Neat.
@ALSO-RAN ! To be fair, if you can make a mech that can carry two weapons and switch between them, you can just build two tanks that use each weapon respectively, giving them the ability to carry more ammo and use both at the same time. Also, it isn't like tanks can't use cover. In fact, save for certain urban environments, they are better at it given their lower silhouette.
The only mechs that i see being good are those ammo and suply carrying dog like robots
When they get better at movement it should be good
You mean the ones that underwent trials by the US military and were determined to be impractical and even a liability?
What about a dog/horse/feline like robot that carries a rack of ATGMs? A small but serious throat that can climb around like an agile animal, and get into all sorts of dangerous positions infantry would not be able to, then unload hell on enemy armour.
Or something insectoid, able to climb on most surfaces using either puncturing claws, or something like a gecko's foot pads and carrying an automatic weapon? You could have about a dozen of them attached to the outside of a tank to go scour buildings for ambush infantry.
If both sides had such robots, I can imagine a situation where tanks just stop being used, and infantry and never deployed, since the drones would keep getting them, instead, all you have is drone on drone violence, until the drones start to become anti-drones, and that becomes the new way war is fought.
@@TheGreySpectrum wasn't the "liability" simply that quadruped robots are currently too loud, though? I'm sure that engine technology will eventually get to the point that the military will likely reconsider their position on utilizing legged robots.
@@TheGreySpectrum thats why i say until they get better
I really cant see them being used in combat roles but i think in logistical or behind the front lines it would do good
For ecample if they find a cheap method to make a mech for a human that cost less than a foreclift to carry around boxes and other heavy stuff more precise than a tank would
Imagine lifting a 200kg box and placing it really fast and precise where you want it
That would be awesome amd i know some storage unit people that would love to have it because less stress on your muscles and bones equals less pain
@@kauske OR you make it fly. Such a vehicle makes no sense, really. Most of the Earth is flat. That's also the terrain where tanks are most used. A climbing robot on flat terrain is..... just a walking robot. It's something that is more easily replaced by currently available unmanned treaded vehicles. And if you need it to get to high places for some reason, just make an attack helicopter. You can make it smaller if you want too.
negative chief, I still have big stompy dreams to fufill
Same
Rule of cool applies. Arguments are completely valid, still want giant stompy murder robots.
Orks made these comments
@@valhalanguardsman2588 ahahahhahahahahahahahah
@@valhalanguardsman2588 WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH
Personally, i think that Titanfall did mechs the best. They're anti-infantry, not anti-armor 'vehicles'. A WW2 tank could probably kill a titan in one shot, but if there are tanks that can kill titans, you won't put titans here. You put titans against Specters, Pilots, infantry garrisons, at most small vehicles, but not tanks.
Most Titanfall maps are also very close quarters with little to no space to fit a tank let alone have it be an effective asset (Specially against the pilots)
I don't know much about Titanfall, but if their mechs are weak enough that a WW2 era tank can take them out, they'd be pretty bad against infantry, especially garrisons. We have pretty high powered rifles NOW, so imagine a future where the tech is good enough to have effecient fast moving mechs? Damn, even in the 80's/90's Styer developed an anti material rifle that doesn't fire bullets, just mini SABOT shots.
Imagine how easy it would be to make anti-titan weaponry? A high caliber machinegun with special rounds etc etc.
I mean hell, think about a lot of the single shot rocket weaponry modern infantrymen usually carry around.
Especially when you consider the maps in Titanfall 2's campaign. Most fighting takes place in either inside bases or outside of these bases, which are located on the sides of mountains. In fact, there's literally cliffs and mountains EVERYWHERE in TF2's campaign, terrain that isn't suited for the deployment of tanks.
A mech could jump down a cliff and land on it's legs. You drive a tank off a cliff and it's gonna get flipped.
Someone's raining death 200m's above you can aim up in a mech, or grab something to shield yourself with. A tank usually aren't suppose to aim up that high and usually doesn't have good top armour.
A mech could rain death from above when it's on top of these cliffs. A tank, not so much.
There just isn't any good place where you can utilize a tank effectively. The only real use for a tank would be as a mobile defense platform for bases. Even then its usefulness is questionable.
@@thejake1453 The biggest round we see a titan take repeatedly is 40mm, so i doubt a soldier could carry a 40mm rifle. Even if they did, titans have some form of shields which allow them to take small arms fire for some ammount of time.
@@highgrounder5238 Forget future weapons. Modern soldiers carry 40mm weapons, think 40mm HEDP (HEAT-like) grenades. They also carry weapons that can defeat tank armor with a single hit, think tandem warhead anti tank launchers. Tanks already have to be very careful in a modern battlefield, and therefore mechs (as we see them in games) wouldn't stand a chance. Mechs in Titanfall are simply not efficient enough and they don't have a unique niche use. They are very similar to the naval Dreadnaughts. Do you know why we don't see any Dreadnaughts anymore? A Dreadnaught is a large and powerful ship, pretty good on paper, but not so good at all if you consider that a relatively cheap missile can take it out in one or two hits. Similarly, a mech might be pretty powerful, but not if a grunt with a cheap disposable AT launcher can take it out in one or two hits.
If you want infantry support, that's what IFVs are for. They are much more efficient in that role and their weapons would shred mechs. Again, the mech is a Dreadnaught in that role. You need to find a role in which the mech is not a Dreadnaught.
I think Mechs have a small niche place.
Not as a 60 foot tank replacement or a speedy jumping machine acting like a helicopter but as troop support.
A small Mech (9-15ft, more like the loader in Aliens) armed with 20mm cannons, 50cals, or rocket pods supporting infantry in regions you can't get armor. Places like Europe where some of the narrow roads are paved horse trails, mountains, forests, and possibly jungle via ease of helicopter drop off.
Regions armor can't get to or as pointed out pivot to turn but where infantry need more fire power than an infantryman can carry. Again, not a tank replacement but somewhere between a rifleman and a Bradley.
The mech would not replace the tank but possibly finding itself in support of it ironically.
Using an armored exoskeleton to make a heavy weapon section just be one man does seem a practical use of the technology.
So, Power Armor?
Even the power loader counts as Power Armor instead of a Small Mech, and having mobile powered Infantry would also be more practical that Mechs. However that has problems as well such as mobility and power yada yada.
A soldier with a smaller exoskeleton could work to simply carry more ammunition or heavy weapons (like a rocket launcher).
Basically the equivalent to a light armored vehicle like the humvee.
@@Myusernamerulez Yeah, but for example the Humvee has issues in Europe where again, a lot of the roads are paved horse trails and even the Humvee is to wide to easily navigate them.
@@gungriffen
I know but I'm saying that's the niche a mech would be more likely to occupy.
The anime movies "Ghost on the Shell" and "Short Peace" have somewhat realistic unmmaned mechs, including active armor. Check them out, at least the former is a good film on its own right.
i was just about to bring Ghost on the Shell up too, now i guess i just have to talk about the other movie with a similar name called Ghost in the Shell.
Tachikoma and the scorpion like tank is pretty cool since it can use the legs as wheels.
Ghost IN the shell lol
@@krellio9006 like from advanced warfare
They were more like spiders than mechs and used legs with wheels
Funny thing is that mechs are always associated with Japanese anime, while they did popularize the concept, it started in great Britain in a sci fi novel the war of worlds written by h.g. wells of Martians piloting tripods, the first concept of the mechs long before japan brought it to mainstream but before that their was the starship troopers novel from the 1950s.
It's usually mecha (Human like mechs.) that are usually associated with anime.
Ones that belong in Avatar, Titanfall, and Mechwarrior are what you typically associate as mechs and western media.
Hence, the Britannians
@@seagie382 I can't believe War of the Worlds happened because the martian crown prince used his geass power on his half sister to tell her to "Kill all the Humans"
true, but I don't know if I'd call the armour suits from Starship Troopers 'mechs'. it's been a long time since I read the book, but I got the impression that they're more like big armoured exoskeletons, a bit like Space Marine or Terminator armour from WH40K.
so mechs don't even get the leg up on tanks for being made by the br*tish
It's all fun and games until we get a mech version of the mighty bob semple.
Look up 'Iron harvest' for that.
oh no
Shit gonna get real hairy when bobby walky boi rolls up
The defenition of terror
@@valhalanguardsman2588 it can defeat the Ruinous Powers single handedly
Whilst I’m anti-mech all the way, I feel like this argument should mention that this is only if mechs are used like tanks, which given how modern militaries work, would be unlikely.
You don’t use a SPA the same way you use a heavy tank, so why use a mech the same way as an MBT?
It’s just something that always gets on my nerves when people put mechs in a position they most likely weren’t meant for, then proclaim the tank better cause a mech can’t do what it’s meant to do, this goes for most sci-fi, and especially for TF, which he did mention in part 1, they aren’t used like tanks, so there’s no reason to put them in the shoes of a job they weren’t built for.
Edit: Expanding upon what I said.
Agreed. Assuming a sci-fi powersupply I believe mechs up to 25ish feet could be semi realistic. If they are nimble similar to Boston dynamics robots they could succeed in certain roles better than tanks. Not replacing tanks but supplementing them. Just like vtol jet fighters have never come close to replacing standard jet fighters, they serve a role.
Most scify uses them as tanks. How would you imagine them be used as? What can they do that a smaller vehicle or a squad of smaller vehicles can't?
Here is my argument in favor of mechs:
"be able to carry heavier fire power..." Incorrect.
The advantage of arms on a mech means it can carry the weapon as a entirely separate entity.
You get more or less full rotational capacity in both the x and y axis. Which is handy for cliffs, hills, maybe there is an annoying helio you wanna swat. (An yes there are actual AA rounds tanks use or can use to take out helicopters.)
An because the weapon itself is a entirely separate entity this means you can add magazines on it.
Even if it was a simple semi-automatic 120mm rifle, it would be faster than loading a crewed single shot gun on a tank.
"Autoloaders..." Autoloaders increase the weight and have a issue of switching ammunition on the fly. So unless you have a all purpose round what about autoloaders?
If you're going to include mechanical aids as autoloaders than the abrams is a autoloader tank, but at the end of the day it is still a crewed gun and doesn't have the same problem as full autoloaders do when it comes to switching ammunition because they can just take the round out of the barrel.
An a magazine on a rifle would be much easier to take out and put a different one in if you really needed to do so.
An than the ammo capacity, because tank guns unless they are autocannons are single shot, a magazine that already has pre-loaded ammunition in the gun, the mech can shoot faster than a tank.
The reason tanks don't have gun like magazines is because the space and weight.
A issue made entirely mute for a mech because if the gun is its own entity it is not taking up space in the mech. An the added weight means little when you're talking about a increase in fire rate and fire power or the fact human hands wouldn't be touching the magazine.
"Aha, but what happens when the mech needs to reload the gun, it will be slower" yes the crew or autoloader has less distance to traverse and travel, so when a mech empties a magazine it will be temporarily hindered.
But everything has problems, i am not saying mechs are perfect. I am saying they are even if slightly better than you think.
An mechs have greater versatility weapon wise if they are carrying their guns as separate entities.
A mech could carry a rocket launcher that shoots cruise missiles or stronger/longer range SAMs.
Or a giant motar for the mechs to use and act as a pseudo artillery battery if you have enough of them.
At the end of the day for the military it is a question of do benefits outweight the negatives?
People have already built mechs for fun and there was a competition as well. But that's very different from what a military needs.
An part of the reason no one has even tried with military mechs is because no one wants to take the risk.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Also you are wrong about exo-suits. The US military has a research and weapons project for bringing exo-suits to the frontlines (as well as looking into cybrrnetically enhancing troops).
True at the moment they are very primitive and require a large heavy battery, so for the time being realistically they would be purely logistical but the us military is indeed looking into it.
Also who said mechs have to have legs? There is plenty of scifi material that gives mechs the lower half of a tank and the upper body of well a mech.
True a full humanoid mech or animal like mech is the norm and is basically the de facto go to.
You are one of the most well informed and thought out anti-mech people I have ever seen, but to be honest, a lot of the pro mech/robot people do seem to want mechs to replace tanks, instead of realizing they would be different, and have their own sort of roles.
Well, in TF, mechs carry 20mm and 40mm mostly, yeah, I know, they have other weapons but that was to give an example. Those weapons clearly aren't meant for fighting tanks but for supporting infantry
As a huge fan of mechs . I can't help but say you are absolutely right . Though* Small "mechs"or exo-suits are interesting
*They look cool though!*
every mech designer oversimplified
@Slighty Psychopathic But then your impractical walking machine gets destroyed and you realise that you just wasted millions of dollars boosting your enemy's morale.
@@optillian4182 *just like ww2*
@@valhalanguardsman2588 Try WW1 tanks or the Stuka Horn. After the initial panic the terror factor disappeared quickly.
@@DarkStar14n in russia "stuka horn" only created anger, like, russians just got angry and start shooting at stuka with everything, even throwing rocks or something
So, *history just repeats itself*
I’ve always seen mechs in the real world as either terror inducing statues or small fast units used against infantry and maybe light armoured targets or just for general civilian work use like construction or carrying heavy loads like the TF titans were originally
I think mechs would only really be able to shine in combat situations where you simply can't use tanks, like thick forests or dense urban environments. But they could nonetheless be revolutionary for infantry warfare, since you'd have a war machine that's not much bigger than a man, but unlike a man, they're bulletproof from head to toe.
@@dragonslair951167 tankettes already exist th-cam.com/video/9ZvVEJ-IOuc/w-d-xo.html
Which is mentioned in the Gundam shows time and time again, scare factor (besides plot armor Minovsky particles and being able to switch and or pick up weapons/ammo faster)
@@dragonslair951167 gundam logic why does people pilot killing owned people turn into massive huge graveyard
I'd say they would go alongside troops and tanks when the aim is to absolutely clear the area of any enemies. Mechs would be better anti-infantry than tanks.
Check this future warfare concept out
th-cam.com/video/rcfnkScxEMI/w-d-xo.html
I know mechs are 100% impractical at medium and large scales, but I really want the ST-1 Battlewalkers from the War Thunder april fools event
Yes
That thing is just a kv-2 that got hit by a future beam and trans formed itself into the StronkTonk-1
@@jPlanerv2 insect is pound following small everywhere going
Same.
"They are not even comparable vehicles" makes 2 Videos comparing These two
Mastermind of views baiting i guess
Its really a needless conversation.
Yes. Mechs are not practical and won't ever exist.
Its called Science Fiction for a reason. No one is legitimately arguing that they are the new replacement for tanks IRL.
But go off on 2 video tangents no one disagreed with you about I guess.
@@GriffinKneesock they could be useful and could exist, theres no real physical or technological problem with mechs that makes them imposible to exist in real life, and really most of his points are just plain wrong (ground pressure, square cube law and mainteinance wouldnt be a real problem for mechs for several reasons i don't really want to write right now)
The guy knows a fair bit about tanks and warfare in general, but knows nothing of enginering aside from the bare basics that people have been (wrongly) repeated for years now
@@carso1500 are you eleven?
@@REDREB32 maybe, could you explain how you came to that conclusión thou
It's funny because Power Armor actually solves all the problems with mechs because it's designed for infantry rather than for armor
So one of the pro-mech arguments involved making a case that they could pull of a Naruto side stepping techniques? That's hilarious.
I am big robot, I side step really good. GrrrRRrrrarRRARrar. Tank make me AnGrY. -Every Pro Mech person ever.
How do people get shot? Just side-step the bullets lmao
@@Mr00Ted they do that's called take cover.
benjamin1359870
Dude, thats like saying you can dodge a bullet...
Its, its dumb...
@Kyokyo Niizukyo You can't dodge a bullet, but you can outsmart the man with the gun.
So if we want mechs we'll stick with the smaller, exoskeleton like variant
that's more powered armor there, unless it's something like that Mech looking armor from halo legends
That shit was insane i dont know why they did not have it on earth instead of a colony
@@AlbertWillHelmWestings2618 Well you can have a mech the size of power armor, just put a midget or a 4 limb amputee inside.
That said, a mini-tank, like a futuristic Badger (1 manned SWAT tank that can fit through doors) might still be better than a small mech in many combat situations.
@@josephburchanowski4636 i just read till i saw the word midget and started laughing, god this comment is funny
@@josephburchanowski4636 finished reading the rest and ye will agree with the mini boi tonk
Interestingly enough the mechs in James Cameron's Avatar were built to be used in Cities and for logistics. I think they wouldn't be too impractical in forests although I guess the forest floor might be too soft.
The tree roots are probably why they are used
Edit: and rocks but mainly terrain not yet adjusted for tracked or wheeled travel. That's probably why air transport is used so heavily
They are very light and pretty much hollow, with a glass canopy. Considering they're fighting against a primitive enemy, it's a good enough weapon of choice.
@@midgetman4206 plus navigating between trees might be a problem with thicc tanks. The Ubisoft game showed a few road-like clearings, but they wouldn't be good for anything heavier than an AFV/armored car.
@@DerpEye And having a good field of view might be more important than protection in the forest. They're pretty much the equivalent of using an excavator to wreck a village.
Tanks have much lower ground pressure than you would think, Tanks were used in Vietnam quite successful i might add by both sides.
I'm mechanic, I can confirm that a lot of movement part will pain like hell during maintenance.
in games, mech can be repaired by smart "plasma" energy that instantly repair the mech
in movies, mech still get repaired by human, but after some minutes scenes, the mech repaired
why not?
mech ppls : STONKS vehicle in real life war
@@blacktigerace6687 lmao, no, you really don't seen any military Mecha like Patlabor or Gundam, your making a falacy.
@@blacktigerace6687 yes mechs is a nightmared dream cost alot of metal using
@@nichsa8984 no, actually some prototype mechs cost normally like tanks, or cheaper than tanks
But.... their part is so small, so unarmored, so complicated, so fragile than tanks
That make soldier have difficulty to repair complicated mechs (included complicated tanks, that make complicated tanks also fail in war)
Soldier trained for a war strategy not repairing something they dont understand
That is why sappers or war engineer is exist but they not to many, they are harder and expensive to train, if you want train more engineer for a war training, it also cost a lot more money and efforts
To put them to a fragile, complicated and slow moving mechs will make your entire country become bankrupt
that doesnt make mechs useless, they still useful for mountain range logistic, where a wheel and track cant pass through
As happy as I am for this video, this just means you’re delaying tearing into Command and Conquers vehicle design.
I did say one or two filler videos would be released prior, I don't like releasing the same type of video back to back
Fair enough, I just think that the absolute absurdity of the vehicles they have is amazing.
@@alexkorman1163 more weird A.I insect
@@Spookston Armored Core mechs blow tanks out of the water. Sorry bro
Tank beats everything
*Laughs in 2000lb bomb*
except cruise missile and artillery.
@LUNAR BLOODDROP It don't care because it's a smoking wreck.
I got that reference
My first heart reacted comment woot!!
SpooksTon DESTROYS mechs fans With FACTS AND LOGIC (2020 colorized)
Thought he did state at the end that they aren't comparable in the same way. I won't use mechs for combat, even the old man mech of them all aliens logistical heavy lifter was a non-combat Garrison support. So think about how it would work and it's purpose I see the future with both tanks on the front mechs in the rear as support units
Well, not really. Rule of cool trumps logic when your doing storytelling. You want to use logic most sci fi stuff wouldn't exist. Can be a fan of something and know you wont get it in real life.
Ah, a hybrid meme. Such a rarity now, but I fear it will only be more common.
Turning Point Tanks
@@Wayofswords tank is cheap and don't need a amount huge metal
Powered armor seems like a more practical approach. Would you be at all interested in a video about that?
@@thefullmetalmaskedduo6083 and very stupid idea of and course too expensive
Cool vid. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on hover tanks vs tracked tank
i think the main issue would be kickback, how would a tank that hovers handle the recoil of a massive gun, it would have to re-position every time it fires
watch everything wrong with Covernant hover tank
tracked tanks have the advantage of not needing to expend energy to support their own weight
If you have sth as "futuristic" as anti - grav tech, you probably have shields as well. When you have shields, you'd rather have it be twice as strong than have your tank float
also the raw heat and power TO hover would be tremendous
“Mechs are worse then tanks”
Me: Well my 2 brain celled friend
*inhales*
*TRANSFORMER MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE*
And there you go
They arent mechs. They are alien robots.
I was in math class when watching this and my teacher agreed with this video
Your lucky to have that teacher that agrees wit the stuff that're fictional.
Most of them these days are not fun
@@deathtrooper199 well it was math class...that is fictional, right 2+2 = what ever! right.
@@Delgen1951 almost right cemeteries people alot they're
One issue with the square cube law is that it's not _always_ a detriment to making something bigger. Sometimes, the square cube law can be a friend, even to a mech. For example, since surface area doesn't increase with the same rate as volume, you can double your internal volume, without having to double your external area, thus you double the space inside for stuff, without doubling armour mass. Square cube is more a restriction on how you can build anything, versus a way to say it couldn't be.
People who try and scale a human up to 25' are doing it wrong period, a 25' biped has to be built quite differently from one in the 5-7' range that most humans are in. If you're talking about directly scaling something up, then yes, square cube would destroy it, that's why you have to account for it as an engineer. You have to cut weight where you can to accommodate the restrictions of the square cube law.
I say this over and over, but mechs shouldn't be a replacement for tanks, more a compliment. It's like how tanks didn't replace infantry. The way I view mechs vs tanks is more like an IFV role, something small to supplement infantry groups with heavy firepower, or something small and agile to replace infantry with tanks, ideally autonomous. You could make small, vast machine gun equipped ground drones based on insects that could get into anywhere, cheap, expendable and abile to eliminate hidden infantry threats to armour.
Animal-like robots would also be particularly good in jungle combat, whereas tanks would need roads cut for them. A robot is a trade-off of durability and increased cost, for niche versatility. One role I can see combat mechs beating tanks in is as a 'beachhead' landing. A humanoid is more versatile in being air or space dropped, it can land wrong, but not be ruined. If your tank lands upside-down, it's rubbish, if your human or animal robot does, it can right itself. Think of mechs like those shitty glider tanks in WWII, not great, but better than nothing until the 'real' tanks can arrive.
Being good in logistics, they would also be ideal to get on ground first, as they can both help secure LZ's for more conventional forces, and help unpack those conventional forces, meaning less mass wasted on 'easy unpack' systems to unload your tanks from whatever carried them down to the surface. Mechs would also have an advantage in that they can be used in space as well, where talks would not be versatile enough. Being able to adjust where you hold your weapon is pretty handy in zero G, as are hands to be able to remove equipment.
You could deploy mechs equipped with balutes and RCS in orbit, have them navigate and deorbit on their own, and reach ground using the balute to form an on ground commando force with more heavy firepower than would be allowed with just infantry, and without the worry of a bad landing rendering tanks unusable. Tanks would also have a harder time adapting to varying planetary gravity than a humanoid. Just look at the moon buggy, they had to reinvent the car for what amounts to a golf cart.
If the choice was having to reinvent your tanks for nearly every type of planet with differing gravity and atmosphere, versus using humanoids that can alter their method of locomotion due to flexibility, I imagine many would take the versatility, even if it's worse overall. But I tend to view mechs more as just another part of the larger military, versus some sort of wonder weapon that would replace tanks. If they were to replace anything, it would likely be infantry, not tanks.
If you work inside the restrictions of the square cube law, and keep them more reasonably sized, you could probably do a lot of interesting things with mechs, and end up in a situation where they do change the way wars are fought, just like other major technologies before.
Well from what I’m seeing and the information I knowing, the main problem is there size and another problems are minor: more moving parts, more ground pressure on a small area, etc.
so if there is a mech the size of a tank it will do a lot better that a giant mech but it will not replace the tank cuz it’s still a better vehicle to mass produce! So the small size mechs are going to be as armored support in Tight areas, like a tunnel, and if they have arms and legs that don’t go forward only and need to rotate! Forests, mid size caves and mountainous regions! Note the size I’m talking about is 2 men high and 3.5 men wide or if you want a reference go check a game called “lost plane” mechs
Ilost planet mech are actually pretty viable tho, and dont forget about the one that turns into tank! Or mining quipment with guns
@@valhalanguardsman2588 some purposed insecticon eating metal tank destroyed if scrap found as consume
What you are suggesting is a power armor, another discussion.
There’s one thing which I don’t have the expertise to answer but would like to see explored: What would make Mechs viable for combat? Not in a Main Battle Tank role, but just as a combat unit.
If I had to usher a guess, Mechs would serve as a Heavy Infantry Support in more urban locations, with the Mechs being at most 2-3 times the average height of the infantry.
Thank you for having actual reasons and points instead of just spitting into the mic.
I found this from a Reddit thing, and to me, it makes sense for mechs in a battlefield where lasers are used for there "muzzle velocity" here, read:
what if there was some type of armor with sheet resistance that increased with surface area instead of thickness? Like how conductors work:
There is a resistance to the flow of an electric current through most conductors. The resistance in a wire increases as:
The length of the wire increases
The thickness of the wire decreases
In that case, a thin, high surface-area "conductor" based armor would act as a heat sink as well as being more resistant to energy weapons than thick slabs on a box.
just pack an anti armor gun on there, and since its a thin film, any tank round would shred through it, as he said "if you can put it on a mech, you can put it on a tank"
Like the first one this video has some really good points. As someone who likes tanks and (Titanfall only) mechs I would like to see a video where you are talking about the best way to make mechs work.
@incinerator950 their type mecha humanoid have a human realistic hand
Why Tanks Are Better Tanks Than Mechs (Part 2). It shouldn't be question which one is better at being a tank, it shouldn't be question if Mech could replace Tank.
seaborgium
Swords are better at slashing enemies than fire arms. Should we make a sword only unit in the military of course not
@@Le-eu4bf Hiperbolic.
It still doesn't change anything, wrong question was asked and we got answer for it.
With mindset that mechs to ever exist, is to replace tanks, then it already failed, because tank will be always a better tank than mech.
Crossbow's bolts are better at piercing certain armor than firearms and are nearly completly silent. Could there be any use of crossbows in military? Yes, there would, for example recon.
Are Crossbows better sniper rifles than Sniper Rifles? No.
What is better at being a sniper rifle, crossbow, or sniper rifle? Sniper rifle.
Could crossbow ever replace sniper rifle? No.
See the drift?
@@themaniomarian yes I can actually see it. Like for example you want to assault an armored position in a mountain you can use a mech to maneuver that makes sense
I do think that something like Code Geass knightmares are a more realistic design to conventional sci-fi mechs. I mostly refer to the standard Sutherland knightmares in this analysis and not the very “anime” ones.
While dramatized it’s often used as a modestly armored cavalry type infantry, its armor isn’t much higher than that of an IFV or maybe light tank but they use their mobility to outmaneuver forces particularly in the mostly urban environments of the time. They show plenty of weaknesses that come from the weaker frames and are often supported by actual armor like tanks.
The pilots have isolated pods from the frame than can be targeted, but are ejection pods as well so in the event a shot doesn’t kill it the pilot can eject and be recovered. The actual weapons on the mech itself are light small arms and they are shown to use shoulder mounted rockets, recoiless rifles, or heavy “rifles” that are mostly only useful against other knightmares, light armor, or soft targets.
While I don’t make the point that mechs are better, this certainly shows a different philosophy that could have real merit if explored.
I agree. In my mind, Mechs are vtol gunships with large landing legs and fast ground movement.
Japanese Mechas: "allow us to introduce ourselves"
@incinerator950 scandium is a real life transformium self-configuring modular robots and tank will massive come vechiel or humanoid mode choose attacking massive
The most unrealistic mechs of all
Spookston: Tanks are better, because mechs would realistically be heavier and slower.
Japan: *Laughs in Eastern Mecha*
Makes me wonder what black magic the people in the Gundam universe use to make their 50ft mechs weigh 30 tons
Welp , we have graphene soo , is far fetched but not that much compared to 50 years ago
As I have commented under the previous video, mechs need to find and fill a niche on the battlefield to be a viable choice. Like the 40k Imperial Guards Sentinel walker. It can go with the infantry where tanks can't and bring the mobile firepower what the infantry can't.
Or just bring imperator titan and delete a city block in one shot from plasma anihhilator, that works too
@@valhalanguardsman2588 that, is the will of the EMPEROR
They have, their role is the unit that can do everything , you have a tank division facing a mech division ? they can take to the sky and kill all the tank, or use a shield and engage the tank at point blank range and destroy them with the beam sword
@@valhalanguardsman2588 we cannot we making a mech cheap is too expensive cost
Battletech Universe....why mechs exist.
So the Capellen Confederation and Draconis Combine are talked out of using Nukes to solve their slap fights.
Actually in Battletech lore and in the table top wargame Mechs can sidestep, they can also climb, go prone, and even crawl, and in the BT RPG AToW it's entirely possible for particularly skilled Mechwarior to flip someone the bird, dance, or otherwise gesticulate.
And you want to know something fun that having legs can do that treads can't? They can lean, meaning no need to expose half your tank to look around the corner when you can just poke your sensor around it, with or without a weapon attached.
And according to BT Lore, Myomers are essentially electricity reactive carbon nantubes, and you know one potential possible use for carbon nanotubes? Armor, which exists in lore for infantry on par with rifle plate. So I think you are perhaps underestimating the durability of myomer just a tad bit.
Now do I think Mechs are better? No, the ground pressure, size, and cost issues are still substantially against them, but I do believe you could be better informed about the IP if nothing else.
just realistic spider tank small can living in a small garage
even in the BT lore, there's some tanks that cost more than a assault mech and some mechs that are cheaper than your standard MBT.
If anything the biggest reason why Mechs may be net negative is....training. Even in Battletech, it takes 4 years of training at any military college to be certified to pilot a mech, let alone certified in a specific weight class. Another year or two to have multiple weight classes and officer training. An enlisted personnel can be thrown into tank training for a year, 6 months if the house militia needs rapid deployment. A officer/tank commander would take a year to two years to complete.
So when deploying forces one would need a combine army to deal with a threat.
In some cases there's some units whom were wiped out an Example would be the 3rd Crusis Lancers who just recently in the lore was reactivated and slowly being rebuilt with green personnel. Not just talking mechwarriors but everything from the mess hall to the clerks themselves having to be reassigned after its deactivation. Rebuilding armies take time even if you can mass produce combat vehicles, training is still needed and sometimes one unit takes priority over another.
For Mechs I like the idea of the Tachikomas from GitS, tiny 4 legged spider tanks that can barely fit 1 man and probaply weigh less than 1 ton. The have wheels to move quick like a car in urban environments but have also grabby like fingers for heavy terraine, they also have shootable steel cables to rapell themselves like spiderman and climb buildings. They can jump multiple meters and can survive falls from great hight. They are also fully AI operated so if there is a person in it at all he basically pulerly plays the role of tank-commander.
The tradeoff for the small weight and high mobility is the weaponry and armour. They are armed with 7.62mm machine guns and either a low velocity 75mm howitzer with a single shot (Heat or Smoke) or a .50cal gatling gun. The armour also only protects from rifle caliber bullets.
Or red alert the mosquito and the Tesla troopers. And all of the emporers faction are litterly nanotechnology with limited armour and weapons
If it can do that a tank can do better
@@janin6473 there is a limit to a tanks utility
@@janin6473
*Enter : METAL SLUG*
These GitS AI bots inspired a real Japanese mecha using their design Philosophy, except the crew cabin is on top of it instead of behind it. [Kuratas]
Mechs : Iam a good vehicle for war
Tanks : No iam MUCH MUCH BETTER
??? : AMATEURS
Tanks : Whats that Punk?
Technicals : AMATEURS.
Exposed joints: exists
M1 Bazooka: i’m about to ruin this mechs career
Spookston: Mechs can be used in non combat roles
Imperator Titan: *is also a church*
I think the next video of this topic should talk about the roles a mech *should* be used for instead of being a front line assault weapon as it usually is in Sci fi
This video blows the Templin Institute's out of the water. Much more solid argument for the superiority of tanks.
ps dont put tanks in water
@@ThePsicocat101 exept if they are russian, there is a good 50% chance it will either float or have ability to fully seal itself and have a long tube to give air to engien and crew
@@valhalanguardsman2588 yea bmp can float but low armor and if river is strong tanks cant cross
@@ThePsicocat101 BTRs can cross rivers too
@@ThePsicocat101 me: *laugh in a self-reconfiguring modular robots*
but m-trans lll will next generation technology vechiel will random transformation into insect or something
I know in the mechwarrior universe, people focus heavily on them mechs. But in that universe tanks are actually more common than mechs by far. Tanks and other ground vehicles can actually be extraordinarily dangerous to mechs.
Yea the Myrmidon and Manticore tanks can punch a hole in mech armor and run away into cover quickly. Then if the pilot is stupid enough to allow a Demolisher to get close its good night. However lord have mercy if you get Narc'd and a LRM 20 launcher is around....
@@everyonethinksyoureadeathm5773 Yup. The possibilities of vehicle combinations and tactics are endless. That’s why mechwarrior is the best sci fi universe in my opinion. Mechs are obviously awesome, but there is so much depth to warfare in the mechwarrior universe.
Even basic infantry or guys in power armor can pose a major threat to mechs. Let alone something like a Demolisher II
If you're writing a sci-fi setting and want to earn your mechs, be prepared to introduce massive advancements in material strength, propulsion, ease of maintenance, energy production and heat dissipation, to a point where mechs have some crazy airborne mobility, so much so that it outweighs the practicality of tanks. Basically, when you're thinking about your mech, think "what advantage does this form have compared to just packing all the same equipment into a box on wheels".
I could imagine that mechs like the heavy armor from section 8 becoming a thing in an anti-infantry role.
Hell yeah. Blast those Mechanicus musics.
I think that the best use of a mech would be in a role where it isn’t even really a mech as people would imagine it, closer to power armour. In urban or otherwise close quarter environments where there are long narrow stretches of land where snipers can pick you off, having an armoured man run out and spot the sniper without being at risk of instantly losing his head can be an incredible asset. At that point however, it’d probably just be like 7-8ft tall, big enough to provide strength that easily overpowers an infantry man but not nearly ya the scale that people imagine mechs being.
If this video makes you feel sad about the future, just remember. Mechs are cool as hell. And because they're cool as hell, _someone_ is going to host a mech-fighting tournament - purely for entertainment - where people will be able to build their own mechs (presumably within certain regulations, like Battle Bots) and fight with them. They'd probably be unmanned at first, to prevent people... ya know, getting killed. But by the time we have mech battling as a form of mere entertainment, we'd probably also have advanced enough medical technology to basically bring someone back from being turned into swiss cheese by a mounted Gatling gun. Or you would be able to simply use VR tech to feel like you're piloting your mech, even if you aren't.
Miomer could be used to drive motors if they provide better power to weight than magnetic motors, so it could be applied to tanks that way. It would also be useful for tank suspensions.
The only way that force fields would make mechs viable is if there is some issue with ground clearance.
The real conceptual problem that people run into is that they think that the giant mechs would move on the same time scale as humans, and they can’t quite grasp that it would be lumbering around slower than an elephant.
Though it would be kind of fun to see a Mechwarrior kind of game that used the relatively realistic damage models of a game like War Thunder.
It is fallacious to assume that there needs to be a discussion on "Mechs vs Tanks". The real discussion is "Are Combat Mechs practical?" As one well-known channel put it: "To judge a mech by the criteria of a tank and declare the tank superior ignores what makes a mech unique and, in some cases, more effective"
Nobody rational should assume that a Tank is more effective than a mech or vice versa. To suit that end, I will have to break down your argument against mechs not being effective in mountainous terrain. I am not sold on your argument as it only brings up sloped areas. What makes a tank less effective in mountainous terrain is two factors: Cliff faces and roads. I'll bring up the latter first: When traversing mountains access to roads become far more restricted, allowing for greater risk of ambush and sabotage i.e. guerrilla forces blowing up the roads either to prevent a tanks passage or just to destroy them. In the case of cliffs, yes, obviously tanks can't climb up them no matter how powerful the engine is.
In the case of mechs, it could be possible to adapt a Titanfall-esque mech for use in mountains where road access is limited, if not nonexistent. It wouldn't be difficult to implement features like climbing spurs, winches and limited-use jump packs to more effectively traverse the difficult terrain than a tank could. Again, it's not "who can go up this slope better", it's "who can traverse this area quickest and safest" and on this level, the mechs win out.
The same argument can be made in highly urbanised environments where tanks can and have been suspect to attacks from above. An attacking mech could simply climb the building and flush opponents from the top down, effectively protecting the tank division from below. Again, Mechs and Tanks aren't better than one another, they can effectively support each other.
"Are mechs practical?"
No.
Basically anything a mech can do can be more done more effectively or efficiently by tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armed personnel carriers, helicopters, trucks, technicals, and drones.
@@nikitab.6600 core module system is for jet fighter
I don't think that power loader mechs would be useful even for logistics. We already have devices that can pickup cargo, load/unload vehicles and stack items. They're called forklifts. Modern forklifts are extremely maneuverable with some fitted with mecanum wheels allowing omnidirectional travel.
Modern forklifts are incredibly dangerous and need to be treated with caution. Imagine how much more dangerous mechs would be over a forklift. I don't see it going well.
Mechanicus noosphere on the background. Nice!
We get back to the point of psychological warfare.
Having a Baneblade bearing down on your position would be scary.
Having a Knight Castellan stomping across the battlefield would be terrifying
And it runs out of fuel
Off course there is psycho effect but the mechs wont last long
What about 4-6 legged walkers because they can walk over rocks, climb mountains, jump up buildings, jump over gaps, lower and raise their bodies, kick stuff and anything else you could imagine a robot doing. This is 100% more flexible than any wheeled vehicle, because a legged robot could be designed to do all this with just their legs.
I feel like a flat-earther being schooled on why the earth is round, accepting the facts but still clinging to this belief. Sounds weird. I like giant robots even though I know they’re unrealistic.
Well actually could make mech pretty easily it just no one does we could build mech a lot like code Geass or full metal panic there fairly small I like idea of armored core and total eclipse type mechs myself in fact my profile picture is one my own design of mech dragoon type U0 mk3
DRAGOON TYPE 00 ALPHAZ I like the FMP mecha as well. The M9 is the coolest. Patlabor has interesting designs too!
@@BLAZE084 Ingram Type 98 wins by rule of cool!
@@BLAZE084 yeah M9 pretty nice if remember right Don't it use electric motors and a gas turbine engine for power
@@crackedjabber well when have Magnum size of bike that bullets got be 45mm or bigger criminal better give up
Question.
What about using mech in police/riot control role ?
I mean, if army captures a city, and disarms the populacion, mechs with watercanon/ light canon coud be used to add psychologic effect.
Againt forces with limited AT capability, mech coud be more usefull.
Big, scary looking platform,humanoid but still alien looking and using , with watercanon to intimitade rioting population. And posible with some sort of audio system to active fight-or-flight reflex as well.
You mean like in _Patlabor_ ?
and can get over obstacles easier (such as cars,rubble,barricades)
dertafors
It could work, but then you get into the same issues tank crews sometimes enter with major riots, people getting past your riot wall and breaking equipment, and since its effectively a giant target, it would only take one single protestor with welding tools and deathwish to bring one of them down...
He tottaly forgot one main advance of mech, they having human shape will come with control that link directly to your brain, the reaction time will be much faster than any tanks pilot, not to mention the pilot will have the advantage of all CQC and mellee skill that have been develop from entire human history, not just aim and shoot like the tank
im proud to see my name on screen at the end c:
I remember reading some 40k lore where the t'au considered building giant robots absolutely ridiculous, declaring no civilization would be fool enough to throw so many resources in such impractical weapons, years later, they had to fight the Adeptus Titanicus...
Computer scientist here. At 1:20, you say the weight increases exponentially. Thankfully, no; it only increases cubically. But cubically is still huge.
Ngl the only mechs that seemed the most "efficient" to me were those in Just Cause 3
me: *laughs in tank with legs*
I would like to hear your thoughts on the Nightmare Frames from Code Geass, those mechs seem pretty interesting to me
gundam is a just domino plastic stack up
Yeah, they're still a bit too chonky but they at least get the scale and emphasis on mobility correct.
Re: large animals can barely do more than walk and run.
Giraffes are prey big and very tall, and they can jump and kick prey well. T. Rex is extinct, but studies I have read suggest it could jump so high its center of mass went up by 3 meters. The re-engineering needed to compensate for the square cube law often produces surprisingly nimble giants.
movement but with many arm can doing that
I think one role mechs could potentially fulfill is a fear factor. That was the main impact of the first Mk1 tanks in WW1 after all, it was a new technology that scared the hell out of the germans.
I do overall agree with your point, our modern ideas of mechs aren't viable for our modern styles of warfare. However, I think that's why we should try to explore and develop the idea until it is viable. That's what we did for the original tanks, after all. Those things were slow, easily scrapped, hard to maintain boxes. And now look where are. So if the idea of mechs goes through those same hundred years of development, combined with whatever wackass technology we invent in the meantime, who knows what might come out of it.
The problem with that is, a tanks were developed in a scenario when nothing better existed. We had no choice but to make them. Developing a mech to do a tanks job would be a waste of money, because you already have a tank. Just use the money you were using to develop the mech to improve the tank. Any new "wackass technology" that makes mechs practical can just be used to make better tanks.
And mechs wouldn't provide much fear factor, because they'd be obvious targets. There's a reason why modern military vehicles are designed with low profiles, the smaller you are, the harder you are to hit. Making something like a mech that towers over the battlefield is just providing target practice to your enemy.
Here's an interesting thought:
What about aircraft? As in conventional aircraft vs ornithopter. I could see those maybe replacing conventional aircraft in some combat roles.
As always crushing the dreams of many a sci fi fan. Not me though, I never saw Mechs as viable for the same reasons.
Its befuddling people continue to try and justify their existence.
Rule of Cool is a strange animal.
I definitely don’t think they are realistic but it’s sci fi so ima have epic mech battles
Im not trying to defend mech but the question is kinda useless if all you do is try to say who is the best tank between tank and mech.
Mech unsurprisingly loose since its not a tank.
Listening to this video you could as well say that infantry is pointless since it cant carry as big of a gun and as much armor...
@@nicolasgonin7735
That's a false equivalency. Mechs are used in place of tanks in nearly all sci-fi they appear in, so the comparison is valid, or at least justafiable. Infantry and Tanks are not used for the same things in most cases, and, unlike with tanks vs mechs, where a tank can do basically all the same things, infantry is capable of many things tanks are not.
@@Delta-es1lg
I understand your argument but the comparaison is still weak
You still are comparing a real life weapon with a design improved along an actual century of actual conflict, with a design made to look cool.
I could also pick on a 5 year old for the way he draw his tank.
In a lot of universes tank still exist and just are in the background because not as cool...
Please talk about mgsv walker gears they are still a walker but more focused on being a mechanized infantry rather than a tank replacement
Shigekisun Walker gears look more sensible in-design and functionality IMO.
@@emperorfaiz but cannot survive raiden sword high freq blade
So the next *Pacific Rim* sequel will have the humans _finally_ realise and create giant tanks using Mech technology that one shot Kaijus with their main gun.
That is if they even survive the gunships the size of Jumbo Jets (or bigger) that lay down the hurt as soon as they appear and even drop seeker missile/torpedoes from on high that are the size of a semitrailer and can wipe a group of Kaijus underwater.
*Jaeger pilot:* So what's the new unit I've heard rumours about like, 100 metres tall Walker with a plasma gun?
*Tech:* Nah, it's a Helicarrier with a plasma gun thats 100 metres long. Can _one shot a city CBD,_ we fitted a variable power dial to the gun, so you don't accidentally blow through the crust at a weak point.
But it's also got a bunch of lasers for more focused firepower and aerial point defence. And enough missiles to obliterate a entire airforce and tank battalion.
The autocannons are just for backup.
Best part is the frame is cheaper and easier to make than a Jaeger…
mech A.I will act need time travel combined small powerful invade
Honestly, the Atlas/Triton/(Geth Primes/YMIR Mechs) in ME3 and the Hydra in MEA is how I would imagine actual mechs (as opposed to power armor) would get used where they act as relatively rare and specialized fire support platforms, they aren’t intended to replace tanks or infantry and essentially fulfill a role similar to an assault gun; particularly in circumstances in which a fire support platform is still very desirable but ground vehicles aren’t really available such as on space stations like Grissom Academy or the Citadel, inside mining facilities or inside small asteroid habitats. Areas that essentially blur the line between exterior and interior and aren’t really built for (ground) vehicles but have the room and structural support to accommodate things that are larger and heavier than infantry.
Although, it should be noted that weight should be less of an issue in mass effect due to mass manipulation technologies made possible through eezo.
"Tanks would be more efficient and economical"
But mechs are so fucking cool
if its only for a civilian logistic or for a walking civilian vehicle, then its true
there is a company in south korea building mech for future selling, but still prototype, but its looking cool for me
link : th-cam.com/video/3ldJswGpkjY/w-d-xo.html
but for a real war......., trust me, its different story, real war is harsher than hell that humans ever imagine, you need crazily strong vehicles in real war
What are your thoughts on Avatars Mechs? Or Alien's? Theyre not dedicated assault weapons more like super hydraulic power suits.
Mechs are best as scout, IFV, and as shock troopers
Furiouswc mech scouts are a terrible idea. They aren’t low profile, they can get injured with small arms. They’re a terrible idea but can only be used properly in a artillery loader position.
@@themaus3847 they could act as unsoppret scots as they wold be able to further in enemy lines without risk of being killed.
@@TheFuri0uswc the mechs is about needed nanites can repair at speed of light
I want a BattleTech game that focuses on the tanks and aerial vehicles, cause there are a frick ton of them and yet they are always sitting there on the sideline pretending to be useless when they should be dominating the battlefield.
Honestly, this is modeled in the Mechwarrior lore and somehow it just kind of gets ignored. The Demolisher is an 80 tonne tank is specifically lauded as being an effective counter to Battlemechs. The machine is a quarter to a third the price of an equal tonne Battlemech, is easier to produce, and yet has speed, armor, and firepower to match it. Instead of fielding a 8mil Victor with 1 AC20, you could field a pair of Demolishers (4 AC20s) and a pair of Partisans (8 AC5s).
That is true, there are a lot of vehicles designed during the Succession Wars by House militaries to deal with mechs specifically. Also before the fall of the Star League, the SLDF loved their combine force doctrine and developed fighters & vehicles to complement mechs. Half the time the SLDF never deployed mechs, they just used the warships to rain on the parade of any opposing faction.
Mech's themselves are also vulnerable to infantry and when the Clans invaded, Elemental power armor (Test Tube Bundles of Rage in armor) were killing mech pilots left and right by cutting through the cockpit, chewing through the gryo or blowing legs off.
I think most mecha fans outside of Warhammer and Battletech often forget...just because it looks like it cant hurt you...you shoot it dead to make sure it doesn't.
are they though, i mean... theyre a lot cooler and cool factor is all that matters
Tanks look cool as well, if we are going by that
@@salt_97 bitch fuck you and your opinion. mechs > tanks
@@salt_97 Yes, but not as cool as mechs.
@@joemama-lo3ou Tanks are still superior so
@@salt_97 no fuck you mechs are superior in every single way thanks to cool factor. it buffs their stats
Mechs are better than tanks in precisely two circumstances: deployments to areas where there isn't infrastructure to support tanks but is too high in altitude for attack helicopters (i.e. mountains) or too much ground clutter that a tank can't necessarily crush its way through but a mech can step over (i.e. forests and jungles, or, again, mountains). This is specifically talking about a lighter mech, no heavier than a couple of dozen tons at most. A heavier mech is largely inferior to an MBT, and anything in which it's better (i.e. situations where its height matters more than ground pressure) are better done with attack helicopters or VTOL aircraft.
Mechs have their place in warfare, but it's a highly specialized one. They're never going to replace tanks.
Well we now have Vtol aircraft that can go as high as 7600 meter i don't think there is a lot of terrain where mech would be better than VTOL
The Myomers not only make the Mech go but its also the reason why its capable of lifting its weight. Its one of the reason why Agromechs where a thing before Battlemechs is because they can lift more then a trolley could.
All the tanks gangsta till they fight mechs in a mountainous and uneven ground evironment.
mechs cant even have much armor the dont have space to allow large composit armor to by put in
and that means any modern APFSDS will just Rip throw the mech and destroy systems or the person in it
Umm. 3025 Battlemechs can take 25+ 120mm APFDSDS rounds and not be phased.... You wouldnt have even penetrated to internals.
In 3025 you dont pen armour. You have to blast it off. Comparing 3025 battlemechs to 2030 'battlemechs' is like comparing tanks to chariots.
@@KittenGoneBad Old Apfsds or new ones new ones easily goes throw 700 to 800 mm off pure steel
Not talking even with the russian 125mm vaclum 2 that thing cann go throw 1000mm
@@rayotoxi1509 The best APCR that 1,005 years of weapons tech will create. Mechs are from 3025, its now 2020. Battletech armour (from the game where the mechs come from) cannnot be penetrated by any weapons system out there. You have to blast it off before getting to the internal structure. Hence the rule of 'no crits until armour gone'.
@@KittenGoneBad Even if it dosent pennetrated The force will knock the mech off it will fall to the ground 2000m/s and a dart what Weights around 4 to 6 kg what focus all its power on One small point will Have Destructive power
Tank crews even got killed becuse of pressure difents when the apfsds hits the armor and dosent penetrade
Tank hatches Even Blowed out There is a video on Yt where a Leopard 2 shots a leopard 1 on testing ground the Hatch Blowed open Even when it was closed and hatches Weights 10kg or more
Dont thing that Shells need to penetrate armor to kill stuff It just often need to Hit
@@rayotoxi1509 Unless I make my piloting roll. Then nothing happens. I'm in a sealed cockpit pressurized for outer space or the depths of the ocean. It doesn't get hurt unless you put that dart into the head point. Even then, I can take 3 (on average), depending on my pilot.
Do you play the game "Battletech" which is the basis of this tanks vs mechs argument? They arent tanks with legs, more like giant armoured people. They can do a jumping roundhouse kick.
No lie. They can do this... th-cam.com/video/lm15kjZR4HU/w-d-xo.html
Yep.. Let a tank try that.
Hey Spookston. Would you be willing to review the mechs from Pacific Rim
Yea definitely
I think the Mech’s in Titanfall did a good job in showing how useful they can be.
Personally I believe tanks and mechs could do good together in warfare.
Funny you mentioned battletech since all those issues are actually addressed in the lore
It’s also a work of fiction
Artificial musculature might actually be useful in active vehicle suspensions depending on it's properties. At the extreme end if it really was stupidly powerful and shock absorbing it might be possible to produce a combat vehicle that could 'jump' for instance.
What about warframes. Would they be pratical. They are biotech and would be a great topic.
That would be interesting.
Probably not seeing how incredibly expensive they'd be
I know nothing about Warframe, could you explain what they are please?
@@the_corvid97 biomechanical frames of war controlled through the concious
@@the_corvid97 remotely operated biomechanical killing machines operated by tenno, in the game the warframes... (at least the prototypes for each 'Frame', it hasnt been stated yet if the mass produced type need the same method of production) are effectively a Dax (purpose bred and engineered soldier) transformed using a nano-technological virus referred to as the technocyte virus alongside extensive cybernetics and other hardware this makes the body incredibly tough but drives the Dax host insane making them conventionally unusable but tenno can render them calm and thus control them remotely.
Tenno are children exposed to the void in an accident on the ship Zariman ten-zero hence the name Tenno (think warhammer 40k warp mixed with hyperspace and you get the idea) the children display a myriad of odd inexplicable abilities, but in the game they are the only ones able to control a Warframe and act as both power source and mind to the frames.
In short there a type of remotely operated bio-mech commando with dozens of different types each capable of various feats that are borderline magic teleportation, dimensional phase shifting, mind control, etc there always adding new frames to the game so yeah weird :)
I have to agree with this and the previous video. Mechs would be a nightmare to design and build, and to operate in any battlefield environment. The only real advantage I could think of for using them is for a psychological intimidation factor, but even that would go out the window if both sides in a conflict had them. Plus, just like the use of battleships in world war II, the effect on morale of losing one in battle would be of such a great concern, commanders would be hesitant to commit mechs to anything but the lowest risk scenarios.
Tanks > Mechs
Suddenly said mech jumps on your said tank and and fires 80mm heat through your turret roof then jump over building and disappear
@@dragoontype00alphaz19 let me ask you, how does it do that?
@@crazydiamondrequiem4236 come on it ain't that hard to imagine it only have be size of small car standing vertical which built like human but useing 80mm or 90mm short anti tank rifle for tanks and 30mm MG for standard combat and smoke pods it likely be useing similar tech to what Swedish working on masking the heat signature
@@dragoontype00alphaz19 but the tank will be supported by other ground forces and aircrafts surveying the area. I don't see how a giant humanoid robot will be able to get close and not be seen.
@@crazydiamondrequiem4236 it usually unlikely be aircraft recon area of conflict and what are troops and IFVs gonna do against mech that literally running and jumps from building and can't be targeted by standard missiles and can't seen on heat Vision and smoke has cover your gonna have hard time dealing with it especially in third world countries where don't have modern technology
even in support roles (the 'loader' from alien) a mech-like vehicle is impractical, compared to a conventional forklift for counter weight/balance to lift without becoming to overly complicated to use/maintain.
mechs can topple over tall and can be big targets
mechs are just fursuits for people who wana be cyborgs.
That's not how that quote goes and what you said doesn't even really make sense
Legs? Just give it some tracks?!
Ammo? Give it some lazers so we dont need any?!
Armor? Nah. Make it fast!
crew? ONE take it or lev it
Done.
Congrats, you just built a future tank... minus the armor part. The brits tried that with their battle cruisers and it ended really bad. The "speed is armor" philosophy of military design has been well and truly debunked.
Even Gundam already had a solution to the skeleton strength/weight problem - by using armor as part of the skeleton itself.
Brainlessly pro-tank people really don't want to admit that tank tracks, to be able to function, are extremely weak compared to pretty much anything(since you can't armor them directly unlike what you can do with mech legs; anything bigger than a HMG will tear it up), and it can be hit along a large surface area.
Compared to those, mech legs are not that bad, and it has its own benefits(such as allowing mech to have a relatively stable firing position on more highly-sloped surfaces where tanks would have been limited by elevation/depression long ago). A hit to tank hull can easily hit the tracks(when fired from the side) where as a hit to mech's critical areas(generally the torso) won't touch the legs, so hits to kill and disable are separated instead of combined in most cases for tanks, resulting in better survivability for mechs(assuming it didn't blow up instantly, which is unlikely due to ammunition being stored away from torso in many cases) where weapons can penetrate the hull of tanks after damaging the tracks.
Basically, shooting a MBT gun at a tank from the side can result in a mobility kill if not outright kill it dead; shooting a mech requires the decision to shoot for the torso for a k-kill or shoot legs for a mobility-kill, pretty much never both.
Another common way to cause catastrophic damage to tanks is via tiltrod/sensor-equipped
mines and top-down attacks, both of which mechs are less vulnerable to
seeing as mechs have a smaller vertical surface to attack(at least while standing up) as well as having more stuff in the way(perhaps a "head" of sensor packages) on top of simply being taller, and mech foot
would be a lot more resistant to mines in general(as opposed to tanks
which might have a mine explode directly under the crew area and cause
serious damage if not outright kill a few/all of them, there's a reason
why today's irregular-warfare-oriented tank upgrade packages generally incorporated
reinforced floor armor), also would take much more force to disable than
tracks that can be thrown off by the likes of cheap/plentiful 60-years-old pressure plate mines.
Yes tanks are more practical IRL as of today; but that doesn't mean mechs do not have their place, it just means science hasn't become advanced enough for viable mechs(both in effectiveness and cost) to be used(either to replace or support tanks in irregular terrains...etc. as I addressed in comment section of part 1 video).
I think what is being pushed for is that mecha can't replace tanks. Fir what you said about tank tracks, tracks have already proven superior to wheels as wheels cannot support the weight, so would cause heavier tanks to sink into ground (not an issue for lighter vehicles a la APCs). Also, my personal issue with mechs is that there are too many moving parts, which would severely inhibit reliability in the long term as individual parts wear down, debris gets caught, etc.. I do have to say you made an excellent point about mechs having height advantage, as tanks are indeed weak on top.
@@the_corvid97 It can replace tanks if a few things line up:
1. need for unified logistics for saving cost; especially considering mechs can be the recovery-vehicle for other mechs, where as tanks need dedicated recovery and bridge-laying vehicles
2. changing battlefield conditions(perhaps in future there won't be many open fields to fight in if we're building man-made structures all over face of earth, or fighting rapidly transitions between many terrains, half of which tanks are less suited for - such as mountainous areas between China and India - maybe there will be big city with hard structures for cover around that area in the future, maybe battle will rapidly transition to forests of south east asia where tanks are just not meant to be...etc.)
3. differing threats and perhaps the need for versatility in dealing with many different types
There are probably more reasons than 3.
Not saying mechs will be better at everything(no design is perfect) but there is more to military than combat value. (for example, today there are dedicated light tanks for underdeveloped terrain that MBT can't cross effectively, but it's extra strain on logistics in addition to extra development cost so not many countries want them, if any; so they're mostly for tech demo and export to poor countries to use as substitute-mbts where applicable)
Sure mechs have more moving parts by today's design; but that doesn't necessarily mean a lot in near/far future, since artificial muscles might replace actuators in the future for mechs, and their limitations might fit mechs like a glove. This video tried to make artificial muscles more complicated but it's pretty much guaranteed that you can use software to find out which muscles are malfunctioning and can replace them much more quickly than waiting for human muscle to heal IRL. And much of what we already know of human kinestheology can be applied to the design. Or just replace with spare arms/legs; tanks have spare tracks, engines...etc. in reserve so no reason mechs can't have spare arms...etc.
Why do you interpret legs in a so overpowered way? It's not that mech just wouldn't be able to walk when hit in the leg, it falls down because all the sensitive equipment has been blown apart. Tank stays put and if damage is not critical, it can still fire.
Ammunition isn't being stored in the hull (atleast in western tanks) since the 80s. They're in a separate compartment with a blowout panel so detonation wouldn't kill the crew.
Why would mechs have less surface area from top? Even if they do, the difference would be negligable and you're presenting a big and tall torso section you can just use any other ammunition on. Tank can have sloped surface where majority of hits will be coming from.
Yea, just build tank further away from ground and install more armour on the bottom, easy solution. Why go for legs?
Tracks can also be easily replaces and if they are blown, they don't threathen the integrity of the rest of the tank since it just stays put.
The point is not that you can't make mechs or they would be effective in the future, the point is that tank is even more effective, no matter what tech do you have. You can just mount it on a tank.
@@anderlillemaa4392 Human can crawl with 3 limbs.
Let's be real, tanks can't really move much without tracks on vast majority of terrain.
You're blatantly wrong, even Abrams has hull ammorack.
Because it's standing up...
Hilarious how you try to mention western tanks without recognizing the massive top-down profile that abrams has.
Torso section isn't necessarily big/tall...it doesn't need to 100% follow human body proportions.
Implying mechs can't have sloped surfaces?
Funny how you try to mention tanks since 80s without realizing that slopes do not mean as much as they did in WW2. (funfact: NERA arrays are generally pre-sloped on the inside)
"build tank further away from ground" - congratulations you have massive transmission that is even more fragile/complex than mech legs. (see: Object 279)
Installing more armor on the bottom will still never be good enough, considering above, you also have ground clearance issues. Today's MBT urban packages are bandaid fixes.
Tracks are simply too easily hit/damaged.
Once again many side hull hits will also damage tracks where as on mechs one must choose either mobility kill or possibly k-kill.
Corner-shot: not on tanks unless you want a complex arm/shifting weights for blance. Mech can just lean weapon out of cover without exposing rest of it.
Steep cliff: tanks don't have the depression(unless you, once again, choose massively complex/impractical designs in attempt to pretend mbt is useful there while ironically increasing complexity) to shoot down from top of cliff, or do the reverse, mech isn't really affected.
Stop pretending to not know the limitations of mbt.
Why do you think unmanned/less-armored turret is a thing today with T-14(and also soviet cold-war projects). This is the first step towards disposable/easily-replaceable armaments.
@@EcchiRevenge *"Human can crawl with 3 limbs."* What do you expect a mech to be like?
*"even Abrams has hull ammorack."* Do we talk about the Abrams or do we talk about the super advanced technology of "not keeping ammo in the hull"?
*"Hilarious how you try to mention western tanks without recognizing the massive top-down profile that abrams has."* Why would mech have so much smaller one that would change anything and why would it matter when it's presenting a taller torso for the enemy to shoot at?
*"Implying mechs can't have sloped surfaces?"* You can, but it's going to make your top down silouette even bigger.
*"NERA arrays are generally pre-sloped on the inside"* Depends on the composite array, but so what? You have to armour a significantly bigger surface on a mech to reach the same level as a tank and by them you're several times heavier on an unstable platform.
*"congratulations you have massive transmission that is even more fragile/complex than mech legs."* How would installing few more gears make it more complex and fragile than legs which literally topple you if they're destroyed or even just disabled?
*"Installing more armor on the bottom will still never be good enough"* How so? How stong are mines in your scify universe?
*"Today's MBT urban packages are bandaid fixes."* Working bandaids.
*"Tracks are simply too easily hit/damaged."* As opposed to legs which you're unable to cover, show even bigger surface area than a tank itself and are a threat to the entire machine if anything goes wrong?
*"Once again many side hull hits will also damage tracks where as on mechs one must choose either mobility kill or possibly k-kill."* You shoot legs you're already killing the entire vehicle. If your external systems (including guns) aren't all damaged by the fall you're already lucky.
*"Corner-shot: not on tanks unless you want a complex arm/shifting weights for blance."* So... just like a mech but on a more stable chasse?
*"unless you, once again, choose massively complex/impractical designs"* Like all your mech designs have?
*"Why do you think unmanned/less-armored turret is a thing today with T-14(and also soviet cold-war projects). This is the first step towards disposable/easily-replaceable armaments."* Soviet turret armour was king in the cold war and Armata only has the turret which is badly armoured. Easily replacable. Mechs are vastly more complex than you can imagine.
I see the only time a mech would be good is in an urban area. Let be explain:
For a tank, let's say, M1a1 Abrams, to move from one side of a building to shoot from the corner, would have to expose at least 50% percent of itself to whatever it's shooting at. A mech however, could(If your mech supplier is stupid and dosent give you a gunsight independent of the mech's main camera) peek out and shoot, exposing minimal parts, the guns, and the head. Or even better, use the gun camera/gunsight independently of the main camera to see, and if needed, shoot. Is this sound?
Moving a mech is difficult.
1.that huge size will make a mech slow
2.tanks can lead the mech into a trap
3.play cat and mouse with the mech and wait until its fuel runs out
@@sateayyam3192 I get your point. That's why I also see mechs working more as a defensive type, working very close to allied bases to protect them as well as have a handy fuel reload.
Mechs and tanks I believe will have a similar role like jets are to helicopters. Like comparing general purpose vehicle to a dedicated one. 😀
After watching this eye opening video and the first one, I went straight to the comments. Just I suspected, the comments are full of butt hurt fan boys in denial of the massive holes you put in their mecha fantasies!
So many people in the comments are side stepping your points or using make believe future science as counter arguments. And you’re just using basic physics and practical reasons to prove why mechs don’t work in real life.
It’s sad but the reaction to your videos show how a lot of hard core science fiction geeks and nerds have little understanding of real math, science and engineering!
it because this video's comparison of mechs are the american bastardised version of what mech would function like. Besides missiles fuck both over and tanks are obsolete now.
@@beefueater4586 How exactly is using math, physics, and engineering to explain why mechs wouldn't work an "American bastardized version of what mechs would function like?"
@@addisonwelsh american vision of mech is slow tank with legs. Read the comment at its fullest next time
@@beefueater4586 I did, and all it had was that American bastardization, no details. And that is a far more realistic image than the Japanese style mechs that go flying around all over the place with no regard for physics.
@@addisonwelsh japanese mechs are diverse in that theyre split between america's cape shit and relatively realistic. Watch 86 and patlabor for good depictions of mechs. But otherwise americans have archaic way of thinking when it comes to mechanical designs. Just ask the bradley...