Are humongous mechs practical?

[mrhappyface]

You see it. A gigantic man shaped figure, crushing your tanks with its feet and slaughtering your comrades at a terrifying speed. It bounds over obstructions and buildings with remarkable ease creating carnage and chaos in its wake. And then it sees you...It bounds over, raising its guns of death and then...it trips over a rock and snaps its leg. You walk over to it, take a crowbar, pry out the cockpit, and with a single bullet to the shocked pilot's head, the terror is over.
Sure, it may look like a terrifying demonic fiend from the darkest reaches of hell on the battlefield, but it has weaknesses just like humans do: The legs and the body core. Without mobility and balance to aim its weapons, its hopeless. Humans stand upright so naturally, when under fire, they go prone or hide behind something, not looking very invincible hero at all. Mechs look invincible, but they have such glaring weak spots, its easy to see that the person designing it was looking more at the potential psychological factor of facing a gigantic monster on the battlefield than a practical war machine such as a tank. But that's just me. What do you think?

 

[Internet Kraken]

I seriously doubt they actually have practical applications. But science fiction isn't supposed to make sense, so I don't complain.

 

[FranzTyphid]

no
/thread

 

[GodsAndFishes]

And that is why the Code Geass mecha are better in every way...They do infact have training wheels on their robots.

But yes most of it I think is just the terror aspect of seeing a huge machine that can crush you like a stryofoam cup.

Spoiler

 

[DarkLordofDevon]

Seriously? No. Expensive to make, easy to destroy. Not really a good attack weapon. They look gooooood though.

 

[Valate_v1legacy]

They are useless, but I would have 10 squads in my army just to look cool.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

They aren't practical in the slightest except in a few possible situations. That doesn't stop them from being bad ass.

 

[Broken Blade]

No. As much as I love giant robots (and I do, believe me), they really are not practical as weapons in a real world setting. Construction machines, perhaps, but most likely not in a military application unless it's something like VOTOMS. The only reason they're so effective in fiction is because part of the rules of the fictional universe in question is that giant robots are supposed to actually work.

TLDR: The third rule of giant robots states that "Real robots only pretend to follow the laws of physics, and are still awesome."

 

[Chipperz]

Anime style thirty-story mechs of jet boosting laswer-sword wielding deathness? Yup, impractical.

These babies? Slightly more feasible. World War 2 would have been so much cooler if they actually existed...

 

[dmase]

Its kinda like the cold war thing they built nukes so we have to build nukes, except with giant robots they would never actually use them or it would be a disaster but by the time its all said and done everyone has one except for kim jong il.

 

[Kiefer13]

Practical? No.
Awesome? YES.

 

[PxDn Ninja]

In general they are not strategically practical.

Pros:
* Crew: Typically manned by just one person, as opposed to the four man crew of a MBT.
* Psychology: Given the nature of current battlefields, enemies would expect it and it would cause mental duress.
* Potential Mobility: Given that the leg units are mobile and articulate enough, it would be able to pass over terrain an MBT could not (small rivers, deep gaps).

Cons:
* Potential Mobility: All that mobility only works as long as it stays upright. A mech can fall, MBTs cannot.
* Silhouette: On the horizon, an MBT is low profile. A mech stands out.
* Price: It can be assumed that they will cost a LOT more than an MBT.
* Counter Offensive Priority: They will be the first thing targeted and destroyed, and again, the are expensive.


MBT= Main Battle Tank

 

[Mekado]

speaking of awesome, but impractical mechs.

 

[ThreeWords]

Isn't that like saying that humans fail because they can fall over?

If the mech was able to "bound over obstructions and buildings with remarkable ease", surely if it tripped up, it would do what a well trained human would do: roll and come to it's feet.

(I am able to somersault from standing to standing with my hands tied behind my back, and I'm not even 'well trained' by many people's standards. I'm sure it's possible to build a combat robot able to do the same)

Legs are better than tracks or wheels, so they just need to make them work well.

Secondly, this.

Legs win, except that at the moment, we can't make robots clever enough to use them well. If you could build your robot to be as agile as a human of the same size, you would have no trouble with terrain

 

[Toaster Hunter]

Awesomeness > Practicality

/thread

 

[Skeleon]

Yah, no, considering how fast tracked vehicles have become lately, I'd say a tank the size of a 'Mech would be far superior (and far cheaper to produce) because it'd basically just be an armored box with guns sticking out of it.
'Mechs are cool, no question about it, and I love the 'Mechwarrior games, but in reality they'd be totally impratical, overpriced and unstable.

I could imagine 'Mechs slightly smaller than humans, i.e. remote controlled drones. Those might be useful in inner-city warfare. The typical 20 metres 'Mech, however, makes little sense.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Isn't that like saying that humans fail because they can fall over?

If the mech was able to "bound over obstructions and buildings with remarkable ease", surely if it tripped up, it would do what a well trained human would do: roll and come to it's feet.

(I am able to somersault from standing to standing with my hands tied behind my back, and I'm not even 'well trained' by many people's standards. I'm sure it's possible to build a combat robot able to do the same)

Legs are better than tracks or wheels, so they just need to make them work well.

Secondly, this.

Legs win, except that at the moment, we can't make robots clever enough to use them well. If you could build your robot to be as agile as a human of the same size, you would have no trouble with terrain

Actually no, robots aren't and probably won't be as agile as humans, not as long as they are metal. You can do that stuff because of how your weight is balanced and because your body can contort. A giant robot that's made out of metal will have a different center of gravity than you and it can't twist as well. If it can't twist, it can't shift weight. And if it can't shift it's own weight, it can't easily right itself.

Which is why I like Big O. It wouldn't actually work, but that's about how a real mech would behave if you messed with it.