Are humongous mechs practical?

[thewerebuffalo]

if it has some sort of energy shield, then HELL YES! other than that, it's just oo much of a target, and tripwires can be avoided if you see them coming

 

[Del-Toro]

Ah....

"Sir, enemy mecha approaching!"

"Roger that driver. Gunner, lay on, enemy mecha-robot, 2300 yards, eighteen degrees from fore."

"Aye sir. Loading...loaded."

"Fire!"

*Mecha is blown apart by a 120mm depleted uranium round*

Basically, when you see mecha anime the assumption is that somehow tanks were rendered obsolete by the giant mecha. While mecha are pure awsome and make other things more awsome,it doesn't really matter what variety, or what their origin is, just look at Kannazuki No Miko, hell, even Chrono Crusade had a giant fighting automaton. I'm getting off course here, the point is that the assumption of tank obsolescence is always made, but really, it would have to be much easier to kill a mecha, with all those complex balancing systems, than a tank, which is basically a box with an engine and some ammo. Sorry Metal Gear Rex, this isn't your day.

 

[dalek sec]

Practical? No.
Awesome? YES.

Pretty much this.

 

[AceDiamond]

The thing that makes me laugh about people who go "oh but weapon x y and z would stop a mech" is that they assume the only change in military hardware would be that suddenly there's a giant mech. No advances in Electronic warfare. No advances in ECM, no advances in any other sort of countermeasures, or armor. No apparently we'd just have to pick up a TOW missile and call it a day. After all the TOW missile has allowed us to destroy everything (protip: no it hasn't)

My point being that mechs can be practical if they're not stupidly huge, but nobody's every really going to think in that direction.

 

[Snotnarok]

Astronomically expensive to make and develop, training time would be massive vs any standard war machine, they're easy to disable, and then you gotta make weapons for the thing? And let's see one of these things do something covert.

Uh, sir there's a giant white, red and blue robot outside of the base holding a tree infont of it's glowing green eyes.

 

[darkless]

Problem i have with them is the sheer amount of collateral damage a giant mech would cause just by falling over when hit, not to mention unless it was built to respond the exact same way as a human body with some way of negating the weight of the whole thing a human body would not be able to take the strain of moving them.

 

[Korolev]

I honestly don't think such a thing would be in any way shape or form practical.

First off - it would be a colossal target. If you're talking about Gundam or EVA size mechs, you really couldn't miss it. Unless you have some sort of invincible force field to go along with your mech, you'd be toast. Hellfire missiles, BLU-bombs, daisy cutters and Javelin missiles pack a wallop, and there in plentiful supply.

Second of all - it would cost more than the entire defense budget of the US. And what about high-altitude super sonic bombers like the B-1 Lancer? And one nuke would put it out of business.

Mechs would be uselss on the modern battlefield, even if they were possible (and I doubt it). A smaller size, exoskeleton type suit seen in, for example, district nine, might be useful. But not huge mechs.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Everyone saying Huge Mechs in cities....that's what infantrymen are employed for. Infantrymen that can be concealed, move virtually anywhere, spring ambushes, set traps

...and get killed by small arms fire from any butcher, baker or candlestick maker. Because they all have AKs. The amount of concealment (in the sense of no one knowing that you're around) you can offer to a squad of uniformed soldiers operating in a dense urban environment is somewhat limited, even assuming they aren't with armored fighting vehicles or hummers. We're to the point where any deaths are borderline unacceptable. We don't send troops to certain areas on patrol because we don't want them to get slaughtered. True, you can't replace infantry with a mech, at least not any more than you can with an MBT or attack helo.

I was under the impression that was because we can't actually use proper urban tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan, because of all the damn civilians. That, is what kills the concealment and mobility of allied infantry - the fact that they can't just deciede they're going to take a shortcut through this house, lie in wait for an enemy here, because the locals are still around for some damn reason.

Oh, and casualties are a fact of military operations. In a serious war, we'll actually have to accept this.

 

[Threesan]

Everyone saying Huge Mechs in cities....that's what infantrymen are employed for. Infantrymen that can be concealed, move virtually anywhere, spring ambushes, set traps

...and get killed by small arms fire from any butcher, baker or candlestick maker. Because they all have AKs. The amount of concealment (in the sense of no one knowing that you're around) you can offer to a squad of uniformed soldiers operating in a dense urban environment is somewhat limited, even assuming they aren't with armored fighting vehicles or hummers. We're to the point where any deaths are borderline unacceptable. We don't send troops to certain areas on patrol because we don't want them to get slaughtered. True, you can't replace infantry with a mech, at least not any more than you can with an MBT or attack helo.

I was under the impression that was because we can't actually use proper urban tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan, because of all the damn civilians. That, is what kills the concealment and mobility of allied infantry - the fact that they can't just deciede they're going to take a shortcut through this house, lie in wait for an enemy here, because the locals are still around for some damn reason.

Oh, and casualties are a fact of military operations. In a serious war, we'll actually have to accept this.

Funny thing about cities and houses -- they tend to have people in them. That is the reality of the battlefield, and if we collectively decide to limit our acceptable tactics out of, say, humanitarian concerns (or just not to piss off our hosts more than necessary), then that is the reality our soldiers will have to fight in. And yes, there will be casualties, but that is not an argument against minimizing them.

 

[Skeleon]

My point being that mechs can be practical if they're not stupidly huge, but nobody's every really going to think in that direction.

They could become powerful, true, but if you applied the same kinds of advancements to the concept of a low but heavily armored tank, I'd say the tank would still be superior. And the question is, what do you consider stupidly huge?

Some people on this thread said that "force fields" would protect the weak points, such as the 'Mech's joints. So what prevents anybody from using "force fields" on a tank, making it even more powerful?
Some people mentioned mobility as the primary advantage. Well, tracked vehicles can already reach pretty high velocities, I doubt their development will just remain at a standstill until 'Mechs can catch up.
Jumping? Okay. 'Mechs would need powerful jumpjets to lift something that heavy. What's stopping you from applying the same to tanks (think of Star Fox 64)?

The whole concept of the large humanoid bipedal 'Mech is wasteful, any technological advancement that would rectify this would also improve other warmachine concepts.

As I said on an earlier post, what I said mainly applies to huge 'Mechs.
I think there could be a place for small 'Mech drones in urban warfare (remote controlled).
Though I doubt they'd be bipedal. Probably more many-legged, like insects. If they use legs at all.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Everyone saying Huge Mechs in cities....that's what infantrymen are employed for. Infantrymen that can be concealed, move virtually anywhere, spring ambushes, set traps

...and get killed by small arms fire from any butcher, baker or candlestick maker. Because they all have AKs. The amount of concealment (in the sense of no one knowing that you're around) you can offer to a squad of uniformed soldiers operating in a dense urban environment is somewhat limited, even assuming they aren't with armored fighting vehicles or hummers. We're to the point where any deaths are borderline unacceptable. We don't send troops to certain areas on patrol because we don't want them to get slaughtered. True, you can't replace infantry with a mech, at least not any more than you can with an MBT or attack helo.

I was under the impression that was because we can't actually use proper urban tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan, because of all the damn civilians. That, is what kills the concealment and mobility of allied infantry - the fact that they can't just deciede they're going to take a shortcut through this house, lie in wait for an enemy here, because the locals are still around for some damn reason.

Oh, and casualties are a fact of military operations. In a serious war, we'll actually have to accept this.

Funny thing about cities and houses -- they tend to have people in them. That is the reality of the battlefield, and if we collectively decide to limit our acceptable tactics out of, say, humanitarian concerns (or just not to piss off our hosts more than necessary), then that is the reality our soldiers will have to fight in. And yes, there will be casualties, but that is not an argument against minimizing them.

Actually, it isn't. In a proper, high-intensity conflict, the civilians are going to be smart enough to get the fuck out of the warzone. Iraq and Afghanistan are fallacious examples of conflicts, as, here, you are not fighting against an organised enemy, civilians don't seem to have figured out that bullets are bad for their health, and, in general, does not resemble any conceivable high-intensity conflict.

All that a mech, in a city, would be, is a target. Two minutes, and some enterprising lad with an AT rocket is going to put high explosive through it's flimsy armour and wreck billions of dollars worth of military R and D in moments.

 

[Threesan]

[ quotes snip ]

Funny thing about cities and houses -- they tend to have people in them. That is the reality of the battlefield, and if we collectively decide to limit our acceptable tactics out of, say, humanitarian concerns (or just not to piss off our hosts more than necessary), then that is the reality our soldiers will have to fight in. And yes, there will be casualties, but that is not an argument against minimizing them.

Actually, it isn't. In a proper, high-intensity conflict, the civilians are going to be smart enough to get the fuck out of the warzone. Iraq and Afghanistan are fallacious examples of conflicts, as, here, you are not fighting against an organised enemy, civilians don't seem to have figured out that bullets are bad for their health, and, in general, does not resemble any conceivable high-intensity conflict.

All that a mech, in a city, would be, is a target. Two minutes, and some enterprising lad with an AT rocket is going to put high explosive through it's flimsy armour and wreck billions of dollars worth of military R and D in moments.

Granted, present operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same as, say, the fight over Fallujah, but you can't just dismiss them because they don't conform to your notion of a "proper conflict." Now, would a mech be useful there (even assuming it isn't destroyed)? Maybe not, but that's a separate point.

Some people mentioned mobility as the primary advantage. Well, tracked vehicles can already reach pretty high velocities, I doubt their development will just remain at a standstill until 'Mechs can catch up.

I agree with the post, except on this point. We're (or, at least, I am) talking about a different mobility: limbs can carry you places that wheels or treads can't. Our ground vehicles tend to stick to roads, or at least nice flat-ish areas. I have Afghanistan in mind, in particular, when I say this.

 

[Sib]

Why has this thread reached 200+ replies?

Mechs are not practical, there is no discussion to be had.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

[ quotes snip ]

Funny thing about cities and houses -- they tend to have people in them. That is the reality of the battlefield, and if we collectively decide to limit our acceptable tactics out of, say, humanitarian concerns (or just not to piss off our hosts more than necessary), then that is the reality our soldiers will have to fight in. And yes, there will be casualties, but that is not an argument against minimizing them.

Actually, it isn't. In a proper, high-intensity conflict, the civilians are going to be smart enough to get the fuck out of the warzone. Iraq and Afghanistan are fallacious examples of conflicts, as, here, you are not fighting against an organised enemy, civilians don't seem to have figured out that bullets are bad for their health, and, in general, does not resemble any conceivable high-intensity conflict.

All that a mech, in a city, would be, is a target. Two minutes, and some enterprising lad with an AT rocket is going to put high explosive through it's flimsy armour and wreck billions of dollars worth of military R and D in moments.

Granted, present operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same as, say, the fight over Fallujah, but you can't just dismiss them because they don't conform to your notion of a "proper conflict." Now, would a mech be useful there (even assuming it isn't destroyed)? Maybe not, but that's a separate point.

Some people mentioned mobility as the primary advantage. Well, tracked vehicles can already reach pretty high velocities, I doubt their development will just remain at a standstill until 'Mechs can catch up.

I agree with the post, except on this point. We're (or, at least, I am) talking about a different mobility: limbs can carry you places that wheels or treads can't. Our ground vehicles tend to stick to roads, or at least nice flat-ish areas. I have Afghanistan in mind, in particular, when I say this.

I take it you're refering to mountains? Well, frankly, there is no way mechs could operate in those. Too high a ground preassure, and it's still going to have serious mobility issues when compared to infantry. It can't scale steep inclines in the same fashion as an infantryman, it cannot negotiate narrow ravines - in essence, it's still fairly limited. And a notion that a mech could run particularly fast is also a touch odd. Current AFV's are capable of moving at upwards of 40MpH. The fastest any animal on the earth can sprint, is some 64MpH. The notion that a mech would excede these speeds is somewhat odd, given the sheer forces involved.

 

[Skeleon]

I agree with the post, except on this point. We're (or, at least, I am) talking about a different mobility: limbs can carry you places that wheels or treads can't. Our ground vehicles tend to stick to roads, or at least nice flat-ish areas. I have Afghanistan in mind, in particular, when I say this.

Well, this I can sort of understand (although bipedal movement would still limit your movement; think of mud, ice, snow, debris, where you'd require your weight to be spread around more than two small points).
The better mobility would be certainly true for small (non-bipedal) 'Mechs or 'Mech drones, though, as they could climb stairs and ramps (or maybe even walls and ceilings) in an urban environment.
However, I was referring to somebody writing that humongous 'Mechs would be able to dodge weaponry and get into close range and whatnot (sorry I don't have the quote with me, it's buried somewhere in this thread).

 

[Zersy]

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...

Now we're talking !

Although What about the Metal Gear Mechs ?

REX was no doubt awesome yet flawed.

RAY was one of the best since it was a anit metal gear as well as amphibeas

but you can't beat GEKKO ! they Moo , have organic legs, went into mass production and most of all, snake did not have that much of a easy time messing with these dudes.

Or Mark 2, very mobile and fun to use haha

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Normally I'd say No, they aren't practical.

Then I go back and watch my Patlabor dvd's and realize how practical they are.
A humanoid robot would be far better for large scale construction than our current system of cranes and leverages.

As combat vehicles, they would be effective in nearly all terrains and naturally enhance the tactics and effectiveness of military offensives.
Tanks can roll over a lot of things but they can still get stuck in a ditch or find pathfinding to a location somewhat impractical, especially in urban warfare.

I think the Mechs from Orson Scott Card's Empire are probably the best example of highly practical mechs for military applications.

 

[Jenkins]

I can see them eventually being Practical with the advent of better technology, but stuff like Code Geass and Gundams are impractical, A)nothing has the Mobility of a Glasgow or Sutherland, and those are just basic Mechs. and B) the need to overcome being insta killed by a Hellfire or TOW missile.

I think the first Advancements to Mechs will be extensions to tanks and such(I.E: adding Mech arms to tanks to clear roads for travel, or to make better entrenched positions.)


the first Mechs will most likely only see service in Supply transport, and POSSIBLY as a Mobile Artillery platform.