Legion said:
GTwander said:
Mr.K. said:
The Madman said:
I know I'm being the nerdy one by saying this but there's a reason there have been no mech until now (Apparently), and that's because as a fighting machine they're just ridiculously impractical.
You do know that has been said about every major technological development?
Guns were considered impractical, vehicles were considered impractical, electricity, electronic devices, computers,... airplanes were even deemed impossible.
Yet here we are now years later with all that so common it doesn't even impress us anymore.
All those things were impractical (and dangerous) in their first incarnations, like this thing.
Give it time (and investment) and then I can see something like this being put to good use. As is, it's fairly lame... and I'm not talking about the soda rockets and BB guns, the whole thing is just...
... you know damned well what I'm getting at.
Of course it is, it's slow, clunky and impractical as it stands. But all technology has to start somewhere. We never build the good stuff on our first attempts.
Hell, look at the first car made compared to the Ferrari, look at the first plane compared to the crazy military aircraft we have now.
This is the equivilent of those.
Mechs aren't impractical in combat because current models are rubbish. The models seen in anime are also impractical and only look cool because the artists grant them exemption from basic laws of physics and make them win. The Tachikomas from Ghost in the Shell, for instance, zoom around with speed and agility that would be impressive in a formula 1 race. But whereas formula 1 cars have big tyres with high grip, Tachikomas have little castor wheels that shouldn't have much traction at all.
A typical mech with an arm cannon is much larger than the same weapon put on wheels or tracks plus a cockpit. It is thus more expensive, and top brass will want a good reason why they should buy 1,000 mechs instead of 2,000 tanks. Does it hit harder? No, it's the same weapon. Is it tougher? No, the tank is lower to the ground and doesn't expose fragile parts like legs. Is it faster? No way. Is it more manoeuvrable? Given that the tank is low on the ground and has great traction, while the mech is neither, I'd guess no.
Is the mech better on tricky terrain, like climbing a 70% incline? Well maybe. But is there a significant amount of strategically important terrain that mechs can climb but tanks can't? Probably not. And helicopters and planes would still be viable alternatives.
That said, I think mechs would be useful for heavy lifting.