@@evanscott1194 realistic game tank destroyed using strongest metal extremely high level vibranium and adamantium replacing titanium carbon nanotube and graphene hybrid alloy
Pretty much, as at that size they wouldn't be too heavy or expensive. Problem is yeah, you can probably make a bullet proof power armor but as soon as the enemy have a rocket launcher you're not doing too. You'd need a lot of ERA armor for some protection against that. And there's also the issue of anti material rifles. Armor penetrating capabilities always advance faster than armor protection. In a highly specialized role, such as civil security it could work.
Power armor is a whole different animal than mechs - they're the smallest way to armor a human, because the pilot is encased in armor as efficiently as our fleshy meatbag nature allows, not sitting in a capsule in a mech's torso. For mechs, the legs are an inefficient add-on in terms of armor volume (you have to protect things that don't have to be there. For power armor, the limbs must be there anyway if you want to stick a human inside.
Yes and it's the only way you'd make a valuable mech. You use it as an infantry support platform, that replaces your ATGM/RPG and HMG carriers in an infrantry squad. Also you could use the XCOM EW method of solving the "limbs are hard to program to work precisly enough" by cutting off the limbs of soldiers you put into your MECs.
@@charmingcobra Do you know how hard it is to hit a moving target the size of a human being, with a weapon system designed to fight a tank? Not particularly easy, and you know what happens to a shaped charge that doesn't hit it's target head on? It turns into shrapnel. So I think you are over estimating the threat of rockets.
In warhammer 40k we kinda have that We take a heavely augmented dude put him in the biggest space marine terminator armor and then put him in a giant mech
So how exactly would that help? If you're just using the arms to carry more weapons, it's more efficient to mount them to the vehicle directly. If you're using them to manipulate terrain, obstacles etc. They'll need to be rather large and centrally mounted, which is going to take a lot of weight, have the same problems with unreliable articulation and be in the way for the actual weaponry and optical systems.
@@Tepid24 No, that's a terrible idea. It completely defeats the purpose of not putting the gun in the turret to begin with. It's inferior in every way.
M1 Abrams with comically massive turret and hands: You think you're safe? *Metallic groaning as the hands reach toward you through the computer screen*
Power armor was created essentially to have the power of a tank with close to the mobility of an infantry unit. And according to Fallout lore, the T-51 power armor and later models have fusion cores that last for a hundred years potentially. So that basically eliminates fuel cost. Also power armor maintenance is much cheaper than it would be to fix a freaking murder box on treads.
Mechs have always been fairly ridiculous, however legged machines do have great potential applications in various fields, including military. Predominantly of which is of course the little DARPA dog, testing viability for transportation in highly uneven terrain at a somewhat reliable speed to keep up with troops. By no means are current designs viable for anything beyond transportation of smaller payloads, but at the core of it, I think the problem with the mech to tank debate is people trying to force legged vehicles into the same roles/categories as a tank, which really makes no sense; the equipment should suit the job/role, not the other way around.
That's for Pragmatic and Utilitarian real life, games and other media LIVE the rule of cool and just let it be..... The most glaring issue is that for. Bipedal or quadruped mech to work even as a lightly armored tank, the MBT triangle would never work (bigger gun/weapons, less armor and heavy mobility loss, too much armor and firepower gets too low for role with added lack of mobility, too much focus on speed and armor and firepower goes away).... There's the eternal rule of physics, Square Cube law, no way to make these monsters work with that in the way... Why not learn from the Nazi Germany Kettenkrad? Very weird/unique look, Utilitarian role, still a very welcome thing nonetheless (1941 Germany on Barbarossa operation, that lil bugger allowed supplies and logistics to keep up with the main forces, after they weren't that much needed to keep supplies reaching Frontlines, became an aircraft towing tractor on Military Airfields...) As you said, different roles/jobs, different opportunities
DARPA Dog is very close to drone mech already. One only needs to add a light MG turret or missile tube on it make it combat capable. It doesn't even need armor to be useful, light unarmored SAM and ATGM platforms have been a thing since the 50s. These could accompany infantry platoon or be air-dropped to provide early warning or deterrence like mines with very long reach. There are many places on earth where tanks can't reach, and smaller legged things like these might be a serious addition or threat to infantry. The problem with "Tank vs Mech" comparisons tends to be they are about which is a better tank. That's from the very outset a loaded comparison.
The lifting heavy objects thing IS actually how the titanfall mechs started life- as farming equipment on the frontier Then Imc did a thing and they were converted over into the big fighty bois we know and love today
You should see of the videos of star wars fans justifying why walkers > wheeled vehicles. Absolutely hilarious at times. One argument I recall is that "you can put more more armor on a leg" as if making a completely solid wheel is impossible. The mobility on far more terrain argument is just not based on physics. Those AT-ATs would have sunk into the snow on Hoth. TL;DR: Vigin Mech/Walker vs the Chad Wheels/Tracks
"Military traditionalists have repeatedly pointed out that the Assault Mechs are very poorly designed weapons - farcically bad, some have even said. They're extremely tall and are almost impossible to camouflage, making them easy targets. Their two-legged gait is more complicated, more expensive, more vulnerable and less efficient than are treaded wheels. And if one of the blasted things fall over, it can't get up again without the assistance of massive cranes or helicopters. Yank off the legs and mount the chassis on treads, the experts say, and you'll get a better weapon at lower cost. All this is true. However, the units have one thing going for them that more than compensates for all of their weaknesses: they're massively, enormously cool. Military planners have long noted that national governments often confuse coolness with effectiveness and are willing to pay a lot more for flashy armaments than they are for effective but dull systems. In other words, a military with Mech Assault units has an easier time getting its bloated budget approved than does one without them. As long as this continues, the Mech's future is assured." - "Assault Mech" Civlopedia entry, Civilization IV "Nextwar" mod
the thing is they are experimenting mechs France USA UK Germany Australia Japan S.Korea Russia India China its a internationall context wich canada won 1 since the jas kept winning at each design the problems is engine weight
true as hell, between the method exo from korea and that kinda shit, most mechs are designed to be cool opposed to effective, boston dynamics being an exception
You are talking about American view and how Americans design their mechs. If you look at Japanese aAnime, youll see all sizes of mechs, plus they move fast and better. The mechs in American sci Fi are slow and not good moving.
@@Ruzaraneh Well Dreadnoughts qualify both as a mech and power armour, the main difference between the two being that your arms and legs are in the suit's arms and legs, however those spess muhreens don't have either left in order to fit. I mean, is a torso enough to qualify as a mech, or is it just cheating the definition to fit in an exosuit reserved to torso+head only?
Astra Miliwhat? You're in the Guard son. Anyway I think with some tweaking the Sentinel could be a viable combat walker in real life too. The role would be to go with the infantry where tanks can't and bring the firepower what the infantry can't. Armor just enough to withstand enemy infantry small arms and HE fire.
Titan Legion answers the Astra Militarum's call for heavy support. warlord Deus Tempestus and reaver Gryphonne Indomitus are on their way. The Emperor Protects.
I think this comes down to what people like to think about for mechs. Realistically, i think mech combat is more of something they do to get out of an ambush, and they're otherwise utility vehicles.
@@nickl.3386 At this level? Entertainment value. For professionals? It is a useful thought experiment that helps combat institutional thinking. Institutional thinking has been the source of many setbacks and defeats in history. That is why the US military and many defense contractors consult with science fiction authors on a routine basis.
@@nickl.3386 Sci fi = Science fiction = the fiction of what science could achieve in the future. Gigant war mechs don't work therefor science should not try to achieve them.
Speaking as a long time battletech fan, you do have very valid points. Even in battletech tanks exist and are used often and in some scenarios they can be even more dangerous. In my opinion, the main reason to field a mech would be fear factor. In a real life scenario i could only reasonabley see a mech as a second or third line fighter use to mop up or further demoralize an opponent.
Your last point actually does occur in Battletech often. From my experience at least in MW5, aerial and armored assests are mostly thrown at you in the first wave, then eventually the Mechs are dropped in. I've had several experiences where a situation like that was an incredible pinch to get out of
Tanks are actually much more common then mechs in battletech, for the exact reasons of mechs being expensive to produce and difficult to maintain, and I personally love rocking all tanks against a mech player, and even in battletech tanks often have much more guns and armor when compared ton to ton, mechs are just more flexible and mobile.
@@MechanicWolf85 And then you realize the square-cube law is a thing. You can't just build a giant mech that moves like a human but bigger. Mechanical engineering isn't magic and still has to obey basic laws of physics, as it turns out.
"[Mechs] could still be used very effectively in a logistics role, being used to lift heavier objects that regular people couldn't." Uh, don't we already have things like cranes and forklifts for that? Sincerely, A pissed off forklift driver :D
@@TheRealK287 Right, but on a serious note, I'm not denying that it would be cool, and I'd love to see one made if we had the technology to make it viable. But at the same time, like Spookston said in the video, the design is too complex and they'd be a nightmare to maintain. Forklifts have a simpler design that we already know to be effective. You ever seen a straddle reachlift? I drive those a lot at work, plus a sit-down lift. They work just as well as I imagine a mech would. Mechs are cool, but realistically, there's no reason to switch away from a design that already works
@@James-oj6ru Not if there was a way to plug the mech into your nervous system to enable you to control it as if it was your own body (with computer assistance)
@@LQN2 My idea of Exosuit is to help carry more firepower without compromising speed nor stamina. Imagine one Exo per squad, a heavy machine gunner, or an Exo-AT Specialist. Or maybe commandos for sabotage ops. You have to consider also beyond human capacity. If technology advance a fair well beyond our current advancements, some soldier could be enhanced with prostetics, making them partially machines. They could also be considered inside the mech spectrum?
Armored Exoskeletons would most likely be as close to mechs as in real life militaries would get. By the time those suits go out to the front lines you'd be looking at infantry portable laser systems. Anything not flying high enough or low enough to crawl around in the weeds will get lased.
Alright, here's some unbiased insight from a robotics engineer, and former mechanic. Most servo systems rely on batteries, (no onboard fuel required) which can be integrated into the legs, arms, body, side walls, basically anywhere with any kind of free space. Add that servos and batteries are actually more power efficient (and more powerful in general) than gas engines, and we start seeing a new story. Mechs are actually mechanically simpler, needing only ONE electric motor per axis of rotation, contrary to popular belief. You would need about 16 to make a BattleTech style mech. The number of moving parts on a tank, due to it's basic nature, is much higher than the number of moving parts you'd find on the more mainstream mecha from basically any franchise. A gasoline engine alone has many more moving parts than an entire Electrically powered mecha would. Not to mention the servos on a mech could very easily be armored and made more resilient than the treads of a tank could ever be. Repair availability? The parts on a mech would be so much simpler that they could be fully replaced in minutes, compared with the time it would take to dismantle an engine. If it's on the battlefield, the people in charge of designing it will have thought of this already, and pit crews for a mech would resemble an f1 pit crew, but with bigger parts. (Much cheaper too.) Size isn't really a problem either, Mechs come in various shapes and sizes all throughout sci fi. Some much smaller than a tank, and thanks to ground effect thrusters or wheels, are still as nimble as a tank. On traction for climbs: NO, most mecha would NOT handle steep inclines as well without moving on all fours, or taking advantage of the massive traction spikes that are frequently shown in art. The terrain debate goes to a tank, hands down, unless we start getting into mecha that hover or fly. I have seen lots of art of mecha using mech scaled rappelling lines to climb, though there are wheeled and treaded vehicles with winches nearly as capable of this. Mechs would likely have better balance than a human though, by the time they're ready for battlefield use. Bipedal robots on the high end already have better balance than many trained human athletes. It's unreasonable to think a mech might not be considerably MORE dexterous than a human by the time they're ready for use in that setting. The range debate is sort of under thought. A proper armour division isn't made up of tanks alone, and why couldn't a tank take on a support role? We have treaded support vehicles specifically for terrain that trucks can't travel through. Tanks would encounter that issue too, by this video's logic. They chug gas like crazy and need a resupply point. Mecha could have supplementary solar panels though, and recharge actively, as well as during down time. In the end, Mechs would never replace tanks, tanks have a clear cut role. Despite only a brief history in warfare, they've proven again and again how incredibly powerful they can be. Mechs couldn't practically carry weapons as large if they wanted to stay realistically feasible for battlefield use. They would be much more practical as an anti-infantry unit than a tank could ever be though thanks to their dexterity and humanoid nature. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that later mecha could carry armaments just as large though. Electric motors and batteries have advanced so far in the last 15 years alone that gas engines are brinking on obsolete as power plants. Tanks are likely to adopt electric technology as well, once it becomes the superior option. I believe mechs could have a place in tactical settings. I do not see them being the main force. But considering that the cost of production for realistically sized mecha, (3 to 5 meters,) would actually be lower than a modern tanks in many ways, they might over time become more and more common for complex urban, northern forests or dry climate maneuvers. With a height of only 3 meters as well, falling over could be easily made into a relatively safe adventure, incurring minimal or no damage to the vehicle or pilot. (As a really dumb moment though, how would a mech falling over after being hit by something be any less dangerous than being near a tank that just got slapped by an HE round? It wouldn't. Reactive armour on modern tanks would kill you just as fast as the shell or mech falling over, if you were anywhere near it. Moral is to stay away from the armoured division if you're infantry.)
If you have eletric motor this good you and have balance this good why not jsut skip a step and build a better tank.? Rather make your mech a bigger overprice use of machinery then is already is.
@@tomizatko3138 this reply implies you either didn't read my full post, or didn't understand. You don't replace aircraft, or naval vessels with tanks. They have different roles. Also, if you read through what I'd posted properly, it's fairly easy to see that production cost, maintenance cost, and operating cost of a bipedal walker would be lower than a tank. Assuming you rely on the specifications I'd provided. I'd specifed, in that post, that tanks and mecha wouldn't replace eachother, and that just like in the battletech and other high scifi stories you typically see them in, they'd operate in tandem.
@@luxeternity I sure would like 40K, but with the bigger ones I would need to worry of the machine spirit. but its a mutual alliance anyway, you get access to its memories and control of the titan, while it gets the slaughter and war it desires.
@@spinax22 I can't remember if it's in ODST or not, but I know it's in Halo 3. In the mission The Covenant you get a Scorpian after taking out the second tower and you use it to go through a cave, while you're blowing things up you hear a random marine saying things like "Tank beats Ghost." "Tank beats Banshee." And then after you blow up a Phantom he screams "Tank beats everything!" It's been like ten years since I last played Halo 3, why has this stuck so deeply in my memory?
A tank wont run out of ammo, its either the tank destroyed what it needs to destroy or the tank gets destroyed, i dont think it will reach to the point of losing ammo
tanks would be better if they both had the same void shielding, titans are better because their power core can power shields and weapons, would make more sense to build a mega-bane blade with voide shields, than a titan
This one of the reasons why I love Warhammer 40k's walking mechs AKA Titans. They are actually portrayed rather 'realistically' compared to others. In that there a big lumbering things that require massive support crews and infrastructure to maintain, shields to protect them because bullet magnets, and I have yet to encounter one that has risen after falling.
Well the simple doctrine is that when one falls its lost. Also have fun being against a Titan in the first place. And with things like Tyranids you cant ever have too little firepower
Yep, and also since the armies of 40K are more ideological in nature, it makes sense for them to have more imposing machinery, so mechs are less about practicality and more about how they CAN field those damn things.
is that really more realistic? I mean in terms of common sense if we get aboard with concepts such as shields. huge targets, presumably easy to knock over, and likely so heavy that any terrain would break and give. I don't see why the titans need arms (or heads) other than to look remotely humanoid. turrets or other mounts seem like it would suffice.
they are also closer to a towering weapon platform, than to a mech, except if you count lesser titans from some imperial houses (which is closer to how knights were used, instead of a conventional army units)
@@shepherdlavellen3301 we dont yet know how easy its gona be to repair mech when we progress enough to have mech, maybe he gona self repair which is huge since mech can assist moving large heavy objects when tank just gona stay and watch how you repair it.
@@iMost067 mechs would be mobile most of time and hard to aimt and shoto by a tank inspecially if mech has longer shooting range also idea of mechs is to have a huge machine gun and a grenade launcher a torch or blade as a melle weapon
@@notoriousbig3k right so while the mach is keeping the tanks away the air force sees a massive target and starts dropping missiles on it's head. We could launch air to surface missiles from 100 miles away and let infantry guide them in with lasers. Or shoot and pray. Or a myriad of other manners. We could come closer in and use more accurate missiles. Then he tanks move in and hammer the fallen mechs.
For Titanfall, Titans were supposed to be used as infantry support. In TF1, you can see this by how AI Titans are deployed at the beginning of Campaign matches, and they are depicted as a squad-leader commanding normal infantry in the area, areas where tanks would be too slow and vulnerable to all the different angles of fire. This is where a mech would be best, in close-quarters and urban environments where mobility and flexibility are vital to survive flanking attacks and ambushes.
And tanks ARE still largely used kn the ttf universe, just not kn gameplay, you can see some of them around maps and in apex legend(the setting of which is canon to the ttf universe)
This has got me thinking, why develop any kind of robot with legs? It seems to me that similar ideas would apply to even human-sized bots yet you see bipedal robot development all the time. I guess you could argue that it would be to deal with human architecture but even then I bet scientists could figure out a more efficient way than using legs.
Vertical traversal. Legs can raise and lower far more than wheels and threads. This also means it's far easier to hinder them. Czech hedgehogs are comparatively cheap, and they're made to deal with a full size tank. This means they have to spend time with combat engineers to dispose of the hedgehog, bogging down the maneuver.
@@happydemon3038 Czech Hedgehogs would also stop mechs depending of how they're placed. You'd need ridiculously huge mechs to jump over them, which means bigger targets...
Demon Hunter 666 The theory of evolution is still a theory because there's still a missing piece to connect the gap that humans came from monkeys or apes
Arms are the only thing mechs have going for them. But if you have the technology to make humanoid mechs. You can put retractable arms or tools on a tank. Tank meta to strong.
@@awesomefatBruceLee the advanced targeting system you installed on your mech can also be installed on 10 tanks of the same price in total as your 1 mech, then have the 10 tanks fire onto your target while moving with the current stabilising gear. Good luck missing.
I don't really know if they're all that compareable, they both fulfill different roles, and I could see them working side by side rather than replacing
@@Rat_Fบcker Titan as in from 40k or Titanfall? Assuming the 40k Titan doesn't stop working due to real physics, it would destroy an entire military. Titanfall Titans would lose to a tank, tanks exist in Titanfall
They would actually make great cooperative support. You could actually make tanks less reliable since the mech would be there to recover it, while support tanks could carry armorment for the mechs.
Not even. Mechs would be a logistical/maintenance nightmare. The last thing you want to do post-operation is waste valuable resources and time fixing more stuff. As mentioned in the video, the many moving components of a mech make it highly susceptible to normal wear and tear failure or worst if hit by, well, anything. What movies and video games don’t ever show you is the clean-up after a military operation. Somebody needs to pick up those pieces. Somebody needs to process the admin to ensure equipment is repaired and transported. Somebody needs to pull security on those elements during clean-up. Tanks all the way.
Ism't there one in there which has somehow wheels and tracks and ZiL screw-drive all at once and also somehow has rocket boosters to help it launch missiles and by some sorcery doesn't tear itself apart when it fires these rockets?
HOW DARE YOU ! HOW YOU XENOS FILTH DARE TO THINK THAT YOURS TAU BATTLESUITS ARE ANYTHING THAT RUBISH. Our holy work in the forge world secure the finnest of war tecnology the holy warmachine of the BANEBLADE our superior tank will annihilate your pathetic MeCHas.
It kinda sorta maybe not really works because titans are stupid massive which at that point a tank of similar capabilities would also be stupid so yeah kinda works but anything smaller than a warhound titan is just worse than a tank
Faragar well you see the war temples of our lord and savior the machine god, stomp continents, atomize mountain sized cities, are protected by a glich in the fabric of the universe and sometimes beep. We don’t like when they beep
Kind of a senseless argument to make. We're comparing something that's real to something that's fictional. In fiction, Mechs are almost always written to be superior in just about every way. Claiming that a Mech would be impractical in real life is like arguing that real Marines are better than Space Marines because their armor is difficult to maintain and their ammo is absurdly expensive.
Given some technological leaps, Mechs would not only be more practical, they'd make Tanks nearly, if not completely, obsolete. They'd weigh less, have more maneuverability, take advantage of better positioning, if it's got jump jets or the ability to fly short distances, it'd be easier to access and replace all the components (if you've seen the type of disassembly a Tank requires for basic maintenance, you'll know what that means)... you have a Gunship that can take advantage of ground cover... why have a Tank in that scenario?
Yeah, the main reason mechs are practical in BattleTech is because of the invention of myomer- a synthetic fiber that imitates muscle, which makes mechanical legs superior to wheels/tracks in terms of their load-bearing capacity. And even then, because myomer is such an expensive component, mechs are a rarity on the battlefield despite being almost strictly better in combat, and wheeled/tracked vehicles still make up the majority of combatants.
@@WritingFighter That's good and all, but it all collapses if this alleged mech is being fired on. You would be sticking out like a sore thumb due to the height of the mech, and be an easy target for streamlined tanks that are low to the ground. Not to mention that a mech would likely crumble under its own weight, due to its structure. This means it would either need less armor (back to the easy target argument) or you could just not make a mech in the first place.
@@cheesestickforlife9814 I'm copy-pasting my initial top comment to the video's flawed argument to explain in further detail and a theoretical demonstration... This argument has several flaws that hinge on the same, inherent problem: analyzing everything from our current technological capacity, and then declaring all Mecha across all known possibilities are always worse off and useless. When you have a Mecha that can perform jumps on jets (or even fly short distances), sporting compact weaponry, able to crouch, walk and run, traverse with some anti-grav lift, weighing a quarter of a Tank or less, with parts, components, and machinery easier to access and replace than a Tank, making it many times cheaper... you have a Gunship that can make use of cover, which would make Tanks almost completely obsolete. It can enter and stand in buildings, walk in a forest, crouch, maybe even lay prone, jump up a cliff face, things no Tank can do, and utilize multiple weapon systems in multiple directions more efficiently than a Tank. . Imagine you're in an urban combat scenario with a squad or two. An enemy Tank rumbles in; you know it can only traverse the streets and has very limited sight, and without Infantry support it's very easy to outmaneuver and engage up close and potentially from multiple angles with heavy weapons. Now imagine same scenario but an enemy Mecha shows up; it's flying across the street at a high angle; your guy with an anti-Tank rocket shoots... and he completely and totally misses. Where is it? On a building? Walking around? In cover? Your men form a defensive perimeter and the Mecha appears jumping over your head, shooting a missile in your midst from an angle that even an attack helicopter couldn't do. Then it lands on the other side of the street and shoots it's heavy machine gun. You and your guys retreat into a building and go up the next level. Then the Mecha crashes through the brick, deploying a smoke, gas, and flashbang grenade. "Shit!" you think, "This thing is attacking us where a Tank can't, in a fraction the time several squads of enemy Infantry would trying to room clear the thing, and I can't believe we thought Mechas were totally useless!" And now, the Mecha has taken zero damage, eliminating targets with 10x less ammunition expenditure than several squads of Infantry, attacking in ways a Helicopter nor a Tank could match, faster than all three military vehicle types.
@@cheesestickforlife9814 Declaring that Tanks are absolutely better than Mechs is making a blanket statement of absolute across all known possibilities. In Warhammer 40k for example, Tau Empire Battlesuits exemplify how Mechs are overwhelmingly and laughably superior to bulky, track-wheeled Tanks in many aspects. There are contexts, some that are even feasible by modern standards, in which a Mecha can outperform Tanks in filling a role that Tanks, Jet Aircraft, Infantry, and Artillery cannot execute.
Personally, I find the Titanfall Mechs to be an accurate way of mech usage, mainly due to them being used as a shock-deployment unit, plus the neural link can compensate it, along with their ability to stand back up
the titanfall mechs made sense until titanfall 2 came out and soft retconned their entire purpose they are basically built on top of industrial loader chassis and are made to be shot out at fucking mach 2 through a planet's atmosphere into an urban environment in support of tanks, infantry and other forces and they basically only exist to peer into second and third story windows
@@richardvlasek2445 2 didn't retcon their purpose. Older Titans were converted from industrial machines into machines of war, the newer ones seen in 2 were purposely built for war. Which is actually a pretty logical step.
that was a walker not a mech there is a huge difference also the at-at was just a bad designed vehicle meant more for intimidation then actually excelling at its roll as a armored transport though i do agree currently mechs are a no go
Star casters Ironicky, they did even try to make it more combat able in The Last Jedi, in that, they heavily increased its armor on its legs and made it less of falling hazard... (Fight me, I like the new movies...)
DatOneNoder I wasn’t talking about durability, II was talking about the power source being too big and why an AT-AT can fit a massive power source such as that.
YukitoOnline **Laughs in realism** Gundam Guntanks: Aim for the tracks and destroy the rest with a few missiles Hover Tanks: Armored core or not it still has the same weaknesses of a modern MBT
Mechs I feel would excel in urban environments, they can stick its arms around/over a cover to fire at targets. Meanwhile a tank would have to expose its ENTIRE body to get a LOS on targets.
"Meanwhile a tank would have to expose its ENTIRE body to get a LOS on targets" Not necessarily. Around a corner, a tank really only has to expose its turret and hull front. I've also seen plenty of footage of tanks going hull down in urban environments.
@@Herminipper Tanks are still far from the best choice in urban environments, especially when being attacker. Mechs, although are likely to have lower speed, still have higher flexibility and mobility which can allow to easily maneuver around tightly-packed ecumenopolises.
The problems of mecha actually get WORSE in urban environments. Their weapons systems aren't placed for engaging low targets at close range, the legs would be vulnerable to ambush, overhead wires and lights would present a major hazard, and the intense ground pressure would risk collapsing many streets. They would also be far more vulnerable to precision air support weapons than tanks if they deployed into areas with lower bulging roof lines.
"a tank would have to expose its ENTIRE body to get a LOS on targets." Totally wrong.Tanks fighting in urban enviroments will position themselves facing the cover with a steep side angle facing the enemy and expose only theri tracks and turret as a target. The steep angle of the exposed parts make it extremely hard to penetrate. Due to their low center of mass you can have basically no weak points which is imposible for bipedal designs
I feel like the assumption that mech have to be bipeds is what makes this discussion so boring. I don't think it's possible to look at a video of mountain goats scaling a sheer cliff and not see the utility of an extra nimble quadrupedal scout mech thing. Just imagine mountain goat with a gun. It'd be terrifying.
@@mariobadia4553 mechs can't throw shots back, they are to weak to throw it enough fast to penetrate tanks armor, also some of bullets explode after touching anything other explode after wasting penetration so mechs can't throw them, they will explode in mech arm or penetrate it
I was writing a Sci-Fi story and I tried to figure out how to logically add mechs. Eventually, I figured it out, It's a fancy sport with no military application. Also, would a Mech be better then a Forklift? If I could add more logical applications to Mechs, I would be pretty happy.
There are forest machines walking on legs to climb harsh terrain so pioneers could use them to build things on hills or mountains. They are slow as fuck though (see link 2). www.google.com/search?q=forest+harvester+with+legs&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk03CfBw9EXg2643O9Ond-2Qer_sYAQ:1583804548533&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwig4Ijc447oAhXwlIsKHfv_ApcQ_AUoAXoECAwQAw ruclips.net/video/CgBNjdwYdvE/видео.html
If they’re just a fancy sport why don’t you just mention in a side conversation or something talking about mech duels in arenas for sport or something like that
You could add them as just the government(s) experiments as well. The military is known for trying to make Anything viable as a weapon. Some stuff like silent assassin mechs for example. There are also many logistic uses for mechs, such as construction and general police/firefighter work that requires heavy force; like complicated rescues and such. Also illegal underground Mech Duels are cool
depends on the technology used really tho lots of mechs have shielding that compensates for lack of amour while still staying agile. and depending on the terrain like scaling tall objects. or how they are used in avatar to provide humans with a item that can interact with the environment where the atmosphere and habitat is hostile.
Mechs and tanks have different roles basically. Tanks are good at taking and dishing out damage. Mechs are utility multirole vehicles. Also, it's worth mentioning that a common setting for mechs is in space. It's less obvious to me how the tradeoffs would be in say, 5% gravity, or in vacuum where you simply can't have infrantry that isn't wearing a heavy and vulnerable suit
You forgot about magic mech muscle fiber supporting articulation, magic fusion engines that run forever, magic jetpacks that use same engine to superheat atmospheric gases and have unlimited fuel, magic lasers that strip magical super lightweight armor, magical missiles and autocannons that pull their ammunition from the left nutsack and right toenail, heavy guns are for the narrow sighted and the weak cardboard tank is generally only made to die in a horrible explosion if you happen to trip on it while cruising the battlefield. Welcome to BattleTech, MechWarrior.
There are tanks in battle tech that will fuck up a mech, also aerospace fighters... just don't mess with them they are psychotic and will wipe out your lance.
Honestly, I have a small set of arguments against this you forgot: -Sure, the extra moving parts are dangerous if shot, but armor plating could be provided in the way of very lightweight yet tough alloys being placed overtop as a small shield, out of the way of the moving part, of course. -Mech designs that contain arms as well will often have an easier time dealing with a hard drop due to the ability to put their arms behind them, thus usually breaking the fall. -The weight of a mech could possibly, if given enough stability in their legs and feet, and the structure itself, be about the same as the tank, excluding arms and legs. This allows for heavier armoring for the single pilot. -Motors using pulleys/transmissions to allow for greater force using less power. (Remember, there are powered axles on the tank to allow movement of around 60mph, so mechs could be fuel efficient and go slowly.) -Titans from titanfall are a rather extreme implication of mechs, they could easily be stumped down to 10 feet if necessary, or down to around 7 feet if you really push how you're making it function, although then you'd run into problems such as low armor/fuel if required, making it more likely to be the next step in soldiers' armor rather than a replacement of a tank. -Tanks would still be in use as rugged alternatives to the mechs, as just like you said, mechs would be hard to maintain in service if they are the sole ground combat vehicle. Maybe they would be used in more specialized squadrons, much like how the Navy SEALs are to the US Navy? And I also have counterpoints to some of them. -The alloys used in the joints' armor plates would be expensive or difficult to manufacture replacements -Mechs with arms will still require an expert behind the wheel to catch their fall using the operator's inputs, or an easier input system to make it more intuitive. -To give the mech the ability to hold that weight, the weight of the legs would far exceed the weight of most MBTs, each. This would cause problems in more urban combat zones by destroying the street underneath them. -Transmissions are difficult to fit in such a small place as the joints of a mech, and the slow speed would further add to the mech's downsides in combat due to exposure. -Smaller mechs would be more difficult to repair due to a large number of small moving parts. -Tanks are much better in certain environments than mechs, however mechs are much more dexterous in the form of upwards movement via climbing, given the structure supports the excessive weight.
I totally see 4 or 6-legged walking artillery for incredibly rough terrain. The military already uses the Boston Dynamics robot dog for hazardous areas. Now imagine that robot doggo equipped with machine guns. Now imagine it scaled up with a tank gun on top. Put tank treads on the underbelly so when it lifts it's legs it can speed along like a nightmarish Abrams tank on flat ground.
I have some counter points to all of your arguments as well: -I have no idea what light weight and strong alloys you're thinking of but none of the ones I'm thinking of can withstand about 6 depleted uranium sabots traveling at 65 times the speed of sound traveling in unison (your standard, modern, anti armor method, much less a future one) -that would most likely damage the arm. It's a great way to damage your arms in real life, it's an even better way to damage your arms if you weigh at least 15 tons and are about 14 feet tall -an M1 abrams weighs 70 tons, unless you know of any actuators that can sustain 70 tons on a single joint (for bipedal) I doubt they will ever weigh as much -a 7 foot mech would really just be power armor or more realistically for the modern day an exo skeleton, which the military is already trying to develop so troops can carry heavier loads faster over longer distances -tanks would still be used yes, and they would be used as anti mech units too for being faster, more agile, longer ranged (in both distance travel and weapons) and harder hitting
you guys got your points but you seem to miss one thing there is still no preset mech formula also you guys seem to mention some real mech prototypes yes they exist but as prototypes and richboy toys they are nowhere near military grade ready and are far from even being ready as products and mech design is very flexible (it seems to me) its only requirements are only to be walking human driven armor bot so you can place almost any damn mechanics you want onto a thing you theoretically can make it more powerfull, faster and more armoured than a tank (if we were to assume the technology of machine walking is avaiable and cheap enough in the future)
@@nyalan8385 technology is moving an exponential rate a lot of those issues could be addressed eventually . Also tanks would be faster but I don’t believe more agile is a correct descriptor as a mech could potentially change direction far quicker and have a wider array of movement options
One big difference is crew-size. For a mech, you don't need to worry about space for your weapon inside the hull. It can simply use anything it can carry.
Depending on how the mech is designed, I think they could still be better at climbing mountains than tanks. Especially if the terrain is jagged and rocky. I can imagine things like humanoid mechs that move around like mountain climbers do. I understand that Spookston said that mechs don't have the same balance and dexterity as humans do, but engineers are greatly improving upon those areas. ruclips.net/video/_sBBaNYex3E/видео.html
Yeah, the thing about the terrain argument isn't so much about an even grade, it's more in regards to stepping over/on top of obstacles that would be walls to a tank. If you have a six foot high terrace you need to get on top of, a tank would need assistance, no? But a legged vehicle could get up there by stepping over it. Granted it's not like this is utterly impassible of course, so an argument that a tank and an assault bridge together could handle it could be made, but that still takes two vehicles, so at least they have that.
Northropi A mech tall enough to climb over such an obstacle would also be a really big target every other time there isn’t a big wall to crawl over. You create 10 new problems to fix this one. Even without a bridge layer, a tank’s overall better speed may allow it to reach the destination faster even with a detour.
@@Appletank8 a mech tall enough to step onto a six-foot terrace would only need a bit more than six feet between the ground and its hip, right? Assuming you can pancake the torso into a low profile we're dealing with like 10, 12 feet at most. An M1 is 8, and an M2 is 9.78, so that's bigger, but is it unforgivably so? And that's presuming it can't just jump greater than the height of its leg, or lift itself to climb, and I'm also erring on the generous side of how high a truly vertical obstacle tanks can climb because I'm not quite sure. And yeah, maybe it can drive around, but the situation could very well make that unfavorable. Technically you could drive around anything...
Yeah a tank might get lost in the crowd and you can't really see it if it is far back. A mech would tower over people and you could see it from far away.
That was part of the logic in Brigador. Most of the fighting takes place in heavily urbanized environment so the additional height and antenna range is useful for communication. They can also shoot over smaller vehicles and are therefore often used as command vehicles. And one important aspect that is explained in the lore is that huge bipedal mechs are much scarier than tanks to the people who see them including the people who get to decide which vehicles are being used. Furthermore it's explained that mechs never replaced tanks and that both are being used.
Imagine having much less powerful weaponry and mobility and practically no protection because your center of mass is all wonky. -made by tank gang But seriously, having a more powerful weapon system, greater mobility and significantly batter protection is going to be much more valuable than the ability to use cover with more flexibility.
Imagine only being viable in ground combat and not being able to use modules to spec out your machine in no time at all for a specific role. Mobile suit gang-
Imagine being fucked for eternity the moment a single cog goes wrong, forcing an entire battalion of engineers to figure out where the hell your bipedal swiss clock is having an issue, then fixing it without screwing everything else. Oh and tanks can use cover too, and more of it due to profile, finally if a mech ever tries to fly it'll become free target for anti-air and any aircraft
@@dranoelarios4788 Imagine having such a irregularly shaped body that it becomes a massive hassle to swap out turrets and applique armor -made by CV90 gang
Weeb Extraordinaire Imagine not being able to field the high mega cannon powered by the ultra compact minovsky fusion reactor with an output of over 7GW. Who needs reactive amour when you have phase shift, I field and luna titanium? Mobile suit gang-
Here’s the thing: just have the guys carry a machine gun. At infantry scale, it’s doable, but it’s always a better idea to put in on a tripod rather than hope the platform doesn’t glitch or misstep and topple over. If you are so much as two feet taller than the average infantryman you are already talking about small IFVs that can mount autocannons, missiles, and machine guns, on a much more stable platform with a lot more ammo, a lot more armor, and a much faster top speed. The US is currently testing a four-foot robot ox that follows soldiers like a dog and carries however much you can physically fit on it’s back, if that’s any consolation.
@@user-pq9gy3fq1q That's... not how that works. A smaller machine can take more *proportional* punishment and do more *proportional* damage, but you still need a really big gun with a really big hull to be driven around on to punch through a really big tank's armor, while that big tank's big gun can punch through you. What the sqr^2 law actually means is you have to stop making things bigger or you'll be reducing the $/effectiveness to the point that you might as well build a number of smaller vehicles rather than a relatively fragile massive target for things that can kill it, and to not do so is to cripple your war-making capacity.
as is always the issue with the "mech vs tank" argument its always the same answer from me... stop trying to compare them. now, some are obsessed with the "giant" mechs of their franchises, like gundam and battletech, but these mechs are hardly worth mentioning as far as practical mechs because those mechs can never be practical (maybe some very limited circumstances like on low gravity worlds or somthing). titanfall mechs are probably the tallest a mech can get, any taller and it will start to hamper itself with weight and other issues. the issue with trying to compare "smaller mechs" and tanks is that these machines are nothing alike, and their battlefield purpose wouldnt be anything close to similar. try, for example, comparing a tank with a fighter jet, or an attack helicopter. these vehicles have nothing in common. you touched upon it in your review, the battlefield for mechs would be urban combat, or any other arena with dense cover. the lack of armor, compared to tank, would be supplemented by using buildings and other structures as cover. urban combat also negates the "taller" profile of the mech, intact it adds to its advantage as its "vertical" profile fits better in streets and alleyways instead of the sheer boxy horizontal nature of tanks. as modern combat becomes ever more focused in urban centers the necessity for a fighting vehicle that can take advantage over this environment would be necessary. right now the military is working on more and more of exo suits, these suits would be indispensable in urban combat. with enough armor to resist basic infantry wpns, an armored exosuit can dominate the cqc environment while increasing the chances of soldier survival. with the blueprints of exosuits we can eventually upgrade to "exo mechs", maybe about twice the size of a man, these mechs can be used as mobile fire support on the street-side (firm structures with higher ceilings like parking garages are preferable for this mech), they work well in the densest of urban sprawl. then theres the mechs about titanfall size, they will be much slower then titanfall mechs in reality and their limbs would have to be much more bulky, but they can be the heaviest guns when it comes to mechs in urban combat (they can also serve additional combat rolls like transporting troops on their backs and then helping them onto the 2nd and 3rd floor of buildings). as long as the mech is able to mimic a soldiers movements it is useful (any mech that is a tank on legs is too clumsy for urban combat). at this point the best way mechs would ever be useful is if they are basically "giant soldiers". think of it like making super soldiers, but through mechanics and not through bio engineering. heck, the soldier doesn't even have to be there. with the advanced programing of boston dynamics we could have drones that are piloted from the fob or from across the globe. these boston dynamics mechs could be made bigger and given wpns like hmgs to support the infantry. so the argument of tanks vs mechs will always be a pointless debate. any piece of wargear has its battlefield role and where its best for slotting into a fighting force. trying to put a mech in the place of a tank is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, just like comparing a tank to a jet. give it a decade or 2 and we will have mech tech that can start to bring about these machines in urban combat, the only thing preventing them is those who cant think outside the "mech vs tank" debate.
same as i always told others too. in the debate. people always imagine mech's purpose would be the dominator of battlefield and can win against everything, which is why they think mech is useless bcos it impossible too beat existing warmachine. i always tell them mech should just "fill the gap" between infantry and IFV. not to fight MBT head-on. think its like a technical or humvee but more agile (agile. not fast). imagine mech that is around 3m tall. can poke out of cover like human, showing just a gun , 1arm and half of head. and the gun that poking out is 50cal HMG or 20-30mm auto cannon instead of infantry smallarms. think about heavy weapon platform that dont expose itself in the middle of street in urban warfare and can follow infantry into alley that "vehicle" cannot. that would be useful. just useful. nothing more nothing less. but people always think in cartoonish way about mech.
@@bercerus its impossible to avoid that mindset. ive had this conversation many times and it always devolves into "mech vs tank" because of bad actors on both sides (but to be honest there are more bad actors on the tank side). you get those guys who absolutely love mechs like "gundam" and "battletech" and any tank head and i can tell those are impractical. but worse you have every tank purist who have this weird idea that tanks are the gods of the battlefield and nothing can supplant them, especially no mech. it always essentially boils down to a strawman fight as one always thinks your talking about massive impractical mechs doing gymnastics in the air or something, and no matter what practical design we mention they will always shoot it down becasue they think we actualy want impractical massiv mechs.they also have a weird disconect when it comes to technology, no mater how many advancements we have made they'll ignore tech that will eventually lead to mechs. its an uphill struggle, you can see it in this thread. its exhaustive (it the comment that has about 100+ replies).
I think the biggest factor now is technology, Mecha would be so powerful than tank because because people compared it with in game rather than with real life robot and problem is the settings is always from future . I don't agree with some of your statement about Mecha will slow or the weight will damper their height but I kinda understand looking from nowadays technology and I have reason with my disagreements. Military now focusing on how making tank fast rather than their armor nowadays, because you know the anti armor weapons is more advanced and more likely always step a head than armory except some "miracle" happens. Like some general said tank are not tank anymore, they are walking cannon with necessary protection. Well he has deep knowledge about military so I won't dig more about tank prospect. Mecha in another hand is supposed to have much better agility and flexibility to aim or weapon rather than rotating cannon only but yeah, if we talk Mecha with nowadays technology they are just bunch armored robot with better weapon rather than true Mecha.
Gundams aren't any bigger or heavier than a jet fighter 90% of the time. I think people just fail to realize how big an F-22 really is sometimes. On the smaller, more "advanced" end of Gundam, many of the models have a height similar to the length of Harrier Jump Jets, and a comparable weight as well.
@@onigojira the original gundam (rx 28) is aprox 42.5 ton, height is 18.5 meters the f-22 jet is about 41.5 tons (max take-off load), length (nose to rear) is 18.5 meters for comparison for battlemechs and tanks (which i also refer to) atlas battlemech is 100 tons, is aprox 13 meters (this varies as the lore has always had them very inconsistent with height) m1 abrams is aprox 60 tons, (front to rear) is aprox 10 meters so,your not wrong, the settings refer to them having roughly the same weight and length. but there are a few issues.. 1st, the gundam and battlemech weight are questionable because the settings rely on "future" tech to allow for such weight. if they were made with the tech we have today they would either weigh the same but have weak armor, or have comparable armor but weigh a whole lot more. the entire length and the majority of the weight of the f-22 is designed specifically to allow it to fly. it combines all we know about thrust and aerodynamics to allow this massive machine to fly, and the thing has to keep consistent speed to stay flying and could only fly for so long. its armor is very lacking because it relies on speed and maneuverability and long range firepower to avoid combat. in comparison a tank is heavier but shorter. but a tank is very slow (in comparison) and most of its weight is dedicated to armor so it might survive other tanks...and that's questionable because firepower has usually trumped armor for a long time in todays modern battlefield. so, what does this mean? if we consider it for fighting on earth. both the gundam and battlemech are too heavy for their surface area they provide. They are also massive targets on the battlefield and thus the easiest things to shoot at, and realistically their weight wouldn't allow either to maneuver enough to "dodge" enemy fire. in their respective settings they have advanced armor that allows them to shrug off most damage. but neither of these is unique to a mech. any vehicle can be set up with the same theoretical armor and firepower. A tank is more effective than a gundam because it can have beam wpns as its main gun and it can use gundanium (or whatever the lunar metal is) and beat any gundam because it would have a better profile (harder to hit). a jet fighter with beam wpns would be better because, while it can't have the same armor (still too heavy to fly), it has speed over the gundam. i love mobile suits and battlemechs, but in all reality these machines are impractical. there is a legitimate argument as to why these mechs will never be practical. at their size they are sore thumbs on the battlefield without having any real bonus over other vehicles in war. thats why i advocate for a mech small enough and light enough for a combat environment that other vehicles dont do well in. its not about competing with and replacing a tank, its about finding a useful battlefield role. continuing to advocate for the unrealistic gundam does not help the conversation. now if you advocated for "mobile workers" or other small mobile suits (of roughly the same height) from the franchise. then we are talking, but every other mech in the franchise is too large and too heavy.
I like to think that tanks would play a more general all-purpose role, similar to the Humvee in the US military, while mechs would play more specialized roles like the F-22 Raptor or the B-2 bomber in a sci-fi setting.
I believe tanks are here to stay, but only in wide open terrains were they can defend themselves and move freely, using their speed, firepower and range to their best advantage. In more difficult terrains, tanks get stuck, ambushed from close distance and the big ass gun cant be used to its full potential. It sounds stupid, but i can really imagine smaller walkers could be the future here. With like 4 legs they are not bound to roads and can easily travel over ruins and rubble, through rivers and over obstacles. They would field something like a 30mm cannon & machine gun to engage infantry and IFVs, and a few missiles against heavy armor and helicopters. Knocking out a tank isnt that difficult anymore, it comes down to mobility, advantagous positions and fast firepower. A small walker would perfectly fit that role.
I think the opposite. Armoured vehicles tend to specialise (anti-infantry, anti-tank, anti-air, transport, etc.) Whereas a mech with hands can manipulate objects, climb, crawl, mount and hold different weapons...You could even just use a mech as a watch/guntower, or even as a bridge over water/gap for infantry to cross. ...That's not to say specialized mechs wouldn't happen, I'm just saying mechs have more generalist ability than a tracked piece of metal with guns on.
@@SamyH_amSet For sure. Tanks in urban environments get killed by infantry easy. Launcher to the tracks to disable it, or even just the classic bod sticking a bomb on/in the tank. Infantry are like a hard counter to most tanks. Mechs would have their uses over tanks for sure.
@@grahamhill676 why would you make a walker with hands yo, imagine what stupid idea a tank with an arm would be. So why yould you put one on an unstable, legged tank??
Gundam is full of psychic teenagers, incompetent generals and bs minovsky particles but you can't deny it gave mechs justice. Mobile suits are more than tanks and mobile armors(spaceships/jets). You don't compare em to tanks as it fulfills a much different role.
@@xd3d034997 That's because the world isn't restrained by real world physics, otherwise tanks and mobile pods would be combat mainstays as they are faster, lighter, and with in-universe technology, overall better for combat roles.
@@Poctyk Isn't that the pupose of APCs and not IFVs? With the exception of the Bradley i suppose. I thought the purpose of an IFV was just to be a light armored vehicle with an autocannon.
@@2Potates Every single IFV can comfortably carry infantry inside. From Russian BMP-3, German Marder to Bradley. Lately difference between IFV and APC became extremely blurred with 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe defines an infantry fighting vehicle as "an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, and which is armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters calibre and sometimes an antitank missile launcher". (wiki) APC usually are lighter armed (but not necessarily lighter armored) cheaper and designed to carry infantry in and out of the battle with weapons being primarily for self defense, while IFV are designed to carry infantry into battle and then fight alongside infantry. But make no mistake, both types are designed to carry infantry. Armored vehicle that isn't for infantry carrying and is not a tank, is more akin to BMPT (tank support vehicle). But in this case humanlike giant mech would still lose since that thing is quite literally a tank hull where 125mm gun being replaced with more dakka. Meaning it is still more concealed, better armored, uses already established platform/components etc.
@@user-pq9gy3fq1q if gundams can exist than super tank can exist more why in scific their is restriction on all but focused plot did they have nuke is starwar or gundam
One of the most interesting designs I’ve ever seen for a mech is in the show Code Geass in the Knightmare (notably the common version for this). Its fairly lightly armored and relies on its mobility to fight, it has small arms for infantry and uses larger weapons for anti-armor roles. While i think they glorify them a bit with the prototypes that appear in the show, the common mechs are closer to that of an armored infantry than a full on tank and i believe it suits them well.
@Matias Alvarez i mean isnt that what were doing with tanks currently just shoving expensive tech into a metal box and parying its enought to stop what ever the enemy throws at it. because in reality tanks just replaced the knight and hussar which all stem from the charioteers of old before horses could carry armor. even though the training requirement isnt as heavy as before the cost of maintenance and building of these vehicles is. tanks like chariots are useful in certain but common situations and if not used properly can be made utterly useless. so i would argue that eventually with advances in tech mech suits might one day become cheaper and more practical than designing increasingly larger tanks
@Matias Alvarez like i said originally we can know for sure wether or not stabilistation tech wont get better, my arguement is that the tank will be replaced same as the chariot, cataphract, knight, and hussar was and right now mechs seem like a likely candidate
@@kevincho1187 You are confusing doctrine and technology, and still getting it wrong. Tanks are not the modern.manouver element, mechanized infantry is, tanks are the breakthrough element.
Here is an additional thing, that I see most people ignore when it comes to it: In an mech, there are alot of things that could go wrong. Due to all the moving parts, I suspect that an mech need more maintenace then an tank to be combat efficient. More so then an tank. More maintenace means more supplies. More supplies means you have to have an solid logistic team behind it. So, when you have to field issues those mech's, it means you have to secure an bigger supply route then tanks. Not to mention the elephant in the room here: Would it be worth it to lose an Mech in the field in comparison to an tank? Due to all of these complicated mechanics going into an mech, I suspect it will cost more then tank and so it will become an "White Elephant". Just like Yamato and Mushashi, two giant "Super dreadnaughts" battleship that Japan could only afford an few off, it will be focused and destroyed by things that cost maybe an fraction of the mech.
@Astranat not to mention: In an tank, those weak components are fairly hidden behind armor and/or low profile in comparison with an mech. I just get an "Deja vu" feeling about this from WW2. Example; The tiger 1, Tiger Ausf. B(Tiger 2) and others heavy tank from WW2. Sure; They where standing tall in comparision to others, but there is an thing called; There is an quality in quantity.
@Astranat Here is an question though; Let us entertain that thought of yours: If Mech's are superior, with agility and flight capability; What stops them? Wouldn't there be any form counter weaponry that could be stationed on an tank to counter for such an vehicle? Not to mention; What is the power source for such an mech? What would the power output be on such an device for it to move in such an way? Would the Mech sacrify armor for agility or does the engine output so much energy that it's like attaching an feather to an car? Is it realistic to acheive such an thing in the near future? Far future? Or will it be an fantasy? What kind of firepower are we talking here? Laser? Ballistic weaponry? ICBM's? Phonton Torpedo's? Death star lasers? Do you see the problem here? Even then; Why reserve such an fantasy for the mech's, but not for tanks? How about an transforming tank that can become an space-jet interseptor with "Iron dome MK MMXII" that could intercept projecttile from mechs and deliver an devestating blow? Also now with Submergeble capability, hoover mode for increase agility and flying at Mach 11 across the battlefield. AND STILL; Be an smaller target to hit, with an singel round, with thousand flying across the battlefield, for the price of an singel mech. Also; They still be very hard to detect in comparison to an singel Mech, simply by the size of it!
@@JohnAnonym a gundam is normally 15 to 20 METERS high. It has an autoloading armor piercing autoloader tank barrel the shape of an assault rifle. And bigger than a tank. It would also have those head guns that is also an auto loader for a tank. A rocket long enough to compare it to a tank and is basically a missile warhead. A Gundam is basically a Tank that can strafe faster than a tank can turn.
Personally, I feel mechs are perfectly valid if the writer takes the time to justify them. Titanfall 2 makes the case that mechs beat tanks through their ability to scale mountains and their robo appendages makes them extremely adaptable since they can swap out their weapons on the fly, allowing a single titan fill whatever role is needed at the moment. A mech is also a much better fit for a high end A.I since its arms lets it act out on more unconventional strategies, like how BT and Jack fastballs. I also believe that they would be a much better fit for urban combat than tanks since their legs would let them step over barriers and their height would partly negate whatever height advantage a defender could gain. But in more conventional open warfare a tank is just better. A mech is less versitile, but so are a vast range of weapons. And lets not forget that the cost of manufacturing weapons like mechs would be much more negligible in a sci fi setting, where there tends to be bigger economies whit more manpower and materials, justifying the price of a specialist weapon.
Not necessarily. A Battletech for instance (I know I know, putting real-life logic and physics in BT is kinda shooting oneself in the leg) has myomer, the artificial muscle fiber thingy. It would be a LOT more beneficial to mechs than to tanks.
@@ahriman935 I've never played the game nor know how that tech works in the game, but to achieve artificial fiber I assume it requires a lot of material science and mechanical/electrical power efficiency. which would be more effective when it's not in the artificial fiber form. For example, being part of tank's armor and driving parts.
@Redux Dude Sorry, I thought you called me furry, so I just quoted If the Emperor had a text to speech device web series. Since I assumed I was getting called that since I play Space Wolves on tabletop and figured you play Dark Angels or Thousand Sons
I love how people always compare mechs to tanks when they arent supposed to be tank replacements. Mechs are specialized air/ground vehicles not pure ground ones. In other words walking attack helicopters. They would also be more useful as zero-g combat vehicles capable of better propulsion control than a ship due to parts being able to moves and readjust angle of thrust.
There is zero point to having a walking helicopter, helicopters can get pretty close to ground anyway, having a flying vehicle with robotic limbs that makes it twice as heavy and requires more fuel is completely pointless. Same in a zero-g environment. You just stick thrusters all over your ship and it can move abd change direction more effectively than a human shaped mech. It makes zero sense.
@@21Arrozito if you build a robotic kit you will understand the weight is already too much for the motors tought their is a video of a spider drone on youtube but the leg replace the camera and most of the battery autonomy who is already short on the best drone its 30min
@@21Arrozito The issue with that is the idea of fuel, generally these are solved by gigantic batteries that are recharged at base. But then there's the counter argument; if a mech can hold more firepower, why use helicopters? The issue arrives when a person says "Why have x when we can have y?" When they can serve different roles completely. A helicopter can be used as close ground support and anti-air from the air, you can spot them and take them down with a well placed rocket. Mechs could use the sane system, close ground support and anti-air, but depending on how they are built, they could have more armor, stability (I just realised, what if the feet had metal clamps that would dig into the ground, grounding them and making them giant turrets, hmm, food for thought I guess), and have the possibility to carry more firepower. However, they take a while to deploy, so we have a long term and short term answer to things, does this make the other impractical? No, no it doesn't
Lots of Mech's practical applications is limited in Sci-fi. In Gundam, the reason why mechs(aka mobile suits) are so much better than everything else is because it can be reused as an all purpose unit capable of land, sea, air, and also space. Still, these things wouldn't be possible without a power supply(fictional nuclear reactors and minovsky particles) and a light but strong material for armor. As long as those requirements are met, mechs become literally a giant walking and flying death machine. They can carry all types of weapons. Perform all types of assault and can outmaneuver larger ships and carriers. They can single-handedly destroy massive fleet of space ships and shut down entire enemy forces with only a handful of pilots. Also during peace, mechs can be used as an all purpose machines. The mechs in gundam all originated from construction industry being called mobile workers. Then the space people added guns and firepower to them, then they became mobile suits. But this is sci-fi so all that is possible because it's fiction.
In real life, this wouldn't be a thing or may not be possible. FOR NOW. But even if the day where it is possible comes, I dont thjnk they would replace tanks with it. There a lots of setbacks in reality which is disappointing as Thanos said. Fuel and energy, extreme consumption because of heavy upper body and heavy legs lifting a heavy body; Armor, it would be equipped with thin armor to be light and easy to move or more mobility though trophy system or ERA might be able to solve that.
@@Srae17 Mech shouldn't be built like a tank. Maybe it could serve purpose similar to exoskeleton but bigger. It might not beat tanks at its firepower but it could be used in situations that tanks are unable to do, like traversing extreme locations such as cliffs, mountains, urban environments. It could be built much lighter than a tank. Move much faster and carry and use a variety of weapons with human locomotion. Mechs are really cool but they will not be as widely used like in uc gundam. Their effectiveness will be niche and they will not replace tanks.
@Andy 8583 They kinda tried that in Gundam, but mobile suits are just easier to mass manufacture, more fitting for a variaty of scenarios, and in later stages of the war they standardized parts of mobile suits for better maintenance.
I allways think of an armour piercing round going through and hitting the pilot, and how exposed everything is. As for futuristic feul that can power a mech with layers and shealds, imagine how much more power you could get if u put it in a tank?
How about mechs being a better terror weapon? Also in any environment with limited fields of fire, like urban or in terrain with lots of trees or rocky protrusions.
Urban would be hell for a big mech, just as it is for tanks. imagine going into a room full of hundreds of holes all over the place and you have to pay attention to each and every single hole to make sure one or more gun barrels aren't there or milliseconds away from shooting you from which ever angle.
It all depends on how fast you can make the mech go. It will be pretty hard to hit something on the move when you line of sight will be constantly blocked by buildings.
@@pakornwattanavrangkul2550 Yes, if you can make something the size of a building to be maneuverable enough to hid behind other buildings in possibly winding roads. Though even then if the enemy predicts where the mech is going to go or make the mech go behind a building thats full of infantry concealed, they can still catch it off guard and kill it.
@@AAhmou behold my answer to bigger weapon question. its called a Void Shield. protects from practically all weapons as long as its not overloaded thin. but then again the meter thick armor should shrug off any artillery that hits it on average. any anti-tank weapons are like bites of an insect.
Be back in 20 years when mechs or mech animals become a thing. I do feel there is a lot of potential for mech animals though. Researchers studying moose for how they traverse swamp to me is pointless, because it is possible to equip mechs with some type of equipment like a shoe to distribute weight, mechs traversing territory such as mountains shouldn't be too hard, since I can fairly easy traverse steep hill with a tool such as a pickaxe to help me support my weight. I'm sure any thoughtful military would design an appropriate failsafe to a mech falling such as a giant airbag. The problem I really agree with you is the motors on each joint. That would indeed be a problem. Any good engineer, however, would cover their weapons weak spots so joints would be at the top, however, joints imo would be designed to withstand small arms fire and probably only a larger caliber cannon round would take it out, like a turret on a tank. Were a large caliber cannon to appear I'm sure mechs would support infantry while the infantry disables the cannon. Explosives would probably be the largest problem as mechs like humans can be fitted with equipment to traverse tough terrain. For the motors who knows what we'll get in the next 30 years, maybe someone solves the motor joint issues. Also if a leg or arm or foot gets destroyed I'm sure these mechs would be designed in an interchangeable way where you just pop off the socket and pop in a new fresh leg or arm. Also for the pilot, just put him in a giant bubble.
For each improvement of the joint, you add weight. Then more for munitions, tools, FCSs, and then it essentially becomes what it wasn't meant to be (like the MBT 70) and as much as better feet design can help displace weight, how big does it need to be before it essentially becomes tracks? Thats my main gripe.
Video: Tanks are better than mechs in every way Transformers: What? Vari-Fighters: Did someone say something? Sym Bionic Titan: What was that noise? Megas XLR: I didn't hear anything Gipsy Danger: Do you mind? I've got Kaijus attacking a city over here Mata Nui: Keep it down, will ya? I just woke up Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann: Sorry, I can't hear you from way down there. can you speak up?
@@devynd6476 The arguments where that a horse is good at being a horse, not taking into account what a car can do that isn't in the scope of what a society that has used horse and carriage for the last millennia.
@@devynd6476 something about cars never replacing or being better than horses don't remember the specifics but in context to this vid it was like horses are the mechs (mostly about having legs being more nimble) and cars are the tanks
kurt engel except those two things aren’t equivalent. A tank is nothing like a car and a horse is nothing like a mech. Horses excel in off-road terrain where a car may struggle. A tank doesn’t face those same struggles. Not to mention, that “argument” probably never took into account technological progression. Cars before the invention of the assembly line were produced in small numbers, were individually assembled units, and were often slower than horses. Mechs don’t get the same benefit of “not accounting for technological progression” because they fundamentally don’t agree with physics. Propelling a leg takes far more energy than rolling a wheel. Balancing a higher center-of-mass requires far more maneuverability than having a vehicle resting on treads. As a rule of thumb for warfare, having a lower profile is always preferable. Mechs don’t make sense.
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
"The researchers were discouraged when they discovered a moose's preferred method to traverse a swamp was with treads"
You are a gift to humanity
FBI you’re less corrupt than the CIA
You win all the comments 😂
@@floyddog2283
NSA, man. No need to explain.
@@evanscott1194 realistic game tank destroyed using strongest metal extremely high level vibranium and adamantium replacing titanium carbon nanotube and graphene hybrid alloy
0:01 tank could’ve made that catch easy
What by hitting you with there barrel like a baseball?
@@winstonchurchill237 Home Run
What kind of noise would that make?
@@thefunnyguyfromtheburgerki3334 STONK
@@thefunnyguyfromtheburgerki3334 A sound you don't want to hear
Wouldn’t a small infantry mech basically be power armor like fallout?
Pretty much, as at that size they wouldn't be too heavy or expensive. Problem is yeah, you can probably make a bullet proof power armor but as soon as the enemy have a rocket launcher you're not doing too. You'd need a lot of ERA armor for some protection against that. And there's also the issue of anti material rifles. Armor penetrating capabilities always advance faster than armor protection. In a highly specialized role, such as civil security it could work.
@@charmingcobra yea but not evry grunt have RPG or AMR
Power armor is a whole different animal than mechs - they're the smallest way to armor a human, because the pilot is encased in armor as efficiently as our fleshy meatbag nature allows, not sitting in a capsule in a mech's torso.
For mechs, the legs are an inefficient add-on in terms of armor volume (you have to protect things that don't have to be there. For power armor, the limbs must be there anyway if you want to stick a human inside.
Yes and it's the only way you'd make a valuable mech. You use it as an infantry support platform, that replaces your ATGM/RPG and HMG carriers in an infrantry squad. Also you could use the XCOM EW method of solving the "limbs are hard to program to work precisly enough" by cutting off the limbs of soldiers you put into your MECs.
@@charmingcobra Do you know how hard it is to hit a moving target the size of a human being, with a weapon system designed to fight a tank? Not particularly easy, and you know what happens to a shaped charge that doesn't hit it's target head on? It turns into shrapnel. So I think you are over estimating the threat of rockets.
Now what about a human driving a mech, driving a huge tank. Unstoppable.
yes that ever most we choose truck shapeshifting
reminds me of those cartoon characters that drive those really really tiny cars and rolling around with it
So basically your average mech driving around in a ratte?
at this point just create a transformer
In warhammer 40k we kinda have that
We take a heavely augmented dude put him in the biggest space marine terminator armor and then put him in a giant mech
Sounds like something someone without a mech would say.
hanburbger well he quoted the Russians and who knows what the Russians have in those bunkers
@Justin Kemp can confirm. CIA spies are lucky fuckers I'll tell u that much.
FBI
Fbi what are you doing about the CIA and the finders cult that they made
@@doitsuland2003 Sounds like a potential campaign for a BF2142 prequel
BASED
"Ok, but what about....A tank....with arms and hands?"
Guntank asks timidly
You forgot the most important part, the left nipple is actually a particle cannon!
So how exactly would that help? If you're just using the arms to carry more weapons, it's more efficient to mount them to the vehicle directly. If you're using them to manipulate terrain, obstacles etc. They'll need to be rather large and centrally mounted, which is going to take a lot of weight, have the same problems with unreliable articulation and be in the way for the actual weaponry and optical systems.
@@Tepid24
Side-mounted gun pods on the turret with 70-80 degree fields of elevation and depression.
@@The_Crimson_Fucker Roof mount
@@Tepid24
No, that's a terrible idea. It completely defeats the purpose of not putting the gun in the turret to begin with. It's inferior in every way.
Then you got the mechs that use tracks but at that point its just a Tank with a Hilariously large turret with arms.
Armored Core flashbacks kicks in
M1 Abrams with comically massive turret and hands: You think you're safe?
*Metallic groaning as the hands reach toward you through the computer screen*
**Terminator flashbacks**
@@LaloKosakoURSS I was about to comment that; love that game
Did you mean the *Guntank*?
*This guy:* Debates on whether Mechs or Tanks are better
*Power Armor:* i got this...
@Anirban Chakrabarti mech is required energy consume energy in order generated construction machine
power armor is basically infantry sized mechs so there goes the size issue.
@@davidty2006 infantry are infantry sized mechs. infantry have horribly weak joints and armor.
Power armor was created essentially to have the power of a tank with close to the mobility of an infantry unit. And according to Fallout lore, the T-51 power armor and later models have fusion cores that last for a hundred years potentially. So that basically eliminates fuel cost. Also power armor maintenance is much cheaper than it would be to fix a freaking murder box on treads.
@@kermittheonionring6514 fallout lore is not real life or even possible.
Mechs have always been fairly ridiculous, however legged machines do have great potential applications in various fields, including military. Predominantly of which is of course the little DARPA dog, testing viability for transportation in highly uneven terrain at a somewhat reliable speed to keep up with troops. By no means are current designs viable for anything beyond transportation of smaller payloads, but at the core of it, I think the problem with the mech to tank debate is people trying to force legged vehicles into the same roles/categories as a tank, which really makes no sense; the equipment should suit the job/role, not the other way around.
exactly!
Good debate man.
That's for Pragmatic and Utilitarian real life, games and other media LIVE the rule of cool and just let it be.....
The most glaring issue is that for. Bipedal or quadruped mech to work even as a lightly armored tank, the MBT triangle would never work (bigger gun/weapons, less armor and heavy mobility loss, too much armor and firepower gets too low for role with added lack of mobility, too much focus on speed and armor and firepower goes away)....
There's the eternal rule of physics, Square Cube law, no way to make these monsters work with that in the way...
Why not learn from the Nazi Germany Kettenkrad? Very weird/unique look, Utilitarian role, still a very welcome thing nonetheless (1941 Germany on Barbarossa operation, that lil bugger allowed supplies and logistics to keep up with the main forces, after they weren't that much needed to keep supplies reaching Frontlines, became an aircraft towing tractor on Military Airfields...)
As you said, different roles/jobs, different opportunities
DARPA Dog is very close to drone mech already. One only needs to add a light MG turret or missile tube on it make it combat capable. It doesn't even need armor to be useful, light unarmored SAM and ATGM platforms have been a thing since the 50s. These could accompany infantry platoon or be air-dropped to provide early warning or deterrence like mines with very long reach. There are many places on earth where tanks can't reach, and smaller legged things like these might be a serious addition or threat to infantry.
The problem with "Tank vs Mech" comparisons tends to be they are about which is a better tank. That's from the very outset a loaded comparison.
one more problem tanks are useless in peace time but mech can be used for more things
"Why tanks are better than mechs"
Cybertronians: *WhY nOt BoTh?*
Haha
@@estebanmuriel2003 cybertronians optimus prime will getting seeing how many gundam death on earth huge graveyard
That's a transformer most likely and will make the vehicle even more complicated with even more parts that could potentially fail
@@oddityurie3435 Imagine repairing one LOL
Brawl, Blitzwing and Warpath had the right idea of taking the forms of tanks
Player: "BT!!!!!!!!!!"
- BT rushes to catch the player
* crack! *
BT: "Got you!"
Player: "...my spine..."
A good Titan always has his pilot’s... back.
Top 10 Comic Book Deaths
@@Condorito380 Top 10 anime betrayals
@@Jedi_Master_Kenobi Tell that to Gwen Stacy.
Tfw you know that Titanfall pilots are nearly fucking supernatural in how durable they are
The lifting heavy objects thing IS actually how the titanfall mechs started life- as farming equipment on the frontier
Then Imc did a thing and they were converted over into the big fighty bois we know and love today
Farm
@@nukeariesdiana2476 Farm
which doesn't make any logistical sense
Farmers already have machines that fulfill these roles (tractors and forklifts).
@@elderjose9662 You do realize how we got tanks in the first place right?
Farming equipment converted for war efforts my boy lol
"Tanks are better than Mechs"
*_BT-7274, Jack Cooper, and several others are typing..._*
You should see of the videos of star wars fans justifying why walkers > wheeled vehicles. Absolutely hilarious at times. One argument I recall is that "you can put more more armor on a leg" as if making a completely solid wheel is impossible. The mobility on far more terrain argument is just not based on physics. Those AT-ATs would have sunk into the snow on Hoth.
TL;DR: Vigin Mech/Walker vs the Chad Wheels/Tracks
@@charmingcobra True, but I don't care if a tank is functionally superior, BT is stil by far best boi
@@thefunnyguyfromtheburgerki3334 What if, and hear me out, you take out BT's personality core, pack it into a tank. Get the best of both worlds.
@@martydi2519 At that point you'd have a Dire Machine
Oh my god
Guys
*A BT MBT*
"Military traditionalists have repeatedly pointed out that the Assault Mechs are very poorly designed weapons - farcically bad, some have even said. They're extremely tall and are almost impossible to camouflage, making them easy targets. Their two-legged gait is more complicated, more expensive, more vulnerable and less efficient than are treaded wheels. And if one of the blasted things fall over, it can't get up again without the assistance of massive cranes or helicopters. Yank off the legs and mount the chassis on treads, the experts say, and you'll get a better weapon at lower cost.
All this is true. However, the units have one thing going for them that more than compensates for all of their weaknesses: they're massively, enormously cool. Military planners have long noted that national governments often confuse coolness with effectiveness and are willing to pay a lot more for flashy armaments than they are for effective but dull systems. In other words, a military with Mech Assault units has an easier time getting its bloated budget approved than does one without them. As long as this continues, the Mech's future is assured."
- "Assault Mech" Civlopedia entry, Civilization IV "Nextwar" mod
Just like the Gundam...
the thing is they are experimenting mechs France USA UK Germany Australia Japan S.Korea Russia India China its a internationall context wich canada won 1 since the jas kept winning at each design the problems is engine weight
true as hell, between the method exo from korea and that kinda shit, most mechs are designed to be cool opposed to effective, boston dynamics being an exception
Damn, I remember that Civilopedia entry like it was yesterday.
You are talking about American view and how Americans design their mechs. If you look at Japanese aAnime, youll see all sizes of mechs, plus they move fast and better. The mechs in American sci Fi are slow and not good moving.
"Why not have both?" -Astra Militarum
IG didnt have mechs, they do have walker, sentinels but mechs no, that would be that machine fetish cult and spess mahrine..
@@Ruzaraneh Well Dreadnoughts qualify both as a mech and power armour, the main difference between the two being that your arms and legs are in the suit's arms and legs, however those spess muhreens don't have either left in order to fit.
I mean, is a torso enough to qualify as a mech, or is it just cheating the definition to fit in an exosuit reserved to torso+head only?
Astra Miliwhat? You're in the Guard son.
Anyway I think with some tweaking the Sentinel could be a viable combat walker in real life too. The role would be to go with the infantry where tanks can't and bring the firepower what the infantry can't. Armor just enough to withstand enemy infantry small arms and HE fire.
Titan Legion answers the Astra Militarum's call for heavy support. warlord Deus Tempestus and reaver Gryphonne Indomitus are on their way. The Emperor Protects.
Thats the why Baneblades are better than those Tau Battlesuits.
The "Logistics" use of mechs is a very good point, they would be far more useful than loaders in the regard.
I think this comes down to what people like to think about for mechs. Realistically, i think mech combat is more of something they do to get out of an ambush, and they're otherwise utility vehicles.
Aliens had it right in that regard.
when a Tiger II transmission is more reliable than any part of a mech, you know that mechs are a terrible combat platform
Thank you for your wisdom, most superior of all heavy tanks.
@@megubean IS 3 is the most superior tank of the war !
*laughs in fully downtiered Maus*
@@thefunnyguyfromtheburgerki3334 we are talking abit real ,mass produce able and practical tanks only....
Hans, ze transmision broke!
Fact: Mechs have thicker plot armor than tanks in their respective universes
Bold Gambit Certainly not in Battletech or VOTOMS
And I like spaghetti...
Seriously. What’s the point of comparing and Sci - Fi vehicle to a real life vehicle?
@@nickl.3386 At this level? Entertainment value.
For professionals? It is a useful thought experiment that helps combat institutional thinking. Institutional thinking has been the source of many setbacks and defeats in history. That is why the US military and many defense contractors consult with science fiction authors on a routine basis.
@@nickl.3386 Sci fi = Science fiction = the fiction of what science could achieve in the future.
Gigant war mechs don't work therefor science should not try to achieve them.
NoOB Plays That is pretty obvious... Who thought they would work?
"Tanks are better than mechs in every way"
*shows video of mech giving a thumbs up*
Mechs>tanks
It’s on a fictional world though.
@@alexanderchristopher6237 its a joke though
@@alexanderchristopher6237 Of all the problems the technology behind Mechs has, basic motor function is not one of them.
Tannk can never throw you across the gap or sacrifice itself to save you
One like for my boy BT
@@Rat_Fบcker if you make Brawl an autobot, he can certainly do that
Speaking as a long time battletech fan, you do have very valid points. Even in battletech tanks exist and are used often and in some scenarios they can be even more dangerous.
In my opinion, the main reason to field a mech would be fear factor. In a real life scenario i could only reasonabley see a mech as a second or third line fighter use to mop up or further demoralize an opponent.
Your last point actually does occur in Battletech often. From my experience at least in MW5, aerial and armored assests are mostly thrown at you in the first wave, then eventually the Mechs are dropped in. I've had several experiences where a situation like that was an incredible pinch to get out of
Tanks are actually much more common then mechs in battletech, for the exact reasons of mechs being expensive to produce and difficult to maintain, and I personally love rocking all tanks against a mech player, and even in battletech tanks often have much more guns and armor when compared ton to ton, mechs are just more flexible and mobile.
@@xironbeastx8677 that one Madcat pilot when he has to fight waves upon waves of Rommel and Patton tanks:
haha 108 kph raven with jumpjets go brrr
The fear factor woks once, against untrained/unexperienced targets.
See: tanks.
He’s speaking the truth but I hate it...
Same
I love it...
Fuck Mechs :P
They're UGLY.
Yep
@@michaelstodovski2219 not all
@@MechanicWolf85 And then you realize the square-cube law is a thing.
You can't just build a giant mech that moves like a human but bigger. Mechanical engineering isn't magic and still has to obey basic laws of physics, as it turns out.
"[Mechs] could still be used very effectively in a logistics role, being used to lift heavier objects that regular people couldn't."
Uh, don't we already have things like cranes and forklifts for that?
Sincerely,
A pissed off forklift driver
:D
Tiago deCastro dude it’s basically like a forklift but funner to control. And it can give you thumbs up!
K287
Yeaaaah, no, it would be WAAAAY Amore complex to pilot a mech than a jet, plane, tank and playing an MMO games combine
@@TheRealK287 Right, but on a serious note, I'm not denying that it would be cool, and I'd love to see one made if we had the technology to make it viable. But at the same time, like Spookston said in the video, the design is too complex and they'd be a nightmare to maintain. Forklifts have a simpler design that we already know to be effective.
You ever seen a straddle reachlift? I drive those a lot at work, plus a sit-down lift. They work just as well as I imagine a mech would. Mechs are cool, but realistically, there's no reason to switch away from a design that already works
Tiago deCastro that is true!
@@James-oj6ru
Not if there was a way to plug the mech into your nervous system to enable you to control it as if it was your own body (with computer assistance)
Giant mechs are cumbersome, but what about exosuits or heavy troopers? Would you make a video explaining the pros and cons of them?
Mechs actualy are closest to that, heavy infantry
@@LQN2 My idea of Exosuit is to help carry more firepower without compromising speed nor stamina.
Imagine one Exo per squad, a heavy machine gunner, or an Exo-AT Specialist. Or maybe commandos for sabotage ops.
You have to consider also beyond human capacity. If technology advance a fair well beyond our current advancements, some soldier could be enhanced with prostetics, making them partially machines. They could also be considered inside the mech spectrum?
BattleTech mechs are quite agile, but that's because of a neural link to the pilot like in titanfall.
Armored Exoskeletons would most likely be as close to mechs as in real life militaries would get.
By the time those suits go out to the front lines you'd be looking at infantry portable laser systems. Anything not flying high enough or low enough to crawl around in the weeds will get lased.
Planetside 2's take is the most practical as far as heavy infantry goes
Alright, here's some unbiased insight from a robotics engineer, and former mechanic.
Most servo systems rely on batteries, (no onboard fuel required) which can be integrated into the legs, arms, body, side walls, basically anywhere with any kind of free space. Add that servos and batteries are actually more power efficient (and more powerful in general) than gas engines, and we start seeing a new story. Mechs are actually mechanically simpler, needing only ONE electric motor per axis of rotation, contrary to popular belief. You would need about 16 to make a BattleTech style mech. The number of moving parts on a tank, due to it's basic nature, is much higher than the number of moving parts you'd find on the more mainstream mecha from basically any franchise. A gasoline engine alone has many more moving parts than an entire Electrically powered mecha would. Not to mention the servos on a mech could very easily be armored and made more resilient than the treads of a tank could ever be.
Repair availability? The parts on a mech would be so much simpler that they could be fully replaced in minutes, compared with the time it would take to dismantle an engine. If it's on the battlefield, the people in charge of designing it will have thought of this already, and pit crews for a mech would resemble an f1 pit crew, but with bigger parts. (Much cheaper too.)
Size isn't really a problem either, Mechs come in various shapes and sizes all throughout sci fi. Some much smaller than a tank, and thanks to ground effect thrusters or wheels, are still as nimble as a tank.
On traction for climbs: NO, most mecha would NOT handle steep inclines as well without moving on all fours, or taking advantage of the massive traction spikes that are frequently shown in art. The terrain debate goes to a tank, hands down, unless we start getting into mecha that hover or fly. I have seen lots of art of mecha using mech scaled rappelling lines to climb, though there are wheeled and treaded vehicles with winches nearly as capable of this.
Mechs would likely have better balance than a human though, by the time they're ready for battlefield use. Bipedal robots on the high end already have better balance than many trained human athletes. It's unreasonable to think a mech might not be considerably MORE dexterous than a human by the time they're ready for use in that setting.
The range debate is sort of under thought. A proper armour division isn't made up of tanks alone, and why couldn't a tank take on a support role? We have treaded support vehicles specifically for terrain that trucks can't travel through. Tanks would encounter that issue too, by this video's logic. They chug gas like crazy and need a resupply point. Mecha could have supplementary solar panels though, and recharge actively, as well as during down time.
In the end, Mechs would never replace tanks, tanks have a clear cut role. Despite only a brief history in warfare, they've proven again and again how incredibly powerful they can be. Mechs couldn't practically carry weapons as large if they wanted to stay realistically feasible for battlefield use. They would be much more practical as an anti-infantry unit than a tank could ever be though thanks to their dexterity and humanoid nature. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that later mecha could carry armaments just as large though. Electric motors and batteries have advanced so far in the last 15 years alone that gas engines are brinking on obsolete as power plants. Tanks are likely to adopt electric technology as well, once it becomes the superior option. I believe mechs could have a place in tactical settings. I do not see them being the main force. But considering that the cost of production for realistically sized mecha, (3 to 5 meters,) would actually be lower than a modern tanks in many ways, they might over time become more and more common for complex urban, northern forests or dry climate maneuvers. With a height of only 3 meters as well, falling over could be easily made into a relatively safe adventure, incurring minimal or no damage to the vehicle or pilot.
(As a really dumb moment though, how would a mech falling over after being hit by something be any less dangerous than being near a tank that just got slapped by an HE round? It wouldn't. Reactive armour on modern tanks would kill you just as fast as the shell or mech falling over, if you were anywhere near it. Moral is to stay away from the armoured division if you're infantry.)
I've read dissertations less well posited than this, absolutely agree
Amazing work
If you have eletric motor this good you and have balance this good why not jsut skip a step and build a better tank.? Rather make your mech a bigger overprice use of machinery then is already is.
@@tomizatko3138 this reply implies you either didn't read my full post, or didn't understand.
You don't replace aircraft, or naval vessels with tanks. They have different roles. Also, if you read through what I'd posted properly, it's fairly easy to see that production cost, maintenance cost, and operating cost of a bipedal walker would be lower than a tank. Assuming you rely on the specifications I'd provided.
I'd specifed, in that post, that tanks and mecha wouldn't replace eachother, and that just like in the battletech and other high scifi stories you typically see them in, they'd operate in tandem.
*So I hopped in my titan and started blasting*
So which one ..Titanfall or wh40k 😂
Lets say both.
He used a titanfall titan to board a 40k titan.
@@luxeternity I sure would like 40K, but with the bigger ones I would need to worry of the machine spirit. but its a mutual alliance anyway, you get access to its memories and control of the titan, while it gets the slaughter and war it desires.
Humans: "Tanks vs Mechs, which is better"?
Transformers: "Hold my energon cubes"
MS pilot:Oops!! I think I stepped on something!
Code geass: Am i a joke to you?
Spooder Danker god dang it, you just made me deeply miss spodermen
@@thelaniakean lmao
@@somemustachioboi5898 nice profile pc
The term "turbo nerds" makes me feel attacked
I'm a very proud turbo nerd.
Being called "turbo nerd" is empowering.
We took being nerds, then slapped a turbo charger on it, that's slightly metal if you ask me.
@@joykillz7431 even more metal if it's an old rusty one. That's in the really metal territory.
I thought he said turd nerds
As a certain marine in Halo 2 said, "TANK BEATS EVERYTHING!"
mars mech yes their only put in storage never been used
That's Halo 3 bud.
@@heirofaniu Halo 3 ODST at that. it's Bucky the ODST iirc.
@@spinax22 I can't remember if it's in ODST or not, but I know it's in Halo 3. In the mission The Covenant you get a Scorpian after taking out the second tower and you use it to go through a cave, while you're blowing things up you hear a random marine saying things like "Tank beats Ghost." "Tank beats Banshee." And then after you blow up a Phantom he screams "Tank beats everything!"
It's been like ten years since I last played Halo 3, why has this stuck so deeply in my memory?
@@heirofaniu Because Halo is fucking awesome, that's why!
2020:mech vs tank
1979:"look!, A Guntank!"
Gundam is always leaps and bounds ahead of American concepts. lol...
MS Igloo: **RTX-440 Ground Assault Guntank laughs**
@@YukitoOnline yeah, I have seen that, it was a lot cooler than original and origin!
@@R3DN3PP3R Cooler and more effective than any Guntanks.
can kill a mobile fortress with just 3 suicidal guntanks
When a tank runs out of ammo, can it throw a rock at the enemy?
Or can a tank punch?
@TheFandrian ＶＩＢＲＯＢＬＡＤＥＳ
you do what the sovjets did, you ram the enemy. worked at Kursk
A tank wont run out of ammo, its either the tank destroyed what it needs to destroy or the tank gets destroyed, i dont think it will reach to the point of losing ammo
Imagine a fight between a tank and a T Rex and both are out of ammo.
The tank wins by breaking the T Rex’s leg.
"Why Tanks are better than Mechs" 'laughs from cathedral mounted on shoulders of an Imperator-class Titan'
The Emperor Protects!
Praise to the Omnissiah!
*Gets stuck in a swamp forever*
Your local meme and anime dealer stops messing around and continues walking through puddle
tanks would be better if they both had the same void shielding, titans are better because their power core can power shields and weapons, would make more sense to build a mega-bane blade with voide shields, than a titan
This one of the reasons why I love Warhammer 40k's walking mechs AKA Titans. They are actually portrayed rather 'realistically' compared to others. In that there a big lumbering things that require massive support crews and infrastructure to maintain, shields to protect them because bullet magnets, and I have yet to encounter one that has risen after falling.
Well the simple doctrine is that when one falls its lost. Also have fun being against a Titan in the first place. And with things like Tyranids you cant ever have too little firepower
Yep, and also since the armies of 40K are more ideological in nature, it makes sense for them to have more imposing machinery, so mechs are less about practicality and more about how they CAN field those damn things.
is that really more realistic? I mean in terms of common sense if we get aboard with concepts such as shields. huge targets, presumably easy to knock over, and likely so heavy that any terrain would break and give. I don't see why the titans need arms (or heads) other than to look remotely humanoid. turrets or other mounts seem like it would suffice.
@@gordonlekfors2708 Screw science, we need to obliterate them in the name of the Emperor!! AAAAAAAAGGG!!!!
they are also closer to a towering weapon platform, than to a mech, except if you count lesser titans from some imperial houses (which is closer to how knights were used, instead of a conventional army units)
First war mech ever: *marches*
Tank: *breaks leg with one armor piercing*
Mech: wait that's illegal
Thing is, if you shot tank track - tank is fully immobilized, mech can use second (or more) leg and arms to crawl in cover
@@iMost067 immobile yet easy to repair turret, if it's mech then it's dead
@@shepherdlavellen3301 we dont yet know how easy its gona be to repair mech when we progress enough to have mech, maybe he gona self repair which is huge since mech can assist moving large heavy objects when tank just gona stay and watch how you repair it.
@@iMost067 mechs would be mobile most of time and hard to aimt and shoto by a tank inspecially if mech has longer shooting range also idea of mechs is to have a huge machine gun and a grenade launcher a torch or blade as a melle weapon
@@notoriousbig3k right so while the mach is keeping the tanks away the air force sees a massive target and starts dropping missiles on it's head. We could launch air to surface missiles from 100 miles away and let infantry guide them in with lasers. Or shoot and pray. Or a myriad of other manners. We could come closer in and use more accurate missiles. Then he tanks move in and hammer the fallen mechs.
For Titanfall, Titans were supposed to be used as infantry support. In TF1, you can see this by how AI Titans are deployed at the beginning of Campaign matches, and they are depicted as a squad-leader commanding normal infantry in the area, areas where tanks would be too slow and vulnerable to all the different angles of fire. This is where a mech would be best, in close-quarters and urban environments where mobility and flexibility are vital to survive flanking attacks and ambushes.
This is good point
And tanks ARE still largely used kn the ttf universe, just not kn gameplay, you can see some of them around maps and in apex legend(the setting of which is canon to the ttf universe)
@@hermeister3870 did you even read the comment fully or you just assumed that he was talking "mech good, tank bad"
random imperial guard i think he’s saying both are good and each has its role in the battlefield within the Titanfall universe
@@ERi-nc5kt did you not read the comment that i replied to?
"tanks are better than mechs."
**40K would like to disagree with you**
*THE ASTRA MILITARUM WOULD LIKE A WORD WITH YOU*
For the emperor
I argreed
@@mirokovachevich5648 Astra Mili- what? You're in the 'Guard, son.
Apologies, Commissar
This has got me thinking, why develop any kind of robot with legs? It seems to me that similar ideas would apply to even human-sized bots yet you see bipedal robot development all the time. I guess you could argue that it would be to deal with human architecture but even then I bet scientists could figure out a more efficient way than using legs.
Vertical traversal.
Legs can raise and lower far more than wheels and threads.
This also means it's far easier to hinder them. Czech hedgehogs are comparatively cheap, and they're made to deal with a full size tank.
This means they have to spend time with combat engineers to dispose of the hedgehog, bogging down the maneuver.
@@happydemon3038 Leg are animal and human thing, Machines no deserve it.
@@engelsteinberg593 hovering technology >:) heheheheheh
@@happydemon3038 Czech Hedgehogs would also stop mechs depending of how they're placed. You'd need ridiculously huge mechs to jump over them, which means bigger targets...
@@MrAlepedroza
Then we shall climb!
“They rejected Jesus because he told them the truth.”
herobrineharry what about super Mecha Deth Christ? He’s the most powerful Mech against Satan!
herobrineharry
*This is true.*
... thats actually true
@@uncledolan9271 you're leaking the new doom game
Demon Hunter 666
The theory of evolution is still a theory because there's still a missing piece to connect the gap that humans came from monkeys or apes
Arms are the only thing mechs have going for them.
But if you have the technology to make humanoid mechs. You can put retractable arms or tools on a tank.
Tank meta to strong.
Lucky I hear there's a better ATGM patch coming that'll make tanks less dominant in the field.
@@c7zr179
Sadly enough, it also comes with the addition of the APS upgrade for armored vehicles which make even newer ATGMs much less effective.
How bout putting a Gae Bolg on a Tank chassis
Ultimate fighting machine invented
@Gideon N
Thanks, I hate it.
Can we get a nerf to the tank meta? Tread heads too stronk
Real reasons to have a mech:
1) It’s cool
2) You’re a weeb
3) It’s cool
manifestation of Gudako's insanity I didn’t know there was a problem ;)
Mmmh yes, I pick all three
Reason 4) tank vs. mech with an arm mounted gun "aim up... aim down, now go over this rocky terrain and engage that target over there while moving"
@@awesomefatBruceLee the advanced targeting system you installed on your mech can also be installed on 10 tanks of the same price in total as your 1 mech, then have the 10 tanks fire onto your target while moving with the current stabilising gear. Good luck missing.
@@awesomefatBruceLee or get 1000 TOWs and fire it at your target
I don't really know if they're all that compareable, they both fulfill different roles, and I could see them working side by side rather than replacing
I think mechs or power armor should be small in scale serving alongside tanks as a sort of heavy infantry, or light rocket platform.
This video: *exists*
Titan pilots: "bro, youre just jealous of my mecha"
I mean if ghe mech is only as good as mech in avatar then i better off use a tank
But a titan?
No tank can beat them 10 on 1 they have too many toy
Evangelion Pilots: Dude you just copy our concept
@@Rat_Fบcker Titan as in from 40k or Titanfall? Assuming the 40k Titan doesn't stop working due to real physics, it would destroy an entire military. Titanfall Titans would lose to a tank, tanks exist in Titanfall
>Tanks cannot travel mountans
>Laughs in M35 Mako
Tau mako titan? But that thing doest have jump jets
@@valhalanguardsman2588 masseffect.fandom.com/wiki/M35_Mako
@@warwolf3005 oh that flying bullshit from mass effect 2, now i remember
@@valhalanguardsman2588 No, not the flying bullshit, that's Hammerhead. The IFV you use in ME 1 that is better at climbing than skyrim's horses
its not a tank
its armored car
That part at the end where he mentioned that he is working on the Imperial Guard video really got my attention
So, mechs don't REPLACE tanks, just work (or fight) alongside them. Got it.
tank was invented in 1698 since combustion exist
@@nichsulol4844 the only first tank that ran was the one in WW1
They would actually make great cooperative support. You could actually make tanks less reliable since the mech would be there to recover it, while support tanks could carry armorment for the mechs.
Not even. Mechs would be a logistical/maintenance nightmare. The last thing you want to do post-operation is waste valuable resources and time fixing more stuff. As mentioned in the video, the many moving components of a mech make it highly susceptible to normal wear and tear failure or worst if hit by, well, anything.
What movies and video games don’t ever show you is the clean-up after a military operation. Somebody needs to pick up those pieces. Somebody needs to process the admin to ensure equipment is repaired and transported. Somebody needs to pull security on those elements during clean-up. Tanks all the way.
@@SophisticatedDogCat Im sure Guilliman and the Admechs would provide means for explanation.
you should criticize the vehicle designs from the Metal Gear Solid series
They're parodistic, too much easy.
Ism't there one in there which has somehow wheels and tracks and ZiL screw-drive all at once and also somehow has rocket boosters to help it launch missiles and by some sorcery doesn't tear itself apart when it fires these rockets?
@@Lazarus7000 what the hell is that called
@@M50A1 it's the Shagohod and it's perfect.
ruclips.net/video/tMPLrU4ksco/видео.html
@@M50A1 Shagohad?
This hurts my wh40k soul
HOW DARE YOU ! HOW YOU XENOS FILTH DARE TO THINK THAT YOURS TAU BATTLESUITS ARE ANYTHING THAT RUBISH. Our holy work in the forge world secure the finnest of war tecnology the holy warmachine of the BANEBLADE our superior tank will annihilate your pathetic MeCHas.
It kinda sorta maybe not really works because titans are stupid massive which at that point a tank of similar capabilities would also be stupid so yeah kinda works but anything smaller than a warhound titan is just worse than a tank
@@dmar.gar5689
What about Imperial Titans?
@@Retard634 This is the Imperium we are talking about. They have tanks bigger than the biggest titan. wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Ordinatus
Faragar well you see the war temples of our lord and savior the machine god, stomp continents, atomize mountain sized cities, are protected by a glich in the fabric of the universe and sometimes beep. We don’t like when they beep
I cant hear you over the sound of my GIANT MECH stomping on heretics!
Leman Russ > your dumb commie tau mech
Um that’s not really fair . It should be a tiny tank vs a tiny mech or a giant tank vs a giant tank . Not giant mech vs tiny tank
No Body war is hardly fair, but I see where you’re coming from
Uh oh looks like you stomped on allied forces as well. Well what can I say? You can't hear them
*gets stuck in a Swarmp forever*
Kind of a senseless argument to make. We're comparing something that's real to something that's fictional. In fiction, Mechs are almost always written to be superior in just about every way. Claiming that a Mech would be impractical in real life is like arguing that real Marines are better than Space Marines because their armor is difficult to maintain and their ammo is absurdly expensive.
Given some technological leaps, Mechs would not only be more practical, they'd make Tanks nearly, if not completely, obsolete. They'd weigh less, have more maneuverability, take advantage of better positioning, if it's got jump jets or the ability to fly short distances, it'd be easier to access and replace all the components (if you've seen the type of disassembly a Tank requires for basic maintenance, you'll know what that means)... you have a Gunship that can take advantage of ground cover... why have a Tank in that scenario?
Yeah, the main reason mechs are practical in BattleTech is because of the invention of myomer- a synthetic fiber that imitates muscle, which makes mechanical legs superior to wheels/tracks in terms of their load-bearing capacity. And even then, because myomer is such an expensive component, mechs are a rarity on the battlefield despite being almost strictly better in combat, and wheeled/tracked vehicles still make up the majority of combatants.
@@WritingFighter That's good and all, but it all collapses if this alleged mech is being fired on. You would be sticking out like a sore thumb due to the height of the mech, and be an easy target for streamlined tanks that are low to the ground. Not to mention that a mech would likely crumble under its own weight, due to its structure. This means it would either need less armor (back to the easy target argument) or you could just not make a mech in the first place.
@@cheesestickforlife9814 I'm copy-pasting my initial top comment to the video's flawed argument to explain in further detail and a theoretical demonstration...
This argument has several flaws that hinge on the same, inherent problem: analyzing everything from our current technological capacity, and then declaring all Mecha across all known possibilities are always worse off and useless.
When you have a Mecha that can perform jumps on jets (or even fly short distances), sporting compact weaponry, able to crouch, walk and run, traverse with some anti-grav lift, weighing a quarter of a Tank or less, with parts, components, and machinery easier to access and replace than a Tank, making it many times cheaper... you have a Gunship that can make use of cover, which would make Tanks almost completely obsolete. It can enter and stand in buildings, walk in a forest, crouch, maybe even lay prone, jump up a cliff face, things no Tank can do, and utilize multiple weapon systems in multiple directions more efficiently than a Tank.
.
Imagine you're in an urban combat scenario with a squad or two. An enemy Tank rumbles in; you know it can only traverse the streets and has very limited sight, and without Infantry support it's very easy to outmaneuver and engage up close and potentially from multiple angles with heavy weapons.
Now imagine same scenario but an enemy Mecha shows up; it's flying across the street at a high angle; your guy with an anti-Tank rocket shoots... and he completely and totally misses. Where is it? On a building? Walking around? In cover? Your men form a defensive perimeter and the Mecha appears jumping over your head, shooting a missile in your midst from an angle that even an attack helicopter couldn't do. Then it lands on the other side of the street and shoots it's heavy machine gun.
You and your guys retreat into a building and go up the next level. Then the Mecha crashes through the brick, deploying a smoke, gas, and flashbang grenade. "Shit!" you think, "This thing is attacking us where a Tank can't, in a fraction the time several squads of enemy Infantry would trying to room clear the thing, and I can't believe we thought Mechas were totally useless!"
And now, the Mecha has taken zero damage, eliminating targets with 10x less ammunition expenditure than several squads of Infantry, attacking in ways a Helicopter nor a Tank could match, faster than all three military vehicle types.
@@cheesestickforlife9814 Declaring that Tanks are absolutely better than Mechs is making a blanket statement of absolute across all known possibilities.
In Warhammer 40k for example, Tau Empire Battlesuits exemplify how Mechs are overwhelmingly and laughably superior to bulky, track-wheeled Tanks in many aspects. There are contexts, some that are even feasible by modern standards, in which a Mecha can outperform Tanks in filling a role that Tanks, Jet Aircraft, Infantry, and Artillery cannot execute.
Personally, I find the Titanfall Mechs to be an accurate way of mech usage, mainly due to them being used as a shock-deployment unit, plus the neural link can compensate it, along with their ability to stand back up
the titanfall mechs made sense until titanfall 2 came out and soft retconned their entire purpose
they are basically built on top of industrial loader chassis and are made to be shot out at fucking mach 2 through a planet's atmosphere into an urban environment in support of tanks, infantry and other forces and they basically only exist to peer into second and third story windows
@@richardvlasek2445 2 didn't retcon their purpose. Older Titans were converted from industrial machines into machines of war, the newer ones seen in 2 were purposely built for war. Which is actually a pretty logical step.
I agree. If Skywalker could take one down with a grappling hook, a light saber, and a hand grenade......
that was a walker not a mech there is a huge difference also the at-at was just a bad designed vehicle meant more for intimidation then actually excelling at its roll as a armored transport though i do agree currently mechs are a no go
@@starcasters5455 I guess I deserved that for attempting humor in a tank vs mech battle.😁
Star casters
Ironicky, they did even try to make it more combat able in The Last Jedi, in that, they heavily increased its armor on its legs and made it less of falling hazard...
(Fight me, I like the new movies...)
I'm outta here
I am pretty sure you can bring down tanks with a sword made out of sun too.
“Why Tanks are better than mechs.”
He’s playing the Mechanicus Soundtrack in the background, a game about cyborgs who use massive mechs
confusion.mp4
nuclear fusion was only exit in like a fictional thing
@@nichsulol4844 1 it exist and can be done
2 you are a HERETIC
Reasonable people: You present a compelling argument, backed by facts and logic.
Uber nerds: REEEEEEEE
“The power source Couldn’t fit.”
Me: *Laughs in AT-AT*
Chase Smith **Laughs in aiming at the legs**
DatOneNoder I wasn’t talking about durability, II was talking about the power source being too big and why an AT-AT can fit a massive power source such as that.
Chase Smith yes, but if it's massive then it's a massive target that can be shot at from FAAAAARRRR away without aiming down the sights
@@nova1726
Gundam Guntanks and Armored Core Hover Tanks: **What legs?**
YukitoOnline
**Laughs in realism**
Gundam Guntanks: Aim for the tracks and destroy the rest with a few missiles
Hover Tanks: Armored core or not it still has the same weaknesses of a modern MBT
Mechs I feel would excel in urban environments, they can stick its arms around/over a cover to fire at targets.
Meanwhile a tank would have to expose its ENTIRE body to get a LOS on targets.
"Meanwhile a tank would have to expose its ENTIRE body to get a LOS on targets"
Not necessarily. Around a corner, a tank really only has to expose its turret and hull front. I've also seen plenty of footage of tanks going hull down in urban environments.
@@Herminipper Tanks are still far from the best choice in urban environments, especially when being attacker. Mechs, although are likely to have lower speed, still have higher flexibility and mobility which can allow to easily maneuver around tightly-packed ecumenopolises.
The problems of mecha actually get WORSE in urban environments. Their weapons systems aren't placed for engaging low targets at close range, the legs would be vulnerable to ambush, overhead wires and lights would present a major hazard, and the intense ground pressure would risk collapsing many streets. They would also be far more vulnerable to precision air support weapons than tanks if they deployed into areas with lower bulging roof lines.
@@crapposter8201
You are forgetting that a tank has more armor than a mech because it can support more weight. Most tanks nowadays shrugs off damage.
"a tank would have to expose its ENTIRE body to get a LOS on targets."
Totally wrong.Tanks fighting in urban enviroments will position themselves facing the cover with a steep side angle facing the enemy and expose only theri tracks and turret as a target. The steep angle of the exposed parts make it extremely hard to penetrate. Due to their low center of mass you can have basically no weak points which is imposible for bipedal designs
reason tanks are better than mech: they're real
Real mechs exist as well, but they're flimsy, slow and weak as hell. They're mostly used for recreational purposes cause they look cooler than tanks.
Thanks, captain obvious.
I feel like the assumption that mech have to be bipeds is what makes this discussion so boring. I don't think it's possible to look at a video of mountain goats scaling a sheer cliff and not see the utility of an extra nimble quadrupedal scout mech thing.
Just imagine mountain goat with a gun. It'd be terrifying.
Ahem, tanks are better in almost every way.
Mechs look cooler and pull off a fedora much better than a tank.
P1000 t ratte, Karl, p1500 t monster: Are we joke to you?
Can tanks throw telephone poles at the enemy? Can stop their shots with the force and throw it back at them?
@@mariobadia4553 mechs can't throw shots back, they are to weak to throw it enough fast to penetrate tanks armor, also some of bullets explode after touching anything other explode after wasting penetration so mechs can't throw them, they will explode in mech arm or penetrate it
@@szynszylku1447 I'm pretty sure that a telephone pole will just flatten it like a pancake.
pan lisiasty Tanks cannot shoot atomic bombs.
Sadly tanks are more practical than Mechs. I still think they're cooler.
Laughs in space, air and underwater combat
I have no idea if they are more practical than a titan. there is not enough tanks in the world to push back Orks. but a Titan can do that.
@Luis _ None that are practical in any fashion.
Thanks are just bricks with a gun at the end :(
I was writing a Sci-Fi story and I tried to figure out how to logically add mechs. Eventually, I figured it out, It's a fancy sport with no military application.
Also, would a Mech be better then a Forklift? If I could add more logical applications to Mechs, I would be pretty happy.
There are forest machines walking on legs to climb harsh terrain so pioneers could use them to build things on hills or mountains. They are slow as fuck though (see link 2).
www.google.com/search?q=forest+harvester+with+legs&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk03CfBw9EXg2643O9Ond-2Qer_sYAQ:1583804548533&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwig4Ijc447oAhXwlIsKHfv_ApcQ_AUoAXoECAwQAw
ruclips.net/video/CgBNjdwYdvE/видео.html
If they’re just a fancy sport why don’t you just mention in a side conversation or something talking about mech duels in arenas for sport or something like that
You could add them as just the government(s) experiments as well. The military is known for trying to make Anything viable as a weapon. Some stuff like silent assassin mechs for example.
There are also many logistic uses for mechs, such as construction and general police/firefighter work that requires heavy force; like complicated rescues and such.
Also illegal underground Mech Duels are cool
@@newguy8288 yeah, I like that!
depends on the technology used really tho lots of mechs have shielding that compensates for lack of amour while still staying agile. and depending on the terrain like scaling tall objects. or how they are used in avatar to provide humans with a item that can interact with the environment where the atmosphere and habitat is hostile.
Mechs and tanks have different roles basically. Tanks are good at taking and dishing out damage. Mechs are utility multirole vehicles.
Also, it's worth mentioning that a common setting for mechs is in space. It's less obvious to me how the tradeoffs would be in say, 5% gravity, or in vacuum where you simply can't have infrantry that isn't wearing a heavy and vulnerable suit
You forgot about magic mech muscle fiber supporting articulation, magic fusion engines that run forever, magic jetpacks that use same engine to superheat atmospheric gases and have unlimited fuel, magic lasers that strip magical super lightweight armor, magical missiles and autocannons that pull their ammunition from the left nutsack and right toenail, heavy guns are for the narrow sighted and the weak cardboard tank is generally only made to die in a horrible explosion if you happen to trip on it while cruising the battlefield. Welcome to BattleTech, MechWarrior.
Poetry.
weak cardboard tank huh, some had a trash GM I see.
There are tanks in battle tech that will fuck up a mech, also aerospace fighters... just don't mess with them they are psychotic and will wipe out your lance.
Honestly, I have a small set of arguments against this you forgot:
-Sure, the extra moving parts are dangerous if shot, but armor plating could be provided in the way of very lightweight yet tough alloys being placed overtop as a small shield, out of the way of the moving part, of course.
-Mech designs that contain arms as well will often have an easier time dealing with a hard drop due to the ability to put their arms behind them, thus usually breaking the fall.
-The weight of a mech could possibly, if given enough stability in their legs and feet, and the structure itself, be about the same as the tank, excluding arms and legs. This allows for heavier armoring for the single pilot.
-Motors using pulleys/transmissions to allow for greater force using less power. (Remember, there are powered axles on the tank to allow movement of around 60mph, so mechs could be fuel efficient and go slowly.)
-Titans from titanfall are a rather extreme implication of mechs, they could easily be stumped down to 10 feet if necessary, or down to around 7 feet if you really push how you're making it function, although then you'd run into problems such as low armor/fuel if required, making it more likely to be the next step in soldiers' armor rather than a replacement of a tank.
-Tanks would still be in use as rugged alternatives to the mechs, as just like you said, mechs would be hard to maintain in service if they are the sole ground combat vehicle. Maybe they would be used in more specialized squadrons, much like how the Navy SEALs are to the US Navy?
And I also have counterpoints to some of them.
-The alloys used in the joints' armor plates would be expensive or difficult to manufacture replacements
-Mechs with arms will still require an expert behind the wheel to catch their fall using the operator's inputs, or an easier input system to make it more intuitive.
-To give the mech the ability to hold that weight, the weight of the legs would far exceed the weight of most MBTs, each. This would cause problems in more urban combat zones by destroying the street underneath them.
-Transmissions are difficult to fit in such a small place as the joints of a mech, and the slow speed would further add to the mech's downsides in combat due to exposure.
-Smaller mechs would be more difficult to repair due to a large number of small moving parts.
-Tanks are much better in certain environments than mechs, however mechs are much more dexterous in the form of upwards movement via climbing, given the structure supports the excessive weight.
Then why not make a mech drive a tank
Jk
I totally see 4 or 6-legged walking artillery for incredibly rough terrain. The military already uses the Boston Dynamics robot dog for hazardous areas. Now imagine that robot doggo equipped with machine guns. Now imagine it scaled up with a tank gun on top. Put tank treads on the underbelly so when it lifts it's legs it can speed along like a nightmarish Abrams tank on flat ground.
I have some counter points to all of your arguments as well:
-I have no idea what light weight and strong alloys you're thinking of but none of the ones I'm thinking of can withstand about 6 depleted uranium sabots traveling at 65 times the speed of sound traveling in unison (your standard, modern, anti armor method, much less a future one)
-that would most likely damage the arm. It's a great way to damage your arms in real life, it's an even better way to damage your arms if you weigh at least 15 tons and are about 14 feet tall
-an M1 abrams weighs 70 tons, unless you know of any actuators that can sustain 70 tons on a single joint (for bipedal) I doubt they will ever weigh as much
-a 7 foot mech would really just be power armor or more realistically for the modern day an exo skeleton, which the military is already trying to develop so troops can carry heavier loads faster over longer distances
-tanks would still be used yes, and they would be used as anti mech units too for being faster, more agile, longer ranged (in both distance travel and weapons) and harder hitting
you guys got your points but you seem to miss one thing
there is still no preset mech formula
also you guys seem to mention some real mech prototypes
yes they exist but as prototypes and richboy toys
they are nowhere near military grade ready and are far from even being ready as products
and mech design is very flexible (it seems to me)
its only requirements are only to be walking human driven armor bot
so you can place almost any damn mechanics you want onto a thing
you theoretically can make it more powerfull, faster and more armoured than a tank
(if we were to assume the technology of machine walking is avaiable and cheap enough in the future)
@@nyalan8385 technology is moving an exponential rate a lot of those issues could be addressed eventually . Also tanks would be faster but I don’t believe more agile is a correct descriptor as a mech could potentially change direction far quicker and have a wider array of movement options
chad tanks vs virgin mechs
Imagine having an inefficient shape for aesthetic reasons -comment made by tank gang
Imperial knights anyone?
Laughs in Psycho Gundam Mk2
Laughs Harder in Neo Zeong
Dies Laughing in Turn A Gundam
Average realism fan vs average rule of cool enjoyer
One big difference is crew-size. For a mech, you don't need to worry about space for your weapon inside the hull. It can simply use anything it can carry.
* rips of main gun of enemy tank *
"Yup, just got myself a nice new single shot antivehicle rifle"
Depending on how the mech is designed, I think they could still be better at climbing mountains than tanks. Especially if the terrain is jagged and rocky. I can imagine things like humanoid mechs that move around like mountain climbers do.
I understand that Spookston said that mechs don't have the same balance and dexterity as humans do, but engineers are greatly improving upon those areas. ruclips.net/video/_sBBaNYex3E/видео.html
Yeah, the thing about the terrain argument isn't so much about an even grade, it's more in regards to stepping over/on top of obstacles that would be walls to a tank. If you have a six foot high terrace you need to get on top of, a tank would need assistance, no? But a legged vehicle could get up there by stepping over it. Granted it's not like this is utterly impassible of course, so an argument that a tank and an assault bridge together could handle it could be made, but that still takes two vehicles, so at least they have that.
It's highly situational though, not of an impossible use but just rare.
Northropi
A mech tall enough to climb over such an obstacle would also be a really big target every other time there isn’t a big wall to crawl over. You create 10 new problems to fix this one. Even without a bridge layer, a tank’s overall better speed may allow it to reach the destination faster even with a detour.
@@Appletank8 a mech tall enough to step onto a six-foot terrace would only need a bit more than six feet between the ground and its hip, right? Assuming you can pancake the torso into a low profile we're dealing with like 10, 12 feet at most. An M1 is 8, and an M2 is 9.78, so that's bigger, but is it unforgivably so? And that's presuming it can't just jump greater than the height of its leg, or lift itself to climb, and I'm also erring on the generous side of how high a truly vertical obstacle tanks can climb because I'm not quite sure. And yeah, maybe it can drive around, but the situation could very well make that unfavorable. Technically you could drive around anything...
Yeah if you are out in the mountains it is better to have a mech that breaks down sometimes than not having any armour support at all.
Mechs might fall into use with riot forces, being that they're much more imposing than a tank might be.
Yeah a tank might get lost in the crowd and you can't really see it if it is far back. A mech would tower over people and you could see it from far away.
That was part of the logic in Brigador. Most of the fighting takes place in heavily urbanized environment so the additional height and antenna range is useful for communication. They can also shoot over smaller vehicles and are therefore often used as command vehicles. And one important aspect that is explained in the lore is that huge bipedal mechs are much scarier than tanks to the people who see them including the people who get to decide which vehicles are being used. Furthermore it's explained that mechs never replaced tanks and that both are being used.
@@517342 but mechs are stupid, what is it you don't understand?
Mechs are stupid, people are stupid. People think they are cool so people wanna use them. Simple.
That and logistics being used to carry and heavy equipment and weapons
Imagine your gun being a part of your main chasie and not being able to adaptively use cover.
Imagine having much less powerful weaponry and mobility and practically no protection because your center of mass is all wonky.
-made by tank gang
But seriously, having a more powerful weapon system, greater mobility and significantly batter protection is going to be much more valuable than the ability to use cover with more flexibility.
Imagine only being viable in ground combat and not being able to use modules to spec out your machine in no time at all for a specific role.
Mobile suit gang-
Imagine being fucked for eternity the moment a single cog goes wrong, forcing an entire battalion of engineers to figure out where the hell your bipedal swiss clock is having an issue, then fixing it without screwing everything else.
Oh and tanks can use cover too, and more of it due to profile, finally if a mech ever tries to fly it'll become free target for anti-air and any aircraft
@@dranoelarios4788 Imagine having such a irregularly shaped body that it becomes a massive hassle to swap out turrets and applique armor
-made by CV90 gang
Weeb Extraordinaire
Imagine not being able to field the high mega cannon powered by the ultra compact minovsky fusion reactor with an output of over 7GW.
Who needs reactive amour when you have phase shift, I field and luna titanium?
Mobile suit gang-
I was a battle mech at one time, then I popped a hydraulic line in my knee.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the mechs of Battlefield 2142. Those are probably the most down-to-earth battle mechs I've seen in any IP.
you noticed the mech of bf2142 was unable to pass a single meter wall exactly like a tank eaht the infantry can pass
Ive always thought that small mechs (or power armor really) would exel at bringing heavy weapons and equipment in a supporting role to infantry
Here’s the thing: just have the guys carry a machine gun. At infantry scale, it’s doable, but it’s always a better idea to put in on a tripod rather than hope the platform doesn’t glitch or misstep and topple over. If you are so much as two feet taller than the average infantryman you are already talking about small IFVs that can mount autocannons, missiles, and machine guns, on a much more stable platform with a lot more ammo, a lot more armor, and a much faster top speed.
The US is currently testing a four-foot robot ox that follows soldiers like a dog and carries however much you can physically fit on it’s back, if that’s any consolation.
allow me to introduce you to what is called, the tactical dreadnought armor, or terminator armor for short.
There's already miniature tank drones that are being tested, why not that? By square cubes law, any problems that big tanks should be kinked out.
@@user-pq9gy3fq1q That's... not how that works. A smaller machine can take more *proportional* punishment and do more *proportional* damage, but you still need a really big gun with a really big hull to be driven around on to punch through a really big tank's armor, while that big tank's big gun can punch through you. What the sqr^2 law actually means is you have to stop making things bigger or you'll be reducing the $/effectiveness to the point that you might as well build a number of smaller vehicles rather than a relatively fragile massive target for things that can kill it, and to not do so is to cripple your war-making capacity.
as is always the issue with the "mech vs tank" argument its always the same answer from me...
stop trying to compare them.
now, some are obsessed with the "giant" mechs of their franchises, like gundam and battletech, but these mechs are hardly worth mentioning as far as practical mechs because those mechs can never be practical (maybe some very limited circumstances like on low gravity worlds or somthing).
titanfall mechs are probably the tallest a mech can get, any taller and it will start to hamper itself with weight and other issues.
the issue with trying to compare "smaller mechs" and tanks is that these machines are nothing alike, and their battlefield purpose wouldnt be anything close to similar. try, for example, comparing a tank with a fighter jet, or an attack helicopter. these vehicles have nothing in common.
you touched upon it in your review, the battlefield for mechs would be urban combat, or any other arena with dense cover. the lack of armor, compared to tank, would be supplemented by using buildings and other structures as cover. urban combat also negates the "taller" profile of the mech, intact it adds to its advantage as its "vertical" profile fits better in streets and alleyways instead of the sheer boxy horizontal nature of tanks. as modern combat becomes ever more focused in urban centers the necessity for a fighting vehicle that can take advantage over this environment would be necessary.
right now the military is working on more and more of exo suits, these suits would be indispensable in urban combat. with enough armor to resist basic infantry wpns, an armored exosuit can dominate the cqc environment while increasing the chances of soldier survival. with the blueprints of exosuits we can eventually upgrade to "exo mechs", maybe about twice the size of a man, these mechs can be used as mobile fire support on the street-side (firm structures with higher ceilings like parking garages are preferable for this mech), they work well in the densest of urban sprawl. then theres the mechs about titanfall size, they will be much slower then titanfall mechs in reality and their limbs would have to be much more bulky, but they can be the heaviest guns when it comes to mechs in urban combat (they can also serve additional combat rolls like transporting troops on their backs and then helping them onto the 2nd and 3rd floor of buildings).
as long as the mech is able to mimic a soldiers movements it is useful (any mech that is a tank on legs is too clumsy for urban combat). at this point the best way mechs would ever be useful is if they are basically "giant soldiers". think of it like making super soldiers, but through mechanics and not through bio engineering.
heck, the soldier doesn't even have to be there. with the advanced programing of boston dynamics we could have drones that are piloted from the fob or from across the globe. these boston dynamics mechs could be made bigger and given wpns like hmgs to support the infantry.
so the argument of tanks vs mechs will always be a pointless debate. any piece of wargear has its battlefield role and where its best for slotting into a fighting force. trying to put a mech in the place of a tank is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, just like comparing a tank to a jet.
give it a decade or 2 and we will have mech tech that can start to bring about these machines in urban combat, the only thing preventing them is those who cant think outside the "mech vs tank" debate.
same as i always told others too. in the debate. people always imagine mech's purpose would be the dominator of battlefield and can win against everything, which is why they think mech is useless bcos it impossible too beat existing warmachine.
i always tell them mech should just "fill the gap" between infantry and IFV. not to fight MBT head-on. think its like a technical or humvee but more agile (agile. not fast). imagine mech that is around 3m tall. can poke out of cover like human, showing just a gun , 1arm and half of head. and the gun that poking out is 50cal HMG or 20-30mm auto cannon instead of infantry smallarms. think about heavy weapon platform that dont expose itself in the middle of street in urban warfare and can follow infantry into alley that "vehicle" cannot. that would be useful. just useful. nothing more nothing less. but people always think in cartoonish way about mech.
@@bercerus its impossible to avoid that mindset. ive had this conversation many times and it always devolves into "mech vs tank" because of bad actors on both sides (but to be honest there are more bad actors on the tank side).
you get those guys who absolutely love mechs like "gundam" and "battletech" and any tank head and i can tell those are impractical.
but worse you have every tank purist who have this weird idea that tanks are the gods of the battlefield and nothing can supplant them, especially no mech.
it always essentially boils down to a strawman fight as one always thinks your talking about massive impractical mechs doing gymnastics in the air or something, and no matter what practical design we mention they will always shoot it down becasue they think we actualy want impractical massiv mechs.they also have a weird disconect when it comes to technology, no mater how many advancements we have made they'll ignore tech that will eventually lead to mechs.
its an uphill struggle, you can see it in this thread. its exhaustive (it the comment that has about 100+ replies).
I think the biggest factor now is technology, Mecha would be so powerful than tank because because people compared it with in game rather than with real life robot and problem is the settings is always from future . I don't agree with some of your statement about Mecha will slow or the weight will damper their height but I kinda understand looking from nowadays technology and I have reason with my disagreements. Military now focusing on how making tank fast rather than their armor nowadays, because you know the anti armor weapons is more advanced and more likely always step a head than armory except some "miracle" happens. Like some general said tank are not tank anymore, they are walking cannon with necessary protection. Well he has deep knowledge about military so I won't dig more about tank prospect. Mecha in another hand is supposed to have much better agility and flexibility to aim or weapon rather than rotating cannon only but yeah, if we talk Mecha with nowadays technology they are just bunch armored robot with better weapon rather than true Mecha.
Gundams aren't any bigger or heavier than a jet fighter 90% of the time. I think people just fail to realize how big an F-22 really is sometimes. On the smaller, more "advanced" end of Gundam, many of the models have a height similar to the length of Harrier Jump Jets, and a comparable weight as well.
@@onigojira the original gundam (rx 28) is aprox 42.5 ton, height is 18.5 meters
the f-22 jet is about 41.5 tons (max take-off load), length (nose to rear) is 18.5 meters
for comparison for battlemechs and tanks (which i also refer to)
atlas battlemech is 100 tons, is aprox 13 meters (this varies as the lore has always had them very inconsistent with height)
m1 abrams is aprox 60 tons, (front to rear) is aprox 10 meters
so,your not wrong, the settings refer to them having roughly the same weight and length. but there are a few issues..
1st, the gundam and battlemech weight are questionable because the settings rely on "future" tech to allow for such weight. if they were made with the tech we have today they would either weigh the same but have weak armor, or have comparable armor but weigh a whole lot more.
the entire length and the majority of the weight of the f-22 is designed specifically to allow it to fly. it combines all we know about thrust and aerodynamics to allow this massive machine to fly, and the thing has to keep consistent speed to stay flying and could only fly for so long. its armor is very lacking because it relies on speed and maneuverability and long range firepower to avoid combat.
in comparison a tank is heavier but shorter. but a tank is very slow (in comparison) and most of its weight is dedicated to armor so it might survive other tanks...and that's questionable because firepower has usually trumped armor for a long time in todays modern battlefield.
so, what does this mean? if we consider it for fighting on earth. both the gundam and battlemech are too heavy for their surface area they provide. They are also massive targets on the battlefield and thus the easiest things to shoot at, and realistically their weight wouldn't allow either to maneuver enough to "dodge" enemy fire.
in their respective settings they have advanced armor that allows them to shrug off most damage. but neither of these is unique to a mech. any vehicle can be set up with the same theoretical armor and firepower. A tank is more effective than a gundam because it can have beam wpns as its main gun and it can use gundanium (or whatever the lunar metal is) and beat any gundam because it would have a better profile (harder to hit). a jet fighter with beam wpns would be better because, while it can't have the same armor (still too heavy to fly), it has speed over the gundam.
i love mobile suits and battlemechs, but in all reality these machines are impractical. there is a legitimate argument as to why these mechs will never be practical. at their size they are sore thumbs on the battlefield without having any real bonus over other vehicles in war. thats why i advocate for a mech small enough and light enough for a combat environment that other vehicles dont do well in. its not about competing with and replacing a tank, its about finding a useful battlefield role. continuing to advocate for the unrealistic gundam does not help the conversation.
now if you advocated for "mobile workers" or other small mobile suits (of roughly the same height) from the franchise. then we are talking, but every other mech in the franchise is too large and too heavy.
I like to think that tanks would play a more general all-purpose role, similar to the Humvee in the US military, while mechs would play more specialized roles like the F-22 Raptor or the B-2 bomber in a sci-fi setting.
Okay
I believe tanks are here to stay, but only in wide open terrains were they can defend themselves and move freely, using their speed, firepower and range to their best advantage.
In more difficult terrains, tanks get stuck, ambushed from close distance and the big ass gun cant be used to its full potential.
It sounds stupid, but i can really imagine smaller walkers could be the future here. With like 4 legs they are not bound to roads and can easily travel over ruins and rubble, through rivers and over obstacles. They would field something like a 30mm cannon & machine gun to engage infantry and IFVs, and a few missiles against heavy armor and helicopters.
Knocking out a tank isnt that difficult anymore, it comes down to mobility, advantagous positions and fast firepower. A small walker would perfectly fit that role.
I think the opposite. Armoured vehicles tend to specialise (anti-infantry, anti-tank, anti-air, transport, etc.) Whereas a mech with hands can manipulate objects, climb, crawl, mount and hold different weapons...You could even just use a mech as a watch/guntower, or even as a bridge over water/gap for infantry to cross.
...That's not to say specialized mechs wouldn't happen, I'm just saying mechs have more generalist ability than a tracked piece of metal with guns on.
@@SamyH_amSet For sure. Tanks in urban environments get killed by infantry easy. Launcher to the tracks to disable it, or even just the classic bod sticking a bomb on/in the tank. Infantry are like a hard counter to most tanks.
Mechs would have their uses over tanks for sure.
@@grahamhill676 why would you make a walker with hands yo, imagine what stupid idea a tank with an arm would be. So why yould you put one on an unstable, legged tank??
*I am questioning this man's sanity after I have watched mechs with tank treads get wrecked in both Gundam and Armored Core*
Hey man I'm all in defense of legged vehicles but my tank AC's wreck anything they face.
@@a.wadderphiltyr1559 gundam are graveyard of people
Gundam is full of psychic teenagers, incompetent generals and bs minovsky particles but you can't deny it gave mechs justice. Mobile suits are more than tanks and mobile armors(spaceships/jets). You don't compare em to tanks as it fulfills a much different role.
@@xd3d034997 That's because the world isn't restrained by real world physics, otherwise tanks and mobile pods would be combat mainstays as they are faster, lighter, and with in-universe technology, overall better for combat roles.
Those poor MTs in armored core.
Hover tanks vs. Tracked tanks
Honnestly i don't think comparing mechs and tanks is even a great idea, the closest thing to them would be an IFV if you ask me.
Mechs usually don't carry people,except pilot. Which means that they fundamentally fail at IFV job.
@@Poctyk Isn't that the pupose of APCs and not IFVs? With the exception of the Bradley i suppose. I thought the purpose of an IFV was just to be a light armored vehicle with an autocannon.
@@2Potates Every single IFV can comfortably carry infantry inside. From Russian BMP-3, German Marder to Bradley. Lately difference between IFV and APC became extremely blurred with 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe defines an infantry fighting vehicle as "an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, and which is armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters calibre and sometimes an antitank missile launcher". (wiki)
APC usually are lighter armed (but not necessarily lighter armored) cheaper and designed to carry infantry in and out of the battle with weapons being primarily for self defense, while IFV are designed to carry infantry into battle and then fight alongside infantry. But make no mistake, both types are designed to carry infantry.
Armored vehicle that isn't for infantry carrying and is not a tank, is more akin to BMPT (tank support vehicle). But in this case humanlike giant mech would still lose since that thing is quite literally a tank hull where 125mm gun being replaced with more dakka. Meaning it is still more concealed, better armored, uses already established platform/components etc.
Mechs? congrats, you've revolutionized warfare by creating a tank that can trip.
rather, a helicopter that can walk
Counterpoint: Gundams. Tanks cant do anything to them.
why
If they can exist in real life. In their universe? Bruh
@@user-pq9gy3fq1q if gundams can exist than super tank can exist more
why in scific their is restriction on all but focused plot
did they have nuke is starwar or gundam
Or I can make a sphere with guns and stop wasting time adding legs to flying space craft
@@femimark5021 why a sphere at all just a gun that shoot in any direction so its called a bomb isnt
Please do Command And Conquer.
One of the most interesting designs I’ve ever seen for a mech is in the show Code Geass in the Knightmare (notably the common version for this). Its fairly lightly armored and relies on its mobility to fight, it has small arms for infantry and uses larger weapons for anti-armor roles. While i think they glorify them a bit with the prototypes that appear in the show, the common mechs are closer to that of an armored infantry than a full on tank and i believe it suits them well.
Biped mechs May suck but what about quadrupeds? Hexapeds? Octopeds even?
More legs = more complexity, more maintenance, more energy to power them, more trouble.
i mean you never know the wars of the future shouldnt be predicted with the tools of the present
Yeah there where plenty of smug shits that thought horses would reign supreme forever in 1910 lol.
@Matias Alvarez i mean isnt that what were doing with tanks currently just shoving expensive tech into a metal box and parying its enought to stop what ever the enemy throws at it. because in reality tanks just replaced the knight and hussar which all stem from the charioteers of old before horses could carry armor. even though the training requirement isnt as heavy as before the cost of maintenance and building of these vehicles is. tanks like chariots are useful in certain but common situations and if not used properly can be made utterly useless. so i would argue that eventually with advances in tech mech suits might one day become cheaper and more practical than designing increasingly larger tanks
@Matias Alvarez well not knights but moreso nobleman cavalry but same jist
@Matias Alvarez like i said originally we can know for sure wether or not stabilistation tech wont get better, my arguement is that the tank will be replaced same as the chariot, cataphract, knight, and hussar was and right now mechs seem like a likely candidate
@@kevincho1187 You are confusing doctrine and technology, and still getting it wrong. Tanks are not the modern.manouver element, mechanized infantry is, tanks are the breakthrough element.
Here is an additional thing, that I see most people ignore when it comes to it:
In an mech, there are alot of things that could go wrong. Due to all the moving parts, I suspect that an mech need more maintenace then an tank to be combat efficient. More so then an tank.
More maintenace means more supplies. More supplies means you have to have an solid logistic team behind it. So, when you have to field issues those mech's, it means you have to secure an bigger supply route then tanks.
Not to mention the elephant in the room here:
Would it be worth it to lose an Mech in the field in comparison to an tank?
Due to all of these complicated mechanics going into an mech, I suspect it will cost more then tank and so it will become an "White Elephant".
Just like Yamato and Mushashi, two giant "Super dreadnaughts" battleship that Japan could only afford an few off, it will be focused and destroyed by things that cost maybe an fraction of the mech.
You do not even have to go that far. More moving parts means more vulnerabilities. All you have to do is fuck up a servo and your mech is useless.
@Astranat I doubt a tank has anywhere near as many of those as you'd need in a mech.
@Astranat not to mention:
In an tank, those weak components are fairly hidden behind armor and/or low profile in comparison with an mech.
I just get an "Deja vu" feeling about this from WW2. Example; The tiger 1, Tiger Ausf. B(Tiger 2) and others heavy tank from WW2.
Sure; They where standing tall in comparision to others, but there is an thing called; There is an quality in quantity.
@Astranat Here is an question though;
Let us entertain that thought of yours:
If Mech's are superior, with agility and flight capability; What stops them?
Wouldn't there be any form counter weaponry that could be stationed on an tank to counter for such an vehicle?
Not to mention;
What is the power source for such an mech?
What would the power output be on such an device for it to move in such an way?
Would the Mech sacrify armor for agility or does the engine output so much energy that it's like attaching an feather to an car?
Is it realistic to acheive such an thing in the near future? Far future? Or will it be an fantasy?
What kind of firepower are we talking here? Laser? Ballistic weaponry? ICBM's? Phonton Torpedo's? Death star lasers?
Do you see the problem here?
Even then; Why reserve such an fantasy for the mech's, but not for tanks?
How about an transforming tank that can become an space-jet interseptor with "Iron dome MK MMXII" that could intercept projecttile from mechs and deliver an devestating blow? Also now with Submergeble capability, hoover mode for increase agility and flying at Mach 11 across the battlefield.
AND STILL; Be an smaller target to hit, with an singel round, with thousand flying across the battlefield, for the price of an singel mech. Also; They still be very hard to detect in comparison to an singel Mech, simply by the size of it!
@@JohnAnonym a gundam is normally 15 to 20 METERS high. It has an autoloading armor piercing autoloader tank barrel the shape of an assault rifle. And bigger than a tank. It would also have those head guns that is also an auto loader for a tank. A rocket long enough to compare it to a tank and is basically a missile warhead.
A Gundam is basically a Tank that can strafe faster than a tank can turn.
Personally, I feel mechs are perfectly valid if the writer takes the time to justify them.
Titanfall 2 makes the case that mechs beat tanks through their ability to scale mountains and their robo appendages makes them extremely adaptable since they can swap out their weapons on the fly, allowing a single titan fill whatever role is needed at the moment.
A mech is also a much better fit for a high end A.I since its arms lets it act out on more unconventional strategies, like how BT and Jack fastballs.
I also believe that they would be a much better fit for urban combat than tanks since their legs would let them step over barriers and their height would partly negate whatever height advantage a defender could gain. But in more conventional open warfare a tank is just better.
A mech is less versitile, but so are a vast range of weapons. And lets not forget that the cost of manufacturing weapons like mechs would be much more negligible in a sci fi setting, where there tends to be bigger economies whit more manpower and materials, justifying the price of a specialist weapon.
as said by a marine in halo
"TANK BEATS EVERYTHING!"
Except a Banshee.
"They hated Jesus because he told them the truth."
They hated Hitler and Stalin as well , but they still made stupid things like Pz V and T-34. But you are right...
"Tanks are way better than Mechs"
Me: **laughs in Imperator class Titan**
Me: *Laughs in Shadowsword*
Me: laughs in Tone
Centurion: Laughs in Grav Tank
@@Activated_Complex laughs in Hyperion constructer.
Laughs in 5000 nuclear warheads ready to be deployed anywhere, everywhere, better than amazon can do.
Mechs are imaginary, tanks are freakin real.
Thanks, captain obvious.
I love mechs but in the end 99% of the time a tank would be better and cheaper.
and whatever new technology becomes available for mechs, it'd be also beneficial to tanks.
dhkdeoen
Tru at the end of the day I see the two merging.
High speed MBT/arty one second medium armed flying mech the next
tanks will never have the efficient firepower.
Not necessarily.
A Battletech for instance (I know I know, putting real-life logic and physics in BT is kinda shooting oneself in the leg) has myomer, the artificial muscle fiber thingy. It would be a LOT more beneficial to mechs than to tanks.
or to helicopter.
@@ahriman935 I've never played the game nor know how that tech works in the game, but to achieve artificial fiber I assume it requires a lot of material science and mechanical/electrical power efficiency.
which would be more effective when it's not in the artificial fiber form. For example, being part of tank's armor and driving parts.
*Angry Imperial Knight noises*
Bold words for someone within Volcano Lance range
Imperial Guard: BANEBLADE
@Redux Dude Sorry, I thought you called me furry, so I just quoted If the Emperor had a text to speech device web series. Since I assumed I was getting called that since I play Space Wolves on tabletop and figured you play Dark Angels or Thousand Sons
@Redux Dude Go fuck yourself, troll.
I love how people always compare mechs to tanks when they arent supposed to be tank replacements.
Mechs are specialized air/ground vehicles not pure ground ones. In other words walking attack helicopters. They would also be more useful as zero-g combat vehicles capable of better propulsion control than a ship due to parts being able to moves and readjust angle of thrust.
There is zero point to having a walking helicopter, helicopters can get pretty close to ground anyway, having a flying vehicle with robotic limbs that makes it twice as heavy and requires more fuel is completely pointless.
Same in a zero-g environment. You just stick thrusters all over your ship and it can move abd change direction more effectively than a human shaped mech. It makes zero sense.
@@21Arrozito if you build a robotic kit you will understand the weight is already too much for the motors tought their is a video of a spider drone on youtube but the leg replace the camera and most of the battery autonomy who is already short on the best drone its 30min
@@21Arrozito The issue with that is the idea of fuel, generally these are solved by gigantic batteries that are recharged at base.
But then there's the counter argument; if a mech can hold more firepower, why use helicopters?
The issue arrives when a person says "Why have x when we can have y?" When they can serve different roles completely. A helicopter can be used as close ground support and anti-air from the air, you can spot them and take them down with a well placed rocket. Mechs could use the sane system, close ground support and anti-air, but depending on how they are built, they could have more armor, stability (I just realised, what if the feet had metal clamps that would dig into the ground, grounding them and making them giant turrets, hmm, food for thought I guess), and have the possibility to carry more firepower. However, they take a while to deploy, so we have a long term and short term answer to things, does this make the other impractical?
No, no it doesn't
Lots of Mech's practical applications is limited in Sci-fi. In Gundam, the reason why mechs(aka mobile suits) are so much better than everything else is because it can be reused as an all purpose unit capable of land, sea, air, and also space. Still, these things wouldn't be possible without a power supply(fictional nuclear reactors and minovsky particles) and a light but strong material for armor. As long as those requirements are met, mechs become literally a giant walking and flying death machine. They can carry all types of weapons. Perform all types of assault and can outmaneuver larger ships and carriers. They can single-handedly destroy massive fleet of space ships and shut down entire enemy forces with only a handful of pilots.
Also during peace, mechs can be used as an all purpose machines. The mechs in gundam all originated from construction industry being called mobile workers. Then the space people added guns and firepower to them, then they became mobile suits.
But this is sci-fi so all that is possible because it's fiction.
In real life, this wouldn't be a thing or may not be possible. FOR NOW. But even if the day where it is possible comes, I dont thjnk they would replace tanks with it. There a lots of setbacks in reality which is disappointing as Thanos said. Fuel and energy, extreme consumption because of heavy upper body and heavy legs lifting a heavy body; Armor, it would be equipped with thin armor to be light and easy to move or more mobility though trophy system or ERA might be able to solve that.
@@Srae17 Mech shouldn't be built like a tank. Maybe it could serve purpose similar to exoskeleton but bigger. It might not beat tanks at its firepower but it could be used in situations that tanks are unable to do, like traversing extreme locations such as cliffs, mountains, urban environments. It could be built much lighter than a tank. Move much faster and carry and use a variety of weapons with human locomotion.
Mechs are really cool but they will not be as widely used like in uc gundam. Their effectiveness will be niche and they will not replace tanks.
@Andy 8583 They kinda tried that in Gundam, but mobile suits are just easier to mass manufacture, more fitting for a variaty of scenarios, and in later stages of the war they standardized parts of mobile suits for better maintenance.
Mech pilot: "You can't just beat me in a race!"
Tank driver: *"Haha Tank go vrooooom"*
*"But can a tank fly?"*
@@Guilherme-130 I'd love to see someone build a flying mech.
@@Guilherme-130 if we are talking about sci-fi thing, H O V E R T A N K
@@sirawitmangmee7417 or if we talk about reality, ATTACK HELICOPTER.
@@kohlrak well the iron man suit seems a better contender than what anime managed to cook up
I allways think of an armour piercing round going through and hitting the pilot, and how exposed everything is.
As for futuristic feul that can power a mech with layers and shealds, imagine how much more power you could get if u put it in a tank?
"Why Tanks Are Better Than Mechs"
WH40k Dreadknight: "i sense Heresy."
Dreadknight gets stuck in a hole: Dammit!!! NOT AGAIN!!!
@@rommdan2716
No Problem. * Calling in the Imperial Knight *
How about mechs being a better terror weapon?
Also in any environment with limited fields of fire, like urban or in terrain with lots of trees or rocky protrusions.
A 4 legged small spider drone with a grenade strapped into it is a better terror weapon... Mechs are just a bigger target.
Urban would be hell for a big mech, just as it is for tanks. imagine going into a room full of hundreds of holes all over the place and you have to pay attention to each and every single hole to make sure one or more gun barrels aren't there or milliseconds away from shooting you from which ever angle.
It all depends on how fast you can make the mech go. It will be pretty hard to hit something on the move when you line of sight will be constantly blocked by buildings.
@@pakornwattanavrangkul2550 Yes, if you can make something the size of a building to be maneuverable enough to hid behind other buildings in possibly winding roads. Though even then if the enemy predicts where the mech is going to go or make the mech go behind a building thats full of infantry concealed, they can still catch it off guard and kill it.
@@AAhmou behold my answer to bigger weapon question. its called a Void Shield. protects from practically all weapons as long as its not overloaded thin. but then again the meter thick armor should shrug off any artillery that hits it on average. any anti-tank weapons are like bites of an insect.
Be back in 20 years when mechs or mech animals become a thing. I do feel there is a lot of potential for mech animals though.
Researchers studying moose for how they traverse swamp to me is pointless, because it is possible to equip mechs with some type of equipment like a shoe to distribute weight, mechs traversing territory such as mountains shouldn't be too hard, since I can fairly easy traverse steep hill with a tool such as a pickaxe to help me support my weight.
I'm sure any thoughtful military would design an appropriate failsafe to a mech falling such as a giant airbag.
The problem I really agree with you is the motors on each joint. That would indeed be a problem. Any good engineer, however, would cover their weapons weak spots so joints would be at the top, however, joints imo would be designed to withstand small arms fire and probably only a larger caliber cannon round would take it out, like a turret on a tank. Were a large caliber cannon to appear I'm sure mechs would support infantry while the infantry disables the cannon.
Explosives would probably be the largest problem as mechs like humans can be fitted with equipment to traverse tough terrain. For the motors who knows what we'll get in the next 30 years, maybe someone solves the motor joint issues.
Also if a leg or arm or foot gets destroyed I'm sure these mechs would be designed in an interchangeable way where you just pop off the socket and pop in a new fresh leg or arm. Also for the pilot, just put him in a giant bubble.
Meep Meep I like this idea
lmao, I'm just imagining mechs with these huge ass clown feet haahah
For each improvement of the joint, you add weight. Then more for munitions, tools, FCSs, and then it essentially becomes what it wasn't meant to be (like the MBT 70) and as much as better feet design can help displace weight, how big does it need to be before it essentially becomes tracks? Thats my main gripe.
@@dranoelarios4788 gundam why not nanites can production with freaking arm design computer piece of paper
Imagine the Empire at the battle of Hoth with Main Battle Tanks, APC’s filled with Stormtroopers and SPAA’s shooting down Snowspeeders
War Thunder Hoth map when Gayjeen
one problem blaster will take out tracks they are far too easy to damage
@@ThePsicocat101 source?
@@eyeballpapercut4400 star wars
Video: Tanks are better than mechs in every way
Transformers: What?
Vari-Fighters: Did someone say something?
Sym Bionic Titan: What was that noise?
Megas XLR: I didn't hear anything
Gipsy Danger: Do you mind? I've got Kaijus attacking a city over here
Mata Nui: Keep it down, will ya? I just woke up
Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann: Sorry, I can't hear you from way down there. can you speak up?
I seem to recall a similar argument made with horses vs cars back in the late 19th century
That argument being?
"Yes horses are so much better, because can a car jump? No you silly fool!"
@@devynd6476 The arguments where that a horse is good at being a horse, not taking into account what a car can do that isn't in the scope of what a society that has used horse and carriage for the last millennia.
@@devynd6476 something about cars never replacing or being better than horses
don't remember the specifics but in context to this vid it was like horses are the mechs (mostly about having legs being more nimble) and cars are the tanks
kurt engel except those two things aren’t equivalent. A tank is nothing like a car and a horse is nothing like a mech. Horses excel in off-road terrain where a car may struggle. A tank doesn’t face those same struggles. Not to mention, that “argument” probably never took into account technological progression. Cars before the invention of the assembly line were produced in small numbers, were individually assembled units, and were often slower than horses. Mechs don’t get the same benefit of “not accounting for technological progression” because they fundamentally don’t agree with physics. Propelling a leg takes far more energy than rolling a wheel. Balancing a higher center-of-mass requires far more maneuverability than having a vehicle resting on treads. As a rule of thumb for warfare, having a lower profile is always preferable. Mechs don’t make sense.