Are BattleMechs Useless in Combat? | Battletech | Debates Pilot

Are BattleMechs effective enough in combat to justify their immense costs and upkeep?
The Templin Institute investigates the nations, factions, and organizations of alternate worlds.
New episodes every week.
Other Divisions & Branches:
🔹 Patreon | / templininstitute
🔹 The Templin Commissary | shop.templin.i...
🔹 Twitch | / templininstitute
🔹 The Templin Archives | / @templinarchives
🔹KZbin Membership | / @templininstitute
🔹Submit Your Episode Idea | ideas.templin....
Communications & Media:
🔹 Website | www.templin.in...
🔹 Discord | / discord
🔹 Facebook | / templininstitute
🔹 Twitter | / templinedu
🔹 Instagram | / templininstitute
🔹 Subreddit | / templininstitute
🔹 Mailing Address | Unit 144 - 919 Centre St SW Calgary, AB T2E 2P6
Background music: “White Atlantis” by Sergey Cheremisinov. User under a Attribution-NonCommercial License.
Ending music "Battle Forever" used under license from Shutterstock.com.

[@TemplinInstitute]

And so, pilot week comes to a close. If you’re one of our Patrons, make sure to vote on which new series you want added to our regular lineup! www.patreon.com/templininstitute

[@pierrepaul591]

The Templin Institute Waiting on Coruscant explained video.

[@Irobert1115HD]

i think you forget mech tanks. they use more than two legs and can bebuild with combination legs (like the HAW204 mechtank fro the ghost in the shell tv series).

[@Sturmlied]

I think this was limited to the Battletech universe.

[@gavinkemp7920]

this is a great show just a few point i'd like to see ironed out. evoid pools question with negatives, it make answering them confusing. and i think having a second part of the debate interesting makes it more of a discution/debat.

[@nathanaelsallhageriksson1719]

The Templin Institute you might want to next time, use a possetive statement cause you have for and against as the options. So, it's easy to get the sides mixed up and think that 'for' is for the (in this case) use of mechs. And 'against' to be against.

[@robotbob1860]

I think the context under which different universes use mechs must be understood. I think that Titanfall explains it's justification for mechs quite well, they started off as simple exoskeletons that drastically improved the strength of the user, over time they became more and more valuable to the Militia as they could be easily mounted with guns and could operate with decent effectiveness in any environment. Tanks are actually far more common in the Titanfall universe (in the lore, to be precise). Titans are only used in cases such as urban combat (where mobility is far more important than speed) and in terrain very much unsuited to tanks. Lastly, Titans primarily act as infantry support, rather than as main offensive hardware, to that end the need for ground offenses is limited to the elimination of strategic, rather than tactical targets as the Militia is able to hold its own quite well in space, this in turn prevents the IMC from deploying tanks directly into battle, instead Titans are used to suppress the civilians in Milita space.

[@RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts]

Mechwarrior's own universe acknowledges that battlemechs are not the ultimate weapon, but rather an agreed-upon weapon system to be used in lieu of glassing entire planets/civilizations with nukes and warships. Like lightsabers, they're meant to be a civilized weapon for a civilized time.

[@MrMarinus18]

Though even there the use is a little questionable. Why make a super complex exoskeleton when you could use a much cheaper and more reliable small forklift?

[@everyonethinksyoureadeathm5773]

@@MrMarinus18 Head to Tail doctrine. A few things to consider, ICE engines were still highly pragmatic and to use energy weapons you had to use converters and capacitors. If you ever seen a Cap explode before...its not pretty, let alone ones large enough to power medium to large lasers. Fusion Engines for track, hover and wheeled vehicles were expensive and bulky. Not all planets had sustainable atmospheres where you can field a vehicle army for a long amount of time. Putting a ICE vehicle on a moon where you need oxygen to burn fuel wasnt viable. Putting an expensive combat vehicle that used a Fusion Engine was also a bit of a liability. Battletech used Combine Arms as its main treaty, A lace of Mechs (any class) often had infantry and tank support. Often they would get fighter or VTOL support but only when you can secure the air was that viable. Battlemechs specifically those whose main armaments were energy base could run independently of their supply chain for weeks on end. In some of the novels it wasnt unheard of a lace of scout mechs being behind enemy lines for weeks undetected. Also Battlemechs can project force far faster due to hot drops than placing armor on the ground. You're also not fielding large armies at this point. During the 4th Succession War, the only time a multi-regiment level drop was done was on one Planet. We are talking close to 1000 battlmechs, 2000 armor vehicles, and 500,000 troops to take one planet (Brigade level command). After that It was 2-3 Battalions of mechs and vehicles to take auxillery planets. Even at some points no more than a Company of mechs were used.

[@noidea5752]

Titans are replacing heavy infantry instead of tanks and I think that could work well in a real combat scenario

[@jestersraven408]

@@MrMarinus18 wider range of use an Exoskeleton could be used in many ways that a forklift couldn't Construction Medical combat Mobility and more there is a wider range of use and they are more adaptable Imagine a firefighter with an exoskeleton he would be able to go through a burning building safer and faster with more options on how they could get in to the building and getting people out of the building

[@Perserra]

Realistically, yes, Battlemechs would be pointless outside of a few specific, uncommon situations. The most useful mechs would be the smaller, lighter models, mostly in an infantry support role. There's nothing that heavier mechs can do that a combination of conventional armor and drone support units couldn't do better. All of that misses the point though. Battlemechs exist because big, stompy robots covered in lasers, cannons, and missile launchers is cool!

[@Extrasailor]

Battlemechs can lift heavy objects and cross deep rivers, manipulate heavy objects like stuck tanks, stuck cars, mechs can climb on virtualy every mountain with ease, if you have to fight on high terrain tanks are inopperable there. Also they can weild objects like giant swords, maces axes when all ammo is consumed or in close range. Mechs can be used to port you on the roof of the building and you can take enemy by surprise, or prevent enemy escape with helicopter, they could survive high building falls, you can climb skyscrapers with them, if mobile enough you can jump accross water, mud etc. etc.

[@nitthecroller]

Thank warhammer 40k that. Edit: I am not a fan of 40k.

[@DemigodoftheSea]

What do you mean uncommon? Urban and jungle warfare is not only common, it is the *most* common type of modern warfare. Though I do agree, infantry support mechs would be the most realistic, giant mechs just don't work.

[@todo9633]

Yes, and one of those "uncommon situations" would be dropping out of a dropship to make a quick raid and then retreat while stealing salvage, which would be hard without hands, because your supply line is months of interstellar travel away and therefore prohibitively expensive and unlikely to reach you before you need new supplies, which describes like 90% of all armed conflict in Battletech.

[@nowhereman6019]

But can a tank roundhouse kick another tank? That's what I thought.

[@IronViking88]

"Gentlemen, I've revolutionized warfare by inventing a tank that can trip."

[@stardude2006]

Rex Coolguy Wrong

[@whatisupmyfellowamericans8808]

Although, this *does* raise a question. Why are mechs designed so badly? Seriously, the AT-AT from star wars is the dictionary definition of terrible design. If I were designing a mech, I would make its center of mass low to the ground, which would greatly reduce its risk of falling over. I would also space the legs out where they connect to the main body of the mech so that they aren't as easy to trip. Above that, make the feet widen out to cover a larger surface area, so as to reduce the strain on the chassis (think of the *feet* on the AT-AT and you get the picture). I'm thinking something like a circular main body that has its legs spread out evenly across the bottom of the body, just enough to reduce the risk of tripping, but not to far, because then the mech would begin to sag. With adequate proportions, the mech should be able to cover a decent distance in acceptable time, not to mention lay down supporting fire.

[@IronViking88]

Because it looks cool, honestly, is the answer every time.

[@stardude2006]

Rex Coolguy Because they look Cool

[@Zoness1124]

They have their pilot's sense of balance so . . . not really.

[@AuthorDodgeMerrin]

The mechs I created for my novels are fielded by only a single nation, and their purpose is to provide urban suppression against civilian targets. This role can also be filled by a more traditional vehicle, but the designers chose this design for its psychological impact. They aren't intended for use in full-scale combat and the only time they are is when they are surprised by a better equipped enemy than initially thought or when a commander arrogantly thinks that's all he/she needs.

[@derederekat9051]

on 1 of my novel i make a federation kingdom with rough mountain terrain where the alchemist and dwarf engineer protect their isolated kingdom with mech/magical golems with spider legs that can fire from the unexpected direction from the mountains, is some hard steampunk magic world so i can go whit sheet like that

[@theredotaku34]

This. No one said that the mechs had to be limited to two legs

[@sunsetgames4682]

link to novel

[@AuthorDodgeMerrin]

​@@jono3952 A valid point, and in the one scene where they are used to quell an uprising, they do prove more or less useless pretty quick. Part of that is due to the rebels being equipped with military grade weaponry beforehand, but there's also a bit where one gets knocked down then swarmed over by lightly armed and unarmed civilians. However, once the occupation forces bring in their more traditional equipment, they re-establish control rather easily. So perhaps it would be better to look at the mechs as a reminder of their power to the civilians rather than having any real power to suppress in and of itself. Or it's just one of their few mistakes by believing people are weaker than they really are. Even that adds a dose of reality to the story given that governments field terrible weapons all the time.

[@ethannehring3355]

I did the same thing!

[@EmperorSigismund]

Aside from big stompy robots being cool they relate to the prominent themes of fuedalism in Battletech. The mechwarriors are the knights who collect wealth from their serfs to arm and armour themselves for endless wars in the most elaborate fashions.

[@evanmagolor1812]

Only that falls apart after the 3050s or so - yet they still use mechs because reasons.

[@pach6678]

@@evanmagolor1812 To be fair, knights definitely showed up to battles for decades after they were obsolete - they were simply too expensive not to use, and plate armor could still stop musket balls, even if cannons made short use of them.

[@pjduker05]

@@pach6678 wait what?! No! Muskets easilly penetrated plate armor! In fact, long before the musket hit the battlefield, crossbows were penetrating armor. Especially when equipped with Bodkin tips which were specifically designed to pierced through armor. I encourage you to check out some videos on it. You can find loads of demonstrations where armor fails to simple bodkin arrows and bolts.

[@pjduker05]

See that idea doesn't even make sense. Not when you can have a "knight" that invested billions into his battlemech only to watch it get destroyed by farmers and peasants with a tow cable.

[@pach6678]

@@pjduker05 I'm sure there were crossbows that could penetrate armor, but on the other hand, the word "bulletproof" derives from the, well, bullet proof of armorers showing the strength of their plates by shooting a musket at them and showing how it failed to penetrate. In any case, as far as this relates to Battletech, while the setting might be approaching the fictional equivalent of the 1500s, the point is that Battlemechs/plate armor/whatever will still be around for many more years.

[@Makkovar]

I would've loved it if both sides were given a chance to refute the other's arguments, not just the one arguing against. For example, I feel like the defendant's argument included, in an indirect manner, a refutation of the argument for a mech's height being useful for detection and vantage point, because aircraft can already fill that role. This refutation could have been made explicit with a short second round of arguments. Still, a great pilot episode. High quality as always.

[@burningphoneix]

Yeah, I think a 3 round system is more useful here. Going second gives a huge advantage because you can refute the first person's argument without a response.

[@justinthompson6364]

burningphoenix I think both people involved are trying to present a balanced take on the issue rather than actually prove each other wrong. Nevertheless, a multi-round system could serve to highlight which points offset each other.

[@caad5258]

Yup, without a second round the second speaker has a large advantage.

[@kassaran2092]

I'll bring it up to them in Discord.

[@michaelcrowe6796]

What about bad weather?

[@mtfoxtrot5296]

"Moderation is the key to life." Go for a middle-ground approach and use a quad, or six legged, tank vehicle.

[@carso1500]

If you think too legs are too hard wait for six legs, thats a fucking nightmare (sourse, im a mechatronics enginer, making something with six legs that moves at more than 5 km/h is a fucking nightmare)

[@BlazingOwnager]

Terminator 1 basically had tracked 'mechs.

[@Johnpinckney98]

The scorpion & goliath are two main quad legged mechs which could move sideways if needed, but the goliath was way slower than most assault mechs. If you lost a leg you fell over and with every subsequent move you had to make a pilot roll to see if you fell over again.

[@BlazingOwnager]

@@Johnpinckney98 Incorrect. You'd need to lose two legs to begin making checks with a Quad. Being one leg down merely crippled your movement horribly, unless you're doing something requiring a piloting check (Running and turning on pavement, for example). Likewise, even on a biped if you can manage to stand a 'mech back up that lost a leg you can limp it along without making a check. And I do mean limp.

[@nopushbutton]

Go for the middle ground approach and put another leg in between the other two

[@edbrook7088]

“Tanks are useless in difficult terrain” Attack choppers: And that’s when the big bucks start rolling in

[@imstuff2499]

Choppers are pretty vulnerable and cant take much damage tho or they'll go down

[@edbrook7088]

@@imstuff2499 yes but they can carry countermeasures and hide behind terrain

[@perlasandoval7883]

@@imstuff2499 they can carry countermeasures and there are experimentation on camouflaged helicopters but it's still in it's infancy

[@thodan467]

so the trenches of WWI, the ardennes and the Golan Heights aren´t difficult terrain

[@imstuff2499]

@@thodan467 Not really,not easy but not difficult to the point that makes it impossible to traverse

[@DemTacs]

To Quote Col. O'Neill: "This (Points at Mech) is a weapon of terror. This (Points at tank) is a weapon of War.

[@halcionkoenig243]

To Quote Spacebattles: "This (Points at IoM Titan) is a weapon of terror. This (Points at Supreme Commander) is a weapon of War."

[@alreadyblack3341]

@@halcionkoenig243 Yeah, but I mean, the Imperator would just wipe out continents.

[@VoicesOfNihil]

@@alreadyblack3341 Agreed. But if you mounted that weapon on a tank (Say a Baneblade, or maybe an even bigger hypothetical variant) it would do the same damage. It's not like it is exclusive to walkers, as much as the Collegia Titanica would like you to believe.

[@alreadyblack3341]

@@VoicesOfNihil The problem being that the Imperator is quite literally the largest Walker the Imperium has ever fielded, and is larger than most ships, I doubt a tank would make much sense as it's range would be limited unless allowed to fire indirectly. However the Imperator with it's height advantage can pretty much fire almost indiscriminately. At ships in orbit, some even beyond, or almost half way across the damned planet. A tank, at least the by the typical description, would be far more stout, providing less of a target, yes, but without the firing capabilities that a Walker such as the Imperator enjoys. But that is on the issue of it's main Weaponry, as considering the fact that they're larger than some lighter vessels, it'd make sense to have that height. It's supporting armaments? Oh why yes, go ahead. Even a few of those would quite likely be enough to wipe out most other races Armor quite handedly if it was ever employed in such a way.

[@Llortnerof]

@@alreadyblack3341 The "height advantage" is probably more of a disadvantage, since it also means you can hit the Imperator from all those places, while it will have trouble reacting quickly without falling over due to simple physics. The main defense of any weapon of war is not getting shot at in the first place, too. Good luck trying to hide an Imperator. It's also a perfectly viable target for space-borne weaponry due to this, while trying to shoot individual tanks is probably a waste of time. Sure, it'll easily be able to wipe out lesser Armour... but that Armour is also far more easily replaced than the Imperator and vastly cheaper to maintain, and once the Imperator is disabled, can split up to engage multiple targets. You're pretty much falling victim to the whole "cool" factor that got us mechs in the first place even though the concept doesn't make much sense.

[@LetholdusKaspyr]

Useless? No. Truly inferior to other, less costly options? YES.

[@PaganShagger]

Battle mechs would be best used in SHOCK AND AWE blitzkrieg attacks. I'd imagine the space force dropping orbital battle mechs on or behind enemy lines to cause as much destruction as possible before self destructing. Yes battlemechs would be piloted by nobody, just like predator drones, controlled from a safe arm chair control room.

[@LetholdusKaspyr]

@@PaganShagger Thing is, there is a very small list of things that a tank can't do better than a mech, and that list is entirely encompassed by the list of things an attack helicopter can do better than a mech. Either of those vehicles are easier to produce and more versatile, in their own way, than a mech. I can't imagine why you would produce a mech instead of those.

[@pirotess2]

I also feel bad for any MechWarrior riding a light mech, the shaking up and down in high speed will make him vomit all of his meal.

[@piranhaplantX]

@@LetholdusKaspyr The worst part is that the cost involved to make a mech with similar capabilities would likely make it cheaper to produce a small detachment of both alternative vehicles.

[@LetholdusKaspyr]

@@piranhaplantX Yeah. Mechs look cool in fiction, but in terms of cost/benefit, the idea of choosing to build one instead of a much bigger number of tanks and helicopters is just absurd. If I was a military commander, and I saw my enemy producing mechs, I'd be overjoyed. Arrogant and stupid is the best kind of enemy to have.

[@christopherberry6086]

The "debate" misses the two most important points - logistics and how social structure impacts doctrine. Logistical comparing two forces fighting on one planet ducks the real issue- interstellar shipping. The Battlemech makes sense in FASA's world since shipping is super limited. It does NOT matter if you could produce 100 tanks per mech... you aren't going to get those 100 tanks anywhere off the planet. This isn't WWII eastern front; this is the US beating up a third world power, which for social reasons will not go for an insurgency. If you are space/tonage limited, which ever platform is more flexible and has a smaller logistical footprint wins. You have one union that can take 12 mechs... or perhaps a few tanks to invade a planet which might have 4 mechs and a tank company. Second, militarized nobility. They will pay for the better platform, to lord it over the conscripts. Your tankers are not first world well trained and equipped crews... they are conscripts that don't understand their tech.... and there is no airforce to save the day for the armor. Doctrine is the point of the sword are the mechs, and the shield the tanks... but other then a half a dozen systems out of 500 per successor state, you are NOT producing tanks locally. They need to be shipped. So if you have 600 tons of shipping space, do you send to garrison a border world 12 50 ton tanks that can only fight in certain areas, or 12 50 mechs then can fight anywhere? Logistics matters.... and Battletech has extremely limited interstellar lift capacity. The hundreds of tanks are only feasible on a major industrial world, and socially, you are going to have a hard your limited warrior class find enough bodies to man them.

[@nuclear1617]

Exactly, I have been waiting for someone to say this.

[@doc.rankin577]

This is why I think the ultimate compromise is a battle suit. Not a walker, and not a tank, but combines the best of both. Low profile, well armed, well armored, provides support, more economical. Something that turns a 5' 9" man into a 7' sprinting tank that can maneuver well on all terrain, fight in urban battle spaces with an automatic antimaterial rifle sounds terrifying.

[@caelestigladii]

Sounds like the Mobile Infantry from Starship Troopers.

[@EpsilonXenos]

That description fits a Spartan from Halo. If you want a more cost effective solution, ODSTs are the way to go.

[@hinowisaybye]

Spartans are only expensive because of all the genetic tinkering Halsey insisted on because she wanted to make "The best soldier" for her "Perfect suit". As she believed that it would be a waste to put anything less in the MJOLNIR armor. P.S. Fuck Halsey.@@EpsilonXenos

[@Gr3Nd3LsBan3]

The Clan Elementals....

[@DonTekNO]

Why is this still debated? Our great neckbeard forfathers have setteled this decades ago. "Mechs are, from a military standpoint, worthless ... but they look soooo DAMN COOL"

[@RoyalFusilier]

I figured this was a settled matter, yes. I mean, beyond tactical things, I have to believe that by simple virtue of the square-cubed law, a two-legged walker form that works really well for something the size of a human would be a disaster for something thirty or more times our size. There's a reason that the Titans in Attack on Titan are said to be incredibly, ridiculously light relative to human tissue. Because it's the only way a humanoid of that size would be able to move.

[@Dimythios]

Because stupid people should not breed. The only thing I can see a 4 legged Artillery piece that can dig in and re-position itself after it fires.

[@Amoth_oth_ras_shash]

+di. mythios seconds that. or the thought making one laugh of a uppside down tank trying to shoot ,while a still 3 leged mech weapon plattform pulling itself back to be able to fire.

[@gongtommy4105]

Mark Abrams you forget melee, tanks can’t hit things with a sword, and also points for style

[@robertschumacher2707]

Or the time-favored tactic of breaking the track on a tank then letting Artillery or infantry finish it.

[@hibiskus828]

there was that game ChromeHounds that was a launch game for 360, and it was a mech game that basically offered way more customization than most mech games did at the time And it turns out, the absolute best mech builds in that game were those that were just huge long-ass totems of missile systems all stacked on top of each other, all stacked on top of tracked vehicles, and they just cruised their half of the map spamming missiles at anything they could get a target lock on. it was cancer, and everyone hated it, but that was objectively the best way to win matches according to the rules of the game Obviously it's just a game, but I feel like it's instructive in a way for how mech combat might actually go IRL

[@mrvelocity9613]

I remember that game all toooooo well. My buddies and I all came from Mechwarrior/Mechassult so it was an interesting game to play. We tried various combinations to deal with missile spammers but also be effective against other combat systems. To affirm your position our most effective battle compliment used the high speed wheeled base and each mech focused on a single weapon type for engagement diversity which proved to be the most effective. The only exception was our sniper which stuck to a pair of legs all be it the fastest set.

[@AEWLEE]

I remember playing that demo at walmart

[@GodittoC]

69 likes, make a wish!

[@Attaxalotl]

Something similar happens in a game called From The Depths. Every part of your ship is designed by you (or whoever made the prefab that worked much better than your thing) and the most viable weapon for most of your various combat needs is some variety of missile. Missiles even work against artillery shells or _even other effing missiles_

[@shankthebat8654]

I think the arguments, and even most of the comments, miss the most obvious truth about Battlemechs. The use of giant walking robots has absolutely nothing to do with military advantage, or disadvantage. This is about a medieval warrior culture in space. Mechs are knights in suits of armor, gladiators, and mythic heroes first, and tactical military units second. Mechs are the way they are, and used how they are used, for cultural, not technical, reasons.

[@SoftisNelaris]

Yeah, this. ^ There's the Myomer fibers, artificial analogues to muscles with a very high strength-to-weight ratio when provided with an appropriate electrical current, and more strength is provided by adding more fibers. If someone can explain how their existence, or at least how their use is confined to BattleMechs and not tanks or aircraft, I'm all ears. Another important factor is the history of the space universe. The Houses formed the Star League which ushered in a huge golden age, and after the concept of a "modern suit of armor fit for a knight" took off with the noble houses, a lot of mechs were made in excess. Then there was a huge war which, amoung other things, destroyed a lot of knowledge and all the facilities used to make 'Mechs, Jumpships, Hyperpulse Generators, and other cutting age Star League-era tech. So there's a technological dark age relative to the Star League, and they have all these 'Mechs lying around using components that the "experts" can barely keep in working order not due to materials but knowledge, and they're more advanced than any combat vehicles being made in that age, but the culture hasn't changed much and the nobles still really like their oversized knight suits. As a result of numerous subsequent wars and the tech regression, 'Mechs are in high demand due to their scarcity but their value in a very specific strategic and tactical role: Heavy mechanized cavalry units. Because of tech advances, the 'Mechs are walking tanks *and* reasonably good at navigating a *vast* ammount of different types of terrain, many of which aren't even present on modern Earth, as well as being highly customizable. So they find use in combined arms forces fielded by the Houses, and by units of Mercenaries who have to be ready to take any job on any planet under any conditions, right away. So by no means are they efficient, but their versatility and technological edge as well as the arbitrary cultural values placed upon them. The Clans are a whole other monster from the Inner Sphere houses as well, since they're a society whose ultimate power is held by the warrior caste, and those warriors have strict codes of honor that include heavy use of 'Mechs.

[@nymalous3428]

Softis Neleris Can you explain how synthetic muscle bundles would be useful in an aircraft/tank/conventional vehicle?

[@Charon-5582]

The entire culture is centered around developing mechs, not vehicles. Vehicles are just filler for the common army, mechs are for the nobility or the well equipped ie grey death legion or wolfs dragoons.

[@zolboodarikhuu6382]

bigbenhoward But from great culture can only sustain great military.

[@DemigodoftheSea]

Narratively, yes, you are entirely correct. However, practically, people will argue about tactics and viability until we face the heat death of the universe.

[@cptcutlass4290]

Mechs:*Are a giant, slow-moving target* Artillery: Now this looks like a job for me

[@Rapture-Asuka]

Laughing in zeon

[@xymaryai8283]

*laughing in dodging Northstar railgun slugs in a bigger titan*

[@Omega_1111]

The mechs aren't slow though, if we are referencing battletech specifically the average speeds vary from 9-13 moves to 2-3 moves. Which if I remember correctly, means a speed minimum of 20 kph/mph, with a top speed of 130kph/mph

[@warfightersanonymous7760]

I'm sure by the 31st century, exotic armor composition has solved that problem. Only treaded tanks still have light top armor.

[@evanmagolor1812]

@@warfightersanonymous7760 Somehow it took until the mid-31st century to reinvent reactive armor for mechs/tanks.

[@koryfredrick1164]

„Mechs could potentially operate better in swampy environments“ Ah, yes, what with their enormous ground pressure and such, I‘m sure they‘d be AMAZING in such terrain

[@yehudatheodoros6547]

yea, as everyone knows: those tracks tanks use are just for decoration

[@DerFreiegedanke]

In Battletech universe the laws of physics are not important.

[@youroverlord6937]

I mean I can walk through a swamp, not easily but I still can

[@theredotaku34]

It should be possible to design a mech that operates more efficiently than a tank in this scenario. Granted you would likely have to sacrifice the bipedal design popular in media

[@adamorick2872]

@@theredotaku34 the weight from legs is not worth trade off. Legs are vastly less efficient

[@Zninety]

The only way to settle this is to spend ungodly sums of money inventing the mechs and then invade a country that doesn't have them but possesses a more conventional military. One of you get on that.

[@PaganShagger]

Laughs in USA, money is never a problem when it comes to the department of defense. We love war. We love new technology. But in all seriousness, Battle mechs would be best used in SHOCK AND AWE blitzkrieg attacks. I'd imagine the space force dropping orbital battle mechs on or behind enemy lines to cause as much destruction as possible before self destructing. Yes battlemechs would be piloted by nobody, just like predator drones, controlled from a safe arm chair control room.

[@halcionkoenig243]

America invested in Aircraft Carriers when the world laughed at them, saying, "An Airforce is useless, and Aircraft Carriers will never replace Battleships." Guess which country laughed its way to Hiroshima, and the Moon?

[@maxim6088]

You could probably build a few Titanfall level mechs for the price of a squad of f22s (essentially the most expensive multirole fighter)

[@igorbukovy4313]

You are insane!

[@infidelheretic923]

That sounds a little too expensive and destructive. So maybe we could pool our engineering know how into a simulation game. For the sake of fairness both the tanks and the mechs need similar weapons and building materials.

[@joelgarcia1115]

Templin institute is one of the best channel to come to KZbin in recent times

[@JamesHussey404]

Joel Garcia I whole heartedly agreed with you

[@TemplinInstitute]

Thanks!

[@Toto-95]

Agreed. They come up with great pilots lately and their unique style is both professionnal and yet a breeze of fresh air ! keep going guys !

[@samuelsilver8077]

Only one I watch every time they upload new video :)

[@kylesmith608]

Joel Garcia TRUTH

[@wallabing]

In the Battletech lore, mechs can do soo much more than just fight in combat, they can be used for building things, mining, and farming of all things. They have hand actuators that basically makes them giant robotic humans. You dont ever see those aspects in the video games series though.

[@peterpan4038]

Plus the part we actually see in the games: tanks play a role too, and are more affordable. Hence even in the Battletech universe infantry/tanks/etc are what keeps most wars going. But nothing beats Mechs when it comes to prestige and raw terror within that universe. And lets be honest: they are cool af, aka make for a fantastic center point for games and novels.

[@SamuraiHonor]

Tanks are still scary, and fairly strong. Especially the heavy variant. But they just can't haul the same armor, armament and speeds mechs do with it's fusion reactor and synthetic muscle setup. If you're in a tank, you're basically a levy, if you're in a mech you're a fully armored knight. You need both to flesh out an army, one will lack in numbers and the other will be too easily overpowered by something stronger. And there is a lot to say for robots wielding 10x the weapons capability of a tank, and aiming all of them at different targets with intuitive mental ease.

[@peterpan4038]

@@SamuraiHonor Well, mechs don't wield 10x more firepower then tanks. That's actually part of the argument against them. ^^ Even according to Battletech lore you can buy several heavy tanks with damn big weapons for the price of one heavy mech. In Battletech mechs have mainly two advantages: they can deal with pretty much any terrain, and that at good speed; and they can operate with more flexibility against all types of enemy forces. A mech can stay operational for weeks on end (and far longer), at some point the pilot becomes the limiting factor. For the same money a tank will have better armor and weapons, but a mech has more ways to make good use of both. You next tank shot will hurt? Well, not if i turn my mech torso around between shots and you hit my fresh side/ rear armor, or i use my mech jump jets to hope out of sight. Those are two of many examples (within the Battletech lore).

[@amehayami934]

Yes in anime they do use it a lot more then just for combat. To me when people say Mechs are impractical or useless. I have to wonder? So guess they're saying humans are useless too?

[@WolfGr33d]

Yes, but the video title is 'Are they useless *in combat* ' not 'Are they useless in warfare'.

[@connorsproles9239]

I really like this debate idea, but I also think you need to make them longer. At this point the "debate" feels very rushed and unfinished. The "for" presenter gave an opening statement but then the "against" presenter mixed her opening with her defense. This would be fine, if the "for" presenter got a second chance to address the points made by the "against" presenter. Right now the "for" presenter does not feel like an equal debater but rather someone who just sets up the "against" debater with objections that she needs to address. Also only having each presenter speak once gives who ever speaks last a huge advantage; having more switch-overs would make this feel more like a debate, which is something that I don't think it fully reaches. (It is still a really good idea though, so DON'T stop!) Thank you for taking the time to read this, and keep up the great videos!

[@spacemanspiff6332]

We would be watching this all day if they did that.

[@ThatSlowTypingGuy]

Seconded.

[@SinerAthin]

I think smaller battlemechs 8-12ft tall can actually be really useful when supporting infantry. They would essentially be like an infantryman, except stronger, durable and carrying more firepower; ideal for corridor fighting or urban wars. When the target features a lot of urbanized or thick/unwieldy terrain, any military would be wise to add a few small battlemechs to their infantry battalions to give them the edge. One of the main issues with storming cities is that infantry are squishy and die easily to ambushes/snipers. Battlemechs help significantly reduce this issue and allows the attacking force to be far more aggressive.

[@lukekent9386]

Ever play the game, XCOM: Enemy Within or XCOM 2 with the Shen's Legacy DLC? You are able to make use of mechs there which are rather compact, not more than 8 or 9ft tall or so. They essentially function as you describe, a type of heavy infantry support unit. And I think that is actually probably the most realistic application of a mech type of unit.

[@nasser314]

Problem that most people forget is that infantary warfare is all about stealth and low profile. Nowadays, with the way precision missiles work, a squad of soldiers need to do whatever it can to hide and ambush. With a tall, metalic mech, this task becomes way more difficult.

[@kaloyandraganov9462]

They will be like trainning dummies for a soldier with an rpg

[@josephstalin3391]

The solution would be titan fall then small but large and avilabe through most terrain as well as infantry support or anti infantry, the premise of the game

[@shaider1982]

SinerAthin Elementals?

[@drunkredninja]

I'll speak as someone with actual combat experience with and around armor during Afghanistan. Hold your horses chica, the homeboy is correct. While yes, superior sighting, range and verticality are good...Your role is achieved by field artillery. 0811 limba battery represent. What is a mech but an unstable walking battery. Tanks are surprisingly all terrain however they have tremendous upkeep and maintenance costs. More tanks broke down than were used in actual combat and armored open warfare is where they are best. Even in the 31st century, if mech walker tech is even a thing then couldn't you surmise armored vehicle technology would be better or if not the same? And cheaper. You forget about the economies of warfare. A war is won at home, not the field. The same comparison is made when thinking of how the Revolutionary War was fought vs Vietnam. We don't line up and shoot at each other. Modern warfare is all about superior firepower and precision and increasingly moving into cybernetics. No piece of technology will ever replace the thinking soldier. You could argue that a mech lance compacts all the roles of the various military branches but that's just consolidating your points of failure into 1. 31st mech tech doesn't seem all that more advanced than our own 21st. Seems like they wasted too much RnD into sorting out the problem of mechs, sure they have superior individual pieces of weaponry like Gauss Rifles but we can just hit em with an ICBM. Your heat signatures are huge. I could go on forever but I'm rambling.

[@beana9564]

but artillery needs allot of things to set up, it needs a base or firing position, it needs ammo to fire and infantry to protect it, an invading force attacking a planet would need the firepower of artillery right from the get go and other than orbital bombardment and airpower they would need an armored vehicle capeable of supporting them on the ground until such positions are set up. remember "alien planet" the rules of earth warfare don't work as well. unless you are willing to design and build specialized armored vehicles for every planet in the galaxy, you will need something big enough, and powerful enough, and versatile enough to fight anywhere in the galaxy. a bipedal mech with a laser cannon would seam to fit the needs of intergalactic battle better than a tank built to fight on earth, which would be necessary to secure a position without artillery that you don't have because you just arrived at the planet.

[@honeybadger006]

As someone else who also has seen combat, it looks like the argument FOR using BattleMechs is that you would not try to use them in roles best suited for tanks, which, if I'm reading you correctly, is the standard by which you may be measuring them. BattleMechs have abilities uniquely absent from tanks, namely those types of terrain that were mentioned in the video. Additionally, one type of terrain in which BattleMechs were greatly excel as compared with their tank counterparts that was NOT mentioned in much detail in the video is an urban environment, one in which the overly-long design of a tank greatly limits its mobility, as compared with the BattleMech, which, with its shorter front-to-back length, can better maneuver in such environments.

[@physetermacrocephalus2209]

Bipedal Mechs are too large fam. Thier silohette's are just too large. Infantry or MBTs are going to see that shit and then it's game over. And that's saying nothing of the threat posed by aircraft. Now I'm ranting too. The only viable environment for Mechs is space or low gravity environments and even then space is snipe city so unless you have magic energy shields odds are they won't be considered combat effective

[@drunkredninja]

The argument I was trying to make is. The tanks and the mechs both lose to a joint strike. Which is what I was trying to say with the whole talk in thinking soldier change of tactics economies or whatever tangents I went on. It's hard to put into words. I was merely trying to impart that point through my personal experiences. The methods in which warfare is waged is ineffectual compared to our modern military.

[@drunkredninja]

And let's be real, all modern military maneuvers are joint strikes. So all that mumbo jumbo about logistics doesn't matter. I wasn't saying a mech is just walking field artillery. It was just one point of comparison. Which is why I went on about compacting roles into 1 point of failure. I'll take 20 dudes with sharpened sticks on my side vs 1 dude with a handgun. 1 of my 20 will kill the 1 eventually. Yes it depends on the weapon but still my %'s are higher. Don't mind me, I'm just a grunt pretending to be a pseudo intellectual milking my GI Bill.

[@tonywalker3541]

Mechs Practical? Not really Freaking awesome? Absolutely

[@amehayami934]

No it's very practical.

[@braija]

Land mates, power armour and such, yes. But if they loose the mobility and flexibility of infantry they are kind of poo

[@kevin-cq9nr]

They look cool tho

[@ThePCguy17]

mecha anime 101

[@gabrieltorobareyes9878]

Your argument convinced me.

[@USSAnimeNCC-]

But tanks are cool tho

[@gabrieltorobareyes9878]

Steven Anchundia Damn now this debate is really heating up. But still I must reply. Tanks are cool, but, I like Mech better.

[@TheExecutorr]

while tanks are pretty cool, mechs are better because mechs can punch each other with fists as heavy as a tank. Tanks can't.

[@CrimsonGuard1992]

I think the battlemechs suffer from the same fallecy and over engineering that Germany fell into during WW2 with the creation of bigger and more expensive tanks. Battlemechs also present themselves as white elephants and break a philosophy of war that states you should not introduce an asset you aren't prepared to lose. The lose of a single battlemech can be devastating and even crippling to any military's combat effectiveness and a drain on its resources. Battlemechs epitomize the fallacy of a "silver bullet" weapon system that generals have strove for. Believing that one weapon system or one strategy will guarantee victory in any conflict. History has proven that combined arms is the key to victory on a modern battlefield. An over reliance on a weapon system like a battlemech puts to many eggs into one basket.

[@Cavalier1645]

Demon Hunter Germany over engineering tanks was the real problem. It was talking on over half the world, including the two greatest industrial countries. The Germans we're simply overwhelmed.

[@MechanicWolf85]

Demon Hunter I'm not hear defending the Nazis just wanted to add some extras as to why they build this ridiculous tanks Germany in ww2 was having a fuel crisis not many Historians talk about, while building a large number of panthers was the best choice in a strategic view, the lack of fuel and soldiers to operate such amount of tanks was impossible for Germany that building bigger and more powerful tanks was the only choice they had Germany was fighting 3 powerful nations at the same time, I don't think they could have won in any realistic way

[@49mozzer]

Abdul Hannan Abdul Matheen Er... the Bismark was used. It even the sunk the HMS Hood in the Denmark Strait.

[@rafaelpascoaliczerniej297]

The Yamato comes to mind

[@clothballstudios1335]

Knock knock, it's the square cube law.

[@MidnightDStroyer]

...the square cube law that points out the size-to-weight ratio of any given object. A tank spreads out its weight over the ground surface far better than a 'mech, which relies upon balancing between *two* proportionately smaller areas in contact with the ground itself. A tank keeps its weight distributed across its entire base *constantly*, but the 'mech has to divide its own surface area (in contact with the ground) by half every time it takes a step; this does not even include the fact that a 'mech also adds extra stress to the ground surface under the *impact forces* with every step it takes. In essence, a 'mech, being overall heavier than a tank, is more likely to break through the ground surface by walking than a tank would. This could be bad in urban settings, since most building structures would crumble under a 'mech's weight & even the tunnels & hollow spaces under a paved street (subway tunnels, water/electrical conduits, etc) may not be as stable for a 'mech walking or running. It would definitely be bad in swamp areas too, even more so than for a tank...At least a tank's weight is more evenly distributed & does not require constant impacts with the ground just to travel.

[@samuelmuise5633]

@@MidnightDStroyer you could also just put snow shoes on mechs to evenly distribute the weight... In any case I believe that highlight the biggest reason why mechs are viable and that's because it follows the human form and as such comes with many of it's attributes like tool use and climbing capability to name a few

[@ENDERSMAN123422]

@@samuelmuise5633 so make it a tank?

[@samuelmuise5633]

@@ENDERSMAN123422 I don't think tanks have legs :)

[@ceddricc5909]

@@samuelmuise5633 no they don't, but they are the most effective way to get into war it is much more simpler in design than a mech and are less expensive to operate than mechs would've had and mechs would've had to deal with a lot of problems itself than a tank would, the square cube law etc. Although mechs are cool and awesome don't expect them to replace tanks anytime soon or ever

[@pointynoodle]

Guys, guys. Allow me to introduce the gentleman's compromise; the spider tank. All the manoeuvrability of a mech, all the stability of a tank.

[@4ae109]

spider tanks really put into perspective how bad mechs would be for combat

[@zidniafifamani2378]

This ain't Watch Dogs

[@amehayami934]

Ya umm that is still a Mech.

[@dimitrypetrenko3470]

@@4ae109 nahh dont worry,Just ask God/Author to put a Thicc Plotarmour on it

[@johnathan651]

86 Eighty-Six

[@westernspy3500]

I noticed no one commented on the maintenance cost, refuelling aspect, and general upkeep to maintain such a battle mech, especially a fleet of such a war machine. Also, one must consider the amount of ammunition and where it is placed on the mech. Ammunition placement and reloading must be done in a way that maximizes the amount the mech can carry in a superior placement. If one says that the fuel is nuclear, you have to consider pilot safety and the amount of lead required to protect him/her. If one argues to lower maintenance cost by reducing armour or cutting corners, the mech will lose overall effectiveness because of maintenance problems. Weight is yet another factor to consider. Bigger the mech or heavier the mech, the more stress in the individual legs will suffer. Weapons will actually be limited because of weight constraints.

[@whitewolf44a]

Finally. Someone considered logistics. Because that is what wins wars.

[@nuxtheunkrakible9324]

you could argue that since we are talking about fictional and (for the most part) extremely futuristic mechs that they have some lightweight radiation shielding and armor. though that doesnt work for mechs that are supposed to be based in the past.

[@CallsignYukiMizuki]

This is a good point. In the BT universe, almost all Mechs carry an Energy weapon (lasers) as a back up weapon as they don't consume ammo and instead taps into the Mech's fusion reactor to operate. Mechs like the Black Knight exclusively uses energy weapons.

[@MTBotShot]

The Battletech games have always had extensive rules regarding the positioning of components within a mech. Both the tabletop and the new PC game keep track of where ammo is stored within a mech's body and there is a risk of ammo explosions occurring if those parts are hit. Mechs also have explicit weight limits, which determines how much weapons and armour can be mounted. The new PC game each mech has a monthly upkeep cost, it also costs money to repair damaged mechs and mount new equipment. Also the lore states that mechs are all powered by fusion reactors which aren't as dangerous as fission reactors and far easier to keep fueled. tl;dr: The Battletech universe already takes most of the things you mentioned into consideration.

[@MSpacer]

I don't think you addressed any of their points. Battletech compares the mechs to *each other* but not to other alternative units, right? If Mech A costs $10,000/mo to upkeep and Mech B costs $7,000/mo it doesn't matter if a comparable tank costs $1,000/mo. As for the reactors, the likely reason this fellow mentioned nuclear reactors is because they're a reasonable explanation for your mech not carrying much fuel and being able to use an inefficient mode of movement. If fusion reactors are common in mechs the same advantages apply to tanks, though it does close the gap a little in the mechs' favor.

[@fakjbf3129]

I dislike when sci-fi makes it seem like battlemechs will replace more traditional armored units. As you said battlemechs have a variety of strengths and weaknessses, so while yes there will be situations where the battlemech totally outclasses a futuristic tank there will be other times when a tank will be hands down better. Almost certainly future armies will have a mix of different types of armor, just like current ones.

[@CallsignYukiMizuki]

Just like they do in the BattleTech universe. Factions almost always employ a combined arms warfare with BattleMechs, Infantry, Armor and other support assets.

[@TheTrueAdept]

Actually, the theme of Battletech isn't that 'mechs (the shorthand for Battlemechs) is absolute king, it's that they have to quite literally fight for their position. In the Battletech universe, 'mechs are part of a general unit consisting of various other assets including artillery, aircraft, AFVs, and infantry. The problem is that after the 1st and 2nd Succession Wars, the Inner Sphere is pretty much the space equivalent of the post-apocalypse.

[@deusexmachina9322]

As others implied, combined arms is still alive in BT. To be more specific, a typical regiment will be formed around one or several battlemech battalions, but they'll usually have a battalion of conventional vehicles and another of some sort of infantry and sometimes even have organic air assets. Artillery is definitely still a thing, too (if underplayed). The Clans get interesting, because while most clans disdain conventional vics, they have jump jet-equipped power armored troops from hell called Elementals. The Federated Suns took combined arms in BT to the next level with Regimental Combat Teams formed around a single mech regiment, supported by on average 3 conventional vehicle regiments, and multiple infantry regiments (mix of mechanized, light, and later battle armor-equipped regiments).

[@petman515]

Like battletech

[@Rawsilver]

Yeah, Battletech isn't like that. But you get a lot of that in Gundam and other mecha animes. Because of course they're also trying to sell model kits. Can't have the tanks and aircraft outshining them.

[@thundercactus]

Within the battletech universe itself, it is cheaper and far more combat effective to maintain several companies of regulator tanks than it is a single company of hollanders. Losses are less financially catastrophic Tanks are built faster Maintenance is way lower Harder to hit Faster And more gauss rifles = more damage

[@everyonethinksyoureadeathm5773]

You would need converters or fusion reactors to use Gauss Rifles. A Alicorn tank uses a Pitban 270 standard fusion engine and costs 16 million C bills to field 3 Gauss Rifles. You could field 2 Warhammer Battlemech, 3 Thunderbolt Battlmechs, 2 Maurader Battlemechs or 2 Awesomes and a few LRM carriers. For that cost. The only MBT I'd field would be the Manticore and for 16 mil you could get 8 of those tanks on the field. However you're still dealing with maintenance of a fusion engine. At that point it makes sense to have 2 Thunderbolt Battlemechs and 2 Manticore's at lancemates.

[@cyberingcatgirls7069]

The entire point of battlemechs was that the electrostrictive polymers of the time only worked efficiently at lengths of several meters, so in trying to find a use for them, the only really viable solution was giant robots. A lot of people that don't read the lore don't know this and assume that this chicken-or-egg situation was the reverse of what it actually was.

[@alexandrearrive6199]

Ok, it's clear for me now, *I want the Debates as the new series,* it is something we lore addicts desperately need : *comparaison and critical analysis, not just plain right or wrong.* As for the debate, I used to believe at first that Mechs were effective despite their massive costs, because of their enormous unit-to-effectiveness ratio (4 battlemechs can easily take down a medium-sized military base on their own) and the symbol that they carry, not only a symbol of military power (high-tech experimental weapons platforms), but also of economic power (as you said, not cheap to run) and, most importantly, of unity (just like the Jaegers of Pacific Rim, they inspire populations, glorify their pilots and focus media attention, making heroes). But after the argument, I'm no longer sure. As Chris said, in terms of conventionnal combat, nothing could motivate a government to purchase and run a battlemech while they could instead purchase and run an armour bataillon far cheaper. Moreover, referencing Star Wars' Admiral Thrawn and his highly praised tactics, the key to win battle is "to know your enemy (its art, its culture...)" and to have a force that is so versatile it can easily respond, reposition, focus fire and ultimately adapt. If you need an example, know that the second Death Star was destroyed after the Rebellion gathered intelligence on its internal structure and its defensive grid, planified a coordinated attack with many different kinds of vessels (ranging from X-Wing starfighters to the MC-80 "Home One" capital vessel) and ordered them specific roles according to the SiTac (fighters as interceptors and assault crafts, bombers targeting specific vessels, frigates and corvettes laying down covering fire, cruisers and destroyers focusing on the frontline vessels), roles that would addapt to sudden SiTac changes (quote : "It's a trap!"). In short, any battlemech or battlemech squad would be easily destroyed if an enemy had precise intel on their design (easily available thanks to media coverage) and their movements (spying and/or reconnaissance is really easy with the amount of sattellites in orbit). Plus, the radar coverage advantage would immediately be compensated by such orbital reconnaissance, and they would be spotted from further away because of their huge size, hiding such volume behind ECM requires tremendous amounts of power. But then again, maybe it's not the effectiveness, just like people want to buy a Ferrari where your normal hatchback will get you from A to B far cheaper. Maybe it's not about cost, not about economics at all, not about potential tactical advantages or disadvantages. Just like the Jaegers, the Battlemechs are on the battlefields for a specific reason : to show off, to offer such an enormous target to the enemy that conventionnal forces would panic, to inspire the people and the armies on their side, as the gigantic machines that look just like you and your brothers are the ones you see all the time on TV, smashing tanks and destroying bunkers. Are battlemechs pointless in combat? Potentially. Are they a non-sense logistic-wise? Surely. *Is there any other combat unit that is as mighty, unstoppable, resilient and that inspires such fear in your enemies? I don't think so.* I here by rest my case, Institut Templin.

[@everyonethinksyoureadeathm5773]

Alexandre Arrivé Mechs in combat ate still viable for reasons that we're not expanded on in the debate. The first issue here is a Lance of mechs can easily control larger swaths of territory compared to a batallion of mixed ground units. Even with fusion engines a Locust battlemech (20t) can scout ahead of a regiment without a supply line due to it's speed (130kph). A regular wheeled vehicle needs gas and in most House units a mech is a better scout vs a APC when you can't get fuel to said APC. The fusion engines alone make it counter to mount one in a APC. Fire projection is far more effective on a mech compared to a tank colum. Before the fall and re-introduction of Star League tech a mech could mount artillery with the Arrow IV (the in universe ICBM) or Long Tom Artillery pieces making them effective moving Platforms once you hit planetfall. The drawbacks of deploying tanks is you need specialized tanks to deal with a mech. A Bulldog tank is unable to deal sufficient damage to down a battlemech (unless it gets lucky) and that's the worlds version of the MBT, srm and lrm carriers exchange armor for more weapons and a mech mixed loadout can easily take them out at range or once LoS is established. A demolisher/shreck/manitcore tanks that are designed for mech killing cost on par with a medium/heavy mech they have the firepower but lack range (travel) and in general are a waste against lighter MBT. Anti-mech, anti-tank warfare is a thing but you have to spring effective traps to kill a mech (aiming for the gyro housing) and for tanks hit the fusion engines since all weapons are powered from it. The other thing that was not noted was rules of warfare in universe, the Ares convention outlawed oribital bombardment and nukes after the first succession war because every great house was willing to use them ensuring the greater part of the Inner sphere would be bombed back to the Stone age.

[@GarlicPudding]

Mechs are stupid, period. The "legs are hard to hit" thing goes out the window because LANDMINES EXIST.

[@vichodeivis1219]

quick strike Yeah... Sorry but lore of a franchise made arround the technology objec of debate is not the best place to look. It helps and its interesting that they have a coerent explanation and speaks very well of the writers. But that's it.

[@doppelori]

Tanks and other vehicles are not immune to landmines either. They are even more vulnerable because where landmine would just damage a mech's leg - it will wreck an entire tank.

[@Anzei_Kazumi]

Tracks are easier to replace than mech legs. Gotta take account of the costs.

[@Treblaine]

Mechanical walkers inherently have higher ground pressure than a tank. It's a myth that tanks cannot cover soft ground, in the Falklands War a tank crossed ground with that was so soft and marshy, for infantry crossing on foot it sunk up to their knees. Whatever lightweight armour in that universe allows such large and tall machines standing on two relatively small feet to walk over swamp ground without sinking in... That technology would be FAR more effective on a tracked tank. The height advantage is far in excess most of the time, it doesn't give you that much better view of the battlefield but in exchange are a far easier target. Aircraft, in particular drones of all sizes, are better for taking advantage of altitude to get a better look. And mechs are not more mobile, because of their height, as stepping on any steep incline, up, down or laterally will cause them to topple over. They still cannot step over large obstacles as unlike a human, lack arms to "scramble".

[@aegis0302]

Treblaine specific uses for a specific weapon system. Open plains, engaging locals w small arms. Height advantage and sheer intimidation could win without a fight. You could take advantage of local alien beliefs of gods and monsters.. win w/o a fight. Hide them in several Haus and ambush unsuspecting transports. Mech warfare is non existent irl.. so strategy is too. Every weapon system has a specific situation. You don't use a .45 to take down an f22 at high altitude doesn't mean a .45 sucks.

[@serbeardian8849]

Thing is, right, a tank that sinks what, 30-50 cm into soft mud gets bogged because its underbelly hits mud. A mech could sink a meter or two and potentially still not get bogged because that's what, up to its ankles? Marsh usually only goes so deep before you hit more firm terrain - as long as your mech legs are long enough, you might struggle and be slower but you won't get bogged. With the right programming on the legs, and the clearly advanced gyros and balancing systems that let a mech walk on legs, the mech can shift its gait to lift straight up out of the mud with each step - something that not even human can do as well because it's a mechanical joint that can go backwards or make unnatural angles and movements if you want it to. To that end, a mech doesn't necessarily *need* equal ground pressure to a tank to cross marsh or otherwise soft terrain. Not to mention that a mech can cross fjords and enter water that no tank could ever hope to cross without amphibious modifications (or a boat) simply because its main body is so much higher off the ground. As for steep inclines and maneuverability: many mechs do actually possess "hands" and arms. Not sure if they've ever been depicted using them as such (though you can have melee fists in the latest battletech game, and this very video depicts one mech punching another), but there's technically no reason they couldn't except design considerations. And if you have balancing systems that let a mech jumpjet around and get into fistfights, walking up an incline with articulated, mechanical joints and legs is going to be *far* easier than trying to climb that incline with a tank. Not to mention that tanks have a severe problem with gun depression that a mech wouldn't have, letting it peek over a rise while still maintain effective fire, even with a steep incline on its own side. Heck, today, in real life, with the relatively low tech we have now, Atlas the robot can (admittedly slowly) walk over unstable rubble. You're telling me that Boston Dynamics won't be able to make him free-walk up a mountain in a decade or two of development? How about in a millennium? As for obstacles - how high of an obstacle do you think it would take to actually block a mech? 12ft concrete wall? A light mech can probably smash through one of those without much trouble. 50ft reinforced concrete? Now we're talking... except whoops, plug a few rounds into the wall and down it goes. Or... you know... jump over. Obstacles that would stop a tank dead in its tracks a mech can just step over. "Height" is about the only tactical problem that a mech has over a comparable tank, even in-universe. More firepower, more armor, comparable speed (some are slower - an Atlas does 54mph, some are faster - a Raven can hit 98mph), and with the right construction more agility and maneuverability than a tank. Cost is pretty much the biggest weakness a mech has over a tank, exceeeeppt... Scrhek - 80ton fire support vehicle: 3.8 MC-bills; Demolisher Heavy tank: 2.8MC-bills; Black Knight Heavy, 75 tons, 7.1MC-bills. Is the mech more expensive? Yes. Can you field a platoon of Schreks for one Black Knight? No. Even the cheaper vehicles that are proper fighting vehicles are close to a million C-bills each. The cheapest I found after a quick search is about 120k C-bills.It's a Gabriel scout hovercraft with a single Medium laser and basically zero armor. You could buy... 60 Gabriels for the price of one Black Knight. How many do you think you would lose to that one Black Knight in a straight-up fight? Most of them? Let's say you don't care about the money: How many crew do you lose? How many widows and orphans do you end up with to bring down that one mech? And if you argue "but they could use tactics and strategy!" but then so could the pilot of the mech. People always argue that the underdog can "just use strategy" to win and forget that the.... upperdog? can use strategy too!

[@Treblaine]

Ser Beardian. No, tanks do NOT have s problem with gun depression in Hull down positions, it is easy for a tank to have all the gun depression it needs in a hull down position, mechanical walkers effectively can never get into a hull down position. And tanks can inherently deal with greater inclines as they have a lower centre of gravity and lower ground pressure. It would sink far more than a a few centimetres in marshy ground, combined with the problem of lifting one leg up, it couldn't lift one leg above the surface. What is the point in being able to walk over a flat lake bottom if your mech becomes hopelessly bogged down trying to climb up the soft muddy banks on the opposite side of the river? How did it wade into the river without toppling forward? Rivers in fact ARE used as barriers in such games and jump jets are used to bypass them, jump jet technology that could also be used in tracked vehicles.

[@Treblaine]

Aegis030. An extremely slow and resource intensive weapon like a walking tank... To deal with some lightly armed militia? Stop talking about "height advantage" as if this fight is a boxing match rather than combat with ranged weapons. Why would their religious beliefs be more scared of a mechanical walker than a tracked tank or and attack helicopter or a drone dropping guided bombs? All this advanced tech and you're resorting to wishful thinking that perhaps religious fundamentalism will make armed groups more passive rather than more zealously committed. PS: don't justify mechs because a pistol isn't suited defeat a jet fighter, as that is a job it isn't expected to do. A mech is clearly disadvantaged in doing the only jobs it's expected to do.

[@QwertyCaesar]

A lot of those points are addressed in the BT universe. The height advantage is followed logically with the ability to snipe armour from the rear of enemy tanks. They're high enough up that they can just shoot straight over the front and hit the rear. They're not actually as tall as made out in the latest Battletech game either, whose heights are inflated because the models come from Mechwarrior Online, a game that doesn't have to worry much about scale because there's only mechs in it. Aircraft aren't really used in the BT universe as much as you would think. Besides needing extensive and constant logistical support that many mechs don't need require many aren't well-suited for planets other than earth due to different atmospheres. Further, aerospace combat development slowed dramatically because, aside from the fact that they went into a technological dark age, orbital bombardment and use of nuclear weapons are considered heinous war crimes as well as destroying jump ships and some dropships. Most powers are hesitant to advance aerial technology due to a sort of M.A.D. situation. And not only do many mechs climb surprisingly well with just their legs but most mechs do have arms. Most Inner Sphere mechs have at least one arm with hand actuators. The only mechs that don't really include arms/hands by design are the clan mechs, which are mostly designed for dueling in open environments and sieging cities (which are usually built on relatively flat terrain). Clan warfare philosophy doesn't really find those advantages over tanks necessary while also not using tanks because they're already basically nutcase pseudo-honour fighters with wild fantasies with little to no basis in reality. Their entire society is built upon a philosophy that isn't meant to be practical.

[@williamcase426]

Yes. But damn, they're cool.

[@kurtengel4652]

Well there's a difference with "useless" and "really inefficient" just like a hand-dryer, it kinda does a decent job but is completely outclassed by simple toilet paper

[@h4xorzist]

While I prefer the simple reusable towel a hand dryer is either not hot and takes for ever or preheated and therefore inefficient.

[@mariobadia4553]

Dyson hand dryers are good

[@Derpy-qg9hn]

Air-dryers fill a unique use-case though; in public settings you don't want people's hands to make contact, indirect or otherwise. Paper towels provide a vector (wet hands seep water through the paper, likely germ-infested water); air-dryers, by virtue of not working on touch, provide no such vector. Mechs don't seem to have any similar special cases they could fulfill, at least with regards to front-line combat.

[@Llortnerof]

@@Derpy-qg9hn Think about that again. The paper towel will likely capture most of it, and what little goes through drops to the ground where it isn't much of a concern. The air-dryer, meanwhile, blows the germs into the air.

[@vichodeivis1219]

Preasure is force per unit of area. unless a mech foot has more area than a tank track the mech will get stuck more often in otherwise solid enough terrain. Assuming both wight the same

[@vichodeivis1219]

Issac Arthurs Rule N°1 of combat. Your equipment will broke no matter what you do. O wait... this apply also to the tank... damn xD

[@TheRibbonRed]

Vicho Deivis, I think that's "a more complicated equipment is much more prone to breakage than a simple one". And yes, a complicated equipment also extends service time and costs more than a simple one. So, the tank still win by your words.

[@Gitami]

Issac Arthurs planetary invasion : not happening. There will simply be more defenders and ammo than you can ship.

[@vichodeivis1219]

Gitami: Unless you manage to do a fly by and drop a paper clip. Then there is no planet xD

[@hyperiongm330]

*Laughs in orbital bombardment* In a realistic scenario the invasion forces are there for 'cleanup duty'. Depending on what said invasion force wants, well collateral might or might not be an issue.

[@SIrL0bster]

A: Why couldn't you mount the active defenses of a battlemech on a tracked vehicle/tank, and B: How the hell is a battlemech going to do better in a swamp? It's going to put much higher pressure on its feet and get mired down even worse than a tank. Furthermore, tanks do quite well in hilly or mountainous terrain, and a lot of mech games have trees in forests conveniently spaced far enough apart for the mechs to pass through, and if not, they just tip over without issue.

[@zolikoff]

Even a regular sized human can traverse a swamp easier than a tank. The feet sink much lower into the swamp but they are able to sink low yet still be lifted out and move forward. Having said that, I don't think any mech is useful without having an ability to recover from a fall. I would expect a realistic mech to be designed around that function. A simple tipping over should never disable a mech.

[@Furluge]

zolikoff it doesn't. Mechs can get back up pretty easily.

[@ashtiboy]

by the way mechs in battletech also can have equipment that can completely negate ammo detonations, ,can also shoot down missiles and also jam enemy sensors too! heck they can even do all three at once in some configurations!

[@cardiv5zuikaku944]

@@ashtiboy I'm not sure about the ammo, but, cant tank use point defense and jammer as well?

[@ryancage4077]

The problem with this debate is the premise. Is this about how much sense in makes within the setting? or in reality? If it's a matter of the setting, then this debate is ignoring "in universe" limitations. Granted, it seems most of this videos arguments are being represented based on the "mechwarrior" series, as opposed to battletech source material. For example, a fallen mech is by no means unable to act. Propping itself up with an arm to fire its weapons, crawling, rolling, all sorts of maneuvers are capable with a battle mech lore wise that hasn't ever been implemented in the mechwarrior series, or even the tabletop. If we want to talk about real life here, then yes. Mechs are entirely impractical because they don't have all the sci-fi magic of the battletech universe that make them the blatantly superior choice. The biggest argument i feel to be made is regarding the "cost" of mechs relative to tanks and aircraft, So i'll put things into perspective regarding that. The most expensive piece of equipment in the battletech universe is the fusion engine. Fusion engines can supply great quantities of power, enough to power massive vehicles and all of their weapon systems, including directed energy weapons.. Vehicles, for the most part: use internal combustion engines. Internal combustion engines cannot power energy weapons without power amplifiers, unlike fusion engines. The saving grace of the I.C.E. is its cost, But its heavily restrictive to a units firepower, having to throw away space and available tonnage on power amplifiers. This is a large drawback especially considering energy weapons would be some of the most efficient and cost effective weapons to deploy into battle. Secondly, Stuffing a fusion engine into a tank pushes a single units price up close to the same level of a battlemech, but with all the limitations that come with it. less firepower, more manpower required, less protection, and a greater logistical burden to field. But without all the scifi technobabble of the setting, and the limitations of such magical technology [I.E, its cost and production limitations], Battlemechs would be highly impractical.

[@stevenmorton298]

In the Battletech universe, 3 developments made the BattleMech possible: #1 Compact fusion engines (not the building-size monstrosities that our current experimental fusion reactors are). #2 Myomer, a substance that mimics the actions of muscle when exposed to electric current. #3 Neural interface-assisted gyroscopes to keep the Mechs upright. (This is the reason for neurohelmets). In real-life, #2 is the closest to being realized. The biggest stretch in the Battletech setting doesn't involve Mechs at all. It's the Kearney-Fuchida (K-F) drives on the JumpShips. While it might be theoretically possible to generate a short-lived wormhole around the craft, powering the system with solar sails?? I just don't see it.

[@everyonethinksyoureadeathm5773]

@@stevenmorton298 I know replying to a 2 year old comment. As of now, GM is working on its fusion reactor prototype so it's only a matter of when production of a compact system will be made. Moymer muscle is now being looked at for power armor and limb replacement. Human-computer interface is starting to become a reality. Currently there as several projects that show promise of a neuro helmet type system. One is being experimented on to help a quadriplegic who's has lost their ability to speak, to use TTS as a replacement. Solar sails and looking for something to deploy a solar array for energy has been toyed with for 40 years already. Wouldn't be surprised once we figure out the how, that we'll ask the when.

[@ssjjshawn]

@@everyonethinksyoureadeathm5773 Yes, but in real life, even theoretical Worm Holes and "Warp Drives" wouldn't actually result in faster than light travel as, well thats still fundamentally agaisnt a core law of physics, and not exactly how those things work thanks to energy laws in relation to time. It would however mean slower than light travel could be sped up massively so that an appreciable percentage of the speed of light is achieved. The most high tech, but still realistic thing in Battletech is actually (somewhat they don't exactly work the same, with HPGs hijacking radio waves,, but disturbingly similar ) the Hyper Pulse Generators because of a recent discovery on Quantum linking making it possible to link and have extact movements in two linked but separate points from up to possibly 1000 light years away (which ironically means very routamentary FTL communication is, while very far off still, theorically on the table)

[@frocat5163]

@@stevenmorton298 Don't forget the gyroscopes used in 'mechs. One of the initial debater's points was the impossibility of a 'mech moving at high speed and maintaining stability. This completely ignores the near magical gyro that actually keeps the 'mech balanced. Also, to be fair, the solar sails on the jumpships are used to charge the batteries that power the KF drives. The sails themselves don't _actually_ power the drive. Hence the extensive time generally required between jumps.

[@frocat5163]

Even with all the sci-fi magic, 'mechs are _still_ terribly impractical weapons. Despite the desire so many people seem to have to compare them to tanks, that's actually a terrible comparison. Tanks have never been intended to be the central weapon of any force. They are an important component of many land-based forces, but those forces can also function with limited or no armor support. Battlemechs are more appropriately compared to battleships: massive weapons platforms that require tremendous resource expenditure to construct and maintain, that are nearly indestructible in many situations. But, just like the battleship, they are slow (relatively speaking), enormous targets. Battleships were rendered obsolete by aircraft that are incredibly cheap (comparatively). There's a reason no major military power operates battleships, today. If we were to apply actual military logic to the BT universe, the same would be true, even with the magical fusion engines and energy weapons. At best, 'mechs would have been a passing fad, quickly relegated to extremely specialized roles that couldn't be easily fulfilled by much cheaper units. Yes, if we include the BT universe sci-fi magic, most 'mechs are superior to tanks in every way. But they're also far more expensive (you can field three Behemoth tanks for less than the cost of a single Atlas; I'd put my money on the three tanks in that scenario every time). In the end, it's better to use three tanks, four APCs, and four platoons of infantry to carry out a mission than to assign a single 'mech that cost three times what all of the other units combined would cost. And, please don't get me wrong; I _LOVE_ my big stompy robots. I've been playing BT since 1993 with the 3rd Ed. BT boxed set. But I don't love the game and the universe because it makes any kind of logical sense.

[@ZSTE]

I like the reasoning of mechs in Tiberian Sun. Terrain got so F'ed up that a walking design could navigate the terrain better. Tanks in the game constantly slowed down going across maps while things like the titans and wolverines could move decently fast throughout.

[@TheEvilFoxy]

As a ex-tanker, I'm a bit biased but I'd like to think that it gave me more insight to base my deductions on. Here are some of my thoughts: Mobility: There's no question about it, properly-made leg propulsion has some real potential with obstacle crossing, such as trenches, tank traps or barricades. However, by using legs you're placing the weight of the vehicle on two very small spots on the ground causing massive ground pressure. Considering that even the smallest of combat walkers in popular culture are pretty massive to begin with this would cause some real issues crossing any terrain. Roads would be completely destroyed in a single pass and the walker would simply sink into anything softer and become stuck. Then there's the fact that the propulsion units themselves would be, atleast initially, really complex and expensive to manufacture over more traditional means of propulsion. High inclines could also present the danger of the walker falling over, but this would depend on how the propulsion unit takes hills into account. Proportions: The basic set-up of a combat walker would allow for some new methods in the exploitation of "hull-down" tactics or the use of other obstacles as cover to shoot over from. This brings up another problem, even the more modest and "realistic" walkers (Such as the ones in Battlefield 2142) I've seen are pretty damn high. Making them very easy to spot, really hard to hide and really easy targets for any anti-vehicle weapon when they can be seen coming from miles away. Which brings me to the next point. Protection: Maybe the silly proportions of this weapon system could be negated somewhat by the use of some new type of protection like shields or a new type of armour. This will just beg the question why would not that protection be installed on something that's smaller of a target to begin with. There's no reason to not equip your tanks with the same protection systems if you have it available for something that's as complex as a walker. Thinking back to the things I said in "Mobility", making the walker more heavily armoured to compensate for its size, would make its limited mobility even worse. Armament: Pretty much all the things I've said in "Protection" apply here as well. All the weaponry you could mount on a mech, you can mount on a tank. Putting multiple weapons on the walker would complicate crew training and supply logistics when you need supply the vehicle with multiple different kinds of ammunition. It would also again increase weight and hinder the vehicle's movement. They would also need a complicated an expensive fire control system to manage the different weapons and their characteristics. As awesome as they are, I don't think we'll ever see any proper combat mechas. Anything they can do, a tank can do better and they're cheaper to make. But who knows, maybe in the future a combat role will arise where these vehicles will fit perfectly. The only real role I can see for a mech is some kind of riot control where its imposing imposing presence is great psychological factor and they don't have to be heavily armoured or armed, making weight and propulsion I've stated before less of an issue. This is what cavarlymen must've thought about tanks in 1917. "No way those will work!"

mecs are not a replacement for the main battle tank, but a mobile artilery platform when air superiority cant be guarantied. armor and mobile weaponry should be scaled to antyinfantry scale, and close combat should be avoided. Modular design should allow for the main weapon be preloded for an encounter, not carrying everything around... Think of the mechs as a sniper for the armored targets.

[@calessel3139]

You hit the nail on the head. All the advanced tech that would give mechs an advantage, could be applied to a tank (or an attack helicopter for that matter). As I'm sure you know, even with today's technology, many modern weapon systems could target and destroy a mech with a barrage of various missiles from tens of miles away. A mech would literally be defenseless. So I agree, the mechs only real advantage would be a psychological one in the form of intimidation of civilians.

[@spike1269]

Your point about being able to fit anything from a battlemech onto a tank is mostly true, but because of the square-cube law, you can fit disproportionately more armor and weapons onto a battlemech than a tank.

[@lucofparis4819]

A giant walking bunker encounters the same problem as a regular bunker : no matter the thickness of armor, there is a far cheaper missile coming at you, designed to specifically make his way inside. If you one shot a tank you still have the others to destroy. If you one shot a battlemech you turn the tide of the battle. The battle mech is a giant scarecrow that would be obliterated by any modern army so easily.

[@Hust91]

P.J It should be noted that a 60t mech with X amount of armor and Y amount of weaponry would be a lot more expensive. And since the legs are a lot heavier than tracks, you'd have to choose between an 100t mech with X armor and Y weaponry, or a 60t mech with less armor and weaponry than a 60t tank. The legs are a disadvantage both in terms of weight, weight distribution, speed, maintenance, mobility and cost.

[@yansakuya1]

P.J You just answer yourself because if we aren't going to used the Technology of today, what point is their to say the technology of tomorrow cannot be applied to a Tank better then a mech?

[@Hust91]

P.J No, even by future technology standards, mech legs will be heavier and less effective than tracks because they are made of more material and have a smaller surface area. You would still need more super-light metals to make a super-light mech than you would need to make a super-light tank. And since you need to armor those legs, you would need a *lot* more material. The complexity of constructing legs also adds a lot to the cost, resulting in that a 60t mech will cost more than a 60t tank in virtually any instance, as well as be more poorly armed or more poorly armored, regardless of technology used to construct them.

[@Hust91]

P.J The rhino example is not very relevant, jeeps and Rhinos are extremely different in materials (jeep has better), armor (jeep has better), speed (jeep is 4 times faster), and indeed weapons compared to mechs and tanks. The primary vulnerability of the jeep would come from the human being unprotected, not from the jeep being unable to take a shot from a rhino rifle. The point is that a mech would *not* be able to carry the same weaponry without increasing its weight or lowering its armor. A fairer comparison would be a humanoid robot soldier vs 2-6 human-sized tanks such as Bastion from Overwatch since each mech will be at least twice as expensive as a mech of the same capability. Again, the tank can carry heavier equpment, has less ground pressure, uses less materials, has fewer moving parts and all these combine to getting a lot more units for the same price. Legs are organic inventions because evolution can't really make wheels, not because legs are a great idea.

[@Hust91]

P.J. Human legs can adapt to nearly any enviroment, big heavy mech legs could potentially adapt to slightly more difficult terrain than a mech, but most likely they would falter in any terrain that made a tank falter because the extreme ground pressure caused by concentrating 60 tons onto 2 small points instead of two long tracks would almost certainly prevent nearly any attempt at trying to climb anything that a tank could not (and tanks can climb extremely difficult terrain with minimal difficulties). In the end, it's far too niche a benefit to sacrifice 2-3 tanks to make a single, slow and otherwise worse tank that is potentially capable of scaling slightly higher cliffs.

[@svagglaorde4387]

Years later, I'm still waiting for the Mobile Suit Gundam debate.

[@spectre111]

@@beefueater4586 Someone described American mechs as walking tanks while Japanese mechs are more like jets with legs. I tend to agree. Compare the original RX-78 Gundam to a Battletech Atlas and you get the idea.

[@blahblahboii]

iirc, in the original gundam universe, mechs (mobile suits) became ideal, because their limbs allowed them a far greater mobility and manuevourbility in 0 G space combat. They also out-armoured flimsy fighter craft.

[@spectre111]

@@blahblahboii I always imagined mechs would be most useful in space because they could be both a tank and a fighter, while having capabilities that neither have.

[@warmachine5835]

@@spectre111 this is more or less true. If we're sticking to the UC canon, the mobile suit was a game changer for two reasons. 1) In space, they are far more maneuverable than fighters that typically had difficulty turning around. A mobile suit could shoot over it's shoulder, flip or jink, and generally do aerobatics better and with less fuel cost thanks to the AMBAC system. 2) The type of energy generation used generates a waste particle that causes severe electromagnetic interference. This makes traditional long range sensors and guided weapons unreliable--in the worst case, high density Minovksy particles can even disrupt the visual spectrum. Mobile suits are designed as close-range weapons, small enough to evade visual scanning while packing enough firepower to take out a ship-of-the-line. Some of these advantages are lost on the ground, and I'd argue a lot of the advantage Zeon had in the opening months of the One Year War were due to the chaos caused by the colony drop and the ensuing invasion. The front lines had solidified by summer of UC 79, and Operation Odessa in the fall was conducted with largely conventional weapons. Tanks, if given the opportunity to set an ambush, could pose a serious threat to early-war models. And this isn't even talking about infantry with ATGMs (wire-guided missiles don't really care about radar interference...). Of course, this isn't really explored too closely in the anime since none of the Gundam anime are crunchy military strategy exercises, but getting into Templin-level analysis, you need to look at parts of the One Year War the anime doesn't examine too closely.

[@pidgonbusdriver]

Thanks!

[@derharlekin5205]

I personally think this debate wasn't in depth enough about the technical details. Too many things were left open or just assumptions. Why should a mech operate better in a swamp than a tank? Why should the mech have potentially better armour than a tank? Why is it assumed that the mechs legs are moving that fast that they're hard to hit? Think about a tank, which is also a low-profile target, driving at high speeds. They're also hard to hit, but still possible. Also the legs being a low-profile target depends on the over all size of the mech! and so on.

[@Dragonite_Knight]

I agree with this. Why can't tanks use the same technology as the mechs? Why can't a dedicated AA use a higher radar to see air targets like a mech? What happens when the mech loses a leg, because that will eventually happen. Just go more in depth and give us the nitty-gritty.

[@Daetaur]

There are plenty of details left out, but mainly, in Battletech weapons accuracy would make an ork look like a sharpshooter (and they are using lasers!) In reality, a big Mech would just be a big missile target.

[@deusexmachina9322]

In the actual BT setting, conventional vehicles do use the same technology. Dedicated AA vic? One of the most well-known is called the Partisan; 80tons, packs 4 AC/5s, they have a radar system that's comparable to a Rifleman's (the most well-known AA mech) and is plenty nasty to aerospacefighters. As for what happens when a mech loses a leg, in the actual table top rules, a mech can still balance on one leg if the pilot succeeds at a piloting check, and AFAIK that carries over into the fluff to at least some degree (because a mech gets its sense of balance from the pilot via the pilot's neurohelmet, which works in concert with a gyro system to handle the mass). You don't see that in games because it's too hard to make work right, but in the fluff mechs are more agile than how they look in the games, they're just not going to be dancing about like anime mecha. Mind you, at the end of the day, they're not the most efficient machines, and ultimately have too many downsides to use IRL. I was simply aiming to correct a lack of intel is all.

[@ExeErdna]

You'll end up making Super Tanks which defeat it's own purpose. They'll be too large, bulky, more running parts to worry about. At that point, you'll want to be going into light and med mechs. Personally, I find heavy mechs pointless for the fact assaults exist. I'll rather have a 4 man lance with an assault, 2 meds and a light that can scout and kite for the assault.

[@andrewlee-do3rf]

Maybe the mech's legs is hard to hit, because itz doing those weird Russian leg dances...but at 15000 RPM XDXDXDXD

[@KingOfMadCows]

Another big problem with the legs is that all the weight is concentrated on them. It'll actually make it harder for them to cross unstable terrain since they're far more likely to crush the ground beneath them and fall down. It'll be especially bad in cities since they have tunnels and pipes for water, gas, sewage, etc. A mech could easily collapse the ground and fall into the sewers.

[@Xostriyad]

The mechs would probably have more of a "snow shoe" look to the feet so even bipedal bots wouldn't be 'that bad'. But still going down the road of "well... why not a wheeled vehicle with an extreme suspension?"

[@whatisupmyfellowamericans8808]

KingOfMadCows This problem can be seen all over a mech, and especially bipedal walkers. Not only is all of that force focused on its feet, but also on the leg joints, and the waistline. Seriously, though, why are mechs designed this way? The bipedal design is *super* ineffective when sized up. A more preferable design would have its center of mass lower to the ground, with more legs that have the "snowshoes" that Xostriyad suggested. At least four legs, but no more than six, I'd say, because then the legs will become an unnecessary weight.

[@TheDavemarz]

I would think any city in a battle mech universe would be designed with "soft spots" in their road ways. Stretches of road where they are designed to hold up just fine for your average vehicle or maybe even tank but designed to collapse under the multi ton weight of a mech. If you are smart you would set these soft spots up in good ambush and choke points that your artillery folks already have dialed in.

[@piranhaplantX]

Lets not forget that as we step, the force hitting the bottom of our feet is multiplied, because we're essentially falling forward. If you're full on running, you could be putting 3x your body weight, or more, worth of stress on your legs. Translate this to a giant mech, made of metal and carrying super dense reactors/batteries and the legs are liable to buckle under the weight of the mechs body. Unless you ignore physics, or discover some super material, even titanium or tungsten alloys would struggle to hold up under the stress. These mechs could quite literally rip themselves apart.

[@MannoMax]

Basically half the weight of a fucking motorized pillbox on the surface area of a small truck will be unable to use bridges, cross terrain effectively and cross swamps at all

[@sombodi200]

It greatly depends on size and type of enemy. Gundam size, waste of resources no matter the enemy. Warhammer 40k dreadnought size? Very useful against a horde like enemy that charges.

[@JRmoveis2007]

Dreadnaughts are not mechs thy are mobilty scoters

[@Galvars]

Dreadnoughts are smaller then typical Gundam by far. So your point is lacking.

[@artski09]

Warlord-class Titan 👌 The Orders of the Adeptus Titanicus are the iron fist of the Emperor's rule. A velvet glove would serve no purpose.

[@Samuraiedge2]

sombodi200 But MSs are smaller than real life fighter jets.

[@TheRibbonRed]

+sombodi200, then what you mean are "Power Armors", and they are indeed effective. There has been a debate about "what's the limit between mechs & power armors" when Armored Core V came out, and it's been accepted (at least by the Armored Core community) that mechs start at 5 meters, while power armors are below 5 meters.

[@commandercritic9036]

I wish I found this when the video came out so I could add my support to mechs. I do have some things I would like to add. In almost ALL of the videos and debates I’ve seen surrounding this topic, the main source that seems to be drawn on is Battletech. And while I do not disagree that this is an AMAZING source, it is not the ONLY area of fiction in regards to Mechs. I would like to introduce the Knightmare Frame, from the anime series Code Geass. This mech is much smaller and more nimble than the traditional mechs seen in Battletech, able to go at quite respectable speeds, and there are scenes, VERY early in the series, where we see one of the more basic generations of these machines, DANCE around a trio of tanks like it’s nothing. While not as durable or well armoured as a Tank or traditional mech, what they lack in armour and protection, they MORE than make up for in speed. Add their amazing firepower to this, and you have a light, fast machine, with all the strengths of both a mech, and a light armoured vehicle, with incredible versatility and tactical use. Being smaller also allows for tactical drops via airborne carriers, and later generations could even fly (though this is now treading into the realms of science fiction, so we won’t go there). What’s more, they did not completely REPLACE armoured vehicles in the armies that USED them, instead, these vehicles got relegated to support roles, for infantry or even the Knightmares themselves. That’s the role I see mechs playing, light, fast and powerful, not replacing tanks, but serving alongside them. Now let’s add in what was said in support of mechs in this video and apply it to the Knightmare Frames, and you have the potential to change warfare forever. It might not be the big stompy showcases we see in Battletech, and that’s ok. Going on the argument in favour of mechs, the idea of comparing them to tanks is LAUGHABLE. To even come close to the protection side of things, they’d have to be so heavily armoured, they wouldn’t be able to move… in my opinion, mechs should not COMPETE with tanks, for best armoured vehicle, but should carve out their own niche entirely, a niche in which YES they are most certainly a CAPABLE combat machine.

[@selectthedead]

I like your references you bring up, but from a pure physics Standpoint Mechs cannot be superior to tanks and here is why: The movement of legs, aka running is a very inefficient movement in comparison to a Tank that only has to rotate wheels /treats. So If you give a Tank the same powerplant/engine, the Tank will always be faster than the mech. That is the problem most sci fi animes and other stories simply get wrong. The real question to ask is: What weapon would be more effectiv on a mech platform than a Tank? Light medium or Heavey?

[@commandercritic9036]

@@selectthedead first up, I never said mechs were superior to tanks, nor should they be, I simply envision a different role than that of Mechs more akin to those seen in Battletech, and one closer to that of Code Geass, but not exact, as you rightly stated, physics and all. On that note however, if you actually took the time to look at the Knightmares from Code Geass, you’ll know that THEY use wheels as well. All Knightmares deploy these wheeled stabilisers, and have wheels in their feet, which is what gives them their incredible speed and agility. They can basically move in the same fashion as a normal combat vehicle, or use traditional leg movement, depending on the circumstances in which they find themselves. So your point about the tank’s tracks are null and void, if THIS is the design choice in a mech’s form of locomotion. As to weapons, there’s the neat thing about a mech similar to a Knightmare, it can be equipped with any of them. Unlike traditional mechs, where the weapons are MOUNTED onto the vehicle, Knightmare weapons are separate from the vehicle itself, and can be swapped out and changed on the fly in the middle of combat. Picture this, you have a mech, similar in design and stature to a Knightmare, wheeled feet and all. It’s main weapon is a standard medium gun for a vehicle of its size. BUT, due to its versatile nature, it has a secondary weapon, which it can carry, like any normal soldier would, say, on its back, or strapped to the side, and this weapon is a HEAVY weapon, capable of punching through the thickest armour. On top of this, most Knightmares also came equipped with anti-personnel guns, mounted on their chests, meaning they have a light weapon as well. That’s the main strength of a mech, not taking a hit, shrugging off damage, or even blowing holes in mountains, but versatility, the ability to be outfitted for any combat situation, yet also be equipped with protection and armour, that while not on the same level as a tank, is still superior to most other light and medium vehicles. Mechs will never, nor SHOULD ever, REPLACE tanks. Tanks are the quintessential heavy hitters, their entire job is to deny territory to the enemy, by being able to take an INCREDIBLE amount of damage, as well as deal it back. Since Mechs will NEVER be able to fulfill the FIRST requirement WITHOUT resorting to the designs seen in Battletech - which as already discussed are WOEFULLY inefficient and ineffective - Mechs need to think about OTHER ways to be combat effective. A fast, highly agile vehicle, with protection on par with most medium military vehicles, and able to be equipped with a wide variety of weaponry, and switch between those weapons throughout the fight, sounds like the PERFECT way to make mechs a viable combat machine. And once paired with their Big Brother the Tank, they’d be unstoppable 😎

[@rakisuzuki-burke4148]

Also, about the Knightmare Frames: nearly all of them have some kind of grapple weapon. This can be used for a great many things, such as puling enemies towards the mech, or moving the mech itself. This in conjunction with the fast speed gives them a complete advantage in maneuverability over tanks.

[@tombworld9012]

​@@selectthedead What's the limiting factor of a battlemech's fusion reactor that makes it a requirement for its steps to be as efficient as a tank's wheels? After a certain point of available power (derived from the efficiency of the engine itself), efficiency of motion ceases to be of any concern. Sure, you can strap an afterburning jet engine onto a car, but can the car make full use of the available power?

[@FrostbiteDigital]

@@selectthedead "So If you give a Tank the same powerplant/engine, the Tank will always be faster than the mech." The mechs of Armored Core would like to have a word with you lol

[@Knightlyfrog]

Battle mechs are useless because you will never get a mech of equivalent weight and or cost to have armor, firepower, or mobility that can match a tank. Compare a hundred ton tank with a hundred ton mech and the mech will cost more, have a smaller gun, (which probably won't even be able to defeat the tanks armor) thinner armor, and still less mobility while presenting a taller target profile. The tank will effectively weigh less because of how tank tracks work to spread the load over a greater surface area. A mech might have value in an infantry fighting role but that is about it.

[@todo9633]

Tanks have far weaker armor from the top, it's why the Warthog can kill tanks with 30mm ammunition, introducing a new angle of fire to the battlefield would force tanks to adapt to keep up and likely make them prohibitively heavy, especially for tanks meant to be carried by dropships.

[@Legionary219]

There is the difference of technology though. The average abrams can cost up to 4mill a tank and I honestly do admit that, that price is better then a lot of mechs of equivalent tonnage those same mechs can actually very easily carry guns not only in the same gauge as the Abrams but much bigger as well, not accounting a mech's secondary weapons like lasers and missiles. That said mechs have myomer bundles and super light ablative armor that allows for their existence, myomer outright stated to be impossible to use in a typical vehicular frame. Compare a 70 ton Abrams Tank to a 50 ton Centurion mech and wonder how in the world the mech isn't heavier. The funny thing is that Battletech does have super heavy tanks like you describe, they are very scary, hit like a ton of bricks and soak up damage like crazy.

[@atmosdwagon4656]

@AwwwhYyyyeah The Battletech in-universe explanation is that the bulk of a battlemech is its "muscle": Myomer. Myomer is space magic; being insanely strong (several times that of carbon fiber), highly heat resilient, and able to provide support to arms, legs, etc that allow you to essentially "hang" absurd loads on them and move them about (as though it were analogous to human muscle). Because of how in-universe tanks are built and distribute weight, this presents an obvious paradox in engineering design due to the relationships between mass and volume (density). It essentially ignores the square-cube law of mass:power in ways that most pulp-genre fiction does (Spiderman springs to mind).

[@carso1500]

Not necesarily, that would be true if you armor ALL the mech, but thats completly unnecesary the only things that need heavy armor are the joints on the legs and the pilots compartment, everything else can do it with lighter to no armor depending on the damage profiles, the parts that are in no danger of getting hit like the armpits or the inner groin could do with no armor, arms could do it with little armor (too small an nimble it would be a nightmare to hit an arm with anything bigger than 20mm, so just enough armor to ignore small arms and survive anti tank rifles) legs with a bit more of protection (again, small an nimble, legs would move soo much that hitting them will probably be harder than hitting the arms, but they are definetly more critical than the arms so enough protection to at least survive 75mm shots) and the part that needs more protection is the pilot, that could actually have less armor than a equivalent tank, thats because most mechs have one or at much two pilots and they don't need any space for the main weapon like tanks do, so the cockpit would actually be way smaller than a tanks cockpit, wich means smaller surface área which means not as much armor to protect the squishy humans inside, so a hundred ton mech can have just as much armor as any tank if not more, just accomodated in a diferent way

[@7OwlsWithALaptop]

Honestly I always thought they were useless and unnecessary, but it was mainly due too the way they are used in anime. This has opened my eyes to a new perspective on the issiue and even managed to move me from my original point of view. Great job guys.

[@Irobert1115HD]

look up tachikoma and HAW204 from the ghost in the shell tv series. both are mech tanks and i am not shure if they covered them or not.

[@Galvars]

Anime mechs act more like men in costumes then machines.

[@artski09]

i think it's because they are mainly talking about "american mechs" rather then japanese mecha

[@ironix4768]

1 mech vs 10 tanks. the tanks can attack 10 areas or flank and attack from several areas, a mech may be more powerfull in a 1 on 1 senario but tank are just better, more veristile

[@7OwlsWithALaptop]

darthXreven ok

[@nanomachinesson2513]

I actually saw a good argument for why mechs are so heavily utilized on battletech on reddit recently. Basically, the whole thing comes down to the whole armor vs firepower debate. While in our universe the race is close between the two with most tank on tank combat being a fire first win first scenario, in things like battletech armor has FAR outstripped the ability of weaponry to penetrate it. As such, they have to rely on the ability to simply bludgeon the enemy to death under sustained barrages of fire with as much ordinance as possible. That's where the mech shine. They carry far more firepower than an equivalent armored vehicle in that universe, which is why they are preferred in battletech. Even in the games you can see the actual tanks and mechs in the field survive dozens of auto canon, lrm and laser hits and keep operating. It's the ability of the mech to hit the target with with enough firepower fast enough to eliminate the enemy first that makes them invaluable in their own universe.

[@MechanicWolf85]

Nanomachines Son! Yes but that's battlemech Universe, in real life the only armor that will be use in the future will be plasma since metal is becoming more of a holder of weaponry then for armor uses

[@justinthompson6364]

Kael This debate is clearly focused on the Battletech universe, based on the art and terminology used. Furthermore, plasma is difficult to generate and control, so it really isn't practical as armor. It maybe possible to use it as an active defensive measure, but I believe it's generally best to have multiple defensive options where possible. Also, I believe Battletech armor isn't just hunks of metal. Materials technology would advance too, after all.

[@deusexmachina9322]

Yes, BT armor is way more insane than most people realize. On scifi forums that debate this crap, it's infamous for being super-ablative armor. Unlike most armor that tends to be solid material that either resists, dents, shatters, or gets penetrated by KE, BT armor bleeds off a ridiculous amount of energy by ablating pieces of the armor off in flakes. It means that you basically can't get a "one shot, one kill" paradigm to be feasible most of the time; only way you can reliably manage it is cockpit hits, and despite how mech cockpits look, armor location wise cockpits are actually really small targets relative to the rest of the mech. You thought you hit cockpit? Oh, you actually hit a half meter to the right of it. Akin to hitting the turret ring on a tank, a tank able to juke and bob and squat down and such that a tank can't really do to throw off aim just enough to avoid hitting a small target location. It was also left as an intentional thing that you could exploit it at all; just the right dice role could do the trick, but highly unlikely to get, because it was a game meant to be fun. Now imagine if the cockpits were fully armored over with the pilots having good enough sensors to get by with just displays.

[@diabreon3094]

@Deus Exmachina sooo... Cockpits kinda like Ace Combat's COFFIN (COnnection For Flight INterface) capable craft like the ADF-01 FALKEN?

[@josephstalin6549]

If the mech dosen't fall we'll just shift the land around it so that it'll topple. Mechs *ARE NOT FRONTLINE UNITS*

[@chefdeadpool8481]

Both sides have good points, and I do believe the reasoning behind the creation of a mech is important. For example in the Macross universe, mechs were built specifically to provide the ability to fight against aliens that were giants, so the mechs were a way to try and equalize the battle grounds in favor of humans

[@predator7616]

While you have a point in the original macross the VF-1 was already made from reversed engineered tech from the SDF-1 at that point they had little idea how big the zentrati were only that who ever made the ship were quite big. And later in the series we see the destroyeds being used as police/enforcement vehicles as most fighting was done as was much of the earth.

[@xenostyrant4118]

In response to the motion I respond to the best example of a battle mech that plays a much more unique role than a tank and doesn't replace them. The XV-8 Crisis Battlesuit that is designed to be a highly maneuvarble weapons platform that can outmanoeuvre infantry due to the use of its jet pack, operate in areas impossible to deploy tanks and can operate in multiple specialised roles depending on what is required, even more so when you add command and heavy variants like the XV-88 or Enforcer suits. The XV-8 is also cheaper to produce than a whole Hammerhead tank. Then add in the use of Stealth variants like the Ghostkeel, which is designed to act behind enemy lines in a way a tank couldn't. There is the XV-104 which still retains the jetpack for maneuvers but has much higher firepower but does start to come into tank comparisons and arguments can be made that larger tanks with similar capabilities would be better. Stormsurges and Supremacy armours are considered mobile fortifications more than mainline battle tanks and are controversial in the Tau Empire especially when Tigershark AX-10s and Mantas begin to perform their role with much higher mobility and utility. But the battle suits of the Tau empire show how suits can be specialised and give unique battlefield roles especially with the mass production and success of the XV-8

[@Pinned2Five]

Xenos Tyrant I never thought I'd be leaving a like in support of battlesuits, but you make an excellent point.

[@whitewall2253]

also the XV-8 is only about 10 feet tall, by the standards of most mechs thats absolutely tiny, they're actually a lot closer to the more sensible "power armour" concept, another example of this kind of power would be the mobile infantry of starship troopers, they perform a tactical niche by being able to carry heavy weapons and redeploy far faster than any tank while still being able to hide and take cover like a squad of infantry.

[@baker90338]

I've found this is quite interesting, you have to remember, when you make a design and petition it for service, it's got to beat ALLLL the updates its received over it's service.

[@MansMan42069]

Emperor-class Titans laugh in the distance

[@Kryto_Gaming]

I like the concept of these debates very much! The audio quality was good, and the visuals were top notch. Although there are some areas where I think this video has fallen short. First is defining the scope of the topic. I'm going to assume this video is meant to address the usefulness of Battlemechs in the Battletech universe in particular, and not how viable the vague concept of "Armored Walking Tanks" are in real life. First there isn't enough usage of lore facts. The actual capabilities of Battlemechs are not defined properly and this doesn't give viewers a very good idea of how viable they are. For example some Gundams (Also bipedal mechs) fly around at super sonic speeds, project nigh invincible force fields, and have enough fire power to split large asteroids in half. Hundreds or even thousands of conventional tanks couldn't stand up against such awesome might. Just how strong are Battlemechs relative to tanks in the same universe, and how much do they cost? For example if a Battlemech worth 5,000,000 C-bills can reliably take down 10 Tanks worth 500,000 C-Bills with minimal damage taken, then that's worth considering in an argument. Or maybe armor technology isn't that far a long and a single tank shot can take out a Battlemech? In that case they're pretty useless. What kind of technologies and battle doctrines have lead to the usage of Battlemechs in the first place? For the against argument I would like to see lore-based examples used to counter it. Like maybe there already is a cost effective tank in-universe that could conceivable obsolete Battlemechs. Or a simple combination of existing technology etc. The reason I'm so adamant about the usage of lore facts is because without them the whole argument is moot because Battlemechs aren't real. If it was real life OBVIOUSLY Battlemechs wouldn't work. We could just fire missiles at them from beyond visual range or whatever else we can do in real life that the creators of Battletech haven't thought of. In the video both arguments are just something any layperson could make after taking a look at some concept art of some Battlemechs and not doing any research. There's a vague reference to how the cost of one Battlemech could "probably" fund a battalion of tanks etc. This is pretty disappointing because research into the details of other universes is the Templin Institue's specialty.

[@Nineball459]

In battletech the mechs are built much larger and are extremely heavily armored when compared to conventional tanks, to the point that most mechs can tank artillery shells to the face and keep moving without much hindrance (if they're too light to be able to tank such a hit, their often mobile enough to be able to weave in and out of gunfire like crazy). Mechs in battletech also utilize a sci-fi artificial muscular system called Myomers, which results in giving mechs a great deal of mobility for their tonnage. In the world of battletech, the reason mechs are such kings of the battlefield is due to the fact that they tower over even the heaviest tanks, have insane amounts of firepower, and are insanely resilient and mobile when compared to any other land vehicle. Even despite these massive advantages, tanks and artillery are still used because they are either cheaper, or they fill a role more suitably on the battlefield when compared to a mech. So basically, mechs are insanely viable in combat, if you've got magic sci-fi materials and concepts that literally can't work in real life.

[@stardude2006]

Predator459 And the Scout and Recon classes extend the view for the commanders Better mobility due to superior speed and stealth Scout tanks cannot equal that

[@whatisupmyfellowamericans8808]

Predator459 Wait, what? How? Sloped armor gives WAY better protection than unsloped. How many mechs in this universe use sloped armor? Couldn't that magical armor be put on TANKS and give them a superior level of protection? Seriously, how do people expect to have a debate like this when the topic they're defending actively disregards physics? A mech could not physically *do* most of the stuff you say it can. The kind of movement you are talking about cannot be done (except in anime). You *cannot* stack mountains of weaponry on these things. *They* cannot operate this way (unless you handwave our basic understanding of physics). The question is hilariously biased in favor of mechs. In the Battletech universe mechs are given magical tech and ridiculously overpowered weaponry, whereas tanks are (more or less) the same as today. How is the question supposed to even be answered if *our* physical laws don't apply to these mechs? The series is hand-crafted around mechs, so of *course* they're going to work in universe! P.S. And I just read the last part of your comment, where you say that you need magical technologies. Well, crap, srry m8.

[@thatcow86]

Freethinkers Politics/discussion They work, and are viable and good choices within Battletech's universe due to technologies that do not and probably will not exist in reality, and cannot be applied to tanks due to myomer being artificial muscle, which tanks cannot use due to the lack of limbs. No, they are stupid and would not work without those outlandish technologies, but yes, they do work within the context of Battletech where they DO exist.

[@whatisupmyfellowamericans8808]

That Cow You are right about their physical applications, but I have several disagreements about their effectiveness in-universe. Firstly, why are mechs even used in the first place? This universe is set in SPACE, right? Why do they even bother wasting valuable resources on a ground army? Most warfare in this universe should be space-based (save for some specific circumstances), which changes warfare entirely. I'm willing to compromise and say that while it doesn't make sense for them to even exist, a ground force would still likely be needed. But this leads me to my second point. Secondly, mechs are by far the worst option for a ground army. They are expensive losses on the battlefield and very costly to make, not to mention poor tactical tools. Think about it, what does an army thats trying to conquer a planet need? The ability to attack multiple targets at once, a force that can adapt to new situations quickly, and the strength to defeat the global enemy in a timely manner. Mechs meet none of these requirements. They can only be in one place at a time, once a mech countermeasure is deployed, the lance is unlikely to be able to adapt to it before being destroyed, which wrecks your local military abilities, and in order for them to project their force across the planet you need specialized transports and even then, there is no way for them to hit several targets at once. My point is that while a mech *is* a powerful *unit,* as an *army* it is horribly ineffective, and that even though it is a powerful unit it is very vulnerable. I mean no offense, but I have serious disagreements with you.

[@TheHobgoblyn]

If any of those technologies existed, making one that used treads or four-legs for mobility would still be vastly superior to humanoid-shaped ones unless there is some magic reason all of those technological advantages could only be used for something that was completely human in shape. And well-- as far as I know Battletech completely fails to provide any such explanation. Yes, the depicted tanks are always far, far smaller and weaker-- but absolutely no reason why. Take the same armor, same engine, same myomer system and fit it to a shape that isn't humanoid and it would be better. The only applicable advantage might be the height-- but it is questionable whether that is an advantage. You might get a tiny bit more ranged out of your weapons, but you will also be spotted from further away and presenting more area for the enemy to hit.

[@Tayd0g]

I feel mechs are largely useless because of their cost and presence more than anything. It’s like the Death star, where Palpatine could have constructed a fleet of isds for the same materials and not have been destroyed in one attack and they would have been just as powerful/useful. Tanks and aircraft together can equal the power of a mech and be much harder to stop as an opposing force and then still cost less then the development, programming and production of these mechs. A broad range of military forces also have a greater strategic advantage and usefulness in a wider array of situations. While they are largely useless imo, mechs, like the narrator said, can be useful in certain situations. Albeit very very few. Muddy and wet areas for example, a mech will not get stuck as easily. That and lifting cargo with arms, but that’s not a combat role so it can not be considered in this. That’s pretty much it.

[@dwaugh2215]

In the original version he had reasons to use it through fear and preparations of invaders from beyond the galaxy, the Vong. But yeah, depending on certain roles and designs they could be useful for construction and maybe depending o the certain terrain bit given the interstellar combat that be an advantage but also try to maintain their stability without gravity to keep them from spinning around. Unless they be like the mobile suits which I find impossible unless they keep the thrusters running.

[@Mohrrunkel]

@Fine Wine In the BT universe cost is not an issue but people are. Due to centuries of war there is not enough personnel left to man a lot of smaller vehicles and lose them in a battle. Instead training the few soldiers you have left extensively in expensive warmachines with escapepods therefore makes sense as money and materials are plentiful. Also you don't need a crew for a mech as the steering and aiming is very natural and leaves the operator room for other tasks compared to a driver of a tank. The issue of personnel is also adressed in one of the new SW films, where the good guys just take out a communications facility and cripple the vastly automated fleet of the bad guys as they can't take off. Just building ships is not enough if you can't crew them. That part is, btw, basically a rip-off of one of the books stories about the Katana fleet, but nvm. The Deathstar however did require so much personnel I did ask myself the same question you did. I guess it was for intimidation purposes as a lot of key systems do have planetary shields and defenses and thus require an extensive siege (this somehow is not acknowledged in the films). Theese points aside, I do agree with you that tanks and aircraft have significant advantages over BTs 'mechs. When you try to imagine them in our universe where there's always a weapon that can defeat any amount of armor you can reasonably carry, mechs are definetly a bad idea. More mobile mechs as for example in Titanfall would be more eligible because they are smaller and more humanlike then BTs 'mechs and are capable of dodging and dashing around, presenting a harder target and making better use of cover. This however leaves the question why tanks wouldn't be able to do that as well. But then again we have the circumstances to consider where the mechs of the different franchises are being deployed. For BT you have to know that theese weaponplatforms are set in a fantasy where technology has developed in a different way than ours. Armor is a force to be reconed with as it is not defeated by a single blow and accuracy not as high as you think it would be, due to considerable decrease in technology, due to the mentioned everlasting wars. This puts one contender in this discussion at a significant backfoot: Aircaft. They need to be lightweight to be able to fly so can't carry around much armor and thus can be taken out by longrange lasers and AAF quickly, wasting precious manpower. As to why tanks are inferior to 'mechs in terms of technology, you have to ask the real BT nerds. I am a fan of this franchise for only a very short amount of time and haven't read anything about that thus far. All in all the video sadly only scratches the surface of this discussion and aircraft are almost completly left out in the defense of the mechs.

[@Mohrrunkel]

@Fine Wine Battletech - the franchise the background pictures are from.

[@bruceh9780]

Planet destroying energy weapons are inherently stupid considering how vulnerable planets are to a really big rock travelling really fast, especially in the hands of a military with FTL or relativistic travel tech. Step 1. Find an asteroid Step 2. Accelerate it to FTL or near C speeds Step 3. Slam it into a planet Step 4. Go find another planet to terrorise with your very cheap and easy to deploy planet destroyer. So yeh, about as useful as a Mech :)

[@KelebMoonDancer]

@@bruceh9780 Yeah they used to nuke planets from orbit and butcher eachother on mass levels, but they realized this was inmensively idiotic and a waste. So they all agreeded to "stop" doing that. And stick to planetside warfare for the most part, wich is why mechs became important. A single skilled mechpilot can plow through entire tank divisions,bases,airforces. Before the army can properly counter and organize itself, they also have much more staying power with their engines, allowing them to fight for prolonged amounts of time.

[@oakwhelie]

In forest a battlemech bigger than a tank would still have problem in mobility, plus assuming the sensor and optics are on the head it will stare above the tree line and see nothing but leafs. A mech small enough to be useful in such terrain cant be too big compared to a person so its either a remotely piloted mech or a power armor.

[@nopushbutton]

a bear with a walkie talkie

[@redholm]

Yea. Not to forget just using todays tech. Have a UAV or other things to do the scouting and send the info to the tanks. Having it on the mech itself would be a power drain that could be used on something else. And sorry for the Necro the video was recommended today :P

[@Ratkill9000]

Depends on the battlemech really. The cockpits don't have a glass or polycarbonate screen for viewing. Instead everything is done with a large monitor(s) with cameras all around. 3rd person view in Mechwarrior 5 is in universe done with a drone that follows around. 'Mech range from 23ft to 56ft tall. One of the shortest, the Urbanmech is around 23ft tall and weighs 30 tons (60,000lbs). So height is reasonable. These things will knock trees over with ease, depending on species. Most 'mechs are jump jet compatible and can "fly" for a brief moment or be used to down cliffs safely.

[@redholm]

@@Ratkill9000 Honestly that just sounds like game logic that will never fly in real life. For example. An Abrams weights 60 tons. How is a 23foot Battlemech going to weight half that? Unless if it's made by Orcs where things just work. Can't have weapons on it. But yea. In universe maybe. But in "real life" no. Something that big would need to be way heavier.

[@nicolivoldkif9096]

@@redholm You realize that size is not directly correlated to mass. And one of the biggest issues with tanks in wooded areas is while they can easily shove trees over a stump might as well be a 100ft cliff. Tracks are incredibly limited in their movement. This is because the low ground pressure makes them actually pretty bad in slippery conditions. They have the standard issue of regular vehicles with ground clearance. 3 foot concrete dragon teeth spaced 5 feet apart completely block an M1 from advancing. And a single solid hit to any track completely immobilizes the entire vehicle. Most people think tanks are these all powerful move everywhere vehicles. they are actually very restrictive.

[@c7zr179]

I often get the feeling that the only people that try to argue in favor of using mechs in battle are the ones that don't know anything about warfare.

[@whatisupmyfellowamericans8808]

Big Daddy Boom Boom you are exactly right. The concepts of actual warfare don't translate into fiction very well. Although, the combat failures of mechs are far outweighed by the way that they operate under physical laws. The same people who argue for their effectiveness don't seem to take physics into account, which is sad.

[@dynamicworlds1]

Some smaller designs are plausible given certain tech capabilities (real or fictional), but the big mechs are rather silly.

[@c7zr179]

DynamicWorlds, Anything shorter than 3 meters would be useless, since they wouldn't be able to carry weapons as heavy as a conventional main battle tank. Still, you could go for augmented, suited mechanized infantry serving as infantry spearheads and shock troops.

[@dynamicworlds1]

Big Daddy Boom Boom anything shorter than 3 meters and you have problems finding a place to put the person (supposing there is one) much less the other components like whatever you're powering it with. I agree that ~3m is probably a hard lower limit for a piloted humanoid frame until you drop down to power armor scale. I say as small as possible because, as you allude to, you start runing into problems of being able to fit/carry what you need as you get smaller, so it's about deciding what you need (power arguably being an even harder issue to work around than guns) and then trying to work the scale down on how big a machine you need to carry it to cut down on production costs, operating costs, weight, and profile (which we can see as a driving design factor with tanks trying to get as low a profile as they can in modern designs)

[@c7zr179]

DynamicWorlds , You brought up solid points. I have nothing to add other than one thing; ammunition storage on this hypothetical machine would also be an issue. I think you would need at least a 30 mm gun to be able to threaten modern armor such as the rear of a main battle tank of an IFV, and those rounds are BIG, so such a machine wouldn't be able to carry much. Unless the mech is very large, you might either have to go for a power armor-type soldier or face the logistical strain of having to constantly resupply these units.

[@RoIand]

A weapon to surpass Metal Gear...

[@christopherscott1336]

Wait just a godamn minute --

[@golgarisoul]

Metal Gear?

[@Gelb33]

Metal Gear Ray is exactly what how mech should be used hit and run tactics along with a cool intimidation factor. Kill as ;uch as you can and get out before they can kill you. If it had a jet pack or VTOL flight system it zould be even more dangerous. In fact I can't help but compare to the EVA mass product units.

[@arctroopernull8733]

The la li lu le lo

[@naveedclifton]

You're pretty good.

[@leftwardglobe1643]

Ok, if we're talking specifically Battletech: Battlemechs in universe were adopted because they could be used for any one thing and do okay at it, and in reality, the present some nice advantages over tanks. Better use of (not mobility over, although that' also true in a lot of instances) steep/uneven terrain and urban environments through variable elevation, lower profile from above, which is great in urban environments, and makes them harder to target from the air, better resistance to mines for obvious reasons, better maneuverability, if we go for quadrupedal designs they're more resistant to battle damage and don't lose speed when changing elevation, etc., etc.. Furthermore, they wouldn't be all that much more expensive. No moreso than any other new weapon system. Hydraulics aren't hard to manufacture, and they're pretty easy to maintain. If we go specifically into the Battletech universe, yes myomer would be a nightmare wo work with, but it's also apparently pretty cheap, and you can field mechs equivalent to tanks stat wise in tabletop for roughly the same cost. So that's moot. The only real problems brought up in this comment section that have any merit are balance (which will only come into play if it gets hit by kinetic projectiles mind you, the mechs we're researching for modern militaries don't trip, and more than that they can get up just fine) and ground pressure, and those are hardly an issue if you design your vehicle properly. In fact both of those are completely negated by quadrupedal designs, which do exist in Battletech. As for useful battlefield roles: logistics, obviously, artillery, urban combat, mountain fighting, and any other environment where varied elevation and the ability to circumvent obstacles is useful. Another sidepoint: the mechs in Battletech are about one fifth the size presented in those animations. The battletech video game got its scale wrong. An Atlas has about the same surface area as one of those tanks, it's just vertical. At most, they come up to the Shadowhawk's knees in the parade (which is the one with the cannon on its shoulder). So she's correct when she says the legs are hard to hit. Hell, play Mechwarrior and try to tag them. They're still bigger than they should be there, plus you're closer than any actual engagement range and it's a pain in the ass to hit light mechs at all, let alone knock out their legs. All of that said, at this point in Battletech, they're largely used because it's tradition and commanders are so obsessed with them at this point. Mechs aren't the best at anything (except urban combat), but they work at everything, and they have such a romanticized air around them in universe at this point that everyone fields them and views other forms of warfare as unsportsmanlike. uness you're Capellan or Lyran, of course. Or Hell's Horses if you like the Clans and their backwards customs.

[@fistsofsnake5475]

Better resistance to mines? no, sir. anti tank mine would destroy mech leg enough to make it trip and become useless piece of junk

[@leftwardglobe1643]

@@fistsofsnake5475 If the mine is struck in the first place. Consider the fact that you have less surface area on the ground to trip pressure mines. I suppose you could have proximity sensors sticking slightly out of the ground to detect the main chassis, but that makes them easier to detect. On top of that there's the fact that any mine now has to pack enough punch to reach and disable the torso section in order to pose any threat to the crew. You could have a directed shrapnel warhead, but that still won't be as effective as it would be on a tank, and you still may only hit the leg depending on how it's laid out. Another thing about destroying a leg with a mine is that yes, it will always reduce the mobility of the mech, but it will only cripple it in the case of two or three legged designs. Four, five and six legged designs will still be able to move and fight, albeit much more slowly.

[@fistsofsnake5475]

@@leftwardglobe1643 Doesn't 8 legs multiply risk of stomping on mine? And leg of 60 tones mech would be half size of tank or more so not so little surface

[@leftwardglobe1643]

@@fistsofsnake5475 An Abrams is around 60 tons, and with a more hollowed out frame than the mech. So unless you're using some sort of ultra light magic metal, no. A leg will not be half the size of a tank, nor have as large of a footprint. Now this does mean that the mech has worse ground pressure, so it might sink in bogs or the like. I would counter that while yeah, a mech might sink in the mud more than a tank, it's also infinitely more capable of pulling itself out of that using its other limbs to gain leverage. A mech can't get stuck in six inches of mud, but a tank certainly can. As to 8 legs multiplying the risk: possibly with that many (I wouldn't mount more than 6 on an MBT equivalent, and I find 4 to be ideal for light vehicles, if lacking a bit of redundancy, if you'v ever seen a fallen walker from Destiny, that's an excellent design, also has the benefit of being fully automated), but even in that case, it's more than likely that the mech will simply step over the mine. Unlike a tank, it doesn't have to depress every inch of soil in its path. And again, even if it does get hit, it is more likely to survive the exchange and limp to safety. The only danger this poses over a tank is that you might, possibly, navigate yourself into the middle of a minefield before discovering that it's there. Which would be interesting.

[@fistsofsnake5475]

@@leftwardglobe1643 Graet. I'm at work right now so can't do it myself but can you tell me how long and wide are Abrams tracks? Because that how big one foot of 60 tone mech have to be.

[@aeliapanoowau1719]

Mechs are the definition of "awesome but impractical"

[@thatcow86]

Aaron Lennox They are practical within the context of Battletech, where there are technologies and coincidences that promote their use over tanks, which cannot take advantage of those things. They are not within reality, because those technologies do not and probably will not exist. But they MIGHT one day, and suspending your disbelief is necessary for any sort of fiction, so it's fun to enjoy the setting.

[@arx3516]

It depends on how they are portrayed . Most mechs in anime are extremley practical, making all other kind of military vehicle pointless in comparison.

[@RiotKurhein]

@@arx3516 what are you smoking? Anime mecha including Gundams are extremely impractical simply because of their size. The most practical mech designs are the ones closer to the ground literally and figuratively. Something like the Iron Monger suit (which is more mech than power armor) is more plausible. Hawken had some plausible designs if even they were shrunk down a bit. The Templin Institute didn't even go over the Square-Cubed law that is the real party pooper when it comes to giant sized things.

[@kennyburkamp4054]

@@RiotKurhein dude if you want practical mach design then watch the anime

[@spectre111]

@@RiotKurhein Actually Isaac Arthur explained how the square-cube law is actually an advantage for mechs. With smart bombs and guided missiles, it becomes harder to avoid being hit. At that point you have to either absorb the hit, with armor or shielding, or intercept it, with counter measures or defense lasers, and the bigger you are the more of both you can carry. Also being big lets you carry more firepower, either bigger guns or more smaller guns, or just more ammo for one small gun.

[@doublep1980]

Battlemechs are really inpractical,but a mechasuit would be a very effective system. I'm talking something like the ones in ''Edge of Tommorrow'' or the Marauder suits from the Spaceship Troopers book. You have the agility of an infantryman,can use cover,have armour and lots of firepower. The best solution would be an armor suit,like the ones Tony Stark has in the Marvel comics.Can you imagine a platoon of soldiers in ''War Machine'' suits,attacking you?

[@MechanicWolf85]

doubleP agree, they are call armored exo suits thou and they specialize more in infantry combat then vehicle combat, but the argument is still there, If put in a mech vs armored exo suit scenerio, the exo are much smaller and harder to hit and while the exo lacks the weaponry of a mech if the exo can fly and gets to close to a mech it won't be able to attack it and the exo can open fire on the mechs head or weak back It will be a similar problem then the scenerio of titanfall, but atlist those Titans are fast and agile while battlemech mechs are bug and slow

[@doublep1980]

The only practical use,for a giantsize Battlemech,would be as a mobile artillery platform.Instead of having an artillery battery,you would positioning 2-3 Mechs and let them open fire on enemy positions.But then,when you have something,like the ''War Machine'' armor,which has enough firepower,to level a city block,that would be inpractical too.

[@fredlandry6170]

I love the universe of Battletech.

[@placeholderplaceholder6056]

I love how she completely ignored the fact tanks can move and fight in forests/hills. Look at Germany, it went straight through the ardenne

[@RobertWF42]

Yes, although the German tanks in Ardennes had to drive on roads. I suppose a mech could walk through the forest.

[@unigaming9921]

@@RobertWF42 could it? The issue is density, so only low density forests would allow small mechs easy movement

[@LetholdusKaspyr]

@@RobertWF42 A mech walking through forest is going to trip, fall, and never get up virtually instantly.

[@Ten_Tacles]

Since mechs distribute all their mass over a relatively small area (their feet), the problems that plague tanks in swampy terrain would actually be amplified for mechs. They would sink far deeper than tanks, especially if equally or even more heavily armored. And if their feet sink too deep, they will become just as stuck as tanks.

[@CallsignYukiMizuki]

The difference between vehicles and Mechs (in the BT universe anyways) is that Mechs are NOT clunky. Mech limbs can be manipulated just like how a human can move their limbs. Also talking about the sheer size of Mechs; a tank is about as high as Mech's foot/ankle, so even if the tank is lighter with better ground pressure, wouldn't the Mech just *brute force* it through the swamp? Also jumpets.

[@MrHellknightimp]

In game mechs are harder to knock down when in marshes, because as I assumed they were sinking into the marsh and the softer ground was helping to distribute the force of weapon impact, also pretty sure due to a tech's size it could just force its way through a marsh

[@fw6938]

In my opinion, the question that needs to be asked is "Can the effect of a mech be achieved by a variety of other methods that are cheaper or more effective overall?" I think the answer is yes, at least in any type of combat that may be experienced today. Now, the main weakness of a mech is its legs. And while they are difficult to hit, it's far from impossible. To support the great weight of the armoured and armed "body", the legs need to be quite heavy as well. And while it's correct that they accelerate and decelerate fairly quickly, that doesn't make that much of a difference. If a mech approaches frontally, the movement of the legs doesn't make any difference in terms of aiming, if you don't go for the foot-like part. If y mech moves sideways, the legs may present an even bigger target, if they are so big that, from a side view, there is never or only a small gap between the moving legs. In conclusion, if enemies approach a mech enough to hit its legs with heavy weaponry, the mech is likely dead. However, the size of the mech also allows for a variety of countermeasures to be installed. However, today's anti-armour tank ammunition, APFSDS shells, are really hard to stop or even move so much to make it miss the tank. A modern APFSDS shell, fired from an M1 Abrams 1.5 km away, will hit the mech in about a second. The Abrams has it even easier than against another tank because the Mech is bigger and slower. This makes for a hit chance of something like 50 %. However, such a shell will be fired for every five seconds until the tank is unable to fight any longer or runs out of ammo. Since the APFSDS is basically a long, thin piece of very hard tungsten or uranium with fins, it's hard to disturb with active countermeasures like defensive rockets, and impossible to disturb with passive countermeasures. So, while a mech's countermeasures may stop rockets, they have virtually no chance against a good old APFSDS tank shell, so to speak. To answer my question above after ranting on and on about the mech's vulnerabilities, I believe the only way using a mech makes sense if you need to deploy a small unit that is relatively effective everywhere and doesn't need air support, artillery support, infantry support or basically, large numbers of any support. In my opinion, the main, and also the only advantage of a mech is that it offers a self-sustaining unit that can be used against a small, unknown foe in unknown terrain without the need for additional support, somewhat similar to SpecOp units. However, in any war or larger conflict, mechs would be obliterated by the large number of countermeasures against them available to armies and the military and countries in general.

[@carso1500]

Weapons have a niche, even tanks have a niche of their own (they suck hard at anything that is not flat, open terrain with no obstacles, which means that they are good for fighting in europe and Áfricas deserts, but they suck everyone else, they especially suck in cities where their high range advantahe gets completly nullified and theres soo much shit around they are basically sitting ducks) in this case the mech would be useful as an urban or jungle combatant were most battles are basically close combats, you cant simply obliterate everything wity heavy bombardments, and shit is everywhere, a mech is not a tank with legs is a bigger badder soldier Yeah a APFSDS would probably kill a mech (just like it also kills a tank btw) but in a city the tank will never have the chance to use it's main weapon before getting flanked and out maneuvered by the smaller, far agile mech, just as a mech would have no chance to defeat a tank in a open terrain like a desert or something

[@Peagaporto]

@@carso1500 Mechs also have a crew of one, while tanks usually have at least 3. If the fiction or the reality where they operate works through a neural command, like pacific rim or some gundam series, it could be argued that it comes more naturally for the brain to operate a humanoid form more efficiently than a tank form.

[@halcionkoenig243]

@@carso1500 Didn't Front Mission 4 exemplify why Mecha were extremely useful?

[@carso1500]

@@halcionkoenig243 unfortunately I don't have the game

[@Cryogenius333]

I should point out that the mech is carrying weapons too...some of them with a good degree more range than your average tank. They are totally self contained battle platforms, with a full range of sensors, viewfinders, instruments, and backup systems. Even if they have similar ranges, a mech CAN take multiple rounds...no matter what you hit and damage...unless you put your shell straight through the cockpit and, consequently, the pilot, the mech is going to return your shot, and your smol tank is going to disappear. Furthermore, ignoring the way 'mechs are represented in the videogames, most 'mechs have a very high amount of dexterity and mobility. 'Mech limbs have full degree of motion...their legs don't typically travel along a single flat plane. The oldest, more humanoid designs, were built to imitate the human body, which is why the neural link was designed, to simulate a "Brain" inside a giant suit of powered metal muscles and armored bones. With this in mind, a heavy mech at full tilt could very likely detect a small contingent of tanks and eliminate them quite quickly. if your tanks are stationary or moving forward and I am moving laterally, I have time to correct course and avoid fire...because my mech is more maneuverable its a lot easier for me to avoid incoming fire from long range; tanks dont move left right, up, or down. just forward, backwards, and pivoting. Now you have 33 dead men and a company of smoldering tanks, and I have one busted up battlemech...and if I LOSE, then you have 21 dead men and several smoldering tanks, and we lose one pilot....and if I have a lance, I will rapidly be avenged, my mech will be salvaged, Ill get hosed out of the cockpit, and someone else will fill my role.

[@sirerkel7901]

When you realize that people don’t actually understand what practicality is

[@jacobaurelius5361]

Sir Erkel lolol I quickly realized they’re talking about in universe/lore scenarios not real life

[@許進曾]

True

[@skeletoon1572]

Yes but practicality changes over time, and this is a huge jump towards the future

[@Llortnerof]

​@@skeletoon1572 While that is true to a degree, these go against any real developments. Making yourself a bigger, more vulnerable target has never been practical.

[@skeletoon1572]

@@Llortnerof ah yes, thus tanks must not be practical, oh or Humvees either. Oh and definitely not FOB's set up in areas with terrorism. Practically is not size. Tanks are huge but can take several tank rounds. Infact modern US military tanks have rarely ever been damaged beyond repair. FOB's have guards on every entrance and an anti missile/aircraft system installed. If size was really a problem we wouldn't have built giant metal shuttles that shoot, or FOB's on the line of combat, or giant bombing planes capable of carrying an entire hospital crew, or a battleship the size of your average church. The schwerer Gustav gun may be the only recorded weapon considered "too big", and the only reason that was a problem, is because firing the gun damaged itself. Otherwise the gun was used to fire rounds over the English channel, and over towards northern Africa.

[@starlight2098]

The biggest issue I have with the arguments presented is the assumption that tanks can't be upscaled the same way mechs are. And then, by their very nature, still have lower ground pressure (so they won't sink into the ground like mechs will) greater traction (so they can handle slopes and far, far, FAR greater recoil) and a lower centre of gravity, with a lower profile. So far from having equal or less armour, they can make much better use of the armour their broader-based, superior suspension can handle. And that armour can be better-sloped, when a battlemech is more or less stuck with presenting a broad, nearly-flat, vulnerable torso with its armour thinly spread out. Thinner armour easily penetrated by the larger weapon an equivalent-weight tank can handle with its greater ground traction and lower centre of gravity. And then we're not even touching the reliability issues with all those moving parts... Battlemechs are just not practical.

[@commanderdragco3123]

Up scaling a tank to mech size is just a logistical nightmare now you have a moving bunker with probably 2-4 guns on it if verging calibers you need air support constantly over it so it doesn’t get bombed and you have to supply it with shells nether are ideal if mechs become a thing I see them as a lightly armored unit to support infantry and kill lightly armored units

[@amehayami934]

Oh so why can't they get threw swamps and marshes? Or how about forest and jungles? You do know in the vietnam war they didn't use tanks as much right? The only place they could use it is in fields. Not in the jungles. And yes you can up scale it. Not really sure you understand what that means. What make it bigger? Yes you can how ever that would still mean the mech is still bigger but lighter then you. An at the same time take up less space. And because you up scaled your tank now you even more limited to where you can go and at the same time make yourself a bigger target. And if your tank gets stuck good luck getting it out. My strategy for that. Calculate where you are, where you're try to go, how you are going to get there with that tank.find a good spot where your tank takes up the most amount of room, send my special forces with power armor to infiltrate your tank, kill everyone in it, destroy your tank. Blocking that way. My Mechs would be lighter then your tank and would be so cumbersome to airlift it out of there. Even if you had a big enough ship to move the tank I can have mech hiding in wait to take out your ship that is what Mechs are for. and you ship would be big as or bigger then your tank. Next!

[@h1tsc4n40]

@@amehayami934 Tanks ALWAYS move better than mechs., It's simple phyisics. If a tank can't go through it, neither can a mech. This is because tanks always have lower ground pressure than mechs. Tracks and Wheels are always better than walking for energy efficiency and weight distribution. Arguing against that is arguing against the laws of phyisics themselves. If a tank can't cross a swamp, neither can a mech. Upscaling a mech will also weigh more than upscaling a tank, because a mech needs it's legs. A tank does not, and tank tracks + suspensions weigh less than hydraulic leg assemblies ever could. Mechs are just never practical, and that's why we don't use them. The tank is king, and is always better. Even in urban combat a tank is still superior due to it's lower profile and superior situational awareness. The only argument for mechs is that they look cool, but realistically speaking, tanks are always superior in every way.

[@Chuckler127]

I really wish you guys clarified whether you were talking about BattleMechs in the BattleTech universe, or trying to produce real life mechs. In the former, of course mechs are going to be arbitrarily written up to be the superior combat platform. In the latter case, military institutions all over the world have already looked at the concept and passed on it.

[@thatcow86]

I agree. They make sense and are explained in-universe, but the technologies that enable them to exist, do not exist in reality.

[@claytonhess5512]

@@thatcow86 Yes, the technology is the key limitation. The only question is who will be the crazy scientist to make the breakthrough? 😁

[@ashtiboy]

@@claytonhess5512 we just need to invent very efficient nuclear fusion reactors for the energy requirements! this will be needed for the needed energy to make the legs move fast enough after we invent some artificial monomer muscles that expand and contract with electrical impulses! these are the main hurdles we need to get over first before we can make mechs effectively for combat use!

[@bandit5272]

I noticed that the point that they are really big targets wasn't disputed.

[@MannoMax]

JJ Latham because you can't

[@Ishlacorrin]

Because mechs are not much larger than tanks in a lot of cases anyway. They are taller but much thinner and more far more making them harder to hit than most tanks.

[@talandar5773]

Ishla Corrin you're wrong. Most armored vehicles fit comfortably under a Battlemech's foot. The only things that come close are superheavy weapons platforms.

[@Ishlacorrin]

Not sure where you are getting your scale from but it's wrong. Most tanks don't rise much higher than a Mechs knee joint when compared using equal tonnage that is true but you can also fit both feet of a mech on top of most tanks with plenty of room to spare. The only real exception to this is light vehicles and assault mechs, at that point (20-30 ton tank and 90-100 ton mech) the feet start to be around the size of a tank but never before that. The Demolisher for instance is large enough to crush most light mechs should they fall and the best an assault mech can do vs it is kick it in the side or use jump jets to land on it. It also rises high enough that a light or even medium mech could crouch and be not much taller than it, hell the locust is already almost that short.

[@peridoodle2644]

It would be harder to target a walker's legs? Honey, artillery don't care how hard to hit you are. If it lands near you, all of it is getting hit.

[@bruhmoment2312]

Or stealth bomber like b2

[@KingmanHighborn]

Tanks are going to have the same problem though.

[@brokenursa9986]

Peridoodle They forgot about mines, too. A mine hitting a tank can be a survivable hit. A walker or mech stepping on a mine would completely cripple the leg and likely disable the vehicle.

[@KingmanHighborn]

@@brokenursa9986 Tank hits a mine, it blows it all to hell or at least knocks the threads off. So again, no difference in result really, though I think a mech could handle it better in some cases. As it wouldn't be 'trapping' the blast under the full mass, might blow it over, maybe even damage the foot, but the crew/pilot is off the ground, away from the blast, and could in theory get back up. Also tanks iirc need 3-5 people, a mech would need maybe 2 at most.

[@mada1241]

Yeah, and the shrapnel would do jack shit to the armor on its legs. A direct hit wouldn't even destroy most walker legs.

[@mrtno4582]

Logical answer: yes, they are pointless. Correct answer: HELL NO

[@LocalHeretic-ck1kd]

Damn right! Logic is sometimes a lying bitch who doesnt like any fun! Mechs are awesome!

[@TheRibbonRed]

*Rule of Cool answer: HELL NO

[@BeyondDaX]

Then we should just use the tech we have now *amiright?* Eventually we will have to evolve and soldiers on the field ain't enough.

[@darwinxavier3516]

More accurate answer: They are extremely useful for specific objectives. Inefficient as infantry.

[@calvinfeisalfatwanirwana9389]

THIS 👍👍👍👏👏👏

[@SageofIrrelevance]

I would love to see more of this series. Maybe next you could do a debate on dreadnoughts, those huge, powerful, lumbering spaceships that everyone seems to think are either totally awesome or totally impractical.

[@halcionkoenig243]

They're both impractical, and awesome: they're also vulnerable to infiltration, and sabotage.

[@LamiaDomina]

I remember GURPS had a fairly extended discussion on what circumstances could grant mechs at least suspension of disbelief, if not outright realism. What it basically came to was that their flexibility over terrain that tanks can't handle is an asset in extremely limited situations either where a target is too hardened against aircraft to make that the superior option, *or* in settings where logistical issues make it implausible to transport larger numbers of specialized vehicles and justify the more generalist walkers, which might be the case in some science fiction settings involving factors like orbital insertion or interstellar transport. Even there, they're *unlikely,* but not 100% implausible, although as other users here have posted, much smaller, stealthier ones are a lot more plausible than the skyscraper sized ones we see in Mechwarrior.

[@alessandrogirardi8081]

Aircraftcarrier are useless because they can't operate on land Carrier Kapisi: i'm a joke to you?

[@GGfighterdu51]

Really depend on the type of mechs we're talking about, are we talking about very big mech who are more like colossus, small mechs more like big mechanized footmen, mobile mechs who can do evasive maneuvers and go fast thanks to integrated wheels, slow and heavy mechs or even non-bipedal mechs who would use multiple "legs" or even something else? If we're talking about more small, fast and agile mechs then they clearly are interesting especially in urban and difficult terrain.

[@grayscribe1342]

Useless, no. But including maintenance I question their overall worth as a combat vehicle. However, unarmed Mechs might be a godsend for loading and unloading cargo, speed up the construction of a small base and even maintenance of a tank. They could replace large parts of a repair shop and make a repair shop more mobile. They might also be useful as part of the corps of engineers. If you have VTOL units they can help setting up a small base faster and again help with repairs and maintenance or even rearming other craft. In those fields they might boost the effectiveness of these units several times.

[@aprinnyonbreak1290]

This is an important point, especially for the handful of battlemechs that exist on a given frontier world as militia. Most of these things don't sit in a shed until fighting day, they are multi purpose self contained tools, that may see service as a company forklift, small crane, bulldozer, portable generator, first responder emergency vehicle, farm tool, surveying and pathfinder vehicle, courier service, and more. They have independent, largely timeless power plants, can carry several tons of arbitrary cargo over undeveloped terrain, and so long as they're not involved in accidents, can probably get by with only moderate repairs to actuators and such. Yes, a lot of these jobs can be done, and probably be done more efficiently by dedicated vehicles... or you can get a battlemech to just do all of it for cheaper than one of each vehicle and/or work the mech lets you skip, while nominally being part of your defense budget, which someone else might even pay for. I know that this is a point specifically brought up for the Hermit Crab, but the same general idea applies to basically any battlemech, with reduced application to armless Mechs like the Locust. Some of these mechs have been in basically uninterrupted service for centuries; the idea that a planet that was given a token militia of disposable mechs 400 years ago, that have served generations of gap-filling industrial labor while occasionally scaring pirates isn't even a long shot. The Crab that Star League left on your doorstep 400 years ago isn't just a weapon, it's probably the single greatest, most flexible asset your planet has had for the last 400 years.

[@golgarisoul]

Just use Aerospace jets and tanks with Battletech technology, just that easy.

[@kellscorner1130]

the tanks,mechs, and aerospace fighters use the same weapons and have the same attack values in the game/tabletop.

[@peng2816]

I don't think giant robots are the answer to swampy terrain, I think we can solve the problem with drones,tiny robots and fighter jets. And forget giant robots, have small scary robots to be carried, and make them stab the enemy. Edit: maybe the tiny robot thing would be too scary and if it is created, they could violate the rules of war.

[@rabidporcupine0]

No, no, if we're having murder robots, I think it'd be better for everyone if they were PILOTED murder robots. If they can't robomurder without a pilot, then they can't robomurder all of humanity in an evil AI type event.

[@peng2816]

@@rabidporcupine0 yes, but it still maybe kind of cool, maybe, it might not be cool. I don't think tiny robots would be controlled by sky net. Sure they could be used agent yourself, but same goes for giant robot's, and everything else. Now if you are worried about robots would take over, I think it would have to consider a lot of things like humans can just kill it with a kill switch, not literally but like some code that super top secret. If I was an AI u would also think about competitors like other ai, aliens, and if some animal evolved intelligence like humans, I might not want to alarm them. Maybe they wouldn't be such a good thing after all.

[@rabidporcupine0]

@@peng2816 Why wouldn't small robots be controlled by an AI like Skynet? Smaller robots could do all kinds of damage large ones couldn't even hope to achieve. They'd be able to get in anywhere. Anyway, that's not really what I'm saying. I want mechs that can be piloted because I want mechs that NEED a pilot, or they can't function. Sure, put an AI in control of certain supplementary systems like radar and target assistance, but have the actual controls need a person to sit in it and activate them, or else they can't move or do much of anything. That way, if an AI takes over, they won't be able to actually use the mechs against us because they need a human pilot, and call me crazy but I don't think there'd be too many volunteers.

[@peng2816]

rabidporcupine0 I think they are big expensive targets waiting to be destroyed but, ok. Yes they solve problems, but problems that have no reason to exist. By the way, if we build a mech, they will just sink into the ground due to gravity. Yes I understand something needs a pilot, but like I said, battle mechs create a problem that doesn’t exist. Yes somethings might need a pilot but a fighter jet, a missile, or even a rope can take one down. War fare isn’t big discussing battles anymore, it’s just small gorilla or civilization groups that fight. Why do we need a new type of expensive tank, if we have other things to spend money on, like facilities, new technology, or even space travel?

[@lawsontse1545]

giant robot are far more likely to get stuck in mud than tank because much higher ground pressure of feet

[@MikeBenko]

I think the main question is not what is better tank or mech but rather what type of mech would be useful. Mechs of the "Battlemech" game series type seem almost completely and totally pointless and as it was said tanks, aircraft and even infantry would plain and simply be better/cheaper/more useful. Also mechs have an upper size limit imposed on them by the simple nature of weight distribution. Ignoring the engineering required to make something the weight of a tank bipedal, the issue of putting so much weight on a small surface like that of a mechs "foot" is insurmountable. Unless the mechs are restricted to operating only on reinforced surfaces capable of taking their weight, they would be completely useless in sand, mud, soft soil, unreinforced concrete etc. One of the 2 main reasons why we stick tracks on heavier vehicles is because tracks do a great job distributing weight and thus managing rough terrain. The other reason is mechanical sturdiness. So the mechs either need to be extremely light (probably lighter than most wheeled vehicles) thus having less armor and a more limited weapon loadout or they need some special sci-fi anti gravity thingagamob that nullifies their weight, in which case again, putting that on a low profile vehicle would give that vehicle an advantage in mobility. But Mechs of the sort we get for example in Titanfall are a completely different beast. Insanely agile with the ability to scale and even navigate certain buildings they do seem to make a great infantry support platform. Even in that role they are first and foremost just expendable support weapons and very very likely their role could be fulfilled by autonomous or remote controlled drones making the human pilots redundant. We also see mechs of this agile support type in the Avatar movie, tho to be honest I kinda question whether the mechs in Avatar are mechs or rather just powered armor.

[@TheInsomniaddict]

Light mechs in the sense of Titans are just about as impossible. Movement is probably about as unlikely, not to mention the tech like forcefields. Most likely the "real" mechs will be closer to Heavy Gears.

[@TheElegantMachine]

As awe-inspiring as it would be to see a 10-story-tall armored behemoth striding across the battlefield, said battlemech would be relatively slow and ungainly. Even if you found some impossibly strong material that would bear that much weight on just two column-like legs (and even more at the joints, which would have to withstand the constant strain of moving all that mass around), the sort of power source required to power it could most likely be put into a smaller vehicle, like a tank or aircraft, to give it far greater speed and increase the amount of weaponry it could carry. Rather than using giant mechs to replace tanks or mobile artillery, I agree that having a fast, agile, bipedal weapons platform would be very useful as infantry support. In urban or jungle/forest combat, a light mech or exoskeleton carrying just one rotary cannon or a single rocket pod could mow through unaugmented soldiers, most readily-available forms of cover, and other light vehicles. Having legs instead of wheels or treads would make it better able to navigate narrow streets or dense forest without requiring large clearings in which to turn around. And if you could give it a sufficient power-to-weight ratio (or some kind of rocket pack/ booster), the ability to jump over barricades, traps/mines, and conventional vehicles would be very useful in close-quarters combat. Thank you for bringing up the AMP Suit from Avatar. I would agree that it qualifies as a mech, since it is not worn so much as piloted (the suit's limbs mirror the movements of the user's, but do not wrap around them like a suit of armor). Its belt-fed cannon may not have a long range, and it may not punch through heavy armor, but in dense forest (like the jungles of South America and Pandora) or urban environments, it chews up dozens of nine-foot-tall aliens (infantry) just fine, as well as trees (cover) and giant Na'vi-ridden animals (light vehicles and aircraft). From what we see in the movie, it is fast and agile enough to move effectively in rough terrain, with broad footpads to distribute its weight, legs that are relatively short yet powerful enough to run and jump at high speeds, and a low center of gravity to avoid tipping over. The force-feedback system used to control its arms is very intuitive and reacts very quickly, so while those arms may not carry three or four different weapon systems, they can be used for things like pushing the mech back to its feet if it gets knocked over, moving obstacles out of its way (or clearing a path for tracked/wheeled vehicles and infantry following behind it), and, yes, engaging in CQB if its main weapon gets damaged or runs out of ammo. This means that, as long as its powerplant is fueled and running, the mech is still useful for other tasks beyond just being a weapons platform. So, giant battlemechs may be impractical overall, but their smaller cousins may be useful as infantry support, police vehicles, and similar roles.

[@michaelramon2411]

XCOM's MECs and SPARKs are a good example of the "infantry support" type of thing, though neither of them quite fit into the traditional "mecha" category. Heavy machine gun capable of suppression/cover destruction, special weaponry like rockets and flamethrowers, jet boots to get up on roofs and all small enough to fit through most doors.

[@TheInsomniaddict]

Also Logistics would love them to move freight, I bet. As well as being rear guard.

[@eldadmaster]

In battletech, 99% of military forces are infantry and tanks. Battlemechs are just tip of the spear, they solve the logistical chokepoint of interstellar mobilisation. They offer the most firepower, durability and mobility per ton; the offset is that they are insanely expensive. Infantry formations are essential, but are a bitch to mobilise. You think D-day was hard? Imagine if Normandy was located in another solar system...

[@Verminator4]

I think it really is hard to argue that the mechs in Battletech are superior to any wheeled or tracked vehicle you could make with the same tech in-universe, they really are just giant walking tanks, where walking confers them with only minor advantages and significant downsides. Ironically, despite Battletech being the "realistic" universe and Japanese mecha anime like Gundam being "unrealistic," Gundam's robots make more sense in their universe (at least in UC) than Battlemechs do in theirs.

[@amehayami934]

Why would it be unrealistic?

[@MrFleem]

Most of a mech's strengths come from how they're represented in the game. In reality, a tank made with the same level of technology could be made to be better protected and better armed than an assault mech. Also, there's no reason jump jets should be exclusive to mechs.

[@arsarma1808]

Falling is more dangerous when you don't have legs. There are also very heavy fighters in BT. Who needs a helitank when you can have a 90 ton Chipewwa IIC. :P

[@MrFleem]

Putting jump jets on a tank is no worse than putting them on a mech. And BT mechs aren't agile enough for their legs to help in anything but a controlled descent. Just design a suspension for hard landings and it works just as well. But yeah, leave the actual flying to the flying units. You'd only end up with something that's bad both on the ground and in the air.

[@arsarma1808]

Since battlemech have long legs they have a further distance (realistically about the height of the tank, I don't buy that these things are 20m high)and therefore time to distribute the shock. Making a suspension that could absorb the force of a tank falling in a short would add a lot of complexity you'd want to avoid with a tank. IIRC there are AFVs that can be air dropped but they're lighter and use parachutes. Further more, in universe tanks aren't build for JJs, and mech have systems that make their use more convenient. They don't have any cooling system that is required for mech operation, so they'd be adding a cooling system that unlike a mech, doesn't serve a second (cooling energy weapons) and third (cooling the fusion engine that lets them move and use said weapons) functions. After that there is the literal tons of gyroscopic stabilization a mech has which also functions to keep it stable while moving. In the event of a failure of a JJ a mech would be safer than a tank for this reason, and if the mech still was flipped when it landed, it would be able to get up, unlike a tank. After that there is the biomimicry aspect. Tanks are decidedly brick shaped, and mechs aren't much better. However a mech can control its rotational inertia with limb movements (ie a pirouette or AMBAC in the gundam universe), as well a mimic movements like an Olympic vaulter or long jumper would use to be more area dynamic in air. They can also jump (with legs) to add momentum. By placing some of the JJs in legs, they can also direct their thrust better. A tank would need a thrust vectoring system for all of the JJs, which adds more weight and complexity, which is why its going the way of swingwings in fighter development. This is what I like to the "F35 problem," which is based on the dialogue "Why make an F35 when you can upgrade and make a stealthy version of an F-16/AV-8B?" and answer "If you did that you would get an F35." If you tried to make a tank optimized for jumping, it would look more like and have more components of a mech.

[@MrFleem]

Normal use of jump jets involves a powered landing, which a sturdy suspension would handle just fine. I've never seen mechs moving their limbs for balance in flight, it's always gyros doing that work. Some swing their arms while walking, but others don't, and such a thing serves no purpose on vehicles that use treads or wheels. Some tanks in BT do mount energy weapons, so heatsinks wouldn't necessarily go to waste.

[@Sluppie]

I disagree. There is a perfectly good reason not to put Jump Jets on tanks, fighter jets, boats, or anything else. Other types of vehicles don't need them. If you want to give tanks the ability to hover, those already exist. In Battletech they are called Wing in Ground Effect vehicles but their RL cousins already exist. If you have a jet, then you don't need jump ability. You already have flight. Submarines don't need jump jets. Boats that have jump jets would again just be Wing in Ground Effect vehicles again. Only Mechs have Jump Jets because only Mechs need them. Simple as that.

[@kolinmartz]

“The legs are not that vulnerable beachside they’re hard to hit” Artillery: allow us to introduce ourselves.

[@nobodyimportant2470]

Close only counts in horseshoes and high explosives. Artillary ain't playing horseshoes. Hell even missing would break up the ground into lose rubble that a tank can drive over but the mech would sink into. Which in turn would make the mech an even easier target when the artillery adjusts to fire for effect.

[@adamstringer7092]

The Titans from Warhammer 40k are a good representation of how mechs may be used. While a Titan's weapons can be devastating in battle and can severely weaken the enemy's morale, they are too rare, valuable and impractical for many battlefield situations. I think mechs are best used as long range artillery, where they can take advantage of their sheer size to employ more direct and accurate attacks.

[@SuperGman117]

I think mechs would mainly be useful if they were small, supporting vehicles and/or power armor.

[@Nonsense010688]

the thing about the Titans of 40k is that they are a whole other league in terms of size and firepower. They have massive armour, more devastating weapons then any one tank has (thou some super heavy tank come close) and for once the high is actually kinda useful.

[@deusexmachina9322]

Not really. They have full access to the best the AdMech has to offer, namely voidshields, the sort of thing you otherwise usually only see on the Imperium's colossal warships. If you gave tanks voidshields they'd be pretty damned hard to kill, but the AdMech intentionally denies the best stuff from the IG because they don't own the Guard and frankly don't much trust the Imperium at large. Titans are largely psychological superweapons. They have really strong kit, they can lay waste like none other in the Imperium, but it's not because "they got mechs right" it's because of the AdMech being the AdMech.

[@johnjacob3615]

Deus Exmachina you cant even include titans in a serious tactical discussion because in any realistic universe a titan wouldnt even be able to move.

[@cronicasdeltiempo7540]

Deus Exmachina yeah. Not quite. Void shilds are ludicrously hard to make and power. A tank cant fit a voud generator. And tech in the warhammer universe is scarce and barely understood even by the ad mech. Its not only that the mechanicum is greedy.

[@AsilarWindsailor]

"The Templin Institute" needs to be the name of a corporation in BattleTech or Shadowrun

[@tanith117]

"A subsideary of ComStar" ComStar: You don't have a choice

[@z3122]

@@tanith117 Pay your HPG bill fucko!

[@Kolokommouna]

I would like to propose a different application for battle mechs. Instead of being gigantic structures with the fire power of an entire army, an alternative solution is to make them smaller and less equiped. You see, armored vehicles are fast, but not very manuverable. A battlemech could be designed to flank armored vehicles and destroy them with weapons such as anti-tank rifles. Battle mechs can also be very effective support vehicles (like attack helicopters) their larger height will allow them to have an advantage over their enemy, and (if combined with other parts of the army), if equiped with weapons such as gatling guns or rockets, a battle mech could do immense damage to the opposing forces. Battle mechs could also be very good scouts. Both because of the terrain advantages you discussed and because they are taller than humans and vehicles. Not to mention the fact that, not only mechs could make better scouts than humans, but they are better scouts than tanks, which tend to be terrible scouts. PS. I believe this was the purpose that battle mechs were first invented.

[@CallsignYukiMizuki]

For the most part. In the BT universe/context, Mechs are varried, very flexible and are not clunky like the games portray. Take the Raven (RVN-3L) for example. It basiaclly has pisspoor weaponry even for a light Mech, but it is also equipped with one of the most advanced EW equipment at the time. It has greater speed and most importantly, it has the the equipment and configuration to fit the role of an artiller spotter/Forward Observer. Likewise, the Catapult (CPLT-C4) is a dedicated, artillery/long range, indirect fire support Mech. It has backup weaponry to defend itself in close range, but that wouldn't really kill anything unless said target is already damaged.

[@rodrigojalcacanarte3011]

Other option, is increase the number of legs for stability...a gigant artillery plataform with legs and auxiliary wheels, better that traditional artillery for surprise attacks

[@radiationpony8449]

Like what certain sci fis have done... AT-RT, 40k Sentenal

[@Kolokommouna]

Callsign-YukiMizuki whait, what is the BT universe.

[@CallsignYukiMizuki]

Greek Revolutionary Democratic Socialist BattleTech / MechWarrior universe. (They also have quadropeds)

[@Rofl890]

All of the Against points are entirely wrong: 1) It won't be any more difficult to hit the legs than the body; that doesn't make sense: they're directly underneath the body. A few projectiles will pass through the legs; a very small percent. 2) Tanks can also deploy all of the special anti-missile (and other) defenses mentioned, in fact they do that today. 3) If height is an advantage (low silhouettes are advantageous in current combat, not height), future tanks can just have a higher antenna or something for a higher view. Or, just have the tank deploy some cheap drones. 4) Tanks can be in more places than mechs. Mechs can only be used on tough ground; they will sink right into marsh land (and other places) and have to be abandoned. They have very high pressure under their feat. There is no reason to think that a mech will be better at climbing a mountain than a tank; tanks have better traction. If a mech can have a jet pack and jump, so can tanks. (Jumping tanks... cool). Future tanks will have better ways to clear through forest, besides just good old' runnig over trees. People be salty the their mechs are never going to happen

[@KyleLi]

Tanks have 3 main whole moving parts (not including small components like the individual treads and engine etc.). The turret and the two tracks. How many main moving parts does a mech have... a lot more :/

[@zarlev9083]

Kyle Li Yes it has more xD as the name suggest Battle Mech. a humanoid / or different type big mechanical cluster which moves it's arms, legs and torso to do diferent uhm.... stuff xD

[@Unsound_advice]

So many mechanics/technicians and I wonder what the maintenance to operational hours time is?

[@zachrich7359]

That is true, but some of those moving parts, such as hands, are incredibly useful. Such as picking up said tank and tossing it like a toy or ripping off the turret and beating the tank's brethren with it. And in an argument I posted above, a battlemech with hands in urban areas can through together barricades to help prevent tanks from using streets and a mechwarrior doesn't want them to. Forcing the poor little tanks to come down a pre-selected kill zone or never reach their objective.

[@AbsurdAsparagus]

the complexity fallacy is annoying, just because it is more complex does not infact mean it is more likely to fail. complexity simply increases the difficulty of making it reliable.

[@TheKillbot555]

Zach Rich But that only covers urban situations. Tanks already preform poorly vs infantry in urban combat and arming infantry with anti-tank weaponry will always be more cost efficient then building a large humanoid fighting vehicle. They will be massive targets to air units and would have little defense from smart bombs or laser targeted missles. In ranged combat traditional tanks will always beat a bipedal mech thats 3 to 4 stories tall. They are too big, too expensive and too inefficient to ever see wide spread combat use.

[@themadstudent]

Hard to take the "Useless" side seriously when he ignores the main benefit of the platform. Try driving your tank in zero G or a vacuum. Or driving it underwater across a lake bed. Or through a boulder field. Or through a bog. This mobility advantage is compounded for mechs equipped with jump jets. Mechs go places tanks can only dream of and that gives them large tactical advantage in numbers. The next issue in Battletech is mechs are compartmentalized. A battlemech operates just fine missing a limb. All armor blow throughs on a tank leader to crew liquification and unit elimination. Sure, a mech's legs are vulnerable, but a mech can usually limp with a disabled leg. A tank's treads are at least as vulnerable, and it *cannot* move at all without both. The next advantage of mechs is their ubiquitous fusion engines. Sure, some tanks also mount them, but almost all the tank's price advantage evaporates if they do, making them basically just fragile, mobility crippled mechs. Among ICE tanks, the extra weight from the ICE engine (try not to imagine how an internal combustion engine weighs so much and just roll with it) all that extra weight and fuel severely cripples the loadout space for weaponry. Plus they now require regular supply lines in a way that a mech powered by fusion that only needs recharge ever few *years* and mounting ammo-free energy weapons does not. A mech force with the right loadout can operate as a guerilla unit in a way that a tank force cannot even dream of. Further a mech can red-line its heat in a way even a premium fusion-equipped tank cannot due to its much superior heat management. This allows a mech to achieve a highter rate of fire for it weapons than even a comparably equipped tank. The final advantage of mechs is their lower reliance on personnel. A mech is piloted by a single mechwarrior. A tank is piloted by a crew of 2-5. Even if you assume that it takes greater skill and training to bring a mechwarrior up to speed than a tanker, that's still more casualties when the unit is eliminated, and multiple salaries, medical care, and other logistics. Equipment can be expensive, but human costs are usually greater still over the long haul. There is a reason most tanks in universe are used as defensive forces that can usually choose their preferred battlefield. When tank forces sally forth, they often get flanked, their supply lines crippled, then wiped out. Ton for ton, the best tanks can outperform an average mech in optimal conditions, but outside optimal considerations the mech usually takes both the first and last shots. The tank probably should give penalties to hit it compared to mechs, honestly, for its lower profile silhouette, and the insta-kill rule for tanks is kinda nonsensical, but alas, it is a game about mechs and the people who pilot them.

[@LetholdusKaspyr]

Oh, shit, the "Godly Mech vs Ordinary Tank" argument. If they can build mechs that bullshit their way across the laws of physics, they could make actually useful vehicles that do the same thing for half the price.

[@kolinmartz]

Why would you need legs in zero g? Why even drive on the bottom of the water if you can. Oh idk. Take advantage of X,y, and z axes like a small armored submersible? Why even drive on a bog if you can hover over it? Boulders? If they’re big enough to hinder tanks, they’re big enough to hinder mechs. Just stick to having infantry in power armor. You might not need to blow off the legs if you jsut aim center mass and still liquify the crew inside a giant box that’s conveniently meters above the ground. Let me shoot your leg off while you’re sprinted and see if you don’t trip over. Now imagine you’re a mech that weighs many tens of tonnes. That crew will be shake around inside that fighting compartment harder than the brain inside the skull of a crying baby. That mech will limp but they’ll have to pressure wash the inside when it RTBs autonomously. If you can automate a mech to be piloted by one person, like you have that tech and computing ability and sensor suite and money, you can automate a tank to be as well. If you take all that tech you need to have to make your mech useful, you can also apply it to every existing weapon system platform. And at that point, mechs will still be too expensive (because of the simplicity of other platforms that’s been juiced up by all that techno mumbo jumbo) and it all comes down to straight physics. What is a more efficient weapons delivery platform? It’s never the mech. This is like comparing a machine gun to a fully automatic, nuclear battery powered, robotically reloaded, magnetically accelerated crossbow with carbon nanotube limbs. See how much more complex you have to make it to make it work and compete? When you can just add all that high tech into something that’s already better and make it way better than your dream weapon could ever be to begin with.

[@Sarindanvelor]

tbh only time i've really liked how a game treated the mech situation was in the game supreme commander where the point for having the mech was because it was a mobile command and construction platform designed to land and create a bulkhead before proceeding to build an automated army and complete its mission objective

[@halcionkoenig243]

With the technology Supreme Commander utilized, they could have sent in a soldier in a Power Suit, or a mini-UFO with the Construction Suite attached.

[@KelebMoonDancer]

@@halcionkoenig243 A soldier in a power suit would get killed very easily lmao, the point of giving the commanders these overpriced overpowered mechs, was to make them relatively dificult to kill with basic units.

[@Phootaba]

@@halcionkoenig243 Both Total Annihilation and Sup-com have both legged, wheeled and flying units that can build (let's ignore sea-vessels for now). The payoff is simply that higher mobility (lower weight) gives you less powerful tools. The construction power from high to low was Commander - Wheeled engineer - walking engineer - flying engineer. The commander and other walking super-units where stupidly expensive and risky units to have around due to the fact that when their core exploded they would level a mid-size city, and they are high value targets. The large cores gave them the awesome building and warfare suites . This is why the commander is the commander, it can do it all! (and destroy it all in the explosion when it dies...) Also, a power-suit in that universe would get roflol-stomped by a tier 1 unit ;)

[@patrickmurray3846]

One point nether of you pointed out is, at what lvl of technology would even be needed to even construct a basic workable battlemech. Got to keep in mind that the word of Mechwarrior (or any other world with walkable battle armors such as the gundum universe), that they all take place far into the future where technology is so far advanced that they can travel the stars. So new types of armor can be used that's both stronger and lighter then anything we got today.

[@jriegerhoule]

I'm surprised they didn't mention how cost ineffective a giant ass mech covered in armor and equipped with an arsenal would be. Whatever type of weaponry you send to war, a lot of it's going to get destroyed/damaged. A tank getting destroyed is already a lot of money lost, imagine how much money you're losing when your mechs get destroyed.

[@TheHobgoblyn]

I think the reason why is because the idea is that you would spend the same amount of money on either making a humanoid-shaped war vehicle or you would spend the same amount on making a super tank or super helicopter or something.

[@crazydiamondrequiem4236]

TheHobgoblyn mechs are inherently more expensive since they are more complicated. Parts of the budget goes to the development, testing and maintenace of the mechs. Tanks are less expensive since the basic design of it is already battle proven and fully understood and it has a more simple design.

[@MariusThePaladin]

+Jared Houle THANK YOU. And not to mention that it would be an absolute NIGHTMARE to recover a mech that's immobilized but not destroyed. It's already hard enough to change a tank's track or wheel in the field. Imagine if a robotic leg stopped funcntioning for some reason.

[@osedebame3522]

So you mean, military tech can be expensive? That must mean it's unusable! Like, jets and Naval ships are extremely expensive, (especially aircraft carriers) but they are still used quite a bit because they are really useful. Being able to have a large armored campaign in the mountains of bogs or anywhere a tank can't is a very important reason for mechs to be used. It would be like Hannibal crossing the alps and invading Rome, but with hulking armoured beasts that would be completely unique from tanks

[@Kojima93]

Now imagine how much it would cost the enemy if they lost 20 tanks to 1 mech. Or even more. If it takes a hell of alot firepower to take 1 mech down, and the mech has completely fucked your side, then MAYBE its cost wouldnt look so bad.

[@Hy93Ri0n]

A good way to look at this whole thing in my opinion is through the lens of the original real robot anime, Mobile Suit Gundam, and more specifically it's universal century timeline Gundam set one of the chief rules of the real robot genre; Artillery/long ranged precision weapons either does not exist or can not be very effective. the UC timeline handwaves this with the Minovsky particles generated by the reactors of the Mobile suits interfering with precise targetting, thus allowing them to close the distance and engage in close to close-medium ranged comabt. Hell, a fucking plot point of the series was that the Guncannon and Guntak weren't as effective as the Gundam almost purely due to their lack of optimization towards CQC. In Battletech you'll notice that you'll need a metric fuck ton of LRMs to even scratch the paint of a mech. I find it important to note the series that most clearly breaks this rule, the recent Gundam Iron Blooded Orpahns anime, which takes place in a relatively more grounded universe with a lack of beam weaponry and more realistic mobile suits... for the most part. A plot point in *this* series is the existence of the Dainslef railguns, that can puncture a Gundam Far outside of it's effective range, which leads to mobile suits getting fucking bodied left and right in long range endurance fights. one of my favorite mecha scenes ever is in the 8th MS team OVA series, which if you're unaware is basically gundam in Vietnam. There's a fascinating sequence in which a trio of Tanks hold off and disable a Gundam while heavily damaging another, just by using their low profiles and still powerful cannons to their advantage. It showed what advantages conventional equipment can have, even when filtered through a lens in which the mechs are often what draw people in. I think my favorite realistic interpretation of mechs would be in the Full Metal Panic light novel series, not the anime; while still great it makes what I'm about to say null and void. In the novles they basically function as massively oversized Power Armor, allowing someone to bring more firepower to bear in a safer way, but still keeping them vulnerable to conventional arms. TL;DR mechs are cool but if you're following real world logic you're gonna get obliterated.

[@Samuraiedge2]

But then there is MS IGLOO where 8 Type 61s were destroyed just to take out 3 Zakus. Thats 24 lives(16 in the case of IGLOO) gone take 3.

[@Hy93Ri0n]

howver true that is those are still much more expensive and versatile Zakus that aren't comin back. Type 61s are basically a drop in the bucket by comparison, and you can't assume every member of those destroyed tanks was killed.

[@Samuraiedge2]

Half of them had their turret blown off and or crushed by the Zaku's foot. I'm sure they're outright dead. You're not going to survive taking a 120mm rapid fire machine gun or a 280mm bazooka. Or even survive having your tank getting kicked around. At best, you'd be knocked out. Sure its faster and cheaper to replace a single Type 61. Its replacing the crew you have to worry about.

[@Hy93Ri0n]

thats fair

[@darwinxavier3516]

That's a valid point to address when considering the practicality of mechs. What is in greater scarcity, resources, or lives. Same philosophy applies to the staggering difference between the fighters of rebels and empire in Star Wars. The rebellion had extremely limited people. One of the effects of this was to improve the quality of each fighter to compensate for the empires staggering numbers.

[@Chameleon1616]

The against argument: A mechs legs are not practical let alone effective enough to replace the wheel. The for argument: Er, actually the legs are moving to fast to hit, they would shoot the body. :P

[@Eleyvie]

There's a bigger problem with the leg argument. Either your mech is facing the enemy, in which case it's legs are moving to and from the enemy and are effectively immobile as far as shooting is concerned. Or your mech *is already flanked*.

[@4ae109]

its not ww2 anymore where a tank gunner would have to manually aim modern computers could calculate drop, lead, wind, and all the other stuff and if a tow missile could explode above a tank where armor is weakest, it could explode between a mechs legs

[@nuclear1617]

And also that Mecha in battletech are magic and are somehow super durable and near the mobility of a human in some cases.

[@volfegan]

There is no way for a mech to operate in any terrain. If you put tons of height on 2 legs, that pressure would sink the mech on most terrains. They would not be able to run, and even the act of walk would be very difficult. Every piece of land for a mech is quicksand.Tanks can operate in most difficult terrains because they have tracks on wheels that distribute their weight.

[@yomuyugi]

Great video, loved the debate, those were some nice points of view and since I love debates I'll just leave my opinion as well. BattleMechs have a huge range of customization which allows them to be tailor made for any type of mission or situation, the fact that a single BattleMech can carry such a huge array of weapons makes it even better for dealing with multiple kinds of enemies, for example a tank is a pretty easy target for a bomber because it's virtually defenseless against any aircraft attack where as for the BattleMech it can use anti air missiles and multi target any incoming aircraft squadron, destroying it before it can do any damage. Now imagine a full lance of BattleMechs, they could be the slowest thing on the battlefield but unless they go up against other BattleMechs they are almost unfair in a battle.

[@Sturmlied]

But that argument does not address the huge flaws of a mech that can be easily abused. A food soldier can take down an Atlas with ease in a realistic scenario.. unless the mech has infantry protection. A hidden approach and a large enough charge at the joints of the leg for example and the mech is useless. Also the computing power and space need for stabilization after for example a large artillery round hit the mech is ridiculous and unnecessary. Over-engineering at a stupid level. Also the disadvantages of a tank are easily solved by combined arms forces.

[@DreadNought0255]

But the EXACT same argument can be used FOR tanks. Assuming the size the walker isn't something obscene like an Emperor class Titan from 40k, any weapon system that is usable on a mech is also usable on a tank an arguably to better effect as the weapons can be of higher power or simply on a far more stable platform. Same with any tech imaginable. ANYTHING that can be used in or on a mech to give them an edge over a modern MBT can be used to better effect on said MBT. Armor can be laid on thicker, powerplants will be more efficiently used and crew can also be singled down to one operator because operating an MBT can't feasibly be more complicated then a Mech. The developments in producing materials capable of withstanding the stresses and wear on a Mech's legs would make a tank damn near maintenance free in comparison. And lets not forget, the BEST defense in any engagement is not to be seen, second best is not getting hit. Kind of hard to do either of those if you're taller then a building. Which also debunks the argument of "shoot for the face because legs are difficult targets" because the center of gravity on a mech is way too high. Even if the legs are intact, a sufficiently powerful hit to the top of a mech is more likely then not to topple them over from the sheer kinetic energy. As for mobility, we also have to consider the pilot. To make a mech agile enough to "dodge" fire means creating a vehicle that is basically unmannable as anti-tank munitions tend to be of the high velocity variant. Meaning that mech has to "tank" that damage OR be a bone crushing roller coaster of high G maneuvers.

[@fakjbf3129]

I think it's inherently flawed to say that the Battlemech will have more advanced/a greater variety of weapons. Why wouldn't a tank be able to have the exact same weapons as a Battlemech? What is it about being bipedal that makes it easier to launch an anti-aircraft missile?

[@yomuyugi]

there are a lot of things from alternate universes that can take out a mech easily, a nuke could do it no problem, the thing is I'm talking about Battlemechs specifically on a scenario that only includes the Battletech universe and our own

[@SuperGman117]

Except a tank could do that too. Not only is it easy to mount multiple weapons systems on a tank, but a much cheaper specialized anti-air vehicle would do a much better job at defeating airborne threats than an overengineered mech that tries to do everything.

[@ThePiousMan]

"Walk where you can't drive. Triumph where you would fail." - Mech Warrior "Mechs are cool. Rule of cool applies." - random RPG player

[@sharky1950]

It would only make sense if the mechs were extremally mobile, ninja like units with jet packs. Either, ai controlled or from the command center. They would be able to jump around the battle field dodging the bullets and achieving extreme speeds that no human could take.

[@CodyHeldreth]

So basically mobile suits from Gundam, gotcha.

[@jonavery4978]

Well, given that you're talking about specifically the Battletech universe, you're leaving out the very important contexts that led to the rise of Battlemech as the dominant force on the battlefield. Battletech's government system is most akin to a galactic feudalism, where it is those with the authority of their battlemechs who control the planets. Just like the Charlemagne's time, where it was the power of the armored man on horseback being unassailable to the common peasant with a spear, so too is the battlemech a self contained army unto it's self. Battlemechs are nuclear powered and fully self sustaining (except for their projectile weapons, though most mechs sport at least 1 fully energy based weapon that does not run out of ammunition) and due to the flexibility of these machines, a single unsupported group of battle mechs is capable of projecting a lord's power across an entire planet. No orbital support needed, no air support needed, no boots on the ground need to keep order and the mech's own life support systems can keep the mechwarrior alive and able to fight for months at a time. That's the context that makes the Battlemech king of the battle field. Obviously they're absurdly expensive, just as Heavy Cavalry has always been throughout history, but in the proper context, that same Heavy Cavalry has no equal and so is beyond worth, because without it, you have nothing so any price is worth paying.

[@spiritvdc5109]

^ This

[@jonavery4978]

@Dimitri Yakushev sure, you could, but what fun would that be?

[@fistsofsnake5475]

@@jonavery4978 During war you want to win not have fun. Also heavy cavalry was stopped by pikemans, that's why pikemans existed

[@nobodyimportant2470]

@@jonavery4978 And there is the only reason why battle mech exist in fiction. The Rule of Cool. When dealing with real world physics there is no way in which a battle mech can out perform a tank but the mech looks cool. Any sci-fi advancement that would make a battle mech better than currently existing vehicles would also be applied to existing vehicles to make them better than the improvements made the mechs. War doesn't care about what looks cool. It is about killing the enemy until they are wiped out or their will to fight is broken. Mechs may shake enemy moral when they are first rolled out as they are impressive looking but unless the enemy surrenders without a fight due to fear of the mechs the advantage won't last long