Talk:Mecha/Archive 3

M.E.C.H.
The term MECH is also used as an acronym to refer to Mechanically Enhaced Cybernetic Humanoids. MECH is a military based role-playing Guild founded by MECH Rasta in the MMORPG of NeverWinter Nights, and currently active in Worlds of Warcraft.



a possible alterenative to a bipedal mech could be, that the upper body would be planted onto a tank chasis. But for it to be bipedal it could have a hydraulic lifting system, and the chasis would split to allow it to be lifted into a bipedal and have it move slowly over ground. Then allow it to sink back down onto a treaded machine. To supply power to this machine you could create a nuclear fusion generator on a cavernous area in its chest or located on its treads. Although this method of powering it, is, right now with our current technology is impossible. But perhaps in the future this could be a method of creating a mech.

BattleMech copyright violations?
At the moment, it's only mentioned that FASA used designs from Fang of the Sun. However, Robotech has spitting images of the Rifleman and the Marauder, a point which I believe was in the article previously. Was this somehow disproven or should it be readded? --Kizor 00:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * FASA used designs from Macross, Fang of the Sun Dougram and Crusher Joe. Iceberg3k 15:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

>>118011 The Z'gock was in Gundam which came out in 1979 I think Battletech came out in... '84? And then elementals would've been invented some time later.
 * It's also believed that Battletech the game is based off of the Dougram tabletop game

The actual game itself is also believed to be based off of the Dougram tabletop game

http://dougram.battletechnology.org/Dougram/Stanrey.htm is a link to a website detailing this.

East and West
Second paragraph sounds defensive (and?) in favour of the 'East'. Is it just me? Also, I have my doubts about that quote being there - I think it can be written 'as is'.
 * that's because before that, the article was very defensive of 'west', using claims of being more realistic or practical.


 * Its current incarnation looks reasonably even-handed to me, and there's no longer a quote. --Kizor 15:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

it's nice as it is now though.
 * I did that original edit because I felt before it was slanted towards the west, with claims of being more realistic and eastern being more fanciful

I removed the following sentences as unencyclopedia generalizations that even they acknowledge as misleading and overly broad:
 * Though designs vary widely in both eastern and western mecha, there is a general difference in style. Japanese mechs tend to be anthropomorphic as opposed to the more vehicular western types, and it is not unusual for Japanese mecha to perform difficult acrobatic maneuvers while some western machines are designed to simply plod forward. Fingered hands are much more common on eastern mecha; western designs often just have upper limbs with permanent weapon emplacements.


 * However, these observances are hardly a rule. The comparison probably comes up due to the humanoid Gundams being the most iconic of Japanese mecha, versus BattleMechs being one of the most well known American. With a number of the original series of BattleMechs being based off of Macross mecha, it hardly makes gun arms a uniquely American feature. Neither are humanoid types with hands exclusively Japanese (a great amount of Battletech mechs from the Inner Sphere faction have hands), the iconic Sentinels from the X-Men being one such example. The inverse of this rule applies as well, as Eastern mechs in the Battletech style do exist, mainly in the GunGriffon universe, and the Destroids in the Robotech universe.

Egan Loo 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. I guess taking it off is the best thing to do

Copyright Violation
I've removed the image in the "Mecha as practical war machine" because it's copyrighted by publisher Dream Pod 9 and is not open source! (Beside, it was a Jovian Chronicles powered armor, not a Heavy Gear mecha!)


 * I restored it citing fair use policy because the article is educational in nature. If you have another image from Heavy Gear which can help illustrate the point (which I feel is very important), feel free to replace it. Lengis 08:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Then at least put up a Heavy Gear mecha, and use one of the images made available for publicity purpose by the publisher on their Web site (http://www.dp9.com/Funhouse/HGART.htm).


 * Done. --Vulture99

Unwieldy Texts
The sub-section "Mecha as practical war machines" is getting pretty big and unwieldy. Should it be transfered to an article of its own, or just re-organized, cleaned and condensed? --Vulture99 13:00, 6 February 2006 (EST)

What about Mecha as space vehicles?
I hate to bring this up - what with "Mecha as practical war machines" being as big as it is - but what about mecha as space vehicles? That's one area not covered by the article. --Brasswatchman 09:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I pretty much covered the possibilities of using mechs in space, in the aerospace section. Was there something else about them being used in space that I missed? Malamockq 06:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, the sub-section "Mecha as practical war machines" is massive. If we add "mecha as space vehicles" it should really be made into an article of its own. Especially since the sub-topic isn't very related to "anime and manga" anymore. --Vulture99 11:00, 13 April 2006 (EST)


 * Mecha is not confined to just anime and manga. While it may or may not be a bad idea to make "Mecha as practical war machines" into its own article, it shouldn't be done because you think this article is about anime or manga. Malamockq 16:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem, as I see it, is that it smells heavily of original research. If all of it is verifiable through the use of reliable sources, it could very well be split out into a seperate article, with a summary/introduction left here. If its verifiable... -- Saberwyn 10:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is not monstrous in size, nor is it in any form sizably unreadable, so it is fine as it is. (I tend to see that large articles discourages readers).
 * By chance, I found you, Saberwyn. You are interested in this stuff too? Anyway, to business.
 * However, Saberwyn is correct. It all seems pretty verifiable, interesting, and even upholds good NPOV'ing, but it does lack in sources.
 * Then again, as with most fictional articles, it's virtually impossible to cite anything. Colonel Marksman 19:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dalek
Could Dalek travel machines count as mechs? They're war robots operated from the inside, after all. On the other hand, I'm not conviced they count, as mechs are usually anthropomorphic. Even AT-ATs have legs. Any suggestions? 7:49 19 March 2006 (UTC)

just howing legs does not make it anthropomorphic, look at sipder mechs. but yes the dalek are more like tanksJoeyjojo

I thought that too, but Wikipedia describes a tank as "a tracked armoured fighting vehicle, designed primarily to engage enemy forces by the use of direct fire." Daleks don't actually fit that criteria, as they don't have caterpillar tracks. Meanwhile, mechs are described as "piloted or remote-controlled limbed vehicles", a description which can be applied to the Dalek machines. They have limbs: the death ray (paint roller) and the manipulator (toilet plunger). It's still stretching the definition a bit, though. 16:21 March 29 (UTC)

Anime Depicting "Realistic Mecha" in Combat
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before as potential link or section to the article, but some good examples I can think of are :

-Gasaraki - Takes place in the present day, where the mecha is referred to as "Tactical Armor" (TA) and is basically powered armor used by a team of Japanese special ops soldiers. An interesting scene early in the movie depicts a battle in a fictional Middle East country where a platoon of tanks are ambushed at night by a paramilitary group using TAs.

-Votoms - An anime that takes place in the future, it's a "hard science" style mecha anime where the mecha is powered armor used to wage a century-long intergalatic war. Most of the weapons are projectile or missile based.

Has anybody seen these series? --Gar2chan 15:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Realistic cartoon" is a contradiction in terms.Jboyler 13:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Mech series?
Would someone be able to make a list of different mech series?


 * Why not you?Jboyler 13:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting military mecha usage
Most of the criticisms in the military mecha section are ungrounded and incorrect.

First paragraph: Numerous calculations have shown that a mecha's ground pressure would not be significantly different from a conventional vehicle's, and a 10 or 15-meter mecha could very easily afford to sink in a few inches (or feet) in any event. Foliage (or anything short of trees) would be an utter nonissue with relation to the sizes and amounts of power involved here.

Tank treads do not emulate the method a caterpilar uses to move, unless caterpillars have evolved rotating treads in the last five minutes. It's also worth pointing out that tanks would be at extreme risk of becoming immobilized themselves, either by sinking in or throwing a track in the kind of soft ground that is used as an example against mecha.

Second paragraph: By simply running in a zigzagging motion a mecha could make itself effectively impossible to hit with most heavy caliber guns in current use. It would be impossible to lead correctly and the flight time of shells (a M1's antitank sabot round has a muzzle velocity of roughly 1700 m/s - HEAT rounds are significantly slower AFAIK) would be too long to hit before effective evasive action could be taken at long range. At shorter ranges, the leading problem would multiply and tanks would be quickly destroyed by rapid-firing, small-caliber weapons that could be easily hand-carried by a mecha.

Third paragraph: By simply scaling up human capabilities (never mind exceeding them), a 10-meter tall mecha could sprint at something like 70 miles per hour (and easily jog at 35) in real terms, not as a theoretical capability of a vehicle which never gets above 30 in the real world as in the case of tested high speeds on tanks. I think this entire argument is derived from the extremely clumsy mecha commonly found in media and not the more agile, fast mecha that would be useful for combat. Incidentally, this is an advantage of large mecha - you don't need an absurd leg cycle time or capabilities exceeding that of a scaled up human to make a very fast mecha without the mechanical nightmare of another movement system.

Fourth paragraph: A mecha's armor could be built in such a way as to provide a strongly sloped surface against frontal fire. It's fairly simple - ever seen a peascod breastplate? A mecha would also, when you think about it, have a similar or smaller useful target profile than a given tank. The total decisive-kill area of a 10-meter mecha would be an (overestimated) 5x3 meter box, given the extreme difficulty of hitting a rapidly-moving leg and the non-criticality of the arms. That's not particularly larger than any given tank, and a mecha of that size would be heavy and strong enough to carry adequate armor (and require comparable transport difficulties)

Fifth paragraph: This looks like someone's opinion. While a mecha movement system would be fairly complex and unfamiliar, there have been plenty of mechanical nightmares fielded quite successfully before and there are numerous steps that can be taken to increase reliability. Also, having one pilot would free up a lot payroll for specialist mechanics if they're needed.

It's very easy to detrack a tank. It happens all the time by accident and can be done with weapons that are far too weak to penetrate the actual armor (insurgents in Iraq have blown quite a few tracks off with RPGs). This is a total mobility-kill, whereas a mecha with a leg blown off by a mine or IED could drag itself or otherwise gimp to safety, and mecha legs could be easily protected with more armor. This brings up another advantage of mecha - effective immunity to all current mine systems. Even if it does step on a heavy AT mine, all it'll lose will by that foot - the pilot will be fine and the foot can be replaced. Furthermore, mecha could easily bypass their destroyed brethren and escape if caught in an ambush in a narrow area, unlike vehicle columns which can be trapped by a single destroyed vehicle in front.

The argument about mecha and large-caliber weapons isn't particularly valid. Mecha can easily carry antitank missiles for long-range engagements, and tanks are still vulnerable to rapid small-caliber fire at close range, from a GAU-8 Avenger for instance. I doubt that a fairly short burst from such a weapon, even against a tank's strongest frontal arc, will fail to totally destroy that tank's ability to fight. Also, given that a heavy antitank cannon could be mounted on an independent arm with a much longer possible recoil travel and the mass and strength involved with a 10-meter mecha, I think it's also a little bit too soon to be counting out such weapons. Kensai Max 17:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

i'd like to add: "This is perhaps the single advantage that the mecha enjoys without question as no modern tank carries missiles (although other tracked vehicles do)." this line is incorrect. See this link AT-11

-how about the fact that mechs should theoritically be piloted by 1 person, while tanks usually have a crew... that could be a double-edge sword though, as a crew can take more information at once, but a good communication system is required amoung them...  i think the best example of fictional mechs that could be realistic is the mechs used in Matrix when they were defending off against the machines... however, for that model, the pilot is not really protected, and the concept of the battle armour would be better


 * "10 or 15-meter mecha could very easily afford to sink in a few inches (or feet) in any event."
 * Uh huh. Say that again when the local durkas turn against us because a patrolling mecha ripped up their road.


 * "Tank treads do not emulate the method a caterpilar uses to move, unless caterpillars have evolved rotating treads in the last five minutes."
 * What does this statment have to do with anything?


 * "By simply running in a zigzagging motion a mecha could make itself effectively impossible to hit with most heavy caliber guns in current use."
 * Are you insane?  If it was that easy, why don't tanks drive in zigzag patterns?  Could it have something to do with the laws of inertia?
 * Actually, that's not a bad idea. I have some friends who are infantrymen in Iraq.  I'm going to call them up and let them know that if they run in a zigzagging motion they'll never be shot.  Congratulations, you've changed infantry warfare forever.


 * "At shorter ranges, the leading problem would multiply and tanks would be quickly destroyed by rapid-firing, small-caliber weapons that could be easily hand-carried by a mecha."
 * And what couldn't those same weapons be mounted on a tank?


 * "By simply scaling up human capabilities (never mind exceeding them), a 10-meter tall mecha could sprint at something like 70 miles per hour"
 * Again, you must be living in a fantasy world to use the word "simply" in that sentence. "Simply scaling up human capabilities" is a task of mind-boggling complexity that would be atrociously expensive and impossible to maintain, assuming it is ever possible at all.


 * "A mecha's armor could be built in such a way as to provide a strongly sloped surface against frontal fire."
 * Again, if it were that easy then why is every modern tank not invincible?


 * "This looks like someone's opinion."
 * And what you have been saying is fact? Uh... yeah...


 * "Also, having one pilot would free up a lot payroll for specialist mechanics if they're needed."
 * Uh huh... Because those pilots are able to do all the monkey work themselves...


 * "This is a total mobility-kill, whereas a mecha with a leg blown off by a mine or IED could drag itself or otherwise gimp to safety, and mecha legs could be easily protected with more armor."
 * The first part of this statement is a huge assumption, the second part just makes me laugh. Do you have any concept of what an EFP does?  It goes through chobham armor like it was swiss cheese. Ooh, but it gets better...  How do you expect the mech to be mobile if it's legs are loaded with armor?  While it is easy to detrack a tank, any mech that would "simply scale up human capabilities" would be so complex that even minor damage would put it out of comission.


 * "This brings up another advantage of mecha - effective immunity to all current mine systems. Even if it does step on a heavy AT mine, all it'll lose will by that foot - the pilot will be fine and the foot can be replaced."
 * Well if it loses a foot it's not immune, is it?


 * "Furthermore, mecha could easily bypass their destroyed brethren and escape if caught in an ambush in a narrow area, unlike vehicle columns which can be trapped by a single destroyed vehicle in front."
 * More assumptions.


 * "The argument about mecha and large-caliber weapons isn't particularly valid. Mecha can easily carry antitank missiles for long-range engagements, and tanks are still vulnerable to rapid small-caliber fire at close range, from a GAU-8 Avenger for instance."
 * Again, what kind of magical armor are you giving these mechs?


 * I think I'm going to one-up you. I'm going to make my mech faster than a speeding bullet, give him invincible force fields that deflect everything, and have him equipped with photon torpedoes, lightsabers, and Harry Potter's magic wand.  In fact, I'll also arm it with the One Ring and let Superman pilot it.  And then I'll give it a Warp Drive so it can fly to Pluto and shoot nuclear missles through hyperspace.  Yeah.  That's a great idea.  I'll get started tomorrow.  Jboyler 14:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to one-up your refutation and say to anyone who thinks a battle-worthy mech could exist: Power it. Leushenko (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Real mecha
I noticed that there are nothing about T-52_Enryu; but I do not know if would be really appropriate. --Extremophile 23:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mecha as a Replacement for Tanks
The Mecha as a Replacement for Tanks section, while very interesting and well thought out, is Original Research and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The whole section does not contain and single cite. The section would be better suited to someone's personal website. It should be removed. Ashmoo 06:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, that's because there are no official documents or articles published on the viability of mecha as a practical weapon of war. There are only people's opinions and thoughts on the matter in a casual format, in this case, discussions between mecha enthusiasts, and utilitarians.  With that said, I believe the section should remain as it's important, and helps give a broader perspective on real life use of mecha.  Just because no pentagon executives published reports on the matter, doesn't mean it's not important enough to include here. Malamockq 02:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mecha should have been invented before the wheel. Its simple for one to run with a diesel engine, and unlike wat Hitler saw in WWII they dont get trapped in swamps and lakes ..see a fence? step over it. They can also easily man 80 mm jet cannons and missles. A perfect machine if a war in iran would even be feasible. If your corporate facist regulations aloud me to enter auto industrial factories and use their equipment I would build one for you myself. AND a multi useful machine for agriculture and construction. anyone who uses cars are hyper-critical and so is fantasy land president. You are still behind the dinosaurs because they walked on two legs BTW IGNORE the analysis below, Mechs are made to be walking towers not unbalanced twigs. If dumpster trucks as big as buildings can be made why not mechs? The analysis below also describes wwIII heavy battle ground situations. Mech use WWIII situations would regard mech as long distance fighters like battleships on the ground. The legs are used for going up hills, mountains and rough terrain. Last time i check a higher vantage point prooves effective. Mech damage is about as likly as battleship damage a common distinction in war. and from wat i know it is VERY easy for a mech to turn into a tank. Any engineer knows that and im not an engineer. Mechs would have cockpits and ejection seats. Future mechs would have incinerators to chop up tree and rocks, land mines or drills for demolition, something tanks havent even used effectively since wwII. thanks.--69.255.16.162 01:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are a madman 206.180.38.20 14:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)