Talk:Mecha/Archive 4

Practical Application of Mecha
The section should be kept, anyone wanting to know about mecha should also know of the debate mecha fans have for their practical application, as a replacement for, or companion to, tanks, infantry, and other modern combat systems. Vechs 02:39, 28 June 2006

Unfortunately, as I pointed out above, its factuality is subject to debate. I could write a whole 'nother post on the current problems with the section. Its been edited since I pointed out its problems, but it keeps the same conclusions. I don't know how much more conclusively I can shoot those full of holes.

If there's going to be a debate about this, let's do it here and not on the article. As things stand I have half a mind to edit the article to a more balanced POV. Kensai Max 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Specifically...

Mobility section: Center of gravity is essentially unimportant as long as it's somewhere in the mid-chest to hips section, as in humans, even when they're carrying a heavy backpack. I remind you that hikers and mountaineers rarely have any problem negotiating steep slopes. Any deployable mecha wouldn't be prone to tripping and could compensate for any sane center of gravity. Weight distribution is an easy engineering problem, not a valid "counter-argument".

Soldiers often have to fight in very broken terrain in the real world. Afghanistan, for instance. The whole world ain't an Iraqi desert. A mecha could easily carry tank-level weaponry into any situation infantry could be sent into except the most torturous close urban combat. Added to the high -real- top speed and flat-ground agility of humanistic mecha and you have an incredibly effective package.

Agility: The criticisms leveled here aren't valid. Any effective mecha design would be agile and easily controllable to the full range of its agility - it's simply a reality that would have to be fulfilled before the system could be considered effective. A mecha could be built out of heavy materials and simply use a powerful tank engine (or two) to provide sufficient mobility, bringing along heavy armor protection.

At a two-kilometer range (quite usual in most tank-fighting doctrine), a mecha pilot would have a full second to make a basic evasive maneuver to avoid an incoming 120mm antitank sabot round, one of the fastest projectiles in use. A second is a long time, and any minor dodge would force a miss. Simple unpredictable running patterns would make scoring a hit incredibly difficult until the mecha had gotten within about a kilometer - disastrously close range. A laser-warning receiver (detecting the gun's rangefinder) will give a sufficient heads-up for effective evasive action.

Area-effect blasts would be ineffective against an armored mecha as they would be against a tank - moreso given that a mecha can't be flipped.

Height: The supposed higher target profile of a mecha has been made too big a deal of. In most situations it wouldn't be a problem, given a mecha's other advantages. In a hull-down defensive situation a mecha can adopt a couching or lying posture. The points I raised earlier still haven't been adressed. As well, a mecha's vertical posture gives it complete immunity against top-attack weapons - like most new antitank missiles! Given the likelihood of a mecha having an armored helmet and shoulders, they'd be hitting thick armor if they hit at all.

Method of motion: Invalid complaints. Humans can sprint quite well in full armor - it's simply a question of muscle and stamina. Mecha, being machines, will have both in spades. We're not talking about making a sprinter here, simply a machine that can run in a workmanlike fashion. A quick leg cycle time isn't an issue if a mecha has near-humanlike agility - scaling a fairly slow human jog up to a 10-meter scale gives you 35 miles per hour! With that in mind, leg armor isn't a problem.

The mechanical complexity involved in mecha isn't an issue. People will deal like they always have, and the advantages with the system are so massive that they'll be happy to. It's also a largely assumed problem given that no working mecha yet exists, and nobody has yet attempted to engineer the systems involved into a repair-friendly state.

Toppling? Gimme a break. Ever heard of a roll cage? Putting out an arm to stop a fall? Staps and a crash helmet? If it's strong enough to run it can take a fall.

Weapon systems: Most heavy guns have less recoil than is commonly believed. People aren't knocked over firing elephant guns - they barely move! They may drop the gun or at worst dislocate their shoulder from poor technique, but weapons with relatively heavy recoil aren't a problem for mecha. For a mecha in the low end of the tank range of weight (as an armored 10m mecha would be - around 30 or so tons), mounting a heavy tank gun is well within the range of possibility, as are rotary antiarmor cannons like the GAU-8 or very heavy autocannons in the 60 or 70mm range - more than enough to wreck a tank at the ranges mecha could close to. This isn't even getting into missiles or 200mm grenade launchers. Kensai Max 05:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have problems with using mecha as a replacement for MBTs. Among other things, weapon recoil would be a huge issue.  Assuming a 28000 kg mecha (30 tons), the 45kN of recoil produced by a GAU-8 Avenger would accelerate the mecha backwards about 1.6m/s^2 (do the math, 45,000kN/28,000kg)--this doesn't even consider the leverage issues posed by firing a weapon over the center of gravity.  If it was braced properly at the time of firing, the mecha could feasibly fire it, but it would probably not be able to move any direction other than straight forward while firing, unlike a tank which can move any direction while firing (even if accuracy is reduced).  Recoil is even an issue for tanks like the M1 Abrams, which weighs twice as much as the mecha would and has a center of gravity about, oh, 5 meters below the proposed mecha's.  While I don't know the exact recoil of an L55 MBT cannon (same as an M1 Abrams), I'd imagine that it's far higher than the GAU-8's.  If any weapon were to be used, it would probably be missile launchers.  Missiles, however, are just as easily launched from helicopers and planes.  MBTs make more sense in that role anyway, as a 60-ton MBT could carry far more missiles than a 30-ton mecha.


 * Speed would also be an issue. An incredibly heavily armored M1 Abrams weighs nearly 60 tons, and yet it has a top sprint speed of 45mph.  A 10m tall mecha likely wouldn't be able to reach those speeds without extensive design of the leg system to achieve high speeds--as stated previously, scaled up it would be able to move about 35 probably with ease.  Pushing it to 70 would be incredibly difficult and put tremendous strain on the entire system.  I'd guess that there would be a compromise of somewhere between 45-60 mph, not significantly faster than MBTs.  Futhermore, to withstand the continual impacts of movement, to have a decent mean time before failure (which would be a requirement for the military) the locomotion systems would have to have incredible shock resistance.  Shock resistance would become a tremendous issue if the machine toppled.  The force generated by a 28000 kg machine falling is an impressive 275000 N (and assuming it's running with any speed, it's feet are going to be coming down hard).  While that impact likely wouldn't damage the frame or armor it could quite feasibly damage more delicate components like computer equipment.


 * All of this fails to mention weight. A fully loaded GAU-8 weighs approximately two tons and an L55 weighs four when unloaded, cutting the size of the mecha's systems down correspondingly.  Additionally, a GAU-8 only has about 15 seconds of firing time before it is empty, even with more than 1000 rounds in the drum--hardly useful for ground combat.  Even worse, it is limited to one to two second bursts to avoid overheating.  If an L55 were used, not only would additional recoil and weight of the gun and ammunition pose problems, but also maintenance, shock proofing and additional weight of the autoloading system.  Two AGT1500 gas turbine engines (the same ones in the M1 Abrams) would certainly provide more than enough power (likely one would be enough), but would cut available weight by another 1.25 tons each, not counting fuel, which they consume ravenously (approximately 37.5 gallons per hour per engine during average use), meaning that to operate continuously for eight hours (not unusual in heavy fighting) the machine would have to carry 800 gallons of diesel fuel per powerplant--this comes to about 2.75 tons of fuel per engine.  With a 30 ton machine, it may seem like a lot of leftover space, but Chobham armor (again, the same as used in the M1) is designed with depleted uranium, ceramics and steel, and comes with a very high weight penalty (indeed, a high percentage of the mass of a tank comes from it's armor), so to provide any decent protection a large part of the weight would be armor.  The drive systems that would be used for the mecha would also come with a high weight penalty, seeing as actuators simply aren't powerful enough to move 30 tons of machine--cabling systems and high-torque electic motors would likely be used along with hydraulics, giving slow response times and high weight and are not nearly as efficient as a transmission system.


 * Assuming that the mecha could afford to use Chobham armor, it would still have less of it and be more vulnerable to antitank fire than modern MBTs, given its enlarged profile and surface area. While treads may be easy to break, they are also easily replacable--if a mecha's knee were damaged (the rear of the knee would be incredibly difficult to armor properly) it would be irreparable in the field.  Blast weapons would probably be more effective against mecha than tanks--mecha can't be flipped, but they could be thrown, causing severe damage--they're not going to install a roll cage on a mecha, and likely an arm would just snap off if 25 tons of weight fell on top of it, seeing that it's not designed to be load-bearing.  Even a short fall by such a heavy machine can do a lot of damage to it.  As for mecha being "immune" to top-down attacks... well, that's just silly.  Like tanks, mecha would probably be heavily armored in the front and armor sacraficed across the rest of the machine--preferably, you want to face your opponents--so their heads and shoulders are not going to be heavily armored, especially because of the reduced risk of infantry-based antitank weapons attacking from above.  They would be just as vulnerable as tanks--they may be harder to hit from the top because of their smaller cross-section and greater height, but they have correspondingly less armor anyway.  A hull-down defensive posture would be suicide unless the rear and head of the mecha were just as heavily armored as the front--which likely wouldn't be possible because we're pushing the weight limit on this armor.  Either that or the armor is just very thin on all sides and easily penetratable by antitank weapons.  Furthermore, storing all that fuel somewhere where it couldn't be easily hit would be difficult because mecha just don't have the thickness that tanks do.  Storing liquid hydrogen inside hollow spaces in the armor would be foolish--not only is liquid hydrogen highly explosive, but storing it in the limbs could be a real combat hazard if they are damaged or shot off.


 * Agility, if engineered properly, would be a trememdous advantage in long range combat. However, if the mecha was using a GAU-8 Avenger then it wouldn't be engaging in extremely long range combat!  Maximum range for a GAU-8 is less than a mile and at that distance reaction time would be less than half a second to dodge an incoming round from an L55 cannon.  Modern FCS systems can aquire just about any target that puts off a heat signature--the M1 Abrams does have the ability to shoot down helicopters for goodness' sake, so locking on to a mecha wouldn't be impossible.


 * In short, mecha will never replace MBTs. Tanks are just so much more feasable.  They have shorter profiles, making them harder to hit, can carry more armor on less surface area, can mount heavier weapons with greater recoil, and don't suffer the mechanical issues of bipedal locomotion.  They might be very useful for other roles, like urban infantry support, but they would never be able to stand up to MBTs in an open area. Adam Martinez 20:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You refute yourself on weapons recoil. A constant backwards acceleration of 1.6 m/s^2 is puny compared to just the force required to keep the mecha standing upright, let alone running. Significantly larger guns would have a large initial recoil spike, but it could be easily damped and spread out over time to around the same figure. In short, it's a non-issue with a bit of intelligent engineering, and the point should be considered invalid.

Like I have pointed out earlier, large speeds that are often touted for MBTs are largely hypothetical sprint speeds. An M1 may be able to get up to 45, but they never do outside of testing, and for good reason - the risk of throwing a track at those speeds is dire and I imagine gun accuracy is abysmal with any kind of bumpiness in the terrain due to suspension issues at those speeds. All the footage I've ever seen of tanks in combat has them moving relatively slowly and with minimal maneuvering, not dashing about as they are often claimed to be able to do. This is in direct contrast to mecha, which could easily maintain a -sustained- attack speed at the level of a tank's theoretical top speed and sprint well above it (70 is a scaled 14 mph sprint - that's a ~4:00 mile pace, which some humans can keep up for that long), across broken, swampy or obstructed terrain that would slow tanks to a crawl. The structural strength required to run precludes falling being a problem. "Soft" systems can be easily hardened against a few bumps.

Attacking mecha on technological grounds of shock resistance required is also a nonstarter. Mecha development would entail solving those problems to create a reliable machine - if they are truly issues in the first place. Again, engineering problem, not fundamental flaw in concept.

I imagine weapons and ammo would be gravy on top of the hypothetical 30 ton machine, not part of the figure, as is customary in highly modular systems like aircraft. Given that a mecha would be carrying a large amount more ammunition for its Avenger than an A-10 and would probably use a lower rate of fire, a four-ton weapons system (mostly ammo) would be able to provide around two minutes of sustained antiarmor fire. More than adequate for an assault mission, I'd say. An additional four tons could be dedicated to other weapons systems - missiles, grenade launchers, smaller guns, etc, giving the machine a war-load of ~38 tons. This same weight could be maintained with an L44 cannon, autoloader, ammo, etc. by simply cutting out most of the auxiliaries or sacrificing a certain amount of mobility - close-range maneuverability isn't as much of a problem with a full-up tank gun on the platform.

I'm afraid you have a point on armor weight, but it's not particularly important. Next-generation tank guns are so large and powerful that they will be impossible to defeat with even the weight of armor a heavy tracked vehicle can carry, so settling for a lesser, more distributed amount of armor coverage (still more than adequate to stop anything besides tank sabot rounts) coupled to a mecha's incredibly-strong and resilient internal structure, small crew area and extreme maneuverability will provide for both increased survivability on the open battlefield and against infantry in congested environments. Best of all worlds there, and the machine will have the horsepower (two turbines, one to be brought online for combat for reasons of fuel economy) for heavy applique armor if necessary. The disadvantage of light armor is more than compensated for by the advantage of being almost impossible to hit.

An armored head and shoulders are necessary in any sane scheme of armor protection to protect the sensors and critical shoulder joint area. A mecha will present a far smaller area to a top attack than a tank, thus existing top-attack weapons will likely miss altogether - and if they don't they'll hit heavy armor at a large slope. Fuel storage isn't a problem - armored tanks on the back/back hip area or storage in any open space in the torso should provide sufficient volume. Again, engineering, not fatal problem.

You forget that it's necessary to lead a target, and predict where it is, especially so when you're firing a single-shot weapon like a tank gun and have to wait for a reload. A mecha, starting its terminal attack sprint against a tank at one kilometer, will be moving at something like 35 meters per second, and will only have a useful lateral target profile of three or four meters. At a 30-degree angle, it'll be necessary to lead it by two or three times its own width, and given its agility it can swerve around and sidestep at will. Even if the pilot doesn't have time to react properly, simple evasive footwork will make it practically untargetable.

This doesn't even take into account the fact that an Avenger isn't even a particularly ideal weapon for this mission. An extremely heavy machine-gun of 75mm or so caliber will have a much longer useful range, and will be able to tear apart any tank under sustained fire.

Given current trends in tank design towards the infamous Ogre of SJ Games fame (larger and larger guns, heavier and heavier armor - regardless of what the army claims it's trying to do, that's the way the wind is blowing), fast and maneuverable mecha will provide a highly viable alternative to simply going bigger with tracks. In short, even if flat-ground kill ratios are 1:1 or even worse for mecha, their other advantages will conspire to make tanks obsolete. 24.59.66.226 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Mecha would never be able to move at their top speed. Engineering a system that can withstand multiton shocks 1.5 times a second (running cadence) is not just "an engineering problem."  Materials are only so strong and can only last so long before they simply fail.  You point out that MBTs don't run at their top speeds in combat, and neither would mecha.  They would suffer from the same mechanical issues--if you push it too hard, it breaks.  Also, terrain would pose much the same issues for tanks as mecha at high speed, because swampy terrain would provide poor grip and acceleration for mecha and they would be about as likely to get stuck--try walking in mud halfway up to your knees, it would be analogous to 40-ton mecha running on very soft wet ground.  Broken ground would likely be worse for mecha moving at high speeds thank a tank, because if they trip they will simply destroy themselves.  This is also not "an engineering problem," as several animals are either known to or are believed to have been able to move at speeds where if they fell they would cause their own deaths (giraffes and t-rexes, respectively).  A 40 ton mecha (36000 kg) moving at 112 kph (31.1 m/s) would have a kinetic energy of 175 million joules.  That's plenty of energy to pulverize either the mecha or whatever it runs into (whichever is harder).  And tripping would be an issue, because "if it can go wrong, it will," quoth Murphy.


 * Modern tanks also do not suffer accuracy issues while moving at any speed. They have specially designed turrets with gyroscopic stabilization and FCSs that prevent the tank from firing unless the barrel is pointed straight at the target.  One must also consider that a mecha's mode of locomotion would naturally induce lots of weapon bob--as much, if not more than a tank on rough terrain--without regard to terrain.  I imagine that would also be just as easily fixed, however.


 * Mecha would not be nearly as invulnerable as you believe. While they would most assuredly be near immune to long distance unguided weapons, we live in the age of the guided missile.  Hitting a 10m x 3m target with a supersonic guided missile would be a joke, especially when one considers that guided weapons continually get more accurate and more deadly.  Supersonic jets can't always dodge or outrun missiles and a mecha moving at 112 kph could never do it.  Chaff, smoke and flares would have to be used to protect against some guided AT weapons and those are just as easily mounted on MBTs.  Not to mention that there are ATGMs that are clusterbombs--they don't even have to hit their target, just get above it, and then they blanket the area beneath them with their payload.  Furthermore, mecha would have rediculously thin armor for such a large target.  Not only could they carry less armor, but they have to spread it out over more surface area, rendering them highly vulnerable to infantry- and airborne-based antitank weapons.  Likely the armor would be so thin because of the weight of other mechanical systems that a few TOW missiles would blow through it.


 * Meanwhile, tanks don't suffer from the armor problem. M1 Abrams can survive multiple hits from APFSDS rounds and even hellfire missiles because it can carry a rediculous amount of armor.  A GAU-8 or 75mm cannon would damage it, but the tank wouldn't be rendered incapable of firing back.  At least for now, M1s are nigh invulnerable.  Somehow I have a feeling that the only way this theoretical mecha could destroy an M1 would either be an SRM barrage, by running into it, or, heck, maybe throwing a big rock or something.  The only way a mecha could simulate this level of protection would be by becoming a 60-100 ton behemoth, and that that point it's nothing more than a glorfied, easy-to-hit, walking tank.


 * Infantry would be able to take out these theoretical mecha with ease, either with their own antitank weapons or by painting it for airborne ones. The mecha wouldn't be able to dodge a TOW considering that it's guided, and infantry could easily ambush one in a crowded urban environment or out in brush (even with thermal imaging, military uniforms are designed to be difficult to spot with thermal cameras), and the level of protection provided by the mecha's gimped armor wouldn't be enough, as TOWs can even pose a threat to M1s.  Agility does not solve everything.


 * Honestly, I believe that all of this is a moot argument, as I believe that by 2050 large land vehicles will be rendered obsolete by continually evolving weapons systems. It won't be long before multiple countries have the capability to spot targets on the ground via satellite or spy UAV, and then someone back at HQ presses a button and a missile is launched from a naval cruiser or combat UAV to destroy the target automatically.  Infantry will likely be carrying weapons that could vaporize a tank.  Being in something that is easily spotted will be suicide because weapons technology is advancing so quickly that nothing will be able to survive being hit.   More likely that combat will be fought by infantry with robotic support, either in the form of small vehicles or powered armor.  Mecha and tanks will have no role on the battlefield because they will have incredibly low survivablity.  Adam Martinez 02:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire military mecha argument is built upon an unsupportable pyramid of assumptions and thus I have come to the conclusion that the section should be removed altogether.

These are...

1. Can a mecha be built?

2. Can mecha be made reliable?

3. Can mecha be made usable in very rugged terrain?

4. Can mecha drive systems be pushed to high speeds and erratic maneuvering over rugged terrain, or at all?

5. Can mecha in any form be milspec'd?

6. Can military-grade mecha be grown and strengthened to the point that they can dominate any other armored vehiclee in combat?

This article is about #6. We have a right to be talking about #2. As such it's like the Wright brothers talking about SEAD while they're trying to figure out how to get the Flyer in the air. It's incredibly unencyclopedic and does not deserve to be on Wiki. Any further edits of the section should be to curtail it severely.

As for your points...

Actually, it is an engineering problem, and I doubt that it's that hard of one. Plenty of systems do, in fact, sustain multiton shocks every second and are none the worse for wear from it... like the suspension on main battle tanks, for instance. Given the actual mechanics of ambulatory motion and how everything works together to minimize loads and provide a smooth ride, it's really more of a question of knee-joint strength than anything else. Given that mecha can be overbuilt in a way that evolution doesn't allow for, not to mention the strength of the materials involved in their construction... I quite fail to see any kind of problem.

Mecha tripping will not destroy themselves - repeating an assertion pedantically does not make it correct. It would be an easy matter to build enough structural reinforcements (not to mention strong arms to stop a fall) into the design to make falling a minor concern. Considering that this is a combat machine, the strength of the frame will be of utmost importance, and modern materials and engineering techniques can easily make this moot. Bringing up large animals that may endanger themselves running (giraffes from breaking a leg, by the way, not falling, and tyrannosaurs are extremely debatable) is simply nonsensical in the context of a mecha with a high-strength steel skeleton and numerous mechanical shock absorbers and cushioning throughout. Tripping will not be a routine problem with any working mecha system - screw Murphy, this is a fact of being deployable.

Actually, modern tanks do have accuracy problems when moving at speed. You shouldn't take claimed abilities based on a pancake desert or plain and apply them to everything - it's quite simply a matter of how well the suspension and gun stabilization can hold up to a bumpy ride. Over a certain level, the gun isn't going to be pointing at the target any more, and you miss. It's just not as much of an issue as it used to be. Modern tankers very much prefer to be stopped or moving slowly when firing. Meanwhile, a walking movement is a bumpier ride, but it's not affected by the actual ground quality as much, so it's really down to an egg on a spoon analogy.

Guided missiles aren't an issue. There are numerous active and passive defense systems available to deal with them, and mecha agility and speed will be extremely useful in dodging them outright - not many missiles designed to hit a lumbering tank can keep up with a machine that can make a 90-degree turn on the drop of a hat. Given that any decent missile system bypasses a tank's strong armor altogether, whereas top-attack missiles would hit a mecha's strong helmet and shoulders, mecha would have a significant advantage over tanks in that regard.

According to some very rough calculations I ran, enough armor to deal with anything but tank guns wouldn't be an issue - simply armoring overall to the level of a tank's sides, or slightly more, would deal with everything else. The surface area involved in a mecha is actually less than that of a tank when you take overall armoring requirements into account. It's not like the baseline machine I've been talking about wouldn't have enough horsepower to carry as much armor as was necessary, so armor complaints are moot except with regard to deployability issues surrounding heavy armored vehicles. With that in mind, mecha could easily grow to 70-ton armored gorillas and retain many of the benefits of ambulatory motion with tank-like armoring, but it's not desirable from a deployability standpoint. Hence, keeping the weight down and relying on agility as much as possible is ideal.

Also, another side benefit of mecha is that they could lay down their own AA fire quite nicely, or easily shoot into the top floors of buildings or whatever sewer grate the insurgents are popping out of with RPGs in urban combat. Grozny begone!

Perhaps the biggest problem with the entire mecha concept I'm talking about circles around to the first part of this post, which is as you yourself pointed out, war-mecha are a development that's a long way off. Hence, their usefulness will be judged in the standards of 2040, not that of 2006, and I'd bet that those will be significantly different. Thus the point is moot, though it does serve to illustrate how pointless a section on mecha in warfare in an encyclopedia is when every single piece of it can be disputed to the opposite end of the scale, and neither of us are "right". Until the Army puts one through its paces it's going to be someone's jackass opinion.

It seems like a bit of this article needs a heavy edit job. Agreed? Kensai Max 06:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As you pointed out yourself, a lot of it is just hand-waving. But of course there's no denying that the development of mecha has a lot of serious engineering challanges to be overcome, and there is an issue of how practical the entire thing is.

Never say never they say, there was a time nobody saw a use for the airplane, but at the same time it's good to keep your head screwed on the right way.

I am surprised nobody mentioned ground pressure though, 40 tons of machine weight concentrated on a rather small foot area per step makes we wonder how much mobility bipedia mecha actually have. Barring ridiculus looking feet designs mecha are going to have extremely high ground pressures especially when they are running. Prehaps the MBT will probably fare better against general mud then the bipedia mecha. Quad or more legged mecha are probably more feasible, thou less glamorous for us Gundam wannabes out there.

Lets look into powered armour first, now that's something that might bear fruit some time in the somewhat near future.

Rexregum (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite of the Practical Mecha section
Any comments? I removed the old section and all its quality-check and factual accuracy tags and put up my own rewrite. Sorry for taking so long. Kensai Max 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No one asked for that rewrite. The article was fine as it was originally. You can include your considerations for future mecha into the existing article, but don't replace it.64.236.245.243 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I added your content into the article. 64.236.245.243 15:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The original article was unacceptably bad, for extensive reasons outlined above. I'm reverting. Any revision to the old article (which was nothing less than unbridled speculation) is simply ridiculous, unless you can give me some DAMN good reasons.

I thought we'd had this argument already. Among other things, it was blatantly unencyclopedic. Kensai Max 15:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it weighed the pros and cons quite fairly. Besides, your section was included so what are you complaining about? Malamockq 17:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the previous section is non-factual, unencyclopedic, and longer than the rest of the article combined. Read the above, long commentary on that issue. I'm not going to allow it in this article.

If you want a longer commentary or have an idea for condensing and fact-checking the older version, let's discuss changes here instead of having a revert war. I'm not very happy with the current state of the article myself, but it is impossible to make concrete claims about military mecha no matter how many times it has been kicked around on bulletin boards. Unless you or some other party can prove that to the contrary, the kind of definitive, negative commentary as was included in the old article must be avoided. Kensai Max 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is, the commentary weighed both sides fairly. It also went into other applications of mecha which your rewrite does not cover. Malamockq 15:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The commentary was biased against military mecha, as I explained at length, and moreoever violated Original Research. Also, some of the other applications which it went into were little more than unbridled and impractical speculation, such as mecha as space combat machines.

My current rewrite is flawed and needs revision, but revision does not mean "go back to the old article". It means writing a neutral and -factual- section that sticks to what we know or can realistically extrapolate, which may very well mean leaving out the Gundams entirely and talking about mecha only in the near-term as exemplified by Mechanized Propulsion Systems and other IRL mecha-building types. 24.59.66.226 00:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The section on space combat vehicles is weighed with the same basis that your rewrite is founded on. What is known, what is possible, and what is practical.  I don't feel like your rewrite should replace the old article, rather, the old article can be improved to fit a NPOV if you feel it is biased. Malamockq 15:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The original article weighed both sides with more details, and also had more information.  Lengis 01:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved practical mecha section
The main article on practical mecha is now located at Practical mecha, with a small blurb and a redirect to that page located at this page. Malamockq 16:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like they put it up for deletion already. Vote here Malamockq 17:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of real-life functional mecha?
Should a picture of a real-life functional mecha of some sort be included anywhere in the article, such as in the Mecha as Practical War Machines section? CeeWhy 10:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. The Land Walker comes to mind Malamockq 17:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was thinking. CeeWhy 05:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

After... 4 years I have done so! --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Are Transformers mecha?
Many Americans grew up with Transformers, Voltron, and Robotech but no other access to mecha or anime. These three shows were my first introduction to anime and the the concept of mecha. Can Transformers not also be considered mecha, despite possessing artificial intelligence? I think of Transformers as being inextricably linked to mecha, but I am not as knowledgeable of mecha as many people are. I would like to hear arguments for and against including Transformers as a type of mecha. Your thoughts? alca911


 * Transformers aren't mecha because they aren't piloted. A person has to be driving the machine literally from the inside of it for it to be considered mecha.  This is why robots, and remote controled robots are in a seperate category.


 * Voltron and Robotech (Macross) are considered mecha for this reason. They are piloted like a vehicle from the inside.  In addition, they can't be considered "worn".  Something worn, but still powered would constitute as powered armor, or an extension of it.  While it is true, some transformers can carry people, the people don't control the transformer, which is key to being mecha.  That's not to say mecha is better or worse, they are just different. Malamockq 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If I recall, powered armour made an appearance in the 1986 Transformers movie. It was worn by Spike Witwicky and his son Daniel. Also, although most Transformers are not mecha, because they think for themselves and are not piloted, the picture is slightly more confused for the Headmasters. Looking at the Headmasters article, initially, the Transformer bodies were completely controlled by Nebulons, or Humans, who had been "binary bonded" into a small transforming metal suit. This means that they would pretty much be mecha. This changed later to the body (transformer) and the head (Nebulon or Human) having 2 separate minds, where the latter was dominant in terms of control. --80.47.210.255 19:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe Optimus Prime answered our question when he said that they were Autonomous Robotic Organisms from the planet Cybertron, but you can call them Autobots for short. Nope, no mention of mecha there. Rexregum (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mecha can be robots, not all robots are mecha. Some transformers can be piloted (Well all the ones with human sized alt modes, the Headmasters are more like Jeeg, but they aren't mecha, as mecha usually have the human doing most of the work. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

All encompassing mecha/robot website?
I would love to find a site that shows the different models of mechs, tanks, suits, and robots from Battletech/ Robotech/ Voltron/ Evangelion/ Gundam/ Bubblegum Crisis/ Transformers, etc. all together on the same site. Is there a website out there somewhere that shows images of mecha/armor suits/transforming giant robots from multiple universes? alca911
 * Don't worry, I'm looking too. Sign ur name please. Colonel Marksman 19:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mecha & Animation HQ and GEARS Online are two most notable site for multiple shows. However, most of show you mentioned aren't feature on either site (except Gundam, Battletech and Macross part of Robotech). But check it anyway, you might discover something greater than expect. L-Zwei 04:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just found Zinc Panic, they have very large database with images for most of mech from Surise's show until Brain Powerd. I found rare images of Galient's mecha here.L-Zwei 14:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Pop Culture
Ironically, there is no section that has a list of mentions of Mecha in pop culture, although it covers the entire article (IOW, there's no organized section that is dedicated to all the uses of Mecha in pop culture).

I understand that would be a sizeable list though, then again, there has been larger I'm sure. Colonel Marksman 19:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Landmines and flipping tanks
In the "Defenses" section the article discusses tanks flipping over due to a detonating landmine. The prospect of a 138,891 lbs (62,300 kg) vehicle flipping over due to a landmine seems far fetched to me. Anyone have actual information on the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.174.189 (talk • contribs)
 * I remember a few news stories about Merkavas flipping over due to home-made landmines.-- Chodorkovskiy  (talk)  05:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Land mines" usually refers to fairly small explosive devices, weighing maybe 20-25 kg each. To "flip over" a tank, as the preferred terminology here seems to be, requires a LOT more explosives that than, like 71.231.174.189 says. As for "Removed the bit about tank crews being safe from landmines, as it is simply not true." you may need to do your homework better ;) US Army M1 Abrams MBTs in Iraq also lose roadwheels to mines, but not often the whole tank and/or its crew. Most post-WWII British MBTs have angled hull sides and floor plates specifically to counter mine blasts under the wheels. In the Vietnam War, more than one M48A3 MBT survived the detonation of a 500-pound aircraft bomb rigged as an IEDs directly under the tank; the blast usually ripped off most of the wheels and tracks, but the crew tended to live through this (there's a very good photo on page 106 of the book Vietnam Tracks by Simon Dunstan). I could name a lot more examples, but what it comes down to is that MBTs are generally designed to let their crews survive mine explosions. Of course, this only goes so far: if you rig up a big enough bomb, you can blow up (and "flip over") anything — and that is what was going on with the Merkavas you refer to. —Jakko Westerbeke 10:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, pretty much. I think in the cases of Merkavas, 200 kg explosives were involved. You can re-insert the bit about tank protection, though I would rather see the entire paragraph go - who needs to hear "mechs are better than tanks because they are better protected from mines, then again, tanks are protected as well". -- Chodorkovskiy  (talk)  10:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a case in Iraq when an Abrams was flipped by a massive IED and two of the crew died when the tank rolled over. But normal AT mines are not designed to flip tanks, the military usually tries to kill things in the most efficent way as possible. And flipping tanks, while cool in a movie, is probably not the best use of your explosives. But yeah, the excessive and massive use of explosives in IEDs always make me wonder if the insurgents put any serious thought into the best way to crack their targets, or simply have too much spare explosives lying around. Rexregum (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mecha as a tool of psycholocical warfare
Below is a text I removed from the article.

''But perhaps the most effective use, and the reason mechas attract so many fans, is the overal fear it inspires. In the time of psychological warfare, a mecha might not even have to be effecient or destructive in use; as long as it can look the part.''

Need I comment? -- Chodorkovskiy  (talk)  15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mecha for urban anti-infantry combat.
Sorry to add more on the practicality of mecha, but here it is:

Mecha would posess several advantages over tanks in close urban combat with infantry, something which is becomeing more and more common. Firstly, their greater hight would mean that a second, not first, floor window would be needed to fire down onto their vulnerable top armour. And, in a similarly, they would be able to fire into first floor, surprising infantry attempting to attack the top of tanks. The ability to duck behind or fire over small buildings or walls could be extremely useful in order to combat infantry fighting from behind cover. Mecha would be able to step over smaller vehicles without distroying them, giving less collateral damage and the ability to be used with infantry or light armour. Mecha would also not be as vulnerable to hand attacks from infantry as many vehicles, since the greater height would take important systems out of reach of prying hands.

It is commonly considered that mecha would be vulnerable to attacks on the legs, and indeed a fall would probably put a mecha out of action, like it would a large animal. However, the legs would present a small target that would be difficult to lead in the normal way. Tripping might not be as much of a problem as has been thought, as the opperator would probably see any obstacles that could trip the mecha. --SHCGRA Max 16:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll need a source. No original research. -- Chodorkovskiy  (talk)  18:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how a mecha would be armoured given such a machine would have a significantly different profile then a tank. It's larger and taller frontal area as compared to a low slung tank means that you simply can't mount as much armour on the front of it as possible in an MBT. In short you won't need a roof shot to disable a mecha, a straight on shot with something like an RPG 29 would do the trick. There's also the question of how big or heavy thing will be, you can't ignore things like ground pressure and inverse square law. A mecha is going to have significantly higher ground pressure then an MBT of similar weight.

My take? Power Armour is more practical, and maybe something on the scale of the battlesuit in District 9, but I don't think military planners will see much utility in tallish heavy mecha any time soon 218.186.13.235 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry you're right. Makes me think that the reason that there is such a dabate over the practicality of mecha is that there hasn't been much research, so everything is just guesswork. Maybe we should say something to that effect in the article and then direct readers to somewhere else for the arguements? SHCGRA Max 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No harm done. Yes, it's a good idea to put a "live" debate on the matter into the External Links section. -- Chodorkovskiy  (talk)  19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead image
Quite frankly, I'm uncomfortable with the cartoon character greeting people in the introduction. It doesn't do the article justice. Can it be replaced with the land walker one? Where to move the cartoon? Well, if you ask me, then a mech carrying a shield belongs in the trash, but I suppose we could cram it into The robot/mecha genre of anime. Thoughts? -- Chodorkovskiy  (talk)  06:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lewis: I have neither the time nor the will, but someone should add a link to the Space marines, and Tau Battlesuits of games workshop's warhammer 40k series which has a large compliment of mech and power armour units. I love wiki and think this is a great aid, however I do agree it needs cleaning up.

Original Research
The entire Mecha-in-real-combat section seems to me to be original research. Not a citation, not a source cited in the links, nothing but a lot of baseless conjecture based on wildly biased arguments presented on message boards. As such, it violates Wiki policy and should be removed unless someone can prove that it has some kind of grounding in reality.

This would also improve the article, which is something like a rat (useful information on mecha and their portrayal in fiction) with a tumor twice its size growing off of it (the stupendously large mecha-in-warfare section). Kensai Max 15:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Original research and so friggin' masturbatory that I actually need to go wash my hands. Jesus. Somebody clearly enjoyed themselves a lot while putting that little list of rationalizations and nonsense together. 204.69.40.7 14:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Aight. Unless someone cares to come out and give me a damn good reason why it should remain, I'm taking it down in a couple days. And it will not come up again. Kensai Max 15:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, "baseless conjecture" pretty much sums it up. Jboyler 14:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it baseless, because a lot of it was actually well thought out, but it is original research. I think I'll save the information though because it's pretty good. 64.236.245.243 17:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition Request: Mecha/Mecha-like
I have a minor problem with the Games section classifying some examples as mecha-like. Primarily, the Mammoth Mark II from The Command & Conquer series. If this vehicle is to be considered mecha-like, then it would only be proper to label the 'walker' vehicles from Star Wars as mecha-like. However, there is nothing I would consider as 'mecha-like' about these vehicles aside fromt he fact that they are 'walker'-type vehicles. Perhaps a clearer definition of 'mecha' need be made. Personally, when I think of mecha, I think of an agile mechanical vehicle, usually with a small crew (a crew of one in most cases, such as with BattleMechs/Gundams; but sometimes in upwards of four or more, such as with the Moriboto II from Jinki:Extend, the Nirvash from Eureka 7 (both with a crew of 2), or [thinking of another example, but names escape me. may add later]). I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think of mecha as fast and agile, while I think of 'walkers' as slow and lumbering. Something to consider. Everchanging02 10:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * An added thought (to justify the request for narrowing the definition of mecha): Would the Outlaw Star (from the anime of the same name) be considered Mecha?  Everchanging02 10:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mecha is basically any machine with legs that is piloted rather than worn like power armor. That's the best definition you can find. Malamockq 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of mecha lack legs. Guntank from Mobile Suit Gundam or Bal-Bas-Bow from Virtual On for example. L-Zwei 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't have legs, it's not considered mecha. A Guntank is considered to be a mobile armor, not a mobile suit. Malamockq 05:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mobile Armour is still a mecha. And it isn't just Guntank (which isn't MA, actually), Bal Bas Bow from Virtual On, Luzarga from Vifam, Dora from Dragonar, Jashinhei from Galient OVA, any Armored Core that player equipped it with tank thread or hovercraft in place of legs are just some of them. L-Zwei 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One minor refinement to the definition: a mecha must be controlled by an onboard pilot. I presume a robotic vehicle piloted remotely (like a drone) wouldn't qualify. Huwmanbeing 13:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Usaully, I can count unmanned machine as mech if it's variation of existed pilotable mech (Terror Striker from Layzner or Mobile Doll from Gundam Wing for example). L-Zwei 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's unmanned, then it's considered a robot or AI controlled vehicle. Mecha is always piloted in some way. Malamockq 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep stating that it has to be piloted, but where is your source for this? You're the first one I've ever heard of to have that definition of mecha. Unless you have a source for it, it should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.218.215 (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What if a battlemech is piloted by a humanoid robot? Just a penny for your thoughts. --132.69.234.73 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the design of the mech that matters. If it has a cockpit similar to a jet fighter that requires someone or something to control it, while meeting all the other requirements for being a mech, then it's a mech. Whatever is actually in the cockpit and controlling it is incidental. Malamockq 17:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Debate of "Mech" being protected as a Trademark/Copyright
Something of which I was hoping to find was some information of whether or not the term, "Mech" is a trademark by some entity. From what research I have done, I cannot find any entity that owns that term, yet I see numerous news articles and statements that mention that "Mech" cannot be used since it is copyrighted. But there is no reference of where the person got this information, or knows for certain. And additionally is in error since a single word cannot be copyrighted (but trade-mark is possible).

No listing in the US Trademark Database (electronic) reveals an owner, other than the US Navy for aircraft parts. And 'Mech or BattleMech or Battle'Mech is not the same as Mech.

I am under the impression that "Mech" is not owned or a trademark of any entity, but reading of people's statements saying that it is and that practically all mech type games do not call their warmachines, mechs; makes me second guess myself.

Can this topic be resolved and posted on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamilton-WDS (talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Two things...
First I remember the whole Mecha as Practical War Machines section was once removed for being overly original research. And I fail to see how its current return fix that issue, shall it be remove once again?

Second External links section, is there any reason to keep Real Life Comics compares western and eastern mecha link there? I just check it and...disappoint. It dosn't offer any thing to this topic (GEARS and MAHQ offer info on various mecha anime series and Brickshelf Lego show mecha-inspired hobby). For instance, the artist use EVA to depict Eastern mecha. Despite being very popular, EVA isn't traditional/average/generic mecha at all. And the comic only focus on the issue for few pages. The link should be worth keeping around if the comic use a mecha that define genre (Mazinger Z, Getter Robo or Gundam) or at least more tradition one. And actually compare them (even in humorous way ex. mocking various cliche) instead of a short joke. L-Zwei 04:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No response? So I will remove them for now. L-Zwei 05:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I need to watch this article more closely. That practical war machine section is simply unacceptable and I can't believe someone tried putting it back up. 24.59.64.119 18:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The section should definatly be removed anytime it is readded until such time as proper sources are found for it. There's bound to be some real research somewhere, but without the citations, it's pointless having the section; it's only a magnet for "and this one time, on tribewars I was facing this guy who..." comments.-- S c or pio n4 5 1 rant 01:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that mecha, as of now, don't exist in a working format. While I'd love for the article to be about real things, any discussion of mecha IRL is going to be original research until someone -builds- a half-decent ambulatory machine IRL. The section at hand is as presumptuous as talking about strategic bombing in 1890. Kensai Max 01:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Star wars mech
19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)does at-st and other at count as mech. i think so Xelas211
 * Several of them are, and already include in category:Mecha already. L-Zwei 05:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

ED 209
no mention of the ed209 from robocop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clone627 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unmanned robot. L-Zwei (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Word origin and Japanese Mecha
These two have a large amount of redundant information, I think Japanese Mecha could be removed entirely without any loss. Someone fix it. Not me though 206.180.38.20 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Empire Earth II
Would the HERCs in Empire Earth II be notably enough to inclide in the "Games" section?72.137.187.109 (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Meka?
I've never ever heard of it called that and I'm a big fan of the genre, why is that there? 69.207.32.133 (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing Robossaurus from Real Life Mechas
I am removing Robossaurus reference for several reasons:
 * it is a robot, not a vehicle
 * It don't walk at all, but move on wheels
 * It is argueably the "first Mecha ever", as the reference was saying. It is argueably even if it is a mecha at all. The only thing which could be said as "mecha" is it's robotic "Tweezers" (the mount and the hand). But it can also be seen in many construction vehicles, as, for example, Caterpillar 988 (Which would also be Mecha if we make the "Mecha" concept broad enough to accept Robossaurus as "Mecha")  SSPecter   Talk  ◆  21:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC).

Article issues
Since the essay-like tag I added has been contested, I thought it might help to detail some of the issues with this article. It's actually fairly well-written prose-wise, and clearly a lot of work and care has gone into it, but unfortunately at the moment it doesn't meet some of our core content policies and guidelines.
 * The single biggest problem is sourcing. Huge swathes of the article are unsourced (policy: WP:V)
 * Related to the above, most of the article comes over as opinion (policy: WP:OR)
 * Again related to the above, the article has many instances of speculative wording (guideline: WP:WEASEL)
 * There's a fair amount of trivia-type material - possibly a consequence of the lack of actual sourced information, leading to efforts to bolster the article by introducing anything that might be relevant (guideline: WP:TRIVIA)

Although the article is improved over previous incarnations, I think there's still some way to go. The most important step is to find some reliable sources that actually deal with "Mecha" as a subject. This would get away from the impression that the article is a personal essay, and guide its further development. I hope this helps to explain the tag. All the best, EyeSerene talk 07:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Are Powered exoskeletons in fiction the same thing as Mecha? I propose merging the articles, as the two seem to be synonymous. I don't know what the primary term is. Fences &amp;  Windows  01:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they are different. Vehicle and wear. It's like comparing skate to car. L-Zwei (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Against merge I agree with L-Zwei. Some mecha are nothing like a powered exoskeleton.   D r e a m Focus  02:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Angainst merge ditto. mech/mecha CAN be interpreted/used as an abbrev. to 'mechanized armor', but only in the same sense as using the word 'armor' as a fancy name for 'tank' - should we merge tank with armor then? ^_^ ... *mechs* (vs power armors) are usually a lot bigger, with higher tonnage and they are heavily armored. AND they are pure fiction ATM, while corresponding to *cavalry* formations - we actually use tanks in warfare currently. *power armors* (powered exoskeletons) are ~3m max, acting as exoskeletons for *infantry*, and they DO exist ATM, there's even a nice article on their current military development in the wiki.Vaxquis (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. The concepts are related but distinct in fiction.--Noclevername (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Against merge I agree with the above posts --Voiceofplanet (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Against merge I believe that it's been established that the main criterion is a cockpit or other control pod that is separate from the actual machinery that operates the machine in which the "pilot" has freedom to move without causing the machine to move. In the case of powered armor, there is no cockpit - the operator "wears" the suit, and has little to no freedom to move independently of the suit. Smokeybehr (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Attention: All
To the fun guy who keeps changing names, I'm going to get this page locked if you keep changing mecha to mech or whatever spelling. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Article needs a picture
173.21.34.90 (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Mech
I believe that this item is most commonly referred to as a "mech," not mecha. I have no citations for this request to change the page name. Also, I think a picture of a generic mech should be presented at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.170.27 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge info from Walker article.
I just checked this page and the one about Walkers. From what I see both pages are about the same thing (walking vehicles). The only difference I can find is the name of the page. I propose we merge the info from that page into the mecha article.--76.186.195.184 (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. 192.12.88.10 (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone going to object before I do this?--70.242.113.168 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have combined them, they are now one SUPER ARTICLE --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Piloted
Under the current term, Mecha are are walking vehicles controlled by a pilot... I don't believe this definition (or even description) is accurate of mecha, and indeed is misleading. By needing a pilot, it makes several (identical) robots be listed as not-mecha. For example, mobile dolls of Gundam wing, which are expressly unpiloted (and lack a cockpit). Yet they can be housed in the frame of mobile suites such as Toros, which can be piloted. Likewise, Several of the robots from GaoGaiGar possess AI, and can be interchangeably piloted. Furthering this, machines like tanks can combine to form robots, and this transformation can be piloted and unpiloted. More examples, such as the dummy plug from evangelion and the Ultimate X zoids from Zoids new century are able to bend the current term of mecha, by swapping between AI and pilot controls. Not only that, but the claim that mecha must be piloted is also uncited. Sylvanelite (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

usually controlled by a pilot

someone fixed it for you bro, but it is usually implied that mechs are piloted, but that way we can have mobile dolls --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I keep seeing 'piloted' crop back up. I also note this was mentioned below in the powered armour/exoskeleton discussion. I've not seen anyone add anything substantial to back 'piloted' up, so I removed it again. Here are more examples: Compare Iron Man (Iron Man), Iron Monger (Iron Man movie), Scope Dogs (Votoms), Hard Suits (bubble gum crisis), K-Suits (bubble gum crisis 2040), and even the Escaflowne cockpit. The difference between 'wearing' and 'piloting' is insubstantial. The difference in size is also insubstantial. Two of those are powered armours, (hard suits, iron man), the rest blur the line. Mechs are a broad genre, and shouldn't be restricted to the traits of the internals of the mech. Even saying "Mobile suits are piloted" is likely to be wrong. Mobile dolls being the prime example, but there are others such as the GX-Bit. Sylvanelite (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But both Mobile Doll and Mobile Bit are based on pilotable mech. They don't get developed from ground, you can say the developer took MS, then put artificial system to replace pilot. Note that I agree how the line is blur, but those two aren't prime examples. L-Zwei (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Leo, Aries, Taurus, etc, were interchangeable between suits and dolls. The Virgo was built with the explicit goal of removing the cockpit, however. So if piloted was a definition for mecha, those first 3 are maybe mechs, while the Virgo is outright not a mech. Which is ridiculous. Besides, even if you don't count mobile dolls, there are still dozens, if not hundreds, of visually-identical mechs, some of which are piloted, some are not. The ones I listed were just for illustration. Sylvanelite (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, MD was recently developed during the time of TV series, Leo and Aries are decade old and even Taurus exist before MD system, it's late addition. Basically, mech are pilotable, or unmanned model derived from pilotable mech. Else it will be just a robot. For instant, Aestevalis from Nadesico is mech, the Batta is robot. Note again, that I agree how there is blur line here, but it generally work that way.L-Zwei (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All machines in Wing were very roughly based on the tallgeese, which was piloted, sure. However, it doesn't change the fact that virgos fundamentally cannot be piloted. Saying "batta is a robot" doesn't make sense, because you just said "based on pilotable = mecha" batta was based on pilotable mechs (e.g. the Daimajin) but was made to be unmanned for various reasons (boson jumping/mass production). It's no different to the Virgo in that sense. Sylvanelite (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Batta aren't based on Daimajin. It's different model altogether, possible even leftover design in that precursor automate factory. Daimajin is improved model of Majin, which in turn is based on Umiganger.L-Zwei (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The grasshoppers were used because the Jovians couldn't boson jump. The characters in Nadesico themselves couldn't tell which Jovian units were piloted and which were not. If they couldn't tell, why should we use it as a definition? Why should we even care how the grasshoppers were made? If we suddenly learnt they were supposed to be piloted, then removed for bosoon jumping, would you take back your claiming they are robots? Everything the Jovians did was based on Gekiganger. Not just their pilotable mechs. Gekiganger was piloted. Sylvanelite (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Jovian's Batta, Joro, Gengoro, bla blah blah any unpilotable drone are robots. Jin series and later model like Yatenkou are mecha. "Characters can't tell if it's piloted or not", that's because until Jin series appear, they encountered only robots, not pilotable mech so they mistaken them (plus, being Japanese anime, they call them all "robot"). Oh, and Jovians definitely can boson jump, it's said so in the series, they just lacking at manpower and need lots of robot drone to fill their force. Heck, would you call Gundam's Haro a mech? L-Zwei (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the grasshoppers are mech. I'm saying they are based on the same tech the jovians use in all their machines. Which by your logic would make them in the same group as a Virgo. yet you obstensibly say the Virgo is a mech, when it's unpilotable, while obstensibly saying the grasshopper isn't a mech because it's unpilotable. You haven't even addressed any of the other issues that remain. All I'm saying is piloted is a useless criteria for determining if something is a mech or not. As an extreme example, in one sunrise series the same animation frames are used in one mech as another sunrise seires. In the first series they were controlled by AI. The second by a pilot. By your logic one is a mech, one isn't, despite being visually identicle! Sylvanelite (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The main different is that tech-wise, Virgo is really just MS with made into full AI control. Batta was made from ground up, aside from, you didn't see those Kobatta act as electronic pets in Jovian settlement? Then again, I might had bias...it's much easier (and more make sense) to label Virgo or any unmanned mech as robot. They fit definition better...Guess the guy you revert his edit was right all along...L-Zwei (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Robots are mechs: and  Tell me, which one of those is not a mech by your logic? Sylvanelite (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Gespenst Phantom (2nd image) is non-mech, it's only 3 meters in height (approx), fully automatic (although it does has voice command system install later, it still act on it own). And while it does used mech's tech, they're downscaled and, IIRC, mixed with Karakuri. L-Zwei (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am serious. Are you? Why does size matter? It's no smaller than a scope dog (2-4m). Why does automation or voice controls matter? Gilliam controlled his gespenst via voice commands. Anyway, I may as well keep going until you realise what you are actually saying. Here is another one: and . Which one of those is not a mech? Sylvanelite (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't matter, the command is simply order, Gespenst Phantom' AI still act mostly on it own, not directly control. You can go on, but I have enough of this. It's going nowhere, I will edit article itself instead of keep walking in circle. And I already realized what I'm talking (thank to you, nonetherless), the criteria is simple, mech must be design to be piloted, else it will be a robot (read it).L-Zwei (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You linked to a page that states: "While there is no single correct definition of "robot,"[8]", and "There is no one definition of robot which satisfies everyone and many people have their own.[4]". This backs up your statements?
 * Let me summaries my points:


 * Virgo is considered a mech - Sites like MAHQ and Mecha Damashii both list it under the heading "mecha", your personal opinion is conflicting with popular opinion, without valid reason why you are right and they are wrong.
 * You just make stuff up. MAHQ list Virgo under the heading Mobile Weapon not mecha, its boarder term. L-Zwei (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The site is called "Mech and anime headquarters". The title is "Your Ultimate Source For Gundam And Other Mecha", the menu dropdown states: "Mecha". It also states: "Gundam is the definitive Japanese mecha series.". The virgo also appears on "Burke's All the World's Mobile Weapons" which states: "in-depth mecha technical specs". But hey, I'm just making this up  why don't you provide a citation for Virgo not being a mech? Sylvanelite (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it also include vehicle as well. Mospeada section even has powered armor. L-Zwei (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * http://mahq.net/mecha/gundam/bawmw.htm <- That was the list I was talking about. You are obviously looking at a different page. Sylvanelite (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BAWMW are set of profiles, stand for Burke's All the World's Mobile Weapons. See above, it's boarder term. L-Zwei (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) stop applying double standards, you are peppering me for citations, but don't give any when asked the same. 2) It states at the top of the list: "feature even more in-depth mecha technical specs". Am I making that up? Sylvanelite (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Tetsujin and Transformers are listed with "Mecha" tags on sites like My Anime List, which conflicts with your definition. Again, you are going against popular opinion, without a reason why they are wrong.
 * Citation: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/myanimelist.net It's in the top 3000 sites in the US, 4200 worldwide (at time of writing). If you want to question it, give a citation that MAL is not a popular site. Sylvanelite (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's WP:SYN L-Zwei (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want I could re-word it, but it wouldn't change the point: MAL is a popular site with user contributions, a high number of mecha shows, and a high number of people who have seen mecha shows. It has non-piloted shows listed as mecha. Is that now sufficient? Or are you going to ask for citations for all those points as well (I can provide them if need be...) Sylvanelite (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, go ahead. L-Zwei (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * User contributions, number of users, : http://myanimelist.net/about.php Code Geass is viewed by 147,593 members, http://myanimelist.net/anime/2904/Code_Geass:_Hangyaku_no_Lelouch_R2, at time of retrieval. It has approximately 220 shows listed as mecha http://myanimelist.net/anime.php?tag=mecha&q=&sm=0&sd=0&em=0&ed=0&c[0]=a&c[1]=b&c[2]=c&show=220 Any anime page lists tags as "Popular Tags". Now, will you give me citations for the things I've asked of you?Sylvanelite (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't given solid reasons why Mecha must be piloted. You've said it's necessary, but you've never said why this is the case.
 * You (or people) can't visually distinguish between Mecha and Robots. I listed only 2 examples before you were unable (or unwilling?) to apply your definition. I don't see why visually identical images should be not considered part of the Mecha genre, when mecha is mainly in visual media (movies, anime, comics, manga, TV, etc. Not so much books or plays).
 * None of humanoid aliens in fiction is real, yet can you really visually distinguish between humanoid aliens and humans, all of them? (if yes, then I'll play that same game with you) L-Zwei (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Before you go on that path: There's a well-defined definition of alien, and it has nothing to do with outward appearance. If you want to draw parallels to this article, you have to realise that fist. Sylvanelite (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pilot from inside has nothing to do with outward appearance either. L-Zwei (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Way to totally miss the point. There is a definition for what constitutes an alien (extraterrestrial). There is no such definition for mecha, much less one that is standard, much less one that features piloting. I can use the definition of "alien" to determine what an alien is. There is no such definition for mecha, the closest is mech, which suffers from the same flaws cited on the robot page, and certainly mentions nothing about pilots. Sylvanelite (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on, you are one who tried to prove I'm wrong by posting images of two machines. And when I stop playing with you, you claim it doesn't work since I can't tell by outward appearance! Stick to that! L-Zwei (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I can't even respond to what you've written, it's that fallacious. I may as well counter your argument by saying "your words are pixels on a screen, therefore all your posts need to be about pixels". That's the kind of logic you are using at the moment. The pictures were of identical machines, not just in outward appearance, they are based on the same technology as each other, featured in the same franchises, have similar (if not the same) names, have identical weapons, limbs, bodies, etc. I was asking you to apply your definition, because you are the one making it nobody else is making it. And if you can't apply your definition, then it's clearly not sufficient to use on a page to be edited by other people. Sylvanelite (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mecha is not analogous to real-life robots, because real-life robots can't be (say) powered by magic. (i.e. Cybuster)
 * So, Flying car can't be analogous to |real-life flying cars, because real-life flying cars can't be (say) powered by magic. (i.e. Harry Potter)? Just because some work using fantasy element doesn't define whole term. L-Zwei (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * fictional flying car. Sylvanelite (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked if it is analogous to real-life flying car or not? You're as smart as me, it seem. L-Zwei (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I already gave you the answer with the alien post. A flying car has a definition. Therefore, all anyone needs to do is use the definition to stamp out ambiguity. Mecha does not have such a definition. It's been your job, in all this convoluted mess, to show it's necessary and sufficient for mechs to be piloted. Which you haven't yet done. That's been the flaw in your posts, and you are now selectively ignoring all the times I've pointed this out. My logic is pretty sound, it's clear-cut, you have to show the necessity of the criteria. You are basically saying "all cats have fur" which would mean shaving a cat makes it no longer a car. (removing a cockpit makes it no longer a mech). A flying car does not have this ambiguity. It's a car, that flys. There is no relevancy to the point at hand, and I'll continue to point that out until you actually tell me why your definition is the one absolute correct one, which cannot be questioned. Sure, you can attack me by saying my logic is bad, but that doesn't make it true. If the best defence of your posts is an ad hominem, then clearly you aren't in a position to criticize my use of logic. Sylvanelite (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no,no. We're talk about how "A is not analogous to real-life B, because real-life B can't be (say) powered by magic. Stick to that. L-Zwei (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, allow me to "stick" to a generic statement where I replace nouns with generic "A" and "B" terms. In fact, I will. I will replace A with "logic". "fictional logic is not analogous to real-life logic because real life logic can't be powered by magic". That's literally what you've asked me to "stick to". Well, I may as well give it a go. Using that statement, 1+1 can equal any number using fictional logic, therefore if someone owes me $1, they must also own me $100000000. (according to you) This is analogous to real life logic. Sylvanelite (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't defined "piloted" either, given in fictional context. What's the difference between piloted, worn, driven, instructed, psychic manipulation, cyborg integration, etc? AFIK, it's a loki's wager to try and pin these things down in works of fiction. Especially the difference between AI and, say, a robot controlling a mech. (e.g. Galeon and GaiGar, Lamia, Wild vs Sleeper Zoids, etc)
 * I'm more than happy to say "mecha is a genre". People just know what a mech is, and what a mech isn't. Your reasoning isn't consistent with this, and there is no reason to consider you as being authoritative, especially given lack of citations. If you do edit this while considering yourself to be correct, without answering these point, I will revert your edits. Even if I can only cite popular opinion, that's at least something to cite. I haven't seen authoritative, consistent, definitions of mecha, and I don't believe one exists. (just like on the Robot page you told me to read). Sylvanelite (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I said that, initially, I agree that there is unmanned mecha but they're derived model from piloted one. You're one who denied that and claim the term is meaningless. Why don't propose to merge it with other article then? L-Zwei (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ahh, more fallacies throw at me. Just because two things overlap, I must merge them? Let me take the canonical Loki's wager: What is the difference between the neck and the head? It's easy to tell what's a head, and what's a neck, but impossible to tell where one beings and the other ends. Despite this obvious overlap, nobody would ever merge the head and neck articles. Likewise, I'll openly point out there is a blurred line between some powered armours and some mechs, but I wouldn't want to merge the two. ... On the other hand, you want piloted to be necessary trait of mecha. To the point of denying Virgos as being mehca. And still haven't given citations/reasons why piloted is necessary. Sylvanelite (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is an extract I removed. I've annotated it here pointing out the ambiguity, reason I removed it is because the tags make the statement to difficult to read: Sylvanelite (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 *  Usually, what differ "mecha" from "robot" is that mecha are primary design to be piloted, they're often capable of limited automamate operation, but mostly function with pilot directly control it.
 * Alright, you win. Happy?L-Zwei (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, total defeated. Thank alot :) Hope you have as much fun as me. L-Zwei (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge info from Mecha anime.
I think Mecha anime covers the same topics that this article--Alexcalamaro (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I read it and can't help to cursing. It look like contributors of mecha anime article simply copy info here and paste there. The Mecha anime section is especially poorly written and out of place. Why would american's title like Mech Warrior is mention there is beyond my comprehend and Metal Gear isn't even close to Anime-inspire title. L-Zwei (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the games section from the Mecha anime article. It was a cut and paste from an old version of this article. If anyone thinks it can be useful here's the link: .–Cattus talk 11:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should modify this article some, currently Mechas are being referred to as Fiction, and Sci-Fi. Mechas are reality, but are not commonly used in the general public. Mechas just like what is seen in "Ghost in the Shell" are being produced and developed. In my professional opinion, we should cancel the merger with Mecha Anime, and rewrite certain parts to refer to Non-fiction respectively. Mechas like the Tachikomas from Ghost in the shell are no longer Sci-Fi/fiction/anime, they are real.

166.165.79.5 (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Wyattwic

Mecha (genre)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mecha → Mecha (genre) — Short reason: consistency, Mech (disambiguation) & Yuri (genre). 96.240.34.47 (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose this IP user 96.240.34.47 has nominated contradictory move requests, moving this page and Mecha anime both to Mecha (genre), which is an impossible proposal. See Talk:Mecha_anime for the other rename this person filed. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment this is not a Japanese article, comparison with yuri (genre) is specious. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Superfluous disambiguations are bad, even if they are for "consistency", which I don't see here regardless. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Consistency is not a good reason to introduce a disambiguation.  This is clearly the prime use of Mecha, and there is no need for disambiguation (just see what else is linked at Mecha (disambiguation)!)  Skinsmoke (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.