[Kiai]

Are the 50 foot tall mechanical beasts of anime legend as far off as we think? I think what really stirred my interest in this topic is the picture of the valkyrie shown in the anime picture thread: http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2492/...all7ek.jpg
It's cross sectioned and alot of the major components (ie. flir, iff, and radar) identified. It doesn't look that far off from a modern day f14 or 15, which leads me to believe that maybe, just maybe it's possibe.

A friend of mine told me I was crazy for even thinking about it, said there wasn't enough space for all the crap it needed to move, too heavy, blah blah. I want to hear everyone else's take on wether mecha in the future are possible, and wether or not they are would be needed.

[Hawkeye]

Well it depends.... Mech can come in all types and sizes, The real problem is weight. Untill we come up with a metal or Alloy that strong as Armour and light as a feather then that Craft is going to be stuck on the ground.
I mean we can all day-dream can't we.... Me I'll always think small rather then larger. Thoses are the ones for me...

[Lynk Former]

I can't see uber huge mechs being used in the future. What I can see are hardsuits being used in the future. Or something along those lines.

[FirestarterCL]

I could see smaller sized mechs being used. I definately think something around the size of a K-11 or the suits from Appleseed or Gasaraki will be possible.

[spectre]

I don't really envision mech's taking a very large place in future military design for a few reasons (all of these will take your generic gundam mech as a comparison. for transforming vehicles, you can take all of these points, and add the fact that the transformation process is so ridiculously complex and really gives almost zero benefit v.s. building 2 or 3 specialized vehicles to fill that role anyways. plus, the more mechanical components you have, the more can go wrong). It's simply not practical. If you think about all the functions a mech can perform (it's really just a weapons platform that can also use swords), it's far more efficient, cheaper, and simple to use a series of specialized vehicles. Instead of having your mech holding a rifle, why not make a big moving car with a big gun fused onto it's chassis (oh wait...we already have these). another supposed advantage is that they can change weapons (rifle jamming? grab your energy pistol, etc...), but a lot of modern combat vehicles have been designed so that they can be reconfigured on the fly for a number of purposes -- not a real big advantage there.

But they can walk? Walking is overrated - especially if it's bipedal. You get height at the expense of increased balance issues, unnecessarily complex design, significantly reduced speeds (think about it, a human can't possibly run as fast as a lion, and a lion will never go as fast as a car, and human's don't weigh a bajillion pounds) plus the fact that having such a small footprint for such a huge mass (like...a mech that big would have to be 30-40+ tons) would make the land-travel function completely improbable (it could only walk on well-maintained, high-quality roads without breaking them, or sinking into the ground). The only advantage is that they can traverse certain obstacles (like small houses) with their walking, but this is really a minor advantage.

As for the ability to fly, well we have helicoptors that have guns and rockets and also happen to be able to act as transports, and they probably use less fuel than a rocket-powered supermech.

In other words, current technology already allows us to surpass the abilities a mech could ever hope to have (unless we develop the lambda drive ;P), so there's really no reason to ever develop them...especially if we're ever going to war in space (what's the point of giving a robot a single multipurpose instrument -- the hand -- when you can give him a million single-use tools?)

That said, i can also see those k-suits popping up some time in the future, although if nanotechnology has it's way, we may not ever need them...and we might see something that uses far less power, and is a whole wack lighter.

[kyubichan]

Mecha: possible to build.

Problems: How would you power it? Electricity? Oil? Solar panels? Kryptonite????? Also, by the time the 'mecha' is done, it probably won't go far considering the major "cost-cutting" stuff that plagues projects as 'high-tech' as that.

[spectre]

nuclear power.

I still don't think mecha are very probable -- maybe we could build them, but again, there's no reason to whatsoever, and even if we did, they would never be as mobile as they appear in those shows (how does a 30 ton goliath jump 30 feet into the air?)

[Analog]

Well, on earth there isn't much reason to have them. Space is a different matter entirely. I wouldn't be surprised to see mechs used for space combat on the moon, just because it would be easier to build and maintain them in -6X gravity condition and very useful in that sort of terrain. Transformation would be unnecessary (probably), but land walkers with the ability for short trips into space and orbit would likely be invaluable to a military force.

[Briareos]

Define possible.

Walking vehciles, androids, contruction cranes with extra arms for greater control? Been there, did that.

Bipedal civlian vehicle? Well here's one team.

Giant bipedal ground based warmachines? Never going through the same way a device working at 1% efficiency isn't going anywhere when the existing system is 30% efficient. Expounding on this would require I drag that over 30 page essay thing back out and fix it up. Kind of over extended in a few areas after dealing with some guys who were just a little to batty.

Power assist frame? Several versions already produced.

[Damatee]

Mechs for building and industry, especially in Space would be worth the expense, the advantages of having a machine that can walk and lift objects up directly would be worth it.

To be honest its hard to imagin something like a Valkirie being built in the near future, to make a 30 foot machine to walk like a human would be so expensive to build and maintane, not many people would see any point in wasting large sums of Money on a machine so complex, if any mechs are built built for military use they would probably end up looking like something like the Mad Cat from Mech Warrior, or multi-ped machines like from GITS

[Briareos]

A comment on melee weapons. Swords have always been pretty much scrapping the bottom of the barrel for armor. Against chain mail, if properly designed, they can be made to but against plate mail it's pretty much a no go. What they're really good at is against lightly armored opponents and in close quarters, like that present within a Roman shield wall with a Gladius.

If you want to penetrated with edged you really want an axe, and otherwize you're looking more at momentum weapons like a mace or hammer. Needless to say crossbows would defeat chain mail and even primitive black powder rifles firing literal ball could defeat plate mail. They were dumped in favor of muskets for more reasons then just the heat stroke, and difference in ability to reach out an touch someone.

Nowadays we use computer targetting on vehicles, with stabilized guns, and have much, much, much better bullet design. Of course, I should point out that stabilized on a block basically on the ground with 2 degrees of freedom isn't remotely the same issue as forcing it to work with a inherently unstable hanging position with at least four degrees of freedom. (arm up-down, arm forward-back, rotate x, rotate y)

Addendum:
Other design concerns with a bipedal mech:
-Any mecha firing an arm mounted weapon will need to both resist the linear recoil, the moment from their height ie y axis, and the moment from their center ie x axis. A conventional vehicle need only resist the linear recoil, and a much smaller moment from how high it is mounted.
-The bigger you are, especially vertically, the bigger a target you are because of the more obvious you aren't part of the landscape and how far out you can be spotted in general.
-The human form is extremely unaerodynamic, and any weight of the mecha itself would be dead weight. So if you want to fly you're basically going to have to do it space shuttle launch style, and given the space shuttle has the most efficient chemical rocket you're eithering going to have serious external tanks or serious internal volume taken up by stuff that'll blow up in a very big way.
-Seems as how if it's flying they'll conveniently putting up the equivalent of a 50 foot tall, blinking, billboard pointing at them, by putting out that kind of reaction mass even the simplest heatseeker will be able to nail them easily.
-Most of the human form is cylindrical in nature. Cylinder have the highest surface area to volume of any shape. More surface volume means that for the same internal volume you have more area to armor, which means for the same armor thickness more weight invested in armor. That's before we take into account things like the volume and weight necessary for a frame to support and move the limbs.
-Due to the nature of the joints you will either be limited in thickness so as to not compromise the range of motion, or have to deal with thin armor around the joints. A vital linkage, that can effectively disable the entire mech if damaged.
-Unlike a boxy more conventional AFV volume is spread out which limits the ability to use big engines, systems, etc. which you can't just spread through the mecha like you could metallic hydrogen or liquid oxygen tanks.
-Do to the vertical and dynamic nature of the mecha, in addition to other form issues, effective sloping of armor is unlikely. Most systems seen in anime would redirect the hit from the chest to the head , shoulders, arms, or waist none of which as as able to deal with damage as the chest should be.
-Unlike a conventional vehicle you can't really drive the locomation system directly off a ICE, diesel, or turbine arrangment in that you aren't just using gearing to transform turing of one shaft into the turning of another shaft. You could make it work eventually, but it's just not going to be as simple or direct. Seems as how most system would require electrical power, and other could use it fuel cell technology with battery would seem to possibly be the optimum approach. Nuclear power plants are basically just using the fission reaction to generate heat, and the normal approach while efficient are very heavy and bulky. Plus there are certain ethics issues. Hence why they're basically only on certain large non-front line Navy vessels and used for civilian powerplants. A RTG like used in a space craft while capable of providing extended power isn't going to provide the level of power you need, and volume on a mech is going to be critical.

[The General]

The problems of manufacturing mecha or mobile suits or ground destroids is the expense for research, type of building materials for them, and the problems of stablity of walking plus other dilemmas that other panelists have stated. That make a frustrating exercise on dreaming futurists raised on science fiction stories, manga and anime. We don't live in the Patlabor universe timeline where mecha has become commonplace. Until the real breakthroughs are made to allow them walk properly in rough and uneven terrain, we stuck with tanks, copters, and airplanes. Those vehicles are quite vulnerable by countermeasures like guided missiles, radar and other sensory technologies, LAWs and field artillery. That frustrates your typical military officers looking for a blitzkrieg duration of a war in any invaded rouge nation.

Here's a historical example of a war theatre operation where a mecha could have forced the enemy to rethink their trench war delaying tactics.

After the end of the Sicily invasion in the early 1943, the Western Allies were deciding how to end the war by choosing the Nazi-held territory that will be the shortest path into Germany. One of the preposed territories for invasion was put forth by Winston Churchill was take out the Italian nation and advance through the East European nations. The real reason for Churchill's preposal was that of a political reason of mistrusting Uncle Joe's intentions towards the Eastern European nations after the war. By making a physical presence in Eastern Europe, Uncle Joe would have compromise with the Western Allies. But the Americans vetoed the idea and wanted a French invasion and only allowed the Italian invasion limited to having Axis Italians kicked out of the war. The problem with the invasion was that Italy has mountainous terrain with few developed highways for motor vehicles. To completely overwhelm the Axis there, the Allies would have to launch numerous seaborne invasions up the whole Italian coastline to prevent any enemy defensive response. But the Allies didn't have seaborne invasion equipment assets to cover for both the Italian operation and Operation Overlord. The results were disasterous for the Allies. The Axis(mainly the Germans) were able survey the Italian frontier and were able make good use of it to place their large caliber anti-tank guns in natural road gaps areas and were able make limited use of their AFVs in that terrain. The Allies were forced to make slow progress up the Italian boot because their armor and their airpower couldn't make the difference due to that terrain. To make matters worse is the roadways were to narrow for supply trucks to traverse in. So pack animals like mules and horses were used to carry essential supplies to frontline troops. Any form of practical advance in the Italian boot was done by use special operations units like US/Canadian Special Forces or 'The Devil's Brigade" with huge unit loses.

The only practical forms of countermeasures for the Allies if they were not so conservative against new weapons was if they have a fairy godmother that blessed them with real super geniuses who could create practical weapon guidance systems and more powerful conventional explosive muntions for anti-armour and ground interdiction applications that the Axis can't stop and the practical attack aircraft and the soldier portable devices to carry these new arsenals to their enemies in very short time (ie. within a month).

For a mecha like a VOTOM(the closest practical mecha to be made because the only barriers in its creation is the computer hardware and software, and a very heat-resistant hydraulic fluid. Its height much more practical than a gundam because it's no higher than an one level house and squat down for a more short height to hide itself) makes it possible for the foot soldier have the armor needed to take out those tough salients. The Germans would have to have Newtypes among anti-tank or tank crews to stop a VOTOM because it moves like person on roller skates or skateboard on rough terrain if it's not walking or being incredibly very lucky or narrow pathways for a VOTOM.

What's the other alternative weapon system to take place of the mecha. Hover AFVs? Heavy armor plus the big caliber guns on normal hovercraft is not possible due the limitation of the current powerplants used for hovercraft. So what's the better alternative?

[Briareos]

What does M-72 Light Anti-tank weapons have to do with anything? You have more to worry about in regards to Russian or Chinese manufactured weapons that are both newer and more potent. What makes the M-72 so nice, is it's lightweight so you can lug one around without effecting your remaining loadout to much, which like it was used in the Battle of the Black Sea (ergo Blackhawk down) can be used for other things then anti-tank duty. Base detonating shaped charges (ie HEAT) have existed since the Second World War. Not to mention the light towed guns anti-tanks guns that were effective during at the first part of WW2, but then armor increases have made it so ATRs or AT grenades only really work well in urban terrain where you have enough hiding spots, and ability to funnel to manage to use them on critical spots.

The scenario you posted indicates the major problem was the roadways were to narrow for even trucks. That kind of limits the size of a big, clunky mecha to roughly landmate or smaller size. Of course, now you've increased your weight significantly (clue: polymers and ceramics weren't really a happening engineering material back then so we're talking pure steel) making compensating for your already high ground pressure that much harder, which is going to make any part of the terrain that isn't solid, even more problematic. Additionally your ability to traverse rough terrain is mainly due to that fact _you_ are small, full sized vehicles aren't. Of course, there are things like motorcycles, which are nice and small. Otherwise it is purely a function of how much the leg can be raised. Plus due to your weight and height just standing on a slope is going to involve you having to compensate for the moment created simply by gravity. This kind of hurts the one type of terrain legs have a true advantage in efficiency, ie upward slope.

Why would Germans with Panzerfausts or HMGs have had the slightest difficulty nailing your mountain mecha and reducing it to scrap? Especially as you're now a big obvious thing (clue: engines make noise, small engines requiring lots of power like those on motorcycles make even more noise), not to mention it is nowhere near as able to use cover and concealment, and these nice narrow roads happen to funnel you so they know right where to put their guns. Which likely would include towed artillery and possible recoilless rifles, although I'm not sure they had those back then. Let's just not get into the fact the expenses for the entire project let, alone simple per unit manufacturing cost is going to be considerably higher then German expenses to manufacture a Panzerfaust or HMG belt, and that money and resources aren't going to build other units.

The real question is what the mecha does better, justifying it's mere existence? We're talking something that's very, very vulnerable, with considerable limitations, with a thoroughly out of proportion price tag and logistic footprint for the firepower it could potentially bring to the field. Machining operations under ideal conditions take a while to get through something like real armor, so any melee weapon you rig up is at best going to perform at those levels and likely worse. Sheet metal, and stuff like that isn't a big problem, but then all you need is an abrasive water jet to rappidly rough cut things like that.

Plus if like suggested the density is cut, you cut the mass and in so doing both the inertia that resists recoil and the pilot from being put into cardiac arrest from sympathetic vibrations even if it could somehow stop autocannon and up.

EDIT: Actually the problem as you described it is the trucks can't get through, which means you can't move your troops or logistics worth anything. Unless this mecha is also a unbelievable pack mule extrodinaire, it doesn't matter if it's made of Magiranium armor that defies CoM, CoE, etc and runs on everlasting Maginol, because they can't move the troops through there easily enough to use it as an invasion corridor if they can't get the trucks through.

[Lynk Former]

Exactly why after all of that, powered battle armour would be a much better choice...

[Briareos]

Well the thing with powered battle armor is that if the Future Force Warrior or Objective Force Warrior project (present results are the Land Warrior systems) manages to achieve its goals for military it both will kind of be, and kind of not be happening. The project doesn't add a powered frame, instead intending to have a support robot carry additional gear, they do however have integrated powered systems for other things like A/C systems.

Article on it.
Another, which also tells you about where DARPA is in regards to the powered frame. Basically they demand 72 hours operation, and they aren't quite there yet for a powered frame due to limitations on the power supply. Give it a decade or so, especially if they go through with installing charging systems in the line vehicles and we may or may not see them actually fielded.

There's a lot of interesting stuff going on right now in regards to that and the Future Combat Systems project.

[The General]

Well, I see that there's more response that post. I wanted to see if there's reason for mecha can work in some near future. But for mules, if the animal find a walking and climbing route to carry small arm ammo to the some poor shmuck's position on some mountainous frontline there. And that shmuck can't advance forward because his airpower can't blast the enemy's stronghold without any very targeting without his poor ash blasted away and any form of towed artillery short of 105 mm field gun is not possible due to difficulty of carrying and rapidly deploy it in the mountains. Also, light anti-tank rockets or recoilless guns are too light to do the job. Then neither we get to creating the Zentradi or make robots or mecha to carry that heavy field gun to blast that stronghold to pieces. As for battle powered armour, isn't that part of mecha?

[Moelman]

I don't see the gigantic mechs of anime, but I could see smaller versions or hardsuits like Lynk said. I just can't see full sized mechs becoming a reality.

[spectre]

If I'm reading this right, general (and correct me if I'm wrong here), I think an easier solution than making giant walking robot mechs is either to build a better transport that doesn't involve bipedal locomotion (preferably wheels, but quadruped as well) or even better, to just improve the capacity of your airpower to deal damage. If you don't have a strong enough air force, then you should definitely not be meddling with giant walking robots.

[Rebel]

I see alot of people advocating "hardsuit" technoclogy. However this carries with it two flaws of bipedal technology. First, small robots are generally refined versions of large robots. Take a look at computers, the old ones were very large, and the new ones are very small and much more powerful. On a humanoid power-armor setup your original armor would probly be uselessly large and bulky, something like the ugly rocket with legs seen in the first Spiderman movie. In short, and expensive shield.

The second primary flaw is a power system. Large units(we're talking a human-lacking machine over 15 feet) have more space for the effective equipment and power systems. As both Evangelion and BGC show us, living beings with an armor suit require a considerably large amount of power to prevent them from being just a oversized body-suit. If we keep with the standard "backpack" battery concept we limit the necessaries like mobility and maneuberability only in the slightest. However even with the best laptops on power-saving modes the battery will only last for about 5 hours.

A battle-suit would consume power like no tomorrow, like Evangelion, you either use a cord, which would be ineffective in all but a few combat situations, or you use excessivly large batteries.

Overall since most combat does not end with hand-to-hand a "battle suit" in a BGC sense would be pointless. In your average combat, you need ranged weapons. Since most advanced ranged weapons are heavy the simplest solution would be "movement enhancers". Which would be more along the lines of the Batman Beyond battle suit. Servos, motors, ect, are placed on the joints to facilitate faster movement and larger weight loads. Also due to their size and area coverage they would require less power than a full-body suit. However, as with all technology, it would start with something bulky and ineffective, and progress to something sleeker.

As for giant robots, a bipedal robot is pretty silly. The only real asset of a legged machine is for it to walk up steps and or step on things. When you get on a large scale of 20+ feet tall, you dont really need legs since there really arent steps. Humanoid top with a rolling bottom would be most effective, depending on your situation, you use different bodies. Artillery: you build something on the lines of a Guntank. Frontlines: you build something with a more human body on top and a more agile bottom, again the bottom would vary depending on your terrain, but Armored Core would be a good idea of what I mean. In the most easiest way, you build the top half like turrets on a ship, you can simply disconnect them and move them over to the appropriate bottom. This saves costs since new bots are not needed for every situation, simply a new weapon load and bottom.

Also, because this design lacks the need for balancerrs and legs, it can be applied on a humanoid level. If you were to build machines like the T-1, 2, 3 ect..(if you've seen Terminator 3 you know the knd of robots I mean). They are small, pretty maneuverable and well armed, however being small you run into the problem with stairs again.

[Briareos]

I see alot of people advocating "hardsuit" technoclogy. However this carries with it two flaws of bipedal technology. First, small robots are generally refined versions of large robots. Take a look at computers, the old ones were very large, and the new ones are very small and much more powerful.

Because the speed of light is finite and thus the smaller distance it has to travel the shorter the time for a signal to be transmitted. Let's just not go into the fact the really big ones were mechanical and involved sautering the connections manually, while the present method is multilayer photomachining and the plants to be able to build such things cost BILLIONS, with a B. Yes, with advancement in manufacturing technology you can have tighter tolerances in manufacturing.

The second primary flaw is a power system. Large units(we're talking a human-lacking machine over 15 feet) have more space for the effective equipment and power systems.

Translation: surface area goes up with the square of the scaling factor, volume by the cube.

Overall since most combat does not end with hand-to-hand a "battle suit" in a BGC sense would be pointless.

Translation: Kevlar sucks at stopping edged weapons, so the apparent reason to use plate armor would be to stop edged weapons.

In your average combat, you need ranged weapons. Since most advanced ranged weapons are heavy the simplest solution would be "movement enhancers". Which would be more along the lines of the Batman Beyond battle suit. Servos, motors, ect, are placed on the joints to facilitate faster movement and larger weight loads. Also due to their size and area coverage they would require less power than a full-body suit. However, as with all technology, it would start with something bulky and ineffective, and progress to something sleeker.

Translation: Thus PAFs (Briareos's term) have been developed starting with the clumsy hydraulic Hardyman:
and proceeding on to refined versions like:
This Japanese suit for medical purposes, and the Darpa concept, which I've lost the good picture of.

Also, because this design lacks the need for balancerrs and legs, it can be applied on a humanoid level. If you were to build machines like the T-1, 2, 3 ect..(if you've seen Terminator 3 you know the knd of robots I mean). They are small, pretty maneuverable and well armed, however being small you run into the problem with stairs again.

Nevermind the existing Talon series of robots, which can climb stairs mount a wide variety of weapon systems, and avoid the inefficiencies of wasting time with a humanoid top. Not to mention are man portable, and unlike the iRobots, favored by the troops in Iraq. To bad, Foster-Miller doesn't have the same kind of marketing division as the manufacturers of the iRobot.

EDIT:
For those looking for the MOAG treatment I bring you to a treat from the annels of WW2 history, presenting:
The Dora and the German land battleships from achtung Panzer and Answers.com. (Note: for those who aren't paying good attention the P-1500 would have mounted a Dora cannon.)

EDIT2:
Additional linkage:
A nice site on the Abrams and Merkava Mk4. Note the fate of the car that got in the way of an Abrams needing to move there, plus the fireballs when the main gun fires in the other pictures. I hope you enjoy it.

EDIT3:
If I'm understanding you correctly General in your reply, you're basically setting up a scenario where you have to use mules to transport things in (thus constraing road size severly, and any wehicle that can go through it), attacking a fortified position that can take fire from towed howitzers, is for some reason protected against airpower, and I'm not sure whether you actually understand what a recoilless rifle is. Considering a man carriable 83mm HEDP rocket can do 8" concrete, 1' brick, or 7' wood reinforced sandbags that pretty much means the thing is a fixed fortification. Carl Gustavs or SLMAWs, which are just the man carriable recoiless guns, not the mention the AT-4 which has replaced the M-72 is an 84mm tube. In which case there's a big question of why we can't just drop a bomb on the thing.

So how pray tell is your gigantic mech with this superpowered arty piece, that can't fit on the road, and can't be dropped in because you waved airpower going to get in there? It's not a small organic lifeform, and thus the various narrow routes us small guys can take advantage in rough terrain that larger vehicles cannot don't even come into play. If you think it's going to climb the cliff, I want a reasonable mass number, and even then I can pretty much say flat out the rock is just not going to hold even if the hand and footholds are there. The difference between the stress from holding ~60kg and 2000kg (2 metric tons) on roughly the same area is not exactly comparable. Nevermind it's kind of a sitting duck for a long time, while attempting to pull off such a thing. I recognize you're trying to put your theoretical mecha in the role Heinz Guderian recognized as being revolutionally with the tank, but you need to actually show why it could go where you claim instead of just asserting it can, especially after the claim has been challenged. Additionally, no you shouldn't just go and classify everything even theoretically tangentially related mecha. A air-pistol is not the even remotely the same in design requirements, specifications, and potential uses as a Battleship gun.

[Rebel]

additionally, you should read my entire post and note that I am not advocating giant robots, at least not walking ones. I note that you casually cut off the second half of my argument where I point out how useless the actual act of a giant walking robot would be.

Secondly: back the hell off.

Stop addressing this staw man argument you built out of my reasoning. Your putting all kinds of word into my mouth with mules and lack of air-power and artillery, ect, ect...I said NOTHING about that. That does not mean that air-power ceases to exist, that simply means I either assumed that it would still be there doing the same thing it has always done, or I didnt bother to bring it into my argument.

If you want to talk about weapons, I can build you a gauss-rifle or a mass driver. Both of which are almost devoid of recoil. Hell, I built a gauss rifle for my 12th grade scince class...well, mostly for fun, but I was in class at the time.

Now, if you please, before I get extremely pissed over the fact that you ignored the latter half of my argument, go back, and reread it. Wherein I address the sillyness of giant walking robots, in favor of giant rolling robots.

And as for a tinker-toy that can climb stairs, that is NOT what I was talking about when I refrenced the terminator 3 movie.

[Briareos]

Rebel:
Uhm... I guess you didn't realize, my "translations" were done to try to clarify the physical realities and where we actually are with your statements I felt important. It wasn't meant to be deragatory, and the EDIT3 content was directed towards the General who had indicated such things, as it says in the first sentence. The rest of the EDITs were more general info I thought people might find interesting. I certainly found it to be, and some of people of my previous association thought it was.

Perhaps in the future we can avoid these things, although I think your pride has blinded you a little too much in this instance. It's not like I was truly even contesting you on anything, as the fact you yourself recognized as not being your argument should have helped you to realize. Correcting perhaps, but not going after you. There was little point then, or now for that matter.

So if I may be so bold, what would you have me do, that you believe think may have avoided this unfortunate misunderstanding? What wasn't clear enough, or not neutral enough in your opinion? I personally try to keep these things in as neutral, and simply factual a voice as possible, while keeping it interesting.

[Morpheus]

Hate to bring an old topic back, but there are already "Mechs" in use in many industries. I'll try to find links and pics, but two off the back of my head are:

The 6 legged catapillar type machine used for chopping down trees, skinning logs, and carrying the logs. Here's an image:



Then theres the crane for mining which is this huge gigantic machine that moves with feet. Clears out mountains quicker than anything I ever saw.

Main reason they built these "mechs" is mobility in most terrains that wheeled and treaded vehicles can't reach. Something on legs has pretty much no restriction on what terrain it can traverse. That's why infantry in the Military can go anywhere it wants and is the best unit in any military on mobility (not talking speed).

The US military is working on Exo-skeletons for heavy lifting. So, hard suits might not be so far-fetched. The exo-skeleton info I found out about when I was in the military at the national arms week in Washington DC. That's where they show off all the latest weapons and gadgets. I was there showing off the Crusader at the time.

Link for Exoskeleton Prototype: http://machinedesign.com/ASP/viewSelecte...UE&CatID=3

AfterEdit: Found a pic of the logging "mech" and link for exoskeleton prototype w/images.

[TiE23]

I don't think mechs or hardsuits will ever become practical enough for warfare. The bigger they are the harder they fall. Just imagine taking a mech-warrior like mech (different but more practical than an anime mech) into a battle field. It would be as effective as a tank or two and not much more, yet cost way more to build.

The more simple the better, just look at the AK47 and how long it's stayed true for the last 59 years. If anything we'll just be developing more powerful tanks and APCs. And all soldiers will be decked out in GRAW like equipment.

[Morpheus]

Tie23, I do agree with you on the matter of "Mechs" for the time being. The only use "mechs" will see is mostly like the stuff I posted. Basically good for labor tasks.

I don't agree with you on the exo-skeleton/hardsuit opinion though. If you follow the link on the exo-skeleton you will notice that it has its uses in the military. The biggest hurdle right now for the exo-skeleton is power supply. But that will be overcome in time (maybe my lifetime or later). The exo-skeleton is sort of like saying its the start of a hardsuit. Give DARPA time and they will perfect it. IMO Hardsuits (it obviously won't be called a hardsuit, but exo-skeleton instead) is the more feasible out of the two, since we already have a prototype of an exo-skeleton.

Fun Fact: The AK-47 is horrible on accuracy on its automatic mode.

AK-47 is a very durable weapon which gives it the ability to fire in the worst conditions and not jam as much as the M-16. M-16 on the other hand is made for accuracy, but jams way to easily. In the Military we used to call the M-16 the engineers weapon while the AK-47 was the warriors weapon. BTW IMO they both suck. 50 cal is the way to go for accuracy, stopping power, durability, and efficiency. Only hurdle for 50 cal is weight, but with an exo-skeleton that could change.

[TiE23]

Being able to carry 200lbs back packs with a noisy and expensive exoskeleton is not going to keep you from getting shot, which is the point of this technology. Training and flexibility are the best things you can give a soldier. Give him a good gun and a lot of battlefield intel and he's set.

I don't see any of this exoskeleton stuff becoming practical for just construction work for atleast 50 years.

[Morpheus]

TiE23, you obviously were not a part of any military. When I was in we used to hump (hiking) around 50lb-80lb sacks, all gear, plus extra ammo. We would do 8-30 mile humps. Then there were guys who had to hump around the 50 cal, Mark 19 (automatic grenade launcher), tripod, extra barrels, and extra ammo for those guns on top of their gear already (3 man team did that per gun). Its a lot of weight and a lot of noise as is.

An exo-skeleton would make any infantry unit even more efficient. Imagine humping 8-30 miles and being pretty much as fresh for combat as you were when you started the hump. On top of that one guy alone could carry a full 50 cal set. More gear would make it to the objective. That's just two advantages of an exo-skeleton. Over time DARPA will progressively make the newer revisions of the exo-skeletons quieter than the previous models. Its just a fact that things start out rough, but as technology advances and revisions are made things become more efficient (for example planes were crappy at the start now look at them).

But this doesn't change the fact that DARPA has made an exo-skeleton and is already set on making a newer and improved one for the Military. Obviously others in DARPA/Military see a use for an exo-skeleton in the military.

But I guess we'll agree to disagree on this topic. Its going no where.

AfterEdit: Just wanted to clear up, that I don't see it being brought into the main military until they get an efficient power source that lasts a decent length.

[TiE23]

I guess they can be useful in certain circumstances, but it's far away from production status.

[Morpheus]

Definitely far away from production, but atleast we get to see the start of it and how it progresses over the years.

[Maverick]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mech#Mecha_as_practical_war_machines

Personally I don't believe in mechs usefullness, even though I like them a lot, they can be made, but really, the advantages aren't THAT great, the cost doesn't worth it, and you just complicate a system, the more complex a system is then there are more chances that it'll fail.

but who knows? we already saw many crazy ideas become a common reality

[The General]

Well, I'm back from the absence. I read alot of the responses from the pervious post of my reasons for mecha. Quite interesting but still I'm in Mecha because I like to see a walking light tank destroy fixed strong fortications in supposed hard terrain that only legged animals and humans can get through. I'm still don't like armchair professional military types or terrorists who think strong forts are the god bastions against a mobile military unit. Beside I like to see defending soldier's face turn to sheer terror when his weapon shots at a large walking robot or armoured soldier and see it or him or her fall down only to see it or him or her get up and walk up and tears a bigger hole than that soldier's weapon port or pulls out a big cannon and blows that pillbox away. So until the US Army ground FCS(Future Combat System) is finished to bring the next evolutionary step in AFVs, more walking mechas or hardsuits for the combat-crazy boys or girls in BDUs.

[Chimasterwang]

I found this about a year ago the prototype was for sale on Ebay but not anymore and it can walk and had 2 flame throwers on its arms.

From Site-"NMX04-1A:The NMX04-1A is the first attempt at a fully functional Neo-Mech prototype by Neogentronyx, but it will certainly not be the last. Many other Neo-Mecha and innovative vehicles projects will commence as our company grows."

Heres the site from the developers of the NeoMecha: NMX04-1A
I think they ran out of funding but they where left with a walking mech with flame throwers XD

[Morpheus]

The General, I completely agree with you on what you said about strong fortifications. In todays day and age its better to be mobile than stationary.