Will Mechs REPLACE Tanks? (Game Science!)


Nerd Punch Why am I exploring this topic? I was playing this game, titanfall 2, and
there’s mechs in it, and simply put they are overpowered death monsters that seem to
be far more capable than tanks. It got me thinking, why doesn’t our military
have mechs. So like a normal sane person I spent days
researching to find answers. So what are the reasons our military’s don’t
build them? Firstly, I gotta give mechs a better intro. The mech is a towering humanlike war machine
the size of a building.. This things height alone makes your enemies
feel tiny and worthless. It manhandles tanks like they’re toys and
stomps on fleeing soldiers for fun with it’s gigantic steel feet. And you know what they say about big feet.. It means you have a big.. Gun. Because big legs can support the weight of
big guns. These things carry standard issue bfg’s
that vaporize enemy troops into fine pink mist. The pilot of the mech is like the hype man
that always starts shit knowing his mech that’s standing behind him like a 6 foot 5 jacked
ex-bouncer friend, will fist your face if you retaliate. And since fisting your enemies face is always
a good idea, why doesn’t our military build MechWarriors? To answer that we need to know what a mechwarrior
is. Fiction depicts many different types. You have the exoskeleton used by Ripley in
the movie Alien, the amp suit in Avatar, mechwarriors from the game, mechwarrior, titans from the
titanfall game, all the way up to Jaeger’s like Gipsy Danger from the Pacific rim that
are the size of large buildings. The main idea is that they are humanoids,
are well armored, carry huge weapons, and are piloted by humans. If you think about it, the most successful
machine is a mech. A biological machine, called a human. As far as biological machines go, humans are
the undisputed kings. There are advantages to the human form that
have made us so successful. But is the human form optimal for combat? Humans are slower than almost every animal
out there besides flamingoes and sloths. Bears that weigh double or triple an adult
human male can easily outrun us, are far stronger than us, and can climb trees and rock faces. Leopards, mountain goats, and monkeys can
maneuver through rough and mountainous terrain far faster than we can. So why are humans so successful, aside from
our intelligence? Bipedalism. This is a distinctive human trait that enables
us to free our arms and hands to manipulate the environment, use tools, and wield different
weapons. This is the main advantage we have, and why
a mech could be an effective war machine. Just like a human, a mech could use its hands
and opposable thumbs to pick up and use various weapons and tools depending on the needs of
the battlefield. If you’re being engaged by tank, the mech
could pick up and use anti tank guns. If the mech is being engaged by lots of troops
in close proximity, it could pick up and use a shotgun and grenades. With a handed mech you could quickly swap
weapons depending on the situation. You don’t need to slowly redeploy situation
specific vehicles, tanks or artillery, the mech just needs to pick up a new weapon. Just like how a sniper switches to a compact
automatic rifle in cqc environments. It’s versatile and adaptable. If the mech is being used to break through
a fortified enemy line, it could pick up additional armor with its arms to use as a shield while
it is advancing, and once it breaks through the enemy line, it could discard the armor
to gain mobility and penetrate and flank around the remaining enemy lines. This is similar to a swat team using a shield
to enter hostile buildings, or armored cavalry breaking lines so that more mobile troops
can exploit the breach to encircle the remaining troops. Humans are builders because of our fingers
and dexterity. In addition to combat, a mech could also be
used to build bases and fortifications when not in combat. SImilar to how soldiers will dig in and create
trenches, cover, and barricades when not in combat. This is something that a tank cannot do, and
you need extra specialized vehicles like cranes and forklifts that may not be available on
the front line. Our arms, fingers, legs, and toes enable us
to climb sheer cliff faces and mountains, trees, buildings, and other obstructions,
as well as sidestep through crevices and thick jungles. This ability to overcome any terrain gives
us a distinct combat advantage, as we can outmaneuver enemies. A tank would not be able to climb a steep
cliff and surprise attack an enemy from a flank, but a mech might. Not only that, but a mech could act as a troop
transport, mobile ladder, or mobile bridge. It’s height, arms, and legs could enable
troops to climb over the mech to traverse ravines, gain advantageous elevated positions,
and further outmaneuver the enemy. Our height and ability to change stances enables
us to see further and over objects and to use cover more effectively. A mech would be able to pop in and out of
cover from different angles and positions to scan the environment and engage enemies. This ‘peek a boom’ ability means that
the mech can fire and retreat back into cover quickly, reducing its exposure to enemy fire. This also means a mech would be better at
fighting over rough terrain and hill fighting. A tank cannon has only a few degree of elevation
and depression, but a humanoid war machine could use its arms to orient and depress the
weapon completely in order to hit the enemy. The human form isn’t necessarily terrifying. But a giant humanoid mech certainly would
provide a shock factor that would destroy enemy morale and combat efficiency. For example, the King Tiger in world war 2
was immensely scary to face when you are sitting in a sherman tank. This sort of psychological warfare will actually
hurt the enemies morale combat effectiveness. Bipedalism also means that we are more energy
efficient than 4 legged animals. And compared to wheels and tracks, we can
pivot and move sideways and forward and backwards more quickly to engage flanking enemies. A tank would have to rotate it’s entire
hull before it is able to move in a different direction. So all this means that a giant robot soldier
version of a human would be even more successful, right? No. Unfortunately there are a lot of reasons why
a massive humanoid war mech wouldn’t work in combat. For starters, large, slow, heavy, ground-based
machines just aren’t as viable in modern wars. Modern combat is fast paced, it’s range
extends globally, and air power is king. Pouring resources into a mechwarrior just
isn’t as wise. The opportunity cost of creating 1 mech is
that you could have more tanks, planes, or invested in air/space/sea power which is more
important. 5 tanks encircling and creating fields of
fire and killzones with crossfire versus 1 mech The complexity of a mech far exceeds that
of a tank. All the joints, linkages, and additional components
necessary to build a human like robot would be very complex. This increases the maintenance time and difficulty. Reduces the lifetime of the machine. Reduces the time that the vehicle is combat
ready instead of sitting in a depot getting rebuilt. Not to mention you cannot field repair as
easily and quickly. A mech is not as robust and resilient as a
tank. If a tank loses a tread, it can’t move,
but it still is a very stable and capable platform to fire from. Since the human form is designed to be a working
system, if one joint goes down, the mech will not be a stable platform, and may fall over
rendering the whole mech ineffective. Or is that the case? I mean humans can limp if shot in one leg. We can shoot from our other hand, if one hand
gets shot. If our weapon gets hit, we can pick up a different
weapon and still fight. But is that just solving a problem that’s
created by the mech’s own design? A tank has very few weak points, as it is
essentially an sloped, armored box. The target a tank presents is a sloped, bouncy
surface with a high effective armor thickness and a cannon. Tanks even do their best to cover the flat
turret rings and optics, as a hit there can jam the turret or destroy a gunsight. A mech has flatter legs, arms, exposed joints
and linkages that can disable the mech if hit. You can’t do much to hide these joints. These flat surfaces reduce the effective armor
thickness, while also containing vital components for the mech’s mobility. In order for a mech to have the same armor
thickness as a sloped tank, it would need to carry a stupid amount of extra weight in
armor. How much can a mech feasibly weight anyways. The square cube law states that, as a shape
grows in size, its volume grows faster than its surface area. When an object undergoes a proportional increase
in size, its new surface area is proportional to the square of the multiplier and its new
volume is proportional to the cube of the multiplier. This means that you can’t just make a bigger
version of something, as it will eventually collapse under its own mass. If you scaled up a human to 10 times their
original size, the giant would have 100 times the bone and muscle area, but would weigh
1000 times as much as a normal human. Every square inch of this giant’s bone would
have to support 10 times the weight borne by a square inch of human bone. Considering that the average human thigh-bone
breaks under about 10 times the human weight, this giant would break their thighs every
time they took a step. The solution would be to create a mech with
disproportionately larger legs in order to support this weight, but then you make the
mech less mobile, heavier, more fuel inefficient, and the list goes on. The square cube law also means that strength,
speed, and energy efficiency doesn’t increase in size as fast as weight. This giant that’s 10 times the size of a
human would weigh 1000 times as much, but would only have 100 times the strength. The bigger the mech, the weaker, less energy
efficient, and slower it is relative to its increase in size. Even if all those problems didn’t exist
you would still have to deal with the issue of ground pressure on soft ground. A giant mech with two feet would have considerably
more ground pressure than tanks, which would lead to the mech being even more unstable
and unreliable, as well as slower on soft ground. An easy example is walking in deep snow with
tennis shoes, versus wearing snowshoes that disperse your weight over a larger surface
area. More ground is supporting your weight so you
don’t sink as easily. I guess you could make snowshoes for
the mech’s though? A standing mech is a huge target, while tanks
are very low to the ground and present a very small target. For obvious reasons, this isn’t good. A standing mech also has a very high center
of gravity. Consider that standing is the least stable
position for a human, the same is true for a mech. Firing a giant cannon from the arms of a mech
would produce less manageable recoil. That’s why sniper rifles and lmg’s are
fired prone. Compare this to a tank that has a very low
center of gravity, and most of it’s weight is centered behind the cannon. Recoil will be much more manageable, follow
up shots will be quicker, and accuracy will be higher. But the mech could potentially prone and attain
the same advantages, right? Yes, but there is still a problem. Firepower. For the same cost of a mech, which supports
1 main cannon. You could have 5 abrams, which all have 5
cannons. So you can pump more firepower out with multiple
cheaper tanks, than you can with one big expensive mech. No long guns or standoff capability. You can’t as easily put as long of a gun
into a mech as a tank due to recoil management, center of gravity, and weight concerns. Not being able to engage multiple low profile,
easily concealable enemy tanks that are 2 kilometers out that are firing at you, a big
target, would be a big problem. You also cannot knock a tank over very easily. A mech with a high center of gravity and traveling
over rugged terrain could more easily get knocked over by enemy fire or landmines. Now there is pretty exciting innovation happening
at boston dynamics, and robots do have an impressive ability to balance and recover
when knocked over. But tanks don’t need impressive tech and
balancing abilities because they can’t get knocked over in the first place. Where is the crew? Considering the joints and moving arms and
legs don’t allow for crew members, the only real place to put the crew is in the torso. But there isn’t much space at all, and a
lot of the fictional mechs have a single pilot. So one person driving, aiming, reloading,
firing the main cannon, firing the coax machine gun at enemy soldiers, staying aware of the
developing battlefield, and communicating with other units? We know this doesn’t work well in tanks
that had single person turrets where the gunner, loader, and commander was the same person,
let alone driving the tank too. But does a mech need more than 1 pilot? I mean mech’s are supposed to work like
a human, and humans fulfill all of those roles individually. We can easily run, shoot, duck, reload, and
communicate by ourselves. It depends on how seamless the connection
between the pilot and the machine is. How translatable is a human’s natural movement,
to piloting a mech? We don’t have to have a separate driver
for our bodies, because movement is so easy and seamless. A tank has to have a separate driver because
controlling a tank is a completely different method and challenge that requires an operator’s
hands and feet and focus. Pacific Rim does a better job and showing
how an individual human could pilot a mech, because the movements are seamlessly translated
to the mech, and each task doesn’t require their full attention. How does a pilot control the arms and hands
of the mech? If you don’t have a realistic and accurate
sense of feeling from the mechs hands, you would end up crushing things you don’t want
to crush. Last year scientists developed a robotic arm
and hand that was surgically wired directly to a paralysed persons brain, providing him
with two-way feedback and an ‘almost natural’ sensation of touch. The scientists were able to evoke sensory
feedback from the arm by surgically implanting microelectrodes into his brain and electrically
stimulating the precise brain areas that would normally light up when different areas of
the hand are touched in a healthy person. This effectively mimicked the same feelings
that a human hand would. He could feel different levels of pressure
and various touch sensations with each of his fingers that they tested on him with nearly
perfect accuracy. Theoretically, the sensors you could use in
a robot hand would be far more advanced and accurate than a human’s. It could also detect heat, cold, pain, vibration,
and texture with far more accuracy. It’s proprioception sensors tied with an
advanced fire control computer would enable to the mech to even throw objects like grenades
with immense accuracy, this has actually been demonstrated with boston dynamics robot called
spot. This proprioceptor would be more accurate
than a humans, which means that it would understand pressure and exertion, so it would be able
to gently handle babies, and crush enemy tanks in its hands. So in actuality, a robot mech could actually
sense and feel more accurately than a human. Twist! How does a mech pilot easily aim and fire
the weapon while driving. An idea would be the use of a helmet mounted
targeting and fire control system, similar to the ones Apache pilots use. HMDs would allow the pilot to simply point
his head at a target, select the weapon to fire, and shoot. Helmet mounted displays would have to work
with some system like titanfall where the pilot can see through the armor via external
sensors and cameras linked to their helmet displays. There actually is tech out there like that
called battle view 360 that is currently in testing with the US military. What about backup manual gunsights if external
optics get hit or you have a malfunction or damage to the helmet mounted targeting system?
Tanks also have manual gunsights in additional to their primary optics and imaging systems
that are in line with the main cannon which allows for accurate boresight aligned fire. Compare that to a mech which has its guns
located on the arms or shoulders, which are offset from the torso positioned crew, and
accurate fire and correction will be more difficult. How is ammo reloaded? In titanfall you control the mechs reload
process as if you were personally reloading a gun. In other games an autoloader is being used. While autoloaders can be great, they also
introduce more moving parts and less reliability. Having an extra crew member for loading wouldn’t
be feasible as the guns are located on the arms and shoulders of the mech, and maneuvering
ammo into all the different guns just wouldn’t work. While bipeds are more energy efficient than
quadrupeds, we are far less energy efficient than wheels or tracks. It’s costly to lift up heavy mech legs for
each step. The mech would have to carry more fuel, which
increases weight, and the logistics to provide more fuel to the mechs would be more costly. Bipedal mechs are just slower than wheels
across flat ground, but legs can go almost anywhere. Boston dynamics has a robot called handle
that has legs and wheels, so problem solved? Walking introduces more movement and instability
than tracked tanks. A tank can drive over 45 mph while still maintaining
a smooth ride, providing a stable platform to fire from even while traveling at high
speeds over rough terrain. A mech that is walking or running introduces
more up and down and side to side motion, which reduces the accuracy of the weapon. How comfortable is a mech? Like we said, a tank can drive over 45 mph
while maintaining a smooth ride. Compare that to a mech that is running at
high speeds, well it’s going to bounce the hell out of the crew. I can imagine that being in a mech that’s
running while trying to shoot at enemies is going to be a tough task, and extremely uncomfortable
over long durations. It’s not uncommon for tanks to be driving
for multiple days and nights at a time on missions. I think you’d have a hard time convincing
a tank crew to hop into a mech for that same mission. Having a functional crew when you arrive to
the battle is just as important as the mech itself. Due to the complexity of design, these mech’s
would be slow to produce. Army Major General David Bassett, the Army’s
program executive officer for ground combat systems, recently said in regards to upgrading
and remodeling versions of existing vehicle platforms versus more costly new designs,
“One of the things that makes acquisition go faster is by picking things that don’t
require as much design,”. “I’m not interested in developing, I’m
interested in delivering.” Getting good vehicles into combat quickly,
is more important that having great vehicles later on. This obviously doesn’t mean that research
is negated, just that actually delivering cost effective options is more important. The additional time it would take to research
and develop a mech would be immense. Let alone constructing factories to build
them, actually building them, training people to operate them, training crews to maintain
them, and on and on. The larger variety of components used to build
a mech would mean production may require more types of factories. This increases logistical complexity and potential
targets. In WW2, ball bearing factories were targets
for bombers because of their use in things like tank turrets for rotation. If MechWarrior production can be halted by
the destruction of a factory that produces a necessary component for a Mech joint, then
that is an additional vulnerability in a military. Just think about the additional logistics
that would need to be sorted out to transport a giant, thirsty mech and keep it full of
fuel. You may need new ships, planes, trains, and
vehicles to actually transport a mech due to its unique size and shape. If a mech breaks down, how do you transport
it back to a depot? A tank has treads which allow for movement
when being towed. Towing a mech would be like towing an upside
down tank. Not easy. Lastly and most importantly, mech’s are
vulnerable to tow cables… I mean, a freakin AT-AT was taken down by
some cable you could buy at the hardware store. So despite mechs being awesome, their benefits
are far outweighed by their negatives. They just aren’t a practical military option,
and that’s why our military’s don’t build mechwarriors. Maybe the solution is in small power suits
like the exo-suits in the edge of tomorrow, crysis nanosuits, Spartans from Halo, or from
the new game called Anthem. I may make a video about that later. Is there any reasons or things you think I
missed? Would you like me to go into more detail and
provide more numbers for these points? I want to hear your comments on this, and
anything else you want me to cover. Thanks for watching, and don’t forget to
like and subscribe. I’ll be putting more videos out like this
hopefully at least once a week.

100 comments

  • Nerd Punch

    WOW. 😀 This video really blew up (for me), thanks for the views and comments! What topic would you guys like me to cover next??

    Reply
  • Karganeth

    Tanks For the Win!

    P.S.
    I also like Mechs

    Reply
  • phoboskitty m

    No one can build viable mech at this point… The reason is purely technical…

    Reply
  • Arterial Spray

    The only mechs which have ever made sense to me are those so small they border on power armour. Something the size of an "Exosuit" in aliens, or the "Armoured Suits" in GitS. Or non-bipedal mechs like certain multi-ped tanks.
    And the only reason is that their mobility combined with their ability to carry weaponry far heavier than infantry could manage., would be a major factor in urban conflicts. Something small enough to take cover in a building, and mobile enough to get up steps, and clamber over rubble.

    And at smaller sizes recovery and logistics become significantly easier.

    Reply
  • Raxius

    Thinking the Pacific Rim babies are of any size.

    Laughs in Imperator-Class Titan

    Thinking a mech can only have one cannon

    Laughs in dominus class knights with two main armaments, two twin meltaguns, two twin siegebreaker cannons and extra missiles and heavy weapons

    Reply
  • Blace0225

    Can i ask what your thoughts about a mech thats piloted by advance AI?

    Reply
  • Turbo Pincher

    these are tales for morons. They by the way believe in a flat Earth

    Reply
  • Fernando Cervantes

    Don't forget about mobile suit Gundam.

    Reply
  • Konami

    What about a tank lower body and a Mech upper body like in Armored Core?

    Reply
  • Riley Chance

    you nailed it on the head but there is a solution to the power problem that yealds another problem all together.

    nuclear power. a reactor the size of a mini cooper and with half the weight can be built with modern technology, Radiation shielding and all. if placed in the right area it will allow weight that would have been allotted for lighter coolant, weapons systems, stronger support beams and better armor, this was the cannon solution in mech warrior before MWO. but it yield's a problem of considerately decreased survival rates if the mechs reactor itself is destroyed as well as permanent environmental damage unless the reactor is fast burning, then you have a bigger boom when it goes. you also need to allot for EMP shielding which is a bit more on the things to do when building one.

    Reply
  • Rex Luther

    we don't need any more ways to kill each other

    Reply
  • Venomus vixen

    a scaled up tank to the mech size can haw biger guns and more armor the problem whit mechs is that the weaight put on its foot will make it sink in to the graund mechs haw more draw backs for combat use

    Reply
  • Venomus vixen

    best we can hope for is a power armor

    Reply
  • Kanyeon Gaming

    NerdPunch: Talking about how powerful Titanfall mechs are.

    Me: Laughing in imperial gothic.

    Also me: May the Emperor spare your soul heretic.

    Reply
  • Lukas Mcath

    well, still i wold not condemned the whole idea, crowd control sadly still gonna be needed, maybe even more.
    Tha woold, maybe have some filed for utilizing mechs like terror weapons. And of coarse one thin is nearly obvious, 4. leged or even 8. leged mechs can actually work.
    Styl question is not how more likely why even bother? And, yes I em more of giant tanks or giant helicopters guy … if we really start to think about silly armament.

    Reply
  • Ethan Hunt

    mech aint easy to build u need to go Hildolfr stage before any meha is feasible

    Reply
  • Js Halub

    I am a 64 year old MechWarrior I say it's quite possible that one day this technology will exist! That's my official prediction. Think it believe it achieve it. I always say…

    Reply
  • Wils The Limit

    Would Mjomlnier Powered Assault Armor from Halo technically be a mech or is it more like a armor?

    Reply
  • TheIrishSoveit

    well one thing about modern tanks is with modern tank guns firing at you you often will be blown up because the armor of a modern tank is almost redundant against a modern tank gun

    Reply
  • Koniving

    At the size of MWO's version of Battletech mechs, no.

    Reply
  • Arman Lana Animations

    Mechs won't replace tanks they will still be tanks

    Reply
  • Belkan Squadron

    the answer is no

    Reply
  • MM FG102

    I feel a lot of your reasoning is a bit stretched.
    Tanks have auto loaders.
    The gun sights for the guns would be next to the gun same as tanks.
    FIghter and a lot of aircraft have single pilots. computer management would be an obvious go to seeing as even in video games we the player can control a mech ourselves. to pilot and operate the mech would be pretty simple.

    But i believe you are right with the ground pressure and height. yet again they dont need to be very big.

    As we see robotics advance i think mechs will become more viable but not logical.

    Reply
  • Drelam

    Before I watch the answers are so simple on why not. No realistic power source, legs and feet would be too vulnerable even a regular IED today would blow away or damage a mech foot making the whole thing inoperable, hydraulic fluid would be too vulnerable, they would cost too much and any military would be better off with 30 tanks for the same price, they would be easy and obvious targets to air force and artillery, pilot and cockpit would be too vulnerable, there are probably another thousands reasons I can list but you get the point.

    Reply
  • BattlesuitExcalibur

    So I crunched some numbers on this, and I think that the advantage mechs (and robotic legged vehicles) have over tanks is that they might require much less power to move each ton of its own weight. This means that if fuel supply is held constant (if you built a 17 meter tall mech that weighed roughly the same as an M1A1 abrams tank, and carried the same volume of fuel), the mech would be able to carry a much higher payload (bigger guns/more weapons systems). Alternatively, the mech would be able to move faster if they were carrying the same armaments.

    Reply
  • Anlushac11

    Only the rich Houses have Mechs. Tanks still exist such as Demolisher, Rommel, Patton, and Von Luckner. Even the Great Houses still operate tank units.

    Reply
  • Mammoth Walker Mk.2

    I hope we will change the Battlefield of War i mean who doesn't like GIANT WALKING WAR MACHINE!

    Reply
  • infographiste Historic Haiti

    I'm surprised how thorough and detailed this analysis is!!! Reference real world facts to study different aspects of the subject.

    Reply
  • Monostripe Explosive Explorations

    Ok, we need bear-mech cavalry!

    Reply
  • Joe Doe

    This guy is a day late and a dollar short of intel. I guess he doesn't know they're already building and testing mechs in the military and also being built by civilians too. There is one group of collage students building a mad cat in Nevada right now, and another in Alaska building an Atlas. In fact I myself sent the one in Alaska a concept power unit layout to install on his mech. Look at mans history. Man has NEVER stopped building big, faster, stronger things with more power behind them/in them, from weapons to computers to robots to meals. It's human nature to do so, and always will be.

    Reply
  • GunBucky Bucketman

    How about Votoms?

    Reply
  • superzilla784

    It all depends on how well designed the mech itself is. the biggest advantage mechs have over tanks is arms and legs. mechs can walk over obstacles that would block tanks such as trenches and holes too wide/deep for a tank to cross, and their arms allow them to pick up objects, such as if the mech needs a replacement weapon. just look at Gundam: 8th MS Team. when a MS's weapon ran out of ammo, they tossed it aside and took out another gun and continued fighting. they're basically 50ft tall solders. saying mechs are useless is saying soldiers are useless. Armored Core is another example of mech potential. they have missile launchers mounted on their backs to shoot down enemy aircraft and can move quickly in any direction in a pinch. tanks need to be rotated first. but the downsides are stated in this video. they would be expensive, heavy, and extremely complex. but this is only a problem because of our current level of technology. if you took a modern tank and dropped it in the 14th century, and even taught the people of that time period everything they would need to know, they would still have problems. the most advance weapon at the time was crossbows. it took blacksmiths several months just to make one suit of armor that is easily blasted away by our modern weapons. if the tank got stuck in a ditch, they would have to use horses to get it out. ALOT of horses. to them, tanks wouldn't be worth the trouble. mechs are still potential weapons, just not today

    Reply
  • PANZER MkII

    NOt to be an asshole, but MechWarrior is the Pilote while Battlemech is the Mech.

    Reply
  • JLight2r1

    At point 4:07 you say something that is complete bull shit so i have to address it. Heave Shock Cavalry in real life don't charge into a enemy formation. The Horses simply won't do it . Because unlike Hollywood movies a horse is a living breathing creature that values its own life.

    Second a Cavalryman is superior in mobility than normal infantry units.

    Thus historically cavalry was used to hit the flanks of an enemy army causing them to route then would be used to chase down and kill fleeing men. That is how cavalry works. Hollywood depictions use CGI horses fir those scenes because a horse won't impel itself on a spear or pike.
    Hence the reason pikemen where still used after gunpowder weapons where developed as the line if defense against cavalry charges that would have massacred the riflemen.

    Basic logic needs to be applied when looking at cavalry charge references. If you wouldn't run unprotected into a spear point neither would any other animal used in combat.

    Reply
  • JLight2r1

    Mechs are only going to be used as a infantry unit not a replacement tank.
    We are currently working on exoskeletons which would be a human sized mech suit . Think Fallout 4 meets halo or mass effect.

    Reply
  • Just Privacy

    Why the fuck no one talks about gundams or mobile suits…

    Reply
  • David Edens

    While it is clear you have thought this out your argument has one glaring weakness. Your argument treats mech like they are built with current tech when non of the universes where mechs exist suffer from such limitations. That's means that the true outcome of your argument is that mech aren't feasible at this time. It would be interesting for you to figure out what it would actually take to make a BattleMech feasible.

    Reply
  • Lenka Utsugi

    Mech yea we do its call iron man what we have the tech to make now

    Reply
  • ManilaJohn01

    There's no chance whatsoever that these mechs will even exist, much less replace traditional armored fighting vehicles. Anywhere that mechs can go, vehicles can go to more efficiently. The reason for this is ground pressure. Traditional armored fighting vehicles have their weight distributed over the area of its tracks, and they would be far more likely to maintain their ability to maneuver on all but the most inhospitable terrain. Mechs on the other hand, would have a ground pressure focused solely on their feet. In the case of assault mechs, that's up to 50 tons per foot. That would be far more prone to bogging down, and in soft ground they would sink knee-deep or more. Climbing mountains is out of the question for the same reason.

    Now, if these mechs were reduced in size to something not much larger than humans, they might see the light of day.

    Reply
  • D M H

    Or…a 4 legged mech? it could go in rough terrain+ it would have the stability of a tank

    Reply
  • Mitchell Ambro

    Future warfare will look like a system of trainvators feeding cities of work in space building drone micro multi-use platform non-aware slave machines swarming to build, battle and comfort humans.

    Reply
  • Asri Roslan

    Mech is not the problem, its the energy source. Computer getting smaller and lighter yet our battery still the same. Take Iron man arc reactor, if only it could be real. example in real life like Rocket to space need huge space for fuel. Solve the power problem, you get mech in no time.

    Reply
  • Khyrid

    The truth is that any technology that would make a giant mech possible, could be applied to tanks instead for a better result. The only use I can think of for a giant humanoid robot would be search and rescue, something that can grapple down a cliff side and pull up a car or something.

    Reply
  • Shushy Shushy

    Not to mention there in some scenarios there are tanks specific to hunting down Mechs. So One mech vs 12 Anti-Mech tanks stands no chance.

    Reply
  • KILLOR GAMES AND OTHER VIDS

    You forgot faster reaction times as well as that tanks also have weakness in their tracks,turret rotation speed,how effective the shell is

    Reply
  • Enrique Pereira

    Well, first of all the concept of large, slow and heavy machines is based on today, on what corresponds to our palpable reality today. That's your first mistake. The tank is a large, slow and heavy unit. Military units are advancing technologically and are becoming more agile and deadly. That means that the tank, as a unit, is destined to disappear or evolve forcibly, and the relevance that at some point in its history it was able to achieve will fade away among the technological advances.
    They paint the tanks as units very suitable for war as if they were immovable in time, without stopping to think what are the most problematic difficulties that engineers are having to solve with more obstacles in the tanks. The development of less and less complex and apparatuses weapons to destroy the tanks that a soldier can load, is more and more recurrent.
    The tank is a specialized military unit, and like many units, they have limits. For example, one of its limits is the famous caliche, wherever it is found, it stops the tanks because there is no tank strap to support it, the scenario of that was the exercise carried out in Chile where the Americans called a helicopter at all times to "save" their units because soon after walking, the belts would break.
    The development of other types of armaments, such as exoskeletons, make it possible to assemble heavier weapons. Likewise, new units that are capable of transporting large volumes of cargo along with the troops will make it more difficult every day to save the situation of a tank.
    On the other hand, the mech is a unit that is far from being used in the army due to the lack of required technology. Proof of that, can be this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ldJswGpkjY
    In that video you will see that it has a long way to go to want to look a little like the version of the movies where these mastodons can jump, spin, squat, run, hide, crawl, build, use different weaponry, dig, etc..
    Another thing is that you accuse it of its weight and that it would sink its feet resignedly carrying with it, difficulty for its normal displacement, or its definitive jamming. That's a lie, because if we rely on biology, we can see really heavy animals stepping on the ground with no major obstacles to their movement. An example is the Patagotitan Mayorum, and how did it manage to move normally? By its bones, the answer that is consigned as the best explanation, is in the form of the leg of an elephant that in spite of the brutality of the mud, can circulate without problems where the tank fails.
    Another fact that you deny is the advance of technology itself. Every day we see new improvements that allow to lighten weight and to increase resistance and/or hardness. For example, the new steel alloys that are as resistant as titanium, but with improvements in their properties, or aluminum alloys that often surpass their own origin allowing many times decrease density while maintaining their quality, among others, with the famous graphite. There are theories with the carbilo, even the limpet tooth gives clues about materials of the future. We could also say the same with respect to the mechanics of joints, which by way of advancement, there are some institutions that do not use mechanical parts to achieve the same mobility and being more responsive. Even the improvement of batteries and engines increasingly powerful and efficient.
    You speak of the capacity to absorb the recoil of weapons, because, again, this is something natural in our most tangible reality. And again you leave out the technological advances in this field, because the rail guns is something that will eventually become smaller, the gauss guns, laser guns are weapons that at some point will be in the day to day of the war, and their almost null setbacks will not be any obstacle for a wick unit to load them.
    The exposure to the adheres like a fault is a mirage because the technological advance itself makes it increasingly difficult to perform this simple act. This act today may be very valid, but in the future it probably won't even be worth it.
    Anyway, I think it's a matter of waiting for what the future holds.

    Reply
  • kilaliam671

    Because they are a huge target where as tanks try to be a small as possible target, and also the legs and ankles are a huge weak point. also the technology just isn't there. Also effectively armouring a mech would require exponentially increasing weight for a larger size frame, even battletech [which I am a huge fan] having the more realistic rendition, would be much heavier than the weights listed making them more or less immobile.

    Reply
  • sTL45oUw

    Gosh you are full of shit.

    Let's say I'm interested in eastblashing control over a village. Does a mech do it better than a tank? If so why?

    Reply
  • M B

    because we should build mobile suits

    Reply
  • Zsewq The Wolf

    what one thing have a mech going over tanks…… is a god damn weapon platform, you use that thing to blow up people base, factory and more, sure you can do that with a bomb raid but as history show that can only take you so far as shown of factory-made underground to hide from bomb rides. The mech in BattleTech lore and ones like it are more real of what would really happen if we made mechs, each made dose not have fingers all its lambs are weapons to hold a big fucking cannon or a laser and other things to use in battle.

    mech was never made to be used in the frontlines as mech can still be overtaken by troops and tanks if a huge number of them are used to take out one, that's way in the games and the new one that just come out you only see tanks and mech mostly used, why because it hard to say anything back if your 100 miles away and fire 1000 rockets at a base.

    the mech only thing going for it is the firepower it can put out over a tank ever can. I mean do you use a tank to fight a fast-moving car? NO! you use another fast-moving car or an RPG to handle it, that's why the Toyota War won the war because of basic factory of one being faster then a tank and 2 having way more firepower.

    a tank will have only one big gun and an LMG, while a mech can have 4 LMG 40 rockets and a laser, is it any wonder why the mech show firing all its weapons at tanks and another mech well if you blast them to death they can't fight back.

    the middle east is proof as long you have a fuck ton of firepower and power backing you up, you can the most part kick the asses of any superpower with high tech stuff.

    i think mech can have a home with our army just not in the way the media show them off

    Reply
  • Gabriel de Medeiros

    Man u are so smart!

    Reply
  • Anne Y'mao

    If having dexterous arms is the biggest advantage, couldn't we compromise by putting arms on a tank?

    Reply
  • L U V U

    The thing you left out was if you merge technology with the human nerves so you can move faster since the mechanical tech is mimicking the nerves of your body sooo:/

    Reply
  • Baseshocks

    Mech will only be useful on a planet like mars with terrain that will destroy wheeled or track vehicles. But all you need is a good artillery barrage from 20 km away, cruise missile or this "Video: Russia test-launches missiles during planned military drills". Their goes your billion dollar mech machine taken down by cheap rockets on the back of a truck. Or well this thing "Indian Brahmos Missile test hits bullseye at speed MACH 2.9+".

    Reply
  • Ferry Kusjanto

    Go to borneo

    Reply
  • Arnaldo Daniel

    We need more Atlases!

    Reply
  • VomitousLeviathan

    I can't help but feel that while the large 18 meter tall behemoths of Battletech/Mechwarrior and Mobile Suit Gundam may be impractical for mainline battle use, smaller (perhaps 8 meter tall) humanoid mechs more in scale with what is currently being developed in Asia would be better suited to the likes of scouts, support fire, expeditionary forces, colonial forces, or police. Using them in open battle against large scale weapons just doesn't seem feasible, but in environments that either has the mech out of direct harm or in diverse environments that require multipurpose machines, mechs could potentially thrive. I think it's just a problem of expecting big battles and guns blazing rather than something more practical to the mech's strengths.

    Reply
  • Amadeus

    A bomb, a strafe of aircraft guns or even a portable rocket would make a MECH a liability.

    Reply
  • aragos32727

    Yeah… A MechWarrior is a pilot from the BattleTech universe.

    Reply
  • Pen Lavits

    1 mecha is all they would need.The reason why they don't build them is because what they have already works .its not the time for mech as they aren't needed as yet maybe when space travel comes into play

    Reply
  • RiskiBisci

    But what if the mech was instead of a lumbering giant was only 8-9 feet tall. This would essentially just eliminate all the cons while still keeping the pros of humanoid mecha.

    Reply
  • Olde Grunt

    Don't see it except in in sci fi or alt mil history, the inherent disadvantages far outweigh any possible advantages in reality.

    Reply
  • Lobos222

    How about we make a tank,… with turret mech arms! 😀

    Reply
  • Nick Vinsable

    Okay, so MECHs cannot be Front Line whatevers. But you did point out very good Practical uses, which I’ll fully endorse: Combat Capable Construction Vehicles AND Mountain Terrain Armor.

    Reply
  • Nerd Punch

    Had to trim out a few seconds of the video at 1:46 due to copyright infringement from using a Pacific Rim clip. Sorry bout that!

    Reply
  • DerpEye

    small mobile mechs make sense. Not building sized target practice machines. Basically, something a little bigger than an exoscheleton, but faster and more agile than a person, would be very dangerous on a modern city battlefield.

    Reply
  • ZombieSexmachine

    you understand nothing of mechs

    Reply
  • The Louster

    No mention of 40k Titans? The Inquisition would like to have a word with you.

    Reply
  • agustin venegas

    replace ? No, become a part of the war, if the technology allows I'd bet, after all tanks didn't make horses obsolete, cars did, and cars don't compete with tanks in modern warfare

    Reply
  • Spacefrisian

    How is it reloaded, well the same way as a soldier reloads its gun, slamming a new ammo clip in it.

    The Zaku is also a mech afterall.

    Seems just like science fiction tech videos and or Space ship videos, the Gundam series gets ignored, such a shame.

    Reply
  • F4BE1

    A tank with mech like apendiges would be able to move over ridges and hard to move over ground while having the sturdiness and firepower of a tank

    Reply
  • Grey Scar

    Shield generators. Look up Titans in 40k

    Reply
  • baka baka

    Considering…. If we tried to make a mech comparable to what we see in video games. I'm sorry we could never.. The tech is just not there.

    Reply
  • Eye Above All

    They will get there about 500 years. Until then tanks will be kings.

    Reply
  • His Holiness Lord Potato

    Create suit:
    1-Cheap
    2-fast
    3-tiny
    4-many
    5-Can carry and use more powerfull anti-tank weapons

    Reply
  • Polish PePe

    for the same reason why the maus was a bad idea big target easy target.

    Reply
  • ᅚᅚᅚ

    I could never get into mechs because it's too apparent how nonsensical they are

    Reply
  • Charles Balliet

    as in yes effective and no not practical

    Reply
  • Simon Ilisei

    mud

    Reply
  • MidgetMan 420

    Mechs should be small sized, like the ones from Avatar, they will be extremely useful in construction of fortifications

    Reply
  • Mathew Ferstl

    my problem with 'mechs' are the power source where is the power is coming from because most of the space would be for the operating systems with almost no room left for a power source so yeah 'mechs' are stupid and while I'm here the sneaking up on your enemy thing wouldn't work due the amount of noise it would produce.

    Reply
  • Ferenc Gazdag

    Power armor has problems with power, what limits it to civilian applications, but i guess you can give it a nuclear reactor to deploy it on the battlefield.

    Reply
  • Ken B

    But what about spider tanks?

    Reply
  • turiel

    petty purist correction: Battletech Mechwarriors are the _pilots_, not the machines. They're just called Battlemechs.

    Reply
  • Soft Drink

    Fam these things would cost like 4 trillion dollars

    Reply
  • Paweł Ługowski

    I am curious why nonanthropomorphic walkers are never considered. In general walkers only make sense in battlefields where conventional tanks don't, so they won't replace tanks, but if you want realistic military walkers in your scifi setting i would suggest by starting with thinking about specific battlefields where they can fight and tanks can't

    Reply
  • john smith

    only way a mechs is good is if it made not really bigger than a human ( exoskeleton armor or robot like terminator  ) huge mechs like in video games Is a joke

    Reply
  • Paerigos

    Mech is just far better scouting vehicle then tank…

    Steiner scout lance with 400 tons of Atlas II mechs is excellent thing to do some light scouting!

    Reply
  • Jack Hades

    Nerd Punch: Game Science: Will Mechs REPLACE Tanks?

    Me: NO.

    Reply
  • zeb jensen

    I think there are uses for mechs you just need to be more creative to find them. on earth there isn't much point in having battle mechs. construction mechs? well that's different but I could definitely see mechs being used for construction as the hands and walking around would be extremely usefull in building and the moving of supplies. so as a logistics unit or construction it has an extrealy high use.

    there are other uses as well if you can increas the efficecy of the unit so you only need one person to run a unit that may actually be an advantage for both mechs and tanks. one thing most people forget about military is that it costs a lot to train people and house, feed, care for, and pay them. so if you have a unit like a mech or even a tank that only needs one person to run then if you loose the unit, in battle, an acident, construction issue what have you. you only loose one person and maybe a vehical that can possibly be fixed.

    now again on this earth for now at least with the foreseeable tech mechs are not useful but say we go to other planets like in the movies I see a lot of uses. mech would be great front line units for trail blazing. if your say on forgen planets where you need to send small squads ahead to set up a beach head or just to scout new lands then mechs are great. they have all the advantages of humans and none of the draw backs. and when you need to go somewhere where they tarrain is poor a mech would be great as it can walk over any rough Terrain. it can clime. scout and all sorts of other things that a tank would be poor at and could do the job of a trail blazer much better.

    and for cival defense once the planet is colonized it would be great for policing as well as a big fifteen twenty foot tall mech would be great for keeping protesters peaceful.

    also just add tracks to the bottom of mech feet or wheels and the moving around problem is solved mostly. and the toe cable was not made from ordinary cable its made from a sechal substance that is crazy strong.

    so mechs in general do have uses in battle… just not on earth, but on a planet without air superiority or usable roads like a new planet they would acele over all else. and a mech would be a pretty good fast attack unit in urben area's and as a spechal forces unit so again it has uses. if you look outside the box. and if we where colonizing a new planet I would want mechs to act as trail blazers or as first contact units to set up the landing zone. and again in construction they would be pretty good as well so there are uses its just the regular tank has it beaten on this earth for now and in modern war fair. which say you had a video game set on a newly colonized planet and they used mechs case of supiror mobility and to scale bad terrain and the like and moving things that other vehicles couldn't I would say it you have something great there.

    love the video as it gave me a problem to solve. and thanks for giving me a fun watch.

    Reply
  • RAYHAN AZ

    You video remind me Spongebob beach war episode

    Reply
  • JC Denton

    >deploys super-fast spider robots to destroy tanks

    Reply
  • Droplitt

    A mech is just target practice for planes

    Reply
  • No Body

    Why don’t they make a mech sized tank ? I just don’t understand . If I lived in a world of pacific Rim I would just build a Giant Turrets or tanks .

    Reply
  • John Hunter II

    You did forget steel battalion?

    Reply
  • Peter Griffin

    The video should just have been him saying "no"

    Reply
  • Locusthorde

    There's a ton of flaws of your misunderstanding of battlemechs. Swapping between Mechs, Titans, etc when convenient. At least you give credit that tanks arent superior in every way, and mechs still have a point on the battlefield.

    Edit: I just realized at 11:50 you scaled UP the size of the titan to make it appear monstrously bigger to help your point.

    >For the cost of one mech with """"one main cannon"""" you could have 5 tanks
    You're comparing a Titanfall titan with this example, not battletech. Which can carry an absolute plethora of Lasers, Autocannons, AND missiles.

    >Mechs have one pilot, "One person driving, aiming, reloading, firing the main cannon, Firing the coax machine gun, staying aware of the battlefield, and communicating with other units?"
    HOly shit my dude, this shows you have no clue about mech pilots and mechs in general. You're using tank terminology and crew actions on a battlemech. Those that have autoloaders, targeting computers, radar, vision systems, etc. One person pilots, while firing different weapon systems (more akin to a jet with legs), with a wide cockpit glass and systems to help the pilot view the battlefield. All while having comms set up to different people (Lance leader or commanders) for easy comms. The mech takes care of nearly everything, so the pilot can focus specifically on fighting.

    >How do mechs control the hands and not crush things they dont want to?
    Neurohelmets. It's a bit of a bit more advanced item that's somewhat in the realm of sciencefiction, but the neurohelmet helps the mech gyros and systems to understand what the pilot is trying to do.

    When you talk about tanks or compare logistical things to tanks, you have very valid points based on knowledge. But when you start to compare mechs to tanks and vice versa, you really miss the mark.

    Reply
  • PinoyPickUps

    Why not both?

    Let's build a Tank that can transform into a Walking Mech which can be used on different situation.
    In this way we can utilize both of it's advantages across multitude situations.

    Reply
  • Basil Rasil

    Even with physics against it, I believe mechs similar to Titanfall and Gundam (to an extent) is possible. Other than some type of super strong lightweight material to build and armor the mech, the power source is the biggest hurdle to overcome. Compact fusion reactors will most likely be a thing at the end of the 21st century.

    Railguns would be the optimal weapon for a mech. They fire at unfathomable speeds and pack a serious punch. A fusion reactor would supply all the energy needed to power the mech to the point where it could become agile and fast enough to render conventional weapons useless.( You cant kill a mech if you can't hit it)

    Neuralink technology would be the best way to pilot a mech without having cumbersome controls for every type of movement you would need. This technology already exist, although its in its infancy. Also creating an A.I. system wouldn't be relatively hard; to manage and control the mechs secondary functions/abilities.

    Creating joints will be difficult. But as I write this I just considered that fully recreating a human like muscular system to move the mechs legs/arms/head/etc is in the realm of possibility. It would be easier to create a much larger human type mech instead of developing joints and motors from the ground up. We literally have a living template to go by.

    In the end it'll really come down to if building human like mechs is actually tactically sound in the future of human warfare. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

    Reply
  • Orlando DeJesus

    The most feasible mech design would be that battle suit featured in the movie District 9. Combined with the technology of those self balancing robots and you got yourself a perfect killing machine🤖💥

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *