Talk:Mecha

Terminology

The word "mecha" as being used primarily to refer to giant robots is a particularly flawed concept. The term also applies to fighter jets and vehichles that may not neccessarily have limbs and/or humandoid structure. Take, for example, the Ikaruga...

This article already addresses the more generic use of "meka" in Japanese, citing it as the origin of the word. However, the word "mecha" (and derivative words like "mech" that redirect here) are proper terms in much of the world for robot-like vehicles. Like blouse, the word's meaning has changed to become more specific. Blouse, just to be clear, originally meant a loose-fitting top or the puffing out of a garment. It only became genderized in the last hundred years or so. --Dunkelza 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But even then, 'mecha' still does not necessarily mean "limbed vehichles." The word was never 'repurposed' as I still see most English speakers still refer to non-limbed craft by this word. They article keeps mentioning "mecha" as it is used in the American sense, therefore making it POV.

I haven't run into a single English speaker using the word "mecha" or "mech" to refer to a vehicle without legs. Citation? Also, please sign your discussion entries. Thanks. --Dunkelza 02:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, I don't think I've run into a single English speaker who has used "mecha" to refer to Western style piloted combat walkers. Granted, it may be technically true, but the connotative difference is undeniable. The rapture and the apocalypse consist of the same elements, but you'd never confuse the two. I don't think that the BF2142 walker belongs up here. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Several English publications have made use of the term "mecha" properly. EX.org was one (note how they mention "non-robots" for Yamane Kimitoshi's "mecha" work). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.38.223.219 (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Also, while most uses of the word have been refering to limbed vehichles, they may not necessarily be giant. In fact, power armor may be considered mecha, but the term "mecha" has only been recently narrowed down by Amricans to refer to only giant robots. Elsewhere, mecha still refers to any mechanical craft, robot or non-robot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.127.71.84 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Many Shmupsrefer to non-limbed craft as mecha, even in thier English translations. (Example: DoDonPachi's Hibachi)

"English speakers"?

Christ, you animu jerks are hopeless. Either make a separate article for piloted mechanical walkers in general (like this article is trying to do - but replace every instance of "mecha" with walker) and have this one only describe the anime-related term, or rename this one and tone down the Japanophile factor. We're explaining a concept that occurs in texts and popular culture from all over the world: applying the term "mecha" to the work of H. G. Wells, for example, isn't really appropriate. UndeadSocrates (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Two words, be civil. L-Zwei (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I was being uncivil - at least, not in the way Wikipedia uses the word ("personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress"). Belligerent, maybe, but with a point. This article, which should be a general explanation, is woefully slanted towards the term that is used as its title: a Japanese contraction that's been appropriated by Westerners to describe Japanese examples of a non-Japanese-specific concept - which is reasonable enough in itself, but this article suggests that "mecha" is the generally-accepted term for describing all examples of this concept. This is not the case; the only term that fits the bill is "piloted mechanical walker" (long-winded as it is) and suggesting otherwise is misleading. UndeadSocrates (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Call other "animu jerks" and "Japanophile" is rude. L-Zwei (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

East vs. West Mecha Section; Not as useful as it was

Just wondering; before the cull of this article that happened a while ago, this section was actually pretty informative. Now it's a bit redundant. I suggest bringing back the original information in that section! --Wunderbear 14:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reverting and changing a few things because what was posted before was off topic.129.2.206.65 00:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mecha as Practical War Machines

The section entitled Mecha As Practical War Machines was removed from this article because it took up the majority of the article and had little relation to the rest of the article (which is primarily concerned with the appearance of mecha in fiction). This was spun off into its own page, so that the information would be preserved and could be further discussed. Almost immediately the article was nominated for deletion, due to it being full of unverifiable conjecture and fancruft. The article was deleted for these reasons, may we never see it again. Jboyler 03:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

American Mecha 1939:

I'd like to suggest a possible first instance of the Mecha concept in fiction. The 1939 comic book feature Hugh Hazard and his Robot, Bozo the Iron Man (long title, eh?) was published in Smash Comics by the publisher Quality Comics. In the first story, hero Hugh Hazard fights the evil robot, and crawls inside the robot to take a ride to the scientist's secret lair; at the end of the story he takes possession of the robot. In later stories, Hazard controls the robot by radio, and then eventually has adventures as athe operator inside in the robot; the robot seems human sized in these later stories, as if it were a suit of armor.

The concept of Hugh Hazard and the robot is not very detailed or well fleshed-out in these old comics, but it looks a lot like mecha to me.--67.149.27.186 00:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Mecha

Just created this, so if you've got articles floating around which may suit it, please add them. Sockatume 13:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that many of the mecha from SDF Macross had permanent weapon emplacements in place of arms (e.g. the Destroids Phalanx, Tomahawk (Warhammer in Battletech), Monster, Defender (Rifleman in Battletech)), and this is what may have inspired this design decision in other FASA mecha. Are there examples of non-FASA mecha that exhibit the weapons-for-arms design decision? Popefelix 12:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

reply- Some of the Gundams, like Guntank, had weapon arms. Front Mission games give the option of gun arms, so does the Armored Core series. There's also various Maschinen Krieger, though it's mostly power armor and few mecha.

• Front Mission and Armored Core weren't released until the mid-90s, while Battletech was released in 1984. If you want examples of weapons-for-arms mecha, go for it, but they cannot possibly have been inspiration for Battletech.

Real-life efforts

I think Mechaps.com and plustech.fi should be mentioned in there somehow. MPS is building a bipedal mecha, and Plustech has already built several hexapedal foresting mecha. 69.170.38.24 11:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the article is to site real-life examples, then there should be a mention of the granddaddy of real-world mecha, the General Motors Hardyman.File:Hardyman.jpg

NeoGentronyx

Why was neogentronyx removed from real-life exemples ?

The neogentronyx thing is little more than a weight-shifting sculpture. It did NOT walk at all. Ryan Salisbury 23:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again because after 3 month of my original removal someone added it back in. I removed it both times due to Ryan's comment above me

Pilots required?

Are pilots a requirement for mecha? I figured mecha to mean any big robot, even including power armor. But back to pilots, is that really a requirement? We call Gundam Mecha, but not all Gundam/mobile suits have pilots. In Gundam Wing there was a series of AI controlled mobile suits, would they no longer be mecha? I figure that's not right.

Pilots are required for mecha. If it's unmanned, it's just a robot. Powered armor are typically not included in the category of mecha. It's a really contrived definition, which is why I'm always trying to get people to call them "walking vehicles" or "legged vehicles" so the word has an easily determined definition. Ryan Salisbury 23:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Gundam Wing 'Mobile Dolls' were originally piloted mecha, which were later adapted to fuction with a controlling artificial intelligence instead of a flesh-and-blood pilot. The Taurus mobile dolls were still pilotable, and the Mobile Doll system was developed from studying how humans piloted the suits. -- Saberwyn 10:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Strategic value of mecha?

Has anyone considered what the strategic value of mecha would be in a real-world setting? The technical issues aside, how would a mecha fit into general military thought? Would such machines be of any use in a modern tactical situation? Thanks. --Brasswatchman 00:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

For an idea of how mecha might really work in a "real world setting" take a look at Gear Krieg a table top rule set, in which they aren't superpowerfull rather their main advantages are their movement and perhaps weapon placement on the arms. While also suffering the expected disadvantages, such as being exposed and vunerablity of the legs etc... For dealing with such an "unrealistic" subject matter Gear Krieg deals with it any a way that is rather realistic should they have really existed during WWII. Mathmo 03:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There are already unmanned aerial weapons available, such as the Predator drone which has been utilized in the last few years to assassinate Al-Qaeda leaders. The US Army has been working on an armored exoskeleton for soldiers for years, with little result. The biggest problem I see in creating an anime-style mecha is how to power the thing. As far as I know, no anime really goes into detail over how these gigantic machines get their juice. That's been one of the problems designing an armored exoskeleton -- how to power the thing without bulky batteries or extension cords plugging them into wall sockets. I don't think a nuclear-powered mecha is feasible, not with today's technology.

The next problem is the shape. Humanoid, bipedal robots are notorious hard to balance properly. I remember seeing tests done with a three-foot-tall bipedal robot that looked rather like a turkey. It had an unfortunate tendancy to fall over. Humans have millions of years of evolution helping us to stand upright, and even then we topple over from time to time. That's why, for instance, forklifts have wheels, it makes them more stable. Also humans are a lot 'bouncier' than machines, if a fifteen-stories-tall mecha falls over, it's going to sustain major damage.

Then you get into the actual structural issues themselves. Anime sometimes has mechas that are hundreds of feet tall (see Full Metal Panic for one example) but I seriously doubt anything that big could hold up it's own weight and move, any more than the Chrysler Building could stand up and do a jig. Also, the larger a machine gets, the weaker it becomes proportionally. I doesn't make sense to build a hydraulics system that's too heavy to move itself around. What do you build it out of? Steel? Composite metals? Most any metal is going to be heavy, and it's going to need to withstand collisions, impacts, and shocks.

But this begs the question... why design a gigantic manned robot when there's unmanned weapons already available, like the Predator drone? You'd have to come up with some use for a mecha before a real one becomes feasible. Missi 22:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. The only setting I can really see mecha being useful is in space, or in low-gravity environments - places where large, heavy machinery isn't going to require as much energy to move. But you're right that such a system would seem relatively useless on Earth. --Brasswatchman 19:38, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The mecha design just wouldn't work on Earth. Why make a bipedal robot anyway -- if one leg is destroyed, it's stranded. Besides, wheels are far more efficient anyway in almost every terrain. Current robotics technology has gotten to the point where actuators aren't strong enough to move the robot. There's always hydraulics, but they're incredibly slow.

A tank spreads its weight over as much ground area as possible by having treads and being longer than it is tall. Mechas stand upright, and hence are taller than tanks. Not only does this mean it's highly visible and thus leave it open to attack, it means a mecha would be unstable. Because the trunk would be holding the bulk of the weapons, you need strong legs to hold it up, hence heavy legs. The heavier the mecha becomes, the more likely it is to get stuck or bogged down in terrain. Picture a twenty-ton mecha sinking into the ground with every step it takes.

Since your average mecha is controlled by a human, this brings up the subject of control-response systems. Getting real-time user feedback is a problem; even today, with experiments done on controlling robots, reaction time is just too slow. A mecha pilot would have to concentrate just on walking, much less on fighting or hiding or doing anything else of importance. So what practical superiority do mechas have over tanks and planes? They're heavy, slow, hard to pilot, easy to spot, and prone to falling over. They couldn't do anything a tank can't do, and a tank can go places a mecha couldn't. Missi 23:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, there are lots of places that tanks cannot go. I remember seeing a quote saying that 80% of the Earth's surface (excluding water, obviously) is only accessible on foot. Legged vehicles have much better terrain-crossing capability. A tank is limited to the height at which its front wheel is, because any higher than that, it'll just hit an object instead of driving up onto it. And why must mecha necessarily be big? Why can't they be the size of a tank? Why do they have to be directly controlled by a human, why not have fly-by wire, with the computer controlling most of it? And why do you think there would only be one person controlling it? Have you ever heard of a ground combat vehicle with a one-person crew? No you haven't.

And plus, all of you, ALL OF YOU, are ONLY thinking of bipedal vehicles. Ryan Salisbury 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, our techonology about mecha is like when Wright brothers invent their glider. There are value of using mecha in battlefield, but it might not heppen in our lifetime.L-Zwei 03:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder: these talk pages are meant for communication and collaboration that improve the article in question, not for general discussion related to the topic of the article. If you intend to produce some additions or other changes to the article, please ignore me. Otherwise, I'd like to suggest taking this conversation to some user talk page, blog or related web forum. Thanks :) Aapo Laitinen 16:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Another alternative to the weight and other such problems for mech's working is, build a smaller version. Lets say something like a powered exoskeleton but larger and more powerful. An example, around eleven feetuptall, with a cockpit located in the upper body, weapons on its arms, perhaps a propulsion system located on the feet and back for small jumps, somthing like whats in the battletech series?. Phytos 08:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think an important point that the article misses discussing possible future strategic value of mecha is the adaptability of an anthropomorphic shape (or at least a shape more complex and adaptable than the fixed profiles of actual military vehicles). A not too huge human-like mecha could duck or lay down to reduce the target size or to hide, or can stand up in order to get a better view of the battlefield, or can shape his posture in many ways to fit and exploit several irregular terrain conformations (grenade's holes, ruins, rocks, trees etc) in few worlds can join the infantry gifts in using terrain conformation with the mechanized troops features of fast motion, high firepower and high protection. With offensive weapons that increases their potentials far away the capabilities of even high tech matherials to give adequate protection and with the shift of short range combat to montainous, forest or urban theatres (since other theaters could more effectively be carpeted by missiles or aviation and since definition of "enemy force" is becoming every day less clear) the capability of use terrain in a smart way may become quickly more important than today. About issues on fast mobility, I think a not too big mecha could use vector jet like propulsion to overcome the issues due to the inefficience of bipedal walking, that, contrarywise, would be more efficient for all terrain short range movements with, very noticeable, low latency and momentum, so awesome mobility that as noticed before become essential to be efficient in urban, mountain or forset theaters. About issues on recoil of heavy weapons, I think the fast and wide adaptability of the posture can be the key to let a mecha to use even more powerful weapons than a tank, because of the recoil will not stress a limited (also if strong) component of the veichle but will affect the wole mecha that can dinamically adapt leg and body posture and body weight distribution to adsorbe progressively and dynamically even an higer recoil.

Thanks, I added your points about recoil to the article. I'll add the rest later. Lengis 07:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think giant mechs are completely useless. As has been mentioned in the article, they will sink into the ground easily, will be low-powered for their size, certainly not capable of flying, and a logistical nightmare. Smaller, human-sized mechs provide the possibility of usefulness. If you do away with the idea of a cockpit, and make it as autonomous as possible, while using telepresence for those more intricate operations that require human intelligence, you have the possibility of a useful machine. As long as cost isn't an issue, it would be perfectly disposable, making a functional machine of that type excellent for bomb disposal, and mine clearing. I suspect it would only take a few years to get the technology to make it walk autonomously, and with force feedback, bomb clearing could be done exactly as it is today, but without risking human lives. A dead soldier costs the US a hundred thousand dollars in death benefits, so this is a perfectly suited niche for such a machine.

Obviously, we already have mine clearing machines which are cheaper and probably more effective, so sending these things out into a mine field isn't a very good use for them. Where you would most likely see this kind of machine would be in situations like Columbine. The police at Columbine had to consider the possibility that any backpack left in a hall might have a bomb in it. With this kind of machine, rapid response in a situation like that would be possible. If a bomb goes off, you lose a little money. No big deal. You can thus feel free to run in and handle the situation.

This opens the door for arming the machine. In a situation such as that, there is a chance that armed opposition will expose itself to the machine to keep it from disposing of the bombs, or to harass rescue attempts. If that happens, you will want to be able to take the shots they give you. If you arm the machine, the scenario changes, as well. You no longer need to wait to clear every backpack, you can instead run in and take out the opposition immediately, then clear any possible bombs and then evacuate the victims. The difficulty here is in arming the machine. It should be possible to do this crudely with force-feedback and a shotgun, but accuracy and rate of fire will probably be diminished compared to a human. Semi-autonomous control could potentially imrove the machine's accuracy to be greater than that of a human, as well as rate of fire and reflex time. The operator would designate a target, and the machine could take over and fire at that target. Two infrared cameras held apart could find the location of any warm body relative to the machine, and match up that body with the target which has been designated. Calculating how to shoot the target should be fairly easy, at least compared to walking without falling over.

From here, we get to the military aspect of such a machine. Being nearly entirely disposable, they would make excellent front-line shock troops. Their greatest advantage in this field would be the capacity for scavenging. If a machine like this gets shot in the leg, you can remove the leg and send it off for repairs, then remove all the other components and save them. If another machine loses the other leg, or its head, you can take the spare leg/head from the first machine and switch them, sending off the damaged one for repairs. It might even be possible to automate this process and introduce a few unmanned mechs on the battlefield as "medics". With soldiers, this would involve surgery (hence recovery time) and a great deal of manpower to do so, not to mention that it would be quite unethical to kill off an injured soldier to strip him for his organs. Presently, if a soldier is wounded, he may spend months in the hospital. If a machine is wounded, only the part which was damaged might spend time getting repaired, or possibly just melted down and rebuilt, depending on the damage. So if only 10% of the components of your machines are damaged, then only 10% of your machines are in repair, whereas if 10% of the mass of the organs of your soldiers is damaged, you could easily have 50% of your soldiers in the hospital.

Once this sort of machine gets introduced to the battlefield, whatever nation puts them into place will probably never get rid of them unless it falls under attack. If the US, for example, took this kind of machine into Iraq or whatever the next theatre of war will be, and pulled out all the soldiers, the number of casualties would potentially fall to 0. When the voters get a taste of a bloodless war (for their side) they aren't going to be satisfied with anything less than continued bloodless wars, and they'll get their way unless the machines are fully destroyed and an assault is launched against the US, which would force a bloody war again. Aside from that, mechs would be cemented into place as the new combat infantry unit. Continued development would eventually lead to nearly full autonomy, at which point this kind of machine would be able to take full advantage of its reflexes, accuracy, speed, strength, and coordination which would result in the obsoletion of soldiers. Enemy nations would need this sort of machine, or a specially designed mech-destroyer to compete, and the result would be a whole new battleground of machine vs. machine warfare.

In the grand strategy, such a change to the battlefield would be highly advantageous to the first nation to capitalize upon it. Whoever first has the fully autonomous mech would have a few years of complete and utter domination of those who don't, and would have negligible public outcry due to the absence of troops at risk. For the US, and manifest destiny, this would be a two-pronged attack. Those nations which get invaded are hit with the first prong, those nations which build up their economies and start developing technology like this get hit with the second, in that they would need to free their markets, and free their people to start countering the brain-drain effect, to have a chance of competing with the US. They would need to become appealing to smart and educated people in order for smart and educated people to immigrate into their country rather than emigrate from it, and to that end they would need to become much less oppressive. Free speech, capitalism, freedom of religion and such would thus become much more common in those countries hit with the second prong. Without that, they will have a hard time fighting off the first prong of the fork.

I apologise for making such a long read, but I hope it will be food for thought. NorsemanII 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting points you make. But an autonomous mech is probably considered just a robot. A mech is something piloted rather than remote controlled or autonomous. Still, I think it's valid. Add it into the article if you like. Malamockq 06:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A dead soldier costs the US a hundred thousand dollars in death benefits, so this is a perfectly suited niche for such a machine. - US$400,000 as of the time of this writing, if the soldier is enrolled in Soldier's Group Life Insurance and it's ruled to be a death 'in the line of duty'. Even that, though, doesn't put the actual federal government in the hole, because a -lot- of people pay into the insurance without ever taking out. That is, after all, how insurance companies stay in business. teh TK 23:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay as for the usefulness, YES a LARGE "gundam" size mecha would be COMPLEATELY useless but a Front mission sized mech would be great. and yes BIG weapons are not that useful on a mech but you don't NEED big weapsons to down a tank. AP 50 cals or even 75 cals can be mounted if you use a "rifle" with a recoiling barrel and using the gas from the shot to reduce recoil. Yes these would be good for blasting tanks and in a firefight inside city streets ( size is appx. 20-30ft. tall, apprx. 8-12ft wide.) The power problem is not an issue either I mean come on the M1 abrams is like MEGA poor on gas milage becuase it has to pour more gas into the powerplant just to run. Four 200HP electric motors would be perfect for the MAIN movement systems of a mecha and if you use a hydrogen fule cell and fill the hollow spots in the limbs with liquid H2 tanks then the power problem is gone. as for the drive itself just mount the 200hp electric motors in say like the shoulder and use a pully system ( preferablly metal chain or wire) and hook it up like a normal muscle would. Even if performance is lowered like one of the guys above me said, over 80% of the landmass on earth can't be accessed by a tank. A mech could find these places quite easily accessible and basically NO mountaintop city would be safe from "heavy" fire. and the cure for that "sinking feeling" again go to front mission and put on a sort of "snow shoes". However, by far one of the most important strategic advantages of mechas would be the fact that if you lose one you only loose one man. but this also means that that one man is in charge a four man tank crew could fill 4 mechas! think back to WWII we had the pathetically weak skinned and undergunned sherman and the germans had the nearly undefeatable Tiger II and Panzer tanks. We overun the Tigers due to the enormous number advantage. See the as the line of shermans were attacked the rear tanks would sneak around back and fire. but in a mecha an armor peircince 75 cal rapid fire chain gun or Gasp rail gun(not too far from actual production and a good way to reduce recoil but up to 50%-80% allowing MUCH bigger weapons to be mounted) would tear apart a tank from even the front position. Oh and another thing is that ONE man controls it, you don't have to worry about if a single man can work well with himself. The last advantage is fear. The humanoid shape can be modified with horns (ok YES i got that from gundam). In the end a mecha would be a form of anti armor, anti-personel, and area denial, not to mention that if rail cannon technology comes of age as it's supposed to in the next decade or so it can provide heavy artilliry to mountainous regions then quickly pull out.

- A small reply. Stated in this artical was the problem about powering mecha, and they stated that no anime really go into depth about how they are powered. This statement is false, the Universal Century (Gundam) goes off a ficnional generator that runs of the element H3, found near valcano's and in the upper atmosphere of Jupitor. This theory is also used in UFO research as well. I know in the series of Gundam, at least in the Universal Century, the powering of the mobile suits is very detailed and a large part of the plots.

We can all agree that a large mecha meant to replace a tank is currently unfeasible. But smaller infantry support mecha could be of more use to the modern military. Recoil can be countered by todays missile launchers which have low recoils (which already replaced the need for heavy guns on naval ships). I think that the most significant advantage of legs over tracks or wheels is the ability to step over or jump over obstacles. Tracks or wheels have to roll over obstacles, limited by how long the traction surface is, steepness, traction, etc. Now, I have to ask why not fly over the obstacle? A hovering weapons platform could create less acoustic levels than a mecha stomping all over. The less complex weapons platform could easily be unmanned and the piloting software doesn't need to cope with unweldy mechanical appendages. The most important mass is kept in the relative center, like a helicopter, unlike a mecha's legs. And hello, did everyone forget the tanks' worst nightmare, the attack helicopter? If it is easy for an attack heli to destroy a target well protected from all sides (the tank), what makes you think a mecha with not-so-easily-defendable-very-important appendages would stand a chance? And don't tell me that the height advantage gives it a shot at the heli. The heli can fire a long way, like 3 miles away! Once a leg is lost, no matter how many there are, the whole thing losses its already very little balance, making counter-attacks much more difficult. New camo technology removes the need for a machine that can bend down, go prone, etc. Starting a project to create military spec mecha would take trillion of dollars, and to what purpose that cannot be substistuted by current vehicles. 66.68.43.166 22:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Helicopters can't replace infantry. It would be nearly impossible to get a helicopter to work a doorknob, much less have one both small enough to operate indoors, and powerful enough to search an entire building. It would be very difficult to make a helicopter quiet, whereas making a man-sized mech quiet requires rubber, lubricant, and a hydrogen fuel cell. Unlike a humanoid mech, a helicopter would have great difficulty refueling itself from car gas tanks, or re-arming itself by picking up enemy weaponry. A helicopter also couldn't repair other helicopters by scavenging parts from destroyed helicopters. Humanoid mechs present an incredibly robust and durable ground fighting unit, and could entirely replace infantry. It would make it possible to remove all humans from the battlefield, so that the humans conducting a battle could be thousands of miles away from the combat.

One mech has at least the value of three soldiers. It can do everything a soldier can do, but it can work 24/7, without sleeping, eating, or resting. Picking up ammo and fuel, and performing maintenance, could take as little as half an hour a day. If a machine is shot in the leg, it won't need to recover in a hospital for a month. It could be repaired on the battlefield within a matter of minutes, by swapping the bad leg out, and swapping in a good one. If there are no legs available (such as at the beginning of combat), the machine can be seperated into parts and used to repair other machines. Every machine would be capable of acting in any human role, from operating tanks and helicopters, to setting explosives and acting as a forward air controller. Every mech could be proficient in the use of thousands of weapons and vehicles. If an allied mech operating a stolen enemy tank is destroyed, any other mech could replace it instantly, unlike now where if a tank crew member is killed, the tank is crippled.

As the software for the mechs improves, they would become increasingly autonomous, and the overall manpower involved in fighting a war would go down dramatically, while the available manpower would go up (being that prospective volunteers would not be in harm's way). The fighting power of a country using mechs would increase dramatically, especially as wars shift to urban environments. Mechs will not need to waste ammo on civilians to protect themselves. They wouldn't have the same vested interest in self-defence. They could wait and make sure that what they are shooting at is in fact an enemy. In urban warfare, and particularly in guerrilla warfare, this method is much more civilian friendly, and is likely to help earn the people's support. Similarly, if any machine comes across a wounded civilian, it can act as a field medic and even surgeon if needed. Again, very civilian friendly. From the viewpoints of civilians in both countries, the mech army will be preferable to a human one. From the side sending the mechs, no soldiers come back in body bags. From the side getting the mechs, not nearly so many civilians are hurt by them, and far more would be helped by them.

Mechs could also serve in civilian roles (in a manner far more useful than a helicopter). They could do dangerous things, like rescuing hostages from a booby trapped building. They could do suicidal things, like taking bullets for politicians. They could do dirty things, like cleaning sewer blockages. They could even do regular jobs. If each mech costs $100,000, then they can be leased to a burger company for less than 3 years, and receive the equivalent of, or less than minimum wage, working day and night. After 3 years, the burger company would only pay for maintenance and power. It would be a good deal all-around. The price of everything could be as much as 50 times less than it is now. Very few things are as versatile as humanoid mechs could be. NorsemanII 00:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think what you are trying to explain are humanoid robots. Indeed these may be the future of warfare a century or so from now. However, mecha are pilotable crafts with so many legs and arms. As combat in the modern world turn to more urban situations as you stated, smaller is better. The key in battles in urban confinements is knowledge of enemy positions and movements. The US is devoloping from its current UAV platforms smaller hovering UAVs that can be piloted by a soldier in the field and can scout buildings, much like a model helicopter. Just arm them and you have a mobile support craft. Mecha, of any size, cannot be smaller than a human and must stand taller than or equal to a tank, considering the armor on the feet and on the head. This allows it to easily be tracked by aerial recon. Considering the major threats to a tank, including but not limited to: RPGs, ATGMs, and air attacks from fixed-wing or rotary aircrafts, the mecha doesn't address these threats, but increases the threats due to its size, unique movement patterns, or both. Of course, as I said, mecha can step over obstacles. But the programming of the up-forward-down movement plus the limitations of the hydraulics equals a unreliable and slow machine, even if it could be done. Robots, on the other hand, are a different story. They can be stronger, faster, and more expendable than humans, as you said. However, it's just a computer with arms and legs, and can have errors just like a computer nowadays. Imagine an army of robots stopped by a computer virus and even turned against its makers. Plus no machine can simulate the human mobility or dexterity, and requires a human choice to kill an enemy and make life saving choices. A computer may experience a situations such as where it must help a wounded civilian while protecting a hostage and giving support to friendly soldiers. That would send it into a infinite loop. In life or death situations choices must be made within fractions of seconds, based on instincts, something a computer must process for a few seconds, and a signal from a human controller thousands of miles away will take even more time. --66.68.43.166 05:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mechs will be unfeasible on Earth, but I think some of the Gundam animes got it right, powered by Hydrogen fuel cells in outer space and equipped with the barest boosters, Mechs began as an extension of the astronaut suit, only with armour, boosters and a large air supply, eventually their were equipped with guns for fights on low gravity rugged terrain, (I.E mars, the moon etc, Tanks can't do this.) I would think that if Mechas will ever exist, it will happen in this way. Eventually perhaps will come along the idea to fuse human mind with machine to exploit human judgement and speed and a computer's accuracy (perhaps) sesory perceptions, in this case, if a mind is to completely fuse with a machine, it is perhaps desirable to make the machine as humanlike as possible, so that the conscious is not damaged during the experience. (A lot of this is a pile of crap, I know) Still, can't see any point of a human presence within the machine in the end, except if it has to dramatically respond in situations in which even radio waves take a few minutes to each them. (To communicate from earth to mars would take atleast half an hour for powerful radio frequencies to reach the units, real time communications between earth and the units would be impossible, and so the units will be weak without any AI. How about animal shaped machines, more efficient?

I like the space, low gravity mecha idea, as it does seem more feasable than earth bound mecha. War in space is probably a little far-fetched, probably in the next one or two centuries. However, in space, speed is key. As weapons are not effected by gravity or friction, projectile and energy weapons can travel at speeds that would seem instant. Computer guided and aimmed weapons could stop pretty much any craft in space. Mecha can attach boosters all around and, with all its movement, could dodge enemy fire. Now that fusing brain with machine is something that could be done with any machine. It could be done by copying a brains response and electrical patterns to a computer, but that process would initially take decades to complete. Imagine a complete replica of a person's mind, able to think exactly what the real person would do, even if that person is dead. But nevermind about that, as it is not mecha related. --66.68.43.166 05:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• All of these explanations so far are relying on huge assumptions and require big leaps in logic. Try looking at this in terms of real-world value. Right now the biggest military threat is an improvised explosive. Most casualties in Iraq are being caused by roadside bombs. An explosively formed penetrator's speed is measured in kilometers per second, and is likely to be detonated less than fifty meters from it's target. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can simply "dodge" this and these devices are defeating our best armor.

The original question was with regards to strategic value of mecha, not their tactical abilities. In terms of what we call "Big Army" thought, the most important thing in the world is protecting the crewmen and the cost-vs-benefits ratio. Right now our troops are fighting in mostly urban terrain and our Humvees and LMTVs are getting eaten up by IEDs. If your average Durka can set up an IED and ambush a fast-moving convoy, a slower mech would be an easy target for such an attack (especially an EFP or explosively formed projectile).

Therefore, "Big Army" is going so see that in terms of survivability a mech would do no better than any other tank we presently have, and probably a whole lot worse. They would rather spend their money on something like a Cougar or Buffalo which is resilient and easy to repair (rather than a mech, which is hideously complicated and a logistical nightmare).

Also keep in mind that heavy firepower is all but obsolete. The real work in Iraq is being done by door-kickers. All the tankers and artillerymen, meanwhile, are pulling guard duty because there is simply no need for large vehicles and heavy artillery.Jboyler 13:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Every innovation in military design that has survived the test of time is one that has performed a function better, safer, faster or cheaper than was previously being done. No army in the world is going to spend money researching technology that would do the job worse, if at all. Mechs rely on technology that is currently unavailable, and in most cases scientifically implausible (light-weight, super-powerful weaponry, armour, motive systems and power supplies in the main). Which begs the question - if these things exist, why not just apply them to more effective designs than an inherently unstable, inefficient bipedal mechanism? All settings involving mecha seem to assume that only the mecha will take advantage of such technology, and conventional vehicles etc will remain limited to their 20th century equivalent. If a mech can weigh a few dozen tons and mount heavy weaponry and armour, yet still be agile enough to move (and even fly), a tracked vehicle could surely mount twice the weaponry (better weight distribution), more armour (smaller surface area for the same level of protection) and be lighter and even more agile (less overall mass). The only area where mecha concepts are realistically ever going to be useful are in the form of powered infantry armour - and even this requires an as-yet undiscovered power source that is portable, unvolatile (no liquid H!) and long-lasting. Strategically, it would be great advantage to a nation if it could dupe its enemies into wasting colossal amounts af money researching and producing what are essentially easy targets ;-) EyeSerene 13:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

M.E.C.H.

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

[1]

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

I'd like to make a few points about a mechs usefulness compared to other machines of such use. Ok, in iraq it has been shown that tanks can get beaten by bombs under ground blowing holes in the under belly of the tank, because they are so low to the ground this increases the chances of the driver getting killed by the explosion itself, or by a peice of metal flying around from the blast. a mecha, because it has legs, sits a lot higher up thus even if the mecha steps right on a bomb and gets its leg blown off, the pilot has a greater chance of surviving, as long as the mech falling over doesnt shake him/her around too much (still have to reduce the amount of shock the pilot gets directly, but i imagine one could do this by studying how drivers avoid this in sports which involve large amouts of shock). same issue with powered armor, soilder steps on an under ground bomb, unless the armor has huge shock absorbing ability, that person is now missing at the very least a leg, and the worst most of their lower body. Another advantage for a mecha, if it had proper balance and movements like an animal, could move out of the way of an enemy attack faster by being able to change direction faster, where a tank would have to turn, this thing would just walk side ways(Thats my idea any way). For the issue of not being able to move fast enough with hydralics, why not use Electroactive polymers, they mimic natrual muscles. Now as for the issue of a power source, this is a hard one, one possiblity (though not yet whithin our technological abilitys) would be to have a power station transfer power to them wirelessly, wireless energy transfer being an idea thought up by Nikola Tesla.

Just thought i'd put my points of view up here.

BattleMech copyright violations?

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

FASA used designs from Macross, Fang of the Sun Dougram and Crusher Joe. Iceberg3k 15:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• • It's also believed that Battletech the game is based off of the Dougram tabletop game

>>118011 The Z'gock was in Gundam which came out in 1979 I think Battletech came out in... '84? And then elementals would've been invented some time later.

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

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

East and West

Second paragraph sounds defensive (and?) in favour of the 'East'. Is it just me? Also, I have my doubts about that quote being there - I think it can be written 'as is'.

that's because before that, the article was very defensive of 'west', using claims of being more realistic or practical.

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

• • I did that original edit because I felt before it was slanted towards the west, with claims of being more realistic and eastern being more fanciful

it's nice as it is now though.

I removed the following sentences as unencyclopedia generalizations that even they acknowledge as misleading and overly broad:

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

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

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

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

Copyright Violation

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

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

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

Done. --Vulture99

Unwieldy Texts

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

What about Mecha as space vehicles?

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

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

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

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

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

• By chance, I found you, Saberwyn. You are interested in this stuff too? Anyway, to business.

The article is not monstrous in size, nor is it in any form sizably unreadable, so it is fine as it is. (I tend to see that large articles discourages readers).

• However, Saberwyn is correct. It all seems pretty verifiable, interesting, and even upholds good NPOV'ing, but it does lack in sources.
• Then again, as with most fictional articles, it's virtually impossible to cite anything. Colonel Marksman 19:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dalek

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

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

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

Anime Depicting "Realistic Mecha" in Combat

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

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

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

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

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

List of Mech series?

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

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

Revisiting military mecha usage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"10 or 15-meter mecha could very easily afford to sink in a few inches (or feet) in any event."

Uh huh. Say that again when the local durkas turn against us because a patrolling mecha ripped up their road.

"Tank treads do not emulate the method a caterpilar uses to move, unless caterpillars have evolved rotating treads in the last five minutes."

What does this statment have to do with anything?

"By simply running in a zigzagging motion a mecha could make itself effectively impossible to hit with most heavy caliber guns in current use."

Are you insane? If it was that easy, why don't tanks drive in zigzag patterns? Could it have something to do with the laws of inertia?

Actually, that's not a bad idea. I have some friends who are infantrymen in Iraq. I'm going to call them up and let them know that if they run in a zigzagging motion they'll never be shot. Congratulations, you've changed infantry warfare forever.

"At shorter ranges, the leading problem would multiply and tanks would be quickly destroyed by rapid-firing, small-caliber weapons that could be easily hand-carried by a mecha."

And what couldn't those same weapons be mounted on a tank?

"By simply scaling up human capabilities (never mind exceeding them), a 10-meter tall mecha could sprint at something like 70 miles per hour"

Again, you must be living in a fantasy world to use the word "simply" in that sentence. "Simply scaling up human capabilities" is a task of mind-boggling complexity that would be atrociously expensive and impossible to maintain, assuming it is ever possible at all.

"A mecha's armor could be built in such a way as to provide a strongly sloped surface against frontal fire."

Again, if it were that easy then why is every modern tank not invincible?

"This looks like someone's opinion."

And what you have been saying is fact? Uh... yeah...

"Also, having one pilot would free up a lot payroll for specialist mechanics if they're needed."

Uh huh... Because those pilots are able to do all the monkey work themselves...

"This is a total mobility-kill, whereas a mecha with a leg blown off by a mine or IED could drag itself or otherwise gimp to safety, and mecha legs could be easily protected with more armor."

The first part of this statement is a huge assumption, the second part just makes me laugh. Do you have any concept of what an EFP does? It goes through chobham armor like it was swiss cheese. Ooh, but it gets better... How do you expect the mech to be mobile if it's legs are loaded with armor? While it is easy to detrack a tank, any mech that would "simply scale up human capabilities" would be so complex that even minor damage would put it out of comission.

"This brings up another advantage of mecha - effective immunity to all current mine systems. Even if it does step on a heavy AT mine, all it'll lose will by that foot - the pilot will be fine and the foot can be replaced."

Well if it loses a foot it's not immune, is it?

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

More assumptions.

"The argument about mecha and large-caliber weapons isn't particularly valid. Mecha can easily carry antitank missiles for long-range engagements, and tanks are still vulnerable to rapid small-caliber fire at close range, from a GAU-8 Avenger for instance."

Again, what kind of magical armor are you giving these mechs?

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

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

Real mecha

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

Mecha as a Replacement for Tanks

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

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

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

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

Practical Application of Mecha

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

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

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

Specifically...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are...

1. Can a mecha be built?

2. Can mecha be made reliable?

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

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

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

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

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

As for your points...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complete Rewrite of the Practical Mecha section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved practical mecha section

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

Looks like they put it up for deletion already. Vote here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Practical_mecha Malamockq 17:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of real-life functional mecha?

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

Yes. The Land Walker comes to mind Malamockq 17:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. CeeWhy 05:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Are Transformers mecha?

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

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

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

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

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

All encompassing mecha/robot website?

I would love to find a site that shows the different models of mechs, tanks, suits, and robots from Battletech/ Robotech/ Voltron/ Evangelion/ Gundam/ Bubblegum Crisis/ Transformers, etc. all together on the same site. Is there a website out there somewhere that shows images of mecha/armor suits/transforming giant robots from multiple universes? alca911

• Don't worry, I'm looking too. Sign ur name please. Colonel Marksman 19:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Pop Culture

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

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

Landmines and flipping tanks

In the "Defenses" section the article discusses tanks flipping over due to a detonating landmine. The prospect of a 138,891 lbs (62,300 kg) vehicle flipping over due to a landmine seems far fetched to me. Anyone have actual information on the subject?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.174.189 (talk • contribs)

I remember a few news stories about Merkavas flipping over due to home-made landmines.--Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 05:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Land mines" usually refers to fairly small explosive devices, weighing maybe 20-25 kg each. To "flip over" a tank, as the preferred terminology here seems to be, requires a LOT more explosives that than, like 71.231.174.189 says. As for "Removed the bit about tank crews being safe from landmines, as it is simply not true." you may need to do your homework better ;) US Army M1 Abrams MBTs in Iraq also lose roadwheels to mines, but not often the whole tank and/or its crew. Most post-WWII British MBTs have angled hull sides and floor plates specifically to counter mine blasts under the wheels. In the Vietnam War, more than one M48A3 MBT survived the detonation of a 500-pound aircraft bomb rigged as an IEDs directly under the tank; the blast usually ripped off most of the wheels and tracks, but the crew tended to live through this (there's a very good photo on page 106 of the book Vietnam Tracks by Simon Dunstan). I could name a lot more examples, but what it comes down to is that MBTs are generally designed to let their crews survive mine explosions. Of course, this only goes so far: if you rig up a big enough bomb, you can blow up (and "flip over") anything — and that is what was going on with the Merkavas you refer to. —Jakko Westerbeke 10:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much. I think in the cases of Merkavas, 200 kg explosives were involved. You can re-insert the bit about tank protection, though I would rather see the entire paragraph go - who needs to hear "mechs are better than tanks because they are better protected from mines, then again, tanks are protected as well". --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 10:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Mecha as a tool of psycholocical warfare

Below is a text I removed from the article.

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

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

Mecha for urban anti-infantry combat.

Sorry to add more on the practicality of mecha, but here it is:

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

It is commonly considered that mecha would be vulnerable to attacks on the legs, and indeed a fall would probably put a mecha out of action, like it would a large animal. However, the legs would present a small target that would be difficult to lead in the normal way. Tripping might not be as much of a problem as has been thought, as the opperator would probably see any obstacles that could trip the mecha. --SHCGRA Max 16:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll need a source. No original research. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 18:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Lead image

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

GAMES WORKSHOP?

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

Original Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

Realistically Please

After watching an anime I decided to come here to look up what Wikipedia said about mechs and I find the real world application stuff to be a but underdeveloped. When I checked out the talk page here I saw endless arguments - mostly towards some people with very little time in the real world arguing what they see as endless applications for mechs. Maybe you guys should pay a little more attention to what actually can be described as real world proof. If anything, the real world competitions of Robot Wars and Battle Bots should show us some engineering in action that can be taken as arguments for the possible real world applications of Mechs. In my time being familiar with the 'sport' the most successful robots were often those on wheels - but the ones that always seem to keep their momentum in obstacle courses (in the British series') were those with tank treads. I've seen about two robots with legs try to fight - I say that as such, they tried to fight. The rules of the games allowed robots with leg locomotion to actually have a bonus in maximum weight - this is because legs are inefficient. On the whole, legs are stupid for robots. The mechanisms for them are bulky and too complex to use in some sort of machine for combat. Sorry I got distracted there - the robots with legs in the fights got completely destroyed, their legs were broken and bent. One of you above was saying that it would require less power to move a mech than a tank and gave some sort of propulsion system based on a science fiction anime. .... That would be great, while we're at it we can build a warp engine powered by antimatter and go to other star systems. That's why it's science FICTION. Now that I've given that end of the topic, let's look at another side - necessity. They say mechs will give height advantage in a fight - well helicopters, planes, and even UCAVs already do that for us. Speed - no they will never have the speed of a plane or even a really fast land vehicle, this is the leg argument AGAIN. Maneuverability - no, that's depending on the legs which are STILL inefficient. Now taking away a pilot changes it not really into the mech thing anymore we were discussing and is part of combat robots - which is another article on Wiki altogether. That guy who mentioned 'mech bomb disposal' - good work, come back 20 years ago when police forces started doing that. There is more stuff I could disprove or counter but I've now lost interest. We will never have mechs, not in any practical capability at least. We need to accept that fact and try to move on to something more useful of brain power. Abrynkus 06:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, people said we'd never have space travel, too. I'm not saying that I think some Japanese robotics company is suddenly going to be producing Gundams or anything, but I do believe that eventually things like power armour and mechs will be developed which can feasably be used in a combat situation. The problem is the technology, which is NOT at the level which is required to produce viable mechs.

The hypothetical advantages to a creation with legs are plain, but they're hypothetical at this point.

Eventually (and this could be many years down the line, probably long after we all die) technology will get to the point where the legs VS. treads VS. wheels debate will be a matter of tactics and not technology. Eventually. However, right now? Or even in the next few decades? I really doubt it. 151.151.73.165 18:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Sorry to burst your bubble, but building your argument around Robot Wars is essentially trolling. Come back when you've gotten some more "time in the real world". Kensai Max 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If the technology ever exists for mecha to be as effective in combat as tanks are now... do you really imagine tank designers will simply sit still and ignore their centuries of head start? With enough money and technology it's possible to make anything effective. That doesn't change the fact that it's the least effective design from a vast range of options. Leushenko (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Definition Request: Mecha/Mecha-like

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

An added thought (to justify the request for narrowing the definition of mecha): Would the Outlaw Star (from the anime of the same name) be considered Mecha? Everchanging02 10:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mecha is basically any machine with legs that is piloted rather than worn like power armor. That's the best definition you can find. Malamockq 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of mecha lack legs. Guntank from Mobile Suit Gundam or Bal-Bas-Bow from Virtual On for example. L-Zwei 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't have legs, it's not considered mecha. A Guntank is considered to be a mobile armor, not a mobile suit. Malamockq 05:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mobile Armour is still a mecha. And it isn't just Guntank (which isn't MA, actually), Bal Bas Bow from Virtual On, Luzarga from Vifam, Dora from Dragonar, Jashinhei from Galient OVA, any Armored Core that player equipped it with tank thread or hovercraft in place of legs are just some of them. L-Zwei 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

One minor refinement to the definition: a mecha must be controlled by an onboard pilot. I presume a robotic vehicle piloted remotely (like a drone) wouldn't qualify. Huwmanbeing 13:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Usaully, I can count unmanned machine as mech if it's variation of existed pilotable mech (Terror Striker from Layzner or Mobile Doll from Gundam Wing for example). L-Zwei 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's unmanned, then it's considered a robot or AI controlled vehicle. Mecha is always piloted in some way. Malamockq 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What if a battlemech is piloted by a humanoid robot? Just a penny for your thoughts. --132.69.234.73 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the design of the mech that matters. If it has a cockpit similar to a jet fighter that requires someone or something to control it, while meeting all the other requirements for being a mech, then it's a mech. Whatever is actually in the cockpit and controlling it is incidental. Malamockq 17:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Debate of "Mech" being protected as a Trademark/Copyright

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

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

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

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Battletech cover legendofthejadephoenix.jpg

Image:Battletech cover legendofthejadephoenix.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Two things...

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

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

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

The section should definatly be removed anytime it is readded until such time as proper sources are found for it. There's bound to be some real research somewhere, but without the citations, it's pointless having the section; it's only a magnet for "and this one time, on tribewars I was facing this guy who..." comments.--Scorpion451 rant 01:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

star wars mech

19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)does at-st and other at count as mech. i think so Xelas211

• Several of them are, and already include in category:Mecha already. L-Zwei 05:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

ED 209

no mention of the ed209 from robocop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clone627 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's unmanned robot. L-Zwei (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Atst.jpg

The image Image:Atst.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Gundam characteristics.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Word origin and Japanese Mecha

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

Empire Earth II

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