Jump to content

Talk:Mecha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 193.11.218.215 (talk) at 22:35, 11 September 2009 (→Definition Request: Mecha/Mecha-like). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You keep stating that it has to be piloted, but where is your source for this? You're the first one I've ever heard of to have that definition of mecha. Unless you have a source for it, it should be removed from the article.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

star wars mech

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

ED 209

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Meka?

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

Removing Robossaurus from Real Life Mechas

I am removing Robossaurus reference for several reasons:

  • it is a robot, not a vehicle
  • It don't walk at all, but move on wheels
  • It is argueably the "first Mecha ever", as the reference was saying. It is argueably even if it is a mecha at all. The only thing which could be said as "mecha" is it's robotic "Tweezers" (the mount and the hand). But it can also be seen in many construction vehicles, as, for example, Caterpillar 988 (Which would also be Mecha if we make the "Mecha" concept broad enough to accept Robossaurus as "Mecha") SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 21:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mecha&oldid=313270137"