Discussion on:

Sci-fi rant: Why giant mecha robots are stupid

You know a very very valid point is made by every paragraph. Are Giant Mechas practical, God no. Are they necessary, yet again a big no. Are they damn cool to imagine, well that one gets a big approval stamp. While we can more than likely not plan to see these put in to practical military use for fear that Skynet will turn them against us, I still want one. Let's see that bastard neighbor steal my newspaper when MechaTwitch launches a buster rifle assault through their front door.

.

is the one at the car races.

I think it's called tyrannosaurus or carosourus or something, picks up cars & crushes them, and spews out flames from its nostrils.

It pleases the crowds, makes money, making it immensely practical!

And it's GUY COOL!

I also liked the giant mech on robocop (3?)
Ok, they went berserk and killed people but would be great to have some of these guarding my ranch...

Robot fighter jets are way cooler than 40 story samurais piloted by squishy bits that cannot pull an 8g turn without passing out/dying leaving megasuperkillatron samurai power mecha destructatron megasuper sitting duck.

You didn't even address the tendency of megabot mechatronoids needing to be piloted. Which in terms of G-forces pulled in the arena of awesome level mecha combat makes them as obsolete as humans on the battlefield.

It is never about the plausible.
It is about the fun.
I first saw Godzilla at the Gold Theater (15 cents)in Chicago in 1956. 400 feet tall, 20,000 tons. and at ten years old he was mondo cool. Roar, breath on my friends.
Who cared if that creature was not able to exist in the real world.
Backtracking to Kong, or Dracula, Wolfman and Frankenstien's monster it was never about plausibliity only fun.
Later I got into Marvel in reading and Voltron, ....and I'll be the head....
and the Macross Adventure (I have a 31 DVD set. Edward Elmer "Doc" Smith heads a long list of the improbable but wonderful space adventures I have had.

Oh, there is one familiar phrase that has gone missing in writings about "real" science and that is 'as we know it' to describe the limits on our knowledge.

Remember that oh so impossible atomic submarine in a science fiction story.

Life as we know it, space as we know it,
Einstien's limits AS WE KNOW THEM.

Hey, I used to work at a bakery (night shift)that had this girl who would LITERALLY fall asleep on her feet. You'd leaver her alone at a job and a few minutes later you go check on her and she'd be sound alseep. Not to mention a lot of good (as opposed to super-cheaply-made) action figures are perfectly capable of standing without support. That's why people have feet and not hooves. It's so we can shift our weight between heels and balls, effectively mimicking a four-point stance. And you don't think you can "park" a robot in a standing position?

Yes, but I bet the person was leaning on something? I did have a colleague, briefly, who was fired largely for her ability to sleep standing up. So yes, superdupermecha should be able to do so too, but the problem is that if they are really powered off, rather than have some sort of balancing gizmo running at all time, tipping one over would be way way too easy. Strong wind would probably do it - skyscrapers are designed to sway in the wind after all, but here we come to the "bolted to the ground" point. Humans, even when asleep, are not really in power-off mode (dead people do not stand up), and even then most people who are really asleep upright have some sort of support (I remember seeing a guy hanging by his wrist from one of the support overhead loops in the train, swaying gently.) You could have demonstrated with you sleepyhead colleague by kicking her foot from under her. Or you could have painted her a 'tache, that would have been funny too.

Flexibility could be provided by some future thing similar to our current use of rubber instead of hard posts in hydrolics. With current high end robotics, this provides movement and resistance sensing. Provided the base is wide enough to support the sway of the mech's center of gravity, it could flex and return to central position.

The mech may also function more like a human in that it's central equilibrium system is never fully turned off. A sleeper mode for such a potentially small segment of the machine could be very practical. For full shutdown, it would have to return to the hanger docks or lower into a crouching or fully prone position. Crouching being preferred as it would probably also provide more foot and hand hold positions for the pilot.

Even if the pilot sleeps, why can't the mech stay running and balance itself, or why can't the mech itself lay down?

I'm guessing a sleep mode would reduce functioning while not in use by the pilot. I hand't though of the "why" while focusing on the "how" of it though. Off the top of my not-remotely-mech-educated head:

No need to be churning the reactor on full blast when it's a minimum of systems needed. Less heat means harder to detect and potential for a "first strike" heat spike if your laying in wait (ambush, forward guard, robot ninjas).

Maybe when we make mechs, they don't have unlimited power supplies so sleeping when the pilot sleeps provides longer periods between fillings.

Mind you, I think when your getting to the point that a mech can't remain standing and powered off, you've reached impractical sizes for something mean to be a biped general purpose machine.

Entertainment like boxing and wrestling. Super duper robot wars like TV

.. but bigger.. huge.. I'd still make them look like the little toy ones those rather than the the current hobby robots. - far more amusing when one's head jumps up on a five meter stick as it' falls over in a knock out.

1. Reduce power consumption, especially if portions of the power system are damaged. Also if placed in 'hot launch' storage or stand-by.

2. Reduce detectable signatures in stealth mode - electromagnetic, thermal, sound.

Regardless, giant mechanized robots are -still- hideously impractical.

Why must they remain standing?

Pilots in tent are under attack. they run to there prone mecks, skip up five steps and land into there seats.. dramatic combat scene insues..

Pilots in tent are under attack. They run to there standing mecks.. drama ensues as they climb the hand holds to the full height of the mech while under fire.. dramatic combat scene ensues..

I like the drama explanation. If we're talking reality then I'm thinking moving from prone to combat stance (stand up, point guns) takes longer than moving from standing or crouched to combant stance (point guns). For similar reasons laying flat on your back or standing tall with legs fully extended reduces your potential reaction time.

It would afterall, be more likely to have a crew anyways. The weakest link is always the humans afterall. One well placed bullet...
But if so, a mech should have a sleeping area, food storage, ...waste storage, human and otherwise, and of course, a cockpit. Probably a special section to localize engineering functions (star trek like).

... There also has to be a number of people wearing red shirts that have no purpose other than to die, therefore preventing someone important from dying.

It may be that something that size isn't capable of lifting its own weight from the horizontal to the vertical. It certainly couldn't be done in a timely manner if under attack.

Many cultures have solved the problem of raising a obelisk without it breaking in the middle. None of them are fast, and the column doesn't raise itself.

Something that tall, a tank blast is gonna knock it on its butt...
If it can't get back up, that's a big flaw. But that is assuming the technology doesn't exist, and for the sake of this discussion, it does.

I (and several others) said that over two years ago. Scroll through this sucker; it's entertaining, and that was Jay's purpose in the first place.

NT

The popular hard points seem to be shoulders, backs, legs. Forearms have some hard points and there may be a long weapon like a rifle held in the mechs arms. Consider how many weapons systems are incapable of a clear shot when the machine is laying on top of them or shooting between trees and buildings that would not be in the way when standing.

It also sucks to be a humanoid attacking from your back as a human. Prone on back is not very accurate for rifle use. prone on front makes the rifle accurate at the cost of limiting use of the rest of your weapons (close arms fire, knife, hands/feet). Pistols are only really good close up.

Space usage comes to mind also. A crouched or standing position takes very little ground space where a reclined position is going to require enough surface for your length. A mech may be able to crouch into trees and buildings where space does not allow fully prone position.

those would be my guesses

Again, if you have read any of the Battletech books, you'll find that they can do so, at least up to a point. However, even with the sensitivity of today's gyro and inertial devices, what you'll run into is constant micro-corrections that could, like the software error in one of the prototype F-22Raptors, begin oscillating due to overcorrecting--especially if the 'muscles' are damaged. This could be where a neuro-sensitive device would help by sensing the operator's balance commands, effectively turning the mech into an extension of his own body.

The technology is coming much more quickly than you might imagine. Battletech is envisioned for some thousands of years in our future, yet much of its technology is already being studied and, to some extent used, in modern military equipment. Today's combat aircraft are so unstable that computers are required to make those balancing micro-corrections. We have exoskeleton devices now that can sense the operator's movements and duplicate them with such precision that the operator almost feels like he's doing the work himself, though instead of lifting and carrying twenty to thirty pounds, he's carrying 200 to 300 or more. The only limitation right now is the amount of power it uses, forcing the operator to be tethered by an energy umbilical or operate with heavy, limited-endurance batteries. As these systems come together, you could well see soldiers in battle armor reminiscent of the knights of the middle ages (only larger) within the next 20 to 50 years and possible full mechas within the next hundred.

Some years back, scientists were working on an electro-mechanical fiber that, in Battletech, was called Myamar fiber. The concept is that, like human muscles, you send an electrical charge into the muscle and it shrank, pulling whatever was at the other end with it. These 'muscles', covered by a skin of armor, would almost fully replace conventional hydraulics and almost eliminate the issues of high-pressure blowouts and leaks.

Now, I'll grant that currently the Myamar fiber technology is in its infancy--the current version only able to pull a few ounces and the fibers themselves are relatively short--but every technology had a starting point and this technology could well become cheaper and more reliable than hydraulics--which would also eliminate the need for a very noisy pump.

Right now, most 'humanoid' robots use either pneumatics, hydraulics, mechanical servos or some combination to walk. Every move has to be separately calculated and precisely positioned to give a semblance of walking; the movements are of necessity slow and artificial. Something like Myamar muscles could smooth out the motions to the point that they look more normal and fluid.

I can see this technology getting use in artificial limbs, assuming the development reaches that level. But if you could create a military system from scratch, would a humanoid shape be the best design to get the most effective use of such a system?

The humanoid shape has advantages for rough-country maneuvering and combat agility. Wheels and tracks are good, but if you've ever watched rock-climbing motorsports or studied tank tactics, you'll find that an articulated joint system has an advantage of being able to either step over or literally climb obstacles that would stop any conventional vehicle.

For combat agility, most heavy weapons carriers take time to re-aim, the gun turret or the vehicle itself needing to rotate to a new position. By using arm-mounted weapons, re-aiming within a 90? arc or greater could be significantly faster, just as a human can change the point of aim of a pistol more quickly than they can a rifle. This is excellent for relatively close-in combat where the mech might need to battle multiple vehicles simultaneously.

The concept would originally be to make a single soldier as powerful as an MBT against small arms fire and grenades while being mobile enough to avoid heavier weapons. The ultimate result would be mech against mech combat with conventional tanks little more than an annoyance and lighter vehicles as effective as a fly bite.

Of course, they'd still be vulnerable to air attack to some extent. Hard to shoot down a bomb that's laser-targeted on you. On the other hand, if the plane missed with its first attack, the mech would have a better chance of return fire than a tank, too.

"...an articulated joint system has an advantage of being able to either step over or literally climb obstacles..."

It's also a pain in the can to maintain, especially under field conditions.

"...most heavy weapons carriers take time to re-aim, the gun turret or the vehicle itself needing to rotate to a new position. By using arm-mounted weapons, re-aiming within a 90? arc or greater could be significantly faster, just as a human can change the point of aim of a pistol more quickly than they can a rifle."

How so? A pistol can be aimed faster than a rifle simply because it weighs less. However, it's also notoriously less accurate. Then there's still the question of ammunition storage and feeding, especially with an articulated joint.

There are few 'general purpose' combat vehicles in the world today. There are plenty of non-combat vehicles in the military, but nobody wants a HMMWV or a C-130 when the action gets heavy. There are specialized variants of both of those for combat (and other) situations, but they're rarely anyone's first choice of weapons platform. Generalized systems, like human beings, don't do any one thing well and are at a disadvantage to those designed / evolved to operate in a specific environment.

"'...an articulated joint system has an advantage of being able to either step over or literally climb obstacles...'

It's also a pain in the can to maintain, especially under field conditions."
If you're talking about currently used technology, you're exactly right. However, something like the 'Myamar' artificial muscles would be significantly easier to maintain in the field since you only need to replace torn layers and don't have to worry about leaking fluids other than the lubricants used for the joints and for cooling.

"A pistol can be aimed faster than a rifle simply because it weighs less. However, it's also notoriously less accurate. Then there's still the question of ammunition storage and feeding, especially with an articulated joint."

That really depends on the range you're firing at. I have a black-powder pistol that can hit a milk jug at 100 yards and make it explode if it's filled with water, so accuracy at relatively short ranges can be quite acceptable (assume a 75mm field gun used for direct fire as a mech-sized pistol.) Then again, a 105mm Howitzer also makes an incredible direct-fire weapon with the kind of punch even an Abrams tank would have trouble withstanding; this could be a mech-sized rifle. But you also ignore the possibility of direct-fire energy weapons like a particle beam or laser-based gun. No ammunition to worry about and likely significantly lighter in weight since it doesn't have to be concerned with the explosive forces of firing a projectile and doesn't need nearly the amount of barrel to guide it. As for feeding ammunition, there are already a number of articulated feeders in use in the modern military; just look at the 'chain gun' under the nose of strike helicopters for an obvious example. Not that hard to scale it up to 20mm or larger.

"nobody wants a HMMWV or a C-130 when the action gets heavy."
Look again. The Hummer can carry a .50cal machine gun, 40mm grenades and even rockets and missiles into combat, which is a pretty potent weapons system for a GP-type of vehicle. And when action really gets heavy, that C-130 carrying a Vulcan gatling gun, 40-mm Bofors and that 105mm Howitzer is a very welcome sight. And while you may not know this, some of those systems are now being considered for palletization, meaning any C-130 might be an assault ship, you just won't know until it fires at you.

The one thing you forget is that humans are extraordinarily adaptable; they can change weapons and tactics for the given field of operations. Generalized weapons systems can do the same.

One mech type might be a specialized platform, like a heavy-weapons carrier or an EM sensor suite while another might have interchangeable 'pods' that could carry missiles on one mission, kinetic weapons on another or energy weapons on a third--or some combination of the three. Never assume that something is impossible just because you don't know about it. Our technology is making Science Fiction into Science Fact on a daily basis.

Its all about heat buildup then. And energy weapons are bad for that, but great for long missions where ammo shortages will be a problem.

The mechs on mech warrior seem much more practical and likely compared to anime mechs.

"If you're talking about currently used technology, you're exactly right. However, something like the 'Myamar' artificial muscles would be significantly easier to maintain in the field..."

"But you also ignore the possibility of direct-fire energy weapons like a particle beam or laser-based gun."

You're assuming technological advances that haven't proven practical / possible yet. I'm assuming current state of the art on both sides. If you're going to assume psuedo-muscles and particle weapons, I can counter with David Drake's tanks equipped with nuclear-driven air cushion drive and plasma guns.

Ask those soldiers on 'Rat Patrol' if they wouldn't rather have something more heavily armored. Ask that gunship crew if they wouldn't rather have something that hauled butt when an enemy fighter pops up. Both are work-arounds until something better came a long - MRAPs and A-10s.

Incidentally, I was an FDO in a 203mm battery for a few years, and had the chance to observe those direct firing. A glancing blow fro that 200lb bullet would probably kill anything on the ground battlefield but with a reload time of almost 45 seconds, you better hit your target with your first shot. Otherwise you've just p!$$ed them off!

The TV show was based on a real unit in the desert warfare against Rommel, though not a very well-known unit. Their principle was to use high mobility against stationary/slow-moving targets. They relied on the speed of their jeeps (and other light vehicles) to avoid getting hit while damaging or destroying as much hardware as they could. Historically, they raided German airfields and outposts where defensive installations would be set fairly far apart and designed for heavy assault. They were credited with destroying a number of aircraft on the ground and disrupting German counter-offensive plans on at least one occasion. However, as you would expect, their survival rate was pretty low. If machine guns can put enough lead out there, even a bird would have difficulty dodging them all.

However, this doesn't mean that the anime Mecha designs are impossible, just extremely difficult to implement because they would have to be made of significantly lighter materials than a Battlemech? since the anime mechas pretty much have to transform into an aircraft as well. I would wager that a medium battlemech would blow away a Mecha by its relative weight in weapons and armor, though the Mecha might have the advantage of speed to avoid getting hit. A one-on-one matchup between the anime and Battletech versions of equal 'weight' would be an interesting one to watch.

With the Mechas primary purpose with hand to hand combat or light long ranged weapons. Vs a battlemech's pure long range. A battlemech is more like a heavy walking tank with physical armor. AN automated walking tank. no need to control the legs manually, you set a speed and it walks at that speed (if possible). If it falls over, it stands back up, etc. All fully automated allowing the pilots to focus on weapons and targeting. Battlemechs are smaller, often only 12-14 stories high though a larger one is 30 to 40 stories high. And they have customizable load-outs and in some cases, can even fly (jumpjets anyone?).


It's very much a Knife to a gunfight scenerio. I think in our future, battlemechs are a very real possibility, even using todays tech.

Battlemechs topped out at around 30 meters, not 30 stories. 30 stories would be in the vicinity of 100 meters tall while 30 meters would be between 3 and 4 stories tall--a very significant difference.

You are essentially right that Battlemechs as they are written are essentially ranged-weapons-only, though these can be used anywhere from hand-to-hand ranges for the torso mounted weapons to an extreme range of miles for some of the heavier ones and missiles. Still, this doesn't preclude a few standard-design close-in models designed either to use heat-spiking flamers to shut the opponent's mech down or even hardened metal 'blades' for disabling/destroying opponents' weapons or even cockpit. I still think that a one-on-one battle would favor the mech as compared to the mecha on the ground. The mecha's real advantage is a built in ability to fly, rather than merely jump.

And I am unsure of the other series, but Mechwarrior 3 had a flamethrower. Was a sort of useless weapon though. You could be mean with it. Arm yourself with 10 of those, a lot of heatsinks and a lot of leg armor. And you could run around and 1 hit KO mechs... down side is they went down with a big bang, damaging your own mech.

As for a blade, the "hydrolics" required to do that... And considering the mech armor could hold up to lasers, missiles, and guns. a sword seems an unlikely threat. Best case scenerio is mech walks up behind the other, smacks him in the arm and severs his arm, other mech turns around, now only metres away from the cockpit of the offending mech, opens fire.

Speaking of the Flamers, as described in the books and tabletop game, you're absolutely right--by putting lots of flame on an opposing mech, you would shut it down, but unless you cooked off its weapons, it shouldn't go down or explode. Mechs supposedly were designed to simply turn themselves off if they overheated in order to prevent the reactor/power plant from going critical. I'd expect by loading up with flamers, you essentially spiked their systems. In the books and games, they were used to neutralize the mech while hopefully getting a chance to reclaim it and add it to their own forces.

As for the blade, think more of an axe or hatchet, rather than a 'sword.' You're right that the armor of the average mech would probably shrug off a sword simply due to it's relatively low mass (unless you used a greatsword.) A hatchet, however, would be a relatively broad and thick head, massing maybe 1 to 2 tons in itself focused on a relatively small location. Hitting a joint or a weak spot in the armor would almost guarantee penetration and the act of yanking it back out could help disrupt the mech's balance, knocking off it's aim with any energy or projectile weapons. Think of armored battle between two knights and you'd get a concept. Heavy enough armor might protect the Axeman from his opponent's weapons long enough to get close enough to use his axe--his opponent would have almost no significant defense against the heavy mass backing a relatively sharp point or edge.

Of course, this is all fantasy as we see it today, but certain technologies for the mechwarrior concept are already being studied--both in weapons and carrier. As yet, the Manga 'Mecha' concept would have to be considered completely unrealistic.

There is a book about the series?

Is it any good?

_Edit: A couple of wiki searches reveals a lot of books. Where to start...

I guess first I need a bookstore .

I recommend Michael Stackpole's Warrior" series as a starter, though I expect the only source is Stackpole's own website now. It's a great introduction to the Battletech Universe as conceived by the original designers of the tabletop game. You get to 'see' many types of mechs in action--their strengths and weaknesses--while following the political events of the era.

I've read a fair number of the books, and you have to watch out for the timelines, because the Clans didn't come into the scene for quite a while.

I was thinking of the hand as the current example with synthetic muscle as the near future version.

My understanding is that the hand currently uses rubber or otherwise elastic between actuator and finger joints. This results in a grip that responds to resistance; strong enough to hold an egg but flexible enough to not break it easily.

I believe PopSci had a bit on synthetic muscle that could sense resistance and contact well over a year ago now. That gives you the sensory layer for gripping. Add the muscular layer that uses natural flex rather then mechanical micro-corrections and you've got a pretty big step towards reality (practicality still in question).

Having an artificial muscle material that can also 'sense' levels of compression in a direction other than its primary flex could work very well as a 'bionic' hand. The flexing/bending caused by pressure coming in from the side would change the feedback signal to the controlling processor and good software could use that to determine the exact amount of force to apply in a given circumstance. If this is also somewhat controlled by the human mind to say, "this is an egg" or "this is a ball" then you could end up with the precision of control to be a surgeon yet strong enough to compete in Olympic weightlifting.

Of course, for a mech this might not be quite as important, but having a hand that could pick up heavy objects like boulders, trees or even disabled vehicles without causing significant damage could allow that mech to more quickly re-open a road for traffic while still retaining combat capability, or an unarmed version to be a better wreck-and-recovery vehicle than current trucks that rely on cranes and cables. I'm sure you've seen some of the 'impossible moves' type programs where difficult recoveries can take hours. Getting an overturned vehicle on its wheels more quickly means it can be hauled away more quickly, clearing the road. Your pressure-sensitive hand could help to minimize the recovery damage to the vehicles.

Vulp it was always possible to make a mech go nuclear just by overheating it, such as with flamers or inferno missiles. Even with the automated shutdown the containment fields in the fusion engine would still spike dangerously high and cause a breach and then you'd end up with your own mech exploded as well as the enemy and a few hexes of the board, because of the short range of incendiary weapons.

@Sinisterslay

I would also recommend either Warrior, or Blood of Kerensky as a start. I started with Blood of Kerensky which is obviously a few hundred years after the start of the series timeline (though most of it wasn't actually covered in a novel until some of the more recent stories which took place in the Star League). There are a ton of books and you should definitely read them, but do not jump around. I'd read them in the order they are listed on the back cover of the book (This will still place star lord, which takes place way before, in the middle of the current story at the time [the current story, or when I stopped reading, jumped ahead to 3132 and killed off all of the main characters in the storyline that existed until about 2002 ish. Do not read anything titled Mechwarrior Dark Age or Age of Destruction because they are stupid and not worth it, no offense to the authors, many of whom wrote the best BT books) I recommend highly the entire Twilight of the Clans storyline, as well as Impetus of War, Malicious Intent, Highlander Gambit, Blood of Kerensky, even the FedCom civil war series (though it was pretty much the beginning of retcon and shittiness)

"You're assuming technological advances that haven't proven practical / possible yet."
Yes... and no. In the case of laser weapons, the possibility is effectively proven by two different airborne laser systems, the largest of which is carried by that modified Boeing 747 but another is carried by a much smaller jet which has proven effective in targeting and stopping power by shooting the engine of a truck from over a mile away (counting altitude and linear distance from target.) The larger one has proven accuracy and ability by hitting missiles during their launch phase from some tens of miles away and either causing a premature detonation or otherwise destroying said missiles. Granted, these are both experimental, but they're strongly being considered for military applications.

As for the synthetic muscle concept, you're right, it's still experimental and unproven. As yet they're not strong enough for practical use in anything larger than a small-scale model. However, the fact that they've even gotten that far means there could be breakthrough advances to make large scale applications possible.

The whole point behind this discussion originally was to look at whether or not such a machine as a mech (as compared to mecha) could be practical against conventional warfighting capabilities. In the short term, I'd say 'No', though we are coming pretty close to designing an effective Power Armor that could give a single operator the protection and firepower of a 5-man MRAP on the ground. An IED could be relatively useless if all it does is throw the armored soldier around a bit and he just climbs back to his feet and keeps advancing. Just imagine the killer to morale that would be, to see the enemy you thought you'd killed just keep on coming. Honestly the best way to survive an explosion is to just ride the energy or redirect it, rather than trying to resist it.

Oh, and A) Thank you for serving, even if you never got into combat, and B) I could agree with what you say about that 203mm. On the other hand, if that's the weapon I think it is, haven't they come up with an autoloader for the thing that increases the rate of fire to about 6 rounds per minute? Even 3rpm is better than 4 rounds every 3 minutes, right? I think that thing would be too big even for an assault mech! Probably would end up being a counter-assault weapon since it's practically guaranteed to knock out any armor or mech going up against it. Laser sighting and targeting computers such as those used in the current Abrams would make it effective even against moving targets.

Neither the towed nor tracked version in the US inventory had an autoloader. They did have feed trays to lift the round and ram it into the chamber, but the round still had to be manually moved from the separate ammo carrier to the tray. I believe all 203mm are out of service; my Guard unit was one of the last batteries before converting to rocket launchers.

You may be thinking of the M1, which is capable of 6 rpm (or better) even with a manual loader.

Thank you for being the only other battletech fan on here willing to speak up. I hate these oriental mecha programs for besmirching the name by association (even if you want to bust out the whole "unseen" destroid/robotech/macross argument - crappy series all of them). While mechs still have autocannons and missile launchers, in BT most of the heavy weapons are still confined to tracked or wheeled support vehicles. For instance, long tom artillery batteries, or arrow artillery batteries, or what have you, As you said vulp, too big for even an assault mech (though i'm sure if you are one of the few noobs who thought the ultra heavy 100+ ton designs introduced weren't stupid, you could put a gimongous cannon on those) in most circumstances. While a fair amount of the mech designs carry autocannons and gauss rifles, an equal if not greater amount definitely use only energy weapons, if not a mix. It's also noteworthy to mention that in BT, as great as mechs are, they aren't the ultimate weapon on the battlefield, even though they were designed to be. In the games, at least. A tank unit can still easily crush a mech. Such as the Epona clan tank - 3 ER PPCs, short work of even the biggest mech's (even accounting for heat buildup).

In regards to your earlier comment (i'll shut up after this) I believe this was the original role of mechs in battletech. Constructionmechs, forester mechs, agromechs, industrial mechs, things of that nature. Just imagine a mech picking up those fallen trees from the road - much much faster and easier than getting a whole road crew.

... any of you read a BattleTech book?

Re: Mech 'sleep' - About the only time a mech was completely shut down was when it was 'parked' in a support frame that held it upright and allowed full mechanical access for repairs. This didn't mean that it couldn't be shut down in the field, but doing so required setting the mech in a standby mode where all moving joints settled into a 'locked' position to lower the center of gravity as much as possible and reduce weight shifting caused were a limb or joint allowed even partial movement. In standby mode, the mech could reduce its power usage to only that required by the C,C&C electronics, and even those could be shut down to a minimum and reduce IR and EM radiation (don't ask how they managed to hide from radar--I can only assume they used a combination of steath designs and absorbent coatings.) This posture could permit full shut down of the power plant under normal conditions, though I'd expect high winds or earthquake could still topple it.

The point is that good design would make a 'standing sleep' eminently possible because even humans can do something similar under the right circumstances. And don't forget, unlike human feet, most mech designs would compensate for poorer balance by making the feet longer and broader--probably with some sort of cross pattern.

You obviously have some pent up hostility towards your neighbour. I'd suggest that loosing your paper would only be the catalyst, not the cause of violence.

That said, why not use the robot to collect the paper.
More to the point, why the hell are you cutting down trees for newspaper in this interweb connected world? Shouldn't you be interfaced and reading the paper online? Then you wouldn't need to interface with your neighbour at all.

"you love them. I love them. Everyone loves them."

Not me. Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't watch any of the Japanamation programs you mentioned, for the reasons you mentioned. While we're at it, the quadruped vehicles in "Empire Strikes Back" and bipeds in "Return of the Jedi" are equally stupid.

Furthermore, why don't those twits on Dragonball, etc. go to their max power level at the START of the fight instead of waiting for their opponent to increment one level at a time? Go to the top, kick some Japanabooty, and let's go get a cold one. Same thing for robots that join together to form a larger one: do it from the beginning and get it over with. Why would you even separate them?

Some more hints: when your opponent spends 45 seconds talking about which card he's going to throw out next, run over and b!tch slap him until his teeth bleed. You can also do this if your opponents goes through some kind of 30-second transformation pirouette. If you think you're going to be attacked, let your trained monsters out of their balls, containers, alternate dimensions BEFORE the attack starts, not afterward. (Is there a difference between Pokemon and dog-fighting? Michael Vick would have been a great Pokemon trainer.)

Why the hell isn't Battlebots still being produced? Now I loves me some Nightmare and Biohazard.

EDITED: Substituted dog-fighting for an apparently blocked four-letter term for "rooster" fighting.