Search Results
7/3/2025, 4:51:02 AM
>>63926321
>what technologies have rendered mechs already obsolete before they ever got a chance to take off?
The term "mechs" is vague. Are we talking VOTOMS? Wanzers? Gundams? ACs? Battlemechs? Valkyries?
It's always assumed that any "mech" meant for combat was specifically made for that intended purpose and nothing else. The question of "why bother?" immediately comes up in terms of procurement. Yet, the chariot, a weapon that defined human warfare for millennia arose out of the need for a horse-drawn cart. The goal wasn't to make the chariot itself, rather the goal was to be able to travel longer distances.
If mechs were to come about, it wouldn't be because they're a better weapon of war but because they were already in use for something else. Construction, Heavy Engineering, and Mining make more sense, along with Urban Pacification (take that hippies). It would be less about "why" and more about "why not" when you have factories pumping them out by the thousands for various projects. The logistics are already there. Sure, for the first few decades they'll be dedicated to mega-projects and expensive as hell but someone will eventually slap guns on them and try to use them for combat. How well that endeavor goes would depend on the nature of the conflict they're used for and their capabilities.
If mechs did get used for war, it would be the Toyota Hilux of the future. It's what you'd use when you don't have tanks, artillery, or air defense platforms but can steal and jury-rig equipment meant for industrial purposes.
>Much like how advancements in gun technology rendered knights obsolete, what technology killed the mech before the mech could even become a thing?
Arguably ATGMs and other anti-armor weapons. This however, assumes that the mech is so much more expensive than a normal tank or APC and just as if not more vulnerable because of its legs. Even then, that's not the whole story.
(1/2)
>what technologies have rendered mechs already obsolete before they ever got a chance to take off?
The term "mechs" is vague. Are we talking VOTOMS? Wanzers? Gundams? ACs? Battlemechs? Valkyries?
It's always assumed that any "mech" meant for combat was specifically made for that intended purpose and nothing else. The question of "why bother?" immediately comes up in terms of procurement. Yet, the chariot, a weapon that defined human warfare for millennia arose out of the need for a horse-drawn cart. The goal wasn't to make the chariot itself, rather the goal was to be able to travel longer distances.
If mechs were to come about, it wouldn't be because they're a better weapon of war but because they were already in use for something else. Construction, Heavy Engineering, and Mining make more sense, along with Urban Pacification (take that hippies). It would be less about "why" and more about "why not" when you have factories pumping them out by the thousands for various projects. The logistics are already there. Sure, for the first few decades they'll be dedicated to mega-projects and expensive as hell but someone will eventually slap guns on them and try to use them for combat. How well that endeavor goes would depend on the nature of the conflict they're used for and their capabilities.
If mechs did get used for war, it would be the Toyota Hilux of the future. It's what you'd use when you don't have tanks, artillery, or air defense platforms but can steal and jury-rig equipment meant for industrial purposes.
>Much like how advancements in gun technology rendered knights obsolete, what technology killed the mech before the mech could even become a thing?
Arguably ATGMs and other anti-armor weapons. This however, assumes that the mech is so much more expensive than a normal tank or APC and just as if not more vulnerable because of its legs. Even then, that's not the whole story.
(1/2)
Page 1