Forgive me... how exactly does one define "a mech"? Obviously such a vehicle is mechanized (unless of course it is transport for an entire regiment, and runs on "flintstone power".)
If a mech were considered to be a machine designed to be an extention of the operator, such as a HERC in Earthsiege or the APUs in Matrix Revolutions- well then I suppose it's not a mech, although the arguement would be a little to esoteric to concern me in that case.

I'm pretty sure its just slang used by video gamers and the likes because of games like mech assault. And it sounds cool.I guess

Slang is what languages are made of. If enough people use it then it becomes real. That is the way language has evolved and changed throughout history. Just because it started that way doesnt make it any less the proper term.

Also if its just slang.. tell me a better word for the same object.

Mechs are inadvisable for terrestrial operations let alone combat..although any platform with highly manuverable arm would be advantegeous for:

1. construction
2. hazardous materials/environment ops
3. Rescue and relief (tsunami)
4. offplanet asteroid mining

Originally posted by Xerrog
Also if its just slang.. tell me a better word for the same object.

Not sure of a specific word to say as there are none in the dictionary. But i am sure that something along the lines of bidepal robot or something like that but technically mech is not even a word in webster comprehensive dictionary.

it goes 80 kph thats like 40 miles per hour but when it has it rocket bosters it goes over 300 miles per hour

You're talking about a toy, right?

Talking about Sci-Fi Combat Robots or.. Mechs. And the MASSIVE Shagohod tank from Metal Gear.

I dont remeber the first game but there have been many. Battletech, Mechwarrior, Mech Assault, and a few other franchises.


Basically speculating on wheter actually building either would ever be feasible, and for what purpose.

And I definatly agree on the other uses.. construction, rescue and bio-cleanup could definatly be the real triggers for building something of this scope.

You're describing a big, highly breakable tank.

Current tanks weight 50-70 tons. The soviets once designed but never produced one that weighed over 100 tons if I remember correctly. Tanks can move upwards of 60mph on road surfaces and at variable speeds far beyond what you have described for Mechs over rough terrain.

The design of a tank presents minimal target surface and minimal 90-degree surfaces which creates maximum resistance to impact, not to mention improving the armor-coverage to weight ratio.

Tanks can be equipped with any number of weapons in any number of schemes. Innovations past and projected include side gunports, flame throwers, anti-aircraft guns, multiple cannons, mortars, missiles, troop carrying compartments, blinding lasers for use on aircraft or on thermal targeting systems, explosive reactive armor and other counter measures, and more. The only thing mechs would do that a tank currently wont is preform complex arm movements which would be useful primarily in non-combat roles.

Tanks are becoming, and mechs already would be, nearly obsolete as aircraft, artillery, and infantry firepower and targeting abilities improve. A single man can carry a rocket system that will destroy any tank currently in service on this planet from over 1km away. Even less well equipped militaries such as North Korea and most Arab nations can equip their infantry with AT-4 and equivalent weapons, which in volley-firing can also disable any tank currently in service. Mechs would be even more vulnerable to this because of their low speed and vulnerable limbs.
Tank designs are going for lighter and faster platforms, so something as heavy and slow as a mech would almost certainly not be considered useful in modern or future warfare.

The only real way mechs would really make sense is if they could duplicate the way they work on gundam. now that would be a fearsome thing to be reckoned with. Man would i love to be piloting one of those.