Hello and welcome to Debates, a new show pilot from the Templin Institute where we investigate
some of the greatest questions facing alternate worlds and provide two opposing points of view.
In the battlefields of the far future, defense analysts, private military corporations and
modern armies must ask themselves whether the usefulness and performance of MechWarriors
outweighs their tremendous costs and upkeep.
With that in mind, today we tackle the statement; “Be it resolved that BattleMechs are pointless
in combat”.
Marc will be defending this topic while I will be opposing it.
In a few moments a link to a poll should appear in the corner of this video where you can
pick your side of the argument.
Once the debate is over, an identical, second poll will appear and we’d once again like
your opinion.
Whichever side shows the most improvement over the initial poll will be declared the winner.
Should Debate become our next series, the winner of each topic will be announced in
each subsequent episode.
So, without further delay, Marc will begin by defending the statement “be it resolved,
that BattleMechs are pointless in combat”.
The major opposition I have to BattleMechs is that they seem to have been designed to
solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
What purpose do these machines serve that couldn’t be more effectively achieved through
aircraft, infantry, or most notably, armoured vehicles.
Given that the latter are the closest comparison we can draw here, I think the natural question
to ask is, how do BattleMechs improve upon a standard main battle tank when it comes
to their three defining attributes, speed, protection and firepower.
Let’s start with speed.
Now, the phrase “don’t reinvent the wheel” has become a cliché for a reason, there is
simply a no more effective way to move across the ground.
Various tanks can operate at around 60 miles per hour while some can move far faster.
Ignoring for the moment the ridiculous specifications of various BattleMechs that have no doubt
been embellished by certain manufacturers, there is simply no way for any type of mechanized
walker to achieve these same speeds without being wildly unstable or expensive.
On average, BattleMechs are far slower, meaning they are easier to target and easier to hit.
Which leads us to our second attribute, protection.
Now I’m sure BattleMechs can have similar or perhaps even heavier armor than some tanks,
but the fact that most Mechs must be balanced on two legs severely limits their ability
to recover from damage.
If hit with sufficient force, a BattleMech can topple over, a problem completely unique to them.
An immobilized tank is still capable of firing, while a Mech that has fallen over is completely useless.
Worse still, the complex mechanisms within a BattleMech’s legs are much more susceptible
to impairment than a simple, boring wheel.
Finally, most Mech’s are so large that they are unable to seek protection behind most
forms of natural cover.
Where a tank might be able to fire and then quickly retreat behind a hill or even find
cover within a forest, a Mechwarrior is going to be plainly visible 95% of the time, just
a giant walking target.
So lastly, we have firepower.
Now most BattleMechs mount an assortment of weaponry, cannons, lasers missiles, artillery, etc.
While they carry vastly larger armaments than tanks, what is the point?
Various weapons are best used in various ways.
By putting so many different forms of weaponry, each effective at different ranges and in
different situations, a BattleMech becomes overly generalized and overly expensive.
For the price of a single mech, you could no doubt operate an entire tank platoon.
Overall, anything a Mech can do, a tank can do better and that is why BattleMechs are
pointless in combat.
Now, I’ll let my co-host take over to try and prove me wrong.
To judge a BattleMech by the criteria of a tank and then declare the tank superior ignores
what makes a Mech unique and in many cases far more effective.
Let’s start with the most common argument made against walkers, the legs are vulnerable.
While this is true, it ignores the realities of combat: aiming for the legs is far easier
said than done.
You have two low profile targets that are quickly accelerating and decelerating, not
an easy shot for even an accomplished marksman.
Compared to a walker’s legs, the head or body will be the much easier and therefore
natural target, and this is where the armor is equal or superior to any tank.
But it’s not just about armor.
By employing various active protection systems such defensive rockets, radar decoys and other
countermeasures, a BattleMech would be able to defeat many incoming projectiles before
they made contact.
In these situations, a mech’s great height is an asset, having greater radar penetration
across a wide area and therefore more likely to detect incoming threats.
A mechs stature also gives it a commanding view of any battlefield, enabling both its
optics and weapons to reach a greater distance.
Although, perhaps counterintuitively, it is a BattleMechs unique form of mobility that
is its greatest advantage.
Tanks may be effective in open fields, or across a rolling countryside, but in mountainous,
forested or swampy terrain, they become more of a liability than an effective support vehicle.
That mechs can operate in places that have traditionally prevented large scale armoured
warfare is by itself a justification for their immense value.
Combine this with powerful jump-jets equipped on some BattleMechs that allow them to quickly
reposition themselves across the battlefield, and this effectiveness only increases.
Mechs could also be used in support roles, ferrying equipment and supplies to places
that due to terrain and enemy aircraft could not otherwise be easily reinforced.
There is no doubt that BattleMechs would perform poorly in some instances, but as with every
other type of military equipment, Mechs are best used in specific situations that maximize
their strengths and offset their weaknesses.
To say that BattleMechs are useless in combat because they can’t be used like tanks is
just like saying that aircraft carriers are useless because they can’t operate on land.
So, there you have it, two viewpoints and two arguments.
But as previously mentioned, it’s your opinion that will determine the victor.
Did either side change your mind?
Let us know in this second poll in the corner of your screen, whichever side shows the greatest
change will be the winner.
In Debates, the Templin Institute provides two points of view on the most critical issues
of alternate worlds.
Debates is the last of four pilots we’ve released day by day this week and the polls
are now open!
If you’d like to see the Templin Institute argue the merits of the Death Star, determine
the most powerful Houses in Westeros, or if Jurassic Park was doomed to fail, a pledge
of just one dollar a month to our Patreon gets you a vote.