Argument Thread OOC Future Tech Only

[Terraius]

Draftroom deals with strict realism / MT / PMT conceptualization, things which do not always apply in a futuristic setting thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years in the future when certain scientific restrictions or truths could be overturned by new discoveries or technology.

The main arguments against Mechs is Armor declination, size, and power source, however in the future setting it is possible to have A) A nano/composite source of material to make armor adaptable to such standards B) lightweight materials to negate size limitations and C) more compact and efficient power sources, for a random example, say, darkmatter, cold fusion, whatever your cup of tea is

The same principle why faster-than-light travel and other wank non-realistic things in the modern age and time exist in our FT setting

[Mini Miehm]

Except that that fails to address the point that a tank made with the same techniques will still carry more armor and a heavier gun, and be less prone to breakage.

[Terraius]

Except that that fails to address the point that a tank made with the same techniques will still carry more armor and a heavier gun, and be less prone to breakage.

In the (distant) future, we dont really have a concrete, definitive way of telling. The "techniques" we conceptualize today may be outdated or barbarian in the future, either because of the materials/parts used, the roles, etc

I mean, 2 kilometer starships in theory are just as insigificant and useless using that line of thought when compared to a much smaller ship that could fit the same modules and utilities. It can be taken a step further even with 5-25 kilometer ships, but in the end people still use them; why? Partly because of my earlier argument in the fact that we have a grim idea of what might be discovered or used in the future as applied to military technology, and also partly because it makes for a funner experience and story to have cool star ships floating around in menacing fleets engaging the enemy.

At least that is how I view it; I dont mind strict realism, but at the same time I enjoy FT more because of the uncertainty and lee-way in such matters that allows theoretical science (no matter how far fetched) and the imagination take hold versus strict guidelines which (IMHO) ruin the experience of writing and enjoying the story as it unfolds.

[The Akasha Colony]

Except that that fails to address the point that a tank made with the same techniques will still carry more armor and a heavier gun, and be less prone to breakage.

In the (distant) future, we dont really have a concrete, definitive way of telling. The "techniques" we conceptualize today may be outdated or barbarian in the future, either because of the materials/parts used, the roles, etc

I mean, 2 kilometer starships in theory are just as insigificant and useless using that line of thought when compared to a much smaller ship that could fit the same modules and utilities. It can be taken a step further even with 5-25 kilometer ships, but in the end people still use them; why? Partly because of my earlier argument in the fact that we have a grim idea of what might be discovered or used in the future as applied to military technology, and also partly because it makes for a funner experience and story to have cool star ships floating around in menacing fleets engaging the enemy.

At least that is how I view it; I dont mind strict realism, but at the same time I enjoy FT more because of the uncertainty and lee-way in such matters that allows theoretical science (no matter how far fetched) and the imagination take hold versus strict guidelines which (IMHO) ruin the experience of writing and enjoying the story as it unfolds.

What he means is that regardless of what future technologies we have, a simple box (like a tank hull) of a given volume will have much less exposed surface area than a humanoid or legged shape of the same volume, meaning that it will be inherently easier to armor and protect. And generally speaking, large concentrated volumes (such as that of a box) are much easier to work with in design terms because they offer greater flexibility.

[Terraius]

Well, more exposed surface area wouldn't necessarily render a design completely invalid; a mech could theoretically be faster and more mobile/flexible than a tank and therefore able to be more effective in traversing/engaging than its tracked comrade.

Of course it would lack in one area, but it could make up in these other areas and fit a more specialized role.

[The Akasha Colony]

Well, more exposed surface area wouldn't necessarily render a design completely invalid; a mech could theoretically be faster and more mobile/flexible than a tank and therefore able to be more effective in traversing/engaging than its tracked comrade.

Of course it would lack in one area, but it could make up in these other areas and fit a more specialized role.

There's no reason to believe it would be, given the vast depth and breadth of our knowledge. The simple fact is that a rotational motion is far easier than the complex multi-axis, multi-joint movement needed for a leg. Which is why mankind invented the wheel millennia ago, but have barely made working mechanical legs today. They're also easier to armor since a wheel spins within its own frame, whereas a leg needs space to move.

[Zebian Syndicate]

Except that that fails to address the point that a tank made with the same techniques will still carry more armor and a heavier gun, and be less prone to breakage.

As Terrarius so kindly put forth, Mechs have their own areas where they really shine. Let's see you deploy a tank in a rocky death world frequently rocked by earth quakes and volcanic eruptions. Most tanks wouldn't make it three miles before being critically damaged in such an environment, what with the horrendous tectonics, unstable surface, and really an obstacle course of terrain that could not be navigated by any vehicle equipped with a standard chassis. You could deploy hover tanks, sure, but that just ovens up a whole slew of new problems in conjunction with a few the regular land based units have.

It's not about what's feasible, no, if that were the case, I'd just pinpoint your planets' coordinates, and set up the Long Guns to send a steady stream of IPBMs to eradicate all life, leaving nothing but the most durable structures higher than three feet. Sucks huh? That wouldn't be a fun RP.

FT! It's crazy stuff!

[Terraius]

I disagree because if we are looking at a tank then we have such limitations as track traverse speed and turret rotation which are limited by the size, weight, loadout, and so forth. In the future these problems would still exist if the same design was used (basic tank chassis with turret, gun, crew, so forth) versus a hypothetical mech which could overcome some of these issues due to design

(And also when I speak of Mech, I dont necessarily conceptualize say, a Gundam suit, I think more of a simple walker like a WH40k Dreadnought or a power suit, for example seen in Avatar used by the humans.)

[The Akasha Colony]

Except that that fails to address the point that a tank made with the same techniques will still carry more armor and a heavier gun, and be less prone to breakage.

As Terrarius so kindly put forth, Mechs have their own areas where they really shine. Let's see you deploy a tank in a rocky death world frequently rocked by earth quakes and volcanic eruptions. Most tanks wouldn't make it three miles before being critically damaged in such an environment, what with the horrendous tectonics, unstable surface, and really an obstacle course of terrain that could not be navigated by any vehicle equipped with a standard chassis. You could deploy hover tanks, sure, but that just ovens up a whole slew of new problems in conjunction with a few the regular land based units have.

It's not about what's feasible, no, if that were the case, I'd just pinpoint your planets' coordinates, and set up the Long Guns to send a steady stream of IPBMs to eradicate all life, leaving nothing but the most durable structures higher than three feet. Sucks huh? That wouldn't be a fun RP.

FT! It's crazy stuff!

It'd be a more realistic one though.

But what must be understood is that there is a difference between recognizing a bad idea but using it because it's cool, and seeing a bad idea but thinking it'd be a good one for some magical reason. I have mechs but I will fully admit they in any 'realistic' scenario would generally be a waste of resources. I'm well aware of their drawbacks, and their tremendous inefficiencies.

[Terraius]

As Terrarius so kindly put forth, Mechs have their own areas where they really shine. Let's see you deploy a tank in a rocky death world frequently rocked by earth quakes and volcanic eruptions. Most tanks wouldn't make it three miles before being critically damaged in such an environment, what with the horrendous tectonics, unstable surface, and really an obstacle course of terrain that could not be navigated by any vehicle equipped with a standard chassis. You could deploy hover tanks, sure, but that just ovens up a whole slew of new problems in conjunction with a few the regular land based units have.

It's not about what's feasible, no, if that were the case, I'd just pinpoint your planets' coordinates, and set up the Long Guns to send a steady stream of IPBMs to eradicate all life, leaving nothing but the most durable structures higher than three feet. Sucks huh? That wouldn't be a fun RP.

FT! It's crazy stuff!

It'd be a more realistic one though.

But what must be understood is that there is a difference between recognizing a bad idea but using it because it's cool, and seeing a bad idea but thinking it'd be a good one for some magical reason. I have mechs but I will fully admit they in any 'realistic' scenario would generally be a waste of resources. I'm well aware of their drawbacks, and their tremendous inefficiencies.

But that is the fallacy we come to, because what is 'realistic' now is certainly not a carbon copy of what is realistic 10,000 years from now, just like 10,000 years in the past, lack of technology and material would not have made say, a helicopter, plane, or even a tank, realistic.

[Vernii]

Did this argument really just get rekindled?

Well, more exposed surface area wouldn't necessarily render a design completely invalid; a mech could theoretically be faster and more mobile/flexible than a tank and therefore able to be more effective in traversing/engaging than its tracked comrade.

Of course it would lack in one area, but it could make up in these other areas and fit a more specialized role.

I wonder where the idea that tanks are slow and clumsy came from. Probably Hollywood. What you're failing to realize is the mech also has to traverse its weapon, either by swinging at the hip (which will require some impressive engineering), or at the arm, which will require elbow/shoulder joints (assumption of a bipedal mecha given those are the most common and other idiocy is dealt with on a case-by-case basis). All of those are potential failure points either due to structural stress or enemy action, and would require greater effort to aim as accurately. In comparison, a tank's turret must only rotate around a single axis of movement, and then elevate or depress its gun accordingly. Not to mention the low center of gravity and tracked method of propulsion makes it a far more stable gun platform for both firing on the move and dealing with recoil, which combined with its greater efficiency of movement makes it the superior weapons platform and these principles will hold true in any scenario between the two vehicles provided there is equivalent technology going into them.

As Terrarius so kindly put forth, Mechs have their own areas where they really shine. Let's see you deploy a tank in a rocky death world frequently rocked by earth quakes and volcanic eruptions. Most tanks wouldn't make it three miles before being critically damaged in such an environment, what with the horrendous tectonics, unstable surface, and really an obstacle course of terrain that could not be navigated by any vehicle equipped with a standard chassis. You could deploy hover tanks, sure, but that just ovens up a whole slew of new problems in conjunction with a few the regular land based units have.

I think that says about all that's needed with that particular line of....argument.

I disagree because if we are looking at a tank then we have such limitations as track traverse speed and turret rotation which are limited by the size, weight, loadout, and so forth. In the future these problems would still exist if the same design was used (basic tank chassis with turret, gun, crew, so forth) versus a hypothetical mech which could overcome some of these issues due to design.

All of these same issues will be present in the mech, and it has the disadvantages of greater surface area, inefficient volume arrangement, higher profile, and inefficiency of power distribution regarding movement.

(And also when I speak of Mech, I dont necessarily conceptualize say, a Gundam suit, I think more of a simple walker like a WH40k Dreadnought or a power suit, for example seen in Avatar used by the humans.)

They're still just as awful.

But that is the fallacy we come to, because what is 'realistic' now is certainly not a carbon copy of what is realistic 10,000 years from now, just like 10,000 years in the past, lack of technology and material would not have made say, a helicopter, plane, or even a tank, realistic.

Certain engineering principles stay true no matter what. Just because we use steel instead of hand-carved stone doesn't mean the arch has gone out of style in bridge construction for example. While its pretty hard to imagine what military technology will look like in a few centuries, let alone millenia from now, I would feel entirely comfortable in betting what you'll never see in that entire timespan, and it its a five letter word starting with an m.

[North Calaveras]

Vernii if you think about it, if there is a problem with mechs and not having a single axis of fire you could always load the with a shit ton of guided/fire and forget weapons.

[Yes Im Biop]

Except that that fails to address the point that a tank made with the same techniques will still carry more armor and a heavier gun, and be less prone to breakage.

As Terrarius so kindly put forth, Mechs have their own areas where they really shine. Let's see you deploy a tank in a rocky death world frequently rocked by earth quakes and volcanic eruptions. Most tanks wouldn't make it three miles before being critically damaged in such an environment, what with the horrendous tectonics, unstable surface, and really an obstacle course of terrain that could not be navigated by any vehicle equipped with a standard chassis. You could deploy hover tanks, sure, but that just ovens up a whole slew of new problems in conjunction with a few the regular land based units have.

It's not about what's feasible, no, if that were the case, I'd just pinpoint your planets' coordinates, and set up the Long Guns to send a steady stream of IPBMs to eradicate all life, leaving nothing but the most durable structures higher than three feet. Sucks huh? That wouldn't be a fun RP.

FT! It's crazy stuff!

Thats what a Helicopter is for. And if a tank got blasted by Volcano's. Mech's would sing through the ground and be incinerated anyway.

Fuck Ninja'd

[Vernii]

Vernii if you think about it, if there is a problem with mechs and not having a single axis of fire you could always load the with a shit ton of guided/fire and forget weapons.

Could do it with a tank as well. The entire thing basically comes down to that given equivalent technology a tank is going to be the superior platform because there's nothing that the mech can do that can't be done equally good or better by a tank, and in a more volume, surface area, and energy efficient manner at that.

Think about it, if your solution to a mech's weaknesses in being able to bring its guns onto a target is to load it down with fire and forget weaponry, whats the point of even having the mech to begin with? The vehicle itself is the weakest link in any chain.

[North Calaveras]

Vernii if you think about it, if there is a problem with mechs and not having a single axis of fire you could always load the with a shit ton of guided/fire and forget weapons.

Could do it with a tank as well. The entire thing basically comes down to that given equivalent technology a tank is going to be the superior platform because there's nothing that the mech can do that can't be done equally good or better by a tank, and in a more volume, surface area, and energy efficient manner at that.

Think about it, if your solution to a mech's weaknesses in being able to bring its guns onto a target is to load it down with fire and forget weaponry, whats the point of even having the mech to begin with? The vehicle itself is the weakest link in any chain.

hmm, idk i have them so i have all my bases covered, I like them for there ability to weave through narrow streets

[Vernii]

hmm, idk i have them so i have all my bases covered, I like them for there ability to weave through narrow streets

Ah yes, narrow streets, power lines, and bridges, the mech's natural habitat....

Also just realized I completely forgot about the concept of ground pressure to begin with, which makes the entire argument even more lulzy.

[North Calaveras]

hmm, idk i have them so i have all my bases covered, I like them for there ability to weave through narrow streets

Ah yes, narrow streets, power lines, and bridges, the mech's natural habitat....

Also just realized I completely forgot about the concept of ground pressure to begin with, which makes the entire argument even more lulzy.

I think your picturing a slow mech

My mechs are bipedal with bird-like legs and they can haul ass and turn like a human can. Head to head they are not as dangerous as a tank but they make for excellent strategic weapons and due to being cheaper than a massive tank are great for supporting troop patrols.

[Vernii]

I think your picturing a slow mech

My mechs are bipedal with bird-like legs and they can haul ass and turn like a human can. Head to head they are not as dangerous as a tank but they make for excellent strategic weapons and due to being cheaper than a massive tank are great for supporting troop patrols.

So it has thin legs that still need to articulate at the ankle, knee, and hip, versus something that can pull a 360° rotation within its own length (and can rotate its turret and engage a target independent of its direction of movement). I'm not seeing the manueverability argument there at all. Have you never heard of the concept of a light tank, APC, or IFV? All of those could do the same job better with equivalent tech.



7' wide, just under 7' high, and 17' long, top speed of 45mph, and armed with a 90mm gun (same as the Halo Scorpion), and a 7.62 mm coaxial. Small, compact, and still packs a good punch behind it. Also obsolete by modern standards, so what you could do with something in the same profile (or even smaller) in FT could be pretty damn scary.

[Terraius]

I wonder where the idea that tanks are slow and clumsy came from. Probably Hollywood. What you're failing to realize is the mech also has to traverse its weapon, either by swinging at the hip (which will require some impressive engineering), or at the arm, which will require elbow/shoulder joints (assumption of a bipedal mecha given those are the most common and other idiocy is dealt with on a case-by-case basis). All of those are potential failure points either due to structural stress or enemy action, and would require greater effort to aim as accurately. In comparison, a tank's turret must only rotate around a single axis of movement, and then elevate or depress its gun accordingly. Not to mention the low center of gravity and tracked method of propulsion makes it a far more stable gun platform for both firing on the move and dealing with recoil, which combined with its greater efficiency of movement makes it the superior weapons platform and these principles will hold true in any scenario between the two vehicles provided there is equivalent technology going into them.

From my experience, Tanks compared to other things are kinda slow and clumsy. The M1 can only top at about 40 miles an hour; it certainly cannot turn on a dime, although the track traverse speed is not horrible. The turret cannot just 'whip' into position, it has to rotate at a anticlimactic rate and then, after that, the weapons systems take time to calibrate and aim before the first shot is even fired. Its not like in Call of Duty or World of Tanks where you just run up and shoot someone in the face 20 times.

Regardless of this, the M1 is a very decent machine and tank and performs its job exceedingly well. However, a mech could possibly excel greater in some areas where the M1 lacks, such as top speed and traversing. Perhaps a Mech could be more lightweight since it would be carrying a lighter, albeit lesser loadout. I could go on but it would be redundant.

And while it is easy to say 'equivalent technology would render the other void', it would not prove exactly true, for a tank (at least how we traditionally believe 'tank to be) has to have basic parts which will always have to be there for it to be considered a tank. A chassis, tracks, a turret (depending on the tank role It could lack one although it wouldnt make much sense) a gun, and possibly an organic crew depending on how you stylize your nation. Just like a Mech always has to have basic parts for it to be a 'mech'. And because of this, it will always have the benefits and drawbacks associated with having these parts.

I think that says about all that's needed with that particular line of....argument.

If we are going to devolve to "Well that doesnt work because I have X unit to destroy Y thing you are talking about" than we can go down the long list of bullshit FT weapons and formulate a somewhat believable excuse as to why my super-duper laser deal can incinerate your helicopter before it becomes a threat to my mech. And then you have some other super-duper deal to kill that laser deal, so on and so forth.

While helicopters are obvious banes of tanks and many of them designed specifically to deal with tanks, anyone in a strategic mindset knows that following a path of X>Y>Z>X>Y>Z is bound to fail. Different weapons of war have different uses, weaknesses, and strengths. Some are more adaptable than others, and on paper, X may be designed purely to deal with Y, but that doesnt mean Y cant in turn deal with X, either because of an upgrade, multiple other Y's, multiple other weapons designed to destroy X before X can destroy Y, whatever it may be.

And besides, as Zebian said, if we are going to be super-duper REALISMARRRG (or rather, subjective reasoning) than in reality Mechs, tanks, and planes are all useless as we have warships that could just glass a planet or area and go about their business. But that wouldnt be fun and I myself wouldnt believe it to be exactly viable, but to each their own

All of these same issues will be present in the mech, and it has the disadvantages of greater surface area, inefficient volume arrangement, higher profile, and inefficiency of power distribution regarding movement.

As I stated before, 10,000 years in the future, more light-weight materials, compact and efficient fuel/power systems and other stuff could minimize these drawbacks and possibly eliminate some of them. Yes, in the present and near future, it would be highly improbable, but we are dealing with things like steel, a gas/oil/nuclear based power system, and large, bulky weapons. In the distant future this may or may not be the case.

They're still just as awful.

I suppose thats a matter of preference, I think trying to insert helicopters and play FT by strict modern realistic standards is just as awful, whether by story standards or general FT standards, but again, to each their own.

Certain engineering principles stay true no matter what. Just because we use steel instead of hand-carved stone doesn't mean the arch has gone out of style in bridge construction for example. While its pretty hard to imagine what military technology will look like in a few centuries, let alone millenia from now, I would feel entirely comfortable in betting what you'll never see in that entire timespan, and it its a five letter word starting with an m.

I suppose I would feel comfortable with this conclusion if aerodynamic flight of planes and helicopters wasnt rebutted and disputed on scientific and engineering principles until they came around with the technology and design to make it possible.

Certain Sci/Eng. things always stay the same, I agree, but technology and resources that adapt into Sci/Eng. designs do not.

[North Calaveras]

Hey I'm not saying it can't be done with a tank-like vehicle, the Utopia has IFV's as well which are smaller.

What about a Mech that has arms and legs and can climb like a Human can?

There has to be some kind of advantage a mech has(other than looking cool)

[Zebian Syndicate]

@Vernii
Helicopters are not in any way an official alternative to tanks. Sure, you can deploy them instead of tanks, but there are still lots of issues I could bring up against them. Namely, the fact that they are aircraft makes them unsuitable for similar tactics as tanks. The most obvious being that they fly; recoil would be a bitch for high caliber weapons like the big cannons on tanks. Missiles, lasers, and smaller weapons like machine guns are adequate substitutes, but usually don't have the amount of pin point fire power.
Then we're looking at operating the darn things. They'll eat up a lot more fuel,... and I do mean a lot, as they have to constantly stay aloft. Then you also have the matters of flying around. Really windy conditions suck to fly in, particulates in the air could wear at parts or clog air intakes like anything else but it would be particularly lethal in this case, they're also unstable when under heavy fire, comparatively easily shot down (all air crafts are in some way) and the list goes on.
Oh, yeah, and try fielding them too. VTOL crafts require open spaces to land and take off. Admittedly not nearly as much as other crafts, but there are still lots of potential hazards. One guy on the tarmac can ruin landing procedures. Get under the craft, point their weapon upwards, or even just toss a grenade under the damn thing. Obstructions strewn about the pads also tend to keep landings from being performed. Plus, copters tend to be harder to maintain as far as regular wear and tear goes, and if you screw up even slightly during the maintenance, everyone inside and every investment put into it is gone.

Eh, blargh. The point is really, that nothing is quote unquote "better" than anything else. Everything has it's specific place, like a niche in a food chain. If that food chain was a military chain of command or something.
Hell, with the extra resources you put into your choppa, I could arm my tanks with some really high quality AA systems. It's not about you say is realistic or possible, it's about how things work, and how you can manipulate them to your advantage.

[Terraius]

Hey I'm not saying it can't be done with a tank-like vehicle, the Utopia has IFV's as well which are smaller.

What about a Mech that has arms and legs and can climb like a Human can?

There has to be some kind of advantage a mech has(other than looking cool)

It would still not be compatible with 'hard science' as they say

[OMGeverynameistaken]

All of your arguments are invalid.

[North Calaveras]

Hey I'm not saying it can't be done with a tank-like vehicle, the Utopia has IFV's as well which are smaller.

What about a Mech that has arms and legs and can climb like a Human can?

There has to be some kind of advantage a mech has(other than looking cool)

It would still not be compatible with 'hard science' as they say

meh, I don't RP hard sci-fi anyways Though I do try to have most of my stuff plausible.

[Vernii]

Regardless of this, the M1 is a very decent machine and tank and performs its job exceedingly well. However, a mech could possibly excel greater in some areas where the M1 lacks, such as top speed and traversing.

See this? This right here? This is you comparing a modern day vehicle to something that doesn't even exist except in the imaginations of graphics artists (and will never). I don't get how this is the stumbling block for you, when the argument is that if a civilization has the technological capacity to build a mech that couldn't be simply destroyed by a guy with a shotgun, then that same technological capacity could build a tank that would still be superior in every fashion because its simply the more efficient vehicle in every manner.

Perhaps a Mech could be more lightweight since it would be carrying a lighter, albeit lesser loadout. I could go on but it would be redundant.

It would have to be more lightweight since there's the ugly rule of ground pressure and what not.

And while it is easy to say 'equivalent technology would render the other void', it would not prove exactly true, for a tank (at least how we traditionally believe 'tank to be) has to have basic parts which will always have to be there for it to be considered a tank. A chassis, tracks, a turret (depending on the tank role It could lack one although it wouldnt make much sense) a gun, and possibly an organic crew depending on how you stylize your nation. Just like a Mech always has to have basic parts for it to be a 'mech'. And because of this, it will always have the benefits and drawbacks associated with having these parts.

The mech has higher ground pressure pressure, more inefficient movement and more points of potential failure in such, inefficient usage of volume, greater surface area, and higher target profile. For what benefit? In comparison a tank will have more efficient volume usage, less surface area to armor, a smaller target profile, and it makes for a better weapons platform. Its like what Akasha said, just admit you like them because they look cool and leave it at that, because trying to justify them on objective grounds is hilariously awful.

If we are going to devolve to "Well that doesnt work because I have X unit to destroy Y thing you are talking about" than we can go down the long list of bullshit FT weapons and formulate a somewhat believable excuse as to why my super-duper laser deal can incinerate your helicopter before it becomes a threat to my mech. And then you have some other super-duper deal to kill that laser deal, so on and so forth.

You completely missed the point of that post. Which is that the helicopter would be the supreme vehicle for that type of environment, as while a tank might not be suitable in rocky deathtrap terrain (and I find it telling that Zebian had to resort to such an extreme planetary environment type to try and make a point off of it), any competent military wouldn't be deploying mechs either because I'd love to see how they'd deal with things like landslides and earthquakes (badly).

While helicopters are obvious banes of tanks almost everything on the ground

and many of them designed specifically to deal with tanks, anyone in a strategic mindset knows that following a path of X>Y>Z>X>Y>Z is bound to fail. Different weapons of war have different uses, weaknesses, and strengths. Some are more adaptable than others, and on paper, X may be designed purely to deal with Y, but that doesnt mean Y cant in turn deal with X, either because of an upgrade, multiple other Y's, multiple other weapons designed to destroy X before X can destroy Y, whatever it may be.

What you are again failing to realize is that the mech does not occupy a unique place in the battlefield ecology, it is a failed evolutionary step. If something were to say, render tanks obsolete, it would apply justly so to mecha as well, and likewise if the helicopter was rendered obsolete by a weapon mounted on a mech, there is no reason that same weapon could not be mounted on a tank either.

And besides, as Zebian said, if we are going to be super-duper REALISMARRRG (or rather, subjective reasoning) than in reality Mechs, tanks, and planes are all useless as we have warships that could just glass a planet or area and go about their business. But that wouldnt be fun and I myself wouldnt believe it to be exactly viable, but to each their own

It wouldn't be viable for the same reason nations don't immediately escalate into nuclear war over border scuffles; rational actors, escalation trees, etc. Escalating to the level of mass destruction right off the bat, or worse, using it as a sole manner of state committed violence, is the furthest thing from "realistic", unless your goal is to portray your government and military leadership as incompetent psychopaths (looking at you Calaveras ).

As I stated before, 10,000 years in the future, more light-weight materials, compact and efficient fuel/power systems and other stuff could minimize these drawbacks and possibly eliminate some of them. Yes, in the present and near future, it would be highly improbable, but we are dealing with things like steel, a gas/oil/nuclear based power system, and large, bulky weapons. In the distant future this may or may not be the case.

Now explain why those same breakthroughs wouldn't be put to better use in a more efficient vehicle type.

I suppose thats a matter of preference, I think trying to insert helicopters and play FT by strict modern realistic standards is just as awful, whether by story standards or general FT standards, but again, to each their own.

That's a matter of artistic opinion and not looking at something from an engineering standpoint. There is a difference between the two, and don't try to act like there isn't.

I suppose I would feel comfortable with this conclusion if aerodynamic flight of planes and helicopters wasnt rebutted and disputed on scientific and engineering principles until they came around with the technology and design to make it possible.

Certain Sci/Eng. things always stay the same, I agree, but technology and resources that adapt into Sci/Eng. designs do not.

Yes but you see these things were refined over the years into a point of maturity, but the basic concepts underlying them (lift vs drag for instance), have not changed. In this case however, you are trying to take something that is inferior in every manner that matters in combat and trying to pass it off as "Well its the future!"