Real life gundam

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Nobody made any sense since their explanation defies general laws of physics.
If your comparing a complete empty box with an ingot then, yes.
If your comparing one made of Aluminum and the other out of gold then again yes but if both are made from basically the same material fitting in the same components then they will weigh approximately the same regardless the design when confined with the same demensions.

Yeah, but you're comparing a box on wheels (or treads) to a more complicated legged design, with a greater surface, all of which except maybe the sole of the feet has to be armored.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

And yet human scout on foot are required to do so.
I wonder where the logic is in that?

Because human bodies are a matter of biological evolution, not military choice. If there ever comes a time when human forms can be chosen at will without flaw, then bipedal soldiers will increasingly be a thing of the past as well.

Which is a giant if.

Another reason is that you don't take vehicles into narrow alleyways in the first place, because it makes ideal ambush points. Just like on a bridge, a single broken vehicle will stop all movement and break up all units infront and behind of it. A mech doesn't change that.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

As your opinion nothing more, nothing less.

A factually supported point is more than an opinion.

Nobody made any sense since their explanation defies general laws of physics.

Just because you aren't comprehending that physics doesn't scale linearly doesn't mean it defies the laws of physics, That is that laws of physics.

If your comparing a complete empty box with an ingot then, yes.
If your comparing one made of Aluminum and the other out of gold then again yes but if both are made from basically the same material fitting in the same components then they will weigh approximately the same regardless the design when confined with the same demensions.

But a mech won't be the same dimensions, won't be made from the same materials, won't be made from the same components. Mechs, by the very nature of legs, are going to have great deals of equiptment that no one else has. And it's going to need to be strong enough to support weight and have enough armor on it's much greater surface area...

One very basic reason that mechs with comparative armor will always weigh far more than whatever vehicle they have the armor strength of is simple surface area. Mechs have to have armor on all of its parts, or risk leaving a weak zone that can cripple the entire machine. If you don't armor the legs, smaller arms fire can cripple the entire machine. And to carry the armor, you're going to need heavier and less effecient drive trains.

Making it ineffective when opponent and allies are within close proximity or when combat is within a living quarters.

The first half is true of any fire-support system, for a certain definition of close. Surely only an idiot would open a minigun on a building room friendly and foes are fighting. The same restrictions apply to your mech as apply to the helicopter, except the helicopter can maneuver around for a better angle of fire much quicker. Such situations, however, are very rare, and your mech doesn't solve that problem. Not least because you've given it similar heavy armaments.

The second half is blatantly false, because as history and military doctrine has repeatedly shown, a military will simply blow up a house if there's militants fighting from it, even at risk of killing civilians. Helicopters have been blowing down walls and shooting up buildings with their cannons since Vietnam. All that's required is radio contact or pre-arranged signals of any sort.

That is why American troops were not welcomed in Iraq and or any other presentday urban area combat zone creating 10 new enemies with every one killed.
Raking down a city block 500m~1Km away with a heavy machine gun and/or rockets is not the way to fight these kind of battles.

You're completely side-stepping his point that a mech doesn't add any new capabilities.

Moreover, this is largely wrong because modern weaponry is already precise beyond your weak generalization. Modern rocketry already is building, even room precise aiming wise, and all one has to do is fire at the proper range to avoid shooting up a whole city block. A mech on the ground only changes the range fired from by limiting it, not the abilities.

[mechabao]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

As your opinion nothing more, nothing less.

Nobody made any sense since their explanation defies general laws of physics.
If your comparing a complete empty box with an ingot then, yes.
If your comparing one made of Aluminum and the other out of gold then again yes but if both are made from basically the same material fitting in the same components then they will weigh approximately the same regardless the design when confined with the same demensions.

Making it ineffective when opponent and allies are within close proximity or when combat is within a living quarters.

That is why American troops were not welcomed in Iraq and or any other presentday urban area combat zone creating 10 new enemies with every one killed.
Raking down a city block 500m~1Km away with a heavy machine gun and/or rockets is not the way to fight these kind of battles.

Anh Minh and Dean the Young already explained everything else so the only thing I'd like to add is this little tidbit: Bushmaster 25mm Cannon. If you want you can check other sites but they'll tell you the same thing anyway.

I also suggest that you go to Youtube and look for Apache/Gunship kill videos. They use their 30mm chainguns/autocannons to engage and kill enemy infantry from approximately a kilometer away. Even if they miss, they miss by less than 20-30 feet. That should give you a good idea of the accuracy of modern weapons systems.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Yeah, but you're comparing a box on wheels (or treads) to a more complicated legged design, with a greater surface, all of which except maybe the sole of the feet has to be armored.

Wheeled vehicles are MORE complicated with MORE parts to achive motion.
It needs a gear box, a differencial, a drive shaft, suspensions(actuators without compressor), wheels, axles, and since the engine is revolving at higher speed it needs heavy duty radiator as well. The larger the torque the engine is required to generates, the heavier duty all of the components needs to be as well.

On the other hand, my proposed walker is actuator driven with about 8~10 actuators with 4~6 electric compressors in in each leg. One actuator should be able to generate about 50~200Kg depending on installed location.
2~3 large actuators is located in the groin part and is able to generate 2 tonnes each connecting the engine directly to one compressor to power these actuators.
The higher positioned actuators will be hydraulic/electro magnetic while the lower positioned actuators would probably be gas/springs combination.

So basically you have a bunch of hollow steel tubes with oil or springs filled in. how is that going to be heavier then a two large solid steel shaft(4 wheeled)?

The cabin will also be considerably smaller compared to wheeled vehicle due to number of personnel.

I also wonder how you are comparing surface area?
The wheeled box as you describe needs to be double walled at some areas like wheel compartment. The floor of a wheeled vehicle also needs heavy armor to protect personnels from mines, one part a walker would be less shielded since it is 2.5~3m above ground needing less armor. Inner theighs will also be lighter armored. (basically same as human anatomy)
On the other hand soles of a walker will need to be protected from land mines so it is going to be heavily armored on that part.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Wheeled vehicles are MORE complicated with MORE parts to achive motion.
It needs a gear box, a differencial, a drive shaft, suspensions(actuators without compressor), wheels, axles, and since the engine is revolving at higher speed it needs heavy duty radiator as well. The larger the torque the engine is required to generates, the heavier duty all of the components needs to be as well.

On the other hand, my proposed walker is actuator driven with about 8~10 actuators with 4~6 electric compressors in in each leg. One actuator should be able to generate about 50~200Kg depending on installed location.
2~3 large actuators is located in the groin part and is able to generate 2 tonnes each connecting the engine directly to one compressor to power these actuators.
The higher positioned actuators will be hydraulic/electro magnetic while the lower positioned actuators would probably be gas/springs combination.

So basically you have a bunch of hollow steel tubes with oil or springs filled in. how is that going to be heavier then a two large solid steel shaft(4 wheeled)?

You forgot to mention legs? And balance tools?

...bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

*sniff*

Dear lord, I haven't read anything so funny in such a long time. You've never even worked with robotics or engineering, have you? You're trying hard, I'll give you that, but you don't have a clue of how to start building robotic limbs, do you?

Oh, good stuff.

The cabin will also be considerably smaller compared to wheeled vehicle due to number of personnel.

Crew sized has been shaped over time by experience in practicality and effectiveness. You can actually track it over the history of tank design, when the early British giant tanks had much larger crews compared to French tanks which were smaller and had crews of two. Crew size of armored vehicles came to be a standard three or four for concerns of practicality; a dedicated driver, a dedicated gunner, and a commander to control the vehicle and select the next target. Plus often a fourth member for accessory positions, from loader (a role in which people are still considered better and more reliable than auto-loader systems) to alternate gunner and otherwise.

A ground vehicle with only a single crew member in charge of everything compromises its effectiveness because the driver is having to split his limited attention over too many things at the same time. What you've lost in weight you've traded in overall combat effectiveness.

I also wonder how you are comparing surface area?

Surface Area: The total area of the surface of a three-dimensional object. Generally cubes have minimal surface areas. Legs, which are more like jointed cylinders, have much higher exposed surface areas that must be defended than a wheeled/tracked drive train, in which most of the mechanics are inside the armored core.

The wheeled box as you describe needs to be double walled at some areas like wheel compartment. The floor of a wheeled vehicle also needs heavy armor to protect personnels from mines, one part a walker would be less shielded since it is 2.5~3m above ground needing less armor. Inner theighs will also be lighter armored. (basically same as human anatomy)

Except that invites the leg motors to be exposed from shots from the flank, because a mech isn't going to be standing still and covering the inside of the legs at any time it isn't standing up and straight. If it's walking, compensating for balance, or in a stable firing position, the inner thighs will be exposed.

A mistake you're making is in assuming that the human anatomy is ideal for warfare or combat. It isn't. Muscle for muscle, ability for ability, humans are pretty low down on the list for good physical survival and combat. The reason humans won evolution is because of the mind and thumbs allowed for tools, not the body form.

On the other hand soles of a walker will need to be protected from land mines so it is going to be heavily armored on that part.

While the main compartment of the walker is over the ground, the most important part of the walker, it's legs, aren't. And if a walker's legs are damaged and inoperable, that walker becomes a sitting (fallen, actually) target. The most important part of surviving a mine blast from directly underneath isn't the armor thickness, it's the shape. Anti-mine personal carriers have angled bottoms to divert the force of the explosion away. A walker can't do that, because it's feet have to be as stable as possible, and that means it can't be walking on a diamond.

[Keio]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Wheeled vehicles are MORE complicated with MORE parts to achive motion.
It needs a gear box, a differencial, a drive shaft, suspensions(actuators without compressor), wheels, axles, and since the engine is revolving at higher speed it needs heavy duty radiator as well. The larger the torque the engine is required to generates, the heavier duty all of the components needs to be as well.

@bolded part

If that's true, how come there aren't many bipedal robots today? Heck if wheeled vehicles were so complicated, then cars shouldn't be enjoying their popularity.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

On the other hand, my proposed walker is actuator driven with about 8~10 actuators with 4~6 electric compressors in in each leg. One actuator should be able to generate about 50~200Kg depending on installed location.
2~3 large actuators is located in the groin part and is able to generate 2 tonnes each connecting the engine directly to one compressor to power these actuators.
The higher positioned actuators will be hydraulic/electro magnetic while the lower positioned actuators would probably be gas/springs combination.

So basically you have a bunch of hollow steel tubes with oil or springs filled in. how is that going to be heavier then a two large solid steel shaft(4 wheeled)?

You forgot the wires, cables, gyroscope/balance system, armor plating on of the largest yet most vulnerable part of the mecha, etc., not to mention that if the legs are lightweight that shifts the center of gravity considerably and thus unbalancing the entire machine. One hit to the torso can topple it over. Unless the system involved in moving the legs is similar to a clown walking on stilts.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

The cabin will also be considerably smaller compared to wheeled vehicle due to number of personnel.
I also wonder how you are comparing surface area?
The wheeled box as you describe needs to be double walled at some areas like wheel compartment. The floor of a wheeled vehicle also needs heavy armor to protect personnels from mines, one part a walker would be less shielded since it is 2.5~3m above ground needing less armor. Inner theighs will also be lighter armored. (basically same as human anatomy)
On the other hand soles of a walker will need to be protected from land mines so it is going to be heavily armored on that part.

The rest of these points have already been addressed by Dean the Young.

[Dan the Man]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Wheeled vehicles are MORE complicated with MORE parts to achive motion.
It needs a gear box, a differencial, a drive shaft, suspensions(actuators without compressor), wheels, axles, and since the engine is revolving at higher speed it needs heavy duty radiator as well. The larger the torque the engine is required to generates, the heavier duty all of the components needs to be as well.

Sure, strictly going by your definitions, a walking mech is a "simpler" machine, but it isn't as reliable.A car's mechanics provide stability while still allowing for mobility. Mechs have the disadvantage of having a higher center of gravity along with only two points of cantact on the ground, as opposed to four.
Also, like everyone else has said, along with the mechanics, you need a sophisticated balancing system in a mech as well. The rest of the body has to shift to the relative position of the moving legs to keep the balance stable. Using a GM as an example, adding armaments like a beam gun on one arm and a potentially 5 ton metal shield on the other would wreak havok on the balancing system, and the mech would hobble on it's right side just to stay on it's feet! Adding enemy fire, uneven terrain, and the pilot's own maneuvering, it'd be a miracle to not have the whole thing fall right on it's face within a matter of minutes. Given all of this, just mounting the weapons on a tank or other more stabile vehicle is more practical, while admittedly less cool.

And I base all of this on my own conjecture, by the way, but just try to walk given these examples, like holding a case of soda in one hand while trying to stand perfectly straight and walk. It's hard to do without leaning to your other side to stay balanced. Given a mech at least three times the size of a human with no biological instinct on staying balanced, it's all reliant on programming and mechanics, and if they can't flawlessly mimic human motion in every aspect, you have an ineffective vehicle.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

I also wonder how you are comparing surface area?
The wheeled box as you describe needs to be double walled at some areas like wheel compartment. The floor of a wheeled vehicle also needs heavy armor to protect personnels from mines, one part a walker would be less shielded since it is 2.5~3m above ground needing less armor. Inner theighs will also be lighter armored. (basically same as human anatomy)
On the other hand soles of a walker will need to be protected from land mines so it is going to be heavily armored on that part.

That may be, but armor on a mech would be very restricting. You can't put it everywhere, or it won't be able to move. Protection and mobility are two things that can't be perfect when both are involved. That's one of the major flaws in human design, while our skin is thicker in some places compared to others, all it takes is a well placed shot to damage something vital, and in a mech the problem would be just as apparent.

[Tri-ring]

The actual balancing of the machine is done through the actuators.
Dynamic balance ambulation algorithm is all about balancing the machine because this method of bipedal locomotion is constantly destabilizing the balance of the machine to move foward. Balance sensors and motion sensor similar to semicircular canals constantly sends feed back into a processor to constantly adjust the actuators.
So there are no flywheels to maintain balance.

And no, a single actuator failure will not cause it to fall down nor a single fall to the ground will damage the gun barrel. If it did, that will be a design error not being able to anticipate a fall.

[Keio]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

The actual balancing of the machine is done through the actuators.
Dynamic balance ambulation algorithm is all about balancing the machine because this method of bipedal locomotion is constantly destabilizing the balance of the machine to move foward. Balance sensors and motion sensor similar to semicircular canals constantly sends feed back into a processor to constantly adjust the actuators.
So there are no flywheels to maintain balance.

Kindly explain to us how this system is much, much simpler than what a wheeled vehicle is currently using. As far as I know a car can run without any onboard computer/processor.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Keio

Kindly explain to us how this system is much, much simpler than what a wheeled vehicle is currently using. As far as I know a car can run without any onboard computer/processor.

A car to transmit motion from the engine to the wheels requires various components and parts.
Rotating energy first goes into the gear box to ensure the engine will not stall under stress then the energy is transmited to the power shaft then again to the power axle. The axle then again transfer the energy to a secondary axle with a ball joint suspended by coil suspensions, to provide vertical motion for better traction.
In changing direction, a differencial installed between the power shaft and power axle is needed to compensate the difference in distance the inner and outer wheel travels.
That is the basic power rely of a car.
If any of the components and/or parts breaks down then even with the engine operating the wheeled vehicle cease to move foward.

Bipedal locomotion of a walker in basic term is just series of inflating/deflating actuators and gravity does the rest.
Balancing the walker is handled by a processor and you can install a back up with little weigh gain, a wheeled vehicle on the otherhand can not.

[mechabao]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

The actual balancing of the machine is done through the actuators.
Dynamic balance ambulation algorithm is all about balancing the machine because this method of bipedal locomotion is constantly destabilizing the balance of the machine to move foward. Balance sensors and motion sensor similar to semicircular canals constantly sends feed back into a processor to constantly adjust the actuators.
So there are no flywheels to maintain balance.

So basically you want militaries that have always prized stable weapons plaftorms to field a frontline combat vehicle that relies on destabilizing itself in order to take a simple step? Oh I'm sure militaries across the globe would be falling all over themselves to build, test, and field one of your walkers. You should get your idea patented right away before the patent trolls hear about it. You could make millions -- or even billions!

And no, a single actuator failure will not cause it to fall down nor a single fall to the ground will damage the gun barrel. If it did, that will be a design error not being able to anticipate a fall.

But it'd be crippled anyway. So you're still shit out of luck. Oh and that gun that your multi-ton mech just landed on? Yeah, it's broken. Unless it's made out of that unobtainium/plebotinum alloy which you invented.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

A car to transmit motion from the engine to the wheels requires various components and parts.
Rotating energy first goes into the gear box to ensure the engine will not stall under stress then the energy is transmited to the power shaft then again to the power axle. The axle then again transfer the energy to a secondary axle with a ball joint suspended by coil suspensions, to provide vertical motion for better traction.
In changing direction, a differencial installed between the power shaft and power axle is needed to compensate the difference in distance the inner and outer wheel travels.
That is the basic power rely of a car.
If any of the components and/or parts breaks down then even with the engine operating the wheeled vehicle cease to move foward.

Bipedal locomotion of a walker in basic term is just series of inflating/deflating actuators and gravity does the rest.
Balancing the walker is handled by a processor and you can install a back up with little weigh gain, a wheeled vehicle on the otherhand can not.

Oh yeah cars are soooo complex that's why no one bothers making them and why giant bipedal robots are running around everywhere. Oh wait that's not right. Ah, now I'm confused.

[Keio]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

A car to transmit motion from the engine to the wheels requires various components and parts.
Rotating energy first goes into the gear box to ensure the engine will not stall under stress then the energy is transmited to the power shaft then again to the power axle. The axle then again transfer the energy to a secondary axle with a ball joint suspended by coil suspensions, to provide vertical motion for better traction.
In changing direction, a differencial installed between the power shaft and power axle is needed to compensate the difference in distance the inner and outer wheel travels.
That is the basic power rely of a car.
If any of the components and/or parts breaks down then even with the engine operating the wheeled vehicle cease to move foward.

Bipedal locomotion of a walker in basic term is just series of inflating/deflating actuators and gravity does the rest.
Balancing the walker is handled by a processor and you can install a back up with little weigh gain, a wheeled vehicle on the otherhand can not.

Wow, the bipedal locomotion of your walker is so simple! The world's armies would be dying to to get ahold of your blueprints! Hell perhaps even terrorists would be able to field one due to its simplicity!

I shall be eagerly waiting for the day that your bipedal mecha will take over the world's battlefields in a new age of warfare.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by mechabao

So basically you want militaries that have always prized stable weapons plaftorms to field a frontline combat vehicle that relies on destabilizing itself in order to take a simple step? Oh I'm sure militaries across the globe would be falling all over themselves to build, test, and field one of your walkers. You should get your idea patented right away before the patent trolls hear about it. You could make millions -- or even billions!

Modern fighter jets are made exactly that way. If they lose the stabilizing computer then that plane literally falls out of the sky. It's been like that from F-16 onwards.

[mechabao]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Modern fighter jets are made exactly that way. If they lose the stabilizing computer then that plane literally falls out of the sky. It's been like that from F-16 onwards.

Except that I'm talking about ground vehicles whose design principles are completely different from aircraft.

Edit:
Hmmm... nope, nothing about walking on two legs here.

"The main concern with fly-by-wire systems is reliability. While traditional mechanical or hydraulic control systems usually fail gradually, the loss of all flight control computers could immediately render the aircraft uncontrollable. For this reason, most fly-by-wire systems incorporate either redundant computers (triplex, quadruplex etc), some kind of mechanical or hydraulic backup or a combination of both. A "mixed" control system such as the latter is not desirable and modern FBW aircraft normally avoid it by having more independent FBW channels, thereby reducing the possibility of overall failure to minuscule levels that are acceptable to the independent regulatory and safety authority responsible for aircraft design, testing and certification before operational service."

[Dan the Man]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

A car to transmit motion from the engine to the wheels requires various components and parts.
Rotating energy first goes into the gear box to ensure the engine will not stall under stress then the energy is transmited to the power shaft then again to the power axle. The axle then again transfer the energy to a secondary axle with a ball joint suspended by coil suspensions, to provide vertical motion for better traction.
In changing direction, a differencial installed between the power shaft and power axle is needed to compensate the difference in distance the inner and outer wheel travels.
That is the basic power rely of a car.
If any of the components and/or parts breaks down then even with the engine operating the wheeled vehicle cease to move foward.

Bipedal locomotion of a walker in basic term is just series of inflating/deflating actuators and gravity does the rest.
Balancing the walker is handled by a processor and you can install a back up with little weigh gain, a wheeled vehicle on the otherhand can not.

You're still missing the point that it's not about the complexity of the drive system on a car.
Automobiles have had their reliability tested for nearly 100 years. It's a system that requires no advanced computer systems or advanced engineering to use, and these days, repair is a relative snap, especially with the resources and know-how of a modern military.
A bipedal robot is still numerous times more complex. While you reinforce the idea of the actuators being the power drive of the legs, each actuator requires it's own power source to the main engine, along with reinforcement to withstand combat stresses. Not to mention the framework, suspension, hydraulics and motors required for complete human leg motion. Also, the amount of programming needed to coordinate the leg movements along with the movements of the arms, head and torso would be resiculously complex...
An example would be a quick turn to shoot an enemy behind the mech. Say the programming calls for it to turn while holding a two-handed cannon. To make an effective turn, the legs have to compensate for the twist of the waist, the arms swinging the weapon around, position themselves for a stable firing position, and withstand the recoil of the cannon fire, if not withstand the impact of enemy fire. A bunch of actuators can't do that without a lot of support from numerous other systems in an incredibly complicated amount of synchronization.
With a car, no matter how complicated the drive system is, all that maneuver requires is a turn of the wheel, and a step on a brake pedal. No proramming needed.

[willyvereb]

Now what are we talking about? I guess We're speaking about the possibility of building mecha(and their actual use then, but it's another matter). It's natural that a newborn technology is need time to be as relaible as the other. Tri-ring spoke about that the mechas are not exceedingly complex to actually move and stabilise them as many people thinks. The controls another issue. But as i said the mechas probably are coming after the powered suits. With realible technology to move the suit and use the weapon systems i think making the controls for a mecha done easier.

[mechabao]

The concept is simple, but the execution is hard.

[Dan the Man]

Originally Posted by willyvereb

Now what are we talking about? I guess We're speaking about the possibility of building mecha(and their actual use then, but it's another matter). It's natural that a newborn technology is need time to be as relaible as the other. Tri-ring spoke about that the mechas are not exceedingly complex to actually move and stabilise them as many people thinks. The controls another issue. But as i said the mechas probably are coming after the powered suits. With realible technology to move the suit and use the weapon systems i think making the controls for a mecha done easier.

True, given time, technology might advance to the point that we could potentially build combat robots, but the same point has been reinforced by many on this thread that given the fact that if weapons technology gives us a powerful new type of weapon, it'll have to serve a purpose that no other weapons that came before could match. Modern combat vehicles are very advanced in their design and execution, which makes them very effective at what they do, and they'll easily hold their own against any giant mech of comparible technology.
So, basically, if mech technology advances to the point that it's effectiveness compared to a tank is like an F-22 against a Sopwith Camel, then you just might see them on the battlefield, though I don't ever see that happening.

Granted, they could be made for gladitorial combat, like a giant version of Battlebots, just much cooler. Gundam Fight, Ready... GOOO!!

[reinloch]

To summarize, it is not a question of whether we can build a combat capable biped mecha or not, because there is no doubt we can, but a question of the merit of such an investment? Since a mecha offers nothing new and does not stand up to its contemporaries, the answer is obvious.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by willyvereb

Now what are we talking about? I guess We're speaking about the possibility of building mecha(and their actual use then, but it's another matter). It's natural that a newborn technology is need time to be as relaible as the other. Tri-ring spoke about that the mechas are not exceedingly complex to actually move and stabilise them as many people thinks. The controls another issue. But as i said the mechas probably are coming after the powered suits. With realible technology to move the suit and use the weapon systems i think making the controls for a mecha done easier.

Originally Posted by Dan the Man

True, given time, technology might advance to the point that we could potentially build combat robots, but the same point has been reinforced by many on this thread that given the fact that if weapons technology gives us a powerful new type of weapon, it'll have to serve a purpose that no other weapons that came before could match. Modern combat vehicles are very advanced in their design and execution, which makes them very effective at what they do, and they'll easily hold their own against any giant mech of comparible technology.
So, basically, if mech technology advances to the point that it's effectiveness compared to a tank is like an F-22 against a Sopwith Camel, then you just might see them on the battlefield, though I don't ever see that happening.

Granted, they could be made for gladitorial combat, like a giant version of Battlebots, just much cooler. Gundam Fight, Ready... GOOO!!

Sorry to burst people's bubble but an armored suit and bipedal vehicles are exactly the same needing the same mechanism and probably be more easier to develop the vehicle then armored suit since miniturization is not required.
The reason is that a full body armored suit with the required protective armor will be too heavy for a human to move with his own physical strength and will requires actuators as assistance for all movement.
Furthermore the bio-input from the operator for dynamic balance ambulation to control the actuators will always be out of sync due to delay. The only way to compensate is to render the constant balance of the actuators automatically through a processor and the operator merely direct the direction in which he wants to go. The speed of the armor will also be confined to response time of the actuators so the operator may over exert one's self if not careful.

The reason why we do not see this kind of problem with HAL of Cyberdyne is because it doesn't have anything to do with ambulation nor balancing itself and only enforces the bio-feed pulses of the operator. Although I do believe the operator is confined to a speed an actuator can respond to.

As for application of a bipedal vehicle is only limited to the imagination of one's mind.
Comparing the machines with tanks or any other wheeled vehicle is nosense since it's role is not to replace it with wheeled vehicle but it can go to places that no wheeled vehicle can go and have better protection then any foot soldier will ever obtain in both physical and bio/chemical weapons, as I stated when I started this argument.