Mobile Suits

[biostem]

And if the mech can't replace a tank, it certainly cannot be useful in the artillery role, while the infantry role puts us back to square one because it absolutely demands something small enough to enter a building which means even the larger forms of power armor in sci fi become tactically dubious.

What would be the acceptable size/mass limit for entering and clearing buildings? Assuming design goal is to make armor suit proof against assault rifles and grenade shrapnel. Anything more durable probably not realistic while keeping size and weight down.

A lot would also depend on where the suit will be used most. Public buildings, warehouses, factories and such would be more favorable because of large doors, walkways and floors designed to support heavy stuff. Third world shantytowns probably would be most problematic because narrow doors, low ceiling and substandard construction would make soldiers in heavy armor suit prone to breaking through stairs, floors and generally less agile than soldiers without armor suit.

Yeah... trying to use power armor-clad troops to clear multi-level buildings that were cobbled together without any concern over meeting code or other such structural requirements would be bad. You'd want your troops to be fast, light, and flexible. I could see something like a clip-on exoskeleton that has quick-releases so the soldier can ditch it quickly if the need arose, but which would provide enough extra strength to rip off a door, drag another person, or move heavy furniture, perhaps incorporating some armor plates over critical areas as well.

I certainly would not want to tray and equip all soldiers with some generic powered armor, unless it was like the suit in Crysis, where it is basically no bulkier than their regular uniform.

[Batman]

No kind of power armour is going to be suitable for 'every' situation (not short of 'makes the Iron Man suits look Stone Age' levels of tech) but but even if it's of limited use it'd still be vastly more useful than Mecha.

[Q99]

Which series did everyone enjoy the most?

Wing, G Gundam, and Build Fighters

I do like 'em over-the-top and fun...

[Tribble]

Do Power Rangers, Voltron, VR Troopers, Bettleborgs etc count? They may be a tad on the large side, but they are mobile. And some are capable of space travel.

[Q99]

For giant robots in general, I love Jaegers.

Because they aren't *for* war, and they're so resource/maintenance intensive, with such short operational times, that they'd suck at it. Nah, what they're for is standing in front of a giant monster, preventing it from getting into a city by physically blocking it / dragging it out of it does get in, and beating said monster to death.

[Zeropoint]

Ooh, yes. I'll take some of that Cherno Alpha action!

[Joun_Lord]

Build Fighters

I just looked that up and my freaking god. I enjoy silly Gundam shows like G and some of the SD Gundam stuff but that just seems so freaking terrible. Though to be fair I haven't really liked any new-ish Gundam series.

[Vendetta]

Iron Blooded Orphans has been interesting so far, Mikazuki is an obviously broken human being and even for Gundam the setup is pretty grim for the main characters (basically child soldiers, some of whom were trafficked as slaves, to a shitty private army that treats them as expendable)

Also the robit fights were quite cool.

[Q99]

Build Fighters

I just looked that up and my freaking god. I enjoy silly Gundam shows like G and some of the SD Gundam stuff but that just seems so freaking terrible. Though to be fair I haven't really liked any new-ish Gundam series.

I know, right? It's like, 'I can't believe they made a gundam show about toys.' But it's seriously awesome, a real love-letter to Gundam, including the old stuff (Ramba Ral is a major character), and it has some of the best Gundam fights I've seen, believe it or not. Major epic-ness.

[Skywalker_T-65]

After War is far and away my favorite. Has been since I first watched it.

[Guardsman Bass]

Mecha might have made (initial) sense in Gundam if you figure they were a result of path dependency in production. If mecha suits are being used extensively for civilian purposes, and you need to build up a fighting force in a hurry using what you have, then I could imagine them initially using mecha in space simply because they already have mecha production facilities and a bunch of mecha-trained pilots.

Over the course of a conflict, though, you'd expect them to diversify into better weapons and war machines.

[Q99]

Mecha might have made (initial) sense in Gundam if you figure they were a result of path dependency in production. If mecha suits are being used extensively for civilian purposes, and you need to build up a fighting force in a hurry using what you have, then I could imagine them initially using mecha in space simply because they already have mecha production facilities and a bunch of mecha-trained pilots.

Over the course of a conflict, though, you'd expect them to diversify into better weapons and war machines.

Ironically, it's almost the opposite in UC. The EF had to rely on 'balls'- space worker pods- until they could get their own Mobile Suits up and running.

[Patroklos]

Aren't they supposed to be eight feet tall or something like that? Such that they would have trouble standing upright in normal buildings and be impossible to cram into anything resembling a modern APC of any type? Doesn't seem like a real big advantage at that point, certainly not across a diverse range of situations. Such a person would be so large we could calculate a significant increase in the probability of them being hit by enemy fire!

You are a bit behind the times. New construction homes, in the US anyway, have generally had 9-10ft ceilings since the 90s. Most commercial buildings have 10-12 foot ceilings and institutional buildings even higher in many cases. So yeah if you are talking about the suburbs you might have to duck a bit but then again that is plaster and drywall construction so its not going to stop you and I doubt you would care about some holes in the ceiling when you are busy pumping bullet holes in the walls.

The problem is doors, not ceilings. But just like a tank doesn't give a shit about fences, retaining walls or even cars in its way there is no reason armored suits need to care about door frames. A lot of city doors, especially exterior doors, are going to be double and/or oversized for any building with serious traffic. Will they be able to enter every room? No. Do they need to? No. Is that more than a tank can do in urban environments? yes.

The outskirts or many modern cities are made up of scenes like this to the horizon.



There are plenty of places where something between an tank and a muscle powered infantryman works just fine.

[Adam Reynolds]

For giant robots in general, I love Jaegers.

Because they aren't *for* war, and they're so resource/maintenance intensive, with such short operational times, that they'd suck at it. Nah, what they're for is standing in front of a giant monster, preventing it from getting into a city by physically blocking it / dragging it out of it does get in, and beating said monster to death.

Even at the role of physically beating said monster to death it would still be more effective to use missiles. If the warheads were either ineffective or allowed too much blood to escape use purely physical projectiles. Sprint is a reasonable example of what would be easily possible with modern technology. It could pull 100g of acceleration and would have more than enough KE to penetrate kaiju if you used a few of them.

The only context that it would ever make sense to use giant robots is if they already existed for some reason. And that was clearly not the case in Pacific Rim. That movie was several layers of stupid. I believe Sea Skimmer referred to it as a prequel for Idiocracy.

You are a bit behind the times. New construction homes, in the US anyway, have generally had 9-10ft ceilings since the 90s. Most commercial buildings have 10-12 foot ceilings and institutional buildings even higher in many cases. So yeah if you are talking about the suburbs you might have to duck a bit but then again that is plaster and drywall construction so its not going to stop you and I doubt you would care about some holes in the ceiling when you are busy pumping bullet holes in the walls.

I think he mostly means relative to the places that the US military sends their soldiers most of the time. Not to mention the problem of working with AFVs. Those could be designed to carry larger soldiers but that would lead to another set of problem. Though it might be possible to use unarmored vehicles as the soldiers themselves are now armored instead.

And if you end up poking a hole in the ceiling every time you try to move in your armored suit, reacting to enemy fire is going to be a nightmare.

There are plenty of places where something between an tank and a muscle powered infantryman works just fine.

And how many of those places does the US army regularly deploy to? The problem for larger suits is that they become larger targets and become something that the enemy would be more willing to use heavier weapons against. There are essentially two opposite problems:

Against an enemy like the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents it would increase troop survivability at the cost of a decrease in the trust that is critical to long term sucess. There were issues with things like American soldiers wearing sunglasses. Imagine what would happen if said soldiers walked around in eight foot tall enclosed suits. Or they could leave them open and vulnerable to things like snipers. Neither result would exactly be ideal.

Against a proper enemy it would lead to a massive increase in logistics as well as a larger target that would be more vulnerable to heavier weapons and also a much larger target for them. The general problem in modern warfare is that weapons are becoming easier to adapt than armor. Things like HEAT rounds for grenade launchers might become more prevalent against an enemy that used suits like this idea.

[Patroklos]

I think he mostly means relative to the places that the US military sends their soldiers most of the time. Not to mention the problem of working with AFVs. Those could be designed to carry larger soldiers but that would lead to another set of problem. Though it might be possible to use unarmored vehicles as the soldiers themselves are now armored instead.

I can't think of a place we have been where we are not in large urban areas full of places (though still plenty of smaller houses granted) or large tracts of rough terrain where tracked vehicles are out of the question. Like tanks this doesn't have to be a weapon appropriate or even usable at all everywhere, just enough places to justify a production run. You know, again, like tanks.

As for AFVs perhaps the answer is not to fit the same number of units in a larger vehicle, but since presumably these are more capable than the MK1 flesh bag and or perhaps lets you use a few less traditional heavy units, you fit less of them into the same space for the same effect?

And if you end up poking a hole in the ceiling every time you try to move in your armored suit, reacting to enemy fire is going to be a nightmare.

Sort of like when a tank was pretty much useless when moving for the first few decades of its existence? Even now there is a good bit of onboard kit to compensate for this weakness. Fighting wars is hard, no weapon is perfect in all situations all of the time. Few weapons, whether it be infantry/tanks/jets/ships/whatever get to do most of their shooting from optimal positions when they are in the thick of things.

And how many of those places does the US army regularly deploy to? The problem for larger suits is that they become larger targets and become something that the enemy would be more willing to use heavier weapons against. There are essentially two opposite problems:

Does Baghdad or Kabul ring a bell? Can you think of an enemy we have fought in the last half century that neglected to use its heaviest conventional weapons against us? Nobody I can think of has been holding back, especially not the Taliban and the various Iraqi factions. And a suit that lets say doubles or even triples the volume of a human soldier is irrelevant when it comes to targeting heavy weapons (we are talking power armor, not five story mechs here). No mortar operator who is providing indirect fire from a few hundred yards away is going to say "Did you just say that target area is now five square feet instead of two? Well by golly that makes my job a piece of cake then!" These guys, as well as artillery and CAS, are saturating areas the size of football fields most of the time. Even if they are trying to go smaller with say one round the standard US artillery shell, 155mm M795 has a CEP of 50 meters and a 10kg warhead. The target size differences we are talking about here are irrelevant.

Even if you are talking about man portable heavy weapons doubling or tripping the volume again only adds a border of a few inches around a silhouette. Its not going to really matter. That's like saying we shouldn't have 260lb soldiers in the service when we have plenty of 130 pound men. Hell, why are we not banning anyone over 6'?

Against an enemy like the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents it would increase troop survivability at the cost of a decrease in the trust that is critical to long term sucess. There were issues with things like American soldiers wearing sunglasses. Imagine what would happen if said soldiers walked around in eight foot tall enclosed suits. Or they could leave them open and vulnerable to things like snipers. Neither result would exactly be ideal.

I fail to see how two feet add much more vulnerability to snipers if the troops wearing them are used to finding appropriate cover. Most things you can hide a six food dude behind will serve a seven or eight food dude too. And whatever increased risk there is would hopefully be mitigated by whatever the suit brings to the battlefield to justify its existence like being pretty good protection against average rifle rounds (if it doesn't you shouldn't be fielding it in the first place). You know what else snipers can see really well? Tanks and AFVs. Do you know why they don't bother shooting them? There is no point given the weapons 99% of them have.

As for reliability, well, do you remember when we invented and fielded this awesome new weapon called a tank that was more powerful than any individual land weapon out there. And then when we had perfected it over a century and put every single swinging dick in our Army into one because of how awesome it was? Me niether. The same would be the case here. I would think these things would be like the heavy weapons platoon. Called on when needed to provide that extra umpf where appropriate. The idea that any power armor, mech, holocaust canon, gundum or gun buster is going to make traditional infantry obsolete or even rare is as stupid as it was when people said the same thing about the tank, aircraft or nuclear weapons.

Against a proper enemy it would lead to a massive increase in logistics as well as a larger target that would be more vulnerable to heavier weapons and also a much larger target for them.

The same has been true for tanks since their invention. And aircraft.

The general problem in modern warfare is that weapons are becoming easier to adapt than armor. Things like HEAT rounds for grenade launchers might become more prevalent against an enemy that used suits like this idea.

If weapons like that become so prevalent that they can easily be used against targets smaller and more maneuverable and better able to use cover like power armor, then tanks or hosed. AFVs and other lighter armed vehicles doubly so.

[Adam Reynolds]

I'm not saying this idea has no merit, but it seems that in this particular case, the tactical advantages outweigh the disadvantages overall. In particular I don't see the increase in target profile and value(meaning more enemies would likely shoot at it) being made up for by the increase in survivability.

Most modern IFVs are far too small to carry anyone larger than a standard infantryman. The Bradley as an example can barely carry its six soldiers with their kit. There is no way it could possible fit an eight foot tall soldier. You would need an entirely new design to be able to do this. Though in fairness the US military needs a new IFV soon anyway. But it would likely end up needing two designs. The Bradley is already been criticized for being too tall. Making something dedicated to carrying taller infantry would have problems.

The vulnerability problem I was referring to was against something like a grenade launcher. A M203 or M25(airburst grenade launcher) HEAT grenade would likely destroy any sort of power armor that could still fit into buildings without crushing the floor or stairs. The technology already exists, the only reason they are not deployed more frequently is due to the fact that there is little benefit as there aren't really any targets that this would kill that can't just as easily be engaged by something else. If something like this power armor was developed, they would become more common. This weapon would not have the firepower to take on something as well protected as say a Bradley, but it would be more than capable of taking out a person in roughly man sized power armor.

These suits might indeed have utility, but the problem I see is that if this technology exists, why put people inside it? Technology that allows power armor to exist can also almost certainly allow robots to outright replace infantry in many roles. Sort of like what happened with Iron Man by the third movie.

[OmegaChief]

So, what does everyone here think of them? As war machines? As tools?

Ahhh Mobile Suits, how I do so love thee.

Of course from a realism standpoint they're terrible, add nothing that a more traditional plane, tank or VTOL style vehicle could do and require one hell of a lot of justifying to make sense (Assuming of course that you're just not flat off in a universe that runs off 'IF IT'S COOL ENOUGH THEN PHYSICS WILL LOOK THE OTHER WAY').

And UC Gundam bent over backwards in this regard, what with Minkovsky particles rendering beyond visual range impossible, Zeon being primarily space focused, so a craft with limbs it can move in order to rotate without expending propellant does have some logical advantages, though being as humanoid as they were is just a bit of "Well lets make it more fun to look at and sell better", since you're probably going to end up with something like this if you go that route for a spacecraft.

Earthside even in Gundam (Unless you're in something like G) combined arms is still fairly important, with plenty of other combat vehicles around. So yea, stylish, flashy and with so much justification and even then it still doesn't quite work out.

Doesn't stop them from looking damn cool though, and managing to combine some really interesting fight scenes along with the whole being piloted thing that I think really appeals to me.

Of course one thing I've noticed in my long perusal of Mecha is there seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion between East and West on the role of the Mech on a battlefield once you've justified it. Western Mechs are Tanks, while Eastern Mecs are helicopers/aircraft (This is ignoring power armour scale stuff that's present on both sides of the planet).

Seriously, look at something like Battletech, it's all about big heavily armoured stompy things clomping around using their upper torsos as turrets, while Gundam tends to have high mobile tons of thrusters slapped to everything zipping around. And I think that's where a lot of 'Mechs are worse than tanks' comes from, since if you're a big slow stompy bigger target you really don't give yourself any advantages. Sure the zippy kind is even more fantastical, but at least it makes a bit more sense for why you'd have them as well as tanks.

Which series did everyone enjoy the most?

It's a guilty pleasure to admit it, but SEED (No, not Destiny, never Destiny) stands as my favourite if only for containing some Suits I really like and having a nice take on the traditional Gundam plot (Yes yes, still major issues)

Unicorn also stands out as an amazing series, but this may be because I'm pretty read up on UC so get all the little references and cameos.

I will echo the sentiment about Build Fighters being an amazing tribute to the franchise with some darn amazing fights, especially the tournament finals, where each fight more or less pays homage to a series in particular (Right down to having a 'bare handed' martial arts duel for G)

Which was your favorite (non-Gundam) Mobile Suit?

I like Jegans

Which character did you like the most?

While I am legally obligated to give shout outs to the political Princesses Audrey Burne and Lacus Clyne, who both make some very interesting and intelligent characters that both have a pretty huge sway over their respective series despite not being a pilot or warship captain, there is only one possible choice for favourite character:

Marida Cruz (Ple/Plu/Puru 12)

Starts life as yet another clone super soldier to get trashed to show off how cool someone else is, goes through a horrific post war experience until she's 'rescued' by yet-another-Zeon-remnant and winds up having to pilot for them too, yet in spite of it all she's still a decent person who tries to do the right thing and council and comfort others to do the same thing, it's almost enough to restore faith in UC's humanity.

[Vendetta]

Of course one thing I've noticed in my long perusal of Mecha is there seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion between East and West on the role of the Mech on a battlefield once you've justified it. Western Mechs are Tanks, while Eastern Mecs are helicopers/aircraft (This is ignoring power armour scale stuff that's present on both sides of the planet).

That's because mecha in anime are born out of the dramatic potential they offer. A Mobile Suit type "real robot" mecha allows the protagonist to be put in lots of interesting dramatic scenarios in the context of a military conflict and still remain individually effective (as opposed to tanks which are traditionally multi-crewed and therefore the dramatic weight shared among the crew). (Super Robots are more based on superhero narratives which are different)

Battletech, however, was born out of tabletop wargaming, so the limits of the individual unit were foremost in order to produce tactical challenges for the players.

[Sky Captain]

The vulnerability problem I was referring to was against something like a grenade launcher. A M203 or M25(airburst grenade launcher) HEAT grenade would likely destroy any sort of power armor that could still fit into buildings without crushing the floor or stairs. The technology already exists, the only reason they are not deployed more frequently is due to the fact that there is little benefit as there aren't really any targets that this would kill that can't just as easily be engaged by something else. If something like this power armor was developed, they would become more common. This weapon would not have the firepower to take on something as well protected as say a Bradley, but it would be more than capable of taking out a person in roughly man sized power armor.

However those weapons are more expensive, bulky, has more bulky ammo than regular assault rifle and inside confined spaces can be dangerous to user too. In third world countries where most of the future conflicts probably will happen such advanced weapons are going to be relatively rare compared to bog standard AK 47. If power armour allows soldier to be immune to assault rifles and most shrapnel I would consider it a huge benefit. Inside vehicles which are attacked by roadside bombs power armor would greatly increase chances of survival.


If fighting a war against opponent who also have power armor and advanced weapons to defeat it chances are he also have nukes and whole conflict will go up in mushroom clouds making power armor irrelevant.

[Q99]

Even at the role of physically beating said monster to death it would still be more effective to use missiles. If the warheads were either ineffective or allowed too much blood to escape use purely physical projectiles. Sprint is a reasonable example of what would be easily possible with modern technology. It could pull 100g of acceleration and would have more than enough KE to penetrate kaiju if you used a few of them.

Note, that missiles lack the 'block kaiju from entering a city to begin with' capability, the 'drag them out' capability, and would never be able to assault the breach.

Kaiju are mostly either fought in water, often deep enough for them to submerge, or urban, where buildings provide cover from projectiles.

Missiles are fine weapons- Striker uses specially designed anti-Kaiju missiles, after all- but only fulfill some of the desired role here.

The only context that it would ever make sense to use giant robots is if they already existed for some reason.

There's also the alternate of, 'due to how physics works in that universe, the technology to make giant robots is bizarrely powerful compared to what one'd reasonably expect (likely copied off of the bizarrely powerful kaiju biology).' Which is definitely the case.

And that was clearly not the case in Pacific Rim. That movie was several layers of stupid. I believe Sea Skimmer referred to it as a prequel for Idiocracy.

Nah, that movie was a giant robot movie, and rejecting the genre doesn't make it dumb. Any more than superheroes not being real, tech superheroes not mass-producing their supergear, or so on.

I do note how most people's 'easy, smarter solutions' leave no way to assault the breach, leading to inevitable doom when thousands of kaiju come out in the extermination wave. If it's smart, but it wouldn't work, is it really smart? Even aside from being a rejection of the genre.


A movie's intelligence is more about how consistently things work in it's own plot and the decisions of the characters, rather than how fantastical or not the tech is in various ways.

[biostem]

The only way mecha would make sense is if:

1. The enemy had some sort of defense that made ranged weapons ineffective.
2. The enemy was not susceptible to forms of close-in attack that were not delivered in a particular way.
3. The means of delivering these attacks that the enemy was vulnerable to could not be delivered independently, (i.e. no strapping the weapon to a tank chassis and just driving it up to the enemy).
4. The means of delivering these attacks was so costly and so rare, that building an entire piloted robot delivery system made sense, (like maybe these enemies interfere with systems that would permit remote piloting of these robots).


The fact that people keep bringing up the missiles in Pacific Rim is a perfect example of this - if they weren't effective, then it would lend more credibility to why the Jaegers would be needed. Similarly, if Gipsy's plasma cannon was portrayed as only effective if the Kaiju couldn't block or dodge, (like maybe they could have portrayed Gipsy batting away one of the Kaiju's arms, then shooting its exposed torso). Even then, it might still be better to field a wing of attack jets or helicopters, all swarming the Kaiju and hitting it from 2 or more simultaneous, different directions...

[Q99]

The fact that people keep bringing up the missiles in Pacific Rim is a perfect example of this - if they weren't effective, then it would lend more credibility to why the Jaegers would be needed. Similarly, if Gipsy's plasma cannon was portrayed as only effective if the Kaiju couldn't block or dodge, (like maybe they could have portrayed Gipsy batting away one of the Kaiju's arms, then shooting its exposed torso).

They did specifically highlight a weak point behind Knifehead's head for Gipsy to hit with the plasma cannon, so it's not like just hitting anywhere was good, some parts were notably more armored- and it ended up taking multiple shots even so. Leatherback, a ton of hits.

One of the things Guillermo talked about was the reason the Jaegers each had different armament, is because the kaiju were varied in strengths and weaknesses. What works against one won't work against another. That why some Jaeger have blades, some artillery, some heat base, some impact based.

Like, take Onibaba. Complete exoskeleton. What if a kaiju has, say, a multi-layer shell that turns out to severely reduces the effectiveness of missiles, and then the Precursors start spamming that kaiju? If you use one approach, the kaiju makers will dial in on approaches to minimize effectiveness.

Even then, it might still be better to field a wing of attack jets or helicopters, all swarming the Kaiju and hitting it from 2 or more simultaneous, different directions...

I don't think that's good. Smaller attacks have greater problem hitting anything deep enough to vital, requiring many more hits/death by blood depletion, and Jaeger finishes often involved multiple hits from weapons bigger than a jet or helicopter! I think a conventional aircraft may have enough payload for a single semi-effective (i.e. requires a lot to work, as opposed to normal anti-tank weapons, which don't work, or the Jaeger sized ones) anti-kaiju weapon, and probably not with the variety of possible options that something with a giant nuke plant has.

And consider that Kaiju attack coastal targets most of the time- a fast one may run right out of the water into the city. You can't force it to fight in the shallows with that approach.


The setting and nature of attack was designed to favor certain approaches, after all.

[Adam Reynolds]

However those weapons are more expensive, bulky, has more bulky ammo than regular assault rifle and inside confined spaces can be dangerous to user too. In third world countries where most of the future conflicts probably will happen such advanced weapons are going to be relatively rare compared to bog standard AK 47. If power armour allows soldier to be immune to assault rifles and most shrapnel I would consider it a huge benefit. Inside vehicles which are attacked by roadside bombs power armor would greatly increase chances of survival.

Against enemies like Iraqi insurgents it might work. Assuming that your enemy will have the firepower of Iraqi insurgents is a foolish idea when designing a military. Against an enemy with the firepower of the NVA or Hezbollah it would not as effectively. Hezbollah, with modern anti-tank missiles, knocked out more Israeli tanks in one month than the US lost in years of fighting in Iraq.

The solution to roadside bombs is automated supply trucks. Obviously they would still need escorts, but it would be far safer to not have drivers inside them. The reason that truck convoys are used as heavily is they are is for supply runs. Power armor won't help the drivers.

Ideally, if powered armor was effective, the result would be unmanned infantry for certain high risk applications.

[Adam Reynolds]

The only way mecha would make sense is if:

You are specifically using them to replace infantry.

1. The enemy had some sort of defense that made ranged weapons ineffective.

What defense would allow melee attack while also limiting ranged attacks? Momentum and KE are not in your favor in such a defense. You might say that knives penetrate kevlar. While true, so do assault rifle bullets or armor piercing ammunition, even when fired by handguns.

2. The enemy was not susceptible to forms of close-in attack that were not delivered in a particular way.

What sort of enemy would have this effect? Against vampires, shoot wooden crossbow bolts, against werewolves, silver bullets. I don't see any sort of supernatural enemy that would be vulnerable to only melee attacks.

3. The means of delivering these attacks that the enemy was vulnerable to could not be delivered independently, (i.e. no strapping the weapon to a tank chassis and just driving it up to the enemy).

Even getting past the above issues, why would this ever be a problem?

4. The means of delivering these attacks was so costly and so rare, that building an entire piloted robot delivery system made sense, (like maybe these enemies interfere with systems that would permit remote piloting of these robots).

Remote piloting can obviously have issues, but that wouldn't mean that the solution is to use giant mecha. It would mean that you use tanks.

The fact that people keep bringing up the missiles in Pacific Rim is a perfect example of this - if they weren't effective, then it would lend more credibility to why the Jaegers would be needed. Similarly, if Gipsy's plasma cannon was portrayed as only effective if the Kaiju couldn't block or dodge, (like maybe they could have portrayed Gipsy batting away one of the Kaiju's arms, then shooting its exposed torso). Even then, it might still be better to field a wing of attack jets or helicopters, all swarming the Kaiju and hitting it from 2 or more simultaneous, different directions...

How would that ever not be better? Even ignoring the physics and engineering problems with mecha, smaller cheaper systems are generally better against a target like Kaiju. Especially one limited in range the way that Kaiju are.

Nah, that movie was a giant robot movie, and rejecting the genre doesn't make it dumb. Any more than superheroes not being real, tech superheroes not mass-producing their supergear, or so on.

I do note how most people's 'easy, smarter solutions' leave no way to assault the breach, leading to inevitable doom when thousands of kaiju come out in the extermination wave. If it's smart, but it wouldn't work, is it really smart? Even aside from being a rejection of the genre.

In terms of assaulting the breach, take a nuke and strap it to a dead kaiju. Drop it through the hole and goodbye breach. Clear a path with nuclear depth charges fired in sequence, backed up by large conventional charges so as to not destroy the kaiju trojan horse.

I also similarly criticize films like Iron Man for exactly the problem you mention. It worked fine in the first film, but by the time of the second Avengers it starts to seem more problematic.

[Highlord Laan]

Mechs would be pointless deathtraps in the face of proper armor. A sort of powered armor would be far more worthwhile. I can possibly see the use of something like Heavy Gear style mecha, where the largest are just over five meters tall, but it's stated that even those have little chance of survival if they take a tank head on.