Have to say that generally I prefer tanks. There are a handful of mechs however that look pretty cool. The ones from Dust are quite good, as well as some from AT-43
Meh, the real 3rd option are combat helicopters. Mecha can jump around all they want, but a hellfire missile (or modern version at the time) is going to go right up the piehole.
Well since I started playing xenogears again, I guess I could say I am more of a mecha person. Also if you all hate mecha, go and watch Robot Jox it might turn you to the mecha side.
I like tanks quite a bit too but they have always felt too modern for me. I like sci fi a lot more and mecha always seem to distance themselves from a modern look.
Not to me. Mecha is a distinctly Japanese affair with ridiculously mobile robots, often engaging in complex sword duels and other things. The battlemechs are quite different far more believable and with far more scientifically sound backing as well as just in general looking less ridiculous (far too many unnecessary spikes and crests on mecha).
It's like the difference between JRPG and a western RPG like the TES series.
Melissia wrote:I haven't ever liked Mecha, but I do like Battletech . The two are very distinctly different in my mind.
But aren't they both giant robots? I realize one is like Burger King and the other is like McDonald's but what separates them so much that you would consider them distinctly different?
EDIT: Just seen your post.
When you put it that way, battletech has more in common with tanks than mecha...
What I dislike is the stereotypical gundam design.
That's NOT a stereotypical Gundam design. That's a Katoki Design. Katoki likes overly decorative mechs and hard angles. You want better suits, stick with Universal Century, which is the only set of GOOD Gundam series.
This is the typical design, designed by the original creators of the series.
That's not what I think of when I think of Gundam, because that's not what's advertised or what's posted about by gundam fans regularly
And even then, I still think that thing is hideous.
It should be, considering that's the suit that started it all in the 70's. It's not what's advertised by newer fans that started with that crappy series Wing. It's basically the FF7 of the franchise(in that it's a crappy wannabe remake of an earlier version).
Bakerofish wrote:i prefer chunkier clunkier mecha if it comes down to it...
Agreed, if I had to choose a walker, itd be one that looks like it was carved from concrete. Frontmission was a bad ass couple games ya?
But in saying that, Im a tank guy all the way. Im sorry, they have proven their role on the battle field, and would just CRUSH a walker style. One hit, even if it didnt penetrate, would knock down a walker, or at least stagger it (it would have to have some incredible stabilizers to pull that off) which would give the tank ANOTHER go at hitting it. Not to mention walkers are TALL as feth!
The day of the tank is over, much as i like them.
They are too easily destroyed by an infantryman with an RPG, by aircraft, or by long range guided missile strikes.
Everything is easily destroyed by long range strike missiles, thats not a real good counter point Thatd be like saying well Thunderwolf calvery suck because the Nightbringer beats their faces in.
But you might have a point. Airstrikes and such are far more deadly and effective then a tank. But I still love ma tanks
@KC
front mission was the only mecha anything i liked. i liked how it was easier to suspend disbelief with the wanzer designs and actually made the wanzers and their purpose halfway plausible
but then again with one good shot from a character on foot and you could get ejected from your wanzer
True. You picking up the 25th Anniversary edition of the Battletech classic game? There is a thread about it somewhere on the forums.
I wish I had the money...
I think it is going to be like $40.00 to $50.00. 24 models, 2 premium models, cardboard terrain, rulebooks. It is going to be a good deal even if it has some of those derp suits.
Well speaking of Armored Core, my chosen suit was a small, light armored and incredibly fast suit. The fire power wouldnt blow up a planet, but it was so damn quick it didnt have to be. I could zoom in and do fast strikes, dodge/duck/dip/dive/dodge and get out just to repeat it all over again. When it comes to warfare, Im a fan of the fast and effective over the slow and holy crap NUUUUUUKE!!!!!!! power
Have to say that whenever I was playing mech games I loved to mount up on the heaviest direct fire artilery piece I could get and slowly stomp around the level blasting things in a single shot
Failing that I take something fast with short range rocket pods and just shotgun stuff from point blank with explody death.
I love multiple launch rocket pods - nothing like obscuring half a city in exhaust and destroying the other half with explody doom.
I tended to field a balanced AC myself. I hate the speed (or lack thereof) of the heavy ones, but I can't dodge very well with the controls of the AC games I've played, especially since a lot of missions are in thin corridors anyway. So a medium reverse leg walker AC with missile on one shoulder, radar on another, and a rifle and energy shield were what I usually used.
SilverMK2 wrote:Have to say that whenever I was playing mech games I loved to mount up on the heaviest direct fire artilery piece I could get and slowly stomp around the level blasting things in a single shot
Failing that I take something fast with short range rocket pods and just shotgun stuff from point blank with explody death.
I love multiple launch rocket pods - nothing like obscuring half a city in exhaust and destroying the other half with explody doom.
That was my second fav build as well. Super megatron cannon, anda back FULL of extra ammo. Nothing you couldnt solve with the right amount of BOOM!
Frazzled wrote:OK so we're not talking real world, we're talking a game. Sorry, forget the helicopter reference then.
Oh no, we're talking about both.
Mecha IRL aren't realistic yet. We don't have the proper technology for them to keep their balance, nor the power plants it would take to move them without consuming ridiculous amounts of fuel, nor do we necessarily have the capability of moving them as quickly as in the actual series.
Battletech solves these problems with electroactive myomer bundles as substitutes for muscles (thus allowing the central computer of the 'mech to act as a brain, using pure electrical signals to cause the bundles to contract or loosen-- we have electroactive materials right now, but how useful they are for this kind of purpose I don't know), a complicated gyro system which takes up a good part of the central interior of a mech's chassis, and fusion power plants which require an immense amount of shielding and incredibly efficient heat sinks because they produce a lot of heat.
It's just futuristic enough to be believable to me, and it's possible that we might eventually see something like it. But maybe not.
nah the biggest problem with mechs isnt keeping their balance
heck, weve been walking for years and we still goof
the problem with a mecha is if its big enough to replace a tank in the battle field, if it falls over physics dictates that itll be damaging itself significantly...unless the armor was flexible which defeats the idea of a mech in the first place
kinda stupid having a weapon that can destroy itself when it trips on a rock
Frazzled wrote:OK so we're not talking real world, we're talking a game. Sorry, forget the helicopter reference then.
Oh no, we're talking about both.
Mecha IRL aren't realistic yet. We don't have the proper technology for them to keep their balance, nor the power plants it would take to move them without consuming ridiculous amounts of fuel, nor do we necessarily have the capability of moving them as quickly as in the actual series.
Battletech solves these problems with electroactive myomer bundles as substitutes for muscles (thus allowing the central computer of the 'mech to act as a brain, using pure electrical signals to cause the bundles to contract or loosen-- we have electroactive materials right now, but how useful they are for this kind of purpose I don't know), a complicated gyro system which takes up a good part of the central interior of a mech's chassis, and fusion power plants which require an immense amount of shielding and incredibly efficient heat sinks because they produce a lot of heat.
It's just futuristic enough to be believable to me, and it's possible that we might eventually see something like it. But maybe not.
Don't confuse the two. In the real world anything you can see you can kill, and that from a long range off. Mecha have an inherent disadvantage in that they can literally stand out and are thus targets for everyone. Tanks are better in that regard but, as noted, technology is such that its not circa 1940 but more like 1945. Every trooper can blow the crap out of something or call i fire to kill it from miles away.
The guy with a scope and radio (or the guy looking through a drone camera) is eminently more dangerous than any big walking hunk of metal.
Frazzled wrote:OK so we're not talking real world, we're talking a game. Sorry, forget the helicopter reference then.
Oh no, we're talking about both.
Mecha IRL aren't realistic yet. We don't have the proper technology for them to keep their balance, nor the power plants it would take to move them without consuming ridiculous amounts of fuel, nor do we necessarily have the capability of moving them as quickly as in the actual series.
Battletech solves these problems with electroactive myomer bundles as substitutes for muscles (thus allowing the central computer of the 'mech to act as a brain, using pure electrical signals to cause the bundles to contract or loosen-- we have electroactive materials right now, but how useful they are for this kind of purpose I don't know), a complicated gyro system which takes up a good part of the central interior of a mech's chassis, and fusion power plants which require an immense amount of shielding and incredibly efficient heat sinks because they produce a lot of heat.
It's just futuristic enough to be believable to me, and it's possible that we might eventually see something like it. But maybe not.
DOn't confuse the two. In the treal world anything you can see you can kill, and that from a long range off. Mecha have an inherent disadvantage in that they can literally stand out and are thus targets for everyone. Tanks are better in that regard but as, noted, technology is such that its not 1940 but 1945. Every trooper can blow the crap out of something or call i fire to kill it from miles away.
The guy with a scope and radio (or the guy looking through a drone camera) is eminently more dangerous than any big walking hunk of metal.
Oh, I was simply talking aboutt he possibility of walking tanks existing, not their effectiveness.
The only known practical use for walking tanks I've seen is a mobile artillery system, using the legs' ability to navigate difficult terrain to get in range or to hide, and using a third leg to stabilize the platform for firing.
Because even in battletech the most deadly weapon you will ever face is artillery-- long tom cannons and Arrow IV missiles.
Now don't get me wrong, gamewise and rule of cool its all there. I can even see walkers in civilian uses on other planets (ooh that so sounds like avatar), jst not something that can go against a modern force arrayed against it with equivalent weaponry.
Unless of course the enemy infantry is fifty feet tall, then you might need a walker...
Bakerofish wrote:nah the biggest problem with mechs isnt keeping their balance
heck, weve been walking for years and we still goof
... you reaaaaally don't know anything about biology, do you?
Our body has a complicated and easily damaged system for keeping balance.
yes but we can still fall down and not suffer under normal circumstances
I recommend you look up equilibrioception. Falling down isn't necessarily because this was disrupted. But when it's disrupted, our entire bodies become effectively unusable-- dizziness, disorientation, nausea, vertigo. Yes, losing your balance can cause you to actually throw up ,amongst other things. People with disrupted equilibrioception cannot walk properly, and oftentimes they can't even stand up. Even their sense of sight is disrupted by this.
the problem with mechs is the same problems giants have if they existed
physics is their worst enemy
now bipedal locomotion is entirely possible . Asimo is proof of that. and humans can still trip. trippinng and falling isnt a problem since this is something that we can get used to and survive
the problem here is if you got a 50ft humanoid robot, if that robot trips or falls over, that thing will come crashing down with more force than a human body ever will
and that force can damage anything internal or external. with machines, i dont think weve built anything withstanding such an impact without damage
the other problem is picking yourself up unassisted if you even survive the fall...the human body is able to pick itself or right itself from virtually any position as our body is designed to do that
if you design a robot with that much flexibility you really will be sacrificing its armor...and again defeating the purpose of a mecha in the first place
Bakerofish wrote:and that force can damage anything internal or external. with machines, i dont think weve built anything withstanding such an impact without damage
The games and lore of battletech account for this actually. In fact, in at least one of the books there's an example of a 'mech falling ovber and trying ot catch itself (like a human would) with its hands, and its weight actually caused its arms to be torn out of their sockets.
Knocking a 'mech over is a very valid strategy, which is why legs are given such high armor values in game.
Bakerofish wrote:when the mech is midstride all you have to do is tap it on one side hard enough and itll fall
... which is one of the ways to knock a mech down, yes?
But keep in mind that we're talking about vehicles with weapons that can melt TONS of armor per shot. In fact, that's how damage is measured in game. One shot on a lightly armored battlemech's legs will just sever it.
And more than once has a battlemech been downed because it lost so much armor at once that it literally fell down due to losing its balance from the weight loss or having disproportionate weight one side of the body...
I went tanks. Although I have no issues with mech stuff, and really like Battletech in particular.
I'm just an avid treadhead. The main reason the Imperial Guard army is my fave 40K force are the tanks. I can go and get lost at a Tank museum all day, and I'm still waiting for a decent tank console based game.
That tank MMO thing folks have been discussing over in Video games is very tempting I will admit.
So aye, tanks do it for me much more so than Mecha.
Oh, and one last thing-- I love spiderbots. Dunno, they're just so awesome. Spiders themselves are cool (disgusting if they're crawling on you, but still cool to look at), and spider robots? AWESOME.
Bakerofish wrote:when the mech is midstride all you have to do is tap it on one side hard enough and itll fall
... which is one of the ways to knock a mech down, yes?
But keep in mind that we're talking about vehicles with weapons that can melt TONS of armor per shot. In fact, that's how damage is measured in game. One shot on a lightly armored battlemech's legs will just sever it.
And more than once has a battlemech been downed because it lost so much armor at once that it literally fell down due to losing its balance from the weight loss or having disproportionate weight one side of the body...
If we have weapons that can do that, why wouldn't we just put them on tanks?
Because tanks can be stopped with a single batch of landmines, can only carry so much ammunition, and are easily stopped by terrain features.
Mechs(not mecha) generally have larger ammo capacities(in the case of energy weapons, a secondary generator devoted exclusively to those weapons), extensive ECM suites built throughout the machine itself, and can actually work without having to rely on established routes like roads and plains, etc.
Bakerofish wrote:when the mech is midstride all you have to do is tap it on one side hard enough and itll fall
... which is one of the ways to knock a mech down, yes?
But keep in mind that we're talking about vehicles with weapons that can melt TONS of armor per shot. In fact, that's how damage is measured in game. One shot on a lightly armored battlemech's legs will just sever it.
And more than once has a battlemech been downed because it lost so much armor at once that it literally fell down due to losing its balance from the weight loss or having disproportionate weight one side of the body...
If we have weapons that can do that, why wouldn't we just put them on tanks?
They do put them on tanks.
In fact, tanks are more efficient even in-universe than battlemechs as far as costs go. But battlemechs have more surface area on which to put guns, and they are more mobile.
My vote goes to tanks. They're far more flexible on terrain, as people have pointed out. Also, this is just peculation, but Tank Destroyers have a far easier job of Destroying Mecha than they do with normal tanks, due to a bigger area to hit. Sure supply may be a problem, but when hasn't it been one?
Bakerofish wrote:nah the biggest problem with mechs isnt keeping their balance
heck, weve been walking for years and we still goof
... you reaaaaally don't know anything about biology, do you?
Our body has a complicated and easily damaged system for keeping balance.
Unlike a mech, our body can sometimes repair itself if a bone breaks or if flesh tears. A mech with broken bits is going to have broken bits until someone else goes to fix it.
Gotta go with tanks on this one. Tanks can have a lower profile, can still be combat effective if immobilized, and of course would be easier to bring to combat readiness if taken out. If a mech loses a leg its pretty much s.o.l as it won't be able to maintain a balance that allows proper firing of its weapons. If a tank loses its tracks it can still fire its weapons effectively and track repairs can sometimes be done under battle conditions.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:And if we have those, why can't we put them on tanks?
And also: what? Anywhere a mech would feasibly be able to travel without tripping over and dying, a tank could travel more easily.
Not really.
Tracked vehicles can't operate in water that would go past a certain depth. A mech, on the other hand, can keep 'wading' and still be able to engage anything their weapons can spot.
The same thing goes for mud(which tracked vehicles can get stuck into, and requiring other tracked vehicles, air assets, etc to cover them while they get unstuck), heavy snow drifts, ice, etc.
And again: there's a limited amount of space in a tank. To install some of the ECMs would require a tank the length or width of a house and its garage. That starts to cut down on the effectiveness, because you start seeing larger targets, etc.
Past a certain set of dimensions: tanks become unwieldy and start to require more fuel, more operators, et all. Look at the German 'supertanks' of WWII.
Also: Omnimechs from MechWarrior/Battletech had a pretty unique and operationally effective method in that they could actually have what amounted to 'man-sized mechs' clinging to hardpoints on the Mech proper, operating as a sort of 'skirmish screen' or even a boarding party against other mechs.
The Grey Death mercs, for example, used that kind of way to have a kind of 'surprise!' factor once enemies got too close for the mech's heavier weapons to really be useful.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:And if we have those, why can't we put them on tanks?
And also: what? Anywhere a mech would feasibly be able to travel without tripping over and dying, a tank could travel more easily.
Oh God I am in agreement with Tzoo. Thats it the world's over...
Further a landmine would have greater effect on a biped. Where a mine might blow the track and temporarily immobilze it until you fix the track, it would send an explosive shockwave into the leg thus causing substantially greater damage.
Bakerofish wrote:nah the biggest problem with mechs isnt keeping their balance
heck, weve been walking for years and we still goof
... you reaaaaally don't know anything about biology, do you?
Our body has a complicated and easily damaged system for keeping balance.
Unlike a mech, our body can sometimes repair itself if a bone breaks or if flesh tears. A mech with broken bits is going to have broken bits until someone else goes to fix it.
Gotta go with tanks on this one. Tanks can have a lower profile, can still be combat effective if immobilized, and of course would be easier to bring to combat readiness if taken out. If a mech loses a leg its pretty much s.o.l as it won't be able to maintain a balance that allows proper firing of its weapons. If a tank loses its tracks it can still fire its weapons effectively and track repairs can sometimes be done under battle conditions.
Of course if you go with Warhammer 40K tech, the mecha could repair itself. Sort of like what goes on with Rhinos?
Bakerofish wrote:nah the biggest problem with mechs isnt keeping their balance
heck, weve been walking for years and we still goof
... you reaaaaally don't know anything about biology, do you?
Our body has a complicated and easily damaged system for keeping balance.
Unlike a mech, our body can sometimes repair itself if a bone breaks or if flesh tears.
The same could be said of tanks, but if a tank runs into a building it won't necessarily be taken out of the fight. A 'mech isn't necessarily going to be removed from the fight if it falls down. It depends on the external and internal design and the materials it is made out of.
Melissia wrote:Except for possibly an urban environment with lots of debris and roadblocks, a mountainous terrain, swamp terrain...
You know, places that aren't flat, dry terrain where tracked/wheeled vehicles function best?
I might give you the urban environment purely for the ability to rotate. But mountains and swamp? They're not exactly going to be conducive to travelling with massive amounts of weight on two rather small contact areas.
You're arguing against modern day technology using far future technology. Stop that.
Melissia wrote:Except for possibly an urban environment with lots of debris and roadblocks, a mountainous terrain, swamp terrain...
You know, places that aren't flat, dry terrain where tracked/wheeled vehicles function best?
If its in a swamp what makes you think a mech will stand a better chance? If anything the mech will sink faster into the muk than a tank thanks to the lack of area the mech can spread its pressure around on. Mountainous terrain is difficult for both, if a mech's foot goes off the edge the rest of the mech will follow. The only saving grace a tank may have is the fact that it has two sets of treads to guide the tank and if one set has a grip it can help pull itself back onto the ledge. Tanks also run over roadblocks and debris, if they can't then they bring in the combat bulldozer.
Bakerofish wrote:nah the biggest problem with mechs isnt keeping their balance
heck, weve been walking for years and we still goof
... you reaaaaally don't know anything about biology, do you?
Our body has a complicated and easily damaged system for keeping balance.
Unlike a mech, our body can sometimes repair itself if a bone breaks or if flesh tears. A mech with broken bits is going to have broken bits until someone else goes to fix it.
Gotta go with tanks on this one. Tanks can have a lower profile, can still be combat effective if immobilized, and of course would be easier to bring to combat readiness if taken out. If a mech loses a leg its pretty much s.o.l as it won't be able to maintain a balance that allows proper firing of its weapons. If a tank loses its tracks it can still fire its weapons effectively and track repairs can sometimes be done under battle conditions.
Except bone breaks and flesh tears aren't "a system for keeping balance".
halonachos wrote:If its in a swamp what makes you think a mech will stand a better chance?
Treads and wheels need more traction to move than legs do.
halonachos wrote:Mountainous terrain is difficult for both, if a mech's foot goes off the edge the rest of the mech will follow. The only saving grace a tank may have is the fact that it has two sets of treads to guide the tank and if one set has a grip it can help pull itself back onto the ledge.
The tank still has no ability to step UP, nor does it have toes that can potentially dig in to a piece of slanted terrain-- it must find an adequately low slope along which it can travel.
Tanks also run over roadblocks and debris, if they can't then they bring in the combat bulldozer.
So a tank must move out of the way, wait for another vehicle to move in, clear the debris, THAT vehicle has to move out of the way and then finally the tank can go through?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:You're arguing against modern day technology using far future technology. Stop that.
Mechanized walker vehicles are future technology, so how would I stop unless I simply stop talking about them period?
Melissia wrote:So a tank must move out of the way, wait for another vehicle to move in, clear the debris, THAT vehicle has to move out of the way and then finally the tank can go through?
Or we could just put a bulldozer attachment on the tank.
Melissia wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:You're arguing against modern day technology using far future technology. Stop that.
Mechanized walker vehicles are future technology, so how would I stop unless I simply stop talking about them period?
Stop assuming that the current limits on tank technology will still be in place when we've developed the technological expertise to make walkers that aren't entirely useless.
Melissia wrote:So a tank must move out of the way, wait for another vehicle to move in, clear the debris, THAT vehicle has to move out of the way and then finally the tank can go through?
Or we could just put a bulldozer attachment on the tank.
Melissia wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:You're arguing against modern day technology using far future technology. Stop that.
Mechanized walker vehicles are future technology, so how would I stop unless I simply stop talking about them period?
Stop assuming that the current limits on tank technology will still be in place when we've developed the technological expertise to make walkers that aren't entirely useless.
So what are the 'future' limits on tank technology?
Oh. Right.
1) Sacrificed armor and weaponry for anti-grav fields. 'Hovertanks' with light energy fields for protection, etc. SW's "Repulsortanks" and the Hammerhead are a good example of this.
2) Sacrificed mobility and a large profile for increased armor and weaponry. 'Mammoth' tanks are a good example of this.
Seriously. There's not much else you can do with something before it stops being a 'tank' and becomes some kind of monstrosity not really being a tank.
And also?
Both of those kinds of things exist in the same worlds as these mechs. They rely on prepared positions, careful timing, and lots of aerial support to deal with mechs.
Why? Because, despite popular thinking, it's not actually that easy to bring down a mech which is armored appropriately(i.e. not a 'scout' mech, but a full 'battle' mech).
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Stop assuming that the current limits on tank technology will still be in place when we've developed the technological expertise to make walkers that aren't entirely useless.
I'm not...?
I'm using Battletech as the basis for my ideas on actual realistic 'mechs. In this setting, tanks are actually some of the deadliest opponents for a 'mech-- a tank kitted out to kill 'mechs is VERY damned good at its job, and these tanks often have armor equal to the heaviest assault 'mechs. As noted, tanks are more efficient-- one can put the same engine, same armor, and most of the same armament (tanks don't have arms, so they'd just usually have the one turret with several weapons on it with a missile rack on the sides and/or top), while keeping production costs way down. So what is paid for when one makes a 'mech over a tank is essentially the arm and leg actuators (allowing for better movement on difficult terrain and multiple turrets as it were, making up to three if you include the nose weapons on the 'mech), the gyro (a large internal "organ" if you will below or above the engine which makes it so the 'mech doesn't fall down, something unnecessary in a tank), and the extra internal structure needed for such a machine to not collapse in on itself from its own weight.
So really, I never intended to argue that tanks were necessarily outclassed by 'mecha in my ideas on how the two would be. Only that battlemechs have advantages over tanks... which also have advantages over battlemechs.
Kanluwen, I went to the health science academy at my school. I took anatomy in my sophomore year, I took pathophysiology in my junior and senior years. I also took microbiology and hereditary medicine my senior year. I know what the vestibular system is. I was making a comparison between a mech and human body overall.
If you want me to compare the mech's balance system compared to the vestibular system I can only say good luck trying to mimic that. Especially if you want it to be relatively the same size in scale.
Gyroscopic technology is decent but won't be able to allow an entire mech to balance itself and the only robots we have that can balance themselves barely make any movement when they do move. Then if you want to make space combat possible you'll need to find a way that will allow the system to operate without going "Where the hell's down?". We operate off of gravity so if a mech were to try to mimic this... good luck.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @melissia, what I'm saying is physics related. You can have two legs, but it would be like putting a needle into a sponge compared to putting a hammer into a sponge. If you want another way to look at it, why do you think people wear snowshoes in deep snow?
Also a combat bulldozer can take out a mech. The mech has a high center of gravity so it would be like a sweeping the leg from under an opponent.
Kanluwen wrote:So what are the 'future' limits on tank technology?
Oh. Right.
1) Sacrificed armor and weaponry for anti-grav fields. 'Hovertanks' with light energy fields for protection, etc. SW's "Repulsortanks" and the Hammerhead are a good example of this.
2) Sacrificed mobility and a large profile for increased armor and weaponry. 'Mammoth' tanks are a good example of this.
Seriously. There's not much else you can do with something before it stops being a 'tank' and becomes some kind of monstrosity not really being a tank.
That's the best we've come up with?
Much bigger tracks. 'Sticky' treads. Grappling hooks. I can see a whole bunch of ways to improve tank mobility that aren't at all feasible now, but might well be by the time walkers don't suck.
halonachos wrote:If its in a swamp what makes you think a mech will stand a better chance?
Treads and wheels need more traction to move than legs do.
halonachos wrote:Mountainous terrain is difficult for both, if a mech's foot goes off the edge the rest of the mech will follow. The only saving grace a tank may have is the fact that it has two sets of treads to guide the tank and if one set has a grip it can help pull itself back onto the ledge.
The tank still has no ability to step UP, nor does it have toes that can potentially dig in to a piece of slanted terrain-- it must find an adequately low slope along which it can travel.
Tanks also run over roadblocks and debris, if they can't then they bring in the combat bulldozer.
So a tank must move out of the way, wait for another vehicle to move in, clear the debris, THAT vehicle has to move out of the way and then finally the tank can go through?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:You're arguing against modern day technology using far future technology. Stop that.
Mechanized walker vehicles are future technology, so how would I stop unless I simply stop talking about them period?
You're very falsely equating differnt weights here. Modern battle tanks have extremely low Lbs/per inch, way better than a biped of simlar size. further, the area of traction is substantially larger. Thats why tanks are better than wheeled vehicles.
Go walk in a swamp. Now get was swamp runner. The runner is substantially faster.
Yes, modern tanks are relatively light. Which is actually not necessarily a benefit to them in certain environments (anything wet).
The 'mechs I speak of are both heavier and lighter than an Abrams, I should note, depending on which one you're talking about...
halonachos wrote:@melissia, what I'm saying is physics related. You can have two legs, but it would be like putting a needle into a sponge compared to putting a hammer into a sponge. If you want another way to look at it, why do you think people wear snowshoes in deep snow?
I know full well what you meant. However, it is rather irrelevant. You have several meters of leg with quite a few tons of metal resting on it-- it goes in, squishes the mud and plants and etc and goes down to the bottom, then hits the firmer bottom parts of the swamp, which is deep enough to give tanks problems.
Compare it to attempting to skateboard through mud versus using boots to go through it instead. While treads would obviously have an advantage over a wheeled vehicle, the feet sink down deep enough to gain traction compared to the increased surface area of tracks and wheels.
Also a combat bulldozer can take out a mech
... assuming the 'mech doesn't just step out of the way and then shoot its weaker top armor...
Melissia wrote:Yes, modern tanks are relatively light. Which is actually not necessarily a benefit to them in certain environments (anything wet).
halonachos wrote:@melissia, what I'm saying is physics related. You can have two legs, but it would be like putting a needle into a sponge compared to putting a hammer into a sponge. If you want another way to look at it, why do you think people wear snowshoes in deep snow?
I know full well what you meant. However, it is rather irrelevant. You have several meters of leg with quite a few tons of metal resting on it-- it goes in, squishes the mud and plants and etc and goes down to the bottom, then hits the firmer bottom parts of the swamp, which is deep enough to give tanks problems.
Compare it to attempting to skateboard through mud versus using boots to go through it instead. While treads would obviously have an advantage over a wheeled vehicle, the feet sink down deep enough to gain traction compared to the increased surface area of tracks and wheels.
Also a combat bulldozer can take out a mech
... assuming the 'mech doesn't just step out of the way and then shoot its weaker top armor...
So have you actually been in a swamp to test this theory?
Melissia you do realize that once the mech's legs sink to the bottom of the swamp they have to pull them out as well right? You do also realize that this will create a vacuum that will make it rather difficult for them to do so and waste time and energy.
Light tanks can avoid sinking into a swamp where light mechs are about the same weight as a medium or heavy tank and suffer from the whole 'sinking into the muk' concept.
Also, combat bulldozer is 1337 just like a quickscoper.
Melissia wrote:So a tank must move out of the way, wait for another vehicle to move in, clear the debris, THAT vehicle has to move out of the way and then finally the tank can go through?
Or we could just put a bulldozer attachment on the tank.
Melissia wrote:
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:You're arguing against modern day technology using far future technology. Stop that.
Mechanized walker vehicles are future technology, so how would I stop unless I simply stop talking about them period?
Stop assuming that the current limits on tank technology will still be in place when we've developed the technological expertise to make walkers that aren't entirely useless.
So what are the 'future' limits on tank technology?
Oh. Right.
1) Sacrificed armor and weaponry for anti-grav fields. 'Hovertanks' with light energy fields for protection, etc. SW's "Repulsortanks" and the Hammerhead are a good example of this.
2) Sacrificed mobility and a large profile for increased armor and weaponry. 'Mammoth' tanks are a good example of this.
Seriously. There's not much else you can do with something before it stops being a 'tank' and becomes some kind of monstrosity not really being a tank.
And also?
Both of those kinds of things exist in the same worlds as these mechs. They rely on prepared positions, careful timing, and lots of aerial support to deal with mechs.
Why? Because, despite popular thinking, it's not actually that easy to bring down a mech which is armored appropriately(i.e. not a 'scout' mech, but a full 'battle' mech).
You forget one thing: The Materials that are needed to construct a mech (that is ,,armored appropriately") would be used on tanks too. So no Mammoth-Problem at all. In fact Tanks would be much lighter than a similar armored Mech.
halonachos wrote:Light tanks can avoid sinking into a swamp where light mechs are about the same weight as a medium or heavy tank and suffer from the whole 'sinking into the muk' concept.
which is predicated on them having short legs... we're not talking about the ridiculously stupid looking Space Marine Dreadnoughts here.
Mecha are fun because they are fantastical. i do however prefer the 'Battletech'/'Metal Gear'/'Vertical Tank' type of mecha not so much the giant gundam things with laser Swords.... My favourite is probs REX, then RAY, then GEKKO... See a Pattern?
Melissia wrote:There are ways to minimize the vacuum effect.
halonachos wrote:Light tanks can avoid sinking into a swamp where light mechs are about the same weight as a medium or heavy tank and suffer from the whole 'sinking into the muk' concept.
which is predicated on them having short legs... we're not talking about the ridiculously stupid looking Space Marine Dreadnoughts here.
No, they'll still have their legs sink to the bottom. Could you imagine the force required for them to remove their legs from the vacuum? If you take the example of how it is recommended for people to get out then the mech would have to fall forward and pull itself out. I can totally imagine a mech doing that.
Dark Scipio wrote:You forget one thing: The Materials that are needed to construct a mech (that is ,,armored appropriately") would be used on tanks too. So no Mammoth-Problem at all. In fact Tanks would be much lighter than a similar armored Mech.
And how hard could it possibly be to add a hovercraft attachment to the tank so that it can float over swamps?
Melissia wrote:There are ways to minimize the vacuum effect
Which?
The one created by having a solid surface push out liquid between it and another solid surface, then trying to move the foot up again. The liquid must again move to fill the space that it was once pushed out, and it is not very fast in doing so depending on its viscosity.
Melissia wrote:There are ways to minimize the vacuum effect
Which?
The one created by having a solid surface push out liquid between it and another solid surface, then trying to move the foot up again. The liquid must again move to fill the space that it was once pushed out, and it is not very fast in doing so depending on its viscosity.
Dark Scipio wrote:You forget one thing: The Materials that are needed to construct a mech (that is ,,armored appropriately") would be used on tanks too. So no Mammoth-Problem at all. In fact Tanks would be much lighter than a similar armored Mech.
And how hard could it possibly be to add a hovercraft attachment to the tank so that it can float over swamps?
Hard I guess, but not harder than get one of this Behmoths to walk (or fly).
Melissia wrote:There are ways to minimize the vacuum effect
Which?
The one created by having a solid surface push out liquid between it and another solid surface, then trying to move the foot up again. The liquid must again move to fill the space that it was once pushed out, and it is not very fast in doing so depending on its viscosity.
So you're saying it needs help?
As I said, there are ways to reduce or minimize this effect. I've played around with it in a physics lab before, and even with my amateur experiments I noted some methods worked better than others, and I very much imagine some designs and mechanical methods of removing the foot from the swamp floor, as it were, would be more efficient than others.
FM Ninja 048 wrote:Could you not have some sort of compressor sucking air in and pushing it out the sole of the foot thereby removing the vacuum
I could see that working, but you'd have to ensure that the compressor was high enough to never ever be stuck in the mud as well. Even then you'd have to remove something else to make room for it. So you're looking at removing another system so it can walk through the swamp, which really isn't a good trade off. People would most likely just have the mech go around the swamp/marsh.
Kanluwen wrote:So what are the 'future' limits on tank technology?
Depends on how imaginative we want to be.
- Limited antigrav could be used to allow tanks to "float" over mud, water, etc, as well as allow them to scale steeper and rougher ground with ease while still using the tracks to drive
- Some kind of adjustable track system could allow tanks to "extrude" sections of track to help them climb over currently impassable objects (similar to how army robots have track "arms" to help them climb stairs, but integrated into the main track system).
- As mentioned, new materials would give greater protection (as in more mm of comparable armour), would be lighter, etc. Advances in electronics would also help increase internal space, meaning you can fit more tech inside.
All sorts of fun tech out there that could be incorporated into tanks to improve their effectiveness while still retaining the whole "tank" vibe.
Melissia wrote:There are ways to minimize the vacuum effect
Which?
The one created by having a solid surface push out liquid between it and another solid surface, then trying to move the foot up again. The liquid must again move to fill the space that it was once pushed out, and it is not very fast in doing so depending on its viscosity.
So you're saying it needs help?
As I said, there are ways to reduce or minimize this effect. I've played around with it in a physics lab before, and even with my amateur experiments I noted some methods worked better than others, and I very much imagine some designs and mechanical methods of removing the foot from the swamp floor, as it were, would be more efficient than others.
But you can do the same things with tanks too. Plus, due to its shape it will have less surface area and therefore can be more heavily armored.
But at the same time hvaing less space also makes it have less area to put weapons and turrets on. The typical battlemech, represented by the Timberwolf/Mad Cat (see the first page where I linked to that image) has effectively three turrets, and is certainly most capable of engaging multiple targets because of it, either at once or in rapid succession. It can also lose one or both of its arms, either having them damaged to the point of uselessness or simply cut off entirely, and still remain effective, while if a tank's single turret is damaged, it's no longer effective.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the jump jets, I was joking But they're actually located on the legs themselves usually ,not on the body.
Or rather, there's two slots on each leg, then two slots on the body, and usually it's the legs because there's not much else useful you'd want to put on a leg.
Melissia wrote:But at the same time hvaing less space also makes it have less area to put weapons and turrets on. The typical battlemech, represented by the Timberwolf/Mad Cat (see the first page where I linked to that image) has effectively three turrets, and is certainly most capable of engaging multiple targets because of it, either at once or in rapid succession. It can also lose one or both of its arms, either having them damaged to the point of uselessness or simply cut off entirely, and still remain effective, while if a tank's single turret is damaged, it's no longer effective.
As you mentioned, though, a tank is cheaper.
How many tanks would it take, hypothetically, to equal the cost of a mech?
Melissia wrote:But at the same time hvaing less space also makes it have less area to put weapons and turrets on. The typical battlemech, represented by the Timberwolf/Mad Cat (see the first page where I linked to that image) has effectively three turrets, and is certainly most capable of engaging multiple targets because of it, either at once or in rapid succession. It can also lose one or both of its arms, either having them damaged to the point of uselessness or simply cut off entirely, and still remain effective, while if a tank's single turret is damaged, it's no longer effective.
As you mentioned, though, a tank is cheaper.
How many tanks would it take, hypothetically, to equal the cost of a mech?
Sadly, I don't have the battletech rulebooks in front of me. But tanks in the actual stories are cheap enough that militias almost always have them, whereas if a militia has 'mechs either they're an incredibly important world or they're hand-me-downs from many generations past, and therefor outdated.
Melissia wrote:But at the same time hvaing less space also makes it have less area to put weapons and turrets on. The typical battlemech, represented by the Timberwolf/Mad Cat (see the first page where I linked to that image) has effectively three turrets, and is certainly most capable of engaging multiple targets because of it, either at once or in rapid succession. It can also lose one or both of its arms, either having them damaged to the point of uselessness or simply cut off entirely, and still remain effective, while if a tank's single turret is damaged, it's no longer effective.
As you mentioned, though, a tank is cheaper.
How many tanks would it take, hypothetically, to equal the cost of a mech?
Are we talking 'battle tanks', which are all-rounders with projectile weaponry, etc; hover tanks; or mech-hunting tanks?
Because the 'standard' Mechs(think of the most generic, boring, uninteresting Mech possible) will, depending on which universe(Battletech, Armoured Core, Heavy Gear, etc) we're talking about, are usually equal to:
two squadrons worth of 5-6 battle-tanks, two squadrons of 3 hover tanks, or a squadron of the mech-hunting tanks.
The quality of mech pilots v. tank pilots is also usually substantially different. Mech pilots will, generally be far more experienced and many of them start their careers in armoured formations or as shock troops wearing Elementals/Powered Suits.
By the way, when I say heavy tanks that can hunt 'mechs, I mean tanks that EASILY match or surpass 90-100 tons even with far lighter, stronger materials and better deisgn than modern tanks. The abrams is 67 tons in comparison.
Kanluwen wrote:Are we talking 'battle tanks', which are all-rounders with projectile weaponry, etc; hover tanks; or mech-hunting tanks?
IDK. It seems like we've been talking about the effectiveness of one tank vs one mech is all.
Because the 'standard' Mechs(think of the most generic, boring, uninteresting Mech possible) will, depending on which universe(Battletech, Armoured Core, Heavy Gear, etc) we're talking about, are usually equal to:
two squadrons worth of 5-6 battle-tanks, two squadrons of 3 hover tanks, or a squadron of the mech-hunting tanks.
The quality of mech pilots v. tank pilots is also usually substantially different. Mech pilots will, generally be far more experienced and many of them start their careers in armoured formations or as shock troops wearing Elementals/Powered Suits.
Wouldn't you assume equal skill for both pilots if the focus is on the capabilities of the mech vs those of a tank?
My only argument is that in my mind, each one has advantages over the other. Mobility and firepower for the 'mechs versus cost and stability for the tanks.
Because those 'equal skilled' tank pilots are almost always shifted into the mechs!
And really, I'm surprised that the biggest advantage of mechs over tanks hasn't been mentioned.
The psychological factor. While being assaulted by a tank is a terrifying thing, being attacked by what appears to be a literal god of war has to be an absurdly mind-shattering experience.
I mean, look at the Horus Heresy books. Some of the Imperial Army units in there have been fighting alongside Titans for decades--and they're still terrified by them when the Titans are on their own damned side!
I view mech pilots in the same way I do aircraft pilots compared to tank commanders/crew.
Much more selective training and recruitment process, responsible for much more expensive and high tech kit. Both professionals, both well trained, but both in different classes.
SilverMK2 wrote:I view mech pilots in the same way I do aircraft pilots compared to tank commanders/crew.
Much more selective training and recruitment process, responsible for much more expensive and high tech kit. Both professionals, both well trained, but both in different classes.
See, but here's where it gets fuzzy.
In most Western styled 'mech' systems, the pilots of battle-mechs have a background as being tank commanders first. Some were infantrymen who were shifted over into the more 'elite' powered infantry systems like the Elementals/Battlesuits, but most have a background as tanks first then mechs.
And well, it makes a kind of sense. The two share similar roles, similar ideas, etc. So why not take the top say 10% and put them in a giant walking avatar of war?
Kanluwen wrote:And well, it makes a kind of sense. The two share similar roles, similar ideas, etc. So why not take the top say 10% and put them in a giant walking avatar of war?
I see where you are coming from, but I'm not saying they come from completely different branches, more that mech pilots are that top x% - as you suggested.
I think we need to back up. If your comparing some sort of realistic tank vs. mech you can't say because battlemech does such and such it has to be such and such. It has to be apples to apples.
Same crews
Same money
Same tech level
In essence, as far as battletech goes, tanks are very defensively used and Battlemechs are very offensive in nature, being fast and maneuverable, they benefit from close range, high power weapons the most (along with that annoying hovertank that has the setting's heaviest autocannon and practically no armor, incredible ambush unit that)
Frazzled wrote:No I ok with that, but things have to be equal. We can't assume the mech pilots have Baron Richtofen, unless the tankers have Guderian.
...
You are aware that Guderian wasn't actually that good of a tank commander, and was more of a strategist right?
Basically:
You're going to have a hard time comparing generic 'mechs' to 'tanks' without actually getting into specifics.
I.e. Scout mechs aren't going to be anywhere near as 'good' overall as a battle tank would be.
Speaking in generalities: Tanks, when fielded en masse and crewed with 'average' individuals, are going to be far more useful than a single mech of the same general loadouts piloted by an 'average' bloke would be.
But that's not how it would work out in most cases. Mech pilots would be, frankly, more like the Sentinel pilots of the Imperial Guard. They're granted a measure of latitude and freedom due to their skill and the mobility/versatility of their vehicle that the armour crews aren't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:What keeps them from being targetted by missiles from several miles away?
ECM 'spoofing', light mechs on the outskirts of the main force effectively shutting down enemy missile batteries, etc.
For battlemechs, using terrain, fast attacks, and ECM suites. For the tanks, camoflage and using their obvious advantage in having a smaller profile.
But even that isn't necessarily enough sometimes obviously. As noted, the most powerful weapons in the setting (aside from naval bombardment, which can destroy entire cities at a time such as what happened in the Turtle Bay incident during the Clan Invasion, as well as Operation Serpent on Huntess) are the Arrow IV and Long Tom artillery weapons. The former is a homing missile, which when guided (usually by a NARC beacon or a TAG system, which is shot or painted onto the target 'mech and is small enough to be carried by powered armor or an infantry team) is pretty much instant death to whichever battlemech it hits. The latter is more traditional artillery and just as deadly, but cheaper.
Oh yes. I also enjoy the Kurita powered suits as well, and their weird mix of high technology and samurai ethics.
And in the case of fighting against the clans, it worked, because even if a needle gun wasn't enough to kill an elemental, cutting off the guy's head with a vibro-katana was more than enough.
In all honesty, artillery is the God of War. It's cheaper than tanks or mecha, nad as long as you keep your enemy far away, you will bombard them into dust sooner or later. With the new homing submunitions underdevelopment, even tanks will be extraordinarily vulnerable to artillery.
So while you guys are over there pitting tanks against mechs, I'll be hanging out 20 miles away with a dozen 155s. Fire for effect.
ChrisWWII wrote:In all honesty, artillery is the God of War. It's cheaper than tanks or mecha, nad as long as you keep your enemy far away, you will bombard them into dust sooner or later. With the new homing submunitions underdevelopment, even tanks will be extraordinarily vulnerable to artillery.
So while you guys are over there pitting tanks against mechs, I'll be hanging out 20 miles away with a dozen 155s. Fire for effect.
'Mechs, not Mecha. I prefer the grittier, "walking tank" style of Battletech over the more fluid and silliness Gundams do.
But they will never be practical on a battlefield.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:What keeps them from being targetted by missiles from several miles away?
Nothing, other than when the rules were created they didn't make cruise missile-like objects.
Nowadays, the mobility of a 'Mech in Battletech is it's greatest defense against something like that. Cruise missiles and artillery don't turn particularly well, and a 'Mech moving 80+ KPH can be in a far different place when that attack hits.
Frazzled wrote:No I ok with that, but things have to be equal. We can't assume the mech pilots have Baron Richtofen, unless the tankers have Guderian.
...
You are aware that Guderian wasn't actually that good of a tank commander, and was more of a strategist right?
Basically:
You're going to have a hard time comparing generic 'mechs' to 'tanks' without actually getting into specifics.
I.e. Scout mechs aren't going to be anywhere near as 'good' overall as a battle tank would be.
Speaking in generalities: Tanks, when fielded en masse and crewed with 'average' individuals, are going to be far more useful than a single mech of the same general loadouts piloted by an 'average' bloke would be.
But that's not how it would work out in most cases. Mech pilots would be, frankly, more like the Sentinel pilots of the Imperial Guard. They're granted a measure of latitude and freedom due to their skill and the mobility/versatility of their vehicle that the armour crews aren't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:What keeps them from being targetted by missiles from several miles away?
ECM 'spoofing', light mechs on the outskirts of the main force effectively shutting down enemy missile batteries, etc.
Ah handwavum... got it. The difficulty again is you're talking battletech and assumptions from such. If I use assumptions that your mecha are just Zentraedi battlepods then expert scouts with great latitude goes right out the window.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:In all honesty, artillery is the God of War. It's cheaper than tanks or mecha, nad as long as you keep your enemy far away, you will bombard them into dust sooner or later. With the new homing submunitions underdevelopment, even tanks will be extraordinarily vulnerable to artillery.
So while you guys are over there pitting tanks against mechs, I'll be hanging out 20 miles away with a dozen 155s. Fire for effect.
i'd prefer to be the guy on another continent launching missiles myself
Kanluwen wrote:Yes, because 'spoofing' and 'ecm' are handwavium.
Never mind that the Wild Weasel variant of the F-4 Phantom was doing it in Vietnam.
Or the B-1 had a variant doing the same...
And planes still get blown out of the sky from 200 miles away. So? Its a convenient excuse to cover a glaring problem.
So we're back to direct fire evidently. If so the tank wins it hands down. The tank can see the mech before the mech can see the tank. An Eldar super heavy er..hovertank yea hovertank will pop up from behinfd a building and smear your mech thats stuck in the swamp all over the street.
Kanluwen wrote:Yes, because 'spoofing' and 'ecm' are handwavium.
Never mind that the Wild Weasel variant of the F-4 Phantom was doing it in Vietnam.
Or the B-1 had a variant doing the same...
And planes still get blown out of the sky from 200 miles away. So? Its a convenient excuse to cover a glaring problem.
So we're back to direct fire evidently. If so the tank wins it hands down. The tank can see the mech before the mech can see the tank. An Eldar super heavy er..hovertank yea hovertank will pop up from behind a building and smear your mech thats stuck in the swamp all over the street.
First off:
"Planes still got blown out of the sky from 200 miles away" because many of the anti-aircraft defenses of the NVA were primitive as feth all. They relied on barrage tactics for their missiles, large amounts of flak artillery, and generally filling the sky with crap to hope to hit a few planes. The US drastically overestimated the NVA's technological supply from the USSR.
Second off:
Where's the tank going to hide and still be able to have a clear line of sight to fire from that the mech can't see?
Like Melissia said: tanks work best against mechs in defensive roles, dug-in and emplaced properly.
Mechs excel in being line-breakers against tanks that aren't dug-in or emplaced properly. They also excel in the fact that they can take approaches that might not be covered by tanks or other mechs for that matter.
Add in that the mobility of mechs will exceed that of tanks, they can be deployed with the crew already in place, rearmed and refitted simply by swapping out the weapons load-outs rather than the turrets, ammo feeds, etc--you get one nasty as feth piece of machinery when employed by someone who knows how to use them best.
As long as offence>defense then the case will always be Tanks > Mecha
Tanks have a lower profile and are more difficult to spot at a long distance. Whoever gets shot 1st dies. The giant tall profile of a Mecha makes the Mecha a huge easy to spot target. Fighting against tanks with mecha would be like infantry on 20 foot carnival stilts trying to regular fight infantry that are closer to the ground. Having the lower profile is a huge advantage in ground warfare.
More than 1 gun is also unnecessary. 3 tanks with a single cannon>1 mecha with 3 cannon. The tanks can loose tanks and still fire, but if the mecha splodes all 3 guns are gone.
The only way for mecha to ever be practicable is if defense>Offence. If Mecha can take multiple shots to the face from the the biggest baddest gun around then the high profile won't matter as much. Then combat will start to resemble WW1 Naval warfare more than any known period of land warfare.
Very few mechs are taller than around 5-6 stories. When fighting in an urban or mountainous environment--they're not going to be 'towering' over the terrain where tanks can pick them off from miles away.
It's arguable to say in modern warfare whether offense is greater than defence or vice versa. Sure, the US Army ran ramshackle over the Iraqis in two wars now, but we've never seen two modern, well equipped armies go at it. We have no idea how land warfare in OUR time would be...
Still, we have to onte that mechs are more agile, and able to cover more terrain than tanks. If need be they could retreat into terrain unsuitable for tanks, and so the tanks couldn't follow them. As far as I can see, the tanks biggest advantages are in defenses, and advances across relatively open ground. Mechs are best at advancing through difficult terrain, and moving quickly.
If I were a general, my front line weapons would be tanks, with specialist units of mechs to help them out. The mech units would fulfill the role tanks had bank in WWI-a specialist unit designed to assist the main combat units advance.
Edit:
Kanluwen wrote:Very few mechs are taller than around 5-6 stories. When fighting in an urban or mountainous environment--they're not going to be 'towering' over the terrain where tanks can pick them off from miles away.
So that cancels out that disadvantage, but only in urban combat. If you're attacking a modernized country, you'll usually either be advancing through agricultural countryside, or suburbs. Now, I don't know about you, but I've rarely seen structures in suburban areas get above 2 or 3 stories, maybe 4 for big office buildings.
Like I said, mechs would be a specialist unit for specialist situations, not the primary vehicle of the army.
I would see mechs more as anti technical/infantry stuff, with missiles and machine guns; while tanks fill the anti-armour role, able to mount bigger guns more stabily
ChrisWWII wrote:It's arguable to say in modern warfare whether offense is greater than defence or vice versa. Sure, the US Army ran ramshackle over the Iraqis in two wars now, but we've never seen two modern, well equipped armies go at it. We have no idea how land warfare in OUR time would be...
Still, we have to onte that mechs are more agile, and able to cover more terrain than tanks. If need be they could retreat into terrain unsuitable for tanks, and so the tanks couldn't follow them. As far as I can see, the tanks biggest advantages are in defenses, and advances across relatively open ground. Mechs are best at advancing through difficult terrain, and moving quickly.
If I were a general, my front line weapons would be tanks, with specialist units of mechs to help them out. The mech units would fulfill the role tanks had bank in WWI-a specialist unit designed to assist the main combat units advance.
Edit:
Kanluwen wrote:Very few mechs are taller than around 5-6 stories. When fighting in an urban or mountainous environment--they're not going to be 'towering' over the terrain where tanks can pick them off from miles away.
So that cancels out that disadvantage, but only in urban combat. If you're attacking a modernized country, you'll usually either be advancing through agricultural countryside, or suburbs. Now, I don't know about you, but I've rarely seen structures in suburban areas get above 2 or 3 stories, maybe 4 for big office buildings.
Like I said, mechs would be a specialist unit for specialist situations, not the primary vehicle of the army.
That's kind of the point that Melissia and I have been trying to make, to be honest.
Mechs, while cool, aren't going to be fielded en masse like tanks.
All armored core games
All mechwarrior/commander/assault games
Heavy gear (heavy gear 2 is still one of my all time favourites)
Earth Siege
Starsiege
Terranova
Chrome Hounds
Battle Engine Aquila
I think I got most of them...
Can't wait for the rumored steel battalion for Kinect. Never did get my hands on the old 200 buck controller :(
Very few mechs are taller than around 5-6 stories. When fighting in an urban or mountainous environment--they're not going to be 'towering' over the terrain where tanks can pick them off from miles away.
Tanks can hide in urban or mountain environments, while mechs can not hide anywhere.
Very few mechs are taller than around 5-6 stories. When fighting in an urban or mountainous environment--they're not going to be 'towering' over the terrain where tanks can pick them off from miles away.
Tanks can hide in urban or mountain environments, while mechs can not hide anywhere.
Going to point out something else. In an urban environment Mecha can't see into the 1st story of a building that they are standing right next to. 5-6 story Mecha would have a huge vulnerability to infantry within an urban environment, even more so than tanks.
Very few mechs are taller than around 5-6 stories. When fighting in an urban or mountainous environment--they're not going to be 'towering' over the terrain where tanks can pick them off from miles away.
Tanks can hide in urban or mountain environments, while mechs can not hide anywhere.
Mecha can hide in japan amoungst the other mecha
True, you wouldn't even notice it if I hadn't pointed it out in this picture.
Kanluwen wrote: In most Western styled 'mech' systems, the pilots of battle-mechs have a background as being tank commanders first. Some were infantrymen who were shifted over into the more 'elite' powered infantry systems like the Elementals/Battlesuits, but most have a background as tanks first then mechs.
Works that way in some Eastern systems, too(at least Gundam). For example, the pilot for the Gundam RX-78-6 Madrock was originally an artillery gunner who got "promoted" to piloting a RX-77 Guncannon and then the Madrock(after emergency piloting it during the assault of Jaburo).
Soldier: Right, does this kid even have a driver's license?
Lloyd: No, no he doesn't.
Soldier: Then why the hell is he in a goddamn prototype Gundam?!
Lloyd: Because we are very, very desperate.
Melissia wrote:I thought most eastern mecha series had it so that most of the pilots were little kids who stumbled into the right place at the wrong time.
That trope also began with the original Gundam, hence why it's in so many of the later series of Gundam.
That said G-Gundam doesn't follow this, nor does 08th MS Team(THE best Gundam series PERIOD because it's about your basic grunt Universal Centrury pilots during the One Year War, not the psychic super pilots). You also get great battlefield repairs(like the GM head on a Gundam and a complete redesign when one of the team's RX-79's takes too much damage, both because RX-79 parts aren't produced in enough numbers).
At least he had to look through the manual first and panicked to get the machine gun to work. Not like the others which kill off veterans on their first try.
snurl wrote:The day of the tank is over, much as i like them.
They are too easily destroyed by an infantryman with an RPG, by aircraft, or by long range guided missile strikes.
People have been declaring some weapon or an other has spelled the end of tanks for at least 80 years. It's always been wrong.
Simple fact is weapon systems don't disappear from the battlefield because something can kill it. They adapt, either through tactics or technology, to defeat or avoid that weapons system.
Weapons platforms disappear from the battlefield when their job is no longer needed, or better performed by some other weapons platform. Right now nothing can assault a defended position, and stay in the fight, like a tank can.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:It's just futuristic enough to be believable to me, and it's possible that we might eventually see something like it. But maybe not.
We won't. Simple reason is that things move faster and more efficiently on wheels or tracks than they do on legs.
If we developed myomer bundles that worked as well as they do in Battletech we'd be better off using them to drive pistons and getting some crazy fast tanks, instead of making a giant robot walk.
I can see a role, maybe, for smaller scale mech suits, that were tasked with moving through urban areas. There legs would be an important part of moving through buildings and the like. But giant robots won't ever happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Don't confuse the two. In the real world anything you can see you can kill, and that from a long range off. Mecha have an inherent disadvantage in that they can literally stand out and are thus targets for everyone. Tanks are better in that regard but, as noted, technology is such that its not circa 1940 but more like 1945. Every trooper can blow the crap out of something or call i fire to kill it from miles away.
The guy with a scope and radio (or the guy looking through a drone camera) is eminently more dangerous than any big walking hunk of metal.
Yeah, it's target profile is a problem, but the bigger issue is speed. Any platform is going to be quicker on wheels than it is on legs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Because tanks can be stopped with a single batch of landmines, can only carry so much ammunition, and are easily stopped by terrain features.
Any mine that can take out a tank will do a horrible number on the inherently fragile machinery of a giant robot leg. Any ammo limits in a tank are only going to be worse in a giant mech, because, given the same overall size and weight, the mech will be losing more internal space to machinery and actuators, and will need to be spreading more armour across the much greater surface area.
Tanks are stopped by more terrain features, but not that many. They do drive the things through buildings, you know. Whether the ability to manouvre across steep terrain like mountains is worth the immense number of failings of mech design is a decision I leave up to the military designers across the globe. Given the total amount currently being spent on giant war robots is $0, I think we know their answer.
Mechs(not mecha) generally have larger ammo capacities(in the case of energy weapons, a secondary generator devoted exclusively to those weapons), extensive ECM suites built throughout the machine itself, and can actually work without having to rely on established routes like roads and plains, etc.
Only because of make believe Battletech rules. They also, ridiculously, have more armour. Because Battletech is a made up game designed around getting mechs into the field. You shouldn't use it to explain why mechs would actually be practical in the real world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Tracked vehicles can't operate in water that would go past a certain depth. A mech, on the other hand, can keep 'wading' and still be able to engage anything their weapons can spot.
Tanks can and have been made amphibious. We don't tend to bother with this because the downsides are immense for the occassional marginal benefits. I could see a platform being developed specifically for this role if a military saw it as being something they'd regularly face, if so it's very unlikely they'd opt for a two legged vehicle wading slowly through the water.
Past a certain set of dimensions: tanks become unwieldy and start to require more fuel, more operators, et all. Look at the German 'supertanks' of WWII.
These same restrictions apply to mecha. You don't get to ignore physics because you're on two legs.
Also: Omnimechs from MechWarrior/Battletech had a pretty unique and operationally effective method in that they could actually have what amounted to 'man-sized mechs' clinging to hardpoints on the Mech proper, operating as a sort of 'skirmish screen' or even a boarding party against other mechs.
Troops could also ride on tanks. They have in the past.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Why? Because, despite popular thinking, it's not actually that easy to bring down a mech which is armored appropriately(i.e. not a 'scout' mech, but a full 'battle' mech).
What? You're claiming you somehow know better than popular thinking about an entirely made up future tech. We have no idea how stable mechs will be, other than to make the fairly logical presumption that they'll be less stable than a tank.
Claiming you know how stable they will be is kind of weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:I'm using Battletech as the basis for my ideas on actual realistic 'mechs.
Battleteh is a made up game. It's fiction. And it's fiction that was contrived to give mechs a battlefield role.
It is easy to look past the setting assumptions and realise that the setting is highly contrived and very implausible. That's no criticism of Battletech, because those assumptions serve the greater good of letting us play with giant war robots.
But pretending Battletech in any way could explain how mechs might operate in the real world is ridiculous.
Melissia wrote:But at the same time hvaing less space also makes it have less area to put weapons and turrets on. The typical battlemech, represented by the Timberwolf/Mad Cat (see the first page where I linked to that image) has effectively three turrets, and is certainly most capable of engaging multiple targets because of it, either at once or in rapid succession. It can also lose one or both of its arms, either having them damaged to the point of uselessness or simply cut off entirely, and still remain effective, while if a tank's single turret is damaged, it's no longer effective.
There is nothing inherent in the design of a tank that limits it to one turret, that wouldn't similarly limit a weapons platform with legs. If you wanted tanks with multiple turrets you could do this just as easily.
The fact is that we aren't developing those kinds of weapons because the modern battlefield hasn't produced the need for multiple main weapons.
Start thinking about what a mecha actually is. Stop thinking about how Battletech imagined mecha and tanks were.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Sadly, I don't have the battletech rulebooks in front of me. But tanks in the actual stories are cheap enough that militias almost always have them, whereas if a militia has 'mechs either they're an incredibly important world or they're hand-me-downs from many generations past, and therefor outdated.
Wow this conversation is going fast.
Cost for a top of the line tank was about half that of a mech. Tanks had the option of going real cheap, though, with ICE engines and the like.
But again, that's Battletech. It's made up. It has no reflection on what these weapons platforms would actually cost to put into the field.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Not really.
Because those 'equal skilled' tank pilots are almost always shifted into the mechs!
Only if you assume that the mechs are premiere battlefield units, which as this thread has amply demonstrated, they are not.
And really, I'm surprised that the biggest advantage of mechs over tanks hasn't been mentioned.
The psychological factor. While being assaulted by a tank is a terrifying thing, being attacked by what appears to be a literal god of war has to be an absurdly mind-shattering experience.
People, particularly soldiers, are going to be more scared by the likelihood that a thing might kill them, than whether or not it looks scary.
This would probably explain the grand total spent on weapons platforms in the last 50 years that have 'look scary' as a primary component of it's design is exactly $0
If by climb you mean fly with all those thrusters then land without destroying the leg joints somehow, then managing not to fall over like our "good friend" Asimo on a staircase. Yeah mechas can go vertically upwards better than a tank.
Closest we'll ever have a chance of getting to a combat is something like the Macross suits, and then because they can just be a plane for the entire fight. Yet they'd probably be more fragile than a normal fighter jet....
SilverMK2 wrote:I view mech pilots in the same way I do aircraft pilots compared to tank commanders/crew.
Much more selective training and recruitment process, responsible for much more expensive and high tech kit. Both professionals, both well trained, but both in different classes.
Only if we assume there could actually be a battlefield role for giant walking war robots that sees them as more effective than tanks. That assumption is not only dubious, it's nearly absurd.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:What keeps them from being targetted by missiles from several miles away?
The fact that it's a fictional universe designed to let us play make believe with giant war robots. Which is cool because I want to play around with giant war robots, but it's a fact that's escaped a few posters in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Speaking in generalities: Tanks, when fielded en masse and crewed with 'average' individuals, are going to be far more useful than a single mech of the same general loadouts piloted by an 'average' bloke would be.
Note you're assuming that it'd be tank crews, and not a single tank pilot. Any sufficiently advanced combat system that allowed a mech to be piloted by one man could just as easily be adapted to a tank.
But that's not how it would work out in most cases. Mech pilots would be, frankly, more like the Sentinel pilots of the Imperial Guard. They're granted a measure of latitude and freedom due to their skill and the mobility/versatility of their vehicle that the armour crews aren't.
Possibly, if a role ever developed for walking scout units, that could be better performed by mechanised infantry or air units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:For battlemechs, using terrain, fast attacks, and ECM suites. For the tanks, camoflage and using their obvious advantage in having a smaller profile.
Which assumes a weapons platform on legs would be inherently faster than wheeled or tracked weapons platforms. Which is plainly, absurd.
It's okay in Battletech because it's a make believe game that lets us play with giant war robots, but don't try to bring that make believe into speculation on the role of future mechs.
And why would ECMs be only deployable on mechs. That isn't even a restriction in Battletech.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:In all honesty, artillery is the God of War. It's cheaper than tanks or mecha, nad as long as you keep your enemy far away, you will bombard them into dust sooner or later. With the new homing submunitions underdevelopment, even tanks will be extraordinarily vulnerable to artillery.
Tanks have always been highly vulnerable to artillery, especially when the tank and its support units have been unable to locate and destroy local spotter units.
Funnily enough, infantry have proven to be highly resilient to massed artillery. They can get suppressed, and disrupted and become vulnerable to assault, but you won't actually wipe them off the map.
We realised this in the wake of events like the Battle of the Somme, where the field was turned into a virtual moonscape, but relatively few German troops were actually killed or taken out of the fight. It was one of the big reasons the focus has turned more and more to combined arms operations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Very few mechs are taller than around 5-6 stories. When fighting in an urban or mountainous environment--they're not going to be 'towering' over the terrain where tanks can pick them off from miles away.
Very few mechs... what mechs? It's all made up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:It's arguable to say in modern warfare whether offense is greater than defence or vice versa. Sure, the US Army ran ramshackle over the Iraqis in two wars now, but we've never seen two modern, well equipped armies go at it. We have no idea how land warfare in OUR time would be...
Every army I'm aware of teaches constant operational offensive, aimed at preventing the enemy from being able to mount offensives of their own. In the modern battlefield you're always better off on the offensive.
So if nothing else, we know that any war between major powers will be quick and very, very bloody.
Still, we have to onte that mechs are more agile, and able to cover more terrain than tanks. If need be they could retreat into terrain unsuitable for tanks, and so the tanks couldn't follow them. As far as I can see, the tanks biggest advantages are in defenses, and advances across relatively open ground. Mechs are best at advancing through difficult terrain, and moving quickly.
They're not better at moving quickly. Legs are less efficent than wheels.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
n0t_u wrote:If by climb you mean fly with all those thrusters then land without destroying the leg joints somehow, then managing not to fall over like our "good friend" Asimo on a staircase. Yeah mechas can go vertically upwards better than a tank.
Any sufficient technology that can use jumpjets to launch a mech into the air can also be applied to tanks.
SilverMK2 wrote:I view mech pilots in the same way I do aircraft pilots compared to tank commanders/crew.
Much more selective training and recruitment process, responsible for much more expensive and high tech kit. Both professionals, both well trained, but both in different classes.
Only if we assume there could actually be a battlefield role for giant walking war robots that sees them as more effective than tanks. That assumption is not only dubious, it's nearly absurd.
I'm referring to the kinds of settings where mech appear - generally they are viewed as the "top dogs" of warfare.
SilverMK2 wrote:I'm referring to the kinds of settings where mech appear - generally they are viewed as the "top dogs" of warfare.
Ah, that's fair enough. The idea of mech pilots as the aces of the future battlefield as well. It's just everyone should realise that's just for fun, there's nothing plausible about it.
There's a fun scene in 20th Century Boys where the Society of Friends has kidnapped a robot scientist to help them build a giant robot to attack Tokyo.
Brought up on Gundam animations, they're trying to persuade him to create a robot piloted by a man in the head.
He refuses, explaining that it will simply cause the pilot to have appalling motion sickness.
Still, we have to onte that mechs are more agile, and able to cover more terrain than tanks. If need be they could retreat into terrain unsuitable for tanks, and so the tanks couldn't follow them. As far as I can see, the tanks biggest advantages are in defenses, and advances across relatively open ground. Mechs are best at advancing through difficult terrain, and moving quickly.
***No we don't. Current tanks can boogie at 45 mph. Tweek the M1 slightly and it can burn rubber at 60 mph. Thats today's tank.
Again, if you want speed, you're going for a skimmer/helicopter, which laughs at all this argument.
Of course we have a real life image, the tripods vs. M1 from war of worlds. Tell equivalent technoologies wouldn't have tanks/helicopters obliterating a walker?
The problem (as has been mentioned previously) is the pressure applied by, say, a 60 tonne walker is all going through 2 (or 3, or 4, or 6, etc) small areas.
This is further multiplied when you are running.
We already see tanks breaking some roads that they run over and sinking into other types of terrain and they have a much greater weight distribution.
Try running in high heels in a muddy field and see how fast you can go before you break your ankles.
ANd let's not even get into crossing bridges. An M1 could cross the Golden Gate, or even an average highway bridge. I wouldn't be as sure about a battlemech.
Yea whats up with that? Macross and Southern Cross had similar nonsense. The stupid sub plot was so stupid and dare I say childish that it put me off anime for everything else. Just show me crap blowing up and keep the weird/almost perv subplots to yourself thanks.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:If you haven't watched Evangalion yet, you should.
That show makes absolutely no sense what so ever. As do many other anime shows. Not helped that there are about a million different versions of each of them, all slightly different from one another.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:If you haven't watched Evangalion yet, you should.
That show makes absolutely no sense what so ever. As do many other anime shows. Not helped that there are about a million different versions of each of them, all slightly different from one another.
The last two episodes of Evangalion make absolutely no sense, sure (because they ran out of money with which to make the series, and also because of a nervous breakdown on the part of the creator), but the rest of it is extremely coherent.
The main reason I bring it up is that there's an extremely good (and also disturbing) reason that the mech pilots are children.
In fact, that's the case with everything in Evangalion. It took all the common points in the genre, threw them together, and made it make sense... and then took them to their logical, and generally horrific, conclusions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:ANd let's not even get into crossing bridges. An M1 could cross the Golden Gate, or even an average highway bridge. I wouldn't be as sure about a battlemech.
Sebster et al: So what if it's made up? I don't particularly give a gak... walkers themselves are made up and fictional right now anyway so boo fething hoo
ChrisWWII wrote:ANd let's not even get into crossing bridges. An M1 could cross the Golden Gate, or even an average highway bridge. I wouldn't be as sure about a battlemech.
Don't be silly, they'd jump it.
Mechs are the mary-sues of military technology.
Correction, they'd jump it, with style. (just because I'm arguing tanks are better doesn't mean I doesn't recognize the walkers aren't epic cool)
Battletech in general has the kind of mech I like. Namely the ones that aren't made for ballet. It does have its fair share of ridiculous looking monstrosities, *cough*Raijin*cough*, but on the whole it has the kind of aesthetic I want in a walking tank. Another good one is Heavy Gear. Not a huge fan of walkers with treads but their mechs all have a very solid quality to them.
Though the question was think is best/like best. I like chunky mecha, but tanks are going to be almost universally hands down better. And really the ultimate scifi ground based beat stick is a tank, the Bolos.
There was a Civilization IV Mod called Next War that let you field assault mechs. The units description basically said 'yeah, tanks are better, but mechs have one major advantag. The are. Really. Fething. Cool.'
Melissia wrote:feth Mecha, I want some Battletech.
/thread
4Channing aside, Mecha for me as well, but I prefer the 1980's Battletech style walking tank style mecha over the fins/samurai helmets/swords that mecha designs often get burdened with.
SilverMK2 wrote:Have to say that generally I prefer tanks. There are a handful of mechs however that look pretty cool. The ones from Dust are quite good, as well as some from AT-43
Pretty much the same - I love the ring of red/dust weird war style antique mechs.
I also like battletech and heavy gear style mechs too.
Tanks are the best. You can't beat a tank unless you have another tank, or Godzilla. Although any nation that uses micro machines for defensive weapons will probably get creamed by Godzilla.
I like the Battletech style of Mech better than the Japanese version with swords. I especially liked the little guys, what were they called? Elementals or something? They seemed to always avoid my LRM's. The little tactical battlesuits are neat and have less of a risk of falling through the ground every step they take, though I think suffer from a lack of defenses and are equally targetable by helo's and javalins as are tanks in n open battle.
This makes me throw my lot with mechs.
Although both are damn damn cool.
I tend not to like sword mecha either. I know nothing of battletech but I do like the mechs from Lost Planet 1. (Haven't played 2) Although it did turn to sword swingin at the end of lost planted....
Now, Votoms or powerarmour are different scales and a harder choice. Essentially Votoms are equivalent to the Tau battlesuits (XV8) with the operator in the chest, the head being sensors and the arms and legs remote extensions.
The funny thing about comparing Gundam to tanks was, is that MS were originally Space Flight fighters, who would have a huge demoralising affect when invading the space colonies where most people live.
One interesting take was in Five Star Stories. There are tanks and mechs in those, but warfare is usually decided by champion knights in duelling mechs as proper warfare with the weapons available would damage too much and destroy what you were warring over; much better to have a test of skill and technology to decide it.
Though of course, sides often cheat. The full scale war with tanks was in desert, and that was was to rescue a VIP from one of the nations.
Melissia wrote:Sebster et al: So what if it's made up? I don't particularly give a gak... walkers themselves are made up and fictional right now anyway so boo fething hoo
And good morning.
Well, obviously there's no problem with it being made up when it comes to cracking out the hex maps and mechs and playing some Battletech.
There's a huge problem with it being made up when you try to use it to explain how mechs might actually function in a plausible future military.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dark Scipio wrote:Nice round up Sebster. Thanks.
Thanks mate. Had a spare hour at the end of a Friday at work
sebster wrote:
Tanks are stopped by more terrain features, but not that many. They do drive the things through buildings, you know. Whether the ability to manouvre across steep terrain like mountains is worth the immense number of failings of mech design is a decision I leave up to the military designers across the globe.
You also have to consider the fact that a 70-ton tank distributes its mass over a much wider surface than a 70-ton mech; meaning that it's very likely that the mech would actually be subject to more terrain limitations, not less. Indeed, even the idea that mechs can climb steeper inclines is a misleading, given that those inclines would have to support the entire mass of the mech at any given point that the mech might step; meaning that scaling steep terrain is out of the question. So, in reality, we're just talking about mechs stepping over things that tanks can probably drive over, or through, anyway.
And that's all before we consider the ramifications of small furry bipeds engaging in forest-based guerrilla warfare.
dogma wrote:You also have to consider the fact that a 70-ton tank distributes its mass over a much wider surface than a 70-ton mech; meaning that it's very likely that the mech would actually be subject to more terrain limitations, not less. Indeed, even the idea that mechs can climb steeper inclines is a misleading, given that those inclines would have to support the entire mass of the mech at any given point that the mech might step; meaning that scaling steep terrain is out of the question. So, in reality, we're just talking about mechs stepping over things that tanks can probably drive over, or through, anyway.
Fair point. Thinking about it further, I'm starting to wonder what kind of leg motion we're giving mechs that they'd be able to set over blockades anyway. You look at a human, and we're two metres tall. Not talking about leaping but just stepping over something, we can probably handle something about half a metre tall before we had to do something other than just step to get over it.
Houses, depending on the pitch of the roof, are about 5 metres high. At which point a mech would have to be about 20 metres tall to do it. A 20 metre tall thing wandering the battlefield is a deathtrap.
A heavy mech wouldn't be feasible, but the more I think about it, if the weight could be cut down to ten tons or less, a small walker seems like it could be a perfect anti-infantry support vehicle. Assuming you get legs that are agile enough, a lightweight armor capable of shrugging off small arms fire, and perfect an antimissile system capable of knocking an RPG round out of the air, you could get something lighter than an armored car, that's more maneuverable than an abrams due to its reduced weight and narrower profile, and which has a higher vantage point. Something able to step over walls, or leap ditches, walk down any street wide enough for a car, assuming the surface area of the feet was large enough potentially wade a river that could drown a tank or trod through mud a wheeled vehicle couldn't get through...
Undoubtedly more expensive than the alternatives, but potentially more effective at fulfilling a certain role, especially with the morale effect of a fifteen foot tall bipedal tank running down the street firing a heavy machine gun at you.
chromedog wrote:Not into giantninjagofightrobo stories.
So what about Battletech then? Because they sure as HELL aren't ninja robos
Battletech has tanks. You don't HAVE to play with the mechs.
It also had an incredibly lame-arse cartoon series (Just like Robotech did) that I saw part of one episode of and gave up on.
Gundam never appealed.
Evangelion was just incoherent.
Robotech was an annoying kids cartoon - the equal of dragonball or pokemon.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:A heavy mech wouldn't be feasible, but the more I think about it, if the weight could be cut down to ten tons or less, a small walker seems like it could be a perfect anti-infantry support vehicle. Assuming you get legs that are agile enough, a lightweight armor capable of shrugging off small arms fire, and perfect an antimissile system capable of knocking an RPG round out of the air, you could get something lighter than an armored car, that's more maneuverable than an abrams due to its reduced weight and narrower profile, and which has a higher vantage point. Something able to step over walls, or leap ditches, walk down any street wide enough for a car, assuming the surface area of the feet was large enough potentially wade a river that could drown a tank or trod through mud a wheeled vehicle couldn't get through...
But it's going to be slow as hell getting anywhere. The reason we put troops in hummers is to get them to the conflict as quick as possible, because mobility is everything.
Here you have this awkwardly sized walker thing, that has to walk to the conflict by itself. Maybe the thing can walk over walls and ditches, but that's just not that much of an advantage when you look at the speed advantage that wheels and tracks give you.
Undoubtedly more expensive than the alternatives, but potentially more effective at fulfilling a certain role, especially with the morale effect of a fifteen foot tall bipedal tank running down the street firing a heavy machine gun at you.
But soldiers aren't stupid. Something that looks cool isn't going to raise moral when it's a liability in the field. You raise moral by giving troops weapons that kill the enemy as quickly as possible.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:A heavy mech wouldn't be feasible, but the more I think about it, if the weight could be cut down to ten tons or less, a small walker seems like it could be a perfect anti-infantry support vehicle. Assuming you get legs that are agile enough, a lightweight armor capable of shrugging off small arms fire, and perfect an antimissile system capable of knocking an RPG round out of the air, you could get something lighter than an armored car, that's more maneuverable than an abrams due to its reduced weight and narrower profile, and which has a higher vantage point. Something able to step over walls, or leap ditches, walk down any street wide enough for a car, assuming the surface area of the feet was large enough potentially wade a river that could drown a tank or trod through mud a wheeled vehicle couldn't get through...
But it's going to be slow as hell getting anywhere. The reason we put troops in hummers is to get them to the conflict as quick as possible, because mobility is everything.
That's an engineering challenge, not a solid barrier. With modern technology, it's as impossible as powered armor, but it's still something that may yet emerge. Even if it comes along with the advent of full or almost full automation, it could still be useful as an image of power projection, so long as it has the resilience and firepower to back that up with actual projection, even if the bulk of any actual work gets done by UAVs or ground based drones. What says "compared to you I am a god, and there is nothing you can do to change that" like a fifteen foot tall monstrosity that's impervious to small arms fire and can swat RPGs out of the air? The essential impracticality of it, so long as its combined with functional implementation, sends a message of "I don't even need to try to crush you" to anyone intelligent enough not to be demoralized by the appearance of the thing.
Undoubtedly more expensive than the alternatives, but potentially more effective at fulfilling a certain role, especially with the morale effect of a fifteen foot tall bipedal tank running down the street firing a heavy machine gun at you.
But soldiers aren't stupid. Something that looks cool isn't going to raise moral when it's a liability in the field. You raise moral by giving troops weapons that kill the enemy as quickly as possible.
Negative impact on the enemy's morale, not positive on friendlies.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:That's an engineering challenge, not a solid barrier.
No, it's a solid barrier. Legs are less efficient at transferring energy into motion than wheels.
You can predict a future battlefield where speed isn't as viable as versatile movement, such as primarily urban, anti-insurgent conflict, but then you aren't looking at a ten ton, 5 to 10 metre high mech, you're probably looking at something very close to man sized, probably more like power armour.
But if speed is an issue on the battlefield, it will always favour wheels over legs.
Negative impact on the enemy's morale, not positive on friendlies.
Enemy soldiers aren't stupid either. When something turns up that that can kill them quickly and is hard to knock out, they'll be afraid, whether it looks awesome or not.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:That's an engineering challenge, not a solid barrier.
No, it's a solid barrier. Legs are less efficient at transferring energy into motion than wheels.
You can predict a future battlefield where speed isn't as viable as versatile movement, such as primarily urban, anti-insurgent conflict, but then you aren't looking at a ten ton, 5 to 10 metre high mech, you're probably looking at something very close to man sized, probably more like power armour.
But there's still a limit on what speeds are feasible in a close environment, such as a city. Get something that can move twenty or thirty miles an hour at full tilt, doesn't require much room to turn, and can move over intervening obstacles without much, if any trouble, and even if it's less efficient than a tracked vehicle, it's going to outperform it. At ~15' tall, it's also going to have almost the same vantage point that a sniper on a roof would have, and if you've got a working antimissile system able to knock out RPGs, preferably by having a computer identify potential threats before they can fire (and alerting the pilot to them if you haven't gotten to the full automation stage where it could better determine whether it's actually a threat or not, in which case there wouldn't be a pilot), and a hull capable of shrugging off small arms fire, you've got something extremely resilient that's going to have an easier time getting around the area its in than a tank or IFV would.
It's obviously not going to carry the day on its own, but as an anti-infantry platform supporting infantry or armored vehicles, supported by UAVs to locate targets and threats, it's certainly viable. Assuming the engineering hurdles have been cleared, of course.
But if speed is an issue on the battlefield, it will always favour wheels over legs.
On open ground, there's no question that tanks would carry the day with their lower profiles, higher speeds, and heavier armaments.
The only conceivable way the absurd sizes of something like Titans or battlemechs would make sense is if you had something gamebreaking that either couldn't be scaled down to fit in a tank, or required a sufficiently large amount of power that you couldn't fit the necessary powerplant into a tank. Something like the voidshields on titans, I suppose. All highly unlikely, really.
You have to remember that a lot of cities have quite a lot of hollow space under roads for pipework, etc. Even limiting weight to 10 tonnes could produce very high pressure (especially when running, suddenly stopping, etc) which could rupture the surface.
Not to mention the problem of maintining traction with such a small contact area.
The only conceivable way the absurd sizes of something like Titans or battlemechs would make sense is if you had something gamebreaking that either couldn't be scaled down to fit in a tank, or required a sufficiently large amount of power that you couldn't fit the necessary powerplant into a tank. Something like the voidshields on titans, I suppose. All highly unlikely, really.
You also have to assume that the gamerbreaking item cannot for some reason be put into a titan sized tank, because the big tank would have the void shield and all the other comparative advantages too, so it would be better.
sebster wrote:There's a huge problem with it being made up when you try to use it to explain how mechs might actually function in a plausible future military.
No there isn't.
The technology doesn't exist today, but it is plausible to believe it might exist in the future. This isn't time travel we're talking about.
If you're not willing to talk about the potential uses of walker vehicles once potential future technology applied to the concept overcomes the limitations of current technology, then just say so, so that I can ignore you and talk to someone more interesting who isn't just being hard-headed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The only conceivable way the absurd sizes of something like Titans or battlemechs would make sense is if you had something gamebreaking that either couldn't be scaled down to fit in a tank, or required a sufficiently large amount of power that you couldn't fit the necessary powerplant into a tank. Something like the voidshields on titans, I suppose. All highly unlikely, really.
You also have to assume that the gamerbreaking item cannot for some reason be put into a titan sized tank, because the big tank would have the void shield and all the other comparative advantages too, so it would be better.
Dunno, wouldn't the average massive tnak actually be a bigger target to airstrikes? After all it has more horizontal surface on its top to hit.
But aren't they both giant robots? I realize one is like Burger King and the other is like McDonald's but what separates them so much that you would consider them distinctly different?
Take a look at a really well done piece of 40K art. then look at one of those stupid "40K Anime" pics that are always being posted with giant bobble heade dcuddly spacw wolves with huge eyes and what not.
I consider those VASTLY different in the same way...
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: What says "compared to you I am a god, and there is nothing you can do to change that" like a fifteen foot tall monstrosity that's impervious to small arms fire and can swat RPGs out of the air?
Tactical nuclear weapons, or the aforementioned drone air force.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The essential impracticality of it, so long as its combined with functional implementation, sends a message of "I don't even need to try to crush you" to anyone intelligent enough not to be demoralized by the appearance of the thing.
It also sends a message of "I'm too stupid to actually care about the laws of physics."
Relying on the emotional effects of the appearance of thing X in order to win battles is profoundly misguided.
Again, we should separate the practicals from the Battle tech gaming aspects.
Practicals-meh A good helicopter eats both. Suspend that and I could see the morale implications, especially if its a big honking titan sized walker, espeically if you shoot at it and it doesn't die. Tank fright would set in pretty quickly.
It's worked in the past when coupled with actual physical attack/the threat of attack. Stuka air sirens were terrifying, but only because people knew what was coming at them. If the mecha can prove itself on the battlefield, then its appearance could be demoralizing, but if it goes down as easy as tanks do, then perhaps not so much.
dogma wrote:
Helicopters can't hold territory, and get brutalized by properly equipped infantry.
Tanks can't hold territory particularly well either. But Frazz is right in a pracitcal sense, attack helicopters, CAS aircraft, long range artillery will tear either massive superheavy tanks, or big mechs apart.
sebster wrote:There's a huge problem with it being made up when you try to use it to explain how mechs might actually function in a plausible future military.
No there isn't.
The technology doesn't exist today, but it is plausible to believe it might exist in the future. This isn't time travel we're talking about.
If you're not willing to talk about the potential uses of walker vehicles once potential future technology applied to the concept overcomes the limitations of current technology, then just say so, so that I can ignore you and talk to someone more interesting who isn't just being hard-headed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The only conceivable way the absurd sizes of something like Titans or battlemechs would make sense is if you had something gamebreaking that either couldn't be scaled down to fit in a tank, or required a sufficiently large amount of power that you couldn't fit the necessary powerplant into a tank. Something like the voidshields on titans, I suppose. All highly unlikely, really.
You also have to assume that the gamerbreaking item cannot for some reason be put into a titan sized tank, because the big tank would have the void shield and all the other comparative advantages too, so it would be better.
Dunno, wouldn't the average massive tnak actually be a bigger target to airstrikes? After all it has more horizontal surface on its top to hit.
A. It's got a void shield, that's the point of it.
B. If the armour matters, your engineers have to explain how they managed to put enough armour on the titan to protect it all around, but were not able to put armour on the tank, which has a much better ratio of surface area to volume which makes it easier to armour.
C. We don't know it's easier to hit flat things from an aircraft than standy uppy things. It's certainly easier to hit standy uppy things from a gun on the ground.
Ahtman wrote:This is the kind of thread that sends sensible women running for the hills away from gamers.
It took you 5,420 posts to figure that out?
The sensible women ran a long time ago...
Not all posts on Dakka are that way and I never claimed as much. Arguing Gundam vs Clan Wolf vs the USMC is the kind of thread that would do that though.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The only conceivable way the absurd sizes of something like Titans or battlemechs would make sense is if you had something gamebreaking that either couldn't be scaled down to fit in a tank, or required a sufficiently large amount of power that you couldn't fit the necessary powerplant into a tank. Something like the voidshields on titans, I suppose. All highly unlikely, really.
You also have to assume that the gamerbreaking item cannot for some reason be put into a titan sized tank, because the big tank would have the void shield and all the other comparative advantages too, so it would be better.
The idea was an equally massive tank would have a harder time getting around, although that's again based on the requirement of keeping the mech light enough not to just sink into the ground. If there were something akin to a void shield on it, you could probably eschew armor almost completely, while the powerplant used may well have enough surplus output to manage the issue of moving the legs and keeping the thing upright. So a narrower profile than a comparable tank, meaning it could theoretically fit on a two lane road, while maintaining the vantage point of a low flying helicopter, but with a more stable platform and potentially heavier armaments. Completely useless if you don't have some power intensive gamebreaker like a voidshield, though.
dogma wrote:
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: What says "compared to you I am a god, and there is nothing you can do to change that" like a fifteen foot tall monstrosity that's impervious to small arms fire and can swat RPGs out of the air?
Tactical nuclear weapons, or the aforementioned drone air force.
Neither of which can occupy territory, though. For surgically removing the enemies ability to strike, small, maneuverable drones would undoubtedly be the way to go. For projecting the image of your power into occupied territory, a walking testament to your technological superiority that's as tall as a house is at least something to consider, so long as it can actually reach out and tear something apart, and can whether any infantry portable weapons that could be brought against it.
Or the shipping wars. Dear God the shipping wars. You think 40k players are bad in their debates over tactics? You have never seen the furry shippers can unleash upon each other when they're challenged. Team Edward vs. Team Jacob is only the tip of the iceberg....
ChrisWWII wrote:Or the shipping wars. Dear God the shipping wars. You think 40k players are bad in their debates over tactics? You have never seen the furry shippers can unleash upon each other when they're challenged. Team Edward vs. Team Jacob is only the tip of the iceberg....
Ahtman wrote:Arguing Gundam vs Clan Wolf vs the USMC is the kind of thread that would do that though.
Still makes more sense than the Twilight vs True Blood/Sookie Stackhouse novels vs Harry Potter discussions I've seen elsewhere.
And those would be the type of females that send men running for the hills. Who am I kidding, they could be totally crazy but the slightest hint of side boob and the guys not going anywhere.
Ahtman wrote:Arguing Gundam vs Clan Wolf vs the USMC is the kind of thread that would do that though.
Still makes more sense than the Twilight vs True Blood/Sookie Stackhouse novels vs Harry Potter discussions I've seen elsewhere.
And those would be the type of females that send men running for the hills. Who am I kidding, they could be totally crazy but the slightest hint of side boob and the guys not going anywhere.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:But there's still a limit on what speeds are feasible in a close environment, such as a city. Get something that can move twenty or thirty miles an hour at full tilt,
There is a limit on feasible speeds. That limit is not 20 or 30 miles an hour. At which point you're looking at a highly specialised piece of gear that can't move to the conflict site at the same speed as the troops in the APCs, and can't bug out at the same speed.
The only conceivable way the absurd sizes of something like Titans or battlemechs would make sense is if you had something gamebreaking that either couldn't be scaled down to fit in a tank, or required a sufficiently large amount of power that you couldn't fit the necessary powerplant into a tank. Something like the voidshields on titans, I suppose. All highly unlikely, really.
Or you consider the possibility of a future society which doesn't care, or possibly might not be capable of understanding, efficiency and effectiveness. In 40k you have an Imperium with highly advanced technology but minimal capability for rational thought, so you could see them building something as inherently silly as a Imperator Titan.
As you say, though, it's all highly unlikely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:No there isn't.
The technology doesn't exist today, but it is plausible to believe it might exist in the future. This isn't time travel we're talking about.
If you're not willing to talk about the potential uses of walker vehicles once potential future technology applied to the concept overcomes the limitations of current technology, then just say so, so that I can ignore you and talk to someone more interesting who isn't just being hard-headed.
I'm willing to talk about the potential uses. It's just that, as I've explained to you several times now and you have incredibly failed to grasp, the potential of those designs shouldn't be justified by the fluff from Battletech.
I don't agree with Sir Pseudonymous' ideas about how mechs might be deployed in the future, but he's basing his ideas in reality, and considering the actual limitations and advantages of mechs. Whereas you've been arguing the advantages of mechs in the Battletech world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:It's worked in the past.
Name one piece of military hardware in the world today, or on the design table of any military developer, that has fear as a primary element of it's design.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Platuan4th wrote:Methinks you're undervaluing the effects of morale on a force a tad much.
Morale is hugely important. But you remove the enemy's moral by putting overwhelming levels of firepower on his position, and killing them. There is a kind of fear that comes from the enemy being able to kill you that is a huge part of warfare, and it can't be matched by pottering around in a device that looks scary.
Remember that the Mechanicum has an emotional investment in union with the machine and in becoming cyborgized. Being able to do that with a titanic man-shaped engine is done for spiritual reasons, much like the Gothic Cathedrals, impractical crap that they were, required so much technological innovation for so little return. Titans exist in spite of their impracticality, not because of it.
ChrisWWII wrote:Tanks can't hold territory particularly well either. But Frazz is right in a pracitcal sense, attack helicopters, CAS aircraft, long range artillery will tear either massive superheavy tanks, or big mechs apart.
Helicopters are great at blowing up tanks.
But tanks can stay in the field for longer, sustain an assault on an enemy position.
It's why people talk about combined arms. Because different elements of the armed forces do different things.
sebster wrote:Name one piece of military hardware in the world today, or on the design table of any military developer, that has fear as a primary element of it's design.
Nuclear frickin' weapons, where the amount of fear is equal to the megatons of feth you that the weapon is designed to convey.
Nurglitch wrote:Remember that the Mechanicum has an emotional investment in union with the machine and in becoming cyborgized. Being able to do that with a titanic man-shaped engine is done for spiritual reasons, much like the Gothic Cathedrals, impractical crap that they were, required so much technological innovation for so little return. Titans exist in spite of their impracticality, not because of it.
Absolutely. If you consider future societies that are capable of incredibly high tech but aren't concerned efficiency and practicality, then you can create all kinds of weird and woolly designs.
But tanks can stay in the field for longer, sustain an assault on an enemy position.
It's why people talk about combined arms. Because different elements of the armed forces do different things.
But the question was not 'how do I fight a war?' the question was, 'Between an equivalent mech and tank who would win?' which was answered by saying that helicopters, CAS, and artillery would kill either of them equally well. Of course if my objective is to take nad hold a position, I'd use combined arms, but if my objective is to 'blow up mechs/tanks'....
ChrisWWII wrote:But the question was not 'how do I fight a war?' the question was, 'Between an equivalent mech and tank who would win?' which was answered by saying that helicopters, CAS, and artillery would kill either of them equally well. Of course if my objective is to take nad hold a position, I'd use combined arms, but if my objective is to 'blow up mechs/tanks'....
Was that the question? Fraz just announced 'helicopters kill them both', it didn't seem to be in response to anything specific. You agreed and I just thought I'd point out that while it's true, we still have tanks in the field because they do something that no other unit can do.
Confusion aside, I think we agree on this in general, yeah?
sebster wrote:
Absolutely. If you consider future societies that are capable of incredibly high tech but aren't concerned efficiency and practicality, then you can create all kinds of weird and woolly designs.
Isn't that basically the raison d'être of most science fiction?
