Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

Dark Scipio wrote:

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:

Dark Scipio wrote:

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?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

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:I do not weigh 25-100 tons, so no, I have not

Well if you ate more chicken fried steak you would. Come on Melissia no sacrifice no victory!

Could you not have some sort of compressor sucking air in and pushing it out the sole of the foot thereby removing the vacuum

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Dark Scipio wrote:

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.

Jump jets!



... actually tanks in the armored core universe also have jump jets as an option. It is notably awesome.

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:

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Dark Scipio wrote:

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.

Melissia wrote:Jump jets!



... actually tanks in the armored core universe also have jump jets as an option. It is notably awesome.

If the legs are suitably trapped then the jump jets will let the mech sling itself into the mud. Quite comical when I think about it.

"A little mud, no problem"

*jump jets kick in. The mech spirals and embeds the front side of the mech into the mud.

"Fffffff..."

I would pay to see that done.

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.

I will disagree with that point entirely.

I've had Leman Russ's with no weapons take out enemy vehicles, its called ramming.

halonachos wrote:I will disagree with that point entirely.

I've had Leman Russ's with no weapons take out enemy vehicles, its called ramming.

I've taken out a leman russ by having a sentinel kick it.

Why couldn't super tank have three turrents or a turrent with three arms? Its not limited either.

Why couldn't a super tank be so big that the mech would be like infantry compared to a modern tank?

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:

halonachos wrote:I will disagree with that point entirely.

I've had Leman Russ's with no weapons take out enemy vehicles, its called ramming.

I've taken out a leman russ by having a sentinel kick it.

I've seen a sniper drone take out a terminator in close combat.

Frazzled wrote:Why couldn't super tank have three turrents or a turrent with three arms? Its not limited either.

What's a turrent?

halonachos wrote:Why couldn't a super tank be so big that the mech would be like infantry compared to a modern tank?

That's called Supreme Commander. Seriously, go look it up and compare the Fatboy with a Mechmarine.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why couldn't super tank have three turrents or a turrent with three arms? Its not limited either.

What's a turrent?

Don't we use those to download cars?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

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.

Wow this conversation is going fast.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why couldn't super tank have three turrents or a turrent with three arms? Its not limited either.

What's a turrent?

Don't we use those to download cars?

Illegal vehicle downloads?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

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?

I certainly would.

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.

Not really.

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!