Tanks or Mecha?

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.

**Bakerofish**

Melissia wrote:
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

and we can pick ourselves back up

weve made robots who can walk bipedal and navigate on terrain...but cant really pick themselves back up if they need to

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:
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.

**Lord Scythican**

Melissia wrote:
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.

Tell me about it. I just got my gear in Xenogears last night and after the fight it was useless because it needed a new Knee Articulator.

**Frazzled**

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...

**Slarg232**

I have to go 100% with Melissia here; Give me a Summoner, or give me death!

**Melissia**

Bakerofish wrote:
Melissia wrote:
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.

You REALLY don't know what you're talking about.

**The Dreadnote**

It seems I need to correct a grievous absence of Metal Gear.

**Bakerofish**

no no no listen

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

**Lord Scythican**

Damn, The Dreadnote now I am embarrassed for forgetting Rex! Can you imagine having a model of that thing and using it in Apocalypse as a Warhound?

**Melissia**

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**

hmm so the battletech boys dont know what theyre talking about either

kidding aside i never did get the point of armoring the legs for bipedal mechs. I dont need to damage the legs to knock it over

when the mech is midstride all you have to do is tap it on one side hard enough and itll fall

kinda like a person, if you want to knock a person over a tap on the shoulder midstride is an easier way to make em fall

crab mecha are superior in this regard, mid stride it still has a tripod keeping it balanced.

**Melissia**

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...

**Bakerofish**

meh, why waste ammo when you can just throw a rock or equivalent to do the exact same thing?

worked for the Ewoks

if the Empire used the grav tanks they had in the prequels it wouldve been a diffrent story

**Melissia**

Bakerofish wrote:worked for the Ewoks

The facepalm orkmoticon needs more umph to it.

Let's try this:

**Bakerofish**

are you marginalizing the military success of a furry indigneous people?

**Morathi's Darkest Sin**

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.

**ChrisWWII**

Tanks all the way. Tanks all the way.

THat being said, I do like some legged vehicles...but I want tracks on the front line.

Now that's my kinda mech.

**Melissia**

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.

**ChrisWWII**

Spider tank, spider tank, does whatever a spider tank does.

**Chowderhead**

I'll take my Hellhound, thank you...

**WARBOSS TZOO**

Melissia wrote:
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?

**Kanluwen**

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.

**WARBOSS TZOO**

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.

**FM Ninja 048**

depends on the mech/tank

blocky/bulky mechs that look 'realistic' are cooler than gundam style mechs

for example, one of my personal favorites, looks relativly realistic, doesn't pack any giant cannons that would trip it up but still looks deadly

**Melissia**

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Melissia wrote:
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.

**FourCartridge**

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?

**Melissia**

FourCartridge wrote:My vote goes to tanks. They're far more flexible on terrain, as people have pointed out.

Where?

**WARBOSS TZOO**

Sup.

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.

**Melissia**

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?

**Dark Scipio**

Just to bring it back to:

Tanks.