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.

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.

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.

halonachos 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.

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?

halonachos 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.

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.

halonachos 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.

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".

That's your skeletal/musculature system.

Read up on the 'Vestibular system' sometime.

Frazzled wrote:Oh God I am in agreement with Tzoo. Thats it the world's over...

Alright, who let the four wiener dogs of the apocalypse out of the kennel.

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.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Oh God I am in agreement with Tzoo. Thats it the world's over...

Alright, who let the four wiener dogs of the apocalypse out of the kennel.

I was the one who made the topic...

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

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.

Good thing none of the mechs are space combat possible, huh?

It's only the absurdly over the top mecha that are.

Tanks do not need another vehicle to move debris. If you make a roadblock its sufficient to say that the tank can and will drive over it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Good thing none of the mechs are space combat possible, huh?

It's only the absurdly over the top mecha that are.

Yep, thank god we went off topic for that.

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.

Melissia wrote:

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...

What about Dragon's Teeth?

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?

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

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.

A exo-suit would probably be better in terms of flexibility for deployment situations rather than a mech, but I am still a big fan of Battletech, etc.

So I voted for mechs, but not really mecha. Not a fan of the jMech.

FourCartridge wrote:What about Dragon's Teeth?

could a mech walk on the top, using them like stepping stones?

Kanluwen wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

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.

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.

Don't know about Dragon's Teeth, but that reminds me of the Devil's tongue from Command and Conquer. Now that was a cool tank.

Melissia wrote:There are ways to minimize the vacuum effect

Which?