Which one is the better weapon of war?
I remember playing MechWarrior 3 eons ago and paying attention to the distance numbers they were giving me for my weapon viability. Modern tanks casually had three, four, fives times the range this giant mech game was depicting.
Now small suit mechs, essentially armored infantry - yes tanks still win but we're looking at a much more likely viable tech.
>Now small suit mechs, essentially armored infantry - yes tanks still win but we're looking at a much more likely viable tech.
I wouldn't be so sure of it.
The problem with them is that you can't pack 20 tons of composite armour and reactive charges on top of them.
Person in small mechs/power armours will be like slower, clunkier, bigger ordinary human. And due to weight restrictions he won't have enough armour to deal with even small anti-tank weapon that will have no troubles with hitting him.
Weapon advantage too since its a more stable platform you can put a much bigger gun on it
Not to mention a tank is likely faster on open ground since a mech would be limited on speed by leg length and stride similar to a human.
Only place a mech would win is in really difficult terrain were limbs beat out tracks, like a city or rough mountains
Mechs will always lose, because you can always put more on a tank because it has a much wider disbursement of it's weight. A mech needs to be light, if it were as strong as a tank It wouldnt be able to move
at best, if we ever see mechs, they will be recon/stealth type vehicles designed for hit and runs
if its a mech the defies physics by flying like a jet and has a super lazer gun that cuts through armor then the mech wins. in the real world tanks have bigger weapons, longer range, heavier armor, lower profile, faster speed, and a low center of gravity that keeps them from being knocked over.
Well I'm not sure about it. It's futuretech. It's possible. We can see possible applications. But our current understanding of technology and limitations also introduces a bunch of questions.
One current solution is to just prefix everything with the word nano. Nano-carbon components help with the weight and nano-nanos... help... lube... um. Lemme work on this, I'll get back to you.
There's a reason we have tanks instead of mechs, mechs simply aren't realistically feasible, and if we ever did get some super tech to make them feasible, we would also have something much more practical than a mech.
ATGM vs Mech
Anyway, I like mechs when they 'make sense' somehow. If a mech can fly, it eliminates alot of their short-comings.
>Aren't mechs just walking, flying tanks?
it's literally impossible for mechs to operate the same way. For one, a Tank can operate closely with infantry to support and cover them from enemy fire, a mech literally can't get close to infantry without jeopardizing them.
second, due to the nature of the systems and mechanical construction a mech would require, they would lack the armor, dependability and redundancies of a tank.
third, a mech's sheer stature would prevent it from performing scouting missions as it cannot conceal itself into a fire position, and it would be unsuitable in direct confrontation, being too large to shelter or cover itself behind terrain or structures, and having to reveal most of it's body to bring it's weapons to bear.
it would be worse than tanks at tanking, and it would be worse than planes at flying. Why not use this technology that allows you to rape the laws of physics to build utterly unfair super tanks and super jets?
>role of a tank
Armoured spearhead to cross wide open plains quickly and destroy fortifications/prepared positions without dying so that the infantry don't get cut the fuck to pieces by machineguns as they toddle along at 5km/h towards the city
>things required to do that
stability (to fire on the move)
tracks > legs
tank shape > mech shape
tank carries more armour
tank carried bigger gun
tank isn't on fucking legs
Tanks > mech.
If mech has to be a reality, they would look like BF2142's walkers.
A tank will always be better than a mech at doing tank stuff because, well, it's a tank doing tank stuff. The one thing mechs have over tanks is agility, and that becomes worthless once you're a 8m tall giant target.
Mech-like vehicles would only be useful once scaled down and in close quarters, in an anti-infantry or infantry support role. And at that point it's not mechs anymore, but power armor or drones and robots.
Depends, are we talking about humanoid mechs that can only operate on fantasy physics, or walkers?
Because walkers are more of a side grade from tanks.
Best of both worlds would be a tank that mainly used its treads, but could change into a walking mode to get to or through tough terrain. Like amphibious vehicles, except over tough terrain.
you can usually tell a tank is gonna be better for a situation when you need to imagine it galloping in a retarded way to even hope to reach 80km/h like a tank can in open terrain. And also fire it's main gun completely stabilized and with deadly accuracy while they do so.
i've never seen a mech with proper gun stabilization or even a good sensor package. Those two things win battles on their own.
Yes, that's the point, why it's a side grade.
Though one big advantage is the legs mean you can adjust the height you sit at. Makes it easier to enter a hull down position and increases the possible gun depression. Or increase the height to let you shoot over obstacles or, in something like the AT-AT, provide what is practically line of sight artillery.
what kind of terrain would benefit from increasing ground pressure exponentially?
mechs would fucking suck for difficult terrain you know. Imagine a mech climbing a mountain in afghanistan, the thing would slide down or break a rock and plummet into more rocks.
Square cube law. Ground pressure.
>yfw real-world military R&D has tried to make mechs and failed many times
it only makes sense.
It takes way more energy to put a pile of armor and cannons on legs and make it walk around than it does to just roll it
Mechs will never be practical and even if they are a tank with the same arms and armor would still be better
Humans aren't four stories tall.
Neither are human sized robots who don't need fantasy physics.
The one that lets me punch someone through a mountain
This is the kind of tension i want when taking down armored units as infantry, most multiplayer games you get so much ammo and chances that vehicles are just one way rides to the battlefields.
>what kind of terrain would benefit from increasing ground pressure exponentially?
>mechs would fucking suck for difficult terrain you know. Imagine a mech climbing a mountain in afghanistan, the thing would slide down or break a rock and plummet into more rocks.
What about city rubble or ruins, shallow water, ruined forest or light mountainous terrain.
I'd say it's a direct downgrade in every situation except the ones where it's an upgrade.
Which is a fancy way of saying nothing at all.
Walkers would be useful in specific situations but outside of them they would be less useful than a tank for the same role. A large and well-funded army could have a Walker Corps, or an army that operates in Walker territory a lot, but I don't them being general-purpose present-in-all-armies weapons like a tank is because tanks fulfill a role that literally cannot be done without as far as we understand conventional warfare. Walkers don't. The only jobs I see for them are highly niche.
And you can get several more tanks for one zaku and got money enough for anti zaku infantry. War is about cost efficiency.
That said i personally do love overengineered quality stuff .
a mech could work better underwater than tanks and could make better use of customizable parts (diferent legs armsfor specific actions)
plus mechs could be more usefull in non combat military activities
>What about city rubble or ruins
tanks are tracked vehicles with several tons of mass and obscene amounts of engine power, they can bulldoze or climb through mostly everything.
i'd put my money on the vehicle that doesn't put dozens of tons into a small contact surface not to sink and never come out again. Also tanks are actually amphibious for the most part
same as first case
>light mountainous terrain
you mean hills? that's most of Europe when we were preparing for the soviet invasion. Tanks are ALL about that.
Actually now that you mention it mechs could really find a home in police actions.
The equivalent of horse mounted police, except they don't leave shit everywhere or have to worry about the horse getting hurt or spooked by rioters.
Cities are deathtraps for tanks to enter, would it work better for mechs or equally bad?
Tanks or jets, both are better options unless pilot is a newtype.
Seriously though, an M1 can fire at targets at 4000 meters, is semi-amphibious, and can tool around at 80MPH. It has the added benefit of being solidly on the ground with a majority of it's mass.
Then, don't get me started about jets, why the fuck would you put legs on a jet? Make it heavier? Does the fuel source need legs to work? There is literally no reason to add legs to a jet, instead, just have variable thrust vectors.
Don't get me wrong, I love mechs, but let's be honest, they're just a dramatic point to where you can seriously harm a main character without having them die.
Tanks. The benefits of a walker (crossing difficult terrain, mountains, city rubble, etc.) that a walker would be better than a tank in are all accomplished more easily by helicopters. Helicopter + tank is the best spearhead. You couple that with jet airstrikes and you're suddenly a 1st world military. Mechs are cool, but they'd only be good in certain situations. They'd be slow and speeding up would require running, which would be a bitch to compensate for. The two leg system makes them easier to knock over, their legs make them easier to tangle up like in starwars, and their shape would give them more potential weak points ti either disable or outright destroy them with explosives. Mechanized infantry would be cool and has some obvious perks, but it would be more like soldier suits like crysis rather than big fucking mechs.
Mechs are heavily inconsistent from series to series, a mech like this would decimate whatever tech we humans have right now.
If I were to make a next generation tank, I'd use four track "Tires" that can move independently. That way, instead of using legs to improve it's trajectory and hull exposure, you could just adjust the position of the track.
Almost like giving it the ability to stand on it's "tiptoes".
this isnt even a question i mean from a realistic point of view a tank is smaller, can mount better armament, is less complex and thus more reliable and cost effective, is faster and has a lower center of gravity.
There is a reason there are no mechs and there is also a reason tanks look like they do. One of the main things you have to concider when designing a tank is the size of it, because that determines how easy it is to spot and hit. A mech is huge in comparison and therefore is just a bigger target that would be shot by everything
I mean hell, we have carrier battlegroups that can sortie out joint strike fighters and working rail weapons, why would we make mechs?
Instead, we should just focus on making tiny, remote-controlled-flying bomb-bots. Make em cheap and you have the perfect weapon.
Because it's got fucking laser weapons, not because it's a mech. A fucking helicopter with the same caliber of weaponry would do a better job.
Some vehicles already do that. The problem wheels and, in this case, multiple tracks have is that they get stuck on shit easier.
>Being unable to discern fiction from reality
The problem with this argument is that anything that can be installed on a mech can also be installed on a tank, much more easily to booth. Assuming both the tank and the mech come from the same universe, the tank wins. Assuming they don't, what's the fucking point of comparing them?
i've seen pics of wars where cities are utterly fucking demolished, Stalingrad, Berlin, Seoul, Kabul, Grozny, Aleppo, Gaza, etc, and i've never seen a place tanks couldn't just ram into and and run over. I don't understand the kind of city rubble everyone's refering to.
but the mech can't go around the hill and it's still a huge fucker. It could literally catch all the rounds from an artillery barrage.
Why not mix between both?
He said shitty weapons and I pointed out that it isn't always true.
Yes, a tank with the same amount of firepower would be more efficient and effective.
But that wasn't the point in our exchange.
>ctrl + F titan
>0 results found
The fuck /v/, just what the fuck.
Mech are generally for pussies, but when you have mechs that level cities and are a walking bastion of the righteousness they > tanks.
>but the mech can't go around the hill and it's still a huge fucker. It could literally catch all the rounds from an artillery barrage.
No no, I'm talking about a tank that can change into a walker.
there was actually a cold war program like that but it was far less stupid.
it was a tank that had a crane-like arm that extended upwards with a missile launcher and sensors on it. The tank would hide behind a tree line and only lift up the arm to engage.
Only good mechs would be mechs that are humanoid in shape, and are fast. A mech that acts like a tank does fuckall, but if you can use it like your own body, it becomes a lot more useful. A Zaku or Gundam would be a bad war machine, but if we go to fast machines like Kyrios or G-Reco it would be useful as an all-around machine.
Newyork, where shit could make the ground unstable and there are steel beams sticking straight up everywhere. I mean, yeah, if it's just a pile of rocks and shit a tank could go over that no problem, but I'm not convinced tanks would be able to maneuver through tons of collapsed skyscrapers well without exposing themselves significantly, and there's never been a situation where a 21st century 1st world city has been destroyed that way, so tanks have yet to prove themselves in that terrain. Either way, a helicopter seems like it would do a better job than tanks there anyway.
Titan mode was always buggy/lagging but so much fun, it's a shame the devs with resources never want to take chances on anything remotely unique or original anymore
That was one of the first games that EA started to really fuck up though. They sold real ads to be displayed in-game for modern day products, and had some clause in their EULA about collecting info on your computer
bunch of bullshit besmirching an enjoyable game.
>Newyork, where shit could make the ground unstable and there are steel beams sticking straight up everywhere. I mean, yeah, if it's just a pile of rocks and shit a tank could go over that no problem, but I'm not convinced tanks would be able to maneuver through tons of collapsed skyscrapers well without exposing themselves significantly
why would a mech would then? do you think it's gonna be climbing on it's hands like a person would?
>The Shadowsword is a nearly identical super-heavy tank to the Baneblade with the exception of its armament and battlefield role as a Titan-killer.
>Armed with a massive forward-firing gun known as a Volcano Cannon the Shadowsword's primary focus during combat is the destruction of enemy Titans.
you nailed it
As they are in most media, mechs are just bipedal tanks with a much higher center of gravity just asking for a projectile of sufficient mass to obliterate it/fall down and not get up. If two legs have an advantage it's mobility, which would be best used with fast and anthropomorphic designs.
Tanks have a much better low profile, that low profile lends itself to armor that deflects projectiles away, and use simpler/cheaper technology. mechs gotta be fast at least, or capable of things like manipulating objects with some finesse for utility
>stationary front gun
>can't rotate cannon past 30 degrees because of protruding guns on each side of cannon without major angle adjustments
>armor essentially scraping the gearing so a single dent will stop the vehicle
>gun can't be aimed below 0 degrees because of retarded joint placement
Ah W20k, retardation at it's finest.
The only way I could really see a Mech being used at all would be closer to something like power armor that was supported by a squad of infantry. Put a bunch of armor on it, and help it with situations such as breaking suppression, breaching, and extra utility such as transporting extra gear and equipment or bulldozing and clearing areas.
Essentially have it serve as a bridge between infantry and armor.
Both would be good depending on the situation, a tank would make for a far more durable, armored and reliable weapon despite it's lack of mobility and versatility.
A mech could carry an ample variety of weapons without changing its structure and it's mobility would be unmatched, but at the same time all its complex mechanisms and weight, would make it a weakly armored unit and high chance of breaking down.
Tanks are the best assault weapons, mech would be the best supports.
If i learned anything from watching enough gundam it's that mechs are only good in the hands of a capable pilot, which makes sense realistically. It's not like they have the best defense against tank shells and anti air missiles unless they're made from fucking cheesed super metal (gundam material). Most pilots will never have what it takes to be a char or amuro while tanks are easy as fuck to drive so that's that
>8 surface to air missiles designed to take down barely armoured 1-directional aircraft
>paper armour that is designed to protect against 7.62 small arms fire
Move in any direction without having to turn.
I suppose this could be utilized if you had some high tech laser sensing system which could detect an incoming shell from multiple kilometers away and dodge accordingly.
Anti missile can be handled with lasers. But that's not unique to mechs.
if you can make a mech fly you can make a tank fly
if you can make a mech jump you can make a tank jump
there's no way in hell you could in any way upscale human type climbing
Mechs are Bi-pedal. They can climb anything a human can climb providing it doesn't break under the weight.
Tanks can jump already, but only in a forwards motion at speed.
Don't need to try again.
Now that's true, but hey, they said the same about tanks in the past.
Right, but let's say they make a mech that can operate bith in space and in land, and it's a small and agile weapon platform. First you use it in the streets of some alien city, blowing their heads in, then you go into space, and go invade an alienship/defend own ship from their attack. You wouldn't use it in normal space combat, but rather a machine that can operate in both zero-g wreckages and inside ships.
But a tank would still be the best in ground combat, and a spaceship would be the best in normal space combat. A mech is an all around weapon platform.
>expect 200 retarded post about muh animus and muh strike suits
>90 percent of posts are actually well reasoned logical explanations of why tanks are better
>Realistic weapon which has been heavily researched over the course of 100+ years of war and revised thousands of times in hundreds of countries all over the planet
>Versus a fictional concept which barely has military-grade research done on it, much less actual combat-ready deployment to verify its usefulness
If we're talking video games, Mechs > Tanks every single time. If we're talking reality, I'm sure there were at least a few million people who would have vouched for tanks being superior to planes back in World War I.
>muh animus and muh strike suits
>STOP USING FICTIONAL EXAMPLES FOR YOUR FICTIONAL CONCEPT! USE REALISTIC EXAMPLES WHICH HAVE LITERALLY NEVER BEEN APPLIED TO ACTUAL COMBAT!
You use legs to walk, yes? If you board a spaceship you want to walk rather than fly in some corridor right?
Also best mech size (or power armour if we go to that route) Would be about 2-5 meters. Bigger than that and it's shit.
Spot is not a mech in the contemporary sense. It is very small. However, if spot were 4 times bigger, then you would start seeing problems. As size doubles, mass is squared. That's why ants would collapse under their own weight if they were human sized.
>You use legs to walk, yes? If you board a spaceship you want to walk rather than fly in some corridor right?
or you could replace the legs with wheels or tracks and save a lot of energy, weight, money and have less weak points that are hard to armor
>If you board a spaceship you want to walk rather than fly in some corridor right?
No, I would rather ride.
I'm not sure exactly where this "Square Cube Law" parroting is coming from. You wouldn't make a ten-inch tank, use the exact framework for this toy tank, and make it "Bigger". You have a lot of complicated elements placed inside to make sure it can sustain its own weight, function within it, and function well within it. Same logic would apply to a mech. Just because it's larger doesn't mean that it would magically fall apart because it's bigger. You place suspensions, pistons, shock-absorbers, and other elements to assure that such a large creation can sustain its own weight. Otherwise the Square Cube Law would mean that towering skyscrapers would never be able to exist because "It would never work if all you did was make this tiny model super-big!!!"
Reverse joint leg mechs like this are probably exactly how the future armor might look. Tanks are best 1 being able to also move up over a hill, shoot, and move back behind cover depending on the engagement. If they so called "tank" had the ability to peep over hills and other similar cover, shoot, then crouch back down behind cover. Terrain will be more traversal as well. All in all, any mechs that actually come to be in the future are going to be 1 thing for sure. Big and slow as shit.. like tanks.
>not riding the turret like a fairground ride as the gunner tries to shake you off
It was a genuinely fun-ass game but it was pretty buggy and I hated the in game ads. Glad that didn't catch on too badly. Overall though I had a great time playing that as a diversion to CS.
>/v/ - Video games
>huge ass vehicle
>think the legs will break when it lands
>Don't break legs because mechs don't exist
>Do a somersault then fire of an Itano Circus straight up your tanks cannon pipe
>Breakdance while your tank explodes into a billion pieces
Should have joined the Mech squad, punk.
Why is there no soviet/post-soviet tank porn ITT?
Look at this sexy fucking T-64 Bulat.
The only vidya mechs that would make reasonable weapons that aren't ZoE2 tier speed machines are Metal Gear Rays and the Geckos because of they're specialized designs- amphibious and urban respectively.
The reason tanks always win is because bulls hit that mechs have can always serve a better purpose on a mech. If there is tech for mechs to fly, then the tanks will probably have flight capacity too
Considering Tanks are a low level threat compared to mechs. Mechs have pretty much the same if not more firepower depending on the mech, and mechs have way more mobility/maneuverability so Tabks would get shit on by Mechs.
>If you board a spaceship you want to walk rather than fly in some corridor right?
Nah I'd rather fly and feel around like some kind of crustacean. because it's in space and walking would be very difficult
>make the mech fly
but then why not just use a helicopter or plane? They weigh a lot less because of the lack of superfluous arms/legs and would be much more maneuverable for it.
>meant to be mobile, armed, or full of complicated machinery
If something is "meant to be" a certain way, you build it to accommodate said changes. The reason why many things can be varying sizes is because their bodies are built to deal with shifts. It's the same way that a 6'10" basketball player can run about while a 4'10" asian woman can do the same. Their bodies are structured to accommodate their own respective weights. They aren't created under the principle of "Tiny version of thing is now massive", they are created to deal with exactly what is built over them.
You really haven't explained your case. Yes, a mech, realistic or otherwise, would be heavy as all fuck, but are tanks suddenly less than a ton now?
This, so fucking much.
I remember playing PR as a sniper/spotter team and just hearing one of those shitty M113s with either manned or unmanned turret would send me and my spotter into a panic and fucking beat feet out of the area. God forbid we fucking encountered an IFV that actually spotted us.
It's fucking criminal just how fucking castrated tanks and IFVs are in BF4 so fucking shitty jets and helo pilots won't bitch. 200m/s muzzle velocity for a fucking AP round? And only ~265m/s muzzle velocity for APDS rounds. Absolute abstract kind of disgusting. Those bitch ass helos wouldn't see the light of day if tanks got legit MPAT rounds.
Geckos only work because they're weird and are specifically designed to just make people shit their pants.
RAYs are dumb, though. We already have nuclear subs. We don't need a weird metal lizard thing to do what's been done by 50 year old diesel submarines.
Practically, a radiation suit would help since in Chernobyl all robotic attempts failed due to the radiation frying them up so bad. Put your phone in the microwave and you'll see a similar result.
But I think in this case it was to completely obscure the fact it was a robot, making it more "human"
But could it hit it with the tank's lower profile and higher top speed?
Also, the tank could sport heavier armor for the same weight, since it doesn't have stupid-ass arms and legs to support.
Have a B3 instead.
Basically upgraded to T-90 standard.
Tanks deal with their weight in a different way. Think of it like this. You know those Hindu guys who sleep on nail boards? They do that healthily because the weight is distributed, and distributed slowly. If you were to walk on a nail board, you'd get stabbed,because the weight of your body is being focused on to your foot. If it's focused into a wider area, it's spread out, and the weight on each nail is reduced. That's why tanks are better. A mechs foot would sink right through most terrain, if it could even lift it. Tanks don't lift anything, the have a continued circular motion through the drive wheels, and the treads have a surface area that easily distributes the weight.
>if there are problems you can design around it
This is a physics problem that you cannot fix. Legs do not work on mechs that are meant to be analogous to tanks.
>But could it hit it with the tank's lower profile and higher top speed?
>higher top speed
You're assuming the mech is immensely slow, and you're basing this off of explicitly subpar examples of mech development.
And even then, yes. Aiming systems and actual arms allow it to fire far more effectively than pointing a cannon, which a mech could easily just continually side-step.
Irrelevant, as the mech could just keep plastering it in AP shells until it exploded.
Nothing is more effective than a two axis turret when it comes to aiming a weapon. Not to mention that modern battle tanks can easily top
>the mech could just keep plastering it in a shells till it exploded
Nigga our own tanks can't kill our own tanks. We have to go inside and place dynamite if we need to abandon a tank.
I like tanks and mechs supporting each other.
>A 60-ton humanoid could sidestep a tank shell moving at 1700m/s
You do realize that modern MBTs have rather advanced fire control systems that allow them to shoot accurately enough when performing maneuvers and such?
That and it's fucking ~45 tons or more of weight to keep the gun from whipping around what not.
Agreed. However, since we have zero basis for a "realistic mech" beyond vague speculation and Wright-Brothers-tier technological knowhow of mechs, its hard to say which would win
>tank guns don't have aiming systems
>tanks don't have stabiliziers for firing while moving
>ignoring the fact that a lot of contemporary tanks are capable of firing guided shells akin to ATGMs
Don't discuss a topic if you don't know shit about it.
You seem knowledgeable here. Are there any recorded clashes between tanks moving at relatively decent speeds in the modern era? I keep seeing videos of tanks shooting into sandy cities at visibly...nothing. Just rolling dirt, already-bombed houses, and supposed enemies hiding in said bombed houses.
Assuming the tank an the mech would be both around the same weight the mech would have a very small main gun, maybe 60-80 mm at best, that's not nearly enough to pen the equivalent of 600 mm of steel in modern armour. The tank would have a 120 mm gun, that's more than enough to pen the most likely vertical and thin armour of the mech.
I figured he's dumb and meant the turret/top armor
>You're assuming the mech is immensely slow, and you're basing this off of explicitly subpar examples of mech development.
Find me anything that walks on legs that can match things we've built that go on wheels, tracks or through the air. Fastest animal goes at what, 60? Your mom's Toyota Tercel does double that with like ten times the weight.
>Irrelevant, as the mech could just keep plastering it in AP shells until it exploded.
Now THATS video game logic
>if I pump enough .223 into the side of this King Tiger, it'll explode!
>And even then, yes. Aiming systems and actual arms allow it to fire far more effectively than pointing a cannon, which a mech could easily just continually side-step.
Have you ever fired a rifle? Human arms are a terrible shooting platform. It's why people go prone to shoot, you brace the weapon against the ground. A cannon is well-braced, and will be far more accurate and easier to bring to aim.
And this is all before how much easier it is to armor treads compared to legs with complicated hydraulics/piezoelectrics, the higher centre of gravity of a mech making it liable to being knocked down while tanks don't even roll in turns, the overcomplicated and superfluous nature of mech weaponry (let's make a typical M4 but REALLY BIG!!), etc.
So huge question to everyone here. Its been decided pretty quickly that Tanks beat Mechs in both terms of efficiency and cost. Would Power armor ever be a viable weapon of war? A person given the ability to solo tanks and the mobility to avoid their fire. How much would this cost compared to tanks, and is it the future of war?
Honestly, the only thing I can say off the top of my head would be Iran-Iraq War which is a pretty notable war that demonstrates the whole T-72 vs M48/60 Patton dealie.
And are you looking for tanks actually engaging each other while on the move?
>digitigrade legs on an exoskeleton
who would win, a tank or a squad of these guys with a zephyr particle dispenser?
Well speculation is difficult but not impossible. I think Tanks make a lot of sense. They're tried and true, mechanically complex but relatively simple to what a mech would need, and scale pretty well.
The advantages of a mech would be to scale terrain normally not crossable by a tank and I just don't think the advantages really outweigh any of the known disadvantages. I think for now only smaller mechs and robots could really fill a useful combat role.
Still worth experimenting with, I guess.
If given the mobility to move faster than a tank can swivel its gun, and the jumping capabilities to get out of the line of fire and next to the tank as quickly as possible, where is the downside?
Mechs, because they can move a lot faster and can hold more firepower.
Honestly, I'd assume it'd sooner see widespread use in warehouses and stockrooms, and to make forklifts obsolete sooner than tanks. Those things would be fucking useful for construction, too. All dat heavy lifting in confined spaces!!
They're not strong enough to withstand tank fire for sure, they can't carry tank weapons, so they're not even in the same category. I'm not sure where that /k/ meme of EXOSPOOKELLINGTON VS TANK thing came from. But for infantry, I dunno. It seems like an answer to a question no one asked. It's still probably not going to stop the AP 7.62 used in a lot of battle rifles and older assault rifles, and it's not like modern soldiers need to lift trucks and shit very often. There's
>muh 80kg of gear
but it's all distributed among a tacvest and in a load-bearing backpack that you'll be leaving in the car while OPER8ING.
its actually a huge health problem for fat people that running and jumping does massive damage to their joints, and even pro runners tend to have a lot of surgeries later in life
now scale that up to a 12.7 gorillion pound mech and you might see how some hydraulic lines will be prone to bursting, and how the piezoelectrics might get bent out of shapte
The basic theory of a tank is you take a tractor and cover it in steel plates. The complex parts come in for modern tanks with ERA and advanced fire control and optimal armor sloping and all that good shit. And ergonomics. Supposedly, soldiers the world over are jealous of brit tanks because they have A/C and a 120v rail for plugging in phone chargers and electric kettles and stuff.
beam weapons are a whole new level of "it's cool but fucking stupid and here's my PhD dissertation on why"
Depends on the tank, depends on the number of ammo.
And you're a massive retard for thinking that exoskeletons will magically turn soldier into super heroes with the ability to break tanks with their fist.
Power armour will never give an individual the ability to go head to head with a tank. But there is a possibility of them being used to help lighten soldiers loads and maybe give them a little more armour for infantry engagements.
countdown to someone saying
>muh bad tacticxxx
>no aftermarket radium armor
>russia shill russia shill
that said, modern AT weapons are pretty fucking robust, it's not like development stopped with the RPG7
well, except in the US of course, who are considering adopting their own knockoff of the RPG7 lmao
>beam weapons are a whole new level of "it's cool but fucking stupid and here's my PhD dissertation on why"
Show me then, why is a beam weapon with it's own generator on the mecha stupid?
Mech warrior mechs would actually work IRL, if we had the production capabilities and production tech from battletech.
They are capable of carrying much more and much bigger armament and armor, to the point where they can shrug off the future variant tank rounds. They are less mecha and more like a walking battleship, being able to outrange and outfirepower most tanks.
It's a size limitation, you can't make a tank that can carry the same amount of weapons than a battletech mech because that tank would be the size of a city block, whereas a mech can build UPwards to save vertical space and thus remain mobile
There are still tanks in mech warrior though, but they are relegated to support roles, usually carrying little armor and a single heavy gun, or something to that extend.
Tanks are fucking useless because they are heavy and move slow. They need to focus their aim to get a shot at something and their r-fire rate is embarrassingly slow. Then a mech comes in and circle around the tank while it one-shots the tank's weak spot.
A tank/car literally has to use 0 energy to stand still holding weapons. And very minimal energy to maintain speed/stability while moving and carrying said weapons.
A biped needs to constantly shift weight when standing still, and it's absolutely fucked when trying to move. Put on a backpack that weighs as much as you do and try doing anything.
A wheeled vehicle can hold 10x it's weight easily and still move.
It depends on what universe you're talking about.
Ours? Tanks because mechs are impratical pieces of shit.
Most vydiaverses? Mechs because they're made with super nippon steel folded 414fafa23g times that move like butter and can do a shitload of things. Meanwhile tanks are just bigger cars.
Now I have seen everything.
That said, it will take many more years before simple shaped charges become uneffective against armour.
Because my tank from that time period will probably offer protection against it.
Tanks don't have to do everything, they just need to destroy.
You have air machines to peep over stuff, you even have little fuckers like drones now so there's no excuse to use one giant thing that requires a buttload of energy to move and becomes uless as soon you poke one of its legs.
The tank wins every time. Legs are useful for traversing uneven and rough terrain, but beyond that they're just two big weak points. Detrack a tank and you've created an armored pillbox, take the leg off a mech and its face first in the dirt. On top of that, in order to armor a mech sufficiently to survive anything larger than a .50 cal would require the legs to be huge and cumbersome, eliminating the advantage it might have had over rough and uneven terrain.
>They are capable of carrying much more and much bigger armament and armor, to the point where they can shrug off the future variant tank rounds
What prevents a tank from using the same armor? Also, a mech wouldn't be able to take advantage of sloped armor, so it would need a lot more to make up for it and the complex shape makes it impossible to get the same reactive armor coverage as a tank.
>It's a size limitation, you can't make a tank that can carry the same amount of weapons than a battletech mech because that tank would be the size of a city block, whereas a mech can build UPwards to save vertical space and thus remain mobile
What prevents a tank from building upwards? Why would you even put all that shit on one vehicle instead of several, more specialized ones?
>Which one is the better weapon of war?
They move a lot faster and can quickly dodge tank fire and can take lots of hits. Tanks need more than one operators while mechs only need one. More advanced mechs would also be able to fly over a platoon of tanks and kill them all in a single volley of missiles.
I don't see how mechs can be viable in the real world. Even if you can somehow manage to get the tech to make one, i don't see why you wouldn't use the same tech on tanks, ships, and planes. The only situation mechs would be viable if they somehow replace tanks, ships, and planes with just one mech imho.
Robot dogs are going to do most of the supposed special tasks a mech can do but actually better.
>Show me then, why is a beam weapon with it's own generator on the mecha stupid?
First off, lasers have trash penetration. They basically work by melting the outside layer of something, vaporizing it (or letting it just run off hot) and continuing on until the object is cut through. This is how industrial laser cutters work for paper, steel sheets, whatever. They're fairly slow compared to sharp blades. The advantage, though, is that you don't have to replace this huge laser as often as you would have to replace saw blades if you're cutting big things, and it's very precise, so it's worth using on cardstock, thin metal or wood sheets, that sort of thing. The time it takes to cut a part is irrelevant, because you're not under duress.
It's just too slow to burn through things to be an effective combat weapon.
It's a shitty weapon. Lasers don't even work for CIWS. They've tried it. Slugs and explosives work better for demolishing things.
Using electrical systems also increases the weight a shitton. A good rule of thumb is that batteries are always heavier than chemical fuel. And to power your laser, there will undoubtedly be a whole bunch of big fat capacitors and giant batteries driving it.
power loaders are legit
imagine how much beer you could stock at once with that thing
>mechs are literally powered by nuclear power.
This might be the reason why mechs can never be. No sane military commander want's a walking nuke around their troops.
>Mech gets shot
>Reactor goes critical
>Takes out several city block along with a good chunk of your troops and the enemies.
>Objective is now an radioactive no go zone for decades
At least that's how I think it would play out.
I know its a game but Realisticly I would think mechs being that huge is a detriment. Smaller mechs might actually be more versatile by be being able to support infantry, not having a MASSIVE silhouette, possibly being able to enter buildings during cqc, etc
Mechs will likely be power armors. Highly maneuverable, much more powerful than infantry but less armor than tanks. It will be something like Hawken mecha or Starship Troopers power armor. That makes sense. It'd be far more agile + it would slaughter infantry and maybe even carry RPG for anti tank. Giant mecha likely is not feasible unless they develop an exceptionally powerful alloy and have a powerful new engine type.
>m-muh chinese cartoons
how the fuck is a mech going to quickly dodge a supersonic projectile you dunce. Take lots of hits? Are you fucking high? Do you think its possible to armor up a mech more so than a tank? Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
>Almost no armor whatsoever
Now that's just fucking stupid.
The real question is why we don't have tank segways.
>height similar to a tank
>far smaller horizontally doe
>mount a machine gun and a mortar on it
>can fit on the back of a truck
>deploy for anti-infantry things
>still armored and weighted well enough that HE won't bother it, too small to reliably hit with AP shells
>can turn on its own profile
>can still have a respectable speed
Why the need for mechs if we already have some crazy shit in real life?
If we ever manage to engineer the energy source to make mech viable, we'll use it to build planes and helicopters instead
Mech will never be real kid
What kind of mechs are we talking about?
BF2142 style walker mechs or are we talking full armored core?
Because it's armored cores, it's a whole 'nother ball game. Of course they're impossible, but if we're talking firepower and maneuverability, you know how shit is going to go down.
Mechs are obviously more superior to tanks.
>Better reload time
>Armor is only in front
>Can be flipped upside down
>10 second reload rate
>very limited weaponry
I present you the best mech killer that you can get right now.
>The Abrams Liberty
It has twin bushmaster to deal with most of the mechs
It has ADATS to deal with flying mechs and heavy armored ones
It has radar to detect, track and provide fire solution (2S15 Norov shows that it can be done)
If you strap some APS on it it would a pretty good deal.
>tfw it never left drawing board
Anyone in this thread who thinks "practicality" and/or "feasibility" in this thread automatically misses the point of why mechs exist.
Because they are cool.
And that is all that matters.
Mechs will always be cooler than tanks.
Well then it's not exactly what OP wanted to discuss. Even if the technology is available, pilots would be killed if it could be designed to maneuver fast enough like what you see on chinese cartoons. The g-force that the pilot has to withstand would be immense.
Why can't we have nice things?
The only correct answer in this thread.
The only way mechs become possible is if some wizard manages to make them tough enough to not worry too much about infantry but fast and agile enough to close in with tanks and shoot them with AT stuff before getting the fuck out, because no bipedal robot is ever taking a tank round to the face and surviving.
And even then, a 12 year old with an RPG might do just as much as the billion dollar robot, and have about as much chance of survival.
>Mechs will always be cooler than tanks.
That's just your opinion man
>Anyone in this thread who thinks "practicality" and/or "feasibility" in this thread automatically misses the point of why mechs exist.
Straight from OP's post
>Which one is the better weapon of war?
Excuse us for being on-topic retard.
The only advantage a tank would have over a mech is when the mech doesn't see the tank and is standing still. The same goes for tank vs tank.
>because no bipedal robot is ever taking a tank round to the face and surviving.
most mechs in fiction are predicated on the notion that they can do this very thing, and i would agree that its a necessary for a bipedal mech to be viable.
With our current armor technology its certainly impossible but who knows what sort of new alloys and shock resistant mechanical devices we will see in the future.
I dont think people realize the kind of weaponry we'll be able to slap on a tank if we come to the point where we can make mech possible
When technology expands to a point where engineers will get bored with tanks, it might move onto mecha and maybe someday, they will have Gundam like combat fidelity. That is like 100-150 years into the future though.
>if we come to the point where we can make mech possible
Nigga, we could definitely make one now if we really wanted to.
Hell you don't even have to have the complicated AI that those big dog and other boston dynamics robots have because it's not automated.
>countdown to someone saying
I wish I properly named the .webm so I could post it but there's a great one of ISIS rebels firing RPGs at an Iraqi Abrams and literally doing nothing except singeing the armor and then shitting their pants when the turret turns around to return fire.
Of course, despite surviving, the Abrams is commanded by a total idiot, since his first reaction to taking anti-tank fire isn't back the fuck up but stand there and take more hits until he zeroed on the target for return fire. It's both proof of effective armor and ineffective training and tactics.
There's a similar story from WWII of a 37mm PaK AT gun vs a T-34 where the PaK gun managed to fire off all of it's ammo (50+) rounds at one tank without killing it. This is proof of how good the T-34's armor was, and how shit-tier Soviet crews were, since they sat there and got hit with 50 fucking rounds without either retreating or destroying the offending AT gun.
>Would Power armor ever be a viable weapon of war?
It is the next step in infantry evolution, restricted to specific roles at first, like logistic and medical care, then progressively cover the whole army, and obviously other "public service" (firefighters/riot)
>boosters for hovering or flying, etc.
Tell me why one earth you would ever want to make a tank fly.
Do you honestly think it could fire a weapon with kickback that massive while in the air?
Mechs. I will admit that the ones the space force use are awful though.
If you assume armour is going to get better, you have to assume that there will most likely be an increase in anti armour capability as well.
No, you would still need lots of computers to finely control all the joints to make sure that you could actually simplify it enough that a human could pilot it. You see this happening with jet planes like the Eurofighter, where yoy almost wouldn't be able to fly it at all without computer assistance.
Armor technology will literally never outpace weapon technology to the point where mechs are viable in a combat role. If it was ever possible to armor a bipedal mech to the point where it could survive a direct hit form a tank shell, it would be possible to load twice as much armor on the tank firing the shell and the mech would be useless for anything other than a very expensive anti-infantry role.
Bipedal locomotion will never be more efficient than tracked or wheeled locomotion, cool as it may be.
Yeah, pretty much. If not flight, just hover over obstacles because mech fags decide LOLLEGSSOMANEUVERABLE.
And for recoil, just shove missiles on the tank or something.
>No, you would still need lots of computers to finely control all the joints to make sure that you could actually simplify it enough that a human could pilot it
Just make a suit with force feedback nigga.
Yeah, not saying that the Abrams is INVINCIBLE but I don't think ISIS has access to the newer models of AT weapons, nor do they have the tactics to land proper hits on the Abrams' weak points (baring, of course, the tank isn't commanded by an idiot without proper infantry support). I think a bunch of the videos of ISIS destroying Abrams tanks is them demolishing abandoned tanks, assuming they don't try to use such abandoned tanks for themselves.
Though arguing about how tough the Abrams is is kind of irrelevant anyways. It really comes down to tactics, since who has better tactics (ISIS or Iraqi army) will determine the outcome of the engagement, not the quality of the gear.
>implying new alloys and shock resistant mechanical devices will matter in the future
Hey, if people are going to go and say Mechs VS Tanks, you might as well shove whatever fairy magic dust the mechs have into a tank.
>not using more energy and more vulnerable thanks to all the joints and multiple parts
Theres also a story from german tank ace Otto Carius about how an inexperienced Jagdtiger commander decided to completely turn around instead of backing away from some attacking shermans. Shell penetrated the rear armor and killed all 6 crewmembers.
The best weapons are useless if the person using them doesnt know wtf he is doing.
>What prevents a tank from using the same armor?
Too heavy for a tank
>What prevents a tank from building upwards?
It becomes a mech with tank treads at this point
>Why would you even put all that shit on one vehicle instead of several, more specialized ones?
Because mechs need to be able to adopt to changing conditions, because they're deployed typically on their own, sometimes on completely different planets, with no support available. They need to do the job of an entire platoon all by themselves.
Leg's are perfectly feasible anon, I'm not talking fairy dust. I'm talking movement. A tank will never be as maneuverable as legs. Hell a mech can even get to a tanks blind spot in a city quite easily by moving up on top of an building. Hell, people can and do this without the mech.
Well, the Jadgtiger was pretty usesless overall. It had a tiny sweet spot where it was really effective.
Way too heavy, way too big, way too slow, and deployed way too late (they couldn't even provide tracks for those beasts, some were driven on their transport-tracks, which couldn't even handle the weight and shattered).
>too heavy for a tank
im sorry what? if we go by battletech the heaviest mechs are 100 tons. The Abrams is like 70 tons. hell the Germans built a nearly 200 ton tanks in ww2. Tanks have a lot more surface area and wont sink into the ground like heavy mechs
>Too heavy for a tank
So you're saying that two noodly legs raising shit like ten meters into the air support weight better than several foot-wide tracks on a very low chassis? And what powerplant does this mech have that beats the turbines in modern battle tanks?
>Mech is just dexfag while tank is strengthtfag
>thinking real life is balanced
oh you poor, wretched scrublet
I think the point was that if the commander had simply backed off (or not lost his nerve and just fired back), they would have been fine. The shermans could not penetrate the front armor at all, but the fool exposed his rear when there was no reason to.
You are right though, It was generally a waste of already scarce resources.
If you compare an armored core mech to muh abrams then yeah sure
Now if you actually consider what kind of future tanks we may build in the future, such as >>286015297
Then you may abandon all hope
Underrated post. Mechs look like highly over-engineered, overly expensive units that could be taken out by one well-placed round. They are basically the futuristic battleships and there is a very good reason why we don't build battleships anymore.
>Higher point of view
>Legs are slower but can operate on terrain where traditional wheels and tracks will fail.
>Can be operated by one guy hooked up to the machine since he'll be running the mech as an extension of his body.
>More vertical space means you can fit a shitload of crap in it(guns, ammo, fuel, shield generators.)
Problem is every enemy will fire at you from the horizon and you're incredibly vulnerable when tipped over.
A giant mech would step on a that giant tank by accident.
Well, you're both right actually. The cost of building a battleship in WWII was usually relatively equal or greater to the cost of a fully outfitted flat top.
The difference is the flat top can engage targets at ten times the distance with equal firepower. Thus, battleships were obsoleted and the focus was changed to carriers and their escorts
>no engineer alive could design a method of bipedal locomotion capable of sustaining more weight than a tracked body
Read the battletech manual, battletech mechs are REALLY big, to the point where one foot is basically the same size as an entire IRL modern tank. The surface area is very big. To make a tank that can carry the same amount of armor / weapons would mean making it so big it can't manuever through difficult terrain anymore, that's one of the big advantages of bipedal motion. We're back at "tank the size of a city block" again and it becomes useless at this point.
That's actually wrong, wheels are incredibly shit at surface area. An entire car has a combined contact area to the ground the size of a large pizza. Tank treads are better, but the battletech feets are best, because they're constructed like frog feet with a lot of surface area in mind. Tank treads that make the same amount of surface area at any given point would be ENORMOUS. The tank would be nothing but a tread at this point.
Open sea superiority and long range bombardments are very feasible with frigates. With drones, one doesn't need flat tops anymore. Even frigates can do that comfortably. Battleship style tactics are still very viable. Which is why they still christen frigates to this day.
Because they're completely detached from reality, living only on the high floors of management, caring only about profit and are completely uncaring about anything other than making money and climbing the corporate ladder. They were supposed to represent the ravenous 80's businessmen.
Fuck it's such a great movie, I should really watch it again.
mobile artillary, factory, and air staging
From what I can remember, the mech of the poster you replied to is from Dawn of War.
Dawn of War mechs or "titans" have void shields that dissipates incoming enemy fire by sending it to another dimension.
The surface area of each individual foot may be large, but the surface area to mass ratio will still be considerably smaller than that of a tank of equal mass.
On top of that, if you build a 100 m tall mech, 80% of its mass will have to be in the legs in order to even support its own weight. Bipedal locomotion is unfeasable if you want to make anything much larger than a human.
Take a look at the lower body vs upper body mass of a monkey and an elephant for an idea of how ridiculous the idea of a gigantic mech is.
>Starting a powerlevel discussion against FUCKING SUPCOM / TOTAL ANNIHILATION
Oh you poor poor soul
You realize that TA/Supcom is about the only universe that will win against anything in 40k 100% with it not even being a discussion.
I like that they touched on this in 08th MS Team; as the fighting was in dense earth environments all mobile suit combat was to disable rather than destroy enemy suits.
Particularly in that one ambush where the main team had to do some long range sniping the weapons weren't suited for, and a less than perfect shot would send the suit's internal reaction into a nuclear sized explosion inside a town.
The problem is that both can be taken out rather easily thus ruining the whole investment. I guess this will be less of an issue if drones replace manned aircraft, thus letting you build several smaller "carrier" formations whereas before you only had one with a rather obvious target. Of course there's the whole issue with jamming drones and making them drop out of the sky.
Tank: barrel attached to wheels
Mech: that weird talking thing with a barrel
Assuming you keep the mass, manufacturing and material costs the same, the latter will be a more complicated apparatus, thus carrying a smaller barrel.
>TA power levels
Yeah basically TA wins against everything outside of bullshit "lolis controlling space/time and causality and conceptual things like having absolute control over anything that can be conceived as a 'barrier'" Touhou horse shit.
They're basically Tyranids without the biomass limitation.
>Assuming you keep the mass, manufacturing and material costs the same
There's your problem right there. It's incredibly unlikely you would build a mech out of the same material you build a tank.
And honestly with modern robotics, the cost of creating complex parts is relatively negligable with mass production.
>100 m tall mech
>80% of its mass will have to be in the legs in order to even support its own weight.
my initial statement said "if we had the tech", which implies the materials to bring that 80% down to where it actually becomes a nonfactor.
Tankfags are the worst, because they assume the current level of tech will never change. Maybe in the future armor will be completely replaced by deflector shields and then having a low profile means nothing anymore, because everyone has railguns that shoot through 3 hills and can scan you from orbit and it becomes a matter of physically being able to survive the shot in the first place and not how it is right now: trying to avoid getting shot at in the first place.
A bipedal big mech offers a better manueverability in extremely difficult terrain ( such as ruins of buildings, jungles, etc. ) and offers better payload to size ratio than a tank ( unless you literally build the tank upwards to compensate, at which point it becomes a mech with treads instead of legs )
Tell me more
I liked TA as a kid but barely remember anything about it
How are the power-levels so high? From what I remember I'd figured it was no crazier than like, BF2142 or Halo or something.
I like bipedal mechs because they're cool as fuck but from a physics and battlefield purpose standpoint they're basically retarded. The only settings where you can accept them logically are scenarios like Five Star Stories where it's a cultural thing in a setting where wars are fought by proxy with a heavy dose of honor before reason, or where science has gone so far that the shape of the robot really doesn't fucking matter, it's what science-fantasy planet busting / reality warping shit it's packing.
you can shit one of these out in a matter of seconds as the lowest powered thing in the entire game
>It's incredibly unlikely you would build a mech out of the same material you build a tank.
What does this even mean? You want to reinvent armour and cannons just because they are now attached to a different carrier? Or do you want to sacrifice armour? Or do you have different better armour and, if so, why can't you attach that to a tank?
I am sorry, anon, but that's just really vague wishful thinking there.
>They're basically Tyranids without the biomass limitation.
Higher tech too. Complete mastery over nanotechnology / teleportation across half the universe.
One of their techs basically invalidates half of 40k straight away by requiring you to be able to mass produce your units, by basically being the necron disruptor on steroids that completely disintegrates everything in a single shot with no way to counter it. It works by undoing the bonds between atoms in every molecule of the target body and turns it into energy, making it go kaboom instantly, no matter how big or how well defended.
The only known counter is to bring more shit then you can destroy fast enough ( in the game it's lost tech and only the commander can use it ).
Which actually becomes a real possiblity when you have the production capabilities to make about 3 baneblades a SECOND.
Tread with side armor harder to destroy then a delicate knee joint that likely needs to be exposed to provide effective range of motion.
A lot of times going for a mobility kill is easier and better that outright destroying.
This, mechs essentially lose out on cost effectiveness and efficacy in general in order to be able to operate in environments no other ground unit can. Alpine and urban environments are extremely inhospitable to tanks, but mechs would be able to traverse and fight within them with ease.
The thing is, mechs would most likely be an order of magnitude more expensive than conventional tanks, so you could probably build 5-10+ times more tanks and train skilled crews for them with the same cash you could use to build one mech and train its pilot. Economically, the only one who decides to make mechs will probably be the biggest superpower around, who keeps a few around just in case guerrillas ever decide to hole up in a mountain range again.
People often forget real-robots like Gundams had to be justified - in universe - through the use of minovsky particles, which made homing missiles and such completely useless.
Even Gundam acknowledges that missiles would annihilate mecha.
>"A tank is a large type of armoured fighting vehicle with tracks, designed for front-line combat. Modern tanks are strong mobile land weapons platforms, mounting a large-calibre cannon in a rotating gun turret. "
an armored anti air is not a tank
It's because SupCom and TA games are all about being a self-replicating Von Neumann machine that gets exponentially bigger over time.
The problem is that everything starts from a single unit.
In 40K, you've got a universe of billions and billions of pre-constructed death machines and holy tanks that might be available within minutes of a commander moving in. That is, assuming that the local commissar isn't drunk.
Thus you essentially have a comparably poorly-armoured, high-profile target carrying the same calibre a tank could carry that can be easily taken out with a lower calibre arm than the said tank. Why exactly should we build these again?