72 replies to this topic

[Kiiyor]

Pain Killer, on 21 January 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

Perhaps, you could have some really nice optics and image enhancement hardware to compensate for the three pixel height effect.

True! It could be very engaging, but would need to be an entirely different game I think.

To be honest, I find all these arguments highly amusing, especially the ones advocating the supremacy of the humble battlemech. They simply can't be compared people! Mechs are fantastic looking machines built for fun and awesomeness. Tanks are ugly machines built for surviving long enough to murder anything they can target in the most efficient and brutal way possible.

As far as mechs being able to take more damage... the stalwart tank of the American (and now Australian) army, the Abrams, has very rarely had it's armor penetrated by ANYTHING in battle. From the stupendously accurate Wikipedia:

"Nearly all sources claim that no Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but some have certainly taken some damage which required extensive repair.

aaand...

In the Gulf War, Abrams tanks survived multiple hits at relatively close ranges from Iraqi Lion of Babylon tanks and ATGMs. M829A1 "Silver Bullet" APFSDS rounds from other M1A1 Abrams were unable to penetrate the front and side armor (even at close ranges) in friendly fire incidents as well as an incident in which an Abrams tried to destroy an abandoned Abrams stuck in the mud."

This is a fun read also:

http://yllus.com/201...tank-really-is/

If you start using these arguments though, you may as well imagine the same technical advances in Mech warfare, using our own advances for a basis. Maybe there is a possibility of technology evolving to the point where mechs are viable. Maybe the protective qualities of battletech armor are far superior to modern tank armor. Maybe they have managed to cram all the ludicrously complicated working parts necessary to enable a 100 tonne machine to walk into a viable package.

However, even with all that, a tank produced with the same technology would still be a far more efficient weapons platform, and would have a FAR smaller profile than a battlemech. You could mount a hideous amount of firepower on it, as unlike a mech with all it's weight concentrated on two feet, a tank has it's weight distributed over meters and meters of tracks.

Then, think about weapons power. If armor protection had increased so much further than contemporary tanks today, the destructive power of weapon systems would have to increase to the point where they could damage it, otherwise war would merely be the equivalent of a very noisy game of laser tag. Turning up to a war where the first weapons fire removes some pesky local mountains and turns kilometers of open space into a blasted ruin would be kind of counter productive.

"General, the Planet is ours! Well, it's actually one third smaller now than it was before we started firing, and no longer has an atmosphere, but we totally kicked ***!"

[4b4dd0n]

Anti tank weapons are by far cheaper then modern tanks. So why we using tanks today?
If we could take an atlas or catapult in our rl world. And we would armed this battlemech with javelin like rockets. You can take out a whole tank platoon with one salvo. So a battle mech with weapons based on rl condition and not on the tt rules would dominate the battlefield. If we would have laser weapons today a fast light mech can run through the enemy lines in seconds, like a f1 race car and melt down the tanks. Armed with mgs or flamers it would also be a terriffying enemy for infantery. Image a mad cat which can unload 40 jevalins with one salvo, can fire 5 laser every few seconds and shredds your infantery in pieces with its mgs. The biggest point is you can faight against multiple targets at on time. So each javelin would kill one tank each laser beam would kill one tank. And this is only one mech. Youl would need far more tanks to destroy this mech and if you would kill him he would attrac so much attention that the rest of your army can crush the enemy relativ safty.

And in 40k years, we will have big titans which walk over the battlefield unstopable defended by shields, with weapons which can vaporize a whole city with one shoot and they carry a whole army of combined arms in the legs. So ask your friend why should we build big tanks?

[Adridos]

Kiiyor, on 21 January 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

As far as mechs being able to take more damage... the stalwart tank of the American (and now Australian) army, the Abrams, has very rarely had it's armor penetrated by ANYTHING in battle.

Ididn't Abrams have the problem that shots from behind even by pretty low caliber weapons (low caliber compared to what you need to down a tank, not pistols and such), the engine got critically damageda dn teh tank was rendered useless? I'm pretty sure I read something like that.

As far as "invulnerability" goes, Challnger 2 has a better record, however, even the one casualty sustained was from friendly fire, which means tanks can easily kill themselves right now. And let's not forget aircraft that eats them for lunch.

[4b4dd0n]

Kiiyor, on 21 January 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

...

Your also beloved abrams only fight against old weapon systems. Every main battle tank of the nato states or the modern russian tanks would kill each other. Also modern anti tank guided weapons carried by infantry can kill a main battle tank. Tanks only work because they supported by infantry and by air supremacy. A apache or tiger helicopter would take out some tanks until it needs to go back to rearm and the tanks couldnt do anything.
And to take desert storm to prove the superiorty for the abrams isnt a good example. A tank build and designt in the 80s fights against tanks build and designt in the 70s. And on the top of this the americans had the air supremacy, so the outcome of this war wasnt a big suprise.

[Taizan]

This topic was moved to the Off topic sub forum, where it is more appropriate.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Kiiyor, on 20 January 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

Even though they could make ranges more realistic, I imagine a video game where you fire on an atlas that is three pixels tall wouldn't be all that engaging.

And there you have it...much like men in tights cannot fly, yet people flock to the movies to see it.....this is why the game and the canon are the way they are....a matter of understandable scale that lends itself to the visceral effects and experiences of close combat without the technical, cold and emotionless reality of incredible ranges and drone technology seeping in. Its suspense of disbelief across an entire franchise.

Some could argue that the mystical ferro-fibrous stuff is too heavy for mere tanks to carry enough of, that ranges are shortened by the density of the rounds being used that are different than the depleted uranium we have today....as that increased density is what it takes to penetrate the above mentioned mythical armor. That myomer cables flex and contort when energy is introduced but that they can't be utilized in tanks due to mechanical limitations (gotta remember the mechs are powered by "muscles" that don't mimic any current technology *I don't think so at any rate*). And the list goes on.

People who argue about the realism behind the science of a light saber also aren't going to enjoy BT or MWO. Let em go. Don't try to change their minds. It's not worth the effort

[Kiiyor]

Adridos, on 21 January 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

Ididn't Abrams have the problem that shots from behind even by pretty low caliber weapons (low caliber compared to what you need to down a tank, not pistols and such), the engine got critically damageda dn teh tank was rendered useless? I'm pretty sure I read something like that.

As far as "invulnerability" goes, Challnger 2 has a better record, however, even the one casualty sustained was from friendly fire, which means tanks can easily kill themselves right now. And let's not forget aircraft that eats them for lunch.

Aircraft, IED's, Anti-Tank choppers, Javelin (javelin can neutralize pretty much any MBT nowadays though, and was developed using the Abrams as a test bed), RPG's (which are very flexible in that the warhead can be wildly modified - there are unconfirmed reports of a very specialised and expensive RPG round penetrating BOTH SIDES of an Abrams) - tanks are a long way from invulnerable, especially in urban fighting. Heavy machine gun fire has disabled a few Abrams before, mainly when hit from behind or when lucky rounds manage to damage the tracks. I would hate to be in a tank when Javelin was on the battlefield.

Killing them is a different story entirely - Abrams have the equivalent of CASE to protect pretty much every internal compartment. Also, there are some very interesting active defense systems in development (and existence!) to help combat the threat of RPG's and missiles:

http://en.wikipedia....countermeasure)

The trophy has a detection system that can almost instantaneously pinpoint and track an incoming RPG round and shoot it with shotgun like projectiles. The Isreils have used it successfully on the battlefield on their fantastically evil Merkavas.

4b4dd0n, on 21 January 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

Your also beloved abrams only fight against old weapon systems. Every main battle tank of the nato states or the modern russian tanks would kill each other. Also modern anti tank guided weapons carried by infantry can kill a main battle tank. Tanks only work because they supported by infantry and by air supremacy. A apache or tiger helicopter would take out some tanks until it needs to go back to rearm and the tanks couldnt do anything.
And to take desert storm to prove the superiorty for the abrams isnt a good example. A tank build and designt in the 80s fights against tanks build and designt in the 70s. And on the top of this the americans had the air supremacy, so the outcome of this war wasnt a big suprise.

Not quite true. Amusingly, in those conflicts the biggest threat to an Abrams... was usually another Abrams. There were multiple instances of friendly fire in both of those wars. In some instances they engaged each other at distances under 50m. In every friendly fire incident, even multiple direct hits to frontal and side armor failed to penetrate, and their kinetic penetrator rounds are truly badass.

The armour on an Abrams differs from most other main battle tanks in that it has a layer of depleted uranium for extra protection.

All of this is kind of moving away from the modern tank -> battlemech debate though, which is kind of like an apple having an argument with an orange and trying to convince it that it isn't a football wrapped in tinfoil and duct tape with a smiley face painted on it. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

[saber15]

KerenskyClone, on 14 January 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

There is another canon reason for mechs, many of them are capable of human like movements (something that is not simulated in this or any other Mecwarriorgame ) so they are able to engage in melee as well. The mechs are also highly manouverable, and capable of changing direction very rapidly or at least much more than any tank of comparable weight. This is also not simulated correctly in this or any other Mechwarrior game.

A tank would be able to turn faster than a mech. The tank has a FAR FAR FAR lower center of mass, being only a meter or two above the ground (versus +8m in the air). A tank can hit the brakes entirely on one treading causing it to veer sharply to the side. A hovercraft could strafe, provided it had the proper fan setup.

KerenskyClone, on 14 January 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

One other thing I just thought of. A tank cant exactly peek behind corners, crouch, or even go prone. Although they can go 'hulldown'.

Crouching or going prone isn't exactly necessary when the tank's bottom hull is already mere inches or feet off of the ground.

Edited by saber15, 21 January 2013 - 05:38 PM.

[Kiiyor]

Uite Dauphni, on 20 January 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

More Dakka?

More dakka?



More dakka!



MORE DAKKA!



MOOORE DAAAAAKAAA!!



MOOOOORE DAAAKKAAAAA!!!


MOOOOOOORE DAAAAAKKAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!








One crucial thing missing from BT is the weapon design sensibilities of 40K Orks.

Oh wait, the Stalker! Ignore my last.

[ArcSolidus]

I wouldn't be too concerned over justifying the oddities of a fictional universe. Accept the fact that you enjoy unrealistic things and move on.

[machine]

Nehkrosis, on 14 January 2013 - 06:03 AM, said:

so, my friends have been trying to convince me that although its a cool universe, there is little sense in designing GIANT battlemechs that are Bi-pedal, over simply having GIANT tanks.

help me out here guys

lol i just picture a tank trying to aim down or jump

[Dauphni]

Kiiyor, on 21 January 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

One crucial thing missing from BT is the weapon design sensibilities of 40K Orks.

Never enuff Dakka!



Also, from the venerable Schlock Mercenary's ‘The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Pirates’:

6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
25. If the damage you do is covered by a manufacturers warranty, you didn't do enough damage.
34. If you’re leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun.
37. There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload.'

[Lagfest]

...
Battlemechs? Maybe.
now Armored Core would love to talk to you about unfeasible and impossible...