88 replies to this topic

[Nairdowell]

Plus, on the peace time side, tanks tend to spread out their weight more efficiently, allowing for exercises and workups, without leaving the countryside completely devastated.... (yes there's damage, 100 tons is 100 tons, but much less than a mech...) plus they are easier to hide (think caves, camo nets, etc...), easier to maintain, can have multiple trained crews (which on the RP side, makes it harder to take our their crews BEFORE they get into the mech.... a couple of snipers near a mech base when they scramble can leave those mechs just standing there....)

And they are more cost effective against raiders, who are usually light in the mech department, as well as the usual riot control, etc....

Edited by Nairdowell, 10 July 2012 - 08:17 AM.

[ice trey]

Because:

• Mechs are considerably more expensive. While even a locust or urbie will cost a mil and a half C-bills, you can afford many light vees for roughly half-a-mil.
  
• Tanks are easier to make. Few worlds have access to the technologies required to make PPCs, Fusion Engines, and Myomer Bundles. On the other hand, Combustion Engines, Wheels, and Machine Guns are not all that tough to make.
  
• Not any Tom, Dick, or Harry can be a Mechwarrior. Compared to a tank, mechs require a lot more skill to drive. You've got to be receptive to a Neurohelmet, which only a fraction of people can sport. Plus, Mechwarrior Academies are not cheap, either. In order to get into one, you've either got to be rich, or sponsored by someone who is. However, there's plenty of joe-shmoes in the Inner Sphere that they can plop into a Saracen or Bulldog.

Also note:
While I don't have very vivid memory of how MW3 treated vees (I lost my disk a decade ago), Mechwarrior 4 took the fluffed fragility and took it to an excess, making vehicles explode if you so much as look at them the wrong way (Barring the Demolisher). I never liked that about MW4. While vehicles are more fragile than 'mechs in Battletech, they're hardly the doorstop they used to be, and by no means the joke MW4 made them out to be.

[Wonderful Greg]

BA Dillard, on 10 July 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

Up til the 1990's people thought tanks were obsolete. Desert Storm changed that.

That's only because Iraq was armed with ancient RPG-7 and alike. They have no anti reactive armor penetration features whatsoever.
Should tanks face any more or less modern AT weaponry - they are nothing but huge useless pile of iron.

Edited by Wonderful Greg, 10 July 2012 - 08:20 AM.

[JD R]

Tanks are in the universe because you need some easy targets. And in the end when you look at hard facts you would know that tanks are better than mechs if you put it in real. But this is Mechwarrior so Battlemechs are the Kings of the Battlefield. And you got infanterie too. In the end its the old story of war. Plans, Tanks, VSTOL and Battlemechs can capture land. But you need infanterie to hold it.

And your catching some tank fans

[Derek Icelord]

ice trey, on 10 July 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

While I don't have very vivid memory of how MW3 treated vees (I lost my disk a decade ago), Mechwarrior 4 took the fluffed fragility and took it to an excess, making vehicles explode if you so much as look at them the wrong way (Barring the Demolisher). I never liked that about MW4. While vehicles are more fragile than 'mechs in Battletech, they're hardly the doorstop they used to be, and by no means the joke MW4 made them out to be.

And the Living Legends mod went just as far in the other direction.

Edited by Derek Icelord, 10 July 2012 - 08:27 AM.

[BA Dillard]

Wonderful Greg, on 10 July 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

That's only because Iraq was armed with ancient RPG-7 and alike. They have no anti reactive armor penetration features whatsoever.
Should tanks face any more or less modern AT weaponry - they are nothing but huge useless pile of iron.

No. Iraq's Repubican Guard had T-72m's and T-80 tanks, Plus lesser units using T-55s, 62s, and 64s. And they had numbers.

T-72 and T80 tanks both use a 125mm vs the 120mm on most Alliance tanks. Plus they have auto-loaders, and fire faster.

That Army had no will to fight. They were done before we even crossed the burm in Saudi Arabia.

When they did fight, which some did well, the Soviet battle doctrine was defeated easily.
A better trained military would have given us problems, perhaps. Although it turned out Soviet equipment, and tactics were not as world beating as we thought.

And yes, I was there.

Also, air superiority rocks.

Give me some Aero-support!

Edited by BA Dillard, 10 July 2012 - 08:42 AM.

[Tokimonatakanimekat]

BA Dillard, on 10 July 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

A better trained military would have given us problems, perhaps. Although it turned out Soviet equipment, even the newer stuff really sucks

It's not about equipment. It's about some random Ahmed in the place of driver, gunner, etc
...

[grimzod]

Broceratops, on 10 July 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

So I remember in previous mechwarrior games, tanks were basically useless things that you would shoot so that you felt like you were a big boy. And even in the description over at sarna, "A BattleMech's only true equal is another 'Mech—artillery, aircraft, and tanks are disadvantaged against them without BattleMech support or a strong advantage in numbers."

So given that, why does stuff like

http://www.sarna.net...Combat_Vehicle)

exist?

100 ton tank? 20 million c bills? You could buy 2 atlases for that price. Why does this exist in the BT universe? And from reading sarna, there are tanks of every weight class that there are for mechs. And their costs are similar.

Was this just battletech trying to make some more money or what?

Tanks:

Do not require fusion engines, myomer, neural helmets, you can transport forty or more in some dropships at once. They are, overall, easier to build and require a much lower technological base to create a factory. Though you may be able to buy two atlas for a Demolisher you can also get twenty or thirty other tansk for the same price and beat the crap out of a lance of atlases with them. Though you may lose half the tansk they are easily replaced whereas the Atlas losses are not.

[Fomorian]

Because tanks are still cool looking and not everyone can afford a mech.

[Buda]

I got a couple of questions...

If tanks are cheaper, can be as armored and well armed as a mech, can be build in mass production, are easier to hide, easier to maintain, fewer logiscial lines are needed (beside terrain and speed factors), why they keep building mechs?

Atlas v/s Demolisher, who wins?

[Isingdeath]

Even if the mechs and tanks were the same initial amount the cost of upkeep is considerably higher and cost of repairs is signifigant as well. Add to this the limited number of mechs and the large amounts of settled worlds. Worlds need to be garrisoned in the universe of constant warfare and there are not enough mechs to go around. Even if tanks are not the mechs equal they sure beat everything else.

[grimzod]

Buda, on 10 July 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

I got a couple of questions...

If tanks are cheaper, can be as armored and well armed as a mech, can be build in mass production, are easier to hide, easier to maintain, fewer logiscial lines are needed (beside terrain and speed factors), why they keep building mechs?

Atlas v/s Demolisher, who wins?

You build them because the number of mechs constructed can't possibly meet the demand for them while replacing losses. And you need military units of SOME kind to garrison your worlds.

Either, if the pilots are equal and they start in the open likely the Atlas but only the dice gods will tell.

Edited by grimzod, 10 July 2012 - 08:44 AM.

[LordDread]

theres a number of reasons, mechs are hard to build, heck some of the stuff needs to be build in a vacum i.e. space, a TRAINED mech pilot takes many years , a trained tank pilot and crew.. a few weeks .. and thats just a couple of the main points

[Broceratops]

Buda, on 10 July 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

I got a couple of questions...

If tanks are cheaper, can be as armored and well armed as a mech, can be build in mass production, are easier to hide, easier to maintain, fewer logiscial lines are needed (beside terrain and speed factors), why they keep building mechs?

Atlas v/s Demolisher, who wins?

people in the 31st century are dumb.

based on this thread, it would seem that tanks have many things going for them over mechs. I guess the main this is mechs can climb mountains and stuff.

Edited by Broceratops, 10 July 2012 - 08:47 AM.

[Isingdeath]

Buda, on 10 July 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

I got a couple of questions...

If tanks are cheaper, can be as armored and well armed as a mech, can be build in mass production, are easier to hide, easier to maintain, fewer logiscial lines are needed (beside terrain and speed factors), why they keep building mechs?

Atlas v/s Demolisher, who wins?

Because in the BT universe the mech is way better on a one for one basis. Think knights against infantry in the middle ages (before crossbows). A knight was way better than infantry and could kill dozens with out a scratch but you get weight of numbers and infantry could bring down a knight.

[Wonderful Greg]

BA Dillard, on 10 July 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

No. Iraq's Repubican Guard had T-72m's and T-80 tanks, Plus lesser units using T-55s, 62s, and 64s. And they had numbers.

That Army had no will to fight. They were done before we even crossed the burm in Saudi Arabia.

A better trained military would have given us problems, perhaps. Although it turned out Soviet equipment, even the newer stuff really sucks

Also, air superiority rocks.

Give me some Aero-support!

I was talking about hand held AT weaponry. A single soldier with proper hand held AT equipment can destroy a tank with one shot. Especially, in urban combat. So far, attack capabilities of hand held AT exceed defense capabilities of any tank.
Besides, your statement about almost no resistance(mostly due simple but effective bribes of Iraqis generals), only proves that such conflicts have zero value in estimation of things in modern warfare.
Iraq, Afghanistan, was not war. For there was no actual army or any sort properly trained, and more importantly, equipped opponent to America's world police. Anything, aside guierilla skirmishes, was a one sided beating of far inferior opponent.
My point is, those conflicts only prove that tanks are useful when opponent has almost nothing to deal with them.

[BA Dillard]

Tokimonatakanimekat, on 10 July 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

It's not about equipment. It's about some random Ahmed in the place of driver, gunner, etc
...

I think that is what I said. The best Iraq had to offer, the Republican Guard, who were trained by the Soviets, still were not good enough.

Imho, If we had been fighting the Soviets, the war would have went longer, but we would have still beaten them, because out tankers are better trained, and would have not been using inferior and or outdated tactics.

[990Dreams]

Why do they still make swords in 2012?

Answer: Because Swords are a close quarter gun with unlimited ammo.

Tanks are Mechs that are smaller and on wheels that can go across deep water (hovercraft)

Edited by DavidHurricane, 10 July 2012 - 09:00 AM.

[Haydin]

Buda, on 10 July 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

I got a couple of questions...

If tanks are cheaper, can be as armored and well armed as a mech, can be build in mass production, are easier to hide, easier to maintain, fewer logiscial lines are needed (beside terrain and speed factors), why they keep building mechs?

Atlas v/s Demolisher, who wins?

Let me explain it this way. In the battletech universe, there are infantry units that ride killer whales into battle. I am not kidding. This is actually a thing. Why? Because, like giant robots, it is awesome. Battlemechs, in a world with aerospace fighters that are as good as they are, extremely powerful artillery and orbital bombardment, giant robots are, on a practical level, rather silly. But they are so awesome who gives a damn. I mean, you can punch a mech with a retractable blade in the tabletop, extend it point blank, hit an ammo bin and trigger an ammo explosion, blow off the enemy's arm, pick up the severed arm, and beat their crippled mech to death with it. THAT IS SO UNBELIEVABLY COOL.

Also it is criminal that no one seems to have mentioned the Myrmidon while talking about amazing tanks. Good speed, armed as well as a panther, and costs NOTHING: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Myrmidon

Edited by Haydin, 10 July 2012 - 09:20 AM.

[grimzod]

Wonderful Greg, on 10 July 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

I was talking about hand held AT weaponry. A single soldier with proper hand held AT equipment can destroy a tank with one shot. Especially, in urban combat. So far, attack capabilities of hand held AT exceed defense capabilities of any tank.
Besides, your statement about almost no resistance(mostly due simple but effective bribes of Iraqis generals), only proves that such conflicts have zero value in estimation of things in modern warfare.
Iraq, Afghanistan, was not war. For there was no actual army or any sort properly trained, and more importantly, equipped opponent to America's world police. Anything, aside guierilla skirmishes, was a one sided beating of far inferior opponent.
My point is, those conflicts only prove that tanks are useful when opponent has almost nothing to deal with them.

This is also true in battletech. A regiment of SRM infantry are a nightmare.

DavidHurricane, on 10 July 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Why do they still make swords in 2012?

Answer: Because Swords are a close quarter gun with unlimited ammo.

Tanks are Mechs that are smaller and on wheels that can go across deep water (hovercraft)

To kill people? And they make great olive stickers.