88 replies to this topic

[Pook600]

Same reason Tanks move in conjunction with infantry in todays military.

Combined Arms is always much more effective than a one dimensional force.

[Tezkat]

Tanks in general are pretty good value for the C-Bills.

Take the trusty LRM Carrier, for instance. For 1/3 the price of a Catapult, you get 3 LRM-20 racks. That's volleys of 180 LRMs raining down on your enemies per Catapult-equivalent C-Bill expenditure. And if you find them too squishy, you can spend a mere half million C-Bills more on a SturmFeur and get an LRM tank with more armour than an Atlas. Which would you rather have backing you up... 2-3 of those or a single Catapult? The mech isn't always the clear choice...

Then consider how much easier it is to train and replace tank teams than mech pilots, and how much less expensive the vehicles themselves are to build and maintain. It's not difficult to see why the folks in military procurements are still buying tanks.

Sure, you can go whole hog and outfit your tank with the latest toys, bringing it up to the price of an equivalent BattleMech. Any MWLL player will tell you that such vehicles can quickly garner respect on a mech dominated battlefield.

And don't forget that tanks can mount all sorts of nasty artillery weapons, like Long Toms, that simply aren't practical on a mech.

[Wonderful Greg]

BA Dillard, on 10 July 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

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we would have still beaten them, because out tankers are better trained, and would have not been using inferior and or outdated tactics.

Again, jugging by current data on tanks and AT equipment in general, tanks would not even play minor role in conflict of such scale. It's not WW2.
If you actually mean Soviets, than I wouldn't be so sure about your victory. Modern Russia, on the other hand, is a different story.

[FrDrake]

Broceratops, on 10 July 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

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.

Yes, mechs could go places a tank couldn't in the stories.

However when it came to TT gaming, there were no rules saying a tank had to have an engine and their battle points were far less than a mech's were. I used to make a 100 ton tank with no engine as a stationary weapons platform that had to be transported by a team of mechs to carry it around (it took 4 assaults to carry it IIRC). Why you ask, because it held around 3-4 times the weapons of a mech due to its not needing an engine.


*EDIT* Another plus for the tank is that it has 100% torso twist as the turret can freely look in any direction.

Edited by FrDrake, 10 July 2012 - 09:21 AM.

[Atlai]

Tokimonatakanimekat, on 10 July 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

Tanks are:
1. Simple enough compared to machines with legs.
2. Easier to build and have lesser cost. Easily mass-produced.
3. Have equal or better survivability if armored equally to mechs.
4. Can carry powerful guns as well.
5. Don't require special crew qualification to be efficient.
6. Relatively easy to hide.

I bet IRL tanks would beat mechs on the field, but they would suffer on complicated terrain.

I agree up to the part about RL tanks winning, the weapon/armor differences of 1000 years put the tanks at a very large disadvantage.

[Kraven Kor]

Tokimonatakanimekat, on 10 July 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

Well, actually tanks can carry more armor due to better weight distribution. As well as waaay bigger dicannon.

Yes, but:

1. A tank (or any non-mech vehicle) is destroyed when any one section is destroyed. Mechs can fight on missing half their torso or more.

2. Tanks (and other non-mech vehicles) can take a crit even with armor still in place, as mentioned.

Now, tanks can actually fit slightly more armor and comparable weaponry to a mech, but severely lack in mobility, as well as the above weaknesses.

Again, you can kill a mech with a tank or three; it just isn't a fair fight. A good mech pilot should pretty much never fear a tank in any kind of 'straight up fight.'

[AdamBaines]

They are cheaper, and still pack a punch. Most small states and local militias cant afford a lot of battle mechs so tanks fill in nicely. And don't take a tank lightly, they can ruin your day as fast as any mech will.

[Icebound]

This thread makes me want to try using a tank vs a mech soooooo bad.

[Goldhawk]

They have to make something out of all the blown off scrap armor on the battlefield. LOL.

But the reasoning behind still having tanks on the battlefield is easy. Distraction and Support.

Not many mechs can mount the Long Tom Cannon, and for that reason, why would you put that on a mech by itself? With no supporting weapons, the mech is scrap once it runs out of ammunition.

Tanks, are less sophisticated, cheaper, and offer greater options on the battlefield in the battlemech. <-----AT CERTAIN TIMES

If any one is familiar with the battle at Wolcott, The Kanrei used Savannah Master hover crafts that NONE of us would get into because it has the armor value of a Volkswagon Beetle, and a medium laser. He used those against the CLANS, and they distracted the clanners enough to bring down multiple mechs.

Hell, another example at just using the Savannah Master hovercraft was in the written Warrior: Coupe novel written. The invasion of Sarna. Savannah master hover crafts took on a full company of some of the Capellan March's finest troops and the mechs got severely worked over.

In the Mechwarrior univese, the Davions created RCTs. Regimented Combat Teams. THat is a combination of Air, tanks, and mech support to keep the enemy off balance and guessing.


Let me outline the situation, you are fighting against another mech, then suddenly, you get a report that your back armor is taking damage from an AC/5. You torso twist and you see a Vedette tank blazing away at you. Now, that mech that you were fighting has 2 options, to either blow your reactor out your belly button, or run away. And suddenly you are either screwed, or irritated since as you were crushing the tank, your target got away.

Also, since tanks are simpler machines then Battlemechs an equilivant tank can actually mount more weapons at the expense of armor, except for the Von Lucker. Damn that's a bad mother (Shut yo mouth). I'm just talkin 'bout tanks.... then they can dig it.

[Kami3k]

Kraven Kor, on 10 July 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

Yes, but:

1. A tank (or any non-mech vehicle) is destroyed when any one section is destroyed. Mechs can fight on missing half their torso or more.

This. Just look at a modern tank, all it takes is one round to penetrate the armor and the tank is dead. You need to be lucky to do that on a mech.

[Bachman]

I really enjoy using the big gnarly tanks for area contol. Along with light/med mechs and Jump Infantry ( remember them? ) to react to changes on the field until the heavy tanks can take new positions.

But as a mech guy.. I've never seen a tank jump up and down on a mech till it was a stain on the ferrocrete.

[Glasswlkr]

Haydin, on 10 July 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

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.

... This ...

[Menkare]

Mason West, on 10 July 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

I agree up to the part about RL tanks winning, the weapon/armor differences of 1000 years put the tanks at a very large disadvantage.

The only reason they are at a disadvantage is because that's the way FASA wanted it to be. They didn't want tanks usurping the 'Mech's dominant role on the battle field.

When you look at it, with all of the points of articulation on a 'Mech, why should they be less vulnerable than a tank? They should be more so because of all the weak spots a the joints. Any armorer will tell you that you cannot completely armor a joint and have it still flex. A tank has only 3 "joints", the hull/turret joint, and the tracks. A humanoid 'Mech has at most 14 points of weakness ( head/neck, shoulders, elbows, wrists, waist, hips, knees, ankles ). From an engineering standpoint, 'Mechs should be much more vulnerable than a tank.

[BA Dillard]

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.

That is what makes RPG's and the like popular with terrorists. You can train an infant to use one. And they can kill an unwary tank.
They make excellent guerilla warfare weapons. I 100% agree. The AT-4 is a sweet weapon, I have trained with it.

The Gulf war was as close as we have come to a true conventual war since WW2. This abomination we are in now is worse than vienam.
We could have ended this years ago. Unfortunately our motives for continuing this idiocy is suspect.

As far as RPGs are concerned, in a true conventional war, it is the infantry's job to root them out and kill them.
RPGs have been around since the early 1900's, in one form or another, the Panzerfaust is a good example. But an RPG has never won a war, but can be used to good effect as a harassment, and weapon of terrorist organizations.

Personal note, I had 2 RPG rounds bounce off my tanks frontal armor, and one hit my turret. It blew off our bussle rack, but that was about it. Scratch one RPG team and thier silly BMP.

Edited by BA Dillard, 10 July 2012 - 09:31 AM.

[Evinthal]

Icebound, on 10 July 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

This thread makes me want to try using a tank vs a mech soooooo bad.

It can be really fun, just have to know what to use and how to use it. At our game store we have a guy who frequently plays as Clan Hells Horses, and uses a combined arms star of 2 aerospace (1 point), 2 Vehicles (1 point), 1 Mech (1 point) and 2 Battlearmor/Protomech points. It is pretty effective.

I've ran a Battalion of Ajax Assault Tanks with Manteuffel Tanks as the spotters for the C3 networks. Down right nasty. Recently Picked up a Sunder to use as a dual C3 master to integrate all three lance C3 Networks into one big battalion network, still need to try it out though.

As people have said, tanks are still produced because they are easier to produce, maintain, and field crews for compared to 'mechs. They are a little bit more fragile though.

Most tanks also have turret mounted weapons, giving them the ability to fire some weapon in any way they want while maneuvering at full speed.

[Kami3k]

Menkare, on 10 July 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

The only reason they are at a disadvantage is because that's the way FASA wanted it to be. They didn't want tanks usurping the 'Mech's dominant role on the battle field.

When you look at it, with all of the points of articulation on a 'Mech, why should they be less vulnerable than a tank? They should be more so because of all the weak spots a the joints. Any armorer will tell you that you cannot completely armor a joint and have it still flex. A tank has only 3 "joints", the hull/turret joint, and the tracks. A humanoid 'Mech has at most 14 points of weakness ( head/neck, shoulders, elbows, wrists, waist, hips, knees, ankles ). From an engineering standpoint, 'Mechs should be much more vulnerable than a tank.

World of Tanks is not a real simulator, neither are the mechwarrior games. It is vastly more harder to hit a moving target in real life at range with any weapon. So all your talk about articulation is empty.

[Menkare]

BA Dillard, on 10 July 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

That is what makes RPG's and the like popular with terrorists. You can train an infant to use one. And they can kill an unwary tank.
They make excellent guerilla warfare weapons. I 100% agree. The AT-4 is a sweet weapon, I have trained with it.

The Gulf war was as close as we have come to a true conventual war since WW2. This abomination we are in now is worse than vienam.
We could have ended this years ago. Unfortunately our motives for continuing this idiocy is suspect.

As far as RPGs are concerned, in a true conventional war, it is the infantry's job to root them out and kill them.
RPGs have been around since the early 1900's, in one form or another, the Panzerfaust is a good example. But an RPG has never won a war, but can be used to good effect as a harassment, and weapon of terrorist organizations.

Personal note, I had 2 RPG rounds bounce off my tanks frontal armor, and one hit my turret. It blew off our bussle rack, but that was about it. Scratch one RPG team and thier silly BMP.

As an addendum to this: There is no record of an Abrams EVER being knocked out in combat by an infantry AT weapon. IEDs, yes, but it takes the equivalent of a 2000-lb bomb going off right under a track to do so.

[Vincent Hall]

The reason THIS SPECIFIC tank was made with that much money and such was because it was after (or during) a point in time when a guy named Devlin Stone was going around demilitarizing all the factions for the purpose of supporting an era of peace during the creation of the Republic of the Sphere. This demilitarization focused almost entirely on Mechs, so these guys made a big as **** tank to replace some of the heavier mechs that were being removed. (In the Dark Age books tanks are used a LOT due to this)

[Menkare]

Kami3k, on 10 July 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

World of Tanks is not a real simulator, neither are the mechwarrior games. It is vastly more harder to hit a moving target in real life at range with any weapon. So all your talk about articulation is empty.

You obviously missed the point of that post in it's entirety.

I never mentioned WoT. That game is so whacked as to be laughable. BTW: I have no problem hitting moving targets in WoT.

If you read the post I quoted, you will see that the point I was trying to make was that tanks in BattleTech are at a disadvantage to 'Mechs only because FASA wanted it to be that way. They wrote the rules in such a manner as to give the advantage to the BattleMech, and make AFVs hold a secondary role.

Also, since a 'Mech has more joints, it should be subject to more actuator damage in general. Why? You said it yourself: the trouble hitting a moving target. It's not hard, but you will have a difficult time picking what part of the target you hit. With more joints, you should have a greater chance of hitting a weak spot out of just pure luck because there are more weak points to hit.

Edited by Menkare, 10 July 2012 - 09:46 AM.

[Kalenn]

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

It's not about equipment. It's about [an untrained civilian] in the place of driver, gunner, etc
...

Seriously? How about saying this in a way that doesn't sound horribly bigoted. No place for comments like that here.