88 replies to this topic

[Smiffy]

tanks are cheaper. its like asking why the imperium of man even bothers with the imperial gaurd...they are cheaper to make annnnnnd most of the tech to make spacemarines has been lost.

[Wonderful Greg]

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

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.

That's because this invasion has nothing to to do with helping people, bringing democracy, protecting your america and bullshit like that. Every single conflict for the past god know how many years is about money/oil/geopolitical influence etc. All of them. Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Chechnya, Libya, soon to follow Iran, etc.

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

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.

That's because there was no significant scale conflict since probably WW2. AT weaponry has changed a lot since. Especially in the past decade. And now, I'm not talking about hand held only. Missiles, artillery etc. They are all exceed modern tanks. Tanks time has passed.

[Menkare]

Kalenn, on 10 July 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

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

I think he's making a comparison between the relative skill levels of a 'Mech pilot and a tank crewman. I don't think any insult was intended.

Edited by Menkare, 10 July 2012 - 09:59 AM.

[Kalenn]

Menkare, on 10 July 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

I think he's making a comparison between the relative skill levels between a 'Mech pilot and a tank crewman. I don't think any insult was intended.

I'm a boring white guy from Canada so not sensitive in the sense of a direct insult, but saying "some random Ahmed" seems to me to be the kind of casually inconsiderate comment that gets tossed around on web forums way too often. Why not just say it like you said it??

Seriously, you're defending that?

[Atlai]

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.

While i do agree with you on the points, mechs carry much greater armor then tanks and more weapons, making them better.

[BA Dillard]

Menkare, on 10 July 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

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.

Exactly.

The only Tanks we lost were mostly due to friendly fire or mines. My unit almost killed a British chopper by mistake!
Team kills in real life, very bad indeed.
They continue to happen to this day. It sucks, but is a part of war.

[Aesaar]

Kami3k, on 10 July 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

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.

Don't bring real life into this discussion. Mechs will lose.

[NUK3]

Just imagine the cost of the special fibre* those 'Mechs use for moving. I think a tank's drive is a lot cheaper.

Also: If you lose one 'Mech, you a great amount of firepower. If you use a tank.. b*tch please, there are still many others left With tanks you can distribute your firepower over a large area. A 'Mechs firepower ist conentrated to one specific location.

(*If I remember correctly then BattleMechs don't use regular motors for in their joints but special fibres which contract when under high voltage.)

Edited by NUK3, 10 July 2012 - 10:36 AM.

[Kaelin]

per tonnage, tanks are capable of carrying more armour, and while they have fewer 'locations' they do have higher ratio of tonnage for weapons/eqiupment (for the most part)

[Pleasant Wayne]

Wonderful Greg, on 10 July 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

That's because this invasion has nothing to to do with helping people, bringing democracy, protecting your america and bullshit like that. Every single conflict for the past god know how many years is about money/oil/geopolitical influence etc. All of them. Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Chechnya, Libya, soon to follow Iran, etc.



That's because there was no significant scale conflict since probably WW2. AT weaponry has changed a lot since. Especially in the past decade. And now, I'm not talking about hand held only. Missiles, artillery etc. They are all exceed modern tanks. Tanks time has passed.

You sound like an american stole your sweetroll. While certain actions have been questionable; as a whole, the US has taken many of its recent steps in an attempt to defend its own sovereignty, or at the bequest of the international community. While I will admit, it has stepped on the sovereignty of countries in its efforts, some of them barely recognized the subject and have been led by tribal hardmen. Also, precisely which military academy did you attend? You seem to claim knowledge on military subjects, so you must have had some education beyond what you have heard from whatever one-way internet source you frequent most. Tanks will continue to have a role. They claimed that aerial dogfighting would never occur again once, so military forces began mounting only air to air missiles. Guess what? They rapidly discovered that any fighter mounting guns did far better than those without. Just because a group thinks it, doesn't mean it is so.

[Kami3k]

Menkare, on 10 July 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

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.

Except, you'll have a hard time just HITTING it.

And unlike a tank, a mech can surivie a hit. A tank? Something critcal was just destroyed.

Aesaar, on 10 July 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

Don't bring real life into this discussion. Mechs will lose.

If you say so cluelss.

[BigJim]

Wonderful Greg, on 10 July 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

~ Serbia ~

Tell that to Paddy Ashdown, ex SAS soldier (so hardly a soft touch) who to this day still cries when being interviewed about what he saw in that semi-war when he was the UN high-rep and how guilty he feels that the UK didn't get involved way, way sooner, and didn't just go in unilaterally - The exact same way he criticises the current conflicts which were arguably not for entirely honourable reasons.

Please, don't mistake this for me trying to goad you or anything, and you can say what you want about the current sand fights, but that one was all good, other than the fact it was way later than it should have been.

Edited by BigJim, 10 July 2012 - 11:48 AM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Bottom line... people use battlemechs because that's the genre.

Rules-wise, tanks are cheap and easy to produce, but they leak critical hits like nobody's business. Especially hovercraft. A couple salvos of SRM fire on a heavily armed tank will often leave it disabled on the field due to movement restrictions even if it has no breached armor locations.

Mechs are just the better war machine because they're harder to crit, are better (in general) at all-terrain ops (including airless moons!), and can pick up and carry things. But they're also bloody expensive.

So yeah, I believe in the use of everything except a "scout mech". Tell me why a satellite or a unit of 10 ton helicopters couldn't do that job more cheaply.

Answer... because it's battletech and mechs are cool.

Edited by ScrapIron Prime, 10 July 2012 - 12:29 PM.

[Wonderful Greg]

Pleasant Wayne, on 10 July 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

as a whole, the US has taken many of its recent steps in an attempt to defend its own sovereignty, or at the bequest of the international community

Defend sovereignty? From who? Canadians plan to invade US soil or maybe Finland? "Terrorists"?
95% of this terrorist crap is controlled by governments. US, Britain, Russia...
It's all about money and power. The sooner people will realize that, the sooner it all goes away. Both soldiers and "gurillas" are nothing but tools and pawns in power play.
But enough of this. We're gone too far off topic.

[E_Crow]

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

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.

because, It is a tank that doesn't require a very specialized crew (as noted earlier)
It is more easily transported, is a smaller target than a battle mech,
and, quite frankly people tend to gang up on an Atlas.
I is also much easier to mass produce and repair.
Do you realize how many man-hours go into repairing an Atlas versus a Behemoth II?
(if I am incorrect about this please say so)
And it has 10.5 tons of Ferro-Fibrous armor, more than just about any other tank
(agian, correct me if I'm wrong)
The only tank I know of that has more armour is the Mars Assualt Vehicle, and it only moves
32 km/h versus the Behemoth II's 50.

[BA Dillard]

Wonderful Greg, on 10 July 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Defend sovereignty? From who? Canadians plan to invade US soil or maybe Finland? "Terrorists"?
95% of this terrorist crap is controlled by governments. US, Britain, Russia...
It's all about money and power. The sooner people will realize that, the sooner it all goes away. Both soldiers and "gurillas" are nothing but tools and pawns in power play.
But enough of this. We're gone too far off topic.

The Alliance, led by US, British and German forces, kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, at their request along with blessings from S.A.
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are our allies. We protect out allies.

Protecting our allies from Tyranny and Terrorism is our sworn duty.

And in protecting them we protect our own freedom and Soverenty.

You can cry about greed and "all we want is the oil", what a load of crap, all you want.

War has always been about resources, gaining territory, ethnic differences and religion.

But, hey. Let's just all come on home. Leave 'em alone, and let Russia, China and N. Korea have 'em.
I'm sure they can put the oil and the Arab people to good use.

And with that, I say good day sir.

[Yankee77]

Contrary to what some believe, tanks continue to play an extremely vital role in conventional warfare. The basic principles of maneuver warfare remains just as valid as they were in Guderian and De Gaulle's time, and the tank is the prime unit in such a scenario. Highly mobile armoured direct-fire artillery is just extremely useful.

Sure, tanks die easy, that's what anti-tank weapons do. It was the same in WWII, and just as tank-killing weapon evolved, so has tank defense. And regardless, maneuver warfare doctrine NEVER (ever) considered tanks to be invincible machines of death that would roll wihtout stop across enemy lines. They're just one vital part of combined arms, and anyone in conventional warfare caught without tanks will be at a severe disadvantage (just like if they didn't have an air force, or artillery, or what have you).

On the contrary, in fact, tanks have proven themselves useful in scenario people DIDN'T think they were useful anymore: COIN and asymmetrical warfare. They proved their worth in Iraq, where they were used in environments nobody would dare in a conventional conflict. Canada and Denmark made excellent use of tanks in Afghanistan in fact, a theatre in which few thought they'd be useful.

So, no, tanks aren't obsolete. There's just a very wide gap between public perception of armoured units amongst civilians, and what they're actually used for in military doctrine. The advent of greater tank-killing weapons and platform out there does not alter their usefulness and necessity, but rather reflect the greater lethality of the modern battlefield. Heck, in the cold war Fulda Gap scenario, the average tank's lifespan in combat was calculated as under a minute. That did not make tanks obsolete, and of course tanks themselves improved in lethality as well (not only in weapons, but in sensors and situational awareness... remember: if a tank can see it, it can kill it).

That said, I'll take mechs, thank you. I don't know WHY they're better than tanks, truth be told, aside from the rules being designed for it. I'd wager it is related to their far higher mobility and maneuverability, their ability to move as a human does (due to the neurohelmet interface)... which is something that translates poorly into computer games, where Mechs are basically plodding tanks on legs. Maybe myomer and reactor technology simply is more powerful and efficient, able to carry more and better distributed and protected loads, and is only really workable on a skeletal structure... coupled with neurohelmet technology, that might explain why mechs are the be-all and end-all of military tech.

Thank you.

Itkovian

[Skadi]

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Rattler
can that be considered a tank?

[Nebfer]

As many have said in B-tech Tanks are still made because...
1: They perform roles mechs do not do, like personnel carriers for infantry
2: their cheaper to make, even with XL fusions a Tank will be cheaper than a mech with the same armament (them mech might have more tonnage left over though)
3: Their quicker to build, you can make a lot more tanks than mechs in the same amount of time, their also easier as well, a world might not have the right tech level to build a proper battlemech but it might have the ability to assemble a B-tech quality tank.
4: It's easier to train tank crews than mech pilots
5: A well built tank or in numbers can give a mech unit pause. A lance of Alacorns can give a Heavy mech lance a run for it's money, the same lance could stand toe to toe with some assault lances. No battlemech in a dark alleyway would want to face a SRM carrier...
Some minor advantages a B-tech tank has over a mech
1: More armor per ton, a 100 ton battlemech can carry a maximum of 19.5 tons of standard armor, the same sized Tank can carry 5 tons more. Also due to the fewer locations (and less restrictions over all) on a tank these can be thicker than on a mech.
2: Tanks can handle heavier and larger weapons better than Mechs can (on the other hand they handle smaller weapons less efficiently)
3: They never have to worry about over heating, so it can fire thoughs 3x PPCs all day and not worry about heat, unlike many mechs, though their limited to single heat sinks due to unknown limitations.
4: Due to the fact that many tanks have more than one crewmen they can engage more than one target at a time if they wanted to.
5: Tanks can go faster on roads than mechs can (Tracked, Hover and Wheeled vehicles all gain a +1 MP when they spend their turn on a road)
Now tanks are much easier to disable than mechs and have some terrain restrictions depending on the type and other down sides...
--------------------------------------------
Their seems to be a side debate on Mechs vs Real life...
This has two ways of viewing it
1: We build a mech in real life: here we are building to real life specs and rules (even if it's made to match the specs of what ever we are basing it of off) as such it's going to be noticeably inferior to a Tank notability along the lines of Armor protection and complexity, With armor protection it has a lot more area to protect resulting for a equal weight of less armor covering any given area. And Complexity Well a mech has lot of moving parts, more so than a Tank, this is particularly true of we give it arms and hands... This results in more cost and more parts to brake and so less reliable...
2: The two fight on equal terms, the battlemech behaves as we expect it to as dose the real life Tank.
In this fight The Battlemech is simply the better machine, it's more agile and mobile than a Tank (though not inherently faster), it's also better protected (I believe partly why a B-tech Tank has so many crit chances is due to the fact that it's less agile than a mech - A tank can not simply bend over backwards to avoid a salvo of missiles now can it?). Reliability is also not as bad as it would seem, while a mech requires more man hours it's less than twice that of a equal sized tank.
In a actual fight a medium/heavy lance mechs vs a Platoon of real life Western MBTs, the real ife tanks are going to have at best an uphill battle...
Here's some pointers
1 Heavy Gauss Rifle fires a hypersonic (~1,700m/s) slug which mass's some 250kg (or in imperial some 5,600 feet per second and a projectile that weighs in at some 550 pounds), Many assault mechs can survive more than two of these rounds (with armor thats at best only an inch thick). Standard Gauss rifles are also noted as firing Hypersonic slugs.
2 The B-tech weapon known as the "light " Rifle cannon, could be classed as the weapon that represents current real world Tank guns, this weapons effectively dose Zero damage to mech armor (though one could use the medium I suppose but that might be pushing it a bit)...
3 B-tech Autocannons fire faster projectiles and at much higher rates of fire.
4 Some sources indicate that B-tech uses massive amounts of ECM to make it harder for them to be detected and targeted at longer ranges
5 Some of these sources also indicate mobility plays a part, as dose the strength of the armor
6 Energy weapons are a weapon system they have not been made to deal with, and that B-tech lasers make real ones look like toys.
===============================
Edit: In regards to the Behemoth II vs Atlas 7D
To note is yes the Behemoth is some twice as expensive, but also note that the Behemoth is a top of the line post 3090 tank while the Atlas in question dates to Star league era.
Compared to the Atlas the Behemoth has longer range and firepower (The atlas 7Ds only armament that can reach past nine hexes is it's single LRM-20, which the Behemoth has two of, and the ER Large laser and the Gauss Rifle, damage wise it's 20 vs 63 damage, closer in the Atlas can dish out 42 damage to the Behemoths 39...), while the Atlas has some what better armor.

Edited by Nebfer, 10 July 2012 - 01:51 PM.

[BA Dillard]

Skadi, on 10 July 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Rattler
can that be considered a tank?

I think that might be in a catagory all its own.