35 replies to this topic

[Snowbluff]

Food for thought. When we talk about mechs I feel like we speak more in terms of things than aircraft would have rather than a tank.

1) Bitching Betty: seems more ubiquitous with aircraft than land vehicles

2) Lasers: Recent developments make this seem more like an aircraft or naval weapon.

3) Hardpoints (and modularity): Tanks don't seem to have 8+ weapons tacked on. For the most part, it seems like main gun goes on turret is the most common. Aircraft, on the other hand, use a lot more points on to carry weapon, and in the case of 4th gen aircraft, sensor equipment and ECM.

4) Cooling: More recent fighters are needing this with their powerful radars and computing abilities.

5) Radars: Speaking of radars, using radar as a primary sensor. While mechs have FLIR, radar is more commonly used. Fighters have radar primarily, with IRST as a secondary option. With tanks it seems like it's the other way around, if they have radar at all.

6) Helmet HUD: Very much a modern aircraft trait.

7) Windows: These are a silly thing for a tank to have.

8) Autocannons: Battlemech autocannons are almost described as firing in bursts or automatically rather than in slugs, much like an aircraft gatling gun.

9) Single seat: Modern fighters move towards fewer seatings for efficiency, which is easy with newer control and sensor settings. Tanks, on the other hand, it is preferred and ever considered good for moral to have a decently sized crew.

10) Engines: Thrust to Weight is Engine Rating to Mass!

Of course, the counterargument would be torso twisting and be ground based... for some mechs.

Edited by Snowbluff, 13 July 2016 - 08:14 AM.

[Lily from animove]

well a aircraft is more complex to control than a tank. A mech also is way ahrder to control, thats why a mech and its controls with the HUD and stuff is also more like an airplane.

Also not all emchs have plenty of wepaons soem just one, and there are also a lot of tanks with secondary weapons, like machine guns.

So you really simplified the tnak vs airplane comparison a bit too much.

[Hit the Deck]

I think they are more like ships because.... Gauss Rifles and fusion engines!

[Malcolm Vordermark]

A lot of the characteristics you looked at are not what I would use to define tanks or fighters.

It does seem like a combination of the two, though. Movement is more like a tank, but much of the cockpit, pilot, and the way it is controlled reminds me of aircraft.

Edited by Rouken Vordermark, 13 July 2016 - 08:13 AM.

[Johnny Z]

I have to agree Mechs in this sci-fi universe are more like air craft. Excellent point. Also the combat can be very similar to old school naval combat as well, which is where the so called "nascar" term comes from.

Maybe air combat was similar to naval combat before? I wouldn't know.

Edited by Johnny Z, 13 July 2016 - 08:04 AM.

[GreyNovember]

Also, consider mechs have one pilot.

Unless I'm sorely mistaken, a tank isn't combat ready with one guy.

[Snowbluff]

Good point, I forgot to add that. Larger crews are considered better for tank moral, which is one of the reasons why the US Armed Forces have been slow to incorporate an autoloader.

Lily from animove, on 13 July 2016 - 07:58 AM, said:

So you really simplified the tnak vs airplane comparison a bit too much.

In what way is this too simple? Am I supposed to going into the odd choice of layout and apparent lack sensibly designed tank armor in terms of composition and layout?

Edited by Snowbluff, 13 July 2016 - 08:08 AM.

[Johnny Z]

In fact the MechWarrior Online cockpit designers/artists even say they use pictures of aircraft cockpits as inspiration.

Edited by Johnny Z, 13 July 2016 - 08:09 AM.

[Nightshade24]

Snowbluff, on 13 July 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

Food for thought. When we talk about mechs I feel like we speak more in terms of things than aircraft would have rather than a tank.

1) Bitching Betty: seems more ubiquitous with aircraft than land vehicles

2) Lasers: Recent developments make this seem more like an aircraft or naval weapon.

3) Hardpoints (and modularity): Tanks don't seem to have 8+ weapons tacked on. For the most part, it seems like main gun goes on turret is the most common. Aircraft, on the other hand, use a lot more points on to carry weapon, and in the case of 4th gen aircraft, sensor equipment and ECM.

4) Cooling: More recent fighters are needing this with their powerful radars and computing abilities.

5) Radars: Speaking of radars, using radar as a primary sensor. While mechs have FLIR, radar is more commonly used. Fighters have radar primarily, with IRST as a secondary option. With tanks it seems like it's the other way around, if they have radar at all.

6) Helmet HUD: Very much a modern aircraft trait.

7) Windows: These are a silly thing for a tank to have.

8) Autocannons: Battlemech autocannons are almost described as firing in bursts or automatically rather than in slugs, much like an aircraft gatling gun.

Of course, the counterargument would be torso twisting and be ground based... for some mechs.

1) well, seem about right.

2) Well there is quite a few land vehicles attempting to mount lasers, most lasers these days are land based turrets and stuff anyway, with a few being naval and only 1 plane at the momment actively using lasers only for defense.
So far most technologies seem to want to use lasers offensively on the ground. On top of that but there is already a completing stages of anti missile/ anti bullet lasers on tanks which some fear will kill the purpose of a tank in general as well when anti bullet/ missile lasers come into play for defence armour means nothing. Future of warfare may be a lot more armoured cars/ halftracks then tanks IRL.

also not all mechs have lasers... look at the Catapult A1, The Ebon Jaguar C, etc.

3) In canon mechs can't easily replace weapons out as they are not modular, but under the idea of omnimechs and over simplifying gameplay and stuff I will pretend it's something as modular as easy to do in a month.
Tanks quite often have modular components in real life however most are dying out.
This is like adding Pintle/ AA machine guns atop of a tank. Or adding unguided rockets to the side, maybe guided missiles.

Let's use the Sherman tank from WWII for eg...

Sherman


Sherman DD (duplex drive, made these amphibious)


Sherman Firefly Tulip (has a 17pdr gun instead of a 75mm, has RP-3 rockets strapped to the side of the turret, has a pintle machine gun on top)


Sherman bulldozer


Sherman Crab


List keeps going.

This tank is more versatile / "modular' then mechs are... and in relation planes got nothing on this... what? instead of carring this type of bomb you got another? maybe a bigger one or lots of small ones?

4) Recent ships, tanks, etc also need cooling for their weapons and stuff *** well. Especially those ground vehicles using things akin to a rotary canon/ gattling gun/ etc.

5) well in BT everything has sensors and stuff, even the battlearmour and infantry (but more limited), however I can't argue here more then simply saying in BT everything has it.

6) Also much like prototype tanks coming in which also allow the helmet to basically turn the tank invisible by rendering the outside with camera links for superior visibility and such.

7) Can't argue here.

8) I remember reading up on battletech cannons and how they perform nearly identical to quite a lot of naval guns.


I picture 'Mechs to be not really similar to either tanks or planes. I sort of accept them as something unique. I say they are more similar to that of infantry, minus the versitile-ness to an infantry of course but to a tank or plane, a Mech can get more jobs done. Hard to get a tank through swamps and floodlands while getting a plane to do something say secure a location on the ground.

[Snowbluff]

Johnny Z, on 13 July 2016 - 08:09 AM, said:

In fact the MechWarrior Online cockpit designers/artists even say they use pictures of aircraft cockpits as inspiration.

A bunch of mechs are designed after aircraft, with other being based on anime designed designed to turn into aircraft!

What is it about aircraft that captures the imagination so?

[Hit the Deck]

They actually combined the good characteristics of all modern warmachines to create super dangerous weapons of destruction which "incidentally" resemble a human being. They will tell you the reasoning behind the design is for moving over rough terrain

[Koniving]

GreyNovember, on 13 July 2016 - 08:03 AM, said:

Also, consider mechs have one pilot.

Unless I'm sorely mistaken, a tank isn't combat ready with one guy.

Some tanks in Battletech do use one guy but usually 2 to 6. Even then only one guy drives.

Side note: Mechs have up to two pilots, both of whom can drive and gun. Usually one takes over if the other can't. Though not canon that I know of, you can make a mech have up to a maximum of four "pilots", a DC unit with secondary seat plus Command Chair and Rumble Seat. Rumble Seat guy only has access to an emergency shutoff, though. (It might be a limit of three).

On a side note the Timber Wolf can haul 6 elementals. I like think of them as turrets.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I think of mechs as a hybrid of tank and aircraft (especially chicken-walkers). They borrow a lot from both tanks and aircraft when it comes to design, movement, artistic license, etc...)

[Snowbluff]

Good stuff!

Nightshade24, on 13 July 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

6) Also much like prototype tanks coming in which also allow the helmet to basically turn the tank invisible by rendering the outside with camera links for superior visibility and such.

Hey! They stole that from existing aircraft. .>.

Keep in mind that aircraft will carry decoys, a variety of different types of seekers (like ARM), and other equipment.

Koniving, on 13 July 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

On a side note the Timber Wolf can haul 6 elementals. I like think of them as turrets.

Some even can carry drones. Talk about carrying those elementals on your Twolf, right?

Quote

8) I remember reading up on battletech cannons and how they perform nearly identical to quite a lot of naval guns.

It seems to change a lot, really.

Edited by Snowbluff, 13 July 2016 - 08:19 AM.

[Metus regem]

Snowbluff, on 13 July 2016 - 08:13 AM, said:

A bunch of mechs are designed after aircraft, with other being based on anime designed designed to turn into aircraft!

What is it about aircraft that captures the imagination so?

Freedom.

It is very freeing to fly something, I know it's why I flew, even as restrictive as flying for the Army can be, but during that time when you are in control of the aircraft it gives a sense of freedom that nothing else can match.

[Snowbluff]

Metus regem, on 13 July 2016 - 08:18 AM, said:

Freedom.

It is very freeing to fly something, I know it's why I flew, even as restrictive as flying for the Army can be, but during that time when you are in control of the aircraft it gives a sense of freedom that nothing else can match.

I like that answer.

Also, obligatory eagle.

[Metus regem]

Snowbluff, on 13 July 2016 - 08:21 AM, said:

I like that answer.

Also, obligatory eagle.

This is more my style...




Frack those people that thought the Beaver should be the national animal... Polar Bear all the way.

[Johnny Z]

Snowbluff, on 13 July 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

Good point, I forgot to add that. Larger crews are considered better for tank moral, which is one of the reasons why the US Armed Forces have been slow to incorporate an autoloader.

In what way is this too simple? Am I supposed to going into the odd choice of layout and apparent lack sensibly designed tank armor in terms of composition and layout?

Auto loader.



With proximity ammo this can shoot down anything.

Edited by Johnny Z, 13 July 2016 - 08:30 AM.

[Snowbluff]

Metus regem, on 13 July 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:

This is more my style...

Yeah!
North America!

Quote

Frack those people that thought the Beaver should be the national animal... Polar Bear all the way.

Yeah, what the heck?

Johnny Z, on 13 July 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

Auto loader.
*clip of naval autoloader*

Tank autoloader! Saying Army would have been wrong, because the Marines use tanks, too.

Edited by Snowbluff, 13 July 2016 - 08:32 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Snowbluff, on 13 July 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

Good point, I forgot to add that. Larger crews are considered better for tank moral, which is one of the reasons why the US Armed Forces have been slow to incorporate an autoloader.

In what way is this too simple? Am I supposed to going into the odd choice of layout and apparent lack sensibly designed tank armor in terms of composition and layout?

in a lot of things at all. you were tlakign about 8+ wepaons, yet most IS mechs don't even have 8+ wepepons either. nor tdo all airplanes have laods of wepaons, nor do tanks have one.

Further mechs have armor similar to tanks. Ablative armor, or however that is correctly written. So that won't be something you will find on airplanes.

and 7 8 9 and 10 are also just rather taken, mechs have windows, tnaks have also areas to look through. an airplane may have windows yet most pilots in a jetplane won't use the windows to fly. They fly by instruments mostly.

AC's are like gatlings? well its more UAC's ar elike gatlings and AC's more like regular cannons or big machine guns. so there is both of them, not just the "airplane" variant.

9, aircrafts cna have multiple seats as well, and mechs too. so this is also just not true.

10. engines thrust to weight? thrust this term isn't even used in MWO/BT iiRC and engien power to weight always had soemthign to do with performance, thats not airplane exclusive.
so that is a rating at all
"Fusion engines, like other engines, are defined by their "engine rating". For 'Mechs, the engine rating is the mathematical product of the mass of the vehicle and its desired maximum walking or cruising velocity."


In the end mechs aren't more like tanks or aircrafts, they are mechs, especially when you include the lore of how they are able to climb, crawl, kick and punch and use stuff (if they have hands) it gets obvious that they are none of both and indeed a very own thing. The mechwarrior game series just never had these features as controlling this would probably be too unfeasable to control.
Maybe in 20 years when we get such helmets in RL we can control mechs in games as the lore descripes.

Johnny Z, on 13 July 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

Auto loader.



With proximity ammo this can shoot down anything.

now thats an autocannon right there

Edited by Lily from animove, 13 July 2016 - 08:34 AM.