So If We were able financially and industrially to produce Mechs , Will Strong nations at that time will ? I mean aside from the huge size of the mech we can still create a huge tank , S o what does the shape of a robot with legs , body and hands give against An Heavily armored Tanks with a turret on it ?
2
Tanks Vs Mech
Started by The Trice, Dec 03 2012 05:45 AM
14 replies to this topic
#2
-
-
- 8,163 posts
Member
Posted 03 December 2012 - 05:59 AM
If they'd make some, they will be infantry support vehicles. They will help patroling dangerous areas. The will help in search and rescue situations, provided they have the ability to manipulate objects on a finer scale then heavy machinery. They will be adapted for the use of police duties.
There is no advantage over a tank on the open battlefield. It is less stable as a weapons platform. It has a bigger target profile (if it is as big as the, mostly flat to the ground, tank). Because of it's higher weight per centimeter2 in comparison to a tank, it will not be able to fight in some tarrain, a tank could easily traverse.
There is no advantage over a tank on the open battlefield. It is less stable as a weapons platform. It has a bigger target profile (if it is as big as the, mostly flat to the ground, tank). Because of it's higher weight per centimeter2 in comparison to a tank, it will not be able to fight in some tarrain, a tank could easily traverse.
#3
-
-
- Giant Helper
- 1,324 posts
Member
- LocationLV-223
Posted 03 December 2012 - 06:04 AM
Mechs would get obliterated by Mavericks fired from A-10s, not to mention the 30mm...
The only reason that this doesn't happen in BT, is ECM, and not just the GECM...
The only reason that this doesn't happen in BT, is ECM, and not just the GECM...
Edited by XenomorphZZ, 03 December 2012 - 06:05 AM.
#4
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 1
- 1,041 posts
Member
Posted 03 December 2012 - 06:43 AM
Egomane, on 03 December 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:
If they'd make some, they will be infantry support vehicles. They will help patroling dangerous areas. The will help in search and rescue situations, provided they have the ability to manipulate objects on a finer scale then heavy machinery. They will be adapted for the use of police duties.
There is no advantage over a tank on the open battlefield. It is less stable as a weapons platform. It has a bigger target profile (if it is as big as the, mostly flat to the ground, tank). Because of it's higher weight per centimeter2 in comparison to a tank, it will not be able to fight in some tarrain, a tank could easily traverse.
There is no advantage over a tank on the open battlefield. It is less stable as a weapons platform. It has a bigger target profile (if it is as big as the, mostly flat to the ground, tank). Because of it's higher weight per centimeter2 in comparison to a tank, it will not be able to fight in some tarrain, a tank could easily traverse.
in other words,less like gundam and more like Patlabor.
Edited by Fabe, 03 December 2012 - 06:44 AM.
#5
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 4,525 posts
Member
- Locationsomewhere near a bucket of water and the gates of hell.
Posted 03 December 2012 - 06:53 AM
xenomorph, I think the 30 mm Gatling on the A-10 would be roughly equivalent to an ac/2. the armor in BT is better than what we have now. tanks today are far more likely to be one shotted than battlemechs in BT lore are (name a tank where it can have an entire half the tank blown off and still function). tanks make much more sense when you are incapable of surviving a shot. because usually whoever fires off the first round wins and due to their low profile they are much harder to hit. (not always but you get my point) this is not saying that mechs would be necessarily better if this is not the case, but it must be taken into account.
as for maneuverability mechs do have tanks beat. humanoid mechs in particular can get through much rougher terrain than tanks can easily because they can climb to a limited degree, as well as have a smaller turning radius (lets face it a tank is horizontally huge, mechs are not). as for firepower, both could theoretically mount numerous weapons, however here is where a mech has a tank beat hands down. in order for a mech to mount numerous weapons, they will usually have to be spread all over the arms and body (and for the crusader the legs). this allows for you to aim at multiple targets, which would require a tank to have guided rockets or a half dozen turrets mounted on top of each other otherwise you would only be able to shoot one thing at a time, and woe is you if your turret gets stuck, as well as more easily target things you are not directly pointed at as arms would probably move faster than a tanks turret, not much but some.
The two major disadvantages a mech would have are greater than its potential advantages. one is the fact that its center of gravity is much higher than a tank's, making much more likely to fall over. the other is that it is a big-a** target. unless it is a ninja mech, you really can't miss it. these 2 things alone will probably keep it off the battlefield.
as for maneuverability mechs do have tanks beat. humanoid mechs in particular can get through much rougher terrain than tanks can easily because they can climb to a limited degree, as well as have a smaller turning radius (lets face it a tank is horizontally huge, mechs are not). as for firepower, both could theoretically mount numerous weapons, however here is where a mech has a tank beat hands down. in order for a mech to mount numerous weapons, they will usually have to be spread all over the arms and body (and for the crusader the legs). this allows for you to aim at multiple targets, which would require a tank to have guided rockets or a half dozen turrets mounted on top of each other otherwise you would only be able to shoot one thing at a time, and woe is you if your turret gets stuck, as well as more easily target things you are not directly pointed at as arms would probably move faster than a tanks turret, not much but some.
The two major disadvantages a mech would have are greater than its potential advantages. one is the fact that its center of gravity is much higher than a tank's, making much more likely to fall over. the other is that it is a big-a** target. unless it is a ninja mech, you really can't miss it. these 2 things alone will probably keep it off the battlefield.
Edited by dal10, 03 December 2012 - 06:54 AM.
#6
-
-
- 202 posts
Member
- LocationPhilippines
Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:39 AM
above a certain size, the structure and particularly the leg joints start to require materials that exceed the strength of real life materials, double that for mechs that run and jump. Real life joints that have to handle similar stresses cheat by using a large diameter, like tank and battleship turrets. They spread the forces over a larger surface area so you dont get ball bearings that are ground into powder
a mech has a big disadvantage of bigger frontal surface area, and surface area in general. That means for a given weight, a mech would have thinner armor than a tank, so a mech would be more survivable
above a certain size you start to sink into soil unless your feet are over large
a mech has sooo many more parts than a tank and the more moving parts the more chance of failure
a mech has a big disadvantage of bigger frontal surface area, and surface area in general. That means for a given weight, a mech would have thinner armor than a tank, so a mech would be more survivable
above a certain size you start to sink into soil unless your feet are over large
a mech has sooo many more parts than a tank and the more moving parts the more chance of failure
Edited by RFMarine, 03 December 2012 - 07:40 AM.
#7
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 1,148 posts
Member
Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:57 PM
In TT there are some massive tanks, and apparently they do very well versus mechs.
#8
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 6 posts
Rookie
Posted 07 May 2016 - 02:03 AM
While i would love to see mechs actually get constructed they wouldnt really be very combat effective. Sure they have maneuverability over a tank but they would also be easier to knock out. Realistically you would only have to take out 1 leg to make it immobile and such a massive target sitting still will not be a target for much longer.
Other than this fact they would most likely be much, much more expensive than a tank to produce. A tank is in some ways just an upscaled car with a turret on top, its relatively easy to convert factories to produce tanks as opposed to mechs. A mech also contains several autoloaders if it is ballistic based or several laser/missile bays. Tanks only require 1 autoloader/loader to function at full capacity, many can even fire missiles from the barrel or a designated launcher tube.
I also dont think 1 man operating a mech would be as effective as several in a tank. Theres a reason tanks arent crewed by 1 man, theres simply too much to focus on for 1 person to hold full responsibility and remain effective.
In summary mechs are too easy to kill, too expensive to make, and ineffective with only 1 pilot. I foresee tanks remaining the dominant ground force at least for the remainder of my lifetime.
Other than this fact they would most likely be much, much more expensive than a tank to produce. A tank is in some ways just an upscaled car with a turret on top, its relatively easy to convert factories to produce tanks as opposed to mechs. A mech also contains several autoloaders if it is ballistic based or several laser/missile bays. Tanks only require 1 autoloader/loader to function at full capacity, many can even fire missiles from the barrel or a designated launcher tube.
I also dont think 1 man operating a mech would be as effective as several in a tank. Theres a reason tanks arent crewed by 1 man, theres simply too much to focus on for 1 person to hold full responsibility and remain effective.
In summary mechs are too easy to kill, too expensive to make, and ineffective with only 1 pilot. I foresee tanks remaining the dominant ground force at least for the remainder of my lifetime.
#9
-
-
- Bad Company
- 1,273 posts
Member
Posted 07 May 2016 - 07:03 AM
Yeah, most of those are true, except for rear support and construction big targets are a big no no on the battlefield , even now the military is trying out ways to make weapon platforms smaller and faster, more maneuverable , to dodge incoming fire rather than be able to take it and be partly functional.
In TT BT tanks of similar weight to mech are weaker then mechs because once armor is striped from a side and internals are exposed one more shot and the tank is dead as it basically has no internals that it can sacrifice, it only has the main internal space where the crew is and they are just squishy people so any damage there and it's done, so a tank is just an armored chestnut that once pierced from any side is done, while mechs have many parts that they can keep working without, hell even both legs can be sacrificed at witch point the mech goes in a sit down on it's *** position and acts as a turret.
In reality we can focus fire and hitting something so big is almost guarantied , and we wouldn't spread damage with a dice roll , we'd hit the center mass most of the time so there just is no real advantage to battle mechs , but a patlabor kinda mech used for army construction, ( bunkers , blockades and bridges ) could kinda make sense , though I'd think more like the ones that have tracks or wheels like a bigger Battle bot that is being made in the US to battle the Japanese Kuritas.
In TT BT tanks of similar weight to mech are weaker then mechs because once armor is striped from a side and internals are exposed one more shot and the tank is dead as it basically has no internals that it can sacrifice, it only has the main internal space where the crew is and they are just squishy people so any damage there and it's done, so a tank is just an armored chestnut that once pierced from any side is done, while mechs have many parts that they can keep working without, hell even both legs can be sacrificed at witch point the mech goes in a sit down on it's *** position and acts as a turret.
In reality we can focus fire and hitting something so big is almost guarantied , and we wouldn't spread damage with a dice roll , we'd hit the center mass most of the time so there just is no real advantage to battle mechs , but a patlabor kinda mech used for army construction, ( bunkers , blockades and bridges ) could kinda make sense , though I'd think more like the ones that have tracks or wheels like a bigger Battle bot that is being made in the US to battle the Japanese Kuritas.
#10
-
-
- Bad Company
- 1,273 posts
Member
Posted 07 May 2016 - 07:08 AM
MightyGhrisz, on 07 May 2016 - 02:03 AM, said:
In summary mechs are too easy to kill, too expensive to make, and ineffective with only 1 pilot. I foresee tanks remaining the dominant ground force at least for the remainder of my lifetime.
Questionable though, with all the AI advancements and tech advancements I could easily see tanks transform in to even smaller faster constructs.
With only one driver added by many sensors and programs for situational and tactical awareness, using perfect auto loaders and being much lighter, faster and more lightly armored with better countermeasures and reactive armor made of futuristic materials and tech... that is if we don't just make armed hover drones be a thing.
#11
-
-
- The Stryker
- 2,056 posts
Member
Posted 07 May 2016 - 10:22 AM
Edited by I Zeratul I, 07 May 2016 - 10:28 AM.
#12
-
-
- 1,211 posts
Member
Posted 08 May 2016 - 09:03 AM
@NR
there are smaller tanks in BT like the J. Edgar as it only needs one person to operate it.
when my older brother was in the military (I was 5 so I don't remember what unit he was in, sorry) and he called them metal coffins and some people Jar heads(at the age of five I chuckled at the term jar head) and when I asked him why he said that he would tell me when I was older(never understood why until ten or so years later) and you hit the nail on the head when you was talking about them.
as to mechs being useful or not, lets look at it in two way.
first is fictional game universe where modern tanks couldn't do more than scratch the armor of a battlemech.
Or that mechs could go where tanks could not such as traverse under water, move through burning forest, crash through buildings doing very little damage to them while doing so.
Jump jets allow a hunk of upright metal to more or less 'fly' for a few moments, and packs more fire power than anything that a M1 could ever hope to carry.
now to the other, this is the real world which means real world physics apply....
there are smaller tanks in BT like the J. Edgar as it only needs one person to operate it.
when my older brother was in the military (I was 5 so I don't remember what unit he was in, sorry) and he called them metal coffins and some people Jar heads(at the age of five I chuckled at the term jar head) and when I asked him why he said that he would tell me when I was older(never understood why until ten or so years later) and you hit the nail on the head when you was talking about them.
as to mechs being useful or not, lets look at it in two way.
first is fictional game universe where modern tanks couldn't do more than scratch the armor of a battlemech.
Or that mechs could go where tanks could not such as traverse under water, move through burning forest, crash through buildings doing very little damage to them while doing so.
Jump jets allow a hunk of upright metal to more or less 'fly' for a few moments, and packs more fire power than anything that a M1 could ever hope to carry.
now to the other, this is the real world which means real world physics apply....
Edited by VinJade, 08 May 2016 - 09:08 AM.
#13
Posted 10 May 2016 - 08:05 AM
Ah, the age-old tank vs. mech question. The thing is, you can't put mech in the context of current technology and "conventional" modern warfare. That's not gonna work out. Nor is Battletech tabletop rule gonna help - let's be real here, it's a table-top game. You're gonna have to get creative with the type of scenario where a mech is more useful than a tank. I'm military personnel but lemme try to come up with a few.
Say, you need heavy fire support for a military operation on a bad part of an alien planet where the terrain is particularly bad. Like, mountain range. You don't always have aerospace fighters on hand to provide air support, and direct orbital bombardment is a tad overkill. What do you do? You drop a couple of mechs, basically howitzers with legs, 20-30 tons, into the mountains, and set up a little artillery battery. The mechs have legs, which gives them an easier time in the mountains. They can sit down on their robot butts when they fire the big gun, and when their job is done they can climb down to friendlier terrain so dropships can come down and pick them up. And if they're anything like BT mechs, they're gonna carry smaller weapons with them to deal with unwelcomed guerrillas.
Or, it can serve as infantry support vehicles. It may lacks the stability of wheels/tracks, but legs do help shift weights a lot better, which makes doing THIS kind of crap easier:
The only thing is, will mecha technology be cheap enough to be used in military. And Battletech lore's early timeline gave that a pretty good answer.
EDIT: Btw this post is some serious necromancing lol
Say, you need heavy fire support for a military operation on a bad part of an alien planet where the terrain is particularly bad. Like, mountain range. You don't always have aerospace fighters on hand to provide air support, and direct orbital bombardment is a tad overkill. What do you do? You drop a couple of mechs, basically howitzers with legs, 20-30 tons, into the mountains, and set up a little artillery battery. The mechs have legs, which gives them an easier time in the mountains. They can sit down on their robot butts when they fire the big gun, and when their job is done they can climb down to friendlier terrain so dropships can come down and pick them up. And if they're anything like BT mechs, they're gonna carry smaller weapons with them to deal with unwelcomed guerrillas.
Or, it can serve as infantry support vehicles. It may lacks the stability of wheels/tracks, but legs do help shift weights a lot better, which makes doing THIS kind of crap easier:
The only thing is, will mecha technology be cheap enough to be used in military. And Battletech lore's early timeline gave that a pretty good answer.
EDIT: Btw this post is some serious necromancing lol
Edited by Helmstif, 10 May 2016 - 08:09 AM.
#14
-
-
- The Stryker
- 2,056 posts
Member
Posted 10 May 2016 - 08:29 PM
Design a ground based machine to wage war on the moon, mars -- a variety of alien landscapes with no roads, no snow plows, no gas stations.
A tank with low ground clearance that gets stuck in the mud isn't what you'd come up with.
A tank with low ground clearance that gets stuck in the mud isn't what you'd come up with.
Edited by I Zeratul I, 10 May 2016 - 08:30 PM.
#15
-
-
- The Patron
- 129 posts
Member
- Google+: Link
- LocationDallas, Texas
Posted 11 May 2016 - 08:43 PM
XenomorphZZ, on 03 December 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:
Mechs would get obliterated by Mavericks fired from A-10s, not to mention the 30mm...
The only reason that this doesn't happen in BT, is ECM, and not just the GECM...
The only reason that this doesn't happen in BT, is ECM, and not just the GECM...
Until you said WHY, you were right on the money. I have bad news for you and other ECM ho's (I am one myself mind you lol)... A Maverick AGM OR a Hellfire can be optically guided as well as radar. ECM no help. It does beg the question (to which the only answer is simply there'd be no game left) why mechs use the horrid LRM and SRM, when all those really are are behind the times MRLs (or MLRS if you are Russian/Soviet) as in Multiple Rocket Launcher. A REAL guided MISSILE would be along the lines of the aforementioned Maverick, Hellfire, or even Stingers, Harpoons, etc... you don't launch 20 at a time, one should do the job or you built a ****** weapon system
"Stand by I'm launching 20 Tomahawks!" Said no commander ever
Edited by FuDawg, 11 May 2016 - 08:45 PM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
