Kaltes,
Wow, good thing you aren't a military planner...
Kaltes wrote:Jeffar, I have to say, you are wrong when it comes to the mobility/terrain capability. A mecha would never become immobilized by terrain. It could always use its free limbs to pull itself out of any situations. A tank, by contrast, can get stuck easily in MANY types of terrain, and once stuck, it utterly helpless until rescued by other vehicles.
Um, wrong...there are types of terrain where people can and do get stuck...
Also, ever seen a mountain...that would be no-go for a mecha...
I think what you meant to say was "A mecha will become immobilized by fewer terrain features than a wheeled or tracked vehicle"
Kaltes wrote:Tanks might have less PSI on their treads, but so what? The tank's psi is still huge. The mecha's psi is even bigger, but it can cope with sinking into the ground far better. So what if a mecha leaves deep footprints? There is a limit to how deep the mecha will sink, because the ground will compact underneath it. So in muddy conditions, where a tank's lower psi is still not low enough, it will sink and become stuck. Complete mobility kill. Worthless. Compare that to a mecha, which might leave a footprint 5 feet deep. Thing is, that mecha will still be able to keep moving, and at most might have a reduced speed. Mud and soft topsoil own tanks and treads, but mean little to legs.
So what?? Well, other than the fact that it allows tanks to be more mobile and robust than wheeled vehicles...
Also, the "limit" to how deep a mecha can sink with it's higher PSI will be deeper than a tank will sink...
The "tanks sink = tanks suck" philosophy is a bit sophomoric. Instances of a tank sinking where everything else doesn't (including people and wheeled vehicles) are very rare. Ground soft enough for a tank to "sink" in is called mud, and mud of that depth WILL immobilize wheeled vehicles and considerably slow down people, especially if they are encumbered by rucksacks/armor/etc..
Kaltes wrote:Next up is even wetter terrain: swamps and such. A mecha can wade through a swamp. For a tank, the entire swamp is a no-go zone. Slower speed is infinitely superior to no speed at all.
How about water? Mecha can walk on the ocean floor if they have to. They can walk through rivers and lakes, streams, etc. Tanks can't. Even if you seal up a tank airtight, you still run into the fact that the treads wouldn't consistently support the tank in these environments.
Your rationalization is flawed...all "ground" vehicles are pretty worthless in swamp and the ocean. Is your bash against tanks now towards all ground vehicles?
Kaltes wrote:How about a forest? Tree trunks in enough density will stop tanks. Tanks can't just bulldoze through a forest. Mecha can move around obstacles like large tree trunks, and can snap smaller ones.
Actually, tanks can bulldoze through a "forest", depending on your definition of forest. Semantics, yes, but more than one military has been surprised by the arrival of "armor/heavy cavalry/war elephants" through "impossible" terrain.
Kaltes wrote:How about rocky terrain? Also stops a tank. If the ground is rocky and uneven, it is a no-go for tanks. This stop tanks even when they don't have to face the slope problem, but since you pointed it out, any significant incline will stop a tank as well. The extremely heavy weight of the tank would require extremely strong/firm ground, or else the treads would just strip the ground and dig the tank into a rut as it went up an incline. All of these problems are completely ignored by a humanoid mecha.
Mountainous terrain is a no-go for just about everything with wheels or tracks, so again, I ask you are you bashing tanks, or all vehicles? As an aside, tracked vehicles are better at climbing steeper inclines than wheeled vehicles.
Kaltes wrote:A large part of modern, real-life military planning is what terrain in a given area of operations is suitable for tanks and other heavy armored units. In many parts of the world, tanks have large no-go zones and limited areas of operation, and even where you have good "tank country", like in europe, tanks still have plenty of places they can't go, unless there is a road they can use. One of the reason the Ardennes offensive worked in the Nazi attack on France, is that the german tanks were able to use small roads in a surprise attack to bypass the no-go areas, before the French were able to attack the extremely vulnerable tank columns trapped on narrow roads. Had the french been better prepared, the blitzkrieg could have turned into disaster for the germans, because there was a window of extreme vulnerability for their tanks until they broke through into the open terrain on the French side.
True, sort of...just because something "can't" go there doesn't mean that is the end of the story. As a part of the planning process "Go, Slow Go and No Go" terrain is ID'ed, but there are ways to mitigate the effects of it's presence.
Kaltes wrote:Being able to maneuver in any terrain is the main reason that mecha are superior to tanks. Whereas large tank formations are VERY limited in where they can go (read up on the Fulda Gap), mecha can launch offensives through any terrain, even terrain that would be extremely difficult for infantry, without difficulty, and at high speed (even 20 mph is high speed for a sustained advance).
I suppose if I allow your statement to stand at face value, the second sentence is correct...if you define "large tank formation", are you talking brigades, divisions, corps? Certainly a Platoon (4) or company of tanks (14) can easily go more places than the Fulda Gap.
However, mecha really can't operate everywhere.
Kaltes wrote:If you have 150 tanks and I have 100 mecha, all else being equal, and your 50% advantage as a result of all the other advantages you mention, unless the entire theater is flat, clear tank country, my force would be able to run circles around yours. Even if your tanks were faster, my mecha could exploit the terrain to outflank your tanks or bypass them, and if for some reason my mecha were caught outnumbered, they could retreat into terrain where your tanks couldn't follow.
All this means that tanks are superior to mecha when used in a defensive role when you know the terrain is favorable, but in maneuver warfare, mecha have a major advantage.
Wow, there are lots of variables that need to be addressed (such as which tanks/mecha are in the fight, I mean if I could pick, I want 150 Bolos...say MK XXIII or higher and you can have 100 invid scouts...)...but, the main thing here is the overall strategy and skill of the leaders. Honestly, other than gladitorial combat, can anyone think of a time where the "mission" was beat all the others of the enemy in this little area? I can't, but I am far from a genius.
The basic concept of the operational art is setting up your opponent to fight on your terms, so if the mecha commander were able to get a heavy force on a complex battlefield, minus all their supporting arms, then the victory would belong to the mecha commander, primarily because the armor commander is a retard...
OK, to wrap up...mecha DO have a manueverability advantage over armor, although they are not somehow immune to terrain.
-STS