Tanks vs Mecha - for the Real World

[Jefffar]

Even though I appreciate what Jeffar is trying to point out. I am not going to follow his logic on a cost benefit ratio. Newer technologies are generally put into Newer vehicles, and then later retro-fitted to older machines. Generally speaking this will provide a longer combat life for the older machines, but a newer generation will need to be made for the new technology. But with even newer technology being advanced, it is a never ending battle.

Real world dictates - that even if a tank could be a better use of the technology, it will not be the first vehicle to receive said technology, especially when mecha are being developed.

Interesting.

The tendancy with modern new technologies is to try it on an older, better known frame first to work out the bugs, before putting it into a new vehicle.

So things like energy weapons and newer, lighter armour compounds will probably get tested by being instaleld in tanks first, then, if they work right, mecha may take advantage of them.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I Beleive that tanks will always be around. They are a less expincive platform then any transformable mecha, and they make good test beds for developing technology.

[Rimmerdal]

Yep, tanks tha can be made enmass will ussually win. Ask the germans about that.

[slade the sniper]

The second is lightweight robots that will alow paratroopers / marines / elite infantyr to operate for extended duration missions behind enemy lines with their own light armour and heavy weapons.

I find this one to be a bit of stretch for one reason...power requirements. What do they run on? If they are running on any sort of short duration power plant (less than 24 hours endurance), then this won't work too well for "extended duration missions". That is what pretty makes Mech units (as in modern tanks, AFV's, etc. not Mecha...) so huge...the support requirements. I don't think Powered Armor/Light Mecha will be able to overcome that. The necessary complexity pretty much ensures HUGE logistical tails.

It is one thing to drop off an Special Forces team of 12 guys for a month and leave them be, but I don't think that there will be a time in the next hundred years when we can drop off 12 guys in powered armor/light mechs and leave them be for the duration.

I will say that if you take out the long duration portion and replace it with "raid" or "seize", then it is do-able.

The second is lightweight robots that will alow paratroopers / marines / elite infantyr to operate for "raid or strike" missions behind enemy lines with their own light armour and heavy weapons.

-STS

[Jefffar]

I'm giving them the benefit of a long duration power source that is light and portable like we see in Rifts and Robotech - but until one of those comes along, not likely.

Then again, those Fast Attack Vehicles and Long Range Land Rovers that get used for long range ops behind enemy lines need fuel from somewhere.

[Shotgun Jolly]

... SNip ...Oh, and a tank can have armour plates on it's sides protecting its treads called tread skirts. A mecha can't and still be able to use it's legs. ...Snip

Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but if you look at the majority of Mecha used in "Heavy Gear" Alot of them had very good examples of having armored leg skirts. Now, they may not be as effecient as a tank skirt.. but they can still use them.

But of course, you would have to take the style and the design behind the mecha in question to determin if Skirts could be used..

I am just saying that using the Heavy Gear Mechs as a example, you could have them as a option.

SGJ

[Jefffar]

I did some looking and couldn't find an image that showed me the sort of thing you are talking about, could you bring us a picture?


I' be very interested to see how they could make a "leg skirt" for the mecha legs that didn't impair mobility and successfully protected vulnerable joints like knees and ankles.

[Beatmeclever]

Nope! No "skirts" on Heavy Gear.

See here, here, here, and here for examlpes. No skirts anywhere. The HG has an armored fuel tank that covers its @$$, but that is hardly a skirt.

The only exception might be this, but those are the only thing close and I think they would actually have a tendency to hang up on the legs while running (which HGs get around by using the "secondary locomtion systems" -- wheels or treads in the feet).

I think Gears are one of the best examples of the mech as IFV in the RPG world.

Armored Trooper Votoms had the "Dog" series AT, which seems very similar to the Gear.

As well, several models of Gundam had "skirt"-like parts.

So, I don't know if the "Skirt" is a good idea or not. The majority of anime seem to avoid it, but then again others use it. Then again, anime isn't the question, huh?

[Shotgun Jolly]

Its funny you picked those 3 and yet failed to pick the King Cobra. Which pops to mind right away.

Like I said, it wouldnt be for all mechs. Mostly heavy hitters, large beasts. Lets Look at some of the King Cobra varients. Just for example.

Here

Here

And Here

For some reason, the artwork I am referring to is being very eluisve, I see to further prove my statements I am going to have to look around a little bit more for examples of Leg Skirts for Mecha. But the above shows that heavy skirts could be used. ( I will look for a larger sample when I get the time later today)

But, meanwhile, something I thought about while I was typing this, did the topic of Mecha Used Arm Shields be brought up?

[Jefffar]

Arm shields have come up. While they may offer additional protection to a mecha, they won't be enough to place it on par with tank level armour without offering crippling mobility and balance penalties. Further, an arm sheild would take away one of those really useful arms that mecha proponents alway site as an advantage.

The King Cobra's leg guards are interesting - do they protect the sides and rear too? Because of their nearly vertical alignment, those slabs would need to be pretty thick to stop anything - and it loooks like they are. That must impose a fair bit of a weight penalty reducing th useful load of armour and weapons in other areas of the mecha.

Is this mecha able to crouch/jump/run/crawl like mecha proponents always indicate is the mecha's advantage over tanks?

[Shotgun Jolly]

The King Cobra's leg guards are interesting - do they protect the sides and rear too? Because of their nearly vertical alignment, those slabs would need to be pretty thick to stop anything - and it loooks like they are. That must impose a fair bit of a weight penalty reducing th useful load of armour and weapons in other areas of the mecha.

Is this mecha able to crouch/jump/run/crawl like mecha proponents always indicate is the mecha's advantage over tanks?

Looking at those Minis I posted I would find it hard to say it could do any of those things well if at all. I do know, that in several of the Heavy Gear computer games, that particualr gear was maddendly slow. But a real challenge to knock down. The game did give you the ability to kneel down, but i can not recall 100% how this particular mecha did. I think it was more of a squat. That game in "Heavy Gear II" had a very wide range of mecha, and the movement of all of them was very realistic. really well done.


I have seen several types varients where those huge plates were two over lapping peices, with a joint at knee height, allowing it to bend and flex with the leg. Much like the concept of banded mail armor.

Also, having these plates hang from the side or rear is easy to do, but like you said, the weight would be insane.


I have also seen different types of leg and knee armor, but a skirt suggests that it hangs down. Not built onto the leg itself. But I attached these two urls to see alternate methods of leg and joint protection allowing for a higher range of motion. But you could check them out here if you wanted too.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a317/ ... Scare2.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a317/ ... vtJarN.jpg

[Jefffar]

Sounds like the fols at Heavy Gear got the relationship between tanks and mecha right then Cav.

Still my point remains valid, the joints need to have extra protection because they are so vulnerable. This extra protection is a weight penalty which is therefore a performance penalty. In addition, while fully articulated armour scheles are possible, they are goign to be extremely expensive and articulated armour sections would typically be weaker than solid armour sections of comperable thickness.

So the mecha is at best goign to pull even, but it's going to cost much mroe to do so. It'd be more cost effective to build tanks which don't need to have these weaknesses engineered out of them and which can better devote their weight limits and production costs to things like heavier armour and weapons.

[ShadowLogan]

Still my point remains valid, the joints need to have extra protection because they are so vulnerable. This extra protection is a weight penalty which is therefore a performance penalty. In addition, while fully articulated armour scheles are possible, they are goign to be extremely expensive and articulated armour sections would typically be weaker than solid armour sections of comperable thickness.

I don't think you'll be able to fully protect the joints on a humanoid mecha without impacting it's mobility. However it occured to me that there are solutions out there with regard to Anime-Mecha designs that show protection:
-Take a look at the Armored Battloid (Veritech) line art from Robotech Macross. If the VF-1 MPCs and other reporductions are anything to go by, and previous issued models with the add-on armor the ankles on this mecha do not offer the same range of motion as a human. So the ankle section could be protected using the AB from the show ("Miss Macross") with "bell-bottoms".
-The AB along with other mecha from the show (Alpha and Condor come to mind) and other shows (thinking specifically of the Gundams) at times use a knee gaurd that comes up from the lower leg. It doesn't offer full 360 protection, but provides protection from frontal attacks, and IIRC the sides to some degree. The rear not so much.
-I've built a few Gundam model kits in the past, and they sported armored "flaps" in the hip/waist area that appear no more complex than a door hinge. I don't recall any RT mecha with similiar features here. The models did have forward/backward motion, but limited side-side though weather that was a result of my model building skills, the articulation built into the model, or some other reason I don't know. But how much side-side motion do you really need in such a design?

[Jefffar]

Some designers incorperate a more realistic view of a combat mecha (ie not trying to compete with tanks, demonstrating the increased leg protection necissary, etc.) which is good.

I think if I ever make an RPG with mecha in it, the mecha will at best top out with armour and weapons akin to an Infantry Fighting Vehcle and with proper tactics represent a threat to tanks, but they won't be in the role of primary armoured combatant.

[Beatmeclever]

So, it sounds like the Mech will be an infantry division implement not an armor division advancement.

Do you still keep the basic grunt? I think so; feet on the ground means the ability to go indoors, underground, and into the brush, etc. Although, the image of a division of mechs walking along side a tank division all piggy-backing the infantry just came to mind and gave me a good idea for Friday's game night.

Maintenance on mechs will be absolute hell! Some of the best VT pictures in Book 1 were the opened up maintenance pictures and the shots of the repair bays. I wonder how many hours of downtime each mech would incur in a year -- FMC rates anyone?

[slade the sniper]

FMC rates on mecha...that would cause the commander some headaches.

I would say "on paper" you could get 90%...but IRL you'd probably be looking at 70-75% best case...for big mecha

For small "powered armor" you might get 80-85%, but that's "acceptable"...sort of.

The maintenance would be intense...the first line maintenance would be crucial and you'd have to add in a maintenance platoon to the already burdened maintenance companies...so you'd have to work on wheeled vehicles, tracked vehicles, powered armor, mecha, generators and everything else that breaks in war...

I would say that you'd be looking at 4 man hours maintenance per hour of operation for powered armor and about 10-12 man hours of mx per hour of operation, and that is on the low side.

-STS

[Jefffar]

Nothing will ever replace the infantryman, only support it.

[Beatmeclever]

<Snip> We aren't talking about realistic source material though. The source material is a science fantasy material where the need for massive mecha is explained by knowing that the potential enemy is made up of 50 foot tall giants. That's essentially the soul purpose for having built the mecha in the first place. <Snip>

But once they knew they would be going against the Masters (who are the same size as humans), why did they continue to build "Giant Robot Mecha"? They had to have received intelligence on the nature of the Robotech Masters from the Zentraedi, why not return to the tried and true tanks and AFVs? The mecha MUST have had some advantage over the traditional stuff, right?

The point of this thread isn't to simply dismiss the idea out of hand, it is to discuss the usefulness of mecha should it be developed. Could it replace the tank or should it be though of in other terms. So far, I think anyway, it has been decided that it fits into the Infantry (kinda like cavalry of a sort) just above standard infantry and the armored infantry using Infantry Fighting Vehicles, but well below the range of the tank.

At which point I had asked:

Do you still keep the basic grunt?

and, with regards to maintenance:

FMC rates anyone?

I like the rates proposed, but have issues with the idea that the maintenance unit would have to be the mechanics for EVERY piece of equipment on the base. My fighter squadron had aircraft mechanics that only fixed the jets, there were other people to fix the AGE and Flightline Vehicles. Although the times required for maintenance are probably right on.

[slade the sniper]

As for Why they kept making mecha when fighting the masters...Well there was still the threat of Zentraedi loyal to the masters, bioroids and of course the possibility of fighting the Invid.

The 2nd Gen mecha were smaller than the 1st Gen stuff...befitting smaller Bioroids and still keeping the ability to fight 50 foot tall aliens.

As for who would develop mecha/PA, it is currently an Infantry Branch initiative (in the US at least). Armor branch really sticks to tanks these days, and the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that tanks really do have a purpose on the battlefield...still.

As for who would fix them...currently, in the US Army system, each battalion has a support company that fixes all the battalions stuff, and in a mechanized unit, that is tanks, AFV's, and wheeled vehicles...

For a Brigade the same holds true...it can fix everything they have (including mortars, small arms, night vision, artillery, tanks, AFV's, wheeled vehicles, etc.) They are designed to be very "self contained"...

And finally, I will add that, regardless of how much people have said that Infantry is a waste of time and useless...too vulnerable, too slow and filled with retards...Wars really do need infantry...quite a few of them actually. There is a really good case for WHY infantry will always be important in Starship Troopers (the novel)...

"There are a dozen different ways of delivering destruction in impersonal wholesale, via ships or missiles of one sort or another, catastrophes so widespread, so unselective that the war is over because that nation or planet has ceased to exist. What we do is entirely different. We make war as personal as a punch in the nose. We can be selective, applying precisely the required amount of pressure at the specified point at a designated time. We've never been told to go down and kill or capture all left-handed redheads in a particular area, but if they tell us to, we can. We will.
We are the boys who will go to a particular place, at H-hour, occupy a designated terrain, stand on it, dig the enemy out of their holes, force them then and there to surrender or die. We're the bloody infantry, the doughboy, the duckfoot, the foot soldier who goes where the enemy is and takes them on in person. We've been doing it, with changes in weapons but very litle change in our trade, at least since the time five thousand years ago when the foot sloggers of Sargon the Great forced the Sumerians to cry "Uncle!" "

-STS

[Library Ogre]

The problem is, how do we apply this to Mecha combat, be it in Robotech, Rifts, etc., without destroying the awesome mental image of Mecha operating just like a squad of regular infantry, dodging, ducking, and running to advance?

"Oh they've got no time for glory in the infantry
Oh they've got no time for praises loudly sung
But in every soldier's heart in all the Infantry
Shines the name, shines the name of Rodger Young."

Remember, the MI is the army. The rest of them just carry the bag.

[Jefffar]

Tan's don't have huge ground pressures - that's why they work in swampy, muddy, difficult terrain that bogs down vehicles with higher ground pressures - like cars. Some light tanks actually are able to travell over terrain too boggy for a man to walk across, even though the tank weighs several tons and the man weighs only a couple hundred pounds. Soft ground is not an impairment for a tank.

Incidently, tanks fitted with the proper accessories have made water crossings either on the surface or by travelling across the bottom of lakes, rivers and even oceans.

As for forests, I mentioned forests as one of the side cases that allows mecha to function on par with tanks, but . . . check out this video featuring a light tank. Yes, I said light tank. A MBT could punch through trees several times larger. Incidently, that model of light tank is about 50 years old.

Mountinous terrain is one of the other corner cases I pointed out tanks will have difficulty in, but slopes not so much. Most tanks will climb a slope better than 60%. If you're wondering, that's a slope that if you were walking up you'd probably be saying somehting like "Geeze this is steep." Yes a humanoid mecha can theoretically ascend a vertical slope, but only if it's in a configuration that has arms and hands (so Robotech Style Destroids are typically not going to do it) and that also means those hands can't be used for aiming and firing weapons while so occupied. You are also going to need to find a slope capable of supporting several tons of mecha grappling to it's face.

Speaking of slopes supporting mecha - if a slope isn't strong enough to support a tank, it's not goign to be able to hold up a mecha either. Ground pressure is a big part of that, but a mecha armed and armoured for the heavy directfire role that the tank does is going to be as heavy or heavier than a tank.

If you want to get into large formations, twice in WWII the Germans launched major offensives through heavily forested terrain, catching the opposition off guard because it was generally thought that tanks couldn't opperate through forests. Some roadways in those forests did help, granted, but much of it was cross country drives.

Mecha do not out mobility tanks except in very specific circumstances - and when in those circumstances, the mecha's mobility is so curtailed that it becomes inefective as a combat platform. An equal number of battle tanks vs an equal number of mecha of the same weight is going to be a win for the tanks 9 out of 10. The mecha that try to out flank through "bad" terrain will find that they are out flanked by tanks that race around or even through it. The mehca that try to fight will find that the tanks can kill them from much farther away tan they can reliably kill the tanks. The mecha that try to retreat will find that the tanks out run them and cut them off.

The mecha as a heavily armed and heavily armoured combat platform just won't work, Only lightweight mecha, with armour and weapons comperable to an APC or IFV are likely to see any sort of service. Anything bigger will quickly find it's cost and weight ballooning while it's combat power slowly creeps up.

[slade the sniper]

Kaltes,
Wow, good thing you aren't a military planner...

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"

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..

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Drakenred®™©]

15.5 psi (1.09 kg/cm²)(M-1 Abrams)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_pressure

note its safer for your foot to be run over by a M-1 than a lady in spike heals!(1,920 psi)

[Shades of Eternity]

I was doing some thinking on this and realized when you get to a certain size, a large quadraped design (especially if the legs can retract quickly) makes a slightly better design for mobile artillery then wheeled or tracked through difficult terrain.

I always think of the "spider" designs Ghost in the shell uses are more likely to be the way of the future for such designs. Small Quadrapedal drones with descent weapons and armor could be used to really make an enemy's life miserable.

Also I see any mecha being like in geer kreig, basically wheeled or tracked vehicles that can "pop up" as terrain gets more difficult.

So it's almost a laptop analogy when compared to desktops

While tanks may be stronger and more powerful, a well designed mecha may be more mobile and doesn't need to be as strong in both armor and firepower.

I do see a use for human shaped power armor though. I always think of the mule or pig man in urban warfare would be enhanced with a small power armor assigned to an infantry unit. It just has to be only slightly bigger in design then a standard human though. Basically Power armor troops is slightly stronger infantry and should be treated as such (even if you add jump jets, flying, and other such unusual maneuvering).

Also for packing up vehicles to store in a space ship or APC, you might be able to stuff a few more in there then the equivelent tanks. Just have them pop out like a swarm of locust.

Also they may be more useful in utilitarian roles. A suit of engineering power armor with shovels and equivelent tools might be cheaper then the equivelent backhoe and more compact. Such equipement might be easier to jury rigg for military ends by picking up a base weapon and firing, or swinging a shovel.

But yeah, the O.G.R.E. rules ground combat for a reason.

[Drakenred®™©]

15.5 psi (1.09 kg/cm²)(M-1 Abrams)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_pressure

note its safer for your foot to be run over by a M-1 than a lady in spike heals!(1,920 psi)

I was surprised how close a tank's PSI is to a human walking is (@ 9 - 12 PSI).

It was designed that way because they dont like tanks getting boged down in the very ground they chew up.

[Drakenred®™©]

PSI is a function of track width and lenght. some of the Russian heavys that they developed have a lower PSI (in the 10-12 range) despite being heavyer than the M-1, and theirs one weird 4 tracked "snow-cat" type tank they they worked on that mounted a 122 mm gun that had a PSI of 6.3 fully loaded despite weighing in at 67.7 metric tons(it never left development though, the thing was slower off snow and mud and aparently carried less munitions than the IS-2 (15 ready combat rounds for the main gun, 10 in the body) and inferior overall performance to the IS1-10 series tanks (but better speed in mud and snow)

[slade the sniper]

Kaltes, Wow, good thing you aren't a military planner...

slade, wow, good thing you don't do the hiring for those military planner jobs.

Um, wrong...there are types of terrain where people can and do get stuck...

And yet neither you, nor anyone else making this argument, can name one.

*insert stuff about wheeled vehicles*

Mecha use legs, not wheels.

...and you know, I was almost going to applaud the civilized tone of this debate...

I think I will anyway, Kaltes, thank you for mostly maintaining your diginity and focus. CavScout and Drakenred also

I apologize for my troll-ish behavior

Kaltes, Wow, good thing you aren't a military planner...

Except that military planner is a "position" that is, at least here in the US, something that Senior NCO's and Officers do, and they aren't just hired off the street to do it...and, as a matter of fact, I do "hire" military planners (out of the available pool of qualified NCO's and Officers) that do work for me (as befits my role)...but anyway...

And yet neither you, nor anyone else making this argument, can name one.

Ok, let's play the terrain game...

Mangrove swamps...unless your mech is travelling on the rivers, they will manage, at best 1 km an hour
Triple canopy jungle...same as above, but...no rivers and rougher terrain
Arctic terrain...snow depth will immobilize mecha (or at least slow them way down to about, 2 km an hour at best, and metal fatigue due to temperature will become an issue, especially at night, unless your mecha runs constantly...
Temperate Rain Forest...a lot like triple canopy, but usually a bit nicer as terrain goes, but the cooler temperature will keep the dead trees from decomposing quickly, so it will build up and become a serious pain to a walking mecha, unless you make it so heavy it crushes the fallen trunks, but then if it is that heavy, it negates your arguments about them being so light and ninja-esque
Taiga...snow, and lots of crappy little trees, but they sure don't offer cover or concealment, just crap to run into...
Scree slope...yeah, there isn't anything to "clamp onto" with those mecha hands and feet...so you just slide right off
um...cliffs...yeah, so, maybe jump jets are needed...

and as for wheels/tracks/legs...they are all methods of ground locomotion, hence bringing them up, but since my points were overlooked, never mind...

Now, I will be certain to concede to your arguments if you agree to the following:
1. IF you can make a mecha, then the SAME advances you use in the mecha have to be available for use in a tank, thus if the mecha can have an ultra blaster in a 100kg pakage, then the tank will be more than capable of mounting either a bigger version or a bunch of them(having the capability to mount BIG direct fire guns and armor is what tanks are all about, the M-1A2SEP mounts the Rheinmetall 120mm cannon that masses/weighs 1,190 kilograms (2,600 lb) for the barrel and 3,317 kilograms (7,310 lb) for the mount), thus the tank will pretty much ALWAYS have more firepower with longer range than your powered armor...the same goes for armor...if your mecha has 300 MDC or whatever, then you can bet the tank will be armored at least an order of magnitude greater...comparing "old crap" with "new and improved" is nice if you are debating an F-22 versus a Sopwith Camel, but it is a bit disingenious, and irritating.

So if you want to say that mecha would be more manueverable than tanks, OK...but you said that mecha would never be immobilized, which is just silly AND you also said that mecha can walk on the bottom of the ocean if need be...but I guess mecha are just so awesome that we can get rid of ships and subs...and mecha can fly too, so get rid of planes and choppers...

It's about hyperbole, man...drop the hyperbole and you could make a prima facie case here for mecha being more manueverable than mecha (which I think was already accepted way back in page 1 or 2 of this thread)....

-STS

[Jefffar]

There are already heavy tanks that can cross rivers by travelling on the bottom.

There have already been full sized tansk that have crossed open ocean on the surface.

The mud and snow of the Eastern Front of WW2 mired cars, trucks, horses and men while Russian T-34s with their low ground pressure rolled across.

Yes a tank going up a 60 degree slope is travelling at 4 mph, but it's not like the mecha will exactly be running up that slope. In fact the mecha will probably need to be down on all fours otherwise it's going to find itself slipping. A mecha down on all fours will find it a lot harder to bring it's weapons to bear than a tank with it's top mounted turret.

Robots are better at self recovery than tanks, yes, but a tank will need to self recover less often than a robot. Remember, Robots can trip and fall, tanks can't.

Tanks already carry anti-tank missiles by the way. The current generation of Russian tanks can fire missiels out of their guns, allowing them to pick off other tanks from well outside the range of their guns. Incidently, the Russians also have an amphibious light tank that they mount one of those nice, heavy tank/mecha killing 125 mm gun/missile launchers. Yes it's got light armour, but I'd say it probably is as well protected as a mecha that weighs as much as an MBT given the trade-offs in armour protection the robot will face.

[Jefffar]

1) Tanks can and do mount bigger and heavier weapons. Tanks also can (and already do) carry anti-tank missiles, meaning that the range advantage does not swing to the mecha.

2 a)The armour protection on the center torso of a mecha will still not be as good as the armour protection on a tank. The tank can devote a higher portion of it's weight to armour and has a much more efficient armoured shape. Ton for ton, the box shape of the tank will have less surface area than the humanoid shape. This means that more armour can be dstributed over a smaller area. Better still for the tank, it's much easier to slope that armour. An armour slope of approx 30 degrees improves armour efficieincy by about 50%. A slope of 60 degrees (found on many modern tanks) effectively doubles the armour efficiency. The reason for more armour on the front of tanks is because that is traditionally where tanks receive the msot incoing fire from, so it makes sense to optimize front heavy. So on a center mass hit (ie the spot that most gunners are going to aim) from the front (ie the part most likely to face the enemy) a mecha is not going to survive as well as a tank.

2 b) I am sure a mecha pilot having to try to operate in a mecha that has lost it's leg will not considered the results of a hit to the extremeties insignifigant. Armoured vehicle kills are divided into mission-kills (vehicle no longer able to fufill it's mission) mobility-kills (vehicle no longer able to move) and catastrophic-kills (vehicle totally destroyed). By mounting the weapons and mobility systems outside of heavy armour protection, the odds of a mission-kill (loss of weapons) or mobility-kill (loss of foot or leg) are considerably higher for a mecha than for a robot. Of course the thinner torso armour also means the odds of a catastropic-kill go up considerably as well.

3. Treads do limit terrain - but so do feet. There are numerous things that a human or mecha couldn't walk across that the low ground pressure tank treads will skim across easily. Tanks have crossed rivers on the bottom and open ocean on the surface. On terrain with moderate difficulty, the tanks could still move at great speed while a mecha moving at high speed has to worry about tripping and falling. Also, as the mecha will be bouncing up and down with each step, it's unlikely that mecha would ever take to high speed - the crew just couldn't stand the bouncing.

Yes I am making an argument against a sci-fi convention. That's the entire point of the thread. Let's not forget that sci-fi stands for Science-Fiction. The goal of Sci-Fi is to tell an entertaining story, not to be an accurate depiction of reality.

Also, I am not against mecha not existing, I am against the perception that mecha will render the battle tank obsolete by being superior in doign the job a tank does.

The tank has already survived the anti-tank gun, the ground attack aircraft, the bazooka, the anti-tank missile, the helicopter gunship and the nuclear bomb. The tank will continue to exist in the age of mecha because the tank will do what it is built to do etter than a mecha ever could for a reasonably comperable investment in money and resources.

Light mecha, armoured agaisnt heavy machinegunsa dn similar threats, serving to add armour and firepower to specialized formations (I'm thinking air assault, marines, special operations forces here) are what I find most reasonable.

[glitterboy2098]

Light and medium tanks don't beat the mecha equivalent to main battle tanks in protection and firepower hands down, not by a longshot. My original post conceded that equivalent tanks, meaning HEAVY TANKS, would have overall superior protection and firepower, but would have inferior mobility in difficult terrain. That's it.

thing is, we aren't comparing MBt's to MBT equivilents. we are comparing tanks (general) to mecha (equivilent mass and tech level)

so those 26 ton light tanks? yeah, they aren't being compared to 60+ tons mechs. they're being compared to 26 ton mechs.

it's not a case of "any thing you can d i can do better", but it is a case of "you can't compete with me in the areas that are important"

Next up if your argument that tanks have missiles too. Tank missiles suck. Any missile that could be carried by a tank, a mecha could carry more, bigger, and better missiles. Tanks devote their whole being to the armor and main gun that you love so much, so while they will absolutely wield a more powerful gun than a mecha, they wouldn't have the versatility that mecha would have, and the mecha would always be able to carry longer range missiles.

bigger missiles mass more and take up more space. a mecha uses more of it's mass and space for motive systems, thus leaving less mass and space for armament.

as for tank missiles sucking....history has proven that one false time and time again. anti-tank missiles have been the single biggest innovation in military history, and the one that turned decades of military concepts on it's head.


i get the feeling your argueing that mecha have more external space to mount stuff....unfortunately that is not true either. a mecha is rather limited in external space, due to the fact it still needs to move it's legs, arms (if any), and rotate it's torso. this limits the mounting points and the size of the weapons that can be mounted there , since if they're too big they hinder movement.

on the otherhand, you can take the same loads off a mech, put them in a box launcher, and bolt them to the top of the tank's turret. without hindering mobility much at all. (well, maybe low bridges, but a mecha would have trouble there too)

Besides, depending on the state of technology, tanks might not even have superior firepower. Take the particle beam cannon arms of the RDF Excalibur: Each one would be the main cannon of a tank. Tanks are limited to 1 cannon by design, and adding more, and varied weapon systems would eliminate the protection advantages of compact size and an armored turret.

actually tanks are not restricted to a single cannon. tanks are just designed that way because the more cannon you put in, the smaller the caliber of said cannon has ot be due to space issues. and since it is more efficent to use a single big gun instead of a slew of smaller ones, particulalry when designing ot beat the highly protective armor types of other tanks, they get built with on big gun.

that said, there were plenty of tanks using multiple cannon through out history. the MKII "males", the first tanks, used a pair of 6pdr cannon. many nations post ww2 tank designs went for massive "cruiser tanks" on par with current MBT's in mass and packing multiple turrets each with a large cannon.

the battlefields of WW2 showed that a single larger gun was more effective, and most post war design work went to constantly improving on that paradigm.


now compare this to mecha. a mecha's motive bits will take up more internal space than an equal speed tank. this limits the caliber of cannon you can mount, even ignoring recoil issues. at equivilent mass, a tank and a macha, each carrying the same number of cannon, the tank will always have more mass and space avaialble to it to mount higher calibers.

We are talking about tank design versus mecha design here, so the fact that mecha has more space for weapons, and can carry multiple heavy weapons at the cost of lacking armor protection for most of its body, is another advantage over the tank.

except that a mecha won't have more space for weapons, and can't carry heavy weapons. and will still have weaker armor than a tank.

[Beatmeclever]

This thread is about "TANKS vs MECHA - for the REAL WORLD." Now, in discussing mecha, we are talking sci-fi, but we have to discuss the mecha as a real world weapon system. I have said it before, and I'm sure (at this rate) I'll say it again, "Mecha and tanks will each grow to fill a role in the military structure." Especially since, if the technology gets to where a tank can be killed in 1-shot, the mecha could be taken out just as fast.

For one minute let's talk about those anime tanks in the non-mecha shows. Dominion Tank Police, for example, is loaded with tanks that carry more than one big gun. Big Wars has tanks that carry the massive armor loads of today along with more (and internal) weapons systems. Venus Wars has massive tanks that bristle with weapons and are extremely hard to kill. My point is that if we were discussing anime tanks vs anime mecha, we would run in to the problem that with the micro-technology to build stronger, lighter armor and smaller, more powerful guns, the military can hang weapons on mecha for fast-assault vehicles while putting thicker and more powerful weapons on tanks.

BUT... since we are supposed to be talking "Real World," the same argument must be made. Using today's technology, the tank would be the weapons platform while the mecha would fill the same role as the modern IFV. Even if mecha became more armored and able to carry more weapons, the tank would just be adapted to be even bigger or even smaller according to the needs of the Army. After all, once the military finds something that works it doesn't just get rid of it because something that fills another role comes along.

Which is when I said:

To get around this, we would have to assume that the mech was developed simultaneously along with the tank (ignoring the obvious "but what's the point" question).
1. The tank can be made slightly slower (more armor, bigger gun) and it gains the advantage of having a low-profile. (Speed will be increased with time, I'm sure.)
2. The mech can be made faster (less armor, smaller gun[s]), but it can carry more of its guns.
3. Without a doubt, the mech will have been miniaturized to the size of a small jeep within 100 years as the two competing war-fighting technologies will have found their own niche by then.
4. Tank armament will have been developed with combat with mechs in mind, so it will have the ability to traverse quickly, elevate and depress accordingly, and hit multiple targets within close combat range (less than 20 feet).
5. Mech armament will be small and light-weight, but powerful enough to rip through a tank like a hot knife through butter.

And then I said:

I see the giant-robot mecha as more of an attempt to move heavy mechanized units into inaccessible mountainous terrain or cavernous terrain more so than as any kind of urban or field armor.

The tank excels in urban environs, desert, temperate forests, arctic tundra, and grasslands, but it becomes severely handicapped in mountainous, cavernous, swampy, jungle, rain forest, or likewise inhibiting terrain types.

The mech would be developed, if at all, to fill these holes in the tank's power. Although it would still have issues with smaller, tight areas, the mech would be able to move in those terrains. The bipedal design is stupid when it comes to mobility of this sort (even for humans) and so the giant-robot mech would probably be designed as a quad- or octo-ped.

However, current trends seem to be moving toward power armored infantry not the giant-robot mech. This is due to power and manufacturing constraints as well as the fact that the tank is the best thing for the job at hand (Appropriate Means).

Mecha weighs more and is so much taller than humans that it CANNOT go wherever humans go. The height makes it harder to maintain balance. The weight makes pulling a mired leg out of muck exponentially harder than it is for a human.

As for alien worlds, tanks would be highly effective on Mars and possibly just as effective on Venus; what other worlds are there right now? As we find new worlds the question would be, "what are the operational requirements of the planet in question.

At this point, if you disagree with my analysis, it is best to just agree to disagree. You tank-wins-in-every-way advocates are arguing AGAINST the sci-fi convention that mecha design becomes superior to tank design once high technology makes mech designs practical. Once you add a requirement for your military to be able to operate on alien worlds with unknown terrain, the advantages of mechs becomes obvious. Mechs can go anywhere infantry can go, and more.

On this topic, if you have agreed to disagree perhaps you should stop arguing. I find it funny how the people who use that @SSnine statement to "end an argument" are the ones who fail to then follow through on it. Kaltes, we are discussing the issue of a sci-fi system in real world terms not in sci-fi terms. As you can see, I am in favor of BOTH systems, but I have not agreed to disagree. Since it is not your OP, you can quit checking it whenever you want.

[Jefffar]

Fire Power

Tank Designs that carry missiles in existence: T-54/55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, T-84 and T-90 have all had missiles developed for them. The Russsians also have developed gun launched missiles in 105mm and 120mm calibers which means that all western style tanks produced in the last 40 years could carry missiles if they wanted to. Yes these missiles have not been tested in combat, but mecha haven't either, I won't hold that against the mecha though, if you don't hold it against these missiles. The M-551 (a light tank I'll admit) and the M60A2 (Main Battle tank) also had gun launched missiles. The MBT-70 design concept (which was replaced by the Abrams and the Leopard 2) was also supposed to have tube launched missiles as well.

Of course these are all gun launched missiles, despite having long range and powerful warheads, something makes them mysteriously inferior to the missiles of mecha which are carried externally. I guess that's why at the end of the cold war the Germans were working on turning their Leopard 1 Main Battle Tanks into a self propeleld ATGM launcher. Not good enough? How about the Russian BMPT concept which takes a standard Main Battle Tank hull and replaces the turret with a model carrying a pair of 30 mm cannon, an automatic grenade launcher, machineguns and quartet of anti-tank missiles? Any weapon a robot can carry into battle a tank can carry. Plus the tank can carry a larger, heavier version of the same weapons, or just more of them because the design of the tank is very efficient at using armoured volume.

Protection:

I think my point about why the box is better for sloping armour was missed. The box is long and low to the ground. It's very easy to put a sloped portion on the front of it. The turret is a nother long, low box. Again easy to put a nice 60 degree slope on it.

A robot on the other hand, is a vertical peice of kit. For argument's sake, let's assume the robot is as tall as a comperable tank is long. I'll use an Abrams, hull length of about 8 meters (27 approximately). We'll assume the torso itself is about half the height for easy math, so 4 meters. To put a 60 degree slope coming out the front of a 4 meter high object, I need a horizontal run of at least 8 meters. To scale on an average man, that would be like walking around with a yard long projection striaght out of your chest and another one out of your back. Of course since it's armoured it'd be heavy, so a good simulation would probably be to carry a nice 6 foot long roll of carpeting, make sure it's a sizable roll to represent the weight of the armour. Now with that load, tell me how good you do at moving around, running, jumping, picking yourself up if you fall over (remember, the carpet needs to stick stright out in front and in back at all times) and all the other cool things that mecha are supposed to do that tanks can't.

Component armour is a good idea, I'm glad that many Modern Battle Tanks carry it already. It makes sure that the spent remains of anything that gets through the heavy main armour array doesn't penetrate stuff that's vital. Of course, the proposed well protected mecha doesn't have the heavy main armour array to begin with so that component armour is probably not going to offer much in the way of protection.

Speaking of component armour, tanks have track skirts, limiting the odds of shooting out the treads. Yes a mine will still mess up the treads, but it will do a fair bit of damage to a mecha's foot and leg too. If a tank does loose a tread, it turns into a bunker with nice heavy armour and full use of it's turret mounted weapons. A robot that looses a foot is going to fall over, and while it may be able to crawl (with difficulty, remember the carpet roll) all those weapons mounts designed for fighting while standing up are going to find themselves pointed in a useless direction. Of coruse, that asusmes the pilot is still in condition to operate the vehicle after that 2 story fall he just took.

While we're talking about protection, let's talk missiles again for a momment. There are tanks that exist right now that include anti-missile systems designed to jam missile guidance systems, make the tank undetectable or even shoot down the incomming missile. So relying on the missile to make the kill may not be a wise idea. Yes these anti-missile systems have not been tested in combat, but mecha haven't either, I won't hold that against the mecha though, if you don't hold it against these anti-missile systems.

Mobility:

If the tech to give a mecha a power plant that will work underwater without a schnorkel exists, it will work just as well for a tank. If the tech to give a mecha the ability to deal with ocean depths exists, it will work just as well for a tank.

The T-34 is a valid mobility demosntrator because it was a good sized tank for it's era. I've heard nothing that indicated it's descendants (T-54/55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90) have suffered a loss of mobility compared to the T-34 despite their combat weight being about double their progenitors.

In WWII there were a number of swimming medium tanks, most notably the Sherman DDs that swam ashore on D-Day. Yes they are lighter than a modern medium, but then again, modern mediums and MBTs haven't needed to swim ashore as the newer generation of landing vehicles have allowed them to hit the beach fighting. But hey, if you can make a mecha the weight of a Sherman Tank float, good on you.

Speaking of beaches - soft sand, a slope, lots of water . . . yet the tanks that went ashore at D-Day did quite fine. The heavier Patto tanks I've seen landed in Vietnam War footage didn't have any problems either.

There seems to be a perception that mecha will be able to prance around the battlefield in a way that far surpasses the athletic prowess of their pilots - pardon me if I am highly skeptical of this. Disregarding that said pilot would be bounced around like ice in a margirita shaker, a multi-tonne mecha will generate a lot of inertia, making tight turns, sudden stops and acrobatics rather difficult. Add into the fact that if it's got decently slopped armour it will have a torso about as long as it is tall it will be downright akward in anything other than basic manouvres.

There is also a perception that rough terrain will not affect the mecha's mobility. I guess that's why almost every sporting event is played on as flat a field of play as possible. Obviously uneven terrain, loose rocks, holes and slick surfaces aren't going to potentially cause an athelete to fall over or injure himself. Since they don't add any degree of dificulty to the play, might as well make it a flat, even playing surface.

I doubt that a mecha stability system will be able to overcome smooth ride a tank's suspension offers at speed over rough ground. Idoubt that a mecha stability system would be able to keep a mecha from loosign it's balance in situations that tanks would just roll on by.

There are a few conditions where a mecha will be more mobile than a tank, mountainous terrain being the best bet. But across all sorts of terrain, good and bad, a tank is still going to out perform a comperable mecha.

So yeah, Tank still wins all 3 in 9 out of 10 situations. There are corner cases where a Mecha may be better, but if I want to win a war, I'm going to side with the guys who produce tanks instead of mecha.

[Jefffar]

On the idea of a mecha that sacrifices firepower and protection in favour of mobility.

Yes, if you decide that you don't care about out gunning and out armourign a tank it's possible to have a mecha that is more mobile than a tank.

It's also possible to have a mecha that has more firepower than a tank if you don't care about armour and mobility.

And of course it's possible to have a mecha with more armour than a tank (though I find this one the least likely) if you decide you don't care about firepower and mobility.

However, to do the job that a tank needs to do, you need a combination of great firepower, great armour and great mobility - something that a mecha isn't going to be able to do in the same weight class. A mecha that tries to balance these three factors will find itself falling short of a tank in all three. So it’s a clean sweep for the tank. Protection, Mobility and Firepower, it beats the mecha hands down.

Now let's look at the proposed more mobile mecha. The armour of this mecha has already been conceded and while heavy anti-tank missiles are very powerful, the tank can mount them too. So the best the mecha can do for firepower in this case is a tie.

So we have light armour, anti-tank missiles and high mobility - let's see what that looks like. Well, not exactly. The mecha being posited would be about the weight of a battle tank, so it'd be much larger, making it easier to hit. It'd also be much more complex and expensive than a mecha.

Anyone here see a military investing hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a vehicle like that and considering it superior to all tanks?

Incidently, my concept for a working light mecha is something in the 5 ton or less size range, mounting antitank missiles and auomatic cannon and armoured to around the levels of an APC. That would be small, light, mobile and reasonably armed and armoured to provided infantry support for air assault forces. It would perform as well or better than the "Heavy Mobile" mecha in pretty much all categories, but by being much lighter would be able to go places said heavy could not and would be cheaper to produce than a heavy that fails to do the job.

Mecha are a Science-Fiction staple because they look cool and with a little suspension of disbeleif and some handwavium they can be quite effective. UNless we have a tidal shift in the needs of our armoured vehicles, the Mecha willl always play second fiddle to the tank when it comes to being the main armoured combatant of the military.

There is a place for light, highly mobile forces (ie air assault forces, Stryker brigades, Fast Attack Vehicles) in military arms, and the mecha's place will be with them. As the current conflicts int he world have demonstrated, those forces are nice but there are times when a heavy armoured fighting vehicle is the best tool for the job. those times call for heavy armour, heavy firepower and great mobility - this is the tank, this is what it does and this is what a mecha is never going to be able to do as well.

[Tiree]

Yes - if you can build a mecha with X components, you can build a non-mecha with the same.

That is what is being proposed here, and sums it up quite nicely. The only response to this is: Why build a Mecha over a non-mecha vehicle?

Mecha have manipulators - but you can add them onto a Tank. At what point does a Tank no longer becomes a Tank? When it has Arms/Manipulators? When it no longer uses Treads? Once we can identify at what stage a vehicle becomes a Mecha, we more than likely identify the pro's and con's of using a Mecha vs a Standard Vehicle.

But I think it will end up falling down to one General's belief that it is worth it one way or another. And thus we will have a similar fall out of why a Non-Special Forces Soldier wears a beret.

[Jefffar]

I'd say legs for locomotion is the key aspect. Using legs is creates an upright stance which has drastic effects on protection and firepower. Using legs also changes the mobility equation. The legs open up the possibility of a few manoeuvres that treads/wheels don't have, but they don't offer any significant improvement in most terrain and become a liability in others.

So no legs = conventional vehicle.

With legs = mecha

[Tiree]

I think you should also add in arms/hands in there. Once you start going a little more 'robotic' feel to it, it should be separate. Thus the tiny manipulators that are found on the VF-1 shouldn't be on a tank (yes they could be there, but then it shouldn't be called a tank - it's a hybrid of sorts).

A lot of the features that make a tank unusable in certain terrain could be dealt with using a Hover System. Thus a hover tank could be the next generation Tank. Would this 'New' Tank garner the same hatred of use that a Mecha would get?

So - I submit to you: This sizing up differences can't realistically be done. Any new systems other than electronics, armor, and engines, would alter a tank to become a non-tank.

I would state that a Tank and a Mecha have two distinct role's. Each are designed to best fit those roles. I would probably say a Mecha (Power Armor) would mimic more of the use of Light Calvalry (HUMVEE's) than that of a Tank. A Larger Mecha, would indeed be different. Then I would suggest using a Hover Tank per ASC to compare against an upgraded supertank (just add an enclosed cockpit though )

[slade the sniper]

Ok, let's play the terrain game...

All your opinions about terrain are just speculation, and I don't agree with any of your conclusions, but since you have provided no basis for your conclusions, there is nothing for me to say except that I disagree. Take the speed of a human being and multiply it by 10-20 to account for the greater size and strength of the mecha, and you'll get much higher numbers.

"Speculation"? Have you ever been to the terrain types that I described?? Just google for some pictures of them...or failing that, here is a list of official/professional documents that have a bit more "basis for my conclusions"...

A small list of open sources...
Armor in closed terrain (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)!!!: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/CTG.htm
Jungle Operations: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2514062/Army-fm90-5-Jungle-Operations
Desert Operations: http://www.enlisted.info/field-manuals/fm-90-3-desert-operations.shtml
Effects on Operations: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/1-100/ch3.htm
Navigation in different terrain: [url]
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 6/ch13.htm[/url]
A bit of a primer on military geography, basic and wide ranging: http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Books/Books_1998/Military%20Geography%20March%2098/milgeoch1.html
Also, I don't think that a mecha's stride is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a person, unless you are talking about a mecha that is 50 feet tall or more...I was thinking of something a bit more like a 20 foot mecha...

On giving mecha no tech advantage: All of my posts have assumed that tanks would have all the tech a mech would have. This means that:

1. Firepower: A tank will always have a bigger/stronger cannon than any equivalent mecha, however mecha firepower is more versatile, including missiles which out-range the tank's gun. A tank is a gun platform built around a gun, so you can't say "the tank would have missiles, too". No, it wouldn't. Just because attack helicopters use Hellfire missiles to kill tanks, doesn't mean modern tanks carry anti-aircraft missiles to counter helicopters. Tanks are gun platforms. Conclusion: mechs would outrange tanks just like modern apaches, bradleys, etc do, however their firepower would be inferior overall once within range of the tank's cannon.

Tanks can fire missiles, M551's, and russian 125mm cannons (if the tank has the proper fire control).

Tanks can carry Anti-Aircraft Missiles to shoot down helicopters...but there is a reason that they don't, and that reason is primarily political...if ground assets were responsible for short range and long range air defense, what is the point of the Air Force having fighters?

Another factor is cost. Decent long range air defense systems are expensive..the Patriot missile system (2 x 4 shot launchers, radar and control unit) costs about 170 million USD, and each missile costs around 2 million+ USD. Compare that to 135-150 million USD for an F-22...

A third factor is simply the cost of a tank. If you could toss on a few SAM's on a tank, then you are adding a radar along with a new weapon fire control system (bad) and probably a new crew member (bad), all of which adds weight, volume, logistic requirements and a lot of cost. Thus, to increase the capability of a tank to include the short range air defense mission, which is possible, you will be adding another crew member, a new radar, new fire control, new weapon system for what? Especially when (using the US as an example) you already have SHORAD capability in your infantry (Stingers), your mech forces (well we used to have Linebackers) and a big, very capable Air Force?

I can not argue that missiles have longer range than cannons, they do.

I will say that with the advent of spaced armor, active and reactive armor, missiles have sort of lost their luster...

I do agree with your conclusion, though if the mech is armed with missiles and the tank has a direct fire cannon.

[2. Protection: A tank's frontal arc is entirely protected by heavy armor. A mecha can protect vital areas with heavy armor, but not limbs. Any direct hit on a tank that penetrates its armor will kill the tank, but hits on mecha on a non-vital area like a limb, will not kill the mecha. Conclusion: tanks have an armor advantage, but must cover more surface area to protect against being killed unless armor is focused frontally. Mecha do not need to protect most of their surface area with heavy armor, so would not necessarily be at a disadvantage for armor protection for vital areas.

OK, so you are putting no critical systems in a mecha's limbs, so they just dangle there?

And your statement

Any direct hit on a tank that penetrates its armor will kill the tank

is false.

Also, are you sure that a 50 foot tall irregular shape (humanoid) has less overall surface area than a 7.8 foot tall tank?

3. Mobility: Tanks will always, as a result of their design and the limitations of treads, be limited by terrain, particularly in large groups that are not moving in lines. Treads are much better than wheels for more difficult terrain, but are inferior to legs. How do humans get stuck in terrain? Falling into large pits with slick walls? Quicksand? Getting pinned by falling trees/rocks? These things don't immobilize mecha. Humans, far more fragile and weak than any mecha, have traversed every type of terrain this planet has to offer. Mecha could too. That is the advantage of using legs. Legs are far superior to treads in the all-terrain aspect. However, tanks would move faster than mechs on easy/flat terrain, and much faster than mechs on roads. On terrain of moderate difficulty, legs would move faster than treads, and for very difficult terrain, treads gets stuck and mecha can move at reduced speeds.

See my list of sources refuting point 1.

At this point, if you disagree with my analysis, it is best to just agree to disagree. You tank-wins-in-every-way advocates are arguing AGAINST the sci-fi convention that mecha design becomes superior to tank design once high technology makes mech designs practical. Once you add a requirement for your military to be able to operate on alien worlds with unknown terrain, the advantages of mechs becomes obvious. Mechs can go anywhere infantry can go, and more.

Uh, yes, I am arguing against the sci-fi convention. Just because everyone believes in something, it certainly doesn't make it true.

Also, if you are invading a world with unknown terrain...wow, you should kill your intel guys!

-STS

[slade the sniper]

My original post conceded that equivalent tanks, meaning HEAVY TANKS, would have overall superior protection and firepower, but would have inferior mobility in difficult terrain. That's it.

I am not arguing against that statment. I am arguing against the hyperbole that was used to make it.

Besides, depending on the state of technology, tanks might not even have superior firepower. Take the particle beam cannon arms of the RDF Excalibur: Each one would be the main cannon of a tank. Tanks are limited to 1 cannon by design, and adding more, and varied weapon systems would eliminate the protection advantages of compact size and an armored turret.

We are talking about tank design versus mecha design here, so the fact that mecha has more space for weapons, and can carry multiple heavy weapons at the cost of lacking armor protection for most of its body, is another advantage over the tank.

The reason that tanks have 1 big cannon instead of lots of little ones is that it has been proven to be a better design for the primary job of a tank, killing other tanks. The size of the cannon drives a lot of the design process for a tank.

IF you can build an Excaliber PBC, then why couldn't you build a tank with 4 PBC's mounted, since a loader is not needed, nor is recoil a factor, nor ammunition capacity, only power...

To be honest, by the time we have the tech to make a mecha, tanks will most likely have evolved to either be a lot like the vision seen in
1) Renegade Legion, which is basically orbitally inserted hover tanks (drop from orbit, fly to the target at low level, kill things...), or
2) BOLOS, which are similar to OGRES...hundreds of tons of armor and weapons that basically "own" hundreds/thousands of square kilometers by virtue of their size, firepower and advanced AI.

-STS

[slade the sniper]

Very few tanks carry missiles, and they've never been proven in combat. What little combat experience has been had with them was disappointing. Tank-barrel designs are limited in many ways and are irrelevant to a sci-fi setting where tanks wouldn't even be using big smoothbore projectile launching barrels. Even if you strap missiles to the outside of a tank, a tank is NOT a jack of all trades. It does 2 things well (1) heavy armor, and (2) main gun. Once you start trying to add more to the tank, you take away from those 2 areas and you can't keep calling it a tank anymore.

OK, I'll agree with you there...but if I can't use a chemical slugthrower anymore, I'll take whatever your mecha is using scaled up for tank use (except missiles of course)...

So on a center mass hit (ie the spot that most gunners are going to aim) from the front (ie the part most likely to face the enemy) a mecha is not going to survive as well as a tank.

Hey, I agree. An equivalent tank, facing down a mecha in range of its main gun in open terrain, is going to win the duel. It won't be over in one shot most of the time, but the mecha will not stand up to hits as well as a tank would. <snip>

Yeah!

Also, a mecha can put armor EVERY BIT AS HEAVY AS THE TANK IF NOT MORE over limited areas, like the pilot compartment and such. Remember, the tank has to protect its whole front arc equally. The mecha can barely armor most areas and focus on critical spots, which mitigates, but does not eliminate, the disadvantage.

If that's the case, then proximity fuzed cluster bomblets and indirect fire are going to be the bane of mecha.

Also, I am not against mecha not existing, I am against the perception that mecha will render the battle tank obsolete by being superior in doign the job a tank does.

I can agree with that, but I can't agree with "So it’s a clean sweep for the tank. Protection, Mobility and Firepower, it beats the mecha hands down.", which does in fact translate into mechs not existing in any capacity at the top of the battlefield food chain.

Will mecha exist? Probably not. If they do, they will NOT be on the top of the battlefield food chain. Currently, the "top of the battlefield food chain" is probably the Aircraft Carrier or nuclear attack submarine...it is certainly NOT the MBT. Everything can be killed by something else...

Right now, main battle tanks like the abrams are unbeatable from the front except by heavy missiles. Abrams have even survived point blank DU sabot shots and maverick missile hits. However, anyone trying to use tanks against the US is just throwing them away, as the Gulf Wars showed: Soviet tanks, good on paper, were swept aside without anything to show for all that 'on paper' combat power.[\quote]

True

Light mecha, armoured agaisnt heavy machinegunsa dn similar threats, serving to add armour and firepower to specialized formations (I'm thinking air assault, marines, special operations forces here) are what I find most reasonable.

That is power armor, not mecha. So you are still saying that "So it’s a clean sweep for the tank. Protection, Mobility and Firepower, it beats the mecha hands down."

I agree that powered armor is very nearly a reality (I say 10 years max, we will have it "in the field" in some capacity). Mecha....maybe in fifty and if so, only for very specialized roles.

-STS

[Jefffar]

I think you should also add in arms/hands in there. Once you start going a little more 'robotic' feel to it, it should be separate. Thus the tiny manipulators that are found on the VF-1 shouldn't be on a tank (yes they could be there, but then it shouldn't be called a tank - it's a hybrid of sorts).

A lot of the features that make a tank unusable in certain terrain could be dealt with using a Hover System. Thus a hover tank could be the next generation Tank. Would this 'New' Tank garner the same hatred of use that a Mecha would get?

So - I submit to you: This sizing up differences can't realistically be done. Any new systems other than electronics, armor, and engines, would alter a tank to become a non-tank.

I would state that a Tank and a Mecha have two distinct role's. Each are designed to best fit those roles. I would probably say a Mecha (Power Armor) would mimic more of the use of Light Calvalry (HUMVEE's) than that of a Tank. A Larger Mecha, would indeed be different. Then I would suggest using a Hover Tank per ASC to compare against an upgraded supertank (just add an enclosed cockpit though )

I don't see the arms/hands as a significant variation from the conventional chassis to reclassify it as a mecha. There are existing tracked vehicles with manipulators and we don't consider these as mecha.

A hover tank is a whole different kettle of fish. A practical hover tank would need to cut weight of armour and weapons relative to propulsion in order to stay off the ground. The result is a hover tank designer will need to face either having less potent armour and weapons compared to a ground tank or will have to increase the size of the design considerably making it more resource intensive and expensive. Hovercraft also don't deal well with slopes thus precluding the hover tank from use on anything other than gentle rolling land. I see the best use for heavily armed and armoured hovercraft being support of naval landing operation. If you want a tank that cruises over obstacles and operates in all terrain, you want it to fly, not just hover, at that oint you're looking at something akin to a helicopter.

I disagree about the limits of what systems can be installed on a tank. Other than legs, pretty much anything goes. There are existing tracked vehicles that have manipulators, have self recovery aides (of note, a rocket propelled anchor and line) and have sensor turrets (analog for a mecha head). So I find that these devices are not the sole realm of mecha.

I agree that a tank and a mecha have different roles and that is why I am arguing against those trying to fit a mecha into a tank role. A mecha trying to do the job of a tank will find itself not measuring up in terms of mobility, protection and firepower with a tank. It is certainly possible to make a heavy mecha that drops protection and firepower compared to a tank for better mobility as another poster presented, but at that point one might as well make a light mecha that has less protection and firepower than the tank, but has more mobility and will cost less than the heavy mecha. Said mecha would be good for light, fast moving forces, but would not replace the tank in any way as the workhorse of the main combat forces.

Oh, and don't get me started on veritechs.

[slade the sniper]

My ideas on "hover tanks":

As currently possible, they would be fast, but have the same issues with regard to terrain as tanks simply due to their volume. The plenum chamber is a huge liability, as well as their forward motive system, which would have to be both large and, unless it was a jet engine would have to be fairly open (as seen on the LCAC's)

For sci-fi "hover tanks" there are three examples that I can think of:

The first would be from Shadowrun, the Banshee Low Altitude Vehicle (LAV) being the usual example, which generally consists of a BIG jet engine with vector thrust that pushes a fairly heavy, non-aerodynamic shape around at low altitude (I think that it gets about 200' max, but does have good speed). They are nicknamed T-Birds because of their immensely loud audio signature (I guess about like a jet liner...)
http://www.gods-inc.de/macavity/IsleOfShadows/vehicles/vectored.html

A more realistic interpretation is the aerodyne (AV) as presented in Cyberpunk.
http://www.mecha.com/~conkle/cyber/av4.html

The third, ultimate hover tank, would be from Renegade Legion, which would be more properly described as Grav Tanks:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/at/2008/1/28/92670528138165a5fe113c64067bb135_518.jpg__thumb
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1555600638/ref=dp_image_text_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
I suppose that Warhammer Eldar/Tau tanks would fall into that group as well, but Renegade Legion did a great job of showing how Grav tanks could orbitally insert (along with grav APC's etc.)

Just my opinion.

-STS

[taalismn]

Tank Tipping and Tank Punting....the Sport of Mecha Pilots!

[Tiree]

I am a big fan of the T-Birds used in Shadowrun. Vectored thrust engines, and the ability to travel high enough for crappy terrain, yet can still go low enough. The benefits of a T-Bird vs a Helicopter is speed and heavier firepower and armor. Of course this was offset with fuel and cost.

[Jefffar]

Tank Tipping and Tank Punting....the Sport of Mecha Pilots!

Good luck, the tank is probably much heavier than any combat mecha that would be fielded and has a much more stable design.

I'd be like one of us trying to tip over a 300 lb hog that isn't very keen on the idea - oh and it has a gun.

[Jefffar]

Just a few thoughts on bad terrain for tanks.

When the South Koreans were designing the K1 and K2 Main Battle Tanks they gave them an advanced adjustable suspension system to allow them to deal with the mountainous terrain throughout the country. They also designed the K1 specifically to have much lower ground pressure than other comparable Main Battle Tanks to allow it to function well on soft boggy ground like swamps and rice paddies.

After fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces took their old Leopard I tanks out of retirement so that they would have the tank's firepower, armour and mobility at their disposal. They have since made arrangements to purchase the heavier and more powerful Leopard II to support their troops in Afghanistan.

In the Pacific Theatre of WW2, the Americans, Australians, British and Japanese all took tanks into the jungle and used them to great effect. Yes their manoeuvrability through the thickest parts of the jungle was lessened (but then again, a mecha would also slow down trying to push trees out of its way) but the fact that the tanks could get to where they needed to be and had their firepower and their armoured protection, made the difference in many encounters. The well armed and armoured Grants/Lees in particular were noted for their capabilities in these matters over lighter and more mobile Japanese tanks. In the Vietnam war the Australian forces found a similar situation in which their heavy Centurion Main battle tanks were able to force their way through jungle terrain the lighter and theoretically more mobile M-113 ACAVs could not.

So even in areas where tanks don't perform at their bests, they still do pretty well.

[Cybermancer]

I'd like to make a few comments on the subject of armor recovery and self recovery. As well as some observations about terrain.

First I should mention that vehicle recovery and extraction is part of my job and this includes armored vehicles and in battlefield situations. So I know what I'm talking about both from experience and from training. I have instructed on recovery courses to pass that knowledge onto other techs as well. I'm am not trying to support either side of this argument, just adding some technical expertise.

When pulling a mired vehicle, there is a basic formula we use. If a wheeled vehicle is stuck upto it's axle, you will need to pull it's full weight. On a tank, this is the bottom of the hull. If a wheeled vehicle is stuck up to the fender, then you need to be able to pull twice it's weight. This point is the top of the tracks for the tank. If a wheeled vehicle is stuck up to it's hood, then you need to be able to pull out three times it's weight. This point is where the hull meets a turret on a tank. On a robot, you'd have to pull it's full weight if it was stuck upto it's knees. This is where the the point of locomotion no longer functions and the vehicle's entire weight is mired. It's actually likely to be closer to the feet but I'm being generous to the mech because I like them. So the point where you have to pull twice the mech's weight is when it's buried up to it's crotch. By the time you have it buried up to it's armpits, you're going to need to pull out at least three times it's normal weight. There are other factors that contribute to the ease or difficulty of a pull. I'm not going to get into them all here as it gets quite complicated and the above formula works pretty good for 'eye-balling' a recovery.

If a tank has not thrown its track in the process of becoming mired, then it can attach an appropriate cable or tow strap to it's tracks effectively making them a winch with which to pull itself back the way it came. Usually by attaching to another tank. This can be risky as there is a tendency to throw track. The more likely scenerio is that another tank in the unit will pull the stuck casualty out with an appropriate tow strap/cable/bar. By the time my colleagues or myself have to be called, you can bet the thing is effectively a brick stuck in the mud. But it doesn't happen very often and this is because of how a tank spreads out it's weight over a larger surface area. I'm not a scientist, I'm a techie so I won't be using complicated phsyics terms such as PSI.

Bottom line is that wheeled vehicles, and armored wheeled vehicles get stuck far more often than do tracked vehicles. The wheeled vehicles mitigate this with extra axles (with more tires) and fatter tires (more surface area per tire) but the tracks just win on rough terrain because they spread the weight out more and don't sink.

Here's a few real life experiences that demonstrate this principle on rough terrain.

I was driving my 22 ton wrecker with three axles and six wheels over a snow covered plain. Because it was an open field, I couldn't judge how deep the snow was. I stopped in the middle of the field. As soon as my forward momentum ceased, the wrecker sank in the snow about a foot, or up to it's axles. The 22 tons of vehicle were supported on the snow (not the ground) because the weight was spread out over the tires, axles and portions of the frame.

When I stepped out of the vehicle, I immediately sank five up, or upto my chest. I drink a bit of beer and have a bit of gut, but I don't weigh 22 tons. Yet I sunk significantly farther in the snow than did my very heavy vehicle. This is because all my weight was focused on the bottoms of my feet. This means, I guess, that I had a higher PSI.

The reason the wrecker didn't sink below the wheels until I stopped was because I had the advantage of forward momentum pushing me along. One of the keys to not getting stuck in the snow is forward momentum.

What this shows is that something heavy can be supported on top of the snow if the weight is spread out over a larger area, while something lighter sinks, if all it's weight is concentrated directly beneath as is the case with bipeds.

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that a 60 ton tank with it's weight spread out over a wide area is much less likely to sink than a bipedal vehicle of 60 tons that has all it's weight stacked up on two relatively small surface areas. All my experience and training tells me this is so.

What goes for snow also goes for sand. And Mud. And Marsh.

There's a reason we use snowmobiles up here in the winter and not ATV's. There's also a reason we use snow shoes (as has already been mentioned). Given a choice between snow shoeing or snowmobile, I'll take the snowmobile. Although heavier, it is many times faster than walking, can support more weight and can go where I can't as someone who is walking. Track wins over walking in the snow. No one who lives this far north would ever dispute that.

Another recovery example for terrain. I was called to pull out a light tracked vehicle with my wheeled wrecker. When I got there I found I had to call the armored recovery vehicle. While my winch was powerful enough with a three to one pull, I couldn't get close enough to attach the cable. The armored track vehicle could, not becuase it had a longer cable but becuase it could get closer over the wet, marshy terrain without getting stuck itself. Despite the fact that it weighs over twice as much as the wheeled recovery vehicle. Walking in that swamp was also a pain because you'd sink up to over the tops of your boots with every step and there were places you could sink in over your head if you didn't watch your step. The tracked vehicle moved quicker in this terrain and with much less difficulty. The track casualty was stuck because it found a pit deep enough to swallow it up to above the tracks. The width and length of the vehicle saved it from sinking all the way to the bottom. Had it been going slower, it might have tipped in nose first, piled all it's weight on the front (a small surface area) and then sunk to the bottom. A situation similar to this has happened and the vehicle was abandoned as unrecoverable.

So in conclusion. Weight spread over a wider area > Weight spread over a small area when it comes to traversing marginal terrain and avoiding getting stuck. Mobility wins go to those who are mobile, not those who are stuck.

Oh, in case anyone was wondering how I got out of five feet of snow... my co-driver sat in the drivers seat and when he was done laughing at me, grabbed a shovel out of the cab and dug me out to the point where I could finish digging an area around me. Then we both put on snow shoes and trod, /slowly/ across the rest of the field to camp. Which was a mistake because the heat of the engine and transmission melted the snow beneath the wrecker, causing it to sink farther. By the next morning we could only get into it by the roof hatch. We had to be pulled by the other wrecker, which was quite embarressing.

Edit: Jeffar is 100% correct in his statements about the Canadian Forces. The LAV III's, while respectable, don't hold up to IED's or RPG's like a tank can. Although it's not really a mobility issue as it is a firepower and armor issue. The tanks aren't really going anywhere that we weren't already.

[slade the sniper]

Cybermancer, were you down in RC-S? Lovely place

I was down there a few months ago talking to the tankers there.

I agree wholeheartedly with both Jeffar and Cybermancer on the content of their last posts.

The US experience of using armor in Vietnam. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/CTG.htm

Hmmm, I guess Kaltes quit...

-STS

[Jefffar]

I like this passage personally:

In Vietnam, armored forces were able to overcome most of the terrain
difficulties through improvisions and thus could play a greater pivotal
role. They could even operate independently throughout Vietnam, whether in
the jungle or in the unundated delta. While it is true that armor could
operate quite effectively in closed terrain of Vietnam, experience shows
that there are some practical limits to which armor can be used in such
terrain.
Although mechanized forces could move with reasonable freedom in
Vietnam, there were practical limits. For example, the mountainous jungles
would certainly be off limits to armor. The less undulating jungle can only
be traversed if tracked vehicles follow the lines of least resistance. For
this, they need to be guided by helicopter.
To be sure, armor will not be along in being confronted with such
unsurmountable terrains. These terrains are equally untrafficable to the
infantry, air mobile units, and artillery. The latter particularly requires
favorable terrain for mobility and deployment. Apart from these practical
limits, the major lesson to be learned from this study is that the U.S. Army
has, to its detriment, paid far too little attention to armored operations
in Vietnam.[SIC]

In summary of the article, conventional armoured forces were quite capable of fighting through city, dessert, jungle, mountain and swamp, there are limits to the mobility of tanks. But in those areas where armour doesn't function infantry, air mobile forces and artillery can't get around either.

If infantry and air mobile forces aren't able to get around effectively in a terrain type, I'm pretty sure a mecha couldn't either. So the mecha isn't going to be operating in areas tanks can't in any meaningful way. True it will not loose as much mobility in certain terrains (in particular mountains) as tanks do, but it will still be restricted. On the other hand, in many other areas (such as swamps) a mecha would see it's mobility reduced at a greater rate than the tank.

Seeing as the tank could go pretty much wherever the army wants it to go and better armed and protected pound for pound than a mecha is, we won't see an army using mecha in the heavy armour role.

[batlchip]

umm...Ya'll do know that some of the DD tanks in the landings at Normandy where lost.Do to the rough seas right? there was also tanks made with flamethrowers added to them these where used mostly in the pacific war during WW 2.

[Jefffar]

Agreed, the DDs were barely seaworthy, but they were still swimming tanks. The Japanese had much more sea capable swimming tanks. They carried large metal pontoons. Once on land they could release the pontoons for more mobility or keep them for extra protection.

Flamethrower tanks weren't just used in the pacific. The British Churchill Crocodile was a regular Churchill Infantry Tank (a very well protected and well armed but slow medium tank) equipped with a flamethrower and an armoured trailer full of fuel. The best part about it was that unlike a lot of other flamethrower tanks it didn't have to sacrifice using the big gun to use the flamethrower. This allowed it to do it's own version of the modern "Shake and Bake" attack - hit them with explosives and and then burn them.

They were used heavily in the campaigns in Holland. A standard practise would be to use the big gun to knock a hole in a pill box, then use the flamethrower to spray jellied gasoline into the structure. At that point the folks inside the now highly flammable structure had a few seconds to start indicating their surrender before a lit blast from the flamethrower followed.