Forums of the Megaverse®

Tank vs. Mecha

Okay, to start this off I want to make a few points/assumptions that we will use as a guide in this discussion.

1) We are dealing with real world physics, not fictional world physics. Just because a work of fiction like an RPG or a TV series claims a device is capable of performing a feat, it doesn’t mean that it would really be possible. If that were the case, my cat would talk, my car would fly and my computer would read my mind instead of making me type this out.

2) We are dealing with the same level of technology being put into both the mecha and the tank. That means if the mecha can have a tele-mental helmet, a fusion turbine engine and an advanced radar system, so can the tank. This is to make the comparison as fair as possible.

3) I will often be referring to things being the same overall mass or weight. Weight is one of the great measuring sticks of armoured fighting vehicle performance. Tanks were (and basically still are) sorted by their weight. Many fictionalized depictions of mecha also use weight classes as a way to roughly describe the capabilities of a mecha. There are advantages and disadvantages to being heavier or lighter. One is not necessarily better, they are different. However, in this comparison, since we are looking at an identical overall weight, we can assume that if one subsystem is heavier, it reduces the amount of weight available for all the other subsystems.

4) The traditional categories in which armoured fighting vehicles are rated are Protection, Mobility and Firepower. The principles of Armoured Fighting Vehicle design are essentially trying to find a balance that maximises all three without moving beyond the constraints of size, weight or cost.

5) This is a theoretical discussion only, mecha technology isn’t mature enough to produce a viable combat machine yet. That being said, I doubt many of the laws of physics will be re-written by the time that a combat mecha is reasonably possible.

6) I am only dealing with ground vehicles at this point. We’ll talk about aircraft later.

Mecha vs. Tanks - Round 1: Protection.

What does protection mean? Protection is a measure of how likely a system is to survive against the threats that it will potentially face. In simplest form, Protection has two elements. The first is not getting hit. The second is surviving the hit.

So, which is better at not getting hit, a tank or a mecha?

Again, looking at our equal technology, we can assume that if the mecha has a system capable of shooting down incoming missiles, so does the tank. If the tank has the ability to lay a smoke screen to hide itself, so does the mecha.

Looking to real world physics, we can reasonably say neither the tank nor the mecha will be capable of the acceleration and agility needed to actually dodge fire. The best either can hope for is to move rapidly enough and unpredictably enough from cover to cover to throw off any gunner’s aim.

So, if both the tank and the mecha are equal in their ability to intercept an incoming attack, and both the tank and mecha are equal in their inability to dodge an incoming attack? Which is better at avoiding getting hit?

Answer: The Tank

Why? Because it has a lower silhouette.

Think about it. A tank is essentially a squat box with another squat box on top of it. Many modern MBTs (the largest tanks out there) are barely taller than a man. Meanwhile, that mecha, with its bipedal configuration, will be much taller.

Why does this matter? Well, two reasons. One, the tank’s low silhouette reduces the likelihood of it being spotted. After all, it can hide behind objects that are much, much shorter than the mecha can. Secondly, the because the mecha’s silhouette is higher, it presents an easier target to hit.

If you don’t think this makes sense, then tell me, what do soldiers do when they are in a zone where they might take fire? Do they stand up straight or do they try to get as low as possible. If you answered they stand up straight, I suggest you don’t join the military.

But, I said there were two parts to protection. Yes the tank is less likely to get hit, but how do the tank and mecha compare when all the other defensive systems fail and the enemy weapon strikes home?

Well, unless a law of physics gets re-written, the effectiveness of armour increases as its thickness increases. As the thickness of armour increases, so does its weight. So to survive a hit, you want the thickest armour you can get. However, as you make the armour thicker, the armour gets heavier. Since we are dealing with an identical overall weight, heavier armour means you have less mass available to devote to your Mobility and Firepower. So, if your armour is heavier, they will suffer.

See what I mean about a balancing act? You could make a tank that no weapon in the world short of a nuke could defeat . . . if you were willing to arm it with a .22 rifle and watch it steam along at 1 kilometre per hour. Or you could make tank with the biggest baddest gun, and the speed of a NASCAR racer, if you were willing to make the armour out of paper.

So, back to our tank vs. mecha comparison.

Because of its shape, a box on a box, the tank has only a few surfaces to armour. Its design does well to maximise its internal volume while minimizing its surface area. Meanwhile, on the mecha, you need to armour the arms, you need to armour the legs, you need to armour the head unit, you need to armour the upper torso and you need to armour the lower torso. Each of these will need armour wrapped all the way around them.

What’s the result? You basically have two choices. You could A) Use the same mass of armour as the tank, but see a reduced thickness of armour on the mecha, or B) use the same thickness of armour as the tank, but see the weight of your mecha’s armour be much, much more.

Sounds like it isn’t too good for the mecha in terms of how effective its armour will be, but weight, it gets worse.

Another aspect that makes armour more effective is shaping. Look at the M1 Abrahams tank. There are very few surfaces that an attacker can score a direct hit on a flat surface. Everything is at an angle. Why?

Two reasons, first, if you remember your Pythagoras, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides. What this means in the case of armour protection is that if you strike an armour plate at an angle, you will have to travel through more armour than you would if you struck it straight on the perpendicular. The other benefit of angled armour is that you’re more likely to have a shot deflect off entirely instead of punching through.

When we look again at out tank and our mecha, we compare the silhouettes. The short, compact silhouette of the tank requires minimal shaping to make it almost impossible for an enemy to score that perpendicular hit (again think of the M1 Abrahams). Meanwhile, the mostly vertical silhouette of the Mecha calls for extensive shaping if one is going to avoid that deadly direct hit.

But hey, it gets still worse.

The shape of the armour on the M1 Abrahams is great not only because it gives the enemy so few chances at a perpendicular hit, but because it offers almost no shot traps.

What’s a shot trap? A shot trap is a space that you can ricochet a shot from one surface of the targets armour to another, to (ideally) achieve that perpendicular hit on the target. During WW2, Sherman tank gunners routinely used a shot trap on the front of German Panther tanks to redirect their shots directly down through the driver’s hatch. This allowed them to score kills on the Panther from beyond the range that their guns could punch through the Panther’s thick frontal armour.

A tank, especially one with well shaped armour, has very, very few shot traps. Meanwhile, that big mecha has all sorts of shot traps. A skilled gunner can bounce shots of legs, or arms, or the upper torso or the lower torso to find all kinds of weak points. There’s also all those lovely joints which can never really be completely sealed with armour.

So yeah, basically, the mecha’s armour is at best as thick as the tanks, but even then it’s still going to be less effective because of bad shaping and a multitude of shot traps and weak points.

So, overall, when it comes to protection, the tank wins hands down. It is less likely to get hit and it is more likely to survive the hit.

Mecha vs. Tanks: Round 2 - Mobility

What is Mobility? Mobility represents how well your system moves. This includes quite a number of factors like top speed, responsiveness, agility, stability and all terrain capability.

Top speed: I’ll admit, I’m not sure on this one, but my gut tells me tank. Why? Well I think the mechanism that provides locomotion to the tank (tracks) is lighter and more compact than the mechanism that provides locomotion to the mecha (legs). Since it is lighter, there will be more available weight to installing a bigger power source. A bigger power source means more power to the locomotive system. More power to the locomotive system typically means more speed.

My other thought on top speed is that I think the tread is probably a more efficient means of transferring motor output to locomotion than the legs are. I don’t have proof of this, but I don’t have proof against it and it seems logical to me.

Responsiveness is a measure of how quickly and accurately the system will translate control inputs into the desired action. For the most part this is determined on a technological level, so since all technology is equal, this is a draw.

Agility means more than the ability to do flips and rolls (which I think is not a realistic capability in a mecha of significant mass). Agility is how quickly the vehicle accelerates, decelerates and changes direction.

Contrary to popular belief, modern tanks are very agile. Their acceleration compares quite favourably with the average pickup truck, while some are able to come to a complete stop from 30 mph within a couple of body lengths. At speed I’ve heard the handling compared with sports cars, and even at a full stop they can turn a full 360 in place.

Mecha, it’s pretty hard to say, but I think they wouldn’t be anywhere near as agile as they are portrayed in Robotech. One of the great limiters on acceleration is inertia. The heavier an object is, the more energy is required to get it moving. A mecha’s leg is probably quite a lot heavier than a tank’s track, so it takes more energy to get moving. So the mecha designer has a choice. Installing a large power supply for the legs and reducing his available armour and weapons, or accepting that the mecha won’t accelerate as quickly as the tank.

Deceleration and turning are going to be even worse for the mecha. Why? All the inertial forces fighting against changing direction or slowing down are going to be concentrated in the knee and ankle joints. Unless those joints have quite a bit of heavy reinforcement, a fast turning or hard breaking mecha is likely to experience a broken ankle or knee. Remember we are dealing with solid metal systems here, not flexible systems like the human body. If we exceed our ability to make a turn at speed, we sprain some soft tissue and take a few weeks to heal. If a mecha goes over on its ankle, the foot is probably going to break off.

So yeah, in agility, the mecha is again no match for the tank.

Next we come to stability. Here the tank wins hands down. Why? Because it is low to the ground and has a large foot print.

Why does that matter? Well basically, to be knocked over, your centre of gravity has to be moved out from over the area you cover on the ground. If you are low to the ground, this is harder to do. If you cover a large area on the ground, this is harder to do. If you are low enough to the ground and cover a large enough ground area, it’s virtually impossible.

Think of an American football game. What do the offensive and defensive linemen do before the ball is snapped? They get down in a three point stance. Why? Because it lowers their centre of gravity and it increases the area on the ground they cover. It makes them harder to knock over.

When the ball is snapped, and they clash, the guy that gets knocked back is probably the guy who came up too fast. The other guy got under him, pushed his centre of gravity upwards and backwards until he goes down.

So look at our mecha and our tank. The mecha is standing tall and has two feet on the ground. The tank is down low, and it’s treads run almost the entire length of the hull and are located as close to the sides of the hull as possible. So, the tank will be much more stable than the mecha.

What does this matter? It matters a heck of a lot. If you’ve got an unstable vehicle, you won’t be able to accelerate, decelerate or turn very aggressively without falling over. If your unstable vehicle is hit by a high powered weapon, especially towards the top of its body, it’s more likely to get knocked over. If your unstable vehicle fires a weapon with a lot of recoil force, it’s more likely to get knocked over.

If you need a practical demonstration of the difference this would make, stand up at your full height, and get a friend to try to push you off balance by putting one hand on each of your shoulders and pushing. Unless you drop back a leg to brace yourself, you’ll probably end up on your butt. While you’re down there, get on your hands and knees and ask your friend to put a hand on each of your shoulders and try to push you off balance. Unless your friend is much larger than you, you shouldn’t go anywhere.

Finally, we get to all terrain capability. This is how much terrain conditions affect the mobility of the system.

Now here is where the mecha actually has a couple of advantages - at least if it has hands. Using its hands to climb like a ladder, or its legs to just climb like a set of stairs, the mecha can ascend slopes far steeper than the tank ever could . . . but it has to do it very slowly because the mecha isn’t as stable as the tank and climbing would put a lot of stress on those delicate joints.

The mecha’s ability to twist, turn and sidestep should also help it in moving through tight confines like a forest or city streets - again assuming it can be made stable enough and the joints strong enough to handle the stresses.

On the down side for mecha, aside from potential stability and joint issues, there is a ground pressure problem.

The mecha simply would generate too much ground pressure with all it’s weight focused on those two feet (or as its moving, 1 foot at a time). This would mean that the mecha would sink up to its knees in ground that the tank could roll across unimpeded. Worse, bridges, overpasses and slopes might collapse under its feet causing the mecha to experience a disastrous fall.

If you want a practical application of ground pressure, go skiing on fresh powder. Without the skis, as you walk around, you will likely sink a fair bit into the snow each step. But when you put on the skis, you will glide along on top of the snow. What’s the difference? The skis increase the area that your weight is distributed over the ground, thus reducing your ground pressure.

Short story, you without skis is the mecha, you with skis is the tank. If you have firm and fully packed ground you’re okay, but over the loose ground the skis have a much easier time of it.

So we’ll just give the mecha big feet you say? Well, keep your skis on and go walk around the shopping mall. That’s what it’s going to be like if you increase the size of the mecha’s feet to get the same ground pressure as the tank. Slow and clumsy. The extra weight will also reduce the amount of weight available for things like armour and firepower too.

So, in mobility, again it goes to the tank. The mecha’s basic configuration has too many potential flaws for it to be as mobile overall as the tank.

Mecha vs. Tanks - Round 3, Firepower

Here it is sports fans, the moment we’ve been waiting for - who can dish out the most punishment, the tank or the mecha?

Firepower has three elements. First is the accuracy of the weapon, if you can’t hit, you can’t do damage. Second is the power of the weapon, you can shoot BBs at a steel door all day and just scratch the paint, but if you hit it with a .50 calibre rifle, you need a new door. Third is the ammunition supply and feed system, how many shots have you got and how fast can you get them ready to fire.

So, accuracy. My first impulse is to say this is technologically based and call it a draw . . . but then I thought about the effects of recoil and our old friend stability.

Ever wonder why the Barret .50 rifle requires its operator to lay prone and use a bipod while a Berretta 9 mm pistol can be shot by someone standing up? Answer is recoil. The .50 rifle generates so much recoil, that if the shooter didn’t go prone and use the bipod, he’d end up on his ass, which isn’t good for accuracy (or rate of fire). So if a mecha wants to mount a high recoil weapon system (like heavy cannon) it’s going to need to install some sort of recoil suppression system if it wants to keep on its feet and keep the weapon pointed in a useful direction. If it does install the recoil suppression system, that’s lots of weight that otherwise could be used to provide more firepower, more armour or more mobility.

So, unless you’re using low recoil weapons, the tank wins the agility competition.

How about the comparative power of the weapons. Well here again recoil is a key consideration. If your weapon has a high recoil, the mecha, with it’s stability problem, might not be able to mount it while the nice stable tank can.

But it’s more than that. Look at the way the main weapons are mounted on the Excalibur, Spartan and Raidar-X - yeah, they are mounted at the shoulder joint. Problem - this means you need a strong, and therefore heavy shoulder joint to keep the weapon from falling off and to absorb the recoil forces to keep your weapon from flying off. The other alternative is to use a lighter weapon, which also means you use a less powerful weapon.

Meanwhile, the tank’s weapon mounting doesn’t have to fight against gravity - heck gravity helps keep the tank’s turret in place (most are not actually fastened securely in place, instead they rely on gravity to keep the 20 or so tonnes of turret in its hole). Also, rather than pass the recoil through a relatively breakable joint, the recoil is efficiently transferred to the whole tank, reducing the likelihood of a catastrophic failure.

Yes, yes, if you’re dealing with an energy weapon you don’t need to worry about recoil - but you still need to worry about weight. The tank can simply carry a heavier class of weapon than the mecha. A heavier weapon typically also means a more powerful weapon.

So, when it comes to the power of the weapon, the tank wins again because it can mount heavier, more powerful and harder recoiling weapons.

Oh, if you’re thinking about the mecha’s ability to carry multiple weapons of various types - you can mount multiple and diverse weapons on a tank too.

Finally, how many times can you shoot and how long do you have to wait between shots?

Well, if we’re dealing with energy weapons, and assuming the engine technology and similar was all equal . . . I favour the tank. Why? Because the tank, with its more efficient use of armour and it’s more efficient means of transferring engine output into locomotive energy, is likely to have more spare engine power to keep the energy weapons charged and ready to fire.

As for the projectile weapons, I’ve already mentioned the tank is basically a box. Well boxes are good for storing stuff because they have a lot of internal volume. The tank, likewise, will have a lot of available space to store ammunition. Also, because there is so little distance between the weapon and the ammunition storage, the feed of ammunition would be much simpler and more reliable.

Ammunition feed on the mecha would be a nightmare. There’s no really good place to put it. You can’t put it in the torso, because of all the mechanisms for shoulder joints, hip joints and waist joints will be taking up room. You can’t put it in the legs, because you need to have those full of actuators and joints to keep you moving. You can’t put it in the arms because it would take space away from the arm actuators and any weapons you have in the arms. So you’re left with creating a storage space on the back (I wouldn’t recommend the front because that will get more hits) or on the shoulders. Otherwise you have to deal with a very limited ammunition supply.

Speaking of supply, what about the feed systems? In the tank, the ammunition feed system is a part of the turret, it rotates in unison of the gun. This is a very simple system that encourages reliability. In a mecha with arm mounted weapons, the ammunition will have to pass through or around the shoulder joint. With heavy rounds this is probably impossible. With lighter rounds this will be incredibly difficult to do without the feed system bending, twisting and jamming.

So yeah, tanks again.

Wrap up

So it’s a clean sweep for the tank. Protection, Mobility and Firepower, it beats the mecha hands down.

But there’s other areas to consider, such as cost to procure and operate.

But wait, the tank wins there too. Because the basic systems are simpler, they would be easier to build and maintain than all those fancy joints and actuators.

How about training the crew?

Again the tanks win. They would be easier to operate because you don’t have to spend all that time trying not to fall over.

What about versatility?

Well here the mecha has a real case - if you aren’t worried about not being as effective a combat system. A mecha with hands can engage in all sorts of engineering and recovery tasks. On the downside, it’s instability and poor cross country performance make it only possible for the mecha to do these things under very specific circumstances. Besides, there are dedicated engineering and recover versions of most tanks that could do those jobs better than the mecha could anyway.

Yes a tank can’t creep aboard a hostile alien mother ship, but then a gain, a multi-tonne mecha can’t really creep anywhere anyway. For that mission I’d send the Special Forces.

So yeah, the mecha is more versatile for non-combat applications than a tank, but if I’m building a war machine, I think combat applications are going to be a higher priority 9 times out of 10.

So yeah, in the real world, the tank is better than the mecha.

a) You remind me of all my arguments regarding the old Battletech. It doesn't help that I agree with you on nearly everything.

b) That's really depressing to read on a robotech forum. lol.

You forgot another major factor. Cost.

A tank will cost a fair bit to build and maintain. Abrahms, Challenger, T-92, whatever. These are costly lumps of machinery requiring an army of specialists to build, repair, maintain, and keep in combat after recovery. Tanks = money. Lots of it.

Now think about mecha. It's far more complex systems would require a higher degree of maintenence (costs more), more technicians (costs more), greater complexity to build (costs more), I mean just think of the finger actuators on every arm, and the systems required to drive them. In the human body, nearly all the muscles in the forearm are used to work the hand. If you built a mecha in the same way, then that's a lot of complex hydraulics/pnuematics you have there that need to be cleaned, oiled, repaired, maintained. It all adds to cost.

Cost goes up with complexity, and a human-styled mecha is a complex piece of machinery indeed. Therefore, I'd say (just roughly) that you could probably field anywhere between five and ten modern tanks for the equivalent of one mecha.

Like I said... you're depressing me.. stop it!

The truth hurts, huh?

Bearing all this in mind, you should see some fo the tanks I built for the EBSIS in my games.

The T-80UM2 Black Eagle is truely frightening, but the T-95 and T-100 are quite awe inspiring.

well, think of the possibilities of powered armour then. Let's take a cyclone. These little suckers run at nearly 100kph. That means those human-sized legs (that have human legs and knees inside them) must be moving pretty darned fast.

Now, lads, think of the 'chafing' possiblities. You'll need more than just some talcum powder or vaseline to ward that off.

Also, think of the likelihood of stretching/straining your muscles. Sportsmen do it all the time by overextension. Do you think that after a few minutes of racing around at 100kph your little human legs will be fit to stand on, or walk on? I think you'll need a physiotherapist in a hurry if you try it.

When I was 18 my dad drove to the tip with the trailer and my uncle in another car. After I finished clearing out the trailer, my dad, thinking I had gone with my uncle, drove off. I hadn't, and didn't want to be left behind so I grabbed the back of the trailer and thought he'd look in the rear view mirror (my dad is totally deaf in one ear so he couldn't hear my yelling). I thought I could just get up to speed and vault into the trailer. Instead I wound up 'running' behind the thing at up to 60kph for over a kilometer before I let go and tumbled to a dusty stop on the dirt road. 'ouch' doesn't quite justify it, and I didn't speak to the old man for the rest of the day (he made it up to me). My point is, that I KNOW what it's like to have power-augmented running (sorta) and I wound up with some serious muscle sprains because of it (I can say in truth to the ladies that I have strained my groin through overexertion, lol).

IMHO, powered armour is even more ludicrous in the real world than mecha.

*claps*

very nice read. depressing, but founded in sound science and logic.





but I have to ask this. can you try that over again, this time assuming real, true MDC is possible exsactly as written? would that effect the Mecha's mobility and such by making sure the joints can easily take the strain with 0 chance of factures and such?

assume everything else is as you have already said.

Comrade Corsarius, on PA your pretty much correct as far as Palladium Books Power Armor are concerned.

in Real Life Power Armor is being thought more of as a "packmule" set up. not faster than a normal person, but able to carry much much more. think the Powerloader from aliens, and reduce the bulk down to a human sized exoskeleton.

with such exoskeletons, a soldier could carry a rifle style .50cal machinegun, body armor rated to stop most rifles, and a full "land warrior" electronics system, with out loosing too much in running speed and manuverbility. "shock troops".

or a anti-tank crew could carry not only the launcher, but each soldier could carry a full compliment of reloads, plus assualt rifles, grenades, and standard gear.

in supply units, speed of loading/unloading would increase, because those heavy items no longer require a 2-4 man team or a forklift/crane to move.

Real good topic and content. Nicely done.

Then again, his decision only imitated Destroids vs Tanks. Destroids were always Anti Air units in the first place. Something meant to take down jets and helicopters when they made their bombing runs.


Another advantage Mecha have over Tanks: The ability to Carry Bombs.
A mecha (even a small one) could lay down any number of Bombs, Mines, and Area affect weaponry because it has hands and so many spaces in it's armor to put explosives in unlike a tank.

Just think of how many Rocket propelled Grenades or Stinger missiles a mecha could carry vs A Multi Vehicle crewed Tank can carry.




A Mecha Does Not need to be humanoid to be better then a tank.

A mecha Can be made to be able to change profile, Change Elevation, Change stabilizers, Change Limb Configuration, Change from walker to wheeled.


Mecha From the game Battle Tech were entirely unfeasible and silly, the only ones who weren't were probably the Pheonix Lambs.


A mecha would Not Need to be armored with feet thick armor.
reactive armor is jetisonable and you can mount more of it.

Gun shields can be made to deal with Tank guns, even with their TOW or APFSDS ammo.

Sonic Weaponry: really nasty when you get to Up and Close: Should a mecha ever get within Melee range of a tank Sonic weapons could be used to Liquify the pilots inside the mecha or be used to Ocilate the tank so much it bursts.

Gomen_Nagai wrote:Then again, his decision only imitated Destroids vs Tanks. Destroids were always Anti Air units in the first place. Something meant to take down jets and helicopters when they made their bombing runs.

And you can out fit a tank chasis with anti-aircraft weapons and missiles.

Gomen_Nagai wrote:
Another advantage Mecha have over Tanks: The ability to Carry Bombs.
A mecha (even a small one) could lay down any number of Bombs, Mines, and Area affect weaponry because it has hands and so many spaces in it's armor to put explosives in unlike a tank.

Or, you could go with the real world scenario in which tank chassis are equipped with a variety of mine layers, including rocket mine laying systems that allow you to sow a large minefield in about the same amount of tiem it would take that mecha to plan 1 mine

Gomen_Nagai wrote:
Just think of how many Rocket propelled Grenades or Stinger missiles a mecha could carry vs A Multi Vehicle crewed Tank can carry.

Not many. The tank is a box, a very efficient use of surface area to contain a storage space. A mecha is not a box. It has lots of areas taken up by joints and actuatrs that a tank simply would not have.

Gomen_Nagai wrote:
A Mecha Does Not need to be humanoid to be better then a tank.

A mecha Can be made to be able to change profile, Change Elevation, Change stabilizers, Change Limb Configuration, Change from walker to wheeled.

Which all eats up valuable space and weight better used for things like armour, better weapons and a better powerplant. It also makes yor system more complicated which makes it 1) More expensive to produce adn 2) Harder to keep operating properly.

Gomen_Nagai wrote:
A mecha would Not Need to be armored with feet thick armor.
reactive armor is jetisonable and you can mount more of it.

Yes, but reactive armour is good only for a single hit on each spot, and reactive armour does have to be thick to work. If anything, it's even bulier than conventional armour, but it is lighter.

Ohh, and a lot of tanks these days mount reactive armour on top of their regular armour - so the tank would still have more effective armour.

Gomen_Nagai wrote:
Gun shields can be made to deal with Tank guns, even with their TOW or APFSDS ammo.

Great,t hat's a great big heavy peice of equipment that 1) stresses your limb actuators, 2) reduces your mobility, 3) makes you even more off balance, 4) reduces your ability to carry weapons and 5) is only effective from one direction at a time.

Gomen_Nagai wrote:
Sonic Weaponry: really nasty when you get to Up and Close: Should a mecha ever get within Melee range of a tank Sonic weapons could be used to Liquify the pilots inside the mecha or be used to Ocilate the tank so much it bursts.

And what happens if the tank uses sonic weaponry? We're talking same tech level remember? Any system that can be built into the emcha can be built into the tank.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:
but I have to ask this. can you try that over again, this time assuming real, true MDC is possible exsactly as written? would that effect the Mecha's mobility and such by making sure the joints can easily take the strain with 0 chance of factures and such?

No matter what the technology level is, the joints would still be a weak point on the mecha. Perhaps not for the terms of the emcha's own mobility, but definitely in terms of receiving incoming fire. You just can't heavily armour the joits without reducing their flexibility and speed of motion.

The joints are also heavy, reducing the ammount of mass available for weapons, armour and improved powerplants. They are also complex, making the mecha more difficult and more expensive to build and maintain.

The joints being tough enough to survive the movement of the mecha still doesn't change the balance issues and only partially mitigates the maximum size of the weapon that can be fielded.

Tank still wins.

The tank can also employ tactics destroids can't (using terrain for one to 'mask' their silluette.) The battloid used by EBSIS was made small so it could duck behind trees...

But over all a tank is mobile and can employ tactics reserved typical for infantry. It can go places no destroid would dream of, and can do a quick turn and hit the gas to dodge where the the leg design of destroids negates that benefits.

(which is why Destroid take punishment.)

I agree a good tank platoon can be a threat to mecha but it all boils down who the better tactician is, AND what they have to work with..a well equipped tank like the Tornado and Dark Knight (for instance) can disable much quick and out the Destroids sight...

A remote guide missile can home in from the back and NOT set of target locks and by the time the motion sensors ID it it's too late it the missile is flying low to the ground. Most missiles have cameras so practicly any missile can be remote guide by Predator X-10 Remote Survailance craft placed launcher on a tank or a good Com-suite with a sat-link.

Basara_549 wrote:The one advantage that mecha can really have over tanks involves weapon angle.

Actually weapon angle does not really work to the Mecha's advantage. It would be much easier to score a perpendicular hit on a mecha than a tank. Why? Because the mecha is a big vertical target.

Basara_549 wrote:Mecha will tend to be armored fairly uniformly, so will be able to take hits from most directions, but not one as hard as a tank can take to its thickest armor.

Definitely, and most of the primary weapons to be carried by tanks are built to punch through the thickest tank armour in a single hit - so the mecha's armour would not stop a shot from the main gun of a tank. Meanwhile, the mecha would be forced to carry less powerful weapons than the tank can (see the Firepower discussion for while) and would not be able t punch through the tank's armour until it got to very close range.

Basically we're looking at the situation from the Gulf War when Abrahams 120 mm high velocity gun was able to punch right through the armour of the Iraqi T-55s from a range where the T-55 couldn't even score a hit, let alone get through the armour on the M1A1.

In this comparison, guess who's the Abrahams?

Basara_549 wrote:However, if the combat computer is good enough, and the mecha capable of righting itself, it is conceivable that a mecha could "dodge" a projectile line a 125mm or 120mm tank gun, either by a sidestep move that a tank can't quite do, or falling to ground like an infantryman under fire. Both have moderate risks of damage to the unit (unless specifically designed to drop a lot - again adding to the complexity), but it does give an edge that balances out the higher profile of the unit (in other words, a tanker must fight his instinct and always aim low to get either a mobility kill, or if lucky, to get a mech pilot to drop his mecha into the path of fire). The advantage only applies to head-on combat, not where the tank is firing from the side position, relative to the mecha.

So you're telling me, that a mecha that weighs as much as a battle tank (in the 30 to 50 tonne range) is going to be able to be able to react and accellerate fast enouugh to get out of the way of a projectile that travels in excess of three times the speed of sound?

The mecha won't be able to dodge any better than the tank. Plus the mecha will draw more fire than the tank because it would be spotted first and the mecha's upright posture makes it more likely to have a perendicular hit scored on for maximum effect.

Basara_549 wrote:Going the other way, most modern tanks will be much more at-risk vs direct-fire (non-missile) mecha for one good reason - at the position of the weapons on the mecha, the closer the range, the more likely attacks going from mecha to tank will hit the much more vulnerable top armor, whhich is much lighter than the front and side armor.

Definetly, the armour of the tank is thickest on the front and sides. This is because these are the directions a tank will typically face the most fire from. It varies from design to design how thick the armour is exactly from place to place on a tank, but I'd say the "thin" armour on the latest generation tanks is probably comperable to the "thick" armour on the Leopard 1 or the M60. Add in a few active protection systems like Explosive Ractive Armour, anti-missile systems and anti-laser systems (the Russians use all the above) and scoring a successful hit on the "thin" spots is pretty difficult.

More importantly, the tank is able to mount more powerful weapons, thus being able to engage the mecha at a longer range, keeping the mecha from getting close. This top down direct fire advantage only applies if the mecha has lots of really tall cover to get to within very (and I do mean very) close range. So it would work in a city and maybe densly forested or very hilly/mountainous terrain.

Why does it have to be very close? because, until the mecha is shooting almost straight downwards, the shot will be dealing with hitting the top armour at an angle, which increases the effectiveness of the armour.

Basara_549 wrote:The tank still has the advantages, but woe be the tank force that fails to change tactics to compensate for the downward fire angle of the Destroid guns (especially the energy weapons).

Tank tactics to avoid plunging fire from destroids

On open ground:
Step 1) Open fire at long range
Step 2) Drive past the smouldering remains.

In congested ground (ie a citty, heavily forested terrain, etc)
Step 1) Keep an infantry screen to alert you when a mecha is close
Step 2) Work in teams, covering each other
Step 3) When a mecha appears, hit him first. At worst, your weapon will punch straight through him without dealing a killing blow. More than likely you will destroy it or at least knock it down.
Step 4) Drive past the smouldering remains.

Yes there are cicumstances when a mecha, all other things being equal, would have a strong advantage over a tank. But, those are specific circumstances, and a competent tank commander would know what those situations are and would do his best to avoid them or to mitigate the advantage a mecha could have over him.

Hey, this is the real world, that multi-million dollar tank or mecha, if they gets careless or unlucky could be taken out by a teenager with a 10 000 dollar rocket launcher. Just because that teenager can score a kill, it doesnt' eman that he is the superior weapon system. War is chaotic, confusion and subject to all sorts of wonderful twists and turns. Clever tactics, good leadership, sound strategy and through planning count more than superior weapony. If you don't beleive me do a comparison of American tanks and German Tanks and then tell me who won the war.

My point is that, everything else being equal, the tank is a superior combat vehicle in most situations.

Mecha like Destroids would have serious problems from anti-tank weapon infantry in any terrain other than a wide open plain.

Rabid Southern Cross Fan wrote:Mecha like Destroids would have serious problems from anti-tank weapon infantry in any terrain other than a wide open plain.

Even then - camouflagued fighting positions are a real pain in the butt.

the Tank has more crew members to kill with sonic weaponry vs the Mecha.

Mecha can mount more External weaponry Then a tank simply cause the mecha has more Volume.


Most Mecha's weapons would be on pods that can be removed as needed.


You need to stop thinking Battletech and Think " heavy Gear"

One possible place where Powered Armour, especially Rifts/RT-style, would excel at is over uneven/inclimate terrain or inside an urban setting.

A human-form power armour that was within reasonable height limites (say, 10 feet or so) could go many places that a tank couldn't, especially in an urban setting. They could use buildings to stage from, hide below in the sewers, use alleyways and whatnot. Tanks, in an urban environment, are limited to using pre-made roads or wide open spaces.

Same thing in mountainous or uneven territory. The tanks simply wouldn't be able to easily negotiate something like that, especially given their solidly connected front and back (there's no place for it to flex in the middle).


The only problem is that tanks won't be able to replace power armour or vice versa. That's why I like the REF: they have tanks and Destroids and Veritechs and Cyclones. They don't totally focus on one type of war machine to fight with (unlike Macross, which is Valk-crazy to the point of absurdity).

plus the mecha is a psycological weapon there is something more unnerving seeing a 20+ ft huminoid robot coming for u. plus mecha can squish a tank be cuase they are build low the mecha has a stepping stool now.

Warmaster40k wrote:plus the mecha is a psycological weapon there is something more unnerving seeing a 20+ ft huminoid robot coming for u. plus mecha can squish a tank be cuase they are build low the mecha has a stepping stool now.

Tanks are unnerving. In WWI troops ran away en masse rather than fight them.

Nothing is more hilarious than watching a 20+ ft humanoid robot coming for you, slip on something, and fall flat on its armoured back, arms and legs flailing totoise-like as it tries to right itself.

and Nothing is more worrisome than being in your 20+ ft humanoid robot as you are shot from range while in your helpless state.

Gomen_Nagai wrote:the Tank has more crew members to kill with sonic weaponry vs the Mecha.

Uhm, yeah, but if the tank has sonic weaponry it can kill the crew members of the mecha just as fast, probably faster.

Let's do some comparison here about multi-crew vehicles.

We'll take a one person mecha (since that seems to be the classic) and the three person tank (since that seems to be the standard.

The one person mecha has 1 crew member responsible for all the systems. the classic three person tank has a driver, a gunner and a commander.

This presents the tank with a number of advantages.

1) Survivability: While the tank functions optimally with 3 crew, in truth you can get by with just two crewmen, one driving and one shooting (the commander's main responsibility is to monitor the overall situation an co-ordinate the crew eforts). So if soemthing happens and one crewman gets taken out, the other 2 can still operate the tank. Heck its even possible that back up controlls are mounted at each crew station so they dont' even have to worry about moving people around (many modern tanks have a complete set of gunnery controlls at the commander's station for example). Better still, if somethign breaks down, you've got three guys there who can work to fix the problem immediately. 2 extra sets of hands tends to make repair jobs go faster

2) Combat performance. The advantages of a multi crewed vehicle over a single crewed vehicle in combat performance can best be sumemd up in this example:

Assume the tank and the mecha in this case have equal weapons, armour and mobility. Assume the crew of the tank and the mecha are of equal levels of experience and can perform the same number of individual actions per melee as each other. Finally, assume no other factors interfere.

Tank and mecha are within sensor and weapons range of each other. I'll give the Mecha the initiative

Mecha Pilot Action #1: Scanning for hostile vehicles and spots a tank.

Tank Commander action #1: Scans for hostile vehicles and spots a mecha, information gets relayed to gunner's control station.
Tank Driver action #1: steers tank towards a suitible firing position
Tank Gunner action #1: Alings weapon systems to target and activates the targeting computer.

Mecha Pilot Action #2: Aligns weapon systems to target and activates targeting computer

Tank Commander Action #2: Scans for additional threats
Tank Driver Action #2: Unmasks tank enough to fire
Tank Gunner Action #2: Confirms target an fires

Mecha Pilot Action #3: Eject

Tank Commander Action #3: Congratulate crew, scan for next threat
Tank Driver Action #3: Cheer, steer back towards objective
Tank Gunner Action #3: carve notch in dash board.

Gomen_Nagai wrote:Mecha can mount more External weaponry Then a tank simply cause the mecha has more Volume.

Uhm, no.

The tank is a box with another roating box mounted on top of it.

Why do we use boxes for shipping things? Because a box has a relatively high volume compared to tis surface area.

Also, in this case, the volume of the mecha is going to get cramemd with joints and actuators that the tank just doesn't need.

There are examples of lots of modern AFVs that mount multiple weapon systems. The Russian 2S6 mounts two twin 30 mm automatic cannons and two quadruple missile launchers. The russian BMP-3 mounts a 100 mm cannon (which also serves as a missile launcher) a 30 mm cannon, and 3 7.62 mm machineguns, plus a guy can lean out a hatch with a shoulder fired surface to air missile launcher. Heck, even a basic tank mounts the main gun and at least 2 machineguns.

Gomen_Nagai wrote:Most Mecha's weapons would be on pods that can be removed as needed.


You need to stop thinking Battletech and Think " heavy Gear"

Well, remember how we said that technology would be in equal?

If your mecha can have a modular weapons capaility, so can your tank.

Oh wait, some tanks allready do.


I'm not thinking Battletech or Heavy Gear, I'm thinking real world.

Lt. Holmes wrote:One possible place where Powered Armour, especially Rifts/RT-style, would excel at is over uneven/inclimate terrain or inside an urban setting.

A human-form power armour that was within reasonable height limites (say, 10 feet or so) could go many places that a tank couldn't, especially in an urban setting. They could use buildings to stage from, hide below in the sewers, use alleyways and whatnot. Tanks, in an urban environment, are limited to using pre-made roads or wide open spaces.

Same thing in mountainous or uneven territory. The tanks simply wouldn't be able to easily negotiate something like that, especially given their solidly connected front and back (there's no place for it to flex in the middle).

Yes, a light Power Armour definitely has some advantages.

I wasn't talking about them because I was mentioning weight being equal. If your 10 foot power armour weighs 30 to 50 tonnes, you havea problem.

However what that 10 foot power armour gaisn in mobility over a heavier mecha or a battle tank, it looses in absolute terms of firepower. there's no way it will be able to mount the quantity or quality of weapons that a 30 tonne war machine can.

However the power armour compensates for thsi by picking up quite a bit of stealth and the ability to operate over terrain that the 30 tonne mecha or tank jsut simply couldn't get to.

Lt. Holmes wrote:The only problem is that tanks won't be able to replace power armour or vice versa. That's why I like the REF: they have tanks and Destroids and Veritechs and Cyclones. They don't totally focus on one type of war machine to fight with (unlike Macross, which is Valk-crazy to the point of absurdity).

The smartest combat force will approach things in a balanced manner, creating a number of specialist vehicles and a few general purpose ones to give it the maximum advantage in the maximum number of scenarios.

Warmaster40k wrote:plus the mecha is a psycological weapon there is something more unnerving seeing a 20+ ft huminoid robot coming for u.

And tank's aren't unnerving?

Go watch Saving Private Ryan and tell me that when those German tanks show up that it isn't a scary momment? One of the things that made the Blitzkrieg so effective was the psychological impact of being confronted by the tanks, especially since the German doctrine called for a penetration of the enemy's front lines, followed up by the tanks raising all sorts of maddness amoung the enemy's rear echelon. The German tanks were so fearsome that Stalin had to have his NKVD troops set up machineguns behind his Red Army troops to make sure the Red Army troops wouldn't retreat.

Warmaster40k wrote:plus mecha can squish a tank be cuase they are build low the mecha has a stepping stool now.

Yes if a mecha gets very close to the tank, he can do a lot of serious owie to it. But unless the battle starts with the mecha really close tot he tank, or with a terrain feature that allows him to close without being exposed to the tank's weapons fire, the mecha will be blasted to pieces long before it gets to that close range.

Jefffar wrote:

Warmaster40k wrote:plus the mecha is a psycological weapon there is something more unnerving seeing a 20+ ft huminoid robot coming for u.

And tank's aren't unnerving?

Go watch Saving Private Ryan and tell me that when those German tanks show up that it isn't a scary momment? One of the things that made the Blitzkrieg so effective was the psychological impact of being confronted by the tanks, especially since the German doctrine called for a penetration of the enemy's front lines, followed up by the tanks raising all sorts of maddness amoung the enemy's rear echelon. The German tanks were so fearsome that Stalin had to have his NKVD troops set up machineguns behind his Red Army troops to make sure the Red Army troops wouldn't retreat.

Warmaster40k wrote:plus mecha can squish a tank be cuase they are build low the mecha has a stepping stool now.

Yes if a mecha gets very close to the tank, he can do a lot of serious owie to it. But unless the battle starts with the mecha really close tot he tank, or with a terrain feature that allows him to close without being exposed to the tank's weapons fire, the mecha will be blasted to pieces long before it gets to that close range.

And remember Tanks RARELY work alone...the Tank likes a sub...much more efficent in packs so they can protect one another...

Agreed. An important thing to remember is that tanks and mecha are just weapon systems, incredibly complex ones yes, but still just weapon systems.

Every weapon systems have their advantages and disadvantages. This is why you don't make jsutone weapon system, you make a variety of systems that suppor each other and use their strengths to mitigate each other's weakesess.

Armour (mecha or tank) is helpless without infantry, artillery air and logistical support to help it.

I think you're forgetting one important factor too...
Factor in the fact you'll be fighting against 30 to 50ft (10 to 15m) tall giants, not other armor troops.

Novastar wrote:I think you're forgetting one important factor too...
Factor in the fact you'll be fighting against 30 to 50ft (10 to 15m) tall giants, not other armor troops.

Precisely, You can see and here a detsroid miles due to noise and since it is above ground level.

use volley of guided missiles bye-bye legs!

Novastar wrote:I think you're forgetting one important factor too...
Factor in the fact you'll be fighting against 30 to 50ft (10 to 15m) tall giants, not other armor troops.

Not really, the tank still has all the advantages it has over the mecha over those troops, except perhaps mobility (no control issue on your own body). They are nice big, tall targets. Just use more HE-Frag instead of AP.

Oh, an update about the top attack option with direct fire weapons that mecha have on tanks.

It makes a reasonable ammount of sense for a successful hit on the surface of armour to be scored, it should hit within 45 degrees of the perpendicualr. Any more than that and the odds of the attack striking only a glancing blow and deflectig without doing any signifcant harm to the armour increase dramatically.

For a mechas weapon to be within 45 degrees of the perpendicular when firing down at a flat roofed tank, that weapon would have to be fired from a range of less than the height difference between the mecha's weapon, and the tank.

In practical terms, if the mecha's weapon was mounted 15 meters above the ground (50 feet for you yanks) and the tank was 2.5 meters tall (about 8 feet, reasonable for a modern tank) the mecha would have to be within 12.5 metres (just over 40 feet) of the tank.

The mecha won't get that close to the tank unless the tank lets it or the terrain available allows the mecha to make either a covered approach to that range or increases the height of the mecha over the tank.

I see the Typical Moderny Day mech armed with a payload simlar to A commanche or Tank killer plane.


a tank is toast because it's just not going to be able do too much from it's cramped quarters. Where as the Mech can field 3 times as many units (heck it doesn't even need to be heavily armored if you can get 3 mechs vs one tank )

Gomen_Nagai wrote:I see the Typical Moderny Day mech armed with a payload simlar to A commanche or Tank killer plane.

Yes, a mecha can carry weapons capable of killing a tank. Hecka n infantry man can carry weapons capable of killing tanks.

However, as another ground vehicle, the Mecha has to contend witht he big nasty gun mounted on the tank. That big nasty gun should out range pretty much any other direct fire anti-tank weapon and should go through the mecha's lighter armour like the proverbial thermally amplified spreading utensil through the proverbial dairy spread product.

Modern Tank Killing gound vehicles have to hide because their armour is not strong enough to take the direct hit from the tank's main gun. The mecha, with it's higher sillhoutte, will have a much harder time hiding.

Your flying tank killers on the other hand, generally don't have to worry about the tank's main gun. Most modern tanks have no better air defence than a heavy machinegun - but would be supported by armoured vehicles converted into air-defence platforms with guns and missiles optimised for taking down hostile aircraft.

But your mecha isn't a flying killer, it's a ground vehicle.

Gomen_Nagai wrote:a tank is toast because it's just not going to be able do too much from it's cramped quarters.

Cramped quarters? Huh? The mecha will have even more internal spacing issues since it has to put all those limb actuators and joints within the the volume covered by armour. the tank doesn't have to worry about that and can devote more space to crew, power plant and weaponry.

Gomen_Nagai wrote:Where as the Mech can field 3 times as many units (heck it doesn't even need to be heavily armored if you can get 3 mechs vs one tank )

Fielding 3 times as many units? Huh? The mecha is more expensive to produce and maintain than the tank. It's much more likely that a larger number of tanks would be produced.

It would also be easier to train the crew for the tank because a tank is a lot less complex to operate than a mecha. This would mean that you could train tank crew faster than you could train mecha crew. Also, because the requirements for the tank crewman wouldn't need to be as high, you have a larger pool of potential recruits fro tank crews.

Assuming you field a force ot 10 000 tanks, that's 30 000 crewmen. For a nation with say 300 milion people (like the USA) that represents 1% of 1% of the population, hardly a major drain on the available manpower pool.

Redneck666 wrote: As for a tank killer plane, I'm going to assume you mean Close Air Support, which means the A-10 as there are no others that truely up to par.

Slightly off-topic, but I have to correct you. The Su-25 is more than up to par. (it looks very much like the failed A-9 contender, btw). It mounts a powerful gun (a 30mm anti-tank beast), has great loiter time, can carry a huge range of armaments, is massively survivable (thanks to mods and battle experience), and can operate independently from roughly cleared areas, carrying its own test and support equipment in underwing pods. The engines are even designed so it can run on conventional diesel fuel for 24 hours (but then need to be scrapped).

The A-10 is also massively survivable (designed brilliantly so), mounts an amazingly powerful gun, has less loiter time, can carry a similar range of armaments, cannot operate from anything less than a concrete strip, cannot support itself with pod-able test and support equipment, cannot run on anything less than high-grade jet fuel.

Basically, the A-10 is awesome, one of my favourite planes of all time, but while the Su-25 is slightly (but only just) inferior in the tank-killing department, it is far more flexable in dispersal and usage. My nod still goes to the 'frogfoot' rather than the 'warthog'.

Oh yeah, and the Commanche was discontinued. We were looking at them to replace our Kiowas (not kiowa warrior... just kiowas!!) in the Australian armed forces. (that's right, our scout and recon and battlefield helicopter right now is still the kiowa!!). Fortunately we were able to do without and compared the Agusta Mangusta, the Atlas Rooivalk and the Eurocopter Tiger. So now we've got the Aussie Tiger. Very sweet piece of machinery, but they should have made them in tasmania so they could be tassie tigers... never mind, you can't have everything.

[edit] I think I know where our friend above went wrong. He wrote 'Commanche helicopter' but may have meant 'commanchero helicopter'[edit]

A-10 and the Su-25 (and its much improved Su-39 offspring) are the only purpose built CAS jet aircraft in service with any military. Both designs are optimised around survivability in an environment of plentiful AAA and SAMs and the accurate delivery of large payloads anti-tank, anti-vehicle and anti-personell weaponry. Both designs do this very, very well.

The Comanche's armament, if I am not mistaken, was to be 4 to 16 Helfire missiles plus gun.

The Apache is more capable than the Cobra, but it's also bigger and heavier which is a consideration if you're often carrier based. The Apache also doesn't have a 35+ year history with the Marines. The Cobra is an old oldier, but it has always delivered the goods, so I doubt the marines will trade it in until it can no longer do the job.

Jefffar,

You said that tanks have 3 crewmen?

That depends of on the type of tank.

Russian/Soviet Tanks have 3 crewmembers. Commander, Gunner, and Driver, with an auto loader.

US, British and Israeli tanks have 4 crewmembers. Commander, Gunner, Driver and, loader.

Tanks with living loaders have two advantages:
1. More crewman to effect repairs
2. Higher rate of fire.

Next while some Iraqi tanks have been destroyed by 25mm fire it is because they had sand and not real armor plating on their turrets. The Russians were not stupid enough to sell something that could be used against them, if they had to invade the Middle East for oil.

and I don't know about the Apache being more capable then the Cobra since the Apache breaks down more. Guess is what happened in Afghanistan? The Apaches couldn't get off the ground due to maintenance problems resulting from sand. So the Marines had to support the Army during an attack.

jedi078 wrote:Jefffar,

You said that tanks have 3 crewmen?

That depends of on the type of tank.

Russian/Soviet Tanks have 3 crewmembers. Commander, Gunner, and Driver, with an auto loader.

US, British and Israeli tanks have 4 crewmembers. Commander, Gunner, Driver and, loader.

Tanks with living loaders have two advantages:
1. More crewman to effect repairs
2. Higher rate of fire.

Yes, I am well aware that most western tanks employ a 4th crewman. I also know of many tank desings that only had 2 crew. But overall the Comander/Driver/Gunner set up seems to be a standard for AFVs in general so that's why I used it.

Thank you for backing up my point that more crew isn't ususally a disadvantage.

jedi078 wrote:Next while some Iraqi tanks have been destroyed by 25mm fire it is because they had sand and not real armor plating on their turrets. The Russians were not stupid enough to sell something that could be used against them, if they had to invade the Middle East for oil.

Agreed, the Soviets always make an export model and their own private model. I jsut brought up the Iraqi tanks because they offered a good comparison for the mecha vs tank debate. Like the Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm, the mecha is no match for its opponent in terms of protection, firepower or mobility.

jedi078 wrote:and I don't know about the Apache being more capable then the Cobra since the Apache breaks down more. Guess is what happened in Afghanistan? The Apaches couldn't get off the ground due to maintenance problems resulting from sand. So the Marines had to support the Army during an attack.

Let me qualify that, the Apache is mor capable in the Cobra when both are in perfect working order.


Smartass

I was trying to point out that the Corbra needs less maintenance then an Apahche.

A perfect example that the most recent tecnology is not always the best.

Kinda the same way we are looking at a mecha vs. tank

Now what about those mecha that are tanks?

Namley the Centuar and Spartus Hover Tanks?

They should still suffer from the mecha disadvantages. The VHT is in particualrly bad shape because it also has the penalties of being transformable.

Yeah it gets three modes, but what does it sacrifice in order to get that capability? In real world physics it would have to be a heck of a lot.

hi new here, but why do all mecha have to be two legged? If using real world teck i would use something with four or six legs ( note: i read somewere that some guy designed a six legged walker in Ca. i think.) but any how with four or six legs i would or could out do a tank. run low like a spider, run like a dog, and weapons would be mounted on all sides top, sides, and bottom.. just think of the elephants from return of the king, with ww1 tank mounted turrents and top mounted missiles.

you'd still have the issues of hight and recoil.

personally, i'd go with 12ft humanoids, and equip them with 25mm chaincannon (like the bradley's), recoilless rifles, Wire Guided Anti-armor missiles, heavy machine guns, or automatic grenade launchers.

your not going to be able to compete with tanks, so go for weapons able to take out infantry, light vehicles, APC's, and IFV's.

more of a "tank supporting robot"

this would be a bit more effective use, and in urban combat this would be much more effective than a tank.

when dealing with Anti Tank Weapons, You don't need more then a dual motor system to make a walking mecha. To make one that flys or jumps, you need a seperate engine for that..


Most Mecha in the real world have wheeled frames as well, and are NOT more expensive then a tank. Not even close.


All the Mecha Projects being done by private groups cost LESS then an Abrams tank.

The Honda humanoid (ROBOT - NOT POWER ARMOR) Only costed around 4 million in development, And that was just programming/salaries!)

if you need an example of Why Mecha are cheaper then even an bradley fighting Vehicle


The Batmobile in batman begins was prototyped at 1.3 million dollars each.
it was an armor plated, custom framed, Gatling gun mounting, 6 wheeled vehicle with an overpriced engine.

... And they bought 4 of them
... an abrams Cost $48 MILLION
for one
and the design of the batmobile is such that it would make an excellent urban Recon/scout vehicle. It could easily be refitted to mount a sparrow missile launcher Or any other common military vehicle, while not having the weaknesses of the common HUMVEE (even armored humvee)


Also note: Never trust what the Military uses. They always go for the lowest bidders.
If you want quality and price you Always have to go private contractors.

i think you could be wrong about the recoil. look at a spider it has a low center of gravity and its eight legs should be able to dissipate the energy from the recoil of a cannon. most animals are like that, able to natally adjust to the weight or force put on there backs or sides.

Have a look at the EBSIS SH-ATV. It's a four legged design, but with it's two arms it still has a much higher profile than any tank.

Sand + oiled joints = maintenence nightmare.

The Soviets IRL have a track record of developing 'second string' vehicles, aircraft and training programs to trade with their allies, keeping the best training and machinery for themselves.

The US has woken up to this policy, which is why Australia (the ever-trusted vassal.. er.. ally) is building second-rate AEGIS destroyers (like we have to worry about air warfare warships in this theatre, they are built for one purpose: to support the US fleet) and second-rate second-hand Abrams tanks. It's interesting to note that we could have bought ALL of Switzerland's refurbished Leopard II tanks (which we already operate) for the cost of the 40-odd second-rate abrams which will have less capability than the US variant. We are also purchasing the F-35 fighter, even though it patently isn't going to work for Australian conditions (range, manoeverability and so forth. If you could look at this country with an impartial eye you could see that the F-15 or the Su-27 family would be a better buy). Especially since our potential 'enemies' in this theatre are currently fielding excellent combat aircraft such as the Su-27 and the MiG-29/33. It smacks of politics... sigh.

Redneck, the Su-25 has it up on the A-10 in another way, then, as there is a carrier-capable variant that is flying from the Tblisi/ Admiral Gorshkov/whatever they call their carrier these days . I've yet to check stall speed and cruising speed, but they both work out roughly equal. I think that I was incorrect before as well. The Su-25 has a higher speed for dash and cruise, but its wing is exceptionally well designed for survivability and has many lift-enhancing devices built into it for long loiter time and heavy armament. There should be plenty of websites with comparisons though if we check.

As for helicopters, the Super Cobra was evaluated by us (as was the apache longbow) but didn't make the final cut. The apache was ruled out due to cost, and I'm not sure the reason for the final choice of the Tiger, but I'm glad we got such a highly capable machine anyway. It was about bloody time, although as usual, we are going to only have about twenty of them. Sort of like the army's heavy lift capacity, which relies on two (I think) chinook helicopters. That's right... two whole helicopters to support the heavy lift battlefield requirements of the entire army....

ok, try this one. why give arms, why make it humanoid in any way. think of a dog or cat about the size of a compact car. With robotic legs that are designed like a cats, for maneuverability and speed, with the joints covered in a heat retardant rubber, to protect them from the elements. it would have one hard point. the base weapon being a turrented 30 mm gatling firing depleted uranium round. they go out like a pack of wolves. hunting their targets just like the real thing.
this would give you a small mecka that can travel though any area weather it be wood, rocky, urban, est. hide low to the ground and waite to attack, or run full tilt showing its teeth.

so, basically, what you want is just a tank, but with legs instead of treads.

why? This makes it slower, less armoured, and less manoeverable.

rem1093 wrote:hi new here, but why do all mecha have to be two legged? If using real world teck i would use something with four or six legs ( note: i read somewere that some guy designed a six legged walker in Ca. i think.) but any how with four or six legs i would or could out do a tank. run low like a spider, run like a dog, and weapons would be mounted on all sides top, sides, and bottom.. just think of the elephants from return of the king, with ww1 tank mounted turrents and top mounted missiles.

The multiple legs would mitigate the issue of ground pressure a bit, but the cost for that would be a very heavy, complex, awkwards and expensive locomotor sysem.

Conventional tank treads would be at least as effective or even more effective 90% of the time and would be less expensive to make, easier to repair and not impose as much of a weight penalty.

glitterboy2098 wrote:you'd still have the issues of hight and recoil.

personally, i'd go with 12ft humanoids, and equip them with 25mm chaincannon (like the bradley's), recoilless rifles, Wire Guided Anti-armor missiles, heavy machine guns, or automatic grenade launchers.

your not going to be able to compete with tanks, so go for weapons able to take out infantry, light vehicles, APC's, and IFV's.

more of a "tank supporting robot"

this would be a bit more effective use, and in urban combat this would be much more effective than a tank.

Urban combat is definitely one of the few environments that a mecha, especially a light and compact mecha like you've described, actually would excell.

I would still add an anti-tank weapon to the mix, after all we put them on LAVs and give them to the infantry. This mecha, in urban combat, might actually have the chance to take on a tank in favourable terms, might as well give it something that can let it finish the job.

Gomen_Nagai wrote:when dealing with Anti Tank Weapons, You don't need more then a dual motor system to make a walking mecha. To make one that flys or jumps, you need a seperate engine for that..


Most Mecha in the real world have wheeled frames as well, and are NOT more expensive then a tank. Not even close.

I'm describig Mecha in the robotech sense. If you put wheels or treads on it it fits one of our conventional existing vehicle classifications allready.

Gomen_Nagai wrote:
All the Mecha Projects being done by private groups cost LESS then an Abrams tank.

The Honda humanoid (ROBOT - NOT POWER ARMOR) Only costed around 4 million in development, And that was just programming/salaries!)

How nice. Did they add armour? weapons? targeting computers? The ability to move faster than a person can jog?

Gomen_Nagai wrote:if you need an example of Why Mecha are cheaper then even an bradley fighting Vehicle


The Batmobile in batman begins was prototyped at 1.3 million dollars each.
it was an armor plated, custom framed, Gatling gun mounting, 6 wheeled vehicle with an overpriced engine.


... And they bought 4 of them
... an abrams Cost $48 MILLION
for one
and the design of the batmobile is such that it would make an excellent urban Recon/scout vehicle. It could easily be refitted to mount a sparrow missile launcher Or any other common military vehicle, while not having the weaknesses of the common HUMVEE (even armored humvee)

Uhm - FICTIONAL VEHICLE and NOT A MECHA

rem1093 wrote:i think you could be wrong about the recoil. look at a spider it has a low center of gravity and its eight legs should be able to dissipate the energy from the recoil of a cannon. most animals are like that, able to natally adjust to the weight or force put on there backs or sides.

The legs might help with the recoil, but they are a much heavier solution than treads which would help with the recoil even more.

Most animals have a brain that automatically compensates for recoil and such. To make a mecha do that it's going to need a heck of a computer control system.