Random nerd thread unrelated to orig. topic. Current: Tanks vs Mechs!

[Sophismata]

I must refrain from commenting further, as I can no longer see the line between sarcasm and ignorance :(.

[WindupAtheist]

The submarine has always had a clear military application. Ships that are for all intents and purposes invisible? Which navy wouldn't want that? It didn't work in the 1600s because the technology wasn't capable of supporting the concept, not because no-one was interested. By contrast walkers are a terrible concept and not simply an idea we can't do properly yet.

This made me look up the history of submarines on wikipedia. I thought this was interesting:

The strategic advantages of submarines were set out by Bishop John Wilkins of Chester in Mathematicall Magick in 1648:-

   1. Tis private: a man may thus go to any coast in the world invisibly, without discovery or prevented in his journey.
   2. Tis safe, from the uncertainty of Tides, and the violence of Tempests, which do never move the sea above five or six paces deep. From Pirates and Robbers which do so infest other voyages; from ice and great frost, which do so much endanger the passages towards the Poles.
   3. It may be of great advantages against a Navy of enemies, who by this may be undermined in the water and blown up.
   4. It may be of special use for the relief of any place besieged by water, to convey unto them invisible supplies; and so likewise for the surprisal of any place that is accessible by water.
   5. It may be of unspeakable benefit for submarine experiments.

Yeah, they pretty much figured out the potential of the submarine right away. It just took a couple centuries for technology to catch up.

[Fordel]

Regardless, in an urban environment the Mech would win over the tank anyways.

Dare I ask, how?


(  )

[Samprimary]

sigh. well, assuming fictional fantasy technology which accomplishes stuff that no current technology does (essentially, in the mechwarrior world, they can make resilient and powerful 'muscle strands' out of densely packed electroactive polymers) it provides a more 'actionable' weapons delivery platform that can more swiftly and nimbly point its guns in your direction, and fire.

of course all this mech combat conceptualization is also based on a ready dominance of sensor technology that makes combat way more linear and asymmetrical techniques far less reliable. What works today (potshots from buildings, etc) has nearly no viability in the mech world, especially given the utility and reliability of fantasy sensor suites and fantasy ablative armors. Mechs just play a centralized role in bringing heavy firepower to the enemy.

They are also it should be noted rarely 'indie operators' in warfare, typically paired up with tracked and hover tanks, air vehicles, fantasy aerotech, and a surplus of infantry.

[rk47]

Regardless, in an urban environment the Mech would win over the tank anyways.

Dare I ask, how?


(  )

WSAD strafing duh

[WindupAtheist]

How is having a side-mounted turret that can't even really rotate 360 degrees more nimble?

[Venkman]

Man, you'd think a nerd fight would at least compel people over to wikipedia.

An actual scenario would never be about one tank vs one mech. Some have mentioned it here already, so here are some details:

Tanks rarely work alone; the usual minimum unit size is a platoon (platoon is the smallest US Army/Marine unit led by an officer, and a component of a company or troop) of four to five tanks. The tanks of the platoon work together providing mutual support: two might advance while covered by the others then stop and provide cover for the remainder to move ahead.

Now you need to wonder: all of that vs a mech.

[Ratman_tf]

How is having a side-mounted turret that can't even really rotate 360 degrees more nimble?

Myomers are supposed to be faster than hydraulics or mechanical actuators like pistons or electric motors. But they're linear. They have to be anchored like human muscles. (They were originally invented to be used in cybernetic medicine for replacement limbs) So combined with the neuralhelmet, a mech can move as fast and precisely as an infantryman, while carrying as much weaponry and armor as a main battle tank.

Of course myomers are as real as flying cars and nanobots right now, but that's the Battletech justification.

[Aez]

One of the earlier point was that if you discover a faster way to move a gun around (like myomers) you could simply put it on top of a tank.

[Ratman_tf]

One of the ancient points from the usenet days earlier point was that if you discover a faster way to move a gun around (like myomers) you could simply put it on top of a tank.

If your goal was to make a tank with a faster turret, you'd be better off designing a better turret and not an arm.

[tmp]

How is having a side-mounted turret that can't even really rotate 360 degrees more nimble?

Having my arm mounted on my side doesn't prevent me from pointing finger of said arm at pretty much any point around me.

I'd guess being possible to simultaneously rotate multiple components by smaller degree can be faster than one component covering the same rotation entirely on its own. E.g. an arm turning by 90 degrees while torso is doing 90 degree turn on its own is overall faster than turret rotating 180 degrees. Stuff like that. Can the tank practice similar maneuver by using its threads to rotate the hull at the same time it rotates the turret, and would it be as fast as the mech moving around on its feet? No idea.

[Lantyssa]

If a tank gets a critical hit from any side it hits the crew.  The 'mech has several non-fatal critical locations and only a 1/36 chance of hitting the head.  Plus a crew of one versus four, so I could field four 'mechs to your one tank given equal numbers of soldiers.

Duh.

[Modern Angel]

This thread is the worst thing on the internet.

[Ghambit]

If a tank had the equivalent armor and weaponry a heavy mech had, the tank would be too big to maneuver in an urban environment.  And like I said before, oversized tracked vehicles dont do well on surfaces not designed for them.  Sure, a heavy mech may put potholes in the concrete, but a tank of that size would likely chew up the entire road and eventually dig itself into its spindles - rendering it immobile.  You'd have to have a ridiculously large track to make it work and then you're creating just way too much friction and weight to overcome... which means you need more power and more size just to crawl along the ground at a snails pace, also making you a sitting duck for anti-armor infantry and air.

So yah.  Physics fail?  I think not.  As "off base" the mech concept seems, there IS a logical reasoning to it.  Simple fact is, if you've got fusion technology and elastic myomers (which we have right now actually, just not perfected) - just build a mech.  Let the tanks serve as support.

[IainC]

If a tank had the equivalent armor and weaponry a heavy mech had, the tank would be too big to maneuver in an urban environment.  And like I said before, oversized tracked vehicles dont do well on surfaces not designed for them.  Sure, a heavy mech may put potholes in the concrete, but a tank of that size would likely chew up the entire road and eventually dig itself into its spindles - rendering it immobile.  You'd have to have a ridiculously large track to make it work and then you're creating just way too much friction and weight to overcome... which means you need more power and more size just to crawl along the ground at a snails pace, also making you a sitting duck for anti-armor infantry and air.

So yah.  Physics fail?  I think not.  As "off base" the mech concept seems, there IS a logical reasoning to it.  Simple fact is, if you've got fusion technology and elastic myomers (which we have right now actually, just not perfected) - just build a mech.  Let the tanks serve as support.

I've bolded the flawed parts from which the rest of your faulty logic derives. A mech wityh a higher surface to volume ratio whould need more armour than a tank capable of fielding the same weaponry. As for the mobility thing, a tank will have a larger contact area and a lower weight than the mech, if anything is going to have mobility issues it's the mech.

Also 'tracked vehicles don't do well on surfaces not designed for them' are you serious? The whole point of tracks is to enable movement over difficult/soft terrain.

[Ghambit]

If a tank had the equivalent armor and weaponry a heavy mech had, the tank would be too big to maneuver in an urban environment.  And like I said before, oversized tracked vehicles dont do well on surfaces not designed for them.  Sure, a heavy mech may put potholes in the concrete, but a tank of that size would likely chew up the entire road and eventually dig itself into its spindles - rendering it immobile.  You'd have to have a ridiculously large track to make it work and then you're creating just way too much friction and weight to overcome... which means you need more power and more size just to crawl along the ground at a snails pace, also making you a sitting duck for anti-armor infantry and air.

So yah.  Physics fail?  I think not.  As "off base" the mech concept seems, there IS a logical reasoning to it.  Simple fact is, if you've got fusion technology and elastic myomers (which we have right now actually, just not perfected) - just build a mech.  Let the tanks serve as support.

A mech wityh a higher surface to volume ratio whould need more armour than a tank capable of fielding the same weaponry.

You just proved my point.  The overall amount of armor a mech carries transferred to a tank would render the tank a slug.  A tank needs one good hit to disable it.  A mech needs many.  To equalize the overall armor value, the tank would need way more than the mech.

[Fordel]

You've missed the point.

A Mech would need more armor to equal the same equivalent armor protection of the tank. That isn't a good thing.



A Mech is not any less susceptible to 'one good hit' either, if anything it's more susceptible. Last I checked, a tank can't trip and fall flat on it's own face. 

[IainC]

You just proved my point.  The overall amount of armor a mech carries transferred to a tank would render the tank a slug.  A tank needs one good hit to disable it.  A mech needs many.  To equalize the overall armor value, the tank would need way more than the mech.

No I didn't. You simply fail at comprehension. The total amount of armour isn't important, the amount of armour in a particular location is. Armour in one place doesn't help when you're being hit in a different place. Requiring more armour weight to have the same level of protection is not a benefit. It's kind of the opposite of a benefit.

Also tanks can survive multiple hits, depending on what hits it - that's the whole point of fielding a tank in the first place. If anything penetrates a tank's armour and is destructive enough to wipe out the tank, why would it not have the same effect on a mech? Multiple locations bollocks aside that is. Tanks have different locations too. So why would your heavier, less manoeuvrable, less efficient vehicle with a larger target profile be better than the tank again?

[Fordel]

So why would your heavier, less manoeuvrable, less efficient vehicle with a larger target profile be better than the tank again?

Tank's suck at awesome wallpapers  

[Lantyssa]

I must refrain from commenting further, as I can no longer see the line between sarcasm and ignorance :(.

That's the glory of this thread.  Take nothing seriously and use your new found power to sow havoc.

[IainC]

I must refrain from commenting further, as I can no longer see the line between sarcasm and ignorance :(.

That's the glory of this thread.  Take nothing seriously and use your new found power to sow havoc.

This is kind of the last place I'd expect to find a 'who would win in a fight between Optimus Prime and ...' thread to be honest. It is interesting seeing some people's inner crazy leak out though.

[Venkman]

We used up our pop culture death matches on page 5.

[Samprimary]

Myomers are supposed to be faster than hydraulics or mechanical actuators like pistons or electric motors. But they're linear. They have to be anchored like human muscles. (They were originally invented to be used in cybernetic medicine for replacement limbs) So combined with the neuralhelmet, a mech can move as fast and precisely as an infantryman, while carrying as much weaponry and armor as a main battle tank.

Of course myomers are as real as flying cars and nanobots right now, but that's the Battletech justification.

Exactly. This is an .. discussion, we'll call it, between WizardDidItTech™ and things that exist in real life. The myomers provide superior mobility and targeting actualization to anything else, but they can only maneuver in a limb-like fashion. In addition to being a superior fantasy mobility platform, they are powered by a superior fantasy energy source. If this myomer technology existed, we would field mechs, and everything else that a wizard gave us. The only question is if we would ever actually get them as big as a hundred tons or if they would effectively cap before that point.

[Merusk]

You just proved my point.  The overall amount of armor a mech carries transferred to a tank would render the tank a slug.  A tank needs one good hit to disable it.  A mech needs many.  To equalize the overall armor value, the tank would need way more than the mech.

No I didn't. You simply fail at comprehension. The total amount of armour isn't important, the amount of armour in a particular location is. Armour in one place doesn't help when you're being hit in a different place. Requiring more armour weight to have the same level of protection is not a benefit. It's kind of the opposite of a benefit.

Also tanks can survive multiple hits, depending on what hits it - that's the whole point of fielding a tank in the first place. If anything penetrates a tank's armour and is destructive enough to wipe out the tank, why would it not have the same effect on a mech? Multiple locations bollocks aside that is. Tanks have different locations too. So why would your heavier, less manoeuvrable, less efficient vehicle with a larger target profile be better than the tank again?

Higher armor class, duh! He just said as much.  You'll need a THAC0 of -3 to hit a mech!

[WindupAtheist]

The LAHAT missile was developed by Israel more than 15 years ago, can be fired as standard ammunition from any 105mm or 120mm gun, has a range of 6-8km when fired from the ground, and has a 0.7 meter margin of error for accuracy. (Boom, headshot!) Battletech-vs-modern is a joke.

[Samprimary]

yeah this is a joke all right

[rk47]

but a mech can get up close and melee the tank :)

[Ratman_tf]

I must refrain from commenting further, as I can no longer see the line between sarcasm and ignorance :(.

That's the glory of this thread.  Take nothing seriously and use your new found power to sow havoc.

This is kind of the last place I'd expect to find a 'who would win in a fight between Optimus Prime and ...' thread to be honest. It is interesting seeing some people's inner crazy leak out though.

Ach! I don't have the picture of Optimus Prime punching out a Gundam.  

P.S. This thread is made of Awesomonium. Which is used to power mechs.

[Ratman_tf]

The LAHAT missile was developed by Israel more than 15 years ago, can be fired as standard ammunition from any 105mm or 120mm gun, has a range of 6-8km when fired from the ground, and has a 0.7 meter margin of error for accuracy. (Boom, headshot!) Battletech-vs-modern is a joke.

And attack helicopters obviously made tanks obsolete. Just after nukes made all conventional warfare redundant.

[pxib]

Mechs don't work for the same reason that King Kong doesn't exist. Scale something up to double height and you octuple its volume and often its MASS. Like giant insects, their armored ectoskeletons rapidly become either so heavy that they cannot move or so fragile that they cannot support themselves, much less handle the stresses of rapid movement. Size gambles awy motion efficiency and there is a threshold of diminishing returns which, once an animal-shaped robot grows beyond it, no amount of power will provide the speed and agility its smaller forefathers posessed. I'm sure if somebody did the math, you'd find no mechs would be much more than five meters tall.

Wheels, and treads (their more surface-area-weight-distrubtion-friendly siblings), simply scale better than legs.  If you need more mobility, take to the air in either fighters and bombers. If you just want bigger artillary, mount them on the practically frictionless platforms we've used before: railcars and ships. If you want human bodies and reaction times, I recommend INFANTRY. It's effective, time-tested, and dirt cheap.

Mecha sure look awesome. That is their sole redeeming feature.

[tmp]

The 'mech has several non-fatal critical locations and only a 1/36 chance of hitting the head.

That depends on the GM though. Some put the storytelling over the dice rolls and override the latter as they please.

[tmp]

If a tank had the equivalent armor and weaponry a heavy mech had, the tank would be too big to maneuver in an urban environment.  And like I said before, oversized tracked vehicles dont do well on surfaces not designed for them.  Sure, a heavy mech may put potholes in the concrete, but a tank of that size would likely chew up the entire road and eventually dig itself into its spindles - rendering it immobile.  You'd have to have a ridiculously large track to make it work and then you're creating just way too much friction and weight to overcome... which means you need more power and more size just to crawl along the ground at a snails pace, also making you a sitting duck for anti-armor infantry and air.

[Murgos]

And attack helicopters obviously made tanks obsolete.

Not yet but it's getting close.  The MBT has a role in asymmetrical warfare but I wouldn't want to be near one in a war between two conventional powers, especially if air superiority hasn't been established.

[WindupAtheist]

And like I said before, oversized tracked vehicles dont do well on surfaces not designed for them.  Sure, a heavy mech may put potholes in the concrete, but a tank of that size would likely chew up the entire road and eventually dig itself into its spindles - rendering it immobile.  You'd have to have a ridiculously large track to make it work and then you're creating just way too much friction and weight to overcome... which means you need more power and more size just to crawl along the ground at a snails pace, also making you a sitting duck for anti-armor infantry and air.

As an aside, most modern main battle tanks weigh just upwards of 60 tons, which puts them in the same weight class as "heavy" battlemechs. Somehow they don't dig themselves into the road and bog down. Hell, at the end of WW2 the Germans had several working prototypes of a 180 ton tank that was scheduled to enter production. They were expected to be too heavy to cross most bridges (so they gave them snorkels for driving along riverbeds, seriously) and they weren't very fast given the engines of the time, but they certainly didn't dig themselves into the ground. Large enough tracks can distribute a LOT of weight.

[Ratman_tf]

Ach! I don't have the picture of Optimus Prime punching out a Gundam.  

Now I feel better.