In the real world where the real rules of gravity apply, surely the tank wins?
>>123664539
Of course. Mechs are utterly retarded. Anything a mech can do is something tanks and helicopters already do better. I could only imagine mechs to be useful in space.
>>123664539
The tank wins by sheer numbers anyway. Mechs are cost ineffective.
Real world rules?
Drone/Jet beats both.
>>123664539
Yeah.
Mechs are still cool though
>>123664539
I'm pretty sure that if you can overcome the current scientific and technologic hurdle that prevent building mechs, then you're technologicaly competent enough to build a mech that would BTFO a tank.
>>123664539
Which mechs are we talking here
Read Heavy Object
>>123664645
If you have fucking magic, though, then you could still put it in a tank and do the same for cheaper.
>>123664539
this isn't /m/
Tank+Mech=Metal Gear
Metal Gear>Tank>Mech
>>123664645
By that logic wouldn't you also be able to build a tank or some kind of physics defying weapons platform thing that could BTFO a tank and a mech?
In which case you would go with that design anyway.
>>123664705
Tank + Mech = 'Real Robot'
Super Powers + Mech = Super Robot
Metal Gear = Autonomous real robot
>>123664645
Even if you had access to such technology, mecha form factor would still be dumb as shit.
>>123664561
>Implying a tank can disguise itself as the giant alien enemies by putting on one of their uniforms
>>123664645
You would probably just stuck the technology in a tank though.
But a tank can't wield a giant sword.
Tanks are pretty fucking absolute now. Mechs are dumb though.
With the current generation of carriers, both are kind of useless.
>>123664796
>absolete
The only practical mechs would probably be exoskeletons to enhance human abilities anyway.
>>123664781
Not so sure about that.
>>123664781
That's when you command your tank crew to drive you closer.
>>123664760
I'm going to need a tank in uniform to verify this.
>>123664561
Tanks cant traverse bad terrain, and they suck shit in urban warfare (without support) and generally any area with large height differences (the guns can't elevate much)
Helicopters can't carry that much armor or munitions, nor can they engage troops on the ground as well if the terrain is covered in trees and whatnot.
Mechs need much more energy, but they would have less problems in engaging targets than tanks. For example, a tank might have to go around a building or a mound, a mech could use it as cover and take potshots from behind.
Mechs would be viable in certain situations, it's just that we have no means of powering them up decently.
>>123664802
If air power was so good, ISIS would be no more.
Ever since GuP, I'm convinced the tank is also a superior setting for story telling. Bonding with your crew in a tin can and overcoming the odds is just more compelling than seeing autists yelling and crying to themselves in their mechs.
>>123664947
Girls und Panzer is the most overrated garbage I've ever seen.
There are mech shows that pull the bonding crap far better than GuP.
>>123664892
very sneaky
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4b-haPATmI
>>123664539
It depends. Currently there is no doubt that tanks are the clear winner of this match-up. But there is a treand where Urban warfare becomes the norm, in these cases a carefully engineered exosuit or small mech with its superior mobility might be the "new tank". Also grand cities like London, Istanbul, New York, Tokyo are all seaside cities so an amphibious "mech/spider tank" might be used.
You have to understand that the tanks were created and perfected for grand battles, sadly as the aerial strikes get stronger their effectiveness will drop but in 1v1 match-ups there is nothing that can beat a tank other than a better tank.
>>123664539
Mechs wont be workable
But i wonder how powersuits or exoskeletons roughly twice of a typical soldier would fare
>>123664916
>Tanks cant traverse bad terrain
Mechas can't traverse anything, because if you only put a modicum of armour on them that rivals a tank a bit, it would pretty much get stuck anywhere or outright destroy whatever it steps on, because due to being bipedal they put an enormous amount of pressure on a small surface area. Not to mention the vulnerability of the joints and the amount of technology that would go into stabilising them when firing weapons. A tank is much better at traversing difficult terrain and it can always carry bigger guns. Also, a mech has a higher profile, which makes them easier targets, easier to spot, etc.
>Helicopters can't carry that much armor or munitions, nor can they engage troops on the ground as well if the terrain is covered in trees and whatnot.
You're wrong on the first point: helicopters can carry quite a bit. When it comes to the second point, the issue is that you can't use a mech in a forest either for the aforementioned reasons.
>>123664916
>a tank might have to go around a building or a mound
Dude, It's a tank. It would just break through the wall. A mech can't do the same thing though as joints are weaker than threads
Not to mention, if the ceiling collapses, a tank can still break through but if it happened to a mech, it will fall out of balance and have to send a distress signal
How would zoids fare? I feel like they'd be better suited for ground fighting than mechs.
I seriously hope rich mechafags are funding this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBt2baryWag
>>123664916
>and they suck shit in urban warfare (without support)
And mechs don't, with their vulnerable legs and much worse armor than tanks?
>>123664916
>Tanks cant traverse bad terrain
One of their primary purposes actually.
>and they suck shit in urban warfare (without support)
Everything sucks shit in urban warfare without support. Nothing ever goes into battle without support from something else, every component of modern warfare exists to complement another, the foundational core integral to every ground combat operation being infantry.
>generally any area with large height differences (the guns can't elevate much)
Good thing nobody expects a tank to shoot down a helicopter with its main gun. They're for killing things on the ground, and the gun elevation and depression of a modern tank is more than enough to compensate for extreme height differences when all you have to do to add extra elevation is drive it onto some kind of slope. Slopes of course being incredibly abundant in areas with elevated terrain. That said, a tank isn't designed to climb a cliff in the first place.
>Helicopters can't carry that much armor or munitions, nor can they engage troops on the ground as well if the terrain is covered in trees and whatnot.
It isn't the 60s anymore gramps. We got advanced thermal optics now and armored gunships with massive staying power.
>Mechs need much more energy, but they would have less problems in engaging targets than tanks.
The energy concern already renders them impractical. While they may have a better time engaging targets than tanks, this also means that targets have a far better time engaging a mech. A big fucking walking gun platform on legs is going to be a lot easier to spot on the battlefield than a tank in hull down (which is something mechs may not be able to actually do).
>For example, a tank might have to go around a building or a mound
Historically they have gone through when they can because it looks cooler.
>>123664769
if you have the technology to make something as moble as a mech in anime then there is no reason to put it on a tank's form factor. also a flying mech would destroy a tank just like a helicopter.
>>123665293
>a flying mech
Even making a tank fly would be far more reasonable than that.
>>123665293
If you have the technology to do all that you could use it to make more efficient tanks or helicopters.
>>123664539
Why not both?
>>123665024
With good reason.
>turrets unable to track mechs
>tanks static in open desert
>evading auto cannon fire
Truly wishful thinking
>>123665321
>>123665293
So basically a flying mech is a gunship shaped like a person that can probably walk, but it can already fly so there's no real reason for it to do that.
Oh boy I missed these threads
Time for superior vehicles of warfare
>>123665321
I think it's called a helicopter gunship.
>>123665080
Obviously the mech would be lightly armored. But you seriously can't be suggesting that a tank would fare better than a mech in terrain like this, or that a mech would get stuck on hard ground - tanks plain can't get through gaps or over obstacles.
A mech could set up in an area like this, engage tanks and then retreat, and the tanks would never catch up with them because they plain couldn't get through.
>helicopters can carry quite a bit
A few pods of rockets, some ATGMs and some hundreds of rounds of 30mm. Compared to what, 80 rounds of all kinds of 120mm shells, and armor to boot.
You're also oversimplifying mechs. They could be made light enough to traverse anything, and still be able to carry more munitions faster than infantry. Targeting systems and protection from outside elements, too.
Mechs would simply have to be more specialized.
>>123665120
> It would just break through the wall.
And get stuck and buried in rubble. GG
>>123665179
I don't think you understand what improved situational awareness and capability means in terms of protection
>>123665261
>Good thing nobody expects a tank to shoot down a helicopter with its main gun
Actually, some Merkavas are supposed to be able to track helicopters if need be...
>Slopes of course being incredibly abundant in areas with elevated terrain.
Tell that to Afghanistan, fucker.
>advanced thermal optics now and armored gunships
Apaches can't withstand .50 cal. A gunner was killed in Afghanistan by a lucky hit. As for thermal optics, they're only useful if you have LOS. Foliage breaks that, and if both your target and yourself are moving (very likely - hovering immobile in the air is asking to get shot) you'll only see bits and pieces of hot white through the foliage. You can't target anything accurately in those conditions, and your ammunition is limited.
> targets have a far better time engaging a mech
Depends entirely on the chosen terrain. If they were ambushing a convoy in afghanistan...
>making a target that's even easier for a plane/drone to blow up
Genius
>>123665448
Mechs have always been, and always will be expensive, over-engineered weapons platforms. I guarantee you that a mech vs a number of smaller sized equipment of comparable mass and technology whether they be tanks, choppers, or jets that the mech would quite assuredly lose. The only concievable advantage a mech has would be for punching giant monsters.
>>123665448
Where the fuck are hajis going to get the technology and money to build a largely useless walking weapons platform?
Using Afghanistan as an example is pretty dumb.
Tank are faster and more durable, mechs are cheaper and expendable. I guess mechs are just overpowered except in open field and limited bases.
>>123665448
>you seriously can't be suggesting that a tank would fare better than a mech in terrain like this
No, but the mecha wouldn't fare well, because it would still put too much pressure on too little surface area. Those formations would give in and break away if the mecha stepped on them and then it would fall.
>tanks plain can't get through gaps or over obstacles.
But they can. They can literally get "through" obstacles. And they're fairly good at getting "over" obstacles too - usually flattening them in the process.
>A mech could set up in an area like this, engage tanks and then retreat
No, for the aforementioned reasons. It wouldn't be able to navigate. Not to mention that in order to fight tanks in such terrains you don't even need mechas. If your enemy sets up his tanks there you can use helicopters - or even cheaper than that: infantry. Anything you believe a mecha did well under such conditions, infantry does even better and cheaper. It can hide better, it can run away better.
Mechas were come up with under the false idea that things scale linearly. However, in nature, things usually don't scale linearly. You can't just take a person, make it ten to twenty times as large as it is and expect it to function just like it did before.
Just like you can't build a mechanical copy of a bee and expect it to fly just like a bee if you made it huge and use it as a transport.
>tfw you can't fuck a tank
>>123665577
>mechs are cheaper and expendable
Attempts to actually build them imply otherwise.
Square-cube law hates fast moving things on legs above 10 or so tons with a passion.
>>123665577
>mechs are cheaper and expendable
I've never heard anyone bring up such a retarded opinion on the mech debate
>>123665588
>>123665588
>Just like you can't build a mechanical copy of a bee and expect it to fly just like a bee if you made it huge and use it as a transport.
I agree with mechs being impractical (unless maybe we are talking about 3/4 meters tall exoskeleton for carrying armor or heavy weaponry to support infantry).
But aren't helicopters basically giant mechanical bees ?
>>123665627
>>123665642
He probably meant the smaller ones that are like 3 meters high like the ones in Command & Conquer, but even so it's still retarded.
>>123665664
>But aren't helicopters basically giant mechanical bees ?
No, not at all. Bees don't fly with rotary wings, they're shaped differently, etc.
The point is: you usually don't have linear relations in nature, which means that you can't just linearly upscale everything and expect it to function like it did before.
>>123665448
That's infantry terrain. Preferably infantry with giant flying missile carrier support terrain.
A mech would do pretty poorly against infantry in a formation like that, especially since the average army packs potent man portable anti-armor capability at a company level.
>>123665680
I am just joking, actually I refers to Advance Wars.
>>123665567
Mechs would always be expensive, but they would always have more abilities than any other ground unit. They would be more versatile for sure. A tank has protection against choppers but can hardly engage them - infantry can engage, but have little protection. Mech would have protection against shrapnel, and it could launch counter-measures, smokes etc as soon as the chopper popped up on the radar - if such was installed on the mech, of course.
>>123665574
We're talking about MECHS and you're grounding your arguments in the political situation of TODAY. Jesus get an imagination, did you forget that Afghanistan shares a border with both Russia and China? As if Afghanistan was the only place in the world tanks have a hard time in.
>>123665588
>a tank
>getting through solid rock
are you fucking retarded
even the abrams can get stuck in a muddy road for fucks sake, this isn't videogames
>It can hide better, it can run away better.
Why hide when it can engage? Choppers are used against tanks and infantry because neither have capabilities of engaging choppers that well. They don't engage SPAAGs, a role which a mech could do as well. As for running, you're not going to outrun a mech that on flat terrain might as well use wheels that can be installed in the legs.
>>123665664
Giant mechanical bees with rotary wings and giant combustion engines that run on specially engineered hydrocarbons that shoot missiles instead of stinging.
>>123665427
What if, instead of stabbing people to death, we trained battalions of perfected semen demons to fuck enemy countries into submission?
>>123665786
>a tank
>getting through solid rock
As I said earlier: your mecha won't fare any better.
>Why hide when it can engage?
Because it will get shot at?
But this debate is pointless because I've already told you that your mecha won't be able to move there. It will fall over because the terrain would give in.
But even if it could move - and it can't - helicopters and infantry are still better at their job. Or drones for that matter.
>>123665862
Then they'll just breed a new generation of semen demons for the enemy
>>123665786
Of course they would have more abilities than a single ground unit. But for a single mech of over 20 meters tall you could easily deploy a full company of tanks/infantry/choppers with far more staying power than a single large target for the amount of mass and material needed to produce that mech. Like I said, if weapons technology was anywhere near the same, you could have easily deployed a hundred man-sized human-shaped infantry drones along with with a mechanized armor complement. Take off your /m/ glasses and look at what you're saying objectively.
>>123665786
Friend, you're the one who kept bringing up experiences of the current war in Afghanistan to support your point (without sources I might add), don't go acting like someone else doing the same to refute that point isn't allowed.
Some might call that hypocrisy. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just stressed from attempting to defend a hypothetical scenario with science fiction against commonly observed science fact from multiple angles, and have overlooked your ability to construct a cohesive argument without immediately moving the goalposts you yourself have set up.
>>123664539
ABRAMZ UNDEDABLEEE!!!!!111!!1!
>>123664539
Tank can't beat TTGL
The real use of mechs would not be found in replacing MBTs.
>>123665786
>thinking combat mechs will become mass produced and user friendly enough that even sheep shaggers in the desert will be able to get surplus ones and use them against the military
Truly delusional
>>123665911
The idea would be to shift wars towards producing sexier and more fertile semen demons.
>>123664561
>I could only imagine mechs to be useful in space.
I can think of several, less interesting yet more practical, designs than that of a mech for space warfare.
Unsurprisingly they all resemble a tank design more than a bipedal mech.
>>123666070
So wars will be fought using sex as the weapon? History will not call it a Cold War any longer, now we in the age of the Hot-N-Heavy War.
>>123664892
Giant combat mechs can't exists because square-cube law exists. Physics just says 'no'.
They're still cool in fiction though.
The real military application of robotics exists in medical/rescue, logistics and combat engineering. Actual combat with giant robots is most likely never going to happen. Combat engineers digging holes, nurses carrying old people, dudes stacking crates really fast, and rescue crews punching through brick walls with exosuits is far more likely (to the point that it already is reality).
>>123666009
>let make mechas
>that can handle less heavy weapons
>slower
>bigger target
>less reflective angles
>require more energy
>all get immobilized by a pothole
Sounds great idea for future warfare
People are actually still defending the ridiculousness of oversized barbie dolls? Seriously?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unSMXWaduMw
If you stuck an anti-tank weapon on the back of this thing it would be pretty cool.
Not much point in increasing the size of it to mech proportions though, that would just make it an easy target and increase mechanical complexity to the point of diminishing marginal returns.
Diminishing marginal returns in engineering, and several physical laws make big mechs pretty unlikely.
>>123666185
>building mechs or tanks when you could just drop a nuke on them
lel
![expl-rambo[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/dYptgSy.jpg "expl-rambo[1].jpg")
>>123665261
>Good thing nobody expects a tank to shoot down a helicopter with its main gun.
>implying
>>123664539
Depends on the terrain, mechs could probably handle swamps and very rocky(think big rocks) areas better, but tanks would handle pretty much any other terrain better. The mech would have the ability to take cover in certain situations though, so that could be one hell of an advantage.
>>123665862
>Giving your semen demons to the enemy
No fuck you, my semen demons are mine to keep, I would never give them to some sandnigger.
>>123664561
>bipedal anything
>in space
That's even more retarded, thanks.
Votoms pretty much are just meccha on wheels. I feel they are fairly realistic and could destroy tanks.
pic related
Also if you have never heard of it, go check out armored trooper votoms. Its a classic series on par with the original gundam series
>>123665872
>solid fucking rock
>crumbling to dust just because muh tanks
ok
>>123665922
In the current economy and technological situation, yes. Obviously. It's all a question of price and energy, really - and winning a war has it's price too. A single tank can cost tens of millions, yet they are needed and have their place, so they get bought. A mech of the same price? It would have to prove itself first. Really, the most important things for a mech would be optics, targeting, tracking and such.
>Radar intelligence feed from the nearest radar system or a short range radar that can detect choppers and ground-attack aircraft
>20mm autocannon for infantry, soft vehicles and low-flying aircraft, appropriate targeting systems and joints made flexible enough
>A few top-attack & laser guided ATGMs for harder targets (maybe that [swedish?] thing that can target both helicopters and tanks)
>Active-protection systems against RPGs and missiles, smokescreens/chaff/whatever you got to evade hard and fast projectiles
>Enough armour to resist shrapnel and small-arms
>wheels in the legs for efficient transport over solid ground
The only thing we don't have today is the appropriate energy source, and money for all the research and production costs that would go into this before any unit was even completed. Would it be effective in the field, in the right hands? Yes. Would it be worth it? That would depend on how greatly you want to win. Against hajjis, it would be a waste of resources. Against your usual alien invader bent on killing all humans? Maybe.
>>123665935
>current war in Afghanistan
Soviet-Afghanistan war. Tanks not being able to raise their guns high is common fucking knowledge, hajis have nothing to do with this. You brought them up first in your strawman argument.
>>123666009
Reading comprehension, motherfucker, do you have it?
>>123666185
You too
>>123667016
sorry pic related
if you applied real rules to mecha then they just would not work in any reliable or effective way. anime mecha ignore all known laws of the universe to look cool
though the votom mechs are pretty neat
>>123665798
>>123665724
And there are tons of mechs that glide, use thrusters, have more than two legs or have weapons instead of arms.
Not saying that it's realistic, just saying that the concept of basing a weapon or vehicle on an animal isn't that stupid at all, especially when it give birth to research on spider silk body armor and other shit.
Exoskeletons are starting to be worked on as well essentially for support roles, it's not 15 meters tall mechs on the frontlines for sure, but research on the subject can have some actual use.
Of course it can't work as a "big ass human", that's dumb. But the idea of making a "big ass human" could actually give birth to some things of interest.
>>123664916
Hi, /k/ here. This debate is solved. Mechs are trash outside of small suits of powered armor in mountain warfare since it's more stressful on the body and also in very hard terrain.
>can't traverse in bad terrain
Track width and weight are two very important considerations in tank design. Tanks can handle lots of different terrain. Only the roughest or wettest terrain is impassable to them, and even then, mechs would struggle to balance or not fall in themselves.
>bad in urban warfare
No. Tanks do need "support" but at the same time they provide a massive boost to local infantry firepower. There's no other way to get a tough brick with a large cannon on it into the fight. They're not some useless thing that must be escorted, and they contribute heavily to the fighting. They do need some help from infantry to keep from getting shot by enemy infantry with anti-tank weapons, but then again so do helicopters and other infantry.
>height differences
That's a non-issue in 99.9999% of combat. Tanks can handle reasonably large hills and buildings.
>helicopters can't carry that much arms or munitions
Not as much as a tank, but they still carry quite a bit. The Mi-24 and all the other Hind variants have large payloads as well.
>helicopters can't engage when the target is hiding in trees
Except they can and do. Ever heard of infrared vision? Also, if you seriously think that trees provide cover from anything other than light arms, you should read up a little.
>using a building as cover
You do realize that the tank can use the building as cover too, right? The mech would be unable to take potshots without sticking out its head to aim, just like a tank could poke around the corner to tale a shot.
>power sources
Again, anything powerful enough to move a mech would just be attached to a tank to make it go faster.
>if airpower was good ISIS would be no more
Except airpower murders the fuck out of them whenever it's called in, so I don't know what you're talking about.
>>123667141
>And there are tons of mechs that glide, use thrusters, have more than two legs or have weapons instead of arms.
The issue is: if you have the technology to catapult something as heavy as a mecha into the air, then you could use the same technology to build more efficient tanks and helicopters. There is no point in making something of humanoid shape, because it wouldn't be able to traverse terrain like a human.
>>123667018
>solid fucking rock
>crumbling to dust just because muh tanks
Your argument was that terrain was bad at moving through terrain, and I told you that tanks are good at that. In mountainous terrain you obviously wouldn't rely on tanks, however the point is: you wouldn't rely on mechs either, because mechs couldn't navigate it. They'd be generally bad at moving through such terrain, simply because they're too fucking heavy for that. Infantry is better at that and could kick your mech's ass while it's stumbling around.
>>123667018
Except actually putting any sort of mech larger than 10 meters in actual combat would never be possible in reality. At best we would employ the use of 3-4m mechs for infantry support roles in combat, but never on the scale of anime mech battles or mechwarrior video games. As weapons technology progresses and we're able to wield more firepower in smaller packages, militaries will mount those weapons on smaller platforms. Seriously I don't know where you get your fervor from but it's clearly against the vast majority.
I find any manmade terrain vehicle that doesn't use wheels (or anything able to make full use of rotational engines) to be pretty inconvenient.
That's why I though of Code Geass' mechs to be slightly less stupid, before all the flying bs later, of course.
>>123666322
The enemy cannot press the [nuclear launch] button if you disable his hand.
>>123667018
Seems to be overengineering mess. It probability provide some sort of help but for the cost asking for that shit .
Also the weight of the vehicle seems to pretty high with all the weapon system and the armour. There is a whole list issue with its weight distribution.
>>123667369
But enemy has anticipated that and made another button for his other hand.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/nanotechnology/top-10-uses-worlds-strongest-material-130212.htm
Graphene is apperently one of the hardest materials and is more lightweight, the only problem, to me anyways is it conducts electricity.
I feel it could be used in mecha/body armor/infantry sized mechs well.
>>123667210
>mechs would struggle to balance
what is technology
>urban warfare
Mechs wouldn't need as much support as any other branch, if they're suited right for the job
>That's a non-issue in 99.9999% of combat.
You mean if tanks would never go into areas where they can't engage troops above them. That would deny a lot of terrain and roads from them. Where I live, our roads constantly cut through cliffs. A tank driving through there would be helpless if somebody was on top
>Except they can and do
With lesser accuracy, meaning less direct hits, meaning more shrapnel, meaning not much effect on things that don't bleed. Mechs could also be coated in proper materials to evade detection, they could have countermeasures and the proper targeting systems to engage helicopters back. A helicopter in the sky can't hide. It's a question of whether it can engage a mech that pops out before it gets shot down - and whether a mech can avoid detection and pop out fast enough to get the first shots out.
>if you seriously think that trees provide cover from anything other than light arms
They're thick enough to have the fuse inside a 30mm HE shell or a rocket to explode. You could think of it as spaced armor.
>tank can use the building as cover too
They can only poke out from the side, exposing half of their body. The gun of a mech could pop out from anywhere - even if the gun gets hit, the mech would be unharmed. Cameras and targeting in the gun, see.
>attached to a tank to make it go faster.
A tank can only do so much no matter how fast it gets.
>airpower murders the fuck out of them whenever it's called in
It doesn't get called in areas that have anti-air, or during the day IIRC
If mecha would actually useful they would have been invented already. Why no one build them not even as prototypes? because they know it would be useless because one shot and all would be over.
>>123667369
They can't disable their dead man switch, either.
>>123667272
>>123667323
>>123667475
You don't need huge fucking mechs to carry a 20mm and some launchers. Maybe I should be using the term exoskeleton instead.
You could do it as short as 3m, just broad
>>123667642
One shot applies to everything, and yet it changes nothing.
Even carriers. They have their use, and they're used in a way where they don't get easily shot.
>>123667629
>Mechs wouldn't need as much support as any other branch, if they're suited right for the job
Except for the part where they'd probably get stuck in the ground everywhere because you can never be certain how solid the ground in the city is and unlike a tank they don't put pressure on a large surface area but on their two feet.
Also, how are they supposed to hide? They're fucking huge. Infantry is much better at that, and a man can easily carry a mech-killing weapon.
>Mechs could also be coated in proper materials to evade detection, they could have countermeasures and the proper targeting systems to engage helicopters back.
Anything you could put on a mech you could also put on a tank, or a helicopter. Also avoiding detection isn't just done by putting a coating on, it also has something to do with the physical profile - and I'd assume huge as fuck robots would be bad at that. Not to mention that helicopters and gunships mostly do things visually, and they can do so from a few kilometres away.
>>123667721
>Maybe I should be using the term exoskeleton instead.
Exoskeletons are obviously a different issue. These would be infantry. A mecha is a huge fucking robot, not a man-sized suit of armour.
>>123667629
>what is technology
Overengineered and unreliable in a mech that would have been useful literally anywhere else.
>Mechs wouldn't need as much support as any other branch, if they're suited right for the job
You talk as if you've been in urban battles in a mech before, stop using anime as combat reference.
>You mean if tanks would never go into areas where they can't engage troops above them. That would deny a lot of terrain and roads from them. Where I live, our roads constantly cut through cliffs. A tank driving through there would be helpless if somebody was on top
Militaries don't employ heavy armor on cliffs or mountainous terrain, what makes you think a mech will fare any better?
>With lesser accuracy, meaning less direct hits, meaning more shrapnel, meaning not much effect on things that don't bleed. Mechs could also be coated in proper materials to evade detection, they could have countermeasures and the proper targeting systems to engage helicopters back. A helicopter in the sky can't hide. It's a question of whether it can engage a mech that pops out before it gets shot down - and whether a mech can avoid detection and pop out fast enough to get the first shots out.
Again you've clearly never been in an actual gunship to know what the fuck you're talking about.
>They're thick enough to have the fuse inside a 30mm HE shell or a rocket to explode. You could think of it as spaced armor.
You know these helicopters are equipped with more than just rockets right?
>They can only poke out from the side, exposing half of their body. The gun of a mech could pop out from anywhere - even if the gun gets hit, the mech would be unharmed. Cameras and targeting in the gun, see.
As if anyone wouldn't be able to see a mech and discern its location miles away. If you can attach a camera on an arm, you can attach it on UAV surveillance drones. Mechs will never be able to hide their profiles in an urban setting.
>>123667775
>get stuck
>pull yourself up or have another mech help you
also, what is a digging implement
>They're fucking huge.
not really. I'm talking about 5 meters tops. Shorter would only mean broader.
>a man can easily carry a mech-killing weapon.
It's useful only if it can hit first. RPGs are more cumbersome than guns, and the projectiles are slow, and can be taken out by APS. At range, they can even be dodged if the mech is light and small enough, and can detect the launch.
>they can do so from a few kilometres away.
Shells and rockets would be inaccurate for direct hits, missiles could theoretically be countered with APS or other measures. I don't have the knowledge about missiles like Hellfire and Maverick, what does it take to evade or neutralize one before a direct hit?
>A mecha is a huge fucking robot, not a man-sized suit of armour.
Man-size wouldn't have all the space for the required targeting, munitions and such, so it would have to be 3-5m. Or just a very broad 2m. That's a mecha to me
>>123667721
The way the guy was talking, he seem to be referring to large >10m mechs like those in anime. They're just that, imaginary, and for good reason.
I love the autism on show in these Mech vs Tank threads. Always great value.
>>123667982
If we're talking about small exo-skeletons it's a different issue. The point is: mechas like you see them in anime wouldn't work.
>>123667629
>Mechs wouldn't need as much support as any other branch, if they're suited right for the job
Says you.
>A tank driving through there would be helpless if somebody was on top.
Many tracked vehicles have designs that can shoot at any upward angle.
>Mechs could also be coated in proper materials to evade detection, they could have countermeasures and the proper targeting systems to engage helicopters back.
So can tanks.
>They can only poke out from the side, exposing half of their body.
In a world where mecha exist, there's nothing stopping making a turret an arm either.
>A tank can only do so much no matter how fast it gets.
Will certainly do more than a mech.
>It doesn't get called in areas that have anti-air, or during the day IIRC.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
.
>Mech vs Tank, who would win?
This guy, obviously.
>>123664539
If you don't go full retard and keep your mech under 5 meters then it's a non issue because they fill entirely different roles. If anything they'd work really well together in combined arms.
>>123667941
>Overengineered and unreliable
With today's tech, maybe.
>You talk as if
It's common fucking sense. A tank can't engage or even see a man standing right next to them. An infantryman doesn't have much munitions to engage helicopters or light vehicles, or protection. A mech can do both, albeit with lesser efficiency than either in their main trade. Thus, they need less support from others.
>Militaries don't employ heavy armor on cliffs or mountainous terrain, what makes you think a mech will fare any better?
What? I'm talking about pic related. This isn't even steep or high. A mech on the cliff can do better what an infantryman can do - lob shit down on those below without repercussions.
>you've clearly never been in an actual gunship to know what the fuck you're talking about
The gunship isn't an end-all-be-all doomsday machine, obviously there's always means to counter whatever ability it has.
>You know these helicopters are equipped with more than just rockets right?
30mm shells (usually HE) in a flexible gunpod, 57mm rockets, ATGMs, even air-to-air missiles if you want... basically anything that can be mounted. Your point? Of course the trees would be good for nothing if the heli was shooting AP, but having seen those gunship videos (they weren't even under fire, so they could fire at leisure) they weren't that accurate for direct hits. Of course a mech would be a larger target than a human, but not by much.
>Mechs will never be able to hide
I don't think that we're on the same page here.
>>123668062
SPAAGs, many IFVs and such. First targets.
>there's nothing stopping making a turret an arm
Yeah, like that prototype.
>You have no idea
So airpower murders ISIS absolutely everywhere. Why aren't they dead?
German tanks in WW2 were superior to Russian tanks. They were also more complex, requiring more frequent maintenance and more skilled labor to produce. East Germany says tanks would win against stupidly complex mechs.
>>123668323
forgot pic
Biomechs are a realistic option and could just step on a tank, fully mechanical mechs would either need to be flimsy, surrounded in some sort of antigrav field, or given mobility from much more advanced technology.
Biomechs are much more expensive than a mechanical mech, because either something insanely powerful and durable needs to be created and then armored, or the superhuman tissues and organs have to be integrated
Just get a better drone.
>>123668358
They're also more or less like talking of magic right now.
Why isn't this thread deleted yet?
This is literally /b/ shit.
Sage and report.
>>123668323
Are we still talking about skyscraper mechs or just 3m-5m tall battlesuits?
Also, your definition of overengineering is somewhat vague.
Main problem with mech is human/pilot response time - we can't even dodge bullets, let alone controlling some giant mass of metal vs some cannon shelling from tanks.
Cost isn't really a problem if you can actually dodge those shellings, ie, literally run circles around tanks, making tanks obsolete. Probably need some bio-computer neuro enhancement (ala psychoframe/neurojack).
How would a tank handle something like giant aliens, though ?
>>123667775
Let me blow your mind real quick: tanks have less ground pressure than mechs
You know those fuckhuge tracks? Those spread the weight out over a much larger area, which is a good thing. I don't know why you think concentrating the weight into feet is a good idea.
>>123668541
>I don't know why you think concentrating the weight into feet is a good idea.
I don't know why you think that I think that.
>>123668323
If we're talking about smaller 3-5m mechs then it may be feasible, probably even practical, but at that point you could have easily outfitted better weapons on more reliable platforms. Again, if technology was far enough to make mechs reliable, that technology could have easily turned tracked tanks into smaller hover tanks that are capable of carrying a larger payload.
>>123668579
"unlike a tank they don't put pressure on a large surface area but on their two feet."
This is bad, not good. Large surface area=less ground pressure=can drive on weaker and softer ground
mechs can mount jetpacks and fly, tanks cant. checkmate.
>>123668663
Fuck me, I thought you were that mecha autist. Sorry bro.
>>123668684
>mechs can make themselves more visible to all means of detection and attack
>checkmate
>>123668372
Flesh stronger than metal/ceramics etc.
I think it's pretty much a given that mechs are only on the table if "harnessing gravity" is real, and we can make use of big, bipedal robots if they require little power to carry themselves, regardless of what they actually weigh, nullifying the Square Cube Law.
>>123668741
But then you can use that to build a better tank.
>>123668684
>tanks can't
checkmate
12.7 million pounds
>>123668466
Automated "dodging" systems are actually a thing DARPA is investigating for a next generation ground vehicle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2NXSgD_INY
The idea of super high mobility being used in place of conventional armor for survivability isn't as unrealistic as most people would probably think.
>>123668779
Exactly! Like a hovertank! Or a quadruped. Like the Harvester from Quake 4.
https://youtu.be/damens7hO4Y?t=460
>>123668384
I'm sorry I confused you, I never had anime mechs in mind because they're just retarded. 3m-5m tall isn't exoskeleton either, if it has all the integrated weapons and systems instead of just the skeleton. I guess a battle suit is a better term.
IMO, Overengineering is something that detracts from the main purpose, like the complex interleaved wheels of a Panther, which was mass produced and was supposed to be a workhorse
I would never mass produce battle suits, they're so specialized that just a few hundred would be enough.
>>123668466
You could always tag friendlies and have a automated turret on a battlesuit engage any sign of life instantly. It would cause lots of collateral damage, but it would counter a soldier popping out to fire an RPG. Automated smoke screens and such work too. As for tanks, you would have to fight them as an infantryman, without having to care as much about other infantry. If the battlesuit is resistant to small arms, in mobile urban warfare a battlesuit would only have to worry about RPGs and grenade launchers, which are scarce, inaccurate and rather slow. Slow enough for APS at least.
>>123668602
Hovering would take much more energy than standing on two feet though. If battlesuits got their energy source, tanks could carry more armor, bigger guns and such. With that energy, I could believe in drones armed with 20mm cannon, enough to deter battlesuits Or just exoskeletons armed with .50 cals, that would hurt too.
>>123668779
RATO. Rocket Assisted Tank Onslaught
>>123668854
Whoops, I fucked up the quote. >>123668778
>>123667982
>It's useful only if it can hit first. RPGs are more cumbersome than guns, and the projectiles are slow, and can be taken out by APS. At range, they can even be dodged if the mech is light and small enough, and can detect the launch.
I assume by RPG you mean the RPG-7 with ammunition available today? Those have a muzzle velocity of around 115 m/s. Then you have recoilless rifles like the Grg m/48 firing projectiles at around 255 m/s. You're not going to be fucking dodging that. And the mech will have to be so lightly armored to keep weight down that even the oldest of anti tank rifles will be able to do real damage to it.
>>123668927
No legs. Why the fuck would you want legs? They're worse than tracks.
>>123668948
>Why the fuck would you want legs? They're worse than tracks.
How do you plan on killing someone to the rhythm of classical music with tracks?
>>123669032
Efficiently
>>123668948
Gives the pilot more options. T-34 drivers simply rammed Tiger tanks when they didn't have the firepower.
When you starts to optimize "mech", what you end up is something similar to a tank or jets depending on its usage. There is zero use for a head compartment at all, just put everything at center of mass including pilots.
No need for "arms" when you could just have weapons for arms, or even better get rid of it completely and just have rotatable weapon stick out of the vehicle somewhere.
While armor thickness is a trade off with mobility, mech seems to be pretty bad at either compartment. Its bulkiness slow its speed and makes a big target practice, the air resistance is probably pretty bad too for its height and lack of "roundness"
etc
>>123669087
The best vehicle is a floating sphere. It always comes down to a floating sphere.
>>123669063
Like what options? Kicking that's actually worse than ramming? Jumping that snaps your mech in half?
>>123668930
Not who your responded to but APS will be a mature technology way before mechanical walking so the whole "one RPG and it's done" argument isn't really solid since any walker that ever makes it to the battlefield will be sporting a solid APS. Armoring against small arms is trivial so you're talking at least 20mm to drop something like this. I'd agree those sized guns would be effective against them but what's going to transport that gun? It's either a lightly armored vehicle, helicopter, or another suit all of which are also vulnerable to that same weapon.
>>123669163
>Jumping that snaps your mech in half?
>being illiterate
How the fuck is a vehicle equipped with anti-grav capable of damaging itself through motion?
>>123669217
Didn't read through the whole post chain, my fault. I still don't really see what legs would add though.
>>123669217
>anti-grav
Sure is sci-fi here.
>>123669351
>thread about mechs
>hard-sci
We all know that Gundams and Mazingers are mere fantasy and would be a waste of money, but how about something inbetween?
Would a tank with a bunch of legs like this work?
Its a stealth tank
>>123669195
>what's going to transport that gun
The dude said that a mech would be able to fucking dodge a projectile traveling at over a hundred meters a second in combat conditions. APS systems are not a catch all defense against anti armor weapons, especially when the target is not only lightly armored but also tall. We already have tandem charges to defeat reactive armor, imagine the stuff available when mechs would be feasible (ignoring the weight problem).
>>123669433
Threads are superior to legs
How about a westen type mech? Basically a turret with legs.
>>123669433
>>123669601
You're adding more places to break.
These junctions are more expensive and less resistant to landmines, for example.
And also hard to replace on the battlefield.
Tracks are cheap and have easy maintenance.
>>123668845
Holy shit, no way you're going to have a living person get in that thing. At least, you won't get a living person out of it after. Fucking whiplash would kill the rider faster than you can say "What's that alert for?"
>>123669433
Problem would be the surface area of the legs compared to the pressure it's exerting. So, it's not any better than 'non-tank' terrain like swamps.
>>123669601
>>123669601
>>123669660
That game was fucking awesome.
I hope they don't fuck it up in 2143
>>123669550
>The dude said that a mech would be able to fucking dodge a projectile traveling at over a hundred meters a second in combat conditions.
See >>123668845 I know it's not an actual system but DARPA thinks it's worth investigating so it's one potential solution.
>APS systems are not a catch all defense against anti armor weapons, especially when the target is not only lightly armored but also tall.
How tall something is doesn't effect it's ability to have full coverage unless you're talking some absurd scale that isn't being discussed. EFPs and kinetic penetrators are really the only anti-armor weapons that APS is currently not effective against but that's an area of focus for development so a mature system could conceivably defeat those threats as well.
Wait a second, our maps don't show a forest here...
Am I the only one who reconizes the enormous potential of giant robot hands that have the same dexterity as human hands? Tanks are worhtless clumps of metal compared to that.
>"Oh no, we toppled over!"
>Mech just gets up again
>Tank remains a useless pile of junk
>"Oh no, there is a mountain!"
>mech just climbs over the mountain
>tank remains a worthless piece of junk
>"Oh no, the target is directly above us!"
>mech quickly graps that shit or aims its gun in the right direction
>tank wastes time trying to get into the right position and is easily outmanouvered
>>123669601
They are just more expensive tanks with more weakpoints and less armor. They look more "realistic" than nip mecha, but they really aren't.
>>123664539
Bipedal locomotion is superior than threaded locomotion, but for a war machine it exposes a huge flaw. A simple tank shell to a leg renders the mech a paperweight whilst an immobilized tank can still defend itself.
>>123669851
That shit mowed infantry down like there's no tomorrow.
>>123664809
>obsolete
What do you tank fags have to say about the Spidermech?
It completely dissolves your mobility/balance argument.
>>123669860
see >>123669888
Not to mention the cost of production of a tank compared to a mech.
>>123669860
>have the same dexterity as human hands
That the problem they will never have the same dexterity as human hands
>hundreds tons mech climbing
No.
>>123669920
Same problem as the mechs in regards with the leg's weak point, even though it still is able to defend itself in such a situation, same as a tank.
So I guess yes, the spider locomotion wins to the threaded locomotion.
>>123669920
If one of its legs is destroyed it's fucked.
>>123669824
I don't see how a bipedal mech would be able to do an extremely sudden and fast evasive maneuver without killing the operator, nor how it would do it better than a wheeled or tracked vehicle.
>>123669920
>battlefield is on paris
>fuckhuge catacombs with weak ceilings
>step on a weak part of the street
>lol force to surface area
>topple over
>immobilized
>can't even defend while immobilized because turret is against the ground
>>123669433
It's not stealth, and its weight is concentrated on tiny points instead of being spread out like in a tank. It is less mobile AND easier to detect.
>>123669860
>"Oh no, there is a mountain!"
>mech just climbs over the mountain
haha no.
Rocks don't have the integrity to sustain tons of weight on a hand.
>>123669860
>"Oh no, we toppled over!"
>mech can't get up because it's too heavy
>"Oh no, there is a mountain!"
>mech can't climb because it's too heavy
It sound good in theory, practically physics says no no and you still need anime magic. The third situation makes more sense, but if you have a target directly above you while in a armored vehicle, you're most likely already dead.
>>123669860
>"Oh no, we toppled over!"
>Mech just gets up again
>Tank remains a useless pile of junk
Because tank just stop and roll over all the time, right? Toppling is a mecha problem because of bipedal locomotion. Also, you're greatly implying that the components of a huge ass mecha would easily just absorb the impact of a fall. Remember, the larger it is, the harder the fall.
>>123670044
>its not stealth
Anon it can turn invisible
>>123670019
It can still defend though, in the same way a tank can.
>>123670093
Then put the technology on a tank. A tank will be able to drive in more environments to utilize it better.
>>123670122
But you can park cars under it so they dont get rained on
Beat that tank fags
>>123669860
Well how often do tanks get toppled over or need to climb a mountain straight up? It also seems extremely risky
also anti aircraft vehicles do exist. You could actually install anti aircraft weaponry on all the tanks, but they don't because it greatly reduces mobility.
Its better to specialize.
>>123670106
No it won't. It will topple over and its turret will be against the ground, unable to rotate. Meanwhile, when you blow up a tanks treads, it will most likely stay upright due to low center of gravity
>>123670093
Also
>thinking invisibility is stealth
Top cuck
>>123669920
I would imagine its biggest problem would be speed.
Tanks these days got to go fast
>>123670106
If a tank becomes immobilized, it's turret can still move and shoot.
If that mech becomes immobilized the entire thing will topple over. It can't get back up nor can it fight since its gun is now pointed at the ground.
>>123669933
Why talk about cost? I thought this was about which is more useful. If you give mechs some prep time, they can build all kinds of stuff because their hands are so versatile.
Furthermore, when a tank is out of shells, it cannot do anything. A mech can throw all kinds of objects and is vastly superior in close combat, because it can just grab enemy vehicles. Tanks are only superior in long range combat and when there is no prep time.
>>123670174
>It will topple over and its turret will be against the ground
I disagree. The small angle change wouldn't make the turret unusable. Even if it did, the other 3 legs can still be controlled to make the body of the tank be parallel to the floor.
It seems like a good design to me. As good as threads, or better.
>>123670237
>grab enemy vehicles
Do you think vehicles are made out of paper?
>>123669433
>gets destroyed by le silly robot man with a prototype gun
Pathetic
>>123664539
Depends on how big you make your mech and where you want to fight.
Right now there is a need for a small size vehicle with legs to carry medium support weapons up and down steep, rocky, and tree covered mountain sides.
Something like a Landmate from Appleseed would be ideal. Biggest thing that would work would be something like a labor from Patlabor.
Something between 3-5m tall.
The key thing is that the mech has to be able to get prone and get up again quickly.
>>123670237
I would pay good money to watch entrenched mecha get BTFO by a combined arms force.
>yfw all the combat happens at ranges from 1.5-2km
Can mechs run at 70+ km/h?
>inb4 jet pack
>>123670268
The platform would become incredible unstable if one of its legs go out.
The moment it fires its gun the whole thing will fall over.
>>123670268
>As good as threads, or better.
It might be better at traversing through certain type of terrains, but its speed in most cases will be alot slower
>>123670026
It takes a massive amount of Gs to kill someone wearing the correct equipment. A pilot ejecting from an aircraft would experience a much higher G load than any mech operator ever could and ejecting from an aircraft is definitely designed to be a survivable experience.
Tracked and wheeled vehicles can really only move on two axes rapidly. A legged machine could move in three which is a huge advantage when you're trying to get out of the way of something.
>>123670051
How do you know how heavy a hypothetical mech is? We haven't specified its size, the thickness of its armor etc.
>>123670237
>This entire post.
>>123670349
>3 axes
Which is where gunships come in
>>123670332
If they can fit in a transport helicopter they don't have to. If they can't fit you don't have a very good mech.
Mechs would have to be air lifted constantly, considering how much slower they would be than everything else.
>>123668181
That's not a mech though, that's an armoured suit and is completely viable.
>>123670237
>they can build all kinds of stuff
>because of their hands
So can infantry if you're going by that logic.
>>123670388
Completely different role. You can't hold ground with aircraft.
>>123670437
It's in the grey area. Frankly it's an awful design though.
>>123670325
>thread is about tanks vs mechs
>combined arms force
Tanks > Mecha
especially with cute girls crewing them
>>123670372
Given the original post and the thread we're in, I'm assuming it's comparable to a tank in size and to some extent weight, which means really fucking heavy. Regardless, making it bigger just worsens the situation, making it smaller makes it... not a mech.
>>123669550
>The dude said that a mech would be able to fucking dodge a projectile traveling at over a hundred meters a second in combat conditions
In the army we trained with LAW launchers (not real warheads, but a tracer 7.62x39mm made to travel at same speed) and at ~100m or so, you had to lead the fast moving target a lot to hit it. And it was as big as a tank. Merely stopping or reducing speed would make the shot miss, or in the case of a battlesuit, stepping away or ducking.
Mechs can fly therefore beat tanks by default.
Now mech vs fighter jet is another matter.
quick
AA advances at a rapid pace to the point where long range Rail guns, mixed with higher powered lasers can create 50km spheres where any object entering will be shot down.
guided missiles, dumb bombs, helicopters, bombers, all shot down without even scratching the surface of earth.
how does war change?
>>123670437
It's in the grey area between armor and mech some designs that size are piloted instead of worn. I just use it because it's the right size and more people are familiar with it.
>>123670456
Correct. And? Mechs can build larger structures without the help of other specialized vehicles. Tanks cannot build anything on their own.
>>123670502
If a mech was going that fast, stepping away would cause it to fall down, making it an even easier target.
>>123670497
>making it smaller makes it... not a mech.
Huh? Mechs come in all kinds of sizes.
>>123670526
Tanks can make entrenchments. What the fuck else would they need to build?
>>123669920
What about a six-legged, demon-slaying, weather-reporting, stealth-sniper and simulation training mode capable, AMAZING GRACE SINGING, Engrish-speaking, talking like a SPESS MEHREEN, wall-climbing, 200mm coil gun-firing supertank from the past (aka Tank-kun)?
>>123670338
>The platform would become incredible unstable
Disagree. As I said, if you level the remaining legs to make the body sit flat on the floor, it would be stable enough to defend itself.
>>123670340
>but its speed in most cases will be alot slower
Agree though. Threads are faster than legs.
>>123670526
OK, while your mechanized brickie trims a hedge my tank can go and do, y'know, actual war stuff.
>>123670526
>tanks
>they can't build anything so they're shit
Do you not understand what tanks were made to do?
>>123670563
Make it too small and it's more of a battlesuit/power armor/exoskeleton. Or if it doesn't have a pilot inside, more of a drone or a robot.
>>123670577
bridges. but then again, that's what combat engineers are for.
>>123670506
I see where you're taking this and I don't like it
Yes but can a tank hold up to the baby magnum?
It's a ball with seven wave motion guns, two railguns, multiple laser guns that fire at the speed of light so nothing can evade them, not even the fastest fighter jet, more than a hundred "smaller" guns, each of which could detroy a bunker, armor that could stop a nuke, and it can move hundreds of miles per hour using an electrostatic propulsion system that enables it to cross any terrain.
mechs are simply putting all of your eggs (in this case, different military roles) in one basket and giving it an expensive and unstable mode of transport.
>>123670650
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWMrY49qqDw
How can a mech do that better?
>>123670728
I wasn't that dude you replied to and I was agreeing with you.
>>123664539
It depends. If the mechs in question were more mobile than tanks in such a way that they could outrun the turn of the turret, then mechs could win, provided they have the right weapons.
Of course, we first have to produce the tech and make mechs cost effective.
>>123670237
>because it can just grab enemy vehicles
Made me laugh. Do you know how much an armored vehicle weights?
A medium tank weights 60 metric tons. What makes you think you can fling such an object while not toppling over yourself? You would need a mech of unpractical size.
And what makes you think you can even get close to a functional vehicle and not be shelled to kingdom come?
>>123670634
To build another tanks so they can also build more tanks
>>123670634
Of course, they are build to waste taxpayer money. A mech has so many utilities that it can do all sorts of stuff. A tank just rolls around and shoots. A mech can destroy a city with long range rockets and then build a fortress out of the rubble.
synthetic muscle would be the future of "mechs"
it's also conceivable the only tech that a mech would use that wouldn't also inherently benefit jets, helicopters, and tanks
>>123670791
Not him, he's an idiot, but a mech wouldn't need to throw the tank, he could easily destroy the gun with his hand, or crush all of the optics.
>>123670904
2/10, made me reply.
>>123670526
So we use mechs for construction?
Answer is spider tanks, didn't we agreed on this already?
>>123664539
I have watched thousands of hours of my japanese animes and I believe the mech would win in every scenario as they are not only extremely powerful but also extremely agile in the anime medium.
>>123670791
You don't need to pick it up. Grab it and its immobilized.
>And what makes you think you can even get close to a functional vehicle and not be shelled to kingdom come?
So close combat situations don't exist in your imaginary world? I guess your tanks can never enter cities and only fight on large, flat terrains.
>>123670914
it's also conceivable the only tech that a mech would use that wouldn't also inherently benefit jets, helicopters, and tanks
Engines made of synthetic muscle?
>>123670929
>close-combat
>>123670771
>real mechs
>more mobile than tanks
>>123670977
>adding the weaknesses of mechs to a tank for no benefit whatsoever
No we didn't
>>123670904
Doing everything != doing everything well
>build a fortress out of the rubble
Well so can, you know, construction vehicles, expect they can do it a lot faster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAnVw5wgEI0
>>123670977
Only if they have more than three legs and the joints are laid out evenly around a circular base. The redundancy is sort of like a fail safe so that, when one leg fails, all the others can compensate just like when one airbus's engine fails, the other three can just compensate.
>>123670929
>he could easily destroy the gun
After being hit back by the shells? It would need to be a surprise situation.
Most posts here are assuming mechs would have some kind of magical armor that wouldn't make them immobilized after the 1st hit.
>>123670992
>So close combat situations don't exist in your imaginary world?
What you described is not even close combat. It's melee combat, and yes, I imagine it would be extremely rare.
>tanks can't build
>>123671028
So this thread isn't "tanks vs. meches" but "tanks and all other human technology vs. mechs"?
>>123671007
>muscle fiber engines
uh... I don't think you could reverse engine that tech to drive a tank
>>123671060
I'm afraid of the german army doing the blitzkrieg again but this time doing spinning their tanks like mad deflecting shells whilst shooting against us.
>>123671136
Nobody ITT realizes that the word "mech" doesn't just refer to giant humanoid robots, right?
A futuristic tank would also be a mech.
>>123671148
Never seen a bicycle before? As a bonus, it'll even by vastly moe efficient because you'll have a flywheel.
>>123671136
>mechs-fags say mech is better because
>tank-fags dispute with HS physics
>mech-fags say mech is better because of something that tanks were never really designed to do in the first place
>tank-fags throw out some other human technology that is not a tank that can do it better
cop-out: the thread
>>123671136
A tank is a combat vehicle.
A mech is also a combat vehicle.
The only way to compare the two would be to see how they would fare in a combat situation.
The moment you went on about building shit, it became a construction vehicle.
Besides, if it's in combat, it's not going to be making anything in the first place.
>>123667054
>walking coffin
>>123664916
>>123667629
>>123668323
...I had no idea people this retarded existed. What the actual fuck.
>>123671311
I understand what you're getting at but I don't think in concept it would work very effectively
>All these people that think tanks aren't extremely useless outside of blowing up fortified positions
They were good for trench warfare and intimidation, but outside of that they are totally useless and extremely vulnerable.
I don't even care about the actual debate, but the amount of people arguing on both sides that don't understand the purpose of a tank is absolutely mindblowing. The arguments about weak points and vulnerability mean literally nothing because tanks haven't been in the front lines since WW2. They are designed as support to blow up things infantry can't.
Given unlimited means of invention, and technology, mecha wins by default.
Tank has to be moved track-based, and mecha has no limitations, other than a pair of legs, it can be made so it will fly or change it's shape
