Tank VS Mech
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /v/ - Video Games
You are currently reading a thread in /v/ - Video Games
Which one is the better weapon of war?
>>285992740
Tank.
Mechs are fucking retarded.
But this is games so whichever is more fun.
The tank because they're real.
You couldn't say mech because how good it is depends on the mechanics of its game universe.
>>285992740
Tank.
>>285992740
Mechs are unfairly better.
They need to be nerfed because Tanks need love.
tanks are far more practical, but mechs are cooler
>>285992740
Tank will have heavier armor and weaponry.
If mechs were suitable weapons of war, we would have already see them in military service. So, tanks it is.
Seems like tank win.
>>285992740
I remember playing MechWarrior 3 eons ago and paying attention to the distance numbers they were giving me for my weapon viability. Modern tanks casually had three, four, fives times the range this giant mech game was depicting.
Now small suit mechs, essentially armored infantry - yes tanks still win but we're looking at a much more likely viable tech.
>>285992740
by the nature of their design mechs need to be super lightweight.
tank has the weight advantage
Tank. It has a low profile, lower center of gravity, and can pretty much traverse any terrain a mech can, except for mountains. Even then...tanks are pretty boss so I dont know
mech wins because chances are its defying physiscs in some way.
Tank has tracks, you take out one of the Mech's two legs and he's down.
Aren't mechs just walking, flying tanks? Also, which mech are we talking about? Something slow and clunky or something fast like in ZOE?
>>285994339
is that a mammoth tank
>>285994680
>Now small suit mechs, essentially armored infantry - yes tanks still win but we're looking at a much more likely viable tech.
I wouldn't be so sure of it.
The problem with them is that you can't pack 20 tons of composite armour and reactive charges on top of them.
Person in small mechs/power armours will be like slower, clunkier, bigger ordinary human. And due to weight restrictions he won't have enough armour to deal with even small anti-tank weapon that will have no troubles with hitting him.
>>285994789
Weapon advantage too since its a more stable platform you can put a much bigger gun on it
Not to mention a tank is likely faster on open ground since a mech would be limited on speed by leg length and stride similar to a human.
Only place a mech would win is in really difficult terrain were limbs beat out tracks, like a city or rough mountains
>>285992740
OP, that specific mech you use for the comparation can transform into a fast tank like vehicle, doesn't help your case.
Unless they have laser hax with shields folded a billion times mechs will just never compete with tanks.
A shame but a reality.
>>285992740
>Mech
shitty armor, shitty weapon, shitty profile, low speed
>Tank
1v1 can rekt anything that doesn't fly, in numbers is tool for victory
>>285995912
Mechs will always lose, because you can always put more on a tank because it has a much wider disbursement of it's weight. A mech needs to be light, if it were as strong as a tank It wouldnt be able to move
at best, if we ever see mechs, they will be recon/stealth type vehicles designed for hit and runs
>>285992740
if its a mech the defies physics by flying like a jet and has a super lazer gun that cuts through armor then the mech wins. in the real world tanks have bigger weapons, longer range, heavier armor, lower profile, faster speed, and a low center of gravity that keeps them from being knocked over.
>>285992740
one can fly, the other don't
but, one exists, the other don't
>>285995375
Well I'm not sure about it. It's futuretech. It's possible. We can see possible applications. But our current understanding of technology and limitations also introduces a bunch of questions.
One current solution is to just prefix everything with the word nano. Nano-carbon components help with the weight and nano-nanos... help... lube... um. Lemme work on this, I'll get back to you.
There's a reason we have tanks instead of mechs, mechs simply aren't realistically feasible, and if we ever did get some super tech to make them feasible, we would also have something much more practical than a mech.
ATGM vs Mech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfgPt1730Ls
Anyway, I like mechs when they 'make sense' somehow. If a mech can fly, it eliminates alot of their short-comings.
Pic related.
>>285997041
we have airplanes and they are awesome but wheels>legs
>>285995236
>Aren't mechs just walking, flying tanks?
it's literally impossible for mechs to operate the same way. For one, a Tank can operate closely with infantry to support and cover them from enemy fire, a mech literally can't get close to infantry without jeopardizing them.
second, due to the nature of the systems and mechanical construction a mech would require, they would lack the armor, dependability and redundancies of a tank.
third, a mech's sheer stature would prevent it from performing scouting missions as it cannot conceal itself into a fire position, and it would be unsuitable in direct confrontation, being too large to shelter or cover itself behind terrain or structures, and having to reveal most of it's body to bring it's weapons to bear.
it would be worse than tanks at tanking, and it would be worse than planes at flying. Why not use this technology that allows you to rape the laws of physics to build utterly unfair super tanks and super jets?
>>285992740
>Which one is the better weapon of war?
A mech agile enough to be considered a battlesuit rather than a tank that walk.
>>285992740
Tank does everything better with the same materials and technology as a mech.
This is coming from /k/ threads.
>role of a tank
Armoured spearhead to cross wide open plains quickly and destroy fortifications/prepared positions without dying so that the infantry don't get cut the fuck to pieces by machineguns as they toddle along at 5km/h towards the city
>things required to do that
speed
survivability
weapons
stability (to fire on the move)
>speed
tracks > legs
>survivability
tank shape > mech shape
tank carries more armour
>weapons
tank carried bigger gun
>stability
tank isn't on fucking legs
Tanks > mech.
>you will never be part of the 1st Mech Hunter battallion of your country's military
If mech has to be a reality, they would look like BF2142's walkers.
>>285998385
I miss 2142.
>>285998385
That looks like it could be quite useful for peeking around the corners of buildings with one minigun. I guarantee there's a better way to do it without legs though.
>>285998710
So much fun
it really is a shame that DICE decided to drink COD kool aid.
>>285992740
A tank will always be better than a mech at doing tank stuff because, well, it's a tank doing tank stuff. The one thing mechs have over tanks is agility, and that becomes worthless once you're a 8m tall giant target.
Mech-like vehicles would only be useful once scaled down and in close quarters, in an anti-infantry or infantry support role. And at that point it's not mechs anymore, but power armor or drones and robots.
>>285998771
yeah it's called treads, wheels, or wings
Depends, are we talking about humanoid mechs that can only operate on fantasy physics, or walkers?
Because walkers are more of a side grade from tanks.
>>285999395
Why not just put it on treads? Stepping over huge fallen trees and impassable foilage, I guess. Walkers could be useful, but only on another planet.
>>285999518
Best of both worlds would be a tank that mainly used its treads, but could change into a walking mode to get to or through tough terrain. Like amphibious vehicles, except over tough terrain.
>>285999395
you can usually tell a tank is gonna be better for a situation when you need to imagine it galloping in a retarded way to even hope to reach 80km/h like a tank can in open terrain. And also fire it's main gun completely stabilized and with deadly accuracy while they do so.
i've never seen a mech with proper gun stabilization or even a good sensor package. Those two things win battles on their own.
>>285999746
>fire it is main gun
on rather flat ground
tanks
on steep slopes eg mountain
mechhover-tank master race
>>285992740
Mech = helicopter tank
So mech wins.
>>285998771
It also has rocket pods, and a top turret that can eb used by a second player to destroy anything that fly.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbUw6_KPz20
>>285999395
>fantasy physics
Gee, I wonder how can humans walk on two legs?
>>285992973
>20 EFF tanks worth 1 Zaku
Feddie fags never cease to amaze me
>>285999518
Yes, that's the point, why it's a side grade.
Though one big advantage is the legs mean you can adjust the height you sit at. Makes it easier to enter a hull down position and increases the possible gun depression. Or increase the height to let you shoot over obstacles or, in something like the AT-AT, provide what is practically line of sight artillery.
>>285999798
what.
>>285999715
what kind of terrain would benefit from increasing ground pressure exponentially?
mechs would fucking suck for difficult terrain you know. Imagine a mech climbing a mountain in afghanistan, the thing would slide down or break a rock and plummet into more rocks.
>>286000058
Square cube law. Ground pressure.
>>286000002
I don't want this nostalgia.Take it back.
>>285992740
tank because mechs aren't real and its for a reason
#rektgate
>>285995258
Those are EFF Ground Force tanks you space nigger
>>286000132
What do you mean 'what'? 'It's' is a contraction. The proper term you are looking for is 'its'.
>>285992740
>yfw real-world military R&D has tried to make mechs and failed many times
it only makes sense.
It takes way more energy to put a pile of armor and cannons on legs and make it walk around than it does to just roll it
Mechs will never be practical and even if they are a tank with the same arms and armor would still be better
>>285999746
Talk about gun stabilization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJmIw8XNdeY
>>285992740
Mechs literally can only work when they have a massive tech/magitek/fuckyouphysics advantage that the tanks aren't allowed to use for whatever reason
>>286000058
Humans aren't four stories tall.
Neither are human sized robots who don't need fantasy physics.
>>285992740
The one that lets me punch someone through a mountain
>>286000312
In most cases it is also just simply a bigger traget with more weakpoints the design of a mech is pretty much in ever case dumb
>>285999849
Yes, hover tanks do kind of beat both, but I imagine that they'd have a crazy energy consumption.
>>285997041
This is the kind of tension i want when taking down armored units as infantry, most multiplayer games you get so much ammo and chances that vehicles are just one way rides to the battlefields.
>>286000132
>what kind of terrain would benefit from increasing ground pressure exponentially?
>mechs would fucking suck for difficult terrain you know. Imagine a mech climbing a mountain in afghanistan, the thing would slide down or break a rock and plummet into more rocks.
What about city rubble or ruins, shallow water, ruined forest or light mountainous terrain.
>>286000328
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SndPb5XohYM
i fucking love Leopards
>>286000120
I'd say it's a direct downgrade in every situation except the ones where it's an upgrade.
Which is a fancy way of saying nothing at all.
Walkers would be useful in specific situations but outside of them they would be less useful than a tank for the same role. A large and well-funded army could have a Walker Corps, or an army that operates in Walker territory a lot, but I don't them being general-purpose present-in-all-armies weapons like a tank is because tanks fulfill a role that literally cannot be done without as far as we understand conventional warfare. Walkers don't. The only jobs I see for them are highly niche.
>>286000110
And you can get several more tanks for one zaku and got money enough for anti zaku infantry. War is about cost efficiency.
That said i personally do love overengineered quality stuff .
>>285999746
gotta go fast
>>286000882
>I'd say it's a direct downgrade in every situation except the ones where it's an upgrade.
That's what a sidegrade is.
>>285992740
mass productions of tanks >>>>> mechs cheaper to
a mech could work better underwater than tanks and could make better use of customizable parts (diferent legs armsfor specific actions)
plus mechs could be more usefull in non combat military activities
>>286000818
>What about city rubble or ruins
tanks are tracked vehicles with several tons of mass and obscene amounts of engine power, they can bulldoze or climb through mostly everything.
>shallow water
i'd put my money on the vehicle that doesn't put dozens of tons into a small contact surface not to sink and never come out again. Also tanks are actually amphibious for the most part
http://youtu.be/3uVXZS6oEhg?t=6m55s
>ruined forest
same as first case
>light mountainous terrain
you mean hills? that's most of Europe when we were preparing for the soviet invasion. Tanks are ALL about that.
>>286001492
Actually now that you mention it mechs could really find a home in police actions.
The equivalent of horse mounted police, except they don't leave shit everywhere or have to worry about the horse getting hurt or spooked by rioters.
Cities are deathtraps for tanks to enter, would it work better for mechs or equally bad?
>>286001520
fuck it have the first part of that documentary too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9thbMYFrmD8
tanks are cool
Tanks or jets, both are better options unless pilot is a newtype.
Seriously though, an M1 can fire at targets at 4000 meters, is semi-amphibious, and can tool around at 80MPH. It has the added benefit of being solidly on the ground with a majority of it's mass.
Then, don't get me started about jets, why the fuck would you put legs on a jet? Make it heavier? Does the fuel source need legs to work? There is literally no reason to add legs to a jet, instead, just have variable thrust vectors.
Don't get me wrong, I love mechs, but let's be honest, they're just a dramatic point to where you can seriously harm a main character without having them die.
>>286001836
it's like a tank except i's even easier to shoot at.
a mech walking into a city would be like a person walking into a river stream invested with piranhas and crocodiles.
Tanks. The benefits of a walker (crossing difficult terrain, mountains, city rubble, etc.) that a walker would be better than a tank in are all accomplished more easily by helicopters. Helicopter + tank is the best spearhead. You couple that with jet airstrikes and you're suddenly a 1st world military. Mechs are cool, but they'd only be good in certain situations. They'd be slow and speeding up would require running, which would be a bitch to compensate for. The two leg system makes them easier to knock over, their legs make them easier to tangle up like in starwars, and their shape would give them more potential weak points ti either disable or outright destroy them with explosives. Mechanized infantry would be cool and has some obvious perks, but it would be more like soldier suits like crysis rather than big fucking mechs.
>>285995029
>implying the tank wouldn't level the fuck out of the mountain
But a walker tank could literally just hide behind a hill, raise itself up, fire over the hill, then back down behind safety before popping up elsewhere. Whole new meaning to hull-down.
>>285996016
>shitty weapon
rofl
Mechs are heavily inconsistent from series to series, a mech like this would decimate whatever tech we humans have right now.
If I were to make a next generation tank, I'd use four track "Tires" that can move independently. That way, instead of using legs to improve it's trajectory and hull exposure, you could just adjust the position of the track.
Almost like giving it the ability to stand on it's "tiptoes".
this isnt even a question i mean from a realistic point of view a tank is smaller, can mount better armament, is less complex and thus more reliable and cost effective, is faster and has a lower center of gravity.
There is a reason there are no mechs and there is also a reason tanks look like they do. One of the main things you have to concider when designing a tank is the size of it, because that determines how easy it is to spot and hit. A mech is huge in comparison and therefore is just a bigger target that would be shot by everything
I mean hell, we have carrier battlegroups that can sortie out joint strike fighters and working rail weapons, why would we make mechs?
Instead, we should just focus on making tiny, remote-controlled-flying bomb-bots. Make em cheap and you have the perfect weapon.
>>286002527
Because it's got fucking laser weapons, not because it's a mech. A fucking helicopter with the same caliber of weaponry would do a better job.
>>286002664
Some vehicles already do that. The problem wheels and, in this case, multiple tracks have is that they get stuck on shit easier.
>>286002527
>Being unable to discern fiction from reality
>Misspelling 全滅
>>286002527
The problem with this argument is that anything that can be installed on a mech can also be installed on a tank, much more easily to booth. Assuming both the tank and the mech come from the same universe, the tank wins. Assuming they don't, what's the fucking point of comparing them?
>>286002079
>city rubble
i've seen pics of wars where cities are utterly fucking demolished, Stalingrad, Berlin, Seoul, Kabul, Grozny, Aleppo, Gaza, etc, and i've never seen a place tanks couldn't just ram into and and run over. I don't understand the kind of city rubble everyone's refering to.
>>286002441
but the mech can't go around the hill and it's still a huge fucker. It could literally catch all the rounds from an artillery barrage.
>>285992740
Why not mix between both?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zotNIKj15hs
>>286003086
>>286003081
>>286002990
He said shitty weapons and I pointed out that it isn't always true.
Yes, a tank with the same amount of firepower would be more efficient and effective.
But that wasn't the point in our exchange.
>ctrl + F titan
>0 results found
The fuck /v/, just what the fuck.
Mech are generally for pussies, but when you have mechs that level cities and are a walking bastion of the righteousness they > tanks.
>>286003169
>but the mech can't go around the hill and it's still a huge fucker. It could literally catch all the rounds from an artillery barrage.
No no, I'm talking about a tank that can change into a walker.
>>286003309
And then you make a tank on that scale and it wins again.
Aeroplane.
>>286003545
nah at this scale it would not realy matter
they both shoot a projectile
both get destroyed
>>286003545
A tank on that scale wouldnt be able to shoot anything below it, stupid.
>>286003363
there was actually a cold war program like that but it was far less stupid.
it was a tank that had a crane-like arm that extended upwards with a missile launcher and sensors on it. The tank would hide behind a tree line and only lift up the arm to engage.
>>285992740
Only good mechs would be mechs that are humanoid in shape, and are fast. A mech that acts like a tank does fuckall, but if you can use it like your own body, it becomes a lot more useful. A Zaku or Gundam would be a bad war machine, but if we go to fast machines like Kyrios or G-Reco it would be useful as an all-around machine.
>>286003169
Newyork, where shit could make the ground unstable and there are steel beams sticking straight up everywhere. I mean, yeah, if it's just a pile of rocks and shit a tank could go over that no problem, but I'm not convinced tanks would be able to maneuver through tons of collapsed skyscrapers well without exposing themselves significantly, and there's never been a situation where a 21st century 1st world city has been destroyed that way, so tanks have yet to prove themselves in that terrain. Either way, a helicopter seems like it would do a better job than tanks there anyway.
>>286003683
>tanks only have one gun
>>285998710
Me too.
Titan mode was always buggy/lagging but so much fun, it's a shame the devs with resources never want to take chances on anything remotely unique or original anymore
That was one of the first games that EA started to really fuck up though. They sold real ads to be displayed in-game for modern day products, and had some clause in their EULA about collecting info on your computer
bunch of bullshit besmirching an enjoyable game.
>>286003857
>a gun underneath the tracks
>>286003683
It wouldn't need to. It would just roll over fools.
>>286004042
>not making tracks out of guns
>>286003853
>Newyork, where shit could make the ground unstable and there are steel beams sticking straight up everywhere. I mean, yeah, if it's just a pile of rocks and shit a tank could go over that no problem, but I'm not convinced tanks would be able to maneuver through tons of collapsed skyscrapers well without exposing themselves significantly
why would a mech would then? do you think it's gonna be climbing on it's hands like a person would?
>>286003826
except it would be impossible to make a mech as agile Kyrios or G-Reco without bullshit technology..
>>286003309
>titan
Kek.
>The Shadowsword is a nearly identical super-heavy tank to the Baneblade with the exception of its armament and battlefield role as a Titan-killer.
>Armed with a massive forward-firing gun known as a Volcano Cannon the Shadowsword's primary focus during combat is the destruction of enemy Titans.
>>286004160
>>286004042
>guns can't move
Anon with a skyscraper sized tank you could literally cover it in guns and shoot all the things at the same time
>>286003826
you nailed it
As they are in most media, mechs are just bipedal tanks with a much higher center of gravity just asking for a projectile of sufficient mass to obliterate it/fall down and not get up. If two legs have an advantage it's mobility, which would be best used with fast and anthropomorphic designs.
Tanks have a much better low profile, that low profile lends itself to armor that deflects projectiles away, and use simpler/cheaper technology. mechs gotta be fast at least, or capable of things like manipulating objects with some finesse for utility
>>286004290
Why don't you just make a giant walking gun?
>>285992740
Depends on the mech. Are they animu style or Mechwarrior/battletech style?
A mech can just fly up and on top of a tank, then the tank is worthless.
>>286004160
that is a pretty good idea
while the tracks move they get reloadet
>>286004256
>stationary front gun
>can't rotate cannon past 30 degrees because of protruding guns on each side of cannon without major angle adjustments
>armor essentially scraping the gearing so a single dent will stop the vehicle
>gun can't be aimed below 0 degrees because of retarded joint placement
Ah W20k, retardation at it's finest.
A Mech, obviously.
What a stupid question.
>>286004256
A single shadowsword isn't usually enough to hunt titans in the warlord/phantom weight class.
>>286004439
mech
flying
how?
>>286003826
if you had a power source powerful enough to make that work you could make tanks fly, making mechs yet again useless
>>286004206
>>286004206
It can sidestep easier and step over things tanks would have to smash. Like I said, helicopters would do better than a mech ever could. Mechs are useless.
>>286004798
OP literally posted a flying mech as an example.
Implying an Eva like mech wouldn't destroy all tanks
>>286004256
A warhound titan whose void shield is still intact can withstand a shot.
>>286004554
The baneblade chassis is fucking massive and heavily armored.
>>286004876
>flying at 20mph
lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUeqSseERo
>asking /v/ this question even though this place is more weeb than /jp/
you stupid?
>>285992740
>cut a single exposed hydraulic hose or some shit
>mech ceases to function
>>285992740
The only way I could really see a Mech being used at all would be closer to something like power armor that was supported by a squad of infantry. Put a bunch of armor on it, and help it with situations such as breaking suppression, breaching, and extra utility such as transporting extra gear and equipment or bulldozing and clearing areas.
Essentially have it serve as a bridge between infantry and armor.
>>286004876
how does it fly is it explanied somehow?
>>286004414
Why not make this?
>>286004893
But Eva isn't a mech
>>285993365
The only reason tanks are better than mech in real life is because of cost vs efficiency.
>>286004971
>20mph
>posting something that isn't a tank
>>286005175
Dunno, game isn't out yet. It just does.
>>286004893
Evas are magical alien things.
>>285992740
Both would be good depending on the situation, a tank would make for a far more durable, armored and reliable weapon despite it's lack of mobility and versatility.
A mech could carry an ample variety of weapons without changing its structure and it's mobility would be unmatched, but at the same time all its complex mechanisms and weight, would make it a weakly armored unit and high chance of breaking down.
Tanks are the best assault weapons, mech would be the best supports.
>>286005281
Yes it is
>>286004554
1 is correct.
2 is wrong, the turret doesn't rotate.
3 is correct.
4 is irrelevant. The gun is for shooting skyscrapers. It doesn't need to depress.
>>286005312
Are you fucking retarded?
>a heavy armored fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track.
Both
>>286005303
no, it's literally impossible to build mechs. Square cube law prevents it.
If i learned anything from watching enough gundam it's that mechs are only good in the hands of a capable pilot, which makes sense realistically. It's not like they have the best defense against tank shells and anti air missiles unless they're made from fucking cheesed super metal (gundam material). Most pilots will never have what it takes to be a char or amuro while tanks are easy as fuck to drive so that's that
>>286005418
>No cannon
>30mm guns
>8 surface to air missiles designed to take down barely armoured 1-directional aircraft
>paper armour that is designed to protect against 7.62 small arms fire
>tank
get out
>>286005346
Tank mobility > Mech mobility
name me a single thing a mech could do a tank couldn't
>>286005516
>gundam
>pilot skill
I think you've meant plot armor and the whims of deus ex machina.
>>286001839
dat 80s synths hahahha
>>285992740
Tanks are cheaper, easier to use, easier to make, and easier to use, while providing comparable firepower. They aren't as mobile, but that's why planes exist.
>>286005620
Fly
Jump
Climb
>>286005662
well.. i mean sure that's possible but realistically wouldn't there be some people far more capable with reaction time and movements then everyone else.
>>286005620
Move in any direction without having to turn.
I suppose this could be utilized if you had some high tech laser sensing system which could detect an incoming shell from multiple kilometers away and dodge accordingly.
Anti missile can be handled with lasers. But that's not unique to mechs.
>>286005717
if you can make a mech fly you can make a tank fly
if you can make a mech jump you can make a tank jump
there's no way in hell you could in any way upscale human type climbing
try again
>>286005717
And a mech could?
>>286005606
>canon a requirement for a tank
You seem to be even more retarded than I thought.
>>286005620
Walk over tall debris and move/turn/react to enemy fire much faster.
>Tank shoots mech leg
>mech falls over
>tank wins
>>286005462
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w
4 legs though
>>286005876
>>286005812
>turn rate
rotating weapon platform is much faster than turning your entire vehicle
also inertia would prevent a mech from turning at any sort of acceptable rate
>>286005914
I was about to say mech, but..
Dang.
>>286004554
>What is a tank destroyer
>>286005838
Mechs are Bi-pedal. They can climb anything a human can climb providing it doesn't break under the weight.
Tanks can jump already, but only in a forwards motion at speed.
Don't need to try again.
>>286005848
Yeah.
>>286004225
Now that's true, but hey, they said the same about tanks in the past.
>>286004829
Right, but let's say they make a mech that can operate bith in space and in land, and it's a small and agile weapon platform. First you use it in the streets of some alien city, blowing their heads in, then you go into space, and go invade an alienship/defend own ship from their attack. You wouldn't use it in normal space combat, but rather a machine that can operate in both zero-g wreckages and inside ships.
But a tank would still be the best in ground combat, and a spaceship would be the best in normal space combat. A mech is an all around weapon platform.
>>286006126
>They can climb anything a human can climb
At that difference in size? I don't think the same categories apply.
>>286005462
imma destroy you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFrjrgBV8K0
>>286005418
It's not a tank it's SPAAG.
>>286006126
>providing it doesn't break under the weight.
Which it most likely would, considering how heavy a mech would need to be
>>286006603
Stop splitting hairs, you know what I mean.
>see thread
>expect 200 retarded post about muh animus and muh strike suits
>90 percent of posts are actually well reasoned logical explanations of why tanks are better
>>286006728
>not posting the correct version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRbvNL1PHKg
>>286006143
why would you need legs in space ? and i don't see anything larger than powerarmor being a "small and agile weapon platform"
Mechs are cooler than cannon boxes. That's not what OP asked though.
best mechs
>>286007086
they are so going to rape us
imagin that thing chasing you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chPanW0QWhA
>Realistic weapon which has been heavily researched over the course of 100+ years of war and revised thousands of times in hundreds of countries all over the planet
>Versus a fictional concept which barely has military-grade research done on it, much less actual combat-ready deployment to verify its usefulness
If we're talking video games, Mechs > Tanks every single time. If we're talking reality, I'm sure there were at least a few million people who would have vouched for tanks being superior to planes back in World War I.
>>286007084
>muh animus and muh strike suits
>STOP USING FICTIONAL EXAMPLES FOR YOUR FICTIONAL CONCEPT! USE REALISTIC EXAMPLES WHICH HAVE LITERALLY NEVER BEEN APPLIED TO ACTUAL COMBAT!
Kay m8
>>286006728
Why would a robot need a protective suit against radiation and/or chemicals? Its a fucking robot.
It also doesn't need a gas mask
>>286007092
You use legs to walk, yes? If you board a spaceship you want to walk rather than fly in some corridor right?
Also best mech size (or power armour if we go to that route) Would be about 2-5 meters. Bigger than that and it's shit.
Considering the Mechs you're thinking of aren't real and only exist in science-fiction, obviously Mechs.
Scopedog > all
>>286005949
Spot is not a mech in the contemporary sense. It is very small. However, if spot were 4 times bigger, then you would start seeing problems. As size doubles, mass is squared. That's why ants would collapse under their own weight if they were human sized.
>>286007173
I'm not seeing Whitw Glint there m8
>>285992740
It's a lot harder to knock a tank on its ass.
>>286005949
>>286006728
>/v/ in charge of know I got physics.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law
>>286007346
>You use legs to walk, yes? If you board a spaceship you want to walk rather than fly in some corridor right?
or you could replace the legs with wheels or tracks and save a lot of energy, weight, money and have less weak points that are hard to armor
>>286007407
too bad it is not gonna be able to move like that in real life, and even then they always deliberately give the tank stormtrooper tier gunnery control.
>>286007407
No real mech is ever going to move that way though, more along the line of a giant robocop, also tanks are faster than that.
>be mech
>jump on turret of tank
>sit there all day chillin'
>>286007631
>knowing*
Stupid phone
>>286007346
>If you board a spaceship you want to walk rather than fly in some corridor right?
No, I would rather ride.
>>286007763
>be mech
>jump on turret of tank
>break legs
>>286007084
This is neo-/v/, all the oldfags have left so we can actually have good discussion now.
>>286007446
>>286007631
I'm not sure exactly where this "Square Cube Law" parroting is coming from. You wouldn't make a ten-inch tank, use the exact framework for this toy tank, and make it "Bigger". You have a lot of complicated elements placed inside to make sure it can sustain its own weight, function within it, and function well within it. Same logic would apply to a mech. Just because it's larger doesn't mean that it would magically fall apart because it's bigger. You place suspensions, pistons, shock-absorbers, and other elements to assure that such a large creation can sustain its own weight. Otherwise the Square Cube Law would mean that towering skyscrapers would never be able to exist because "It would never work if all you did was make this tiny model super-big!!!"
>>286007763
>be mech
>jump
>land
>legs shatter
>>286007763
>jump
>huge ass heavy vehicle
>jump
>>286007631
it is impossible
show that it infact is possible
hur /v/ idiots
>>285998771
Reverse joint leg mechs like this are probably exactly how the future armor might look. Tanks are best 1 being able to also move up over a hill, shoot, and move back behind cover depending on the engagement. If they so called "tank" had the ability to peep over hills and other similar cover, shoot, then crouch back down behind cover. Terrain will be more traversal as well. All in all, any mechs that actually come to be in the future are going to be 1 thing for sure. Big and slow as shit.. like tanks.
>>286007871
>not riding the turret like a fairground ride as the gunner tries to shake you off
>>286003978
It was a genuinely fun-ass game but it was pretty buggy and I hated the in game ads. Glad that didn't catch on too badly. Overall though I had a great time playing that as a diversion to CS.
>>286007757
>>286007758
>real mech
>/v/ - Video games
>>286007921
>>286007905
>huge ass vehicle
>can fly
>think the legs will break when it lands
Anime girls in exo suits
>>285997041
But why make them fly? planes work just fine.
>>286007303
>it's only a game bro!
>>286007896
Skyscrapers aren't eat for a combat role, meant to be mobile, armed, or full of complicated machinery. What, do you think mech are hollow or something?
>>286008123
You got it backwards. You make planes, which can walk.
>>286007871
>Don't break legs because mechs don't exist
>Do a somersault then fire of an Itano Circus straight up your tanks cannon pipe
>Breakdance while your tank explodes into a billion pieces
Should have joined the Mech squad, punk.
>>286008050
>world where mech can fly
>absolutely no reason why tank can't too
>>286007896
Why is there no soviet/post-soviet tank porn ITT?
Look at this sexy fucking T-64 Bulat.
>>286003978
Call me a jew, but having ingame billboards display real ads is sorta cool though.
But its only cool if its non-intrusive and you can destroy those billboards
The only vidya mechs that would make reasonable weapons that aren't ZoE2 tier speed machines are Metal Gear Rays and the Geckos because of they're specialized designs- amphibious and urban respectively.
>>286008050
>can fly
How?
The reason tanks always win is because bulls hit that mechs have can always serve a better purpose on a mech. If there is tech for mechs to fly, then the tanks will probably have flight capacity too
>>286008315
>2142
>core 2 duo
You lost me.
>>285992740
Considering Tanks are a low level threat compared to mechs. Mechs have pretty much the same if not more firepower depending on the mech, and mechs have way more mobility/maneuverability so Tabks would get shit on by Mechs.
>>286003309
A strong gust of wind could knock over that monstrosity.
>>286007346
>If you board a spaceship you want to walk rather than fly in some corridor right?
Nah I'd rather fly and feel around like some kind of crustacean. because it's in space and walking would be very difficult
>>285997041
>make the mech fly
but then why not just use a helicopter or plane? They weigh a lot less because of the lack of superfluous arms/legs and would be much more maneuverable for it.
>>285992740
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/sci-fi-rant-why-giant-mecha-robots-are-stupid/
>>286008309
Disgusting. Post more T72M2
>>286008423
>he doesn't know about the quantum Core 2 Duo
>>286008142
>meant to be mobile, armed, or full of complicated machinery
If something is "meant to be" a certain way, you build it to accommodate said changes. The reason why many things can be varying sizes is because their bodies are built to deal with shifts. It's the same way that a 6'10" basketball player can run about while a 4'10" asian woman can do the same. Their bodies are structured to accommodate their own respective weights. They aren't created under the principle of "Tiny version of thing is now massive", they are created to deal with exactly what is built over them.
You really haven't explained your case. Yes, a mech, realistic or otherwise, would be heavy as all fuck, but are tanks suddenly less than a ton now?
>>286008440
>tank shoots leg
>maneuverability and mech are now dead
>>286000785
This, so fucking much.
I remember playing PR as a sniper/spotter team and just hearing one of those shitty M113s with either manned or unmanned turret would send me and my spotter into a panic and fucking beat feet out of the area. God forbid we fucking encountered an IFV that actually spotted us.
It's fucking criminal just how fucking castrated tanks and IFVs are in BF4 so fucking shitty jets and helo pilots won't bitch. 200m/s muzzle velocity for a fucking AP round? And only ~265m/s muzzle velocity for APDS rounds. Absolute abstract kind of disgusting. Those bitch ass helos wouldn't see the light of day if tanks got legit MPAT rounds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGQxR1FXta8
>>286002527
>anime bullshit
>>286008361
Geckos only work because they're weird and are specifically designed to just make people shit their pants.
RAYs are dumb, though. We already have nuclear subs. We don't need a weird metal lizard thing to do what's been done by 50 year old diesel submarines.
>>286007309
Practically, a radiation suit would help since in Chernobyl all robotic attempts failed due to the radiation frying them up so bad. Put your phone in the microwave and you'll see a similar result.
But I think in this case it was to completely obscure the fact it was a robot, making it more "human"
>>286008660
>Mech shoots canopy
>Crew and tank are now dead
>>286007407
uhhh, was that fighting shermans? 'cause that doesn't seem like a very even match.
I'm looking forward to the next thread. What would win in a fictional war.
Mechs or tiny cannon boxes that always gets instantly blown up.
>>286002527
>decimate
So you mean to tell me they'd only kill exactly one of every ten?
>>286006728
What is this, a mech for ants!?
>>286008780
But could it hit it with the tank's lower profile and higher top speed?
Also, the tank could sport heavier armor for the same weight, since it doesn't have stupid-ass arms and legs to support.
>>286008780
>tanks
>canopy
wut
>tanks engaging armored targets
>less than 50 meters apart
Pick one.
>>286007309
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_event_upset
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_strike_(engineering)
>>286008581
Have a B3 instead.
Basically upgraded to T-90 standard.
>>286008648
Tanks deal with their weight in a different way. Think of it like this. You know those Hindu guys who sleep on nail boards? They do that healthily because the weight is distributed, and distributed slowly. If you were to walk on a nail board, you'd get stabbed,because the weight of your body is being focused on to your foot. If it's focused into a wider area, it's spread out, and the weight on each nail is reduced. That's why tanks are better. A mechs foot would sink right through most terrain, if it could even lift it. Tanks don't lift anything, the have a continued circular motion through the drive wheels, and the treads have a surface area that easily distributes the weight.
>if there are problems you can design around it
This is a physics problem that you cannot fix. Legs do not work on mechs that are meant to be analogous to tanks.
>>286009005
>But could it hit it with the tank's lower profile and higher top speed?
>higher top speed
You're assuming the mech is immensely slow, and you're basing this off of explicitly subpar examples of mech development.
And even then, yes. Aiming systems and actual arms allow it to fire far more effectively than pointing a cannon, which a mech could easily just continually side-step.
>More armor
Irrelevant, as the mech could just keep plastering it in AP shells until it exploded.
A truck with anti-tank weaponry. They can range from expensive, purpose built Humvees or Toyota trucks with an AT Bazooka on them.
Mk. 33 Bolo > Mecha
Prove me wrong /v/
>>286008648
I think the thing you two can agree on is that a realistic mech would be nothing like they are in anime or video games.
>>286009318
>arms more effective at firing than a stabilized gun platform.
okay friend
>>286009318
Nothing is more effective than a two axis turret when it comes to aiming a weapon. Not to mention that modern battle tanks can easily top
>the mech could just keep plastering it in a shells till it exploded
Nigga our own tanks can't kill our own tanks. We have to go inside and place dynamite if we need to abandon a tank.
I like tanks and mechs supporting each other.
why not have both in one?
>>286009738
>all the disadvantages of both with the advantages of neither
>>286009318
>A 60-ton humanoid could sidestep a tank shell moving at 1700m/s
>>286009318
You do realize that modern MBTs have rather advanced fire control systems that allow them to shoot accurately enough when performing maneuvers and such?
That and it's fucking ~45 tons or more of weight to keep the gun from whipping around what not.
>>286009594
Agreed. However, since we have zero basis for a "realistic mech" beyond vague speculation and Wright-Brothers-tier technological knowhow of mechs, its hard to say which would win
>>286009859
Mechs have no advantages.
>>286009318
>tank guns don't have aiming systems
>tanks don't have stabiliziers for firing while moving
>ignoring the fact that a lot of contemporary tanks are capable of firing guided shells akin to ATGMs
Don't discuss a topic if you don't know shit about it.
so we can all agree landmate is best mech?
>>286009929
You seem knowledgeable here. Are there any recorded clashes between tanks moving at relatively decent speeds in the modern era? I keep seeing videos of tanks shooting into sandy cities at visibly...nothing. Just rolling dirt, already-bombed houses, and supposed enemies hiding in said bombed houses.
>>286010119
I'd say those are closer to exoskeletons than to mechs.
>>286009318
You watched too much Eva son.
Go to sleep.
>>286009318
Assuming the tank an the mech would be both around the same weight the mech would have a very small main gun, maybe 60-80 mm at best, that's not nearly enough to pen the equivalent of 600 mm of steel in modern armour. The tank would have a 120 mm gun, that's more than enough to pen the most likely vertical and thin armour of the mech.
>>286009081
I figured he's dumb and meant the turret/top armor
>>286009318
>You're assuming the mech is immensely slow, and you're basing this off of explicitly subpar examples of mech development.
Find me anything that walks on legs that can match things we've built that go on wheels, tracks or through the air. Fastest animal goes at what, 60? Your mom's Toyota Tercel does double that with like ten times the weight.
>Irrelevant, as the mech could just keep plastering it in AP shells until it exploded.
Now THATS video game logic
>if I pump enough .223 into the side of this King Tiger, it'll explode!
lmao
>And even then, yes. Aiming systems and actual arms allow it to fire far more effectively than pointing a cannon, which a mech could easily just continually side-step.
Have you ever fired a rifle? Human arms are a terrible shooting platform. It's why people go prone to shoot, you brace the weapon against the ground. A cannon is well-braced, and will be far more accurate and easier to bring to aim.
And this is all before how much easier it is to armor treads compared to legs with complicated hydraulics/piezoelectrics, the higher centre of gravity of a mech making it liable to being knocked down while tanks don't even roll in turns, the overcomplicated and superfluous nature of mech weaponry (let's make a typical M4 but REALLY BIG!!), etc.
>>285992740
So huge question to everyone here. Its been decided pretty quickly that Tanks beat Mechs in both terms of efficiency and cost. Would Power armor ever be a viable weapon of war? A person given the ability to solo tanks and the mobility to avoid their fire. How much would this cost compared to tanks, and is it the future of war?
>>286010373
uhh... desert storm and desert storm 2: electric bogaloo. They just kept rolling and wasted them babby ruskie tanks
>>286010373
Honestly, the only thing I can say off the top of my head would be Iran-Iraq War which is a pretty notable war that demonstrates the whole T-72 vs M48/60 Patton dealie.
And are you looking for tanks actually engaging each other while on the move?
>>286010119
>digitigrade legs on an exoskeleton
MY BONES
