Tank VS Mech
- Home
- Board: /v/ - Video Games
- Reading: Tank VS Mech
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
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.
>>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
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
>>286007871
>>286007905
>be human
>jump
>land
>legs shatter
oh wait
>>286010708
>mobility to avoid tank fire
lol ok
who would win, a tank or a squad of these guys with a zephyr particle dispenser?
>>286009972
Well speculation is difficult but not impossible. I think Tanks make a lot of sense. They're tried and true, mechanically complex but relatively simple to what a mech would need, and scale pretty well.
The advantages of a mech would be to scale terrain normally not crossable by a tank and I just don't think the advantages really outweigh any of the known disadvantages. I think for now only smaller mechs and robots could really fill a useful combat role.
Still worth experimenting with, I guess.
>>286010770
>>286010826
It's worth noting though that the Iraqis were using monkey model T-72s without any of the advanced electronics.
>>286010708
>A person given the ability to solo tanks
That's called a man with a rocket launcher, you sperg.
What's up with all those faggots being so delusional about how wars are done?
>>285992740
Tanks can't fall over.
>>286009701
I heard that story of a m1 abrams trying to destroy a disabled m1, couldn't even pen it with the 120mm.
>>286010995
If given the mobility to move faster than a tank can swivel its gun, and the jumping capabilities to get out of the line of fire and next to the tank as quickly as possible, where is the downside?
>>285995627
The fucking robot probably has some beam weapon on it, do you believe that to be lesser than a shell bullet?
>>285993365
We don't even have bipedal stability for smaller mecha. We are nowhere near capability.
>>286011218
You think 1 guy with a rocket launcher can take on 3-4 tanks? 1 rocket launcher isn't going to do much against modern tanks to begin with
>>286011448
Eh, ISIS fighters in Iraq were pretty capable of taking out M1A1 abrams using just RPGs and ATGMs.
Have a different video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAzjWcy1jA
Mechs, because they can move a lot faster and can hold more firepower.
>>286010708
Honestly, I'd assume it'd sooner see widespread use in warehouses and stockrooms, and to make forklifts obsolete sooner than tanks. Those things would be fucking useful for construction, too. All dat heavy lifting in confined spaces!!
They're not strong enough to withstand tank fire for sure, they can't carry tank weapons, so they're not even in the same category. I'm not sure where that /k/ meme of EXOSPOOKELLINGTON VS TANK thing came from. But for infantry, I dunno. It seems like an answer to a question no one asked. It's still probably not going to stop the AP 7.62 used in a lot of battle rifles and older assault rifles, and it's not like modern soldiers need to lift trucks and shit very often. There's
>muh 80kg of gear
but it's all distributed among a tacvest and in a load-bearing backpack that you'll be leaving in the car while OPER8ING.
>>286010909
its actually a huge health problem for fat people that running and jumping does massive damage to their joints, and even pro runners tend to have a lot of surgeries later in life
now scale that up to a 12.7 gorillion pound mech and you might see how some hydraulic lines will be prone to bursting, and how the piezoelectrics might get bent out of shapte
>>286011031
>mechanically complex
The basic theory of a tank is you take a tractor and cover it in steel plates. The complex parts come in for modern tanks with ERA and advanced fire control and optimal armor sloping and all that good shit. And ergonomics. Supposedly, soldiers the world over are jealous of brit tanks because they have A/C and a 120v rail for plugging in phone chargers and electric kettles and stuff.
>>286011343
beam weapons are a whole new level of "it's cool but fucking stupid and here's my PhD dissertation on why"
>>286011448
Depends on the tank, depends on the number of ammo.
And you're a massive retard for thinking that exoskeletons will magically turn soldier into super heroes with the ability to break tanks with their fist.
>>286011324
Not possible, unless you're literally in punching range of the tank. Just use the Pythagorean theorem man.
>>286010708
Power armour will never give an individual the ability to go head to head with a tank. But there is a possibility of them being used to help lighten soldiers loads and maybe give them a little more armour for infantry engagements.
Mechs are cooler but tanks are more practical to not only make, but use.
>>286011727
Haha, fuck no.
>>286011673
countdown to someone saying
>muh bad tacticxxx
>no aftermarket radium armor
>russia shill russia shill
that said, modern AT weapons are pretty fucking robust, it's not like development stopped with the RPG7
well, except in the US of course, who are considering adopting their own knockoff of the RPG7 lmao
mechs are weapons of intimidation
tanks are weapons of war
>>286011762
>beam weapons are a whole new level of "it's cool but fucking stupid and here's my PhD dissertation on why"
Show me then, why is a beam weapon with it's own generator on the mecha stupid?
>>286010708
The only point of realistic power armor is to make a soldier's life easier. It doesn't make you Iron Man.
>>286011343
That would mean that contemporary tank designs will have tech just as advanced and actually offer a much better platform for it.
Mechs will never be viable.
>>286012087
lol, look at all the tactical stuff you can put on it! it's like tactical to the extreme
Mech warrior mechs would actually work IRL, if we had the production capabilities and production tech from battletech.
They are capable of carrying much more and much bigger armament and armor, to the point where they can shrug off the future variant tank rounds. They are less mecha and more like a walking battleship, being able to outrange and outfirepower most tanks.
It's a size limitation, you can't make a tank that can carry the same amount of weapons than a battletech mech because that tank would be the size of a city block, whereas a mech can build UPwards to save vertical space and thus remain mobile
There are still tanks in mech warrior though, but they are relegated to support roles, usually carrying little armor and a single heavy gun, or something to that extend.
>>286012071
Tanks are fucking useless because they are heavy and move slow. They need to focus their aim to get a shot at something and their r-fire rate is embarrassingly slow. Then a mech comes in and circle around the tank while it one-shots the tank's weak spot.
>>286011727
A tank/car literally has to use 0 energy to stand still holding weapons. And very minimal energy to maintain speed/stability while moving and carrying said weapons.
A biped needs to constantly shift weight when standing still, and it's absolutely fucked when trying to move. Put on a backpack that weighs as much as you do and try doing anything.
A wheeled vehicle can hold 10x it's weight easily and still move.
>>286008272
I have the complete picture if you want.
>>286012349
how delusional can one person be
look at any piece of modern military technology
hell, nevermind, i probably just got baited anyway
>>286012307
wat, no. 100 tons of armor doesn't mean shit to a nuke and don't tell me they don't have nukes because each of those mechs are literally powered by nuclear power.
>>285992740
It depends on what universe you're talking about.
Ours? Tanks because mechs are impratical pieces of shit.
Most vydiaverses? Mechs because they're made with super nippon steel folded 414fafa23g times that move like butter and can do a shitload of things. Meanwhile tanks are just bigger cars.
>>286012087
>tacticool RPG
Now I have seen everything.
That said, it will take many more years before simple shaped charges become uneffective against armour.
>>286012172
Because my tank from that time period will probably offer protection against it.
>>286011989
This. Real powered armor won't be like in video games.
>>286009318
ITT: /m/ defending mechas
>>286012349
>I don't fucking know anything about the topic, but I'm going to throw in my shitty opinion anyways: the post
Nice hollywood education you fucking faggot.
>>286012307
mechs have joints, which are guaranteed weak spots
and a mech that large would just sink into the ground
>>286007940
Tanks don't have to do everything, they just need to destroy.
You have air machines to peep over stuff, you even have little fuckers like drones now so there's no excuse to use one giant thing that requires a buttload of energy to move and becomes uless as soon you poke one of its legs.
>>286012307
It's a fantasy scenario and will remain so.
Something like a tank chassis will always allow for better armament and armour because physics apply in our world.
The tank wins every time. Legs are useful for traversing uneven and rough terrain, but beyond that they're just two big weak points. Detrack a tank and you've created an armored pillbox, take the leg off a mech and its face first in the dirt. On top of that, in order to armor a mech sufficiently to survive anything larger than a .50 cal would require the legs to be huge and cumbersome, eliminating the advantage it might have had over rough and uneven terrain.
>>286005424
I came here to post this
>>286012307
>They are capable of carrying much more and much bigger armament and armor, to the point where they can shrug off the future variant tank rounds
What prevents a tank from using the same armor? Also, a mech wouldn't be able to take advantage of sloped armor, so it would need a lot more to make up for it and the complex shape makes it impossible to get the same reactive armor coverage as a tank.
>It's a size limitation, you can't make a tank that can carry the same amount of weapons than a battletech mech because that tank would be the size of a city block, whereas a mech can build UPwards to save vertical space and thus remain mobile
What prevents a tank from building upwards? Why would you even put all that shit on one vehicle instead of several, more specialized ones?
>>286007940
You somehow have the ingrained misconception that tanks are slow as fuck.
>>285992740
>Which one is the better weapon of war?
Mechs
They move a lot faster and can quickly dodge tank fire and can take lots of hits. Tanks need more than one operators while mechs only need one. More advanced mechs would also be able to fly over a platoon of tanks and kill them all in a single volley of missiles.
I don't see how mechs can be viable in the real world. Even if you can somehow manage to get the tech to make one, i don't see why you wouldn't use the same tech on tanks, ships, and planes. The only situation mechs would be viable if they somehow replace tanks, ships, and planes with just one mech imho.
>>286012349
>Tanks
>slow
Ahah no.
>>286005424
>A tank with a larger profile
Its the worst parts of both!
This is the only terrain where a mech could "beat" a tank.
https://www.shadertoy.com/view/XsX3RB
>>285992740
Robot dogs are going to do most of the supposed special tasks a mech can do but actually better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QjPfd5Jjmo
>>286013304
Read the thread to see why your opinion is a load of shit.
>>286012172
>Show me then, why is a beam weapon with it's own generator on the mecha stupid?
First off, lasers have trash penetration. They basically work by melting the outside layer of something, vaporizing it (or letting it just run off hot) and continuing on until the object is cut through. This is how industrial laser cutters work for paper, steel sheets, whatever. They're fairly slow compared to sharp blades. The advantage, though, is that you don't have to replace this huge laser as often as you would have to replace saw blades if you're cutting big things, and it's very precise, so it's worth using on cardstock, thin metal or wood sheets, that sort of thing. The time it takes to cut a part is irrelevant, because you're not under duress.
It's just too slow to burn through things to be an effective combat weapon.
It's a shitty weapon. Lasers don't even work for CIWS. They've tried it. Slugs and explosives work better for demolishing things.
Using electrical systems also increases the weight a shitton. A good rule of thumb is that batteries are always heavier than chemical fuel. And to power your laser, there will undoubtedly be a whole bunch of big fat capacitors and giant batteries driving it.
>>286012548
power loaders are legit
imagine how much beer you could stock at once with that thing
just
imagine
>>286012620
>mechs are literally powered by nuclear power.
This might be the reason why mechs can never be. No sane military commander want's a walking nuke around their troops.
>Mech gets shot
>Reactor goes critical
>Takes out several city block along with a good chunk of your troops and the enemies.
>Objective is now an radioactive no go zone for decades
At least that's how I think it would play out.
>>286013304
>120mm Rheinmetall
>1750m/s muzzle velocity
>engagements occur between 50m to 4kms
Yeah...
No...
>>286013523
This is a video game board.
You wanna talk about realism, go to >>>/sci/
>>286013349
Mechs could be useful on a smaller scale as support weapons for infantry or in the shape of exoskeletons.
I know its a game but Realisticly I would think mechs being that huge is a detriment. Smaller mechs might actually be more versatile by be being able to support infantry, not having a MASSIVE silhouette, possibly being able to enter buildings during cqc, etc
Mechs will likely be power armors. Highly maneuverable, much more powerful than infantry but less armor than tanks. It will be something like Hawken mecha or Starship Troopers power armor. That makes sense. It'd be far more agile + it would slaughter infantry and maybe even carry RPG for anti tank. Giant mecha likely is not feasible unless they develop an exceptionally powerful alloy and have a powerful new engine type.
>>286013304
And a mech gets a single joint or anything damaged it's potentially fucked completely. One round into a knee and you're in a useless piece of shit
>>285992740
Mechs = way cooler and probably more agile
Tanks = Tougher, probably more effective and maybe faster in a straight line
Overall a tank, probably why we use tanks
>>286013304
>m-muh chinese cartoons
how the fuck is a mech going to quickly dodge a supersonic projectile you dunce. Take lots of hits? Are you fucking high? Do you think its possible to armor up a mech more so than a tank? Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
You have a whole board dedicated to yoru childish bullshit why don't you go there? This isn't even video games you faggots
>>285992740
Mech is cooler.
>>286013541
>power loaders are legit
I would kick the shit out of some alien queens provided there aren't like a million built in safety features in the software for it....
>>286013725
>more agile
Why do faggots think this? A wheel is a far more fucking efficent power to locomotion delivery system than a leg could ever be.
>>286013598
>>286013723
>>286013751
go to >>>/sci/
This is a VIDEO GAME board.
Mechs>Tanks
>>286013462
At least post the right video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtU9p1VYtcQ
>>286013813
>Almost no armor whatsoever
Now that's just fucking stupid.
>>286013870
This.
The real question is why we don't have tank segways.
>height similar to a tank
>far smaller horizontally doe
>mount a machine gun and a mortar on it
>can fit on the back of a truck
>deploy for anti-infantry things
>still armored and weighted well enough that HE won't bother it, too small to reliably hit with AP shells
>can turn on its own profile
>can still have a respectable speed
fffffffffffffffuck
>>286013870
Evangelion is the most realistic anime ever made. Giant things were agile in Evangelion. Therefore giant things are agile in real life. Q.E.D..
>>286013902
Just fuck off.
"It's a video game board" is not an argument.
>>286013902
What prevent video game tank to use the same technology as video game mech?
Tanks > Mechs
>>286014157
>Evangelion is the most realistic anime ever made
I refute your first premise and reject your conclusion.
>>286013902
>>286013628
>wah wah go 2 /sci/
at first I thought this was just b8 but now I'm pretty sure you're just actually upset
Why the need for mechs if we already have some crazy shit in real life?
If we ever manage to engineer the energy source to make mech viable, we'll use it to build planes and helicopters instead
Mech will never be real kid
>>286014356
Is that supposed to be a dick
>>286014356
The fuck is that?
What kind of mechs are we talking about?
BF2142 style walker mechs or are we talking full armored core?
Because it's armored cores, it's a whole 'nother ball game. Of course they're impossible, but if we're talking firepower and maneuverability, you know how shit is going to go down.
>>286014440Artillery silencer
Mechs are obviously more superior to tanks.
Mechs
>More weapons
>More speed
>More armor
>Better reload time
Tanks
>slow
>Armor is only in front
>Can be flipped upside down
>10 second reload rate
>very limited weaponry
I present you the best mech killer that you can get right now.
>The Abrams Liberty
It has twin bushmaster to deal with most of the mechs
It has ADATS to deal with flying mechs and heavy armored ones
It has radar to detect, track and provide fire solution (2S15 Norov shows that it can be done)
If you strap some APS on it it would a pretty good deal.>tfw it never left drawing board
>>286014440
Its a suppressor.
>>286014440
"Never know what hit em"
>>286014356
power top
Anyone in this thread who thinks "practicality" and/or "feasibility" in this thread automatically misses the point of why mechs exist.
Because they are cool.
And that is all that matters.
Mechs will always be cooler than tanks.
>>286013652
Well then it's not exactly what OP wanted to discuss. Even if the technology is available, pilots would be killed if it could be designed to maneuver fast enough like what you see on chinese cartoons. The g-force that the pilot has to withstand would be immense.
>>286014440
>>286014478
It's a sound suppressor for artillery guns.
GERMAN ENGINEERING
>>286014478
>>286014440
Silencer
>>286014391
And before someone says "muh mobility" you can just build little armored drones instead.
>>286014578
>>286014510
>Silencer
Stop.
>>286014524
Correct.
>>286014356
>Engineer's wet dream
>>286014570
What about using the G-diffuser system that Arwings have?
>>286014561
Why can't we have nice things?
>>286014561
The only correct answer in this thread.
The only way mechs become possible is if some wizard manages to make them tough enough to not worry too much about infantry but fast and agile enough to close in with tanks and shoot them with AT stuff before getting the fuck out, because no bipedal robot is ever taking a tank round to the face and surviving.
And even then, a 12 year old with an RPG might do just as much as the billion dollar robot, and have about as much chance of survival.
>>286014571
I thought those were korean
>>286014561
>Mechs will always be cooler than tanks.
That's just your opinion man
>>286009906
I think he was talking more about staying out of its line of fire.
>>286014561
>Anyone in this thread who thinks "practicality" and/or "feasibility" in this thread automatically misses the point of why mechs exist.
Straight from OP's post
>Which one is the better weapon of war?
Excuse us for being on-topic retard.
>>286014570
just make them piloted from outside the mech.
The only advantage a tank would have over a mech is when the mech doesn't see the tank and is standing still. The same goes for tank vs tank.
>>286014756
>autism
>>286014930
>because no bipedal robot is ever taking a tank round to the face and surviving.
most mechs in fiction are predicated on the notion that they can do this very thing, and i would agree that its a necessary for a bipedal mech to be viable.
With our current armor technology its certainly impossible but who knows what sort of new alloys and shock resistant mechanical devices we will see in the future.
I dont think people realize the kind of weaponry we'll be able to slap on a tank if we come to the point where we can make mech possible
>>286015147
Game?
>>286015302
project nimbus
>>286014945
No? Those are PzH 2000.
You can also see the iron cross on the side.
When technology expands to a point where engineers will get bored with tanks, it might move onto mecha and maybe someday, they will have Gundam like combat fidelity. That is like 100-150 years into the future though.
>>286015291
You could also just put those materials on a tank chassis then.
Mechs will never be a viable thing.
>>286015297
Railguns, energy shielding in addtion to the fuck loads of armor tanks already have, boosters for hovering or flying, etc.
Also Unmanned tanks.
>>286015297
>if we come to the point where we can make mech possible
Nigga, we could definitely make one now if we really wanted to.
Hell you don't even have to have the complicated AI that those big dog and other boston dynamics robots have because it's not automated.
>>286012087
>countdown to someone saying
Countdown complete.
I wish I properly named the .webm so I could post it but there's a great one of ISIS rebels firing RPGs at an Iraqi Abrams and literally doing nothing except singeing the armor and then shitting their pants when the turret turns around to return fire.
Of course, despite surviving, the Abrams is commanded by a total idiot, since his first reaction to taking anti-tank fire isn't back the fuck up but stand there and take more hits until he zeroed on the target for return fire. It's both proof of effective armor and ineffective training and tactics.
There's a similar story from WWII of a 37mm PaK AT gun vs a T-34 where the PaK gun managed to fire off all of it's ammo (50+) rounds at one tank without killing it. This is proof of how good the T-34's armor was, and how shit-tier Soviet crews were, since they sat there and got hit with 50 fucking rounds without either retreating or destroying the offending AT gun.
>>286015598
>hrupppdtyfdue
>railguns are ALWASY better
no
>>286010708
>Would Power armor ever be a viable weapon of war?
It is the next step in infantry evolution, restricted to specific roles at first, like logistic and medical care, then progressively cover the whole army, and obviously other "public service" (firefighters/riot)
>>286015598
>boosters for hovering or flying, etc.
Tell me why one earth you would ever want to make a tank fly.
Do you honestly think it could fire a weapon with kickback that massive while in the air?
>>286015291
And what if we use these "sort of new alloys and shock resistant mechanical devices" to make tanks?
>>286015634
this just in 50 year old rockets won't significantly damage a tank made in the past decade
who'd-a-thunk
Mechs. I will admit that the ones the space force use are awful though.
>>286015668
That or whatever else they decide to make that surpasses the cannons on tanks.
Didnt they make a homing bullet at some point?
>>286015772
Probably for short mobility purpose such as jumping ravine and shit
>>286015807
M1A1 aren't from the past decade.
>>286015291
If you assume armour is going to get better, you have to assume that there will most likely be an increase in anti armour capability as well.
>>286015297
>Flying fatboy
Good lord.
>>286015606
No, you would still need lots of computers to finely control all the joints to make sure that you could actually simplify it enough that a human could pilot it. You see this happening with jet planes like the Eurofighter, where yoy almost wouldn't be able to fly it at all without computer assistance.
>>286015291
Armor technology will literally never outpace weapon technology to the point where mechs are viable in a combat role. If it was ever possible to armor a bipedal mech to the point where it could survive a direct hit form a tank shell, it would be possible to load twice as much armor on the tank firing the shell and the mech would be useless for anything other than a very expensive anti-infantry role.
Bipedal locomotion will never be more efficient than tracked or wheeled locomotion, cool as it may be.
>>286015904
Fair enough, but it would still be a massive energy waste getting that massive thing off of the ground. You're better off with helicopters.
>>286015772
if anything, it would probably be used as a short boost in mobility for clearing obstacles or something, like a landmaster
>>286015634
RPG-29's and Konkurs ATGMs are probably very capable of penetraing an abrams, though.
>>286015772
>flying tank
>laughing A-10s
Yeah, pretty much. If not flight, just hover over obstacles because mech fags decide LOLLEGSSOMANEUVERABLE.
And for recoil, just shove missiles on the tank or something.
>>286016036
>No, you would still need lots of computers to finely control all the joints to make sure that you could actually simplify it enough that a human could pilot it
Just make a suit with force feedback nigga.
>>286013870
A decent mech could probably turn on the spot a lot faster then a tank, but please don't misunderstand, tanks are better, people who say mechs are retarded
>>286016005
>implying 1985 wasn't ten years ago
>>286016231
>just use a tank that doesnt really need all that complex shit nigga
>>286016183
Getting that much mass up off of the ground and moving it over an obstacle is going to be far slower and less efficient than just walking/jumping/climbing over it.
>>286016360
I'm somewhat of an expert on the subject, seeing as I was born in 1985 and turned 30 today.
It unfortunately was not ten years ago.
I choose chinese cartoon girls.
>>286015807
Yeah, not saying that the Abrams is INVINCIBLE but I don't think ISIS has access to the newer models of AT weapons, nor do they have the tactics to land proper hits on the Abrams' weak points (baring, of course, the tank isn't commanded by an idiot without proper infantry support). I think a bunch of the videos of ISIS destroying Abrams tanks is them demolishing abandoned tanks, assuming they don't try to use such abandoned tanks for themselves.
Though arguing about how tough the Abrams is is kind of irrelevant anyways. It really comes down to tactics, since who has better tactics (ISIS or Iraqi army) will determine the outcome of the engagement, not the quality of the gear.
>>286016393
We're just talking about locomotion here, man.
It doesn't have to be that hard.
for urban warfare, mechs would fuck shit up
>>286015291
>implying new alloys and shock resistant mechanical devices will matter in the future
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/march/ssc-space-athena-laser.html
>>286016470
Hey, if people are going to go and say Mechs VS Tanks, you might as well shove whatever fairy magic dust the mechs have into a tank.
>walking/jumping/climbing
>legs
>not using more energy and more vulnerable thanks to all the joints and multiple parts
>>286016635
>landmines
>rpg to the leg
>bottlenecks everywhere
regular sized infantry do the job much better
>>286015634
Theres also a story from german tank ace Otto Carius about how an inexperienced Jagdtiger commander decided to completely turn around instead of backing away from some attacking shermans. Shell penetrated the rear armor and killed all 6 crewmembers.
The best weapons are useless if the person using them doesnt know wtf he is doing.
>>286016692
That's pretty neat, but how long did it take to burn through that hood?
>>286016767
Its not even that difficult. Tie a cable to a couple street lamps and you've forced the mech to divert course if it notices it or put its face in the ground if it didn't.
>>286013269
>What prevents a tank from using the same armor?
Too heavy for a tank
>What prevents a tank from building upwards?
It becomes a mech with tank treads at this point
>Why would you even put all that shit on one vehicle instead of several, more specialized ones?
Because mechs need to be able to adopt to changing conditions, because they're deployed typically on their own, sometimes on completely different planets, with no support available. They need to do the job of an entire platoon all by themselves.
>>286016937
>the ground-based prototype system burned through the engine manifold in a matter of seconds from more than a mile away.
>>286017043
>too heavy for a tank
no engineer alive could design a method of bipedal locomotion capable of sustaining more weight than a tracked body
>>286016760
Leg's are perfectly feasible anon, I'm not talking fairy dust. I'm talking movement. A tank will never be as maneuverable as legs. Hell a mech can even get to a tanks blind spot in a city quite easily by moving up on top of an building. Hell, people can and do this without the mech.
>>286016926
Well, the Jadgtiger was pretty usesless overall. It had a tiny sweet spot where it was really effective.
Way too heavy, way too big, way too slow, and deployed way too late (they couldn't even provide tracks for those beasts, some were driven on their transport-tracks, which couldn't even handle the weight and shattered).
Nothing personal to all the realism fags, but mechs can slaughter tanks in a heartbeat.
>>286017043
If it's too heavy for a tank, it will be way too heavy for a mech.
Do you even understand physics?
>>286017043
>too heavy for a tank
im sorry what? if we go by battletech the heaviest mechs are 100 tons. The Abrams is like 70 tons. hell the Germans built a nearly 200 ton tanks in ww2. Tanks have a lot more surface area and wont sink into the ground like heavy mechs
>>286017043
>Too heavy for a tank
Then it's too heavy for a mech
Wheel is more efficient at locomotion and tank have less surface to cover
Mech is just dexfag while tank is strengthtfag
>>286017339
*teleport behind you*
It was a hologram
>>286017043
>Too heavy for a tank
So you're saying that two noodly legs raising shit like ten meters into the air support weight better than several foot-wide tracks on a very low chassis? And what powerplant does this mech have that beats the turbines in modern battle tanks?
>>286017514
>Mech is just dexfag while tank is strengthtfag
>thinking real life is balanced
oh you poor, wretched scrublet
>>286008064
That's some of the most retarded and ugly drawing I've seen yet. And the rotten cherry on top of the fudge shit sundae would be that it's a pedotrap
>>286017339
Nothing personal to all the mech fags, but my space based laser weapon system can slaughter mechs in a heartbeat.
>>286017312
I think the point was that if the commander had simply backed off (or not lost his nerve and just fired back), they would have been fine. The shermans could not penetrate the front armor at all, but the fool exposed his rear when there was no reason to.
You are right though, It was generally a waste of already scarce resources.
>>286017339
If you compare an armored core mech to muh abrams then yeah sure
Now if you actually consider what kind of future tanks we may build in the future, such as >>286015297
Then you may abandon all hope
>>286001434
>cheap
Underrated post. Mechs look like highly over-engineered, overly expensive units that could be taken out by one well-placed round. They are basically the futuristic battleships and there is a very good reason why we don't build battleships anymore.
mechs can do fapping movements. Tanks can't.
>>285992740
Mechs have so many moving parts that one hit would probably incapacitate them. It would kinda suck when one guy with an RPG can take you down.
Mech
>Higher point of view
>Legs are slower but can operate on terrain where traditional wheels and tracks will fail.
>Can be operated by one guy hooked up to the machine since he'll be running the mech as an extension of his body.
>More vertical space means you can fit a shitload of crap in it(guns, ammo, fuel, shield generators.)
Problem is every enemy will fire at you from the horizon and you're incredibly vulnerable when tipped over.
>>286015871
Yes, using a high speed camera and fins to adjust its trajectory in mid-air.
>>286017996
Modern frigates exist. They basically are more mobile battleships and battleship tactics are still very viable. Especially now with computerized aiming.
>>285998385
This is all I could think of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzlt7IbTp6M&t=24s
>>286017991
A giant mech would step on a that giant tank by accident.
>>286018105
Maybe swap one of those sets of guns out for arms and you can get back up.
quad legs > bipedal
>>286018152
You missed the point by a mile, anon. The problem with battleships isn't that they carry cannons; it's their price compared to lighter alternatives.
>>286015297
Are those fucking bolo's
>>286017772
Nothing personal to the killsat fags, but my ASAT missiles can slaughter killsats in a heartbeat.
>>286018105
in the grim future of the 41st century everyone apparently forgot how to use nukes.
>>286015297
god I hate fatboys.
>>286018459
Well, you're both right actually. The cost of building a battleship in WWII was usually relatively equal or greater to the cost of a fully outfitted flat top.
The difference is the flat top can engage targets at ten times the distance with equal firepower. Thus, battleships were obsoleted and the focus was changed to carriers and their escorts
>>286018252
Why did they give it live ammo for a stockholder presentation?
>>286018401
>Ever coming close to a fatboy
>>286017204
>no engineer alive could design a method of bipedal locomotion capable of sustaining more weight than a tracked body
Read the battletech manual, battletech mechs are REALLY big, to the point where one foot is basically the same size as an entire IRL modern tank. The surface area is very big. To make a tank that can carry the same amount of armor / weapons would mean making it so big it can't manuever through difficult terrain anymore, that's one of the big advantages of bipedal motion. We're back at "tank the size of a city block" again and it becomes useless at this point.
>>286017514
That's actually wrong, wheels are incredibly shit at surface area. An entire car has a combined contact area to the ground the size of a large pizza. Tank treads are better, but the battletech feets are best, because they're constructed like frog feet with a lot of surface area in mind. Tank treads that make the same amount of surface area at any given point would be ENORMOUS. The tank would be nothing but a tread at this point.
>>286017996
>>286001434
Would one of you mind telling me why exactly it would be more expensive to produce a mech?
>>286018845
All it would need to do to get closer is take 2 steps and the fatboy gets squashed.
>>286018704
Open sea superiority and long range bombardments are very feasible with frigates. With drones, one doesn't need flat tops anymore. Even frigates can do that comfortably. Battleship style tactics are still very viable. Which is why they still christen frigates to this day.
>>286018993
The newest frigate in the US Navy was built in 1989, and they are being phased out by littoral combat ships.
>>286018716
Because they're completely detached from reality, living only on the high floors of management, caring only about profit and are completely uncaring about anything other than making money and climbing the corporate ladder. They were supposed to represent the ravenous 80's businessmen.
Fuck it's such a great movie, I should really watch it again.
>>286018550
fatboy motherfucker
mobile artillary, factory, and air staging
>>286018969
All it would need for the fatboys is 15s of kite and it's game over
>>286018550
Here, I'll make it /v/:
/watch?v=bw2cJ9HAhn4&t=25m33s
>>286018845
From what I can remember, the mech of the poster you replied to is from Dawn of War.
Dawn of War mechs or "titans" have void shields that dissipates incoming enemy fire by sending it to another dimension.
>>286018884
The surface area of each individual foot may be large, but the surface area to mass ratio will still be considerably smaller than that of a tank of equal mass.
On top of that, if you build a 100 m tall mech, 80% of its mass will have to be in the legs in order to even support its own weight. Bipedal locomotion is unfeasable if you want to make anything much larger than a human.
Take a look at the lower body vs upper body mass of a monkey and an elephant for an idea of how ridiculous the idea of a gigantic mech is.
>>286019028
Well, those new ships are based on the functionality of frigates.
>>286018401
>Starting a powerlevel discussion against FUCKING SUPCOM / TOTAL ANNIHILATION
Oh you poor poor soul
You realize that TA/Supcom is about the only universe that will win against anything in 40k 100% with it not even being a discussion.
>>286019028
lewd
>>286019295
Supcom is on an entire other level.
>>286019182
All it would take to step on a fatboy running away is two seconds to catch up and it's game over.
>>286013589
I like that they touched on this in 08th MS Team; as the fighting was in dense earth environments all mobile suit combat was to disable rather than destroy enemy suits.
Particularly in that one ambush where the main team had to do some long range sniping the weapons weren't suited for, and a less than perfect shot would send the suit's internal reaction into a nuclear sized explosion inside a town.
>>286018704
The problem is that both can be taken out rather easily thus ruining the whole investment. I guess this will be less of an issue if drones replace manned aircraft, thus letting you build several smaller "carrier" formations whereas before you only had one with a rather obvious target. Of course there's the whole issue with jamming drones and making them drop out of the sky.
>>286018915
Tank: barrel attached to wheels
Mech: that weird talking thing with a barrel
Assuming you keep the mass, manufacturing and material costs the same, the latter will be a more complicated apparatus, thus carrying a smaller barrel.
>>286018401
>not knowing the scale of supcom units
>thinking a reaver titan won't get rekt in a matter of seconds.
>>286019547
All it would take is one salvo from several fatboys and it's game over
>>286019393
>TA power levels
Yeah basically TA wins against everything outside of bullshit "lolis controlling space/time and causality and conceptual things like having absolute control over anything that can be conceived as a 'barrier'" Touhou horse shit.
They're basically Tyranids without the biomass limitation.
What about mecha tanks?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HMDaNhTTi8
>>286019590
>Assuming you keep the mass, manufacturing and material costs the same
There's your problem right there. It's incredibly unlikely you would build a mech out of the same material you build a tank.
And honestly with modern robotics, the cost of creating complex parts is relatively negligable with mass production.
>>286019329
>100 m tall mech
no
>80% of its mass will have to be in the legs in order to even support its own weight.
my initial statement said "if we had the tech", which implies the materials to bring that 80% down to where it actually becomes a nonfactor.
Tankfags are the worst, because they assume the current level of tech will never change. Maybe in the future armor will be completely replaced by deflector shields and then having a low profile means nothing anymore, because everyone has railguns that shoot through 3 hills and can scan you from orbit and it becomes a matter of physically being able to survive the shot in the first place and not how it is right now: trying to avoid getting shot at in the first place.
A bipedal big mech offers a better manueverability in extremely difficult terrain ( such as ruins of buildings, jungles, etc. ) and offers better payload to size ratio than a tank ( unless you literally build the tank upwards to compensate, at which point it becomes a mech with treads instead of legs )
>>286019393
>>286019775
Tell me more
I liked TA as a kid but barely remember anything about it
How are the power-levels so high? From what I remember I'd figured it was no crazier than like, BF2142 or Halo or something.
>>286014930
i'm going to repeat myself: if you can make a mech that agile you can make a tank fly, mechanical legs like that require too much energy for what they do
I like bipedal mechs because they're cool as fuck but from a physics and battlefield purpose standpoint they're basically retarded. The only settings where you can accept them logically are scenarios like Five Star Stories where it's a cultural thing in a setting where wars are fought by proxy with a heavy dose of honor before reason, or where science has gone so far that the shape of the robot really doesn't fucking matter, it's what science-fantasy planet busting / reality warping shit it's packing.
you can shit one of these out in a matter of seconds as the lowest powered thing in the entire game
>>286019671
>Implying that your commander wouldn't just have a drop pod landed on it from high orbit while he's building his first factory.
Hunker that.
>>286019862
>It's incredibly unlikely you would build a mech out of the same material you build a tank.
What does this even mean? You want to reinvent armour and cannons just because they are now attached to a different carrier? Or do you want to sacrifice armour? Or do you have different better armour and, if so, why can't you attach that to a tank?
I am sorry, anon, but that's just really vague wishful thinking there.
>>286019775
>They're basically Tyranids without the biomass limitation.
Higher tech too. Complete mastery over nanotechnology / teleportation across half the universe.
One of their techs basically invalidates half of 40k straight away by requiring you to be able to mass produce your units, by basically being the necron disruptor on steroids that completely disintegrates everything in a single shot with no way to counter it. It works by undoing the bonds between atoms in every molecule of the target body and turns it into energy, making it go kaboom instantly, no matter how big or how well defended.
The only known counter is to bring more shit then you can destroy fast enough ( in the game it's lost tech and only the commander can use it ).
Which actually becomes a real possiblity when you have the production capabilities to make about 3 baneblades a SECOND.
>>286020272
Holy fuck are kilometer mecha/ships big as fuck.
>>286020387
>Or do you want to sacrifice armour
This one, tank armor is probably way too heavy for a mech.
Tread with side armor harder to destroy then a delicate knee joint that likely needs to be exposed to provide effective range of motion.
A lot of times going for a mobility kill is easier and better that outright destroying.
>>285992740
Mechs are better
>>286019775
Lolis truly are fearsome little Qs
>>285995627
This, mechs essentially lose out on cost effectiveness and efficacy in general in order to be able to operate in environments no other ground unit can. Alpine and urban environments are extremely inhospitable to tanks, but mechs would be able to traverse and fight within them with ease.
The thing is, mechs would most likely be an order of magnitude more expensive than conventional tanks, so you could probably build 5-10+ times more tanks and train skilled crews for them with the same cash you could use to build one mech and train its pilot. Economically, the only one who decides to make mechs will probably be the biggest superpower around, who keeps a few around just in case guerrillas ever decide to hole up in a mountain range again.
>>285992740
People often forget real-robots like Gundams had to be justified - in universe - through the use of minovsky particles, which made homing missiles and such completely useless.
Even Gundam acknowledges that missiles would annihilate mecha.
>>286005875
>"A tank is a large type of armoured fighting vehicle with tracks, designed for front-line combat. Modern tanks are strong mobile land weapons platforms, mounting a large-calibre cannon in a rotating gun turret. "
an armored anti air is not a tank
>>286020148
It's because SupCom and TA games are all about being a self-replicating Von Neumann machine that gets exponentially bigger over time.
The problem is that everything starts from a single unit.
In 40K, you've got a universe of billions and billions of pre-constructed death machines and holy tanks that might be available within minutes of a commander moving in. That is, assuming that the local commissar isn't drunk.
>>286020586
Thus you essentially have a comparably poorly-armoured, high-profile target carrying the same calibre a tank could carry that can be easily taken out with a lower calibre arm than the said tank. Why exactly should we build these again?
>>286020018
>Tankfags are the worst, because they assume the current level of tech will never change
and you assume that tanks wouldn't make use of new tech
>>286000058
You don't know how physics works, do you? There can never be any giant animal like king kong because of the fact that volume, where the weight comes from, is increasing in 3 dimensions while musculature relies on surface area for effectiveness and that is only 2 dimensions. So the volume/weight will increase faster than the muscle strength to hold it. That's why insects are so strong for their size, low volume to surface area.
>>286014756
The real name is silencer. It's what the first device was called by the manufacturer.
>>286019775
What, can't handle Demonbane?
>>286020836
fuck someone did some math, it can take the imperium several days to react to attacks on fringe worlds and by that time one commander could already have billions of units
>>285992740
Always a mech
>>286020018
>I have absolutely no understanding of physics
>>286020148
The backstory of the first TA addon was basically that the one side figured out, on their planet sized supercomputer that has a billion billion individual brains uploaded into it, the ones of the original living bodies that are now perfectly interfaced with the whole supercomplex.
Anways, they figured taking on their enemy regularily takes too long, so they devised a plan to blow up the entire galaxy with a special device appropriately called the "galaxy implosion device", which would take all matter and all energy of the entire galaxy turn it into "something" and then store it. They'd hide a single builder unit inside the device which would survive this, which then would rebuild everything from scratch, because it now has access to the entire essence of a galaxy, so it would literally make a new one. Except without their enemy this time.
Yes, they didn't call it "blowing up the galaxy", they used the term "restart".
>>286020723
>minovsky particles, which made homing missiles and such completely useless.
Sounds like WWII. How does that justify the use of giant humanoid robot?
>>286020148
Basically the command unit has what amounts to an energy based tactical nuke it can fire at almost will. Which can severely damage the most powerful units in the game. Which is saying a lot.
The guns / missiles / lasers / etc are all on par with standard sci-fi stuff. We don't have physics data on the weapons so it's impossible (or nearly impossible) to argue how much power output they deliver to their targets, but considering they're all built by factions that can create something like mentioned above...
But by far the most powerful aspect to TA is the fact that a single commander unit can basically build an entire armored fortress, siege weaponry, an aerospace fleet, a marine navy, and / or a mechanized ground force from sticks and fucking rocks. In a REALLY short amount of time.
The only part of 40k that competes with TA is the golden era where all the superduper science stuff of the Imperium was common and well maintained, where fully libraried STCs weren't rare and more purpose driven STCs were incredibly common. Really TA is basically what would have happened if the Imperium's war with the Men of Iron turned into a clusterfuck where neither side was able to win and every other faction was obliterated in the crossfire.
>All these uneducated opinions that have done absolutely no research into the subject, or at least not looked at it again in the last ten years.
Right now?
Tank is better because Mechs are barely an infancy technology, but that's almost like asking someone if the engine they're building in a garage is better than someone's completed car that's been redesigned 10 times.
So potentially in the future a single mech would easily beat a single tank in a fight but they perform different jobs and that's why, and in a largescale fight there'd be no real answer to who would win. It'd be situational. A mech wouldn't be there to replace tanks. The argument is about as retarded as asking if rocket launchers are going to replace machine guns. They perform different jobs.
>>286020291
They could be more useful than a tank or an aircraft, if you park them in a rough terrain and want to move them only occasionally. Assuming you can camouflage them somehow, they theoretically could be useful for guerilla warfare as a mobile weapons platform. Then again, you can just as well take the gun apart and have a bunch of guys carry it around or arm them with missiles. Yeah, it's pretty useless.
>>286013365
>Its the worst parts of both!
Wrong, one of the main flaws of mechs isn't that they have a larger profile, which can me made up with some creativity, but that the legs are usually to weak to be worth any extra mobility. Destroying legs takes out the entire mech, taking out a tanks tracks turns it into a pillbox.
>>286020905
Thanks for moving the goalposts, I guess, but really they're suited for different purposes. Tanks aren't meant to be used for cities. They're not maneuverable enough. Infantry could easily get in your blind spot. Mechs could return fire and avoid fire much more easily than a tank. It would still be resistant to small arms and not have the sacrifice of movement that a tank would.
>>286007084
>>286007872
this proves how new you fags are. /v/ was always in favor of tanks over mechs. Euro sword of eastern sword. practical armor over bikini armor. spears over swords.
Assuming a lack of air resistance and flat plane, how long would it take a tank shell fired from a modern tank to fly the distance of going around the world?
You're driving a tank by a mountain side when suddenly, this gigantic metallic manifestation of imperial might strides in and points its hellfire cannon at you
What do?
>>286020237
If you make a tank fly, it's no longer a tank.
>>286021448
>practical armor over bikini armor
My dick is more important than practicality.
>>286020517
Based Titans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdlWiM-sJp8
>>286020954
Again, it stops being a tank if you adopt all the stuff that makes mechs good.
The Mechs that roll around on tank treads in the terminator movies aren't tanks either.
Tanks are heavily armored, low profile, long range direct fire support. They are neither designed for a shortrange brawl, nor designed to actuall take fire. Their armor is the third layer of defence, not the first. Their first and second is "not being detected" and "staying behind cover, out of sight, keeping something between you and the thing that kills you", that's where the low profile comes into play.
But if you had the tech to make something that can actually brawl into a fight at short range and live, you can abandon the height restriction and you may as well add legs at that point for better mobility.
Not saying they'd exist in 50 or even 200 years, but wait until we figure out deflector shields and other shit and then come back.
>>286021630same here
>>286020836
So basically if I'm understanding this right, the human element in TA/SupCom is pretty much nonexistent, and irrelevant even if it exists.
You're a machine infinitely replicating machines with all resources available, mindlessly. Like an inorganic version of the stock sci-fi race that exists only to spread itself like a plague across the universe, such as the zerg or tyranid.
That's crazy.
>>286013589
>At least that's how I think it would play out.
That's because you don't know anything about nuclear reactors.
>>286021568
Slap it's girlfriend's ass
>>286020836
>The problem is that everything starts from a single unit.
Supcom and TA tech both allow you to literally teleport entire armies across the galaxy. It's limited because gameplay reasons, but that's the way commanders arrive at planets, because it's cheaper and more efficient to just send a unit which builds factories which make armies, instead of sending the army instead.
They can still do it though. Resources are the only limitation in TA/SC.
>>286021798
The command units have a person inside them but yes it is just robot armies
>>286021337
>Which can severely damage the most powerful units in the game
Not damage
Kill in one shot
No matter which unit.
The Dgun has no defence, because of how it works. It kills everything in one hit. The game engine does 9999999999999999 to any unit it hits.
>>286021395
Nobody is moving goalposts. We are still discussing how your toy should be equally cost-effective to a task while carrying the same armament. So far you just made it more vulnerable.
As for your city argument, as long as it's sizeable, it's an easy target. If you just want something that can take small arms fire, you can just as well deploy an APC. It's cheaper than a tank and has a quickly rotating turret. Your idea about blind spots only highlights your own ignorance on the issue. All modern tanks have 360 periscopes on them, usually equipped with thermal sights that allow for much better monitoring of the surroundings than your bi/quadro/whateverpedal dinosaur.
>>286021015
Counts as touhou horseshit
>>286021981
I thought it couldn't kill a Kroggoth or whatever the gigantor mech's name was that was released first.
>>286021798
The only human in supcom is the one driving the commander
Hence why killing it is instant-win
Rest is just self-driving robots
>>286019775
There are a shit ton of universe that could crush 40k, like the comic universe.
and there are also mechs that could one-shot a galaxy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cqp3W-b12k&t=4m38s
and other insanity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGSt2FsJOdI
>>286021965
In TA the ARM are cloned and the CORE are uploaded brains, that copy themselves into new units
Humans technically still exist, but not in a state that I'd call "human"
In supcom, the ACU's have humans in them, the rest are robots.
>>286022254
ARM was a human pilot in the Commander unit. Core was all brain-digitized / replicated AI, including the Commander unit, wasn't it?
>>286022043
>usually equipped with thermal sights that allow for much better monitoring of the surroundings than your bi/quadro/whateverpedal dinosaur.
Why do you think a mech couldn't have thermal sights? Optics are never very heavy.
And an APC still has wheels/treads anon. Wheels can't lean from cover, wheels/treads can't climb over obstacles or climb at all. This is the entire point of a mech. And as far as size goes, smaller is better but realistically I'm thinking it would be about twice the size of a human.
>>286021652
take your tank warfare "knowledge" to /k/ and get laughed at
>>286017012
>kick/shoot street light
>problem solved
Yah, really gotta divert course there.
>>286022254
seems like if you could make an AI that could control the commander just like the human pilot did, you'd create a civilization-creating perpetual motion machine that would essentially sign the death warrant for organic life in the universe
...This is what the Elon Musks and Stephen Hawkings of the world are scared of, isn't it?
>>286021094
That's is correct. However, fringe worlds are better candidates for planet killing, because shit, there's billions of them. At which point, no number of rockheads can muscle through your planet cracking in half.
Landing a commander on a core world would might give you an hour or two of prior warning, but then you've got the localized might of the imperium on hand. SC commanders have been observed to be vulnerable to something as small as a few battleship salvos, or a tactical nuke or two. A volley of earthshakers might do the trick.
That might not be saying much, but if we're comparing a commander to a tyranid hive fleet, the hive fleet generally wins on alpha-strike terms, given that they generally drop billions of fighters on a planet at once, then begin to replicate from there.
>>286022372
The only sorts of those I like are ones like Gunbuster where there's an internal logic to the series as to why and how those things are created, and the consequences of that much power being used are actually meaningful to the story, moreso than "BIGGER BOOMS ARE COOLER."
>>286012087
>>286012628
>tacticool RPG
>>286022141
A Krogoth still dies in one hit, though the resulting explosion usually kills the commander too.
They have a big ass section in the game manual explaining the physics of how the DGUN works and why nothing can defend against it. I think if you got max veterancy on a krogoth you could technically survive a shot due to the health being high enough, but that was fixed later. The dgun is supposed to oneshot everything.
>>286013541
In space lasers could work or maybe against small cramped vehicles.
In space it would be difficult to exhaust the heat the laser would cause on impact. Its possible that the entire interior of the ship would super heat. I'm not strong on the science but the reason things cool down quickly in atmosphere is cause the heat diffuses through air, not so much in space.
Hitting a tank with a strong enough laser might not penetrate but it might render the tank inoperable due to the fact the interior is on fire.
>>286020327
Bro, I love 40k but you're not going to win this one. TA/SupCom outclass 40k by miles. A drop pod wouldn't do jackshit.
>>286022531
>wheels can't lean from cover
Here's the problem. If you're talking about a world with the technology to make bipedal mecha or anything like it, you're talking about weapons at least on scale with our own. Anything above anti-personnel small arms are going to completely fucking ignore almost any conceivable "cover" a giant robot could lean around. A building made of thin studs, cheap concrete, and sheetrock isn't going to stop or even slow down a railgun. Or even a mecha caliber "conventional" weapon.
>>286022743
Ahaa. It's been years and years since I replayed TA. Always liked it though. And dat soundtrack.
>>286022789
One of the big things in the Mass Effect universe is that the Normandy (MC's ship) was made with heat shielding tech that made it invisible to most types of scans. They had to basically collect it and dump it off on planets from time to time, but it was a really cool idea.
Or hot idea.
>>285997041
>this guy
>>286022948
Thanks for bringing in hypothetical weaponry to combat hypothetical weaponry. That's always a great direction to take an argument. Guess what, my everything gun beats your everything shield.
We could make mechs if we devoted the resources to it with technology that we have today. You're talking about weapons that we won't have for at least the same amount of time.
>Anything above anti-personnel small arms are going to completely fucking ignore almost any conceivable "cover" a giant robot could lean around
And for the fucking record, I said SMALL ARMS fire for a fucking reason. A tank can't take sustained RPG fire, no shit a mech couldn't.
>>286022531
>about twice the size of a human.
Brilliant. Enough to take out with an anti-materiel rifle and offer nothing in return.
>Why do you think a mech couldn't have thermal sights?
Sure, they could have the exact same system, thus completely negating your argument about being less prone to having blind spots. Those don't exist to begin with. Own up to it already.
>lean from cover
Why would you want something carrying heavy weapons to lean from cover? You can just shoot through it.
>>286022417
Yes. All TA units are supposedly sentient. CORE has digitized humans and ARM has clones.
>>286013589
>>286019590
If the nuclear reactors in mechs work anything like real reactors they wouldn't explode like bombs if they were damaged. You'd have a hell of a mess, though.
>>286023097
>Soundtrack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vls4SdYGrjU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pze1IggjATI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA-iag83kQc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnuCwl6zeQY
>>286023462
This was actually someone else, but this weaponry isn't hypothetical. Anything you would want to "lean out" from can easily be penetrated even by modern small arms.
>>286021535
Rheinmetall 120 mm gun
1,580 to 1,750 m/s (5,200 to 5,700 ft/s)
circumference of Earth at the equator
24,902 miles
(taking 5,500ft/second)
23961 seconds
394.8 minutes
or 6.581 hours
>>286023517
>Those don't exist to begin with. Own up to it already.
Yes, let's see a tank move that gigantic barrel around in time to not get hit by that RPG fire from the roof.
>Why would you want something carrying heavy weapons to lean from cover?
Maybe because you don't know what's around the corner, moron.
>>286021535
>>286023663
Fun fact: A tank shell fired on the moon is instantly in orbit and will continue circling the moon forever assuming it doesn't hit a mountain.
>>286011084
The Iraqis could have had all the advanced electronics in the world in their tanks and said tanks would still have been destroyed by the shitload.
>>286023462
>Thanks for bringing in hypothetical weaponry to combat hypothetical weaponry
You're the one who did it by bringing leaning mechs and shit
If we get to the point where we can build agile mech, we get to the point where we can put a massive gun on a tank
It's not exactly a stretch
>>286023659
>from can easily be penetrated even by modern small arms.
A brick wall? City concrete?
Forgive me if I don't automatically believe you.
>>286022849
It's at this point where we need to remind ourselves that while impressive, the 600 meter doughnut only shoots down where it's completely vulnerable to the five kilometer battleship floating above it.
>>286023462
Except you started talking about cover and unless you're fighting in a factory that produces mecha armor or some shit, cover is irrelevant when it comes to the modern battlefield if you're talking about mechanized forces. So presumably even moreso in the future.
Cover is meaningless. The point I was making that you ignored is that your point about being able to "lean from cover" doesn't matter.
>>286023835
>If we get to the point where we can build agile mech, we get to the point where we can put a massive gun on a tank
Why do you think this?
Do you think we get all of the cool weapons at the same time?
>>286023663
Doesn't the ISS circle the earth in like 90 minutes?
What the fuck
how did we even manage that?
God damn humanity the fuck is this shit
>>286023932
List me small arms that can shoot through inches of concrete and brick.
Because that doesn't exist commonly anywhere today does it?
>>286023651
>Jeremy Soule
Hey, I didn't know that.
>>286023839
Common assault rifle ammunition used by soldiers today will blow right through brick. Brick is pretty fragile, honestly. And if we're talking about mecha mounted weaponry, we're talking about vehicle mounted weaponry. And even a fifty cal HMG on the back of a pickup is going to turn building concrete into gravel in an instant. And anything on the other side into chunky salsa.
>>286023959
Technology advance in all fields
If you have to put a Gundam vs a Panther to make your point then that's not a point at all
>>286023751
>Maybe because you don't know what's around the corner, moron.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! THIS, THIS IS BRILLIANT! We have mechs, but basic reconnaissance is now the stuff of legends. Genius!
>Yes, let's see a tank move that gigantic barrel around in time to not get hit by that RPG fire from the roof.
Tanks can quite easily sustain several hits from portable launchers. You are also making an idiot out of yourself. Are you now arguing for their ability to dodge rockets, which is stupid and you have clearly no idea the speed at which those things move, or for their ability to better survey the situation around them? Can you at least make your fucking mind up, anon-kun.
![Fatboy_III[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/MCdCXZw.jpg "Fatboy III[1]")
