| Welcome to The Vanguard. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Mechs VS Tanks | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 17 2009, 01:42 AM (315 Views) | |
| Filrena | Jun 17 2009, 01:42 AM Post #1 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In mecha anime and such, typically a mecha will take about twenty or so blasts to the face unless if a stock underling *Glares at Muscle Tracers from armored core series, mobile suits from gundam, and firemoths from mechwarrior* (I especially don't like the MT thing because an AC is not a massively supirior technology according to AC1's manual, it's just a customizable MT!)) And in such, mecha are twenty-bajillion times as big as they really need to be, and similiarly tanks are paper cups to crush. >.>;;; Assuming military technology would want to have ANY sense of consistancy whatsoever, this...probably would never pan out that way. (but then it'd not be as fun. >.<; ) TBH, I can only think of the TB strat front mission as even close about it, but I think the wanzers tend to get a lot more HP still... So, while my friend and I were talking about this and that, and came on this debate, on just how would it work out with mechs and tanks? There's only about three rules to consider about this conversasion: -Consider technology equal unless if reasonably significantly different. For example, whatever shield generator you can stick on a mech--why not a tank? At the same time having a highly advanced knee joint is decisively -pointless-. -Bullets don't travel slowly across the screen ala just about any game in existence. -Screw physics on weight limitations...erm, to a reasonable extent. At RL a big reason that mech technology probably doesn't exist---erm, besides ineffective creature mimicing of RL mechanics, and seemingly unecessary technology, is that a mech literally won't be able to support its own weight according to science theory. --- After all that, I'll go ahead and chip in my own opinion. Mechs are drastically overcredited or just as much undercredited. Like I said above, mechs probably won't take a grenade blast that would annihalate a tank. Plus the bit that agility wouldn't really help bullet dodging. I do think that they do have advantages, though. The most obvious is the storage, and inherit design of interchangability. It probably would be still significantly more effort to redesign a tank's loadout than a mech's wielded parts, because mechs generally are in concept set to wear or wield their weapons instead of a tank that builds around its gun or builds to hold the gun as a part of itself. Furthermore, mecha are definately easier to store, especially for an air transport depending on tech level's allowance. (it's always quite a bit of weight to haul o_o' ) While you can set mech up one-in-front-of-other, tank stacking probably would be harder, if not generally impossible. Tanks have a successful design for traversing terrain that makes them so popular, but they get slowed down going over very hilly terrain anyway, because they have to travel the vertical distance as well as horizontal distance. They do seem to have disadvantagous turning, too, even though having a seperate turret does seem to put them pretty even for aiming. A mech on the other hand does not have to make speed for the upward/downward length the tank deals with, and since they aren't exactly rolling over the terrain like a normal vehicle (tanks not being 'normal' since they use treads) they're not really dealing with the bumpyness either. They also don't have to really 'turn', turning is probably something that's a pretty brief, more instant motion. The more sensitive factor probably would call on the specifics of the way the feet are designed, though, meh. Mechs can probably manuever over urbanly much better than a tank. A tank has to run everything it meets over, a mech simply has to step on it or step past it. While this does not seem praticularly bad, this might amount to 'clogging' of dragging several vehicles out of the way at a particular time, and there is nothing fun about ripping out the wall of a tower out from under it and causing its full weight to slam down onto your vehicle. Both vehicles probably can shoot over the elevation of their surrounding rubble. A tank cannot be expected to shoot over a destroyed tank, but a mech cannot be expected to shoot over a destroyed mech stuck leaning against a wall or simply crippled standing. A tank however...uhm...a tank... ...I cannot think of anything to say for the tank, but I'm sure something can vouche for them. Tanks are pretty much 'weapons on treads' as my friend says, but I don't think mechs should be entirely discredited for firing stability. More minor firing recoil probably can be countered with internal AI having specific response timings to cancel out the effective results. Heavy weapons probably can be braced in with an unusual stance, such as a backwards outstretched stance or a kneeling stance. On the response end tanks probably are pretty stable about incoming fire, hands down. A mech probably would get knocked by it, but higher up parts might be a little more likely to tear off and somewhat take the force with it to an extent, or, heck, something powerfull enough to down a mech probably would sooner destroy it simutaniously than put getting up into the question, which depending on inherit mobility probably isn't a particularly dramatic issue. (though a problem anyway) I'm not sure what to say about profile, except, it probably doesn't mean as much as thought. A mech would be higher profile, yes---but its dimensions are probably a tank standing on its front/back end, not evagilion twenty-miles-high. (I know evas aren't nearly THAT tall, exhadurations here~! >.< ) Furthermore, one probably should consider that weapon technology have been a tad bit more sophisticated, and by the time mecha technology is around, there would be some at least aiming-aiding technology at least. I'm not exactly on intellegent terms of how 'locking on' is in terms of functionality these days, but, aircrafts can guide their shots pretty well in response to their hellish speed, and tanks probably have some form of determining the appropriate suggestions for percieved distance, and making a sense of AI-based tracking probably isn't a considerably huge hop over. ---My point is, that people may say 'yeah, mechs are kind of standing target designs', but...erm...are tanks REALLY that much superior? Really now? You can probably hit a tank roughly as easily as a mecha, not particularly much harder. Weapons are probably accurate besides infantry weapons, since infantry weapons are generally guided primarly by the user's perceptions and reasonings very directly and dominately rather than AI guiding. Mechas are very sophisticated machines, undoubtedly, because the designs of the joints have to be figured out, as well as the hurdle of how weight can possibly be managed properly in a gravity laughing fashion. But, tanks...uhm...They do have internal systems too. Engines are NOT simple bike gears, neither is making a functional gun turret, or the loading mechanism as it is built. A mech probably can be joint crippled, but a tank has critical points too, and it's not like either design is built to pack rat tons of armor to protect almost nothing further than the pilot/driver within. I won't credit mechs as more adaptable or repairable, because, truely, I do not think that such would be true. You can replace mech parts, but as much you can replace bad tank parts or have to scrap segments or entire portions due to spread of damage that would make conditions irrepairable or not properly replacable. They are not more damage adaptable because tanks probably can survive cripple damages as well as mechs without throwing a critical existance failure and exploding just because its treads failed. >.>; There's no reason for me to consider boosters, swords, or shield generators. The first and third you can put equally as well on tanks as you would on mechs. The second, swords, has no realistic place on the battlefield regardless of its potenency, unless if shield systems surpass weapon lethality. (which would be a seperate debate in itself) Even then, tanks probably can mount an effective sword design, probably topping over the turret as a sub-turret somewhat akin to the stereotypical machine gun top mount. Although the turret would ultimately interfere, there probably can be an effective enough angle to not worry particularly much for it. Also, hover mechs probably shouldn't be considered because hover tanks can be as well, and already are. They don't seem to particularly throw advantages over eachother anyway. My verdict? I think mechs aren't actually so---actually, I said it at the beginning: They're vastly undercredited when people aren't busy overcrediting them. For that, they're probably on rather easier and fairly even terms, to be used seperately as situation asks. Even sofar, there'd probably be possible hybrid concepts that can work out in an extra nitch. For usage, though, mechs probably are too costly to give a sense of expectation, really. As much as I said tanks are sophisticated, mechas do deal with many seperate moving parts that require sophisticated design within the structures of each given specific part. So tanks probably will stay without regard to inferiority/supiriority. Now construction vehicles~ such as the idea of patlabors! Those look like something to happen in the future, IMO. <3 ---That's another story, though. |
![]() |
|
| Increase | Jun 17 2009, 02:10 AM Post #2 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Combined arms. That is my answer and my argument to this conversation: Any commander worth their salt knows you need to use combined arms in order to succeed. You wanna win a battle? Use both mechs /and/ tanks, and infantry. And air support and artillery fire, whatever you have. As for a flat-out fight... It would depend on the machines, the universe, and the environment. For example, Gundam-- the Type 61 tank. It's a basic unit, used like our Abrams. Only it's three times bigger than the Abrams. Is that much more unwieldy than a mech? Fantasy physics. Which brings me to my next point. First of all, it is rather pointless to argue tanks vs. mechs when you 'throw pyshics out the window.' Without physics, there are no limitations, and really no answers. XD Not to mention that every mech universe has their own theories on what makes mechs plausible. In our world, without myomer muscle cables or minovsky particles for radar cover, a land mech is incredibly unlikely and has limited use. Targetting is a big issue. Tanks are deadly accurate as it is with lock-on programs, and even in Gundam simple mech actions are automated. Use of ECMs is a factor. If intended for combat, the most likely scenario for a mech would be point-defense on a space battleship, as the active-mass balance control given by a human-shaped body allows them to turn with their own intertia rather than needing thrusters for every adjustment, such as a spacefighter. As for civilian uses, as you already mentioned-- Hell yeah, mechs are useful. We even have them in the real world, at this moment. The Plustech Oy being a prime example-- it has six legs and one arm, but it is still a mech and used for the logging industry. In Japan they have a Guntank-shaped rescue mech. And then there's the military's powerloader exoskeleton, but that will be adapted to space-marine-ish combat armor in time. Lastly, if you think tanks get shafted against mechs in anime and games... watch MS Igloo or Gundam SEED Stargazer episode 1 to see some tanks own some mobile suits. Or play a game of Battletech against an opponent who knows how to use their conventional armor. >.>; |
![]() |
|
| Filrena | Jun 17 2009, 02:50 AM Post #3 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
On the physics thing...Ah...point. XD ^^;;; Though what I meant on the physics throwout was mostly on the weight limitation issue, to which a mech cannot endure its own weight based on science laws; (its ability to hold doesn't multiply like its mass increacement.) the thought of throwing out the reasoning that it's impossible. After all, saying a mech can't support its weight while a tank can, gets to be an off-target argument. I take it that, though, even that much can be a bit significant. =>.o; I won't throw a full response, yet. XD *prefering not to jump at every post XD * |
![]() |
|
| Rakile | Jun 17 2009, 05:15 AM Post #4 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think that the intro video of Chromehounds illustrates the weakness of any large, biped vehicle. In it you see two squads of the Hounds, that game world's name for their mechs, going at it, and a light hound on a wheel base strafes the legs of his opponent, smashes some of the exposed hydraulics, and down it goes, wasting all the firepower mounted on it since it lacks the ability to turn. Granted, the hounds are not built to look like humans, consisting of a cockpit with the weapons mounted directly to it via hard points. However, Mechwarrior 3, and Heavy Gears one and two all let you survive after having a leg blown off, and basically all you can do is sit and wait to be shot unless someone happens to walk into the limited arc of fire you have. Now, a tank, on the other hand, if it's treads are disabled, the turret still has a full range of motion, assuming it's undamaged. Tanks can also be camouflaged with much less hassle, and would likely be much, much cheaper than any sort of mech combat vehicle. Increase's idea of them being used in space combat makes sense to be, as they could attach to their ship via magnets and basically be a mobile turret, since they potentially have an unlimited firing arc. All in all, I think power armor is a more likely result than full sized mechs. |
![]() |
|
| MountainLynx | Jun 17 2009, 05:17 AM Post #5 |
|
Ninja
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Form follows function. Humans have a spine, and 2 large muscles running down either side to keep us upright. Those of us with better than average balance have learned to let the spine take most of the weight, while only tensing those muscles if we get tilted off our center. I say why not adapt a spine for a mech? Yes, it would be more moving parts, and would require some extra armor, since it would become a prime target, but it would solve most of the weight problem by simply creating an adaptable center of gravity, while stronger alloys in the legs and hips would finish the job. Most of the weight problem comes from the mech being top-heavy anyway. 4 reinforced steel legs can hold up a small offshore oil rig and all of its equipment (many hundreds of tonnes), but a tsunami will still cause it to capsize. Allow the mech a system to counterbalance if it gets knocked to one side and its battlefield viability becomes much higher. |
![]() |
|
| Hako | Jun 17 2009, 04:10 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Every Villain is Lemons
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Mech > Tank. If I was a world power, I wouldn't make tanks. They're usually just left over tech I think (tank). PS: I just woke up, so I don't feel like reading the entire thing. >_> |
![]() |
|
| Noblesse Oblige | Jun 17 2009, 06:16 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Warrior of Light via..somewhere
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
All I can say is in the world wars tanks proved their worth, but nowadays not many use tanks unless it's a last resort from what I've seen. Even then they don't always prove to be the answer (Look at all the Godzilla movies <.<) With mechs you have a little variety to the machine, not just a cannon with maybe another gun along with it. Also the mobility factor, it'd take a while for a tank to evade accurate fire when a mech can pretty much go in any direction quickly. Also look at the maintenance, it might take a lot of people to maintain a mech, but it only take one to pilot most of the time, so if a mech is destroyed, less lives are lot in the process. |
![]() |
|
| Increase | Jun 18 2009, 07:39 AM Post #8 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Personnel loss is indeed one of the biggest arguments for mechs. Take the game of Battletech I played tonight-- I sent a lightly armored tank, crewed by four people, to its death just to partially damage a machine piloted by one person. Even if the mech was destroyed, the pilot can eject unless it's an extremely bad occurence (or stupid cockpit design, such as Gundam). If a tank wall collapses on impact, notsomuch. Anyways, tanks are still used as main battle units today, by most all modernized countries. Noblesse, do research: pretty much the only anti-tank weapon that can pierce the armor of the Abrams is the cannon -on- the Abrams. In the past couple wars, we lost more Abrams to acts of Nature and friendly fire than to enemy tanks. I once saw a picture of an Iraqi tank after fighting an Abrams, and is was nothing more than some charred treads and a bent, unattached cannon barrel laying on the ground. I've talked to several soldiers that fought in the last USA-Iraq war that have emphasized the prominent role of tanks in modern military operations. I say this rant because tanks take a lot of flack from mech fans (and I myself am a rabid one), but tanks are still capable and deadly machines. And in that same Battletech game, I won it by having my second light tank singlehandledy take down a heavy mech, a medium mech, and gutting an assault. >.> |
![]() |
|
| Valtea | Jun 22 2009, 11:45 AM Post #9 |
|
Advanced
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hmm, my thoughts are that the environment would be a significant factor in a battle between the two. Urban (Or I guess combat with many environmental hazards/obstacles) combat might benefit mechs more since they better use corners and structures to their advantage. With the way tanks are generally built, most of it's body needs to be infront of the target in order for it to actually hit something. However a mech could potentially fire simply by reaching an arm or two around the corner(Say, with a camera mounted on it's weapon). Granted the weapons it would be using in that case would not likely be too heavy since it wouldn't be able to support itself very well in that kind of position. Mechs would also simply have more angles of attack than a tank in an urban environment. It would be more difficult to foresee where a mech might be coming from given their environmental versatility. Mechs also possess a greater ability to manipulate the environment on the battlefield. It may not be entirely handy in a firefight, but it could be very useful in trapping or redirecting enemies before actually revealing yourself. A tank, in itself, can at best create some rubble or a hole in something. However, in a more natural, open environment I'd say the tank has the advantage, or perhaps at best they are an even match. I tend to think that a tank tends to be outfitted with weapons that have a longer range than a mech's. It seems like the low-built, base-heavy tank would be better at delivering projectiles over long distances than most mechs would be able to. But still, I could see a mech being outfitted with similar artillery, having to fire from a prone or kneeling position. Though doing that would greatly reduce it's mobility as opposed to the tank, which wouldn't need to go through such great lengths to brace itself to fire. |
![]() |
|
| Namillus | Jun 22 2009, 02:28 PM Post #10 |
|
Happiness Officer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Some mechs and tanks from Warhammer 40000, for your consideration: Dreadnought Motivational Ironclad Dreadnought Land Raider Redeemer Predator Destructor The mecha can get pretty big... ... But then again so can the tanks. |
![]() |
|
| Emrald??? | Jun 22 2009, 04:29 PM Post #11 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Other than armored core I hate mechs x.x This topic confuses me. (PS Gurren Laggen is baaad) |
![]() |
|
| Hako | Jun 22 2009, 06:09 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Every Villain is Lemons
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You forgot this one. >_> |
![]() |
|
| Xieveral | Jun 23 2009, 07:45 AM Post #13 |
![]()
Shou's Mommy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() /thread I agree with Em, Gurren Lagann suuuuuuuuucked. |
![]() |
|
| Xieveral | Jun 27 2009, 05:23 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Shou's Mommy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() Another reason mechs < tanks ... a tank could never get away with looking this fabulous. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · General Chat · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)








2:25 PM Jul 11