Author Topic: Mechs vs Tanks  (Read 11933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline (TLL)Nick

  • Lance Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 729
  • l33tp0intz: +0/-0
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2009, 04:16:57 AM »
I'll just hide on a cliff with a bigass tank, and when a 'Mech walks underneath me, I'll kamikaze-dive off the cliff, onto them.


"What ze Hell? FLYING TANKS?!"

Offline Valaska

  • MechWarrior
  • **
  • Posts: 318
  • l33tp0intz: +0/-0
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2009, 12:41:49 AM »
 If we had the Mymor technology and same things that the clans and Houses have, then a mech would have a lot of survivability heh, remember when Tanks first came out no one thought they could possibly take on a single infantry element in the open.. Now look at them!

 Plus Armor in Battletech works a lot different, it has ablative chunks etc, so when one weapon hits and doesn't penetrate to hit a critical, the next shot could damage an area enough so that the next weapon firing could travel through the ablative armor into the mymor bundles and internal structure.

 Also you have to remember, joins might be weaker, but not many infantry get shot in the arms or legs now, always center mass, easier to hit.. Same with a mechs arms and legs, with a mech moving, aiming, compensating for recoil with its arms and such it'd be no trick to just nail off the arms and such especially in a tank! Even now its acknowledged, openly, if we could make a power armor something like an Elemental but larger.. Almost, mech like ;), by the military (as MILLIONS are being pumped into developing this) that tanks would become almost useless.. Well scale that up abit more, thats a mech.
"No bird soars too high, if he soars with his own wings" Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Offline Flyingdebris

  • Bushy B is my homeboy
  • MWLL Contributor
  • Living Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 2398
  • l33tp0intz: +135/-0
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2009, 01:16:24 AM »
thing is physics is a bitch.

getting 40ft + tall mechs is not something that is remotely practical since surface area and gravity = your enemy. The larger you are, the easier you are to hit, the more weight you have to dedicate on armor to cover everything, not only that but the taller you are, the more your own weight works against you when you fall or perform any high velocity movements. And ablative armor was simply something that was used for representing hitpoints, it has no actual bearing in how real armor operates.  Being huge also makes you much harder to transport.

Thats not even factoring in vulnerable cockpits, general inability to aim 360 degrees behind itself, and being unable to sidestep for somereason unless its a quad.



if you want a real mech, expect something that is smaller than a light mech but bigger than power armor.  Squat shape, agile, a few weapons with good power to weight ratios and little recoil (no barrels you can crawl through), enclosed cockpits, and not used as weaponfire soaking behemoths.  They'd probably only be able to take a single powerful AT rocket or round to cripple or destroy them, or maybe a handful of light anti tank weapons to do tha same.  They'd probably be protected by some anti projectile systems however. 

Something like an atlas, not gonna happen.

Wherever mechs are needed, I am there

Offline KiloEcho

  • MechWarrior
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • l33tp0intz: +0/-0
  • aka FreebirthScum
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2009, 02:28:59 AM »
^ I still say we have a few centuries to go to work out the bugs, otherwise that down payment on that cryotube will have gone to waste  :D


Believing in a political party is not a sign of a person's intelligence, just his willingness to be led about by the nose.
Individual conviction and decisive actions are the signs of true intelligence.

~Admiral James McKenna.  September 15, 2313

Offline Scruffe

  • Lance Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 503
  • l33tp0intz: +31/-0
  • Adventure!
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2009, 03:40:41 AM »
a mech might get to look about like this in real life
Vote Bill for multidimentional sex warlock 2013.

Offline Diablo48

  • Lance Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • l33tp0intz: +0/-0
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2009, 06:47:28 AM »
if you want a real mech, expect something that is smaller than a light mech but bigger than power armor.  Squat shape, agile, a few weapons with good power to weight ratios and little recoil (no barrels you can crawl through), enclosed cockpits, and not used as weaponfire soaking behemoths.  They'd probably only be able to take a single powerful AT rocket or round to cripple or destroy them, or maybe a handful of light anti tank weapons to do tha same.  They'd probably be protected by some anti projectile systems however.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you on this one.  I am fairly certain that the first 'Mech-like vehicle to be realistically deployed by the military will be a heavy 6-legged machine that is comparable to a normal tank in both armor and firepower.  I say 6 legs because that is a very stable configuration as you can plant one tripod while you move another, and it should give you some degree of redundancy if a leg does take a serious hit.  On that platform, you have the strength and stability to mount a bulky, armored tank-like body with a heavy turret.  While it would cost more due to the complexity of the legs, this type of design gives you all the capability of an armored vehicle in combat, but with much greater mobility on rough terrain.  This is most likely something that would be deployed in conjunction with other armored vehicles because of the price difference, but this is much more likely to actually be built in the near future than any other type of 'Mech because powered armor is not a 'Mech, and an intermediate machine size would be difficult to make useful because the need to protect the machine's operator while carrying weapons and armor would put the weight up into at least the light 'Mech range.

Offline Flyingdebris

  • Bushy B is my homeboy
  • MWLL Contributor
  • Living Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 2398
  • l33tp0intz: +135/-0
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #36 on: April 20, 2009, 01:30:50 AM »
well when you get into 6 legged territory, while that still would qualify as a mech, sorta strays more into "tank with a unique means of propulsion" territory.  But yes.  A 6 legged tank would be more likely.  Though i still think a compact 2 legged mech thats comparable to an LAV or bradley could be feasible
Wherever mechs are needed, I am there

Offline Diablo48

  • Lance Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • l33tp0intz: +0/-0
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #37 on: April 20, 2009, 01:42:05 AM »
Granted, but I would not expect to see a walker as soon as a 6 legged tank because of balance.  Also, I highly doubt that it would come in at less than 20 tons which is why I say it would be in at least the light 'Mech range.

Offline Flyingdebris

  • Bushy B is my homeboy
  • MWLL Contributor
  • Living Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 2398
  • l33tp0intz: +135/-0
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2009, 02:54:45 AM »
6 legged tanks being used will probably depend on how soon we require 6 legs on our tank to operate in some really really tough area.  For now most large scale world conflicts have been in either open countryside, deserts, or cities.

I think 2 legs is good for cities, not so good for countrysides or desert.  So thats why i think 2 could have a more recent role.  Also i'm not basing weight off of BT's construction standards, which i feel are grossly exaggerated.  If anything I'm thinking something similar to protomechs in capabaility without all the fugly aesthetics.  Something big enough to properly support allied infantry, fight enemy infantry and light vehicles, be effectively immune to small arms, and harass heavier vehicles, without having to require the pilot to  "wear" it.  Something that'd be a progression of exosuit design, but slightly upscaled.  You don't need 20 tons to build that.

6 legged tanks would be incredibly useful in jungles, forested, and mountain, areas.  If political focus swings back to areas in southeast asia again or certain mountain ranges, you can definitely expect those to get fielded first.

Wherever mechs are needed, I am there

Offline Diablo48

  • Lance Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • l33tp0intz: +0/-0
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2009, 07:38:05 AM »
6 legged tanks being used will probably depend on how soon we require 6 legs on our tank to operate in some really really tough area.  For now most large scale world conflicts have been in either open countryside, deserts, or cities.

I think 2 legs is good for cities, not so good for countrysides or desert.  So thats why i think 2 could have a more recent role.  Also i'm not basing weight off of BT's construction standards, which i feel are grossly exaggerated.  If anything I'm thinking something similar to protomechs in capabaility without all the fugly aesthetics.  Something big enough to properly support allied infantry, fight enemy infantry and light vehicles, be effectively immune to small arms, and harass heavier vehicles, without having to require the pilot to  "wear" it.  Something that'd be a progression of exosuit design, but slightly upscaled.  You don't need 20 tons to build that.

The problem I have with this argument is that all of the capabilities you described are possible on an exoskeleton, because all you need for that is the ability to carry a browning and an RPG or portable missile launcher.  That is all possible on an augmented infantryman, and could likely be carried at the same time.

The only reason to upscale more than that is to have enough armor and firepower to match heavier vehicles which would naturally require far heavier weapons and armor.  This then brings up the question of weather it is better to go to a more traditional platform which is dependent on what kind of terrain you are looking at, and if it is necessary to have legs does it make sense to use 2 instead of a 6 legged tank?

Quote
6 legged tanks would be incredibly useful in jungles, forested, and mountain, areas.  If political focus swings back to areas in southeast asia again or certain mountain ranges, you can definitely expect those to get fielded first.

That was my thinking too, although it could probably be pushed through a little earlier with the argument that having that capability gives you a tremendous advantage in mobility that can make the enemy's life suck because you can commit armor in places their armor could not even consider entering.  I personally think that this is the most likely outcome in the near future because of the advantages of a 6-legged platform when fielding heavy weapons.

Offline Flyingdebris

  • Bushy B is my homeboy
  • MWLL Contributor
  • Living Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 2398
  • l33tp0intz: +135/-0
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #40 on: April 20, 2009, 12:55:48 PM »
Exoskeletons suffer from a bit of a problem though.  You have to wear them and there's only so much you can stack on the human frame before you start limiting articulation.  On the small and medium levels it stays reasonable.  And sure, they could probably field an mg and a missile launcher of some sort.  But an exosuit is still limited by the human body's limitations.  And you are much more limited in how you can organize the systems since they must be more compact, conform to human proportions, and if the machine is heavy enough and wrenches an joint, its your limb that just got shredded.  No doubt they'd likely still serve a clear threat to far heavier vehicles, but  they wouldn't quite serve the role of a vehicle. 

If you go just big enough where you can justify a cockpit, you could field articulated systems that in no way have to conform to human range of movement and provide a greater level of user safety since the user is safely inside the cockpit in addition to allowing greater speed.  You could also likely mount far better than just an mg and and a missle launcher, most likely whatever is needed to punch through exosuits at least, and probably some decent countermeasure devices.  Something like this http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs37/i/2008/244/5/5/Rotary_cannons_for_some_by_flyingdebris.jpg


Wherever mechs are needed, I am there

Offline Diablo48

  • Lance Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • l33tp0intz: +0/-0
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #41 on: April 20, 2009, 09:25:02 PM »
Exoskeletons suffer from a bit of a problem though.  You have to wear them and there's only so much you can stack on the human frame before you start limiting articulation.  On the small and medium levels it stays reasonable.  And sure, they could probably field an mg and a missile launcher of some sort.  But an exosuit is still limited by the human body's limitations.  And you are much more limited in how you can organize the systems since they must be more compact, conform to human proportions, and if the machine is heavy enough and wrenches an joint, its your limb that just got shredded.  No doubt they'd likely still serve a clear threat to far heavier vehicles, but  they wouldn't quite serve the role of a vehicle.

Granted, although I was thinking of having the suit be basically unarmed and just have the capacity for multiple heavy weapons that are semi-infantry deployable.  That would make it functionally 2+ big weapons slung across your back and maybe hip holsters for something lighter, although with the .50 caliber machine gun you should be fine without that.

Quote
If you go just big enough where you can justify a cockpit, you could field articulated systems that in no way have to conform to human range of movement and provide a greater level of user safety since the user is safely inside the cockpit in addition to allowing greater speed.  You could also likely mount far better than just an mg and and a missle launcher, most likely whatever is needed to punch through exosuits at least, and probably some decent countermeasure devices.  Something like this http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs37/i/2008/244/5/5/Rotary_cannons_for_some_by_flyingdebris.jpg

This may be true, but I'm still not convinced that it would provide much advantage over the .50 and missile launcher carried by the exoskeleton.  It looks to me like the picture you linked me to is carrying 4 missiles and a Gatling gun which is at best the M61 Vulcan Cannon, although the size of the ammo belt and the rate the gun goes through it would make it a less viable option in something this small so I would guess it is using .50 caliber ammo as well.  That gives you a minimal offensive performance improvement over the exoskeleton while greatly increasing target area and visibility, as well as sacrificing maneuverability and close quarters support functionality.

Offline Flyingdebris

  • Bushy B is my homeboy
  • MWLL Contributor
  • Living Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 2398
  • l33tp0intz: +135/-0
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #42 on: April 20, 2009, 10:03:20 PM »
a 50cal is still on the low tier of vehicle grade firepower though.  There's a much wider range of light to medium vehicle grade weapony.  Besides, carrying any significant amount of ammo is gonna be bulky, so that has to factor in.

and i said "like" the picture, not specifically the picture.  Doesn't have to be any specific gun, could be hardpoints for all it matters. But something of that overall structure could concievably interact with its environment and fire its weapons at the same time if need be, has enough room for decent ammo storage, can mount heavier armor, move faster, and has enough room to mount countermeasure type systems, and probably include some backup weapons to boot..  It has more surface area granted, but not that much more than a medium armored vehicle.

Exosuits increase infantry survivability, but until you get to starship trooper level of exosuit design where they are jetting around popping off mininukes, i don't think they are gonna make vehicle scale obsolete.

At any rate, neither of us are gonna get 2 legged or 6 legged tanks any time soon.  What we are gonna get is load bearing up armored infantry, more advanced conventional vehicles, and lots and lots of robot drones of every stripe.
Wherever mechs are needed, I am there

Offline Diablo48

  • Lance Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • l33tp0intz: +0/-0
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #43 on: April 21, 2009, 01:14:47 AM »
I agree with you on everything, although I think the .50 would be plenty because you are carrying a missile launcher for targets that take more convincing to die.

Also, I think the biggest advantage of the exoskeleton is that it can achieve nearly the same results while retaining the ability to fight indoors which is something that no piloted machine can achieve.

Offline Flyingdebris

  • Bushy B is my homeboy
  • MWLL Contributor
  • Living Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 2398
  • l33tp0intz: +135/-0
Re: Mechs vs Tanks
« Reply #44 on: April 21, 2009, 04:08:12 AM »
who needs indoors when you can quickly turn it into outdoors?!  ;D

Wherever mechs are needed, I am there