Tanks vs Mecha - for the Real World

[jedi078]

Well it looks like hollywood didn't do its homework (again) since the X/F/A-37 designation is already taken and there is a T-38 Talon already too

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/06/23/white.knight/index.html


Also wasn't the "AI aircraft that goes crazy" idea already used in Macross Plus?

[Jefffar]

Also wasn't the "AI aircraft that goes crazy" idea already used in Macross Plus?

That was my first thought.

Then I also remembered a lot of Star Trek

[Drakenred®™©]

Ok guys

The blunt reality is that if it had not been for Jo Stalin, theirs a good chance that the first operational Rocket and Jet fighters may have been Russian, they almost had a Hybrid Jet-prop aircraft (Useing a version of the pulse jet which for some reasin is consistantly miss identified as a ram Jet) that could have been avalible from the start of the war (they actualy had them built and flying in 1941 but they had to demolish the factory and Stalin decided he needed the Piston engine for convetinoal fighters) Unfortunatly Stalin also had this bad habit of killing his Engineres and designers aparently on a whim, that is when he was not shiping them off to force labor camps in places where they would probably die of exposure within a few months anyway, aparently he never realised that it realy does take a lot of manpower just to do the calculations and designs of each and every component of an aircraft, and as aircraft get more advanced, it takes more and more work to design them.

[Comrade Corsarius]

Ok guys

The blunt reality is that if it had not been for Jo Stalin, theirs a good chance that the first operational Rocket and Jet fighters may have been Russian, they almost had a Hybrid Jet-prop aircraft (Useing a version of the pulse jet which for some reasin is consistantly miss identified as a ram Jet) that could have been avalible from the start of the war (they actualy had them built and flying in 1941 but they had to demolish the factory and Stalin decided he needed the Piston engine for convetinoal fighters) Unfortunatly Stalin also had this bad habit of killing his Engineres and designers aparently on a whim, that is when he was not shiping them off to force labor camps in places where they would probably die of exposure within a few months anyway, aparently he never realised that it realy does take a lot of manpower just to do the calculations and designs of each and every component of an aircraft, and as aircraft get more advanced, it takes more and more work to design them.

Sorry Drakenred, have to disagree with you. You may have gathered from my posts that I'm something of an aviation historian. So let me give you a few pointers here. The first operational rocket-powered interceptor was the BI-1 HERE and some video footage HERE.

The 'hybrid' engines were developed as the 'accellerator' and were used in such aircraft as the MiG-13 and Su-5 projects. They didn't really add all that much extra thrust and weren't worth the weight.

While the soviets also claimed that the jet engine was under development in the SSSR, you will find all early soviet jet aircraft used either the BMW-003 or Jumo-004 jet engines (or close copies). The Soviet engine just wasn't up to scratch, and until a rather niaeve British Labour government gave the soviets the plans for their world-class Nene and Derwent engines, Soviet fighters soldiered on with ex-german designed WWII engines. The famous MiG-15 aircraft encountered over Korea were powered by Rolls-Royce Nene engines.

Finally, the Jet was invented simultaneously by Whittle in the UK (centrifugal flow turbojet) and Von Ohain in Germany (axial flow turbojet). It's the axial flow that we use today, but it was much more technologically sophisticated, and the centrifugal flow engine powered the british WWII fighters such as the Vampire and the Meteor.

So no, this is one thing that we can't hold a candle to Stalin on, as for once he was innocent of shooting the wrong people.

[Jefffar]

Unfortunately, when you look at it from a realistic physics point of view, it don't work that way.

Startign with te terrain. because the emcha's fee have less surface area than the tank's treads, the mecha will ahev a higher ground pressure.

What does this mean? Well it means that on all but the hardest surfaces (ie bedrocka nd thick paving) the mecha's feet and possibly its legs will sink into the ground while the tank will still be able to roll along across the top.

Sinking into the ground up to your ankles does not offer you much in the way of mobility.

Yes a mecha can side step, but other than allowing it toa djust position before dealing with an obsticle, this has no real combat utility. Dodging an incoming projectile or energy blast will require a more violent manouvre that will likely bring the micha down and force it to struggle to its feet without much chance of successfully avoiding the projectile.

The side step does offer advantages in urban terrain. Also the mecha's ground pressure issues are mitigated somewhat by the pavment, so the mecha is much more effective in urban combat situations than out in the field.

So for civil defense, the mecha makes a bit of sense and might actually be slightly superior to the tank. For the other 75 - 90% of combat situations, the tank is still better.

[Drakenred®™©]

Unfortunately, when you look at it from a realistic physics point of view, it don't work that way.

StartiNG with THE terrain. because the MECHA'S feeT have less surface area than the tank's treads, the mecha will HAVE a higher ground pressure.

What does this mean? Well it means that on all but the hardest surfaces (ie BEDROCK nd thick paving) the mochas feet and possibly its legs will sink into the ground while the tank will still be able to roll along across the top.

Sinking into the ground up to your ankles does not offer you much in the way of mobility.

Yes a mocha can side step, but other than allowing it TO ADJUST position before dealing with an OBSTACLE, this has no real combat utility. Dodging an incoming projectile or energy blast will require a more violent MANOEUVER that will likely bring the MECHA down and force it to struggle to its feet without much chance of successfully avoiding the projectile.

The side step does offer advantages in urban terrain. Also the mecha's ground pressure issues are mitigated somewhat by the PAVEMENT, so the mecha is much more effective in urban combat situations than out in the field.

So for civil defense, the mecha makes a bit of sense and might actually be slightly superior to the tank. For the other 75 - 90% of combat situations, the tank is still better.

You also have the impact of the foot as is walks or runs. Literally you have a pair of pile drivers hitting the ground. something you probably dent want to have happen around buildings, bridges, and natural gas lines.

Also, tanks like to drive into buildings to use them for cover, Something you cant do with a walking multi story building without demolishing the building at best.

[Sentinel]

The truth hurts, huh?

Bearing all this in mind, you should see some fo the tanks I built for the EBSIS in my games.

The T-80UM2 Black Eagle is truely frightening, but the T-95 and T-100 are quite awe inspiring.

Now, has there been a comparisson that gives the mecha back their fictional advantages?
In a SciFi world where mecha exist, there must be a reason to.
In a comic book world, characters can lift 50 tons without sinking into the ground: if they couldn't, there would be no point to being a super.
In Robotech, there must be a reason why mecha exist: obviously for a sci fi elelment like this, real world limitations can't apply too heavily, or it takes away the reason for the fiction and fantasy elements.

[Jefffar]

If someone ahs the ability to creatively edit some of the most fundamental rules of physics, yeah mecha and superpowers work.

I'm just pointing out that realistically they wouldn't

[rem1093]

for the feet and walking you would have to use airbags. if two 50lbs airbags can bounce an a 1970's car. a few 100lbs'ers in each foot should relieve impact. also remember before ww2 people thought that a tank would not work in desert sand.

[Immortalis]

This is a great thread, and I am in agreeance with the inability for mecha to take over for tanks.

But, I do see two possible areas for mecha to be feasible, the first being as previously discussed a lightly armored unit mostly immune to small arms infantry fire but small enough to run hallways and fight indoors. Urban combat basically...

The other strength is versatility, equipped with air capability, it would of course be worse then say a jet, tank, or chopper/VTOL, but it would an amalagam of them. VTOL Aircraft seem to be very unwieldy, conventional landing gear doesn't seem very stable for landings and doens't provide any speed upon the ground. A set of legs would make changing from airborne travel to ground travel possible.

Regardless if we assume equal mass its not really gonna work, mecha would really only be feasible if we were to start developing leightweight, ultra strong materials. This would still lead to the light fast mecha but then mass wise if you had multiple mecha it would be like heavily armored infantry squads.

The only other advantage would perhaps be Versatility, it would be alot easier to switch armnaments on a mecha with hands(have it pick up a different weapon) as opposed to tanks being fixed. With flight capability, the legs would allow more stable VTOL landings as most vtol capable vehicles now(choppers and some jets) have small landing rails or just conventional landing gear. Legs could absorb some of the landing impact requiring less thrust on the landing and more speed of descent.

Perhaps high flying mecha with anti-aircraft support from jets then the mecha drop in at high speed. Also with enough increases in technology mecha in the future would become more agile then tanks as they don't have to follow as set of paths(roads, trails) whereas an agile mecha(long way off) could follow a much less defined path.

I guess essentially, mecha don't really become feasible until the technology advances far enough that a tank can't make full use of advanced servos, flight systems, and power supplies. Sure with the same level of advancement the tank is going to have alot more packed into it, but its a matter of which areas of technology advance farther first.

The tank will always have more firepower and armor for its mass, but as theres advances, the mecha could conceivably be far more agile compared to a tread system or even a hover system. Ie, if a legged system of mobility was to ever become agile enough to exceed that used by tanks.

Its all subjective... but as it is... tanks are far more efficient.

[Rimmerdal]

This is a great thread, and I am in agreeance with the inability for mecha to take over for tanks.

But, I do see two possible areas for mecha to be feasible, the first being as previously discussed a lightly armored unit mostly immune to small arms infantry fire but small enough to run hallways and fight indoors. Urban combat basically...

The other strength is versatility, equipped with air capability, it would of course be worse then say a jet, tank, or chopper/VTOL, but it would an amalagam of them. VTOL Aircraft seem to be very unwieldy, conventional landing gear doesn't seem very stable for landings and doens't provide any speed upon the ground. A set of legs would make changing from airborne travel to ground travel possible.

Regardless if we assume equal mass its not really gonna work, mecha would really only be feasible if we were to start developing leightweight, ultra strong materials. This would still lead to the light fast mecha but then mass wise if you had multiple mecha it would be like heavily armored infantry squads.

The only other advantage would perhaps be Versatility, it would be alot easier to switch armnaments on a mecha with hands(have it pick up a different weapon) as opposed to tanks being fixed. With flight capability, the legs would allow more stable VTOL landings as most vtol capable vehicles now(choppers and some jets) have small landing rails or just conventional landing gear. Legs could absorb some of the landing impact requiring less thrust on the landing and more speed of descent.

Perhaps high flying mecha with anti-aircraft support from jets then the mecha drop in at high speed. Also with enough increases in technology mecha in the future would become more agile then tanks as they don't have to follow as set of paths(roads, trails) whereas an agile mecha(long way off) could follow a much less defined path.

I guess essentially, mecha don't really become feasible until the technology advances far enough that a tank can't make full use of advanced servos, flight systems, and power supplies. Sure with the same level of advancement the tank is going to have alot more packed into it, but its a matter of which areas of technology advance farther first.

The tank will always have more firepower and armor for its mass, but as theres advances, the mecha could conceivably be far more agile compared to a tread system or even a hover system. Ie, if a legged system of mobility was to ever become agile enough to exceed that used by tanks.

Its all subjective... but as it is... tanks are far more efficient.

Another Starship Troopers fan...I happen to agree PA is far more useful. Remember in the the Mech warrior Cartoon how feared the human-sized units were? THey would get on and start cutting and mangling up the the bigger mechs..

Thets why Cyclones are quite abit more dangerous than there tiny stature would indicate.

[Gomen_Nagai]

as far as robots and speed, Most fast moving robots will use a wheeled/ rocket mode for speed, because to do it in the normal running method will just Destroy the upper body from the stress.


if they use Mag/Lev tricks to make the robot lighter, that would mean even more functionality for the mechs.
Imagine robots whose torso would float upon the legs and be able to spin in any direction instantly..

[Jefffar]

as far as robots and speed, Most fast moving robots will use a wheeled/ rocket mode for speed, because to do it in the normal running method will just Destroy the upper body from the stress.


if they use Mag/Lev tricks to make the robot lighter, that would mean even more functionality for the mechs.
Imagine robots whose torso would float upon the legs and be able to spin in any direction instantly..

Imagine the torso flyng away after being hit with a projectile weapon or worse after firing one . . .

Maglev is a neat trick, btu it wills uck up a lot of space and power and anything that you want to move above the ground rather than in contac with it is going to need to cut back on the weight of armour and weapons.

[Gomen_Nagai]

Maglev can also Lock in while firing .. Think of the Turn X gundam from Turn A Gundam..

[Jefffar]

I'm really trying to figure out exactly what you think it is doing.

MagLev to me means Magnetic Levitation. In short it makes you float a bit off the ground.

[jedi078]

Mechas are realistically way kewler than tanks.

I take it you have not read the entire thread.

You might want to, then make a statment.

[Rimmerdal]

-Laying ambushes would definitely be a tactic. THe best target is the one that doesn't see you!

-The same trick that takes down beholders in D&D apply. The destroid can only shoot in one direction at a time with it's bigger guns.

-As always atanks strength lies in numbers. so use it have one draw out the enemy position THEN take them out.

-Arm the tank with a few remote guided rockets (to avoid a lock on signal) and launch from concealed areas or have one tank/scout guide while one launches the rocket.

[Comrade Corsarius]

A majority of this thread, proposes that a mecha in reality are less effective of a military tool then the common mdc based tank of the same technology level. So, with that in mind how have some of you (or how will some of you) be modified your gaming to reflect this? Or because the game is science fiction based, that the modifying of tank tactics does not come into play with destroid/mechas that do not have to worry about the practical applications of the problems addressed in this thread?

Are you going to have destroid killing tank wolf packs? If so, explain the ambush tactics that they might use?

Playing the EBSIS, I still have a LOT of guys running around in the 'typical tank' or (now the Invid are here and things are a bit looser), the 'dark knight' or 'tornado'.

Even by PB rules, Tanks are still quite good. The 'elite' operate mecha, but tankers aren't far down on the list below them. Take the UAV, for example!

With their lower profile, tanks are excellent at setting ambushes. In the world of Robotech they lack the absolute mobility of a mecha (running through crater-covered areas hammered by an artillery bombardment, say), but they can go places and hide so that just the snout of the weapon is protruding. A squadron of tanks armed with the main gun and a variety of 'strap on' packs on their hulls containing mini-missiles are very capable indeed.

Tanks are often multi-crewed, as opposed to mecha that normally aren't. That means the driver can concentrate where he's going, the gunner can get that turret rotated and use all his attacks shooting, the commander can direct operations more efficiently, and the weapons systems operator (should there be systems aboard) can operate his missiles effectively.

A mecha has to do that all by its lonesome, so although the tele-mental interface, or protoculture, does much to offset this, the advantage isn't as great as one would imagine.

If I may use an example, in the Ardennes campaign of WWII when Germany invaded France, the French had some of the most powerful tanks in the world, the char-bis. The German panzer III and IV on paper were no match. However, the char-bis was hampered with a small turret that required the commander to shoot the gun, load the gun, turn the turret, and try to direct operations of the tank all at once (early soviet T-34s had similar trouble with a two-man turret). Many also lacked radio. The German layout of driver/gunner/loader/commander was found to be much more efficient and panzer II, III, and IVs swept across France, and then eastwards nearly to Moscow, even though being continually opposed by technically superior tanks (T-34, and especially KV-1 tanks which were nearly impossible to knock out).

Therefore, computer automation can only take things so far, and a well-trained multi-crewed vehicle can do things that your one-man firestorm in an Excalibur cannot.

[jedi078]

Another plus with muti-crew Tanks/Armor is that repairs can get done faster and for those jobs that need two or more men to do, you got em.

Some of the RDF destriods are two seaters, and thus should have a two man crew.

Take the excaliber for example, while it does not show that there are two crew men (I have yet to see a cutaway veiw of that mecha). It could certinally benifit from having a two crewmen, and I have a 2nd seat behinf the pilots seat in my games. One to drive and use the PBCs, the other uses the missiles and other weapons systems.

The VBT Centaur (If you use it) also benifits from this.

On the other hand a Gladiator should not have two crewmen because of the lack of weapon systems, also I found a cutaway veiw and it looks like there is not a 2nd crew station.

[Tiree]

For the excalibur you might want to go to rt.com to check out their info on it. They have a nice picture of the person in the cockpit http://www.robotech.com/infopedia/mecha/viewmecha.php?id=17

[jedi078]

I seen it.

You know that big "hump" behind the cockpit?

Plenty of room there for another single man cockpit, it would also offer the "back seater" the same veiw as the pilot.

With so many weapons on the Excaliber it should have 2 crewman, not one in order to be completely combat effective.

[Tiree]

Wow, doubling up people in a Gladiator - I could see some serious disadvantages in this. If your pilot first level maxed out for # of attacks could possibly start out with 6-8 attacks per melee (2 for HTH + 1 Boxing +3 Mecha Combat + 2 for living (if you use it), then you have a co-pilot with the same bonuses you could have 12-16 attacks per Mech!

Now look at the weapon systems, if both the pilot and player are using the weapons, you will eventually run out of Ammo. My suggestion is to have the pilot of a Gladiator only use the hand weapons and/or chest gun, while the co-pilot uses everything else. A good team would strictly have the pilot, be the pilot while the co-pilot just does weapons.

But my suggestion, unless the players want this, don't force it on them. In fact I would let them do what they want, but I would definately remove the extra 2 attacks for living, as it will keep things a bit more reasonable.

[Jefffar]

I've doubled up in most of the mechs. here's the way I usually divide the weapons systems:

Gladiator:
Pilot: Gun Cluster, Melee, and Gunpod (optional)
WSO: Missiles, Laser Turret

Excaliber:
Pilot: Gun Clusters, PB-Cannons, Melee, Head Guns
WSO: Missiles, missiles and more missiles

Spartan:
Pilot: Melee, point blank use of missiles
WSO: Missiles, especially BVR attacks

Raidar-X
Pilot: Melee, close range guns
WSO: Long range use of guns, operating radar system

MAC-II
Pilot: Movement, Melee, Arm Cannons in close range engagements
Co-Pilot: Movement, Melee, Arm Cannons in close range engagements
WSO 1: Main cannons, Arm cannons or Missile Launchers
WSO 2: Main Cannons, Arm Cannons or Missile Launche

[Jefffar]

Wow no posts in this thread for a year and it's still here and I'm still linking to it.

[Jefffar]

Yes a tank becomes a 60 tonne roadblock if a mine blows off a tread.

But it's a 60 tonne road bloc that stull has fully funtioning armaments and it;s heavy armour to protect it until infantry or other tanks move into a protective position. Once the tank is protected, the tank's own crew can remount the tread fairly easily in situ. The process speeds up if an armoured repair vehicle is there.

Meanwhile that 60 tonne robot that hits a mine and sees it's foot blasted off is not only immobilized, but it is no longer capable of using its weapons effectively. The crew are also dazed because they just fell 20 or 30 feet when the mecha toppled over. External weapons and sensors are likely misaligned or damage rendering them ineffective and since hte mecha is at best on it's hands and knees, most of them are going to be pointed straight at the ground anway.

Finally, the mecha will not be able to be repaired in situ, instead an armoured recovery vehicle will need to bring the mecha back to base. If damage is sevre enough it might have to go back to the factory. So the tank's turn around time might be measured in hours, while the mecha's urnaround time would likely require days or weeks.

Any tech you can mount on a mecha you can mount a heavier, improved version on a tank. So if missiles are going to be the primary killers on the battlefield, the tank, with it's greater available weight, can do one of the following:

1) Carry more missiles
2) Carry faster missiles
3) Carry longer ranged missiles
4) Carry missile with more powerfull warheads
5) Combine ptions 1 through 4 to the greatest advantage.

So the tank is still winning in fire power.

I do agree that missiles are ageat tank killer and the tank is not invulnerable. Infantry or light vehicles can and will continue to kill tanks when they can manipulte the tactical situaion to their advantage. Light robots should also do fairly well. My main complaint in this thread is about this whole idea of awesome one man war machines with greater armour and firepower and mobility than a tank. It simply won't happen.

Another note about missiles, a lot of countries today are putting a lot of time and money into anti-missile systems for tanks. In a situation where missiles are expected to be the primary tank killers, you cna bet that anti-missile systems will be present on every tank in the field.

About the shoot and hide of the mecha. that's great, but what kind of cover are you hiding that walking 3 story building behind? If you can find some, that's great for you, bu just remember that tanks can use cover too, and it's a lot easier for an 8 foot tall tank to hide behind a lot of things than it is for a 35 foot robot.

I agree, a dense jungle is a problem for a tank, though it also posses a lot of problems for a large mecha as well. Light mecha would have the advanage over both in this situation.

About mud - a tank has lower gorund pressur ehtan a robot, this means that the tank can go easily over terrain that the mecha will find itself sunk up to it's knees in. So while the tank is driving along the mecha will be hopelessly mired. If the tank does ifnd somehting it gets stuck in, a 4 man crew working to extract the vehicle can get the jb done much easier than the 1 man crew of the mecha.

About field of fire: Tanks today are typically deisgned around the concept of delivering eavy direct fire to ground based tagets. This misison does not require the 360 degree by 180 degree "death bubble." However SPAAG, which are basically tanks designed to shoot down aircraft, often are capable of daling wiht targets near to the vertical. So, if the development team decides there is a nead to have the main weapon fire at 90 degrees to the verical, the capability will be built into the tank.

I am in favour of the combined arms approach, and I think that once the technology is perfected, light humanoid mecha will be a great addition to any miltary. I just wish people would quit thinking that you can build a humanoid robot that will out armour, out gun and out move a tank at the same time.

[Drakenred®™©]

a Real tank gun in Robotech does somewhere between 4D6X10-1D6X10, based on the assumption that 3D6 for a 10 rd burst of 55mm ammo is roughly the same as a "burst" from a 30mm Avenger and that a 1D6X10 damage short range AP missle is = to a tow missile. (for that matter a 180mm "grenaid" only does 4D6 damage)

we should probably ignore the argument for what damage is "suposed to be" in RIFTs for now.

[Drakenred®™©]

sorry was replying to an obsolete post.

[Jefffar]

I know we arein a thread some 150 posts long, but perhaps you should read some of the comments that phrased the origional discussion.

To make it easy, here's some stuff from the very first post of this thread:

Tank vs. Mecha

Okay, to start this off I want to make a few points/assumptions that we will use as a guide in this discussion.

...

2) We are dealing with the same level of technology being put into both the mecha and the tank. That means if the mecha can have a tele-mental helmet, a fusion turbine engine and an advanced radar system, so can the tank. This is to make the comparison as fair as possible.

3) I will often be referring to things being the same overall mass or weight. Weight is one of the great measuring sticks of armoured fighting vehicle performance. Tanks were (and basically still are) sorted by their weight. Many fictionalized depictions of mecha also use weight classes as a way to roughly describe the capabilities of a mecha. There are advantages and disadvantages to being heavier or lighter. One is not necessarily better, they are different. However, in this comparison, since we are looking at an identical overall weight, we can assume that if one subsystem is heavier, it reduces the amount of weight available for all the other subsystems.

4) The traditional categories in which armoured fighting vehicles are rated are Protection, Mobility and Firepower. The principles of Armoured Fighting Vehicle design are essentially trying to find a balance that maximises all three without moving beyond the constraints of size, weight or cost.

I already stated that mecha do not have to be Battletech sized lumbering monstrosities. You said even tech level, NOT even sizes. If the premise of the argument is a lumbering robo-mech vs a modern tank in the pros/cons department, then you would have to give designers credit that we wouldn't be talking about a 1st generation mecha vs modern battle tanks. This means equal development time if we're going to take your argument seriously.

Reference the points above and realize that

1) This discussion is about mecha comperable in mass to battle tanks. In other posts I said that a light mecha which won't face the mobility problems of a big mecha would likely be a viable combat vehicle for a unique role. However the entire thread is about why the big bad mecha will never replace an equal sized tank as king of the battlefield.

2) I already said that tech levels are to be equal. This means that if the tank has had a century to mature as a weapon system, so has the mech. This is done for fairness of comparison.

As for the loss of a foot knocking the mecha completely out of commission, what about the other leg and 2 arms since we're talking about the humanoid concept? It loses a foot and is so humanlike it rolls on the ground screaming? As for falling 20 feet and dazing it's pilots it would be the equivalent of hitting a telephone pole at 30mph...do you anticipate the pilots in said mecha to not have any kind of securing harnesses? Tank drivers wear seat belts...why wouldn't mecha pilots?

Yes, the loss of a foot takes out a mecha because a mecha crawling on it's hands and knees has only slightly better mobility than a tank missing a tread, but has less armour and its weapons and and sensors would likely have been damaged when they fell the three stories to the ground and got pinned under a mecha more than 40 tonnes. Aditionally, if it's crawling on it's hands and knees, its arm mounted weapons have been turned into a mobility system removing them from effective combat. It's chest mounted weaposn will be pointed straight at the ground.

On the alternative, the mecha might right itself into a sitting position where it has the full field of fire of it's weapons, but at that point its just as immobile as a tank and still has less armour.

I agree that the pilots have restraining harnesses. Have you beein in a 30 mph collision with a non yielding stationary object? I have. I was wearing a seat belt and I still couldn't do much of anything for a minute or so afterwards while I sorted myself out. The mecha (and tank) crew might have more advanced restraints and helemts, but they still will be stunned by the impact for a few seconds. In a tank, which can take more punishment and is ready to fight as soon as the crew snaps out of it, this is not so bad. But in a mecha which has weaker armour and will require time to push itself back into a fighting posture, this is a very deadly delay.

Yes, countries are spending lots on anti-missile systems...unfortunately NONE of them have a good defense system set up that can track missiles that fast. Metal Storm is great...until you run out of ammo in 3 seconds. . .

Great point, but, by the time we get mecha to be a mature technology, who's to say the anti-missile systems aren't a mature technology too?

Again, yes the tank still has its guns if it becomes a roadblock. It also cannot defend itself from anything above its guns' elevations. . .

I allready answered your comments about maximum elevation and don't feel the need to repeat myself. Go back and read the post you were replying to please.

As for the AT mine's effect on the tank, depends on the mine, depends on the tank and it depends where it goes off. However the point was brought up about an AT mine taking the tread off a tank. Bogeys may or may not be damaged in such an explosion. However a comperable wound on a mecha is just as devastating and will require a longer time to fix unless the hull of the tank (you know, that heavily armoured part) has taken signifigant damage.

[Jefffar]

A few more thoughts I've had about the recent discussion:

Mines and Treads: Mines are definitely great mobility killers of tanks (and mobility and mission killers of mecha). Which is why most of the world's militaries have deveoped or deployed mine rollers and mine ploughs. These handy devices either detonate or dispalce a mine before it gets under the treads, thus prventing it from doign serious damage. True, not every tank in the army in question will have them, but at least one tank in every platoon should - and guess which tank is first down the street.

Field of Fire: Generally current tank designs do have their main gun with a limited elevation ability. But this is for a good reason, the targets it's designed to destroy (tanks, armoured vehicles, fortified positions) are generally found at ground level.

There are weapons on tanks that can engage in high elevation fire. Typically a tank has a heavy machinegun operated by the commander or loader which can engage targets almost directly overhead. This is a very effective weapon for dealing with infantry hiding in buildings (bullets punch through the walls) and aircraft which happen to get to close.

The Israelis, who have more experience with modern tanks in urban combat that any other military have installed a 60 mm mortar on a lot of their newer tanks. This mortar provdes high angle (though low velocity) fire, useful for clearing rooftops or droping a shell on the other side of a wall that bad guys might be hiding behind.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the Czechs decided they wanted to provide air defence artilery to their tank formations without having to add additional vehicles. So they installed 20 and later 30 mm cannons at the rear of the turrets. As a primarily anit-aircraft weapon, it was of course capable of high angle fire. It was also capable of sweeping the street level and would be great in dealing with strong points high in buildings or a mountain side. Best part about this system was that the tank didn't have to go without it's big gun.

And finally, after experience in Afghanistan (where infantry high in the mountains would fire anti-tank weapons at convoys below) and Grozny (where infantry would hide in the upper floors and basements of buildings and launch anti-tank weapons from there) the Russians have developed what they call the "Convoy Escort Vehicle." Basically it's a T-72 tank with the standard turret removed and replaced with a new turret capable of both depressed and high angle fire (ie can sweep the roof and the basement). The turret is armed with machinegun, automatic cannon and automatic grenade launcher. Tank killing power is retained by mounting a rack of ATGM. Alternatively a rack of SAMS can turn it into an air defence vehicle.

So, if the designer decides there is a threat from above, they will modify the weapons fit of the tank to deal with it.

[Killer Cyborg]

A few more thoughts I've had about the recent discussion:

Mines and Treads: Mines are definitely great mobility killers of tanks (and mobility and mission killers of mecha). Which is why most of the world's militaries have deveoped or deployed mine rollers and mine ploughs. These handy devices either detonate or dispalce a mine before it gets under the treads, thus prventing it from doign serious damage. True, not every tank in the army in question will have them, but at least one tank in every platoon should - and guess which tank is first down the street.

I'm not so sure that a robotic leg (or even foot) would be taken out as easily as a tank tread.

Once a leg IS gone, then your assessment seems accurate for combat. After combat, the Mecha can use a sturdy tree as a walking stick and head home.

Field of Fire: Generally current tank designs do have their main gun with a limited elevation ability. But this is for a good reason, the targets it's designed to destroy (tanks, armoured vehicles, fortified positions) are generally found at ground level.

There are weapons on tanks that can engage in high elevation fire. Typically a tank has a heavy machinegun operated by the commander or loader which can engage targets almost directly overhead. This is a very effective weapon for dealing with infantry hiding in buildings (bullets punch through the walls) and aircraft which happen to get to close.

The Israelis, who have more experience with modern tanks in urban combat that any other military have installed a 60 mm mortar on a lot of their newer tanks. This mortar provdes high angle (though low velocity) fire, useful for clearing rooftops or droping a shell on the other side of a wall that bad guys might be hiding behind.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the Czechs decided they wanted to provide air defence artilery to their tank formations without having to add additional vehicles. So they installed 20 and later 30 mm cannons at the rear of the turrets. As a primarily anit-aircraft weapon, it was of course capable of high angle fire. It was also capable of sweeping the street level and would be great in dealing with strong points high in buildings or a mountain side. Best part about this system was that the tank didn't have to go without it's big gun.

And finally, after experience in Afghanistan (where infantry high in the mountains would fire anti-tank weapons at convoys below) and Grozny (where infantry would hide in the upper floors and basements of buildings and launch anti-tank weapons from there) the Russians have developed what they call the "Convoy Escort Vehicle." Basically it's a T-72 tank with the standard turret removed and replaced with a new turret capable of both depressed and high angle fire (ie can sweep the roof and the basement). The turret is armed with machinegun, automatic cannon and automatic grenade launcher. Tank killing power is retained by mounting a rack of ATGM. Alternatively a rack of SAMS can turn it into an air defence vehicle.

So, if the designer decides there is a threat from above, they will modify the weapons fit of the tank to deal with it.

And if they're caught off-guard, then they're screwed.
Also, I was under the impression that there are aircraft designed (or capable) of going after tanks.

[Jefffar]

I'm not so sure that a robotic leg (or even foot) would be taken out as easily as a tank tread.

Once a leg IS gone, then your assessment seems accurate for combat. After combat, the Mecha can use a sturdy tree as a walking stick and head home.

If the opposition knows they might face mecha, you can beleive they are going to make anti-mecha mines capable of wrecking a mecha's foot. Many anti-tank mines are designed to be "full width" mines. meaning they can go after the track, or attempt to blast through the armoured underbody. A mecha hits one of those and it's lucky if it only looses the foot.

As for getting home, it works if your mecha has hands. If your mecha is an armless design like a battle pod, or a weapon arm design like an excaliber, raidar-X or Spartan, you are still screwed. Assuming you can find a sturdy enough tree to support the mecha.

And if they're caught off-guard, then they're screwed.
Also, I was under the impression that there are aircraft designed (or capable) of going after tanks.

And if a mecha is caught off guard it's just as screwed (probably more because it's armour is thinner and has more vulnerable points.

Also, if mecha are a part of the battlefield, there will be mecha-busting aircraft, just like there will be tank busting aircraft.

[Killer Cyborg]

I'm not so sure that a robotic leg (or even foot) would be taken out as easily as a tank tread.

Once a leg IS gone, then your assessment seems accurate for combat. After combat, the Mecha can use a sturdy tree as a walking stick and head home.

If the opposition knows they might face mecha, you can beleive they are going to make anti-mecha mines capable of wrecking a mecha's foot. [/qutoe]

IF they know that, and they have the capabilities, then sure.
But conventional mines likely wouldn't cut it.

You keep touting armor as an important factor, but you don't want to give mecha credit for having better armor on their feet/legs than tanks do on their treads?

Many anti-tank mines are designed to be "full width" mines. meaning they can go after the track, or attempt to blast through the armoured underbody. A mecha hits one of those and it's lucky if it only loses the foot.

How so?

As for getting home, it works if your mecha has hands. If your mecha is an armless design like a battle pod, or a weapon arm design like an excaliber, raidar-X or Spartan, you are still screwed. Assuming you can find a sturdy enough tree to support the mecha.

True enough.

And if they're caught off-guard, then they're screwed.
Also, I was under the impression that there are aircraft designed (or capable) of going after tanks.

And if a mecha is caught off guard it's just as screwed (probably more because it's armour is thinner and has more vulnerable points.

But it's more versatile, and therefore less likely to be caught off guard. Which is my point.
I'm not that impressed with "IF they know what they're up against, and IF they have the proper retooling facilities and time, THEN tanks can fire up in to the air if they need to."
Mecha can do it pretty much any time they need to.

Also, if mecha are a part of the battlefield, there will be mecha-busting aircraft, just like there will be tank busting aircraft.

And the Mecha could point their guns (or rocket launchers, etc) up into the air and shoot the aircraft.
Without preparation or retooling.

[Jefffar]

IF they know that, and they have the capabilities, then sure. But conventional mines likely wouldn't cut it.

...

You keep touting armor as an important factor, but you don't want to give mecha credit for having better armor on their feet/legs than tanks do on their treads?

However, a mine designed to score a kill on a tank (not just a track popping mobility kill) usually has a metal lined shaped charge which is able to penetrate a signifigant ammount of armour. So if it can go through the belly armour of a tank, it can go through the foot armour of a mecha.

Yes mecha legs have more armou than treads? Happy. Don't be. The mecha's ankles, knees and hips are likely to be just as vulnerable as the treads. Oh, and a tank can have armour plates on it's sides protecting its treads called tread skirts. A mecha can't and still be able to use it's legs. Oh, and as the hips (and probably the knees) are higher off the ground than the top of the treads, a hip (and probably knee) shot are more likely to present themselves before a tread shot is.

But it's more versatile, and therefore less likely to be caught off guard. Which is my point.
I'm not that impressed with "IF they know what they're up against, and IF they have the proper retooling facilities and time, THEN tanks can fire up in to the air if they need to."
Mecha can do it pretty much any time they need to.

...

And the Mecha could point their guns (or rocket launchers, etc) up into the air and shoot the aircraft.
Without preparation or retooling.

There already are tank style vehicles oriented to air defence. In areas where there is a threat from enemy aircraft they will be present with the tanks.

If the threat from enemy aircraft becomes particularly common place, more effective anti-air weapons will be added to the battle tanks.

Just like if the air threat becomes more prevelant to mecha, more effective anti-air weapons will be added to them.

It's up to the designers to decide what capabilities they want in their vehicles. There's no garuntee that they will choose to add a 90 degree elevation to their mecha weaponry. For example, to mount the heaviest possible weapon on a mecha, the most logical location is a torso mount with limited elevation. Why? Because in that position you save the most weight in terms of elevation and rotation systems, providing you the ability to load more armour and ammunition. It also lets you protect much of the weapon with the thicker torso armour.

[Killer Cyborg]

IF they know that, and they have the capabilities, then sure. But conventional mines likely wouldn't cut it.

...

You keep touting armor as an important factor, but you don't want to give mecha credit for having better armor on their feet/legs than tanks do on their treads?

However, a mine designed to score a kill on a tank (not just a track popping mobility kill) usually has a metal lined shaped charge which is able to penetrate a signifigant ammount of armour. So if it can go through the belly armour of a tank, it can go through the foot armour of a mecha.

Sounds likely.
How armored IS the belly of a tank?

Yes mecha legs have more armou than treads? Happy.

Don't be.

The mecha's ankles, knees and hips are likely to be just as vulnerable as the treads. Oh, and a tank can have armour plates on it's sides protecting its treads called tread skirts. A mecha can't and still be able to use it's legs. Oh, and as the hips (and probably the knees) are higher off the ground than the top of the treads, a hip (and probably knee) shot are more likely to present themselves before a tread shot is.

Eh.
I'm not so sure I buy that. I don't know enough about the design of robotic legs (or even tank treads) to really argue it though.

But it's more versatile, and therefore less likely to be caught off guard. Which is my point.
I'm not that impressed with "IF they know what they're up against, and IF they have the proper retooling facilities and time, THEN tanks can fire up in to the air if they need to."
Mecha can do it pretty much any time they need to.

...

And the Mecha could point their guns (or rocket launchers, etc) up into the air and shoot the aircraft.
Without preparation or retooling.

There already are tank style vehicles oriented to air defence. In areas where there is a threat from enemy aircraft they will be present with the tanks.

Where there is an anticipated threat, yes.
But even then, it seems that there would be some benefit in having 2 units each capable of attacking air and ground than to have 2 units each of which is only geared to attack air or ground.

If the threat from enemy aircraft becomes particularly common place, more effective anti-air weapons will be added to the battle tanks.

Just like if the air threat becomes more prevelant to mecha, more effective anti-air weapons will be added to them.

Of course.

[Jefffar]

How armored IS the belly of a tank?

Varies tank to tank The belly armour is usually the thinnest armour on the tank, but considering that the thickest armour is often the equivilent to three to four feet of steel or more, that belly armour is still pretty damn strong. More than a few AFVs have shaped belly armour, so as to deflect the mine blast out to the (sacrificable) wheels or treads.

Eh.
I'm not so sure I buy that. I don't know enough about the design of robotic legs (or even tank treads) to really argue it though.

It's a basic physics problem. The more armour you put on something you want to be flexible, the less flexible it becomes. So any joint on the mecha (ankle, knees, hips, shoulders, elbows, wrists) will need to be less armoured than the rest of the mecha or it would not be able to flex. Seing as the mecha already carries thinner armour, pound for pound, than a conventional AFV, this means that the joints will be fairly weak.

The joints are also natural shot traps, allowing a shell to bounce between the two sides of the joint and incresing the odds of penetration.

I agree it's hard to armour treads and wheels directly, but that's why there are track skirts. Track skirts are slabs of armour mounted on the sides of the tank outside of the treads. They hang down a fair ways and can be quite thick. Depending on other design consideraitons, you could bring the track skirts all the way down so that all the running gear (wheels that guide the tracks) is covered (think a WW1 style tank). However, if you bring it down that far, you limit the ammount of travel of your suspension, making it very uncomfortable to ride in a high speeds.

In general, the higher object will will be seen and shot at first. So if the tread skirts go down to only 2 feet off the ground, but the mecha's knees are at 4 feet and it's hips are at 8 feet (on say a 16 foot "light" bot) the opposition will be able to hit the hips or knees before they can hit the running gear of the tank.

Yes, there are certain versatilities in the mecha design, but the mecha designer has to choose to incorporate those versatilities. The tank designer also has to choose which versatilities they incorporate as well.

In my example for a possible RDF tank in the Southern Cross Battloid thread, I mention that you could easily mount the upper torso of the 30 ton Excaliber in place of the turret of a 60 ton Leopard 2. Transplant the power plant from the Excaliber in place of the Leopard's diesel and you end up with a Leopard that is lighter and faster than it's predacessor and caries a wide range of weapons including several capable of high elevation fire.

The RDF designers could have chosen to do this sort of configuration (more than a few high tech bandits in my campaigns use tanks like this) and would likely seen some improvements over the Excaliber in mobility. Then again, the tank's sillhoutte has been raised and it's armour performance weakened by repalcing the low, well armoured turret.

But the bottom line is that it's up to the designers to determine what capabillities thye build into the tank and the mecha, and in general, a tank can do almost anything a mecha can do, but has superior firepower, protection and mobility when compared to a similarly sized mecha.

[Jefffar]

Since this thread was invoked for part of the discussion of another thread, I thought I'd buump this up a bit and see if anyone had anything new to add here.

[Jefffar]

Well how do you propose to level the playing field between a mecha and a tank if you don't control the variables that can muddy up the discussion like mass, budget and tech level?

As for the lone mecha vs the lone tank - I still put odds on the tank unless it's a highly contrived encounter. In fact, without support, the mecha is going to be in a worse situation than the comperable tank because it's giving up so much in terms of lethality, survivability and mobility.

I'm not saying mecha are useless, but I'm saying that a mecha won't out do a tank at being a primary armoured combatant on the battlefield. Light, special forces use mecha are definitely a viable option, provided they avoid any head to head engagements with conventional armour.

[Beatmeclever]

Like you said 160 posts, I am probably going to say some things that have already been said -- I'm sorry in advance, and I will go read them all in a few minutes. But first, I'm in agreement when it comes to the tank remaining the primary mechanized combat vehicle for the forseeable future; however, DOD and DARPA has been working on many smaller combat robots for the last decade (http://www.jointrobotics.com, http://www.darpa.mil, and run a search on the "ROBART III" or "PACKBOT") as well as the development of the "Future Combat System Close Combat Vehicle."

To the issue:
I have to say that even if you took a mech (100 years after it was first developed)and a tank at the same point, there are logistical problems:
1. The tank started in the 1910's so the modern M1A1 is your best option.
2. The mech has not yet started (so we have no "best option").
3. Armor technology is already improving so that thinner "plates" can protect as well or better than their modern counterparts.
4. Mechs will be better armored than the tank by way of better technology.

To get around this, we would have to assume that the mech was developed simultaneously along with the tank (ignoring the obvious "but what's the point" question).
1. The tank can be made slightly slower (more armor, bigger gun) and it gains the advantage of having a low-profile. (Speed will be increased with time, I'm sure.)
2. The mech can be made faster (less armor, smaller gun[s]), but it can carry more of its guns.
3. Without a doubt, the mech will have been miniaturized to the size of a small jeep within 100 years as the two competing war-fighting technologies will have found their own niche by then.
4. Tank armament will have been developed with combat with mechs in mind, so it will have the ability to traverse quickly, elevate and depress accordingly, and hit multiple targets within close combat range (less than 20 feet).
5. Mech armament will be small and light-weight, but powerful enough to rip through a tank like a hot knife through butter.

So your commander's tactical skill and the targeting computers are going to determine the winner! Does the tank move into mech territory or the opposite? Has the defending unit had time to prepare their location? If they are both moving into a new AO, then we can assume that mines or tripwires are at a minimum (and so, out of the fight). Perhaps the transformable mechs of RT (or the like) would become fact in an effort to increase the tank's access to (currently) inaccessible terrain? Fielding 10 tanks puts 40 men in harm's way, fielding 10 mechs puts 10 men in (20 if you are fielding MAC II's, but the tank KILLS (!!) the MAC II); you could put 40 mechs on the field against 10 tanks for the same number of troops, if you wanted to. Perhaps tanks would have been reduced in size to accommodate this new battlefield threat? Perhaps all tanks would become more like the AFV, in that they would each carry a squad of infantry in their bellies to combat the threat of mechs?

In the end, each technology would fill it's role within a combat force. A question that would come up would be, "Is the threat one that requires high firepower or can it be taken using the smaller weapons? How many men will be lost if I lose 10 tanks as opposed to 10 mechs? Can we afford those losses? Can we afford not to?" (Any commander who doesn't think about the Objective and Appropriate Means -- the best use of the best technology -- for achieving that objective, is simply an idiot!)

Still for my peace of mind, the Tank wins! (Until the two mechs that were with the first arrive, then it dies.)

[Beatmeclever]

I see the giant-robot mecha as more of an attempt to move heavy mechanized units into inaccessible mountainous terrain or cavernous terrain more so than as any kind of urban or field armor.

The tank excels in urban environs, desert, temperate forests, arctic tundra, and grasslands, but it becomes severely handicapped in mountainous, cavernous, swampy, jungle, rain forest, or likewise inhibiting terrain types.

The mech would be developed, if at all, to fill these holes in the tank's power. Although it would still have issues with smaller, tight areas, the mech would be able to move in those terrains. The bipedal design is stupid when it comes to mobility of this sort (even for humans) and so the giant-robot mech would probably be designed as a quad- or octo-ped.

However, current trends seem to be moving toward power armored infantry not the giant-robot mech. This is due to power and manufacturing constraints as well as the fact that the tank is the best thing for the job at hand (Appropriate Means).

[Jefffar]

I have no issues with light mecha and power armour finding an as of yet unexplored niche in military tactics and strategy.

The entire point of this thread is that a robot is not going to be able to be the primary armoured combatant because it won't measure up to the tank in survivability, lethality, mobility and economy.

Incidently, Mecha will not be better armoured than tanks, ever. If they develop new thinner plates that protect better than older plates, cool, I put a thick layer of those thin plates on a tank and it's more protected than the mecha. If they develop jammers and anti-missile systems to protect mecha, I put those on the tank and protect it too. If they develop forcefields, then mount one of those on the tank too.

Other than the specific technology required for mecha movement, there's nothing that's a part of a mecha that can't be put into a tank. Further more, since that tank is a more efficient use of armoured volume it's possible to mount bigger, thicker, heavier, more powerful components on the tank than on the mecha.

[Tiree]

I have mentioned it before within this thread: A non-transformable vehicle outfitted with the same technology as a mecha is going to be a formidable machine. What it doesn't boil down to is that Tanks are not as easily deployable as a Squadron of Veritechs - the prime fighting force of Robotech that is seen. Non-Transformable Robots have been shown mainly to be guard units, and if you go via Macross material only, relegated to target practice (ala Macross Plus).

In a post-apocalyptic setting, men, people, are more valuable than a piece of hardware. By having them in a one man unstoppable machine is better than sticking 3 in an armored slow moving machine. With our 6 billion + population, we may rather use the 3 man team. The US - may actually go down to the 1 man team to conserve their soldiers and/or field less. While a country like China might decide a 5 man to 1 machine ratio may better suit them.

Overall - I would figure the unmanned vehicles being even better than the manned ones, so long as communication to the vehicle is not disrupted and/or an AI is placed inside. At that point you have a different set of circumstances to work with.

[Jefffar]

But that 3 man crew in a tank have a much better liklihood of coming home again because they are in a much more survivable vehicle.

The case of the veritech fighter is an interesting one. When it's in jet mode, it should be compared to a fighter (and a conventional fighter equipped with the same tech level but not paying the performance penalty for the weight of the battloid and transformation systems) is going to out perform it as a fighter. In batloid mode, it would be out performed as a ground combatant by a tank for reasons heavily gotten into this thread already but also because of the restrictions imposed by having to accomodate flight systems and being light enough to fly.

What it does have is a niche, a specific job it can do that the other vehicles can't. It's a jet fighter that can land and fight it out on the ground.

But to do that it is going to be a hideously expensive vehicle that will be less effective than dedicated vehicles and less likely to return it's crew home at the end of the day.

Still, strategically mobile AFVs, designed to be dropped by air do exist. While they are not as well armoured as a true tank (to make them light enough for air transit) they can still be quite formidable and can take and hold objectives while heavier follow on forces are brought up.

[Tiree]

The case of the veritech fighter is an interesting one. When it's in jet mode, it should be compared to a fighter (and a conventional fighter equipped with the same tech level but not paying the performance penalty for the weight of the battloid and transformation systems) is going to out perform it as a fighter. In batloid mode, it would be out performed as a ground combatant by a tank for reasons heavily gotten into this thread already but also because of the restrictions imposed by having to accommodate flight systems and being light enough to fly.

While I agree with you, more than likely that same fighter will be smaller than a Veritech. Providing it more maneuverability for the same armor protection.

What it does have is a niche, a specific job it can do that the other vehicles can't. It's a jet fighter that can land and fight it out on the ground.

This is by far what will happen IMO. With a world government agency that can deploy Mach 4 fighters to fly across the world, it is more than likely they will not need nearly as many bases. Thus the niche becomes even bigger. For an agency that needs quick deployment craft, the Veritechs are at the forefront. When you are dealing with 50 foot tall humanoids, having that transform ability also helps. I mean, how are you going to subdue a Zentraedi with a tank? These niche roles, will be more prominent in a War Torn Robotech Universe.

But to do that it is going to be a hideously expensive vehicle that will be less effective than dedicated vehicles and less likely to return it's crew home at the end of the day.

To me this is questionable. When you have a factory satellite what is going to be the cost of manufacturing mass numbers of mecha vs. non mecha? We are dealing with construction capabilities that outshine our own. We are also dealing with a governmental agency and economic systems that are vastly different than our own. Probably the closest you can come to is probably the Russia during the Cold War. People working for the good of the community vs their own self worth.

Even in a war torn environment, you are probably not going to have monetary value anymore. It is going to be a barter value system. And a community will be the ones maintaining, repairing, and building these high cost machines. It may be easier to make a tank, but it is even easier to make a very less sophisticated tank, with lighter armor, etc... But with the complexity of a Mecha it is not much more to just add those sophisticated systems and armor into it.

[Jefffar]

The manufacturing costs is not just a dollars amount, it's reffering to raw materials as well. A non-mecha is a more efficient use of the same resources than a mecha. All those complicated mechanical muscles can be replaced and the inefficient distribution of armour can be replaced with a much simplier structure.

Something like a veritech fighter is goign to be horrendously expensive. You have the cost of building a jet fighter (much more expensive than a tank right there, by a factor of 5 to 10 times) the cost of building a giant robot and the cost of making them both the same machine at the same time.

For the cost of a veritech fighter you could probably build 2 advanced fighter jets and 2 advanced tanks. If you do want to go the budget route you talk about, ten we're probably looking at building even more.

Somehting lie a veritech fighter would be an expensive niche vehicle only used for the specific circumstances of rapid reaction or dep penetration assault. Most other combat missions would be better handled by a tank or a jet fighter depending.






BTW: How would I subdue a Zentraedi with a tank? A 120 mm shell to the center mass should do the trick (to scale it would probably akin to a 12 guage shotgun slug). If I wasn't into killing him, I'm sure some brainiac could develop a low velocity, less lethal crowd control type round.

[Jefffar]

Provided the 40ft dude will do the gunner the courtesy of standing reasonably still

I'm pretty sure that the ballistic computer on a modern tank that allows it to hit another tank (12 foot high sillhoutte, not 40 feet high) while both vehicles are bouncing across uneven ground at 40 mph moving in and out of cover at ranges of over a mile won't have a problem putting the round on target agaisnt a Zentraedi.

[Beatmeclever]

Jeffar, I am in agreement with you on this. All I am saying is that after 100 years of tank development, we have the Abbrams (with its current armor, weapons, and electronics). After 100 years of mecha development we will have new (better) armor, weapons, and electronics. If the tank, taken at the 100 year point, will not stand a chance against the mecha at 100 years. It would be like taking the airplane at 30 years of development (the Spitfire, say) and putting it against the Helicopter at 30 years (the Apache, for example) -- unbalanced and leaning heavily in the helicopter's favor. Unless you mean that you want a tank at 200 years and a mech at 100, which would invalidate your "balanced" combat.

Which is why I proposed the simultaneous development idea, which leads to each weapon system finding its own niche. I could even see mecha (power armor) supported armor columns.

[slade the sniper]

There are A LOT of variables that are simply being ignored here such as mass of the combatants (equal mass?), terrain, etc.

Tanks are BETTER than Mecha pound for pound and dollar for dollar. Economics will win out, as always.

However, I will go on record and say that if a mech of equal mass to a tank were to find themselves engaged in a one on one fight, the tank will still win handily. There are too many fragile pieces to a mech that simply do not lend themselves to heavy mechanized combat.

Remember, that if we go for simultaneous development, the weapons and the armor and powerplants will be the same, thus you can't say that your mecha has nuke reactor and the tank has a diesel engine, unless you want to weigh your argument in favor of the mecha by taking a top of the line mecha and comparing it to a bargain basement tank, in which case, the same could be done for a tank so therefore your argument is moot.

This is very similar to comparing a modern bomber to a modern fighter. They are different and obviously a fighter can destroy a bomber, but then why do we still have bombers?

An attack sub can kill an aircraft carrier, but why do we still have aircraft carriers?

Instead of asking "which is better?" the question should be "Which is better for what?" That way, instead of saying Infantry is worthless since you can kill them with bullets in the 5mm range...ask instead WHY do we still have infantry?

Granted, this will lead to a few issues...one: Big Mecha (over 20 tons) will probably never see the light of day because there is really nothing that they can do that a tank can't do better and cheaper.

two: powered armor, OTOH is a reality and will be a BIG boost to combined arms operations. Unfortunately, they will NOT be the Death of Infantry or the Death of Tanks or Artillery or bombers or submarines.

What it will do is allow Infantry to keep up with Armor and thus to increase the overall effectiveness of the mechanized forces. What it will not do is make techno-ninjas...long duration operations in rought terrain are still going to be a grunt's job.

So, what will a mecha be GOOD for? Construction, Demolition, Engineering work primarily. What will powered armor be good for? Increased lethality of Infantry in tank/mechanized forces. 100 ton assault mechs, MAC II's, etc are simply a pipe dream.

The Veritech concept (fighters that become 50 foot tall infantry) will probably not be a reality due to budget (hideously expensive), engineering issues (any mechanical device that complex will be a hangar queen, and if there is tech that good, it would be put to better use making better tanks, fighters, submarines than a whole new machine) political infighting (Who owns them, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines...VT's operate in space, underwater, as infantry AND fly...) and basic usefulness...they are a very wide ranging multi-role platform BUT it is not as good at any of them as a dedicated system.

The REASON they were even made was to fight 50 foot tall aliens with extreme mobility...that's why they made VT's. Truthfully, following that logic, there shouldn't even BE veritech mecha in Southern Cross OR Invid Invasion.

Granted IF there was a super powerful multi-national supergovernment that had the money, but not the personnel to fill divisions of soldiers, then maybe they would create a Veritech...able to do just about anything for a while until specialists (tanks, infantry, submersibles, fighters, bombers, etc.) could get there and take over.

So, what do you think Mecha would be useful for?

That's my opinion.

-STS

[Jefffar]

I think useful mecha will fall into 2 categories:

The first is exoskeletons that give infantry the ability to carry heavier weapons and loads in combat.

The second is lightweight robots that will alow paratroopers / marines / elite infantyr to operate for extended duration missions behind enemy lines with their own light armour and heavy weapons.

Anythign else the ground forces would need combat mecha for can be done better by a conventional AFV.

[Tiree]

Even though I appreciate what Jeffar is trying to point out. I am not going to follow his logic on a cost benefit ratio. Newer technologies are generally put into Newer vehicles, and then later retro-fitted to older machines. Generally speaking this will provide a longer combat life for the older machines, but a newer generation will need to be made for the new technology. But with even newer technology being advanced, it is a never ending battle.

Real world dictates - that even if a tank could be a better use of the technology, it will not be the first vehicle to receive said technology, especially when mecha are being developed.

[ShadowLogan]

How do mecha designs stack up against other combat ground vehicles other than Tanks? Comparing them to tanks might not an apt comparision.

The issue of Ground Pressure MIGHT be inflated here as nature has already addressed the issue. The fossil record contains organisims that are believed to approach the mass of tanks (some dinosaurs, they certainly didn't die out because of GP). There are organisims that can walk/run on water (ideally small ones). It would seem nature can provide a solution for a mecha design if one knows where to look for it. (And there is a relationship between biology and robotics research that goes both ways.)

A multi-paired leg design can be made to have many of the same advantages as the Tank, and if done properly could still function if one of it’s legs was taken out where as a humanoid design or tank would be immobilized. Another advantage appears vs IED & Mines would be the raised position of the body (a problem with the Humve [sp] in Iraq). Other advantages might come with the design, but would likely be a trade-off for something else.

There is also the assumption that the robotic systems would have to be complex. I do not think it would be as complex as some think it is, even with a walking design. Sure if you try to go the digitial route you'll have your work cut out for you, but some robotics researchers are actually use analog based designs and finding them to be better (control standpoint).

I think we expect that mature mecha will have legs with a wide range of motion, but do they really need the full range of motion we expect? Can leg designs be simplified to require comparable/fewer parts than Tanks for locomotion? And can those parts be just as durable?

As far as the use of robot arms on the battlefield, if they are useful as some people think they are for mecha, why aren't we mounting them on [combat] vehicles today? The technology is there and has been for years. It might also be a point against using a humanoid frame for the design, which most people seem to favor in this thread as the basic frame layout.