Poll of the Day > Mech Vs. Tank: Another Topic

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm still trying to wrestle with the Mech Vs. Tank dilemma. There's pretty much no situation where a Mech would outperform a Tank given the same power/weight ratios.

However, I found an interesting case

I was replaying Earthsiege (Metaltech, the offbrand Battletech) and aside from endgame mechs there is something unusual about their mech design:

Tomahawk: https://images.app.goo.gl/zrjdLNekUh5hRZ176

Their mechs are very TALL and NARROW. This means that while they have a very small ground profile (which harms speed and mobility on soft ground), they are also a very small direct fire target (tanks are relatively short and wide, easy direct fire targets). Secondly, the mechs primarily survive due to their Shielding, not their armour (armour is good, but it's a shields first system).

Since shields in the series (up until Cyberstorm) are relatively infallible though slow to recharge... being the smallest possible direct-fire target would be the most survivable design. In a way you're almost the opposite of a tank, you can completely shrug the first missile hit and be completely scared of small arms fire where a tank would completely shrug small arms and be scared of missiles.

idk...

your thots?

---

I missed the last topic, what's the difference between a mech and a tank?

IronBornCorps posted...

I missed the last topic, what's the difference between a mech and a tank?

A tank is typically a treaded ground vehicle... although in the Mech Vs. Tank debate it also includes armoured cars and stuff like humvees.

A mech is a walking machine with guns/weapons on it. It can be very humanoid (gundam) or more alien (half-life)

---

Is this limited to ground/walking mechs?
I can understand for fairness, but a lot of mech-based stuff includes flying mechs (though then you need to compare to aircraft)

I'm sure tanks are more practical and it's solely a matter of rule of cool that mechs are portrayed as better. But to try and defend the mechs, maybe these are some benefits:

• Urban warfare or forest/jungle terrain: tanks are all terrain, but would still be tough to use in a "dense" area w/ lots of obstructions while the mech could maneuver through them
• Battlefields with steep slopes and uneven/rocky terrain: The mechs can more easily maneuver up and down such terrain.
• Better firing platform: The mech has greater height allowing for better targeting opportunities / trajectories / use of shooting from cover, and can probably handle engaging foes in multiple directions in quick succession better
• More surface area for armanents: I mean...being bigger is mostly a negative as it makes for a bigger target, but it does also mean you can pack more guns and weapons on the thing
• Shields: If energy shields exist anyway, why not just use mechs? Most of the tank's advantages besides lower cost come down to defense (less/no weak points to take out, lower/smaller profile, probably thicker armor, etc...) and if your primary defense is shields, then...why not?

Not sure why you're forcing the mechs and tanks to have the same weight and power, seems like an arbitrary restriction. It's not like other real life weapons/vehicles "play fair" by being constrained to being the same weight, cost, etc... If one outperforms the other without sacrificing too much (like obscenely higher cost), then...it wins. The end.

streamofthesky posted...

Not sure why you're forcing the mechs and tanks to have the same weight and power, seems like an arbitrary restriction.

Because that's pretty much the sole reason for the debate at all... if you have unlimited power/weight ratio then there'd be no reason not to use a 1km tall exosuit.

The debate comes down to if your mech is also powered by a 1500 horsepower gas turbine (the engine on the Abrams) then the effort to walk the legs is a lot more wasteful than just using treads.

---

One thing that isn't immediately clear when looking at tanks is that they constantly need repairs. Those treads are awful and break a lot. If a mech had decent systems on the bottom of the feet, they can withstand a lot more. With solid supply lines like the modern military complex, it's totally fine.

But when you're dealing with a BattleTech-sorta universe where you have the production facility 500 star systems away, and your treads snap and you need the perfect match otherwise it breaks, then a mech is looking a lot better.

streamofthesky posted...

Not sure why you're forcing the mechs and tanks to have the same weight and power, seems like an arbitrary restriction. It's not like other real life weapons/vehicles "play fair" by being constrained to being the same weight, cost, etc... If one outperforms the other without sacrificing too much (like obscenely higher cost), then...it wins. The end.

Because when you're throwing a lance against another lance in a wargame, you have two options:
Tonnage vs tonnage or cost vs cost. Both have their cheese, hell, even little variant urby can randomly core an assault mech with an AC/20. But you try to make the game part balanced.

Lokarin posted...

Because that's pretty much the sole reason for the debate at all... if you have unlimited power/weight ratio then there'd be no reason not to use a 1km tall exosuit.

The debate comes down to if your mech is also powered by a 1500 horsepower gas turbine (the engine on the Abrams) then the effort to walk the legs is a lot more wasteful than just using treads.

shadowsword87 posted...

Because when you're throwing a lance against another lance in a wargame, you have two options:
Tonnage vs tonnage or cost vs cost. Both have their cheese, hell, even little variant urby can randomly core an assault mech with an AC/20. But you try to make the game part balanced.

But that's not how real life works.
If a newly designed jet fighter just straight up outperforms an older model but costs 50% more, guess what? The new jet replaces the old one. Fairness of the comparison doesn't matter.
This topic is trying to compare mechs vs. tanks realistically, while holding the rules to standards that real life would laugh at.

Or did I miss the point of this topic...? If it's just about making both viable in a game then I don't get why there even needs to be a discussion. You can say the mech is able to leap out of the way of gunfire and that makes up for its lesser armor and even if that's unrealstic, it's a game so whatever.

streamofthesky posted...

Or did I miss the point of this topic...? If it's just about making both viable in a game then I don't get why there even needs to be a discussion. You can say the mech is able to leap out of the way of gunfire and that makes up for its lesser armor and even if that's unrealstic, it's a game so whatever.

Yeah, it's just talking about the in-universe reason for why to use mechs instead of tanks.
For a game.

And also one way for mechs to leap out is through jumpjets, it's pretty effective maneuverability.

streamofthesky posted...

Or did I miss the point of this topic...?

No... you right, I just misunderstood.

If you are a military financier and you have a motor pool of a dozen or so Abrams and someone is trying to sell you some new mechs that run on the same powertrain only it doesn't have a heavy turret in exchange for having something more like 8x Oerlikons... (something that armoured cars can do and the reason they don't do that for tanks is tanks need almost all their space for their main cannon and missiles)

---

I'm still trying to wrestle with the Mech Vs. Tank dilemma. There's pretty much no situation where a Mech would outperform a Tank given the same power/weight ratios.

The easy answer is that they wouldn't have the same power/weight ratios. The only way mechs would make sense is as an over-gimmicked specialty combat unit. Otherwise if you have two things of roughly the same power and comparable performance, you're going to default to the cheaper one.

A mech being worthwhile comes down to more than just special terrain, it also needs to vastly outperform other combat vehicles so it obviously wouldn't have the same ratios.

shadowsword87 posted...

One thing that isn't immediately clear when looking at tanks is that they constantly need repairs. Those treads are awful and break a lot. If a mech had decent systems on the bottom of the feet, they can withstand a lot more. With solid supply lines like the modern military complex, it's totally fine.

But when you're dealing with a BattleTech-sorta universe where you have the production facility 500 star systems away, and your treads snap and you need the perfect match otherwise it breaks, then a mech is looking a lot better.

You're going to have other upkeep issues with mechs. Just because they don't have one issue doesn't mean they aren't going to have others.

---

Zeus posted...

You're going to have other upkeep issues with mechs. Just because they don't have one issue doesn't mean they aren't going to have others.

Oh 100%, it's just that if you want a game where you have big stompy robots who shoot fucking awesome missiles 'n lasers 'n shit, you need to build backwards, to some extent.

To put it another way:

A light tank (such as the cute little m551 Sheridan) could have a 150mm main cannon (20 rounds), a .50 CIW (1000 rounds) and a .30 AP (3000 rounds), as well as a compliment of missiles (9 in the case of the Sheridan).

A mech would have no problem holding those light guns, but a cannon is simply out of the question... not unless it fully braced itself before firing (although they could have 3 or 4 legs to negate that, it's more of a biped failing).

On the flip side, it would have no trouble holding a plethora of missiles either... using Front Mission as an example with their almost trademarked PIZ / PAZ launcher (a disposable 6 missile system), both mechs and tanks in the game can wield them effortlessly.

In terms of surviving combat missiles are easily the way to win, the reason cannons are still used at all these days is because they are about 1/100th the cost to fire. ... I saw a video recently about the AT4 personal rocket launcher Vs. the Javelin. The AT4 costs $1200 to fire, where the Javelin is about $140'000. (not to scale / bad memory)

EDIT: Oops, that whole thing was moot... I just realized very few Mechs in fiction even fire cannons, they legit DO just use small arms and missiles most of the time.

---

The problem with mechs is the shape is just wildly inefficient. (I'm basically thinking of gundams here btw)

On ground the legs are structural liabilities that barring some sort of fantasy metal with properties we can't replicate the joints will struggle holding all that weight and maintaining some sort of reasonable speed/mobility. It would just be a big target, that is before considering the energy requirements. Don't get me wrong I think robots are super cool and mecha is one of my favorite anime genres but I can see reality.

BlackScythe0 posted...

The problem with mechs is the shape is just wildly inefficient. (I'm basically thinking of gundams here btw)

On ground the legs are structural liabilities that barring some sort of fantasy metal with properties we can't replicate the joints will struggle holding all that weight and maintaining some sort of reasonable speed/mobility. It would just be a big target, that is before considering the energy requirements. Don't get me wrong I think robots are super cool and mecha is one of my favorite anime genres but I can see reality.

Come to BattleTech, there are mechs that are build like dozer trucks and handle just the same:
https://babeltechreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Untitled-16.jpg

shadowsword87 posted...

Come to BattleTech, there are mechs that are build like dozer trucks and handle just the same:
https://babeltechreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Untitled-16.jpg

The one in the center I recognize... ... its ripoff version in MetalTech, that's an Outlaw

---

Lokarin posted...

The one in the center I recognize... ... its ripoff version in MetalTech, that's an Outlaw

Yeah, I believe that's the Catapult, a secondary line heavy mech. This thing trundles up to where it needs to go (just 65 km/hr), parks itself in a solid line of sight, and then bombards whatever targets it can see with long range missiles. It's also got jumpjets in case things get too tight and needs to get out. It was produced by the inner sphere pretty early in the timeline at 2651 for the terran hegemony, and then the star league defense force until it collapsed.
A lot of different companies produced it for a long time.

Lokarin posted...

no situation where a Mech would outperform a Tank given the same power/weight ratios.

usually tanks are tiny compared to mechs, to the point that mechs can step on tanks to destroy them.

I don't know if you're thinking of this IRL, because neither giant tanks nor giant mechs would work IRL.

Lokarin posted...

A mech would have no problem holding those light guns, but a cannon is simply out of the question... not unless it fully braced itself before firing (although they could have 3 or 4 legs to negate that, it's more of a biped failing).

Mechwarrior mechs use Autocannons and Ultra-Autocannons. These are basically burst-fire cannons with calibers up to 203mm. Ultra ACs fire twice as many rounds twice as fast. Beyond that there are also Heavy Gauss Rifles.

in terms of advantages between tanks and mechs (in fantasy) mechs are generally sectioned up between arms, legs, head, and torso, where taking damage in the arms can cripple some of your weapons, but won't disable your vehicle. but really, giant robot or giant tank, either one is as resilient or vulnerable as you want to make it. neither are possible in real life in the first place.

another might be that I'm pretty sure that mechs are a lot more agile than giant tanks. (I don't even really know any examples of giant tanks, except maybe in Valkyria Chronicles, and maybe some other random "big battle tank" bosses in other games.)

---

Sahuagin posted...

I don't know if you're thinking of this IRL, because neither giant tanks nor giant mechs would work IRL.

I was thinking more sensibly real world tanks... comparable mechs would still be either 1~4 crew and about 80tons on the middle-range

---

Sahuagin posted...

Mechwarrior mechs use Autocannons and Ultra-Autocannons. These are basically burst-fire cannons with calibers up to 203mm. Ultra ACs fire twice as many rounds twice as fast. Beyond that there are also Heavy Gauss Rifles.

You also just have straight up lasers for precision work. Slap 3 short range heavy lasers on a light mech and just fly around at 150km/hr, suddenly you're a pain in the ass to hit, and you can do a decent amount of damage.

Light lasers can also easily do the work as not the biggest baddest weapon around, but can still roast random infantry.

shadowsword87 posted...

You also just have straight up lasers for precision work. Slap 3 short range heavy lasers on a light mech and just fly around at 150km/hr, suddenly you're a pain in the ass to hit, and you can do a decent amount of damage.

Light lasers can also easily do the work as not the biggest baddest weapon around, but can still roast random infantry.

MetalTech is a little smaller, with the smallest guns being 20mm ATC and a 100gigawatt laser all the way up to a 50mm ATC and various exotic weapons.

---

Have you ever played Robot Alchemic Drive, Bumpytrot Chronicles, or Zone of the Enders all on PS2?

---

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

Have you ever played Robot Alchemic Drive, Bumpytrot Chronicles, or Zone of the Enders all on PS2?

Nah, it's been a while - I tried Armoured Core 3 but I couldn't get into it due to weird controls

---

I specifically left out rts style games for a reason, or else the Metal Core games would have also made my list.

But I'm mostly shite at rts games

---

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

I specifically left out rts style games for a reason, or else the Metal Core games would have also made my list.

But I'm mostly shite at rts games

Still, I'm mostly trying to figure out the logic behind the military doctrine of using them in the first place since it seems like there are no scenarios where a mech would be advantageous over a tank.... at least until shields are invented.

---

Ignoring humanoid mechs for a second...

The AT-ST is probably among the most sensible walker designs; it does seem built for purpose and has advantages over ... well, land/hover tanks don't really show up in early Star Wars so IDK.

Its also rather simple in design - basically just an armoured cockpit on stilts.

---

Worth pointing out that tanks are on their way out in usefulness. I'd imagine a mech would suffer the same issue. Too easy to disable the crew or mech. Weapons have outpaced armor. So tanks have become slow moving targets. A mech is just a giant version of a slow moving target that is also really tall and easy to shoot at from a long distance away.

---

Lokarin posted...

Still, I'm mostly trying to figure out the logic behind the military doctrine of using them in the first place since it seems like there are no scenarios where a mech would be advantageous over a tank.... at least until shields are invented.

The same logic Ace Combat games use to make you fight ground targets for 2/3 of the game despite piloting airplanes, as if they've never heard of "infantry" before.

---

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

The same logic Ace Combat games use to make you fight ground targets for 2/3 of the game despite piloting airplanes, as if they've never heard of "infantry" before.

Are you at least flying a ground support vehicle like the A10 or AC-130?

---

Lokarin posted...

your thots?

I just woke up and found myself in deep thought trying to make the case for a mech. Wtf.

---

Lokarin posted...

Are you at least flying a ground support vehicle like the A10 or AC-130?

Once they're unlocked, sure. For the majority of the first third of most Air Combat games you're expected to use something like a Thunderbolt or a Tomcat while flying nape of the earth and hearing "pull up!, Pull up!" Blaring in your ears the entire time.

I want to love the AC games, but everytime I play one I spend the entire time facepalming from a tactical standpoint.

---

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

Once they're unlocked, sure. For the majority of the first third of most Air Combat games you're expected to use something like a Thunderbolt or a Tomcat while flying nape of the earth and hearing "pull up!, Pull up!" Blaring in your ears the entire time.

I want to love the AC games, but everytime I play one I spend the entire time facepalming from a tactical standpoint.

To be fair, the Mech Vs. Tank argument only really comes down to realism clashes since gaming wise you'd probably always take the more FUN option

---

Mecha only work if the other guys are also in mecha. Tactically, any competent military is going to swarm a mecha formation with drones like a thousand angry mosquitoes.

Even Jehuty can't target a thousand incoming missiles at once.

---

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

Even Jehuty can't target a thousand incoming missiles at once.

If you can't target, then don't - just shoot omnidirectionally

---

My thots think mechs are cooler.

---

Lokarin posted...

If you can't target, then don't - just shoot omnidirectionally

Still about as effective as "cover fire" though when you're just blind firing and all the incoming threats are aimed squarely at your center of mass.

---

SinisterSlay posted...

Worth pointing out that tanks are on their way out in usefulness. I'd imagine a mech would suffer the same issue. Too easy to disable the crew or mech. Weapons have outpaced armor. So tanks have become slow moving targets. A mech is just a giant version of a slow moving target that is also really tall and easy to shoot at from a long distance away.

I don't think that they're so much on their way out as it is that tank warfare has certain limitations. The only way they'd ever be defunct is if ground warfare stopped being a thing entirely and, although ground warfare hasn't necessarily won wars since... well, probably before WWII, it's been somewhat necessary in securing gains.

---

Bird Up

Ok boyos, what's your favourite tank game, plane game, helicopter game and mecha game... GO!

---

I've been playing MechWarror: Living Legends, a free mod of crysis of all things.

Lokarin posted...

tank game,

Either BattleTanx or that Tank Battles ps3 game (whatever it was called)

Lokarin posted...

plane game,

Can't think of one. For flight sims, Tie Fighter Wars.

Lokarin posted...

helicopter game

One of the SNES games I guess?

Lokarin posted...

mecha game... GO!

Does Custom Robo Arena count?

---