eh...I think there are Pros and cons to both the tank and Bipedal tank.. The Bipedal tank can go places treds cannot and just because Bipedals are shown CQC in anime and shows doesnt mean you can't make the snipers that are shown in such shows as well. you could make a Bipedal tank a sniper with the right equipment and software. Also Bipedals DON'T need bridges to cross lakes or bodies of water. So there ar PROS and CONS to both the tank and Bipedal tank design.
@melfinam Tanks don't go over bridges, they go underwater, it's been standard requirement for all MBT. Again, a tall profile, is an easy target, and also heavier if you want the same degree of armour protection. Protection wise, a tank is a moving bunker and gun emplacement, this makes it an ideal long range gun platform, it's mass and low profile meaning it can handle the recoil and be stealthy. Most modern tanks can hit targets miles away while moving at speed.
true, but the panther is actually a medium tank and did not suffer from mechanical reliability and low speed. The Panther is widely considered the best tank of the second world war because of its deadly combination of armour protection, fire-power, reliability and speed/manoeuvrability.
@MrLOLTRAKTOR Yeah, it was cool, their unreliability mainly due to rushed production. but it still as heavy as heavy tanks of US forces, so much so that their response to it was actually the Pershing heavy tank. I really should have used Tiger II and it's self-propelled gun variants.
Tank tracks break because they are made up of joints. Tanks also have joints in the suspension for the wheels. Instead, legs just have 3 joints and legs have greater "travel" than wheel shocks, so they can absorb impacts better. Unlike a tank, a Mech can shift it's center of gravity. Tanks are of a given size because they need to be airlifted and they need to be fast. Increased size is only useful for a bigger gun, but mobile artillery takes care of that.
@JBnotthescotch Sorry, I don't mean to be condescending but I was tired and I literally laughed at what you said in your comment. Again sorry. Now, every single suspension on the tanks' road wheels receive the weight of the tank equally. That they don't need to house servos or actuators, they are by nature, more robust. Take a human leg for example, the hip joints have to support whatever is above it, the knees have to suppoert whatever the hips are supporting the thigh. Continued.
@JBnotthescotch continued: So the some parts have more stress than others is what I'm saying. This poses a problem when you factor how much heavier a giant humanoid robot is, and the fact that the legs need to house actuators. Tanks aren't compact primaily for airlifting, the've been shaped that way since the beginning of armoured warfare, to be give the most protection possible with the least weight possible. So a square. I think I'll make a video concerning this concept.
@JohnTraviss The pressure exerted on the ground by the track is not the same thing as the load on the front shocks and torsion bars when a tank goes over an obstacle. The travel of a tank wheel is just a fraction of the travel of a Mech leg. Tracks have dozens of links and crews are trained to repair them because they do break. I don't know what you mean by servos and actuators. Because servo does not mean an electric motor coupled to a speed reducer...
@JohnTraviss But if that is what you meant, that doesn't need to be in the legs (I'm sure you have heard of hydraulic actuators and transmission chains). I understand you are saying some parts are under more stress than others, and I agree, that's why the M1 has shocks on the first and last wheels only. Tanks have not been compact from the start: the Jagdpanzer was so heavy and big it was useless. And tanks have weight limits to be able cross bridges (some like the M551 for being airlifted).
@JohnTraviss Regarding the square shape: read about sloped armor. On why tanks are not big, read about the C2, Panzer VIII, IS-3... and in case you have doubts, check out the P.1500. I won't reply to your comments again because this is a waste of my time, sorry.
@JBnotthescotch Ok then, so last comment. Whatever problems tanks DO have, it's only exacerbated by having only few joints in which to support the weight of a mech. Tanks like the Merkava has extraordinary travel on all of their wheels, optimized for heavy armor on the Golan heights. I've alluded to the P.1500 in the video, basically saying by the point there's tech advanced enough to make practical mecha, super heavy tanks will become a viable fighting machine.
@JohnTraviss One thing is to have 3 or 4 enclosed bearings per leg as part of a suspension system and another is to have dozens of small non lubricated pad links per track outside the suspension. The travel on a Merkava is probably half a meter at most. If building big tanks were better, the Russians would have designs larger than the T10 but they went the other way around after the 1973 war. Tank size is proportional to armor thickness and gun size, two words: reactive armor and missiles.
@JBnotthescotch By bigger, would be mass. Tanks now still are more massive compared to mechs. Most shows you see, the grand advantage you see in mechs is how they just stomp over mechs, which to me is as dumb as the idea of a giraffe stomping over a fully grown african rhino. Guns are still used on tanks, because they are cheaper. Some tank guns are missile launching to boot, like russian tanks and merkava. This extends the range, but cost around $20k a shot,
@JohnTraviss $20k per shot vs $5,000k per tank? Doesn't make sense. Tanks have guns because the designs predate the widespread adoption of effective TOW missiles (20 years ago). The Israeli LAHAT can take out a Merkava at more than twice the range of the Merkava gun. No amount of conventional armor can stop it, that's why different kinds of armors are being used, which are much lither. Tanks are getting lighter, smaller and faster. Just like ships, the fighting is done with missiles, not guns.
@JBnotthescotch True, very true, in these rapidly modernizing battlefield tanks should get more mobile and lighter. But when a 30 foot tall 100 tons two legged starts showing up and to challenge that notion, I'm saying an upscaled tank works better at being big than an upscaled ASIMO, regardless of past failures. And yes, the LAHAT is $20k per unit, a Sabot round, $8k(tops). The gun concept keeps improving to, from the ETC guns to magnetic accelerators. BTW I like how you're being civil here.
Yeah I think a small mech that uses steath would be the real mechs. I think If mechs were small and steathy they could win any battle. But big mechs stand out too much and would likely take a heavy pounding unless we find a super light and almost idestructable armor or are super fast evasive flyers but then again missiles could hit them unless it is an AC from AC4 but as far as I know that doesnt exist yet, but you never know. I would rather be a mech pilot though.
Run for your lives the TTS is going to destroy us all! GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!! And Nemesis shall rule the world. Period. Tanks are no match for his pixelated rocket launcher, face it.
@FritoyezSchumann I'm conceiving some kind of mecha series. They're are about 9 meter tall mechs used in lieu with special operation commandos. They and the soldiers they support can be air-dropped or beach land by submarine. They act as light vehicle support. Sticking close to dense jungles and attacking remote enemy outposts. As soon as enemy tanks arrive they pretty much have to fall back and and use mech-based howitzers. Any attempt to directly engage is suicidal.
@BrutalWaffle the only nuclear powered gundams are the justice and the freedom, all others have capacitors, except of course the giant ones in destiny....
this is based on seed, i didnt watch 00 becuase it was gay as fuck......
The cube square law prevents us from building such large machines like mechs. The amount of energy needed would be vast and the components would have to be able to withstand a vast amount of pressure and stress in order to go at a decent speed.
This is all pretty much true. But if you were given the choice to pilot a mech, or a tank we would all choose the mech. Keep in mind that your choice of a Gundam as an 'average mech' is hilarious, that thing has more plot armour than Jesus.
Wise choice. We're assuming that both are made with similarly advanced tech: equal power plant output, similar construction materials. Tanks now are much more mobile, imagine the future where tanks can have access to even more powerful engines, they'd probably be as quick as a lamborghini.(They almost are now) I often see in animes, the tanks that are destroyed by mecha are slower than WW I tanks, and with similarly pathetic tactics.
u propaply would like game named gmod. u can build all kind of stuff in that with some addons. i have tested similiar stuff and usually tank wins. but if the robot is made with decent stuff it might be as good as tank. if you get this gmod send me message and i can guide you to build awesome stuff like robots, mechas,tanks,planes and almost anything u can come up with.
I've heard about and seen all the videos of gmod. Damn good stuff. But I've never really considered playing. I'm using an expensive but crappy nec notebook. Theorectically decent, but overheats to the point of sudden shut down just playing GUN, or using AVG. Thanks for the suggestion anyway.
I disagree with that!! If you use an Exoskeleton to build the mech it will be lower than tank.. It will be very useful to have a small mech for a city fight in Irak or Afghanistan! I am working now on some prototypes, 1:12 but there are several problems with it.. the main is financing:) However in my calculations a mech carrying a helicopter gunmachine and rocketlauncher/grenadelauncher is a serious weapon and can add inadequte force to a simple soldier!!
@JohnTraviss What if it were equipped with foot-mounted wheels/treads and a weapons loadout similar to the AH-64D Longbow Apache (1× 30 × 113 mm/1.18 × 4.45 in M230 Chain Gun, AGM-114 Hellfire, & AIM-92 Stingers)? And if it were a powered armor like the one from MADOX 01 or Halo Legends, what would it's combat effectiveness be at that point?
@TurnAGundam Yes, it's not a good thing. What you have is something that doesn't have the qualities of a tank nor a walker. And with the load out, i feel it's more cost effective to actually use a helicopter, instead of making it redundant, or maybe separating them and mounting these weapons into smaller flying drones.
@JohnTraviss Well I thought that the describe powered armors might be good if there's enemy AA that might prove to be a problem unless we replace our Apaches with a helicopter that has the same purpose and firepower of the Apache but with the stealth capabilities of the Comanche, I am to assume I was incorrect with this assumption? Also, the whole drone thing doesn't sit COMPLETELY well with me, I don't like the idea of automating war.
@TurnAGundam Comanche got cancelled by DOD because of their increasing interest in drones. So that kind of summarizes my point. Drones aren't automated anyway(yet), being more like RC planes that happened to have autopilot. I don't think ANYONE would ever want drones to operate without human decisions in the loop. Drones are cheap and doesn't endanger the pilot's life. So that's a big incentive for drones.
@JohnTraviss Fair enough, though what does that do when the enemy starts getting their grimy hands on ECM equipment? Also, call me old-fashioned or even sentimental, but part of me subscribes to the samurai ideal of war: honor and bravery on the battlefield, choosing when to strike and when to die and all that. Not having to lose fathers, sons, brothers, mothers, sisters, daughters and friends/loved ones on the battlefield is ALWAYS nice, but drones seem to trivialize war. I could be wrong.
@TurnAGundam As for the powered armors you mentioned. Look at their fights, and their weapons. You'd think they pulled their ammo out of hyperspace. With the size of these armors suggest that their weapon capacity should be much lower than shown. I think the way to go is one of the smaller powered armor you see in FEAR.
@TurnAGundam They look like a plated up version of a SARCOS exoskeleton. This is feasible in a decade or two. The weapon is relatively small compared to the armor, meaning there's plenty of space for ammo, armor, and power plant. I would think these will eventually supplement conventional infantry by providing suppression in a bullet resistant armor, that's not big enough to be a missile magnet.
I know. I just think openly stating it will never be is a crime against imagination. I´d like to think at some point battles will become so fast paced tanks simply won't do. I'm not against it, I'd LOVE to see a hover tank, though I think it'd be problematic mounting a big gun on something that's no resting upon solid ground, and apology accepted. I'm thinking at some point micro-fusion or maybe hydrogen power cells might supply the energy needed or like in Appleseed a simple combustion engine.
I'm talking about physics and engineering here. Anyone can just imagine a giant humanoid robot, it's fundamental to our nature to personify even inanimate objects. Now, making a functional robot that doesn't comply to this nature, that takes imagination.
I don't know why I post. To me being able to build a mecha which is far more complicated than a tank signifies technological progression. To me a tank is primitive, it is also useless in all urban environments, tight spaces a mecha can walk between do it in, if anything maybe we'll have powered armor, that's practical right? Tank like armor on infantry? At least tell me that is feasible? Like shock-troops?
Okay, sorry for being hard on you for the past few comments:
Technological progression, yes. But more advanced doesn't always mean more useful. I just think newer technology can be used better in the form of vehicles, including robot-brained vehicles. Unmanned Combat Vehicles, it's called. What I'm against is 18 meter giant walking humanoids. In a military, you have to use all available resources as effectively as possible, and vehicles like APCs, IFVs, and Tanks do just that.
And a tank is not useless in urban environments. Any mech larger than a car can be just as vulnerable in that env. This is where infantry support is important.
And powered armor is fine. It's fucking badass. And recent development predict it coming in a few decades or so. The only obstacle is powersource.
Crash into and pummel the bridge WITHOUT dying. Kamikazes are primitive and stupid methods of attack I do not under any circumstance approve of. And I am not against tanks, I merely oppose the belief the tank, which even now faces total extinction by the mobile gun platform and soldiers wielding anti-armor rockets, is the future. If anything, mecha will replace it as a front-line unit, with tanks, infantry and gunships as support. And wheels are not that efficient and neither are treads.
AAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaannndddd....why would they try to pummel a ship in the first place? Wouldn;t rockets do just fine? Or make a really tough plane? Besides, not sane real world engineer would make a military ship with the bridge on the outside of the ship. Do your research, many countries right now are withdrawing their decision to replace tanks with mobile gun systems. And anti armor-missiles won't affect mechas....how?
That is true. I'm not saying I am against tanks at all, I am simply tired of people comparing them. A tank is less versatile, less adaptable and less mobile, also let's say humanity enters the space age, a tank will not be useful during ship-to-ship combat and a fighter craft is limited, it cant for instance crash into the enemy ship and pummel the bridge now can it? And the MechWarrior depictions are really just walking tanks, mechs, a mecha is faster, but not as heavily armored I think.
What are you talking about? A tank can go faster than a mecha with the same power available, simply because wheels are much more efficient, why do you think our exploration robots use wheels? And the thing about the space age. A fightercraft would also be more effective, and it CAN crash into an enemy ship and pummel the bridge. Haven't you heard of Kamikaze? Sheeesh
That, and make a mecha big enough(OKAY THIS is the final post, I hate how few words I can write in this..)The tank becomes too small. Ever played Command & Conquer Tiberium Wars? The mecha there simply walk over tanks, crushing them or ripping them apart. You underestimate how much time it actually takes to build a tank that can match a mecha, by the time you have, you've lost the war.
All right. Last post. I acknowledge the power of a tank, but in the long run of say anti-gravity field generators, shield systems and the like, yes you can make a massive tank, but it's mobility is always inferior. Hell, to prove the matter I once saw a video of a VERY powerful, FAST tanks engaging a squad of mecha, but the problem was the tank cannons simply did not have the firepower to punch through the mechas armor and the mecha was too fast for the tanks gunner. More pilots: Less armor.
Until then I can simply assume it's Author Preference suddenly taking over. How much bigger is the mecha than the tank? Any applied in-universe pseudoscience?
Because assuming both the mech and tank are made from the same material, a mech can't possibly be better armored than a tank for a given weight.
The age of hand cranked turret has long gone since WWII.
Whereas a tank is utterly destroyed if so much as knocked on it's side. That and turret tracking speed, missile utilization. The tank is simply not mobile enough. In a universe like say Battletech or MechWarrior the tank is viable because the mechs are simply walking tanks. A mecha that can run, wield powerful weaponry and even mount a large titanium shield is going to best a regiment of tanks any day plus it is less expensive to build a mecha than a tank, and you cant drop tanks from the air.
Again the issue is WEIGHT. A shield is heavy. And how the hell is a mecha's gping to be cheaper than a tank!!?? Battletech has some of the most realistic depiction of Mechs beacuse that's how physics work.
Conversely, though, tanks are much harder to topple specifically because it's flatter and squatter. And have you heard of "the bigger they are, the harder they fall"? Have you ever heard about how the T.rex were calculated as having never run? Because at even the slowest speed it would've died if it trips?
theres one factor you are forgeting, i'd love to see a tank driver drive up to a 50ft mech and not soil himself regardless of whatever technological advancements are in place, its called armour peircing depleted uranium coated bullets mate, and a mech has two arms to potentially hold cannons whereas a tank could use two but aim in a single direction per gunner. mechs have less pilots therefore need to be quicker like jet pilots and would have natural reactional advantage, heck watch gundam...
*sigh* Okay, psychological warfare advantage, point taken. However, I've already pointed out a Mech's disadvantage in controlling recoil of bigger guns, so logically tanks can end up with more and bigger guns. A tank can also potentially mount multiple turrets.
And the thing with reactional advantage, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? More operators per machine means the ability to reduce stress on each operator. The driver can react drive faster, the gunner can aim more accurately, and the commander can assess the tactical situation much better. A single pilot, controlling all the systems needed to run a mech (communications, limbs, especially) would be stressed out. Even when i design mech's in my spare time I like to give them two pilots.Like attack helicopters.
Besides, read my description box. You'd probably guess that I love Gundam. It's just that in the series, the advantage Mobile suits have over Tanks is an unfair one: "Author preference"
I suppose if you look at it in a realistic way you're right. But if a mech could move like in games or anime it would clearly be more manouverable than tanks. c: Mechs can also jump/walk over obstacles tanks wouldn't be able to go. And lift up things with their hands besides holding guns. And weight to stamp on tanks.. But yeah D| Physics and stuff..
I mentioned building a bigger tank specifically to prevent that.
-Obstacles:
Ditto. Bigger tank, higher ground clearance
-Weapon variety:
An average tank has an multi-purpose gun. Effective against both other vehicles and infantry. As well as more than enough machineguns to cover blind spots. SOme tanks have anti-aircraft missles. Imagine scaling that up.
-Hands:
Well, I guess that a mechs bonus in versatility. If not too much versatility.
^^ I could not instantly hear/ read the stamp part back,
But if you compare the pictures you used, the mech could still pass way more obstacles than the bigger tank because it can lifts its legs simply higher up. If not jumping as I said before. But maybe bigger tanks can drive through them, I'unno. It's still all fictional but fun to discuss.
You're right. But it's not like Hitler single handedly built designed them himself. He have actual engineers for that. Funny joke actually, I burst out laughing, I really did.
yeah but for entertainment purposes viewers have an easier time empathizing with the robot. even if it's a piloted robot people will empathize with arms and legs a head and so on more than treads and a cannon. Just compare how much money transformers made over tank girl.
Why go bigger? Go smaller. It's faster, less visible, and a smaller target. It could hide easier and use cover better. Providing the weapon could deliver the punch effectively, I'd go for mobility over monstrosity nearly any day.
And I agree at some point, body armour becomes less useful as it grows beyond the size of the body. however, It 'can' visual rhetoric, which 'can' be more effective than a tank.
That's the whole point. Only IF it can deliver the punch. Anyway, your idea for a smaller, stealthier tank is also what i had in mind. But a bigger tank, ii think, can mount more powerful weapons. So Yeah...
Agreed, bigger tank, can pack a bigger punch. But punch doesn't have to necessarly be big to deliver an effective punch. Ex: taking down an ATAT took only a tow rope - probably do the same thing to a mech. or a virus (very tiny) has an effective punch as well (think War of the Worlds). a portable Javalin is effective against tanks. or if we are talking magical materials lazers and lightsabers can cut through metal like soft mud and still be light enought to hold in a hand. ;)
Yeah, fair enough. For the javelin part, but missiles are expensive compared to cannon ammunitions. And even today, a tank gun is way more effective than missiles. It's also immune from being jammed. A portable javelin does sacrifice effectiveness for portability. There's a reason tanks don't just carry stacks of missiles.
A tanks gun is immune from being jammed? I didn't know that.
And I always figured that standard tanks didn't carry missles because of the size of the missles, location the needed to be stored, and exposure to heavy fire (were tanks would be needed) and of course as you said expense. There are missle vehicles but they are not upclose and person type of combat. The goes another issue with Mechs.. they all seem to have missles... magic materials again I supose.
I have a feeling you're getting too serious. Never mind. What i meant by getting jammed is electronic jamming, the kind that screws up the guidance system. Anyway, there are tanks that fire missiles from the cannons. But it's only secondary munition. A conventional round is still more often used. The US is developing a rail gun. A magnetic cannon that can fire solid rounds up to mach 7 with 10 Megajoules energy, probably be ready by 2020. The recoil is going to be tremendous.
Seriously a rail gun? for a moment I thought you said railway gun (kinda old tech). But a rail gun is amazing. I thought they were designed for battleships.
I can think of some uses for giant robots however. Like pulling tanks out of mud when they get stuck, or building tanks in a factory, or brining tanks ammo and beer etc.
eh...I think there are Pros and cons to both the tank and Bipedal tank.. The Bipedal tank can go places treds cannot and just because Bipedals are shown CQC in anime and shows doesnt mean you can't make the snipers that are shown in such shows as well. you could make a Bipedal tank a sniper with the right equipment and software. Also Bipedals DON'T need bridges to cross lakes or bodies of water. So there ar PROS and CONS to both the tank and Bipedal tank design.
melfinam 2 months ago
@melfinam Tanks don't go over bridges, they go underwater, it's been standard requirement for all MBT. Again, a tall profile, is an easy target, and also heavier if you want the same degree of armour protection. Protection wise, a tank is a moving bunker and gun emplacement, this makes it an ideal long range gun platform, it's mass and low profile meaning it can handle the recoil and be stealthy. Most modern tanks can hit targets miles away while moving at speed.
JohnTraviss 2 months ago
true, but the panther is actually a medium tank and did not suffer from mechanical reliability and low speed. The Panther is widely considered the best tank of the second world war because of its deadly combination of armour protection, fire-power, reliability and speed/manoeuvrability.
MrLOLTRAKTOR 2 months ago
@MrLOLTRAKTOR Yeah, it was cool, their unreliability mainly due to rushed production. but it still as heavy as heavy tanks of US forces, so much so that their response to it was actually the Pershing heavy tank. I really should have used Tiger II and it's self-propelled gun variants.
JohnTraviss 2 months ago
@JohnTraviss yeah, that was me just being a bit of a twat ;)
MrLOLTRAKTOR 2 months ago
Darn Straight Tanks will always be better.
VaciliNikoMavich 6 months ago
I'm going to throw a CBU-97 at this thread.
JBnotthescotch 9 months ago
@JBnotthescotch By all means.
JohnTraviss 9 months ago
Tank tracks break because they are made up of joints. Tanks also have joints in the suspension for the wheels. Instead, legs just have 3 joints and legs have greater "travel" than wheel shocks, so they can absorb impacts better. Unlike a tank, a Mech can shift it's center of gravity. Tanks are of a given size because they need to be airlifted and they need to be fast. Increased size is only useful for a bigger gun, but mobile artillery takes care of that.
JBnotthescotch 9 months ago
@JBnotthescotch Sorry, I don't mean to be condescending but I was tired and I literally laughed at what you said in your comment. Again sorry. Now, every single suspension on the tanks' road wheels receive the weight of the tank equally. That they don't need to house servos or actuators, they are by nature, more robust. Take a human leg for example, the hip joints have to support whatever is above it, the knees have to suppoert whatever the hips are supporting the thigh. Continued.
JohnTraviss 9 months ago
@JBnotthescotch continued: So the some parts have more stress than others is what I'm saying. This poses a problem when you factor how much heavier a giant humanoid robot is, and the fact that the legs need to house actuators. Tanks aren't compact primaily for airlifting, the've been shaped that way since the beginning of armoured warfare, to be give the most protection possible with the least weight possible. So a square. I think I'll make a video concerning this concept.
JohnTraviss 9 months ago
@JohnTraviss The pressure exerted on the ground by the track is not the same thing as the load on the front shocks and torsion bars when a tank goes over an obstacle. The travel of a tank wheel is just a fraction of the travel of a Mech leg. Tracks have dozens of links and crews are trained to repair them because they do break. I don't know what you mean by servos and actuators. Because servo does not mean an electric motor coupled to a speed reducer...
JBnotthescotch 9 months ago
@JohnTraviss But if that is what you meant, that doesn't need to be in the legs (I'm sure you have heard of hydraulic actuators and transmission chains). I understand you are saying some parts are under more stress than others, and I agree, that's why the M1 has shocks on the first and last wheels only. Tanks have not been compact from the start: the Jagdpanzer was so heavy and big it was useless. And tanks have weight limits to be able cross bridges (some like the M551 for being airlifted).
JBnotthescotch 9 months ago
@JohnTraviss Regarding the square shape: read about sloped armor. On why tanks are not big, read about the C2, Panzer VIII, IS-3... and in case you have doubts, check out the P.1500. I won't reply to your comments again because this is a waste of my time, sorry.
JBnotthescotch 9 months ago
@JBnotthescotch Ok then, so last comment. Whatever problems tanks DO have, it's only exacerbated by having only few joints in which to support the weight of a mech. Tanks like the Merkava has extraordinary travel on all of their wheels, optimized for heavy armor on the Golan heights. I've alluded to the P.1500 in the video, basically saying by the point there's tech advanced enough to make practical mecha, super heavy tanks will become a viable fighting machine.
JohnTraviss 9 months ago
@JohnTraviss One thing is to have 3 or 4 enclosed bearings per leg as part of a suspension system and another is to have dozens of small non lubricated pad links per track outside the suspension. The travel on a Merkava is probably half a meter at most. If building big tanks were better, the Russians would have designs larger than the T10 but they went the other way around after the 1973 war. Tank size is proportional to armor thickness and gun size, two words: reactive armor and missiles.
JBnotthescotch 9 months ago
@JBnotthescotch By bigger, would be mass. Tanks now still are more massive compared to mechs. Most shows you see, the grand advantage you see in mechs is how they just stomp over mechs, which to me is as dumb as the idea of a giraffe stomping over a fully grown african rhino. Guns are still used on tanks, because they are cheaper. Some tank guns are missile launching to boot, like russian tanks and merkava. This extends the range, but cost around $20k a shot,
JohnTraviss 9 months ago
@JohnTraviss $20k per shot vs $5,000k per tank? Doesn't make sense. Tanks have guns because the designs predate the widespread adoption of effective TOW missiles (20 years ago). The Israeli LAHAT can take out a Merkava at more than twice the range of the Merkava gun. No amount of conventional armor can stop it, that's why different kinds of armors are being used, which are much lither. Tanks are getting lighter, smaller and faster. Just like ships, the fighting is done with missiles, not guns.
JBnotthescotch 9 months ago
@JBnotthescotch True, very true, in these rapidly modernizing battlefield tanks should get more mobile and lighter. But when a 30 foot tall 100 tons two legged starts showing up and to challenge that notion, I'm saying an upscaled tank works better at being big than an upscaled ASIMO, regardless of past failures. And yes, the LAHAT is $20k per unit, a Sabot round, $8k(tops). The gun concept keeps improving to, from the ETC guns to magnetic accelerators. BTW I like how you're being civil here.
JohnTraviss 9 months ago
Yeah I think a small mech that uses steath would be the real mechs. I think If mechs were small and steathy they could win any battle. But big mechs stand out too much and would likely take a heavy pounding unless we find a super light and almost idestructable armor or are super fast evasive flyers but then again missiles could hit them unless it is an AC from AC4 but as far as I know that doesnt exist yet, but you never know. I would rather be a mech pilot though.
newtypeX0009 1 year ago
Run for your lives the TTS is going to destroy us all! GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!! And Nemesis shall rule the world. Period. Tanks are no match for his pixelated rocket launcher, face it.
DaWolfy 1 year ago
I'd would have loved however a show (or game) that would respect tanks and mechs equally.
FritoyezSchumann 1 year ago
@FritoyezSchumann I'm conceiving some kind of mecha series. They're are about 9 meter tall mechs used in lieu with special operation commandos. They and the soldiers they support can be air-dropped or beach land by submarine. They act as light vehicle support. Sticking close to dense jungles and attacking remote enemy outposts. As soon as enemy tanks arrive they pretty much have to fall back and and use mech-based howitzers. Any attempt to directly engage is suicidal.
JohnTraviss 1 year ago
In Battletech (Mechwarrior and similar games) there are giant tanks too (Demolisher II) And light mechs that weight 20 tons.
Why I mostly like Mechwarrior is the fact that the mechs don't fly or roll.
I never seen Gundam because Im put off by flying mechs. (What are starfighters for? lol)
The biggest mechs at "Assault class" are restricted to 100 tons.
In reality Exoskeletons are the more realistic answer to mechs.
FritoyezSchumann 1 year ago
i bet japan will be the first to have mechas
RealBigDaddyD 1 year ago
@mooreonic I really don't care for your opinion on any series. And I am pretty sure about what said.
BrutalWaffle 1 year ago
ummm most Gundams/Zaku have a some type of new age Nuclear reactor for it power supply. I think the only wonder power plant is in Gundam 00.
BrutalWaffle 1 year ago
@BrutalWaffle the only nuclear powered gundams are the justice and the freedom, all others have capacitors, except of course the giant ones in destiny....
this is based on seed, i didnt watch 00 becuase it was gay as fuck......
mooreonic 1 year ago
@BrutalWaffle Universal Century MS use cold fusion reactor. Which , as far as we know, is a wonder powerplant.
JohnTraviss 1 year ago
Well, Giant robot Anime are made to sell toys. Robot toys are cooler than Tank toys.
sihsobhk 1 year ago
The cube square law prevents us from building such large machines like mechs. The amount of energy needed would be vast and the components would have to be able to withstand a vast amount of pressure and stress in order to go at a decent speed.
SupremeCommander360 1 year ago
This is all pretty much true. But if you were given the choice to pilot a mech, or a tank we would all choose the mech. Keep in mind that your choice of a Gundam as an 'average mech' is hilarious, that thing has more plot armour than Jesus.
Rocketcrab32 1 year ago
@Rocketcrab32 I guess I should have used a Zaku. But the argument stays.
JohnTraviss 1 year ago 2
YOU MISS THE FUCKING POINT PEOPLE!! ITS A FUCKING HUGE MECH RUNNING AROUND KILLING SHIT FUCK THE TANKS. ITS A MECH! mech for the win.
axenm21 1 year ago
Both are extremely susceptible to aircraft.
billiamFTW 1 year ago
robot can jump? then its more agile than thank also it can jump trought canyons and tanks can't. but i would choose tank.
weoweno 2 years ago
Wise choice. We're assuming that both are made with similarly advanced tech: equal power plant output, similar construction materials. Tanks now are much more mobile, imagine the future where tanks can have access to even more powerful engines, they'd probably be as quick as a lamborghini.(They almost are now) I often see in animes, the tanks that are destroyed by mecha are slower than WW I tanks, and with similarly pathetic tactics.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
u propaply would like game named gmod. u can build all kind of stuff in that with some addons. i have tested similiar stuff and usually tank wins. but if the robot is made with decent stuff it might be as good as tank. if you get this gmod send me message and i can guide you to build awesome stuff like robots, mechas,tanks,planes and almost anything u can come up with.
weoweno 2 years ago
I've heard about and seen all the videos of gmod. Damn good stuff. But I've never really considered playing. I'm using an expensive but crappy nec notebook. Theorectically decent, but overheats to the point of sudden shut down just playing GUN, or using AVG. Thanks for the suggestion anyway.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
I disagree with that!! If you use an Exoskeleton to build the mech it will be lower than tank.. It will be very useful to have a small mech for a city fight in Irak or Afghanistan! I am working now on some prototypes, 1:12 but there are several problems with it.. the main is financing:) However in my calculations a mech carrying a helicopter gunmachine and rocketlauncher/grenadelauncher is a serious weapon and can add inadequte force to a simple soldier!!
timur19812 2 years ago
@timur19812 Against infantry, awesome. Against tanks, well not so much. as i argued in this video.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
@JohnTraviss What if it were equipped with foot-mounted wheels/treads and a weapons loadout similar to the AH-64D Longbow Apache (1× 30 × 113 mm/1.18 × 4.45 in M230 Chain Gun, AGM-114 Hellfire, & AIM-92 Stingers)? And if it were a powered armor like the one from MADOX 01 or Halo Legends, what would it's combat effectiveness be at that point?
TurnAGundam 5 months ago
@TurnAGundam Foot mounted wheels and tracks give mechs about the same mobility as two small cars?or tanks with a mech standing on them.
JohnTraviss 5 months ago
@JohnTraviss Am I to assume that's not a good thing? And what of the weapons load-out, or the mobile powered armor concept?
TurnAGundam 5 months ago
@TurnAGundam Yes, it's not a good thing. What you have is something that doesn't have the qualities of a tank nor a walker. And with the load out, i feel it's more cost effective to actually use a helicopter, instead of making it redundant, or maybe separating them and mounting these weapons into smaller flying drones.
JohnTraviss 5 months ago
@JohnTraviss Well I thought that the describe powered armors might be good if there's enemy AA that might prove to be a problem unless we replace our Apaches with a helicopter that has the same purpose and firepower of the Apache but with the stealth capabilities of the Comanche, I am to assume I was incorrect with this assumption? Also, the whole drone thing doesn't sit COMPLETELY well with me, I don't like the idea of automating war.
TurnAGundam 5 months ago
@TurnAGundam Comanche got cancelled by DOD because of their increasing interest in drones. So that kind of summarizes my point. Drones aren't automated anyway(yet), being more like RC planes that happened to have autopilot. I don't think ANYONE would ever want drones to operate without human decisions in the loop. Drones are cheap and doesn't endanger the pilot's life. So that's a big incentive for drones.
JohnTraviss 5 months ago
@JohnTraviss Fair enough, though what does that do when the enemy starts getting their grimy hands on ECM equipment? Also, call me old-fashioned or even sentimental, but part of me subscribes to the samurai ideal of war: honor and bravery on the battlefield, choosing when to strike and when to die and all that. Not having to lose fathers, sons, brothers, mothers, sisters, daughters and friends/loved ones on the battlefield is ALWAYS nice, but drones seem to trivialize war. I could be wrong.
TurnAGundam 5 months ago
Comment removed
Collective122 3 months ago
@TurnAGundam As for the powered armors you mentioned. Look at their fights, and their weapons. You'd think they pulled their ammo out of hyperspace. With the size of these armors suggest that their weapon capacity should be much lower than shown. I think the way to go is one of the smaller powered armor you see in FEAR.
JohnTraviss 5 months ago
@JohnTraviss I'm not familiar with those, would you care to explain it for me, please?
TurnAGundam 5 months ago
@TurnAGundam They look like a plated up version of a SARCOS exoskeleton. This is feasible in a decade or two. The weapon is relatively small compared to the armor, meaning there's plenty of space for ammo, armor, and power plant. I would think these will eventually supplement conventional infantry by providing suppression in a bullet resistant armor, that's not big enough to be a missile magnet.
JohnTraviss 5 months ago
I know. I just think openly stating it will never be is a crime against imagination. I´d like to think at some point battles will become so fast paced tanks simply won't do. I'm not against it, I'd LOVE to see a hover tank, though I think it'd be problematic mounting a big gun on something that's no resting upon solid ground, and apology accepted. I'm thinking at some point micro-fusion or maybe hydrogen power cells might supply the energy needed or like in Appleseed a simple combustion engine.
YuunDaisuke 2 years ago
I'm talking about physics and engineering here. Anyone can just imagine a giant humanoid robot, it's fundamental to our nature to personify even inanimate objects. Now, making a functional robot that doesn't comply to this nature, that takes imagination.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
I don't know why I post. To me being able to build a mecha which is far more complicated than a tank signifies technological progression. To me a tank is primitive, it is also useless in all urban environments, tight spaces a mecha can walk between do it in, if anything maybe we'll have powered armor, that's practical right? Tank like armor on infantry? At least tell me that is feasible? Like shock-troops?
YuunDaisuke 2 years ago
Okay, sorry for being hard on you for the past few comments:
Technological progression, yes. But more advanced doesn't always mean more useful. I just think newer technology can be used better in the form of vehicles, including robot-brained vehicles. Unmanned Combat Vehicles, it's called. What I'm against is 18 meter giant walking humanoids. In a military, you have to use all available resources as effectively as possible, and vehicles like APCs, IFVs, and Tanks do just that.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
And a tank is not useless in urban environments. Any mech larger than a car can be just as vulnerable in that env. This is where infantry support is important.
And powered armor is fine. It's fucking badass. And recent development predict it coming in a few decades or so. The only obstacle is powersource.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Crash into and pummel the bridge WITHOUT dying. Kamikazes are primitive and stupid methods of attack I do not under any circumstance approve of. And I am not against tanks, I merely oppose the belief the tank, which even now faces total extinction by the mobile gun platform and soldiers wielding anti-armor rockets, is the future. If anything, mecha will replace it as a front-line unit, with tanks, infantry and gunships as support. And wheels are not that efficient and neither are treads.
YuunDaisuke 2 years ago
AAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaannndddd....why would they try to pummel a ship in the first place? Wouldn;t rockets do just fine? Or make a really tough plane? Besides, not sane real world engineer would make a military ship with the bridge on the outside of the ship. Do your research, many countries right now are withdrawing their decision to replace tanks with mobile gun systems. And anti armor-missiles won't affect mechas....how?
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Mechas are too impractical in combat.
pienipaha 2 years ago
That is true. I'm not saying I am against tanks at all, I am simply tired of people comparing them. A tank is less versatile, less adaptable and less mobile, also let's say humanity enters the space age, a tank will not be useful during ship-to-ship combat and a fighter craft is limited, it cant for instance crash into the enemy ship and pummel the bridge now can it? And the MechWarrior depictions are really just walking tanks, mechs, a mecha is faster, but not as heavily armored I think.
YuunDaisuke 2 years ago
What are you talking about? A tank can go faster than a mecha with the same power available, simply because wheels are much more efficient, why do you think our exploration robots use wheels? And the thing about the space age. A fightercraft would also be more effective, and it CAN crash into an enemy ship and pummel the bridge. Haven't you heard of Kamikaze? Sheeesh
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
That, and make a mecha big enough(OKAY THIS is the final post, I hate how few words I can write in this..)The tank becomes too small. Ever played Command & Conquer Tiberium Wars? The mecha there simply walk over tanks, crushing them or ripping them apart. You underestimate how much time it actually takes to build a tank that can match a mecha, by the time you have, you've lost the war.
YuunDaisuke 2 years ago
Again, with the technology available to build robots as big as the AVATAR, wouldn't they also be able to build a mobile tank-fortress or something?
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
And you underestimate the time it takes to make a mecha to match another mecha.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
All right. Last post. I acknowledge the power of a tank, but in the long run of say anti-gravity field generators, shield systems and the like, yes you can make a massive tank, but it's mobility is always inferior. Hell, to prove the matter I once saw a video of a VERY powerful, FAST tanks engaging a squad of mecha, but the problem was the tank cannons simply did not have the firepower to punch through the mechas armor and the mecha was too fast for the tanks gunner. More pilots: Less armor.
YuunDaisuke 2 years ago
I'd like to see the video.
Until then I can simply assume it's Author Preference suddenly taking over. How much bigger is the mecha than the tank? Any applied in-universe pseudoscience?
Because assuming both the mech and tank are made from the same material, a mech can't possibly be better armored than a tank for a given weight.
The age of hand cranked turret has long gone since WWII.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Whereas a tank is utterly destroyed if so much as knocked on it's side. That and turret tracking speed, missile utilization. The tank is simply not mobile enough. In a universe like say Battletech or MechWarrior the tank is viable because the mechs are simply walking tanks. A mecha that can run, wield powerful weaponry and even mount a large titanium shield is going to best a regiment of tanks any day plus it is less expensive to build a mecha than a tank, and you cant drop tanks from the air.
YuunDaisuke 2 years ago
Again the issue is WEIGHT. A shield is heavy. And how the hell is a mecha's gping to be cheaper than a tank!!?? Battletech has some of the most realistic depiction of Mechs beacuse that's how physics work.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Conversely, though, tanks are much harder to topple specifically because it's flatter and squatter. And have you heard of "the bigger they are, the harder they fall"? Have you ever heard about how the T.rex were calculated as having never run? Because at even the slowest speed it would've died if it trips?
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
You seem to confuse reality with video games.
pienipaha 2 years ago
theres one factor you are forgeting, i'd love to see a tank driver drive up to a 50ft mech and not soil himself regardless of whatever technological advancements are in place, its called armour peircing depleted uranium coated bullets mate, and a mech has two arms to potentially hold cannons whereas a tank could use two but aim in a single direction per gunner. mechs have less pilots therefore need to be quicker like jet pilots and would have natural reactional advantage, heck watch gundam...
KKinsane2009 2 years ago
*sigh* Okay, psychological warfare advantage, point taken. However, I've already pointed out a Mech's disadvantage in controlling recoil of bigger guns, so logically tanks can end up with more and bigger guns. A tank can also potentially mount multiple turrets.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
And the thing with reactional advantage, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? More operators per machine means the ability to reduce stress on each operator. The driver can react drive faster, the gunner can aim more accurately, and the commander can assess the tactical situation much better. A single pilot, controlling all the systems needed to run a mech (communications, limbs, especially) would be stressed out. Even when i design mech's in my spare time I like to give them two pilots.Like attack helicopters.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Besides, read my description box. You'd probably guess that I love Gundam. It's just that in the series, the advantage Mobile suits have over Tanks is an unfair one: "Author preference"
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
I suppose if you look at it in a realistic way you're right. But if a mech could move like in games or anime it would clearly be more manouverable than tanks. c: Mechs can also jump/walk over obstacles tanks wouldn't be able to go. And lift up things with their hands besides holding guns. And weight to stamp on tanks.. But yeah D| Physics and stuff..
kennetho 2 years ago
-Stamp on tanks:
I mentioned building a bigger tank specifically to prevent that.
-Obstacles:
Ditto. Bigger tank, higher ground clearance
-Weapon variety:
An average tank has an multi-purpose gun. Effective against both other vehicles and infantry. As well as more than enough machineguns to cover blind spots. SOme tanks have anti-aircraft missles. Imagine scaling that up.
-Hands:
Well, I guess that a mechs bonus in versatility. If not too much versatility.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
^^ I could not instantly hear/ read the stamp part back,
But if you compare the pictures you used, the mech could still pass way more obstacles than the bigger tank because it can lifts its legs simply higher up. If not jumping as I said before. But maybe bigger tanks can drive through them, I'unno. It's still all fictional but fun to discuss.
kennetho 2 years ago
Not your fault. I didn't actually say that, only implied. People seem to underestimate a tank's ability to crawl over obstacles.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Realistic physics in an anime discussion? I love the smell of dead catgirls in the morning. Smells like greatness.
Joking aside, you forgot the main reasons why the giant tanks of Nazi Germany didn't work: Hitler was not an engineer, and bombers.
AndrewTheEternal 2 years ago
You're right. But it's not like Hitler single handedly built designed them himself. He have actual engineers for that. Funny joke actually, I burst out laughing, I really did.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
yeah but for entertainment purposes viewers have an easier time empathizing with the robot. even if it's a piloted robot people will empathize with arms and legs a head and so on more than treads and a cannon. Just compare how much money transformers made over tank girl.
ratholin 2 years ago
You're right. I'm just tired of people always saying it's a superior fighting machine. I think i already implied this in the description box. KTHXBAI
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Cool
dechha1981 2 years ago
Does the robot voice sound familiar to you? It' the same one you usually use, i just make them lower-pitched so it wouldn't be the same.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Why go bigger? Go smaller. It's faster, less visible, and a smaller target. It could hide easier and use cover better. Providing the weapon could deliver the punch effectively, I'd go for mobility over monstrosity nearly any day.
And I agree at some point, body armour becomes less useful as it grows beyond the size of the body. however, It 'can' visual rhetoric, which 'can' be more effective than a tank.
RosieDesire 2 years ago
That's the whole point. Only IF it can deliver the punch. Anyway, your idea for a smaller, stealthier tank is also what i had in mind. But a bigger tank, ii think, can mount more powerful weapons. So Yeah...
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Agreed, bigger tank, can pack a bigger punch. But punch doesn't have to necessarly be big to deliver an effective punch. Ex: taking down an ATAT took only a tow rope - probably do the same thing to a mech. or a virus (very tiny) has an effective punch as well (think War of the Worlds). a portable Javalin is effective against tanks. or if we are talking magical materials lazers and lightsabers can cut through metal like soft mud and still be light enought to hold in a hand. ;)
RosieDesire 2 years ago
Yeah, fair enough. For the javelin part, but missiles are expensive compared to cannon ammunitions. And even today, a tank gun is way more effective than missiles. It's also immune from being jammed. A portable javelin does sacrifice effectiveness for portability. There's a reason tanks don't just carry stacks of missiles.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
A tanks gun is immune from being jammed? I didn't know that.
And I always figured that standard tanks didn't carry missles because of the size of the missles, location the needed to be stored, and exposure to heavy fire (were tanks would be needed) and of course as you said expense. There are missle vehicles but they are not upclose and person type of combat. The goes another issue with Mechs.. they all seem to have missles... magic materials again I supose.
RosieDesire 2 years ago
I have a feeling you're getting too serious. Never mind. What i meant by getting jammed is electronic jamming, the kind that screws up the guidance system. Anyway, there are tanks that fire missiles from the cannons. But it's only secondary munition. A conventional round is still more often used. The US is developing a rail gun. A magnetic cannon that can fire solid rounds up to mach 7 with 10 Megajoules energy, probably be ready by 2020. The recoil is going to be tremendous.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Ah... got it.
Seriously a rail gun? for a moment I thought you said railway gun (kinda old tech). But a rail gun is amazing. I thought they were designed for battleships.
RosieDesire 2 years ago
They are. But hey, regular guns were also mounted on battleships, before they're put on tanks.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
True... true :)
Great vid...
RosieDesire 2 years ago
Thanks.
Always glad to open a really useless discussion.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
I guess the robot can quickly jump strafe to avoid enemy attacks and that's what would supposedly make them better.
But yeah... it would never work way too many problems, would always be easier to just build a more advanced tank.
xXAkridXx 2 years ago
Yeah, a power-plant that can make a robot strafe jump, could probably make tanks go at the speed of sound.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
I can think of some uses for giant robots however. Like pulling tanks out of mud when they get stuck, or building tanks in a factory, or brining tanks ammo and beer etc.
xXAkridXx 2 years ago
The first one is served by military tractors just fine. The other two. Well, we already have robots doing that don't we?
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
I think perhaps a non-humanoid giant robot model could be superior to the tank but I'm no engineer.
xXAkridXx 2 years ago
Nah, common sense works just fine. There's a reason we need tools and vehicles. The shape of our bodies aren't exactly built for combat.
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
I've always rooted for tanks. Now I can slap people in the face with this every time they say mechas are better.
pienipaha 2 years ago