Why tanks dominate...

*Read This*
An argument why mecha can't be used for real life combat. BTW i love mecha animes, I don't hate mecha in general, I'm just proposing why, despite the awesome factor, giant fighting robots are impractical.

Script:
This, is your
average tank.

This, is your
average combat robot.

As you can see, there's a size difference.

Usually, in medias depicting these two in combat, the robot is so vastly superior, it effectively ended the age of tank superiority. The factors that make tanks deadly, armor, mobility, and firepower, nullified. The faction that posess these robots completely dominate until someone else develop similar robots.

What puzzles me is, it never occurs to anyone simply to build a bigger tank. A tank is a much better platform to mount more powerful weapons, since the tanks lower profile gives stability to stand it's recoil. A modern main battle tank has a kill range of around 2500 meters, whereas most robots are shown fighting in close quarters. And because of its blocky shape it can also grant greater protection for a given amount of weight. Tank tracks also give good mobility since it's based on caterpillars feet. It's also stealthier than giant robot feet that slam in to the ground.

Of course, the obstacle to building giant tanks is the same one with the giant tanks of nazi germany during world war 2. Namely, power source and structural weakness. During world war 2, heavy tanks like tigers and panthers, despite being deadly, suffer from speed and reliability issues. These heavy tanks are slower than the lighter tank of the allies. Tank parts crack and break under the weight of the tanks.

However, these are the same obstacles that giant robots face. Because walking propulsion, believe it or not, is quite inefficient. Try comparing walking to cycling. Also, a giant robot's weight place extreme stress on the leg-joints. A bipedal stance also exerts excessive pressure on the ground, as opposed to tank tracks.

So whatever technology that is used to grant these robots combat effectiveness, can be used for giant tanks as well. Whatever magic powerplant used for the robots, use them on the tanks. Whatever magic materials to construct the robots, use them on the tanks as well.

In the end, with the same technology, you can make a deadlier fighting vehicle in the shape of a tank.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• tank
• robot
• mecha
• science
• technology
• johntraviss

[melfinam]

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.

[JohnTraviss]

@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.

[MrLOLTRAKTOR]

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.

[JohnTraviss]

@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.

[MrLOLTRAKTOR]

@JohnTraviss yeah, that was me just being a bit of a twat ;)

[TurnAGundam]

@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.

[JohnTraviss]

@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]

@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.

[TurnAGundam]

@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.