Argument Thread OOC Future Tech Only

[Clamparapa]

ROFL, there we go, thats the spirit. Truth is I am so sick of arguing this topic that I have literally just made one mega post argument, as I will literally never attempt to explain 1+1=2 ever again.
Its all about FT and RP, who the frack cares what it looks like, whether its a drone, or a cyborg, or a magic freaking faerie.

That being said I really am game for anything people use, Hell i have fought live dragons with mecha and fighter planes before. Its all good to me.

I agree with this sentiment; use whatever you want as long as both parties agree on it. If someone is an ass and doesn't want to RP with your mechs simply because they are "unrealistic", then don't RP with them in the future.

[No endorse]

lol Tannelorn I don't even



The argument breaks up into two fundamental camps: the "$rule_of_cool" camp and the "$IT'S_FEASIBLE_FUCK_YOU!" camp. I respect the former. (hell, didn't everyone watch Transformers as a kid?) I disagree vehemently with the latter, as does all of engineering knowledge. Rule of cool is fine, but don't you dare try to tell me that these things are more sound scientifically. I WILL NASTRAN YOU IN THE FACE!

[Tannelorn]

More sound then a tank? no not really, seeing as a tank is really just a mechanical millipede, nature does design the best things, doesnt she. No I am stating that there is a new breed of mecha design that has come out in the last ten years that more resemble tanks or aircraft, then mecha. Despite the visual of the AC its designed in the same way as a tank, its motive systems are different.

Chrome hounds is another example of feasible mecha mind you. Truth is, i have done the math, the tank has some volume advantages, but thats it. The mecha's locomotive systems are well protected, it is tall which is good in combat [just as good as short as I explained with historical fact.]
However your theorem only seems to cover mobile suits and destroids. It does not cover mecha that are basically built as a turret on top of a motive system [in AC there are five leg types, humanoid, bird, tank tracks, hover and quad.] with arm servo's. The truth is, this is a fine idea if you can beat the technical challenges. Which are only on ground pressure, and power distribution.

As you said NE, if you have to use big clinky gears and wodgets to move it, its going to be crappy. But if like in battle tech or with robotech masters bioroids you use a frame, you get alot of space, and require very little power for motive systems. I am actually because they are cool camp, however its become a pet peeve after seeing things like AC's and chrome hounds and heavy gears and doing the hard math to realise that Armour and space arent the problem. Its technology.

Nastran away NE, it doesn't matter to me. My FT mecha use several mcguffins to work anyways as I know they are impossible right now. In PMT I would use quads and AHSCA, not mecha. This is FT, and the truth is its not armour and volume thats the problem. Not on an armoured core. Yes on a mobile suit.

[The Fedral Union]

Well I think they'd go out the window if you had troops aiming at their legs with Man portable anti tank missiles.

I mean come on a troop having power armor on will be more mobile then a mech ever will be.

Or just for kicks mine the ground from the air self digging mines shouldn't be a problem in FT.

Also :

I doubt Highly doubt Mech's or mecha would out power a moving land fortress though I am not sure how feasible they are. But usually units have enough AA and AT cover to move around easily.

My point is : have them all you want, they could work as you want but you need to take them with some flaws.

Just like how a tracked unit cant move over a massive ditch or up a steep incline. I assume their uses would be for more urban warfare.


as for bulky gears well....

[No endorse]

Armored cores, chromehounds, bioroids, etc are indistinguishable from a structural point of view. They're identical to Gundams, Megadeus, and any other mecha you can come up with.

Truth is, i have done the math, the tank has some volume advantages, but thats it.

Would you show me numerical simulations? Because the more spectacular the claim (in this case, that anime super mecha designs, or more brown "western-style" versions in this case, are feasible) the more spectacular the proof required. Otherwise everyone in scientific circles would be screaming that a recent experiment in Italy had invalidated the lightspeed limit.

The mecha's locomotive systems are well protected

At absolute best, the powerplant is equally protectect to a tanks. Don't get me started on transmitting that power to limbs.

it is tall which is good in combat [just as good as short as I explained with historical fact.]

If this was the case you'd see soldiers standing tall as they walked forward towards enemy fire. (or how about one standing on the shoulders of another? That sounds like a good idea.)

You do realize the T-72 export version (the one that's seen by far the most real combat) had cardboard armor, right? Also, the T-72 was 2.2 meters tall. The T-64 was 2.2, the T-62 was 2.4, the T-84 was 2.2, the M1 is 2.4. The M60 was 3.2, and is a fairly extreme outlier compared to such things as the Challenger, LeClerc, Leopard, Ariete, Arjun, Type 90, Type 99, all of which are under 2.5. Heck, even Merkava, which is an unusually tall tank to allow for an asston of rpg armor on top, is only 2.7m tall. And there's always the S-tank, which trolled tank designers the world over. The M60's ability was related to the fact that it was well engineered, well built, well crewed, well maintained, and well serviced. (Where are you getting your numbers?)

The M60, and its umpteen billion different forms (Magach, etc), have largely seen combat against Soviet-supplied Arab nations. These Arab nations operated export versions, and then proceeded to not maintain them, remove armor sections off them, produce hilarious monkey models of them, and then put the worst trained crew imaginable in them. But the fact that theT-72 is almost the exact same height as the majority of all operational battle tanks and that export versions suffered equally against various opponents conclusively proves the M60's height advantage.

[Auman]

ROFL, there we go, thats the spirit. Truth is I am so sick of arguing this topic that I have literally just made one mega post argument, as I will literally never attempt to explain 1+1=2 ever again.
Its all about FT and RP, who the frack cares what it looks like, whether its a drone, or a cyborg, or a magic freaking faerie.

That being said I really am game for anything people use, Hell i have fought live dragons with mecha and fighter planes before. Its all good to me.

I agree with this sentiment; use whatever you want as long as both parties agree on it. If someone is an ass and doesn't want to RP with your mechs simply because they are "unrealistic", then don't RP with them in the future.

This debate is the same as 9mm vs .45 ACP... Both sides are retarded in the end as both are adequate for their particular application. The same truth that applies to a 9x19mm projectile putting a hole in a person the same way as a .45 ACP bullet holds for whether or not you like to use a tank or a giant robot in a text based role playing game with no mechanisms for resolving conflict. When you're shot with a bullet, you can die... When a man uses a giant robot in a nerdy online game, he's still as big of a nerd as the guy that draws his own future tanks on MSPaint.

Furthermore... I once invaded an Elven kingdom on Mars. Your arguments are invalid.

[Zepplin Manufacturers]

The armour is the same.

No. No its not. Even if its the same substance and thickness its still not and you still need to waste more for the same amount of enclosed systems which means WORSE power to weight for the same mass. The tank that weighs the same as you and has the same amount of armor in any direction as you mister mecha ..will be FASTER.

verniers to change direction, a mecha can move right by leaning right on its legs like a skater]

VERNIERS? REALLY? What is this 1950?

A leg. Two of them. For two thrusters on STICKS filled with machinery that is not drive systems but LEG THINGS like shock absorbers and power transmission and joints. The tank could have ONE singular vectored output or two, not set venturi for left or right. You have two on HUGE STONKING LEGS that are a waste of space mass and volume good lord if you can FLY on two JUMP JETS why do you have anything more than landing skids! Those legs are making you too high and the wrong shape to even make use of ground effect and taller..and there not really alot of space to cram a main flight drive or jump jet into..

Certainly not as much space as oh ..that tank has.

Taller means you die .

Quoting a recent schlock mercenary webcomic entry ...

" do you know what they call flying soldiers on the battlefield?"

"Skeet"






Okay lets try and get this in a way you understand for just how awfull mecha are.

Take a car.

Rip out most of the drive train.

Now put it on stilts with ball joints in the middle , top and bottom of the stilts.

Now put the wheels on the bottom of the stilts.

Now try and transmit power to the wheels while ALSO mind you being able to "walk" the stilts with ..the same motor.

Now try and give the entire stilt leg areas the same amount of crumple zone as your passenger cabin enclosed in the same nice carbon fiber finish as your hood.

you see where this ends up?

"The tank has more surface area, your correct."

?!?No. It does not. It has LESS. For any enclosed volume. This line is in fact the exact opposite of what I stated. A very nice piece of double think. A double plus good for you even. The square cube law is sort of you know a LAW you can say its crap all you want this will not change it.

At all.

Even slightly

No not even if you ask for fluffy RP.

Here is another example of things that are just ...wrong

"Also, lets be blunt in FT, armour angling wont save you."

It considerably increases the amount of armor between systems and well you the user and the horrible spikey high energy kill death and if your armor scheme is wholly incapable of stopping this even if doubled or tripled in effective thickness then why are you using armor at all.

The rest of it is not quite as bad as just ..but its awfully close. Most of it is i'm sorry just plainly direly wrong.

This is the line.
The line which frankly I will not cross or condone its crossing unless your writing for 12 year olds or a shed pile of cash.

[Thrashia]

Also..this whole low profile thing. Don't let me argue it, let every encounter between an M-60[4,2 meters tall] and a T-72 speak for it. Soviet tanks were all designed to be super stealthy, at only 1.5 meters tall, most soviet tanks are shorter then people. Then why, why did the massive and bulky M-60 slaughter them in droves?

Firstly, an M-60 is 3.2 meters tall, not 4.2 meters tall. Secondly, and I presume that you are referring to the Israeli use of the M-60, the M-60s that the United States gave to Israel were upgraded with ERA packs, better sights, and improved camouflage capabilities. They basically upgraded the tank to such an extent that the exportable T-72s that the Lebanese and Egyptians were using (most times equipped and fielded just as if they came off the factory floor) did not have a chance in hell of beating them in a straight up fight. And if there is one thing you can count on the Israelis for, its that they will not take you up in a straight up fight unless they are the ones that initiated it and drew you in for the slaughter.

Operation Desert Storm is where the Marines used the M60 in a tank battle at Kuwait City against a Hodge-podge of Russian T-series tanks. Not only were the M60s upgraded to the hilt, but the Iraqi army in those positions were ill trained rejects that should not have been used as crew for their respective tanks. Combine that with more effect AT infantry munitions and CAS, it was a cake walk.

1 Being tall or short in the open is meaningless. You gain no advantage in an open field being short, in fact, if your 6 feet tall and I am 30 feet tall, the closer i get the more likely i am to hit top armour. Fun fact, the only way to be shot in the back by a man your facing is if your on your belly and he is standing. I can still see you in the open, it makes no difference.

It fucking means everything. Especially in the open. In the scenario you describe here, I would have killed you before you even started moving forward. A target that big, no matter how fast, is going to get targeted and eliminated ASAP. Having a small, short-as-possible profile is the most important aspect of tank design. With the way automated systems have been gaining ground and the ability for armor to be stronger and lighter, the idea has been to develop a tank that can be as small as possible, take as much punishment as it can to the limit, and be able to dish out twice that amount into the enemy.

2 Being tall in Fibw. Well once again, back to the M-60. The T-72 couldnt fire over the cover it was hiding behind, the M-60 could, leading to many dead russian tanks. Interestingly though, an M-60 cant crouch and kneel, reducing its height by more then half, it also cant go on its belly. A mecha can. So saying a mecha is always going to be super tall is bull. It can do things that a tank cannot.
In fact it can reduce its profile in defensive situations to as low as a tank. Making them more versatile, enabling them to act like turretless tank destroyers. Then your lowness advantage is moot. As well..hover tanks have a high profile as well, just by hovering.

You're still caught on the height issue here. Baseline: lower is better. Higher is dead. Also, just because a mecha is capable of crouching, kneeling, and laying down does not mean that it should. Doing something like that could, and most likely will, cause problems. Example: your mecha is lying down when a barrage comes in and takes a direct hit that requires the pilot to bail before his mecha explodes; but he can't because his pilot seat requires him to get inside through a chest piece, meaning that he is stuck inside his nice, new mecha coffin. On a tank you always know where your exits are and the only time in which you need be worried is if you fall into a chasm...which happens to be just as dangerous to mecha coincidentally.

3 the mecha tend to have sensors in the head, meaning they can not only see over cover, but the sensors will see over it. A tank hiding in a wood can kill a mecha, but a mecha can also hide in a wood and kill a tank. If that mecha gets in the wood with the tank the tank wont do so well.

Any kind of armored vehicle or fighting machine is going to be at a disadvantage in a wooded area. While height will sometimes give you a visual advantage, in the scenario you describe the tank will be even more camouflaged than the mecha, who has to look down through masses of foliage to see. Also, tanks (just like mecha should) will be operating in coherence with support units. Support units that will usually be taking any local high ground to "see over cover" and watch out for their better armored and up-gunned friends.

4 Ground pressure, once again technology can fix it, and I never argued that. As I said its infeasible modern wise, but if we had the tech as I said that could make an AC move like an AC, then it would be just as effective as it is in the game series. My mecha weigh 60 odd tonnes, but when there generator is on and Artificial gravity goes, they wind up resting on the ground with only ten tons of pressure. Thats how I icly fix it. Its not anti grav, just a little mass compensation. I will hand to you that I dont have the ground pressure answer. But I also cant tell you how to go faster then light.

If a mecha can have an "artificial gravity generator" then so too can a tank. This isn't even a valid point of your argument. Now you're just saying that "I have this!" and then I turn and go "and I have it too..." and that pretty much gets us back to square one.


------------------------

Ultimately, I believe that if people want to use mecha then they should of course be allowed to do so. However, please do not go about saying that it is better than a tank because of the reasons you listed above. That reasoning is...its just not logical from a military perspective. Sorry. I don't mean to be an ass or sound like a jerk, but that's how it is.

[Manitheren]

Did I start this argument...?

[OMGeverynameistaken]

I'd point out that the 'lower is better' comes with a diminishing return. S-Tank, remember?

Also, Star Wars nations aren't allowed to criticize people for using mecha.

[Thrashia]

I'd point out that the 'lower is better' comes with a diminishing return. S-Tank, remember?

To that extent, correct. But the lower profile you can manage without going the Swedish route, the better.

Also, Star Wars nations aren't allowed to criticize people for using mecha.

Pfft. We're the gray zone in between. We can do all the criticizing we want.

[Tannelorn]

Whoa thrashia, I never said mecha were better then tanks, in fact I said 99% of mecha were quite the opposite. As I said armoured core style mecha were feasible with FT technologies, and were analogous to hover tanks or grav gunships. I said I used mcguffins to solve problems I could not with modern tech, like the myomers over a skeleton to free up space that would otherwise be full, as well as light antigrav to lessen the weight. I actually was comparing the AC mecha to a grav tank, so the tank would already have this.

I admitted I could only show that this particularly design was not an abomination against machinery, and with its design features being so close to actual military vehicles, you couldnt say it was actually less well armoured. As the main body is just like a tanks turret, and like a tanks turret is the most likely thing to be hit in combat.

The only thing I argued was feasability of AC styled mecha, which as described above, are a multi configuration chassis, based on a core. Which is either a snubbed aircraft style body [fast air hugging ones] or like a tank turret. These can as I said go on five different motive systems. You can literally make uber tanks and hover tanks in the AC series. Also, my mecha have ejector seats thank you, that fire out the top after firing off the head.[just like in macross/robotech]

As for the line of sight, Thrash. WW II the tanks were shooting at each other through tiny vision slits. Even then having the high ground in the open was better. In modern warfare especially, with radar and sensors, units in the open know exactly where the other is long before they reach weapons range. Being tall is also good as it is in nature, to be able to see each from long distances. Though you will see my thirty foot tall mecha [or uber tank], I will see you back as my sensors have a higher baseline perception. It is also true that the M-60's and even M-1's got kills against enemy that could not raise their gun over the cover they were hiding behind.

Rolling hills and broken terrain is where the best form is low slung units, for ambushes. In the fields of russia, the much bigger german tanks could see the russian tanks from miles off. There are cases of 7 tigers or panthers killing 50+ russian tanks before they could enter range, and the T-34 was lower then the tiger by alot. This was with vision slits. Nowadays tanks have monitors showing the terrain, ground penetrating radar, ladar in some cases.

Thats what I am saying about the open, hover tanks and mecha that hover [or a really fast bird leg i guess] and grav tanks are very high, but will still see the enemy long before weapons range is reached. That is unless its camouflaged in some way with a cloak or the like. In FT particularly where optical sensors would be utterly amazing, its doubtful that anyone wouldnt see each other in the open. In fact open field combat would likely utterly dissappear, or be terrifying attritional conflicts like in 40k.

Ok I hope that clears it up thrashia, not saying low totally sucks, just open field engagement is not where modern low slung vehicles have the advantage now, its the rolling hills, hedge rows, partially wooded areas, deserts with lots of mesa's and dunes. Anywhere that you can hide from not only optics, but sensors, while still having long kill alleys. Also, a crouching mecha can still jump out of the way of an explosion better then a tank in cover. Not trying to argue tactics, just wanted to clarify that this lower is better stuff is not all its cracked up to be. Remember the M1's recently got upgraded with high cupola's, total height with the armoured cupola [which has alot of sensors and a MG] is over 4 meters.

As I said i would totally agree with you with old tanks, but nowadays being tall is made up for by visual LOS, while being short is made up for with being harder to spot. In the open neither of these two are advantages any more. Mere modern tech pretty much killed that with ground penetrating and ground radar systems becoming standard, as well as advanced optics and gunnery stations for tank captains.

So what I am saying is in FT it will likely matter little in open conflict who is tallest or shortest, but who is either heaviest and toughest, or fastest with the most firepower. Remember FT tracked tanks could engage grav ships with ease with energy weapons, thus negating the height advantage they have. So hovertanks, hovering mecha [AC's and the like] and grav tanks would be a better choice to take on such tanks [or other tracked tanks]. As they can still see them, and their core [turret/hull/body] is going to likely be tougher then a grav gunships, as grav gunships are often made for speed and firepower.

That being said I am taking the time to say this again, and hopefully kill the argument...I never said mecha were better then tanks, only that One style of them, the armoured core would be lighter and carry the same central armour if they were designed right, and thus be feasible with future tech as an alternative. I actually dont think walking tank style mecha are very feasible even in FT, unless they have some serious motive power in the legs, or some seriously wonky armour and shielding. I also stated my own mecha were designed over years trying to make things more feasible. Icly, we dumped old school mecha for frames because of the very problems No endorse stated in his thesis.

The FT mcguffins [mass dampeners, neural nets and frames and myomers] are simply to solve a mechas real problems with future technology, like ground pressure and internal space. I already assumed a grav tank would have a big grav drive in it as it will likely weigh 10-20 tonnes more then the mecha that is supposed to be its equivalent. [Lets stress that word, equivalent!!!]

In fact my own mecha are actually hunter killer units on ground/inatmosphere and not strike or heavy assault like a hover tank or fighter. In robotech, unlike macross, veritechs didn't totally take over. In fact a well designed veritech that was not as agile or fast in the air [or long ranged in space] as its predecessors took over the role of fleet defense and marine landing aerial superiority duty as well as cavalry mecha, while numerous fighters, destroids and heavy hover tanks did the job of strike, interceptor or heavy ground assault.

My hellebarde mecha is the equivalent to an MBT though, as it has the most carrying capacity. So yeah, just arguing the validity of one type of mecha, that is designed like a tank/strike aircraft if we had the right technology to do it. And only because the AC is amongst the only truely military designed mecha I have ever seen. Its essentially a turret on legs, with arms and a hover secondary maneuver system. In the actual AC game there is a generator in the core and a sub capacitor in the legs depending on its motive system.

I also never said they would be as tough as an FT tracked tank, nor carry as big a gun. However with energy weapons, the size of the weapon doesnt need to be as huge to matter. Though my mecha really rely on missiles and energy weapons for any real punch. The kinetics are sub weapons normally, unless the person loads up entirely with Xaser or nuclear shape charged rounds.

So, lets get on to discussing something more interesting, as it seems at this point people think I said mecha are better then tanks <.< this is FT, and as I said, I have fought dragons. Everything [including walking tanks] are considered A ok to me. Icly, my mecha are awesome because I have few of them, and only good pilots get to use them, and I put alot of work in to them over the years..and I like them. The fact I tried to make them feasible is not something I should have to argue over. As I said I tried to make them feasible, but i still had to use magical technologies we dont have to do so.

[Sskiss]

Hmmm... All this talk on mechs vs tanks got me thinking. While I chose the equivalent of a grav-tank (albeit an alien looking one) for my ground forces. I was wondering if some of the larger forms of Sskiss (which I see as basically heavy infantry) could qualify as "mech-like" even though they are alive. The largest forms can reach lengths of up to 12-15 meters on average and about half that in height.

[Vocenae]

The thing about mechs vs tanks is coming from our human thought process and technnological development. Tanks were designed to break trench warfare, and we improved upon it's design to carry a big gun. That is why we have and will continue to have them as our main mode of mechanized firepower on the ground.

But take a alien race that may have never needed to cross fast open ground of no man's land in something that could protect them from bullets. Maybe this race developed with only infantry based warfare and thus thought 'hey, this works, we should make robots that can do this and carry larger heavier and more weapons than we could'. Thus, the alien race uses mech since that is the way the technology developed.

Long story short, don't immediately go on the warpath against people who use mmechs because we honestly can't writie them off as impossible or inpractical simply because we don't have any experience with the real thing or anything non-human.

[Arthropoda Ingens]

The thing about mechs vs tanks is coming from our human thought process and technnological development. Tanks were designed to break trench warfare, and we improved upon it's design to carry a big gun. That is why we have and will continue to have them as our main mode of mechanized firepower on the ground.

But take a alien race that may have never needed to cross fast open ground of no man's land in something that could protect them from bullets. Maybe this race developed with only infantry based warfare and thus thought 'hey, this works, we should make robots that can do this and carry larger heavier and more weapons than we could'. Thus, the alien race uses mech since that is the way the technology developed.

Long story short, don't immediately go on the warpath against people who use mmechs because we honestly can't writie them off as impossible or inpractical simply because we don't have any experience with the real thing or anything non-human.

Tanks were designed on the basis of cars - add some armour to protect from bullets, a gun to shoot people, and give it tracks to deal with the shitty, wheel-hating terrain.

Armour, guns, wheels & tracks all existed previous to tanks. And they're the tank's basis.

For your scenario, 'No no-man's land' isn't enough. The civilisation in question must never have invented the wheel, and gone through the entirety of its industrial revolution without ever building trains or later, cars. Otherwise, all the base technologies needed for tanks are already there, just waiting to be combined.

To go the mechanically dramatically more complex (And dramatically less efficient) route leading to mechas, this civilisation would've to invent mechanical, legged carriages instead of the wheel (And actually keep up a decent speed of development despite its now dramatically reduced productivity, not to mention its peoples' evident thick-headedness).

A bit silly, tbh.

[Thrashia]

As for the line of sight, Thrash. WW II the tanks were shooting at each other through tiny vision slits. Even then having the high ground in the open was better. In modern warfare especially, with radar and sensors, units in the open know exactly where the other is long before they reach weapons range. Being tall is also good as it is in nature, to be able to see each from long distances. Though you will see my thirty foot tall mecha [or uber tank], I will see you back as my sensors have a higher baseline perception.

WWII tanks had target reticules similar to what you might find on a modern day sniper rifle. They weren't aiming out of a slit hole down the line of the barrel. You might be confusing the driver's view port for that.

Also, as a person who has fought in "modern warfare" commanding an M1 Abrams, I can tell you that radar and sensors are not to be relied upon. A good tank commander still has to rely upon what the naked eye can tell him. This is gradually changing with the increase in camera technology, allowing for more accurate visual information to be gotten more quickly, but it still has to be analyzed by the human eye. There are ways to mask tanks in such terrain as the desert from sensors. The Iraqis came up with a few interesting ones during the time I was there. They learned quickly not to operate at night with vehicles because they knew our thermal sights would catch them with their pants down.

It is also true that the M-60's and even M-1's got kills against enemy that could not raise their gun over the cover they were hiding behind.

Far as my experience is concerned and the manner in which tanks are deployed in a hull-down position, such a happen-stance never happened. Or else the enemy tank driver was momentarily driving into cover to avoid contact. No tank commander is ever going to be in a prepared position where their gun and sights have no ability to see at least a 180-degree front. Also, a position big enough to hide the tank that high would be retarded for the fact that it would be spotted immediately by either aerial surveillance or by anyone approaching that position. It would stick out like a sore thumb.

Rolling hills and broken terrain is where the best form is low slung units, for ambushes. In the fields of russia, the much bigger german tanks could see the russian tanks from miles off. There are cases of 7 tigers or panthers killing 50+ russian tanks before they could enter range, and the T-34 was lower then the tiger by alot. This was with vision slits. Nowadays tanks have monitors showing the terrain, ground penetrating radar, ladar in some cases.

This is not a case of higher profile or lower profile. This is a case of bad armor tactics.

Thats what I am saying about the open, hover tanks and mecha that hover [or a really fast bird leg i guess] and grav tanks are very high, but will still see the enemy long before weapons range is reached. That is unless its camouflaged in some way with a cloak or the like. In FT particularly where optical sensors would be utterly amazing, its doubtful that anyone wouldnt see each other in the open. In fact open field combat would likely utterly dissappear, or be terrifying attritional conflicts like in 40k.

Even FT sensors will still have trouble analyzing and perceiving a threat in many types of terrain. Just because we are operating in FT terms does not mean our equipment is omniscient. To say otherwise is a god-mod imo. Any combat will never be under ideal conditions, and there is always the chance that battles of attrition will take place.

Ok I hope that clears it up thrashia, not saying low totally sucks, just open field engagement is not where modern low slung vehicles have the advantage now, its the rolling hills, hedge rows, partially wooded areas, deserts with lots of mesa's and dunes. Anywhere that you can hide from not only optics, but sensors, while still having long kill alleys.

I understand what you are trying to say, but at the same time I must simply say that I do not agree. Height is going to be a disadvantage to everything unless it is designed to be strong enough to take the eventual punishment that will be coming for it, and even then it can be a bad idea.

Also, a crouching mecha can still jump out of the way of an explosion better then a tank in cover. Not trying to argue tactics, just wanted to clarify that this lower is better stuff is not all its cracked up to be. Remember the M1's recently got upgraded with high cupola's, total height with the armoured cupola [which has alot of sensors and a MG] is over 4 meters.

The speed of an explosion is going to be faster than any mecha ever designed. Otherwise you'd have seen the Gundams back in Gundam Wing flying away from impact craters without suffering from anything other than shock force. Also, the new M1 upgrade packs are meant to be a shift in the strategic use of armored tanks in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the threat is no longer enemy tanks but enemy snipers. Everything is dictated by circumstance of the combat ground.

As I said i would totally agree with you with old tanks, but nowadays being tall is made up for by visual LOS, while being short is made up for with being harder to spot. In the open neither of these two are advantages any more. Mere modern tech pretty much killed that with ground penetrating and ground radar systems becoming standard, as well as advanced optics and gunnery stations for tank captains.

It is still a large part of modern day tank design. And again, while the technology is improving, it is the human eye that must still be relied upon.

So what I am saying is in FT it will likely matter little in open conflict who is tallest or shortest, but who is either heaviest and toughest, or fastest with the most firepower. Remember FT tracked tanks could engage grav ships with ease with energy weapons, thus negating the height advantage they have. So hovertanks, hovering mecha [AC's and the like] and grav tanks would be a better choice to take on such tanks [or other tracked tanks]. As they can still see them, and their core [turret/hull/body] is going to likely be tougher then a grav gunships, as grav gunships are often made for speed and firepower.

Still caught on the idea of height being the advantage here, or so I am reading. I think you were trying to be clear here but I am not fully understanding you. I think I am, but I don't want to make presumptions.

So hovertanks, hovering mecha [AC's and the like] and grav tanks would be a better choice to take on such tanks [or other tracked tanks]. As they can still see them, and their core [turret/hull/body] is going to likely be tougher then a grav gunships, as grav gunships are often made for speed and firepower.

This is the part that I'm not fully getting...it seems convoluted.

That being said I am taking the time to say this again, and hopefully kill the argument...I never said mecha were better then tanks, only that One style of them, the armoured core would be lighter and carry the same central armour if they were designed right, and thus be feasible with future tech as an alternative. I actually dont think walking tank style mecha are very feasible even in FT, unless they have some serious motive power in the legs, or some seriously wonky armour and shielding. I also stated my own mecha were designed over years trying to make things more feasible. Icly, we dumped old school mecha for frames because of the very problems No endorse stated in his thesis.

I don't mean to say that I thought you said mecha were better than tanks. I was merely trying to correct you in terms of tank design and military use.

The FT mcguffins [mass dampeners, neural nets and frames and myomers] are simply to solve a mechas real problems with future modern technology, like ground pressure and internal space. I already assumed a grav tank would have a big grav drive in it as it will likely weigh 10-20 tonnes more then the mecha that is supposed to be its equivalent. [Lets stress that word, equivalent!!!]

Fixed part of that for you. That's another thing I've always thought was silly. People presume that because modern technology requires something to be a certain size, that FT equivalents must be the same size or bigger. I don't see why a well designed FT grav engine shouldn't be the same size as a four-cylinder Volkswagen engine, thereby avoiding the weight issue...

I also never said they would be as tough as an FT tracked tank, nor carry as big a gun. However with energy weapons, the size of the weapon doesnt need to be as huge to matter. Though my mecha really rely on missiles and energy weapons for any real punch. The kinetics are sub weapons normally, unless the person loads up entirely with Xaser or nuclear shape charged rounds.

I just have to say that it doesn't matter so much how they move or what their weapons are, depending more upon how they are deployed.

[Auman]

:shock: Did I start this argument...?

Don't blame yourself, bro... This argument is always simmering under the surface of legitimate discourse, waiting to explode into the public forum. As far Tannelorn arguing tanks with Thrashia, Lt. Dan was an officer in the cavalry in Iraq... He's a military history major and generally, I trust his opinion when it comes to tanks and fully believe it is pointless to argue the fact with him and more productive to ask his opinion on it instead. That said, this debate is fucking stupid.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

For your scenario, 'No no-man's land' isn't enough. The civilisation in question must never have invented the wheel, and gone through the entirety of its industrial revolution without ever building trains or later, cars. Otherwise, all the base technologies needed for tanks are already there, just waiting to be combined.

Hmmm...An alternative timeline where the Aztecs and Inca wage a colonial war in Europe using huge mechanical walkers...

[Arthropoda Ingens]

For your scenario, 'No no-man's land' isn't enough. The civilisation in question must never have invented the wheel, and gone through the entirety of its industrial revolution without ever building trains or later, cars. Otherwise, all the base technologies needed for tanks are already there, just waiting to be combined.

Hmmm...An alternative timeline where the Aztecs and Inca wage a colonial war in Europe using huge mechanical walkers...

And sacrifice magic.

Can't forget the sacrifice magic.

[Thrashia]

Hmmm...An alternative timeline where the Aztecs and Inca wage a colonial war in Europe using huge mechanical walkers...

And sacrifice magic.

Can't forget the sacrifice magic.

That is totally what almost killed Cortez. It is known.

[Interstellar Planets]

At the end of the day, we all know that the tank will be the superior platform to the mech - even in the future, any technological advances you can place on a mech can also be placed on a tank, and the tank is just more stable, more effectively armoured and harder to hit - but the Rule of Cool dictates that big stompy robots are cool. I'm not going to be the one to say somebody can't deploy a big stompy robot to the battlefield, so long as they don't try to wank them into superiority. I shall enjoy shooting their legs off as much as I enjoy pulling the legs off daddy long legs.

[Arthropoda Ingens]

I shall enjoy shooting their legs off as much as I enjoy pulling the legs off daddy long legs.

You're a horrible person.

[Balrogga]

I shall enjoy shooting their legs off as much as I enjoy pulling the legs off daddy long legs.

You're a horrible person.

If it makes you feel any better I will support you pulling his legs off too.

Fair is fair.

[Interstellar Planets]

I shall enjoy shooting their legs off as much as I enjoy pulling the legs off daddy long legs.

You're a horrible person.

THEY BUZZ IN MY FACE WHEN I'M TRYING TO SLEEP!

[Tannelorn]

Good at least people realised what I was saying, though interstellar, I do work with industrial machinery, and as i said one of our CNC machines once smashed itself with a steel bar, mil grade as hard as a 105 mm standard round would hit it. The motor was sliced in half, the mounts were shooken up, but the machine held. Despite being struck full on.

When i said an FT mecha [based on Armoured cores Onry!!!] would be feasible, i did state there were mcguffin technologies [ the single most important being the skeletal frame and muscles, which let me shove all my motive power in a 8 inch diameter cylinder.] involved that tanks really couldnt use [ok one tech, the tank doesnt need it]. Like the frame .

This frame [internal skeleton with myomer musculature[] is why my mecha are structurally tough, so the legs arent weak, besides being behind a "demon leg" armour plate the joint would have to be struck with as much force as you would to through and through the core [body.], which is basically a tank turret. The frame also frees up a hell of alot of internal space in the limbs, though we use that to keep our surface area down and just carry or mount guns. See, a mcguffin technology.

I also never once said a mecha would be more stable , walking tanks don't really work, I don't have any. We use regular tanks to carry big, big guns. Although really our regular tanks are meant to engage not only other tanks, but bolo's and the like. The mecha can do it too, but they are much more geared to killing regular sized units.

As for why we use mecha? We are originally robotech canon [ic we made the frames when we realised that without the mcguffin of protoculture, our Veritechs sucked], that means we inherited thousands of years of knowledge on mecha from the tirolians. So we didn't even make them ourselves, the reason they are good at all is that we had the people that invented them [but who NEVER used veritechs] help redesign them for us.

As I said, I wont even try to defend other mecha, though people can still use them. Also interstellar, i have always said my mecha are closer to hovertanks in toughness and ability..as they have hover jets and "skate" in the open. I don't like destroids and battle mechs, hell when i play battle tech i make armoured corps [yay improved jump jets].

As for height thrashia, its about the open field i meant, where hover tanks and grav tanks and gun ships and tracked tanks and flying mecha all fight. In wide open spaces without camouflage [i did mention stealth tanks ] enhanced optics on FT stuff would make height moot. in the rolling terrain you described..well I agreed with you . In particular the FT optics and the like would mean that regardless of hiding and tricks, an open fight would just be a blood bath, everyone would see everyone [we are talking kursk or the great plains like saskatchewan here] from outside range, then it would be all about the tank dogfight and maneuvering..and not dying to artillery, missiles, horrible war ships and orbital bombardment.

Also before anyone mentions it, I did say FT tanks made russian style would likely have less surface area then even an AC styled mecha, this is because they have way less surface area then a regular tank. [Was doing lots of maths at work while waiting for cycles to finish.] I also wish my doga was not virused, so I could show you the new designs i have been working on <.<. The only new one i have is a Variable maneuver frame, more in common with a gun ship or fighter so its not meant to have low surface area <.< or be super, super tough.

Note, I realised not everyone may know what a demon leg mecha is, so this is an example, the calf is directly behind the knee and the thigh never fully straightens out. This one is from AC 4, there for it is more shielded, less meant to be a tank, more an aircraft.

There is also triangle legged designs, these are the two ones that actually manage to keep surface area under control..and what I was referring to in the original argument. Either of those designs have very low leg surface area's, as they are either cylinders, or have only three sides to armour, not four.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o133 ... 25/ac1.jpg
here is a second demon leg design.
http://images.wikia.com/armoredcore/ima ... er_Age.jpg
Older design though, so not as good as AC 3's [which i consider the best] probably amongst the first demon leg designs.
V leg or triangle leg.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o133 ... 5/Vleg.jpg
bad picture.