30th Century Tank vs. 30th Century bipedal 'Mech

Hypothetical scenario.

Since it's nearly impossible to predict how Military technology will go, let’s assume several things.

-There are two generic factions with comparable technology. 20th century politics have no impact on the research, development, and limitations of the two vehicles.

-We'll assume armor is an alloy of safe materials that results in metal with roughly the same density as Depleted Uranium given any thickness.

-Countermeasures for wireless anti-tank missiles are by now firmly in place, and vehicles are protected from attacks by these weapons.

-Lasers have found use as large scale weapons, giving the benefits of hollow charge weaponry with new pros and cons.

The scenario is broad and general. It isn't necessarily Tank vs. 'Mech in one on one combat, but instead a traditional combined arms army against a like army with 'Mechs taking the place of tanks. What has the bigger strategic and tactical advantage? Which is more cost-effective? Why?

Please avoid any references to stupid Japanese Anime shows that have a title that has nothing to do with the plot, such as Bubblegum Crisis. Please avoid references to video games.

Keep in mind that if you're dumb enough to compare a Gundum Wing style 'Mech to a Leopard, you will officially be banished out of the debate.

 

Hmm... interesting.

Pros & cons:

Walkers have a higher sillouette and a higher ground pressure than tanks.
However, there is terrain (like narrow roads, steep slopes, rocky areas, etc) that they can cross and tanks cannot.

Unless your walker is really quite massively chunky (with correspondingly high ground pressure) it will not be able to carry as heavy a weapon or as much ammo / power for it as a tank can.


My initial conclusion, walkers are cool looking, and smaller examples would be good as scout or COIN-Op vehicles, but as a Main Battle Vehicle I reckon that tanks are still a better all-round option.

 

Battle requires horizontal structural strength, not vertical. This goes for stability and strength as well as weapon systems.

 

One thing to consider is when does it stop being a combat walker and start being some kind of power armour?

I would agree with some of the earlier comments and say I can't see mech warrior style giant war machines ever really being a runner (no pun intended)

On the other hand something like this http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/ ... BritCW.htm a small scale walker might be feasible. Particularly in urban situations where conventional tanks don't do well.

Given the progress that the Japanese seem to be making with walking robots there can be little doubt that technologically walkers will soon be possible.

 

Knights in shining armor had their movement restricted, particularly their arms. Would be worse with a suite of armor thick enough to defend against anti-armor weapons. The only way to alleviate this problem would to have exposed joints, and this in itself is problematic for reasons I should hope I don't have to explain.

Another difficulty would be that something like this would have either limited visibility just like a tank, or forgo protection to the whole head area to grant the user greater visibility. The suit would be susceptible to all anti-armor traps and anti-tank weapons.

 

I was thinking more in terms of small arms and splinter protection. You might be able to pack enough armour onto a compact frame to keep out small hollow charge weapons but on the whole small size and mobility being the main protection against larger stuff.

If it does get hit by something biggish it's going to be smeared across the nearest wall.

My thinking in short being bullet proof infantryman rather than small tank.

 

Not really - knights in full battle armour had a good deal of movement - they were perfectly capable of doing handstands, for example.

The reason - joints were left free of plate armour, and filled with chain mail. Obviously, this made them weak, so elaborate covering plates of armour were introduced, that covered an area but did not obstruct moving parts.


Note the circular plates covering the armpits and the odd things over the elbows.

Tournament armour on the other hand was deliberately designed to restrict movement. This helped you to prevail in the highly stylised tournaments, which bore bog-all relation to actual combat (at least they did by the time full suits of plate were introduced).

 

Funny that you would say this, but the very picture you post shows the shoulder guard that keept the arms from bending to the full extend that they would be able to were they unarmored.

 

It was just the first picture I found with both armpit & elbow protection!

The shoulder pieces are lobster-plate, which does allow a degree of stretch.

More importantly, they are only attached at the top, forming a hinge - basically they are curved flaps covering the shoulder - which allows the arms to be raised, although this exposes your armpits. Hence the circular guards.

 

I cannot imagine either still in use at such a distant time. Kinetic weapons may be looked at like a bow and arrow is today. Beam directed weapons based on electromagnetic energy( choose what wavelength you like whether visible light or some more energetic form of radiation) will likely be in use. If kinetic and chemical energy weapons become outmoded(big if, I know) there will be no need for heavy armor plate. Stealth and perhaps reflective surfaces may replace the ceramic, boron, composite armors of today.
As in the dim past it is doubtful that any of our speculations will hit the mark. Something beyond our imaginings that we haven't considered likely will predominate.
Perhaps genetic engineering will remove the human tendencies that make war inevitable Some how I doubt it, though.

 

Mechs will require some of their internal space to be taken up with gyros or other stabilisation gear, not neccessary on a tank - advantage tank.
Hit probablility is a function of target height rather than any other parameter (excluding weapon accuracy, sights and range of course :lol: ) and mechs would be taller than a tank - advantage tank.
The mechanics of manufacturing a mech will be more involved/ expensive than putting wheels and tracks on a box - advantage tank.
Ground pressure (already mentioned) -advantage tank.
Armouring a box is easier than armouring legs/ torso/ arms/ head - advantage tank.
Mechs look cool - advantage mech :lol:
Small mechs - ie armoured men might have a place in warfare, but I can't see mechs (Battletech/ Patlabor style) going into service.

 

So a huge walking machine doesn't seem likely but a metal romper suit does.

As I said think bullet proof infantryman rather than walking tank.

 

Hello again, i'm back.
All goes against the mech.
Only thing on it's side would be mobility and the use you can put it's arms to. Could be useful as engineering vehicles for certain tasks where having hands could be handy (yes, i know :roll: ).

I think more feasible big powered armors than ten-meter-tall-mechs.

And for the "coolness factor", Battletech tanks are way cooler than mechs

 

Good to see you again!

 

All these good points really make me wonder who is the single member who voted for Battlemechs...

 

I voted for battle mechs.

I base this somewhat on watching Gundum Wing and Gundam seed , where tanks are nothing but cannon fodder compared to the bi-pedal mechs or "mobile suits" , but the mechs have their vulnerabilities as we have seen in the original star wars trilogy.

 

CSP you are aware that Mobile Suit Gundam, Macros, Battletech, Bubblegum Crises, Ghost in the Shell, etc are not even closely realistic? They say they are (especially Macros) but they aren't.

 

Puleease...next you will be trying to say that Star Wars didn't actually happen or somethin