Originally Posted by CutterJohn
Indeed. They wouldn't replace tanks. They would exist in addition to them, to go places tanks can't. They would have less armor, and would, as you say, want to avoid mud/soft ground like wheeled vehicles.
On smooth flat surfaces, you are correct. There are plenty of obstacles in terrain where the superior maneuverability of a mech would be a significant aid.
|
Like what? Tracks are relatively all-terrain which is why they are used, effectively the only terrain a tank cannot cross is a jungle. Tracks spread the weight extremely effectively compared to a footpad, a huge amount of the weight is resting in a very small area that would just sink it catastrophically into any muddy terrain.
Originally Posted by CutterJohn
The body could turret like mechwarrior does. And large bore cannon are nice if you can use them, but not the only option. Missiles that can kill tanks are commonly carried by infantry. Also, since their niche is rough terrain, they can expect to not encounter a whole lot of armor. Smaller cannon(like the 30mm on the APCs) would be suitable for anti infantry and air defense work.
If the form is like a standard mech, then the arms would stabilize the weapons if needed.
|
There's a reason we still use cannons on tanks and don't just use missiles, missiles are highly expensive, inefficient in the role as a ground weapon. Missiles traverse distances very slowly compared to SABOT rounds which is why only a few MBT's have cannon fired missiles. The only advantage is a slightly increased range, there are also multiple tank defense systems against ATGM's such as SHTORA and TROPHY both of which are battle tested. A missile also affords little versatility as a cannon can be switched to HEAT, FRAG, Canister or APFSDS very quickly and avoid being shackled in a very small role.
Originally Posted by CutterJohn
Missiles = no recoil, and its guns are smaller, meant for AA, AI, or light AV work.
|
So it's effectively an IFV then? What makes it any better than an IFV. IFV's apply less force on the ground than a soldier due to their large treads ,they are amphibious, have sidewinders, TOW Missiles, Autocannons, can carry troops, have a low profile, emit low amounts of heat, are astoundingly all-terrain. An IFV has a small profile and a low centre of gravity, how the hell is a mech going to climb a steep slope without tipping over like it's in a comedy?
Originally Posted by CutterJohn
True enough now. In the future its impossible to say. Many weapons we use today, especially aircraft, but also tanks and APCs, would be considered extremely complex by the standards of 50 years ago.
|
No it's not impossible to say, our technology may have advanced but we don't have tanks the size of Battleships due to limitations in surface area to volume ratio, power to weight and structural limitations. Anything that improves a mech would improve a tank, why would we make a tank that stood upright and ran on two tiny tracks? Because it would just sink into the ground, it would present a huge target and it would tip over easily.
Originally Posted by CutterJohn
A mech would not be a tank. Stop comparing it to one. Because of issues with foot loading, it would be a small vehicle, intended for infantry support operations in rough/city environments or scouting work. Its possible armaments would not include large bore tank cannon. It would field missiles, light cannons, and/or gatling guns. Its complexity would be an issue, but being the only vehicle that can keep up with infantry in certain more extreme environments, it could have a modest niche.
|
Then why are we using these extremely complex and expensive machines, all vehicles can keep up with infantry in any existing condition except perhaps Jungle. Even then we have mechanisms to clear paths for vehicles in jungle and the support for infantry is a helicopter in those conditions which is far more mobile and versatile than a mech would ever be, in a city why would we not use IFV's, APC's or MBT's which both operate in these environments often with infantry screening.
Also you could never equip a vehicle with autocannons, gattling guns and missiles, More =/= Better.
Originally Posted by CutterJohn
If it could swap gun mounts for proper arms, it could also prove an extremely useful tool behind the lines as a general utility vehicle for moving loads, preparing fortifications, clearing debris, etc. Tbh, thats probably where it would start out at.
|
This is about the only use for a mech, as a human sized suit to provide engineering or load-lifting support. Even then in a battlefield environment it would probably be useless, this is why we have MBT's modified with cranes, ploughs and load-bearing equipment to do fortification and engineering.