Mechs versus Tanks

[KriegsMeister]

*edit*yeah sorry this was a bit of a drunk post last night, I really need to stop drinking german beer. I will edit it later to be a bit more coherent and actually relevant or just delete completely depending on whether or not anyone else is still interested in this sort of topic


First of I want to say "Hi!" this is my first real post on this forum other than my little intro/whining post seen here (and yes, I am fishing for more welcome greetings so please feed my ego) and secondly I want to warn that this is not really a discussion on LAB vs LightTank or Percy vs Othuum but rather the actual IRL mechanical and tactical benefits of a walking mech vs more traditional modes of travel, and this isn't the first time I have posted this sort of thread, I have placed similar material in several other sci-fi forums and have still yet to find a good counter.

So, moving on, we all should know that in supreme commander (and pretty much all sci-fi) there are a lot of various different pedal based weapon platforms commonly referred to as mechs/robots/walkers... but really what are their advantages over more conventional modes of travel such as wheels and tracks. However, the way I see it, walkers actually do not have any advantages and even have more disadvantages that in IRL would keep giant robotsh wit lazuh beemz only in the fanatasies of sci-fi nerds.

One of the most obvious flaws in walker designs is just the structural weakness and giant "shoot me, I am important" target that occurs when you put something on legs. What happens when johnny decides to sweep the leg, or when you get a swarm of snow speeders attaching tow hooks to the legs and wrapping them up like a nice christmas present. The Answer is... the walker falls over and is rendered all but completely useless.

Another Major flaw is the over complexity and lack of redundancy. Each joint in a leg is more or less the same mechanical complexity as one wheel of a car (if we are not worrying about things like stress, load, and other really mathy stuff), and to make an effective leg you pretty much need at least 2 joints per leg, but when one of those joints breaks the entire leg more or less becomes useless. So if we took a 4 legged walker (8 joints) and put it side by side by an 8-wheeled car, then we break one joint and one wheel. We will see that the walker would most likely collapse unless it's able to position it's remaning 3 legs in a way to effectively balance itself (which is pretty difficult to do) and still move (even harder to do), however the car will pretty much be unaffected depending on which wheel was removed/broken and even it was a more important wheel the car would still likely be mobile enough to return to base for repairs or even continue on fighting.

The only somewhat saving grace for walkers is the ergonomic simplicity for a human to pilot a bi-pedal mech like he would control his own body. But even that has it's downsides because then the mech's potential would much much more significantly be impacted by the pilot's level of fatigue. A tank or car doesn't slow down when it's driver gets tired from running 5 miles.


So thats about it, I have intentionally left out a few other minor details to use as counter-counter arguments, however all of this should be taken with a grain of salt because this thread pertains mostly to IRL aspects but this game is still sci-fi and in the world of fiction you are allowed to say "f*** logic" to make things cooler

[ColonelSheppard]

Sooo....
what exactly is your point again?

[Aulex]

wat

[Hawkei]

Most gamers here aren't really interested in the engineering mechanics.

As far as modern weaponry and vehicles are concerned. There is a natural threshold of GVM at which Pneumatic tyres are no longer tenable. Which can be seen with the limit of size for mining haul trucks. The largest of these is about 400t payload. One of these trucks would be roughly equivalent to a T1 tank in the Supreme Commander Universe. Tracked vehicles also suffer from severe limitations - I would encourage you to look at some of the super tank concept failures from WW2. Such as the Mause, the Ratte and the American T-28 here:
http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-art ... 28t95.html

Large Tracked vehicles suffer from maintenance issues, the large size of components and the complexity of construction. There is also a natural limit for access and support. Ships cannot carry large behemoths. Baley Bridges can't carry them. Roads cannot support them. They can't manoeuvre in narrow streets and don't fit under power lines.

As a vehicle gets bigger and bigger, the amount of ground pressure increases in proportion with it's size. Because ground contact is a function of distance squared, and mass a function of distance cubed. Bigger tanks sink into the ground more, and will get bogged. They need disproportionately large tracks to carry them. Therefore, there is a size at which walkers become the most reliable from of mobility.
***

However, emphasis in modern combat has shifted away from platforms and into weapon systems. The modern combat vehicle is nothing more that a truck which carries high tech missiles. Size doesn't matter, speed and mobility do. Modern weapons are so destructive, that, it doesn't matter how big you are or how much armour you've got. If they can see you, they can shoot you. If they shoot you, you're dead. There is, quite simply, no practical requirement for extremely large vehicles.

[rxnnxs]

The Big Tank you are calling the "rat" = ratte is called the P-1000.
It kind of looks almost like the UEF Driving Factory:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p-10001500-pzkpfw-ixx.htm#1000

I do like this argumentation:

Large Tracked vehicles suffer from maintenance issues,

and this one with the math:

Because ground contact is a function of distance squared, and mass a function of distance cubed

but this also would be true for a "walker".
Also, a bipedal or more legged vehicle is way more complicated to realize than a tracked one.
of course we could discuss this also for very long. one broken chain means no movement for the tank.
one broken leg means also no movment and a bite in the dust, while the tank can still defend himself (more or less, but you can call him right away "steel coffin" = stählerner sarg).
also, a legged walker would, as stated above, be not better when bigger, cause the math you told us means here: you have to have reeeally big feet to compensate his weight. in fact, a big huge, fat and heavy tank driving over your feet would not hurt you as much as an electric forclift (gabelstapler).

its funny to think about the look how a bipedal walker would pass better through mud than a tank would.
there is nothing better than a tracked vehicle (ok, like stated below, a hovercraft would).
the better thing to cross for a walker would be a steep hill.
greetings to TOTAL ANNIHILATION, for this awesome game already showed us the meaningness of a BOT. climbing steep hills, thats what those bots were made for.
unfortunately, in supreme commander we have only one land fac, but fortunately, it is not so much diversity in units. it was so everwhelming.. you did nit know what was better for your needs.
and also there IS one way of being better than a track: a hovercraft. again, hello TA!

back to the threadstarter:
hey, are you german (then there would be no need to tell us about the beer because it would be normal to you). you name sounds german so i geuss you are.. tell us more and welcome here in the forum and at supreme commander (ahem, FAF). maybe you want to play some time against me? add me to your friends list when you see me in game

and so: i see some advantages, but also some CONS:
the silhouette of a BOT is quite impressive, but therefore you see him from great distances. but also, he can overview much more distance than a lower bound tank. he can shoot from above (gun is in a higher position) but again, can be sniped better.
he could change stance though..
the tank can be built with a very low profile and is able to use even small hills to his advantage.
again, a tank can pack more mass into his size and can pack more punch.
if a bot is hit, he would stumble upon his legs or miss his aim..
a bot has to have power to keep standing otherwise balance is lost..
if a bot is build well, he would use less energy to travel, but that you can not call a bot but a lightweight walker.

but firewall, this is very interesting:

There is a natural threshold of GVM at which Pneumatic tyres are no longer tenable. Which can be seen with the limit of size for mining haul trucks. The largest of these is about 400t payload. One of these trucks would be roughly equivalent to a T1 tank in the Supreme Commander Universe.

now i admit, in former days when playing TA i thought of the commander of a real big bot, high as about 50 meters or more.
and the smallest unit bigger than the biggest tank.
when i look at supreme commander, the units are not really that big.
i like the movies of the first game, supreme commander, where the person is shown in the ACU. i really have to find a way how to look those movies again...
but now the question that comes up: which units did you take to say it weights 500 tons and is a little one in the supcom game?
the bots are very small and i assume they are about MAX 4 to 5 meters high. they would weight about 3 tons. there would not even be room for a person.
the small tanks are as big a a normal tank in real life.
the battleships are a joke, if you take a normal ship it would be so big, it would be ten times that of a game ender.
so, the units in supreme commander are not really huge, big or heavy, they are tiny..

[Exotic_Retard]

um...

you sure about the units being small?
true, ships are small in supcom but not land units
a monkeylord can crush your whole house with one foot

nuff said

[da_monstr]

While I don't get why this has been posted, I might have something to say too.

I think that even if tracked and wheeled vehicles have a limitation, i still think that a legged contraption might be even worse in terms of losing practicality with size. Since we know a small T1 tank alone weighs in at 100 or more tons, imagine the case for an ACU (or a Jaeger, or a Mechwarrior mecha, or whatever sci-fi you like best) for that matter.

It weighs several times as much as that tank, on a similar footprint. The machines would just sink into the ground several meters deep, not to mention marshy terrains. If one wanted a practical ACU, either it's materials of manufacture would have to be miraculously strong and light, or a gravity reducing system like a mass effect field (like in Mass Effect, yes) would have to be in place, if such a thing is possible.

IMO, if a war did break out for fight over planets in a super advanced society, I believe it is likely that the command units to be teleported around would more likely look like semi-mobile buildings or the like, as in the C&C universe.
Just my 2 cents.

[rxnnxs]

SAKO, thes graphic of yours is a bit off scale.

i admit, the commander in TA is smaller than i imagined, but here are some screenshots that show you the size of the tank in SC.
and look at the size of the SUMO compared to a car.

commander compared to a tree

TAcom.jpg (40.54 KiB) Viewed 4287 times

sumo on a road

sumo.jpg (24.27 KiB) Viewed 4287 times

the acu and units besides trees

fa.jpg (203.79 KiB) Viewed 4287 times

so.. there is nothing in those pictures that weighs 500 tons

[Exotic_Retard]

semi-mobile buildings or the like, as in the C&C universe.

nah they would look like this : D


rxnnxs:
also the image showing the supcom unit scales is too large. by a lot. one supcom unit is about 20m, which can be calculated by knowing the map size in km and supcom units
(5km/256 = ~19.5m i think) and the sizes of things in supcom units were given in a database of some kind, but its pretty much official.
so i think that makes the image showing units twice the size as they are really, (acu:45m czar:300m ect)
but i like showing that image cos it makes everything look more epic : D

also the acu in your image is easily 500t or more - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerkampfwagen_E-100 this weighs 140t and is 3m tall

you should get better at estimating : P

on top of that, your image shows how big they really are - ever seen a tree? (go outside and try to guess its height ) well the acu is *almost* twice that

meh, not that i care, but i thought you might want to be corrected slightly

[rxnnxs]

of course i want to be corrected. trees vary in size and the commander (TA) is even a bit smaller but mor compact than an ACU (FA).

BUT you compare an old WW2 tank and multiply it with a factor to get the size of the acu. this is not making sense.
first, todays heavy tanks are not as heavy as this old tank and they do not need it to.
modern tanks weight about 50 to 80 tons, not more. they have still a better protection against any kind of threats.
so dont compare mass with toughness.
this ACU will never weigh 500 tons. there will be some parts that are not massive and when it would be massive, then we will find out tomorrow..