Well of Souls Forums

SaintofM:
Actually 'stealth' is a pretty important stat for tanks and other vehicles, and 'modern stealth' for them is actually already available....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-01 <---- radar absorption might seem pointless but it is a stealth tank....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaSIFeyPcpk <---- some guy going through it pretty well.

As many have said before, IRL mecha for warfare is pretty much just stupid, power armor will probably work out just fine, but full blown mecha? just not a very good idea, actually a pretty bad idea, which is why 'the excuse' is needed.

as others have said, mecha for sports is a interesting idea, and is actually a thing IRL, the first match has a already happened a few years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-ouLX8Q9UM

Moik wrote:People make bad decisions and commit massive resources to their bad decisions if the check and balances are unsuitable. Maybe the mechs have all the flaws stated previously, but the military keeps producing them because the issues keep getting blamed on pilot error because it would be bad for one's career to blame the higher-ups' strategic choice to back the mech, and then the mech just "works" in the realish setting because the empire using them has the industrial capacity to replace losses faster than the opponent does.

In the military domain, there's a check and balance that's suitable in all cases, and it's actual conflict. If you make expensive, impractical, over-engineered weapons while the other side makes efficient, cheap, reliable weapons, you're going to lose.

I quite like mecha, but always keep in mind that they're just a power fantasy symbolizing puberty.

Except for the Mechwarrior/Battletech universe.

Anyway, mecha are huge, strong bodies with (typically) a teen inside who is just starting to shed his/her youthfulness and becoming a grownup, and having to come to terms with it.

That's on the symbolic side. Now if you want to go into mechanics.

There are very fringe, specific situations where a humanoid form would be desirable in a vehicle, but most of those are civilian situations. On the road or on flat terrain, a vehicle with wheels, tracks or wings will always outrun a vehicle with legs. A mecha also presents a high profile, which makes it into a great and easy target to tanks and even infantry with the right equipment. If you need a mech, it is probably because the terrain is impossible to navigate using tracks or wheels, such as in mountains or forests, but outright saying that 'they are useless except in those situations' is like saying that submarines are useless unless you are at sea.

It is true, but we still consider submarines an important part of a country's armed forces. They have a very niche and specific role to play, but that doesn't means they are useless, does it?

If you want to use mechs, my only advice is to remember that there's no such thing as a super mech beating tanks, airplanes and specialized infantry in the open plain. The moment a mech tries to walk across an open field, it is dead. But you could also say that the moment a tank tries to maneuver through the amazon jungle, it is dead or useless. Does that means that tanks are useless in general? If you want to use mechs, just remember that the lay of the land must be just right to justify their use.

Plains: Tanks reign supreme. Until a plane blows them up. If a tank, with its low profile, its high speed, firepower and armor, spots a mech in the open field... a mech, who has to be lightly armored, and happens to be a tall and visible target, well, that mech is dead. And lets not forget the planes.

Mountains: Now we're talking! Tanks are heavy and cumbersome, so going up or downhill is a problem. A tank trying to go off-road in the mountains is just committing suicide. This is an excellent terrain for mechs, and if a mech spots a tank trying to climb a mountain, well, that's a dead tank. Fair is fair, isn't it?

Swampland: Probably the same as the mountains, specially if it had large tree groves and terrain that can offer cover.

Jungle or deep forest: I'll be honest with you, I think infantry is the best suited for this terrain. A guy with an anti-material rifle would probably beat a mech OR an armored vehicle with just a couple of shots.

In short, its not that mechs are useless, its just that they would be specialized. The invincible fantasy mechs in Gundam or Evangelion are just fantasy power trips and symbolism about a child in a grownup's body.

As for battletech. You send Ravens, Kit Fox and Dashers if you want hyper mobile little mechs that will be hard to take down because they will be hard to find. You don't send an Atlas or a Kodiak on a reconnaissance mission, so... just keep in mind the terrain and the occasion.

Edit: I forgot to talk about WH40K's Imperial Knights and Titans. In short, they're OP, but everything in WH40K is OP so it balances out in the end. That being said, you could think of titans as 'done right' since they are slow and cumbersome, but they have crews ranging from three to hundreds of people, with dozens of feet of armor, forcefields (void shields) that can take on capital ship weaponry, and capital ship weaponry of their own. It is said that a In truth, "A Titan has only three enemies: folly, hubris, and another of its own kind.'

Again, WH40K is OP by design. Everything is OP, so it all evens out at the end.

gaerzi wrote:In the military domain, there's a check and balance that's suitable in all cases, and it's actual conflict. If you make expensive, impractical, over-engineered weapons while the other side makes efficient, cheap, reliable weapons, you're going to lose.

The example of the M2 Bradley works here as well. It's rife with role conflicts that prevent it from being truly effective at any of them yet it's been successful in the field due to other asymmetric advantages not inherent to itself like GPS and satellite reconnaissance; it almost always got to have the jump on its opponents and use the appropriate weapon from it's diverse toolkit. America is so far ahead of its typical competitors in total force that it can field botched designs and succeed in spite of it.

The design indeed was eventually shelved and replaced with the MRAP due to the proliferance of efficient, cheap, and reliable IEDs regularly "defeating" it. But, during its heyday, it managed to eliminate more opposing tanks than even purpose-built MBTs did. It put up good numbers and the military liked it so they made more and stuck with it.

Can't help but wonder if people that think a Mech couldn't be viable are the same types in WW2 that thought battleships were King.

1 dive bomber doesn't seem like much on paper vs any battleship, yet history proved even one was dangerous to a battleship.
Mech vs Tank is the same
Its not about 1 mech defeating 1 tank, Its about cost effectiveness.
Mechs would be useful for some situations if we make one assumption.
Whatever is used for articulation in mech joints/muscle its relatively cheap for the technology and robust so that pound for pound mechs are at most 2-3x as expensive as a tank.

With the advancement of active defense systems(they shoot the incoming projectile) on tanks, cannons are becoming redundant, the rounds needed to spoof such systems are increasing in cost and complexity to blur the line between missiles and cannon shells.
Mecha with active defense systems and missiles should beable to go toe to toe with tanks while being immune to lighter weapons, the active defense system provides armour equal too or more effective then the physical armour found on tanks.

3 8ft 5 ton mechs with active defense systems could easily take on and destroy a tank if equipped with just a few anti tank missiles each. The 3 mechs working together would overwhelm the active defense system of the tank and do so for less cost.(modern tanks are 60-70 tons)
Even if we assume 2 out of 3 mechs got taken out, its still a cost/personal win for the mechs.

The mechs armour would be to protect them from small arms fire and fragments of destroyed projectiles the active defense system engaged as well as overhead air burst artillery shells which armoured vehicles are expected to survive in the US military. Walking tanks that take hit after hit seems to me to be completely unrealistic, even modern tanks can't take repeated hits.

Also tracked vehicles are extremely inefficient due to high friction of the drive system, they have their operational range cut in half or worse when they leave roads and also have high wear, they have high power efficiency(torque) but very low conservation of momentum efficiency. Further bouncing is actually the most efficient method of land travel even over wheeled vehicles, Kangaroos are extremely efficient. A spring tension system on a mech could allow mechs to be far more efficient and have longer range before refueling then tracked/wheeled vehicles.

Even in an urban environment, a mech is still horribly outmatched by infantry running around with anti tank weapons, or by aircraft overhead that will hammer it. And given that most techs have a tendency to stand much taller than any tank used today, their profile would make them very appealing targets to tank gunners. Mechs in a combat role would be best suited for low or zero gravity situations in space. You put them on the ground, expect them to get their shit pushed in. This isn't even touching the ground pressure on each leg or the maintenance nightmare they'd be. Any mech weighing only 5 tons would be at best a logistics tool, because it would die horribly if put on the battlefield.

Now. How would even 3x 5 tons mechs carry more shoota to overwhelm the active and passive defence of 60 tons tank, while the later could just easily have more dakka dakka back at them?
If the active defense is so much greater than armor, why not just rip the legs of from 20x 5 tons mechs and put them top to each other at 10 ton carrier and call it as a tank.

Mag'ladroth: mechs in swamp terrain would be an absolute shit show due to ground pressure, the best tool there is actually hover craft.
Mountain terrain? not really, rocky terrain sure, since the smaller 'foot print' compared to tanks is actually a advantage here, so foot hills of mountains with lots of rocks strewn about.... a very specialized area of operation indeed, it also gives infantry plenty of hard cover and hiding spots making ambusing mechs easy...

Power armor on the other hand makes a lot of sense in many situations, which has been explained several times already.

So it boils down to either a stupid reason(such as sports bleeding over to a stupid peacetime military) why mechs are around, or a imaginary reason(like my neural interface only working on humanoid vehicles).

bunnyboy: more not equal to bigger, three small platforms will probably have 3x rokkits, therefor throwing out more(not more powerful) ordnance, overwhelming active defences, although this would probably be more along the lines of a 100kg or less power armor carrying some infantry sized crew served weapons....

You are right 5 tons is a little light...
Using real materials with the worst armour possible it equals around 13.5tons...
But its very heavily armed.

20mm thick modern steel armour will provide level 3 base protection(STANAG 4569) on a flat faced armour, however the curved nature of the limbs and body would increase protection against explosives and non sabot rounds to level 4.
Density around 8gcm3
This is the heaviest armour that exists today for protection offered, ceramic/composites are far more weight efficient but I couldn't get hard numbers due to classified nature.

Lets say the mech has(using cylinder)
100cm long legs 30cm wide
1306kg per leg
90cm long arms 15cm wide
950kg each
Body 120cm high and 90cm wide.
2856kg
Sensor pod/Head 40cm by 40cm
482kg
Hands/Feet... Not including because all the cylinders have kept their centers which makes sense for the body but not the arms/legs. As such taking that material as whats used for the hands and feet.

7.85tons of armour providing defense equal to light armoured vehicles in a far smaller package.
Its immune to all infantry weapons up to vehicles with 14.5mm machinegun using AP rounds and 130mm artillery rounds at 25m or greater.

Engine etc...
Keep in mind these numbers are impossible to work out so Im going off estimates of a 60 ton tank having a 15ton engine or 25% of the vehicles mass is the engine and drive system...

Engine and Servos 3 tons
Fuel 500kg

Computer system and sensors 1 ton

Weapons
4 hellfire anti tank missiles in armoured pod
300kg

1 30mm single barrel cannon with 100 rounds(same gun as A-10 warthog but single barrel)
200kg

50cal BMG with 885 chain linked rounds
200kg

Active Protection System x2(Intercepts and destroys anti tank weapons that can penetrate its armour)
400kg

Total Weapon mass
1.1 tons

8ft or so mech that can take on Heavy/Light armoured vehicles and infantry.
Is lighter then the lightest armoured vehicles with basic armour on par with them and is immune to infantry small arms fire and capable intercepting multiple incoming anti tank projectiles at the same time.

4-5 can be fielded per Main battle tank.
Unlike main battle tanks they can be paradropped, 9 can be paradropped from a C5-M.

If the armour was doubled in thickness and the engines/servos also doubled in weight it would have armour on par with a MBT before addon armour plates are applied but for 2/3rd the weight.

The only thing mechs cant do is carry the larger guns tanks can.
Mechs be effective? as long as they aint tall and the engine/servo system is below around 40% the total mass a 8foot mech can match a light armoured vehicle in armour for less weight and be better armoured for the same.
at 50% they are even, above 50% they end up worse.


ps- why is a mech more susceptable to attack from aircraft then a tank when they are the same height but the mech can kneel and lay prone?
Its not like any tank is likely to survive a hit by aircraft anti tank armament.

Quickdraw101 wrote:Even in an urban environment, a mech is still horribly outmatched by infantry running around with anti tank weapons, or by aircraft overhead that will hammer it. And given that most techs have a tendency to stand much taller than any tank used today, their profile would make them very appealing targets to tank gunners. Mechs in a combat role would be best suited for low or zero gravity situations in space. You put them on the ground, expect them to get their shit pushed in. This isn't even touching the ground pressure on each leg or the maintenance nightmare they'd be. Any mech weighing only 5 tons would be at best a logistics tool, because it would die horribly if put on the battlefield.

bunnyboy wrote:Now. How would even 3x 5 tons mechs carry more shoota to overwhelm the active and passive defence of 60 tons tank, while the later could just easily have more dakka dakka back at them?
If the active defense is so much greater than armor, why not just rip the legs of from 20x 5 tons mechs and put them top to each other at 10 ton carrier and call it as a tank.

Ok, I'm going to use the first hand accounts of a guy who took part in the Iraq war, and his experience with the Hellfire. There was a time where an Abrams got disabled by enemy fire and couldn't move, but was still intact enough that they didn't want to leave it behind for the enemy. The call in an Apache and it dumps a Hellfire onto it. Doesn't do a damn thing. They fire another, then another, then we're at 8 rockets fired, and the Abrams isn't destroyed. They had to go back and toss explos inside the tank to finish it off. Against modern armor, Hellfires are not what you want to use.

For the amount of weapons you are putting on this theoretical mech, it would be bulky beyond belief, cumbersome, slow, and ground pressure would make it very difficult to move. Even worse in an urban environment where rubble is all over the place. Dropping it in via parachute is extremely idiotic, and even doing it with humvees, has had a number of failures. Dropping something as you described with a parachute will either destroy the mech, injure the pilot, or do both at the same time. A mech as you described, with that amount of firepower, will not be 8 feet tall. It'll either be much taller, or will be the fattest armoured vehicle in existence, which gives it a wider profile, on par, or worse than current tanks. Good luck getting that machine to go prone as well, like it'll make a difference once its already spotted.

Tank: have 8 metal storms bolted on roof at different directions for defense. I dunno the weight, but each of them have rate of fire 1M shots/minute. Try to shoot them all down with your active defense.

Also, if the active defense can shoot down missiles etc shot by main gun, making it useless, then you have to change it for something that works anyway.

You should really look things up and do some math before stating things as fact.

Hellfire single stage HEAT warheads were failing vs modern armour, new warheads were designed, they went into use in 2012
I added possible weapon systems showing what a mech would look like, the specific missile actually wasn't important..

9M133 Kornet took out multiple US tanks in the same conflict and is a manportable...

Its also smaller and weighs less... should I go with that?
30kg vs 50kg same range on the Anti armour version and its 1.2m long instead of 1.6?

Hellfire missiles are 1.6m long, backpack launcher is all thats required for them to fit easily and it could also be ejectable once depleted.
here is an Apache carrying 16 of them and you can see the two humans... a pack of 4 is not much wider then a human body and some of that space can be saved if using launch tubes due to the missiles being protected from the exhaust.


Mech wider then a tank with the guns/ammo?
I cant figure out how you came to that...
50cal Mech Ammo Box 76cm*15.48cm*76cm holds 900 50 cal chain linked rounds.
30mm ammo box 31cm*18cm*31cm holds 100 rounds.

The only problem with the weapons being the 30mm is rather long if you wanted full bore length, shorter barrel vs heavier armoured vehicles would lose effectiveness, but thats what the hellfires are for. Its use would be for against other mechs or lightly armoured vehicles.

Can you please tell me what methods you used to to work out the mech would be over 3.3 meters wide(wider then a tank)? with these weapon systems?

Just to compare to a tank...
M1 Abrams
Main 120mm
3.3 tons.
48kg for the 50cal
2*12kg for the m240
Ammo
120mm 42 rounds 840kg
50cal 900 rounds 152.5kg
7.62 10400 rounds 309.4kg
Total 4673.9kg
4.6 tons
This load out is carried by tanks between 55-70 tons.


Bipedal movement is entirely different ground contact then wheels or tracks and requires less ground pressure for traction but loses more energy in soft sand etc its also less efficient then wheels on hard surfaces but can provide more traction for same surface area on softer ground.
M1A2C modern tank is 70 tons.
Tracks are about ~80cm wide and 4.8m long(ground contact) *2
7.86 square meters.
70 tons = 9.8 tons per square meter ground pressure

So a 13.5 ton mech needs each foot 126cm long and 100cm wide
10.7 tons per square meter each foot.
5.3 tons on both.
The feet need to be about 25% bigger then the feet on this mech assuming the top of the head/shoulder(not hump) is 2.4m.
Or you could put a back heel on it 25% the size of the front foot like many mechs in fiction have.


First air drops are accepted used, not just for Humvees but also for light tanks.
Are you saying the military does not do airdrops?
Or were you just trying to make up an argument and didn't think it through?
Some fail? damn right they do... Guns Jam... Missiles fail to fire...
What exactly is your point, is it if some things fail don't ever do them?

Wheeled/Tracked vehicles don't have any real way to lesson the total force of impact then parachute dropped besides their suspension systems and some added cushioning.
Yet both the US and Russia have airdropped armoured vehicles and as far as I am aware still do.
Striker 18tons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQwJnVad5L4


Who said the pilots would be INSIDE the mech when it dropped?
That would be stupid...
Crews are dropped separately and then goto the dropped vehicle... why would this change for mechs?

I do however agree with you that dropping vehicles with people INSIDE THEM is the most IDIOTIC thing anyone ever thought of.


As for spotted?
ADS is extremely effective (Trophy used on Israeli and US vehicles) is 100% effective against single fire rounds cannon/missiles in real world combat so far, 95% in testing. This is unprecedented and has only been possible for the last 10 years and to date no conflict where both sides had ADS has occurred that I could find. Trophy system defeated 9M133 Kornets in real combat in Israel. Sabot rounds if the tank is close can get past it before it responds and its possible in a Urban Environment that could easily happen, yet the Tank still needs to engage 5 targets where each one is capable of destroying it.

You saying 5 mechs as equipped as I stated each 13.5 tons would lose to a tank?
Be at serious disadvantage vs Infantry?
If so
How can the tank win when it needs to hit all 5 mechs each one which is capable of destroying it, can destroy all 5 before it gets hit?

Would you care to explain the weapons infantry could employ to destroy a single mech in a squad of 5 that have their ADS systems synched.
It would take 20 missiles for just 1 to get though and hit one mech on current real world ADS systems.
None of the infantry weapons could harm the mechs discounting ATGM weapons fired in mass they are effectively immune to infantry.

The infantry would have to do what they do with tanks in the real world.
Shoot off the sensor pods/optics and anything else they can damage on the mech to render it ineffective then hit it with a ATGM.

Now I did make assumptions which are currently not true in the real world, and may never be.
Which I will list again.
Engine/Sevros have the same % of mass as a Tanks Engine system(~25% of the entire weight of a tank)
Mech cost the same per ton as Main Battle Tanks.
If these two things are true(or even cost is 1-2.5X per ton for mechs vs tanks) Small Mechs are useful and effective.

Quickdraw101 wrote:Ok, I'm going to use the first hand accounts of a guy who took part in the Iraq war, and his experience with the Hellfire. There was a time where an Abrams got disabled by enemy fire and couldn't move, but was still intact enough that they didn't want to leave it behind for the enemy. The call in an Apache and it dumps a Hellfire onto it. Doesn't do a damn thing. They fire another, then another, then we're at 8 rockets fired, and the Abrams isn't destroyed. They had to go back and toss explos inside the tank to finish it off. Against modern armor, Hellfires are not what you want to use.

For the amount of weapons you are putting on this theoretical mech, it would be bulky beyond belief, cumbersome, slow, and ground pressure would make it very difficult to move. Even worse in an urban environment where rubble is all over the place. Dropping it in via parachute is extremely idiotic, and even doing it with humvees, has had a number of failures. Dropping something as you described with a parachute will either destroy the mech, injure the pilot, or do both at the same time. A mech as you described, with that amount of firepower, will not be 8 feet tall. It'll either be much taller, or will be the fattest armoured vehicle in existence, which gives it a wider profile, on par, or worse than current tanks. Good luck getting that machine to go prone as well, like it'll make a difference once its already spotted.

Anything that mecha can do, this does it better.

It has jumpjets.
It is always "crouching".
It has "training wheels" for alternate drive to avoid friction of tracks when travelling at road.
It has more arms and mecha weapons than mecha, because mecha weapons are "superior".

Because future Active Defenses are so much better than any armor and can't be penetrated by main gun, then those two have been removed to save weight.
Also, Metal Storm turrets because try shoot down 1000000 bullets per minute coming at you.

And best, if it flips over, it can just walk on its hands and use it's bottom as a shield.

A mecha would have a smaller targeting profile for orbital attackers.
You're gonna wanna stack all those arms and guns.
But then it becomes tippy.
You'll want stabilizers.
Legs maybe?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The 9M133 claimed two Abrams and one Bradley disabled in Iraq. The kills its gained against Abrams since then have been downgraded export models we give to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, meaning no fancy communication sets, DU inserts, or anything else. Also given the competency of most militaries in that region, it's not surprising when they lose tanks without infantry screens supporting them.

Airdropping wheeled and tracked vehicles is easier because the wheels and suspension allow for it under the right circumstances. Any wheeled or tracked vehicle has more stability once it lands, something a mech will not have. We already know the risks when we airdrop Humvees or Strykers, and more often than not, humvees get written off because the chutes fail.

You keep bringing up urban combat as a scenario where this mech of yours would shine, yet don't realize your talking about using an armored fighting vehicle with more steps. Lav's and Bradley's are far lighter than tanks, as are BMP's. They can carry enough weaponry to take out a tank, yet how often does that happen? You want to send a vehicle armed to the teeth, with even less mobility, on a battlefield where the most likely result is loosing crews and munitions at an exorbitant rate?

Trophy and other modern ADS systems are certainly advanced, but they are not foolproof, nor 100% effective. Tank rounds will get though, and a single hit will destroy a mech, as where an anti tank missile has no guarantee of a kill. Factor in the TUSK system for the Abrams, and the addition of Trophy systems on our own tanks, this mech is already outclassed and outmatched the moment it steps foot on the battlefield.

You postulate that the system would work 100% of the time with no failures or anything getting through. Israel has their systems combat tested in low intensity guerilla conflict scenarios. Full on symmetrical combat is a completely different ballpark.

I decided to do a integrity check at the start after responding to the original attack about 5 ton mech

You know the Mech weight I gave and armour of 20mm?
It was a lie, totally made up to be far heavier.
I wanted to see if.

1.People would check what I wrote.
2.If it actually was wrong in favour of Mechs if they would correct it even when they are against mechs.

I learned from previous arguments on this forum that some people just argue for the sake of argument.
I even poked you asking you to provide math and starting the post with saying it was a little light
Despite your extreme need to argue and point out anything wrong you didn't bring up the fact my "mech" was almost 3x the weight and not a "LITTLE" heavier tells me you actually checked.

Which is why you didn't bring it up.

Lets get to the FUN

Actual 8gcm3 armour 20mm thick
100cm long legs 30cm wide
173kg per leg
90cm long arms 15cm wide
70kg each
Body 120cm high and 90cm wide.
746kg
Sensor pod/Head 40cm by 40cm
120kg
Total armour mass 1.352 tons.

What if we made it 20mm Tungsten instead...
Legs
417kg each
Arms
169kg each
Body
1800kg
Head
290kg
Total
3.26 tons

To put this into perspective...
A m1a2 main body(not turrent) to be protected by 20mm of tungsten armour across the entire body would weigh at LEAST 35 TONS from the armour alone.
Main Body 7.93m*3.6m*1.4m
PS the Glacis on the M1a2 is about 20mm thick, one of the thickest parts on the tank it was also only hardend steel at least in the earlier tanks.

Feel free to work out 20mm over that hull of 19.3gcm3 if you think I am wrong

I used Tungsten because it can be replaced with any REAL ARMOUR in existence which will be lighter and have better protection.
We have two mech versions

A light Mech with armour on par with light armoured Vehicles of 6.87 tons

Heavy Version With better overall protection then a MAIN BATTLE TANK, of 8.91 tons.
Well the light version isn't really worth deploying except maybe for cost benefit.

Now remember I said pound for pound...
M1A2 would need to take on 7 Heavy mechs which all have better overall armour

Whoops forgot to add the 120kg head to the total weight... fixed

Quickdraw101 wrote:The 9M133 claimed two Abrams and one Bradley disabled in Iraq. The kills its gained against Abrams since then have been downgraded export models we give to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, meaning no fancy communication sets, DU inserts, or anything else. Also given the competency of most militaries in that region, it's not surprising when they lose tanks without infantry screens supporting them.

Airdropping wheeled and tracked vehicles is easier because the wheels and suspension allow for it under the right circumstances. Any wheeled or tracked vehicle has more stability once it lands, something a mech will not have. We already know the risks when we airdrop Humvees or Strykers, and more often than not, humvees get written off because the chutes fail.

You keep bringing up urban combat as a scenario where this mech of yours would shine, yet don't realize your talking about using an armored fighting vehicle with more steps. Lav's and Bradley's are far lighter than tanks, as are BMP's. They can carry enough weaponry to take out a tank, yet how often does that happen? You want to send a vehicle armed to the teeth, with even less mobility, on a battlefield where the most likely result is loosing crews and munitions at an exorbitant rate?

Trophy and other modern ADS systems are certainly advanced, but they are not foolproof, nor 100% effective. Tank rounds will get though, and a single hit will destroy a mech, as where an anti tank missile has no guarantee of a kill. Factor in the TUSK system for the Abrams, and the addition of Trophy systems on our own tanks, this mech is already outclassed and outmatched the moment it steps foot on the battlefield.

You postulate that the system would work 100% of the time with no failures or anything getting through. Israel has their systems combat tested in low intensity guerilla conflict scenarios. Full on symmetrical combat is a completely different ballpark.

MBehave wrote:I decided to do a integrity check at the start after responding to the original attack about 5 ton mech

You know the Mech weight I gave and armour of 20mm?
It was a lie, totally made up to be far heavier.
I wanted to see if.

Seriously though... how about we settle this argument when mechs are actually a thing? This is getting stupid. I think everyone can agree that mechs require at least a little suspension of disbelief. Can you make "realistic" fiction with them? Sure. Are they going to be created in real life? Probably not, and even if they are, they're almost assuredly going to be remotely operated.

orion1836 wrote:

MBehave wrote:I decided to do a integrity check at the start after responding to the original attack about 5 ton mech

You know the Mech weight I gave and armour of 20mm?
It was a lie, totally made up to be far heavier.
I wanted to see if.

Seriously though... how about we settle this argument when mechs are actually a thing? This is getting stupid. I think everyone can agree that mechs require at least a little suspension of disbelief. Can you make "realistic" fiction with them? Sure. Are they going to be created in real life? Probably not, and even if they are, they're almost assuredly going to be remotely operated.

Back in the real world, drone tanks are becoming a reality. The main problem is of course preventing the enemy from jamming the signal.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... ripsaw-m5/

have better overall armour

If main guns is not a threat because of some magical active protection system, then frontal armor of modern MBTs can be swaped for ~160mm of all around armor without any issues.
Not to mention that 20mm that you say mecha will have can be penetrated by KPVT at 500m.
And no, no magical super light alloy, armor needs to be dense to work.

Incorrect on all points.
Thats RHA, which is not physically used in protection of modern vehicles.
Generally it refers to MIL-DTL-12560K or like RHA.(basicly what was used in ww2)
Cheap modern steel armour is Dual hardened rolled steel, two different plates one on the back thats softer and one on the front that is extremely hard are rolled together.
Dual hardned steel MIL-A-46099C at 8mm offers the same protection as 25mm MIL-DTL-12560K RHA plate.
When you see armor thickness given for tanks its normally RHA equivalency.

Using MIL-A-46099C my light mechs would have 62.5mm RHA equivalency at 20mm thickness.
Using the same armour to weight ratio for the heavy mech would give 150mm RHA equivalency.
MIL-A-46099C is old(1987) and is declassified, its no longer I believe used.

Mass is not whats required to stop projectiles, modern armour either breaks the penetrator by having it go through different density materials, normally a hard front plate like depleted uranium, a ceramic core which as it travels into causes shearing due to the different densities(much like light changes direction when going though different density materials) and a steel backing designed to stop the fragments.
Then you have explosive and non explosive reactive armour.

I believe its 160mm effective for the TUSK2
Have a look at all the parts.
Back plate backing is first attached around 10mm.
Then blocks are ~300mm*150mm*300mm
Volume 13500cm3
RHA Density 8gcm3
Tungsten Density 19.3gcm3
If they were pure tungsten they would weigh 260kg each.
If they were Pure Steel they would weigh 108kg
Yet the soldiers in this video are lifting blocks alone in one hand and two handed lifting them above their head.
This means the maximum weight is ~20kg.(this is an extreme weight btw and they dont seem to have any trouble lifting above the head)
1.5gm3 damn light.
I suspect they are the Cermaic and/or explosive part of the reactive system.
Then you have the front plate which is also about 10mm thick again they have no trouble lifting them above their head.

Total thickness of the entire armour is over maybe over 300mm.
Total weight would seem to be around 60kg(per 30*30 rectangle) at most based on the number of people needed to lift the back plates and single persons lifting the front plates and middle blocks single handed off the ground easily then 2 handing them over their head.
Which means at 160mm effective its density is 4.4gcm3.
55% of the density of RHA for the same effectiveness.
Since this is worse then dual hardend steel I believe its likely far lighter maybe even 30kg per 30*30 block
Video for you to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjMq7_l55iQ

The M1A2C tanks already have problems due to weight, they destroy roads and cant cross many bridges.
They are considered to have reached their end of effective life with no ability to add further armour mass to the frames to defeat newer weapons from this point on.

I will say one thing, the mechs armour is overall BETTER, but Tanks on the front and side of the turret have significantly better armour, stupidly so in places, designed to defend against other tanks.

Zorg56 wrote:

have better overall armour

If main guns is not a threat because of some magical active protection system, then frontal armor of modern MBTs can be swaped for ~160mm of all around armor without any issues.
Not to mention that 20mm that you say mecha will have can be penetrated by KPVT at 500m.
And no, no magical super light alloy, armor needs to be dense to work.