Who needs tanks?

[DemiBenson]

Originally Posted by Molokh

On what surface? Flat floor? I thought the decreased SR would be a killer in realistic terrain.

I have friends who stilt-walk around the city, and the hills, potholes, loose gravel, stairs, and dirt patches aren't exactly "flat floor". It's not debris-strewn battlefield either, but my friends go around with no more protection than modest skating pads. If you gave stilt-like motion enhancers to battlesuits, they would be protected enough by the armor to shrug off any slip.

I imagine that battlesuits would have active stability mechanisms and a broader base than just plain stilts. I mentioned stilts as a kind of reductio ad absurdum - if a person can do fine with a skinny pole attached to their legs, then dynamically stable mechanized parts are likely to do better.

Demi

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

Even small DU rounds may be able to penetrate several inches of concrete.

Using an Iowa-class battleships AP projectiles for reference, they can typically blow through as many FEET of reinforced concrete as inches of RHA.

So a rough factor of 10 here...if a small DU projectile can punch through 25mm of RHA, it can probably punch through on the order of 250mm of reinforced concrete.

Taking this down to a scale people may have actually done, the mmRHA penetration of the M16 is about 6.4mm; anyone know if the round will punch through 64mm of concrete? (2.5").

[DemiBenson]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

I actually started a thread asking about how to add them to power-armor, as I was discontented with Pulver's assertion that you couldn't up Move (much) on a set of power armor, only their jumping distance, and I looked to power bockers as a solution. Plus they look awesome.

I just disagree with the point that all extra height will come from the legs, and you can't add more than a couple of inches to someone in a set of power armor.

I'm right with you on that.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by copeab

How is that misleading (thinking of mecha height as roughly equal to tank length)?

It's misleading because it forces one to make the intuitive assumption that a mech of the same SM is bigger. However, this is misleading because SM is exactly the number we use to refer to ease of being seen and hit on the battlefield. And that's before the fact that a mech can crouch or go prone, modifying their ease of being hit as per Basic Set for humanoids.


Finally, before we get fixed on humanoid mechs, realize that there are also many-legged and flexibody models, which are mechs too!

[Joseph Paul]

It looks the US Army thinks not. Manuals on the 5.56mm ammunition point out that 2" of non-reinforced concrete will stop the round at 50 meters. Closer is not better.

"For the 5.56mm round, maximum penetration occurs at 200 meters. At ranges less then 25 meters, penetration is greatly reduced. At 10 meters, penetration by the 5.56mm round is poor due to the tremendous stress placed on this high-speed round, which causes it to yaw upon striking a target. Stress causes the projectile to break up, and the resulting fragments are often too small to penetrate."

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by Molokh

It's misleading because it forces one to make the intuitive assumption that a mech of the same SM is bigger. However, this is misleading because SM is exactly the number we use to refer to ease of being seen and hit on the battlefield. And that's before the fact that a mech can crouch or go prone, modifying their ease of being hit as per Basic Set for humanoids.


Finally, before we get fixed on humanoid mechs, realize that there are also many-legged and flexibody models, which are mechs too!

In a combat environment that uses self aimed airborne top striking projectiles that SM+4 is spot on. Perhaps we need to be more aware of how the sighting mods change with which aspect we are looking at.

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by copeab

Still not as flexible as a weapon in hands.

So mount weapons on articulated arms on tanks. If you need

It's a quite logical idea if the mecha has a hand-held (or even arm-mounted) weapon.

Why? If it was important for a tank to be able to fire something straight up it could be designed to fire straight up.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what you think a tank will mount in a setting with technologically feasible mecha.

A tank will always have more room compared to a similarly sized mecha, the mecha needs to devote lots of room to many servos and such for its limbs. The tank will always have more space in it for weapons and be able to fire more powerful weapons than a mecha of similar SM.

[Joseph Paul]

Originally Posted by jacobmuller

I've seen lots of debate on why mecha are daft and tanks would be the way to go. I like mecha, even if daft.

My problem is, in a setting where if you can see it, it's dead, why have AFVs?
Assuming you've got mobile infantry in battlesuits with chameleon stealth and PESA sensors carrying weapons that'll ignore armour, and the tanks/mecha are similarly equipped, and all have audio stealth too.

Jacob -I like mecha also. You are correct that once munitions pack enough deadliness into a form that can be hand carried by a human there is no reason to bother with armored vehicles. In fact battle suits need to be armored only to the extent that they will protect their wearer from environmental dangers and getting smacked around by leaps, falls, concussions etc. Thay are just as vulnerable to the weapons as the AFVs.

Here is the tough part of future warfare in GURPS -At what point do we get weapons that powerful? What armors are available at those tech levels? What is the engineering like at that level? There may be answers in there that are not obvious.

As the OP why don't you set up the tech parameters so that this discussion can be more fruitful?

How large are the mechs/AFVs? Do Ogre sized ones make more sense?
What tech level do you want to play with?
Set out any limitations on sources/extrapolations etc.

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

One of the problems with hull down these days is that the weapons are getting to the point that they can fire through the protecting material and still destroy their target. US tanks shot through protective sand/soil berms to destroy Iraqi tanks.

In WWII sheltering from tank fire in a building was a good idea and in extended engagements fortifying a building made it into a strongpoint that was hard to conquer. Look into the Chemist's Shop and Pavlov's House at Stalingrad for examples.

I don't think that modern penetrators are being slowed adequately by modern industrial construction. Even small DU rounds may be able to penetrate several inches of concrete. That means that being hull down is no longer an advantage unless the terrain can be quickly fortified. It only gets worse in the future with rail guns and plasma weapons.

Rail guns sure, but I don't see plasma weapons having the same ability to go through barriers and hurt stuff on the other side.

Of course with top attack munition how helpful is being behind a barrier with no overhead cover anyway?

Given that any armor can be overcome + the awesome accuracy granted by TL 9-10 gear is there a reason to invest in heavily armored tanks that can't dig in and hold?

Depends, how else are you going to deploy large dirrect fire weapons systems? If you want a mobile big gun you pretty much need something like a tank.

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

Jacob -I like mecha also. You are correct that once munitions pack enough deadliness into a form that can be hand carried by a human there is no reason to bother with armored vehicles. In fact battle suits need to be armored only to the extent that they will protect their wearer from environmental dangers and getting smacked around by leaps, falls, concussions etc. Thay are just as vulnerable to the weapons as the AFVs.

How deadly is deadly enough though? Tanks with out infantry protection have been at serious risks from infantry since WWII. So the age of the tank ended in WWII with the Panzerfaust?