Mechs or Tanks, An age old C&C question, which is better? Options

[Arsenal 121]

I voted for a mixture of both.

Mechs have a higher vantage point over the battlefield, allowing the crew to see further ahead of leg/mechanized infantry and conventional vehicles. However this gives them a rather distinct blind spot beneath where they can aim their weapons to defend themselves. Even with a Point Defense System, there's still the possibility of a Sapper getting through with a suicide bomb or an ATGM to knock them out.

That's where a Main Battle Tank or equivalent comes in. The tanks can act as a vanguard for the mechs, protecting them from sappers and tank killer infantry.

Also, looking at the shift from conventional tanks to mechs for GDI back in Tiberian Sun, the shift was caused due to the fact that tank treads got jammed in tiberium fields, resulting in hazardous repair conditions for the crews. The Titan provided a long range weapons platform that could stand up to Nod's equivalent weapons platforms.

...except for the Core Defender, but not a lot of units could stand up to it one to one...

Now the reason Nod retained mobile tread armor was because Kane, in a GDI mission briefing, proclaimed himself a 'tank aficionado.' Given that most tanks have cannons I'm assuming it's an attempt to recompensate for something...

Mayhaps his baldness.

Also, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBqv2iHHcac

Fun times...

[MT.]

I voted "Mostly Mechs, maybe a few Tanks though.".

Realism did not influence my vote, I prefer mechs because they are usually more complex, and they have nice walk frames and such to look at, while a tank is usually more simple and plain from my cnc experience.

[Dubzac]

I voted for a mixture of both.

Mechs have a higher vantage point over the battlefield, allowing the crew to see further ahead of leg/mechanized infantry and conventional vehicles. However this gives them a rather distinct blind spot beneath where they can aim their weapons to defend themselves. Even with a Point Defense System, there's still the possibility of a Sapper getting through with a suicide bomb or an ATGM to knock them out.

That's where a Main Battle Tank or equivalent comes in. The tanks can act as a vanguard for the mechs, protecting them from sappers and tank killer infantry.

Also, looking at the shift from conventional tanks to mechs for GDI back in Tiberian Sun, the shift was caused due to the fact that tank treads got jammed in tiberium fields, resulting in hazardous repair conditions for the crews. The Titan provided a long range weapons platform that could stand up to Nod's equivalent weapons platforms.

...except for the Core Defender, but not a lot of units could stand up to it one to one...

Now the reason Nod retained mobile tread armor was because Kane, in a GDI mission briefing, proclaimed himself a 'tank aficionado.' Given that most tanks have cannons I'm assuming it's an attempt to recompensate for something...

Mayhaps his baldness.

Also, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBqv2iHHcac

Fun times...

My point exactly

Mechs would be better in urban and rough terrain but as Arsenal 121 said, its only a compliment to a tank. working together with mech and tank would get things done better and without nasty surprises.

[Nod Strike]

The post dates, oh God the post dates.

[Lightstorm]

Nothing built in our world has yet to prove itself more effective in a battlefield then a low slung heavily armored main battle tank.

If you look at the needs of the military when they use a tank, it becomes very clear why a tank is preferred.

Needs of a modern military in regards to a main battle tank:
infantry support - defending foot soldiers against threats too heavy for their guns to damage.
fixed emplacement attacks - destroying roadblocks, bunkers, machine gun nests, mortar pits, and trench emplacements
speed - be able to keep up with jeeps, trucks and other transport vehicles, as well as outrunning enemy bombing runs
anti-armor - the ability to destroy opposing tanks

with these goals in mind, we have the two categories of main battle vehicle:

tracked:
speed to keep up with smaller vehicles
slow slung harder to hit
powerful main gun
difficultly traversing forest and mountain terrain
great mobility in desert terrain

legged:
slower then wheeled vehicles, vulnerable to airstrikes
greater height makes a larger target
ease of mobility in rough terrain
greater height provides field of sight

with this in mind, in a normal battlefield, its easy to see that the benefits of a standard tank outweigh that of the legged vehicle, and in fact, there is little reason for any military to rely on them. EXCEPT, when the fighting moves into heavy urban warfare, or into thick jungles. Lets look at the locations of the Nod strongholds in Tiberian Sun: The rocky mountains, the amazon, eastern Europe, Italy, and Egypt. Except for Egypt, they were fighting in rough mountainous, dangerously mutated terrain, its easy to see why they would choose to switch over to legged vehicles given their combat environments, however by the time Ti8berium Wars rolled around, those mutated forests had been killed off by their own mutations, making standard tanks again the best choice.

[Vintriaz]

"Infantry will always be the staple of any military"

Well i don't recall who said it but there is some truth in it. Though i take this with a combined arms approach Like in classic battle-tech. Every unit whether it be infantry car, tank, gunship, plane, mech, boat, or sub will always find a use. in the current state of things, 'Mechs, would be a rather limited item due to inherent weaknesses & cost. Look at this as a scale, the bigger & more specialized a device is, the fewer that are needed. In any army typically infantry is most numerous, followed by jeeps, troop trucks, IFVs, tanks, & artillery being fewest. 'Mechs would without a doubt have a great diversity, but would specifically designed for certain tasks.

We all more or less agree on how terrain effects the uses & effectiveness of troops & armor. How Tanks & infantry compliment & augment each other. 'Mechs would fill in various roles like fire support, heavy ordnance bombardment, Anti-aircraft, Electronic-warfare & perhaps reconnaissance. Most of us are aware of the classic problem of twin-legged mechs, take out one leg & the machine is down for the count. similar things have been done to all other land vehicles. So even though 'Mechs are rather impractical in the eyes of some & cool in the eyes of others, they do have the potential to work their way into the military ranks.

as for a role in video games, Well i don't have any complaints. I personally think Chrome hounds to be a shining example of the possible & practical uses of mechs. My squad, Lazeranth had a only 9-howitzer quad hound in that game which i designed myself.Thought exceedingly slow it was capable of continuous Bombardment acting as cover / support fire for advancing squad mates, Enemy suppression (especially Snipers), & demolition of structural obstructions such as enemy bases & small cities. The main drawback aside from speed & vulnerability was the Quickly exhausted ammunition supply as with most mobile artillery platforms.

So in short Which is better: 'Mechs or tanks? In my opinion, neither really, though currently tanks reign supreme in versatility & general multi-purpose operations for the land-based armor division. Though when the day comes that 'Mechs do stride upon the battlefield, they shall come to the aid of, as well as rely on aircraft, tank & infanty support equally.

[Corsair]

Which is better: 'Mechs or tanks?

Tanks and Marines

This post has been edited by Corsair: Mar 10 2010, 04:49 AM

[Daroach]

I think actually, aircraft work the best.
But yea, a good mix of tanks and mechanical walkers and infantry work the best.

Because: Tanks are low and are balanced over a wide area but have blind spots and are slow, no matter how big an engine you put in.

Mechs can see far and are good over unpredictable terrain (like med/deep water), but they can topple over if too heavy weapons because of the high center of gravity.

Infantry will be able to get in tight spots and can go inside buildings [ ] however, they are organic humanoids, so they can grow tired and can get blown to bits if not careful.

[Rampastring]

Because: Tanks are low and are balanced over a wide area but have blind spots and are slow, no matter how big an engine you put in.

They're much much faster than mechs and infantry.. the only thing faster than them are aircraft. And you won't win if you have only aircraft.

I'm not sure but I think I voted "Mostly Tanks, a few Mechs is fine."

In the Tiberium universe mechs are useful when fighting on tiberium-infested areas (since it's hard to cross tiberium fields with tanks and infantry), but otherwise tanks are much better. Mechs also could have an advantage in urban areas, if the buildings wouldn't always get destroyed.

This post has been edited by ^Rampastein: Mar 10 2010, 07:20 PM

[Vintriaz]

I think actually, aircraft work the best.
But yea, a good mix of tanks and mechanical walkers and infantry work the best.

I'm an aircraft supporter through & through, but due to the fact that This discussion was based on ground craft i took a semi-neutral, combined arms approach to this. I mean think about it. We all know that there are some things that infantry can do that tanks can't & vice versa. The same applies when you add aircraft & 'mechs to the mixture. It's like a game of rock, paper, scissors when you think about it. You can outfit and train an infantry with just about any weapon, but you can't make them squish-proof. You can equip a tank with any kind of armor or armament, but it can't infiltrate or construct buildings. Infantry & tanks can't fly, yet aircraft can't go through buildings & survive. Planes & infantry can't crush tanks under their feet/wheels, yet a 'mech can. Ground troops & vehicles can eliminate hostile anti-air batteries, while aircraft can bomb strongholds that too heavily reinforced for ground troops to openly assault.

So even though any one of these has the potential To change the tide of the battlefield, They strengthen each other when combined together.

oh Corsair, the infantry do have one unique advantage over all these others, & that is that they can commandeer, the tanks, 'Mechs, boats, & aircraft. Assuming they survive long enough to get close enough to do such. (use your enemy's weapons against them)

[Corsair]

Assuming they survive long enough to get close enough to do such.

Never a problem in my boots.

[Aro]

Tanks, Mechs are too sci-fi for me.

[Devastator]

I'll start the thread again.

Tanks are MUCH better than mechs. Mechs are also more complicated to use correctly.

[Crimsonum]

Tanks, Mechs are too sci-fi for me.

OH YEAH? Last time I checked, TI has plenty of mechs

[Devastator]

GDI has mechs no doubt in Vanilla and TI.

[ORCACommander]

Hmmm mechs have a nice height advantage which lets them fire down at their targets and increase their range however mechs are more mechanically complicated and are more inherently unstable and can't have as heavy armor so it is kinda coin toss.

[Aro]

OH YEAH? Last time I checked, TI has plenty of mechs

So? I still hate Sci-fi.

[OmegaBolt]

Hmm, all C&C is sci-fi.

[Devastator]

Sci-fi is mostly in the Tiberian series.

RedAlert series is an alternate history from 1920-?
Generals is alternate present war.

[Corsair]

So? I still hate Sci-fi.

I like Sci-fi as long as it's not ridiculously out there... like those Resident Evil movies

[Devastator]

Heh, Resident Evil...

[OmegaBolt]

Sci-fi is mostly in the Tiberian series.

RedAlert series is an alternate history from 1920-?
Generals is alternate present war.

RA1 is in the 50s IIRC.

Also the RA series is completely science-fiction... take a look at the crazy weapons. It's just not in the future (but sci-fi doesnt have to be).

I like Sci-fi as long as it's not ridiculously out there... like those Resident Evil movies fear.gif

They're not sci-fi, theyre just shi-te. I'm an avid RE and film fan, so don't talk to me about the those damned movies...

This post has been edited by OmegaBolt: Mar 31 2010, 12:07 AM

[Devastator]

I remember watching the intro to RA1 it said September 20, 1920.

EDIT:AAAHHH! I have to go!!! If you knew why

This post has been edited by Devestator: Mar 31 2010, 12:22 AM

[Aro]

Hmm, all C&C is sci-fi.

So? Red Alert 2 I barely class as Sci-fi since it's not that far out there like every other C&C (Red Alert 1 can be excluded).

This post has been edited by Aro: Mar 31 2010, 12:43 AM

[OmegaBolt]

I remember watching the intro to RA1 it said September 20, 1920.

Do you pay attention? That's when Einstein goes back in time.

[Crimsonum]

So? Red Alert 2 I barely class as Sci-fi since it's not that far out there like every other C&C (Red Alert 1 can be excluded).

All the games were far-fetched The further we go from TD the more

[Tore]

So? Red Alert 2 I barely class as Sci-fi since it's not that far out there like every other C&C (Red Alert 1 can be excluded).

Check list for RA2:
Electric weapons
Mind control
Mutants
Time travel
Laser-like weapons
Invulnerability shields

and more!

So...barely sci-fi?

And how is C&C1 far out there? C&C1 has less sci-fi than RA1....

This post has been edited by Tore: Mar 31 2010, 12:55 PM

[Rampastring]

And how is C&C1 far out there? C&C1 has less sci-fi than RA1....

Yeah, although it still has laser weapons, stealth technology, Tiberium, Ion Cannon etc.

But C&C95 and RA1 have much less sci-fi than TS and RA2 (I'm not sure which one has more sci-fi though, probably TS). C&C3 is closer to TD (except that it has railguns and probably some other technology which I don't remember right now).

This post has been edited by ^Rampastein: Mar 31 2010, 01:18 PM

[Crimsonum]

Actually, railguns are no longer just fiction.

[Aro]

Check list for RA2:
Electric weapons
Mind control
Mutants
Time travel
Laser-like weapons
Invulnerability shields

and more!

So...barely sci-fi?

And how is C&C1 far out there? C&C1 has less sci-fi than RA1....

Read my post properly, Tore. I said it's "not that far out there" which means It's at a point where I can tolerate it. I prefer RA2's slightly futuristic scene than I do Tiberian Sun's 50 ft. Mechs, crystals from space, Over the top mutations and general typical Sci-fi material. Also, since when were Laser-like and Electric weaponry Sci-fi? Both exist, and what mutations are there in Red Alert 2? (I'm talking about RA2, not YR here)

How far is C&C1 out there? It also has Visceroids, the Obelisk of Light and Tiberium so yes, it's pretty far out there.

This post has been edited by Aro: Mar 31 2010, 05:59 PM