|
|
 | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| Very interesting discussion everyone. In my opinion, MBT's will always have the advantage over powersuits in terms of cross country mobility, firepower and protection. There are a few situations where a single man powersuit would have significant (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) I don't know jack about real-world tank design and specifications, and haven't given much thought to potential powersuit concepts, but this has been a very cool discussion to read all day. I certainly see a place for tanks in the future, as (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) I used to think that bipedal war machines had absolutely no advantages over their tank-al equivalents beyond "wow" factor (and face it, getting your enemy to say, "wow, that's cool that they can do that," just before he blows you to kingdom (...) (20 years ago, 25-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) That entirely depends on what technology you want to speculate on. Power armor would require an incredibly powerful and small power source. I suppose that is a given if you are saying that power armor would exist. The problem with power armor (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) In the storyline I've been "working up" for twenty years now (!!), in fact, I do use both. Part of the reason is that I tend to think that bipedal combat machines would have to develop very high levels of flexibility and survivability before (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) Another thought is maintainability and cost. Consider that WWII Germany was able to produce several tank destroyers for the cost of a single tank, simply because the expense of the turret went away. As the end of WWII approached and money (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) Those are all powerful advantages but I think that tanks are more efficient at providing an armored and enclosed area because they're closer to a spherical shape than a power suit, and because they get mass fraction advantages. Anecdotally: (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) I think so. Since a tank (I'm talking about real life MBTs, not hovertanks) is firmly situated on the ground, it is a more stable firing platform. Also, even if powersuits are eventually developed, I doubt that they will be able to carry the (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Tanks or Power Armor
|
| (...) I think tanks will still remain useful as siege weapons, spearheading assaults, and general heavy battle. Power armor might be very useful for surgical strikes, and urban warfare. But in an open field, or over long distance, I think tanks will (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
| | | | | Tanks or Power Armor
|
| Hello everyone. I was checking out (URL) Ryan Wood's Jade Empire Hong Hovertank post> and he mentions that we have seen little in ground combat vehicles other than (URL) power suit>. That got me thinking, when you have Power Suits available, should (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, FTX)
|
|
