>>14740413>an actual piece in an armies mechanized arsenalat the very most they would serve as mobile artillery or anti aircraft pieces(picrel) on uneven terrain. everywhere else they would get mogged.
>I even said that to carry more weight its feet would need more surface area, Its power unit would have to be converted to internal combustion, and have arms that'd hold guns (or swords) and enough armor to resist small arms and missiles plus added technology such as REACTIVE ARMOURthe mech you describe will have a large internal and external surface area, the lack of which is what makes tanks so effective. in a mech you would have to spread out thinner armor along the entire vehicle, leaving it vulnerable to smaller arms fire. so it would either be a thinly armored glass cannon or an immensely heavy colossus which would immediately get destroyed by artillery and/or aircraft intervention. also, ERA works mainly against chemical weapons like HEAT-FS and RPGs and other such ammunition. a modern sabot round would slice through said ERA armor and liquidate the pilot. also, engines take up 1/4 to 1/3 of internal space of a tank. and that's on diesel. imagine putting an internal combustion engine in a mech powerful enough to vertically lift multiple tons of metal. it would be such a huge vehicle that there would be no hope of surviving on a battlefield.
imagine a line of mechs and a line of tanks meet on flat terrain. mechs get absolutely fucking mogged before they get a chance to aim let alone fire, half of their legs get blown off rendering them inoperable. they will suffer heavy casualties and likely not take the objective at all. no competent commander would force them into a spearhead role like that if they had a choice; tanks would be used for the linebreaking, and mechs for long-range fire support and holding the flanks.
