Everyone fights over mechs vs tanks, but why are jets never included?

Everyone fights over mechs vs tanks, but why are jets never included?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bomber_will_always_get_through
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because the core block system exists

Because seekers get no love.

Because mechs and tanks are rarified. It's like why everyone remembers knights instead of crossbowmen.

>BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP

Jet fighters are good only on short attacks. They cannot hold nor secure land and takes a tremendous amount of time to prepare, repair, and rearm.

Tanks and mecha share the same ideology of
land-based heavy warriors

According to Battleteh lore, high speed atmospheric fighters are extremely useful and extremely deadly, but also extremely vulnerable unlike Mechs. They are essentialy for dagger attacks, any proper defence will shred them and make them useless. Role of the planes is mainly for intercepting stuff in higher atmosphere and orbital swarms fighitng the enemy battle ships (and it is still essentially flying coffins, as life expectancy of pilot is 1-2 combat deployments max).

A good plane attack could destroy the mech easily, but the ways to interept and destroy planes are too many

So you send a landing pot with battle mechs, that then proceed to destroy enemy infrastructure and defences, and once the defences are down you can either choose to deploy planes to demolish the base or even simply do orbital attack (you cant just strike base from orbit from get go, since it has orbital defences cannons/rockets too - once those are destroyed, wiping out a huge base is matter of one arrary shot from battlecruiser)

Tanks do not secure land either. They win it, but the geopolitical policemen of modern warfare that are the infantry are required to hold and secure any territorial gains. The viability of a weapons system is not some cosmic coincidence of its strengths and weaknesses versus whatever other weapon you want to cockfight it with on the internet. Security is a mosaic and the real world has proven this time and time again. Aircraft are just as integral to winning as tanks are, and it's their cooperation that puts modern military powers head and shoulders above nations still pimping conventional warfare doctrine from the 70's. Tanks and Mecha do not and can not share the same ideology. Instead of comparing the capabilities of either class against the other, people should ask themselves what mecha in any form have to contribute to the flow of information on the battlefield and the combined arms environment that a real military must operate in.

You can really tell how Battletech was born in the 80s when this was a logical extension of what the aircraft versus air defense relationship was. Even at the time though, the fact that aircraft were assuredly destroyed in any strike on a defended target does not preclude their use.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bomber_will_always_get_through
While it is an idiom from the 30s it continues to come back to life. Missile carrying aircraft or even some high altitude bombers (distinctions made useless in the era of smart weapons) moving at speed are typically at standoff distance and can virtually ensure a mutual kill even against ground defenses with superior range. To your average mercenary squadron in Battletech the idea of tit for tat isn't exactly acceptable but it most certainly is in strategic conflict. The trade only begins to favor the attacker more as more aircraft are used to saturate zones of enemy defenses, since the whole network need not be overcome to render all of it useless.

True but it's called "infantry support tank" for a reason

The entire doctrine around the Panzergrenadier is to be a combined force of infantry and armor. With phase 1 being tanks spearheading the assualt, blowing up key targets like machinegun nests and bunkers then holding position until the infantry comes in

most mecha act more like attack helicopters

Attack Helicopters attack from 5-7km range at night optimally with night vision and target highlited, not fly over with barrage of fire as you see in movies. There are exceptions, like Russia did in Syria for example - but its very risky and just using tech that costs a lot for inapropriate tasks.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bomber_will_always_get_through
I don't quite get how this idiom "comes back to life". The article itself is pretty explicit that the bomber typically does not always get through in modern times.

Because jets are shit and super gay.

It's not the aircraft you can't shoot down, but the munition it carries. Much smaller cross section and in numbers enough to overwhelm even SHORAD like triple A as it closes in. Unless literally everyone has their own C-RAM trailing behind them.

This is plain wrong. To fire ammunition first it needs to be in firing range, being vulnerable for the other side to begin with, and secondary its wrong to assume intercepting air to ground missiles is difficult - it is not. The only issue is oversaturation. Nowadays you can intercept tank shells and even cluster munition, let alon bombs or normal missiles.

Its ICBMs that cannot be effectively intercepted, it does not apply to plane launched missiles at all. The cruise and anti-ship missiles are harder to deal with since they use landscape to their advantage, but still can be destroyed even at end stage (though the trick to them is still not sending a single missile, the modern ones are litterally coordinating with each other and i.e. only one is obvious target sending data to the others that are low profile and dont use active navigation).

Missiles are very, very overrated. The actual god of war is artillery, as before. In modern times it being MRLs, because they are mobile, cannot be defended against because of overwhelming barrage and cover huge strike area (as opposed to even best cruise missiles, which are still for targeted purposes only).

>combined arms anime never
Man, this suck.
For once I'd like to see, instead of some bullshit mecha pilot do some ballerina dance with fantasy superlasers and handwavium ultrashielding, an anime that shows a military capable of using air superiority, CAS, mechanized infantry, main battle tanks, sea based assets etc all at once. Man, wouldn't that be nice.

I just want a cute girls infantry anime in a real war. Like band of brothers with lolis.

You're shit and super gay.

Friendly reminder that America died and Sweden has best tits.

Argevollen

Since we are going full /k/ here, I just want to say that I watched Shin Godzilla yesterday and holy shit it was so fucking realistic!

The military tactics&strategy, the political concerns, civilian management, and international response is just top notch.

There was only about 30mins of actual battle in the 2 hour movie but I guarantee you that it was a masterpiece.

I once thought that it was impossible to find any movie that shows respect to the military and geopolical landscape but Shin Godzilla prove me wrong and pounded my ass hard. And god do I love it.

I can make webms but I am hungry right now

Nice post.

Really pleasant to read and all.

If fact, everyone should post like that.

That would make a better board.

Give me a break. I am eating

We had a /k/ thread about it

Do you have a link? I missed it and would dearly like to read it.

Nvm bro, just found it.

So which is better, tank or mech?

I personally believe tanks to be cooler and more useful in every "realistic" situation.
That however, is just my opinion and I perfectly understand when people like mechs, because when you break it down, they're big metal men with big swords. Everyone likes big metal men with big swords.

>There will never be a series about qt loli Hartmann shitting on the best the Allies had to offer in honorable 1on1 dogfights

Seriously though. I don't normally go in for WW2 stuff, but reading about Erich Hartmann the fighter ace and Hans Ulrich Rudel the bomber pilot and how they dominated their respective areas duing WW2 is awe inspiring.

>I don't normally go in for WW2 stuff
You're a really bad liar.

Kozhedub > Hartmann. Hartmann scored most of his targets pretty much by leeching, getting easy picks and awoiding fights.

Why would I lie. I just enjoy stories about exceptional 'warriors' and WW2 is, in most cases, too far along technologically to make individual contributions matter that much. Sure there were some good stories and some exceptional ones, like Jack Churchill, but for the most part it's pretty boring.

>Hartmann scored most of his targets pretty much by leeching, getting easy picks and awoiding fights.
Never heard that before. You got any sources? I'd be curious to read up on it.

Are we talking about pilots now? My favorite is Hans-Joachim Marseille.
>always lets his enemies live when he can
>felt bad about killing even after his sister was killed by some rando who "loved" her
>refused positions offered personally by hitler
>killed by his own plane malfunctioning
>"Here lies, undefeated, Hauptmann Hans Marseille"

also forgot to mention he got over 100 kills without being on the eastern front.
But trivialities.