Finally, there is no known reason for a man-machine interface to be viable only in a bipedal humanoid vehicle, and in-setting evidence (ASFs) that it can be applied to non-humanoid shapes as well. If you can stick an MMI into any vehicle, it stops providing special and notable advantage to bipeds, save for the limited value that may be inherent in having giant hands, I suppose.
As i noted in my previous post, REAL WORLD experiments so far has shown that the human brain is considerably better at interfacing with something that mimics the human body. The less similarity, the more delays and ambiguity you get. So no, if you stick the same MMI into a mech and into a tank, you most certainly do not get the same level of advantage from both. You might not even get the advantage from it at all from the tank.
No, the reason bipedal combat platforms are worse than tracked or wheeled platforms is because the bipedal platform is inherently more exposed, more mechanically complex, less redundant, less stable, has a higher specific ground pressure, and falls afoul of the square-cube law in a worse way.
You're completely ignoring what i wrote, again... Let's say it in an even more simplified way then shall we? If you have a mech that moves at least as easily as an infantry-soldier, it is no longer easier to hit than a tank. It's also only more exposed as long as it is in the open. And the shape of a mech allows it to move through terrain in ways that tanks simply cannot. Most forests suddenly no longer require engineers to make roads. A lot of swamps suddenly becomes merely something that slows you down instead of completely stop you. Stony ground is mostly a non-issue. Cities are no longer deathtraps.
Anywhere but open plains or desert, the mech is vastly advantaged.
2nd part, what's easier to hit, a box or something that has the same surface area spread out over several moving parts? Oh yes, the box by a HUGE margin, because as long as you don't miss by a lot, you still end up hitting. But aiming center of mass against something humanoid-shaped does not get that. It's why some people in reality who are plenty good on a shooting range are utterly crap at hitting real, moving targets.
...uh, no, that's not why people say Battlemechs are and should be worse than tanks. Of the points you have raised, all can be reversed and applied to tanks with just as much effect, if not more, than bipedal combat platforms.
Better armor can be applied to the tank just as easily as a biped. You can build comparmentalized tanks, the problem is not the shape or motive method but the size of the vehicle, useful comparmentalization requires a larger platform past a certain point.
In case you didn't know, the primary reason why tanks look like they do is because of the limitations of armouring. If you remove/change that limitation, which several future materials seem highly likely to do, then the reason for the "armoured box" no longer exists.
And no, compartmentalization of a tank is NOT an easy thing to do, as because of being "a box", if something goes in on one side, unless you go for massive internal armour, if it can do enough damage, it can go through anything in its path, and unless the tank gets shot at from very weird angles, that path is extremely likely to go through several/all compartments of the tank, this has been one of the big tank design problems for over a hundred years and it's not getting solved anytime soon because the design is inherently susceptible to it.
Just because you're unable to understand what the effects of such a paradigmshift would result in, doesn't mean it cannot happen. And again, i'm NOT saying it will happen, because again, it requires the developments i mentioned to happen to a high enough degree as otherwise the classical advantages from the "armoured box" remains the better choice. But denying the potential advantages of "walkers", IF you get the right foundations to actually exploit them to their best, that's just paradigm blindness. You're doing your best to only think inside the box, literally and in double meaning for the terrible pun.
Power is a nonsensical statement, you do not need dramatically more or less power between bipedal locomotion and other motive methods, not when compared to the needs of powering DEWs and other elements, and if you do that is a strike against the bipedal platform. You might require advances in propulsion or motivation technology just to make bipedal systems feasible, but that is a strike against it, not in favor of it.
Power was secondary to achieving better "muscles", because while we can today build something "mech"-ish, what they use for movement is mostly pathetically bad compared to human muscles(and simply wont work for something military). Having a better powersource however, would potentially make a far greater difference for "nontanks", as the "armoured box" will simply say "thank you" if you can make the engine smaller or lighter etc, but it wont actually have any truly huge impact on the tank, while for something that is better compartmentalized, it could mean being able to cut down even more on the size of at least one of those compartments, making a mech even more difficult to hit.
#####
regardless of whether or not you are right, in BT there are several arbitrary nerf to make Tanks inferior to Mechs. These include (but are not limited to):
- Fusion engines in tanks have 50% more mass for 'extra shielding' (so less room for other stuff)
- tanks are required to have 1 crewman per 15 tons (or part thereof), so a 100t tank requires a crew of 7, even though a 100t Mech only needs 1.
- Jumpjets are not allowed on vehicles.
- Vehicles must have enough heatsinks to handle a full alpha strike (moderated by the fact Vehicles ignore heat from missiles, Autocannons and machineguns)
Indeed, again this is mostly game-balance stuff, but at least the latter two would have some real resons for them(i could possibly make an argument for the first one as well, but that's a bit iffy). A jumpcapable tank would require a massively more capable suspension(which would require lots of both space and weight), while a mech, well, there it's just a matter of having the already existing legs do exactly what they're already built for, absorb impacts. There's also the balance issue, as while modern electronics could MAYBE deal with it on its own, for hopping around, the compactness of a tank is actually a negative.
The combination of having a more dispersed center of mass and the inherent sense of balance of the pilot, would definitely be preferable.
While the heat-thing is based on the assumption of a mech-wide heat distribution system together with compartmentalisation, while in a tank, if you generate heat, you generate it basically "in the middle of everything", which is less than great. This also reflects on my earlier "oh dear, BT-verse is absurdly overpowered" note, because the amount of heat generated according to fluff, is stupidly high.
However, ingame, mechs are also greatly nerfed compared to tanks. Most of all, the enhanced reflexes and C4 a mech would have according to the fluff, is effectively nonexistant by the rules. The true mobility advantages of bipedal over tracks/etc is also seriously lacking.
And it's not really a matter of "am i right" but rather, whether reality will ever come up with the advances that makes me be right.
I don't really think it's likely to happen in my lifetime at the very least, but like i wrote above, if the right tech people suddenly get just the right breakthroughs, it could happen really soon, as while current tech is far too poor to make it happen(or even get close), there's no solid obstacles actually blocking the way as far as anyone can tell.