Quote from GuardianTempest

Tanks

Mechs need a bit more tinkering whilst metal boxes need a cannon and wheels as a minimum. Also, Kwai is awesome.

You've obviously never seen a gundam

Quote from Drone

You've obviously never seen a gundam

I know about thy mobile suits, of course, and raise you a Bolo. (giant, undying, sentient supertanks) (yes it counteracts my previous point)
Geez, if only I recalled that sooner.

Quote from Envoy

FOR THE EMPEROR!!!

I don't know you played WH40k, Dreadnoughts are cool. But the Emperor Class Titan beats all.

You've given us kind of lacking detail.
How big is this mech-suit? In this sort of fight, the size of the mech suit would be would decides victory or not. If its smaller or the same size as a tank, it would have no chance. If its bigger (much bigger), then it has a chance.

Also, I want to know, what kind of tank is it? If they're coming from the same timeline, a tank would have stronger firepower, since that's what tanks specialise in. I'd also imagine a mech suit to be more fragile and complicated tech-wise, as a tank from this timeline would be tougher and more durable. And as you'd guess this mech suit would have more mobility, but most mech suits from most sci-fi use machine-gun based fire. But if this suit had enough firepower to destroy a tank, then a tank's less mobile but much more destructive artillery could destroy the mech suit much easier.

Is the question which one is cooler, or which one would win in a fight? Mechs are undoubtedly cooler, but there are some very good technological reasons why the military does not use them. And if we're assuming massive advances in materials science then presumably the tanks will have to be similarly upgraded.

Quote from Zed

Is the question which one is cooler, or which one would win in a fight? Mechs are undoubtedly cooler, but there are some very good technological reasons why the military does not use them. And if we're assuming massive advances in materials science then presumably the tanks will have to be similarly upgraded.

Which one is more effective in future wars?

Tanks, they don't topple over and they're effectively crawling fortresses.

Look at my Bolo example, they're amphibious, capable of stealth (despite the weight class) and other shtick.

Why is it even a contest? 1 good explosion just under the tank/armored vehicle and it will make it flip on its back like a piece of paper. An armored vehicle is getting no way near destroying for example an imperial AT-AT walker (From the empire strikes back episode of star wars) or a transformer , or any other mecha that has been given in manga, anime or movies. Now if we are talking realistically in the near 50 years something like the imperial at-at walkers will be totally possible. Mechas > armored vehicles.

Any explosion which can flip a tank is an explosion which will blow a mech's legs off. That is unless you're comparing modern day tanks to giant sci-fi mechs with incredibly advanced materials science. Which would be a bit like comparing a medieval knight to a Eurofighter and concluding that nothing from the ground could destroy something in the air.

There are alot of ways to 'kill' a modern days tank with modern days weapons. For example an RPG/Bazooka. When the rocket's shaped charge penetrates the armor, it sends all sorts of flame, toxic fumes, shock wave, shattered and liquified bits of metal from the weapon and the armor, and other nasty things, inside the enclosed cabin of the vehicle. This does extensive damage to the crew and to the vehicle.

One of the things that has made the Abrams superior on the battlefield is the fact that the various elements of the vehicle (crew, engine, ammunition, fuel) are compartmentalized in heat- and blast-proof sections, so when the engine gets hit it doesn't kill the crew, when the fuel gets hit, the explosion goes out rather than in. Well ofcourse, I have heard of all this from national geographic, so if I'm wrong you're free to correct me.

I am pretty sure you guys have heard of the anti-tank guns .

My point is that if todays modern weapons can destroy; 'Kill' tanks then future weapons should be able to do the same with future tanks. Nevertheless, as I said before, I am pretty possitive that there wont be any armored vehicles that could stop an imperial AT-AT walker (when/if something like it gets created) nor a manga/anime agile mech with their overpowerd swords that are often showed do shred through metal like nothing.

I am not really into si-fi, so probably most of what I said would be wrong , but to be honest both mechs and armored vehicles suck. Medieval fighting style ftw! :D

Quote from 420Ace Drake

I am pretty possitive that there wont be any armored vehicles that could stop an imperial AT-AT walker (when/if something like it gets created) nor a manga/anime agile mech with their overpowerd swords that are often showed do shred through metal like nothing.

This seems completely unjustified. Mechs have far more weak points than armoured vehicles. The joints are all constantly under tremendous strain from the mech's own weight. It would not take a particularly powerful weapon to blow an AT-AT's leg off.

Quote from 420Ace Drake

My point is that if todays modern weapons can destroy; 'Kill' tanks then future weapons should be able to do the same with future tanks. Nevertheless, as I said before, I am pretty possitive that there wont be any armored vehicles that could stop an imperial AT-AT walker (when/if something like it gets created) nor a manga/anime agile mech with their overpowerd swords that are often showed do shred through metal like nothing.

According to the star wars wiki...
"The most vulnerable part of the walker was a weak point found at its flexible neck, which was susceptible to lighter blaster barrages. The legs were also somewhat unstable and could be tripped^[2] due to a high center of gravity,^[15] leaving the walker defenseless.^[2] While first appearing to be a slow, lumbering vehicle, the AT-AT would often times be on top of its enemies before they knew what had hit them.^[3] The AT-AT also lacked armor covering on its underbelly, leaving the spot vulnerable to mounted guns or portable missile launchers. To remedy this weakness, AT-STs were usually stationed around the flank of the walker to ensure nothing was given a clear shot at the AT-AT's weak underside.^[12]"
Also I would like to point out from a design perspective that walkers are far more complicated to design, hence why we see so few now. Take bipedal movement for a normal human. Multiple muscles have to coordinate with one another for us to stand up, and to move, the relationship between muscles become even more complicated. Not only that, there are sensors in the brain that must coordinate balance, and feedback to make adjustments accordingly. With so many interacting systems, by damaging one, there is a chain effect that can potentially render the other systems useless.

In the instance of repair, you would need more specialised parts which would up the cost. Where, in comparison, for something that only uses wheels, replacement is easier.