Zaresto said
Why do we have all these people defaulting to mechs? They kinda suck.
Honestly its because they are better mobile weapons platforms, while tanks are better frontline fighting vehicles. In the case of Mechs that mount Artillery cannons, they have higher sight lines, and could possibly reach areas that tanks would find impassable do to the danger of high centering, no traction, etc. In this they would be more maneuverable and adaptable
Zaresto said
That doesn't excuse the fact that mechs in this era of technology are horrible compared to tanks.
Well... no.. not really. Lets assume the mech uses the same engines as tanks, that means their main problems would come from the same problems that face tanks of the same era. That would be Horsepower problems of various models, or (as in the case of tanks like the Sherman) fuel problems, slow high speeds, and weight problems (though this could be rectified in a Mech by adding better lode bearing legs, but that would cause the first problem to most likely occur, a catch 22 if you will). Not only that but while some mechs can substitute tanks on the field, the majority play a heavy support role, or a mobile "static" defense role (an oxymoron I know), thus most are different than tanks. Those that are built to take on tanks are just that, built to take on tanks. They carry heavy cannons and various other implements used in tank killing, but are usually prone to being overrun, just like tanks. But in all honesty they probably have different engines, and so their own set of problems. An if you were referencing the whole "But the are bigger targets", yes they are but refer back to the point that they are usually used as mobile "static" defenses , they would be made to take huge punishment. Other than that the others could mount similar armor to the tanks.
Sorry if that sounded angry or attack like, it wasn't meant to. It was just written in a dead tired state