Well it doesn't list heights, but i did find this scale comparison in technical readout 3039. I'm sure you've already seen this, but just in case...

Amazing to see the difference between assaults and lights. Assaults are really huge compared the little light ones...

Your scales are probably right on.  Consider for a moment, if you will, the graphic provided above is an average between 'Mechs with similar structures.  If you have a 'Mech with larger legs or a broader or deeper, or both, torso, or the head is put into the torso -Fafnir- or many other factors -such as with the Puma's flat-wide upper torso- heights will, of course, be far different.  Canon says 'Mechs are between 7 and 15 meters in height, so between 22' 11" and 49' 2"; not a big difference there or machines weighing between 20 and 100 tons, is it?

What really impressed me about that graphic, too, is how the tanks are represented.  Fantastic work.  Print that out poster-style and put that on my wall somewhere.  *G*

How do you figure?  They're right on.  A tank 10-12 meters long?  The M1 Abrams tank is only 9.77m in length...  http://gunpoint-3d.com/model-M1Abrams.html , 9.83m here... http://www.enemyforces.com/tanks/m1a1abrams.htm , 25.98 feet ~ 7.92m without the gun here... http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m1abrams.html , and 32.25 feet ~ 9.83m with the gun here... http://www.defencejournal.com/jul99/abrams.htm .

Now, although I agree many DATs might agree what I am about to say is wrong, the Abrams is the largest tank in the world and is considered to be quite effective and can be used as a home for short periods.  The tank in the graphic, above and on the far right, is easily 10-12m in length, which makes it longer than the Abrams.

So please, sir, step away from the drugs, hehe...

one: tanks can easily go toe-to-toe with mechs, even though many.... games... disregard them as nothing more that *pop* their dead.

two: tanks tend to be MUCH tougher nuts than mechs of equal mass, large amounts of mass is dedicated to amour.... such as the MARV II Mars 2 assault vehicle (100 ton'r), its got 18 tons dedicated to amour, in comparison to 14.5 tons on a Highlander IIC assault 'Mech.

three: tanks have to put alot more into movement than mechs, seeing as they cant pack a car sized fusion reactor in them

four and finally: 'Mechs are designed to be efficient, their amour is light, their skeletons are light, and they take up more space so they can pack more weapons. the size difference is nil... say you have a solid metal box, and you find some method to take that metal and reform it into something that takes a different amount of space. thats basically 'Mechs, they are lighter, more compact.... most of their size is Myomer fibers, which are huge and light weight to start with

hehe I'm to young to have served in a tank brigade... got an uncle who did tho. frankly i just love using an entire tank battalion in CBT to pancake other player who seriously underesimate them. nothing screams "Death to 'Mechs!" like a squad of five B-15 Burke tanks mounting 3 clan ERPPC's each.

Lucky for you, the Devs seem to have a soft spot for Tank lovers, and from what I understand, we will probably see some in the game. I think the point most people are trying to make is not that Tanks are bad, but that this is a game about Mechs. There's certainly room for artillery, and infantry, and aerospace, and Tanks....but at the end of the day, the game is called Mechwarrior for a reason.

Pretty much. Should be fixed in MWLL.


In comparison to 18 tonnes on a Stone Rhino, which is 100t. Highlander IIC is 90. The weight of the armour is about the same, apart from the surface area which isn't.


The Mars actually does have a fusion reactor in it, and so do many other later CBT tanks.


Which was my point. Mechs are designed to be efficient, but tanks aren't? Why would you make such a stable and durable beast as a tank with second-rate materials when you had better stuff available for your mechs?

It makes more sense to scale the mechs down to the point that they can be competitive against tanks' small profiles, rather than making them 1.5-2x bigger by volume and waving it away by fiat. The volume difference looks bigger than it actually is, but the gameplay perspective has to win out in the end, so that the Rommel tank doesn't completely outclass the Grasshopper which is going to have a much bigger profile without a good firepower advantage to counter it.