>>626755

>a person in power armor can be killed with a big enough gun

yeah, no shit.

an AT rifle would fuck up a normal person, too. the advantage the power armor gives is you can carry a shitload more weight for the same mobility, meaning a soldier is less fatigued when he gets to the fight, and can get there with a much bigger gun and/or with a much larger ammunition load.

how power armor is typically depicted is as a hardsuit that can both support its own weight but also move itself, taking all the physical strain off of the wearer. it's not a difficuilt thing to design and implement, the trick is keeping it powered, right now the only options are heavy ass lithium polymer batteries and/or gas generators. neither are exactly convenient in the field.

>>629404

you can't put a tankette on top of a building without the use of a crane or a helicopter.

someone in an exo suit, with the same armament, could use the stairs.

tanks are useful in open ground due to speed and capacity for thicker armor. in a city, especially one that's currently being fought over, armored vehicles are at a severe disadvantage.

mountainous terrain is also a place where infantry has the advantage. a common tactic of the Afghan fighters is to post up in the mountains, firing on enemy vehicles moving through the restricted mountain roads. due to the very rocky ground the typical doctrine of "close the distance with IFVs then dismount troops within 300m" can't be done, because the vehicles were stuck on the roads. in most fights the average infantryman couldn't even shoot back due to their basic rifle only being useful within 500m. in this situation, a soldier with much thicker armor, and a larger gun, could make all the difference as he COULD cross that aggressive terrain while remaining about as well protected as he would be in an armored car.

It's by no means a game changer, but it's damn useful. especially for soldiers who are assigned to crew served weapons like mortars and heavy machine guns.