Walkers

Trek Books, Games and General chat
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Walkers

Post by sunnyside »

This is from another thread. But really that thread should be more about the authors stuff, esepcailly being in the art and design forum.

Anyway this is a general thread about walker type ground combatants. Presumable far enough in the future that they work well, and contrasted against other vehicles that operate in functional contact with the ground (as opposed to antigrav stuff). This would include tracks, wheels, and I suppose if you want hovercraft.

First off I consider the key point of walkers to be their all terrain capability. I.e for stuff like

Image
And in addition to natural stuff like that many countries even today use tank traps. Structures, usually concrete, that will prevent the passage of a tank. A walker would have no problem moving through these possibly without even slowing down. Also on that note a walker would be less likely to hit a mine. Both because of being harder to channel into a minefield and just because a tank will trigger any mine along its path whereas a walker would skip many.

Additionally tracks are highly vulnerable. I don't see why someone would consider it harder to break a link than to break a whole leg. However in a walker the systems are dispersed. If I fire at the tread of a tank I'm also firing at the engine, gunner, the whole thing. Also legs are moving back and forth as the mech moves forward. Making solid hits, especially from the side, rather difficult.

Also in the view of modern warfare you're also much further from IEDs and mines. Yeah they might take out a leg, and will almost certainly cause it to lose balance. But at least the bulk of the vehicle is intact. And at least able to crawl if not move along kneeling. Also some modern mine types would be of limited use against a mech. Most anti armor mines rely on some degre of shaped charge, and these require some distance to form. Stepping directly on one would actuall prevent proper detonation.


now at first glance they seem easier to knock down. But presumably they'd be made to get back up again. And also anti armor weapons impart relatively little momentum. Instead relying on extreme velocities at extremely focused points to slice through the armor and do damage via the burning fragments of the penetrator and the holes through the equipment. For example a KEW-A1 penetrator hitting a 60 tonne (weight of an Abrams) mech would impart as much momentum relatively as if a baby weighing a tenth of what you do crawled into you at 1 mph. Hardly enough to even register. The sort of weapons that would knock it down would tend to not be very effective against its armor. Energy weapons also shouldn't impart much momentum.


As a side note the military is working on walkers. Not like battlemechs but smaller ones for accompanying infantry in rugged environments such as a hilly woods where other vehicles couldn't get.
Last edited by sunnyside on Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Walkers

Post by Teaos »

One of the biggest down sides to walkers is that as soon as one leg goes. Or even one joint in one leg could bugger it. And it would not be as easy to fix.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Re: Walkers

Post by sunnyside »

Teaos wrote:One of the biggest down sides to walkers is that as soon as one leg goes. Or even one joint in one leg could bugger it. And it would not be as easy to fix.
Yeah but on a tank as soon as one link goes it's immobilized. (Side note wheeled vehicles just can't handle tank weights)

It would seem that a link would be much easier to take out than an armored leg, since links are inherantly thinnish and not solidly connected. Also only some leg damage would put the thing down. For example if it stepped on a mine and blew its foot clean off it could still move forward passably well pirate style if the surface was hard enough. That same hit could throw a track and leave a tank immobilized, or kill it outright..

Also mechs don't have to be bipedal. A six legged mech could in principle lose three legs and still keep walking, and should be able to mostly ignore losing the first.

Of course a new foot is more of an ordeal than a new tread. But that's an after the battle consideration. I'd rather just be alive.
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Walkers

Post by Teaos »

But if we're talking about the future since you said future better walkers we could safetly assume tank tracks are much better. Maybe even a totally different concept, I remember seeing on a doco once about sliding blocks moving against each other providing superior movement and grip and if one gets knocked out they can easily keep going.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Re: Walkers

Post by sunnyside »

Teaos wrote:But if we're talking about the future since you said future better walkers we could safetly assume tank tracks are much better. Maybe even a totally different concept, I remember seeing on a doco once about sliding blocks moving against each other providing superior movement and grip and if one gets knocked out they can easily keep going.


Better by materials. You'd have to propose a different design. What preciesly do you mean by these sliding blocks?
mlsnoopy
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:42 pm
Location: Slovenija

Re: Walkers

Post by mlsnoopy »

Why should they builed walkers or tracked tanks. With the technology avalible they shouldn't have any problems building a hover-tank.
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Walkers

Post by Teaos »

It was on a future tech doco. It was a suggester Mars rover and also a new form of land transport.

It was a bunch of blocks, thousands, about and inch square, to move ones from the back slid up and over to the front... repeat to move. Each block had its on computer core but linked together there power increased with each block, ths it could still function well even with 80% of it blown up.

Can't quite remember all the details but I'll look it up. Kinda reminds me of the replicators from Stargate.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Walkers

Post by Graham Kennedy »

My big problem with walkers is their height. In the present day a tank that was say 1 metre higher than the one you showed would be considered vulnerable on the battlefield because you could see it from further away; a vehicle five or ten metres tall would be suicide plain and simple, and one thirty or forty metres tall would be insane.

Plus imagine the landing craft that carry something like that down to the surface of a planet. Again, it would have to be huge.

As for all terrain, it depends I guess. Good articulated legs can cover very rough terrain, but the walkers typically depicted in sci fi are usually articulated nowhere NEAR as well as a living thing. Case in point ED-209, who couldn't even manage stairs and clearly couldn't get up when he fell. I certainly wouldn't trust that thing over an M-1 in rough terrain.

Also I'd think tank-trap type obstacles could be implemented which would block a walking machine. Not sure what that would look like, but my instinct is that it's certainly possible.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Re: Walkers

Post by Teaos »

Drop a bag of marbles and they fall over comically.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Monroe
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:17 am

Re: Walkers

Post by Monroe »

Teaos wrote:Drop a bag of marbles and they fall over comically.
Or roll some trees :P



I think walkers are a good idea, just like Strykers are. A Stryker is probably the best armored wheeled vehicle ever developed and works better than most APCs but does not replace the tank. I cannot see a walker replacing a tank either.

Perhaps the best mode would be have wheels on the side, to allow it to travel and what not when the legs are folded up, since they would have to fold up to save cargo room. Military has a long history of doing this. Also three or more legs would be ideal. The walkers in the newest War of the Worlds were very well designed and something like that could work well but perhaps with some more legs.

I'm not saying they should replace tanks, just a good addition to them. Even Star Wars, a universe well known for its walkers uses tanks and armored wheeled craft too.
How many Minbari does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
None. They always surrender right before they finish the job and never tell you why.

-Remain Star Trek-
Aaron
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10988
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
Contact:

Re: Walkers

Post by Aaron »

GrahamKennedy wrote:
Also I'd think tank-trap type obstacles could be implemented which would block a walking machine. Not sure what that would look like, but my instinct is that it's certainly possible.
Like a current anti-tank ditch only deeper and more narrow. Wire obstacles could easily be constructed large enough to ensnare the legs, mines would be just as effective as today with the added bonus that when the foot pad is blown off, than it will topple over. Likely killing the crew.
I think walkers are a good idea, just like Strykers are. A Stryker is probably the best armored wheeled vehicle ever developed and works better than most APCs but does not replace the tank.
Unless you actually meant to say the LAV III/IV series than you are sadly mistaken. The Stryker is one of the worst wheeled AFV's to ever grace the battlefield: it lacks sufficient armour, firepower or mobility to do the role it was designed to do.
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2711
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Re: Walkers

Post by sunnyside »

To be fair the ED-209 was explicitly supposed to be a bad example of design where it was made for looks first and performance second. It was also suppose to have serious malfuction issues. Though I'm sure there are bad walker designes out there that, in world, are supposed to be good.

A deeper and more narrow ditch would just get stepped over. I'm sure you could build stuff to oppose incoming walkers. However it requires much more elaborate structures (as opposed to a block of concrete) Also mechs with forelegs/arms have he opportunity to try and go Godzilla on what is put up.

Hight is a fair complaint. You can target more of course but you can always drive to what you want to fight whereas height makes you vulnerable to a wider range of attacks from unexpected quarters. On the other hand once you get to walkers with six limbs you have the ability to keep the body close to the ground or to pop up if you so choose.

For open combat I would consider the biped designs to be generally inferior. Where I'd consider them useful is in scenariors where their verticle natures allows them to operate at a size that wouldn't otherwise be able to move in an area effectively. SUch as woods or narrower urban areas.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Walkers

Post by Mikey »

legs vs. treads: Sunny, you are correct in that taking out a tread immobilizes the tank in the same way that taking out a leg would. However, legs would be more subject to naturally-occurring material stresses from the weight of the vehicle being carried; and when a leg goes, you both immobilize the vehicle AND subject the crew to injury from falling.

And, as GK et. al. mentioned, you're talking about a higher profile and higher center of gravity. Treads were initially used on tanks (having borrowed the idea from British farm tractors) to disperse the weight of a very heavy vehicle over as great an area as possible - legs would actually concentrate that weight onto 4, 6, or however many points ("feet" the walker has. A snowspeeder certainly couldn't destroy a tank with a tow cable.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Re: Walkers

Post by Tsukiyumi »

Mikey wrote:...A snowspeeder certainly couldn't destroy a tank with a tow cable.
Sure it could. Just latch onto the rear end, fly forward, and flip it over. :wink:

I know this has been posted before, but for the benefit of the newer members: BigDog
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
Aaron
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10988
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
Contact:

Re: Walkers

Post by Aaron »

sunnyside wrote:
A deeper and more narrow ditch would just get stepped over. I'm sure you could build stuff to oppose incoming walkers. However it requires much more elaborate structures (as opposed to a block of concrete) Also mechs with forelegs/arms have he opportunity to try and go Godzilla on what is put up.
Hogwash, a deeper ditch would cause the walker to either get stuck or fall over. Even if one alone is too narrow you litter the battlefield with them, it's not like modern militaries don't do this.
Hight is a fair complaint. You can target more of course but you can always drive to what you want to fight whereas height makes you vulnerable to a wider range of attacks from unexpected quarters. On the other hand once you get to walkers with six limbs you have the ability to keep the body close to the ground or to pop up if you so choose.
And thereby making them even more complex and more heavy than a four legged walker or a tank, Really I'm not seeing any advantage here save the terror factor, something tanks do quite well.
For open combat I would consider the biped designs to be generally inferior. Where I'd consider them useful is in scenariors where their verticle natures allows them to operate at a size that wouldn't otherwise be able to move in an area effectively. SUch as woods or narrower urban areas.
I find myself in agreement here, though I'm opposed to walkers in general.
Post Reply