Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Advantages/Disadvantages of a walking tank
theBird    5/22/2007 1:05:43 AM
Similar to a mech, (or mecha for the Japanesse minded), an armoured walking vehicle anywhere from 5 to 15 meters tall and armed with a variety of heavy and light weapons, either with a single pilot or multi-person crew. Alternatively a walking bradley armed with bradley type weapons and able to deliver a squad to the room of shorter buildings.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
andyf       5/24/2007 6:09:35 PM
the problem with these enormous units is how vulnerable they would be to aircraft
the thing may as well be a walking target range
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/24/2007 8:32:36 PM
The problem is economical as technical
A tracked tank can go on 70% of ground of earth (from a simulation of earth average terrain).A walking tank would go to 95%
Is the added complexity and price is worth the value? Montain troops would probably say perhaps but probably not the others.
And the price could stay affordable only if it become the standard system.Maybe in the future but I have a serious doubt.
An army is a global system.When tank are not suited, helicopters and aviation can do the job.And they exist.
And frankly, the global NATO trend is to go to wheeled vehicule while they can go only on 40% of terrains!
So for the walking tank....
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/24/2007 8:34:08 PM
Now I have to say that it could be a possibility for a small vehicule ( a minirobot) which could be used for urban warfare.
 
Quote    Reply

00_Chem_AJB       5/25/2007 6:56:24 AM
An exo suit.... even if it is armoured, an RPG will still toast it.
 
Quote    Reply

00_Chem_AJB       5/25/2007 6:56:29 AM
An exo suit.... even if it is armoured, an RPG will still toast it.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       5/25/2007 1:47:34 PM
There's a chance that Japanese nurses might get an exoskeleton before US soldiers get them:

"http://www.we.kanagawa-it.ac.jp/~yamamoto_lab/pas/index.htm"





 
Quote    Reply

FJV    PS   5/25/2007 1:48:33 PM
One disadvantage of exoskeletons would be increased logistics needed for infantry.



 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       5/25/2007 2:03:25 PM

There's a chance that Japanese nurses might get an exoskeleton before US soldiers get them:

"http://www.we.kanagawa-it.ac.jp/~yamamoto_lab/pas/index.htm"






Wow! nice website.
 
From the website, we know that
 
1. there are fat chicks in Japan, too.
2. they really want to make Samus Aaron's suit in Metroid series.

 
Quote    Reply

00_Chem_AJB       5/25/2007 2:46:18 PM
 As you can probably tell, I'm not exactly a fan of these systems. One thing I noticed is the amount of tubing/wires, while obviously they wont be exposed on a combat built unit, damage to them will probably seriously impair the unit, and there is the whole concept of keeping the thing cleaned and maintained. From what I saw on that site, while maybe not suited to combat duty, such a system will find a home in logistics, i.e. Aliens and the power-lifter being used to load munitions.
 
Quote    Reply

TimberJon       4/20/2010 2:00:23 PM
I'm sorry but none of these points seem to be argued by an engineer of any caliber... 

Let me give credit where it is due:
caltrop - good job 
verong - 20,000 tons? is yours made of gold?

1. Mechanical complexity.  Other than the governing components, possible gyro, mandatory reactor, the drivetrain is relatively simple to engineer. 
2. Ground pressure. In war, who cares about the road being tore up? Oh maybe tracked/wheeled vehicles. In that case, the mobility awarded to a walker wins. A stout wall will stop a vehicle, not a walker. Deep rivers will stop a vehicle, not a walker. 
3. Height. No matter. Build hangers and manufactories taller. 
4. Speed. A quick search got me 75 kph or 45mph for the Abrams. which model I don't know. Good baseline. We know the Abrams is somewhere around 75 tons. A 'mech of similar weight could probably move about as fast. Factoring in less ground contact (less friction) and adding more friction due to servos, artificial musculature or if any gearboxes are used in the legs/hip area. I am a BT advocate, but from an engineering point of view, yes a mech is possible with straight motors/ gearboxes, pistons, gas/diesel engine(s), etc... but THAT machine would be deathly slow and bulky. To lighten the design you need to increase the strength of the legs and therefore it's mobility. Upscaled heavy-duty high-strength servomotors and artificial muscle is the way to go, as FASA originally thought up. Legs that can pull alot of tonnage faster will get you up to speed, support torso weight, etc.. Speed shouldn't be an issue if the vantage point for target location is significantly higher than a groundpounder. If they need to travel X distance just to crest a hill for a firing solution, time is wasted. A walker has LOS to the target and can fire at it while standing next to the tank that is between hills or LOS blocking terrain. 
5. Thin armor. Oh? We just began making artificial diamond. It's grown now. Used in industrial cutting tools and oil well drills. BT claim to fame was the Ferro fibrous armor plating. Still pretty heavy but able to take insane kinetic punishment. We could get armor pretty close. Composites could be used today with some kind of a steel cable mesh to keep the armor from shattering and falling away upon major impacts. Again, it couldn't be fielded if the armor wasn't up to show. It is possible to get the armor dense enough that a M1A1 sabot round will do minimal damage. At that point... how many rounds will it take to do major damage to a walker of similar weight? Alot. How many similar/lesser rounds would it take to disable that tracked/wheeled vehicle? So the value of the ground vehicle is less and less as it's single heavy weapon becomes less effective, mobility becomes less and it's range is limited.
5. Toppling. Cockpit dampeners, and industrial shock-resistant servos, artificial musculature and ruggedized components will allow such a walker to be fielded. It is a challenge but a simple one of engineering components correctly with the proper material selections. EZ mode. If you are talking sci-fi crap like anti-gravity suspensorlift junk, then yea that's not possible. A bipedal 'mech that falls will get back up if it's locomotive components are not damaged. 
6. Unmaneuverability. I don't need to go there because a walker that could only move its legs in a rigid pattern such as is coverened by a gearbox/driveshaft system would be silly. Pistons/hydraulics would also be pretty useless. 
7. Unstable firing base. This is broad. What is it firing? anti-infantry guns? Missiles? fertilizer? The whole point of the gyro is to help balance the thing right? It should be tied into all the computer systems that govern the 'mechs movement right? The pilot attempting to target something should be readying the gyro and movement systems to brace for firing a ballistic weapon such as a cannon. Recoil should be engineered out or significantly reduced for a tall walker with a high center of gravity. That would certainly be a design goal. Anyone who says we dont have rail guns
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics