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
WarNerd       5/28/2010 2:10:29 PM

I agree that remotely operated platforms are the way to go but I don't think you need any "SoldierBoy" style immersive interface to get it to work - hand the balance/movement off to the local platform in much the same way that the UCAV's don't need much flying right now -they pretty much do what they're told instead of needing continuous input to keep airborne.


What you are describing is a semi-autonomous anthropomorphic robot, not a remotely piloted exoskeleton. 
 
Let's compare autonomous vehicle (AV from here out) requirements for different environments. A UCAV has a pretty simple life, move from point A to point B while maintaining separation distances of X feet vertical and Y feet horizontal from all objects.  Submersible AVs are the same, sensor ranges are less but so is the maximum speed.  Naval surface AVs are actually harder to create than submersible AVs if they need to navigate at speed in anything worse than a light chop.  Non-combat wheeled or tracked land AVs are at least another order of magnitude harder to develop because of the highly varied terrain they have to navigate.  Walker AVs that will be able to move indoors environments that is even more complex, and that?s before you add additional modes of travel, such as prone, crawl, crouched, jump, and climb.
 
The next big problem is the boundary between fully autonomous decision making and requesting human input vs. response time under fire.  The big problem with a ground combat robot is that the allowable time for the decision cycle terminating in fire/not fire orders is orders of magnitude shorter than for air or naval robots, which generally can spot their potential targets at ranges that allow time for deliberation.  In ground combat surprise and ambush are the norms, and infantry combat in urban settings or dense undergrowth allows no time of all for consulting a higher, human, authority.  Imagine the trouble the first time an infantry bot shoots a kid with a toy instead of an insurgent with an RPG (Sure, the insurgent just ducked around the corner behind the kid, but that still does not relieve the manufacturer/programmer of the responsibility in the Press.).

There will be semi-autonomous robots in infantry support roles, but probably not close combat for the foreseeable future.

 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       5/28/2010 2:31:37 PM

A good rule of thumb is your mech will have to be at least twice as tall as the tallest obstacle you want to step over.  Tall objects are difficult to hide and easy to hit.  low is good


That only applies to bipeds right?

Quadrupeds too, though they might be a little shorter, but not much.  A insect like robot with 6+ legged and the knees positioned above and away the body can be shorter, say 90% of the wall height to the top of the knees, but assumes a posture close to 150% of the wall height when crossing. 
 
The major requirements  are to have sufficient clearance between the bottom of the 'body' or hip joints (whichever is lower) and the top of the obstacle while maintaining a wide enough stance to avoid hitting the obstacle with the legs.  For a biped this involves going into a modified horse stance and swinging one leg at a time over the wall.  A quadruped has to rear and jump to clear the wall with first the front and then the back legs.  An insectoid walker can just lift up one set of legs at a time, while balancing on the rest, and set them down on the other side of the wall.
 
Or you can jump over the wall, which has an entirely different set of problems.
 
Quote    Reply

Rayelth    Small Possibility?   7/1/2010 2:53:20 AM
Well even with all the negative and anti-mech opinions and believe that theres still hope.  Don't shoot me down just yet guys, you all had great facts and points but theres different ways that a mech could be utilized on the battlefield.  Well of course a walker wouldn't be able to stand up to a tank or even LAVs/IFVs.  You guys named all the flaws so I won't go there, but I was thinking more of recon, scout or even a Light AFV.  It's legs would come in handy where troops could use some heavier firepower then what they could easily carry themselves.  Like a weapons platform.  It could be four legged for added stability, only equipped with MGs and possibly some missiles.  Maybe a cannon where it could lower its main body to the ground and kind of dig in for the shot.(Possibility)  Useful in dense jungle areas and perhaps even urban warfare into alleyways and tight narrow passageways that couldn't be traversed or covered by any wheeled vehicles.  It's armor would have to be light probably only able to stop small arms fire.  Just my opinion, I like the idea of mechs even though the idea is far fetched. 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       7/2/2010 5:56:37 AM

Useful in dense jungle areas and perhaps even urban warfare into alleyways and tight narrow passageways that couldn't be traversed or covered by any wheeled vehicles.  It's armor would have to be light probably only able to stop small arms fire.

Only if it is a biped.  Quadruped (4 leg) designs cannot maneuver well in tight spaces.  Most ground quadrupeds in the jungle are small so they can slip under rather than through branches, or huge to smash through by shear weight (elephant).
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       7/12/2010 10:11:07 PM
A limbed tank would be able to dig elaborate fortifications.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       7/13/2010 7:51:07 AM

A limbed tank would be able to dig elaborate fortifications.

If we really wanted some kinda anthropomorphic engineering machine (a digger),
technically we have today the capability to build a tele-operated excavator type machine that uses dual backhoes (or better yet, multiple tool attachment systems) to dig trenches or whatever holes in the ground we want.
 
Tele-operation was at one time an option considered for the Abrams-based counter obstacle vehicles (see Grizzly, among others), and there have been trials with similar remote operation of digging/engineering equipment on armored chassis, especially in the areas of minefield/IED clearance.
 
It isn't really then a serious stretch of the imagination to envision a dual-digging-arm "vehicle" that's operated remotely by a soldier or engineer "wearing" a tele-operation suit, wherein the digging arms closely mimic his movement (coupled to force feedback, such systems have already found their way into everything from bomb disposal to surgery tables. Also, the sequel of the "Short Circuit" movie (SC 2) about "Johnnie 5", they actually used a telemetry suit to manipulate the robot's movements, whereas in the first movie it was all stop motion animation... $.02).
 
Still, I find it very hard to believe that we would spend billions to develop a walking combat machine with arms featuring near-humanlike dexterity to grip/use numerous tools and weapons, only to relegate some of its non-battle "downtime" to digging in the ground, undergoing unnecessary wear and tear on its components,
when we already have suitable engineering assets to do that.
 
Quote    Reply

C2    Cost effectiveness.   7/13/2010 8:59:37 AM
If we spend billions of dollars Ironing out the chinks in our proven aerospace industries, imagine what Lockhead, Boeing or lord forbid EADS would inflict on us with R&D costs and procurement blowouts...  
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       7/14/2010 3:38:36 AM

A limbed tank would be able to dig elaborate fortifications.

A limbed tank would NEED elaborate fortifications.  For starters the hypothetical 15m tall biped walker would need a 15m deep foxhole to hide in when the artillery is falling and tanks are on the horizon.
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       7/14/2010 3:52:41 PM



A limbed tank would be able to dig elaborate fortifications.




A limbed tank would NEED elaborate fortifications.  For starters the hypothetical 15m tall biped walker would need a 15m deep foxhole to hide in when the artillery is falling and tanks are on the horizon.

I'm thinking more like a Starcraft Lurker.  Bipeds are not how you make a walking tank.  A spider-tank that could dig itself into a hole vertically or horizontally.  As it is tanks are aleady low slung and dig their own fortifications.
 
Quote    Reply

Omnicronimous       2/4/2011 3:55:07 AM
While I agree that in current conditions a "walking" combat vehicle isn't practical, I think advantages and possibilities are being missed here stemming from a lack of practical imagination and tech knowledge.
 
To start with you all have to understand that armor is evolving. It's just not about the materials and thickness anymore. Consider the Israeli pro-active tank defense technology. I use the Israeli version as they have a complete practical technology that can be put into use on the battlefield today. It's not sci-fi, it's here and now. The U.S. and U.K. both are reported to have their own projects developing the same technology, but as last I heard they hadn't put it into widespread use on the battlefield yet. The Israeli system is called the Trophy Active Defense System. More than likely armor will lean more and more toward this "active defense" type system and as electronic and chemical technologies develop. Also, more than likely projectile weapons fired with explosives and fuels will become a thing of the past as magnets and energy focus weapons advance. This would thus render the tank, in its current form, obsolete.
 
Furthermore, many people on this board submitted that the "walking" technology was too far fetched, too complex, too impractical, and too expensive to make it a viable area to explore. Again, we're already there with this type of technology. I honestly think we're on the cusp of seeing a lot of "walking" machinery. Why? Because as the technology has developed, engineers have discovered an *unexpected* surprise in "walking" technology. The advanced stabilization technology actually causes the machines to be ultra quiet and allows them very sure footing on uneven terrain. Louder and smaller machines have been developed that move quite quickly. For examples of this technology being shown in practical use, simply look up the *logging* machines being created around the world right now (a few examples in Scandinavian countries are very impressive), or the "Big Dog" project, or any one of the numerous projects that private engineers have been working on all across the U.S. It's a freaking hobby at this point for advanced engineers in the U.S. to dabble making "walking" machines. While some of these "walking" vehicles/machines are excellent on rough terrain but slow, others are fast and some even have leaping/jumping ability. The jumping factor is another one of those things that people hadn't previously envisioned... and it's very impressive. Imagine an armored vehicle that moves very quickly across a battlefield with quick jumps... now imagine a slew of them. As for practicality and affordability, the John Deere Timberjack is an example of how extremely economic such machines can be.... Let me repeat that and let it sink in... Economic. That's a magical word folks, and that alone has generals right now working on budgets to get this stuff on the fast track to mainstream military use.
 
Now, combine multiple factors so you get the big picture... Plastic/cold static armors combined with active defense systems, and electronic cloaking will make future military vehicles "hidden" targets on the battlefield that render conventional weapons fairly useless. Furthermore, with undeniably better mobility and speed, greater versatility, and cheaper cost, not only are walking military vehicles a possibility, they are virtually an inevitability just around the corner.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics