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
buzzard       2/4/2011 11:57:19 AM
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.
 
Sorry, but I don't see any circumstances in which having more area to armor is even advantageous over less area to armor(no matter the technology). A walking design is inherently more spread out. Also wheels are also vastly more efficient in energy expenditure for movement.
 
None of your technologies are particularly advantageous to walking units over wheeled/tracked units. The only place in which a walker is in any was advantageous is over extremely rough terrain, and tracked vehicles do that pretty well already. 
 
The very notion that a walker would be cheaper than a wheeled/tracked vehicle is pretty ludicrous.
 
 
Quote    Reply

pdb       2/4/2011 12:38:46 PM
Ground pressure.  Discussion over.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       2/7/2011 6:11:48 AM
Omnicronimous

Go back and re-read this topic, most of your points are already addressed.  To recap:
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.

Active defense systems have only a limited number of shots.  You need at least enough passive armor to survive against autocannon fire from an equivalent vehicle.  Say .50cal for a 2x man sized walker, 25mm APDS up to 3x man sized, and 40mm APDSFS if larger.
 
A walker will also be a taller, and therefore more obvious target than its equivalent.
 
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.

Not sure which hopper design you are referring to, but a patch of soft ground will convert any of them into a lawn-dart.

The problems with walkers revolve around ground pressure, which limits overall weight and performance.  Large walkers are seldom practical for this reason.  Small walkers, such as the 'Big Dog" have potential.  Tiny anthropomorphics have vast potentials.  Smaller is definitely better in this field.
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,
 
Quote    Reply

Omnicronimous       2/15/2011 5:43:48 PM
 
This is a simple example I can find quickly and off-hand. I really don't feel like hunting around the Internet for you guys, but I can post links as I find them for as long as the folks at Strategypage are ok with it. 
 
I have a friend that is a robotics engineer. I have a rudimentary knowledge in a broad range of engineering myself, and I have a knack for problem solving and grasping new concepts. Some of you say that you're engineers. Well, different engineers specialize in different fields. Yet, for those of you that are educated in engineering I think this topic can be discussed further without these dismissals as if there was no further point in discussing the matter. *Ground pressure* is not an all-encompassing two word phrase to support your dismissals. I think you might want to start by considering factors you haven't considered before. I'm not demanding agreement, but I do contend that universal dismissal seems an obtuse way to discuss the matter. Early on this thread became more of a "walking" vs. "nonwalking" argument from many of you as opposed to an open discussion of the technology in terms of advantages and disadvantages. It's not very constructive to discuss a technology topic in the vein of dismissing that technology is it?
 
I think we can all agree that "track" technology doesn't really have much further to go. It is currently the most useful and practical method to mobilize heavily armored vehicles like tanks. Yet, it still relies heavily on the terrain to be effective. One may develop better engines and better tracks, but the effect it will have on tracked vehicles will at best be making them faster and giving them a steeper grade climb. Yet, there will always be the disadvantages of poor directional control, and limitations in traveling through areas like forests, rocky terrain, and urban environments. My point is, that tracked technology can only be made more efficient. Technology advancements will not change how tracks function in any foreseeable way.
 
Flying eliminates the need for terrain but a heavily armored vehicle that flies (taking into consideration all known methods to produce flight) requires large amounts of fuel to keep the machine in the air, making a heavily armored flying vehicle a very inefficient prospect. While advancements in armor, armament, electronics, stealth technology, and energy efficiency will no doubt continually increase the versatility and importance of flying vehicles, it seems reasonable to believe that there will still be a need for ground vehicles into the foreseeable future.
 
The idea of "walking vehicles" isn't that new. Engineers have been working on creating more efficient models for a long time now. However, only recently with more advanced computing have they been able to solve problems that previously hampered the advancement of the technology. While most models now have a plodding nature to their movement, even among these models technology has established that "walking" vehicles can be very quiet, and very versatile. Smaller models have revealed the impressive speed and mobility that can be utilized by "walking" movement. The potential of mobility cannot be denied when one looks deeper into the technology. Computerized systems assist movement by keeping them balanced and constantly adjusted to new terrain features. With the technology advancement in computers has come a burgeoning in advancements to mechanical walking methods. As tracked vehicles are in a matured state of technological development, the walking vehicle is only now just gaining traction (*pun*).
 
Perhaps right now these advancements are more practical in applications related to the private sector, but I contend it's only a matter of time before walking mechanics eclipse tracked wheels in private and military use. The snail is not as advanced as the human. The rail gave way to the wheel and the tracked wheel. So the tracked wheel will make way for "walking" vehicles.  
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

pdb       2/16/2011 4:40:12 AM
*Ground pressure* is not an all-encompassing two word phrase to support your dismissals.
On the contrary, yes, yes it is, and if you understood physics and engineering on even a rudimentary level you'd know why.
 
As a mental experiment, pick a current AFV in any weight class.  10t, 20t, whatever (but the results become increasingly hilarious the heavier you make it).  Look at the ground contact area of the treads.  That's how big your mech's feet will have to be if you don't want your walker to sink up to its knees in the terrain you expect it to transverse better than a tread.  Now that you know how big the footprint has to be, you can do a quick guesstimate of how heavy each foot will be, fudge in some for actuators, shock absorbers and whatnot and OH LOOK YOU'VE SPENT HALF YOUR WEIGHT BUDGET ON FEET.
 
Even if you postulate some future miracle material, there's nothing to stop your opposition from using that same stuff to make better tanks and anti-armor flyers that will make mincemeat out of your unstable, slow, inefficient, fragile, TALL, missile magnet that also happens to pound the crap out of your mech drivers with every step. 
 
Engineering isn't about finding ways to make cool ideas work.  It's about solving problems at a lower materials and manpower cost than current solutions.  The purpose of a mechanized army is to take and hold territory by killing the enemy and breaking his things.  Armored war walkers make this task more difficult, not less.
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       2/16/2011 5:38:45 AM
Ground pressure is always going to be the killer as soon as you talk about replacing tracked vehicles. A Scimitar light recon vehicle has a ground pressure slightly lower than a man in boots, despite weighing eight tons. Extrapolate from that how much higher the ground pressure of an eight ton walking machine with similarly proportioned feet will be.

Add to that this - wheels are just plain more efficient. Test this yourself - go for a quick run, find out how fast you can comfortably run at a reasonable pace, something that'll carry you a few miles. In my case, I'm slow, I'm doing about six miles an hour. Go get a bicycle and pedal that for a bit, see how fast you can go at a similar demand - I can pedal at 12 miles an hour very comfortably with less effort than I can run at six miles an hour.

Walking and running are complex motions requiring a lot of  effort or energy. They also require far more moving components in the main part. 


All of this has been covered earlier in the thread...

Ian

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       2/16/2011 5:01:48 PM
The rail gave way to the wheel and the tracked wheel. So the tracked wheel will make way for "walking" vehicles.  
 
Technically walking gave way to the wheel (unless you mean a sled for the rail, but I assume you mean railroads, and I hate to remind you, but those are wheels, and are monstrously efficient) which went to railroads, and then eventually tracks for specialized applications. You are also ignoring the evolution of suspensions and wheels themselves. 
 
Mother Nature is a pretty good engineer all told, and the fastest runners make 70 MPH for bursts. Wheels can beat that. Heck, an M1 tank is reported to be pretty close with the governors off.
 
Quote    Reply

ker       2/16/2011 9:19:14 PM
The tracks are good for heavy earth moving equipment. Placing an armored car on a bulldozer gave you the ability to move over broken battle feild and wile carring some protection. The reason the battle feild was so impasable had a lot to do with the train loads of shells both sides were firing.  Both the explosions and the holes left in the ground.
 
Also tanks do much of their movement straped onto trains, trucks or ships and need train loads of supplys.
 
Many inventions exist in fiction before fact. Land Ironclads and communicators (star trek). Not all fictional ideas become fact. 
 
The 5 to 15 meters tall and armed mecha is not a tank replacement. 
-------------------
Defence and other R and D are doing work with mechanical legs and vision and planning.  They are integrating that work.
 
We could expand this thread or start another to explore how that work will be developed for the combat and suport. Then we could talk about how the troops will really use the stuff they are sent. 
 
Some posible sub-topics: Hybreads with both wheels and legs/arms, man sized walkers (only displaces one man in transport, posible decoy in combat, can get into the places the enemy can go, could funtion as a self propelled tripod), urban warfare with staircases and rubble that challenge wheel only platforms, climbing. There are many others.
------------------
pdb said, "Engineering isn't about finding ways to make cool ideas work.  It's about solving problems at a lower materials and manpower cost than current solutions."  Good point.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics