What if the walker where a real life weapon?

[Crabhart]

a Hover tank would be more usefull.

hover tank's cool, but the lack of a turret mounted gun gets pretty annoying.

Also in the real world, how would you keep that thing fueled?

[Dtneter]

i heard that if we want hover technology like the pac tanks it wont work because of several reasons

1: how do you make engines that suck so much air at a short amount of time to make it float
2: if it can float what about the dust that will come up
3: what will the engines run on? ordinary fuel or some other crap :P

[tonks950]

A tank has those nice reactive armor squares on the sides and heavy armor in front to keep it's tracks very well protected. A leg is harder to protect and just the kinetic energy of impact on the main body could tip it.
A tank has ground level machine guns, with a walker you've got a point where once you're close enough it can't hit you, IE, walk past a building, a guy runs out, three steps and he's safe.

But IMO, tanks suck too. We need more long range weaponry for the open battlefield, like MLRS, and perhaps a better solution for urban combat, tanks just don't seem necessary in, say, Baghdad. Maybe a smaller armored SUV w/ a minigun or something.

I don't see why a walker couldn't have reactive armour mounted on it as well so it could be plausible but not practical or even possible to protect all the little gizmos that make the leg move. Also I just find it hard to believe that a tank shell would knock a walker over. I know a tank shell has a tremendous amount of kinetic energy but I can't picture it knocking over a walker, I just keep telling myself Newton's third law.
You also make a good point with the coaxial mg, that's definitely something the walker doesn't have but maybe it could have one mounted underneath the torso.

I found this nice quote on wiki that sums up the walker

The applications often highlight the theoretical usefulness of such a device, combining a tank's resilience and fire power with infantry's ability to cross unstable terrain.

If we take it at face value it means that unless a walker can completely fufill that role it is uselesss.

Anyway I should really stop defending walkers, I just can't see it happening, even if they're support, recon, mounted with javelins, painted pink etc.

[Wizrdwarts]

i heard that if we want hover technology like the pac tanks it wont work because of several reasons

1: how do you make engines that suck so much air at a short amount of time to make it float
2: if it can float what about the dust that will come up
3: what will the engines run on? ordinary fuel or some other crap :P

Magnets maybe? It doesn't have to be jet engines like in planes, or even use air. I can see a bunch of them getting stuck together and then needing to get guys to tow them away from each other though. :laugh:

[RottnJP]

Actually a hover-tank (or light armored vehicle) isn't that far-fetched, but it's a niche vehicle. Because of the air-cushion effect it's not as tough as you might think, but the range is limited relative to a tracked or wheeled AFV. They typically use gas turbine engines (a.k.a. "jet") (As does the M1 Abrams, by the way) But the physics makes them less fuel efficient over-all. (Riding an air-cushion takes energy to maintain it, and so just can not be as efficient as being supported by metal parts that only have to rotate.)

[-Spartan`II7^]

In real life, a single hit with a tank shell would make that thing fall on its ***.

Also, I don't see any stairs or ladder, how do the soldiers get in? Stilts?

Various texts in the user manual and the overall design of the walker makes me think that they're unmanned. Where would you carry 3000 rounds for a 30-50 cal twin gatling gun turret and 70 anti armour missiles if not in the "head" of the walker?

Also, they must have pretty goddam tough engines in that small compartment between the legs. It is so small, yet it moves propably something like 30 tons.

It would call for soemt hinking though, I mean it can easily walk over tank traps, so you'd have to come up with something new to stop them.

Personaly I think, they would be a good thing to have in an urban area. They need a better shielding system though, try something like TROY.

It's a ton better than those shields in the game and we can build it today.

However, they could propably only work on their own, and would be useless as infantry support, because they simply aren't built for infantry support roles. A big sluggish tank is like a moving steel obstacle that has guns and infantry can use it for cover and in return protet it from enemies trying to destroy it.

The least thing I'd have a walker do is fight in the open, because they would get killed by ranges stuff pretty fast and the next big problem are often encountered in the open field: potholes. They can easily be spotted on the road in urban ares, but they can easily down a walker in the open field because they are overgrown or something.

Next big problem would propably be mines. Again, they can be spotted in the urban area/raod and on the open field, you only know that there are mines the very second your 30 ton twin gatling gun chicken steps on one and falls down.

I honestly think they have a long way to go until they can replace battle tanks.

[AllFoamNoBeer]

Because of air cushions, the tank practically has deniable friction, a powerful turret, that counters the force of the tank's stationary position, can make it fly in the opposite direction of the turret's firing direction, therefore, even more fuel and resources will be needed to counter the turret's power.

[-Spartan`II7^]

Further more, due to their vertical build, missiles, anti armour rockets can be lauched up. If you have played COD4 demo, the Javelin rocket launcher is something can be easily implemented.

The Javelin doesn't behave like that in RL, they fly about 50 feet into the air, then dive on their target. In the CoD4 demo, they behave like a nuclear missile that's launched sky high and falls down on its target.

CoD4 VS RL.

[AllFoamNoBeer]

Yes, that still helps with the design of a walker, a horizontal based rocket launching system will hinder the balance and stability of the walker, any missile system that is fired upwards and can track a target at ground level will aid the walker. So.. let it be 10 feet into the air, it is still far better than lauching them 2142 style.

[RottnJP]

Because of air cushions, the tank practically has deniable friction, a powerful turret, that counters the force of the tank's stationary position, can make it fly in the opposite direction of the turret's firing direction, therefore, even more fuel and resources will be needed to counter the turret's power.

That's very true- You'd need to counter the recoil with a very rapid response thruster system. You would probably use a low-recoil weapon system as well- a so-called "recoil-less rifle" type system, which can use a recoil buffering mass, a rocket assisted projectile, and a muzzle-brake. Perhaps it's gun is a smallish caliber weapon for use against infantry and light armor, and heavier anti-armor firepower comes from a missile system. Could make for a fantastic scout, light assault & amphibious assault vehicle.

[Wizrdwarts]

Doesn't the Javelin have a "soft-launch" feature where the main engine doesn't ignite until its out of the tube?

[-Spartan`II7^]

Yeah, thta's how it works. It gets launched out of the tube and only ignites the main fuel part after half a second of sitting in the air

[[DR]S|Pvt. Voop_Bacon]

Im surprised this hasnt been posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zq2pnouiPU

[AllFoamNoBeer]

Doesn't the Javelin have a "soft-launch" feature where the main engine doesn't ignite until its out of the tube?

Yeah, thta's how it works. It gets launched out of the tube and only ignites the main fuel part after half a second of sitting in the air

AFAIK, nearly all guided rockets have a launch then ignite system. To minimize the force acting against the object that is firing it. If you see rockets on planes, or fighters, they "drop" from their holders, then ignite their own thrusters, though you can argue.. "duh, it has to drop, or the plane will be pulled along", the rockets drop a considerable height, then start on their trajectory.

That's very true- You'd need to counter the recoil with a very rapid response thruster system. You would probably use a low-recoil weapon system as well- a so-called "recoil-less rifle" type system, which can use a recoil buffering mass, a rocket assisted projectile, and a muzzle-brake. Perhaps it's gun is a smallish caliber weapon for use against infantry and light armor, and heavier anti-armor firepower comes from a missile system. Could make for a fantastic scout, light assault & amphibious assault vehicle.

I don't know if this may disrupt anything, but do you have an IM service, like MSN or Yahoo?
From time to time, I need help with physics, and my teacher phails. Sorry to ask like this.

( I do higher physics, somewhat similar to AP physics)

Im surprised this hasnt been posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zq2pnouiPU

Though is a great step towards creating lets say the "ideal" walker, that machine has several flaws.

1. It doesn't walk... hence, terrain is a massive issue.
2. The protection towards the soldier is insignificant. Almost pointless
3. Has no pivot, the whole body must turn for the weapons to target.
4. Relating to the above, the weapons have very a limited plane.
5. Its narrow and tall structure make it a very easy target, and it will topple over very easily. The surface area it has on the sides is massive.
6. Suggesting that vents are still the main target, those vents are exposed.

[BandoIruka]

The only thing the walker can do that tanks can't is take a sudden step forward and avoid that pilum shot aimed at it legs. But I doubt that if a walker machine is implemented irl it would be responsive enough to react to that kind of unguided missile attack. So even rpg7s can still hurt it.

Even if its height advantage would allow it to see enemies hiding behind low cover and into rooms on 2nd or 3rd storey buildings, urban combat will still continue to reduce the effectiveness of vehicles by taking away its mobility while giving superior cover and concealment to defending armies.


If you bring a 2142 apc into real life, that might be a different story, but you have different complications to overcome. Such friendly fire issues, ammunition, (2142 apc has unlimited mortars, i think) and the simple fact that buildings tend to come down if you lob three (very) powerful mortars into them in quick sucession.