What if the walker where a real life weapon?

[Deadeye313]

A walker would wreak havoc in an urban environment in the infantry support role.

1. Because of it's towering height it would be able to poke it's guns in the second story of a building and essentially clear whatever room is there.

2. It's armor could be like that of the M1. Chappem and depleted uranium would make the thing virtually indestructable with regards to RPGs, the most likely enemy of the vehicle.

3. troops could easily support it since it won't take up the huge footprint of a tank. just like the enemy could walk between its feet, so could our own troops.

4. Let's not forget the sheer fear factor of something like that coming to attack you. would you actually stand there with an rpg praying to god for some type of 1 in a million shot or would you run?

5. gyro stabilization would easily keep the thing balanced. The thing would have to have a better range of motion than the 2142 robots so it can at least put its foot out to catch itself after a side long hit. if they can keep the m1's gun stabilized at 30 mph, or keep a sattelite in 3D space perfectly stable, they can keep a walker up.

6. the weapons, due to its height and huge armor would be able to fire much further than an ordinary soldier and it could carry much heavier machine guns, rockets and missiles than troops.

7. mobility in cities would be easy. The power needed to move the massive legs would be enough to kick almost any obsticle. With the stabilizers, it might even be able to simply step on small roadblocks formed by cars. Ordinary tank traps would be useless due to this ability too, though even those can't stop us now anyway.

In an urban, anti-infantry role, the walker would actually replace the helicopter. remember they had to bring in helicopters to protect everyone in Mogadishu? A walker would not only scare the living daylights out of all those people, but it can stay on station much longer and shoot over any of those blasted tire piles. protecting troops underneath it would be easy too, to prevent enemy shooting down on them from above, sort of like an umbrella.

As normal warfare gives way to urban, we're going to start seeing vehicles designed for this specific role be employed more. low sitting tanks might be great for open desert, but in wooded land, and dense streets, a vehicle that can both hit hard, maneuver well, and still allow troops to maneuver around it in tight quaters would have a profound impact on tactical strategy.

[AllFoamNoBeer]

I would actually say the mostly likely enemy of a walker, would be carpet bombs, or long range armour piercing shells. Not infantry.

[AleShazin]

LOL OWNED

[BluebaronX]

How to take down a walker.......

1. Go get your gunner.
2. Get into your trusty snowspeeder with your gunner.
3. Find walker.
4. Get into good firing posistion while not get shot.
5. Shoot tow rope and attatch to leg of walker.
6. Complete 360 degree circle around walker.
7. Repeat until tow rope securely in place and release tow rope.

8. Now watch the walker go timber!!!!!!!

Lol i was thinking bout playing rouge squadron again. Anyways it could be viable but as with anything it is prone to have its weaknesses. That and I think i like the heavy infantry idea better!

[ICE*T]

Lets say that in real life they had walkers that are about the same size as the ones in 2142(and and they can walk DOWN hills as well as up).

Do you think they would have practical military uses?

I do

1. elevated vantage point means they can see and much farther and in close rnage combat of urban warfare they can fire down on enemy infantry trying to take cover.


2. they could be loaded with things like hellfire antitank missiles

3.if uses correctly(and by correctly i dont mean sending them off on their own to get pwn3d by the superior armor of tanks) they could accomplish a goal no other armor vehicle in history could ever do.....support infantry in rugged mountainous terrain, i dont see abrahms traveling off road and up 45 degree slopes.

This post shows how stupid you are - you are banned now probably for doing something stupid on the forums.Walkers are not viable miltary weapons in a real life situation - that is why they do not exist.

[Vreki]

My answers in bold, because it is just to much work to split it up into smaller quotes.

A walker would wreak havoc in an urban environment in the infantry support role.

1. Because of it's towering height it would be able to poke it's guns in the second story of a building and essentially clear whatever room is there.

You dont really need to poke your guns into a story to clear it, I am pretty ceratin a salvo of 20 mm will work just as well fired from streetlevel.
Poking your head into something makes your vulnerable to all kinds of guerilla attacks like Molotov cocktails and sticky bombs

2. It's armor could be like that of the M1. Chappem and depleted uranium would make the thing virtually indestructable with regards to RPGs, the most likely enemy of the vehicle.

The Abrams weighs 61.4 tons. Carrying that kind of weight around on a tracked suspension is one thing, balancing them on two legs with a comparatively small footprint is something else.

3. troops could easily support it since it won't take up the huge footprint of a tank. just like the enemy could walk between its feet, so could our own troops.

The area between the feet would be a no-go for allies, the movement of the feet would probably be far to unpredictable to turn you back to.
Attackers on the other hand will be facing the Walker, and have a better chance of avoiding the feet.

4. Let's not forget the sheer fear factor of something like that coming to attack you. would you actually stand there with an rpg praying to god for some type of 1 in a million shot or would you run?
The M1 you mentioned before has seen plenty of RPG attacks, and I am told that it is already quite intimidating

5. gyro stabilization would easily keep the thing balanced. The thing would have to have a better range of motion than the 2142 robots so it can at least put its foot out to catch itself after a side long hit. if they can keep the m1's gun stabilized at 30 mph, or keep a sattelite in 3D space perfectly stable, they can keep a walker up.
The Tank gun is stabilized on the much larger and heavier platform of the tank chassis. But what we would be talking about here is stabilizing the entire Walker. No matter how much the gyrosope resist gravity, it will still lose if the walker is not stable in itself.
Walking is more than just keeping level.
Besides I don't believe it is the gyrosope themselves that stabilize the gun, they would need to have a very large mass. More likely they control some kind of hydraulics.


6. the weapons, due to its height and huge armor would be able to fire much further than an ordinary soldier and it could carry much heavier machine guns, rockets and missiles than troops.
That role is already filled pretty well today without the need for walkers. Low profile is usually seen as an advantage.

7. mobility in cities would be easy. The power needed to move the massive legs would be enough to kick almost any obsticle. With the stabilizers, it might even be able to simply step on small roadblocks formed by cars. Ordinary tank traps would be useless due to this ability too, though even those can't stop us now anyway.
Those stabilizer would not provide any actual stabilizing force, but rely on the legs/feet to act on the information. You can not have "stabilization" without using some kind of force.
So kicking something heavy would be very likely to topple the walker.
For the same reason it would be more vulnerable the higher it lifts its feet.

In an urban, anti-infantry role, the walker would actually replace the helicopter. remember they had to bring in helicopters to protect everyone in Mogadishu? A walker would not only scare the living daylights out of all those people, but it can stay on station much longer and shoot over any of those blasted tire piles. protecting troops underneath it would be easy too, to prevent enemy shooting down on them from above, sort of like an umbrella.
I don't know the tactical reason behind choosing helicopter in Mogadishu, but I am willing to guess that response time was a significant factor.
Again the Walker role could have been filled by a tank.
And it is my understanding that the AH-64 is very good at scaring the living daylights out of people


As normal warfare gives way to urban, we're going to start seeing vehicles designed for this specific role be employed more. low sitting tanks might be great for open desert, but in wooded land, and dense streets, a vehicle that can both hit hard, maneuver well, and still allow troops to maneuver around it in tight quaters would have a profound impact on tactical strategy.

I dont see how you could combine those into a Walker.
The high manuverablility would also mean that the feets are lethal for anyone nearby.
The heavy armour you suggested before will not combine well with the fast attack machine described now, which again will make it vulnerable.

The current trend in Urban warfare does not seem to be lumbering machines of doom, but small, agile robots.

[haslo]

The reason why walkers won't be implemented over tanks is simple: The legs and way more so the joints are way too vulnerable. I was really amazed that the 2142 walker had no really, really, really weak spot (way weaker than the vents) in his hips.

Remember medieval armor? The weak spot of the heavily armored, nearly invulnerable knights? Under their armpits. A well-placed lance there and he goes down, simply because it's impossible to protect something that has to have free range of movement all the way down to a 0 degree angle. A walker's hips (and a bit less so, the knees if there are any) are way too easily able to bring down the whole thing.

And of course there's stability. While we eventually might make advances that make a walker able to withstand a shell to his main body through advanced legwork, and have no problems with recoil too, then he's still susceptible to tripwires of all kinds.

All this even way before we get to the dead angle issue, and the technical complexity, and the need to repair them on the field.

[193d DCAT1]

The walker would be imprctical for all the reasons stated above, and it would get stuck in the mud.

[Erhardt]

It's been said to death already, in more ways than one, but I just can't resist the compulsion to say it again...

Combat Mecha are fantastic war machines for Sci-Fi, and I love the idea.

Combat Mecha, for all the reasons already stated and about a hundred more still left unsaid, would be bad comedy in reality. The staggering impracticality of implementing and supporting such a system in real life is merely the tip of the gigantic iceberg's worth of reasons it'll never happen.

[tonks950]

Case closed.

[dontsh000t]

RL walker? LOL.
they've been around in numerous old games have still haven't been developed in RL because they just suck in RL.

close-range combat: the legs are the weak point. once it topples, gg to a few million bucks. all you need is an anti-tank rocket to the leg.

long-range: the high CG afforded by the legs make it slightly less suitable than tracked/wheeled vehicles as an arty platform.

all that talk of walkers working alongside infantry is kinda BS imo. ingame you have tards stomping over people and more tards running in front of walkers for candy. one such case in RL, and the lawyers are on it.

and if anyone wants to talk about mountainous terrain just think about how 50 tons of walker can dig its feet into the slope. just cause mechwarrior allows you to do that doesn't mean it works.