Hey /k/. Don't post in this board much, but having just recently re-watched Star Wars, it got me thinking about armored walking vehicles.
Under what circumstances,if any, would walking tanks be preferable over traditional tracked or wheeled tanks? If not a good idea now, will technology and/or circumstances ever make legged tanks a practical tool on the battlefield?
They're top-heavy, so none.
>>30143069
That could be mitigated by mounting the legs in a way similar to a spider, allowing it to raise and lower the hull depending on terrain.
>>30143056
Maneuvering through rough terrain is the only benefit I see, but even then we'd just fly over it in the first place and never encounter the rough terrain so I really don't see any purpose.
>>30143084
How do spiders have their weight distributed?
>>30143056
A walker might be a decent recon vehicle that could operate in some areas where traditional wheeled or tracked vehicles cannot.
But in MOST situations a tank is going to be a better option. Especially in frontline warfare and in most rough terrain tracks are just better. Lower ground pressure, less points of failure, easier maintenance, ect. Walkers will never take over the role of tanks.
Walkers would be good as small recon vehicles, operating along infantry and using their legs to go wherever the infantry go.
>>30143056
tactical and strategic mobility.
But that's literally not a problem anymore given that we have air assault and light infantry EXACTLY for that purpose.
Walkers and mechs have too many points of failure, plus motorpools and logistics would most likely struggle to maintain them.
>>30143056
The only place I can imagine a walker would be better than a tracked vehicle would be in insanely rough going terrain. But even then, there's infantry to take on said terrain and do so with more flexibility.
So, none. Besides, walkers are basically by definition extremely top-heavy. Unless they've got a setup like a spider, in which case they're absurdly wide and long for how much actually usable vehicle there is. Not to mention the nightmare it must be for maintenance and how many failure points it will have for breaking down.
>>30143157
what about the halo scarab tank?
>>30143125
why not just fly some drones for the surveillance?
oh look it's this thread
AGAIN
>>30143243
The walker would probably be a drone. Like the 'mule' boston dynamics is developing, but armed with an AR or LMG.
Until we have gundam tier maneuverability, reaction speed, armor and weapons we will never use walkers
They'd be best when you need an ultimate weapon, something that bridges the gap between infantry and artillery. A... METAL GEAR.
>Subtle mechthread
...ugh, stop.
>>30143239
Way too easy to kill, plus they're basically giant Hunters made of of dozens of worm colonies.
>>30143056
Literally never.
>>30143056
Tanks? No, but maybe reconnaissance vehicles could benefit from it. Really niche use though, if platoon-level anti-aircraft could swat down hand-launched drones with efficiency that would be a good scenario to make a case for it.
Not with our level of technology though, the only thing that could come close to powering it would be a miniature nuclear reactor; not a lot of research in that. (plus it's politically unpopular, would never get funded)
>>30143056
The AT AT is literally the stupidest walker mech ever.
You can fucking tip that shit easily.
>>30143056
Never and by giving them wheels/tracks instead.
End this thread whilst you still can OP.
>>30143243
Maybe if the enemy has really good radar it might serve a use there, or if the area is too dense and visually obstructed from the air.
>>30143056
The bad news:
>R&D costs would be through the goddamn roof
>maintenance would be a logistical nightmare
>you don't need a Pip-Boy to identify its many failure points
>it would get Home-Alone'd so fast, even up against guerilla forces
The good news:
>an inexperienced and easily impressionable enemy would find it fucking terrifying
Armored "mechs" are in the same league as flying aircraft carriers. They seem like a cool idea, but actually keeping one at operational readiness would suck the fun right out of it, and that's before some asshole starts shooting at it.
They'll never be preferable as the rebels have a steady supply of T47s with TOW cables that can topple one of these things with nothing more than 3 passes.
>>30143243
Quadrupedal drones can carry a shitload of supplies/ammo/their own weapon.
>>30143056
How many times do I have to unleash my autism about this
The AT-AT is NOT a tank. It is self-propelled artillery that doubles as a troop transport, while moonlighting as a psychological weapon.
>>30143056
the AT-AT would probably benefit more from being used as a mobile surveillance&command centre.
>>30143056
>having just recently re-watched Star Wars, it got me thinking about starting yet another thinly veiled mecha shit thread
get the fuck back to your containment board, you insufferable cunt
>>30143112
On their feet? They're pretty light to begin with so it's not like they have to worry about sinking into the mud.
They use hydraulic pressure to extend their legs, so they can carry a pretty good amount of weight relative to their size. That's also why their legs curl up when they die, loss of hydraulic pressure.
>>30143087
AA/Artillery platform? Find some place that tanks can't get you and dig in, taking shots at passing aircraft and convoys?
Might be useful in urban combat with debris everywhere.
>>30143084
spider tanks suck. shit range, shit speed, weapons only good for disabling enemy vehicles, get one shotted before they're even in range.
>>30146383
>get one shotted
Actually, if there's one thing a spider tank has it's durability. The legs are redundant, only two or three are needed to get the thing to move. Blow a couple off and you've only slowed it down.
By contrast, if a tank throws a tread it's not going anywhere. Wheeled vehicles are better since you can just shove all the cargo to one side but if it's one of the drive wheels the differential will try to throw all the power into a non-existent wheel. Newer differentials are better at this and anything with more than 4 wheels is usually pretty good but you can't exactly armor wheels.
I'll grant you that wheels will beat out legs in terms of roadspeed so you'll want to put wheels at the ends of the legs if you can engineer it.
>>30146383
Total Annihilation? Total Annihilation.
>>30146475
>design a spider tank for god knows what reason
>have to design and build several hydraulic legs that work in perfect unison
>tank needs to have paper thin armor or otherwise it would be too heavy and sink into the mud
>if a leg gets blown off or damaged it can't be repaired in the field
>tracked tank can just replace a broken tread
Spider tanks are dumb
>>30143084
Fuck off, Cybrans.
>>30143056
Warning. Mecha has escaped containment.
>>30146683
>design a spider tank for god knows what reason
Because difficult terrain
>have to design and build several hydraulic legs that work in perfect unison
Already been done
http://www.bostondynamics.com/robot_bigdog.html
>tank needs to have paper thin armor or otherwise it would be too heavy and sink into the mud
Not really trying to be a tank. More like an IFV optimized for rough or broken terrain. Maybe with some AA or SPG variants.
>if a leg gets blown off or damaged it can't be repaired in the field
Surprise, Redundant Legs! Besides, loosing a tread can often take about an hour to fix or more if one of the bogles. If the drive gear or suspension is damaged then it's impossible to fix in the field and you'll need to tow it back to base.
>tracked tank can just replace a broken tread
only if it's the tread that's been damage. An equivalent damage would be a busted toe piece or wheelie. Both can be ignored entirely if the crew wants.
>>30146752
Spider legs would still be much more complicated and expensive to manufacture and maintain than standard tracked vehicles.
And how do you have redundant legs? The weight would need to be carefully distributed and disabling one or two legs could stop the spider tank.
And what if the tank wants to take advantage of natural terrain to get into hull down position? Either the tank is too tall be concealed/covered or the body is lowered while the legs are still exposed.
>>30143056
When you have the resources of an entire galaxy at your disposal, cost becomes a trivial concern.
When it is cheaper than soldiers' life insurance.
>>30143056
uuuh... guys we need to set once and for all the mecha thing in the sticky. No week passes without a mecha/walking weapon thread and the same arguments are repeated over and over again.
>>30143056
alright in short:
>1-pressure
>2-complicated sensible mechanisms and action
>3-tall figure
>4-technology that can be applied more efficiently to tanks
>5-harder to make and maintain than tanks(see point 2)
alright, I think that should be all, Im leaving out anything if you have any doubts about the subject extend these points yourself by using the simple logic and brain you avoided when making the question in the first place.
>>30147192
>Vader got a shitty suit because of budget constraints
>>30147192
>>30147304
ya man wtf was up with that you asshole
>Under what circumstances,if any, would walking tanks be preferable over traditional tracked or wheeled tanks?
When fighting on Planet Of Gigantic Stairs. Aka minecraft terrain.
>>30143056
The concept of the walkers is that they excel over difficult terrain. We're talking Hoth, where there's feet upon feet of snow, ice and crevices. That being said, they're top heavy, which puts them at distinct disadvantages.
In the Star Wars universe, walkers were used primarily for fear. The height of the cannons did mean they could pick of specific targets with considerable ease. And their troop carrying capability made them a force to be reckoned with.
On Earth, the heavy resource cost of construction, combined with the non-existence of laser weaponry means we'll probably never see a legged walker over a tread or wheeled tank.
>>30143338
Wait what
Nigger are you telling me that thing is a spider version of a Hunter
Like I've read 7 fucking books on Halo lore and never heard that
Damn if you're telling the truth that's fucking awesome
>>30147323
A planet of bismuth!
>>30143084
Like this?
Better question will we ever see something like the at-rt being used for faster infantry deployment and movement
>>30147304
>shitty suit
Vader lost his arms and legs and what was left of him was burnt to a crisp, considering that suit was keeping him alive while limiting bulky shit like a backpack i'd say it was a pretty good suit
also a powerful sith wearing a black suit with a cape and a masked helmet is intimidating
>>30147375
I think it would suffer from the same problems but with the added disadvantage that the infantry is not protected by anything.
and for moving infantry the principles that composes a HMMV will probably be constant in the future, since most units will operate in squads anyway that can always thanks the help of having a .50 near them and an armored vehicule.
>>30147396
The shitty suit thing is from the distilled autism of the extended universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVzc20Bm8Xo
>>30147404
I see know that I think about it star wars vehicles arnt very practical
>>30147429
They look cool, thats it. When they put at-at and at-st and so on they create something that looks big and powerfull and dominates the battefield because our primitive minds tell us that if something is big is powerfull and therefore you should run.
And the empire is also big, powerfull and inspires terror so there is harmony between the narrative and design concept, its just reality that fucks things up as usually but as long as you keep you suspension of disbelief on everything should be fine.
Star wars was never ment to be realistic or deep anyway.
>>30143056
Isn't that just a giant APC/command center with super heavy armor?
>>30147423
lel, i've never even seen that video but my comment sounds like i stole it from their first fact about the suit
>>30147339
Not him, but yes, to my knowledge Scarabs are filled with a colony of lekgolo. Hence when you damage them sufficiently they "screech", which is the lekgolo being burned alive by the core melting down.
>>30147423
>lights on the front panel constantly flashing and pissing Vader off for literally no purpose
I don't know why but that's fucking hilarious
>>30143423
No you couldn't.
>>30147627
yes you can.
>>30147339
>>30147506
Not either of them, but no, the Scarab - and variants - are just normal vehicles. You hit them enough to cause them to stop (you have to hit the legs) then you destroy the power core, which gives you the shut down and destruction. This is explained in Halo 2 where they are first seen. It's never stated anywhere that scarabs (and Locusts) are anything other than vehicles.
>>30147423
oh my god this is the best star wars video ever
>>30143056
>Under what circumstances,if any, would walking tanks be preferable over traditional tracked or wheeled tanks?
None.
Above a certain size-to-weight ratio, legs become extremely ineffective and wheels become your only realistic option for mobility.
Tanks are extremely fucking heavy for their size. You would need some incredibly strong and large legs to do even half the work of wheels/tracks.
>>30146819
>Spider legs would still be much more complicated and expensive to manufacture and maintain than standard tracked vehicles.
True, although it can be argued that thousands of tread links are more trouble prone than maybe half a dozen joints on a leg
>And how do you have redundant legs? The weight would need to be carefully distributed and disabling one or two legs could stop the spider tank
Hip joints, mostly. You're also going to use the wheelies for the most part anyway but for walking you shift the stride patterns of the legs so that the vehicle moves more like a tripod than a quadruped. Granted, if you lose two out of four legs you're basically crawling but it's something.
>And what if the tank wants to take advantage of natural terrain to get into hull down position? Either the tank is too tall be concealed/covered or the body is lowered while the legs are still exposed.
The same can be said of a tank. Either it's too tall to be concealed or too short and doesn't have a field of view.
The difference is that a walker can lift it's hull up so it can make a hull down position out of what normally isn't a hull down position.
As for the legs you can rest the hull on the ground and stretch the legs out.
[spoiler]There's actually a better argument against spider tanks but you've got to abandon this tank vs tank mentality[/spoiler]
>>30143069
AT-ATs are actually really stable.
>>30147481
Yes.
OH BOY, HERE WE GO AGAIN
>>30143056
They would be preferable to tracks on jagged, highly uneven terrain. Like obsidian terrains or mountains.
>>30146475
>The legs are redundant, only two or three are needed to get the thing to move
>>30147712
>thousands of tread links vs. half a dozen joints on a leg
Wheels driving tread is VASTLY more simple than the complex set of levers required to create a functioning joint
then see above anon's comment on weight issues
walking mechs are never going to be viable
>>30143243
Armored against small arms and carrying heavy duty recon equipment you couldn't ruck on your back, perhaps.
We're going to see cheetah-fast robot dog scouts before any mech bullshit. These things are already pretty fast, now imagine how agile they could be after a couple development generations.
>>30150326
>Wheels driving tread is VASTLY more simple than the complex set of levers required to create a functioning joint
Wheels aren't treads. We can argue wheels vs legs but frankly, it makes more sense to put wheels on legs anyway for road speed and then use the legs as enhanced suspension.
>then see above anon's comment on weight issues
By that line of reasoning the T-90 is better than the M1 abrams because it's got better weight distribution.
Besides, on soft ground like sand or mud you actually want to deform the ground to give you better foodholds. You can actually get better traction on sand because of how you compact it while with mud you're digging through the A horizon into the more stable B and C horizons.
>>30147635
No you can't, not without ramming it with something akin to a Juggernaught anyway.
>>30143112
8 ways, dipshit
The only real advantage I can think of with a legged tank is that it could adjust it's height. It would be really useful for hull-down positions.
Something like AT-ST's or AT-RT's might be useful as scouts/patrols. Though there isn't much need for that when you have flying drones.
>>30147304
>budget constraints
If I remember right, ol' Sheev intentionally gave Vader a shitty suit to give him more suffering (since the Dark Side is fueled by that kind of thing) and to remind him that he was Palpatine's bitch.
>>30147339
You never noticed that about Halo 3? It didn't have any sort of pilot controls like it did in Halo 2.
>>30147480
>because our primitive minds tell us that if something is big is powerfull and therefore you should run
And this is the core of the Tarkin Doctrine.
>>30151166
>it literally gets tripped up by cables and the pull of a land speeder with 100 times less mass
>>30150326
Still on about those tanks? Seriously.
Okay, fine, Why are mechs impractical? Because you can do 90 percent of what you want to do with a mech with powered armor and powered armor is more practical
Seriously, we've had this argument hundreds of time on this board alone. I shouldn't need to walk you through this.
