Tanks vs Walkers: The general case

VS debates involving other fictional universes than Star Trek or Star Wars go here, along with technical analysis, detailed discussion, crossover scenario descriptions, and similar related stuffs.
Post Reply
Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Tanks vs Walkers: The general case

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:21 am

To start the general discussion of tanks vs walkers in general terms, I'd like to ask Nonamer to justify why he says that a walker can't carry a very heavy gun.
There's also some new points I want to bring up. A tank can carry a very heavy gun. An AT-ST can't. Perhaps for conventional cannons it's not a meaningful advantage, but once railguns come along they'll be a big deal. Also, an AT-ST can't cross very uneven terrain with small elevation changes because the feet of the AT-ST can't readily grip the ground. This is no problem for a wheeled vehicle since you are naturally stable and don't have gripping problems as severe.
To begin with a general defense of walkers, I'm going to point out that since the advent of warfare, the single most deadly combat machine has been the human, a light biological bipedal walker.

It is deadly because it is highly versatile, able to retain limited functionality even after substantial physical damage, and has practically unlimited tactical flexibility. Humans can cover terrain ranging from extreme mountains to swamps to the most dense underbrush to swimmig underwater, and can conduct combat missions within these environments with a broad variety of modular equipment extensions.

The general idea of a walker is that of a mechanical version of a human or animal, borrowing from nature's proven designs. To build, in other words, a superior version of a human, so far as this is practicable.

So, shall we?

User avatar
AnonymousRedShirtEnsign
Jedi Knight
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world

Post by AnonymousRedShirtEnsign » Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:52 am

You can't mount as heavy a gun on a mech as you can on a tank because of stability issuse. The tank has a much lower center of gravity and a wider base, which means it is less likely to tip over. It is the same reason it is better to fire a high power (and therefore high recoil) weapon from a kneeling of prone position than a standing one. If you mounted a 120mm tank gun on an AT-ST it would blow itself over.

As for the most deadly combat machine thus far, I'd have to go with a modern nuclear submarine. It's hard to argue against a something that destroy every major metropolitan area in the northern hemisphere.

I agree that Humans are the most versatile combatants. The AT-ST is a very long way from being as versatile, resilient, or useful as a person. The AT-ST's legs are two simple to allow for all the movements a human leg can do. The AT-ST leg can go up and down, back and forward, that is about it. It can also turn, very slowly, which is why the "Head" rotates independently. If your machine was capable of doing everything a human can do, while affording the operator protection, then it might be more effective than a tank, however SW tech clearly hasn't advanced to that point yet, nor will it in the near future.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:56 pm

AnonymousRedShirtEnsign wrote:I agree that Humans are the most versatile combatants. The AT-ST is a very long way from being as versatile, resilient, or useful as a person. The AT-ST's legs are two simple to allow for all the movements a human leg can do. The AT-ST leg can go up and down, back and forward, that is about it. It can also turn, very slowly, which is why the "Head" rotates independently. If your machine was capable of doing everything a human can do, while affording the operator protection, then it might be more effective than a tank, however SW tech clearly hasn't advanced to that point yet, nor will it in the near future.
Let's save specific discussion of the AT-ST for that thread and use this for general discussion of walkers vs tanks, k?
The tank has a much lower center of gravity and a wider base, which means it is less likely to tip over.
A walker can have a center of gravity as low as a tank. Think of (for example) spider-style walkers.

User avatar
AnonymousRedShirtEnsign
Jedi Knight
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world

Post by AnonymousRedShirtEnsign » Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:02 pm

Other than the lower center of gravity, the tank will probably be heavier, which increases recoil absorbtion (that is why a Beretta has less recoil than a Glock, the Beretta is heavier). The tanks frame is also better equiped to handel the force of the recoil since it is much longer than a mech. The Mech could have a Tank gun on it, but it would have the face vertically. The Mech would have to lie down to fire horizontally.

AT-STs aside, every mech I've ever seen is a gross simplification of the animal it is supposed to be mimicking. For versatility, you need complexity, the problem with complex stuff is that a lot of things can go wrong. You can do things to decrease the likelihood of problems (like stretching out muscles for an athlete, bulking up for football, reinforcing a mechanical joint, et cetera) but things still break. So a good mech has to be able to do all the stuff the animal(s) it's mimicking if not more, at equal or superior reliability. An organic organism can heal itself for most minor wounds, it just requires rest. Surgery is required to repair major damage, and sometimes the damage is beyond repair, so the organism operates with a reduced capacity. If a machine breaks down in a small way, the operators can usually repair it fairly quickly and be on their way again, a little behind schedual. That is if they can anticipate the point of failure and bring spare parts. Some machines have certain components that are more likely to fail than others, like treads on a tank. Since they are all the same and the most likely component to fail, it makes sence to keep spares on hand. What is the most likely part of a mech to fail? I would go with ankle joints since they are constantly under high strain (though me playing tennis might have something to do with this notion). Wow, I'm rambling, sorry. To get to the point, nanites are the best solution for repairing mechs (hell, all machines) on the go. This would be a benefit to both tanks and mechs, but probably a bigger boon for mechs.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:38 pm

AnonymousRedShirtEnsign wrote:You can't mount as heavy a gun on a mech as you can on a tank because of stability issuse. The tank has a much lower center of gravity and a wider base, which means it is less likely to tip over. It is the same reason it is better to fire a high power (and therefore high recoil) weapon from a kneeling of prone position than a standing one. If you mounted a 120mm tank gun on an AT-ST it would blow itself over.
It depends on the exotic design of the walker. Say it's a spider, with high and powerful legs, with the rear ones specially designed to absorb recoil. That means longer and more steady legs than the forward guiding ones. The cannon is actually located under the main body, and the legs are able to become totally rigid. So as a whole, the cannon is located at the center of gravity of the machine, or slightly below.

Finally, the mecha does not suffer from the curvature of a tank's caterpillars.

That should provide a good deal of balance, even maybe more than a tank can come with.

However, such a design would surely bring in other issues which a tank would not have to deal with.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Enterprise E
Bridge Officer
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:30 pm
Location: UFP Earth

Post by Enterprise E » Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:58 am

Another weakness with mechs, even the spider-like mechs that were mentioned would be maintainance issues. It would be far more maintainance intensive than a tank. It takes a lot more gears to work the legs of a spider-like walker, even more than with other mechs. If a gear in one of the legs were to break down, it would significantly impede its mobility, though not to the same point as it would with a two-legged walker. And the more complex gears and mechanisms required to move the legs of even the spider mech would be more expensive than the mechanisms required on a tank. Even if a spider mech was comparable to a tank in many ways, and could even go places where tanks may have difficulty going, it would still have maintainance problems as parts began to wear out. And the more complex gear systems required to make the mech would mean that it is more expensive to build than a tank, and definately more expensive to maintain in the long run.

Nonamer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: Outer Space

Post by Nonamer » Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:09 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
AnonymousRedShirtEnsign wrote:You can't mount as heavy a gun on a mech as you can on a tank because of stability issuse. The tank has a much lower center of gravity and a wider base, which means it is less likely to tip over. It is the same reason it is better to fire a high power (and therefore high recoil) weapon from a kneeling of prone position than a standing one. If you mounted a 120mm tank gun on an AT-ST it would blow itself over.
It depends on the exotic design of the walker. Say it's a spider, with high and powerful legs, with the rear ones specially designed to absorb recoil. That means longer and more steady legs than the forward guiding ones. The cannon is actually located under the main body, and the legs are able to become totally rigid. So as a whole, the cannon is located at the center of gravity of the machine, or slightly below.

Finally, the mecha does not suffer from the curvature of a tank's caterpillars.

That should provide a good deal of balance, even maybe more than a tank can come with.

However, such a design would surely bring in other issues which I tank would not have to deal with.
In particularly it's going to be slow as hell and requires enormously strong legs, as the legs design of a spider are too spread out to be suited to holding up large objects.

Plus a tank can have deployable support beams too, like a howitzer, which will entirely eliminate any advantage the spider tank could have.

Socar
Bridge Officer
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:09 pm

Post by Socar » Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:10 am

Just FYI, there's a similar topic at SDN, so I figured I might as well post a link incase anyone didn't know and cared to read some other opinions on the issue. http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=101089

Nonamer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: Outer Space

Post by Nonamer » Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:33 am


GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:25 am

You can reduce the level of complexity by going with a more 'organic' design. AT-STs and AT-ATs have a hing joint on the legs with very little pivoting. Ball and socket like joints with a limited number of hydrulics that are connected at certain places that holds them together and lets them move around would decrease the amount of gears and extra equipment. Maybe a trio of hydrulics per leg with pivoting connector points and they'd move in groups of 2 or just one per leg/arm to get it going in a desired direction. It's like opposing muscles working against each other and the only time they do any work on their own (meaning needing electricity to activate something) is when the hydrulic collapses. The opposing hydrulic would be extended because of the work the other hydrulic(s) is doing.

Are those things the clone troopers showed up in at Geonosis that were dropped to the ground very short walkers or are they walking tanks?

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:20 am

I would say short, squat, walker. The whole difference we're talking about is basically the motive system - legs vs treads.

IMO, one of the most important things to think about is scale. Not many people criticize powered battle armor in a futuristic setting; not many people find mecha 100+m tall plausible. And yet the proportions, the types of armament, the ideas - those are not so different.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:38 pm

Exoskeletons is one thing. A true walker is a whole other deal.

The walkers seen at Geonosis might actually the best ones.
Plus counting the Utapau small scouts, agile and small enough to cross all terrains very rapidly, and able to walk over anything that would look like a natural step were any other tank would be stuck.

THe SPHA-T has its numerous legs underneath its structure, so to rest, it just has to line the segments of the legs straight up.

But there are many legs, maybe too many, and they appear quite pointy at their tip.

On the other hand, the AT-TE hasa good number of legs, and they are well articulated, plus the feet are quite large, but their position on the side of the main body means a lots of strain put on them, even for simple idling postures.

So the AT-AT legs aren't that bad, they're underneath the structure, but two more would have been good, a reduced lenght and more elaborate movements being enabled would be top notch.

However, I'm of the opinion that for most cases, they just can't match a good tank. The mechanics are far less complex to come with and synchronize, and it has the best support surface.

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:49 am

We keep seeing pulse blasters in SW, except for the guns that took down the core ships in EP 2. A tank with a smaller and less powerful one that's continuous could help move some of the bigger trees and stuff in the tank's path on the ground. They could also make the tank narrower and section it, so it's in 2 parts with the joint section pivoting from side to side, so it can weave in-between trees through the less dense areas. Something as wide as an AT-ST would be good to start with.

User avatar
SailorSaturn13
Bridge Officer
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am

Post by SailorSaturn13 » Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:04 am

A spider - like waljker would be wuite good, actually - IF it has legs complex enough.

Basically the problem is the same as in phaser vs. Turnolaser thing - if you have a tech to do it properly (i.e. complex enough and versatile enough) - go for a walker (However not bipedal; 4 or 6 legs are preferred). If you don't have such tech, go for a tank - it can be built easier.

Post Reply