RE: Infantry Walkers

At 11:33 PM 8/23/98 -0600, Chen-Song Qin wrote:
>>An 
>> IW should be able to walk, jog, run, crawl, kneel, jump, everything a
human 
>
>Hmmm... do you know how many muscles it takes to perform these actions
>well with humans?  If you want to do this with some kind of vehicle,
>there's going to be a *lot* of moving joints.	All of them have to be
>*very* tough to withstand the strain, and also have to be very small to
>fit into the walker.  This is also going to wind up being a mechanical
>nightmare to maintain and repair.

Here, I agree with you; walkers that can pull off "everything a human
can"
will be very hard to develop.  Variable-speed walkers (walk/jog/run),
jumping, and crawling shouldn't be too hard, though.  I'd guess the
trickiest would be crawling, though regaining balance after a jump would
be
a trick, too.

>> can do, or at least a human in PA.  It would need to be of strong
enough 
>> material to withstand this kind of punishment as well (I envision my
IWs
as 
>
>See, if you have some kind of super tough material, why not use it in
>large quantities to armor tanks/starships?  That would be much more
>effective than the necessarily thin layers you have to put on a walker.

Yeah, but can a tank walk up 15 floors of an office building?  Or
manuever
around meter-thick trees through heavy underbrush?  How about the rubble
of
buildings?  Climb a sheer slope?  Okay, walkers might not be able to
accomplish all of the above (the office building would probably be too
small anyway, and the climbing may require extra equipment) but a tank
doesn't stand a chance.

>> being very beat-up looking).  In the game, this would be represented
by an 
>> evade capability while moving (run only, probably), and an
elimination of 
>
>I don't see why walkers should get an evade capability.  They are in no
>way faster or more maneuverable than any other kind of vehicle. (and
>probably less so than most)  If walkers have an evade capability, other
>vehicles should have it too.

Can tanks sidestep?  Hop from one tread to the other?  Stick a gun
around a
corner without exposing any other part of itself?  (Well, okay, the
walker
may lose the arm....)

>That's going to be another problem.  If the walkers can take up prone
>positions, that means they have to be able to survive the fall.  It's
>actually not hard to build a machine that can survive a fall like that.

<blink>
Arms?  Knees?  You don't need to *bellyflop* to a prone position,
y'know.

[snip]
>The comment about the "small size" brings another problem.  This is a
>"small" walker and it's still 3-5 meters, which is as tall or taller
than
>the largest tanks.  I still think the walker signature increase of 1 in
>the rules is not nearly enough.

Eh.  Depends on your view.  Using current (1990s) tech, yeah, you're
probably right.  Hydraulics are too slow to do much.  But later...?  Who
knows?	(See my other post on Nitinol; it might not be the future for
simulating fast-twitch muscle groups, but something better may come
along.)
 Anyway, crouching, dodging, etc, should allow a decrease in the
signature.

>> the best defensive suites for their size; APFCs, excellent stealth &
ECM 
>> (GMSs is their nemesis), APSWs/SAWs for anti-infantry work, etc. 
They may 
>> even be able to participate in close assault more like PA than
vehicles.
>
>Given how walkers are arranged in an upright form when they are moving,

Humans can run at a crouch; if you want a walker to, you can probably
design one that will.

>they would need far lighter weapons than their squatter counterparts
such
>as tanks/APCs, for obvious reasons.

Yes, but they'll have heavier weapons than infantry... which is why you
use
'em in places where tanks can't go, so they don't have to face tanks. 
(See
other earlier post on Heavy Gear. ^_- )  Of course, this doesn't mean I
won't take advantage of DSII's system, which is (I think) a bit nicer to
walkers than HG is, but....

>> for aerospace-dropped infantry, or for other light forces.  They
would be 
>> effective & mobile in most forms of terrain.  They would also be
pretty 
>> intimidating to civilian populations, as well.
>
>Heh, heh, that's one way to use these, riot control against people
who've
>watched to many anime movies... Until they figure out that these
>super-expensive machines can be destroyed with ridiculously low-tech
>methods, like rolling logs, tripwires, potholes, etc.

Like rolling logs are easy to find in a city?  The others may be a bit
easier, but then a smart commander wouldn't be using the IWs on their
own
in an urban environment... ya still need regular gropos as well.

>I know this is all supposed to be just fun, but I guess it's the
engineer
>in me that has to point out all these obvious fatal flaws in design...

Using current tech, sure.  Using more advanced materials, who knows? 
(And
for the record, I'm a materials engineer, currently working on turbine
blades... not robots, but what the heck. ^_- )

Later,
					Aaron Teske
					ateske@HICom.net