RE: Infantry Walkers

Aaron spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> 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.

Too right that crawling and ending a jump in anything but a heap 
would be some kind of feat. 
 
> Yeah, but can a tank walk up 15 floors of an office building?

I'd like to see something with a big metalic foot like some of the 
walker designs use the stairs...or height-wise...and stairwell I've 
ever seen.... I'd build buildings just so this WASN'T an issue if I 
was building military fortifications. 

  Or manuever
> around meter-thick trees through heavy underbrush?

How do these things avoid getting entangled, tripped, wrapped up, 
etc. in this thick 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.

But if (as you point out) the IW doesn't have much of a chance 
either... ???

And if you have grav tech enough to fly, your grav tank can 
1. scale the cliff
2. scale the office building
3. fly over the underbrush 

> Can tanks sidestep?

Can a walker sidestep energy weapons or fast enough to dodge a GMS? 
Can they realistically dodge modern fire control? 

  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....)

This is one kind of neat idea.... but it would mean a lot of 
one-armed IWs....
 
> Humans can run at a crouch; if you want a walker to, you can probably
> design one that will.

Sure. But each extra capability or feature brings with it complexity. 
And complexity in this sort of movement (a kinesthetic complexity) 
translates to more complex hardware and software which means possibly 
more weight of equipment (hence a less efficient design) or more 
fragile equipment (its doing more on a pound for pound basis) 
therefore more succeptible to damage. 
 
> >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?

How about concrete sewer pipe? How about just boulders from a 
construction zone or rubbled building? There are plenty of amalgams. 
The urban environment would be full of hazards - weakened ground, 
manholes, things dropped from buildings or collapsing buildings 
themselves, steel cable across the alley, etc. etc. 

  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.

This I think is sensible. 
 
> 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. ^_- )

As someone pointed out on the military side, experience in the 
military does not grant one an oracular ability to predict what 
future war will be like (note that such predictions based on such 
experience have lead to several disasters over the course of 
history). Nor presumably does any of our engineering backgrounds give 
us more than some informed speculative power vis a vis what things 
will "really" be like in the future. But hey, its all fun to guess! 

Tom.