Re: Walkers, was RE: grav

Laserlight wrote:

> From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
>
> > They are in there for battletech idiots who love Giant Robots[tm].
> >  They were never intended to be balanced against tanks
> > because Giant Robots are a lousy military idea.
>
> In this ficton.  I'm not a Battletech player myself but I can see why
> some people find it fun.  If you can come up with PSB to support it
> with a reasonably straight face, and it's fun, why not?  Also, it can
> lead to some very impressive paint jobs, since after all there's not
> much point in putting camo on them...

The only decent psb for walkers was in DP9's "Heavy Gear".  The combat
walkers were general purpose construction exo-skeletons with added on
armor and weapons.  Larger combat vehicle were tracked.

The problem with walkers is that incoming fire (compared to a
conventional tank's perspective) hits the top or bottom, instead of the
front and sides.  This is less of an issue if most weapons become top
attack, but as long as heavy penetration is primarily delivered by vast
amounts of MV, the walker is at a severe disadvantage.	In the
hypothetical case of a walker being a tank hull on legs, there is still
the problem of the legs being much heavier than treads and legs have to
deal with much more mechanical stress.

The biggest nail in the walker's coffin is that any technology that
makes
a walker practical also vastly improves the performance of a
conventional
tracked vehicle to keep it ahead.  The musculature to actuate the legs
allow for autotensioning tracks that can even change length to
accommodate changes in running gear geometry (lower the hull to hide,
raise the hull to drive faster over rough terrain).  Advanced materials
to lighten the legs can also be used to reduce the unsprung weight of a
tank to make them really fly (figuratively) crosscountry.