Walkers Vs Wheels Vs Repulsors Vs Tanks... Which is Best?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I think a good tank should have repuslors AND tracks.

[Eleas]

"What do you mean, "it doesn't perform any work?" The repulsor has to overcome GPE to float, doesn't it?"

Just like a steel cable, say? A cable does just what a repulsor does, is unpowered, and unless subjected to mechanical stresses will hold out indefinitely.

You have to lift the vessel, but once the vessel has been lifted, no work is necessary to keep it there.

[Darth Yoshi]

Just like a steel cable, say? A cable does just what a repulsor does, is unpowered, and unless subjected to mechanical stresses will hold out indefinitely.

You have to lift the vessel, but once the vessel has been lifted, no work is necessary to keep it there.

Red herring. Steel cables are physical objects, and don't draw power. Repulsors, on the other hand, require power to maintain the repulsor field.

[Eleas]

"Repulsors, on the other hand, require power to maintain the repulsor field."

That quite depends on the principle the repulsor operates on.

[Mr Bean]

Classic example of why Flying Tanks are good?
Battlezone

[Skelron]

In the Style of mr Bean... Classic example of why Walker's are good... two Words for you... Imperator Titan. [Runs and hides] a wlking engine of destruction, with Starship type weapons, Void shields, and much much more. (they arn't seen as the ultimate avatar of the Machine god for no reason)

[Shortie]

I think a good tank should have repuslors AND tracks.

Ideally, they complement each other the best, you get speed (tactical and strategic) and manouvrability over fairly flat terrain and water from the one, stability and performance over rough terrain\slopes from the other.

A mech is never gonna be a good tank substitute, but I do like the idea of using one to support every squad, carrying spare power cells, ammo, stretchers etc, and somewhat larger weapons. Doesn't have to go any faster than them, no more expected to match a tank than they are, but gives a nice edge.

Here's a pretty cool site with pics of a hexapedal walker, something like that would be nice, a bit larger with a small rotating gun mount instead of the crane.

[His Divine Shadow]

I think a repulsor tank that has 6 AT-TE like extenable legs, that are otherwise folded in neatly somewhere would be best for just about any situation.

Wheels are generally superior for all the reasons but since non-repulsor mode is going to be the primary mode one might as well choose legs instead so one can be prepared for just about any terrain.

[IDMR]

I think a repulsor tank that has 6 AT-TE like extenable legs, that are otherwise folded in neatly somewhere would be best for just about any situation.

Wheels are generally superior for all the reasons but since non-repulsor mode is going to be the primary mode one might as well choose legs instead so one can be prepared for just about any terrain.

Well, I rather think having to wire in two control systems, power lines and other paraphrenalia for two modes of locomotion would be rather too complex to be a feasible general vehicle - far better to have two separately designed vehicles for two seperate roles.

[GreenZXZ]

Eleas: You're mentioning that energy is work is correct, but only in reference to net energy & work. While there is no physical work done when, let's say, you pushing against a wall, your arms get tired from the chemical reactions that occur in your body. A steel cable has physical properties that can resist gravitational forces. It's also not staying in air all by itself, but by tensions and wires to other structures.

However, repulsor tanks need a reason to stay aloft by the properties of physics. The repulsorlift must somehow resist gravity in some way, and therefore must expend energy so that no net work is done on the vehicle itself.


Anyway, I think that legs would be good as planetary bases of sorts, where troops, if needed, can be deployed to all terrains (including forests places like Endor). However, individual troop transports should be mainly based on other forms of transportation for speed and reliability issues.

Also, when we're talking about guns, I know that the American self-propelled howitzer (firing an 155+mm cannon, I don't remember right now) is on treads, but it needs to extend a shovel-ish thing into the ground in order to counteract recoil, unlike the M1A1 Abrams, which can fire on the run. So, do SW lasers & blasters & turbolasers have recoil? Blasters might, as the E-web is mounted on a tripod, which can secondarily hold recoil. But if recoil is not a problem for blasters, there's no reason not to use repulsorlifts if the technology is robust enough.

[His Divine Shadow]

However, repulsor tanks need a reason to stay aloft by the properties of physics. The repulsorlift must somehow resist gravity in some way, and therefore must expend energy so that no net work is done on the vehicle itself.

Pg. 3: Gravity-altering devices include repulsorlifts that allow unpowered antigravity flotation-
...
The gravitoactive constituents of these devices are subnuclear knots of space-time made in enourmous, unmanned power refineries encompassing black holes.

(ref: Episode II Incredible Cross-Sections)

[GreenZXZ]

I'm sorry, but I have one word for ICS now:

TECHNOBABBLE.

[His Divine Shadow]

I'm sorry, but I have one word for ICS now:

TECHNOBABBLE.

It's only technobabble if it doesn't mean anything.

[Moonstone Spider]

So you have an explanation of what gravitoactives are, or what a subnuclear knot in space time is? That does sound sadly technobabblish. Wars has been getting more and more of that in recent years, though the movies thankfully rested on application of massive firepower instead.

[Howedar]

So you have an explanation of what gravitoactives are, or what a subnuclear knot in space time is?

Gravitoactive: some object that has unique, active gravitational properties (look at the word)
Subnuclear knot in space-time: an area of space-time, smaller than an atom's nucleus, that is bent somehow, just look at the phrase

[Master of Ossus]

On most environments on Earth, a repulsorlife vehicle would offer the best mobility. In rugged terrain, I think that MT-AT's and similar constructs are the best options, even over treads.

[Mr Bean]

Treads always have the problem of being very prone to mines
But the so does everything else
Repulser lift offers the great mobility and manvrabitly that Treeds and Legs just don't provided

[Darth Yoshi]

Also, when we're talking about guns, I know that the American self-propelled howitzer (firing an 155+mm cannon, I don't remember right now) is on treads, but it needs to extend a shovel-ish thing into the ground in order to counteract recoil, unlike the M1A1 Abrams, which can fire on the run. So, do SW lasers & blasters & turbolasers have recoil? Blasters might, as the E-web is mounted on a tripod, which can secondarily hold recoil. But if recoil is not a problem for blasters, there's no reason not to use repulsorlifts if the technology is robust enough.

The tanks in TPM suffered from recoil.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

How about hovercraft, like the LCAC? Very much like repulsorcraft, much more low tech.

[HRogge]

The tanks in TPM suffered from recoil.

But they were able to compensate it just by using their repulsor drive. It's just a matter of synchonizing your repulsor engine and the gun.