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

[Einhander Snoman]

I was reading the Commandments of Sci-Fi (HILARIOUS read), but someone kept turning it into a Walkers Vs Tanks debate, so here's the obviously sorely needed thread.. So, which IS best? I say it depends on the situation at hand. Lata and Happy Fragging!

[Howedar]

I'll conditionally take repulsors first (dependant on their specific characteristics, power consumption, altitude capabilities, etc), then treads, then wheels, then legs a dead last.

[Rob Wilson]

I was reading the Commandments of Sci-Fi (HILARIOUS read), but someone kept turning it into a Walkers Vs Tanks debate, so here's the obviously sorely needed thread.. So, which IS best? I say it depends on the situation at hand. Lata and Happy Fragging!

Repulsors give the best capabilities, but no redundancy (the mechanism is damaged and that's it your stuck), plus all that energy to hold you up must act like a beacon to reveal your position to the enemy.

Tracks, good terrain handling, but maintianence intensive and if you strip one track thats you buggered.

Wheels, Better for open terrain and certain other area's but has the bonus that if you lose one wheel you can keep going on the others if needed (and in combat you'd better believe it's needed!)

Legs... Well, if your armours upto it then these pretty much let you go anywhere on land, and it's possible that if you have four, then the loss of one will still let you move, but apart from the visual thing (damned impressive) there's no real point other than walking over small walls rather than driving through them.

Ideally I would have a Repulsor lift vehicle that has wheels as a secondary mode of travel (or depending on the tactical situation you could day Wheels as the primary mode of travel )

[Pablo Sanchez]

A repulsor lift is probably the best choice, because you end up with a tank that has the mobility of a helicopter. Tracks come in second, because of their versatility. Wheels third, legs dead last. The only advantage of legs is that it gives you a higher vantage point for direct fire artillery. So, I would still use an AT-AT type vehicle for support, and repulsor tanks for other purposes.

Tanks would be used for special situations, requiring ground contact.

[Shadow]

I say it depends on the situation at hand.

Legs would be useless if the "repulsors" allowed the vehicle to reach simliar heights. The only advantage would be that if power failed your vehicle would fall to the ground, and constant power would be required to maintain the height.

[Rob Wilson]

I say it depends on the situation at hand.

Legs would be useless if the "repulsors" allowed the vehicle to reach simliar heights. The only advantage would be that if power failed your vehicle would fall to the ground, and constant power would be required to maintain the height.

Having your vehicle fall to the ground is an Advantage? Methinks you missed the letters D-I-S from the beginning of the word there.


Otherwise your right, Repulsors are nice, but they desperately need a backup mechanism for when situations/emergencies demand it.

[Howedar]

Yes, unless (for example) they're so bloody foolproof and reliable as SW repulsors.

[Captain Cyran]

Walkers have a greater ability too climb through debris and raised areas (mountains) then the other types of transport and what is more intimidating...a big thing that floats in the air, or a big thing that when it moves the ground shakes. As for repulsers being better...pfff, they have weaker armor, most repulsercraft have little weaponry the only asset is their speed in open areas.

[Rob Wilson]

Yes, unless (for example) they're so bloody foolproof and reliable as SW repulsors.

Your repulsor tank army comes up to theatre shield and suddenly they are just a very large collection of Fuel burners, but the addition of a set of wheels would mean they could roll right through without any problems and continue on without a care in the world.
Sometimes it has nothing to do with Reliability, hence the Situation modifier as well.

[Rob Wilson]

Walkers have a greater ability too climb through debris and raised areas (mountains) then the other types of transport and what is more intimidating...a big thing that floats in the air, or a big thing that when it moves the ground shakes. As for repulsers being better...pfff, they have weaker armor, most repulsercraft have little weaponry the only asset is their speed in open areas.

AT-AT vs a Tank Droid, Which one do you think would still be in one piece?

As to Repulsorlift vehicles only being Lightly Armoured I point you to
http://www.galacticempiredatabank.com/A ... gFort.html

"The Floating Fortress is or was carried aboard Victory-class Star Destroyers. It was designed to augment ground assault and planetary occupation forces. The A9 is quite suitable for urban terrain. It has a well armoured body and powerful repulsorlift engines."

http://www.galacticempiredatabank.com/P ... CBase.html
"The PX-4 Mobile Command Base was designed to protect its occupants, and thus is constructed within a metallic shell which is almost a half a metre thick. The command pod is encased within a shell of its own, adding to the protective thickness is located at the centre of the vehicle. As a final touch to this security cocoon, reflective shielding covers the outer hull."

http://www.galacticempiredatabank.com/FireHawkeRT.html

It's a heavy tank, you work it out.

[Captain Cyran]

I have been officially shot down.....

[Rob Wilson]

I have been officially shot down.....

All too easy....

[Typhonis 1]

I agree with Rob it is good to have a backup method just incase also heres a bit of trivia the drivetrain used in the T-34 tank was orrigionally designed by an American who had the dea of taking the treads off when not using them and having the tank run on the road wheels.

[Icehawk]

The only way a mech can be useful is if its relatively large, has heavily armored legs, and can move or manuever at speeds equal to or greater than the other land vehicles it is opposing.

Also, I think one of the other main reasons for using large battle mechs would be the whole menacing/fear factor that comes with them. Being a soldier and seeing a large group of heavily armed and armored giants stomping towards you're lines at high speed, causing the ground to rumble while crushing everything (tanks included) under their feet would no doubt be quite intimidating.

[Singular Quartet]

*Looks at Appleseed's gunspiders*

Combo of Repulser lift and Legs. There were six so that you could lose a larger number than four-legger. Also, I think it might be possible (I'm no ME) to put a bigger gun on something with legs than with treads/wheels. I could be wrong. A repulser whould be able to mount(if correctly desgined) a REALLY big guns, according to the same physics that rules BAttleship guns(The rocking motion. Just throw on some resistance, and poof, bigass gun)

[Eleas]

"Repulsors give the best capabilities, but no redundancy (the mechanism is damaged and that's it your stuck), plus all that energy to hold you up must act like a beacon to reveal your position to the enemy."

Well written, Rob, but why would it have to expend "all that energy"? It doesn't perform any work.

[Bob The Great]

The main problem I see with repulsor tanks is that they would suffer from an inability to maintain their positions when, for example, firing a high-recoil weapon, being struck by a projectile, or even in a violent windstorm. Contact with the ground through tracks, wheels, or legs offers a secure point of leverage against such things.

IMHO, repulsor tanks are a bridge between air support and ground vehicles. They offer speed, altitude, and the ability to occupy territory (something pure aircraft can't do as effectively), but I don't think they can replace other types of vehicles in all situations.

As far as tracks vs. wheels vs. legs, it again becomes an issue of situation. Each one has advantages over the other, and none are the be-all-and-end-all of ground combat vehicles.

Tracks have superior traction and stability over wheels and legs, yet they can get stuck or rip their treads on especially uneven terrain and are not good at dealing with obstacles comparable to their own size.

Wheels are capable of greater speeds than either tracks or legs, but they can lose traction easily, and again, can get stuck.

Legs allow far greater terrain versatility than tracks or wheels, especially with uneven areas and large obstacles (think low-lying buildings, for example), and are harder to get stuck, but they must maintain their balance at all times.

I think that the military of the future should include all four types of vehicles (tracked, wheeled, walker, repulsor) to be truly effective. At least, that's my opinion.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Also, I think it might be possible (I'm no ME) to put a bigger gun on something with legs than with treads/wheels. I could be wrong.

Actually, you are incorrect. With a tracked vehicle, you can pile a LOT of weight, without sacrificing anything but mobility (unless you fail to reinforce the treads, in which case they wear very quickly). Wheels have a similar tolerance, though they can't handle weight as easily. But legs are complex mechanical devices, with a lot of moving parts. They are thus more succeptible to breakdowns, and their structure (a lot of small parts vs. a few big ones) makes them weaker. This reduces the level of armor and firepower that you can place on it.

The AT-AT is probably the peak of the Walker family; the Tank Droid has more firepower and armor, and it uses treads.

As for recoil on repulsorlift vehicles, I hadn't though of that. It's a very good point. Perhaps there could be a system like Rob's double vehicle, where it uses the Repulsor lift to move from place to place, but when it needs to bring all its firepower to bear, it switches to wheels/treads for stability.

[phongn]

As for recoil on repulsorlift vehicles, I hadn't though of that. It's a very good point. Perhaps there could be a system like Rob's double vehicle, where it uses the Repulsor lift to move from place to place, but when it needs to bring all its firepower to bear, it switches to wheels/treads for stability.

Indeed. The Robotech Reference Guide suggested that the VHT-1 hovertank had a dual gun/missile system for exactly that reason. While on the ground it could fire conventional rounds, but when hovering it needed to use missiles as the recoil from the conventional rounds would knock it back.

[Guest]

"Repulsors give the best capabilities, but no redundancy (the mechanism is damaged and that's it your stuck), plus all that energy to hold you up must act like a beacon to reveal your position to the enemy."

Well written, Rob, but why would it have to expend "all that energy"? It doesn't perform any work.

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

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

First, you can have a replusor tank, a walker tank, a wheeled tank, or a thread tank.



Oh and

Treads.
Wheels
Legs.


I left out repulsors cause they're a special case.

[StarshipTitanic]

I think the AT-TE, AT-ST, and AT-PT are actually very useful. They're both low to the ground and can carry lots of troops.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I think the AT-TE, AT-ST, and AT-PT are actually very useful. They're both low to the ground and can carry lots of troops.

Personally, the AT-ST and PT are weird together. The ST is unstable unlike the PT, while the PT is as slow as an AT-AT unlike the fast ST.

[Singular Quartet]

Suddenly remembers something.

Ghost in the Shell manga: The Fuchihoma. A combination wheel/leg system. It had a very heavy leg system, and used its wheels(mounted at the base of the legs) to get around quickly.

Also: I remember designing the basic barebones idea for a tank that had perfect spheres for its mobility type. That way, it had the mobility of a legged type, and the movement speed and equipability of a wheeled type. It worked on the principle of a reverse mouse ball. Two wheels preopelled the spheres (there were six) in much the same positions a mouse detected the movement of the ball. It used am ABS system for breaking cornered immposibly well, but the control system needed work.

[Howedar]

Cool.