Battle of the Questionable Tanks (40K vs SW)

[Purple]

That'd be the repulsors excerting that pressure?

In which case we are back to my argument being correct. Because unless you magic up force fields to hold the track in from all sides anything exerting horizontal downward pressure on them whilst they turn real fast will given sufficiently sharp combinations of maneuvers and velocity lead to bad things.

[biostem]

Given that Star Wars depicts heavy use of mechanical systems, (walkers, blast doors, shuttles with actuated wings), I find it more likely that the TIE Crawler would use mechanical drive systems rather than some sort of reulsorlift-tractor system.

[Batman]

Or they might opt for repulsors (or tractor beams or whatever) precisely because of the limitations of conventional mechanical systems.

[biostem]

Or they might opt for repulsors (or tractor beams or whatever) precisely because of the limitations of conventional mechanical systems.

Well, my point was that they don't appear to use repulsors to drive a mechanical system, like wheels or tank treads - there are speeders, then there are the vehicles with mechanical means of locomotion.

[Batman]

And for all we know they did that in the Centurion too. But we don't know they did, they have the technology to do it in other ways so we can't blithely assume they did and all the limitations coming with that kind of tread system apply.

[Purple]

And for all we know they did that in the Centurion too. But we don't know they did, they have the technology to do it in other ways so we can't blithely assume they did and all the limitations coming with that kind of tread system apply.

Do they? Present your evidence from cannon, old or new that there ever existed a vehicle where force fields were used in the way you describe.

[Batman]

I don't have to (and incidentally, it's canon). I never said they built such a vehicle. I never even said the Centurion is one. All I said is they have the technology to, which they do.

[Purple]

I don't have to (and incidentally, it's canon). I never said they built such a vehicle. I never even said the Centurion is one. All I said is they have the technology to, which they do.

And I am saying that the technology I know of existing in canon does to my limited knowledge in fact not show any indication of extending into the kind of use you say it does. Unless of course you are willing to provide me an example of the contrary.

[Batman]

They miniaturized repulsors to the point they're used to [operate doors[/i]. Forcefields are used everywhere to the extent they use them instead of windows. Tractor beams are all over the place. The technology is obviously there.

[Gunhead]

If the provided schematic is taken as accurate, it clearly shows a drive wheel for the treads and support wheels.

-Gunhead

[Purple]

They miniaturized repulsors to the point they're used to [operate doors[/i]. Forcefields are used everywhere to the extent they use them instead of windows. Tractor beams are all over the place. The technology is obviously there.

And none of those would lend them self to containing a track in the way that would be required to get around the fundamental way tracks work without also immobilizing the tank in the process.

[Batman]

Garbage. Tractor/pressor beams can both keep the ground pressure on, keep the track in place AND move it.

[Simon_Jester]

A pressor beam that pushes against a surface is the same thing as a repulsor as far as I can tell.

And a lot of the time they do exactly that. However, there still seems to be a reason to use tracked/wheeled vehicles/walkers. Hence why I pointed out that this would be a fully enclosed repulsor (or whatever) system. If the reason for ground vehicles is repulsor jammers/shield interfence/name your technobabble, having them in a shielded shell might allow them to keep working.

Also notice I mentioned repulsors as one possibility. Tractor beams apparently do offer resistance t lateral forces and could be used to hold the track in place.

They are also tractors, from the Latin for 'to pull,' and would presumably glue the tracks to whatever surface the tractor beams are being emitted from, which is not very useful.

And for all we know they did that in the Centurion too. But we don't know they did, they have the technology to do it in other ways so we can't blithely assume they did and all the limitations coming with that kind of tread system apply.

Thinking back, the only reason you're pursuing this line of debate (in case you've gotten lost) is because I pointed out that tanks have problems rounding corners, and apparently someone replied that maybe a one-man TIE tank could somehow 'drift' around corners, and others responded that this would be a great way to throw a track.

And now you're going "you don't know that, maybe they have some weird system with a bunch of force fields to hold the tracks in place!"

This sounds very hard like you're trying to contrive a way to address a fundamental weakness of the TIE tank by adding epicycles

[Purple]

Garbage. Tractor/pressor beams can both keep the ground pressure on, keep the track in place AND move it.

Your arguments so far reveal a massive ignorance of how basic principals of track design work.

In order to permit the track to pass over obstacles larger than a pencil you need to allow the tracks to move along the vertical axis freely. This is why road wheels on tanks have individual suspension. And this requirement precludes any sort of hard barrier on the sides of the tracks that is not short enough to permit such movement. Thus any force field barrier/containment system would have to continuously adapt it self on the fly to match the shifting position of the tracks lest it dig the tank into the ground or open up too much causing catastrophic failure.

And we have not seen anything like that demonstrated as far as I am aware of. All I am aware of are static effects like a force field wall or a tractor beam that exerts a continual force. Can you point to any examples of such rapidly adapting system?

This sounds very hard like you're trying to contrive a way to address a fundamental weakness of the TIE tank by adding epicycles

I completely agree with this. As far as I am aware we newer see the sort of technology he claims might be in use being actually used in such a function. Thus there is absolutely no reason to think that it is. Especially not for such a dubious and pointless reason as to allow a vehicle that is going to have to crawl anyway due to situational awareness issue to turn corners sharply at speed.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm sure that with the right computerized control you could make it work; it's not necessarily a harder engineering problem than, say, making sure BB-8's head stays on while his body rolls around like an out of control hamster ball.

But it's not simple, it's very much an extra concept that is not needed. And since there is NO justification for the design of the TIE-tank other than "well, it's cheap," it really makes no sense to add complicated systems to the TIE tank that are of doubtful utility and almost inevitably cost more money than a mechanical linkage.

[Batman]

A pressor beam that pushes against a surface is the same thing as a repulsor as far as I can tell.

You know more about repulsor technology than I do then. All I know is repulsors 'somehow' keep a vehicle afloat and allow it to move vertically.
I agree that seems like a logical extension of tractor technology but since that's essentially a magitech reaction engine shouldn't we see the side effects from that? And yet, when Wars vehicles hover, they just hang in mid-air.

And a lot of the time they do exactly that. However, there still seems to be a reason to use tracked/wheeled vehicles/walkers. Hence why I pointed out that this would be a fully enclosed repulsor (or whatever) system. If the reason for ground vehicles is repulsor jammers/shield interfence/name your technobabble, having them in a shielded shell might allow them to keep working.
Also notice I mentioned repulsors as one possibility. Tractor beams apparently do offer resistance t lateral forces and could be used to hold the track in place.

They are also tractors, from the Latin for 'to pull,' and would presumably glue the tracks to whatever surface the tractor beams are being emitted from, which is not very useful.

Tractor/pressor combo. The pressors to keep traction and move the tracks, tractors to keep them from going elsewhere.

And for all we know they did that in the Centurion too. But we don't know they did, they have the technology to do it in other ways so we can't blithely assume they did and all the limitations coming with that kind of tread system apply.

Thinking back, the only reason you're pursuing this line of debate (in case you've gotten lost) is because I pointed out that tanks have problems rounding corners, and apparently someone replied that maybe a one-man TIE tank could somehow 'drift' around corners, and others responded that this would be a great way to throw a track.
And now you're going "you don't know that, maybe they have some weird system with a bunch of force fields to hold the tracks in place!"
This sounds very hard like you're trying to contrive a way to address a fundamental weakness of the TIE tank by adding epicycles

I've been saying the Centurion is a stupid design from the word go. What I'm going up against is Purple's statement that physics dictate the Centurion MUST use wheels.

[Simon_Jester]

The Centurion must use either wheels or some kind of elaborate interlinked network of computer controlled force field projectors that is, frankly, a fancier way of accomplishing what a set of wheels would. Either way, the tank's not going to be designed to 'drift' and trying to do so is foolish.

[Batman]

A fancier way that is not necessarily bound by the same limitations wheels would be.
Again, I'm not saying the Centurion does it. I'm not even saying it's a particularly sensible idea-all I'm saying is since Wars has the technology, we can't blithely assume they use mechanics and are thus subject to the same problems real world tracked vehicles are.

[biostem]

I wonder if it would be difficult to simply create a special-purpose ground support TIE fighter.

How would you engineer such a vehicle?

[Esquire]

By pulling the LAAT design out of the archives, frankly. Starfighters with multi-kiloton lasers and 4,100g acceleration are ridiculously overengineered for use on the ground.

[Simon_Jester]

A fancier way that is not necessarily bound by the same limitations wheels would be.
Again, I'm not saying the Centurion does it. I'm not even saying it's a particularly sensible idea-all I'm saying is since Wars has the technology, we can't blithely assume they use mechanics and are thus subject to the same problems real world tracked vehicles are.

Okay, let's get down to basics then.

Are you saying that the counter to the TIE-tank's difficulty rounding corners, and being unusually restricted in its field of fire by having low-slung weapons mounted between the tracks, is to drift around corners with a single driver doing this while also maintaining situational awareness and engaging enemies with the tank's blasters?

If you do not think this is a viable solution to the problem, then the argument "MAAAAYBE TIE-tanks are immune to throwing treads because of elaborate engineering wizardry!" is largely moot.

[biostem]

My answer: Field 5 TIE Crawlers for every one of their tanks, and hope that you can overwhelm the enemy before they blow up all your tanks.

[Purple]

A fancier way that is not necessarily bound by the same limitations wheels would be.
Again, I'm not saying the Centurion does it. I'm not even saying it's a particularly sensible idea-all I'm saying is since Wars has the technology, we can't blithely assume they use mechanics and are thus subject to the same problems real world tracked vehicles are.

But it is. To put this in extremely simple terms. The only way to make a tank do what you want it to do reliably is to impose upon its tracks measures that would by their effect render the vehicle immobile. I have explained this already.

My answer: Field 5 TIE Crawlers for every one of their tanks, and hope that you can overwhelm the enemy before they blow up all your tanks.

Tactics like that don't work in real life with armored vehicles. Newer had. The only one who believes otherwise are people who buy into the myths regarding WW2.

[biostem]

Tactics like that don't work in real life with armored vehicles. Newer had. The only one who believes otherwise are people who buy into the myths regarding WW2.

I'm not doubting that with regards to real life, but it goes along with the doctrine behind how the TIEs are used in space combat.

[Purple]

Tactics like that don't work in real life with armored vehicles. Newer had. The only one who believes otherwise are people who buy into the myths regarding WW2.

I'm not doubting that with regards to real life, but it goes along with the doctrine behind how the TIEs are used in space combat.

But as cannon is concerned it does not work well in space combat either. When is the last time TIE's won an engagement in cannon by using this tactic?