jabrevno
First time out of the vault
![](https://www.nma-fallout.com/xencustomimages/nma/nma_0.gif)
Logo-free high resolution version can be found at Andree's DeviantArt.
jabrevno said:Logo-free high resolution version can be found at Andree's DeviantArt.
Well. Still. Wheels are the choice then. Not "legs". But as said. That is if one would use the rules of the real world. Not what ever they have in wasteland. I have the feeling we will still see even in the future for quite some time either designs with wheels or chains in use with military vehicles. What they will use in large numbers eventually soon are the airless honeycomb tiresNexuiz said:The scorpitron is not a tank, it has no huge 120mm cannon and needs no such heavy protection, so you are totally off track here.
Just imagine the timberjack spider a bit huger, with a bit more protection and some automatic machine guns here and there, voilà: you have a small scorpitron.
A tail can bend. Maybe the Scorpitron's tail can, too.Crni Vuk said:the tail would require to rotate the whole body for a 360° rotation otherwise the tail would be in the way (cant shot to the back).
Crni Vuk said:yes right, lets compare apples with oranges. A "tool" of some sort with a "weapon".
Again. If it would be REALLY practical to give tanks "legs" don't you think they would do it? Again. It is impractical to have weapons, tanks, APCs or what ever with "legs" like either shown on the digger or in some concept art.
Armored vehicles like tanks have completely different principles behind it then those. A digger has not to be able to carry protections and weapons of several tons around. Like a 120mm smoothbore gun and some 30 or 40 tons of armor. A modern Main battle tank has approx. a weight of 70-75 tons. Do you see something like that working on legs when it has 1. to keep a certain speed (in the range of (68–72 km/h for the Leopard 2) and 2. protection at the same time?
Legs are at the moment not compatible with the 3 concepts of armored warfare Mobility, protection and firepower.
I never said wheels or chains don't have their "limits". But when you compare the ground pressure of a 70 ton main battle tank to legs then its easy to see why they prefer tracks over legs. You have a much higher distribution with tracks then with legs. It does not mean that you can suddenly do EVERYTHING with it.mobucks said:Being a huge Metal Gear fan, I like omni/bi-ped tanks that look like lizards and bugs.
For a wheeled/tracked vehicle, you need something like a road to travel. Many a tree-stump has been the Achilles Heel to 4x4 Jeep Wranglers. Post apocalypse blown up concrete everywhere and overgrown forested areas need to be stepped over.
You understand what I am saying. Why do you still disagree then? This is what I mean when I say its "impractical" for "military" vehicles.Tagaziel said:The problem here is that you *are* comparing apples (tanks) with oranges (walkers). Quite obviously, a walker isn't going to match a tank in terms of raw firepower, speed and carried protection. They aren't in the same category.
Why is it a straw men? Again. Those are ideas based on concept that have been in existence for almost 100 years since the first tanks crossed a battlefield. And the evolution had a long way here. Tracks have proven them self to be reliable for even the biggest of "structures".Tagaziel said:That and your argument "wouldn't they be doing it already?" is a classic strawman. If humanity went by that logic, we'd still be clubbing each other with bones because if it would be REALLY practical to make swords and firearms in the stone age, they'd do it.
Stanislao Moulinsky said:Well...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww[/youtube]
Vuk said:Why is it so hard to accept that it is the more practical design? its not like I am saying legs are not a "useful" design in general. They are just not really useful today in any military vehicle because the existing designs have proven to be more useful from an engineering point of view when we think about what characteristics a VEHICLE needs on the battlefield.