What would a walking tank do that infantry or artillery couldn't?

Drain your budget without giving you any advantages.

>Underrated post

the IFVs will find themeselves more and more taking the role of tanks until they demand and uparmed and uparmored version, in effect becoming a tank

the role of a tank in warfare is indespensible and will be filled by tank-like vehicles even if you got rid of the tank

they make better targets to waste enemy ammo....

thats about it

they who point of a good tank is to present the least profile, not the most please shoot me one

The same thing a tank does but with greater maneuverability. Wow, such a hard question!

artillery and infantry couldn't fire these bad boys on full auto

Attached: big ones.png (1366x768, 880K)

See:

Move?

why do people think that legs give you "greater maneuverability" over wheels? they clearly do not. wheels allow you to go much further, much faster - and if you're worried about rough terrain, legs don't do that well in rough terrain either. luckily we invented these things called tracks which do great in rough terrain.

a) get taken out by boobytraps created by tree-dwelling furry primitives.
b) provide a distraction while the real troops do the job.

They both have pros and cons.
Tracks and wheels are much faster, and are simpler to build/maintain/repair.

Legs would let the vehicle go places a tank normally couldn't go (very rough, hard, terrain). They would also restrict places it could go (soft terrain), and slow it down greatly.

I doubt that offers any practical advantage. You'd have a vehicle much slower than a tank, whose only benefit would be greater maneuverability in a very limited circumstance. Seems dumb.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the efficiency, and therefore the operating range, of a leg-based tank would be abysmal.

be cute

Attached: 1403853141173.jpg (850x776, 209K)

>Legs would let the vehicle go places a tank normally couldn't go (very rough, hard, terrain).

What are some examples of this kind of terrain?

well it could walk for starters

>what is applied pressure
Leave the advanced thinking to the college grads, ok dropout?

Traverse uneven terrain that would be inaccessible to wheeled and and tracked vehicles. They wouldn't replace contemporary armor, however.

Literally (textbook definition) only stairs. You know all those stairs tanks encounter on a regular basis making them have to find other routes. This'll really help in CQB house warfare I tell ya.

Look cool

the front won't fall off, in addition

What's cheaper a supply chain of dumptrucks filled with dirt or gravel used to build a road where you are going or a complex mechanical part that may take weeks or even month to build.

Dump trucks filled with sand, or dirt and a good civil engineer will allow tanks with treads to traverse the 5% of terrain a tank with legs would be able to reach.

>doesn't actually explain himself
>just babbles about how the other guy is wrong

I'm now convinced that you're an idiot and the guy you called a dropout is a perfectly correct genius.

>>he doesn't know what applied pressure means

It wouldnt get fucked by logs and other woods/jungles like treads do. Also wouldnt get fucked by rocky terrain.

And like I said many times before, the solution to all these retarded threads is to simply build treads into the legs, so that you have both at any given time. But most anons don’t think that far because they get emotionally invested in shit thats already there, forgetting entirely that technology never stops advancing.

Go shit up Jow Forums liberal arts.

[Interviewer:] Well, what sort of standards are these walking tanks built to?

[Senator Collins:] Oh, very rigorous … military engineering standards.

[Interviewer:] What sort of things?

[Senator Collins:] Well the front’s not supposed to fall off, for a start.

[Interviewer:] And what other things?

[Senator Collins:] Well, there are … regulations governing the materials they can be made of

[Interviewer:] What materials?

[Senator Collins:] Well, Cardboard’s out

[Interviewer:] And?

[Senator Collins:] …No cardboard derivatives…

[Interviewer:] Like paper?

[Senator Collins:]. … No paper, no string, no cellotape. …

[Interviewer:] Rubber?

[Senator Collins:] No, rubber’s out .. Um, They’ve got to have a steering wheel. There’s a minimum crew requirement.”

[Interviewer:] What’s the minimum crew?

[Senator Collins:] Oh,… one, I suppose.

[Interviewer:] So, the allegations that they are just designed to look like some shit from an anime and to hell with the consequences, I mean that’s ludicrous…

[Senator Collins:] Ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous. These are very, very strong vehicles

[Interviewer:] So what happened in this case?

[Senator Collins:] Well, the front fell off in this case by all means, but that’s very unusual.

[Interviewer:] But Senator Collins, why did the front bit fall off?

[Senator Collins:] Well, a bullet hit it.

[Interviewer:] A bullet hit it?

[Senator Collins:] A bullet hit the tank.

[Interviewer:] Is that unusual?

[Senator Collins:] Oh, yeah… At war? …Chance in a million.

>Yes let me just throw dumptrucks expecting them to not get shot at and to traverse terrain better than tanks do
What an idiot

>It wouldnt get fucked by logs and other woods/jungles like treads do. Also wouldnt get fucked by rocky terrain.

Where did you get the idea that either of these things are an impediment to tanks?

Attached: 1526782355885.jpg (640x640, 52K)

>continues to not explain himself

Yep. You're actually retarded.

>Too stupid to look at the picture

Way to be an idiot. That tank is only a few inches tall. It's not going to be sinking into anything. That shit will skitter around on the walls and blast you in the dick.

Tanks were never an indomitable war machine. Just another weapon in the arsenal.

Not get stuck in mud

Chinook with 105mm

I hate those things so much.
They all belong in a scrap heap Tachi coma

I'd like to see a tank maintain speed through a Canadian shield pine forest older than 15 years.

From real life, moron

>What are some examples of this kind of terrain?

Anywhere where there are enough large boulders (or dragon's teeth) which are too large to drive over with a tank and too closely spaced to drive between. The same could apply to tree stumps and/or logs, large debris (like a wartorn city, for example), etc.

Depending on how good the computers controlling the legs were it might be possible to climb steep terrain (in the manner of a mountain goat), or to navigate soft ground by only putting the legs down on solid areas (the same way a person might avoid stepping in puddles when walking across a swampy area)

But like I said, those situations would be extremely limited.

If the objects are big enough a tank can't drive over them.

Legs have much higher ground pressure than wheels or tracks. It's the absolute worst for mud.

Attached: Flin_Flon_Wilderness_and_Outcrop.jpg (5004x1200, 2.22M)

Not to mention it can lean and duck behind cover

See

Mountains, possibly. Fighting insurgents in Afghanistan, where higher height = less IED blast damage and near-peer missiles and cannon aren't a threat (demanding more armor) a mech with 1 pilot and an autocannon might be feasible.

Big Dog size robots for urban warfare also work. But there aren't many other situations legs are useful.

Legos

>walking tank steps on a mine
>leg blown off
>can't easily tow it out of there

the idea is on too many levels retarded, thats why nobody tried to build one.

>harder to tow 15 ton walker than 60 ton war machine
Yeah that makes total sense

Why the fuck do you assume walker is going to less heavy than the tank?

>tow broken walking tank
>his other leg gets stuck and also gets broken

...do you weigh as much as a Ford Taurus?

So each foot would have to have its own power source because fuck running that shit through and articulating joint.

>tow something with wheels (or tracks and road wheels)
it roll
>tow something with legs
it drag

Tanks are hollow in side, the legs will not be.

I'm also not made of fucking metal, nor am I anywhere as big as a Taurus.

Yes but tanks are also made of depleted uranium
2 feet of depleted uranium is heavier than 20mm of aluminium

Sounds like you're suggesting that walking tanks are going to have shit for armour.

>tanks were only useful on the western front in WW1 and at no other point in history

lmfao

So you want this rpg bait to fail even harder than anything ever conceived before? Ha.

So name me a single example. Or can't you do that?

>2' DU

Are you being deliberately simplistic? The DU is a strike face, probably only 1-2cm thick, on top on standard ceramic/steel/rubber/fiberglass/steel/space stacked composite armor.

Attached: 1536342201822.jpg (1224x471, 104K)

It's pretty ridiculous to design an extremely slow and underpowered vehicle just to step over some stuff that combat engineers have been blowing up for a hundred years

What about mounting an APS?

>what was Iraq-Iran, Gulf I, Gulf II, or Ukraine/Crimea

By your logic infantry is obsolete since they can get killed by bullets

So you want this rpg bait to fail miserably?

Infantry isn't 30ft tall and crawls at a snails pace.

youtube.com/watch?v=wiX4RbvGko8
Lmao stop posting idiot

>and crawls at a snails pace.

This is silly. A man in foot is the slowest element of any military force. That's why we invented things to carry them around.

...or the vehicle could just step around it instead of taking up a large amount of time clearing shit

How is a walking tank supposed to do better? Is it going to magically phase through the trees?

Yeah no, you're not making this multi legged vehicle go any faster than 10mph without some serious overhaul and a significant momentum dampening system in the form of hydraulics (that need to be armored) all over the legs of this thing.

So you're going to waste billions of dollars developing and producing an an incredibly niche vehicle that is literally only useful in less than a handful of situations/environments, and even then is only marginally better than what you were using beforehand?

Walk over them
The reason why they cant go through is because logs can get jammed in the treads. If you knew anything about tanks you would know this.

All this talk about there being natural terrain obstacles that tracks can't magically drive over is ridiculous considering that any battlefield is going to have man-made obstacles like trenches, tank traps, and minefields anyway. At some point you have to clear those obstacles in order to let the tanks (or anything else) move forward. And once you've cleared them, you can use a normal tank.

Attached: Davy_Crockett_bomb.jpg (800x628, 250K)

Bait

>walk over a 100-foot tall tree

I'm not talking about logs. I'm talking about trees. Did you even watch your own video? The problem isn't logs - you can see people clearing logs in the video you posted. The problem is the trees. You are not going to "walk over" the trees.

To save time and hassle? Yes
And we stop having to use finite explosives and limited time to deal with such a simple problem. Worth every penny.

Not even remotely. What the fuck do you think happens when an army encounters a dense forest?
>fuck guys we can't go through it, war's over

t. bottom of his class

Did you? The tactic they used was to block a route using felled trees. Walk over the felled trees and the problem is solved and youre back on route.

Or just chain the tree to an adequate vehicle and drag it?

>develop incredibly complex vehicle that is only useful in 0.1% of situations
>abandon the techniques that armies have been using for a century
>"this is totally smart and cost effective and will win us the war somehow"

Its like you don’t value time and don’t understand logistics. Not surprising considering you’re convinced the solution is to waste time to try and save money we are wasting away in other ways regardless.

Just clear the logs you silly cuck. There's no reason to attempt to develop a fantasy vehicle to step over the trees. The techniques to remove logs exist today. Walking tanks are a pipe dream and they are not justified by the presence of logs.

Or just cut it in half and push it out of the way, which you'll have to do anyway since APC's and utility vehicles still need to use the route.

>which you'll have to do anyway since APC's and utility vehicles still need to use the route.

user, didn't you know? All you have to do to win a war is to have a tank step over a log. What's this about other vehicles? Focus on the log. Logs are the real problem here.

Dude you're straight up fucking retarded.

Nah, next he's going say we need to make every vehicle into a walker just for this very specific problem of stepping over logs.

Almost 100% chance he's baiting

>Hey lets bring a vehicle for pulling trees
>and one for dragging the tank out of mud
Or we can just make it so that the tank never runs into either problem. I guess we can just keep wasting time on old approaches

First its 15, then 5, now its .1
I’m sure next it’ll be .05
>abondon techniques the army has used for a century
Like we abandoned charging enemy lines or lining up troops? Or like how we abandoned actually fighting shit instead of using drone strikes and missiles? Sure. Its more expensive, but so is the other stuff we do, and it all works.

>this thread

Attached: farting noises.jpg (640x635, 200K)

You do know that most vehicles in a supply chain short of a bicycle are capable of moving trees right?