Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[piecewise]

That looks pretty good

Edit: Just a thought, but the main cannon looks like an APC cannon versus a MBT cannon. Unless you're going for a smaller one that can fire off more rounds and have a higher ammo storage capacity

Logical, I doubt it could support anything more than an autocannon (the thing often mounted on ifv's like the Bradley), firing an mbt caliber cannon would probably wreck it several degrees of bad. Even an autocannon might have too heavy a kick to get any accuracy beyond the first shot.

Also, if you wan antitank capabilities without usn a big main cannon, maybe consider adding a TOW-missile equivalent.

I've been changing the design a lot. It uses 106mm recoiless rifles now. No danger in falling over there.  And the thing has been reduced in size and weight substantially.

Reducing size and weight is always a good idea when trying to make legged things. Would it be too late to propose making a regular vehicle with threads/wheels on the 'belly' and deployable legs? Would probably defeat the idea of it being a spidertank (more like a regular-tank-that-can-climb-a-little) but much easier to keep realistic.

Though if you're willing to drop the 'tank' idea and make it an infantry support platform, like an IFV sans troop carrying capacity, that'd simplify things on the weight and size front further.

As for the recoilless rifles, I think using those means lower range and accuracy than using TOW-like things (or general ATGM), but might be offset by smaller ammo size. But, one should first set out design goals and expected uses for a weapons platform before you begin designing, not 'we could give it x to make it good vs Y'.

So pw, what role do you want your thingie to fulfill? If it's for a forum game, I think high-intensity close-quarters (urban) combat would work better than longer-ranged engagements ('point at target, let computer calculate, fire, repeat' could get stale fast). Or stuff like combat in forests or cave complexes (hunt the terrorist!).

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 Role
Light, high speed and maneuverability armor unit designed for urban warfare and destruction of heavier armor and backup of infantry. Uses mobility and can't stand and fight against anything against small arms fire for long.

 Body
Two major sections: legs and leg base, and the upper portion which contains the weapons and cockpit. Legs, quite thin and mostly unarmored; protected only  against small arms fire. Cockpit and weapon areas have heavier armor, but still not enough To withstand sustained fire from anything big for long.  Upper section has free range of rotation compared to legs; entire thing can turn.

 Propulsion
6 mechanical legs, as well as metal spheres for quick movement.

 Energy/Gas
Fuel Turbine engine powering electric generator. Short duration back up battery in case of engine failure.

 Command/Control
The machine is controlled by a single human driver with a computer backup. The computer acts as the neural net to control the legs (the machine drives like a car almost, with simple inputs transformed into complex leg movements via the computer).

 Software
Neural net computer for movement, stabilization and the like.
Targeting system for weapons,
Automated systems for oxygen, engine control, fuel flow, filtration systems, active armor systems, etc.


 Sensors
The machine has cameras mounted on the HMG for aiming, over a dozen other cameras with views around the body, mostly for sake of the machine viewing its own limbs. There's a main set of cameras in the front which has normal camera, zoom, thermal, and night vision. Has various pressure sensors on the legs and internal sensors for self monitoring.

 Communications
Radio system.

 Mounts/Limbs/Weapons
 Uses 106mm recoil-less rifles, 4 of them, mounted on either side of the body. HMG on ball type mount in the front. Underslung grenade launcher with various types of grenades. Twin rocket pods on the back. Six legs, Driven hydraulically with actuators and electric motors for positioning and precision movements. Has pile bunker toes for climbing and first joint of legs can fold inward to reveal metal ball bearing like wheels to allow for high speed movement across roads and flat terrain .

 Armor/Passive Defense
The machine is fairly lightly armored.  The limbs have a double layer of thin metal armor with a thick sludge between them that absorbs kinetic force. Body has heavier armor made of hundreds of layers of laminated carbon nanotube sheets. Armor is heaviest around the cockpit, and front of the upper portion of the machine, but there are plates protecting the recoil-less rifles and engine.  The cockpit is surrounded by a force dampening system to protect the pilot and there are retracting armor plates covering the cockpit hatch.

 Countermeasures/Active Defense
Flares and smoke canisters.

[Parisbre56]

Depending on the system, you could have different load-outs. If the enemy is using passive defences, load up on TOW-like missiles (or other appropriate weapons). If the enemy is using active defences (like anti-missile lasers), load up on projectile weapons (or other appropriate weapons). If the enemy is using both, then you need to have one gunner take down the active defences with an appropriate weapon or special item (smoke or special armoured missiles or lasers of your own) before using your more powerful but easier to intercept weapons.

[Pancaek]

What's the point of having both the missile pods and the 106mm recoiless rifles? In fact, why even have the 106mm recoiless rifles? Of all the stuff that's on spidy, those seem most out of place. Some kind of wierd middle ground between a full size cannon and a smaller autocannon with no clear advantage.

A single 120mm rifled cannon like the challenger tanks nearly doubles the effective range, which along with a pretty wide array of ammo types makes for a nice long range-anti tank gun with the option of blasting fortified positions with HE. Or change them up for autocannons/more dakka if you want infantry support and rely on tow missiles/some kind of fire and forget kind of thing like a javelin system for the anti-tank.

[piecewise]

What's the point of having both the missile pods and the 106mm recoiless rifles? In fact, why even have the 106mm recoiless rifles? Of all the stuff that's on spidy, those seem most out of place. Some kind of wierd middle ground between a full size cannon and a smaller autocannon with no clear advantage.

A single 120mm rifled cannon like the challenger tanks nearly doubles the effective range, which along with a pretty wide array of ammo types makes for a nice long range-anti tank gun with the option of blasting fortified positions with HE. Or change them up for autocannons/more dakka if you want infantry support and rely on tow missiles/some kind of fire and forget kind of thing like a javelin system for the anti-tank.

Because people complained that big cannons knock the thing off balance.

[Pancaek]

Because people complained that big cannons knock the thing off balance.

Well, yeah. But either we're at a range where sitting still for a moment to catch our balance won't matter, or we're close and on the move and using cannons at all just really isn't that great of an idea. I'm sure we could get some stabilizers up in that bitch as well, Leopard tanks can fire on the move and strykers manage to not topple over with their 105mm rifled cannons so it should be doable. I just feel like the 106mm recoilles rifles are gimping the entire machine because it's trying to be everything at the same time. Those recoilless rifles with their effective range of 1.3km just feel like a waste of space when we've also got missile pods.

I mean, I'm no engineer, but that 'nam era tech just doesn't seem worth it. Go big and replace them with a real cannon and make a real tank. Or replace them with autocannons or something similar  à la bradley and make a support vehicle.

But, like I said, I ain't no engineer. I just like tanks.

[Ozarck]

Because people complained that big cannons knock the thing off balance.

suggested. People suggested that a large cannon might be hard on the platform. If it gets a large cannon, I don't think there will be too much angst. And what angst there is will likely be drowned out by the KABOOM!

Edit:

I'm sure we could get some stabilizers up in that bitch as well, Leopard tanks can fire on the move and strykers manage to not topple over with their 105mm rifled cannons so it should be doable.

Go big and replace them with a real cannon and make a real tank. Or replace them with autocannons or something similar  à la bradley and make a support vehicle.

The issue with having a tank cannon is that tanks are inherently more sturdy than legged vehicles, and can therefore operate larger weapons without toppling / having something tear apart / becoming so heavy that mobility is lost. A tank can do things a legged vehicle can't. a legged vehicle can do things a tank can't.

Figure out what the main role is, and work from there. If it's an urban combat machine, figure out the unique challenges of urban combat, and build your weapon loadout for that. If it's a post apocalyptic rubble crawler, build to that, and if it's a "more mobile gunner" then you have a rapid trike vehicle used for first strike and surprise attacks and whatnot, and the machine should be loaded for spec ops use.

Or something like that.

Finally, I think having any of the desings so far mentioned would be fun and entertaining, even i they aren't the "perfect fit" for the machine. After all, one can always build a newer, better model later on, amirite?

[Pancaek]

The issue with having a tank cannon is that tanks are inherently more sturdy than legged vehicles, and can therefore operate larger weapons without toppling / having something tear apart / becoming so heavy that mobility is lost. A tank can do things a legged vehicle can't. a legged vehicle can do things a tank can't.

That's too bad, we need more vehicles using 152mm howitzers to deliver high explosive care packages to our enemies. Still, the stryker uses a 105mm smoothbore cannon, and that's mounted on what's essentially an APC, so getting an actual cannon should be doable. Alternatively, some kind of system to compensate for the recoil or brace the tank? I don't know, I cannot into mechanical stuff.

I just find those 106mm recoilless rifles absolutely disgusting. They're just not very good at range, and for urban support I also fail to see any advantages. They're also just pretending to be real cannons and give a very unsatisfying and underwhelming boom, which is unacceptable.

[piecewise]

The issue with having a tank cannon is that tanks are inherently more sturdy than legged vehicles, and can therefore operate larger weapons without toppling / having something tear apart / becoming so heavy that mobility is lost. A tank can do things a legged vehicle can't. a legged vehicle can do things a tank can't.

That's too bad, we need more vehicles using 152mm howitzers to deliver high explosive care packages to our enemies. Still, the stryker uses a 105mm smoothbore cannon, and that's mounted on what's essentially an APC, so getting an actual cannon should be doable. Alternatively, some kind of system to compensate for the recoil or brace the tank? I don't know, I cannot into mechanical stuff.

I just find those 106mm recoilless rifles absolutely disgusting. They're just not very good at range, and for urban support I also fail to see any advantages. They're also just pretending to be real cannons and give a very unsatisfying and underwhelming boom, which is unacceptable.

They are famously used by tank killers though.

Right now I'm just kinda considering what the best situation for simulating this would be and if I would be better off going more fantastic then realistic. I can realistically set up the cockpit and mechanics regardless, which is really what I wanted to play with, so I'm fine with gritty realistic war or being part of the tokyo armies when godzilla arrives and piloting jet jaguar out to meet him.

[Parisbre56]

I was reading about actuators in robots, and the nano-tube one sounds fun. Those things would have a hell of an acceleration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotics#Actuation

[Ozarck]

Still, the stryker uses a 105mm smoothbore cannon, and that's mounted on what's essentially an APC, so getting an actual cannon should be doable.

I just find those 106mm recoilless rifles absolutely disgusting. They're just not very good at range, and for urban support I also fail to see any advantages. They're also just pretending to be real cannons and give a very unsatisfying and underwhelming boom, which is unacceptable.

I confess an ignorance of large caliber weapon and their various efectivenesses. Why would a 106mm rifle be less effective at range than a 105 smoothbore? wouldn't the rifling increase accuracy and distance? isn't that the point of rifling?

As or the "some kind of system" to compensate, I think it depends on how complicated PW wants the machine to be and how much work he wants to put into it. But adding systems adds complication, mass, and size. Systems can be broken and may not be cost effective.

I'd be good with several models of spiderbot being in use: a small antipersonnel one with smgs or something (primarily an urban warfare support platform), a midsized platform with larger and smaller guns as support for the missile pack (guns mainly to defend against infantry and vehicles maybe?) which would be a recon / first striker, or a rubble hopper (maybe a different loadout for the rubble hopper) and a large walker with tank cannons. this one would be designed mostly to operate in difficult terrain, as being bigger than a tank would inherently reduce it's speed and maneuverability - one of the main reasons we suggested reducing the weapon to a more easily handled size, since PW claimed that his Idea was that the spiders would be more maneuverable than a tank - a difficult feat for any vehicle of comparable military use.

Of course, a lot of issues could simply be handwaved - not like we are as bound by reality as some of us like to think, here
Edit:

The issue with having a tank cannon is that tanks are inherently more sturdy than legged vehicles, and can therefore operate larger weapons without toppling / having something tear apart / becoming so heavy that mobility is lost. A tank can do things a legged vehicle can't. a legged vehicle can do things a tank can't.

That's too bad, we need more vehicles using 152mm howitzers to deliver high explosive care packages to our enemies. Still, the stryker uses a 105mm smoothbore cannon, and that's mounted on what's essentially an APC, so getting an actual cannon should be doable. Alternatively, some kind of system to compensate for the recoil or brace the tank? I don't know, I cannot into mechanical stuff.

I just find those 106mm recoilless rifles absolutely disgusting. They're just not very good at range, and for urban support I also fail to see any advantages. They're also just pretending to be real cannons and give a very unsatisfying and underwhelming boom, which is unacceptable.

They are famously used by tank killers though.

Right now I'm just kinda considering what the best situation for simulating this would be and if I would be better off going more fantastic then realistic. I can realistically set up the cockpit and mechanics regardless, which is really what I wanted to play with, so I'm fine with gritty realistic war or being part of the tokyo armies when godzilla arrives and piloting jet jaguar out to meet him.

there ya go. tank killers and a viable range from "not really reality since mechs are highly innefffective IRL, but close enough for government work" through "it's run on fairy cake, except when it isn't."

I'll play both

[Pancaek]

I confess an ignorance of large caliber weapon and their various efectivenesses. Why would a 106mm rifle be less effective at range than a 105 smoothbore? wouldn't the rifling increase accuracy and distance? isn't that the point of rifling?

I'm not an expert or anything either, I just like big hunks of metal on threads that make things go boom a lot. The rifling doesn't seem to be particularely important. The challenger 2 uses a rifled 120mm, while the Abrams uses a 120mm smoothbore, but their effective ranges are about the same. I do know that it requires some workarounds for certain ammo types, but both of them can fire HEAT and high explosive, though they use different kinds if I recall correctly.

The big factor here is that the recoilless rifles have (I'm just wiki'ing this stuff) an effective range of maximum 1.3km, which translates roughly into "everything further than 1.2km will require a great deal of luck". The 120mm cannons have their effective ranges at >3km. More importantly, I think, is that the recoiless rifles have a velocity of 503 m/s, where the 120mm cannons have around 1300m/s.

Also, the wiki page mentions the recoiless rifles being replaced by TOW missiles after 'nam, so there's also that. As for the mention fo famous tank killers, I'm wondering what kind of tanks it was used against. I can see those things making short work of some 'nam era and cold war tanks, but I think its chances against stuff like the challenger's chobham armour is dubious at best.

On an unrelated note, why aren't the armour penetration values or effective range of the 105mm smoothbore mentioned in any of the usual places. Weird.

[NJW2000]

Hmmm, sneaky Piecewise updates going on. Better post an on-ship action, just in case.

[Pancaek]

Whelp, time to make a new character.

[Hapah]

This looks like it's gonna be a bloody set of missions, yeah?

[NJW2000]

Yep, they're all looking prett great, though I would personally favour the bodysnatching one.

Any idea if one can dual wield things in ER?