NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: The A4-series tank is no longer in production and has been removed from Brettonian service. All surplus units have been sold off as of this time - this page serves for reference purposes only.

While our older A4-series legged main battle tanks have been drastically surpassed in terms of armor and firepower by the top-of-the-line A7V Peacemaker, the Partisans still serve an important role on the modern battlefield. Even though they have been relegated mostly to a close support role and are by no means on the cutting edge of technology, we at Brettonian Military Industries believe that discerning military leaders will still find a use for them.

Current production version with coilgun main weapon and forest green color scheme (http://malikcarr.250free.com/Partisan/part1.jpg)
Recruitment poster featuring Partisans engaging Kahanstani T-80 main battle tanks (http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a229/MalikCarr/PartisanPoster.jpg)

Model number: A4G
Code name: Partisan
Unit type: Middleweight Legged Main Battle Tank
Manufacturer: Bretton
Operator: Deathwind, Axis Nova, Allanea
Dimensions: main body height 13.2 meters, total height 14 meters; main body width 6.5 meters, total width 7.1 meters; main body length 9 meters, total length 18.8 meters
Dry weight: 370 tons
Maximum weight: 560 tons
Construction: titanium/ceramic composite, various specialized armor materials
Powerplant: He3 Bubble Fusion Reactor, output rated at 200 MW, superconducting energy condensers
Propulsion: 2 legs, combination hydraulic/pneumatic walking system
Crew: 3; driver, commander/gunner, defense systems operator
Performance: maximum ground running speed 141 km/h
Equipment and design features: various sensors, advanced electronic warfare and communication suites, including infrared, night vision, sonic, etc
Weapon systems: 28cm electromagnetic railgun, mounted on right shoulder; 2 x 3-barrel 25mm vulcan gun, mounted in concealed positions on head; 2 x 12.7mm machine gun, mounted in nose; multipurpose ordnance pod (MOP), mounted on left shoulder; 2 x directional microwave emitter, mounted on head undercarriage; 2 x 3-tube grenade launcher, mounted on knees; deuterium-fluoride laser emitter, mounted on main body undercarriage; 2 x 4-tube antiaircraft missile launcher, mounted in main body

Description:

The A4 Partisan represents Brettonian Military Industries’ first walking battle tank and the beginning of a long line of non-tracked armored fighting vehicles, although the Partisan would be the only one that walked on two legs.

Originally intended to be the Brettonian Army’s primary cavalry unit, the Partisan has been eclipsed in this role by the A7V Peacemaker. Since then, the A4G has been relegated primarily to a support role, using its smaller size and superior mobility to act as a point-defense unit for the much larger Peacemaker.

Armament: While some of its critics have called the Partisan an “under-gunned walking bulls-eye,” most who have employed its use swear by its balance of firepower and mobility. The Partisan’s primary weapon is a 28cm electromagnetic railgun, capable of hurling slugs at extreme distances with pinpoint accuracy. Throughout its years as the primary tank of the Brettonian Army the Partisan’s railgun was of a traditional make with two exposed rails, but in recent variants (notably the currently-produced G-type) it has been replaced with a coilgun-style arrangement, sometimes known as a 'linear cannon.' This same weapon would be prominently featured with a longer barrel as the primary gun on the A6 Juggernaut multi-legged tank, whose production has since ceased. Though its payload is significantly smaller to the new Peacemaker, it does posess a higher rate of fire due to the much lower power requirements. To achieve a stable firing position on uneven ground, twin pneumatic spikes are positioned on the front of each foot, allowing the Partisan to anchor itself to the ground. For added firepower against air targets, main battle tanks, and for long-range suppression, the Partisan is provided with a multiple ordnance pod (MOP) on its left shoulder. The MOP is capable of housing missiles and rockets of various shapes, sizes, and purposes. To deal with enemy armor, the MOP is capable of housing forty infrared-guided antitank missiles, which can either be fired directly or in a top-attack mode. When precision guidance is not necessary, the MOP can be arranged to hold 220 unguided folding-fin aerial rockets (FFAR), providing necessary firepower for suppression over a wide area. Kinetic-kill line-of-sight antitank missiles are also available, although their large size only enables a capacity of fifteen. The A4G is armed with a pair of fixed 12.7mm machine guns in its nose and a 3-barrel 25mm vulcan gun concealed in each shoulder; the latter drops down from concealed racks within the bottom of the shoulders, providing excellent coverage. One of the Partisan’s more flavorful armaments are a set of twin directional microwave emitters, also positioned in the lower shoulders. Intended primarily as anti-personnel weapons, they do not have sufficient power to kill outright, but are capable of inflicting severe injury on infantry who are not in hardened shelters. They are also excellent for flushing out enemy combatants who have taken refuge inside civilian structures. Their inability to penetrate thick concrete makes them inadequate for clearing out hardened bunker complexes, however. For air defense, eight launch tubes in two four-unit internal racks have been installed in the main body. These are capable of arming any variety of short and medium-range surface-to-air missile, including infrared- and radar-guided varieties. Three grenade launchers are mounted on each knee, intended to fire antipersonnel flechette grenades at close range and to act as smoke dischargers. Finally, the most unconventional and controversial system onboard the Partisan is a high-energy deuterium-fluoride laser emitter, mounted on a retractable turret on the undercarriage of the main body. By combining deuterium and highly-toxic fluorine, extremely excited deuterium-fluoride molecules are created within the emitter. An electrical charge is sent through the low-temperature, low-pressure laser cavity within the emitter producing an extremely potent beam. Our deuterium fluoride laser, originally capable of output in the megawatt range, can now produce even higher output thanks to the juggernaut of scientific advance of recent years. The purpose of this laser emitter is simple: a near-instantaneous output combined with a precision-tracking turret enables it to disable enemy armored fighting vehicles by targeting vulnerable areas, such as tracks, optics, weapon muzzles, and so forth. Rather than attempting to carve up, say, a main battle tank, it would be much easier to simply saw through the barrel of its primary gun. The laser emitter’s positioning allows it to fire almost directly at many contemporary MBTs, useful for situations when there is not time to aim the railgun, especially in close encounters. There is also a minimal application in antiaircraft roles, but its positioning gives it a very narrow area of fire above a certain degree on the Y-axis.

Armor: Defensive measure is spared no quarter at Brettonian Military Industries. Nearly half of the Partisan’s total weight is armor, allowing it to take punishment most conventional MBTs would wilt under. A titanium/ceramic composite skin holds numerous steel-encased depleted uranium rods, making its armor extraordinarily dense and difficult to penetrate with high-velocity kinetic-kill munitions. Conventional HEAT rounds are also virtually useless due to the electric/reactive armor subsystem, which has become a hallmark of BMI manufacture. In addition to the traditions of producing extremely well defended machines, the heavy armor is also employed to ensure that if a Partisan is disabled by enemy fire, the extremely toxic fluorine used to power the laser emitter will not be leaked, which could have disastrous consequences for those in its vicinity. The A4G’s armor is virtually uniform; that is, it has the same thickness on most areas of its body. The concept of enabling legged tanks to “dodge” enemy munitions was in its infancy when the Partisan was initially rolled out. Though not as capable as the A6 and A7 multi-legged tanks, the Partisan can quickly lower its body (duck) and even engage in a modest “jump” by utilizing its leg pneumatics at maximum output. It can also perform sharp lateral shifts, but only to a degree of about five meters in either direction without risking a loss of balance.

Logistics and Operation: The A4G is not as heavily armed or armored as the later A6 and A7 tanks, but what it lacks compared to its larger brothers it makes up for in mobility. Due to its smaller size and weight it is capable of less-overt operations and going places the much larger, multi-legged tanks cannot. For example, it is capable of fitting into tighter spots, such as a street with multi-story buildings on either side. The A6 can only manage 6-lane freeway-style roads, and the A7 is so massive it is designed to straddle a city block with one set of legs down each road. Unlike the spidery multi-legged tanks, the squat, bipedal Partisan puts a relatively high degree of armor and firepower in a compact package (compact is used subjectively with relevance to the newer BMI tanks). When walking, the Partisan assumes a much taller stance of eighteen meters, allowing its legs to move over a wider area. This allows it to run at a relatively high speed for its size, although it is a much larger target in this configuration. When in a normal position, the Partisan leans back on its legs, making use of two large support stands (these fold up against the back of its legs when not in use). This gives the Partisan a very stable firing platform and significantly reduces its target silhouette while retaining the ability to rapidly become mobile again. When the situation calls for defensive action, the A4G fully depress its legs to become flush with the ground, effectively putting it in a “sitting position” while retaining its ability to rotate its main body. In such a position the laser emitter becomes unusable, but the functionality of the remainder of its weapons remains. Its target silhouette is also shrunk with a total effective height of only about 8 meters. All A4 units are fully NBC-proofed and climate controlled to ensure that crews do not become fatigued on long engagements. The Partisan is operated by a crew of three: a dedicated driver, a commander who also controls the function of the railgun, and a defense system operator, who is tasked with the utilization of all the Partisan’s other weaponry. Each crewmember is situated in his own cockpit, which are positioned in a linear fashion within the nose section. To enter the Partisan, powerful hydraulics lower the “jaw” of the Partisan’s head, revealing the crew cockpits. In a depot situation, crew enter and exit via a steel catwalk as if on a commercial airliner. When such provisions are not available (e.g. in the field) a winch elevator, complete with a boot loop, is equipped below each cockpit for easy access. It is provided with twenty-five meters of cable, ensuring that crewmembers will always be able to reach the ground, even if the Partisan has gotten stuck while at full leg extension (and by some miracle has not fallen over). A favorite among its crew, the A4G is also provided with an inclusive crew ejection system. In case of critical damage being inflicted against the main body, or if the safe containment of the volatile chemicals power the laser emitter has been compromised, powerful explosive charges separate the Partisan’s head from the rest of the body. A proprietary solid rocket located behind the end of the “jaw” section then boosts the head between 100 and 250 meters from the main body, which should provide an adequate distance to protect the crew from a potentially catastrophic explosion. The crew then exits normally, albeit the jaw hydraulics push the rest of the head up as opposed to lowering the jaw itself. Each cockpit is outfitted with a highly-inclusive monitor system linked to external cameras situated over the Partisan’s exterior, including all varieties of scanning methods.

Visual Gallery:

1. Partisan in action during the Chechen Campaign (http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a229/MalikCarr/Partisan.jpg)

2. A zesty artist's rendition, as seen in a Brettonian Army recruitment pamphlet (http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a229/MalikCarr/Partisan3.jpg)

*Please note, the lineart below are of the older C through F models, which feature a more traditional railgun barrel.*

3. Side and off-center view, including exposed 25mm vulcan gun arrangement (http://malikcarr.250free.com/Partisan/11275064317554.jpg)

4. View from dead on, detailing leg articulation (http://malikcarr.250free.com/Partisan/1127608507387_2.jpg)

5. Off-center profile, with jaw open to allow crew entry and transparent MOP (http://malikcarr.250free.com/Partisan/part2.JPG)

6. Low-rear and low-front view; note dummy MOP on right illustration (http://malikcarr.250free.com/Partisan/part3.GIF)

A4 Partisan Total Programme Cost: J$320,000,000,000 (three hundred and twenty billion jions)
A4G Partisan Unit Production Cost: J$1,655,000,000 (one billion six-hundred fifty-five million jions)
A4G Partisan Unit Maintenence Cost, Annual: J$37,000,000 (thirty-seven million jions)

At Brettonian Military Industries, our ultimate goal is the end of warfare through the worldwide dissemination of The Technology of Peace™, and as always we will be happy to sell to any interested parties. Weapons demonstrations will be offered to potential buyers at agreed-upon locations. Please contact us with any inquiries.

Another impressive design from Bretton. Keep this up and perhaps people will stop being so skeptical about mecha at the PMT level. :)

My only real criticism is that you may wish to go into slightly more detail about the armor scheme.

Certainly. The Partisan's armor scheme is laid out similar to that of a main battle tank's, although liberties in production must be taken on account of the Partisan's much larger surface area, plus given the very nature of its moving parts themselves.

An internal framework houses hydraulics, pneumatics, power cables, coolant lines, other systemry, etc, etc, etc. Things that make it work. <insert more technobabble>. A thick steel shell is then laid around the framework, reinforced by overlapping depleted uranium plates, greatly increasing its density and projectile-arresting ability. A second shell composed of a titanium/ceramic composite is placed on top of the first, adding even more metal to the already formidible setup. Between the two shells lies the first contact point for the electric/reactive armor; more on this as we proceed. The second contact point is set on the outside of the second shell, and provided by another titanium/ceramic laminate. This is mostly designed to prevent small arms from chipping away at the contact point, thereby reducing its effectiveness.

E/R armor works by running an electrical current through the two contact points. A large capacitor is charged and prepared for use. When a HEAT round strikes the armor, the jet of molten copper that usually penetrates the armor and destroys whatever is within completes an electrical circuit between the two contact points. Whatever remains of the molten copper that has not already been dissipated by the ceramic layers is then vaporized by the capacitor discharging many thousands of volts into the millisecond-long circuit. The only damage to the armor itself is a chunk of the titanium/ceramic ; the second steel shell remains unscathed. Theoretically, a second HEAT round fired into the exact same position would then be able to inflict damage on the steel shell, but in practice this has proved nearly impossible.

Though it is ridiculously effective against HEAT rounds, the titanium/ceramic shell with its E/R armor subsystem is not as effective against kinetic-kill weapons, such as LOSAT missiles or APFSDS munitions delivered from other main battle tanks. Should these penetrate the outer shell, the inner shell comes into play. The ridiculously dense (albiet ridiculously heavy) depleted uranium plates can soak the vast majority of the kinetic energy of the penetrating rods, or "darts" as we've called them; the steel components of the shell are mostly to prevent the depleted uranium from chipping, as well as to provide extra protection against possible spalling.

We hope this provides an accurate and compelling description of the defensive measures we take at Brettonian Military Industries to ensure that our Technology of Peace(tm) can weather the storms we expect it to face.

FEARLESS LEADER IS TRUTH!!
- Brettonian Military Industries
The Technology of Peace(tm)

We are interested as to how you solved the problem of the radome, which is an obvious weakness on this mech design.

OOC: Your name suggests you're familiar with the origins of this mech, which I have gleefully stolen for my middleweight walking tank. I've found that by harassing Otacon enough about MG REX, namely, when the thing is trying to pulverize you into the ground, he explains about the functionality of the radome and its weakness to that Stinger you happen to have. When Snake inquires about this, he says something to the effect of, "Well, I think everything should have a character flaw." This makes me believe that Otacon, being the head-in-the-clouds so-and-so he is, intentionally designed this weakness into MG REX's design. With that in mind, changing the mecha from a mobile theatre nuclear launching apparatus into an intermediate walking battle tank involved breaking down the complex target acquisiton gear, tracking systems, etc, and respostioning them in other locations around the body, including the shoulders, nose, and yes, even the crotch. This ensures that, while some of them may be destroyed by heavy attack, others will remain online. Also, changing the function of that silly canister allowed me to turn it into a missile bucket (multipurpose ordnance pod), which is so much more fun. :P BUY THE PARTISAN, IT LOVES YOU.

OOC: I am more than familar with this design. My name suggests MGS nut, and it's right.

Anyway.... nice idea. Very nice.

bump

Have you changed REX's size? If you have I'll consider buying some.

OOC: It got about 15% bigger than it was in MGS. Were you looking for a size decrease? 'Cause I really don't... y'know... do small things. Ever. I mean, look at the Peacemaker. Jesus.

That thing would get mashed by anti tank weapons. Waste of money.

I would still consider one for genocide purposes. Perhaps one with flamethrowers that emmits vx nerve gas as it walks
- to be used exclusivly against civilians as a 'terror unit'.

could you make one of theese new death walkers for us?

OOC: Deathwind, I love you, but did you read the technical guide or did you just look at the pictures? All legged machines face serious threats to man-portable antitank munitions, which is why the Partisan, along with most of my other next-generation armor, is specifically equipped to be highly resistant to shaped charges. I think I devoted an entire POST to this. Please read the entire thing first, allright? Thanks. >_>

OOC: Deathwind, I love you, but did you read the technical guide or did you just look at the pictures? All legged machines face serious threats to man-portable antitank munitions, which is why the Partisan, along with most of my other next-generation armor, is specifically equipped to be highly resistant to shaped charges. I think I devoted an entire POST to this. Please read the entire thing first, allright? Thanks. >_>

I read it, but im thinking since im modern tech this monster is a bit advanced ( with its fusion reactor and HEAT proof armour ) If it is in my tech level it is some early version without theese capibilities, + would be kneecapped by tanks. LOl. I should have stated my techlevel.
Still, make 1 ' Deathwalker' for us to kill civilians with and well give you $500million.

ooc: just say yes or no , no need to make a new design

If that's all you're looking for, Brettonian Military Industries will still be happy to provide. We'll have that "custom" version shipped out in no time.

Additionally, have you finalized any purchases in your campaign to acquire nonconventional arms?

yes a few. but we are open to all sellers. perhaps well buy more in future.
$500mil wired.

Ok you have made it BIGGER! That turns it into a complete waste of money unless your using it as defence as it would be WAAAAY to big to transport. REX was bigger than RAY and RAY could swim anyway but you have made REX even bigger. And with this thing being bigger it would raise its elevation (duh) but if something got to its feet the tank would be too big to look down and kill it. If you had made it just 15% SMALLER it would be better than REX was.

And what do you mean by 'middleweight'? Id hate to see your heavyweight. A giant walking target.

"Middleweight" is a comparitive term between the two-legged Partisan and the six-legged Peacemaker (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9649096).

And yes, for the fifteeth time, they are massive targets. This is why half their total weight tends to be armor protection and subsystems designed to defeat antitank munitions that would normally render such walking tanks moot.

OOC:

*TAG* Sorry, thread tools not working. I'll post interest later.

Ok you have made it BIGGER! That turns it into a complete waste of money unless your using it as defence as it would be WAAAAY to big to transport. REX was bigger than RAY and RAY could swim anyway but you have made REX even bigger. And with this thing being bigger it would raise its elevation (duh) but if something got to its feet the tank would be too big to look down and kill it. If you had made it just 15% SMALLER it would be better than REX was.

Actually, you should consider that he may have developed, in tandem, something capable of transporting this.

Ok you have made it BIGGER! That turns it into a complete waste of money unless your using it as defence as it would be WAAAAY to big to transport. REX was bigger than RAY and RAY could swim anyway but you have made REX even bigger. And with this thing being bigger it would raise its elevation (duh) but if something got to its feet the tank would be too big to look down and kill it. If you had made it just 15% SMALLER it would be better than REX was.

Im sure, if the tank got that close the Rex would simply stand on the tank? and im sure the weight would be enough to force the tank into the ground, or completely make the turret unusable?

Im sure, if the tank got that close the Rex would simply stand on the tank? and im sure the weight would be enough to force the tank into the ground, or completely make the turret unusable?

Lol, I was just thinking that. I mean, the Partisan weighs almost 600 tonnes.

Lol, I was just thinking that. I mean, the Partisan weighs almost 600 tonnes.

I couldn't help but laugh at the Imagery that conjured up...

OOC: What, recreating the Rodney King stomping incident on an MBT? That's kind of an amusing thought...

Ah ha ha ha! I laugh at the thought of REX trying to stand on something directly beneath him. He would topple over. Instant Victory!

OOC: Allright, now you're just being silly. Move along, son.

No Im being serious. Even in the game REX couldn't stand on Snake if you went directly beneath him. Stop crying coz I pointed out a weakness.

Performance: maximum ground running speed 141 km/hIs there any particular reason why a 370- 560 ton mecha can run almost 1 1/2 times as fast as a Gepard (The animal) - And about twice as fast as a proper MBT, not to mention four times as fast as a proper bipedal combatant (A human, though I'm referring to trained and short-distance specialised athlets, not to soldiers in combat gear, for which it would be... half that, at best) - without tripping over or having its legs' excessive ground pressure crash the ground, entrapping itself?

Oh, and sending out earthquake-esque shockwaves flattening stuff.

Or are you just handwaving?

Long legs, state-of-the-art gyroscopes, and an ingeius system that switches off between hydraulics and pneumaitcs whenever the other provides a more optimal output, to achieve leg movement. Also includes some near-frictionless hogwash for the joints that Sileetris provided me with, I'll dig it up if you insist. Finally, it helps that we have quite a bit of equivalent horsepower to expend on beefy electric motors to keep this sucker going.

Obviously, the stated speed is the maximum speed, which is achieved under favorable conditions. Typically speaking, these are paved roads designed to take large amounts of weight at once. The M1 Abrams has a listed maximum speed of around 60+ mph, but obviously, these are also under ideal conditions. More often that not it would be crusing at around 30-35 simply due to the fact that it's unhealthy for the treads. Is this what you meant by handwaving, or were you just being abrasive and insulting me again? Seriously, I'm a nice guy once you get past the racism and bigotry and stuff. Be nice. x_x

Obviously, if the terrain was treacherous, I would not have my bipedal tank running at maximum throttle. No gyroscope or other balancing device is perfect, and if you were to hit on a properly-dimensioned object at that speed, you could very well eat shit, as it were.

As far as... crashing (?) into the ground, I also don't think I'd be deploying these guys in a rain forest or similar climate. Quagmire-y ground = bad for walkers.

---

Maldaathi, look. It's not a carbon copy of REX. All things considered, REX is a theatre nuclear weapons delivery platform, not a main battle tank. Also, I'd love you forever if you'd stop pointing out the inability for the PSX to achieve the most brilliant of AI patterns...

Additionally. MGS was a game. This is a game. However, they are completely different in nature. Using the source material of a design I've stolen does not constitute valid criticisms of the final product.

Also: for the record, the new version of MGS on the 'Cube has corrected this flaw. Shit, Liquid kills Ninja/Gray Fox by stomping him to death with its foot.

Thanks for coming.

Also: for the record, the new version of MGS on the 'Cube has corrected this flaw. Shit, Liquid kills Gray Fox by stomping him to death with its foot.

He killed Grey Fox that way on the PS version, too. So we know Rex can stamp on someone after slicing off his arm and crushing him half to death by pinning him against a wall. But did you somehow miss the earlier part where Grey Fox could hold up the complete weight of Rex's leg with one fucking hand? How do you think a solid MBT would fare if just an exoskeleton can do that?

No im pointing out that it would lose its balance. Though I seriously doubt you would ever think of deploying this in real battle....

He killed Grey Fox that way on the PS version, too. So we know Rex can stamp on someone after slicing off his arm and crushing him half to death by pinning him against a wall. But did you somehow miss the earlier part where Grey Fox could hold up the complete weight of Rex's leg with one fucking hand? How do you think a solid MBT would fare if just an exoskeleton can do that?

AAAAGHH!!

At what point in the design of a mech on a framework deivered from Metal Gear REX would one not install drastically superior hydraulics, pneumatics, and other motivators within the unit's legs that would (A) support a machine that weighs 30% more, and (B) is designed for front-line combat AGAINST OTHER MAIN BATTLE TANKS?!

MG REX: Walking theatre nuclear warhead launcher

A4G Partisan: Bipedal main battle tank

DIFFERENCE IN INTENDED ROLE WOULD SUGGEST DIFFERENCE IN SYSTEMS

>_<

Pardon if I overracted, but I feel that I'm having trouble getting my point across.

Im sorry but this would be so much less bullshit if it was smaller. Can you make a few smaller prototypes and ill buy them? :P

Pardon if I overracted, but I feel that I'm having trouble getting my point across.

You're missing the point. MGS weapons come from a techbase where an exoskeleton allows a man to hold up Rex's leg, an object which must weigh a good 20-50 tons. If a thin exo-suit can do that, you can only imagine what MBT armour is like.

When you further consider Solidus could knock out more advanced RAYs with a submachine gun...MGS tech isn't a good way to go. Plus, walking tanks are daft. Talk to Granin in MGS3 and then call SigInt a couple times if you want to know why. =^_^=

*beats his head against a wall*

Have I not already overcome every weakness of a walking tank aside from its obviously large target silhouette?!

On top of all that, REX and my unit are fundamentally different. I mean, REX is powered by a normal internal-combustion engine! What's up with that?!

Instead of being built with pre-established 2005 technology, as REX was, my machine is built with that of the 2030-2040 PMT period, and on top of all that, is designed for a completely different operation.

In short, it's a far beefier machine than its source material!

Unrelated note: MG RAY sucks. Organic mecha = Ew.

*beats his head against a wall*

Have I not already overcome every weakness of a walking tank aside from its obviously large target silhouette?!

No. It's impossible to overcome a large observable profile, high centre of gravity, thinner armour and the impossibility of armouring all areas, incredible difficulty in creating good slope angles in the armour, greater mechanical complexity resulting in more maintanance downtime and more difficult logistics, greater cost, longer building time, immense ground pressure, low topspeed...

At equal technology and equal mass, a walker doesn't stand a chance against a tracked combatant in the MBT role.

You're missing the point. MGS weapons come from a techbase where an exoskeleton allows a man to hold up Rex's leg, an object which must weigh a good 20-50 tons. If a thin exo-suit can do that, you can only imagine what MBT armour is like.

When you further consider Solidus could knock out more advanced RAYs with a submachine gun...MGS tech isn't a good way to go. Plus, walking tanks are daft. Talk to Granin in MGS3 and then call SigInt a couple times if you want to know why. =^_^=

Finally someone who agrees.

At equal technology and equal mass, a walker doesn't stand a chance against a tracked combatant in the MBT role.

Has this happened in real life? It has not. Therefore, until it does, this is merely your opinion.

Bretton has done an excellent job of designing this thing and to just say it automagically fails due to having legs is rather snide on your part.

Let's look at your objections in detail here, shall we?


It's impossible to overcome a large observable profile,


No arguments here, though it does get a better view to compensate.


high centre of gravity,


You mean the one that's nonexistent on this design due to the large, heavy feet and legs?


thinner armour and the impossibility of armouring all areas, incredible difficulty in creating good slope angles in the armour,


Which has been compensated for by sheer mass of armor as well as electric reactive armor that ruins HEAT rounds.


greater mechanical complexity resulting in more maintanance downtime and more difficult logistics,


Which is migitated somewhat by better materials available in a post-modern environment, which this vehicle is in.


greater cost, longer building time


Bretton has one of the largest defense budgets in all of Nationstates, according to his stats. Given that he can only have a certain amount of people in his military, it naturally follows that he should increase their capabilities through more money instead-- because he can afford to lose more.

As for building time, that's irrelevant unless he gets into a war of attrition and manages to run completely out of the things somehow.


immense ground pressure


Which is migitated somewhat by very wide feet, reducing OVERALL ground pressure. Sure, it won't cross any bridges, but it's easily capable of just wading across or beneath rivers.


low topspeed...


How is 141 km/h slow? Seems plenty fast enough for combat operations to me.


I also will add that it's rather silly on the part of you and others to refer to this as a Metal Gear or as using Metal Gear tech, when in fact it shares nothing but their appearance.

It isn't a Metal Gear and thus any comparisons to one are invalid.

Id like one but im trying to stay pre 2020 iin my tech, otherwise id buy some. ( I have one peacemaker unit which i bought mainly so i could say i had one)

Has this happened in real life? It has not. Therefore, until it does, this is merely your opinion.
No, there are perfectly sound design reasons for it, although GMC may not have felt the need to spell them out to you as blatantly as you would like.

You mean the one that's nonexistent on this design due to the large, heavy feet and legs?
A mech will always have a higher centre of gravity than a tank because of their basic shape. Unless this shape is severely distorted, it will be considerably higher. Whilst it is true that the shape can be changed (for example by using large feet) to make it stable enough to walk, the effect of a major impact on the head is likely to be considerable, whereas tanks do not need to worry about being flipped over, since anything with enough power to flip them over would be able to penetrate the armour anyway.

Which has been compensated for by sheer mass of armor as well as electric reactive armor that ruins HEAT rounds.
Since a mech will have a greater surface area than a tank of any given mass, it will have much less armour than a tank, and is therefore inferior.

Which is migitated somewhat by better materials available in a post-modern environment, which this vehicle is in.
Which only means that the tank will be even more easy to build and maintain, even less likely to go wrong, etc. etc. Improvements in technology affect everything, not just a specific technology.

Bretton has one of the largest defense budgets in all of Nationstates, according to his stats. Given that he can only have a certain amount of people in his military, it naturally follows that he should increase their capabilities through more money instead-- because he can afford to lose more.
The point is not that he cannot afford mechs, the point is that he can afford more tanks which would at the same time be superior to the mechs.

As for building time, that's irrelevant unless he gets into a war of attrition and manages to run completely out of the things somehow.
Ah, so your military doesnt start to replace war losses until you completely run out of every last example a design? Riiiiight.

Which is migitated somewhat by very wide feet, reducing OVERALL ground pressure. Sure, it won't cross any bridges, but it's easily capable of just wading across or beneath rivers.
Again, although it may not stop the mech from functioning, it makes the mech inferior to the tank, and therefore pointless.

How is 141 km/h slow? Seems plenty fast enough for combat operations to me.
If that speed is even possible (which I doubt, in any tech level) a tank will be able to go even faster because turning a drive wheel is a more efficient way of transucing electrical or chemical energy into kinetic energy than lifting up legs and putting them down again.

Has this happened in real life? It has not. Therefore, until it does, this is merely your opinion.

I think it's just based on the laws of physics that something like this would be suceptible to damage more than a lower MBT, simply because this would be easier to hit.



You mean the one that's nonexistent on this design due to the large, heavy feet and legs?

No, it's more existant because most of the mass is above the legs, putting the ceter of mass higher. Because this is designed to be high gravity will have an effect on this, specifically because of the lack of mass on the legs. It's basic physics.


Which has been compensated for by sheer mass of armor as well as electric reactive armor that ruins HEAT rounds.

Who's the say a sabot won't just go right through the leg? It's a shell trap, and a weak spot on this design.



Which is migitated somewhat by better materials available in a post-modern environment, which this vehicle is in.

Likewise, a MBT will have those same excellent materials.




Which is migitated somewhat by very wide feet, reducing OVERALL ground pressure. Sure, it won't cross any bridges, but it's easily capable of just wading across or beneath rivers.

Would it be worth it to deal with the huge logistical costs of dealing with the damage that wil be done to wiring, hydraulics and to the materials in general? As opposed to the cost of doing the same with tanks.


-------

So, this is a good design. Very inventine. Unfortunately, it falls under the category that did Sharina's last tank. Inventine, not something I would want to waste my money on.

You mean the one that's nonexistent on this design due to the large, heavy feet and legs?


No, it's more existant because most of the mass is above the legs, putting the ceter of mass higher. Because this is designed to be high gravity will have an effect on this, specifically because of the lack of mass on the legs. It's basic physics.


Mac, did you just say that having very heavy feet and legs means that more mass is above them than otherwise?

Mac, did you just say that having very heavy feet and legs means that more mass is above them than otherwise?

Yea, because mass doesn't solely deal with weight, it also has to do with density of the material, and frankly, the larger upper body of this will always have a larger mass than the feet.

Even though the legs have the least complicated systemry? Those things are almost the size of Volkswagen beetles, and 90% of their density is armor. It would be one of the least effective places to shoot.

Macabees, I would also appreciate it if you too actually read the description. I've provided the Partisan with protection that would shame a traditional tracked main battle tank of comparable weight while still enabling it to be significantly more mobile at the expense of a greater production cost.

Praetonia, did you forget the first half of the line Axis Nova gave that you, in fact, quoted? A Partisan has a crew of three. A traditional tank has a crew of between four and six. Could I build a hundred tanks for one Partisan? Sure. That would mean between four hundred and six hundred crew that need to be paid, fed, equipped, and kept in line. Conscription in the Brettonian Army is mostly for rear-line duties, such as base security, civil defense, and generally low-training jobs, such as clearing mines, which means I'd also have to train those 400-600 tank crew.

On top of that, 100 MBTs pose a logistical nightmare compared to a single beefy walker. In addition to having to keep track of all of them, a tank can be disabled rather easily by knocking out a set of its treads, thus requiring it to be sent back to depot for repair. The costs of mantaining a tank force of five million something armored vehicles would be ridiculously higher than a few thousand walkers, not to mention be even harder to get to combat situations.

If that wasn't enough, the Partisan can go places a treaded vehicle would never be able to, and is also capable of delivering a nuclear device in a tactical or theatre role by using an atomic slug, rather than a traditional solid slug.

Finally, it's simply easier to use than rushing in millions of tanks. It's widely known that the principle conventional invasion of Europe by the Soviet Union would be by armor in mass quantities, and numerous technologies were developed to help thwart this threat. In a PMT environment, it would be entirely feasible to have a cluster bomb with self-guided submunitions that would be capable of taking out dozens of tanks at once by striking their roof armor. The Partisan's armor thickness is universal on almost all surfaces on account of it is intended to be able to face a target from almost any side, effectively invalidating most kill-the-weak-spot weapon systems designed to destroy tanks. If you had a weapon capable of taking a Partisan's leg off, you'd be just as inclined to put a hole through one side of its main body and out the other, 'cause that's what it would take.

Would a 560-ton MBT have a thicker forward armor plate? Probably.

Would it have thicker armor on the top, bottom, sides, and rear? Doubtful.

Addendum: Suppose you were going to invade my good buddy Axis Nova here. His first line of physical defense is mountains. Traditionally, tanks haven't fared well in mountains. Something that walks, on the other hand, is capable of dealing with such threats much easier. Am I saying it's as mobile as a man on foot? No. It's a 560-ton walking tank, for Christ's sake! It will, however, have a much better chance of clearing such obstacles than a Bolo would, which is what I think you'd be wanting me to make instead.

Armor: Defensive measure is spared no quarter at Brettonian Military Industries. Nearly half of the Partisan’s total weight is armor, allowing it to take punishment most conventional MBTs would wilt under. A titanium/ceramic composite skin holds numerous steel-encased depleted uranium plates, making its armor extraordinarily dense and difficult to penetrate with high-velocity kinetic-kill munitions. Conventional HEAT rounds are also virtually useless due to the electric/reactive armor subsystem, which has become a hallmark of BMI manufacture. In addition to the traditions of producing extremely well defended machines, the heavy armor is also employed to ensure that if a Partisan is disabled by enemy fire, the extremely toxic fluorine used to power the laser emitter will not be leaked, which could have disastrous consequences for those in its vicinity. The A4G’s armor is virtually uniform; that is, it has the same thickness on most areas of its body. The concept of enabling legged tanks to “dodge” enemy munitions was in its infancy when the Partisan was initially rolled out. Though not as capable as the A6 and A7 multi-legged tanks, the Partisan can quickly lower its body (duck) and even engage in a modest “jump” by utilizing its leg pneumatics at maximum output. It can also perform sharp lateral shifts, but only to a degree of about five meters in either direction without risking a loss of balance.


Congratulations, your armor scheme is a worse version than the chobham composite. Furthermore, the idea that your legs have the same armored value than the main body is simply ludicrous. Indeed, you're expecting to pull so many stunts with those legs when technically, the weight of the armor would be uniformly distributed amongst the body, meaning, your legs are going to be heavy, making this slow, stumbling, and virtually inefficient, as opposed to an MBT.


Praetonia, did you forget the first half of the line Axis Nova gave that you, in fact, quoted? A Partisan has a crew of three. A traditional tank has a crew of between four and six. Could I build a hundred tanks for one Partisan? Sure. That would mean between four hundred and six hundred crew that need to be paid, fed, equipped, and kept in line. Conscription in the Brettonian Army is mostly for rear-line duties, such as base security, civil defense, and generally low-training jobs, such as clearing mines, which means I'd also have to train those 400-600 tank crew.


*Cough* A modern MBT normally has a crew of three personnel.


On top of that, 100 MBTs pose a logistical nightmare compared to a single beefy walker. In addition to having to keep track of all of them, a tank can be disabled rather easily by knocking out a set of its treads, thus requiring it to be sent back to depot for repair. The costs of mantaining a tank force of five million something armored vehicles would be ridiculously higher than a few thousand walkers, not to mention be even harder to get to combat situations.


Similarly, this can be knocked out with a sabot through the joints of the legs. Both have evident weaknesses, only your stick out a bit more.

BTW Bretton im saying the theory behind this is shit. You did a wonderful job of designing it and all.

Similarly, this can be knocked out with a sabot through the joints of the legs. Both have evident weaknesses, only your stick out a bit more.


Good thing the accuracy of a tank isn't anywhere near remotely good enough to hit the joint unless both it and this were sitting still.

Hmm.

Mac, I'm beginning to see what you're getting at here.

You take my words out of context and use them to make your own argument seem better.

Congradulations, you just passed Media 101. Please go join your political party-pushing website of choice now.

---

Ahem.

(1) At no point did I say "modern main battle tank."
(2) You lie.

Challenger II: 4-man crew
M1 Abrams: 4-man crew
Chieftan: 4-man crew
T-55: 4-man crew
T-65: 4-man crew
Type 80: 4-man crew
Leopard II: 4-man crew

Huh, look at that. The mainline American, English, and German tanks all have 4-man crews, as do most of the Soviet tanks that have seen widespread export.

(3) How is it that twin layers of armor providing universal protection from kinetic-kill warheads and HEAT/HEAP are -worse- than chobham armor?

(4) You underestimate the power of hydraulic fluid and compressed air, especially in a 2025-2035 tech range. Badly.

BTW, I'd like to thank you with a fist to the face, on account of I now owe Axis Nova $5 as he predicted you would go for the legs next.

Senses flaming on the horizon!

You're also not really helping with that either. If you haven't got anything constructive to add to the discussion, I'd prefer if you move along before a moderator decides this is getting out of hand and nukes my sales page. -_-

Awwww. Mr. Attitude would lose his page... diddums. Have a cookie and 25c to go call someone who cares.

Hmm.

Mac, I'm beginning to see what you're getting at here.

You take my words out of context and use them to make your own argument seem better.

Congradulations, you just passed Media 101. Please go join your political party-pushing website of choice now.


Have you ever thought it may not be 'taking your words out of context' but your inability to express yourself and your thoughts to the fullest through paper?
---



(1) At no point did I say "modern main battle tank."
(2) You lie.

Challenger II: 4-man crew
M1 Abrams: 4-man crew
Chieftan: 4-man crew
T-55: 4-man crew
T-65: 4-man crew
Type 80: 4-man crew
Leopard II: 4-man crew


With that information, I guess it's now proven that you exxagerated your claims with a 4-6 man crew, and indeed, the crew of a MBT I guess now lies at 3-4 men.


(3) How is it that twin layers of armor providing universal protection from kinetic-kill warheads and HEAT/HEAP are -worse- than chobham armor?


From the explenation of your armor, your armored scheme is worse than chobham, simply because you state the use of uranium platelets, which would be much less effective than weaving the uranium through a matrix, thus making it denser, which is the strength of the ceramic composite armor [with interweved titanium, DU, et cetera]. So, it's not the fact that is' a wall, it's the fact that it's a dense wall, and thus with a stronger electro-magnetic force. Solid walls of titanium and depleted uranium do not have those kind of effects if they're just that.


(4) You underestimate the power of hydraulic fluid and compressed air, especially in a 2025-2035 tech range. Badly.


No, I've worked with hydraulics my entire life. Indeed, my tractor works almost solely on hydraulics. Your underestimate the power of weight and its consequent effects on the ability of hydraulics. In fact, you have a common misunderstanding of hydraulics in general.


Good thing the accuracy of a tank isn't anywhere near remotely good enough to hit the joint unless both it and this were sitting still.


That's not so true, especially with the advent of lidar guidance, infra-red laser guidance and extremely well developed radar. Indeed, line of sight fire perhaps has gotten more accurate in the post-modern tech atmosphere. Not to mention, that a KE shard will cripple the joint even if it hits above, or below. The legs in general are shell traps. This same argument will be presented time and time again.


[Edit: Sorry, a few spelling errors.]

Awwww. Mr. Attitude would lose his page... diddums. Have a cookie and 25c to go call someone who cares.
Knock it off. If you can't debate properly/make suggestions for this, take yourself out of the thread. Got it?

Oi... I see this is going to take some time...

(1) Yes, I've been having difficulty trying to get my words across for the majority of this thread. You'll note this is especially true when I was desperately trying to convince certain parties that the origins of the Partisan's inspiration had little or nothing to do with its actual performance.

(2) What is with your insistence on my use of the word "main battle tank" that has not occurred? Up until the beginning of the Cold War, takes would often have 4 or more crew. Hell, the Soviet T-35 tank had a crew of eleven. As we proceed into the PMT period of history, tank crews may get bigger or they may get smaller. I suppose it's pretty contingent on when you seperate a tank from a land battleship/cruiser.

(3) Armor. I'm completely baffled by what you're trying to get at here. If there's some kind of superior DU armor protection that goes beyond plates or rods being inserted into the steel armor panels, I want to know about it. Preferably if it's of a methodology that I.I. frequenters won't... well, for lack of a better term, shit all over.

(4) I applaud your superior technical knowledge, but what's not to say that the capacity will not increase in the coming years? Furthermore, I'd like to believe that the replacement of traditional petroleum-based hydraulic fluid in my machines with this nearly frictionless semi-organic compound Sileetris has developed would also dramatically improve performance. Additonally, I should note, for the fifteen millionth time, that the legs feature a dual hydraulic/pneumatic actuactor system which is linked to its own motion control system. The two different systems switch off between each other as the Partisan walks. Somewhat similar to the various muscles in the human leg, except rather than using one set for a specific motion and the other for a second, the hydraulic and pneumatic systems trade off when the other would achieve superior output for the amount of energy being put into it.

Am I making more sense now? I'm trying as best I can to put this into a proper textual interpretation.

Either that or you're intentionally screwing with my head. >_>

(2) What is with your insistence on my use of the word "main battle tank" that has not occurred? Up until the beginning of the Cold War, takes would often have 4 or more crew. Hell, the Soviet T-35 tank had a crew of eleven. As we proceed into the PMT period of history, tank crews may get bigger or they may get smaller. I suppose it's pretty contingent on when you seperate a tank from a land battleship/cruiser.

The argument is between the powers and efficiency of a main battle tank versus this. Consequently, the inclusion of other tanks would be irrevelent to the point that we're trying to make. As a fact, all modern and post modern main battle tanks of standard size are not going to include more than a four man crew. Indeed, never in history after the Second World War have they.

(3) Armor. I'm completely baffled by what you're trying to get at here. If there's some kind of superior DU armor protection that goes beyond plates or rods being inserted into the steel armor panels, I want to know about it. Preferably if it's of a methodology that I.I. frequenters won't... well, for lack of a better term, shit all over.

I explained it to you, but unfortunately you chose to ignore it. When most NSers explain they simply put a ceramic composite, or just plain chobham. Again, chobham's strenght comes through weaving the tensiles of titanium and depleted uranium in a matrix, thus increase mass, thus increasing tensile strength, and finally, increasing the rolled homogenous value of the armor.

(4) I applaud your superior technical knowledge, but what's not to say that the capacity will not increase in the coming years? Furthermore, I'd like to believe that the replacement of traditional petroleum-based hydraulic fluid in my machines with this nearly frictionless semi-organic compound Sileetris has developed would also dramatically improve performance. Additonally, I should note, for the fifteen millionth time, that the legs feature a dual hydraulic/pneumatic actuactor system which is linked to its own motion control system. The two different systems switch off between each other as the Partisan walks. Somewhat similar to the various muscles in the human leg, except rather than using one set for a specific motion and the other for a second, the hydraulic and pneumatic systems trade off when the other would achieve superior output for the amount of energy being put into it.

Oh, I'm sorry I misunderstood a design forged by two NSers and hailed as gospil. I never knew that you and Sileetrist had the expertise to develope a new petroluem-based hydraulic fluid. Nonetheless, if you were to present that to an expert I'll wager my life that you would get turned down. No offense. This isn't 2030 PMT, I'm sorry, this is 2050+ PMT where things start to get, not just theoritical, but highly inventive and impulsive.

It's easy to say with that latter fact down, this argument has to cease, because obviously we're not talking on the same level. If I ever came across this I would promptly ignore it, again no offense, I just don't see this as what PMT levels of technology harness, which are theoritical ideas that have been 'proven' by real life authorities, just expected to be released post 2015, like an ETC gun or EM rifling [which is to be released by Rhinemetal in 2030].

On the issue of tank crew:

I'm not invalidating the point you're trying to make, I'm trying to get the point across that I at no point used the term "main battle tank" with relevence to crew size. Allright? That's all. There's nothing more to it, and I'd prefer if we can move along from this point of debacle.

On the issue of armor:

I ignored nothing, and I'd also prefer if the self-righteous attitude being shoved down my throat could take a backseat while we have a civil discussion.

Anyway.

(1) Chobham armor has no depleted uranium in it. Unless all my sources on the subject have been incorrect, it's a steel/ceramic or titanium/ceramic composite that involves layers of metal (either one) and ceramics.

(2) Actual depleted uranium armor works exactly the same way, albiet it uses rods instead of plates, at least on the M1A1. I'm not sure if this was changed on the A2.

(3) The concept is similar, though for different reasons. The ceramics of Chobham armor turn into a jet of dust, which retards the speed of the molten copper penetrator as it proceeds through the layers of armor. The depleted uranium rods (plates) work simply because they're extrodinarily dense and heavy, which gives the darts of an APFSDS gun or a LOSAT missile a much harder time trying to get through.

On the issue of being a Gospel:

Are you trying to be offensive or something to that effect? I've never proclaimed myself as truth, and to the best of my knowledge Sileetris never has either. What's wrong with using a near-frictionless liquid for lubrication and operation? Furthermore, I stated specifically that the stuff was not petroleum based.

On top of that, why is it that Sileetris and I have to be qualified to create a new form of lubrication before we can make one as such in a forum-based game?

Moving right along, when has PMT been stated as being theoretical technology capable of being developed in a post-2015 situation? If you applied that logic I guarantee a large number of PMT military gear would be invalidated in an instant. Are you going to ignore all of those as well?

Lastly, since you seem to know what is and what is not acceptable in a PMT situation, may I see your Roadmap to the Future, or whatever your crystal ball-type device is? I want to see what's going to exist and what won't such that I can create fictitious technology that will definately come into existence down the road.

OOC: burned.:)

OOC:

Bretton, perhaps you already answered this (and I'm sure previous threads dealing with mecha vs tank has as well) but what role do you see the mecha fitting in here that can't be done as good or better than a tank? Perhaps that would help?

I will confess that I'm more of a tank guy myself and will probably stick to some form of power armour as my "top end" mecha. But for the life of me, I can't quite figure out where I would use mechs that I can't use something else.

That being said, hats off to your creative efforts.

edit: as far as the frictionless fluids and stuff, I do recall asking an engineer what could be done once we start running out of more oil. He replied that frictionless materials themselves could be used that required little to no lubricant. Now, this was done sitting on a train going to Osaka and we just met, so take that however you want. But I think what he was driving at is that some kind of solution would be developed, but I don't mean here that inherent difficulties of the design will vanish due to advancement in tech level.

Something constructive! Thank you!!

Okay, here's how it works.

The Brettonian Army's primary armored cavalry is the spidery A7V Peacemaker (use the search for it, it's nice and large). However, due to its ridiculous size, it sometimes leaves parts of itself exposed to the enemy, even with its numerous gun turrets. The Partisan, as a more maneuverable, two-legged affair, is instrumental in ensuring that nothing can get close to it. Thus, while it is also equipped with a powerful railgun, the majority of the rest of its armament is aimed at dealing with threats that get closer, such as the undercarriage (read: crotch) DF laser and the multipurpose ordnance pod. Its directional microwave emitters are directly aimed at ensuring that infantry can't get under the Peacemaker and start slapping demolition charges on its feet. Even with its own antipersonnell systems, such as flechette grenade dischargers and white phosphorous smoke grenades, it doesn't provide perfect protection. Posessing superior mobility, the Partisan can cover holes in the Peacemaker's defensive screens.

The A4 Partisan was originally built to serve as the primary cavalry unit. It was also the Brettonian Army's first walking tank. Now, at the time, the multi-legged A6 Juggernaut, whose production has been discontinued, and A7 Peacemaker did not exist. Their original role was to provide a highly mobile, heavily armored, and heavily armed AFV. They posess superior mobility to a traditional tracked vehicle, and while their equally-distributed armor would not be quite as thick or comprehensive as the front armor of an equally-heavy main battle tank, they can use their superior mobility as an advantage to strike the weaker points of such a tank. Plus, if there's no way you can get around them, you can always use the laser and chop the barrel of the tank's primary weapon off if they're not really far away. Due to the fact that they do walk on two legs, the Partisan can also scale terrain that would be impossible for a tracked vehicle of equivalent weight. Theoretically, all you'd need to do to stop or slow down a 560-ton main battle tank would be to drop a large number of tall, heavy antitank pins in its path. This is especially effective in an urban environment, or a mountain pass, etc. The Partisan, if faced by such an obscale, would simply step over the pins and continue unabated.

With the proper technology, both traditional tanks and walking tanks each have advantages and disadvantages.

I think a lot of people who naysay a walking tank would use one of my antique A1 Admirals, which are stippled in gun turrets and have a comparitively low profile, as the "tank" representative and a legged machine such as this fellow here (http://www.vulnepro.com/AOV/theos_images/walker_tank_cg.jpg) as the walking tank.

When you look at the Partisan, and indeed, the Metal Gear REX the design was taken from, you have a very blocky, well-built machine that's designed to take punishment and deal it back out.

Does that make more sense?

Has this happened in real life? It has not. Therefore, until it does, this is merely your opinion.

Fallacy of argument from ignorance. We can easily determine what would happen and the physics that are involved in a walker versus a treaded vehicle, and the result is always the same; the treaded vehicle has a higher usable volume, is less complex, can have thicker and more efficient armour, has less exposed components, lower ground pressure, is faster and can carry more weapons. Any advance that makes a walker better will equally make the tank better still; better armour? The tank can mount more. Advanced guns? The tank's a better platform to fire from, less observable and the solid turret and wide trackbase mean it's not going to fall over. Ridiculously fast engines? Tank can mount one of those, and the drive system is more efficient and doesn't require an insanely overengineered suspension system to avoid breaking it's knees the first time it tries to run.

Which has been compensated for by sheer mass of armor as well as electric reactive armor that ruins HEAT rounds.

Red Herring. The tank's armour is still inefficient because it must be jointed around the legs, and there's a limit to what you can do to protect those joints. Since the walker's legs need to house various hydraulic lines, suspension systems and balance and pressure sensors, they're essentially hollow columns of relatively thin armour. In order to move them efficiently, they must be fairly light compared to the tank's weight [particularly if you want that impossibly high sprinting speed], meaning heavy, effective armour must be minimised. Bottom line, legs are vulnerable.

The rest of the walker follows suit; you seem unaware that a huge percentage of tank armour values comes from slope, that's why the T-34 proved so effective in WW2.

Which is migitated somewhat by better materials available in a post-modern environment, which this vehicle is in.

No, it isn't. Red Herring, a tank does not become less complex because of better materials; in fact, modern armouring schemes are more complicated than WW2 armouring schemes in spite of better materials. Legs, with their hydraulics, balancing systems, pressure sensors and complicated walking calculations cannot be simpler than a straightforward tank suspension with a drive wheel and treads.

As for building time, that's irrelevant unless he gets into a war of attrition and manages to run completely out of the things somehow.

Or he'd like to mass-produce them efficiently. Longer build time means higher costs, and nations with big military budgets do not piss money away like water and still maintain effective fighting forces.

Which is migitated somewhat by very wide feet, reducing OVERALL ground pressure. Sure, it won't cross any bridges, but it's easily capable of just wading across or beneath rivers.

It would have trouble lifting sufficiently wide feet and would be very awkward-looking. Anyway, everyone's seen Rex, and the feet are tiny.

How is 141 km/h slow? Seems plenty fast enough for combat operations to me.

Cart before the horse. It could not possibly be that fast, it would break it's legs if it didn't sink into the ground up to the knees first. You'd be lucky to break ten miles per hour and still get reasonable lifespans out of your joints.

I do recall asking an engineer what could be done once we start running out of more oil. He replied...

'..Do you always start conversations this way?' [/The Princess Bride]

They posess superior mobility to a traditional tracked vehicle

No, they don't. Their high ground pressure and tendency to fall over because bipedal locomotion is a horrible system stop the standard Battletech dream of a tank that can go anywhere, and they turn and move more slowly. In any case, that's outside your mission area; as an MBT, you're supposed to fight other MBTs, not go where they can't possibly be.

If you want to have something a little pie-in-the-sky, there's no real problem with that if the others in the thread agree, but on the realistic bottom-line, there are very, very few uses for bipedal fighting machines, and the MBT role most certainly isn't one of them.

Also, this is not an MBT. Something that weighs half a kton is well into the light supertank role, something that, with fairly awful air defence [8 SAMs with no dedicated operator, no reloads and no AA guns if I'm looking right] and no point defence system, you're totally unsuited for.

When you look at the Partisan, and indeed, the Metal Gear REX the design was taken from, you have a very blocky, well-built machine that's designed to take punishment and deal it back out.

Rex's blocky design is bad; it's covered in shelltraps [another problem with the complex shape of a walker] and has several very thin areas around joints, most notably on the leg-hip connector and the two arms. Rex also buries missiles within it's armour, which is a stupid idea; a hit to one of these, realistically, would be likely to split the armour open.

Slap Rex's profile next to a tank profile half it's size and compare again. The tank is much more solidly built.

GMC.... I am desperately trying to be as polite as I can when I say this... but I feel that whenever I do, I am ignored.


For the last time, IT IS NOT METAL GEAR REX!!

It does NOT mount missiles in its legs, it does NOT put all its sensors in a single vulnerable position, it is NOT operable by one man, and it is NOT designed to be the final boss in a VIDEO GAME!!!

Good Lord!! The walking system is sound due to the leg articulation, the joints are extrodinarily well protected (even the normally vulnerable hip joints are protected with hinged slat armor designed to thwart HEAT rounds), and just TRY telling me that a tank can navigate up the side of a hill covered in rocks!

What we have here is a knee-jerk reaction that we usually see in politics more than anything else:

If it walks, it is inferior to a tank in every aspect.

I try to continually modify my argument to fit the situation and call in whatever evidence I can, and all you do is keep rehashing the same argument every time!

What do you want from me?! One can only make so many Bolo clones!!

Praetonia, did you forget the first half of the line Axis Nova gave that you, in fact, quoted? A Partisan has a crew of three. A traditional tank has a crew of between four and six.
An average tank has a crew of four. An average tank with an autoloader has a crew of 3. That's in RL. There is nothing inherent in the concept of a mech that means it requires less crew.

Could I build a hundred tanks for one Partisan? Sure. That would mean between four hundred and six hundred crew that need to be paid, fed, equipped, and kept in line. Conscription in the Brettonian Army is mostly for rear-line duties, such as base security, civil defense, and generally low-training jobs, such as clearing mines, which means I'd also have to train those 400-600 tank crew.

On top of that, 100 MBTs pose a logistical nightmare compared to a single beefy walker. In addition to having to keep track of all of them, a tank can be disabled rather easily by knocking out a set of its treads, thus requiring it to be sent back to depot for repair. The costs of mantaining a tank force of five million something armored vehicles would be ridiculously higher than a few thousand walkers, not to mention be even harder to get to combat situations.
But the point is that because the tank goes faster, has better armour and is better armour, just the one tank would be superior to the mech. It isnt just that mechs are more expensive, it's that they're inferior in every way except perhaps field of vision. The fact that you can build another 399 tanks for the same price is just an optional extra and one that you can choose to exploit to whatever extent you wish.

If that wasn't enough, the Partisan can go places a treaded vehicle would never be able to,
Is it? Let's see... the walker has massively higher ground pressure... the walker is inherently less stable... nope, the walker can go fewer places than the tracked vehicle, for any given mass.

and is also capable of delivering a nuclear device in a tactical or theatre role by using an atomic slug, rather than a traditional solid slug.
Tanks are also capable of firing nuclear shells (in real life, no less) but why you would want to do this, I do not know. It's much better to use artillery, missiles or planes to deliver nuclear weapons rather than a front line MBT, which is likely to be caught up either in the blast or in the radioactive aftermath, as well as (more importantly) any escorting infantry. And tanks in real life are capable of firing explosive shells as well as just AP...

Finally, it's simply easier to use than rushing in millions of tanks. It's widely known that the principle conventional invasion of Europe by the Soviet Union would be by armor in mass quantities, and numerous technologies were developed to help thwart this threat.
Who said anything about millions of tanks? Of the same mass and technological sophistication, one tank is superior to one mech.

In a PMT environment, it would be entirely feasible to have a cluster bomb with self-guided submunitions that would be capable of taking out dozens of tanks at once by striking their roof armor. The Partisan's armor thickness is universal on almost all surfaces on account of it is intended to be able to face a target from almost any side, effectively invalidating most kill-the-weak-spot weapon systems designed to destroy tanks. If you had a weapon capable of taking a Partisan's leg off, you'd be just as inclined to put a hole through one side of its main body and out the other, 'cause that's what it would take.

Would a 560-ton MBT have a thicker forward armor plate? Probably.

Would it have thicker armor on the top, bottom, sides, and rear? Doubtful.
All this means is that the whole thing is weak. Tanks arent armoured less on the top because of some inherent physical problem with putting armoured plates on top of a turret, they're armoured less on the top because if you dedicate weight to the top armour you cant make the front armour strong enough. In addition, alot of the extra strength of front armour on a tank comes from sloping, which you cannot do anywhere on a mech.

A mech of any given mass will have a larger surface area than a tank of the same mass and be unable to slope its armour, so the mech will have less armour overall than the tank, and if you choose to give it uniform armour, it will have less armour over any given place than the tank. Your enemy doesnt need bother making top attack munitions - it doesnt matter where you hit it, it's dead.

Addendum: Suppose you were going to invade my good buddy Axis Nova here. His first line of physical defense is mountains. Traditionally, tanks haven't fared well in mountains. Something that walks, on the other hand, is capable of dealing with such threats much easier.
...no it isnt... have you ever visited a mountain? It would just fall over. And Axis Nova's geography-wank nation is hardly indicative of most nations.

Am I saying it's as mobile as a man on foot? No. It's a 560-ton walking tank, for Christ's sake! It will, however, have a much better chance of clearing such obstacles than a Bolo would, which is what I think you'd be wanting me to make instead.
Is it? Let's see... the walker has massively higher ground pressure... the walker is inherently less stable... nope, the walker can go fewer places than the tracked vehicle, for any given mass.

As an aside, I dont actually know what a Bolo is, and I think that most PMT things are stupidly designed and easily countered with more conventional designs with better technology strapped on, but whatever. A tank designed with the same mass, the same level of technical sophistication and the same level of design competence will be more mobile, more heavily armed and better armoured than a mech, whilst costing less and being easier to build and maintain. In short, whilst I dont think that you could get 400 conventional tanks for the cost of a mech, you would get more than one, and just the one tank is superior to the mech.

Allright.

(1) Bolo is the archetypal uber-mega-battleship-sized tank. Search for it and revel in its ridiculousness.

(2) You and GMC are mech-racists. I'm done arguing against the two of you for the time being.

Good-day.

Allright.

(1) Bolo is the archetypal uber-mega-battleship-sized tank. Search for it and revel in its ridiculousness.
lol. I dont think I like the sound of that... but whatever.

(2) You and GMC are mech-racists. I'm done arguing against the two of you for the time being.

Good-day.
You're right. I dont like mechs and think they're a waste of time, but if you think they're cool then go ahead and build them. Just you might want to build tanks for MBTs, and use mechs as support or something.

For the last time, IT IS NOT METAL GEAR REX!!

It is visually similar to Metal Gear Rex. Certain assumpations can therefore be made.

It does NOT mount missiles in its legs,

I said it buried them into it's armour. You are assuming the content of my arguments without properly reading them.

It does NOT put all its sensors in a single vulnerable position

I didn't say it did.

It is NOT operable by one man,

I didn't say it was.

And it is NOT designed to be the final boss in a VIDEO GAME!!!

Calm down. This hysterical posting style does you no favours at all.

The walking system is sound due to the leg articulation, the joints are extrodinarily well protected (even the normally vulnerable hip joints are protected with hinged slat armor designed to thwart HEAT rounds), and just TRY telling me that a tank can navigate up the side of a hill covered in rocks!

The walking system would still have vulnerable joints, that's unavoidable if you want them to pivot. Slatted armour compares very poorly to solid armour, since a strong hit will cause the slats to break and it has give in it [think: would you be happier punching a thin sheet of metal, or a blind?].

And what's at the top of a hill that a tank needs to get to? MBTs can't navigate the bottom of the sea either; the reason for that is because there are no MBTs for them to fight down there. And again, balance for a biped is a horrendous engineering problem; I wouldn't like to see a half-kton tank trying to climb a rocky slope because it would be likely as hell to overbalance, fall, and smash itself to bits.

If it walks, it is inferior to a tank in every aspect.

Correct. It might be slighty better at parachute drops in support of infantry, or more intimidating in a policing role or doing riot control, but in an actual battle, walkers will never be able to stand on equal footing to real tanks.

I try to continually modify my argument to fit the situation and call in whatever evidence I can, and all you do is keep rehashing the same argument every time!

That's because there's only one right answer. Making a bipedal 500 ton MBT is like trying to take a fish sunbathing.

(2) You and GMC are mech-racists. I'm done arguing against the two of you for the time being.

There is absolutely no call for personal attacks. Knock it off, now.

Would a 560-ton MBT have a thicker forward armor plate? Probably.

Would it have thicker armor on the top, bottom, sides, and rear? Doubtful.Less surface area plus equal weight equalises superior armour everywhere. I think DA's primary MBT would be a tracked thing somewhere around 400 tons (300- 500, to be correct). It's surface area would necessarily be smaller than your mecha's surface area, because it's essentially a rolling rectangle worth about 70 cubicmetres of interior space - Including armour - as opposed to the insanely huge surface area - And consequently comparatively thin armour - of your mecha. Furthermore, its greater friction will result in less recoil issues (And thus enable a greater v0 and/ or shell weight), so would its lower centre of gravity.

And before you realise it, your mecha's noticed by a fuckton of sensors, be they seismic, audio, EM based, passive or active, satellite-fed or information coming through forward reconnaissance units, and you get fired upon by a hail of shells both heavier and faster than what your own gun can manage, over a distance greater than your mecha can dream of.

Also what about the fact that REX's mouth opens on occasions when he shoots. And dont give me the 'Its not a REX!' speech. Because as GMC said it looks the same so the assumption may be made. The mouth opens to release heat. THAT is his main weakpoint. Not the radome. As when it opens the pilot is in full view.

Also what about the fact that REX's mouth opens on occasions when he shoots. And dont give me the 'Its not a REX!' speech. Because as GMC said it looks the same so the assumption may be made. The mouth opens to release heat. THAT is his main weakpoint. Not the radome. As when it opens the pilot is in full view.

If I look like you, does that mean I am you? Please don't use strawmen.

edit: GMC, please explain how asking you why you care is a personal attack... I did not mean it as one and I honestly want to know.

If I look like you, does that mean I am you? Please don't use strawmen.

edit: GMC, please explain how asking you why you care is a personal attack... I did not mean it as one and I honestly want to know.

If I feed a stray dog, does it mean I take ownership of it? What does this mean? I don't know. But yeah.

If I feed a stray dog, does it mean I take ownership of it? What does this mean? I don't know. But yeah.

What I am saying is that comparing two different things that just happen to look somewhat like each other is a faulty argument. It's like arguing that an F-15 and an F-14 are the same because they look a bit like each other.

I never said they were the same... maybe the question should have been, how does REX (I dont like the name Partisan) vent the heat made from the computers, wiring, weapon systems, etc?

edit: GMC, please explain how asking you why you care is a personal attack... I did not mean it as one and I honestly want to know.

The question ignores my arguments and instead focuses on myself, to be exact, my reasons for making them. This is a logical fallacy; it doesn't matter in the slightest why an argument is made; it certainly doesn't effect the truth of that argument.

Further, the implied suggestion is that because I'm not 'one of us' [an II poster] you don't have to address my rebuttal to you, which you didn't. Ignoring my rebuttal to focus on my posting habits is attacking the poster, not the argument.

The "Mecha-racists" in this thread are in several respects correct. All armor considerations, target profile etc. are absolutely correct when it comes to Mecha. As Mecha is a bipedal system, it can carry lesser armour and smaller weapons than a tank naturally.

Since a Mecha is in several respects inferior to a tank, its pointless to try and make it superior to a tank with comparable technology, if the tank is designed with half a brain involved it just wont be possible. However, it is possible to circumvent the rules somewhat in this case, and especially as Mecha are very very PMT, it is possible to utilize some gimmicks to make them more survivable.

For example, as Der Angst pointed out, artillery most certainly is not a Mech's friend, there are ways to defend the Mecha from arty. For example, the US Army and Israeli Defense Forces are currently jointly researching and developing a laser defense system that would have the capability to shoot down artillery and mortar rounds. Considering how far PMT your system would be Bretton, it would be conceivable for your Mech to mount such a system.

Second off is the Electromagnetic defense system the British are developing. It would create an electromagnetic field around a tank for example, and when a projectile struck it, that projectile would either shatter or be deflected. And yes, this is a current study and research project in British DOD.

The thing is, both of these systems are now being researched, it is not inconceivable for a PMT Mech to have either of these, and either of these would increase a Mech's survivability significantly.

Second off is the Electromagnetic defense system the British are developing. It would create an electromagnetic field around a tank for example, and when a projectile struck it, that projectile would either shatter or be deflected. And yes, this is a current study and research project in British DOD.

IIRC, that 'electric armour' just involves passing a high-power electrical current over the surface of the vehicle to bugger up shaped charges, it's not some kind of force field. And the trouble is, Clairmont, if a walker can mount it, so can a tank.

What I am saying is that comparing two different things that just happen to look somewhat like each other is a faulty argument. It's like arguing that an F-15 and an F-14 are the same because they look a bit like each other.We can argue that both are jetfighters, with some basic characteristics - Supersonic-enabled, carry missiles, are carrier-deployed, have attack/ interception mission profiles, specific maneuverability capabilities rather different from those of a helicopter, etc.

We can do the same with a basic mecha design. Some characteristics are based on the design, and there's no way to get around them. They're an inherent part of it.

We can also gather that building a helicopter to fight an F-14/ F-15 is utterly insane, because the helicopter has neither the velocity, nor the armament necessary to do it. It does have its advantages - Maneuverability - but these are better utilised in ground support, rather than fighting supersonic-capable planes.

And it makes no sense whatsoever to built multihundred-ton helicopters to fight supersonic-capable planes. The helicopter would still lose.

The same applies to mecha. Humanoid combat vehicles make perfect sense for some combat scenarios - Specifically, urban environments - when fighting comparable opponents. This is why powered armour or android infantry makes perfect sense.

Upping the scale by a few orders of magnitude to fight an opponent utterly different from the mecha, under circumstances the mecha simply isn't suited for, due to inherent problems with the design, doesn't make any sense whatsoever, tho.

Der Angst is right, also i agree with teh person that said Mechs are going to be very usefful for riot police as a massive walking monster is infinatley more scary than a tracked vehicles, it has a huge shock value.

I think since this is PMT, those who don't acknowledge this tech normally don't have to here, especially since it's a bipedal tank. By their nature, the legs are going to be vulnerable to ordnance. I think my 60 mm autocannon could cause some significant damage to one of the legs, which would render this a mission kill.

I'm not going to get into the disadvantages of this design since GMC Military Arms and Praetonia have likely already said what I would have. As far as I'm concerned, the concept of a legged tank is flawed for that reason alone, but also for the complexities of the armour and the fact those legs can't be well-protected or they won't be able to move at the ridiculously fast speed of 141 km/hr.

'..Do you always start conversations this way?' [/The Princess Bride]


I seem to do so. :)

I never said they were the same... maybe the question should have been, how does REX (I dont like the name Partisan) vent the heat made from the computers, wiring, weapon systems, etc?

This is irrelevant because it's not REX.

Is it that hard? I mean, honestly, is it that hard to grasp the concept? Good God...

This would be like going over to my Peacemaker thread and saying it's bullshit on account of the spiders in Appleseed were all controlled by AI, so I can't have a manned version to act as a command unit.

We're not debating Metal Gear REX here, as I keep trying to explain, we're debating a machine of my own that uses REX's lineart. Aesthetically speaking, they're very similar. Internally speaking, they're as similar as an F-18 and a pair of shoes.

IIRC, that 'electric armour' just involves passing a high-power electrical current over the surface of the vehicle to bugger up shaped charges, it's not some kind of force field. And the trouble is, Clairmont, if a walker can mount it, so can a tank.

You sure? Its been a while since I read about that, but I would recall that it did actually assist in defense against APFSDS and generally SABOT rounds. To what effect, not sure though. Since I recall also in connection with the same article it was pointed out that if the system was succesfully developed, then MBT mass could be significantly reduced by reducing some of the armor. Now since you couldnt take off the armor unless the electromagnetic thingie defended against SABOT rounds...

And yes, ofcourse I realize that a tank could mount it, and be better with it than a bipedal combat unit I never denied that. My point was that it is possible to increase a Mech's survivability in the field if proper doctrine for its usage is developed and certain technologies used to that effect. Ofcourse, whether its survivability increase would be as marginal as arising from "Big walking 'blow me up with anything you have' target" to "Big walking 'haha, cant blow me up with anything so easilly anymore' target" is another issue.

"Big walking 'haha, cant blow me up with anything so easilly anymore' target"

That's more or less the objective.

You sure? Its been a while since I read about that, but I would recall that it did actually assist in defense against APFSDS and generally SABOT rounds. To what effect, not sure though. Since I recall also in connection with the same article it was pointed out that if the system was succesfully developed, then MBT mass could be significantly reduced by reducing some of the armor. Now since you couldnt take off the armor unless the electromagnetic thingie defended against SABOT rounds...

I can't see how you'd be able to take off any of the armour at all, since you'd have to have it there in case you couldn't charge and activate the system before the enemy hit you. Also, you'd need a wanking great generator to keep it going.

Ofcourse, whether its survivability increase would be as marginal as arising from "Big walking 'blow me up with anything you have' target" to "Big walking 'haha, cant blow me up with anything so easilly anymore' target" is another issue.

Well, it's more that the tank's increase in survivability would be just as great if not greater, so relatively the walker is still a mobile liability.

I can't see how you'd be able to take off any of the armour at all, since you'd have to have it there in case you couldn't charge and activate the system before the enemy hit you. Also, you'd need a wanking great generator to keep it going.

Electric/reactive armor (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/19/boffins_invent_grenade_vaporising_electric/).

That's with currently-existing technology. It'll likely improve in the coming years.

As will guns... if someone's firing something equally PMT like a plasma cannon at you, or a sabot made out of some kind of non-conducting supermaterial then your electric reactive armour is useless. The point is not, though, that ElRA is useless - it isnt (well it might be, it hasnt actually be tested, but it probably wont be) - it's that a tank can mount ElRA too. AND more conventional armour. AND a bigger gun. AND be more stable. So if your only argument in favour of mechs is that you have an armour that might make mechs just a little less bad compared to tanks, I dont see why you are continuing to tout mechs as a good combat platform.

I can't see how you'd be able to take off any of the armour at all, since you'd have to have it there in case you couldn't charge and activate the system before the enemy hit you. Also, you'd need a wanking great generator to keep it going.

That, I recall, was one of the major attractors of the system in the first place. As the problem with modern MBT's is widely recognized as being their weight, and the fact that soon they will reach a weight where they cant cross most bridges anymore. About the generator, well an Abrams uses a gas turbine for example, it should be quite sufficient for providing the power to the system while providing the tank with moving power.

Well, it's more that the tank's increase in survivability would be just as great if not greater, so relatively the walker is still a mobile liability.

Naturally, but atleast the walker would not be blown up as soon as someone sneezes in its general direction. Im not arguing that a walker could be better than a tank, Im arguing that with PMT defense technology, a walker could be used in certain roles. Urban combat is certainly one of them, especially if the below mentioned defense features could be implemented. Operating in difficult terrain (this however necessitates relatively low mass in the area of below 20 tons due to ground pressure).

Also Bretton, you would propably like to implement something like Shtora and ARENA defense systems to your walker. Shtora is an electro-optical jamming system that jams SACLOS (short for Semi-Automatic Command to Line-Of-Sight) anti-tank missiles. ARENA on the other hand has a millimeter wavelength radar that detects incoming projectiles and fires an explosive at them which is timed to detonate right in front of the incoming projectile. Now, if you were to implement Arena, Shtora, A Point-Defense Laser System and the Electromagnetic Armour on your walker, the very least you would achieve would be immunity against man portable ATGM's, which incidentally would be a huge source of threat for a walker. But, with four layers of active defense against incoming projectiles, again survivability increases.

As will guns... if someone's firing something equally PMT like a plasma cannon at you, or a sabot made out of some kind of non-conducting supermaterial then your electric reactive armour is useless. The point is not, though, that ElRA is useless - it isnt (well it might be, it hasnt actually be tested, but it probably wont be) - it's that a tank can mount ElRA too. AND more conventional armour. AND a bigger gun. AND be more stable. So if your only argument in favour of mechs is that you have an armour that might make mechs just a little less bad compared to tanks, I dont see why you are continuing to tout mechs as a good combat platform.

And against that plasma cannon a walker can have armour with superconductive capabilities that disperses the energy from the impact point rapidly. And against sabots, the Arena and the newer ERA systems have some efficiency even against APFSDS so all would not be lost. And again you miss my point, Im not arguing in favor of mechs being better than tanks or good combat platforms, I've said nothing of the sort. My point is that since they are in effect quite PMT, they can take advantage of PMT defense technology to increase their survivability and negate much of the threat posed by Man Portables, Tanks and Artillery. Now, a Mech COULD have its uses were it a relatively low weight and low size unit (say below 20 tons, 6 to 9 meters high or so) for example in urban combat or alternatively terrain where there already is plenty of visual cover available.

Only a lunatic would take it to a desert against tanks.

And against that plasma cannon a walker can have armour with superconductive capabilities that disperses the energy from the impact point rapidly.
You're confusing electricity with heat. The amount of heat transferred by being hit by plasma is far too large to disperse in the (miniscule) amount of time that you have. However, I think you've missed the point. Im not saying that plasma weapons = you lose, I'm saying that just as armour technology (as you have cited) will improve as we move into a PMT setting, so will armament (as I have cited). The same applies for most of the rest of your post. You're only negating MT threats with PMT defences, which anyone with half a brain can do but, unfortunately, it's not what you're going to be facing - you're going to be facing PMT threats.

And against sabots, the Arena and the newer ERA systems have some efficiency even against APFSDS so all would not be lost. And again you miss my point, Im not arguing in favor of mechs being better than tanks or good combat platforms, I've said nothing of the sort. My point is that since they are in effect quite PMT, they can take advantage of PMT defense technology to increase their survivability and negate much of the threat posed by Man Portables, Tanks and Artillery.

Now, a Mech COULD have its uses were it a relatively low weight and low size unit (say below 20 tons, 6 to 9 meters high or so) for example in urban combat or alternatively terrain where there already is plenty of visual cover available.
It really couldnt. Even tanks dont like going into an urban combat environment because they're so easy to destroy whilst the firer stays hidden on roof-tops etc. A mech of that size couldnt have any appreciable armour, nor could a mech that size (or indeed anything of that size) 'take cover'.

Only a lunatic would take it to a desert against tanks.
Or indeed build them at all, unless they want something that looks cool in cartoons rather than is effective in combat, which is fair enough if thats how you want to RP your nation.

Electric/reactive armor (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/19/boffins_invent_grenade_vaporising_electric/).

That's with currently-existing technology. It'll likely improve in the coming years.

Right, so in fact it's exactly what I said it was, a system useful against HEAT rounds, not a force field, and relies on a charged capacitor for effect meaning you can't just take the conventional armour off. Indeed, that article explicitly states the crew needs to switch on the armour! That the resting state is off would indicate that, despite their claims to the contrary, this thing sucks up power. In addition, a rapid series of hits would kill the charge in the capacitor and temporarily render the armour useless.

Now, if you were to implement Arena, Shtora, A Point-Defense Laser System and the Electromagnetic Armour on your walker, the very least you would achieve would be immunity against man portable ATGM's, which incidentally would be a huge source of threat for a walker. But, with four layers of active defense against incoming projectiles, again survivability increases.

Which is just silly; you make the unit so overcomplex that way it's simply not economical to produce or deploy anymore. Look at it this way; you need four layers of active defence before you can do what a tank does with one layer of passive defence. That's hopeless.

Okay, I'm going to ask, very nicely.

GMCMA, Praetonia, I would be delighted if you took this discussion elsewhere.

My vehicle is no longer being discussed; this is an argument of walker concept vs. tank concept, and that is not conducive to good publicity, nor does it provide any constructive or helpful material to the vehicle whose thread it is being posted it, thus effectively mooting the purpose of the thread in the first place.

With that being said, I'll thank you in advance for being professional and cooperative about it.

Thanks.

My vehicle is no longer being discussed; this is an argument of walker concept vs. tank concept, and that is not conducive to good publicity, nor does it provide any constructive or helpful material to the vehicle whose thread it is being posted it, thus effectively mooting the purpose of the thread in the first place.

Go check the rules sticky regarding OOC discussion threads [which this one became a long time back]. The rule is in place specifically so people can't use thread ownership to stifle criticism; you could request to have the discussion split off the rest of the thread, but it's poor form to order people out of a debate for disagreeing with you. If you don't want to read our comments, either use Jolt's ignore feature or hell, stop replying to us. You can guarantee a lot of players are going to have problems RPing with this thing as-is, though.

Go check the rules sticky regarding OOC discussion threads [which this one became a long time back]. The rule is in place specifically so people can't use thread ownership to stifle criticism; you could request to have the discussion split off the rest of the thread, but it's poor form to order people out of a debate for disagreeing with you. If you don't want to read our comments, either use Jolt's ignore feature or hell, stop replying to us. You can guarantee a lot of players are going to have problems RPing with this thing as-is, though.

Except, this is an IC storefront thread. Just that it got zerged by pages and pages of you and others talking about the design.

Except, this is an IC storefront thread. Just that it got zerged by pages and pages of you and others talking about the design.

But, by Bretton directly responding to our OOC criticism, he turned it into an OOC discussion thread. Again, he can ask for the thread to be spliced, or he can just stop responding.

I did not "order" anyone out. I asked politely, which is what I'm going to do again.

Please take this discussion of walker concept versus tank concept elsewhere. I'd greatly appreciate it, as I've already stated.

You're confusing electricity with heat. The amount of heat transferred by being hit by plasma is far too large to disperse in the (miniscule) amount of time that you have. However, I think you've missed the point. Im not saying that plasma weapons = you lose, I'm saying that just as armour technology (as you have cited) will improve as we move into a PMT setting, so will armament (as I have cited). The same applies for most of the rest of your post. You're only negating MT threats with PMT defences, which anyone with half a brain can do but, unfortunately, it's not what you're going to be facing - you're going to be facing PMT threats.

Ok, perhaps I presented my point wrong. What I was trying to get at was that plasma weapons are not the end all weapon that would doom armoured vechiles, as if you give it a bit of thought, you need for example a magnetic bottling technique to make a plasma "bullet" in the first place and what could be used to for example destabilize that "bullet"? Electromagnetic armour for one. But anyway.

Well naturally the walker would be facing PMT threats, however just saying that "there will be a threat" doesnt magically make one appear when most of the basic weaponry we have now and against which the defenses I mentioned are designed are countered by those defenses. Also do note, the Shtora and Arena systems are not PMT, they are MT as they have already been produced and are in mass production. Note also that modern ERA which provides limited defense against APFSDS is also already fielded.

It really couldnt. Even tanks dont like going into an urban combat environment because they're so easy to destroy whilst the firer stays hidden on roof-tops etc. A mech of that size couldnt have any appreciable armour, nor could a mech that size (or indeed anything of that size) 'take cover'.

Again, what are the main threats against a walker or an armored vechile in urban environments?
1) Man portable anti-tank weapons
2) Mines
3) IED's

1) Countered by Electric Armour, Shtora, Arena and Laser Defense
2) Uncountered, but since tanks cant do jack to defend against these either neither wins here
3) Same as 2)

Also, you might be thinking of some brave sob trying to attach a limpet mine to the walker, you know how easy would it be to defend against something like that? They call those things Claymores.

What cover does a tank have in Urban environment? None, besides hiding behind buildings which the walker can do as well. The walker also has farther field of vision and has the capability to shoot over ground level cover with weapons mounted on upper torso. And do note, most of the major militaries are looking for ways of making lighter and faster tanks, reducing their armor significantly. Since relatively low replacement cost AT weapons can kill tanks these days, putting on more armour doesnt help much.

Or indeed build them at all, unless they want something that looks cool in cartoons rather than is effective in combat, which is fair enough if thats how you want to RP your nation.

Or alternatively, have sufficient high tech that you can make relatively low mass walker with better weapons than an IFV, not as good as an MBT while being resistant to man portable AT weapons and having good cross-country mobility.

Right, so in fact it's exactly what I said it was, a system useful against HEAT rounds, not a force field, and relies on a charged capacitor for effect meaning you can't just take the conventional armour off. Indeed, that article explicitly states the crew needs to switch on the armour! That the resting state is off would indicate that, despite their claims to the contrary, this thing sucks up power. In addition, a rapid series of hits would kill the charge in the capacitor and temporarily render the armour useless.


1) Modern ERA works to a certain degree against APFSDS, ERA is lighter than a doublewide buttload of depleted uranium
2) Uhm, you do understand that it isnt an insurmountable task to for example link the system to an active threat monitor that switches it on automatically when it detects a missile? This is like claiming that you cant put your yard lights to switch on when a motion detector detects movement.
3) Why would it be kept on when there are no threats around? THe article states it has a low power requirement, but why use a little when you need not to use even that?
4) A rapid series of hits would kill any modern MBT so your point is moot

Which is just silly; you make the unit so overcomplex that way it's simply not economical to produce or deploy anymore. Look at it this way; you need four layers of active defence before you can do what a tank does with one layer of passive defence. That's hopeless.

Shtora and Arena are both systems that are designed to be utilized jointly with each other. Electric armour is hardly an insanely complex system. Modern ERA is also one laughably simple system. The only actually complex system I have mentioned would be the point defense laser, and even that could propably be scrapped as the Shtora, Arena, ERA and Electric Armour would provide FOUR tiers of defense against incoming projectiles.

Tanks are immune to man portable AT weapons? Wow, since when? Yesterday? Last time I checked, man portables are still extremely efficient against tanks, an RPG hit to the engine grill can disable an Abrams, pretty much any modern MBT for that matter. And the newer systems such as Javelin, TOW 2, Spike, Milan, Kornet and Eryx are well capable of mission killing or destroying Modern MBT's if not penetrate the frontal armor.

I did not "order" anyone out. I asked politely, which is what I'm going to do again.

Please take this discussion of walker concept versus tank concept elsewhere. I'd greatly appreciate it, as I've already stated.

I apologize for getting too deep into this, just felt that I needed to point out that walkers are not completely the walking deathraps that can be killed with everything upwards from a BB gun as most tankers proclaim.

And to finally actually comment on the walker itself, its a nice design. Most of what I look at in this stuff is how its written, the details and stuff matters the most even if conceptually and physics wise there are some minor snags. If I may suggest something however Bretton? Mount some sort of active defense against missiles in this thing, because they are going to be a huge threat, especially man portables. A system such as Shtora and Arena are both good examples. Arena actually shoots down (or more accurately it prematurely detonates the warhead) ATGM's. And since it is always possible that some nutcase or fanatic might try to put a limpet mine to this thing in an urban environment, give it some sort of low level defense against infantry that would be mounted in the legs. Something like Claymores for example. The system detects an enemy soldier approaching, and once that soldier reaches certain range from the leg assembly, the claymore detonates and turns the enemy soldier to meat slabs with hundreds of ball bearings moving at high speeds.

Thanks for that. As long as your criticisms remain constructive and are pertinent to my walker and not the concept of walkers, you're more than welcome here.

1) Modern ERA works to a certain degree against APFSDS, ERA is lighter than a doublewide buttload of depleted uranium

Then why don't tanks mount ERA and nothing else? Perhaps because ERA is one-shot armour and a second hit will require actual, physical defence?

Also, ERA that works against KE weapons has the problem of needing an explosive charge so powerful it can actually damage the tank itself. On a delicate walker, you couldn't mount something like that at all.

2) Uhm, you do understand that it isnt an insurmountable task to for example link the system to an active threat monitor that switches it on automatically when it detects a missile? This is like claiming that you cant put your yard lights to switch on when a motion detector detects movement.

You've missed the point. You are totally dependant on that detector to have any armour whatsoever with electric reactive armour only. In the field, that's practically suicidal. Passive armour may not be shiny, but you don't need to spot a projectile for it to defend against it. Active armour only would be like making a tank with a flat, totally open body which mounts a turntable with one big piece of armour that faces in only one direction on it, then hoping that piece of armour can always be turned to face a threat. Would you go into battle in that?

Or to put it another way; if your back yard was full of alligators, would you trust the motion switch to turn the lights on every time you needed to evade one, or would you just leave the light switched on?

3) Why would it be kept on when there are no threats around? THe article states it has a low power requirement, but why use a little when you need not to use even that?

Unless the tank crew is prescient, how will they ever know there's no threats around?

4) A rapid series of hits would kill any modern MBT so your point is moot

No, it won't. A rapid series of RPG hits to the same location might, but with electric armour a rapid series of hits that do not penetrate and do no damage at all will render the armour useless; you could presumably disable the tank's armour by shooting it repeatedly with a pistol. And how's it supposed to work in the rain?

And why are you talking about 'modern MBTs' compared to vapourware like Arena and Shtora?

Shtora and Arena are both systems that are designed to be utilized jointly with each other. Electric armour is hardly an insanely complex system. Modern ERA is also one laughably simple system. The only actually complex system I have mentioned would be the point defense laser, and even that could propably be scrapped as the Shtora, Arena, ERA and Electric Armour would provide FOUR tiers of defense against incoming projectiles.

So? You want to mount as few complex / power-intensive systems as possible, or your vehicle is utterly uneconomical to field and deploy. Also, in environments with heavy ECM you'd suddenly have close to no armour whatsoever.

I'm highly unconviced by the Arena system, too, if I'm reading it right. Covering a tank in what amount to grenade dischargers doesn't seem a good plan.

Tanks are immune to man portable AT weapons? Wow, since when? Yesterday? Last time I checked, man portables are still extremely efficient against tanks, an RPG hit to the engine grill can disable an Abrams, pretty much any modern MBT for that matter.

Right, let's compare a critical hit to the rear of a tank to any hit to a tank using only active armour. You're a walker, nearly any hit from the front, side or rear has a high chance of doing critical damage because you have many vulnerable joints, actuators and more critical systems. Couple that to little or no physical armour because you're so sure of your active systems being able to get a 100% intercept rate you've thrown it away, something no engineer in their right mind would do, and you have what amounts to a coffin. With legs.

Lets continue this via Telegram if you're interested GMC as Bretton has requested this to be moved away from the thread.

EDIT: Sorry, didnt see Bretton's post. This'll be my last post on this thread.

Ok, perhaps I presented my point wrong. What I was trying to get at was that plasma weapons are not the end all weapon that would doom armoured vechiles, as if you give it a bit of thought, you need for example a magnetic bottling technique to make a plasma "bullet" in the first place and what could be used to for example destabilize that "bullet"? Electromagnetic armour for one. But anyway.
Well actually they are, if you examine it, and by definition, being PMT, we dont know how to build them now, but in the weird world of PMT randomness practically anything is possible (one of the reasons I dont play PMT, really). And what the hell is electromagnetic armour? If you're suggesting that you use an electromagnet to destablise bullets then sorry, but no. If you know anything about physics then you'll already know that nothing you could mount on a walker (or even a moderately large ships) could generate enough power to do that, and it would also screw up all your computers. But anyway we digress...

Well naturally the walker would be facing PMT threats, however just saying that "there will be a threat" doesnt magically make one appear
So you're saying that your mech is invulnerable and I have to prove that there will be a weapon that cant kill your invincible walker of ZOMFG WTFBBQLOL d00m? I think you miss the point of NS RP.

when most of the basic weaponry we have now
Now. Operative word.

and against which the defenses I mentioned are designed are countered by those defenses. Also do note, the Shtora and Arena systems are not PMT, they are MT as they have already been produced and are in mass production.
Indeed. They are also extremely unreliable, and were developed some 40 years after the APFSDS penetrators and ATGMs they are designed to counter. Weaponry will always be a step ahead of active defence, because active defence has to adapt to the weaponry, not the other way around.

Note also that modern ERA which provides limited defense against APFSDS is also already fielded.
ERA is also unreliable, and you wont be using these in a city because it'll shred your infantry, and probably your mech aswell because I doubt it has enough backing armour to protect it from the explosion.

Again, what are the main threats against a walker or an armored vechile in urban environments?
1) Man portable anti-tank weapons
2) Mines
3) IED's

1) Countered by Electric Armour, Shtora, Arena and Laser Defense
ROFL. These things give a relatively small extra bonus against ATGMs, and ElRA will do practically nothing against a long rod penetrator (ie. a LOSAT)

2) Uncountered, but since tanks cant do jack to defend against these either neither wins here
Actually if a tank drives over a mine, it will throw a tread. If a mech steps on a mine, it will break apart.

3) Same as 2)
IDEs arent a threat to tanks.

But really, this isnt Iraq, and all you've said is that you can use a bunch of exaggerated versions of defences either just developed or in development to defend against RPG-17s, which anyone can do. In PMT there will be all sorts of other weapons, which you cannot have effective countermeasures for (not that ARENA is actually "effective" but meh). What you're essentially trying to say is that active countermeasures make mechs, tanks, hell - anything - completely invulnerable, which they dont. That's why, y'know, tanks arent invulnerable.

Also, you might be thinking of some brave sob trying to attach a limpet mine to the walker, you know how easy would it be to defend against something like that? They call those things Claymores.
Might I...? Nope, sorry.

What cover does a tank have in Urban environment? None, besides hiding behind buildings which the walker can do as well.
I didnt say that tanks had any. You said that walkers had an advantage over tanks because they could take advantage of cover in an urban environment, which I said wasnt true and you, presumable have ceaded that point.

The walker also has farther field of vision and has the capability to shoot over ground level cover with weapons mounted on upper torso.
Which means that people can shoot back from streets away. Fun.

And do note, most of the major militaries are looking for ways of making lighter and faster tanks, reducing their armor significantly. Since relatively low replacement cost AT weapons can kill tanks these days, putting on more armour doesnt help much.
It helps an awful lot because it means that you cant also kill tanks with light cannons, heavy machineguns and hand grenades. In addition, tanks currently have a decent chance at survival these days against ATGMs, they just arent (as you seem to imply) invulnerable. But anyway, a mech is actually slower than a tank of the same mass, because its method of propulsion is considerably less efficient, and it's also inherently less stable.

Or alternatively, have sufficient high tech that you can make relatively low mass walker with better weapons than an IFV, not as good as an MBT while being resistant to man portable AT weapons and having good cross-country mobility.
And that higher techology will also carry over to PMT tanks and IFVs, keeping the mech inferior. What you've essentially been doing, throughout this debate, is comapring a PMT mech with a MT tech, and of course the mech is going to come out on top, but for any given mass or level of technological sophistication, the tank can carry more armour and more armament faster, and any system you can apply to a mech to make them more useful can be applied to at least an equal extent on the tank.. It's as simple as that.

It's worth pointing out, Praetonia, that there are very few nations in II who actively pursue the development of new PMT weapons. Most weapons used by PMT nations (as far as I've seen) are simply improved versions of MT weapons. EG, electrothermal cannons, magnetically propelled weapons of various types (rail guns, gauss guns, etc), aircraft with improved radar/stealth characteristics, higher performance missiles with scramjets, that kinda thing. There's been a suprisingly low amount of actual development of new weapons systems.

Defensive systems are ahead by far at the moment.

I said that I have made my last post, but since you insist on baiting me into response...

Defensive systems are ahead by far at the moment.
No they arent, because despite popular belief thinks dont always work perfectly all the time. That's why tanks today arent invicible, and that's why Abrams have been destroyed by RPG-17s. :rolleyes:

If you want to continue this, Axis Nova, do so by telegram as Bretton has requested.

There's been a suprisingly low amount of actual development of new weapons systems.

By and large, this is because development of technology is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Flash from the middle ages to now, we're still using chemical propellants in our cannons. This isn't because there's been no development, it's because chemical propellants work and they'll continue to be used until we can find something that works better.

Railguns have their own disadvantages [high power requirements, heavy 'barrel' wear [currently they often destroy themselves by firing], volitile capacitor banks and that they're currently massive, heavy things] and until these stop outweighing their advantages, they won't be used.

Also, a railgun or Gauss gun is a fairly radical departure from part weapons design [it usually uses no chemical propellant], so I must ask what you mean. Particle cannons? Black hole guns?

And as has been said, if you want to carry this discussion on, start a new thread. The telegram system's bad for quote-reply.

My final post

EDIT: Sorry, didnt see Bretton's post. This'll be my last post on this thread.
Well actually they are, if you examine it, and by definition, being PMT, we dont know how to build them now, but in the weird world of PMT randomness practically anything is possible (one of the reasons I dont play PMT, really). And what the hell is electromagnetic armour? If you're suggesting that you use an electromagnet to destablise bullets then sorry, but no. If you know anything about physics then you'll already know that nothing you could mount on a walker (or even a moderately large ships) could generate enough power to do that, and it would also screw up all your computers. But anyway we digress...

How? When someone develops the über magical plasma cannon of doom, someone develops a shield to counter the über magical plasma cannon of doom. Defensive technology and offensive technology develop in parallel. Also, if you actually bothered to read what I wrote, my point was to use electromagnetic force to destabilize the mag bottle of a potential plasma bullet. Oh and the armor thingy we have been talking about here, doesnt require more power than a car battery generates.

So you're saying that your mech is invulnerable and I have to prove that there will be a weapon that cant kill your invincible walker of ZOMFG WTFBBQLOL d00m? I think you miss the point of NS RP.

No fuckwad, what Im saying is that before you actually RP and rationalize a weapon and develop a weapon that can counter said defenses, its moronic to assume one magically appears. I think you miss the point of R&D.

Now. Operative word.

Yep, guns will still shoot bullets fifty years from now most likely, and missiles will still blow up.

Indeed. They are also extremely unreliable, and were developed some 40 years after the APFSDS penetrators and ATGMs they are designed to counter. Weaponry will always be a step ahead of active defence, because active defence has to adapt to the weaponry, not the other way around.

Unreliable? Bullshit, both the Arena and Shtora systems have excellent interception capability. And in line with those systems is TROPHY, marketed by General Dynamics. To date TROPHY has completed hundreds of live fire tests, during which it demonstrated effective neutralization of anti-tank rockets and guided missiles, high safety levels, insignificant residual penetration and minimal collateral damage. And note, TROPHY is capable of intercepting multiple targets at the same time, ATGM's etc. Then there is FSAP developed by US Army, it is capable of the same as TROPHY but also capable of intercepting hard-kill weapons such as KE penetrators and even artillery fire. Now, once these systems are fielded, weapons have to adapt to the active defenses because now you cant pop a missile or a SABOT into a tank or vechile using these systems without them intercepting it, weapons need to adapt penetrating those defenses.

ERA is also unreliable, and you wont be using these in a city because it'll shred your infantry, and probably your mech aswell because I doubt it has enough backing armour to protect it from the explosion.

Active Defenses such as TROPHY, FSAP, Shtora and Arena are for city situations, ERA is just a backup. And is unreliable your backup word for attacking anything you dont like to accept?

ROFL. These things give a relatively small extra bonus against ATGMs, and ElRA will do practically nothing against a long rod penetrator (ie. a LOSAT)

Small bonus? Do you have the faintest clue of what kind of systems these are? Arena is a system that aims for complete interception of incoming missiles. FSAP and TROPHY are capable of doing this. TROPHY is capable of intercepting MULTIPLE ATGM's at the same time with 100% accuracy. And FSAP works against LOSAT and SABOT. Small extra bonus my ass.

Actually if a tank drives over a mine, it will throw a tread. If a mech steps on a mine, it will break apart.

If a mech steps on a mine, its lower leg will blow up

IDEs arent a threat to tanks.

Its IED firstly, and you think a couple of 155mm artillery rounds going off below a tank arent a threat? What the hell are you smoking and could I get some of it?

But really, this isnt Iraq, and all you've said is that you can use a bunch of exaggerated versions of defences either just developed or in development to defend against RPG-17s, which anyone can do. In PMT there will be all sorts of other weapons, which you cannot have effective countermeasures for (not that ARENA is actually "effective" but meh). What you're essentially trying to say is that active countermeasures make mechs, tanks, hell - anything - completely invulnerable, which they dont. That's why, y'know, tanks arent invulnerable.

Exaggerated versions? Uhm, firstly Im talking directly out of information provided on the Arena and Shtora systems. You seem to be countering the points with just pretending not to listen and saying that they are "unreliable" call me unimpressed. TROPHY is ready to be installed, FSAP is being developed, as walkers would be very PMT tech in the first place, such active defensive systems would be fielded by that time. And again, TROPHY for one is well capable of 100% interception of incoming projectiles, multiple at the same time. And you dont seem to have the faintest clue of Arena and Shtora's capabilities in the first place. They are both designed to defend against ATGM's and RPG's. Shtora wouldnt help worth jack against RPG's since RPG's are dumb projectiles and thus unaffected by Shtora's jamming systems.

And now you are just lying by claiming Im saying something when Im saying nothing of the sort. What Im saying is that active defenses can provide a walker with immunity against man portable AT missiles, not that they make everything invulnerable.

I didnt say that tanks had any. You said that walkers had an advantage over tanks because they could take advantage of cover in an urban environment, which I said wasnt true and you, presumable have ceaded that point.

I never said that they had advantage over tanks because they could take cover you retard, I mentioned that urban environments have a lot of visual cover, is it your usual tactic to lie your ass off in debates?

Which means that people can shoot back from streets away. Fun.

Whoopdee shit, with what are they going to shoot back with? Low caliber infantry guns which wont penetrate the walkers passive armour? Or missiles that wont penetrate the walkers active defenses? Whopee.

It helps an awful lot because it means that you cant also kill tanks with light cannons, heavy machineguns and hand grenades. In addition, tanks currently have a decent chance at survival these days against ATGMs, they just arent (as you seem to imply) invulnerable. But anyway, a mech is actually slower than a tank of the same mass, because its method of propulsion is considerably less efficient, and it's also inherently less stable.

Most of an MBT's armor is there to provide protection against other tanks, even a friggin Patria AMV is invulnerable to anything upwards to 30mm cannon and it weighs a third as much as an Abrams. Decent chance of survival translates to "they can survive if the missile hits the turret front or glacis" wow.

No shit? A mech is slower than a tank? Never would have guessed.

And that higher techology will also carry over to PMT tanks and IFVs, keeping the mech inferior. What you've essentially been doing, throughout this debate, is comapring a PMT mech with a MT tech, and of course the mech is going to come out on top, but for any given mass or level of technological sophistication, the tank can carry more armour and more armament faster, and any system you can apply to a mech to make them more useful can be applied to at least an equal extent on the tank.. It's as simple as that.

How will it carry over? Shall IFV's carry bigger cannons (they cant, since by definition of being IFV's they cant mount big cannons)? Shall they mount missiles as they already do? Heck, even if they got bigger cannons, more missiles, the walker will have its TROPHY and FSAP. The active defense systems I have cited are not PMT, they are MT. The Electric Armour is very close PMT. ERA is MT. Where exactly is this PMT that I continuously seem to compare against MT?

Thanks for playing.

[OOC: Not sure if you've noticed but Bretton asked you to leave the thread. And flaming people in debates isnt a very good idea, nor does it reflect particularly well upon your general character. If you really take debates about made up tech that seriously, then I feel sorry for you. If you wish to continue this, then contact me via telegram. Do NOT continue to hijack someone's thread.]

bump; haven't sold any of this in a while, maybe some new blood will come around and take a look at it.

How owuld one of these fare against a Peacemaker?

I would think that whichever one got the drop on the other would likely win. Still, one on one battles between two different war machines is ridiculous and deceitful. I am assuming the peacemaker is accompanied by some kind of smaller escort vehicles, much like an AT-AT had AT-STs running alongside, such as in the battle of Hoth.

I would assume that the one with the biggest guns, being ablt to take advantage of cover, and perhaps some prior intel on the movements of the enemy would come out ahead.

So, if a Peacemaker bumbling around a city (great target being nearly 16 stories tall) I would give it to the smaller mech, provided the latter is waiting to spring an ambush. I don't know if its "28cm electromagnetic railgun" can penetrate the Peacemaker's armour, but perhaps a hit on one of its legs would help. And if the partisan is operating in a squad of 4, that would help. Same would go for mountains and other rugged terrain, provided either one didn't take a tumble over a boulder or get stuck in a bog.

Open field, I'm thinking the peacemaker may have the advantage due to the guns and thicker armour. Then again, maybe there is some kind of anti-peacemaker trap (like an anti-tank trap) or a minefield would again level the odds. Could also go against the smaller ones as well if the peacemaker was setting things up.

So, it depends on the situation. Then again, I would likely send some form of flying gunship, use an artillery barrage, or something else devilishly clever to combat these things.

Questions from the ADOD

1. How many are left?
2. Can we buy them all?

Our friends from Allanea again! Excellent.

1. Our functional inventory is between 36,000 and 40,500, depending on which records we cite (there is some confusion between our Numonican, Chechen and homeland inventory), with another 2,300 or so as training units or capable of being assembled from spare parts.

2. A sudden situation has arisen where we have been forced to recall some Partisans into service; at present we are ready to sell approximately 30,790 units, including 700 trainers, immediately. The remaining number (between 7,510 and 12,010... damned inventory records...) cannot be sold presently. A small number are being retained for use by Civil Protection, while the remainder are currently being deployed to a low-intensity conflict hotspot, in lieu of our Peacemaker force due to the latter undergoing a modularity refit and upgrade.

If you wish to purchase the above number, and are prepared to move them yourself, we will make the relevant preparations.

The Allanean reply was even shorter then the Allanean queastion.



Yes. We want them all.

Well, that certainly takes care of the liquidation issue...

Pending your payment of J$318,676,500,000, the following status of operational and operational-capable units has been summarized:

At present, roughly 9,000 units have been moved to Byelomoyre; these units were to be disarmed and dumped into the bay opening into the Strobovia Straight for purposes of tide control. Having been already prepared for transport, they may be picked up immediately. Another (roughly) 16,000 units, in various states of readiness (from "combat ready" to "cannibalize for parts") are deposited at bases around the country; we will locate, fit, and transport these units to Byelomoyre posthaste, where you may collect them at your leisure.

The remainder (whatever that may be... #&$*%@ records) have been deployed to our foreign holdings in Numonica, Imperial Nod and Brettonian Chechenya. These will be made ready for pickup at our earliest possibility, though it may be a week or more before we've located all of them. It would seem frontier base commanders keep very poor inventory of such things.

Spare us the details. Just ship us every suit you can find in your nation and ship our way. Thank you for your concern.