One of the more "out-there" proposals for the MBT-70 program involved a backup system of walking pads in case the tracks got blown off. See here.
I think Aprilla means something more like this only faster then its crawling speed of .62mph.
Its also rather large and heavy at 2 tons. But I would take that over big dog it at least has those nice broad feet and looks a lot more stable. Ok technically not a robot since it has a pilot but supposedly it can be remotely operated.
John Deere Made a Walking forestry Machine
But they only ever built proto-types. Not entirely sure why they didn't have at least a small niche market for it.
Its a bit faster then the other Hexapod but it is also rather big and still kinda slow. Neat though.
Who watches the watchmen?I wonder what happened after he recovered from getting a brick thrown at his head
Hey Ach, any comment on my defence of what you think is The Alleged Panzer?
![]()
Yes. Even if the argument that Germany should have met numbers with technology (which wouldn't have saved them, of course, but might have staved off the inevitable) holds water, Panther can only represent a failure to do so - it offered no decisive advantage over what could have been built insteadnote , it was incapable of any kind of strategic warfare (being essentially railbound), and hard for the newbie crews Germany had to operate and maintain.
Defense in WWII wasn't about digging in like a medieval archer and letting the enemy walk into your gunsights (well, unless you were fighting the Germans at Kursk
) - you had to be mobile, to defend in depth. Doubly important if you're outnumbered and you need to rush your armor to wherever the schwerpunkt is. Panther - crippled by its reliability issues - couldn't do that. To quote from the postwar French Army report:
Regardless of whether Germany tried for technology or numbers, the end result needed to have strategic mobility. Panther did not.
edited 11th Sep '14 4:54:31 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei
rollin' on dubs
Boeing Laser Demonstrator Destroys Targets through Wind and Fog
Boeing and the U.S. Army have proven the capabilities of the High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD) in maritime conditions, successfully targeting a variety of aerial targets at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
“Under windy, rainy and foggy weather conditions in Florida, these engagements were the most challenging to date with a 10-kilowatt laser on HEL MD,” said Dave De Young, Boeing Directed Energy Systems director. “As proven at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico in 2013 and at Eglin Air Force Base this spring, HEL MD is reliable and capable of consistently acquiring, tracking and engaging a variety of targets in different environments, demonstrating the potential military utility of directed energy systems.”
Oh yay another anemic expensive boon doggle firing a 10kw laser at target drones and some of the lightest and easily knocked down artillery shells ever. Also sitting on a hill in the rain or fog is not maritime conditions. That's normal land operation. Oh and unless the wind is kicking up a large cloud of opaque debris wind is not gong to affect the laser. Wind could also make it easier by clearing away airborne debris and obstructions.
Who watches the watchmen?Friend of mine sent me this picture.
◊
Supposedly it's from Ukraine but wherever it is that's a real asshole clencher.
Can anyone ID the trucks or the bomb?
Oh really when?
@ Achaemenid: That philosophy (regarding WWII defensive warfare) only seems to apply to operations conducted on large geographic territories however; the Japanese garrisons of all those Pacific islands couldn't rely on mobile defense lest they get obliterated by U.S air and naval support (Saipan and the counter-offensives on Okinawa come into mind), and the most effective way to drain some American blood would be to dig in elaborate tunnel systems and let the enemy come at them from there.
If you need referencing to my Rommel analysis
, I've thus provided the link - strangely, it's next to impossible in searching up the post using the site's standard search engine; that's one of the complaints that I have about this website, since Nation States users are able to easily access a list of all of their past posts with a "View Your Posts" button.
x5
I thought that the Israelis gave up on laser projects for now after reports indicated that the conventional Iron Dome missile systems were not only more affordable and maintainable, but milestones more effective when it comes to blowing up Hamas' Scuds.
![]()
![]()
Ukraine it indeed must be - the truck is a Soviet/Russian GAZ-66
◊, and quite the workhorse of many a nation's military logistical chain these days.
edited 11th Sep '14 11:56:39 PM by FluffyMcChicken
![]()
Dunno...it looks like a light enough shade of blue that it well be IR-suppressant gray. While I could accept, say, the Syrian Air Force dropping practice bombs on targets due to shortages of the real thing, I doubt Russian Frontal Aviation would do that.
Unless this is Czar Vladimir the Shirtless's idea of plausible deniability, which I would not put past the man.
edited 11th Sep '14 11:57:29 PM by SabresEdge
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.Saber: Maybe. I think though it might just be a training bomb that either missed or is being used to harass. I would be surprised if it is a live bomb that it didn't go off and it just stuck in the ground. Of course it could also be a dud. Someone needs to poke it with a stick.
Who watches the watchmen?If Russian bombing has become as accurate as American bombing, there's no reason to assume they couldn't use practice bombs on low-priority targets or targets near things they don't wish to damage. A 500 pound practice bomb will still flatten a tank if dropped accurately from 20,000 feet up.
But yeah, that looks more grey than blue on my screen. I'd thank the Lord it didn't go off, then run like hell in case it's a delayed fuse instead.
Of course, if the Japanese had focused on maneuver warfare instead of static warfare, they probably couldn't have done much worse. Twenty thousand Japanese troops dug in on an island are just twenty thousand troops the Japanese can't use elsewhere if the Allies decide they don't actually need that island for anything (such as with Truk, which was the target of a massed aerial and naval attack to neutralize the naval and air forces there, and then left to "rot on the vine" as the Allies moved on to other targets.).
edited 12th Sep '14 12:44:21 AM by AFP
I refer you to the signature of dear Dutch troper Midnight Rambler:
I'm not really sure how else the Japanese could have conducted a defense in depth in the Pacific - though I suppose the tactic of letting their Army sit on Islands just meant the US could eat them up one at a time.
EDIT: Hey Pagad - I know how the Germans could have replaced Pz IV:
- Improvements - Turret: A cast turret, with more internal space, a unity sight for the gunner, and a panoramic commander's cupola. A sloped or rounded front would be ideal. A faster hydro-electric power traverse would have been good.
- Improvements - Hull: Wet ammunition storage in the hull would also be nice.
- Improvements - Gun: 75mm is adequate, however I would recommend an upgunning to a 76mm gun. Some kind of gyroscopic gun stabilizer would be useful too.
- Can you guess what it is yet?
- Improvements - Suspension: The leaf springs really weren't adequate, and torsion bars are a bit too complicated for WWII. So I'd recommend a bogie based suspension like Horstmann or vertical volute spring suspension.
- Improvements - Armor: Slope the front.
Of course, such a vehicle would have been quite beyo...oh wait, its the Sherman
edited 12th Sep '14 9:42:23 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei

Those are very specific criteria, though, and it'd be closer to a SHIV machine-gun drone from XCOM than to an actual tank.
Agreed. Multi-legged spider-like machines with a low center of gravity make a lot more sense than upright, two-legged machines. Many roboticists have speculated that functional, effective fighting tanks with multiple legs will probably be no larger than a mid-sized pickup truck to balance speed, ease of movement and overall combat effectiveness. I doubt they will be some sort of dramatically independent force to be reckoned with, but rather only mildly noteworthy devices used in an infantry or armored cavalry support role.
EDIT: Basically what Sabre said. Sorry to be redundant.
edited 10th Sep '14 11:27:06 PM by Aprilla