Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
I cant imagen motors that will spin those massive drills, or spin and be effective as in MGS3
Its easier to have submarines
Or place nukes closer like us did with nato countries to reach russia(much easier then try to develop this crazy crab like design nuke carrier)
Everything I posted is real, just very outdated and less capable than wheels or tracks so it never got more funding. Having the requirements of a "real metal gear" be a two legged nuclear quipped platform seems sort of pointless. They would never build one.
As far as "fake", I think I know what you mean. All I can say is maybe. Getting overzealous military dictatorships to overspend based on bad intel is a long standing tactic. The Avro Big Wheel only being a concept drawing could be that sort of thing. It may have just been a pretty dumb idea and got no funding or attention (sort of like a nuclear equipped walking death mobile might).
Not enough info available to make any real call on that, but the GE stuff had a lot of money dumped into it. If something doesn't get funded, but is still feasible - does it really not exist? That sort of thinking is counterproductive to innovation.
With advances from DARPA and Boston Dynamics in "recent" years, making something that works like a metal gear is probably possible. It wouldn't be as large (why would it be?), and it probably wouldn't roar - but some kind of all-terrain four-legged version would probably work to some extent - its just a matter of need/cost and how much better can it perform vs "a truck".
Why develop a giant chicken robot when you already have giant trucks? Big Wheel is just an example of the type of thinking going on during that era. I would bet the Russians had concepts of big trucks with legs too. They put wings on a tank remember?
In some fictional situation where you do need tank legs, four legs would prove far stronger, stable, and faster then two. Probably what GE was thinking back then, and current design trends seem to support that. But in the end - wheels and tracks are cheaper and more effective then anything with fragile and experimental legs.
Wheels with axles that can articulate and act as "limbs" are far more plausible, and you can see concepts of those going back to the 80s and even earlier - but using any of these as a nuclear strike platform would be an exercise in military experimentalism and probably not going to be approved for funding by most military branches. Thats why all of this work falls on private industry and grants - at least in the public domain. Just pitching "robots that have legs" is a hard sell in any situation, unless the end goal is 100% a robot that walks.
More stuff to consider. Robot Elephant, a weapon to surpass walker gear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6cbCoEM52s
Shagohod is a combination of different experimental stuff the Soviet Union was working on. Combined, its a dumb waste of money, but on their own the ideas are actually pretty sound.
The Topol serves the same purpose, without the drill drive, hover skirt, or jet engines. Funding would have gone to the "Big Truck" program vs the "Crazy Guy Nukes Our Own Base" program. But if you look into each part on its own, you get real stuff:
Behold, the mighty Shagohod:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=relPtvgZDEg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVOaDfGOPGs
The oval shape tanks you have to sneak past in MGS3 are real too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_279
And the "hover" platforms:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA2aTxHZg20
Or...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subterrene
Wiki warning to this article
"This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed."
I think its safe to say it sounds dumb , probably impossible and stupid
Other things was fun to see, but there is a major difference between shagohod and this car
Car has two fastenings on each drill
Shagohod has one on each
+I think there are better designs like ilon wheels(something similar to this drill car but on clever wheels)
It would cost billions to make a robot like metal gear and it would not even be able to walk into a dense forest or in mountainous terrain, we already have problemes to make robots walk a staircase so imagine having a 50 Tonnes robots walk into a mountain....
Also it would be pretty stupide, metal gear is a game IRL you'd just need a roquet launcher team to take it out from far away or a bomber... Nothing can resist a big bombe and big robots are basically big targets... it would be impressive to deploy one in the middle of a city but again it can't move around very well and it would be big target... no strategic advantage over regural forces or mechanised infantry...
I think the problem is... we don't even really have robots in the first place, the closest thing an average person comes to a robot is that little flat thingy that vacuum cleans your place. It might not even be qualified to be called a robot but that's kinda how I feel about it lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sBBaNYex3E
I don't have all night, so I'll just look at Rex. What is its mission? To launch a stealth nuke? Basic aerodynamics says that no matter how high the muzzle velocity of that railgun, it's a short range weapon. (in terms of artillery ranges being short) So why not just use artillery? Or the Davy Crockett?
Infiltration? It's far larger than a tank and likely much louder. It can't handle rough terrain any better than a car because of the ground pressure, since a tank with feet simply sinks into soil. The radar return would be shocking, it would glow in thermal, and above all else, it would require enough maintenance that a team w would have to travel with it, negating any advantage it may gain from its form factor.
Combat? A tank would blow it apart in one round, a helicopter would shred it from range, and artillery would flatten it from across the horizon.
Cost? No. It needs everything a tank has, plus legs, joints, additional levels of hydraulic control, etc.
Transportability? Good luck getting it through rail or highway tunnels.
It fails to be more deadly, more survivable, or more available than any comparable weapon system. As those are defining factors, it fails. Then there's the maintenance. Just no.
Why don't we have T-800 endoskeletons running around to terminate targets? Because a Predator drone is cheaper, faster, more reliable, more technologically feasible, and simply more effective.
Rex is cool. MGS is cool. Giant stompies are cool. I've been a Battltech fan for 25 years. But they're not reasonable. Most designs would snap their legs just standing around. As far as power armor, it's barely more feasible, but most of the things that are real force multipliers, intelligence and communications, are integrated very well without being flashy.
Then there's actual optimisation. Helmets prevent 80% of combat fatalities. Soft armor prevents almost everything else but bombs and direct fire. SAPI usually works for direct fire of man-portable weapons. If you can equip ten people with 98% survivability or 5 people with 99%, the ten will be safer because of more eyes, more brains, and more teamwork.
The tank itself has been largely optimized, and it's even being phased out. Transportation limits define maximum width, turning limitations and width define maximum length, width and ground pressure requirements dictate track width, which determines turret ring diameter, which determines maingun size which determines armor. Then spank it with ICM or an ATGM from beyond line of sight, and we're done. That's why we largely decided LAVs are more practical.
I love tanks. But they have their place. I can recommend some books if you'd like.
I love tanks with legs, but they also have their place: fiction.
Take a look at MIT's Leg Lab or that robomule the DoD's been playing with. Lots of legs, just not for weapon platforms.
Yeah it's called propaganda and it's been here since 1947.