Either way, I like to design my own.
I've shown my custom mecha models her, and Ogre cybertank proxies too. But now, now I'm moving towards designing my own cybertank design. Discounting in a few words all the work that went into OHMU Warmachine, but that's the past, my present need is for the look of the Panzer Jaeger Mark One.
The above is a quick sketch.
Oh yeah, You can get Terror Tree for free on the Kindle until the nineteenth.
OK, I have to ask… why the dual-mode drive? (I'm assuming the legs are at least a bit articulated.) Is there terrain it has to get over that a conventional track system alone can't manage? Or is this to elevate the gun over walls during FISH and similar? The leg connections seem as though they'd be terribly vulnerable the moment the other side could reprogram its smart weapons to look for them.
ReplyDeleteReasons...
DeleteI've asked Susan to come up with her thoughts, as she was the one who did the initial sketch on the back of a napkin, which she threw away before taking a picture of. Hence my doodle. There are reasons.
We will get back to you.
The four track/traction units are smaller than the big tanks e.g. challenger/Abraham’s/&c. regular size, more like APCs.
DeleteI envisioned the center unit to be bigger perhaps, more like a crab caprice then a water skater. The overall geometry can adapt so on hard road or transporting on train the front and rear units come together for a reduced clearance/gauge.
I envision each “arm” to be fully articulated so all four are dynamic to follow the surface contours. The tank can also “walk” by lifting up one and moving it whilst sitting on the other three. This is not normal use, but for something like bridging a canal or other obstacle.
With careful design the unit could actually be “ambivalent” about front/side/rear as all four traction units could rotate 360 degrees.
Armour is something to consider, and shell traps and the like needed to be taken into account.
This is all very much prelim thoughts. The main point is that with a big cameo netting thrown over the tank, it might appear to be four separate tanks parked up close rathe than a single unit.
Note the spelling here is off as my iPad is autocorrecting and I can’t use the arrow keys as then move the page, not the cursor in the box!
The four track/traction units are smaller than the big tanks e.g. Challenger/Abraham’s etc. regular size, more like APCs.
DeleteI envisioned the center unit to be bigger perhaps, more like a crab carapace than a gerrid/water skater. The overall geometry can adapt, so on hard road or transporting on train the front and rear units come together for a reduced clearance/gauge.
I envision each “arm” to be fully articulated so all four are dynamic to follow the surface contours. The tank can also “walk” by lifting up one and moving it whilst sitting on the other three. This is not normal use, but for something like bridging a canal or other obstacle.
With careful design the unit could actually be “ambivalent” about front/side/rear as all four traction units could rotate 360 degrees.
Armour is something to consider, and shell traps and the like needed to be taken into account.
This is all very much prelim thoughts. The main point is that with a big cameo netting thrown over the tank, it might appear to be four separate tanks parked up close rather than a single unit.
Note: the spelling here is off as my iPad is auto-correcting and I can’t use the arrow keys as then move the page, not the cursor in the box!
PS: Revised to clarify meaning.
Thanks! That makes sense - it may not be as survivable as a "single block" tank (though presumably being Huge it has a lot of armour anyway), but it adds tactical flexibility.
DeleteIf there's room, I'd be inclined to add a mode where the legs are retracted as much as possible into the bodies, to keep them from incidental damage when their flexibility isn't needed. Maybe even an armoured flange that covers them completely when they're retracted?