HOME | DD
Progenitor89 β AUG-18-T1 August Combat Walker
Published: 2009-08-19 12:39:43 +0000 UTC; Views: 16644; Favourites: 236; Downloads: 850
Redirect to original
Description
The AUG-18-T1 August Class of combat walkers were designed as mobile gun platforms with far superior mobility as compared to tanks.While combat walkers suffer from the unavoidable problem of height disadvantage and balance constraints, they excel in bringing heavy weapons to bear over terrain normally relegated to infantry divisions.
The August class of combat walkers pack 2 miniguns, 4 .50 cal. machinguns, twin 105mm cannons and twin 75mm autocannons, giving it more than enough firepower to deal with enemies ranging from infantry to tanks.
Triple articulated legs provided unparelled flexibility to the combat walker, coupled with the twin gas turbines powering it, allows the walker to run as fast as many MBTs on the battlefield, while preserving the mobility and flexibility of infantry.
A massive array of sensors covering it's body provides a full view of the walker's frontal arc in multiple spectrums, with 2 FLIR sensors giving the pilot a 360 degrees awareness of his surroundings.
Related content
Comments: 36
As I remember, these little walkers was not doing much facing an Armored Core
Really nice
π: 0 β©: 0
Great work - shadowing and textures make it look very realistic, while the "step forward" posture gives it almost an air of menace.
Also, whilst the chat is a bit old, as a footnote to the comments re Tank vs Mech discussion:-
1. Gravity would see tank win against Mech, a Tank can't 'fall over'
2. The physics of a bi-ped construction render it impractical - constant shifting of Centre of Gravity alone would make it too vulnerable
3. Apache Helicopters have rendered Battle tanks almost redundant - fire support, suppression, infantry dispersal are all achieved better from an Apache.
π: 0 β©: 0
Pretty cool, but a few one major problem, too many weapons, having so many weapons would limit internal storage of ammo...
No point in having miniguns they chew through ammo far too fast, for what it would be capcable of carrying, the 4 .50 cal machine guns are good, decent size to pack a nasty punch against infantry, but t he rounds are sizeable enough so the crew dont go crazy with firing, and the Autocannons are pointless, you have 105mm Cannons for AT, and the Machine guns for Infantry.
Overall its a good design, and you pointed out what walkers will be useful for in future combat, supporting the infantry in places where MBTs cant go.
Got my own design for a Battle walker, the Zues Class Heavy Mobile Battle Platform, but the tech for it is advanced, it is powered by 3 Fusion Reactors, one which is devoted to powering its weapon systems, two Heavy Plasma Cannons, and four Medium Repeating Plasma Guns (machine guns but plasma), it needs one reactor devoted to its weapons, to create powerful magnetic fields to shape, contain and propel the plamsa bolts. Another Reactor is devoted to creating two shields, the outer Bubble Shield, and the inner Contour Shield, so it has very powerful defences capable of defeating most attacks, not including its strong armour. The last reactor, is used to power the legs, sensors, targeting systems e.t.c.
π: 0 β©: 0
good work
105mm is not enough to deal with most existing tanks
why do people love to see miniguns so much? (the bigger-the better rule?) they aren't very effective in real combat situations (40mm automatic grenade launchers weight almost the same while doing more damage even to infantry(antipersonel ammo))
π: 0 β©: 1
I'd agree with you on the miniguns...but I think that a certain amount of it is the whole "rule of cool" thing. Then again, if they were mounted topside instead of where they are now, they might serve well as a defense system vs. helicopters and low-flying attack planes. But hey, if we're being realistic, then this thing is doomed from the start.
π: 0 β©: 1
ouch((
I haven't thought about AA defense.
No matter how advanced tech will be, such walkers(when someone will decide to try and create them) will still lose to tanks with heavier armor and armaments(they will be more advanced too). But it's still good looking.
π: 0 β©: 1
Depends the Walker would have a better angle to attack the tanks Top armour which is weaker than the tanks Glacis, and the walker could be more agile if developed enough. Shouldn't worry about AA defence, let the AA bother about that
π: 0 β©: 1
if not count that tanks will also be much more advanced at this level of tech and that they will have heavier weapons and armor at their deposit. To be able to shoot tank top armor you will have to be closer than 100m to target it(otherwise you can place weapons on any platform) and I doubt that walker will survive that long. Walkers are similar to light tanks in that sense.
π: 0 β©: 1
Walkers will have a niche. We don't know they would operate yet, as they are currently not a viable tech. Standard engines wouldn't be enough to power them. And let's not forget tanks are limited in the size of guns they can mount. Walkers might not be...
π: 0 β©: 1
why wouldn't walkers be limited by size of their weaponry? They are going to use different laws of logic, blocked for tanks?))
You are again forgetting one little moment. Tanks who might fight walkers(in reality their existence is doubtfull not because of technolgy level, but primarily because of tech level needed for their creation will already advance more "classical" weapon systems beyond abilities of walkers) will be much more advanced than one you see today. Who said that they aren't going to be hover tanks? Or monsters such as Mammonth or Baneblade(this guys are one same level of logic as walkers)?
π: 0 β©: 1
The tank main weapons are limited by the turret. If you mount the walkers weapons on the side, you could mount bigger weapons, but you would have to have counter weight to prevent it from falling over. The future weapons will more than likely be Lasers, or Mass drivers. Missiles will be pushed aside by theses weapon systems, a Mass driver would have more kinetic energy than a missile could deliver via explosives.
The idea of Superheavy tanks like the Baneblade (and it's variants), the Mammoth tank, and the Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus (the only Superheavy tank actually built) is obsolete, they speed is appalling the Maus could only get up to 20kmph.
π: 0 β©: 1
lol. Are you really trying to compare walker to tank, while keeping tank a "classical" 20th century vehicle?
Turret design may vary to support different types of armaments. Many newest projects have external turrets and 3 member crew protected by chassis. By the way, usual tank turret allow you to cover space that would otherwise require 2 side turrets(and still leave blind areas at front and back. Tank also have blind area, but tanks aren't usually trying to shoot at ground on same place they rest on).
Who said that Mammonth and Baneblade are slow?(Maus has still one point ahead of walkers. It exists). All materials for this vehicles show them more than capable of "keeping up" with normal tanks. Walkers have very little footing area compared to tanks so it makes quite doubtfull the fact that they will be able to carry large weaponry and remain active on hostile terrain(while keeping up with "less advanced vehicles").
π: 0 β©: 1
true, but like i said we dont know, until the tech comes into existence.
Walkers would probably work in conjunction with the tank, supplementing rather than replace it, and the might act as a harriers using speed and mobility to harass enemy formations...
The Mammoth and Baneblade tanks were designed to fit into a game in reality they would be horrendsouly slow, due to the heavy armour plating and the weapons fitted onto them, make them big fat targets for AT weapons like top attack missiles.
With walkers we just dont know if they are truly a viable tech for the future (obviously not now)...
π: 0 β©: 1
baneblade clearly has flawed design just like maus(their propulsion system and chassis aren't properly designed for such big vehicles), but it can move at same top speed as other w40k tanks(they are all flawed beyond measures of logic). It simply needs more time to get needed acceleration.
But Mammonth is part of another story. Quad tracks are one of obvious evidence of that(they are providing lesser "foothold" area, but they are created this way to keep tracks at optimal size. Besides it is using powerplant designed for much bigger vehicles - mastodon).
as for weapons of future... It's quite doubtfull that laser and plasma based weaponry will find "widespread" use in field of weaponry. They have great penetration potential, but aren't doing any real damage(they need time to achieve that penetration against high grade materials+you will have to move them across the target to cut it not in a single spot). High caliber railguns with "classical" rounds, gauss conductors combined with automatic cannons(20-75mm) and "tesla based" weaponry is more likely. As well as further advance of rockets.
π: 0 β©: 1
End of Day the Super Heavy tank was like the Battleship, obsolete when it was designed.
With Mass Drivers, you dont want to fire 20-75mm rounds. The Larger you make the round the slower it goes.And Speed has a greater impact on the total Kinetic energy an object has than Mass. As it is Particle Beam Weapons (Teleforce, Plamsa, Ion) are just a evolution of coil/rail guns. Lasers will have use but in space combat, due to a lack of atmosphere...
π: 0 β©: 1
There are at least 3 ways(that I know) how plasma theoretically can be used as weapon. I was talking about plasma cutter.
Mass is one of key factors(why do you think bullets are made of lead or sometimes of depleeted uranium?) as it is the way kinetical energy is "given" to the target. Alluminium rounds will either penetrate and leave small hole or be destroyed by sturdy armor alloys.
Rail and gauss guns are designed for special ammunition, but gauss conductors can also be used to increase speed of projectiles of ordinary weapons.
Hm, maybe you're right...
It seems that the problem is that I'm speaking about Halo/Killzone tech level(sorry, can't remember better example right now) and you're speaking about Mass Effect/Star Wars.
My English is terrible. I doubt that I will be able to keep up with you much longer
π: 0 β©: 1
And lets not forget if you use "classical" rounds in a Mass driver, they will zip straight through with minimal damage, what you want them to do is squash or shatter against the targets thereby having time to transfer the energy to the target. DU Rounds were used because of density and they had a special propertiey in that they would actually catch fire so it would sort of melt and push its way through the armour of a tankand once spalling took effect you would have superheated bits of metal bouncing around the interior killing the crew or hitting ammo/engine.
The most lethal thing to a tank is Spalling, which is bits off the ammo, or the interior of the tank bouncing around in the hull, it ia LETHAL.
π: 0 β©: 1
There is only one problem - I was refering to HE shells as classical, not to AP. As I said before there isn't much point in making holes. HE rounds detonate inside the target, making damage from AP shrapnell just a joke.
But I guess this is a mistake from my side. I guess you were speaking about cumulative rounds. I had to tell what I mean as "classical".
π: 0 β©: 1
He rounds generally dont detonate inside the target, they generally explode outside and rely on spalling to kill.
Look up armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot rounds, no explosives invovled, just sheer kinetic damage
π: 0 β©: 1
HE rounds aren't generaly fired at hypersound velocity.
Even standart AP rounds are doing enough damage. I'm simply trying to find a way to maximize it.
Believe me, I know about tanks and their armaments much more than you think. Problem is, I don't have much practice in tech based English and it's hard to find needed terms to express my thoughts. ΠΠ°ΠΊ-ΡΠΎ ΡΠ°ΠΊ...
π: 0 β©: 1
heh the main advantage with Mass Driver Weapons is that you can shrink the size of the rounds, but increase the punch, so a tank or similar AFV could carry alot more ammo, that doesnt have the chance of going boom, when they are hit by spalling...
π: 0 β©: 1
have to agree on that.
hold on a second...
Can plasma be fired with use of gauss coils?
π: 0 β©: 1
Well coil/gauss guns use a magnetic accelerator, and plasma can be shaped, contained, directed and propelled by magnetic fields. So in short yes they can.
π: 0 β©: 1
so, plasma has electromagnetic properities?...
π: 0 β©: 1
Plasma is the fourth ( or sixth) state of matter, superheated gas, it also has a charge due to presence of ions.
π: 0 β©: 1
fourth and it's completly ionized(that's why it's considered another state of matter). It also don't have to be overheated(theoretically).
I guess it retains some of electric propereties of normal material(through electrons), but I can be wrong.
π: 0 β©: 1
Plamsa tempuratures are generally very high...
π: 0 β©: 1
cold plasma is physically possible. It is the key element of theory of cold synthesis that promises to make process much more stable. And you must understand that it can be called cold only in comparisson with basic reaction plasma(5000C against just 300)
But today tech isn't enough to make "classical" tokamaks produce more energy than they consume
Compared to tech level, in terms of which our discussion is set, our tech level s//cks
π: 0 β©: 1
well you have Inertial confinement fusion, which basically bombards a Hydrogen fuel pellet with 100s of lasers at the same time, basically superheating AND forcing the pellet to compress, thereby forcing the atoms to fuse together. Research along this method is going extremely well, to the point of where they are deciding on what to use as a lasing material...
π: 0 β©: 1
can you give a link to material
It's getting late and I have a problem with understanding you
+we need to stop using comment section for walker. Is there a way to send messages in deviantart?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes you can send me a note...
π: 0 β©: 0
This has been heavily influenced by the L-5 Riesig from BF2142 hasn't it? Well thats ok because I love the Riesig and I really like this one!
π: 0 β©: 0
I love it. Blocky, low-tech...my favourite...
Excelent job.
π: 0 β©: 0