Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 godardc wrote:
The adamantium and other materials in 40k are very very solid, maybe they are lightweight enough to make walker that are solid and that can move (I don't recall it).
Not as solid as a tank made with the same material, but still solid enough to endure and survive.
What is the AV of a warhound ? 13 or 14 ?

14 front, 13 side.

 Peregrine wrote:

Oh, it will be way more than double. Remember, it's not just the "down" foot taking the whole weight of the titan while the other foot is in the air, it's the force of the foot slamming into the ground with every step.

Actually, it's not the foot coming down that's the problem. You only get lots of force on the forward foot if you're running (i.e. both feet leaving the ground during your stride). The forward push from the rear foot is where you'll find the extra pressure. We don't really have any sources on speed and stride length but 4x or more is likely (I did say that). It's still not sinking especially deep into regular dirt or cracking the crust of the earth.

I've been into mecha for the past 30 years. This interest even turned into a bit of an obsession that lead from anime to war-games to models to military service to engineering degrees to a career in electronics and robotics. In the end, this is what I've learned:

1 - Humanoid piloted robots are very very impractical (although still really really cool). The engineering that goes into a striding platform is huge, and the bigger the platform, the greater the material technology exceeds the ability to power the platform. Small, toy sized humanoid robots are light enough to require managable power such as batteries, while a platform such as the Honda Humanoid Project require external power as well as external processors to move. The recent Darpa robotics competition demonstrated these limits in what can best be called a slow motion robotic Olympics. Yes, the future will have better power and better processors, but the engineering will still be an extreme endeavor.

2 - Size matters. At the small end, such as Tau Crisis suits or AM Sentinels, if the Mech falks over, the crew survives the impact with minor injuries because the distance of the fall, and therefore the energy involved, is relatively small. On the top end, something like a Reaver or Warlord falling will generate a huge amount of energy, yet at that size proper safety features such a shock and motion absorbing structures can be built in (ie, the reason why putting the cockpit in the head is actually a good thing). On the middle? Not so much. A Mech of Knight size is too small to have proper motion/shock absorbtion, too big to not kill its crew on a fall ... or while running. Of course, the future will science the s--- out of it, so there's that.

3 - A tall Mech crosses it's own T. In the Navy, back when everythibg was pretty much 2D with all ships fighting on the sane plane, the best thing you could hope for was for your line if battle to cross their line of battle at a 90-degree angle, which meant all of your broadside could drawn fire, but not theirs. In context with Mech, the taller the Mech, the more surface area is exposed above the rank and file of the enemy, which means they can fire more weapons into you than you can ever carry into battle. This means height is bad. Small Mechs are good-ish, tall Mechs are terribad. And as we all know, Void Shield still fail.

4 - In the far future, none of the above matters. The is the neat quote from the old R. Talsorian RPG Mekton Empire, which I assume was written by Mike Poundsmith (the best voice in gaming, you just have to hear him, his voice is awesome): "and they made them in the shape of Humans, so that the alien scum would know that it was Humans that crushed them under their iron foot." In the end, 40k Mecha are designed to look the way they do for a reason, and they have the technology-is-magic-is-technology to make it work.

So, yes, a Real Life Reaver could exist. Just not today. And maybe no time soon, either, as the impracticality goes beyond just enigeering but into military science. We'll have to wait for a post-apocalyptic society (like Japan) to build one before we ever see one in our lifetimes.

SJ

How much does a power armor or terminator armor weight, shouldn't they get stuck in to anything that isn't reinforced concrete and break any stairs they walk on. Unless they are super light .

Working on a Physical Therapy degree here, with some notes on walking:
- Walking is characterized by never having both feet in the air. Though only a small part of each foot is on the ground during parts of the stride

- Ground reaction forces for humans on reach 1-1.5 times bodyweight while walking. The 4x numbers are for running.

Cheers,

@jeffersonian000 - regarding the anthropoid body shape, I recall a short story where Orks refer to an Imperator as 'De Emprah', mistaking it for the individual 'da humies is always talkin' about'.

Regarding energy needs, we've got plasma reactors, whose output and load lifespan seem to meet the needs of the writers and miniature designers.

One bonus versus a tank? Keep your head on straight while aa four story building is advancing towards you, firing weapons larger than 99% of the tanks on that battlefield.

Now think about your morale boost if you are the guys whose side it's on, doing that to your enemies.

Space Fantasy.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, like I said, tanks with the same tech (super materials, void shields, turbolasers) would be better [combat] units, strictly speaking.

That said, titans are awesome and technology is magic, so WOOOO!

Excepting the fact that most tanks cannot step on and crush a Titan. The reverse is demonstrably not true.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I've been into mecha for the past 30 years. This interest even turned into a bit of an obsession that lead from anime to war-games to models to military service to engineering degrees to a career in electronics and robotics. In the end, this is what I've learned:

1 - Humanoid piloted robots are very very impractical (although still really really cool). The engineering that goes into a striding platform is huge, and the bigger the platform, the greater the material technology exceeds the ability to power the platform. Small, toy sized humanoid robots are light enough to require managable power such as batteries, while a platform such as the Honda Humanoid Project require external power as well as external processors to move. The recent Darpa robotics competition demonstrated these limits in what can best be called a slow motion robotic Olympics. Yes, the future will have better power and better processors, but the engineering will still be an extreme endeavor.

2 - Size matters. At the small end, such as Tau Crisis suits or AM Sentinels, if the Mech falks over, the crew survives the impact with minor injuries because the distance of the fall, and therefore the energy involved, is relatively small. On the top end, something like a Reaver or Warlord falling will generate a huge amount of energy, yet at that size proper safety features such a shock and motion absorbing structures can be built in (ie, the reason why putting the cockpit in the head is actually a good thing). On the middle? Not so much. A Mech of Knight size is too small to have proper motion/shock absorbtion, too big to not kill its crew on a fall ... or while running. Of course, the future will science the s--- out of it, so there's that.

3 - A tall Mech crosses it's own T. In the Navy, back when everythibg was pretty much 2D with all ships fighting on the sane plane, the best thing you could hope for was for your line if battle to cross their line of battle at a 90-degree angle, which meant all of your broadside could drawn fire, but not theirs. In context with Mech, the taller the Mech, the more surface area is exposed above the rank and file of the enemy, which means they can fire more weapons into you than you can ever carry into battle. This means height is bad. Small Mechs are good-ish, tall Mechs are terribad. And as we all know, Void Shield still fail.

4 - In the far future, none of the above matters. The is the neat quote from the old R. Talsorian RPG Mekton Empire, which I assume was written by Mike Poundsmith (the best voice in gaming, you just have to hear him, his voice is awesome): "and they made them in the shape of Humans, so that the alien scum would know that it was Humans that crushed them under their iron foot." In the end, 40k Mecha are designed to look the way they do for a reason, and they have the technology-is-magic-is-technology to make it work.

So, yes, a Real Life Reaver could exist. Just not today. And maybe no time soon, either, as the impracticality goes beyond just enigeering but into military science. We'll have to wait for a post-apocalyptic society (like Japan) to build one before we ever see one in our lifetimes.

SJ

If the tip over in my 900 foot tall titan that costs trillions if not more... they better be dead.

On people saying the shooting aspect I always thought with guns this big the should try a ion/heat cannon where it does something like a microwave. Vibrates the particals directly infront of the gun kinda like cooking the tank and people in a beam shot.

We are also forgetting the discovery of awesominium in the late 11th millennia that permitted such things as Titans to be built. It is, by now, so ubiquitous across all factions of 40k that it is never even mentioned, much like air, corpse-starch and reinforced stairwells.

The combo of future science and lulz is what makes titans work.

We do not and will not have the means to create a fully functioning reaver titan for another 100 years at least.

We could still build a big ass tank though.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Oh, it will be way more than double. Remember, it's not just the "down" foot taking the whole weight of the titan while the other foot is in the air, it's the force of the foot slamming into the ground with every step.

Actually, it's not the foot coming down that's the problem. You only get lots of force on the forward foot if you're running (i.e. both feet leaving the ground during your stride). The forward push from the rear foot is where you'll find the extra pressure. We don't really have any sources on speed and stride length but 4x or more is likely (I did say that). It's still not sinking especially deep into regular dirt or cracking the crust of the earth.

I don't think the ground pressure thing is a huge issue (if your earlier calcs were right, I haven't checked them). You can avoid increasing the ground pressure by much more than 2-3x with careful use of the hydraulics and that's around the region of some animals (cows, elephants, giraffes). I'd hazard a guess and say something the size of a titan can probably afford to sink a few feet in to mud (hopefully squashing down to something firmer) as long as it can still lift the foot to make it's next stride. If a heavy tank sinks a few feet in to mud it can be game over because to lift itself out of the mud it needs to apply a traction force and even if you have low ground pressure through the tracks it doesn't mean you can get enough traction to lift 60 or 70 tons up an incline.

I could be mistaken, but I'd suggest that's probably how tanks most frequently get stuck, not because the ground pressure was too high to stop it from sinking but rather the traction was too low to lift itself out of the mud.

I'd suggest balance and getting a decent gait that doesn't let it fall over on uneven ground is probably a bigger issue than ground pressure.

Eisenfresser wrote:
Working on a Physical Therapy degree here, with some notes on walking:
- Walking is characterized by never having both feet in the air. Though only a small part of each foot is on the ground during parts of the stride

- Ground reaction forces for humans on reach 1-1.5 times bodyweight while walking. The 4x numbers are for running.

Cheers,

Thanks for those numbers.

So, compared to standing on both feet, during walking ground pressure will be 2-3x assuming the whole foot stays in contact (and you would definitely want to design ankle joints sufficiently flexible to do that)

That's perfectly reasonable levels of ground pressure.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'd hazard a guess and say something the size of a titan can probably afford to sink a few feet in to mud (hopefully squashing down to something firmer) as long as it can still lift the foot to make it's next stride.

Deep wet clay might be the most difficult terrain as it generates large amounts of suction on the large, flat foot that you'd need to distribute ground pressure.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'd suggest balance and getting a decent gait that doesn't let it fall over on uneven ground is probably a bigger issue than ground pressure.

Yep, this is the big problem with most imperial walkers - they're too wide making it very difficult to maintain balance while walking. The upper section would need a lot of side-to-side sway which is far from ideal for a weapons platform.

The TItans in various places in Abnett's novels are described as swaying like a drunken uncle.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Hello, and good morning.

So I was looking into how much pressure is needed to get through the ground and such. Well I do not have the book on me at this moment but they mention in mining it can take 1500 psi to dig down around 50 feet. So with that said most tanks are designed the way they are to give as much area as possible to touch th ground so needing less torc. So if a reaver titan existed the psi it would put out would be in the bilions hell the plastice warhound bends my wooden shelf. Would the reaver titan sink chest deep apon landing?

Modern tanks and even heavy lorries have trouble moving around cities due to the danger of collapsing into culverts and cellars.

I think that is more evidence of poorly-designed roads than a problem with the lorry.

From a raw physics stand point, the FW version of the Reave Titan actually isn't that bad. The new FW vesion of the Warlord is a little misbalanced, but reasonable. Warhounds probably wouldn't work out, as the feet design kind of works against it. Knights are somewhat balanced, just maybe too small for the pilot to survive running or falling without grav-plate handwavium. The Emperor, however, should not ever be able to move given its design. If it were built more like an up-scaled Reaver, then maybe. Of course, a Space Marine Dreadnought can't walk at all, it's too unbalanced on those splayed stubby legs.

SJ

 Ashiraya wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
why? given such shields exist. any tank could also use them. Why the need to be tall? Weapons do the job. no matter how tall you are. its only a mater of choosing the right weapon. and again. a tank-like thing or even a flat walker wir 6 legs will be much better than a Reaver or anything else like this.

Line of sight. Being taller lets you shoot over enemies to hit other enemies, shoot over terrain, etc.

There's a reason having the high ground is considered an advantage.

That's what air support is for.

Actually, being taller just means more can shoot at you.

SJ

Exactly.

given the tech for a working Reaver Titan exists a tank patten is better for a warmachine. heck.... even a 6-leg Walker tank-high would be better. Easier to build, easier to put armout on it. and such... To build suhc a high walking mech you have to do much to proteckt him. even shields need a strong reaktor. then you need to protect it even more because so much more can shoot at said reaver. its probably more difficult to transport it and such.

Sure the Reaver could exist someday. but it will never never be superior to a tank or anything like this.
There are always better possibilities. let it be tanks. tanks with legs. Aircraft or spacecraft. the gain of having a better line of sight doesent justify the tradeoffs in construktion and risk in open combat.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
One bonus versus a tank? Keep your head on straight while aa four story building is advancing towards you, firing weapons larger than 99% of the tanks on that battlefield.

Now think about your morale boost if you are the guys whose side it's on, doing that to your enemies.

Space Fantasy.

Now think of the huge moral boost when your artillery blow the hell out of that thing. Suddenly everything is possible, and the enemy will never be able to endure your firepower that could deal with even that mighty warmachine.
Ooops, you were on the other side? How does it feel to see your champion getting crushed by tiny (compared to it), very far away cannons?

Someone's faith is lacking.

Go see the Commissar immediately!

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, being taller just means more can shoot at you.

SJ

No... not really. I mean, yes, that is one aspect of it, but it is definitely not the only aspect of it.

Elevation and higher ground have been advantages in both tactical and strategic planning since warfare was invented.

 Psienesis wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, being taller just means more can shoot at you.

SJ

No... not really. I mean, yes, that is one aspect of it, but it is definitely not the only aspect of it.

Elevation and higher ground have been advantages in both tactical and strategic planning since warfare was invented.

Yes, but you understand why?

Height = distance.

Ranged shots go further from a higher position. It takes more effort to fight up a hill than down the hill. A high wall is impassible without significant effort. On the other hand, everyone can fire up over the heads of those in front on them at a higher target, not just the front rank. The advantage of short Tanks is that they can actually hide behind terrain, something a building generally cannot do. The only real advantage Titans have over conventional military vehicles is morale, be it inspiration in friendlies or terror in foes. Any potential range advantage is gone due to the lack of ballistic armament on Titans, which means their weapons tend to be more Line of Sight than trajectory based.

They are still awesome, and are reasonable within a couple size brackets.

SJ

Look, the thing about a Reaver Titan is it carries the equivalent of Naval weapons, inland. It's advantage comes not from shooting at a Predator squadron's top armour, but from annihilating them with a pair of Volcano Cannon (and remaining mobile as it does so, unlike a super heavy tracked gun) and then dispersing the confetti with an Apocalypse Launcher.

The only other thing that does that is Ordinatus, and they have only a little more manoeuvrability than a train. We're in a universe with anti-gravity and super power generators and machine spirit AIs, so it's a piece of cake to keep the big guy upright and mobile - even if it's armour is as tough as that of a tank.

 lindsay40k wrote:
Look, the thing about a Reaver Titan is it carries the equivalent of Naval weapons, inland. It's advantage comes not from shooting at a Predator squadron's top armour, but from annihilating them with a pair of Volcano Cannon (and remaining mobile as it does so, unlike a super heavy tracked gun) and then dispersing the confetti with an Apocalypse Launcher.

A tank could do the same things, and do them better.

The only other thing that does that is Ordinatus, and they have only a little more manoeuvrability than a train.

This is only because in 40k the Imperium has a rule that its biggest guns must be carried on giant walking religious icons instead of practical combat vehicles. This is not a sensible thing to do.

You know you're talking about the Imperium, correct? Religion over sense is kind of their shtick.