Re: Bring on the infantry [TANKS]

["Gregory Pwneror" <sockless67-at-gmail.com>]

mindstorms are a bit expensive, which is true
but i dont give a poo
ill just save up
and then ill get one with any luck

On 2/2/07, WJ < WJ-at-vdtogt.nl> wrote:

I found the link to one:
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/DOLLY-DOLLS-TOYS-SPECIAL-ATTACK-FORCE-ACTION-SOLDIER_W0QQitemZ320066232350QQihZ011QQcategoryZ2635QQcmdZViewItem

> This brings to mind a toy I saw not too long ago, this was a plastic toy
> soldier, prone position, which could crawl along the ground.  It looked
> like a very simple, slow  but effective way to move around, The soldier
> could flex around the midsection to crawl along.
>
>> To reply to the various points raised:
>>
>> 1. I accept that a HE shot arriving within 6 feet would seriously
>> inconvenience an infantryman! The problem I was raising was that if one
>> has a walker, walking on its feet (as opposed to on a motorised base,
>> say)
>> then he can't also stand on a base. I suppose that you could suspend a
>> 12"
>> hoop around his waist, but it would look a bit Elizabeth I. More
>> realisticly one could measure with a hoop after a shot, but this would
>> slow things down considerably.
>>
>> 2. Yes, obviously there would in reality be thousands of infantry
>> around,
>> but we are only concerned about the one with a bazooka, who would not be
>> walking around but hiding ina hole and difficult to hit or even see.
>>
>> 3.I take Steve's point about the vulnerability of the machanical marvel
>> which I am trying to create. Size, vulnerability, and speed are all
>> issues
>> with a 12" robot. I have a feeling that if one is to produce a walker
>> that
>> is battleworthy then it will probably be nearer 24" high (I just
>> wandered
>> off into a fantasy there about a motorised base, or "moving foxhole"
>> perhaps, but I think that basically that's a t-a-n-k).
>>
>> Another possibility would be a very simple walker with no steering, no
>> rc,
>> that just walked forward until it touched a tank with its outstretched
>> paintball (or perhaps used a PIR or very simple rc so that it fired when
>> something came in view).  One could make these cheaply and fairly
>> robustly
>> and set off say 6 or more at a time. Casualties would be horrendous, but
>> that's war.
>>
>> 4. Someone asked about servos and the difficulty of constantly reversing
>> them. I am using a "sun and planet" system, so the motor goes 1 way
>> only.
>> It's a bit like the way a steam railway engine (or internal combustion
>> engine) converts an in-out piston movement into a circular movement,
>> only
>> the other way round. I have some photos of a couple of test rigs but I
>> can't get them up at the moment.
>>
>> For myself though I'm going with the "delicate walker" option, and see
>> where it takes me. Thanks for everyone's comments. The site has produced
>> "Cheap control Systems" which looks very interesting. The point about
>> infra-red is that unlike rc you can shield it, so that you can control
>> say
>> 3 figures individually or all together.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mxlyons-at-cox.net
>> To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
>> Sent: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 3.23AM
>> Subject: Re: Bring on the infantry [TANKS]
>>
>>
>> For the record, I proposed a 12" radius i.e. 2 foot diameter, which
>> scales
>> to 6
>> feet in any direction.
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Mike Lyons
>>
>> ...
>>> > so would you say that a 12" disc of some sort  (paper plate maybe?)
>>> > would be acceptable as a kill zone?
>>> >
>>> > Chris
>>> > Odyssey Slipways < http://hometown.aol.com/odysseyslipways/index.html>
>>>
>>> To be honest 12" (6ft) isn't anywhere near what I would suspect is the
>>> killzone of an average tank shell.
>>> But I think for what we are doing 12" would be good.
>>
>
>
>