Re: Bring on the infantry [TANKS]

["WJ" <WJ-at-vdtogt.nl>]

I was just hoping for others to build something that could be crushed ;)

> Yes, but who wants to build a crawler?
>
> Phil Palmer
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sockless67-at-gmail.com
> To: tanks-at-rctankcombat.com
> Sent: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12.43AM
> Subject: Re: Bring on the infantry [TANKS]
>
>
> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>