What's /k/'s take on Super Heavy Tanks?

File: image.jpg (135KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 720x480px

Best

>>30762553
Beyond retarded for obvious reasons

>>30762566
Let's assume that we don't know theses reasons, because i don't.

File: 017_3.jpg (144KB, 800x614px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 800x614px

>>30762553
Now here's super heavy Op

>>30762575
New Zealand tank? that's actually a light tractor.

>>30762572
How are you going to move them?


Do us both a favor and google the phrase "logistics"

>>30762553
google "square cube law" and you'll learn why making things bigger just makes them absolute fucking garbage.

>>30762553
Would only be viable if we had active defenses to shoot down incoming rockets. Would basically need ghost in the shell tier technology.

>>30762580
I guess the last 70's didn't happen in your opinion right?

>>30762575
:^) that's the crack mate
>>30762572
>Can't move barrel
>Huge stubby barrel, more like super inaccurate
VERY HEAVY, chances are it'll be nowhere near maneuverable or fast enough for combat
>I can imagine a swarm of various tank destroyers taking this one to town

Super heavy tanks would only be viable if they could be impervious or at least highly resistant to both artillery and air strikes.
So unless we find some kind of unobtanium that is great for armor but terrible for making into shells/penetrators then they're useless $50 billion target practice for pilots and gun crews.

>>30762594
Please explain how 60 odd ton MBTs are parallels to ww2 supertanks

Let me guess. The M1A1 is a direct descendent of the Maus right?

>>30762572
>Let's assume that we don't know theses reasons, because i don't.

A bigger, heavier vehicle needs more fuel to move, its moving parts place more strain on their load bearing elements, and the increased inertia means that you need bigger, heavier motors to move the vehicle. The square cube law is a real bitch just for basic operations. Ground pressure and trying to deal with bridges that can't carry them and the higher probability of getting bogged down in the mud makes the proposition even worse. The Abrams is already an abnormally heavy main battle tank, and they're looking at making it lighter for improved fuel economy and easier transport.

>>30762610
>assuming the tank is leading a single charge with no support
Why not also assume it have so kind of fucking sheild that makes it invincible to any kind if shells/projectiles

Bridges. How do they work?

>>30762572
>Cant use bridges
>Vulnerable from air attack, even in the days when CAS was inaccurate.
>Needs a 3 story building to hull down
>Cant turn turret
>Big flat vulnerable faces, especially back when sloped armor made a difference

File: T-35_soviet_heavy_tank_5.jpg (103KB, 1417x933px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1417x933px

>>30762626
Good point, though we'd have these behemoths if it was a viable thing

With thick enough armor nothing will be able to penetrate. It will be a land battleship, they will have to use anti ship missiles to stop it. Would definitely be possible, there simply aren't weapons in place to counter a giant tank.

>>30762580
>How are you going to move them?
Landing ship, tank. Just like world war 2. We use large landing ships to support them and transport them around the world. Each ship would only have to carry three.

In order to make attain a decent speed we will need a lot of power. I suggest a graphite reactor. Not unlike a nuclear submarine or the soviet nuclear bomber. The best part is you roll them straight into mecca unopposed and let them go chernobyl. The land remains tainted for decades.

>>30762642
>With thick enough armor nothing will be able to penetrate. It will be a land battleship, they will have to use anti ship missiles to stop it.

Just like they needed anti ship missiles to stop battleships in World War 2!

Oh, wait.

>>30762642
>wasting missiles on a slow as fuck super heavy tank
>not just plinking the fuck out of it with 500lb bombs

>>30762642
>Landing ship, tank. Just like world war 2. We use large landing ships to support them and transport them around the world. Each ship would only have to carry three.

It would also have to carry bridges for every river and trench.
And it would have to carry large amounts of cash to pay for the roads the tanks would destroy.
And recovery vehicles after the tanks sink in soft soil because of ground pressure.
But apart from all THAT....

File: Unrealistic2.jpg (200KB, 894x504px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 894x504px

>>30762630
Just lighten it up.

>>30762617
>Super heavy tanks would only be viable if they could be impervious or at least highly resistant to both artillery and air strikes.
This is true. In the long run. It would be easy to develop a countermeasure. However none currently exists. Current anti tank weapons fall short, current air to ground weapons designed to be used against structures could not easily target it. Such a tank would be good for exactly one surprise attack as it rolls toward mecca.

>>30762668
>Current anti tank weapons fall short
Current anti-tank weapons only have to mangle one tread and your super-tank is done.

>current air to ground weapons designed to be used against structures could not easily target it.
This is incorrect. Very, very incorrect.

Look, they're a fun idea but they're not practical in any way.

>>30762650
There a lot of 16 inch guns floating around these days? Or are you going to hit it with a torpedo?

>>30762659
>And recovery vehicles after the tanks sink in soft soil because of ground pressure.
Tanks already have pretty low ground pressure because the weight is distributed through a large area. There is no reason to assume that this would have greater ground pressure, since the tread area would scale in proportion to the weight.

>>30762674
Mk. 84 JDAM.

>bigger tonks are useless
>big=bad
>by the same reasoning small=good

WHY AREN'T WE INVESTING IN SELF REPLICATING NANOSWARMS FOR WARFARE PURPOSES?

>>30762677
Again, incorrect.
But let's just play this game...
Wider tracks?
An Abrams is already 12 feet wide.
Just how many roads, tunnels, and bridges do you want to make unusable by widening that further?

>>30762681
Can't penetrate 20 inches of metal. Not guided to the extent it could hit a target moving at 30 mph.

File: 1465029441912.jpg (836KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 1600x1200px

>>30762682
Bigger tunks could be good just a big investment that could potentially go tits up if the shit goes down

>>30762683
>Again, incorrect.
Go to the ground pressure article on wikipedia.

uman male (1.8 meter tall, medium build): 55 kPa (8 psi)

M1 Abrams tank: 103 kPa (15 psi)

1993 Toyota 4Runner / Hilux Surf: 170 kPa (25 psi)

Adult horse (550 kg, 1250 lb): 170 kPa (25 psi)

>>30762695
How long can that tank move at 30mph? When it stops, use a JDAM or Mass Ordnance Penetrator.

>>30762553

A fun experiment in engineering that would probably only be feasible to field if you already have military superiority to begin with, and impractical regardless.

But hey, when has practically stopped people from building stuff?

File: 1465029512986.jpg (521KB, 1076x691px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1076x691px

>>30762710
Yeah shit

>>30762705
1. No, the incorrect part is that you're gonna make a taller tank that doesn't have more ground pressure.
2. Until you can answer how your tank crosses rivers and trenches and until you can answer how it fits down roads an Abrams can barely squeak by, all your posting is just a waste of time.

>>30762697
>be a big slow target for bombs, missiles, cannons, etc.
>can't put enough armor to be feasibly protected from such threats
>move at the speed of none
>need fuckton of fuel and resources both in production and maintenance
>can be only in one place at once

>>30762707
Never stop.

File: Kamkov.jpg (68KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1024x681px

>>30762642

*Cough*

>>30762715
If you scale it up proportionately the pressure will stay the same.

File: 51qRoyVxDdL.jpg (36KB, 332x500px)

36KB, 332x500px

>>30762719
I can just imagine

>>30762719
Sounds like a boat

>>30762553
cool in fiction, waste of resources in reality.

Creating this kind of land-boat is simply impractical.
In an Age where Turret mounted guns are being replaced by Rockets even on ships, there is no real reason to try and move a much to heave vehicle.

Nevermind the kind of logistics of moving it around aswell as the giant factory which would be needed to create it.

It could just be destroyed by some simple guided bunker busters anyway....

File: image.jpg (52KB, 500x312px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x312px

>>30762561
That's nothing.

>>30762711
To be honest, super heavy tanks aren't THAT bad.
Provided they have the right air support, they would change the tides of wars.

File: 1469232382337.jpg (265KB, 1200x868px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1200x868px

>tfw stuck in the boring universe with no
>super heavy tank battles
>40ktitans
>zeppelin superiority/airborne carrier popularity >space battles that exist and aren't just sub vs sub

They are a bad idea because their resources to firepower ratio is just bad.

You will have essentially a giant battering ram which moves so slow, that an attack would be obvious weeks beforehand, due to all the logistics being involved.

File: Untitled.png (953KB, 1299x1076px)

953KB, 1299x1076px

>>30762553
too weak vs air craft and not much different in function than railway guns

You fuckers are all forgetting one thing: Hajiis don't have CAS. It would be a terrific demoraliser.

>>30762729
Lol no, weight increases with the cube of length, whereas surface increases with the square of length. That means that a tank twice as tall will have 8 times as much mass, yet 4 times as much surface, which ends up as twice the ground pressure.

>>30762630
>>Cant use bridges
Big enough to just ford rivers.
>>Vulnerable from air attack, even in the days when CAS was inaccurate.
Granted.
>>Needs a 3 story building to hull down
No, it can utilise 3 story building to bull down. Other tanks can't.
>>Cant turn turret
>>Big flat vulnerable faces, especially back when sloped armor made a difference
These two are just specific to OP's retarded tank design, not to retarded heavy tanks in general.

>>30762659
>It would also have to carry bridges for every river and trench.
Late WW2 German heavy tank proposals where hybrid electric (like subs), so they could just ford rivers in pairs. One tank would remain on the bank, acting as a generator, with a big electric line to the one currently fording the river.

>>30762781

If there was one thing about the Ratte that wasn't terrible in theory, it was the gun depression.

Why can't modern tonks point up that high?

>>30762553
They're cool as a science fiction prop but irl they're the target everyone will be shooting at.

>>30762857
Which is why you make disproportionally sized tracks. See:
>>30762697
>>30762553

>>30762711
Those cannons look like they could be easily damaged.

>>30762743
Boats don't move at the speed of none though

>>30762920

depression =/= elevation

>>30763730
>Hurr atheism isn't a religion

*tips*

>>30762584
The "square cube law" and light speed limit are the party poopers of physics.

>>30763754
Nah the speed of light is fine.
Is the whole relativity stuff that is the buzzkill. And quantum mechanic may or may be not be a party pooper too.

>>30762695
What about the damage caused by spalling and the concussion force? The tank may be almost intact but the crew would be probably fucked.

File: Bolo.jpg (135KB, 1400x700px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1400x700px

I'll take the one which can fight entire planets all on its own.

>>30762664
>Tour de France 1944

>>30763744
depression and elevation are literally two seperate words you mongoloid

>Gets stuck anywhere that isn't a road specifically designed for it's weight
>when the transmission breaks down after ten miles, it's too heavy to tow back, and too heavy to replace in the field without a dedicated structure around it and a crane
>multiple tanks that are actually useful can be fielded for the same price
>unless you are trying to engage naval ships with a tank, the only thing a larger gun accomplishes is piss off the loader, require specialty ammo, and carrying less ammo

>>30763892
I see what you did there.

Something about a cat.

>>30765287
Atheism and theism are two different words as well you fat fedora tipping autist.

I recall a tv program where a tank designer said that to protect a tank from the entire theatre of threats would take 150 tons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-to-Shore_Connector

I think this could take on 70 tons of arms and armor, and it hovers above the ground, so mines would be less effective.

>>30765001
What you see there is a bolo being used inappropriately. A bolo is a mobile anti-orbital platform, its primary purpose is to carry a gun big enough to shoot down an orbiting starship while being able to move out of the way of standoff kinetic response. Of course, once you have something that big, it kinda makes sense to armor it up to withstand the inevitable near misses. And to give it enough secondary guns to deal with anything that might be put down to kill it off. And once you've got a mass of armor and guns that big, your commander can rarely exercise the kind of self control required to not throw it out as a line breaker.

TL;DR. A bolo is basically a mobile anti air unit that targets supporting orbital units instead of atmospheric. People just keep using it against ground targets because it's convenient. Kinda like a Shilka.

>>30762553

Bad idea when Hitler tried them, bad idea still.

Any one of these fucking things would just sink underground because of its own weight.

>>30762668
Hellfires penetrate at least 1m of RHA armor are you fuckin retarded

You guys realized were just all arguing with one superheavy retard right

>>30762553
They're a waste of resources.

File: 000-GBU-10-B-1A.jpg (97KB, 768x714px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 768x714px

>>30762642
>there simply aren't weapons in place to counter a giant tank.

the Paveway family would like to have a word with you.

>>30762553
Cool but ultimately useless

>>30762553

>single seat prop plane flys over
>drops napalm on it

gg

>>30766337
>People just keep using it against ground targets because it's convenient
Independent, nearly invincible vehicle which can engage any sort of targets and kept sustained in fight by just giving it water to power its automatic death rays is definitely not something that you just call "convenient".

>>30762572
Incredibly easy target for artiller and airpower, which will always, and easily outgun a tank. By making it super heavy, you give up the tank's advantage against these arms: mobility and dispersion.

>>30762674
>Or are you going to hit it with a torpedo?
Sure. Load it onto a truck, strap a brick to the accelerator or just Allahu Snackbar it. What's the tank going to do, take evasive maneuvers?

>>30762893
>Big enough to just ford rivers.
Hell no. It'd bog in the soft earth around them. Hell, it'd bog in any terrain that wasn't concrete.

>>30767078
Through conventional artillery means of 'tank is in this area, put enough fire into it that it is destined to hit and no possibility of missing'

File: 1298462524927.jpg (66KB, 360x227px)

66KB, 360x227px

>>30766074
>gets told about using the wrong words
>spergs out and throws insults rather than realising he was wrong

Up and down appear to be difficult concepts for you.

>>30762857
>>30762697
>>30762781
the truth is the ratte by specification had a lighter feet than a sherman. retards talking shit about how it would get stuck have no idea what they are talking about. also why would it use bridges when it can ford most rivers easily? also it's land speed was not areal hindrance in the dynamics of the war at large it could been in stalingrad from berlin in 2 weeks basically. it also had it's own builtin air defense much like a ship does.

so no the vulnerability and cumbersomeness is overstated. but the truth is if you used all that steel to make pz4s or panthers you are better off have more tactical capability.

>>30762575
The Bob Semple.

Don't ever fuck with New Zealand, we'll take you down.

What about super LIGHT tanks? Big gun on a small, fast, and light vehicle?

>>30765001
>not taking planet-sized tanks instead
They could travel through the galaxy with giant engines and use their tracks to literally crush planets or suns instead.

Like Galaxy Tanks.

>>30768488
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M56_Scorpion
This is pretty much what you're talking about. From my grandfather's experience with them, they're not a good idea

>M56 brought in for the National Guard unit to test out
>Assemble everyone
>ask for volunteers
>everyone raises hand, one guy gets picked
>gets on it, puts eye on eyepiece, aims, and fires
>entire machine lifts up off the ground and is dropped a couple feet back
>guy gets off
>has black eye
>ask for more volunteers
>no hands raised

At a certain point, a machine is just too light to practically mount a large gun.

>>30766857
Tanks dont give a shit about fire on the outside.

>>30769511

>being this retarded

>>30762572
In the age of BVR warfare they don't stand a chance.

>>30762803
Is... is that James May?

>>30770197
No, but whomever he is, he's 1000% done with this shit.

>>30762682
I'm pretty sure DARPA has that covered.

>>30766520
Lasers and rail guns require a ridiculous power supply to use, and only the former can be used without a lengthy amount of time to fire once again. While I wont knock the merits of mobile CRAM and CIWS style weapons you forfeit their offensive abilities.

>>30770439
>While I wont knock the merits of mobile CRAM and CIWS style weapons you forfeit their offensive abilities.

No I will knock the merits of mobile CRAM and CIWS, you're better off relying on air cover and other anti-air capabilities than relying on a tank to do the job, when really it just slows it down, adds more shit to break, leads to over-engineering, and wastes gas and valuable space.

File: 1377377681899.jpg (610KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

610KB, 1440x900px

>>30762553
Instead of Super Heavy Tank what about Super Heavy Mobile Artillery?

>>30762624
They estimate that they can drop 5 tons just from swapping out copper cabling in most of the systems for fiber.

>>30762715
I don't think you understand how ground pressure works, anon.

>>30762695
>20inches of metal
>30mph

Physics wept.

This thing is going to go 30mph only if you drop it off a cliff. Try 3mph on flat ground unless you want to shred your entire transmission into pieces within a minute.

>>30771268
That is a lot of wiring.

>>30771327
All that cladding and shielding they add to wire bundles adds up quick, especially when they need really thick wiring to move data around. They use 6-wire plugs just to move voice comms around, so imagine what they use for a video feed.

>>30771396
That makes more sense since I was thinking of 5 tons of just the copper for the wires itself.

>>30762553
Physics, math, and logic all say they are trash.

>>30771417
Yeah, they don't do things by halves, but fiber also removes most of the vulnerabilities that required that much shielding in the first place, so the only copper that'd have to be run would just be to power everything.

It will be interesting to see what happens if they decide to mount a bigger gun than the 120mm though. I think I saw something from the 80's where they drew up plans to give it a 140mm gun and came up with a 90 ton monstrosity, and that was back when the original was only 56 tons.

No, See Guided munitions.

>>30771547
I know near nothing about electrical wiring, is the shielding supposed to be due to the power going through the wires to to protect the wires from external things?

>>30771685
EMP and other forms of electromagnetic interference tend to screw with electronics. There's also fairly extensive ruggedization to protect the wiring from physical damage(i.e. trying to make it grunt-proof), but EMP is the biggest concern.

>>30771123
Dont forget its also submersible and a factory

File: 12467505025_08555be0f0_b.jpg (228KB, 1024x640px)

228KB, 1024x640px

Hey guys what's goin on in this thread

>>30769598
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiWCpIJ5dBw

but he's right you idiot 18:20 seconds.

>>30771841
By removing any aerial and immediate ground threats

>>30772062
>all tanks are air tight
>napalm wasnt used against german tanks in ww2
>napalm wasnt used against iraqi tanks in gulf war

>>30772557

Now you know the scam that's being played on us.

>>30762553
Sexy, but impractical.

>>30762843
>You fuckers are all forgetting one thing: Hajiis don't have CAS. It would be a terrific demoraliser.
I keep thinking this as well. Why not build a super heavy tank for enemies like ISIS. If existing anti tank weapons can't penetrate it they aren't capable of designing new ones that can. You could deny them critical cities and locations just by sending a few super heavy tanks.

It wouldn't really be any harder than building a small ship, if you used existing parts costs would be low.

>>30763754
This. So upseting

>>30762920
What is gun depression?

>no zoloft for my SKS

File: image.jpg (38KB, 318x461px)

38KB, 318x461px

>>30773250
But they do have a Toyota Camry filled with 500 pounds worth of explosives and no fear of death.

Just send like 20 vbied's blow up underneath

File: 1469248808463.jpg (963KB, 1500x1044px)

963KB, 1500x1044px

>>30773636
that's why you add multiple turrets/sponsons

File: IMG_1389.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>30773655
So you just end up making a baneblade?

File: T-35_model_1935.jpg (1018KB, 1897x1275px) Image search: [Google]

1018KB, 1897x1275px

>>30773681
what about a T-35 with a better engine, additional armor and covered in ERA?

>>30772600
>tanks in ww2
>iraqi tanks
We're talking about imaginary superheavy tanks, it can be designed any way that tanks are designed now. So yes, it would be airtight, because why the heck would it be made otherwise.

>>30771187

>I know literally nothing about power requirements: the post

>>30773250
They don't have CAS but they do have a ton of ATGMs, rpgs, explosives, artillery, and manpower.

>>30762572
the battle between armor and weapon, weapons always win. Its exponentially easier to make a weapon that can breach a super heavy tank than it is to make a super heavy tank.

The usa found this out the hard way with their MRAPs. They said "boy these IEDs sure are fucking our shit up, it would be nice if we had an IED proof vechicle." and so they orded that MRAPs be made. Then ragheads immediately started using explosively formed penetrators instead and all that additional MRAP armor was completely useless.

>>30773885
The same thing happened to knights back in the mideval ages. They said "boy these swords sure are fucking my shit up, it would be nice if I had a fancy suit I could wear that would stop that."

And so they ordered a bunch of plate armor be made that weighed like 70 fucking pounds, and peasants just cut right through it with a simple longbow. Its a fucking curved stick with a string on it. All that armor; useless.

>>30762553
Why build 1 super tank when you can build 15 low profile tanks?

>>30773930
Why build 15 tanks when you can build 1 Captain [spoiler]Capitalist[/spoiler]

>>30773806
>They don't have CAS but they do have a ton of ATGMs, rpgs, explosives, artillery, and manpower.
They can't penetrate frontal armor on MBTs with modern composites. It wouldn't work against a conventional military because they would just build more powerful RPGs but ISIS and similar groups don't have the luxury of being able to design new anti-tank missiles or use anti ship missiles.

I don't think a VBIED would be able to destroy it, they don't really penetrate thick armor and it would be too heavy to knock over. Even then a baneblade type thing would have multiple autocannon turrets to prevent being engaged at close range.

The other advantage is because it's no threat to a conventional army you could just let local allies drive them. While something like a B1B you can't exactly give Iraq a couple and tell them to go wreck ISIS non stop.

File: Dump Truck VBIED.jpg (133KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1280x720px

>>30774024
>I don't think a VBIED would be able to destroy it
They would need a super heavy VBIED.

File: DRIVE ME CLOSER.jpg (70KB, 599x400px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 599x400px

>>30762553

>>30767424
>but the truth is if you used all that steel to make pz4s or panthers you are better off have more tactical capability.

Pretty much.
It wasn't bad as in unusable. It was workable, great even.
But just like Yamato on the weeb side of the world, one soldier/machine is simply not going to win the war.

>>30774092
That's a big truck.

>>30774097
You need the other one you know the super heavy assault transport.

File: SiegeTank_SC2-WoL_Story1.jpg (124KB, 973x720px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 973x720px

Why not have tank that can become a howitzer?

>>30774473
>Yuo see Ivan.....

File: Arclite.jpg (9KB, 340x270px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 340x270px

>>30774473
CRUCIO A SHIT

>>30762705
I have never seen a tank operate the post.

MBT:s get stuck. They can't use bridges because to heavy etc.
When it needs repairs what will move it to the rear area?

>>30774473
Metal Gear, the missing link between infantry and artillery

>>30774092
>make tank so big any VBIED big enough to damage it can be seen from miles away
>decorate with guns
>ISIS problem solved
Someone contact the US military

>tfw armor development will NEVER outpace ballistics ever again
>everything is doomed to be designed smaller, sleeker and gayer
>we will never have spess muhreen walking tanks or billion ton warships

>>30774897
>NEVER
don't say that anon, armor had it pretty good when 3rd gem MBTs with composite armor first game out

File: som4.jpg (121KB, 800x600px)

121KB, 800x600px

>>30774893
walking base from armoured core iv "spirit of mother"

>>30762575
fuck ya
10/10ign

>>30768606
Use a bigger engine. It adds weight and make it faster

The problem with ultra heavy tanks is the one no one is addressing. Let's say you do build a tank that is all but impervious to aircraft and artillery, you still have those soft squishy people manning the inside. Even if the tank was operational after getting hit with massive ordnance, that doesn't mean the people inside are.

>>30774966
Or you could just drop napalm on the tanks. You don't have to blow the vehicle to hell, just make the crew ineffective. Drop enough napalm on the tank and you'll cook the crew inside.

>>30774966
lots and lots of spaced armor
A crew compartment doesn't need to be much bigger that of an abrams while the exterior can be the size of a baneblade

>>30762705
>my tank has low pressure, that means it weighs very little!

File: JesusChristHowHorrifying.png (116KB, 400x460px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 400x460px

>>30774092
>VIBED final evolution bossfight second phase

File: Legio_Invicta_Warlord.jpg (50KB, 600x763px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x763px

At some point, we just have to admit that the only way forward is to build titans.

The US doesn't seem as enthused with bipedal giant robots, so I'm pinning my hopes on the Japanese.

I'd just like to remind everyone that mbt's sometimes weigh more than all including the heaviest tank put into production during ww2, and still zip around faster than fast cars of the era

>>30773681
BEEHHNNBLEYYDE

File: heavyobject1stats.jpg (114KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1280x720px

>>30775018
Naw dude Titans are too slow and cumbersome, Objects are the way to go.

>>30775018
We always thought mecha would come from the stars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guMumPFBag

File: metalboxes.png (34KB, 1043x890px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 1043x890px

What about building it like this? By using electric drive and integrating everything inside the wheels you could make it nearly impossible to stop it from moving. This sort of thing has become popular on modern ships, use multiple external pods with electric motors instead of complex gearing.

>>30774893

...

I hate to tell you this, but the military already thought about that very concept and then ultimately decided it wasn't worth it:

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681938/is-this-hybrid-tank-the-future-of-american-warfare

But congratulations on stumbling upon something that was sane enough to actually be considered.

>>30774473
>>30774493

>Called Siege "Tanks"
>Can't take a hit worth shit

Why not make them dedicated artillery platforms at this point?

>>30771756
Wasn't it also an aircraft carrier/transport as well?

I remember just powering through just to build them. By the time my opponents got to Tier 3 I had at least one ready to go.

File: worry.jpg (511KB, 1500x1864px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 1500x1864px

>>30773655

>>30774977

That's not how it works, they can drive the fuck away on fire and it will go out eventually, napalm isn't that cool vs armored things.

>>30775446

massive machine makes lateral movement to dodge monster/missile/whatever, 20gs in the cockpit, pilots dead. Ok

>>30762711
Now we just need to attach this to a glider

>>30773729
it had inccidences of rollong on its sides from fireing its traversed turret

>>30775760
>external magazines
Whatcouldpossiblygowrong.jpg

>>30774832
Metal Gear?!

>>30775777
They are up against gargantuan aliens with acid that can melt through anything. Or an advanced alien species with high powered energy weapons designed to cut through even shields.

>>30772557
It's all about joint warfare, they tried to do the whole "airpower winning the war" thing back in WWII and it was retarded, you need to have ground and naval forces as well.

>>30762553
T H I C C

More armor than super light tanks

>>30775801
Sand niggers and Ukrainians used molotovs to take out MBTs and APCs. A napalm strike is pretty large too. IIRC, a Vietnam era Mark 47 could lay down fire over 100m long and 8m across. I wouldn't quote me on that, but I remembering hearing that somewhere.

>>30778364
you can survive a 100G if it's very short time plane crashlands for example

>>30762572
In addition to what everyone else has said, they consume resources that could be better spent building numerous smaller, conventional tanks.

There's literally nothing you can do to a vehicle to make it impossible to destroy, ESPECIALLY a huge, heavy, slow vehicle that presents a huge, slow, easy target. The Nazis found this out, all their wonderweapons did nothing, and they didn't have enough of the semi-reliable, useful equipment, which they could have had if they didn't waste incredible amounts of time and resources to build one off, "super" weapons.

Basically, if you build ten conventional tanks, and someone drops some bombs on them, you'll probably have at least one or two functional tanks left. If someone drops some bombs on a single "heavy" tank, well, you've probably just lost a tank and wasted all of that steel and man power.

>>30762642
How much concussion do you think the crew will handle after air power has dropped a few 2000lb bombs on your "land battleship?" Or how about 11 tons of TNT in one go with a MOAB?

That's giving in to your assumption that the tank would be invulnerable to explosives itself, which is asinine. Even if you didn't penetrate the armor, you're at a minimum going to get a mobility kill and destroy any external sensors. With something as heavy as a "super tank," changing tracks isn't going to be something a single crew can do by themselves quickly or easily.

You don't have to penetrate the armor of a tank to take it out of action. Hell, you don't even have to target the tank. Drop a bomb or a few 155mm shells on every fuel truck you see and it will be out of action in less than a day.

>>30762682
What makes you think organizations like DARPA aren't?

File: char2c.jpg (103KB, 1100x458px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1100x458px

>ctrl+f char
>0 Results

File: Type-61-uc-hardgraph.jpg (94KB, 761x506px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 761x506px

I guess since we're on the topic of fictional tanks, why haven't we developed multi-barrel tanks yet?

>Pic related

>>30779553
too busy eliminating "Don't Ask Don't Tell" so a homosexual tendency in a platoon can legally be EVERYONE'S problem.

File: 800px-Gefechtsfeld-Versuchsträger_GVT_04.jpg (64KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x532px

>>30779553
>yet

It's suck. Same as multi-turrets.

File: 1448726397675.jpg (888KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

888KB, 1920x1080px

>>30779553
It's another case of 'we can by why should we'.

File: FCMMockUp.jpg (67KB, 654x371px)

67KB, 654x371px

>>30762553
Useless in most circumstances but cool nonetheless.

>>30775018
Unless you can bring the mobility and carry weight up to par without killing the pilot, don't get your hopes up about Titans or Gundams coming to future battlefields.

>>30779580
Multi-track tanks like that would be a good design.

If a modern tank loses a track, it's a mobility kill. But with 4 tracks and 3 operational, you can still crawl away.

>>30779607
Maintenance on those things would be pure hell, I would not envy that man's job.

>>30779619
Why? I don't mean independantly swivelling track housings (like on the scorpion in Halo), I just mean two tracks on each side instead of one.

>>30767078
Railguns and lasers aren't going to do shit to airpower. Missiles have an absurdly higher range, move faster, and are already a viable technology and airpower is still important.

>>30779553
Because they're dumb and impractical

Also enjoy needing an autoloader and going kaboom.

File: STII.jpg (70KB, 800x552px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 800x552px

>>30779553
Because they're a shitty idea.

>>30779607

>I have never had to deal with a tank throwing a track on the field: the post.

More mechanical complexity due to the two new extra axis needed for the two set of tracks, which means higher maintenance hours, more breaking points and for you to actually need another set of tracks you'd need to have a prohibitively heavy tank.

>>30774092
The end of nearly every A-Team episode.

>>30774473
I never understood how the fuck this model shoot
I know the elite version have a dual 90mm cannon, but the part where it fire in siege mode still a mystery

>>30774897
the obvious problem is you can never put enough armor to defeat the latest armor-piercing ammunition

>>30780918
He already said that, why are you echoing him with a slight re-phrase? Congenital faggotry? Autism?

This thread fuels my hate for 40k fans

File: IMAG0635.jpg (192KB, 1500x846px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1500x846px

>>30782199
Why bump it then.

>>30775779
Nah, you're thinking of the Atlantis. That's a Fatboy.

File: Imperial_Crassus_Armoured_Assault_Transport.png (1MB, 916x653px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 916x653px

>>30774293

>>30775793
kek that guy is fucking clueless

>>30779570
Interested in meeting up?

File: WhyDontTanksHaveTwoGuns.jpg (2MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2000px

>>30779553
Been tried and they do not offer any real benefit.

>>30773885
/thread

this is exactly it, right here. In modern warfare, armour is of little value. A super heavy tank with armour thick enough to withstand shots from SABOTS fired from an Abrams wouldn't last very long. The resources required to double the penetrating power of the main gun are a tiny fraction of the resources required to double armour strength.

This is why evasion is more important in modern combat. Did planes get more armour? No, they went for stealth, so that radar tracking missiles can't hit them.

Did they build bigger and heavier ships? No, they're building stealth ships.

What about ground warfare? If the US develops a new tank it won't have heavier armour than the Abrams, it will have stealth capabilities, or the ability to engage targets at longer ranges than the enemy - which is what they already do. The Abrams wins battles not because its gun and armour are heavier, but because it can accurately fire at targets very far away while moving, while most tanks can't hit it at that range.

File: mammoth.png (147KB, 800x443px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 800x443px

>>30779553
>tfw no Mammoth Mk. 1

>>30779553
The increase in hit probability is insufficient to justify the massive increase in weight and internal space needed.

File: 1361569619114.jpg (223KB, 711x2000px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 711x2000px

>>30784812
>A super heavy tank with armour thick enough to withstand shots from SABOTS fired from an Abrams wouldn't last very long.

Those tanks exist and Abrams is one of them. If anything with recent improvements with APS and ERA functioning against long rod penetrators armor is becoming more viable.
There is a reason why Rhinemetal is introducing a new 130mm gun.

File: do not trust B1 he is a CHAR.jpg (151KB, 1024x763px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1024x763px

>>30779482
Char?

>>30774198
4 u

>>30762553
Really dumb. Tanks are supposed to be used like cavalry in quick, sweeping attacks. Super-heavy tanks can't do that, and are vulnerable to air attack.

ELEVEN BARRELS OF HELL!

>>30762575
Looks like something you'd see rolling around Syria.

File: image.jpg (594KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 1536x2048px

>>30784951
One of the 1st games I played and the first time fielded those babys oh man magic

>>30762587
We already do. We have for a while. Google AMAP-ADS, Trophy, Iron Fist, andQuick-Kill.

>>30786157
Those Tau mechs don't seem familiar.
Neither are the SM

>>30762553
Pointless. Unless we came up with a good hoover technology.

>>30775779
Fatboys are great. I don't think they can carry aircraft, but they can refuel/rearm them and repair them using those two big squares on the top.

File: superheavy.jpg (43KB, 564x444px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 564x444px

Wait for an alternative means of power, development of some sort of anti-gravity field propulsion and they will come.

The Ontos was the greatest Tank Destroyer ever made, prove me wrong.

>>30786632
Those are Skitarrii, not Space Marines

>>30787034
And the Tau-thingies?

>>30787018
And what is this HELLO-YOU-PIECE-OF-BEAUTY?

>>30785088
That ignorant picture needs to be purged from reposting.

>>30762719
>>can be only in one place at once

yeah what a unique and crippling flaw of superheavy tanks

certainly no other piece of military equipment suffers from such a careless oversight

>>30787355
KV128 Stormsurge

>>30773906
Bernard Cornwall pls go.

Plate weighed around 45 pounds, and longbows could not penetrate except at extremely close ranges, even with bodkins.

Plate died when guns became commonplace and effective, and even then metal armor stayed around in some form.

impractical, but cool

>>30787032
It would probably have been shit at actually being a tank destroyer, but it was a pretty good infantry support weapon.

>>30784812
Except that modern MBTs have ridiculously strong front armor. Almost every tank can shoot on the move about as well as the abrams.

Far as I know, almost nothing can penetrate the frontal turret of any decent MBT.