Would old WWI style tanks, such as a British Mark V (pick related),

It's slow and unreliable as fuck.
Its design is a hundred years old, it's far obsolete by now.

>>31883368
Go home Civ 5, youre drunk.

>The Sposons should allow for the careful protection of the tank from all angles

Except you know, to the direct front of the tank.

Or to any elevation to the sides of the tank.

Or to the entire rear of the tank.

Oh and that massive exposed elevated track, that's not RPG food at all.

What's that? Nice flat front with the driver sitting at the perfect height to be hit with every incoming shot? Sounds great.

File: 197769_md-Baneblade, Imperial Guard, Super-heavy, Tank.jpg (47KB, 709x531px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 709x531px

Why dont we just build this, op?
How many crewman? How big is this target?
Nah, not a good idea. Land battleships are not around for a reason.

Not only no, a resounding hell no.

>>31883417
>what is infantry support?
You're not going into the city without friends, right anon?

>>31883396
Idiot, OP said upgraded design. So not using 100 year old engines and metal.

>>31883368
Kinda a kickass idea, but seriously man, exposed treads? WTF?!

>>31883428
>infantry are going to block or take out a rpg on the other end of the street before he has chance to fire

>big flat steel deathtrap
>RKG3s hit the top
>RPGs hit sides
Most of all
>IEDs

File: WyWtdX2.png (318KB, 521x960px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 521x960px

>>31883441
The soviets did it.

But seriously, consider the uses, as well as the downsides, of a tank in that style.

>>31883464

Infantry protection means that the soldiers use their guns to shoot anybody trying to point a rocket towards the tank.

>>31883464
>hey, Achmed, we're just duct taping you to the front of this very flat piece of armor
Pros:
>Looks Cool
Cons:
>Everything else

>>31883428
You seem to be missing the point that a modern tank has already solved these problems.

>>31883486
Reactive armor, anyone?

>>31883368
Adopting it to the modern battlefield would entail a few possibilities:
Sponson guns need to go. Better options (mix and match): Firing ports, pintle mounted MG or grenade launcher, or open-topped.
Main casemated gun needs to go. Better options: Pintle mounted gun or turret-mounted autocannon with coaxial MG.
You don't need fuckhuge trench-crossing treads for urban combat. Either cut them down to size, or simply replace them with wheels.

Congratualtions, you have now created a functional urban combat vehicle, otherwise known as an IFV.

>>31883428

Uh, you don't get to bring friends.

>>31883502
>reactive armor on a big ol brick
It would be a shame, if, if the tracks were the main target of attacks.

>>31883420
>Built $30 million, 300 ton land battleship
>200mm main gun
>8 HMGs
>2 120mm guns
>Crew of 13
>Get nailed with 1 AGM-65 maverick and explode

>>31883527
Well that's your problem dipshit.
You forgot to put the CIWS And sea sparrow launchers on.

>>31883545
This reminds me of that movie about the development of the bradley

>>31883527
just add more armor, dipshit

>>31883368
>The Sposons should allow for the careful protection of the tank from all angles, and give it the ability to engage multiple targets at once

So does a normal turret.

>>31883420
>TFW used to chat with the guy who built and painted that particular Baneblade model

Dude was in some euro army armored division if I remember right.

>>31883573
Now we need a bigger engine.

Shall we add a transport compartment?

>>31883368
Absolutely, and for fun you can even put a turret on top too.

>>31883527
If you could get the armor light enough while strong enough we'd have land battleships today

>>31883511
This is all terrible advise.

>>31883518
>Uh, you don't get to bring friends.
>Assaulting a position with no infantry assets to hold said position

You're an extremely poor tactician...

>>31883502
>"Ouch!"

>>31883591
no, more guns
what are you, an infantryman?

>>31883615
No fucktard

>>31883621
4 u

>>31883625
At most this thing would shit out 5 guys... when it already has a crew of 13ish. Tactically acceptable.

>>31883647
No what? What are you trying to convey besides a petty insult?

>>31883368
>Mark V
>Weight: 29 tons
>Armour
>16 mm (0.63 in) maximum front
>12 mm sides
>8 mm roof and "belly"

>Penetration
>PG-7V 260 mm RHA
>PG-7VR 600 mm RHA (with reactive armor)
i have bad news for you.

>>31883523
just loop more meaty reactive armor over the top.
and give some of them rifles, too

>>31883677
Read the post, manufactured with modern equipment and technologies in the pattern of a mark 5.

>>31883677
just add more armor, anon. It should be easy, what with a non-shit engine installed.

Don't tell me you're not going to modernize the design, and would just put a WW1 tank in a modern battlefield to decry it's weaknesses

>>31883667
What the fuck were you trying to convey fucktard. Explain your stupid opinion so I cna tell you why you are wrong fucking shit

>>31883695
> in the pattern of a mark 5.
Then you obviously still get... pattern mark 5.

>>31883368
Nahh. Having your sensors and gun up high in a rotating turret offers too many advantages. It really is that simple. The closer your boom boom is to the top of the silhouette, the less of your vehicle you need to expose.

>>31883706
It is already 29 tons with still tin can armor. you need to increase its armor 20 times! to get something remotely close to protected vechicle

>>31883695
>flat armor everywhere
>exposed tracks
>blindspots
The weight alone would make this thing MAUS tier unless we're talking about unobtainium that is everything proof while still being paper thin.

>>31883714
Using a pattern does not mean you have to use the same materials. Just because I'm making a gun in the pattern of an M1 Garand does not mean I won't add features where appropriate.

>>31883586
This. Theres a reason why we stopped using sponsons

>>31883735
>>31883731

I might just be I, but it seems that if you made a modern variant, a lot of the weight (in parts, structural components, modern guns, THE ENGINE, gearbox, treads, and fuel) would suddenly be freed up for required things like armor and a chucklefuck up top with a machinegun

>>31883790
You know tanks weigh more now right

>>31883740
So you increased protection from 12mm to 36mm using modern materials.
>260-600mm
You are still 1700-4700% short .

>>31883708
>What the fuck were you trying to convey fucktard.
That your advise should be disregarded, was that not clear?

>>31883735
>flat armor everywhere
Correct. Besides the sloping effect came and went, it's largely negligible unless you want your sides at 45 degrees or less.
>exposed tracks
Then slap some platting over them, this isn't complicated.
>blindspots
Like there's an armored vehicle in existence that doesn't have this problem. If you're that worried set up some cameras.

File: mark v.jpg (43KB, 708x310px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 708x310px

>>31883368
Say what you want, these tanks are
a e s t h e t i c

I'd rather bring back flamethrower tanks. They already managed to shoot burning liquids for almost 100 meters during WWII, imagine what they could do today.

>>31883782
A sever lack of trenches.
However single turrets can not direct fire in more than one place, there for sponsons would serve this purpose better in an urban environment being able to direct fire in multiple directions at once, being very effective in securing intersections. Preferably both designs are used to maximize effectiveness.

>>31883812
Yes, but that's spare weight that can be sent towards armor, and this naysayer seems to think that 29 tons is too much

>>31883819
So, how are you making the armor 600mm+ thick and not running into weight issues?
How are you protecting these large and tall tracks that are ABOVE the turrets making this thing profile like a motherfucker?
>Urban combat
>blindspots that our guns cant hit are totally fine guys

File: A1E1-Vickers-Independent-2.jpg (136KB, 707x376px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 707x376px

>>31883368
No. The sponsons main gun cannot fire directly forward and cannot fire to the sides or backwards, a multi turreted design would be better (although still pretty stupid) as you can get a much wider field of fire, meaning you need less guns to cover the same area. There was no separate compartment for the engine, meaning everyone in the tank is going to get gassed. Worse of all there is no suspension meaning that going any speed over walking is going to shake the crew to death.

>>31883874
Again, you seem to think replacing the older parts with newer ones is lighter.

The newer parts are much, much heavier.

>>31883865
Besides, sponsons are aesthetic as fuck

>>31883819
>Like there's an armored vehicle in existence that doesn't have this problem. If you're that worried set up some cameras.

You're completely stupid.

>>31883897
>what is 100 years of metallurgical and engineering improvement?

>>31883865
>because having multiple tanks is completely out of the question

>>31883875
>So, how are you making the armor 600mm+ thick and not running into weight issues?
Does the abrams run into issues? If so learn from that.
>How are you protecting these large and tall tracks that are ABOVE the turrets
Armored plates.
>making this thing profile like a motherfucker?
Why would I do that? It's meant to engage in urban areas, the surroundings will protect it enough, in the environment it will be engaging in no amount of profiling will help.
>Urban combat
>not having infantry support

>>31883906
I used to throw fits when I lost an argument too anon, but I grew out of it.
>>31883918
What does that have to do with anything?

>>31883890
In addition the weight required to protect it from RPGs from all directions would make it so heavy it would break most modern roads (unless it has super wide tracks that would be very easy to knock out) and it could not cross any bridges. The heavy tank died in the 60s and is not going to come back, unless some massive technological breakthrough in armour is made.

>>31883875
Idiot, you're shooting down roads and into buildings with this thing. It isn't much larger than an Abrams, either. In fact, if you include the turret, the Abrams is only 8 inches shorter.

File: challenger2.jpg (229KB, 1280x852px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1280x852px

>>31883368
>Flat surfaces were in danger of penetration, proper armoring would be too bulky and heavy.
Solution: Slope that shit
>sponsons gave a limited angle and limited the firepower you can put on a tank for 360 degree coverage, taking into account space for the crew.
Solution: Put main gun on a turret
>Tread design lacked speed and mobility, though they contributed to successful pushes, their survival rate was piss poor. Their slow speeds would make them easy targets for anti-tank guns (especially in today's world of missiles and shit), or they would get stuck trying to cross a trench.
Solution: Christie suspension. Though you sacrifice your precious side sponsons as a result.

And so, OP, I give you your "British Mark V with modern enhancements" tank.

>>31883971
Or, and here's a thought but bear with me.
We use reactive armor, or maybe one of those anti-rpg cages?

>>31883976
>Solution: Slope that shit
Doesn't matter anymore, most munitions will penetrate anyway.
>Solution: Put main gun on a turret
Why not both?
>Solution: Christie suspension. Though you sacrifice your precious side sponsons as a result.
Pass, I'm sure there's something else going on the market.

>>31883931
>A beefed up Mk. V will weigh the same as an Abrams
OOOoooohhhh boy. The Mk. V was already 30tons and it's thickest armor was 16mm.
>tracks
So armored plates extended over the tracks that won't increase weight? Neat.
>this thing that won't take a hit well at all will be able to take hits because I say so
>>31883948
>we need a tank that can shoot 2 directions at once
>forget having multiple tanks like usual
>this is a lone wolf tank that needs no support
>>31883975
Explain to me how the two side turrets will be able to shoot at a target directly in front of the tank.

>>31883971
Once again, what is infantry support? You aren't going to get your tank surrounded, right anon?

But seriously, this thing would need A LOT of weight before the treads stop spreading it out, and even then, why does the tank care?

File: 1411991791097_Image_galleryImage.jpg (53KB, 634x356px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 634x356px

>>31883677

You know, because Bradley and Stryker units were annihilated in their ventures to the Middle East.

All these people in this thread are forgetting that the Arabs are already fielding vehicles that make the Mark V look modern in comparison, and succeeding with them. RPGs aren't nearly as commonly encountered as the TV would have you believe, accounting for less than 10% of fatalities caused. A bigger, more realistic threat is roadside IEDs and the fact the MK series has no provisions against that type of weapon.

File: quote-if-we-come-to-a-minefield-our-infantry-attacks-exactly-as-it-were-not-there-georgy-zhukov-74-43-60.jpg (68KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 850x400px

>>31883480
And sadly their bodies as well. This from the same organization that used infantry troops to clear minefields.

>>31883981
Reactive armour is expensive, so that pretty much rules that out. The cage may work, although only when fighting against infantry, if they have any degree of non heat AT weaponry, you a skrewed. Although I do not know how effective it is reality, as I don't pay to much attention to modern AFVs. A multi turreted design would still be better.

>>31884002
>OOOoooohhhh boy. The Mk. V was already 30tons and it's thickest armor was 16mm.
If the abrams can do it the new age mark V will manage.
>was already 30tons.
New age technology and manufacturing methods will surely cut down on this.
>So armored plates extended over the tracks that won't increase weight? Neat.
Never said that, Just don't care.

>we need a tank that can shoot 2 directions at once
>forget having multiple tanks like usual
>this is a lone wolf tank that needs no support
Never even implied that, just want a better urban tank.

>>31884002
By either pointing forward, or, get this, turning the tank ever-so-slightly.
And that's presuming you find another tank in the middle of Syria.

>>31884025
>Reactive armour is expensive, so that pretty much rules that out.
Like that ever stopped the military before.

>A multi turreted design would still be better.
I disagree, mobility and vision in an urban setting are already limited.

>>31883591
Forget a transport compartment. Build a compartment around that engine so the crew isn't huffing fumes all day long. Extra space should be dealt with by shrinking the vehicle*, not by finding new crap to put into an already bloated package. Height should be reduced; the numerous standing crewmen will be eliminated save for 3-5 crewmen in reclined seats. Add a turret or a remote pedestal mount. Arm that turret or pedestal with a 2A28 Grom, fed by a faster and more reliable autoloader, plus a 12.7 or 14.5 coaxial MG. Eliminate the sponsons or reduce them to low-profile blisters.

*this will help counter the weight gain imposed by modern armor - the less of those huge sides you have, the better

>>31883368
>Mark V pattern
>Viable

Not with the advancements in air and long-range weaponry. The Mark V was designed with trench warfare in mind, and it is tactics and doctrines alone that have made this pattern obsolete.

Also the Wermacht figured out in the early days of WWII that lighter, faster tanks that could run circles around these slow lumbering coffins was the counter.

The tracks are one of the most vulnerable parts of a tank and you want to essentially wrap the thing in the one item when gets damaged is a mobility kill and very shortly thereafter a total kill?

>>31884018
The Grand army of the Potomac had a solution for this, have the pows go first.

File: Tog_II.jpg (15KB, 450x183px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 450x183px

>>31883976

Wrong, actually. The TOG II is the last direct descendant of the Mk. series, and probably a template on what to go by if we were to upgrade the tank further.

For the record OP, if you want an ancient tank model that wouldn't suck horribly, go for the Renault FT, specifically the FT M26/27, armed with a bushmaster and outfitted with a spall liner. It wouldn't be able to take any AT weapons, but until then you would be dominating the anything up to and including most IFVs.

>>31884028
>Increasing the armor thickness 38x to be on par with the Abrams
>coming in anywhere below 100tons
Alright.

>>31884039
>exposing the side of this thing and getting it cockeyed down a narrow street
Good thinking!

>>31884009
>>31884009
It started happening happing to tanks late war. If the roads break it means you will have to rebuild them later and cannot drive/transport it with ease.

A multi turreted design is still better and it needs suspension if you want to go any noteworthy speed.

>>31884039
If you're in a position where you're best defended with the best sides of your armor, you do not want to give that up by "turning the tank ever so slightly."

This alone is why sponsons went the way of the dodo.

>>31884072
That's tog1!

>>31883971
The heavy tank came back into favor, sort of - Anglo[UK + USA] MBT designs since the '70s have trended towards heavy weight. And right now, heavy Anglo MBTs have the best combat record.

>>31884077
>coming in anywhere below 100tons
Why not? The M1 is 65 tons.

>>31884015
Yes, and the thing is, a modernly made, up-armored, engined, and gunned Mark V would be excellent sale fodder for third world armies.

Just imagine it. A banana republic dictator spent his entire family fortune on 20 of these things, and now no rebel from there to Uganda can stand against him.

>>31884102

Adding to this, the M1 actually served a role analogous to heavy tanks during the first Gulf War, alongside the M60 and the Sheridan light tank.

>>31884108
Yeah, and the Mk. V is half that and it's armor is 1:38 the thickness. It won't travel on roads, bridges or anything but solid rock. It'll move at a brisk pace of 5 miles per hour and will be as smooth as riding a hardtail through a gravel quarry.

>>31884102
They are heavier MBTs not heavy tanks. Completely different design philosophy.

>>31884072
dear lord that tank is sooooo close to being sexy as hell.

>>31884143
Have you ever heard of upgrading, or are you just ignoring it to feel better about hashed out doctrine

>>31884018
This is actually a valid doctrine, especially if the enemy is laying lower-density deterrent minefields rather than high-density barrier minefields. It's better to just attack through the hazard, rather than let it shape your behavior in a predictable way that funnels you into a kill zone/

>>31884039
>And that's presuming you find another tank in the middle of Syria.
Are you out of your mind? Syria is full of T-72 variants, T-54/55 variants, and T-62 variants.

>>31884143
>the Mk. V is half that
Was half that. We aren't building the same Mk.V. Just using the pattern.

>>31884166
>upgraded steel weighs less because its on a Mk. V and not an abrams
Alright, sure, you win. This thing will travel like a Mercedes and weigh no more than one.

>>31884154
Seriously. That tank is dangerously sexy.

>>31884178
True. In that case, it still only takes a couple degrees of rotation to bring either cannon to bear. The driver can also signal to any riders that this is when they use the strapped-on RPGs

>>31884179
>shitty WWI steel weighs less than modern tank steel
>the thin armor is 1:38 in thickness to the abrams armor
As in we would need to build it with armor 38 times thicker than it was. And you're saying this will have no affect on the weight at all?

>>31884153
>They are heavier MBTs not heavy tanks. Completely different design philosophy.
As far as I know, the distinction that makes an MBT is not having separate medium weight and heavy weight tanks in inventory. Can you explain to me why I am wrong, preferably by breaking it down retard-style for me?

>people arguing about heavy tanks vs MBTs
>Not about sposnsons vs turret
>Very little mention of the lack of suspension
Wew lad

>>31884185
Do you seriously think that a Mk. V and an Abrams are built using the same metals, in both weight and quality?

No, fucktard, no.

>>31884203
A lot of things are going to effect the weight, like not using rivets or using a different engine design. By the end of it all it will probably be significantly lighter.

>>31884212
>Very little mention of the lack of suspension
Then a new suspension system will have to be designed, this isn't complicated.

>>31884200
>In that case, it still only takes a couple degrees of rotation to bring either cannon to bear.
That's true, but I still think you are missing the advantages of a top-mounted turret.

What is the internal volume and surface area of a Mark V?
I doubt you could have any significant armor improvement without running into weight issues as the Mark V already weighs 29t for 16mm of armor.

>>31884203
No, he's saying that it would not render the vehicle incapable of being used. Also, shut up about speed, the engine they used in the original had only 150 hp.

>>31884266
>Also, shut up about speed, the engine they used in the original had only 150 hp.
To be fair though a new engine is fairly high on the priority list, maybe even a new design entirely.

>>31884249
Fair, but in this case the sposons are dedicated mostly for dealing with side threats. This is a city sweeper, not a tank fighter.

>>31884222
That's what I'm saying you dense sonofabitch. Shitty WWI steel was far less dense than modern tank steel. Now, slap modern tank steel on a Mk. V (making it weigh more than 30T now) and increase its thickness x38

>>31884232
The tank has more metal sheets over it than the abrams, it's longer than the abrams. It weighs half of what an abrams weighs with shitty steel almost 40 times thinner than it.

>>31884266
>tanks aren't supposed to be faster than a cripple tortoise
K.

>>31884166
>>31884185

Reading the specifications of the TOG:

90 short tons; 81 tonnes for 62 mm (2.4 in) all around at a length of 10.1 m (33 ft 2 in) and width of 3.1 m (10 ft 2 in) compared to the Mk V's length of 25 ft 5 in (7.75 m) and a width of 13 ft 9 in (4.19 m)...

And as you can see, giving it thicker armor more than doubled its weight, and for what? .50 AP protection? Maybe 20mm? And lets pretend that instead of thickening it, we're going to outfit it with the Abram's composites to say, the protection rating of its sides to keep the weight the same (80 tons). Now it has 350 mm of protection all around effectively - around same as the T-64, give or take 20 mm. And now it isn't cheap anymore, because you're using cutting-edge modern composites.

And this still doesn't solve the fact that you're entirely vulnerable to IEDs.

>>31884298
>It weighs half of what an abrams weighs with shitty steel almost 40 times thinner than it.
So? We aren't using the same armor specs here. Hell we aren't even going to use the same manufacturing techniques.

>>31884248
If there's no room for the spring to contract, there is no suspension.

>>31883518
they're not my friends

>>31884209
The philosophy of a heavy tank was pretty much different for every nation . For the USA it was purely on weight, for the Germans and brits it was on roll. Although you are certainly not wrong, in the case of Americans. The Russians has heavy tanks and main battle tanks in the 60s and 50s

>>31884335
>If there's no room for the spring to contract, there is no suspension.
That's why it needs a new suspension design, we aren't building the same Mk. V here.

>>31884212
>>Not about sposnsons vs turret
That's because there is nothing to argue about, the question was answered long ago:
>>31883727
>Having your sensors and gun up high in a rotating turret offers too many advantages.

>>31884334
>a 600mm chunk of steel is going to weigh less on a Mk. V than it will on an M1 because it's not on the M1
What's heavier: a pound of steel or a pound of feathers?

>>31884320
>IEDs
>but who isn't

Seriously though, using a modern engine would resolve a lot of those problems with weight.

>>31884357
>the question was answered long ago:
That sponsons are wonderful for trenches and urban areas but not practical for open field combat? Yes, it was.

>>31884360
The M1 doesn't use steel now does it? And the M1 certainly doesn't have 600mm coverage all over now does it? It's a tank, it's supposed to be heavy, thank goodness we aren't going to use a 150 hp motor to drive it.

>>31884354
They're engineers, Bubba. Not wizards.

>>31884320
Tog was so heavy because it had a huge engine as it had electric motors power by combustion engines. The motors were big and heavy, the size of them meaning even more armour was needed. The tog does not represent all sponson tanks, although multi turret is better in almost every way than sponson.

>>31884403
Either they can design me a new suspension system, or the designers can, but either way I'm getting a Mk.V pattern tank with all the modern fixins.

>>31884360
6 cm of steel, in other words. And especially not as nasty as that seems when you realize that you can shed some of that pure steel for other anti-antitank measures

File: TOG2MUSEO.jpg (39KB, 649x490px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 649x490px

>>31884320
>>31884402
>>31884365

And this is me being generous with the weight of the composites. The absolute best you can hope for, using modern materials and techniques on the Mark V is a vehicle that is as protective as an MBT two generations behind - and far less capable, as I'm assuming that we aren't replacing the 6-pounders and giving it a 1200 hp engine, which with its layout and suspension would be unable to propel itself faster than 14 km/h on an uneven road without risking injuring its crew because it does not have suspension (which the TOG, its final iteration lacked), and you cannot give it suspension without radically altering the design, in which case it ceases to be a modernized Mark tank.

It can't operate fast no matter how well the engine is able to accommodate the weight due to this reason.

>>31884098

Sorry for the mix-up, here is a picture of the real deal, though lacking in the distinctive sponsons that give the lineage their trademark.

>>31884232
You do know that a dry I6 even at 20L c.1916 is going to weigh less than a dry turbine engine?

>>31884519
I'm ok with most of that however you notably ignore that these problems will be addressed. Even so for you generous interperatation, I'm ok with that, the whole idea is a tank for urban combat.

>>31884549
Turbine engine?
Boi, we don't even need that. Just insert a construction vehicle or tractor-trailer engine

>>31884549
No I did not, and that does not change my opinion on the matter.

File: spacemarineassault_by_joazzz2-d83fcj7.jpg (128KB, 1296x617px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1296x617px

>>31883368
why not start the deploy of gentic modified superhumans , armored and armed to the teeth to remove kebab, also bait for 40k warhammer thread faggot

>>31884519
I have been to bovington a couple times, pretty good place. It's a shame they built a playground that covers up the tog2.

Like I said above, it was so heavy and long due to its electric motors. 14km/h is a little generous, I would say the top speed to be closer to 5km/h without suspension.

>>31883527
This ultra accurate simulator shows a baneblade taking on a columnof T90s head on and winning.

Your shitty AGMs mean nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOzTX7qzPEo

>>31884571
Then yeah, an old I6 would still weigh less than a modern one built to the same HP.

>>31884589
Other than a few modernized bits like removing rivets and whatnot, you're not saving too much weight. Not enough to counteract whatever armor you're going to slap on it anyway.

>>31884627
>Other than a few modernized bits
Oh, it's going to be a lot more than that anon.

>>31884653
So you want it to be a Mk. V, but it's not going to be one? I mean you can call a cat a chicken all you want, just don't go expecting it to give you any eggs.

File: Merkava_Stuck.jpg (51KB, 489x379px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 489x379px

>>31884567

The problem with the Mark series is that they weren't designed for urban combat at all: their rhomboid shape, lack of suspension, and sponsons were all made as provisions to fight in trench systems: it would be possible and even possibly practical to modernize them to a standard on par with other machines if the demand was height enough, but they would never be efficient urban combat tanks because they aren't designed for urban combat.

Here is a counter-exhibit: the Merkava. It is a tank that is deliberately designed for urban combat, and as you can see, if you were to put it into the Mark's position, it would flounder terribly, as its tracks were designed to traverse streets and rubble, not steep trenches. A tank is more than just its armor values and speed: it's the physical dimensions of a machine that lend or hinder themselves towards a certain environment.

>>31884669
A modernly built one, fool. We aren't calling a cat a chicken, we're building a whole new chicken out of vat-grown musculature and steel feathers

>>31884691
So.... a Challenger II?

>>31884691
Please tell me what you are arguing for lad. Sponsons? a lack of suspension? That funny shape? Or an urban tank?

File: Cruiser_Mk_1.jpg (18KB, 300x193px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x193px

>>31884712

The Challenger 2 is not designed to traverse trench systems - it is the distant descendant of the Cruiser Mark line. The Tog II was the last and most modern tank of that design philosophy.

>>31884729
The premise of the thread is to discuss a modernly-built, appropriately supported Mark V tank being used for urban combat, where its ability to apply firepower to two sides with sponsons might be used effectively, more specifically in third-world countries without fully effective anti-tank measures, such as Syriraq

>>31884691
So, where's the suspension going to go? How are you protecting the tracks, the top, the bottom, the sides? Your two main guns won't stick out enough and turn inwards enough to hit something truly in front or behind the tank. The weight of this thing will make its handling poor no matter the engine size and especially without suspension your crew is going to get concussed going down a dirt road. Also back to the weight and handling how is it going to fare on bridges or even paved roads? I mean, you're fucking anything you roll it on, no doubt about that.

File: B-1B.jpg (74KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 800x531px

>>31884740
We already have effective counters to trenches though.

>>31884752
Why not just use a multi turret design?
Please be more specific than a "mk V tank" as some parts are woefully outdated in design. Do you mean a tank physically similar to the mk V, a modernisation of existing mk Vs, tanks with sponsons or similar in philosophy?

>>31884780
you mean drive bulldozers up to the trenches and bury them alive

File: Boeing_B-52.jpg (113KB, 1179x777px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1179x777px

>>31884752
Nah fuck you this is now a bomber and air support thread.

>>31884779
Fuck the pavement. In an urban zone, the tank will be heading down straight streets as well. This is not supposed to be a field vehicle. There also appears to be enough room within the tread lozenges to stuff in some suspension.

I will concede your point of the sponsons not having enough rotation. Presuming the immediate front and back are covered by ride-along infantrymen, would you say it would be better to add more rotation to the sponson guns or add a rear-facing gun, with some size expansion involved?

>>31884842
Don't or you'll summon Gavin man.

>>31884686
The merkava's biggest problem is that it's used by the isrealis.

I am fully confident that given some reworking the Mk. V would serve adeptly in an urban environment.

>>31884815
A tank physically similar, and indeed mostly based on, a Mark V. We should not handicap ourselves for the sake of veracity.

File: battlebot-113.jpg (115KB, 580x387px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 580x387px

>>31884892
I dunno. a wedge tank to flip all of them over I guess?

>>31884857
You're going to need a lot more room summoned out of the aether to fit suspension in there. Probably a rear and forward cannon to avoid physics issues that would come with extending the turrets further out. I don't know of any CAD diagrams of the Mk. V so I could pick it apart and find exactly WHERE you would stick suspension. And then you're talking about shitty urban cities built by shitty contractors and maintained by shitty dictators and bombings. You're fucking the roads, hard, and I doubt you'd find too many bridges in small cities that wouldn't be fucked six ways from sunday if you tired to put this thing on.

>>31884916
Very minor suspension, I meant. Like several small springs minor But you are mostly right.

On the case of bridges, fuck'em. If it isn't over water, then you don't care. After all, it is a trench tank. For bridges with water, that very well might be a difficulty. So either drive around, or simply ignore the other side, I suppose.

>>31884964
>several small springs
? I mean if your mechanic is a masochist sure, but you're going to need some serious overhauling to give the tank a ride that would even remotely resemble something "comfortable"
And if you cant cross water you kind of just fucked yourself. I mean if the armor cant follow the infantry because it's lacking compared to other designs, what would have been the initial point?

>>31885011
Who cares about the tankers? Just give them cushy seats. But indeed the suspension is probably the weakest area of this.
Anyhow, the initial point was to clear urban areas. Therefore, it can be slow, and shit at cross-country, as long as it has sufficient armor and weaponry. That's the purpose of this tank (re)design.

>>31885075
I mean if you're relying on the tankers being conscious then springs are kind of a big deal. Also, don't expect speed out of this thing. You're going to need to deploy it right at the fight to expect much use out of it, weight and size, I can see putting something akin to a DC9 engine in it, but your walking pace will beat this thing's full speed. Plus the weight/physics isn't doing this thing any favors. I can imagine a hybrid hydraulic suspension system that wont add a ludicrous amount of width or height to it, but it'll be overengineered to hell and back, expect constant repairs either in the field or under fire.

>>31885075
Listen anon, I like the Mark V as much as you do, but just... just let it go, man. Let it die with dignity.

>>31885148
I'm not sure that the bumps in the road would become that exaggerated, famalam. In fact, I'm pretty sure that minimal suspension will be needed, considering that it was more-or-less fine without such measures in its original form.
And lack of speed is fine. It's not like it's trying to win a road race.

>>31885479
Hey, where did the goalposts go? They were right there just a few seconds ago!

>>31885479
Its a solid chunk of steel, with no joints. If you roll over, say a car, well... don't do that and all will be well. Also, in the day and age of Modern Warfare (TM Doritos) war is fast not like the age of trenches. Mobility is key when your attackers shoot and scoot, now if you were laying siege, then sure, speed is not needed, but arriving to the actual battle in a timely manner would be important.

Holy fuck. How has this thread not 404d. Bad idea. lets move on

>>31885505
I like you, reasonable poster. You bring up good points, politely. But mobility is the probable key issue here, as you have identified. How might you recommend, mitigating it (without drastic changes)?

>>31885557
Avoiding uneven terrain, wider tracks, but turning will be more of an issue, without overhauling the sponsons, maybe a independent hydraulic system to move the whole track mechanism? The body would stay in position, but the sponsons could move up and down. I mean it sounds good when you say it, but I'm getting a headache even thinking about trying to design it. It can be modernized to a degree for a hefty sum and a fleet of mechanics on the payroll to boot. It'll be finicky and have specialized parts that will require specialized or properly trained mechanics. Just don't drive over any thing say waist high with just one track and don't think about driving it sideways across anything with a moderate angle and you've got a land yacht that would make Cadillacs feel like bicycles.

>>31885624
Thanks. You are a genuinely helpful /k/ poster, good sir. Independant hydraulics would make a beautiful thing.

Now, if these were to mass produced, what would be your cheap-ass variation on that? Just springs? Reduce sponson size? Or say bugger it all and give every third world tanker one hell of a headache.

>>31883380

What if it were fitted with modern components like engine, etc?

>>31883368
Or just use a modern tank which is superior in every way

>>31885672
See suspension is about 50/50 vehicle support/passenger comfort. The heavier the vehicle, the better suspension you'll need to not tear it apart at the seams. The only way to make it cheaper I can think of is shrink it by half so that physics won't fuck it due to its weight. First rule of Mech. Engineering: Isaac Newton was a cunt and physics hates you. See, physics scales to weight at the rate of "Oh sweet baby Jesus you have just fucked up" Now if you can rig it to have tons of internal support on the very large flat pieces of steel to keep the stresses off of it then you're set, now the crew compartment will be nonexistent to reduce size and with the random struts coming out of the walls.

>>31883368
an actual sprung suspension might do some good as well

Ok look, the long and short of it is that if this was such a fantastic idea, someone somewhere should be doing it, right? But they're not, so we can infer that it is in fact a bad idea

>>31886376
I believe the person who envisioned this "modern Mk. 4" did so as a flight of fancy, focused on the "could," rather than the "should" of the situation. A hypothetical, based on the love of a concept.

Sadly for them, it's pretty much infeasible, but is fun to think about. A Mk 4 wrecking shit(or trying to) in the Mideast? I'd watch that movie.

>>31884883
Jews are good at war tho, they just send us to do the dying recently

File: Centurion-AVRE-02-BA-58.jpg (598KB, 1028x689px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 1028x689px

Why not liberate Syria block by block using Centurions AVRE?

File: i034468.jpg (90KB, 960x408px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 960x408px

>But its got no turret
Let's add a turret
>But its got no rpg defense
Lets add an rpg cage

File: Grobtraktor-01.jpg (105KB, 640x416px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 640x416px

>But its got no suspension
Lets add some suspension
>But all the crew will eat engine fumes
Lets seperate the engine compartment
>But its got no sloped armor
Lets use sloped armor

>>31888011

This tonk made me the hardest I've ever been in my life for war machines. If only there was a modernversion, even if the side guns were autocannons instead.

Jesus this thread and the the Mark defenders are nearing glider-fag levels of retardation. While we're at it let's replace all of the navy's ships with different variations of Battleships and make the M113 serve all land roles.

File: bob.jpg (66KB, 700x554px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 700x554px

only tank in my heart

>>31888400
>can we wreck it?
>YES WE CAN!
>Bob the destroyer!

>>31883417
>I didnt check the OP picture to see that the Mark V had MGs at the front and in the back

>>31888400
>>31888405
>can we build it?
Not really, maybe? I'm not sure looking at that picture.

>>31888405
just imagen 500 of these going down a hill towards your town.

File: bob 2.jpg (676KB, 900x1100px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 900x1100px

>>31888448
forgot the pic

>>31883523
>not having reactive armoured tracks
By the emperor

File: rhino_ba.jpg (60KB, 600x440px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x440px

>>31888179
>and make the M113 serve all land roles.
Could we?
It's not as if they are actually going to see war anytime soon.

>>31883570
It also needs to be able to cross rivers...
And carry infantry...
Can we get a bigger gun on it?
We tested the armour against romanian AGM65 Mavericks and got good results, I don't see why we would need to add CIWS...
Why is it so expensive? Can't we make it cheaper?