Super-Heavy Tanks

>>34986566
Bun-Bun for the win! Still think it needs a real mantlet

File: e051ca491c45681c7b73ab647a2c00825baeb23a.png (772KB, 2356x840px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 2356x840px

This.

>>34986884
so this thing can only be used on a giant parking lot, or else when it encounters any kind of incline at all it gets stuck when the cow catcher acts as a bulldozer and wedges dirt between itself and the front slops?

>>34986904
They really need to put some massive laser drills on the front ofthese things.

So they could literally tunnel through mountains or just blast them apart. With the autismo firepower these things have they could probably do it.

>>34986904
Yes, but on that parking lot you will be the absolute undisputed invincible archoverlord and god-emperor.

>>34986904
Thats why you glass the whole planet from orbit to turn it into a parking lot.

File: latest[1].png (376KB, 800x449px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 800x449px

why make a battleship on land when you can make a carrier?

>>34986904
yeah, that kind of design is flawed, like WWI flawed

>>34986884
Hehehe; I used to draw shit just like this when I was a kid. Usually had a big ass mega particle cannon or something on top though.

>>34987282
because it's pointless.

>>34987282
>GO FOR KAPISI
I really loved the design of Deserts of Kharak. That carrier felt badass.

>>34987282
This doesn't seem that bad of an idea to me.

Someone please tell me if I'm retarded, be honest

>>34988223
Its retarded on our world. Anywhere we would need aircraft and such we would simply build an airstrip. or make sea born carriers.

In HW:DoK the entire equatorial zone of the planet is a vast desert. thus the "land ships" as a way to traverse it.

File: 1366657060150.jpg (315KB, 1480x1201px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1480x1201px

>>34988223
No it's a great idea..

>>34988374
I dunno man. The middle east is pretty much a vast desert and that's were 90% of modern warrin' is taking place.

Besides, there already is a lot of military spending on moronic bullshit, why not as well adapt a Nimitz carrier and slap some fuckhuge threads on it?

>>34988223
mass vs pressure vs generator since you're effectively slapping a five/six story STEEL structure (read: heavier than concrete) on potentially unstable ground, even with full treads underneath (since the treads themselves also weight quite a lot and will inevitably need repairs and more treads means more repair etc etc)
>what if we build a nuclear substation on it
then it'll spit steam out all day long since naval generators can't move that much mass on land

>>34988428
stop ruining my dreams by being logical your heartless bastard

>>34988421
the energy requirements are too immense and it's believed the weight of the vehicle would sink into the ground rendering it immobile
idk how that stops treads though
my guess is the treads wouldn't be able to find purchase anywhere and would just spin in place because the ground in front of it is too soft

>>34988421
Fucking apply yourself. what costs more. an entire airbase or a carrier?

Further, would we get any benefit out of a mobile and vulnerable base in the middle of enemy territory. when we can just capture or build fixed facilities instead?

Our seaborne carriers are effectively immune to counter attack by small nations and insurgent factions. Why would we instead risk building and driving something that would require its own roads and do poor in mountain terrain?

File: k-wagen.jpg (16KB, 320x217px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 320x217px

You have angered the Central Powers. Now, you must face the K-Wagen.

>>34988421
>>34988442

Also, how would you cool the reactors without access to the huge heat sink that is continuous cycling sea water?

>>34988456
>>34988447
>>34988442

I JUST WANT TO SEE A REAL LIFE SANDCRAWLER MOBILE CARRIER WUNDERWAFFE IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK GODDAMN

Forget the expenses or practibility. CAN IT BE DONE?

>>34988463
Short answer?

With current material science and other technology. No.

>>34988467
What is we put a sizable chunk of desert in the ocean, on which we deploy the landcarrier?

File: nasa-has-a-6-million-pound-crawler-it-uses-to-transport-spacecraft.jpg (156KB, 1190x595px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1190x595px

>>34988463
>CAN IT BE DONE?

Provided you're not an idiot, you can make just about anything. There is no fundamental issue with physics that would outline it as impossible.

Heck, NASA already has 2 of them.

File: crawler-transporter-4.jpg (57KB, 526x670px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 526x670px

>>34988467

>>34988474
>>34988483

Ok, now make it long enough to CATOBAR aircraft, large enough to support aviation facilities, robust enough to pull 50kph off road, and then we will talk

File: 2.jpg (43KB, 705x505px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 705x505px

>>34988467
Yeah, you're not right.

>>34988474
>>34988483
>>34988490
We're getting somewhere lads. Someone make a kickstarter

>>34988489
He asked if you can build it you imbecile.

Likewise, if you dumped enough power into it, you very well could have it going at 50km/h but there's no rush with these things.
That's exactly what ships do. Fuckhuge engines to produce gigantic amounts of power to make the thing move at anything more than a snail's pace.

>>34988493
We would have to put huge motors and a nuclear reactor to move that thing with armor plating and munitions

>>34986884
>18.900mm armour
This thing doesn't even have any real protection, it seems to rely on active defenses to do the trick.

>>34988529
would you really need it?

a 105mm shell wont do anything to that thing unless it hit a vital area

>>34988474
I heard those move 5cm per second ;_;

File: Char B1.jpg (882KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

882KB, 2048x1536px

hon hon hon

>>34988450

literally /ourwagon/

>>34988463
If you built it on a pair of parallel tracks, sure. But it'd be limited to the capabilities of a 15,000 ton carrier like the Guissippe Garibaldi.

And it would only be able to travel back, and forth.

>>34988555
The Soviets attempted a similar line of thinking where mass and damage control would offset armour on a significantly large vehicle on the T-35, but that just left it easy to disable so even if it technically wasn't "destroyed" it wouldn't ever get to where you needed it to be on-time.

>>34988510
> nuclear reactor
> on a tank

I can only get so erect anon.

>>34986566
So that's what it's supposed to look like? I pictured something like a tall and boxy railway gun.

Also
>no metal storm turrets on top

File: Chrysler TV-8.jpg (56KB, 630x638px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 630x638px

>>34988714
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_TV-8

>>34988714
A nuclear-powered stirling generator is perfectly feasible.

>>34988779
That looks like the "asking for trouble" kind of girl.

>>34988505
>That's exactly what ships do. Fuckhuge engines to produce gigantic amounts of power to make the thing move at anything more than a snail's pace.
Ships move quite fast, anon. The Nimitz can move at 30 knots. Destroyers and missille frigates can move even faster.

>>34988898
Yes, because of said gigantic engines. That was the argument.

Your silly aircraft carrier produces 194 MW of power. That NASA crawler doesn't make even 10.
Not because it couldn't, but simply because they want and need it to go slow as it carries gigantic rockets and their gantries on top of it.

>>34988779
Why didn't they make a bigger design to be in proportion with the reactor? Something in the 70 ton range.

>>34988898
And yet a sail-powered sloop can outrun them every time, and destroyer designs from the 30s were even faster. Make no mistake, the fact that missiles have a stupidly long range means they don't need to be fast, but they're not going to win races.

File: 44M_Tas.jpg (62KB, 700x554px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 700x554px

Medium tanks > Heavy tanks.

File: Tiger I.jpg (572KB, 1800x1295px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 1800x1295px

>>34989007
true, but this is a heavy tank thread.

File: kv-2.jpg (314KB, 1024x685px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1024x685px

>>34989030

*sigh* Fair enough.

File: Char_2C_IRL.jpg (65KB, 700x411px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 700x411px

Bonjour.

File: Marmota.png (505KB, 800x574px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 800x574px

>>34988612
Top tier taste

File: NbFz_Oslo_Harbour.jpg (115KB, 724x422px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 724x422px

Could a not-mechanically-fucked multi-turreted tank be built nowadays? Is there any useful role it could conceivably fulfill aside from looking cool?

File: IDF Nagmachon.jpg (442KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 800x600px

>>34989266
>Is there any useful role it could conceivably fulfill aside from looking cool?
For counter-insurgency you could have multiple guns+optics looking in different directions at the same time, but that's not really a tank - Israel does something similar with some of their APCs like pic related and the Nakpadon which have like 4 machine guns, plus mortars

>>34989266
Even MBTs (Basically all the best parts of heavies and mediums) are having a hard time staying relevant these days. I think thats asking a little too much.

>>34988493
>Someone make a kickstarter
>lets make a IRL BOLO!
>goal: 10 billion dollars

>>34988779
did they just put the reactor in the turret?

>>34989317
>Only clammy /k/ NEETs donate
>Makes approximately $11.73

>>34988412
fuck that pic looks /comfy/

>>34989322
Eeeeyup.

>>34989285
i drew a similar thing in my school note books back then.

>>34989392

My nigga.

Dammit, I haven't looked at my high school drawings for ages. Where did I put that folder...

>>34989384
but the only fucking reason to put the whole crew in the turret should to keep them away from the fucking reactor, goddammit!!!

File: ARL-44.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>34988612
>>34989224
>>34989264
The French continued to experiment with these goofy looking treads after the war, looks interesting imo.

File: Char2C long.jpg (109KB, 800x432px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 800x432px

>>34989224
Love the heraldry on a tank

>>34989458
They might look silly, but compared to the tracks on the Bradley they're actually superior when it comes to breeching barbed wire: wires are simply crushed underthread where on a Brad or T-72 it would tangle in the drive wheels. Too bad France has largely stopped using tracked AFVs in favor of wheels.

File: T-35.jpg (80KB, 650x375px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 650x375px

>>34989316
Well, that's because an MBT's main asset isn't needed to much squishy terrorists. Something like the T-35 could rapid-fire its loadoat into Allepo and smoke any terror compound into the ground and turn any of them that dared tried to poke their heads out into paste! Imagine five 75mm autocannons loaded with HE being fired into the side of a skyscraper?

File: House_of_Bourbon.jpg (92KB, 423x613px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 423x613px

>>34990012

I agree. It would look better with a French monarchist coat-of-arms though, House of Bourbon or Napoleon, something like that.

>tfw Kaiserreich is not real

>>34988412
One tends to wonder why they went through the trouble of stocking the flight deck with sharks.

>>34990383

I've seen this pic several times before and never noticed the sharks until now

File: Animal Farm Keij.jpg (509KB, 1280x948px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 1280x948px

>Not posting the one in your pants
>Or the one that was previously a woman you married

Plebby McPlebbersons, all of you.

>>34989237
What color is that mans sweater?

It looks olive in color but its more complex than that

>>34989442
seems to be a pretty thick radiation shield between it and the everything else, at least...

File: AMX-30.jpg (2MB, 4416x2723px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4416x2723px

>>34990309
Interesting, didn't know that.

>>34986566
mobile paris gun sighted,

>>34991224
not thick enough to shield all radiation, they had the same issues with their nuclear airplanes, there is a documentary about it on youtube.
they should put the reactor on the lower half all by itself, you could increase armor and slim down the fugly turret, but its more a matter of my personal taste

>>34991988
W-why does it have anchors?

>>34992303
cos its amphibious

>>34990383
Preserve wildlife and it's also /confy/

>>34990883
>that man

>>34986971
My nigga