What's the verdict on tanks, /tg/?

File: tmp_5810-1489238457221651616005.jpg (99KB, 600x493px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 600x493px

>>52205503
They're garbage desu.

Clankity clank, I'm coming for that flank!

Mechs are better.

File: 1483940778476.png (345KB, 935x704px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 935x704px

Say that within 5 km of me and not online see what happens.

>>52205503
Every time I see a bridge I have flashbacks to WarThunder.

Fucking assholes wait your turn and stop pushing me into the river!

>>52205503
Boring garbage that tell me either the DM or the player is a no-fun autist who should never been invited to any game I am involved in.

I agree with >>52205604
For vehicle play, mechs or space ships are better.

>>52205535
Whoever made that pic needs to do more research

the M18 has a 76mm gun
the tank destroyer with a 90mm gun was the M36 Jackson

>>52205645
They did test a couple made with the 90mm, but it fucked up the frame, and firing it caused the tank to skip backwards by about a foot.

File: qt drummer.png (557KB, 1273x691px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 1273x691px

>>52205503
Ugliest Sherman

>>52205503
7/10 needs more wings

>>52205606
>Say that within 5 km of me and not online see what happens.

>5 km
>Renault FT

Yeah, I'll be quaking in my boots 5 km away from the 37mm Puteaux with its max range of 2.5 km...

>>52205729
>>52205645
My guess is the artist was using world of tanks... which plays fast and lose with physics. Also, to pad the tank count, tends to read "There were like, three prototypes that all fucked up horribly" as a historical basis.

File: tank.jpg (262KB, 1200x753px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1200x753px

>>52205503
How would one base a side quest around repairing a derelict magictech tank in a fantasy setting?

I'm capable of weaving such a thing into my setting without it breaking immersion - so now I've got it in my head to do so.

Do they just find parts/replacements over time on their various adventures, or will a wizard have to reverse engineer it into something more useful?

>>52205503
PCs worst nightmare,a s they probably wont lug anti-tank weapons around. Its the modern Balrog-

>>52205503
Tanks>Mechas

>>52206274
What does it run on would be how I'd handle it, yeah a 100 ton magic tank is bloody cool but if it's out if pixie dust it's just a over sized wagon. What I'm really projecting here is for your party to hunt down pixies and fairys for their magic go go dust but on genocide levels to keep said tank running

File: Mika.png (171KB, 433x427px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 433x427px

>>52205503
They're good.

File: 55625089_p1_master1200.jpg (123KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 640x480px

>>52206326

...sauce?

File: IS-3.jpg (389KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1280x960px

>>52206274

>That flat surface presenting a 90-degree armor plate to the enemy, thus allowing enemy rounds to penetrate at the optimum angle.

>those rivets which can snap upon impact of an enemy shell and become bullets bouncing around the interior of your fighting compartment.

>the metal ladder rungs on the upper front glacis plate of the lower chassis that lead to nowhere

That tank looks hella cool, but the armor design is incredibly inefficient. Y'all need some properly angled armor, comrade.

>>52205503
Depends entirely on how you are planning to use them.

I was once playing with bunch of Slavs, are wanting to play something similar to their cult classic TV series about WW2 tankers. It was fun, mostly because they knew what they were doing.

I was also running a series of campaign in GURPS for bunch of mercs fighting during Second Sino-Japanese War, and they were eventually using a captured tank. Also fun.

Tanks however are total shit in Twilight 2000 and starting with one is usually considered bigger problem than starting without any vehicle whatsoever, since they are designed for combat, not transportation. And if the roll for Condition will be 7 or above, we usually just get rid of the tank first chance given. It's literally better to take a hike or use a civilian car than trying to move in a tank. Bonus points if it's NATO tank.

>>52206679
Mika from Girls Und Panzer. I thought I had the pic, but I think I deleted it after making that pic.

>>52207005
>That autist who misses the point about utterly inefficient steam-powered tank and acts like it's a serious concept

File: tmp_5810-__mika_girls_und_panzer_drawn_by_elf_stroll_in_the_woods__8a4eec58b7eea65911ef2498e22b3c9e54318353.jpg (360KB, 813x869px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 813x869px

>>52206326
>>52206679
Found it!

Tank facts:
Tanks are better and cooler than mechs.
Tanks without turrets are for the man with patrician taste.
Best: Stug
Cutest: Hetzer
Most badass: Jagdtiger

>>52207109

Thanks fampai.

File: PzKpfw VI Tiger.jpg (144KB, 481x435px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 481x435px

>>52207064

I was getting to an actually helpful post- let me have my fun.

If you're putting a tank into a fantasy setting, you should consider if it's a one-of-a-kind prototype or if it's a relic from a previous time period, or if tanks just kinda started happening at some point and stopped being useful (and thus got abandoned).

Finding parts would likely be difficult, unless they were looking in old factories or some shit. You might be better off having the PCs take measurements and try to figure out what's missing/not working, and then questing for the materials to assemble/fix this thing. Presumably fantasy-setting tank is not made from 100% common shit. The armor might be if it's riveted/rolled-homogenous steel, but tanks have a lot of complex parts to them.

File: JagdPanther.jpg (86KB, 1104x517px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1104x517px

>>52207163

>not mentioning the Jagdpanther

you absolute barbarian. I bet you don't even like the SU-100.

>>52207196
For me it's a tie between the panther and tiger, but I prefer the 2 smaller ones anyway. I just mentioned it for the sake completness. Also I forgot the name of that scandinvian cold war tank.

>>52206274
Have a not-da-vinci like in whfb who is the only one that knew how make/repair these tanks and have the players contact his ghost or flat out revive him. Would be a shame to waste this on a sidequest though.

>>52207243
Stridsvagn 103.

File: a34 comet.jpg (50KB, 410x293px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 410x293px

Handsome british tanks

>>52207285
>Would be a shame to waste this on a sidequest though.
>Be overlord
>Thinks the heroes are going to face him with the ancient champion's sword
>They run him over with an armored combat vehicle

File: Stridsvagn 103.jpg (143KB, 1024x693px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1024x693px

>>52207243

I believe you're thinking of the Stridsvagn 103. The Borkmobile.

File: cv35-31.jpg (54KB, 600x547px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x547px

Carro veloce a cute! A cute!

>>52207318
Thing about British tanks, is that eventually they Build the Centurion, and then the Chieftain, followed by the Chally and Chally 2. It took some time, but like any hard worker, they body built into pure sex.

File: 1469304397949.jpg (739KB, 1495x901px) Image search: [Google]

739KB, 1495x901px

>>52207163
But those are Tank Destroyers which though still patrician aren't tanks.

Both naturally pale in comparison to armored trains naturally.

As for tanks, I absolutely love them for a variety of settings but find that having more than 1 PC in a single vehicle in a crewmember role gets pretty clunky.

>>52207172
>If you're putting a tank into a fantasy setting, you should consider if it's a one-of-a-kind prototype or if it's a relic from a previous time period

This coming from the guy who shat on a steam powered tank with a redcoat commander for not living up to WW2 era design ideas.

File: OTD11.jpg (65KB, 528x960px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 528x960px

That feel when you have an aluminum-hulled scout tank equipped with a monstrous 152mm cannon.

>>52207407
Perfect PC vehicle.
>Air dropable, Amphib
>Variety of munitions such as ATGM, 152mm canister shot, HEAT, etc.
>Crew of 4
>Gotta go fast levels of fast.

File: Steam_Tank.png (2MB, 959x668px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 959x668px

>>52207401

I like fantasy tanks as much as the next person, but I can still look at their designs and jokingly mock them for being outdated.

The steam-powered tank in the image looks like it takes inspiration from WW2-era designs. The Chassis is a mix of German late-war tank designs. The turret looks to be in the style of a Tiger, and the gun has a triple muzzle-brake, which is a significantly more modern feature. I don't understand the hostility I'm getting. Don't take stuff so personally.

Also, the IS-3 isn't really a WW2-era tank, it's more of a postwar vehicle.

>>52205604
Wrong

File: Engin Leger de Combat AMX.jpg (12KB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 267x200px

>>52207484

It only has a crew of 2, but when I learned about this little roach I thought it was pretty awesome for similar reasons.

5-6 ton tank prototype designed by the French after WW2 to be air-dropped. Fast as shit, mounts a 90mm cannon.

It's like someone looked at Italian tanks and made them actually good.

File: Konflikt 47 Tank-Mech.jpg (89KB, 800x649px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x649px

>>52205604

Why not both?

>>52206274
>literally greasing the treads with pixie dust grounded automatically between the top of the tread and interior bins that feed the pixies directly into the road wheels.

Inferior to mechs

>>52207574
Where do all these delusional rubes keep coming from? It's like they keep crawling out from under rocks.

>>52207172
>If you're putting a tank into a fantasy setting, you should consider if it's a one-of-a-kind prototype or if it's a relic from a previous time period, or if tanks just kinda started happening at some point and stopped being useful (and thus got abandoned).
... because?

Son, if there exists an operational tank, you MUST have an infrastructure supporting existence of one in the first place. This is this type of hardware that will turn into rust and rot within 10 years of not using and break down at least once per 1000 kms from sheer wear and tear. You don't just store one in some ancient warehouse.

So you are basically putting your (pretty shitty) headcanon excuse to both have and don't have tanks. If you are going to limit them this way, you can as well don't have them at all and it will improve the setting greatly.

Like I've said, 'tism.

>>52207486
That tank looks like a siege tower, first of all. You are getting the hostility for actively being autistic and claiming you are not.

>>52207611
/m/

>>52205645
prototype m18 'super' hellcat armed with the 90mm cannon from the Jackson. Made at the end of WWII

File: Stormwalker.jpg (93KB, 449x457px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 449x457px

>>52207574
>>52207611

There is a middle ground, I think. However, there is no accounting for taste.

>>52207484
So basically something between Tetrarch and AMX line of tanks?
Perfectly doable.

The only part that is not going to work is amphib. The sheer amount of elements required for it would easily double the weight of a vehicle capable of being air-dropped.

File: Czterej-Pancerni-i-pies-.jpg (63KB, 425x340px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 425x340px

>>52207484
>Perfect PC vehicle
More like pic related. PC included, dog familiar missing, random NPC added

>>52207635
How about adding tank treads, or wheels to the legs so it can be a convertible?

File: Tank Spider Mech.jpg (78KB, 500x383px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x383px

>>52207712
The best of both worlds- treads allow for a faster vehicle, whereas legs allow for the ability to navigate many more types of terrain.

File: sherman-fury-movie.jpg (70KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 650x366px

>>52207689

I thought that this was a pretty cool tank for similar reasons to that one. Sadly, no dog.

>>52207787
I mean tanks cab already go over lots of different kinds of terrain. That's what treads are for, after all

>>52207689
>be T-34 loader
>have no arms

File: mark-iv-male-tank-stuck-in-a-trench-on-the-flesquieres-ridge-at-cambrai-dchfx2.jpg (69KB, 640x469px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x469px

>>52207831

That's true, but even treads have their limits.

If you're going to add tanks to your fantasy / steampunk world, you've got one very easy justification for them: Most weaponry in fantasy RPGs is directly derived from a world which didn't have monsters and magic, but your world DOES.

So your world's got dragons and manticores and demons and all other shit. Presumably the nations in your world have armies for fighting each other, but they also need to fight monsters too, so why are they using the same equipment for doing both jobs?

If you think about it, fantasy armies would have a perfectly good reason to develop newer weapons and defenses against such a threat, and why can't the tank be one of them? Got a steampunk world? You're most of the way there already, just figure out a vehicle that uses whatever engine your world has, put protecting plating on it, and make bigger versions of the weapons your world already has. Don't got steampunk? Use magic instead. Have someone make a horseless carriage, and then have someone else go 'Let's throw armour on that and a big ballista!' and run with it.

File: P1100638.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>52205503
I like tanks. Especially rare tanks.

>>52207928

is that the bovington tiger?

>>52207005
I'm glad a genius like you can look at a clearly dated concept with the assistance of nearly a hundred years of groundwork from genuinely talented and intelligent people who devoted everything to their craft. Well done for paying attention. You definitely proved that you know what a modern tank looks like.

File: P1100636.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>52207944
That is indeed. Tiger day 2014, and I got a prime spot for close-up pictures of it in motion.

File: P1110259.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>52207805
Daily reminder that that's not just a prop; it runs!

File: Tiger 131.jpg (443KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1024x768px

>>52207972
You lucky sonofagun!

I've been wanting to go to Bovington for years now, but I'm stuck in America. I was in London in 2014, but I was visiting for other reasons, and unavailable to make the 2-hour (ish) journey.

IIRC that is the last functional Tiger tank left.

File: P1110837.jpg (4MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3264x2448px

>>52207972

File: Sherman Infantry Support Tactics.gif (1MB, 500x210px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x210px

>>52208025

It runs? No way! that's awesome!

Wait- is that a British flag in the background? Where exactly are people keeping that tank? I expected it to be somewhere in the US.

>>52208025
And the T-34 above was literally just lend from nearby military unit, so?

>>52208049

Bovington tank museum, as stated upthread. They have an annual Tiger Day, where the public is invited to watch a display of Tiger 131 in action.

File: P1110739.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>52208030
It is indeed. I go there for Tankfest every year because I fucking love tanks.

You should make the trip for it sometime. They really lay on the spectacle, and get all the running tanks out to go around in circles in their arena while giving lectures.

>>52208049
>Where exactly are people keeping that tank?
The tank is kept where the movie borrowed it from; Bovington Tank Museum.
>>52207805
Is the in-musem exhibit. The pic in >>52208025
was at their annual Tankfest, where they have it along with all the other tanks in the movie. Including the Tiger; that wasn't fucking CGI. They borrowed the sole running Tiger to make the movie.

>>52208066
They have a T-34-85 that runs too.

>>52207805
No dog = not good enough. Having a frech meat new guy to run the machine gun doesn't cut it.

>>52208075

Also, I am a retard and can't read. But the fury is also at bovington I think

File: P1100606.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>52208087

File: P1110855.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>52208098
It is.

>>52208102

File: Film-Rudy.jpg (156KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1024x768px

>>52208066

The T-34-85 they used for Rudy was filmed over 30 years before the film Fury. I would say it makes seeing a running/functional version more rare.

Plus, I get excited pretty easily when tanks are involved.

>>52208087
The most "famous" T-34-85 is from Canadian tank museum...
... since it really has 102 designated number. Cue entire crowds of Poles taking photos every time they've see it.

>>52208118
It's not about just "running", but being a vehicle still used by the army. It's a tier higher than just "it's close to war enough to get still plentiful running vehicles", and more "they were still using this stuff in the 60s and making new ones just few years ago"

File: PzKpfwVII Maus.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

>>52208087

Bovington is on my bucket list, right up there with Kubinka in Russia. International travel is expensive though, so it's more of a long-term plan. There's a museum in/near Toronto, Canada that's a bit easier to get to.

A huge appeal of fury was that they did not use CGI for their tanks. Using the last running tiger on earth as a prop is pretty damn impressive.

My draw to Kubinka (among a million other things) is that I want to see this monster.

>>52207689
Man, this series is what I use every single fucking time when I need to convince people it's a great idea to be a party of tankers. It's so absurdly inaccurate and basically a propaganda piece, but it's just too good to ignore in terms of pure tabletop value. Kind of WW2 version of 13th warrior - a so-so production, but holy shit, this is so relatable to the hobby!

File: T34-85_Syrian_1956.png (177KB, 709x240px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 709x240px

>>52208147

Fair point, I know the T-34-85 was in service/production for a LOOOOOOONG time after the war ended. It's a hell of a workhorse.

>>52208164
Don't want to shatter your dreams, but Kubinka is pretty bad museum. Until WoT signed a deal with them for sponsorship, they were literally falling apart as an istitution and their stock due to severe underfunding. It's still pretty bad museum and it will take few years at this pace to reach any half-decent shape.
I've been there twice and I know how much have improved since WoT became their sponsor and I still don't recommend.

File: P1110806.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>52208125
Yeah, but I've not been there.

>>52208147
Well, how about 'the army, based nearby, brought a few vehicles down for the show'?

>>52208164
If you want, I can link you to my imgur albums of tank museum visits.
And also aircraft museum visits.

File: hayai.png (1MB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x800px

>>52208115
the Scorpion and its variants are my favourite 'cheeky little shit' tanks

>>52207050
Thousands of times this. If you are planning to use tanks in WW2-esque setting, it's fine. Anything else will either make the tank bigger problem than bonus or make the party so amazingly OP it will defeat the purpose of playing.

>>52208231
>'the army, based nearby, brought a few vehicles down for the show'
Which was my original point

File: Checkpoint-1_2008-08-Fritzlar_715_800.jpg (109KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 800x533px

>>52207484
>Perfect PC vehicle
>Not Wiesel AWC
>Not two Wiesels for better power projection
And I know they are pretty useless against just about anything that isn't infantry, but we are talking about gameplay terms here. And they fit all the elements you want from them.

File: 1480624376566.png (67KB, 900x266px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 900x266px

>>52207484

>>52208324
The biggest joke about those is how they can be used as tractors for heavy guns, basically carrying with themselves a "real" artillery piece, while being puny recon vehicles

>>52208368
That looks like the most inefficient delivery system EVER.
200% American ingenuity

>>52208247
They can apparently go stupid fast with the original engine. From what I was told at the tank museum, someone once bribed a Jaguar mechanic (since it had the I6 from the E-type in it) to modify a Scorpion's engine by removing the governor and fiddling with the carb. They got 70MPH out of it.

>>52208420
>They got 70MPH out of it.
That's what in non-retarded? Around 120 km/h?

>>52208368
>Advanced futuristic delivery system
>Delivers a single archaic APC

>>52208420
it's in the guinness world records for fastest tank

>A production standard S 2000 Scorpion Peacekeeper tank (complete with appliqué hull armour, ballistic skirts, K10000 replaceable rubber pad track and powered by an RS 2133 high-speed diesel engine) developed by Repaircraft PLC (UK), achieved a speed of 82.23 kph (51.10 mph) at the QinetiQ vehicle test track, Chertsey, UK, on 26 March 2002.

>The speed is an average of two consecutive runs in opposite directions. It was officially measured by Malvern Motor Sports Timing Services (internationally qualified timekeepers) using two light beams.

>>52208164
http://imgur.com/a/kTd8l
http://imgur.com/a/l9Q7e
http://imgur.com/a/pkzg5
http://imgur.com/a/DVF81
http://imgur.com/a/7y8vp
http://imgur.com/a/Ug78a
http://imgur.com/a/8B25c
Yes, there's holiday snaps mixed in. I like to travel and visit museums and stuff.

>>52208429
Something like that, yeah. Ludicrous speed for a goddamn tracked vehicle in the 70s, with metal tracks.
Even if it's so light a team of men can pull it. The tank museum now races tank-pulling teams.

>>52208447
I know it's ludicrous, I'm just thinking in metric, so I had to be sure if it could run faster than my first car

>>52208444
That was 'production standard', and not 'we bribed this guy to fiddle with the engine and don't care if that breaks it', though.
Although this is just what I was told that someone else had been told, so it was no doubt exaggerated somewhere along the line. And my memory's kinda bad on precise details.

>>52208461
It's faster than my motorbike, that's for sure.

File: globe[1].jpg (64KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 900x600px

>>52208471
yeah, i don't doubt that a tweaked one with the safeties removed can go even faster.

also pretty neat that they were small/light enough to be used in the Falklands war

File: BvS10Viking.jpg (97KB, 800x556px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 800x556px

>>52208539
They're ideally suited for swamps and bogs. Super low ground pressure; lots of stories of someone hopping out for a quick cigarette and a piss, and sinking into the bog the tank was happily sat on top of.

Like pic related.

>>52208576
Why the padlock?

>>52208576
>good for swamps

Explain the issues with tanks getting stuck in small bodies of mud then.

File: AbramsOnStreet.jpg (116KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x333px

>>52208595
Door lock, presumably. Stops it opening and rattling against the cage armour?

>>52208603
The Scorpion and it's kin are light tanks. Emphasis on 'light'; they weigh four tons for speed and portability.

Pic related is 60 tons of armour and gun, and will sink the fuck into mud.

File: IMG_3340.jpg (527KB, 1185x803px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1185x803px

>>52207163
>Not the stealthiest tank destroyer ever
You sicken me.

File: P1110826.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>52208616
> Not just stealthing an MBT

>>52208616
>Never seen on the battlefield
>People are looking for a tank destroyer when it's really a gun motor carriage
>They try reconnaissance by fire to scare it out, but it moves too slowly to be seen

File: hg_hildolfr-02[1].jpg (177KB, 800x734px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 800x734px

>>52207163
FORBIDDEN LOVE!

>>52208616
That's cheating though. You can't just post the 20 year champion of Hide and Seek!

>tfw 12 inches of steel for that mantlet

File: b51384eb86e28ef569cf1e00d53876fb[1].jpg (41KB, 635x299px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 635x299px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGTZLuuTPi8

File: Just look at this shit.webm (3MB, 1274x688px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1274x688px

>>52206274
>Ridiculous steam design
>Not pic related
Daily reminder it almost ended up in production IRL.

>>52208761
what the fuck is this from because I need to watch it

File: tfw the fighter.png (305KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 640x512px

>>52207005
>>52207172
>>52207486
>>52207621
That wasn't the tank I was imagining, I just thought it was a good proof of concept - but yest, I too noticed the ladder to nowhere. Them being experimental weapons might be an easier justification, as I'm not going for a narrative that suggests this is post-apocalyptic. Magic preservation or time travel shenanigans is also an option if they were massed produced.

>>52207285
This along with that NPC telling them what they need to find/craft could work well.

>>52207335
pic related

>>52206310
>>52207558
What the hell is wrong with you people?

>>52208721
No "Hot Dansu Cherry Moon" I am disappoint.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRzqjOyeSNc

>>52208780
Pixies are just a species of bug my dude, it ain't no big deal.

>>52205645
Super Hellcat. Mounted the 90mm and had a new engine.

>>52208775
Steamboy, just like the metadata says.
And it's super shit. There are _5_ minutes of good stuff out of 120

>>52208761
>almost ended up in production
Now you know you can't just tell a man something like that and not provide some details.

File: 89e0bdd7c5e9cd1a25ceb3d613484a01[1].jpg (282KB, 1063x752px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1063x752px

>>52208761
there's something fascinating about WW1 technology.
centuries of warfare and tactics rendered obsolete, and a scramble to discover the new meta of warfare.

File: Saint-Chamond-WWI-tank-good-view[1].jpg (32KB, 560x380px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 560x380px

>>52208845

File: Russians actually build this thing.jpg (51KB, 616x400px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 616x400px

>>52208807
A scrapped idea. In 1880s Navy commission basically wanted to get ability to move heavy guns inland, and horses were insufficient for that, while railroad net was an extremely limiting factor. One of the proposed projects was to build a "railway engine with eternal rail" (read - tracks).
For obvious reasons it was eventually scrapped completely still on planning phase due to absurdity of such project, insufficient know-how and general lacks of proper energy sources. Think about it as a 19th century version of Ratte tank - so absurd it was bound to fail even as a concept

File: strange-tank-italian-wwi[1].jpg (43KB, 640x456px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x456px

>>52208879

File: strange-tank-Russian-Concept[1].jpg (30KB, 400x370px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x370px

>>52208907

File: strange-tanks-popular-science-1916[1].jpg (137KB, 900x505px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 900x505px

>>52208915

File: crawler-tank[1].jpg (65KB, 500x361px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x361px

>>52208903

File: strange-tank-submarnine-land-dreadnaught-1934[1].jpg (163KB, 640x589px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 640x589px

>>52208926

>>52207518
you forget a few things...
>Can't rotate turret while in motion.
>When the turret rotates, driver loses optics.
>Commander is also loader, radio operator and gunner.

Basically, the ELC is cute... but their is a reason it did not go into full production.

>>52207518
Why are Italians so bad at war?
Where did the Romans go so wrong?

>>52210258
>Where did the Romans go so wrong?
Corruption, debauchery, over-extending themselves, and then the climate changed to a cold period and their crops failed, so people started kicking them out of colder places.

>>52210258
It all started when immigrants cucked the Latins.

>>52210258
>Italians
>Romans
Literally two completely different people. It's like asking what went wrong with Britons when talking about England.

File: Some may call this Stubborness, Luigi Cadorna calls it Determination.jpg (856KB, 2170x1450px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 2170x1450px

>>52210258
Ask Generalissimo Luigi Cadorna!

>>52210365
Fucking hell. Even by WWI standards that is some nonsense.

>>52210365
Everyone else can call it pointless waste of human life

>>52207536

>every "wwii kept going after 1945" setting turns into powersuits and walker tanks

I just wanted Pershings and jet fighters and STGs everywhere...

>>52210365
That guy is really fucking persistent.

>>52210550
Play Korean War settings

>>52210365
>>52210401
He also fired over a hundred generals for various reasons.

File: greatest tank of ww2.png (89KB, 1430x622px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1430x622px

>>52205503
Posting the classic that started it all

>>52205503
thicc

>>52210365
>quarter of a million people dead
>inconclusive
fug

>>52210258
>Why are Italians so bad at war?
A baffling poor leadership caused by corruption, cronyism and outdated military theory that they refused to change, lack of preparation and planning in pretty much all their WW2 military campaings(Ethiopia army was basically a feudal army with some british rifles, and even then the italian performance was nothing to write home about) as well Mussolini fuckery(he loved to start offensives even when his own generals told that he should wait for proper buildups, plus he insisted that all italian equipment should be 100% national, even when the national stuff was more than mediocre or outright bad, and loved to micro a lot of military related decisions, such as when he decided to personally choose a new tank model, and chose the worst out of the bunch because he spent the afternoon fucking his mistress rather than reading any of the related documents).

>>52207854
Articulation is hard as balls though.

File: german_war_walkers_by_keithwormwood-d5m0nwd.jpg (144KB, 900x575px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 900x575px

>>52211035

I think we're a LOOOONG time away from walking vehicles (if we ever get them at all), but if we limit ourselves to stuff plausible in meatspace, we are missing out on a lot of potential.

Not that real tanks aren't badass though. I like both.

>>52210290

"Italy" wasn't even a nation until 1860-ish. It spent over a thousand years as a collection of city-states and tiny kingdoms, generally aligned with or owned outright by larger powers.

It didn't spend centuries building up a unified national identity like France or England. And even after unification it didn't have the massed economic might to do as Germany did. It remained a small, disorganized backwater, with a bunch of ancient ruins that gave it cultural prestige far beyond its modern importance.

The ancient Romans had hammered together an Italian nation by kicking iver and absorbing city states no larger than themselves. After the Empire, Italian kingdoms were tiny things dwarfed by the populous, organized kingdoms that Rome had helped to create.

>>52207163
Oh, you mean self propelled guns, not tanks?

File: ISU-152.jpg (295KB, 1280x877px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1280x877px

>>52211846

In all fairness, I would group tank destroyers and self-propelled guns together with tanks. It's just that armored fighting vehicle doesn't have the same ring to it as 'Tank'.

Plus, even if you prefer turreted vehicles, you have to admit at least some non-tank AFVs are pretty damn sexy.

>>52208368
No one will ever call the tincan gavin, just give up.

What sort of Mech related technology could be used on tanks besides giving them legs?

File: German Mech Walker.jpg (132KB, 715x841px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 715x841px

>>52212245

Depends on what you define as 'Mech-Related Technology'. One feature I see in a lot of Mechs that tanks could benefit from (at least arguably) is a single crew member. A tank has a crew of anywhere between 3 and 5 people (on average). Putting the control of the gun and steering under one person (and making it feasible) could possibly provide an advantage.

>>52212314
>Putting the control of the gun and steering under one person (and making it feasible) could possibly provide an advantage.

I don't see how. That massively limits situational awareness by forcing a single crewman to do the job of many instead of letting them focus to the best of their ability on a single task.

File: 1280px-SdKfz161-1-1.jpg (209KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1280x853px

>>52207172
Why were the nazi tanks so sexy?

File: CharB1_bis_001.jpg (59KB, 600x381px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 600x381px

>>52212479

I'm not talking french tank levels of crew reduction/inefficiency. A common thing in Mecha is that a lot of things that a tank would need a separate person for are automated. If you don't need to worry about loading (autoloader mechanism) that cuts out one crew member. If the vehicle is piloted through haptic controls somehow (motion of the body or somesuch) it cuts out the driver. After all, soldiers can easily walk/run and fire a gun simultaneously. If we apply that degree of bodily control to an armored fighting vehicle, it could be pretty awesome.

File: 18831885080_b2c374096f_b[1].jpg (138KB, 960x626px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 960x626px

>>52212527
because dem angles, you could probably make a modernised 222 with the same hull shape and it wouldnt look out of place in a modern military

>>52212585
The problem is that we don't have automation that well yet. A tank needs to have the tracks controlled individually, and then the engine and gearboxes controlled as well. Gearboxes plural; one for each track.

Otherwise, can you aim and fire a gun in each hand in one direction, while walking in another direction?

>>52212653

obviously a lot of that would be handled through automation via some kind of AI that can interpret your commands and do them justly.

Load such and such shell into the gun, turn in this direction, etc.

File: Sturmtiger-Minden-Ger.jpg (193KB, 1200x830px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1200x830px

>>52212527

The combination of angled armor, big guns, and a brutish, heavy look. I just feel German WW2 era tanks embody 'Tank-ness' pretty well.

>>52212585
>After all, soldiers can easily walk/run and fire a gun simultaneously

And yet they're much better at it if they have someone else to tell them where to shoot and what to shoot it with.

The individual is always going to lose out to the group when it comes to dealing with the chaos of combat simply because the group can dedicate more pairs of eyes and brains to the task, automated mechanisms or not. And if you get to the point where you can automate the decision making of a commander in terms of route planning, target identification and selection and so on, then there's no point even having a crew. To the point that a crew would just slow it down.

>>52212686
... or just use tanks with a crew of 3. Cheaper, reliable, easier to make, harder to hit (since it's not a standing tower) and fuckload of other advantages.

There is literally no point of making a walking machine used for war, no matter how high your tech is going to be.

File: Tank Walker.jpg (73KB, 800x719px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x719px

>>52212653

I'm not saying we have the technology to do that, just that if we DID it would be pretty awesome, and a good aspect to take from Mecha and transplant onto Tanks.

If we're going off mech controls, I wouldn't be moving in one direction and firing in the opposite direction.

>>52212720

A counter-argument I could make is that a single individual supported with enough passively-automated systems (loading, target marking, possibly some motor-control assistance, etc.) could make and execute decisions faster than a group could. The commander has to relay to the driver and gunner, unifying that with technology to match means there's no delay between a commander giving an order and that order being carried out.


>>52212729

Rule of cool. Depending on the fictional setting, as well as the terrain, maybe a walking war engine could navigate certain types of terrain better.

I would generally agree, that within most realms of possibility, tanks are much more efficient than Mecha, but I like both. Depending on the setting, either is fine.

File: P1100627.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>52212699
To my mind, tank-ness hit it's peak with the Centurion.
> Rumble rumble rumble RRRRR
> Clatter clatter clink clatter clatter
Although the Chieftain's high-revving diesel and clouds of blue smoke whenever someone moves it are pretty nice too.
Panzerkrautwagens just kinda look the same, just bigger or smaller.

For PCs, to have four in a tank, you'd be wasting their PC-ness unless you have specific skillsets for each role and limited data to necessitate a commander. Otherwise, you'd end up with a maximum of two PCs per tank, for moving and shooting respectively. Either add NPCs or handwave in battlefield situational awareness and automation to justify their lack.

However, tank platoons are conveniently two pairs of two tanks, with NPCs that catch up after the action stops for roleplaying opportunities and resupply.

File: House_Krast_Knight_Errants_Battle.jpg (267KB, 1148x1206px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1148x1206px

>>52212729

From a storytelling perspective, having a crew is a cool opportunity for character development, since you have a group of people united under one purpose. The tank becomes like a home.

A Mecha is more individualized, though sometimes (in 40k) larger titans have multiple crew members. It's also much more human-like in form, and some people like having something that resembles a person.

One advantage tanks have over Mechs is- tank takes a hit to the treads, it's now a turret. Mecha takes a hit to the leg, it's now useless.

File: Tiger 1.jpg (70KB, 790x506px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 790x506px

*blocks your way*

File: Ex-IDF_Cromwell-latrun[1].jpg (83KB, 800x504px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x504px

>>52212851
>all those american friendly-fire incidents because they kept mistaking british Cromwells for Tiger tonks

>>52212826
Did you just implied tanks aren't or can't be cool?
Get the fuck out!

And any terrain unsuitable for tanks is by default unsuitable for mechanised warfare

>>52208612
The Abram's tracks are wide enough that it has a fairly low ground pressure, and it has enough horsepower to power through most obstacles.

There are few things capable of stopping a large tank.

>>52212986
>Ditch
>Reinforced concrete
>Pile of rubble
>Steep hill
>Thick, roadless forest
Should I keep going with mundane things cock-blocking tanks?

File: T55 tank.jpg (111KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 600x400px

>>52212851

I think some tanks just feel 'tankier' than others. A lot of post-war Soviet and American designs look really weird. Some just have odd features to them. both nations were innovating quite a bit in order to outdo one another. A rounded turret is 100% practical, but it doesn't convey that *HEAVILY ARMORED JUGGERNAUT AT MAXIMUM VOLUME* feeling in the same way that hard angles would.

I will make an exception for the IS-3 though, that shit is sexy as hell.

>>52212966

I would never imply such a thing, my brother. I would however say that Tanks and Mecha can BOTH be cool. Coolness is not mutually exclusive. Also- a Mecha battle on steep, mountainous terrain would be pretty awesome.

>>52212966
>And any terrain unsuitable for tanks is by default unsuitable for mechanised warfare
This forever. Assuming comparable size, how could a 60-80 ton warmachine hope to perform better in difficult terrain if it's weight was focussed on an even smaller area?

File: happens.jpg (93KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 500x400px

>>52212942
To be honest, the Americans have never really bothered to learn the difference between british vehicles and bad guy vehicles.

>>52212986
Except soft mud, tank traps, anti-tank ditches, mines, and distance. And architecture, because an Abrams comes out worse in a collision between it and a highway support pillar.

>>52213024
Some tanks ARE inherently tankier. It's just a case of what you consider tanky.
Personally, I feel it's a big rumbling diesel engine, clouds of smoke, clattering tracks, and a general lumbering dinosaur-ish attitude implying something's come to wreck your shit.
So, Centurion is tanky because of noises and styling. The Leopard is too boxy and too sporty to be properly tanky. It looks more like a VW or an Audi than a 'proper' tank, and moves like one.

>>52212966
>And any terrain unsuitable for tanks is by default unsuitable for mechanised warfare
And yet, as Chechnya, Iraq and Afghanistan proved, anywhere suitable for mechanised warfare is not a place you want to stay unless you want to be blown up by tanks, and so you hide in the cities and hills.
So they have to send tanks in there after you, where you can drop molotovs and RPG rounds onto their thin roof armour.

File: SSPanzerdivision_Das_Reich.jpg (68KB, 800x495px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x495px

>>52213133
>Some tanks ARE inherently tankier.
Metal bawks > all

File: Carron[1].jpg (33KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x480px

>>52213212

>>52213024
Man what
Smooth boys like the Sherman M4A1 and the T-55 are way tankier than shitty box tanks.

File: fd88fb4bfb584ba44e89c45327ae8b58.jpg (96KB, 1052x650px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1052x650px

hey guys can i be a tank too?

>>52207318
>>52207361
Honestly British tanks were pure sex from the Crusader on. Maybe even earlier, depending on what you like in the Cruiser line. The Cromwell and Comet deserve to be on my dick.

>>52208324
>And I know they are pretty useless against just about anything that isn't infantry

The one in the foreground has a 20mm cannon for killing thin-skinned vehicles (including a lot of APCs that are only armored against heavy machineguns).

The one in the back of your pick has a TOW missile launcher for killing tanks.

A group of Wiesels fighting a tank and nearby infantry is like the archetypal adventurers slaying a dragon.

>>52213016
>Ditch
Depends on ditch trench/width. Been a while but I remember M1A2s could clear 4m wide trenches/ditches no problem.

>Reinforced concrete
There are ammo intensive techniques for using HEAT ammo to damage reinforced concrete walls to allow various vehicles to breach walls up to a certain thickness.

>Pile of Rubble
Depends heavily on a very large number of factors. Often just faster and easier for most vehicles (including tanks) to go around.

>Steep hill
Most medium and heavier military vehicles can handle hill of the same grade. Tanks can often handle them better due to lower centers of gravity.

>Thick, roadless forest
Which will stop pretty much anything but /infantry and even infantry can have serious trouble if undergrowth is to thick.

>>52213133
>Except soft mud, tank traps, anti-tank ditches, mines,

It takes a massive amount of deep soft mud to slow a tank. Other large military vehicles would suffer in the same situations. Pretty much anything that can stop a tank will stop anything mechanized of lesser weight.

>and distance.
Yes and no. One of the biggest problems Abrams units had in Desert Storm was the fact that they could cover so much ground so fast that supply could not keep up.

>And architecture, because an Abrams comes out worse in a collision between it and a highway support pillar.
No shit. Highway support pillars hold up several times an Abram's weight and are designed to with stand large scale highspeed impacts.

>>52214133
Yeah, while the dragon can easily kill them with each single strike.

File: Even the cup is judging you.jpg (62KB, 640x736px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x736px

>>52214217
>B-but it will work, guys!
>T-totally!
Regardless of factors, it's absurdly easy to destroy or stop dead a 4 million bucks tank with less than 4 hundred bucks of investment. Some of them happen all by themselves, being even better.

>>52214279
Welcome to modern vehicular combat.

>>52214316
Its actually far far harder than you think.

While you hear all the time about the rare 400 dollar successes, but rarely hear about the ungodly number of times there were 400 dollar failures.

>>52213212
*breaks down*

File: Eldar grav tanks.jpg (76KB, 677x500px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 677x500px

Floating tanks are the best tho.

>>52214619
I like the Tau ones better.

File: Eldar falcon grav tank.jpg (258KB, 667x978px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 667x978px

>>52214648
Tau tanks look like trash.
Eldar tanks are aesthetic perfection.

File: Type 2 Ka-Mi Amphibious Tank.png (951KB, 1443x1800px) Image search: [Google]

951KB, 1443x1800px

>>52205503
From ~1917 - 1945 they were a decisive element of land warfare. Nowadays they are helpful for supporting infantry, but tend to get annihilated by TOWs or air strikes. They're an easy target, but as long as you control the skies and have plenty of supporting infantry, you can use them to some effect.

>>52214704
the M1 abrams is still considered the backbone of the US army

>>52214716
Infantry are the backbone. Abrahms are flown in to help soldiers through tough areas. Neither would be shit without air superiority and aircraft like the F-16, or A-10s on FAC patrol.

An abrahms cannot clear a building, cannot operate in dense jungles or mountainous terrain, and cannot operate more than 100km from a supply depot. Its also extremely susceptible to air strikes and modern AT missiles.

>>52214782
i thought infantry were the muscle?

File: 1452558948322.gif (3MB, 684x340px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 684x340px

>>52214675
I respectfully disagree.

>>52214804
That's artillery. Infantry are the tip of the blade, for digging things out and holding positions to the hilt.

>>52214490
>IED detracking the vehicle, requiring an expensive retrival or dangerous repair in the open
>Pile of rubble stopping a tank column
>Bad weather making tanks useless due to all the mud in the countryside
>Just regular winter
>Just regular winter in mountains
>Literal roadblocks piled together to block the path
>A motherfucking tree over a road
I'm sorry, you were saying something?

I will give you a pro-tip: I don't give a fuck how well armed, well armoured, well protected and well equipped any given tank model you will throw, especially since you seem fixated about Abrams. They all share the same basic weaknesses coming directly from the fact they are tanks, almost unchanged since the basic concept of tank was created in the first place. And it takes to be an idiot to openly igore them.
Guess what you are doing right now.

Also, ever since TOWs became a thing, you can destroy tanks entire day and night without much effort and with clear unit inferiority. Then come airstrikes for more sophisticated enemies, who can literally shot you without any means of retaliation.
Tanks are pretty much obsolete in actual modern combat, unless you are facing wastly inferior troops with no hardware on their side and terrain to help them survive anyway.
Which literally doesn't happen.

>>52214716
Every single army uses infantry first, second, third and last as its backbone.
I get it, you served in one of the mechanised units, that explains the fixation.

>>52214716
Abrahms is more like that giant axe you bring in on a horse and cart for when you need to chop through a really large tree blocking the road.

>>52214804
I would say the supply and logistics are the backbone. Tanks, Artillery and air support are the big muscles like in the legs or arms. Infantry are the skin that holds everything together and actually touches stuff directly, and are the smaller muscles like in the fingers that do fine manipulation.

Something like that. I guess aircraft also act as the eyes and ears as well.

>>52215119
dont forget

>wet mattress dropped from upper story of a building as tank drives past
I dunno if that would work on a modern tank, but it did the trick in WWII against tanks with air intakes on the rear facing upwards and with a flat surface (which is quite a few of them)

>>52215119
>Tanks are pretty much obsolete in actual modern combat
So why keep making tanks at all?

File: Battle of New Orleans.jpg (88KB, 700x329px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 700x329px

>>52213133
>To be honest, the Americans have never really bothered to learn the difference between british vehicles and bad guy vehicles.

Well, old habits die hard.

File: jagdpanther.jpg (948KB, 1304x710px) Image search: [Google]

948KB, 1304x710px

>>52207163
>no mention of bauhaus sex goddess JagdPanther

File: IMG_16901.jpg (105KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 800x600px

>>52205503
any sherman that isn't a firefly is kek.

Behold a Panzerjager; the Elefant/Ferdinand. The sexiest Porsche ever made.

>>52213212
What a beautiful Tiger. It just radiates a stark, imposing presence. I think it could make a great model for a new Leman Russ pattern. Why isn´t there one yet?

>>52208429
~113 KPH

>>52208616
I still don't know how the fuck they managed to lose it in that field.

File: 1467825501905.gif (2MB, 550x479px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 550x479px

>>52213212
>>52215996

>>52216047
>Leo 1As look like Tigers

I never noticed that before.

CAN YOUR RUSS AIM HIGH,
DOES IT SHOOT INTO THE SKY?
DOES IT FIRE HUGE BLASTS
THAT MAKE THE XENOS CRY?
CAN IT PULP THE FILTHY TRAITOR LIKE A MECHANUS CHEESE GRATER
CAN YOUR RUSS
AIM
HIGH!?

>>52215688
thats becuase a JagdPanther isn't really a tank. Its a SPG / Tank destroyer

>>52216079
That's a Leopard 2A4, mate.

>>52212927
Because it broke?

File: 1417625276206.jpg (2MB, 3201x2132px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3201x2132px

>>52215458
Because he's wrong in his ability to assess the actual capability of counters to tanks? Or that said counters have an array of counter-situations/equipment all of their own?

If you look at it he's basically advocating a simplistic X counters Y perspective. Where in reality X counters Y some times but often doesn't especially when the rest of the alphabet gets involved. And the other letters are always involved outside of simple tests.

File: K2 firing line.jpg (559KB, 1600x1060px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 1600x1060px

>>52215119
>Also, ever since TOWs became a thing, you can destroy tanks entire day and night without much effort and with clear unit inferiority
>what is APS

>>52217957
>what is APS
I thought that was currently in experimental stage.

>>52217965
they've been around in the field since the merkava

>>52217957
How many tanks actually have an effective APS?

There was a case not long ago of American-supplied TOW missiles wrecking an armored column in Syria.

File: M60.jpg (94KB, 640x430px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 640x430px

>>52218335
Most newer ones mount them or have provision for doing so iirc.

What you mostly see though, especially in Syria, is old missiles used on older tanks. Syria is also pretty perfect for ATGMs in that the armour used is exactly the stuff the missiles were built to destroy, driven largely by crap crews who sit around in open terrain. Good, aware crews would be actively avoiding and shooting back at ATGM teams since just suppressing the attackers is generally gonna be enough to break their aim and cause a miss, since shells travel massively faster than missiles. Old wire and laser guided ATGM teams are pretty vulnerable give their need to maintain visual contact with the target vehicle for the time it takes to get the missile to the target.

>>52215458
>grunts die to bullets
Why make infantry at all?

File: panzerjager__ferudinando_by_shinigami195.jpg (62KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 900x600px

>>52207536

File: imperious_retribution_by_blazbaros-d7av5hf.png (1010KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

1010KB, 1200x900px

>>52212917
Not actually contributing in any way, but i find that a very good way to include mecha is to have it be old, and not even designed for combat.

Like the knights there, originally agricultural and lumber equipment. Because a 150mm cannon is necessary for lumber-jacking.

File: maxresdefault(3).jpg (156KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1280x720px

>>52211035
Yeah, but we're already near

All hail BD and France

File: 2b295c427e7cec6621dfc75b0982ce01.jpg (75KB, 636x374px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 636x374px

>>52215458
Tanks (after tfucking shitshows inbetween 1916-17) are act as your battering ram, they still get rekt in the end, but will fucking save lives from bogging attritions.

>>52219209
Because Powah Armah soon beybeh.

>>52215119
That's wrong and you know it.

The TOW first debuted in 1970. As I'm sure you noticed, every military worth mentioning has continued to operate tanks, with no end in sight.

ATGMs are nice, but they can't hold ground, advance, or support infantry. Air support is also nice but aircraft have long turnaround times for relatively meagre amounts of ordinance.

"Tanks are obsolete" is one of the worst defense memes, and isn't a particularly new one at that.

>>52205503
They're better than mechs.
But mechs are way cooler

>>52215119
>Bad weather making tanks useless due to all the mud in the countryside
Nigga wat. Tanks were literally, since their invention, used for crossing boggy, muddy hellpits to blow up the machineguns and artillery on the other side. Mud is explicitly what they were designed to deal with.
>Just regular winter
Eastern front.
>Just regular winter in mountains
Chechens tried that, didn't work.
>Literal roadblocks piled together to block the path
"Gunner, load HE."
>A motherfucking tree over a road
is gonna wind up as matchsticks either by the treads or again HE.

>>52205604
Mechas suck dicks.

>>52207389
>Armored trains
>Just blow up the tracks
>Tracks aren't armored and can't move
>Free mobility kill
>You didn't even have to get anywhere near the vehicle
>Wow, it's tottaly fucking useless

File: AppleSeed_v04_c25_196.jpg (129KB, 728x1133px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 728x1133px

>>52220440
Mech can pull tactical espionage action
Tonk? Nah....

So sucks your own dick m8.

File: 377275-alexfas01.jpg (1MB, 2558x1439px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2558x1439px

>>52212917

I always viewed the dichotomy between mecha and tanks as being similar to the clash between battleships and carriers. The tank is this a battleship on land with massive cannons, a rotating turret, and most of all, is crewed by a team of people: no one man can hope to control these steel beasts, and thus the job is divide between two or three or four, and they must bond with each other and their machine if they are to perfect their art of combat. On contrast, a mech is this tall lumbering, authoritative brute that resembles a giant of the kind that was fought by David and Odysseus: it represents power, power vested into a single man, be he either a hero or a tyrant, he has no gunner or driver to attend to: the judge, jury, and executioner, here to lay waste to the stalwart ships of land, caring not for their history and viewing them as nothing more than an obstacle to his domination, if not a perilous old fool to be pitied. Much like the Lancers knew their days were numbered during the Charge at Krojanty, the tank men know that their time is coming to an end, but they do not cower.

It is easy to see a tank as a weapon, but in truth, the weapon is only half of the machine: the other half is the armour, the steel plate which it uses to defend both its crew and the innocents they fight for: among the earliest of tank models were those which bore no weapons and intended only to shield their passengers from the horrors of trench warfare. A fortress on treads, it shall try to hold off these monterous colossi until it can hold them no more, its fallen hull a monument to a more civilized age where power was divided among the many rather than held the few.

-

It should be noted that both tanks and mechs started out as fiction: the first tank was conjured up in a story book written by H. G. Wells, and upon transition to reality was once lauded as being impractical in the face of a properly drilled cavalry unit.

>>52212917
>Mecha takes a hit to the leg, it's now useless.

It depends on shape and form actually, a spider like mech can be on the same situation of tanks if their limbs get all torn off. And since we generally imagined it as an upsized infantry, they'll maybe will act as the same as how a downed infantry do when he get his legs off, it'll be sitting tight, shooting anyones who gets near it, minus much scream and pain.

File: Ring of Red.jpg (93KB, 640x926px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 640x926px

God, all these mech/tanks in WW2 style is seriously making me want to replay Ring of Red.

I don't know if it was a good game all around, but it was cool as fuck

>>52212826
>If we're going off mech controls, I wouldn't be moving in one direction and firing in the opposite direction.
Then you lose tactical flexibility.

I want /k/ to stay. Pls continue.

>>52218335
>There was a case not long ago of American-supplied TOW missiles wrecking an armored column in Syria.
None of the middle-east shitholes except Israel have modern armor.

>>52220587
>espionage
>with highly-visible vehicles that are guaranteed to stand out in any environment

Lolno.

>>52207005
>IS-3
>Anything more than garbage tier
One year later and the vastly superior T-54 starts production. Heavy/Breakthrough tanks belong in 1942.

>>52214041
>Maybe even earlier, depending on what you like in the Cruiser line
Those early Cruisers are monstrosities. Churchill tanks are where it's at. I've got like 12 of the fuckers for my Flames of War army.

>>52221090

Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia had Leopard 2s and M1 Abrams respectively. Not sure if they still /have/ them, but they were handed some at one point.

>>52221113
>2.5 meters with rubber paddings in each feet.
>"Stand out in any environment"
>Impliying it can't sneak it way throught urban buildings without breaking much shit.
>Impliying you can get your mech nice, small and compact, but with IFV level of firepower.
>"Hurr my only mecha exposure is Gundum and Clankwarrior"

Yeah, i understand your newness to the franchise anon.

>>52212942
What didn't Americans mistake for enemy units? To the point that Brits put American stars on their stuff so there was no confusion.

>>52221178
>2.5 meters with rubber paddings in each feet.
>Impliying it can't sneak it way throught urban buildings without breaking much shit.
It can't even fit through ordinary doorways.

>>52221205
Mechafags btfo

>>52220541
Which is the reason why those trains were using inspecting cars AND carries a supply of rail in case of such situation.
Given the technology of the day, it was extra hard to take one with planes (mostly because it was carrying a fuckload of AA guns for that reason and was armoured from every side), while it's impractical to blow more than a single section of tracks, which can be then replaced in few minutes when you have tools and rails.

Aka - it was a viable idea that only got obsolete with introduction of man-portable AT rockets and smart bombs for planes.
So get your head from your ass

>>52213133
>So they have to send tanks in there after you, where you can drop molotovs and RPG rounds onto their thin roof armour
No, that's when you send ground troops in. I swear nobody learned anything from the fighting at Stalingrad, Berlin or the entire fucking Italian campaign.

>>52215458
Ah yes, here we have a classic example of a "mobility>all" tard that cost many of our boys and girls their lives from 2001 onwards.

>>52217965
Shows how much you know.

File: 1456903255863.jpg (46KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x480px

>ITT: Bunch of armchair tankers arguing with bunch of armchair /tg/ guys

Tanks are fucking useless when you don't have air superiority. It's been a thing since the Spanish Civil War. And no amount of technology progress in tank production is going to offset that.
Also, like in case of most heavy hardware, tanks are the classic case of "very expensive weapon that can be faced with inexpensive man-portable weapons". That's been a case since 40s, too.

On the other hand, tanks are still perfectly capable of performing their original role - provide a good support for infantry. With a half-decent cover from infantry, tanks can offset most of the typical disadvantages they could face when fighting against anything that is not airplanes.

In short - you are both wrong on the basis of measuring tanks all by themselves, absolutely ignoring the fact tanks do not operate without support from other types of army units.

Also, I want the Clappistani meming for Abrams to leave. That tank is - like most of your flashy toys - 30 years old and it shows. And it can be still turned into a wreck with TOWs, unlike the reasurance of one of the anons. Thing is - TOWs are pretty expensive, so none of the troops Americans were facing for past 26 years had them in any significant amount and with decent training, making the top brass thinking that it's not the lack of ordnance, but the ordnance being useless against tanks.

>>52221175
None of them have active systems. Turks did lose two leos...one of which was bailed out of because they got pinged without any damage.They parked them, and used as stationary defense, of course every ATGM in the vicinity had a field day. If you judge if a weapon system is viable by how invincible it is, you'd have to disband every military in the world.

>>52221290
>Lying this much in the internet
What for?

No, seriously, on what purpose?

File: s003.jpg (175KB, 720x1116px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 720x1116px

>>52221205
Most of urbans doorway are much bigger than you think.

And Landmates are only 1×1.5×2.5 in dimention at the largest, that was also can crouch and strave their way in, so yes, it CAN fit throught ordinary doors. Fuck you can even fit 3 of them in a Bradley with crouching positions.

Also did i tell you it was one of the largest?, because standard Police/Reconaissance 'mates only top at 2.1-2.3 meters with much slimmer proportion for infiltration and break-in operation but still invulnerable to .50 cal and frags. So no, >>52221209 mech still aren't btfo, try harder tank fags.

>>52221325
>Most of urbans doorway are much bigger than you think.
Most urban doorways are about 2.2m tall and 90 or 80 cm wide. So no, mechas such as you've described can't fit through them.

>>52221178
The same power source and silent technology could also be used pretty much for any other vehicle/equipment.
Why bother researching, innovating, designing and mass producing a brand new, subpar platform for ultra specific scenarios when you can just upgrade the existing tech.

>>52221358
DELET

>So no, mechas such as you've described can't fit through them.
>Ignoring the fact that much smaller 'mates are also exist

They can bloody crouch or at least lower their heads down m8, of course they can fit in.

Also, 2 doors gate and garages are fucking exist.

>>52221358
>ultra specific scenarios
Im sorry anon, Landmates are pretty much a multipurpose platform, just like every exoskelletons ever, they are exist to boost infantrys/workers/policeman performance up to eleven.

>Why bother researching, innovating, designing and mass producing a brand new, subpar platform
>Landmates
>Pretty much a much smaller, personal IFVs with 2x the mobility of infantry.
>Subpar

Yeah, your ass is subpar.

>>52221451
What you're describing is power armor, not mechas.

>>52221451
>They can bloody crouch or at least lower their heads down m8, of course they can fit in.
Crouching doesn't matter if they're too wide to fit through the door.

>>52221451
Mechas are a shit platform once they grow beyond the size of what would be classified as powered armour. Literally anything a mech beyond that size could do, a tank could do cheaper and better.

File: US_Army_Corps_Of_Engineers_Steam_Tank_1918.jpg (188KB, 800x386px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 800x386px

>>52207064
>a serious concept
It was briefly
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_tank#

>>52221487
Expanding on this, outside of cities or dense terrain, powered armour would have to compete with technicals, who are likely to be cheaper and faster and able to mount weapons that'll shit all over whatever armour you could mount on a roughly man sized mecha.

>>52221325
So the answer to making mechs viable is to re-brand powered armour and hope no one remembers what the word used to mean.

>>52221476
>Power Armor
>Literally robotic exoskelletons
>Under the robotic dvelopement tree
>Functioned to assist and enhance the ability of its wearer to manipulate their surroundings
>Not mecha

Holy shit, get a load of this meme.
Thanks to confirm that your only expusure to mecha are Gundams and BT m8.
I'll give you a hint, Madox 01, Bubblegum Crisis, All You Need Is Kill, RED, Jingroh and Forever War are also lauded as mecha shows by /m/ for reasons.

>>52221486
They can strave their body from their side.

Try again.

>>52221551
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mecha

File: Messerschmitt_Me_262_050606-F-1234P-055.jpg (286KB, 1800x1172px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1800x1172px

>>52221551
>make power armor
>call it a mech
Everyone, look at my flying tank™

>>52221562
Not if the dimensions you've posted are even remotely accurate.

>>52221571
>>52221576
>waaaah waah buh by my personal confirmed dictonary (that was also missing the point of what is the context of mecha due to western popular believes.), mecha are buig bipedal robits.

Its ok anon, being normie in this genre is understandable.

>>52221588
Why don't you actually read the source and try again.

File: HMS_Hood_h60452.jpg (124KB, 740x577px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 740x577px

>>52221605
I like swimming tanks as well

>>52221605
>being this much of a retard

From now on mechas are autonomous robots no larger than 10cm in any dimension. This is the one true definition because I say so.

File: a10-007.jpg (357KB, 1415x640px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1415x640px

>>52221562
>spend ages turning sideways and shuffle through the doorway
If your design isn't through the door in an instant, it'll be shit for urban combat by default. Better off just kool aiding through the walls.

>>52221576
Well...

>>52221551
As is Space Battleship Yamato.

Is it the Yamato that's the mech, or the Hayabusas?

>>52221613
Because I don't actually give a crap about your shitty weeaboo comic.

>>52221622
>Well...

So let's smack it on the nose with a Kwk38 and see how it handles that.

File: 1464113224144.gif (2MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x281px

>>52221633

>>52221615
>waah im still missing the point and my point is far better

L.o.l., go on, show your ignorance more, like the rest of this thread.

I must bring popcorn for this

>>52221633
>Wah, your favourite comics are weaboo shit
>unlike girls und panzer

Nice double standard bro

>>52221672
>being this butthurt
We're talking in English, therefore the definitions of words in English are the ones that matter. Fuck off to 2chan if you want to speak about what the japanese mean by the word mecha. Meanwhile you're still wrong.

File: 1458745581522.png (143KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 800x1000px

>>52221605

File: totally not cropped porn.png (215KB, 306x375px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 306x375px

>>52221689

>>52221689
No, actually that's weeaboo shit as well.

>>52221691
>>52221692
>Waaah he's dont mach my westaboo standard so he's a retard

AHAHAHAHAHA

please, do go on
I need more /k/eks on this containtment

>>52221701
>being this evasive

Jeeze, you're worst than brexit bigwigs on their heyday

File: Caladbait.jpg (77KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 640x480px

>>52221714
Overboard, you had me up till now. Have a final reply

>>52221724
I'm just pointing out that there's no doublestandard, since I give equal amounts of no fucks about any and all weeaboo shits.

>>52221738
Yeah, do stay being on evasive mod anon.

>>52221756
>>>/a/

>>52221451
No, mechs do better in only a few ultra specific scenarios. Sure you could make it multipurpose, but in 99% of the cases it will be a much more expensive and subpar solution to any combined arms approach.
Again, there is no reason to spend money on them. And this is ignoring stuff like their weaknesses, complexity, etc.

Do you want a much smaller, personal IFV with 5x the mobility of infantry? A small hover drone supporting actual infantry. Or a tracked robot mule, so the infantry only carries armor and weapons.

>>52221551
>>52221605
Power armor is not mecha you stupid, narcissistic weeb. Fuck off to /a/

File: 1363605955225.jpg (14KB, 281x307px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 281x307px

>>52221287

>Aircraft are fucking useless when you dont have troops on the ground. It's been a thing since the Spanish Civil War. And no amount of technology progress in tank production is going to offset that.

You realize how stupid you sound now?

Every branch is dependent on each other, that is what combined arms doctrine requires.

>>52221838
>Fuck off to /a/
Fuck you, we don't want autistic mecha fags either. If anything he should go to /m/

>>52221838
>Power armor is not mecha you stupid, narcissistic weeb.

Yeeeah ok bro
Ignorant is power, i get it

>>52221865
Yup, and autistic ESL tankfags are all belong to /k/, the autist containment central.

File: Ryo and Kaizaki confused.png (353KB, 603x783px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 603x783px

>>52221928
>complains about ESL's
>can't even form a proper sentence

>>52221908
Here, this might help: https://www.lingoda.com/english?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc_text&utm_campaign=[FI-EN[english]&utm_term=learn%20english%20online&gclid=CjwKEAjwkq7GBRDun9iu2JjyhmsSJADHCD_HmUyhqkVqOG020Nk5kH0U_rH2KoerHCCjUInS6J7N1RoCLivw_wcB

>>52221942
>Complain about others complaining about ESLs
>Post moeshit

>>52221090
Actually, Russia sold a small number of T-90s to Syria a year or two ago. I think a few may even have the Shtora APS

>>52221949
>Hurr u must learn english because you've dissagree with me

Kek, typical.
Don't worry anon, i'll accept your plebness.

For fuck's sake stop taking the bait people.

>>52222115
No, you must learn English because your grammar is atrocious and you can't seem to understand what "mecha" means.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2000x1233px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1233px

I have two things to say.

Modern tanks > WW2 tanks

Challenger 2 > Abrams M1A2

>>52205644
>Not wanting to play a game where every player has his own role, from Commander to Driver
>Not wanting to experience the exhilaration of being in a monstrosity of industry, sowing death and fire among your enemies, the crew becoming as much a part of the machine as the gears and treads
>Not wanting to feel the sudden terror when an opponent appears that outclasses you and you have to rely solely on the skill, cleverness, and fighting spirit of your buddies and commander
Tanks are great places to set games. Best game I've ever played I was the main gun operator in a Leman Russ in Only War. Shit was intense, and the most bittersweet moment of my gaming career was when we finally had to abandon the Hammer on the field and escape back to friendly lines.

>>52208324
I have no real knowledge on their use or efficacy but these things look fun as fuck to drive.

>>52221928
>tank thread
>start shitposting about mecha
>tankfags are the autists

>>52222130
To be fair, you must know that "mecha" are a rather large terms that encompast many different type of machines.

Today, "mecha" that you're usually heard today was usually used to define a large, bipedal robots, thats not because its is actually all about, but mostly because of popular believe in general western fans due to much exposure to several popular series, like Gundams, Robotech, Voltrons, Mazingers and Battletech.

But in the actual modern depiction of mecha, such big bipedal robots are only a small part of it. In eastern sides (particularly Japanese), "mecha" defines all things robotics, range from small, cute drones, robotic suits of power armor, to the usual towering piece behemots you've regularly seen on toonami.

So calling others definition of mechas "wrong" is rather invalid.

This is why we can't have nice things.

We had a comfy thread about tanks and then some weeb screams and the rest of the thread is essentially 100 or so replies telling him to seek treatment for his mental illness.

File: 1484730857794.jpg (418KB, 731x1000px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 731x1000px

Can't we all just get along.

>>52222431
Nobody gives a fuck what mecha defines in Japan.
Power armor and exoskeletons are equipment, they are not mecha by any definition.

>>52222441
That's also their problems that they cannot contain their jimmies when something they like is being shat on by random assjobs. Both parties are being guilty here.

>>52222588
>By any definition

By your believes
Ranting about how you doesn't give a shit about some facts doesn't makes your rant valid either.

File: 40k Tiger.jpg (518KB, 1280x768px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1280x768px

>>52215996
Lo' and behold this beautiful yet unrealized 3D cad design friend-o.

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (83KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1280x720px

>>52222151
the chally2 looks pretty swank without its brick-shithouse and the garden-fence kit

>to fight in urban environments, you must become the house

File: Stugchimera1.png (381KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1024x1024px

>>52222710
>tfw no StuG lyfe in the 41st millenium

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3630x1674px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3630x1674px

>>52222753
It does a good job of making the thing pretty goddamn indestructible from what I've read at least.

Aesthetically I think I prefer the Challenger 1 though.

>>52221486
The can make a door.

>>52222710
>>52222771
I unironically would consider putting my neglected engineering skills into creating plastic moulds for these kinds of 40k designs.

>tfw you could easily charge 75 bucks if you actually produced such a kit.

>>52222753
>to fight in urban environments, you must become the house

Dunno, its not really that convincing for me.

Its more like she's screaming "please, fuck me with your ATs Ahmed"

>>52221486
>If it isn't fit the door

So makes it fit, Ivan, thats what those "power" for.

File: Stugchimera.png (362KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 1024x1024px

>>52222824
i still need to nail down the design and detailing on it, Guard really need more light/medium armour on chimera hulls.

other idea i had was a Valhallan chimera-variant space T-34