NationStates

Arthropoda Ingens wrote:Tanks were designed on the basis of cars - add some armour to protect from bullets, a gun to shoot people, and give it tracks to deal with the shitty, wheel-hating terrain.

Not to be bastard or something, but the first tank where designed with the battleship in mind, they where thought of being the "battleship of the land".

Yup thats why the brits had cruiser tanks, they were to act as cruisers.

Nerdayn wrote:

Arthropoda Ingens wrote:Tanks were designed on the basis of cars - add some armour to protect from bullets, a gun to shoot people, and give it tracks to deal with the shitty, wheel-hating terrain.

Not to be bastard or something, but the first tank where designed with the battleship in mind, they where thought of being the "battleship of the land".

Not so. The fact that's what people believe it to be designed as is a descendent of the fact that in First World War Britain, there were a number of groups attempting to develop a vehicle designed around the principles of breaking the trench-bound stalemate. Lieutenant-Colonel Ernst Swinton who had originally suggested the idea (which had been rejected by Kitchener at the time) searched around and found all these groups working away separately. When he told the Secretary of War, they arranged them all to meet in one room, and the upshot was that as the RN was furthest along in developing their designs, they would finish it and test a prototype which the Ordnance Ministry/Department would then take over full-scale production of. Hence the original references to them as 'landships'.

Germans in WW 1 saw them as battleships, thats what they attempted to build.

I'm eagerly awaiting evidence of tanks being built featuring a hydrodynamically efficient shape and with ship propellers as a means of propulsion.

OHWAIT.

Correction, the germans saw them as LAND battle ships.

i cant see much use for heavy ground vehicles (mechs/tanks) in FT battles. Assuming at least one side has a fleet in orbit, tanks and mech will provide nice big slow targets. A quick raiding party/commando force could do a much better job, as they can strike and fall back before the enemy fleet can target them.

Risen Britannia wrote:i cant see much use for heavy ground vehicles (mechs/tanks) in FT battles. Assuming at least one side has a fleet in orbit, tanks and mech will provide nice big slow targets. A quick raiding party/commando force could do a much better job, as they can strike and fall back before the enemy fleet can target them.

If you're landing troops on a planet, chances are you want something on that planet, if not ownership of the planet itself. Otherwise, you'd just glass it from orbit anyway. For that reason alone, an occupying force will only use strikes from orbital capital ships on isolated, or especially tough, targets for fear of destroying the very thing you want to have. Moreover, the potential for friendly fire when using orbital strikes on manned battlefields would be catastrophic.

Utilisation of armoured fighting vehicles such as tanks or mechs offers troops a highly mobile offensive and defensive platform that can take out an enemy vehicle without reducing the city they are trying to capture into a smouldering crater. If you're intent on occupying a planet or simply capturing a single objective in person, going without vehicular ground and air support would be nigh-on suicidal.

Interstellar Planets wrote:

Risen Britannia wrote:i cant see much use for heavy ground vehicles (mechs/tanks) in FT battles. Assuming at least one side has a fleet in orbit, tanks and mech will provide nice big slow targets. A quick raiding party/commando force could do a much better job, as they can strike and fall back before the enemy fleet can target them.

If you're landing troops on a planet, chances are you want something on that planet, if not ownership of the planet itself. Otherwise, you'd just glass it from orbit anyway. For that reason alone, an occupying force will only use strikes from orbital capital ships on isolated, or especially tough, targets for fear of destroying the very thing you want to have. Moreover, the potential for friendly fire when using orbital strikes on manned battlefields would be catastrophic.

Utilisation of armoured fighting vehicles such as tanks or mechs offers troops a highly mobile offensive and defensive platform that can take out an enemy vehicle without reducing the city they are trying to capture into a smouldering crater. If you're intent on occupying a planet or simply capturing a single objective in person, going without vehicular ground and air support would be nigh-on suicidal.

i should have been more clear. by "heavy ground vehicles" i mean things like mammoth tanks and other larger units. Light tanks and apcs are fine.
also orbital strikes dont have to be massive. (in theory) a kinetic bombardment could have an impact of a normal bomb by dropping something about the size of a crowbar. As well as that it could be a SADARM (Sense and Destroy ARMor) type weapon

Risen Britannia wrote:

Interstellar Planets wrote:
If you're landing troops on a planet, chances are you want something on that planet, if not ownership of the planet itself. Otherwise, you'd just glass it from orbit anyway. For that reason alone, an occupying force will only use strikes from orbital capital ships on isolated, or especially tough, targets for fear of destroying the very thing you want to have. Moreover, the potential for friendly fire when using orbital strikes on manned battlefields would be catastrophic.

Utilisation of armoured fighting vehicles such as tanks or mechs offers troops a highly mobile offensive and defensive platform that can take out an enemy vehicle without reducing the city they are trying to capture into a smouldering crater. If you're intent on occupying a planet or simply capturing a single objective in person, going without vehicular ground and air support would be nigh-on suicidal.

i should have been more clear. by "heavy ground vehicles" i mean things like mammoth tanks and other larger units. Light tanks and apcs are fine.

Pandur II with a speed of 65mh and a 105mm gun turret

also orbital strikes dont have to be massive. (in theory) a kinetic bombardment could have an impact of a normal bomb by dropping something about the size of a crowbar. As well as that it could be a SADARM (Sense and Destroy ARMor) type weapon

but the difference would be that the crowbar would put all it's force into the ground and penetrate, not the surrounding atmosphere, unless it exploded in mid-air from heat build up like tunguska in which case it might be useful but probably not

unless you're dropping giant asteroids/other rocks or nuclear missiles, any weaponry carried by spehs ships should be devoted to space support and attack, not surface attack

a crowbar would be great for breaking a spaceship

not so much a 10-15 metre dispersed platoon of infantry in entrenchments

Fortunately, a platoon worth of infantry isn't a supertank, nor a tank division.

That's why the Russian navy maintains both ASP (Armor/Shield Penetrator) shells and SRES (Short Range Explosive Shell) ammunition.

ASP shells are basically solid slugs, with a small explosive charge at the tip intended to disrupt certain types of shields. SRES shells are much lighter, but their explosive power makes them good for bombardments and suchlike, in cases where specialized planetary bombardment munitions (PBM and AEPOS) aren't available.

Screw you all, acronyms are fun (SYAAAF)

@AI
My infantry are pretty close to tanks
...Although 'mobile fortification' might be a better term.

Risen Britannia wrote:

Pandur II with a speed of 65mh and a 105mm gun turret
(Image)

...GTFO!

Galla- wrote:unless you're dropping giant asteroids/other rocks or nuclear missiles, any weaponry carried by spehs ships should be devoted to space support and attack, not surface attack

i disagree. Ships in orbit can contribute massively to ground battles, either though fire support or through logistics. Having a ship(s) in the battle can pretty much eliminate the need for air stikes/artillery as they can both be preformed by the ship with LOS (line of sight) weapons so they are even more accurate.

Thrashia wrote:

Risen Britannia wrote:

Pandur II with a speed of 65mh and a 105mm gun turret
(Image)

...GTFO!

Why? would you prefer the Stryker MGS?

Risen Britannia wrote:

Galla- wrote:unless you're dropping giant asteroids/other rocks or nuclear missiles, any weaponry carried by spehs ships should be devoted to space support and attack, not surface attack

i disagree. Ships in orbit can contribute massively to ground battles, either though fire support or through logistics. Having a ship(s) in the battle can pretty much eliminate the need for air stikes/artillery as they can both be preformed by the ship with LOS (line of sight) weapons so they are even more accurate.

Lets say that it changes the battle.

It rapes large formations and super vehicles*, but that only means that the defender switches to guerilla tactics, where CAS & artillery don't necessarily have to be, but certainly can be preferable to orbital strikes.

Don't get me wrong, I generally agree with you insofar as giant armoured vehicles and their utility is concerned, but unless one shits genocides (Which admittedly, a lot of people do), orbital bombardements aren't the be-all-end-all of planetary conquest, just as airstrikes aren't the be-all-end-all of modern warfare. They're important, and they dictate how the battle is fought, but they don't automatically determine the victor, nor can they win them alone.

There is of course always the option of super-accurate orbital laser shots to deal with a single insurgent (Hey, it happened before), but it's arguably cheaper to do that kind of thing with CAS, simply because CAS doesn't involve multi-million tonne spaceships being used for... Sniping lone insurgents.

I mean, it's a kind of 'If the opportunity is there, sure, but this sure isn't what we specifically deploy our spaceboats to do' situation.

* Well, in the one war I had/ have, it actually had troubles with super vehicles, but that was due to specifically agreed upon super-EW. Not exactly a feasible scenario, but both, me & ZMI like supertanks. ZMI to use them, and me to shoot them heroically with commandos

Arthropoda Ingens wrote:

Risen Britannia wrote:i disagree. Ships in orbit can contribute massively to ground battles, either though fire support or through logistics. Having a ship(s) in the battle can pretty much eliminate the need for air stikes/artillery as they can both be preformed by the ship with LOS (line of sight) weapons so they are even more accurate.

Lets say that it changes the battle.

It rapes large formations and super vehicles*, but that only means that the defender switches to guerilla tactics, where CAS & artillery don't necessarily have to be, but certainly can be preferable to orbital strikes.

Don't get me wrong, I generally agree with you insofar as giant armoured vehicles and their utility is concerned, but unless one shits genocides (Which admittedly, a lot of people do), orbital bombardements aren't the be-all-end-all of planetary conquest, just as airstrikes aren't the be-all-end-all of modern warfare. They're important, and they dictate how the battle is fought, but they don't automatically determine the victor, nor can they win them alone.

There is of course always the option of super-accurate orbital laser shots to deal with a single insurgent (Hey, it happened before), but it's arguably cheaper to do that kind of thing with CAS, simply because CAS doesn't involve multi-million tonne spaceships being used for... Sniping lone insurgents.

I mean, it's a kind of 'If the opportunity is there, sure, but this sure isn't what we specifically deploy our spaceboats to do' situation.

* Well, in the one war I had/ have, it actually had troubles with super vehicles, but that was due to specifically agreed upon super-EW. Not exactly a feasible scenario, but both, me & ZMI like supertanks. ZMI to use them, and me to shoot them heroically with commandos

im now imagining a 500m long AC130 gunship type thing, with the smallest weapon being a 150mm auto cannon, in low orbit hunting down a lone soldier (do want)

Risen Britannia wrote:

Arthropoda Ingens wrote:Lets say that it changes the battle.

It rapes large formations and super vehicles*, but that only means that the defender switches to guerilla tactics, where CAS & artillery don't necessarily have to be, but certainly can be preferable to orbital strikes.

Don't get me wrong, I generally agree with you insofar as giant armoured vehicles and their utility is concerned, but unless one shits genocides (Which admittedly, a lot of people do), orbital bombardements aren't the be-all-end-all of planetary conquest, just as airstrikes aren't the be-all-end-all of modern warfare. They're important, and they dictate how the battle is fought, but they don't automatically determine the victor, nor can they win them alone.

There is of course always the option of super-accurate orbital laser shots to deal with a single insurgent (Hey, it happened before), but it's arguably cheaper to do that kind of thing with CAS, simply because CAS doesn't involve multi-million tonne spaceships being used for... Sniping lone insurgents.

I mean, it's a kind of 'If the opportunity is there, sure, but this sure isn't what we specifically deploy our spaceboats to do' situation.

* Well, in the one war I had/ have, it actually had troubles with super vehicles, but that was due to specifically agreed upon super-EW. Not exactly a feasible scenario, but both, me & ZMI like supertanks. ZMI to use them, and me to shoot them heroically with commandos

im now imagining a 500m long AC130 gunship type thing, with the smallest weapon being a 150mm auto cannon, in low orbit hunting down a lone soldier (do want)

My capital ship's main batteries would probably count as those 'earthquake guns' like those thought up in Project Thor. They have the power of your average strategic nuclear weapon. I do have smaller ships, and I could foresee placing one in geosynchronous orbit above a battlefield to shoot KE penetrators at tanks and stuff. Maybe not a game-changer, but I wouldn't rule out artillery like that. However, unless there's a full-scale invasion going on, I'd expect orbiting ships to be fighting battles of their own.

Hey, I'm just wondering, is a tank with a built-in rotary cannon (that is, Gatling gun) designed for anti-infantry purposes possible in FT?

Saurisisia wrote:Hey, I'm just wondering, is a tank with a built-in rotary cannon (that is, Gatling gun) designed for anti-infantry purposes possible in FT?

Kind of a waste of an armored platform. Just put a regular machinegun (or equivalent) on it. Or equip it with something like flechette shells.

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:

Saurisisia wrote:Hey, I'm just wondering, is a tank with a built-in rotary cannon (that is, Gatling gun) designed for anti-infantry purposes possible in FT?

Kind of a waste of an armored platform. Just put a regular machinegun (or equivalent) on it. Or equip it with something like flechette shells.

Hm, the latter sounds interesting.

Saurisisia wrote:Hey, I'm just wondering, is a tank with a built-in rotary cannon (that is, Gatling gun) designed for anti-infantry purposes possible in FT?

I have one. Used for swarms of feral aliens. Each gatling rounds is a shell, loaded with incindarery plasma. burn baby burn! go ahead and put it on a tank chassis, after all, people use tank chassis's to make IFVs, engineering vehicles APCs etc.

Still I would only use them against swarms due to ammo efficiency. Regular autocannons should be fine for infantry, especially powered armour infantry.

Karaig wrote:

Saurisisia wrote:Hey, I'm just wondering, is a tank with a built-in rotary cannon (that is, Gatling gun) designed for anti-infantry purposes possible in FT?

I have one. Used for swarms of feral aliens. Each gatling rounds is a shell, loaded with incindarery plasma. burn baby burn! go ahead and put it on a tank chassis, after all, people use tank chassis's to make IFVs, engineering vehicles APCs etc.

Still I would only use them against swarms due to ammo efficiency. Regular autocannons should be fine for infantry, especially powered armour infantry.

Hm, okay.

Saurisisia wrote:

OMGeverynameistaken wrote:Kind of a waste of an armored platform. Just put a regular machinegun (or equivalent) on it. Or equip it with something like flechette shells.

Hm, the latter sounds interesting.

Meh, pretty much turns the tank's main cannon into a giant shotgun.

Rotary cannons are cool and all, but just a regular MG will do the trick just as good without wasting tons of ammo and space.

I guess a tank with a Gatling gun would be a sensible weapon to use against like Zerglings or something.

But in any case, yeah, maybe I'll field a turretless version of an M34 MBT with two or four autocannons fixed to the top of the hull.

...Why would you do that? Seriously. Patton and Zhukov just rolled over in their graves. Even the guy who designed the S-tank is now suddenly weeping quietly over his dinner of lutfisk and meatballs.