Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO MECHS] Mark 8

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

Nukes for a tank - overkill much?

As for the holes/recesses/whatever - look up edge effect. It's a big reason as to why bow guns were eliminated. If they are remotely operated, then that's different.

400 millimeters is roughly sixteen inches. Obviously, we have made actual 16" guns before - they are not small.

Congrats, you just made a Landkreuzer.

[New Visegrad]

Nukes for a tank - overkill much?

Have you been to the future? It's not overkill.

As for the holes/recesses/whatever - look up edge effect. It's a big reason as to why bow guns were eliminated. If they are remotely operated, then that's different.

Of course they're remote operated. If the driver, sitting on a command deck in the middle of the tank, can manually operate four 25mm autocannons right at the front, he surely has very long arms.

400 millimeters is roughly sixteen inches. Obviously, we have made actual 16" guns before - they are not small.

Congrats, you just made a Landkreuzer.

This came up when I originally posted it here. In scale terms it is a Landkreuzer; the difference between this and a traditional Landkreuzer design is that this vehicle specifically uses technologies and doctrines designed to mitigate the problems associated with Landkreuzers. It is mobile and not prone to getting stuck; it is capable of air defense; it operates with escorts at any time when enemy units capable of defeating its defenses are likely to be near it; it does not require a hundred men to operate it.

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

If it's a PMT/FT tank, won't precision orbital attacks kill it with ease?

[New Visegrad]

If it's a PMT/FT tank, won't precision orbital attacks kill it with ease?

I don't know where you got the idea that it wasn't FT given it has a particle weapon and fires shells with antimatter payloads. But I digress.

The tank's energy shielding and armour are capable of protecting it against starship weapons to a limited extent, but given the scale of deployment required for one to be fielded, it is expected to have orbital support of its own (it is delivered by starship, and if a force has lost all their orbital support they're boned anyway). It's also worth noting that smaller vehicles - which are used on a more tactical level - are even more vulnerable to orbital strikes, while being additionally vulnerable to smaller threats.

[New Vihenia]

Anyone ever heard T-72 with 120mm? Ukraine prototyped one.

yes, the Yatagan.

what's up with that ?

French were also supposedly offer 120mm gun with their T-21 turret program. But so far no interest. Russians in other hand offers 120mm gun capable of firing NATO ammunitions.

Nukes for a tank - overkill much?

No.

nukes can be made in smaller caliber. Last time i heard there were USN program for 127mm nuclear shell.

[Imperializt Russia]

Bow machine guns were eliminated entirely from tanks and up-armouring of the Merkava proposed, for a time, covering the loader hatch on the turret as weaknesses. They were deemed serious enough. I think rivets were eliminated for similar reasons, putting a hole through a plate makes the plate vulnerable. It might buckle under pressure or when struck by HV projectile, around that weak point.
It's not about putting an arrow through a wedding ring, it's shooting a box you've balanced a wedding ring on.

[Ardavia]

Bow machine guns were eliminated entirely from tanks and up-armouring of the Merkava proposed, for a time, covering the loader hatch on the turret as weaknesses. They were deemed serious enough. I think rivets were eliminated for similar reasons, putting a hole through a plate makes the plate vulnerable. It might buckle under pressure or when struck by HV projectile, around that weak point.
It's not about putting an arrow through a wedding ring, it's shooting a box you've balanced a wedding ring on.

I think Otto Carius' book touched on rivets and armour plating in one part.

He was commanding a Pz.38(t), I think, and they got hit by an AT gun. Didn't penetrate, but the rivets (along with some spalling) went flying like shrapnel, killing and injuring the crew.

[Dostanuot Loj]

I don't comment on FT stuff as a rule, because it's all just fantasy. There's no point of judging fantasy from a realism point of view. But I will comment on this in general.

the difference between this and a traditional Landkreuzer design is that this vehicle specifically uses technologies and doctrines designed to mitigate the problems associated with Landkreuzers.

If you are developing a doctrine primarily to mitigate a problem or weakness, you have failed before you even begin.
Your doctrines should be built around emphasizing strengths to exploit an enemy weakness.

[Purpelia]

Furthermore if you want to have the effectiveness of a landcruiser without the downsides you don't use a landcruiser. You use a Ymir.

[Korva]

Anyone ever heard T-72 with 120mm? Ukraine prototyped one.

yes, the Yatagan.

what's up with that ?

French were also supposedly offer 120mm gun with their T-21 turret program. But so far no interest. Russians in other hand offers 120mm gun capable of firing NATO ammunitions.

Nukes for a tank - overkill much?

No.

nukes can be made in smaller caliber. Last time i heard there were USN program for 127mm nuclear shell.

Yatagan is a derivative of T-84

T-72-120 is the T-72 prototype. Probably the great Leopard 2 sell off killed any hopes of 120mm armed turrets for the T-series.

[Fordorsia]

Furthermore if you want to have the effectiveness of a landcruiser without the downsides you don't use a landcruiser. You use a Ymir.

Implying landcruisers are in any way effective.

[Purpelia]

Furthermore if you want to have the effectiveness of a landcruiser without the downsides you don't use a landcruiser. You use a Ymir.

Implying landcruisers are in any way effective.

They have exactly one good quality. And that's the ability to deliver a big explosive charge a long way away.

[Fordorsia]

Implying landcruisers are in any way effective.

They have exactly one good quality. And that's the ability to deliver a big explosive charge a long way away.

Artillery already does that.

[Purpelia]

They have exactly one good quality. And that's the ability to deliver a big explosive charge a long way away.

Artillery already does that.

Some times though you need to fire an extra heavy shell (like massively extra heavy) and to a longer distance than traditionally done by artillery. So the issue is not that the landcruiser does not have a purpose. It's that said purpose is infinitely better done by missiles or even dumb rockets.

[Fordorsia]

Artillery already does that.

Some times though you need to fire an extra heavy shell (like massively extra heavy) and to a longer distance than traditionally done by artillery. So the issue is not that the landcruiser does not have a purpose. It's that said purpose is infinitely better done by missiles or even dumb rockets.

If you need bigger artillery then use bigger artillery, not a big stupid tank that serves no purpose.

[Purpelia]

Some times though you need to fire an extra heavy shell (like massively extra heavy) and to a longer distance than traditionally done by artillery. So the issue is not that the landcruiser does not have a purpose. It's that said purpose is infinitely better done by missiles or even dumb rockets.

If you need bigger artillery then use bigger artillery, not a big stupid tank that serves no purpose.

Or, you know, a missile.

[Allanea]

Guys may I posit a counterpoint?

Modern tanks are bigger and heavier than 1940s tanks. A Merkava Mk IV is probably around 80 tons. An M1A2 SEP is 63 tons.

The medium tanks of WW2 were about half that weight.

So why wouldn't a 2100 tank be, say, 100 tons?

[Purpelia]

Guys may I posit a counterpoint?

Modern tanks are bigger and heavier than 1940s tanks. A Merkava Mk IV is probably around 80 tons. An M1A2 SEP is 63 tons.

The medium tanks of WW2 were about half that weight.

So why wouldn't a 2100 tank be, say, 100 tons?

100Mg I can just about see. But anything beyond say 120-150 is probably going to be too unwieldy on soft ground. And the term landcruiser typically depicts objects in the 1K + Mg range.

[Immoren]

If the planetfall of your space MBT doesn't cause minor extinction event, then you're clearly doing something wrong.

[Gallia-]

Guys may I posit a counterpoint?

Modern tanks are bigger and heavier than 1940s tanks. A Merkava Mk IV is probably around 80 tons. An M1A2 SEP is 63 tons.

The medium tanks of WW2 were about half that weight.

So why wouldn't a 2100 tank be, say, 100 tons?

Load classification.

[Volkite Hegemony]

If the planetfall of your space MBT doesn't cause minor extinction event, then you're clearly doing something wrong.

Orbital Bolo launchers?

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Guys may I posit a counterpoint?

Modern tanks are bigger and heavier than 1940s tanks. A Merkava Mk IV is probably around 80 tons. An M1A2 SEP is 63 tons.

The medium tanks of WW2 were about half that weight.

So why wouldn't a 2100 tank be, say, 100 tons?

All bridges and roads would have to be twice as strong by then. Also the tank would need a track area twice as big so it doesn't sink into mud or sand. With developments in crew automation, armor technology, and active protection systems future tanks will likely get lighter, not heavier.

[Gallia-]

Quite a large number of American and European bridges can support maximum loads of 150 short tons, probably.

[Fordorsia]

Quite a large number of American and European bridges can support maximum loads of 150 short tons, probably.

Actual maximum loads of bridges are much higher than what is on signs and stuff, like with elevators.

[Purpelia]

Quite a large number of American and European bridges can support maximum loads of 150 short tons, probably.

Actual maximum loads of bridges are much higher than what is on signs and stuff, like with elevators.

Typically the safety margin is 3-4x. However this does not mean that you can just drive that much weight over them indefinitely. Wear is certainly going to be a much greater issue.