Why aren't tanks more popular?
When talking about mecha, it's always giant robots.
Tanks need more love too.
>you will never lure pirates into firing range
>you will never command deck hands to remove tarps
> you will never order gunners to fire at will
Why aren't tanks more popular.
Two-fold. The tank crowd is more on /k/ to begin with. Even then, tanks are kinda falling out a popularity because big tank battles are largely a thing of the past at this point.
And also, Giant Robots punching things is infinitely cooler than tanks moving into position and firing.
Your pic related is connected to a massive fire control system within the mission control room of the ship. All those tanks have is their own targeting system and I am seriously doubting their barrels are electronically controlled for balance like the M1A1 or T-90AM.
is it really a tank if it has no tracks?
I don't know man... Not even the bad ass Guntank gets any love!
Still needs a better scan of this cover and Marlene? caressing and loving that 140mm cannon.
The Instrument of Doom
Either you are being retarded and missed the point of my post or are being sarcastic. Either way, yes I have seen Gundam and they sure do 'launch those shit in space' a lot, that is if I assume 'those shit' are giant robots.
If you've seen videos, it looks nerve wracking. A fucking RPG can come out of nowhere and the pressure wave generated by the round will cause you and your crew to implode, promptly followed by the ammunition rupturing to blow the turret off the tank. I goddamn love tanks.
Really, that's what all ground combat basically is though. Since ground based giant robots tend to ignore it, there's no reason fictional future tanks can't either.
>There is no real skill involved pilot side
More accurately, the issue is that less individual skill is involved. It's easier to have your protagonists operating something by themselves and all the skill contained in one person. Of course, going back to to the earlier point, there's no reason you couldn't just have one man tanks using the same tech enabling the robots in various settings either. VOTOMS without the V, if you will.
Right, its a game of higher ups and generals then of the crew themselves. You can only do so much in a slow moving gun.
I suppose. But that's moving into a realm of fiction that is decidedly more /m/. Im talking of real life tanks where they are just support units.
I remember reading an article recently that said we could see tanks being phased out entirely due to the use of drones and high production cost.
They're basically deadly accurate close range artillery, in a sense. They're not meant to run rampant and massacre enemies on their own, but rather to give an advantage to friendly ground forces. I'm assuming this is what you're getting at.
Ever hear of the Iraq war?
Modern tanks are relegated to safe distances from assaults where they are most effective. They can shoot farther than infantry and are essentially armored artillery. You never charge in with a tank and don't use it to clear out populated areas. They are precision support weapons.
It's not so much that there are no "major wars," but that 4th generation warfare isn't as amenable to tanks. Like >>11225044
said, they can be efficiently used as artillery or ranged support. But huge tank vs. tank battles like Kursk aren't common in counter-insurrection operations.
The number one killer during the gulf war was air support. Tanks were used as mobile assault guns which they're known for (aka support). My point stands they act as support for a much larger force, it wasn't tanks fighting tanks that won it, it was tanks shooting at tanks that were getting lit up by A-10's and Apaches. The modern battlefield is controlled by the large scale air superiority and on the ground door to door troops.
>It's a series of manuevers for a fun that will just end up being stationary.
Tanks guns are stabilized so that they never have to stop to aim/fire.
This isn't the 40's.
>The number one killer during the gulf war was air support
You can't actually expect to achieve complete air dominance in a proper war.
if the Iraqi's even had widespread, decent manpads the hogs and apaches would immediately be rendered non-decisive.
They're actually supposed to be suffering from sight/FCS problems. Of course even then, the path of the rounds and the points of impact are so far off that the laws of physics are being tossed aside, as the whole segment is pretty whimsical, despite some dark subject matter.
>Tanks guns are stabilized so that they never have to stop to aim/fire.
>This isn't the 40's.
They don't have to, but it's often advisable for other reasons.
Modern vehicular combat is on the whole very mobile, but even on the advance, you're going to be stopping a fair bit, particularly when pulling overwatch for your advancing elements. Of course you don't want to stop for too long either though.
The notion of more static combat seems a bit unusual for /m/ though, usually folks here seem to think tanks go running around in the open as fast as possible all the time, probably since that's how mecha tend to do it even on the ground in a lot of shows.
I am not sure there would be any point in the Ukraine getting T-90's, the modernized T-80's are probably just as good and Yatagans are very impressive.
Do you think every military is as ass-backwards as Iraq was?
Even disregarding air power, a military should still have enough sams and spaags and things to render air to ground aircraft extremely vulnerable.
You are right, tanks will often stop even during while advancing, but to act as though they act as mobile pillboxes is very wrong.
>Militaries should have enough missiles to shoot down all those pesky planes!
Yeah that's not how that works. It should go without saying that if every plane could simply be shot down by surface-to-air missiles, then people wouldn't make them for war. You can't just pick up a stinger, scratch off another warplane, and then put a sticker on the F-35 box of your bingo card.
Gunrunning planes fall under threats like that, sure. Beyond that, we're talking about GPS-guided and laser-guided ordnance dropped from higher than your typical mobile SAMs can target. The A-10C is capable of such things as well.
>Even disregarding air power, a military should still have enough sams and spaags and things to render air to ground aircraft extremely vulnerable.
No shit, which is why the airforce has extremely long range bombardment capabilities. There isn't a military today that could effectively resist the USA's ability to establish air dominance. There is nothing barring complete nuclear annihilation that could but up a fight. Whoever controls the air controls the fight. This was established in WW2 and is the reason that aerospace research gets more money than any other field of study.
>Old French tanks
Fixed that for you.
It's not a matter of killing enemy aircraft, but keeping them from being able to comfortable engage and to limit their tactical usefulness.
If you want to reliably identify and engage mobile groung target's you are going to need to get close, close enough that that manpads are a threat.
If you want to ignore blue on blue danger and use smart munitions from high altitude, and there are no enemy SAMs able to reach high enough, that's fine but enjoy your huge CEP's and not reliably knowing what it is that you've hit without then relying on others to do BDA's.
>If you want to reliably identify things you have to get close.
Or have a powerful camera made specifically for viewing the battlefield and guiding munitions like the kind they actually have, in addition to a cohesive command structure.
>What's it shoot?
Nothing that kills tanks by the looks of it.
It's been a while, so on a whim I went to check out /k/. It was...interesting.
>I live in an alternate universe where aircraft can visually indentify targets beyond 10km and things like camoflage and bad weather do not exist.
>you will never be the captain of a gigantic, ship-like pirate tank
>you will never roam the land, laying siege to towns and looting supplies from conquered military bases
>you will never exchange fire with an army of smaller, conventional tanks
>you will never fend off rival pirates who pull up alongside and attempt to board your tank
>you will never be the terror of the high plains
>And also, Giant Robots punching things is infinitely cooler than tanks moving into position and firing.
Girls Und Panzer being one of the most popular of recent anime kinda disagrees with that assessment.
I think this is a T-72, but it's very hard to tell. What did the explosion do to make this thing accelerate?
Googling ??????? (Kingdom of Bostonia) gave me this >http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%82%AA%E5%BD%B91%E5%8F%B7
apparently it's something from Hayao Miyazaki's rough notes or something
Oh yeah, throttle must've gotten stuck wide open, or it was an oil valve. Could have "ran away" during it's last second of life. Here's a video of this happening to a truck (note the black plume level with the bogeys):
No, fictional tanks are /m/. Posting pictures of actual tanks and talking about tactics is /k/. This is the same shit that goes on in the Cyber Formula thread, where people use it as an excuse to talk about the current Formula 1 season by using the excuse of "b-but the cars are advanced and it's what the show is based on, so it belongs on /m/!"
Maus is look more like a giant slab of steel than a tank.
You're fighting a lost cause. We already have spandex suits and aircraft threads.
All of them are good, even the one or two done by David Weber.
So are Kuratas /k/?
Also, DAITANK. Actually, the Invincibles had a lot of tanks. The Zambull also counts, as does the Mecha Boost Tracid (which is a BUNCH OF TANKS PUT TOGETHER), and then there's that one Megaborg in Daitarn which built that one really big tank.
Promotional art for a musical DJ event. Believe it to be called Rumble Jungle or something to that extent.
>But huge tank vs. tank battles like Kursk aren't common in counter-insurrection operations
Kinda hard when insurgents don't have a viable means of procuring tanks in suitable numbers (if at all).
Should I even ask...?
Where's the Aslani mercenary air force when you need them?
Looks like a hybrid of an FCM 2C and a T-35.
>No Tank Police
>Kinda hard when insurgents don't have a viable means of procuring tanks in suitable numbers
>ISIS plans to take holy war to Xinjiang
Anyone here played Metal Saga or any of the Metal Max games?
Shit's pretty fun and weird.
>Crazy monster designs
>Capturing a wild bus and equiping it with a tank gun
>Maus with 3 railguns
>No bullshit plot, just being a bounty hunter and accidentally saving the world
>Lots of optional bosses
>Genetically engineered dogs with anti tank weapons
Shame Metal Saga was the only game that got translated officially.
Shame that the only tank-centric shows that are around are GuP and Tank Police.
I'd kill for a show that just revolved around your standard tank crew of bros and how they cope with the war they're in. No world changing single crew missions. No super secret powerful organizations or special forces team. Just a normal tank crew as they look into the jaws of death.
Must've been utterly terrifying to be on the tip of a spear for a Soviet offensive.
>...Sherman tank and her five-man crew on a deadly mission behind enemy lines. Outnumbered and outgunned, Wardaddy and his men face overwhelming odds in their heroic attempts to strike at the heart of Nazi Germany.
So, Boys und Panther?
>there is no guntank and guncannon MK II that refines them into an aesthetic perfection while staying faithful to the original the same way as the gundam MK II.
They also said they want to conquer Rome.
Good luck passing through those swiss guards though.
I know it's just talk, but seriously, if they actually *do* they are going to get their shit slapped so hard. The jihadis might be doing well against the incompetent Iraqi army, but the Chinese don't fuck around. Especially not when the U.S., and pretty much everyone else in the world for that matter, would be on their side against the "new caliphate."
I'm trying to write a story about a platoon of these things trying to defend Kaohsiung, Taiwan from the ZAFT invasion.
Does anyone have any ideas for an interesting story? Curbstomp by metal cyclops isn't just trite at this point: it's boring.
Good luck working one up within lore; the last major tank division of the EA was in Eurasia; led by Morgan Chevalier. He fought hard against the Desert Tiger, and lost, admitting that tanks were no longer the top land warfare unit.
Of course, he was fighting highly mobile BuCUEs, not GINNs. The other tank commander who we know of died; he was the one in Stargazer that fought a GINN piloted by scared Coordinator children to a mutually fatal end. His backstory was also another Eurasian tank commander who retired.
>but to the mecha subgenre of animu
which includes mechanical things.
Just take a look over at japan's image boards. There's a robot board and a mecha board. Mecha overlaps with robots but isn't strictly robots.
Yep, I know it's difficult to maintain yourself within the setting. Nevertheless, how caj a battle between railgun-armed tanks and GINNs be made interesting?
One caveat: remember that real-life armed forces engage each other in ranges of miles. The M1 Abrams was able to destroy Iraqi armor 4 kilometers apart. In the series, tanks engage MS at a spitting distance
Question: Does any tankish /m/ out there have a copy of the '80's manga SIMBA: Steel Lion? It was the most awesome future tank-battle story with THE COOLEST tank, set all over 21st Century Africa. I lost my copy long ago and want to get the ISN number to locate a replacement.
Use the size difference, circle and shoot. Far more unbalanced and slower than a BuCUE, and a GINN has to move the legs to reposition. Knock it over and take it out.
Pretty sure I don't remember a GINN moving fast on land at all in SEED. Could just be the size messing with me though.
Thanks for making it clear that you actually entirely missed the point of my post and are, in fact massively stupid and lack the ability to accurately comprehend what you read.
Do stick around and enjoy all the pretty SF tanks though.
I believe there was a crack to play valkyria chronicles 3? or something like that on the pc. I could be wrong and misremembering since it's been months. There was a thread on /m/ a while back. I don't remember the title of the game just that it was the valkyria chronicles game with the war criminals as protagonists
/m/, let me acquaint you with a little anime called "Girl und Panzer"....
It's Valkyria Chronicles 3. A translation patch project is ongoing for the Extra edition of the game, and it's pretty good save for a few spelling/grammar issues (which I believe are being cleaned up). You can emulate the game on PC using PPSSPP.
But yet ignore the other tanks firing that miss. Not to mention a linear gun is going to have enough penetration ability, since 76mm machine guns are shown to work in universe. There was no need for them to get that close.
This thread needs to bridge the gap between Mecha and Tanks better.
>It's shallow trash on the same level as K-On
>The number one killer during the gulf war was air support
Untrue. Allied air power had a AFV-kill-per-sortie rate of about 0.039 of 41,000 ground-attack sorties.. The majority of Iraqi AFV losses were from ground combat.
I'd love to see an adaption of Kobayashi's "Black Knight Story".
>There isn't a military today that could effectively resist the USA's ability to establish air dominance.
Yep, that's why said U.S. opponent should inflict an e. coli outbreak in the officers' mess to incapacitate the pilots!
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have a tank next to me all the time, than a plane maybe arriving in an hour or so and having to read co-ordinates to them off a map so that they can fire bombs or missiles which could take over a minute or more to reach the bad guys.
That is a forbidden union. Machines born from it face ridicule and rejection from both sides.
>>absolutely no use of sensible tactics other than bumrushing
>Implying that espionage, use of terrain, flanking maneuvers, hulldown positions, wiretapping, counter-wiretapping, and ambushes are not sensible tactics.
You can't bumrush if you're the school with the least number of tanks.
>first called it K-On
>now say it just bumrushing
You didn't even watch it, did you?
>Wardaddy and his men face overwhelming odds in their heroic attempts to strike at the heart of Nazi Germany.
Gotta love these Amerifat movies where the US forces are always overwhelmed and outgunned, instead of being grossly oversupplied and fighting an enemy that was already engaged in a two front war and down to using child soldiers like they were in real life.
I've only seen clips but it looks completely retarded, basically just a tasteless combo of moeshit anime and military history for people too autistic for actual history.
And any semblance of accuracy or real armor tactics is completely lost, too, there's all sorts of stupid shit like Tigers rotating their turrets at light speed, Matilda and Churchill tanks pulling 30mph down a road, or tank hatches that are somehow able to be opened from the outside but not the inside.
This would be acceptable in something that isn't striving for perfect accuracy or some anime or movie where mechanical accuracy is secondary to the story or characters, but it's like the show wants to convince idiots that it's educating them (while being completely ahistorical).
Really, an anime about tank warfare could be interesting... maybe like a more historical mini-series about some famous tank battles like Kursk, but instead we just get more tasteless, poorly animated, bottom-of-the-barrel junkfood entertainment that just panders to creepy nerds.
Actually just ordered a 2nd hand artbook for VC3 that was about half price. Not sure if I'll ever pick up the VC2 edition for my bookshelf though. Wish Sega would wake up and realise what a killing they'd make on Steam if they got the series back on track with huge arse battlefield levels instead of the tiny PSP Mario like level warp points.
Well, it's not a historical anime.
>a tasteless combo of moeshit anime and military
>any semblance of accuracy or real armor tactics is completely lost
No offence, but do you feel like this when watching some giant robot shows as well? because they're pretty much the same: "Teenage boys and girls" in "military robot" fighting with "no semblance of military tactics".
>Tigers rotating their turrets at light speed
Still slower than the Panzer IV, which is correct
>Matilda and Churchill tanks pulling 30mph down a road
Still can't catch up with the Panzer IV which is also correct
They make it that way so the show don't looks boring.
>And any semblance of accuracy or real armor tactics is completely lost, too
GuP has more tactics than most Mecha anime though, where the usual standard of mecha is "spam beams while posing in style". Take for example the first battle vs another school: setting up an ambush on a chokepoint at high ground (which only failed because they were complete noobs at the time), then when things go south they retreat to the city to force the enemy into urban combat, using side roads and car elevators as ambush points.
>Tigers rotating their turrets at light speed,
Tigers actually had a rather fast turret rotation speed IRL.
>Matilda and Churchill tanks pulling 30mph down a road,
No argument, though it's acceptable reality break because they keep the relative speed of the tanks against each other
>or tank hatches that are somehow able to be opened from the outside but not the inside.
They open hatches from inside in the show all the time, what are you talking about?
>This would be acceptable in something that isn't striving for perfect accuracy or some anime or movie where mechanical accuracy is secondary to the story or characters,
Actually, this is exactly what GuP is about: it's an underdog school sport story first, and reality simulator dead last. The tanks themselves though are given more love and respect than in any other anime with tanks in them where they're not badly drawn nor used as forgettable cannon fodder.
It's been mentioned in BD side materials that souping up automotive performance was standard practice, ever since some racing entries were disqualified for not meeting MINIMUM speed limits. Tighter international regulations regarding modifications were only instituted after some countries *cough*FREEDOM*cough* started going overboard with the alterations, such that they were turning into oversized tracked powerplants rather than actual AFVs.
As it is, modifications are generally legal as long as they stick to automotive technology available on or before Aug.15, 1945 and subject to official approval.
At which point the US started its own Unlimited class, which involves such things as sticking gas turbines & modern 120mm smoothbores into Sherman chassis. No modern C4I or fire controls, though. That wouldn't be FAIR, nosiree.
I thought the Extra version was already fan-patched save for the DLC missions?
Has there been any updated patches since January? The last I recalled, aside from untranslated DLC, there was some text overflow leading to some text not being displayed or going off the box.
The only way to make it interesting is set it early on in the war, and have the tank commander originally take advantage of the fact that the GINN pilots will not have gotten used to combat in unfamiliar settings right off the bat, utiliizing terrain and tank heights to snipe their cams then move in for the killing blows.
A minor victory until ZAFT sufficiently adapts later on.
As to trying to write up a futile defense of Kaoshung, maybe last-ditch ranged operations against incoming GINNs, holding the line for days until ZAFT sent in DINNs and CGUEs to raid the artillery and tank positions.
>All the tanks were upgraded to be faster.
I actually sort of assumed that this was intended to be the case, otherwise those silly teams that insisted on using a certain line of tanks would experience great difficulties. I initially complained about some of the speeds of the tanks and the turret traversals, but when they started talking about maintenance and started fixing up the Tiger P, I just assumed that there was probably an in-universe explanation. I mean they had a damn Tiger P and it actually worked, so, why not?
The UK team for instance, as it was previously mentioned, would end up just crawling toward the enemy. If this were a real sport and you wanted to use British tanks, the first thing you'd do is put real engines in them instead of running those hamster-on-wheels engines they come with.
Europe was not uniformly populated with a Gaussian random spattering of troops and tanks. In most places, by 1944 the allies were smashing their way through towards Germany, but at any given particular place the Nazis could have far superior numbers.
So basically: they make the movies out of the exciting bits (when they don't just make shit up whole cloth, of course).
Shouldn't come as any surprise, why would you watch the boring bits. Many thousands of US soldiers had stories that went something along the lines of "spent two years unloading shit from ships on the french coast, came home with a venereal disease and a collection of cigarette lighters"
>The UK team for instance, as it was previously mentioned, would end up just crawling toward the enemy.
St. Gloriana has fast Cruiser tanks though, like the Cromwell and the Crusader. Their current captain Darjeeling prefers Infantry tanks however.
sir, tanks are excellent for ambush, and hide and seek, AKA guerrilla warfare, using urban terrain as cover, trolling the enemy, with direct and indirect fire.
if you know they are coming, you can make good use of urban knowledge
Initially, a tank's greatest asset was its armor: it was the very reason they were created afterall. The heavy armor is also much better in places like cities, where tanks can't exercise their mobility to the fullest anyway. If all people cared about was mobility they'd have stopped development at armored cars and light tanks.
The Infantry Tank's only failing was that they sacrificed too much mobility for armor, which is why they got replaced as soon as more mobile tanks with similar armor appeared.
That isn't strictly true... Infantry tanks had plenty of mobility for their designed role- direct support of infantry. In that role moving any faster than an infantryman is useless. The main problem with the bifurcated approach that the British took is that once battle was joined the neat division of labor between the cruiser tanks and the infantry tanks disappeared in the chaos.
So now you have the dual problem of Infantry tanks trying to fight panzers with inadequate mobility and a gun without enough armor penetration... and on the other hand Cruiser tanks trying to fight dug-in infantry and their AT guns when they lack adequate armor or enough HE capacity on their guns.
Despite how absolutely horrible it was the M3 Lee/Grant was a godsend to the British fighting in North Africa, because it finally gave them a tank that had a good HE lobber in the 75mm and it could keep up with their Cruiser tanks on the attack. Plus the 37mm in the turret was good enough to fight Pz. IIIs.
The really funny thing about the whole debacle was that the Infantry/Cruiser split was basically a political bone to throw to the old guard cavalrymen who infested the interwar British officer corps.
More people got interested in watching Kelly's Heroes, A Bridge Too Far, The Bridge at Remagen & other war films thanks to those references. So it's all to the good.
>In that role moving any faster than an infantryman is useless
Unless infantry in need of support is too far from the nearest available tank that was designed to support them, in which case said tank is gonna need to close the gap in a fig bucking hurry.
How have they not already gotten their shitkicked in? They're pissing of Iran, the Kurds, it's like they're trying to emulate the nazi party without the early blitzkrieg victories.
Looks like Tau Hammerhead.
It's nice, but it doesn't quite induce blind uncontrollable rage for years from me.
There, now that's more like it.
I'm from /k/, and you asshats make mecha threads there almost daily.
so is only fair you have tank threads here, mates.
It's called reciprocity.
>Mecha = giant robots.
Oh boy, here we go again.
Do you know HOW FUCKING HARD it is to keep any unit of armour in the field at some combat effectiveness?
You need hours of maintenance, mountains of spare parts, lakes of fuel and of course, all the infrastructure, equipment, vehicles, fuel, men, food, shelter and water for the men who just keep the tanks in the field.
Let alone ammunition and such.
Guerilla warfare is antithetical to armoured warfare. What you're thinking of is maneuver warfare.
Not when my robot's maintenance can be handled in two hours with parts made from indigenous plants and animal bones, has a limitless power source, and a crate of Super Twinkies inside.
Mecha != giant robots
>The word "mecha" (?? meka?) is an abbreviation first used in Japanese of the word "mechanical". In Japanese, mecha encompasses all mechanical objects, including cars, guns, computers, and other devices. In this sense, it is extended to humanoid, human-sized robots and such things as the boomers from Bubblegum Crisis, the similar replicants of Blade Runner; even cyborgs can be referred to as mecha. The Japanese use the term "robot" (???? robotto?) or "giant robot" to distinguish limbed vehicles from other mechanical devices
> There isn't a military today that could effectively resist the USA's ability to establish air dominance.
Uh, even the Serbs and their outdated radar-guided Sams managed to scare them off well enough that they ended up bombing blow-up tanks.
>welcome you to post more like this (but not too many)
there is no such thing as too many tank threads
Are the Sledge Hammers from SPIRAL ZONE even feasible?
if you are a model builder, you should be able to guess where the base of this scratchbuild came from
The Guncannon II does exist, you stupid Ashitkafag
Why not planes? Planes also need love.
I remember a soviet movie based on a real story about a duel between T-34 and Panther of a local ace, who set on fire previous T-34 of main characters - a soviet crew. T-34 shot PzKpw V in it's bottom armor. And IRL it ended up very sad: of all crewmen only their commander had survived the war.
Kawamori-designed tank that can run on alcohol.
They're suffering from an acute mix of ignorance, hypocrisy & panzer angst.
Technically feasible? Sure.
Combat-feasible? I'm surprised the Black Widows managed to survive for 65 episodes.
>Name: Kurt Knispel
>Country of service: Germany
>WAR: World War II
>Kill statistics: 168 tanks (The top Panzer ace of the war)
The ace of aces.
died ten days before the war ended
>This passive-aggressive greentexting
Eh, sure, whatever assuages your asspain.
I always say that there's a lot you could do to improve the mobility of wheeled or tracked vehicles involving a lot fewer degrees of freedom than legs, but nobody ever wants to talk about it and it always kills the thread.
I was always fond of this GiTS design. More than the actual waling tanks they had. Although they were cool too.
>Technically feasible? Sure.
What a relief - thanks Sir Anon.
>Combat-feasible? I'm surprised the Black Widows managed to survive for 65 episodes.
With half of the world virtually under control by an unknown number of Zone Generators no surprise.
But honestly can such a "small" vehicle do effective damage? Can it pass behind enemy lines?
I am no military guy and if you have no knowledgde about real combat. But I want to learn. I want to know more!
Yes, even if I enjoy fictional combat, real combat with real weapons is "fantastic" theory.
>Advantage over wheels
Since the treads are almost certain to have a higher speed than walking, and are capable of movements on unsurfaced roads without issue, it's advantageous.
>What would stop you from scaling it up?
I'm going to assume we're mainly talking about the split body being able to rotate.
This creates a huge point of weakness and separates the two halves of the vehicle in an undesirable way. Any space that would be used for compartments is now not able to be used. You can't run something from one end of the body to the other, because they have to be separate with only a cylinder linking them together.
Too easy to break, too many limitations. It's better to have a wider range of movement in the treads than to split a vehicle like that.
Sorry, let me make a correction.
It doesn't separate halves of the body, it separates the front and rear section. So in addition to that correction, the issue with compartments disappears. However, space is still being taken up by the motors and such required to twist that section. There's also the potential issue of power, which would probably have to be electric-based. That's not so much of a problem though. An additional point: You now have four treads to repair.
In either way where this technology is applied, it creates some very undesirable problems for a military vehicle.
Certainly if someone were to propose a full scale manned version right now for realsies they'd be laughed out of the boardroom, but I don't see anything about it that is anywhere near as problematic as fully articulated legs for locomotion.
Right now, of course, four treads is almost always a bad choice because we use mechanical drive trains, and tracked vehicles use a rather well refined combination transmission and steering unit to transmit power to the tracks, which would not work very elegantly with four tracks. It would take a substantial engineering effort to develop a gearbox that can work well with unconventional tread layouts, one that nobody is willing to pay for, since two treads work well enough for us now.
Things might get a little more interesting when electric drivetrains become common. People have been trying that shit since at least the 1940s, but it never really caught on. We're seeing a lot of hybrid electric and full electric cars now, though, so the death of the mechanical drivetrain might come within our lifetimes.
As for multiple treads, I'd have to imagine that tread breakage rates correspond to the length of track and number of road and idler wheels? The maintenance requirements seem like they would scale with the number of components in the drivetrain, all else being equal.
Two short tracks with three road wheels vs one long track with six would only gain an extra number of track lengths equal to the number around the front and the back of the tread. The number on the top and bottom would remain the same, as would the total number of road wheels and suspension units et al. Aside from some extra tensioning work required and a few more track links, why would the maintenance requirements increase much?
The biggest issue in my mind is simply the fact that you now have three breaking points for each section of mobility. Two breaking points on the rotators for the treads, and one on the rotator for that section. Since those treads are going to be impacting with the ground, there needs to be some substantial reinforcement to keep all of those pieces from breaking, in addition to keeping everything else intact.
Also the issue with repair is that instead of being one big tread, you now have four smaller ones in four different locations.
As far as powering it all goes, four electric motors with a standard engine to provide the power. Pretty much what you said.
>Also the issue with repair is that instead of being one big tread, you now have four smaller ones in four different locations.
Yes, but my point is a tread is not an irreductable thing. it's a unit composed of a number of repeated identical parts.
Why would two smaller treads each with N/2 wheels and M/2 track links break more often than one larger tread with N wheels and M track links?
The track fails when one of the components fails, or is destroyed. Seems to me that the failure rate of the individual parts should be independent of the configuration of the system as a whole.
I wasn't saying that the treads would be more prone to breakage or break at a faster rate. I'm just saying that they now have four separate treads to fix.
Though because of the decreased distribution and the less-even nature of the terrain, you're looking at more likelihood for breakage. Instead of two lengthy track segments rolling over rough terrain, you have four small points of track-to-ground contact. Some of that contact might be at harmful angles that could result in breakage. Additionally, the rougher terrain you would now be able to cross could also result in lateral movements and twists, which could result in breakage of the track or critical damage.
The advantage of that extra maneuverability is met with the extreme awkwardness of maneuvering something in this configuration. It becomes a balancing act that's made worse by rough terrain. One misstep could mean a leg is slammed into the ground.
I have just started playing after you bringing it up.
Playing Metal Max Returns, and will move on to Metal Saga after that.
I love it. The battles like the Big Gun artilery bosses were exciting. After I damaged the first one a considerable amount my main tank ran out of amo, so I hopped out and finished it off by stabbing it to death, knowing it could kill my guy in one round if its weapons didn't fail. Was tense.
Then I had to go back to town and lick my wounds, just to go back and fight the OTHER one.
Sure, anon, if that's what you insist.
It looks like an M50 Ontos as drawn by Timmy, Age 6.
I see. Thanks a lot. If you know Spiral Zone than you probably know that the Slegdehammers primary weapons are energy based aka Laser.
In the show the Black Widows are seen in driving and parking position while firing their weapons.
Of course the wrecking balls are ridiculous. The Slegdehammer as a whole was always a favorite vehicle of mine, when it comes to fictioneous vehicles so you helped me a lot!
But when UGV's are better, so be it. I just thought of personal operation, because it looked more "realistic".
By the way what do you think of Cobra's HISS?
After the Slegdehammer, another great vehicle IMO.
It can protect its driver, while the Sledgehammer can't.
>By the way what do you think of Cobra's HISS?
Brits did it first
The Bolo's tabletop spiritual descendant is fine too, rendered by the Atomic Rockets guy himself.
I remember the old Twilight:2000 NATO vehicle handbook had stats for something with a similar concept. A lightly armored truck with an experimental laser, iirc. There was also a hypothetical M1 with an unmanned casemate turret, which seemed all the speculative rage with the armchair generals back in the '80's.
>mfw engineering quackery from Sharoni & Bacon