HOME | DD
Legato895 — Spearpoint: Parthian Tank Line
Published: 2008-08-17 01:18:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 2769; Favourites: 39; Downloads: 215
Redirect to original
Description
Drawn for: [link]lines for the Parthian Tank. designed to be heavier and rougher than a roman counterpart, but equally if not more effective. using massive amounts of bulk plating in place of advanced armor and ECM and overwhelming firepower in place of highly advanced munitions.
might still add/subtract a bit before i render it
Related content
Comments: 23
You make the computer jealous.
-- By this I mean, CAD WISHES IT COULD MAKE LINES THIS COOL.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well, i probably should have used some form of block modeling... i think the lines are a little off perspective in a few places... but its just close enough i can overlook it
anyway, not like you would know anything about CAD >
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That is a rather large machine, and I must admit a really cool looking ride. I can see the Merkava in its design. If this was a model for say Warhammer I'd buy that bad boy.
Is that box between the two gun tubes rocket/missile launchers?
Things I would suggest as improvement, from a tankers technical standpoint: the armor plating along the sides of the guns appear to be attached to the gun shrouds. They should be adjusted slightly so that they're actually held by the turret (otherwise the first time you try to fire the guns they'll be wrecked). A gunners sight so he can fire at his targets, an independent viewer for another crewmember so they can scan for other targets, and a commanders station so he/she can pop up and look around with some form of protection. Also, I don't see any kind of defensive or suppressive anti-infantry weaponry, such as machine guns. Possibly one or two (I see a port in the bow, and one on that box between the guns), but that doesn't do much if infantry attack from the side. As big as this bad boy is, it wouldn't hurt if it had something to allow for clearing infantry from the sides or rear. Small sponsons maybe?
Finally, the sponson on the side skirt alongside the track shouldn't stick out like that. I would recommend either moving it up alongside the turret or making it recessed in the hull somehow, otherwise it'll get ripped apart when driving even through certain terrain, not to mention urban areas.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
this is one of the best and most informed comments i have ever gotten on DA... \o/
let me defend myself where i can and offer up surrender on the other details
the person who wanted me to draw this tank requested that i allow each gun to independently fire and pan up to 25degrees left and right. for this i added a hint of large turntables for each gun, but most of the mechanics behind such freedom i have hidden behind a thick fabric. to aid in protection of a relatively soft joint i decided to add in the plates and attach them to base of the barrels themselves although this connection isn't really detailed. regardless, the guns themselves don't recoil in much, and while i could imagine that the tremendous vibration of fire could knock them off for the sake of argument, im going to say they won't
the main sights were going to be the two ports on top of the base of the cannon, but they did turn into smaller cannons/machine guns so, for the sake of argument lets say that each gun's sighting is done by another camera... somewhere... ah crap i got nothing
for visibility, i added tho to forward facing cameras, (one on the middle rocket assembly, and one in front of the forward crew compartment) and the periscope that could offer 360 degree situational awareness both manually and digitally using something similar to this: ok... i can't find it but its basically a ring of 6 cameras, facing upwards arrayed around a central column. on the top of the column, in positions corresponding with the cameras below are 6 mirrors angled 45 degrees. all 6 feeds are stitched together allow for a full 360 degree image ----
so anyway, wish i could find a picture of that :/
if that fails than the top turret hatch can open and the forward and side walls along with the munitions bunker on the rear provide decent cover. i could have added some sort of turret on top but with the high walls of the armor i would have to make the gun significantly taller to fire at any angle below horizontal.
in terms of side defense to some degree that it should have some cover, but i agree with you. it could use some sort of deterrent towards infantry.
i had to look up the word "sponson" which is always a good thing! essentially i think you nailed it, it is an auxiliary storage or hardware implementation. i wanted the tank to look like everything on it was a retrofit of some kind, and the little box is a retrofit on the armor which is already a retrofit. i originally started it out as being storage for infantry/parts etc... something that if lost wouldn't be such a big deal. as it is now, its more of a proactive armor launcher with intercepting armor panels that fly out towards munitions with some level of guidance and intercept it. even than it could still be armor plating defending the low priority storage the box offers, it doesn't change up its function much.
anyway, to prevent the tank from getting wider, and from requiring turrets that compromise the form of the tank, i probably should have devised some sort of claymore landmine that could be fired off from its attachment point on the armor... like a bunch of omni-directional shotguns mounted onto the skirt of the tank... that plus some razor wire should do the trick
thank you thank you thank you for this crit tho! my next tank will take these into account more seriously than this time around!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, usually the sponsons are used to store tools, and with a machine this big, it'll certainly need them. The Abrams has two sponsons recessed into the hull above the tracks, one per side, and two on the sides of the turret on the inside of the turret railing. We also usually added about two or three 30mm ammo cans on the back of the turret. But generally they're out of the way. They're useless as extra armor since they're thin aluminum. While they're not essential to operations, should they be lost and the vehicle gets damaged, then it could become an issue, but that's neither here nor there. You wouldn't have had to make the vehicle wider, just make use of some of the spaces that is available on the vehicle.
What I suggested for the tank commander would be a commanders cupola, which has a ring of periscopes that extends up high enough to allow the commander to look around in a 360 degree view, along with his own hatch and usually a heavy caliber weapon system (the Abrams uses a .50 caliber machine gun) but not always.
I thought the two ports on the gun tubes were supposed to suggest gun sights. Bad place for them as the shock of the guns will likely throw the boresight off, possibly destroy the sights. Even if it's lower recoil, it would still be enough. Having machine guns in those ports though works quite well, and gives them the same field of fire as the main guns. Though the side armor at the base of the guns isn't necessarily a bad idea, unless it has some way to move as well, it'll be difficult to get the swivel range of 25 degrees. Unless it was bolted on to the gun tube itself. I think it could work better if it was attached to the turret itself and possibly angled out. Possibly. That or just create an armored mantle around the base instead of using a canvas shroud. Having them independent suggests there will be two gunners involved, as well as a driver and a tank commander. A better idea would be to use one gunner who can fire just one of the guns or both as he wishes, cause unless you'll have two turrets, there's not much point having independent firing guns as whichever gunner has the turret control those guns will point regardless. I could see the tank commander having the ability to override one tube or both if necessary (the Abrams has such a system in place), which wouldn't be a bad idea.
While a cluster mine system wouldn't be a bad idea, it has the potential to be an issue for the crew unless there's a way to safe it. And having razor wire is just a pain in the ass...I hated the damn stuff myself. Pretty much, due to its size, it's going to need Infantry support or other vehicles more suited for anti personnel purposes to keep it safe.
I have heard about a camera system like that. Had that idea myself when I was driving tanks, as something to give the driver better viewing all around alongside the periscopes. Cause cameras will malfunction or are taken out during combat. It's still not a bad concept at all I think. Just good to have periscopes to be on the safe side.
I would have given these suggestions sooner, but I was tied up with a convention, so my apologies on that lol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah, the barrel armor is attached to the barrel, and moves with the guns. i figure the guns fire in conjunction with one another unless one of them is overridden, but like i said, it was up to the guy calling the shots, im not too sure independent guns really offers that much of an advantage.
for all the rest... yes
these posts of your are pure gold... this knowledge exists nowhere outside of people who have done this stuff in real life. i am not one of those people!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The guy who wanted'em probably doesn't know either. That or the game mechanics somehow allows it? I haven't a clue. I can see a partial advantage only if the commander can take over control, but that's just me. I know you have to work with the client and go with their wants. All you can do is your best right?
And that's what I'm here for. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you should apply your vast technical storehouse of knowledge towards my mechs and stuff from time to time
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hit me up, I'll happily assist in any way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
thank you very much! a bit easier to rig and sort i suspect than a giant lumbering troll
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey! Keep this line drawing up if you can man. If you paint it make a new submission. I love these lines. Great details.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thank you for casting your vote in this regard! i usually keep the lines, and either scrap them or take them off my featured gallery page, but if you fav this, you'll have it linked regardless where i end up putting it
ahhh... if only life could be completed with linework only
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A beautiful wealth of details. I like the chain skirting on the back of the turret. Very accurate.
And the shovels. Military vehicles always come with shovels, even if they are too big and monstrous to ever dig out if they get stuck, lol. I see there are three of them, which makes me think it probably has a crew of four.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hehe, ah yes, the patron shovel! and i love the chain skirt armament - i've seen it before on that wedge of a tank the Israelis use and felt its passive and simplistic yet effective form of armor it proved would go well with the theme of this military.
crew size is up to the commissioner, but i could easily see a 3 man crew. one up front in between the treads (through the hatch) ad maybe one in the turret and another in the rotary assembly (not sure what its official location is called)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
heh, you can't avoid that these days
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That is beautiful... *drool* >.> I wanna play with it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
its got some perspective flaws, but oh well - play away
👍: 0 ⏩: 1