HOME | DD
Shimmering-Sword — Assault Tank
Published: 2011-05-07 00:30:21 +0000 UTC; Views: 45041; Favourites: 840; Downloads: 1104
Redirect to original
Description
Another quick sketch. I lost my original little paper thumbnail sketch of this, but recent I had the idea to make a tank with the turret as big as the chassis
So when the request of the night was tanks, this came out.Heavy armor, huge auto cannons, anti tank missiles, and counter measures galore. This tank is designed to rumble through the urban combat environment and dish out serious damage to opposing tanks and mechs alike.
For clarification, I'm on the side that says just because mechs magically become viable doesn't mean tanks don't get to share in the same magic. This thing is a serious combatant and with thicker (more efficient) armor coverage than a mech of the same weight, face to face it has good odds of taking the win.
Related content
Comments: 178
thats true, i mean look at the M9 gernsbach (sp?) from Full Metal Panic. Primary weapons: assault rifles and shotguns, in some cases rockets and pistols, secondary weapons: knives, short swords etc. i guess it would not be fair to entirely write them out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes but think about it, having a mech come in from orbit (gundam seed) and laying waste to your armies from the center is pretty bloody demoralizing, especially if there is some sort of scary mask (samurais)... Also the humanoid factor means that they can transport heavier weapons, more agile that other armor (which renders AT guns useless as they fire linear fashion which can be dodged with a fast enough computor (mechs... so good computors to run?) and swords/explosive lances would wreck havoc on bunkers and underground bases...
all up its like the tank really, everyone thought it'd be useless... until it went in and went anal on the germans... then everyone wanted on!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Watch some of your points
Humanoid factor only gives it versatility, it reduces it's relative load bearing, so a tank will carry a bigger gun. A mech has less ground contact than a tank, meaning less torque can be effectively applied, so it can't be faster either. A mech could react more effectively to incoming fire, but at anything but extreme range, moving the mass of a mech away from a bullet path takes a ton of torque (again mech feet cant do this). Melee weapons would work though.
Just remember, you can't claim mechs advance in tech while tanks don't. Any performance boosting tech a mech gains a tank can also apply. So it only comes down to what you can do with maneuvering limbs that tracks cant, at the most fundamental levels, not performance wise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ah but the mobility given by the fact that it has feet allows it to dodge fire, say it drops to its knees and the shell passes over head where the torso was, true mechs would effectively not be comparable to tanks in firepower in the open this does not matter as much as say a piercing sabot round would take almost any tank if it has enough velocity e.g big round casing full of propellant...
Also if tanks advance then i assume their load bearing abilities and mobility can also advance, but the thing is a tank (vehicle with tracks mounting large calibre weapons) will always have the vulerability of top and bottom, thats why in urban settings commanders (smart ones) will hesitate to send armor in unless heavily escorted and through proven clear routes, as say a soldier/mech could just simply drop an AT mine on top and boom dead tank, blocked road...
But in say an open battlefield (somme) a tank would be the better choice as it has a lower profile and will no doubt outgun the mech through range and firepower...
Torgue on the other hand is an unknown factor... Are we talking human tissue like material or pistons? Because human tissue is one of the most effective types of energy storage (pink and white) and can provide quick bursts or long sustained drives...
Also with a tank and the bigger gun, it comes about due to the support/elevation and various systems within the tank itself (the cannon is just a big gun) Strip it down and its just a tube with a firing pin at one end, so a mech could effectively have the same weapon, as long as its arms and legs are capable of providing the support necessary to stabilise it during combat...
With a mecch though, im quite sure they are better suited at close combat anyway, using speed and agility to quickly close the gap between forces so equipping it with a large calibre weapon is redundant as it probably needs a cannon equivalant of a shotgun to be effective...
So........ I'd say if mechs were introduced tanks would be relegated to long range support (artillery) and mechs would take the place of modern tanks as the big guns were designed for one reason alone... to kill enemies safely... Mechs would be impervious to most small arms fire and so will be able to destroy enemy forces more easily (provided they are equipped with the necessary counter measures) at close range, with artillery from tanks at the back line eliminating enemy heavy weapons from long range... so tandem would be best??
thx 4 listening to my tangent
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I've looked over your view points, and will take them each in turn:
1) Mobility
Tanks are indeed not as mobile or able to reach many places a mech can reach. However, there is also the issue that the mech, due to it's much lighter, thinner, and less armor compared to the tank, is not nearly as effective a ground weapon as a tank will remain.
2) Protection
Tanks today are lightly armored on the top and bottom due to weight constraints. The more armor you load a tank down with, the slower it is, the bulkier it is, and finally, the bigger a target it is. Who's to say some sci-fi like material won't materialize that provides the same kind of protection CHOBAM grade armor currently used by MBTs with much less weight and more easily handled? By that token, you apply that, and you can put the same amount of armor, in weight, a current generation MBT has, and provide anywhere from 2x to 15x the protection, in more locations.
3) Combat Effectiveness
That lower profile and heavily stabilized base of the tank means that should a mech armed with a 102mm equalivent 'rifle', goes against a tank with the same caliber gun, the tank not only is able to aim, but also fire, reload and move to a new location, in the same amount of time the Mech does the first two actions. This is due to a tank being crewed anywhere from 2 to 5 people, each with a specific job in the tank. With a Mech, you can only fit, at most, 2 people in the same weight group as a MBT. There is also the fact that because you have to handle what is really a main battle tank weapon like a rifle, your forced to adjust for more variations as well as the handling of your mech.
Just isn't as effective a platform.
5) Weapon Systems
The M1A2 Abarams, the United States Military's current generation Main Battle Tank, is equipped with an advanced targeting computer that is able to account for elevation, distance, Coriolis Effect, temperature at the barrel and detected temperature at the target marked by the gunner reticle, the caliber of the round, and the kind of round currently in the gun's chamber. This helps to ensure the operators of the M1A2 Abrams is able to hit their target, every time they press the trigger.
With a mech, these same types of systems would have to be installed, but they'd also have to account for the recoil effect upon the mech, the resulting barrel-climb, the alternate stabilization (if any), and finally the ability of hte operator to accurately point the weapon at the target and adjust accordingly to the computer's output. Thus, user error is far more likely to occur with the mech, and result in far worse results then a gunner being slightly off by about 2 feet in a MBT.
6) Role
MBTs are not designed for CQB. However, their users know this, and prepare their tanks as best they can for the fact they knew they may end up in an urban environment in their large, noisy, armored to hell and back, tank. However, because they are on hand, infantry have a sense of safety knowing that the big ass, heavily armored monster behind you is friendly, and more likely to be shot at then you, means your more willing to risk actions that normally would result in your death.
With Mechs, they would NOT in fact, be impervious to small arms fire as you believe. Your not thinking about the joints, the motor controls, the lighter, thinner, less covering armor, and most importantly, the ability of hte average soldier on the ground to find a way to stick a grenade into a crevice and run like hell. Your also taller, more visible, and while you may be more quiet, engine wise, your movements are much more noticeable, since you are actually causing a micro-quake as your mech crushes the ground under it.
Personal Opinion
While Mechs may appear frightening, awesome, and downright dangerous, tanks are still going to be a mainstay of front line combat. They would be able to carry heavier armaments, fire more reliably in more adverse conditions, have a fear factor that Mechs don't have. And most importantly, provide moving cover for infantry sent in as support, while they protect the tank from AT equipment. If anything, mechs might be excellent scout elements or even as a gurellia warfare tool, but in a regular fight against an enemy who can't afford mechs? That tank is gonna pwn your Mech just because you can hide a tank a whole lot easier hten a mech, in a whole lot more ways.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
wow youve pretty much covered alot of what ive said...
but mechs would be better in an urban environment... actually armor in general is stuffed the minute it enters and urban environment... Missles, IEDs, Grenades, mine etc...
But all this is dependant on the size of the mech, are we talking Gundam sized mechs or Gasaraki/Ghost in the Shell mechs?
Because a gundam like mech is just a walking target...
A gasaraki sized mech (around that of an MBT, would not have most of the problems of mechs as noted above as tanks also give micro-quakes upon movement (61 tonnes of metal...) Also a 120 mm cannon would not be necessary as would an advanced firing system, an old fashioned iron sight or laser designator would be fine as it would only need 2 fire one round to kill an enemy vehicle, also weapons designed to recoil downwards could be designed e.g. the force being forced out the top (3rd law of motion)
With the vulnerability of mech in CQB you are forgetting one of your own points, that a mech is most useful mobile... designing a mech to do exactly the same thing as an MBT would be pointless as stated a mech has all sort of weakpoints on its chassis, a mech wouldn't walk around on patrol but act as a fast reaction force or a strike team where speed is of the essence... Should it be with normal troops, like a tank it would be a waling target, but if it say used the roof tops to move then it would be much more useful and engage enemy forces normal soldiers report before moving on again...
But in an occupation war a mech is pretty much useless as it would not be able to use its mobility to the fullest extent rendering it pretty much useless, tanks are much more menacing for regular patrols due to sound, sight and weight... a mech in a conventional battlefield would be much more terrifying...
also the M1 abrams is quite obsolete at the moment as it was designed for the role of tank killing... which it hasnt done since the invasion... that said so are mechs atm...
the need of specialist troops far outweighs that of armor atm as in an occupational war they cannot do much of importance... troops on the other hand can get into all sorts of tight and canny places that makes them much more useful, so unless China were to invade i fail to see mechs and tanks being of use to anybody in a battlefield atm...
which means mechs will not come to life in my lifetime *sob*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You, sir, are referring to Powered Armor, a.k.a. armor-cladding a soldier a la Master Chief. Barely the definition of what you would call a mech. And its real life implementation's still more cumbersome than a Ranger, Marine or a SEAL on full battle armor.
Plus, UAV is the new nuke. We prefer keeping our boys at the back with little PS3 remotes while we pepper your mech pilots with big-ass guns on even smaller RC cars and jets.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no... if uve watched gasaraki those mechs are around the height of a 2 1.5 storey building and around the width of an MBT
And those suits ur tlking about are currently in development by DARPA in the USA and are extremely effective. The only problem is power output as carrying a battery into combat isn't very intelligent.
The problem with a UAV is that it requires air and land dominance to be effective. 1 SAM site would jst rape those little toys that come in ready assemble kits. The only reason the taliban havent shot them down in huge numbers is because they cnt c them. If they invest a few million from wherever they get their funds they could see every single drone in the sky... and 1 20K stinger... BAM... gone is said air dominance... The reason they still use choppers and planes instead of a squadron of drones. The choppers have missile and gun detection systems that can spot 2,200 targets (apache) in a second. Simply put drones are currently incapable of being a homogenous assualt force due simply to their fragility.
Also on the mech peppering subject this is highly improbable as 1 flak shot would take down an entire squadron if its closely bunched together. Even should a missle be shot off a simple say chaff/smoke/magnesium flare would simply deflect prematurely ignite the missile... even simpler if its a rocket the mech can dodge O_o.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
By torque I mean how much can be applied, limited by the amount of traction the unit has. Tanks have a large ground contact through their tracks, whereas mechs for their size contact much less of the ground. Meaning mechs will either slip break the ground if they apply the same torque as a tank. I love mechs, but realistically they spend far to much weight and complexity just to achieve regular locomotion that simple wheels or tracks can achieve. Weight, fragility, and higher maintenance are the sacrifices made to turn a tank upright, making it a mech. The only mechs I ever see coming into existence are small tracked or wheeled quadrupeds used to support infantry where a tank cant go. Scifi is something else though, where we can break rules and forget logic
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
im in the army, we would never use a mech, anything a mech can do a tank could do better, by mere reason of of cost/effect ratio. the militaries of the world work on a budget, if a smaller item that is cheaper can do it better, they are going to go with it. think about it for a second: tank: main body, turret, armaments, treads. thats it. a gun with wheels. a mech: head, legs, arms, armaments, main body. wheels/treads require very little to get themseleves going and staying going, all the energy they output goes right back into them as they come back around. mechs would loose any inertia they had saved up comming back around. why waste hundreds of thousands of dollars adding extra parts and movement only to receive less output? arms also get added to this equation, if i can attach weaponry directly to a weapons hull, im going to do it (usually, in the army we can swich out turrets without much difficulty, so dont try the altering your armament argument) also, the logistics of sending that size unit to other areas is ridiculous, it already costs us 45K to ship a 20 ton armored vehicle, the mechs you oft see in Sifi would wiegh in reality atleast 50+ tons. and now we get on weight distribution, the reason that the creator of gundam made there legs and lower body so huge? in real life a mech would require a huge lower body and legs to maintain balance and weight distribution, otherwise it would sink into the ground because of the surface area to weight issue. guys, i freakin love mechs to death, but we will never, EVER make them in real life, they are to huge, to expensive and physics denys them. tanks do it better. me and the guys did the math in college. we wanted it to not be true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You should have delivered this to one of the pro mech noobs
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i know right? they drive me nuts with the "its cool, so it must work awesome!" and then this retard says that a mech can carry more weight, and move faster then a tank. and this guy claims to be smart. GOD. no realy, read the argument i had with these guys. [link] thats about where the issues start. they say that gundams are rediculous and that mechawarrior mechs are just fine. they didnt quite get that both are rediculous and out of place. bah. long arse argument over the stupidity of the other parties
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
hmmmmmmmm............
the thing about human tissue is that it can be reproduced... Animals have extrodinary acceleration and agility for their feet and leg size, this is due to tissue...
since scientists are working on viable bio-mechanical methods to power vehicles im guessing it will be viable in the near future making mechs capable of being a mainstream weapon that would have little of the problems that you speak of...
Maintence would be on the form of nutrition and chemicals to prevent decay, fragility would be reduced (tissue is extremely resistant to damage and can heal) and weight will be reduced by reducing the amount of mechanical parts involved...
I forsee a future whre mechs will be a part of mainstream life and not just war...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would love to see this as fully rendered version. And true, nothing really beats the (un)common firepower that everyone can use. (Well, "everyone") Next up, conscript tank that's designed for *everyone* age of ten and up!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Later this year will be full of nice renders
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
For when that next-door neighbour has forgotton to return your lawnmower.
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
perfectly sane
yeah!
>_>
<_<
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
O Ya ill take 3. Do you take check? of just cash?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Slaves are adequate too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
O. Ok...Hm. Hey come here *says i to a random person*
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love the idea of the tank, almost completely different from todays
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev |