saru_richard

Modern Super-Heavy tank concepts...

17 posts in this topic

you know just out of curiosity and sheer boredom i wonder, say one day some random goverment agent came to you ordering that you have to make a Modern day Super-Heavy Tank how will you design it?

 

I'll go first:

Weight: 100-150 ton's

Armor type: Dorchester armour (turns out its the stuff the Challenger II is made off...)

APS: Iron Curtain

Hull Armor: 300/200/150 mm

Hull Armor sloping: 70 degrees front, 40 degrees side and rear

Turret shape: something resembling a M1A2 Turret placed in the front

Turret Armor: 400/ 200/200 mm

Main Armament: 150 mm smooth bore Cannon

Secondary Armament/Defense systems: .50 cal Heavy Machine gun connected to the commanders hatch, 20 tubes for Flares/Smoke Grenades, Two Slots one in each side for mini turrets each contain either a 20 mm auto cannon, Twin .50 cal Heavy Machine gun's, a BGM-71 TOW launcher or a FIM-92E Stinger launcher

Engine: twin 1,500 HP engines

Appearance: looks like the derange lovechild of a M1 Abrams and a IS-7 that got spoiled by a Maus

 

have fun with the brainstorming 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very hard for me to try and think of a design since the logical side of me says no matter the design, it'd blow up anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fulcrous said:

It's very hard for me to try and think of a design since the logical side of me says no matter the design, it'd blow up anyways.

source.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super heavy tank also equates to super slow which is a no go on todays battlefields.   Also the addition of reactive armor kinda makes super thick armor obsolete....equal or better protection for way less weight.   The current version of the M1 Abrams would be what a modern super heavy would look like.   Can keep up with convoys with a decent top speed and near invulnerable from the front.    Its still a little too immobile imo.   

Last wargames the NATO nations held the German Leopard crews ran literal circles around the Abrams crews.  Some of that might have been sub par tank tactics training as the M1's would basically just sit in one spot and barely move while the Leopards were like racecars zipping around the battlefield.  Mobility and ability to fire quickly and accurately is becoming the new norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would either question the sanity of the government agent or consider him to be some form of scam artists.

ERA and modern ammunition both made heavy armor completly obsolete, there is a reason why we dont see "true" heavy tanks anymore, all that extra weight from the armor is detrimental to the performance of the tank as it slows the tanks down, puts more stress on the suspension, makes production/maintenance more expensive/difficult and at the end would get blown up anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super heavy tanks like the Maus were a bad idea even during WW2, not only because they were slow, hard to move (relocate with trains would be impossible) consumed huge amounts of fuel, but even when in position they would be easily targeted by artillery and even more easily by airplanes. 

Tanks without sky control are useless anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take tank and cover it in active defense systems. Create the Neo of tonks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Build real baneblade. Then purge all the filthy xenos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone has been playing Steve Jackson's Ogre or reading John Ringo books. 

The biggest problem with any super heavy tank is generally mounted with a dozen identical siblings in a pod underneath a helicopter hovering 3-4 miles away.  A hellfire missile is under $100K and is pretty much a lights out tank killer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Archaic_One said:

Someone has been playing Steve Jackson's Ogre or reading John Ringo books. 

The biggest problem with any super heavy tank is generally mounted with a dozen identical siblings in a pod underneath a helicopter hovering 3-4 miles away.  A hellfire missile is under $100K and is pretty much a lights out tank killer.

Thats no1 reason why there are no more heavily armored tanks. 

Plus the fact that tanks are generaly not fighting other tanks in combats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've gotten much better at making tanks, we haven't gotten equally good at making roads.  IIRC NASA used crushed rock as it's paving material for the roadways that the crawlers use/d.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting because alot of recent stuff has been asymetrical.

In 1982 the UK took a few Scorpion light tanks with the 75mm to the Falklands, despite the fact (a) the enemy had no tanks, (b) the enemy had modern anti tank missiles, and (c) the Scorpion is made of aluminium ie useless armour. But as direct support for infantry they were very useful.

 

But in Afghanistan the UK was going to take no armour and light "snatch" landrovers for moving troops. However, again vehicles able to provide large gun direct support fire to assist the infantry, and heavy armour were found useful. In particular vehicles with V shaped under hull armour such as Foxhound.

So due to IED I would suggest that any super heavy tank you design is also V shaped underneath

Here's a Foxhound as an example

_72384511_72384510.jpg

 

For similar see Stryker, LAVIII, and Pirhana etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, arthurwellsley said:

It's interesting because alot of recent stuff has been asymetrical.

In 1982 the UK took a few Scorpion light tanks with the 75mm to the Falklands, despite the fact (a) the enemy had no tanks, (b) the enemy had modern anti tank missiles, and (c) the Scorpion is made of aluminium ie useless armour. But as direct support for infantry they were very useful.

Always thought that might be a candidate for higher tier Brit lights. They'd probably have to call it FV101 in-game, there are too many S[ck]orpions already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, woe2you said:

Always thought that might be a candidate for higher tier Brit lights. They'd probably have to call it FV101 in-game, there are too many S[ck]orpions already.

yes there are two candidates. The Scorpion with the 75mm at tier IX, and the Scorpion 90 or Scorpion 2 was a version armed with the long-barrelled Cockerill Mk3 M-A1 90mm gun designed for the export market as the tier X.

Scxorpion_90_CVRT_90mm_gun_light_tracked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanks are still really really good against insurgencies and guerrillas.  You park an Abrams at a roadblock or checkpoint and suddenly the suicide bomber in the up-armored propane truck is faced with an existential crisis.  Most of our enemies are toting RPG-7s, which are capable of knocking out a modern tank, but only barely with a close range shot and some luck.  The sensor package on a modern tank is going to keep most people with an RPG at 400m or more and RPG gunners will generally not get a second shot.

Today the tank is a pretty useful tool in asymmetrical warfare, but it will probably become an expensive liability and early casualty on the front lines of the next war between major powers.  Of course, by the time that war happens, we will probably have moved on to much less expensive semi-disposable drone tanks driven by guys in air conditioned offices using a mouse and WASD controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can design just about anything, but your only consumer would be some 3rd world country that needs to fend off it's guerrillas.. and uprisings. 

Now a days you just need a drone strike, and a satellite to track enemy movement. You can literally have a guy in a cubicle sitting 9 to 5 behind a desk shooting people across the hemisphere piloting a drone, and the training required.. a high school diploma.

 

But if you're curious in what's going on in the field of armor advancement.. testing. Check out a military simulator called Operation Overmatch.

If I play my cards right I might even get a look at it myself.

Zbxv4Gm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2017 at 11:37 AM, arthurwellsley said:

It's interesting because alot of recent stuff has been asymetrical.

In 1982 the UK took a few Scorpion light tanks with the 75mm to the Falklands, despite the fact (a) the enemy had no tanks, (b) the enemy had modern anti tank missiles, and (c) the Scorpion is made of aluminium ie useless armour. But as direct support for infantry they were very useful.

 

But in Afghanistan the UK was going to take no armour and light "snatch" landrovers for moving troops. However, again vehicles able to provide large gun direct support fire to assist the infantry, and heavy armour were found useful. In particular vehicles with V shaped under hull armour such as Foxhound.

So due to IED I would suggest that any super heavy tank you design is also V shaped underneath

Here's a Foxhound as an example

_72384511_72384510.jpg

 

For similar see Stryker, LAVIII, and Pirhana etc

Strykers and other similar vehicles are tall, much taller than a tank.  MRAPs are also tall and prone to rollover.  The only thing they're good at is surviving detonations from below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.