What DO high tech grav tanks look like?
- Thread starter F33D
- Start date
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
If armored attack vehicles enter a battlefield without sensible precautions and tactics... well, Darwinism. Roaring gravtanks into a combat situations well above cover either without knowledge of the enemy or assuming you're invulnerable invites loss. Sounds more like MMO warfare of Run & Gun Fragging.
Keep in mind that nearly all of these methods require the one thing that grav vehicles don't have - choke points. Battle fronts are going to be hundreds of kilometers wide. You'd have to deploy thousands of anti tank weapons to effective block an area.
Assaulting forces aren't going to just fly into potential combat zones without taking precautions. I'd imagine they would have drones and other EW platforms flying g ahead or with them to confuse enemy sensors and remote weapons platforms.
Assaulting forces aren't going to just fly into potential combat zones without taking precautions. I'd imagine they would have drones and other EW platforms flying g ahead or with them to confuse enemy sensors and remote weapons platforms.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
In theory, there are no limitations as to what direction a grav equipped force could take.
In practice, some approaches would be better, such as those that provide greater cover and minimize possible detection time.
In practice, some approaches would be better, such as those that provide greater cover and minimize possible detection time.
I'd like to challenge the idea that grav tanks will have turret mounted main armaments.
The main reason modern tanks have turrets is that it's slow and difficult to traverse the entire vehicle laterally, and almost impossible to arbitrarily traverse it vertically. The Sweedish S-Tank is an interesting example of a turretless tank. The main gun has a fair vertical traversal range, but only a small amount of lateral travel without actualy rotating the whole tank. It's an odd design, and optimised for Swedish military doctrine, which is entirely defensive. It's designed to hide out in the hills and mountainsides, covering the valleys and passes through which a Russian invasion force would be likely to advance through.
A floating vehicle doesn't have any of these problems. It can rapidly traverse the whole vehicle both vertically and horizontally. If it can propel itself in any direction, regardless of vehicle orientation, then main weapon turrets become completely pointless. Their only remaining advantage would be the ability to point different weapons in different directions simultaneously. However unless the vehicle actualy has two or more main weapon systems, it's only likely to need smaller turrets for ancilliary weapons such as light cannons and anti-infantry weaponry.
But we already have a model to base grav tank designs on - helicopter gunships. Strip off the tail section and main rotors, and these things are pretty much egg shaped.
Simon Hibbs
The main reason modern tanks have turrets is that it's slow and difficult to traverse the entire vehicle laterally, and almost impossible to arbitrarily traverse it vertically. The Sweedish S-Tank is an interesting example of a turretless tank. The main gun has a fair vertical traversal range, but only a small amount of lateral travel without actualy rotating the whole tank. It's an odd design, and optimised for Swedish military doctrine, which is entirely defensive. It's designed to hide out in the hills and mountainsides, covering the valleys and passes through which a Russian invasion force would be likely to advance through.
A floating vehicle doesn't have any of these problems. It can rapidly traverse the whole vehicle both vertically and horizontally. If it can propel itself in any direction, regardless of vehicle orientation, then main weapon turrets become completely pointless. Their only remaining advantage would be the ability to point different weapons in different directions simultaneously. However unless the vehicle actualy has two or more main weapon systems, it's only likely to need smaller turrets for ancilliary weapons such as light cannons and anti-infantry weaponry.
But we already have a model to base grav tank designs on - helicopter gunships. Strip off the tail section and main rotors, and these things are pretty much egg shaped.
Simon Hibbs
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
A turret design allows the tank to present the most armor of the main body to the enemy while the main weapon has free movement for attack. A chopper presents it whole structure and is usually not well armored relying on speed, terrain and distance to stay alive. Aircraft, even A-10s have their own issues on the battlefield as they can't linger so armor is more a hinderance. A-10s have actual armor but still not enough so they are forced to strike and run. A gravtank flies and carries enough protection to take on conventional aircraft though that would still normally be the job of grav AA units.
"an odd design, and optimised for Swedish military doctrine, which is entirely defensive"
That tank has a plow on the front to bank earth in front and sits hull down. Nice design if you don't expect to be overrun. Probably has little armor especially sides, bottom and back. I'm sure even the forward armor is weak since it depends on that dirt. It also doesn't plan to aim at much more that a few degrees left or right forward. Wouldn't survive long in anything but that line.
"an odd design, and optimised for Swedish military doctrine, which is entirely defensive"
That tank has a plow on the front to bank earth in front and sits hull down. Nice design if you don't expect to be overrun. Probably has little armor especially sides, bottom and back. I'm sure even the forward armor is weak since it depends on that dirt. It also doesn't plan to aim at much more that a few degrees left or right forward. Wouldn't survive long in anything but that line.
Reynard said:
Attack who? Presumably some random guys other than the enemy? I'd have thought that, pretty much by definition, if the main enemy or threat to your tank is in a given direction, in most cases that is also the direction you will want to point your guns.
I suppose there may possibly be situations where that's not true, but are they likely to be common enough to be worth sacrifice a large chunk of your vehicle's mass budget? Ditching the mass and cost of a main weapon turret will buy you a nice chunk of extra armour, and floating vehicles that can be attacked from all sides need as much armour as they can get.
Simon Hibbs
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
I like the S-Tank, though that may have more to do with my fetish for assault guns.
It probably did make sense in the sixties and seventies, in a restricted environment.
What we did learn from the Great Patriotic War, was that a general purpose tank was a better solution, than a series of specialized ones, which was where the MBT concept developed.
What you want is the ability of the tank crew to be able to react to shifting battlefield conditions, which was one reason for a gun that can be aimed in all directions.
What the flyboyz learnt was that speed was life, and that you don't need a turret, it adds weight and slows you down.
It probably did make sense in the sixties and seventies, in a restricted environment.
What we did learn from the Great Patriotic War, was that a general purpose tank was a better solution, than a series of specialized ones, which was where the MBT concept developed.
What you want is the ability of the tank crew to be able to react to shifting battlefield conditions, which was one reason for a gun that can be aimed in all directions.
What the flyboyz learnt was that speed was life, and that you don't need a turret, it adds weight and slows you down.
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
Except for the uber TL 15 gravs, all others have armor proportioned for optimal perceived direction of attack. Lousy in the rear and bottom compared to front. Even choppers, with all their maneuverability, put their main gun on a swivel rather than spin the vehicle to aim. Airplanes aren't designed to do anything but face forward to aim. All that aircraft don't rely on armor.
Modern tanks are not the clunky ancestors of a century ago. They are fast and relatively dexterous on the battlefield but the turret is still there. It's still an edge to react to all threats for a vehicle facing terrain challenges and equally mobile opposition. It would be interesting to have a flathead gravtank squadron faceoff against a swivel squad. Remember again, if it's a high mode challenge, one or both sides will have Anti-Grav support batteries to stack the odds. If they can see you, they can hit you.
Modern tanks are not the clunky ancestors of a century ago. They are fast and relatively dexterous on the battlefield but the turret is still there. It's still an edge to react to all threats for a vehicle facing terrain challenges and equally mobile opposition. It would be interesting to have a flathead gravtank squadron faceoff against a swivel squad. Remember again, if it's a high mode challenge, one or both sides will have Anti-Grav support batteries to stack the odds. If they can see you, they can hit you.
Reynard said:
You keep using the strange phrase "uber TL 15 gravs". TL 15 is irrelevant. But, you are correct about needing armor everywhere once the "tank" is airborne. Hence the spherical design for a grav tank at any TL. Perhaps after you get to know Traveller better you'll understand the major TL breaks.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Most weapon platforms are a series of compromises that optimize their performance for the role(s) they were designed for.
How far that applies in the far future, I can only speculate.
How far that applies in the far future, I can only speculate.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
As to what form those compromises will take, if there are any compromises necessary.
IanBruntlett
Emperor Mongoose
F33D said:
There may be human/sophont considerations...
sometimes a technology becomes trendy and its hard to use anything else...
sometimes economics interfere - the better technology might be prohibitively expensive.....
sometimes politics - if a powerful politician's constituency wants to build a substandard design on his turf, that might just happen...
sometimes the better technology is viewed as too risky compared to conventional designs
simonh said:
Tank destroyers from WW2, as well as some of the assault and mobile artillery guns had the same features as the S-Tank. Having driven a 27ton tracked vehicle for 4 years I can tell you that moving a few degrees to the left or right is quite difficult. What's NOT difficult is moving a few degrees, or ten degrees, or any amount of degrees (technically we used mils, but hey, we were artillery, and accuracy counts!). Tracked vehicles aren't capable of fine motor movement like you think. You also have to take terrain factors into the equation too, as some are going to play havoc with your fine control. Grav vehicles would present with the same issues, though theirs would be more in regards to trying to stay in one place against the wind.
Now, as to why turreted vehicles would be superior, well, that's easy. If your main weapon can be aimed independently of your vehicle, you now have the ability to both maneuver AND aim/fire at your enemy. When your weapons are mounted in one direction you must turn the entire vehicle towards the enemy. If terrain is an issue you must fly around/above it, or you cannot easily had in it. With a turret you can engage your enemy obliquely, you can engage them as you move towards them, our you can engage them as you are attacking towards the rear. In all cases the movement of the vehicle is not linked to your ability to engage the enemy in a 360 degree arc.
F33D said:
If you are using physics to cover ALL physical laws, you are correct. But I think a more accurate statement would be:
1) tanks will take form that are based on the laws of aerodynamics (the shape of the vehicle for movement)
2) tanks will take form that are based on the laws of material science (the shape of the vehicle based upon the materials that will be used to make the armor)
3) tanks will take form that are based on the needs of crew safety (defenses will be adapted to protect the crew, perhaps such as a minimal turret profile because the crew area is in the main hull only).
4) tanks will take form that are based on technical needs (maintaining the tank is a HUGE requirement, especially once they get into the field. Being able to swap out entire components to get them back into action will also dictate the form of the vehicle)
There's even more ideas that go into the design considerations for a vehicle as complex and expensive as a tank. What most people see is the outside. Once tanks transformed from their initial designs in WW1 to the turret on top version we see today they all look the same to most people. But they are quite different on the inside, as well as the varying design dogma's followed by various nations (the Merkava puts the engine compartment in front, the Russians favor auto-loaders, the West favors more crew to maintain the tank in the field.... just a few examples).
The one thing that will probably never change is the job of a tank... unless Ogre's/Bolo's start popping up on the battlefield.
Reynard said:
There are a few reaons why choppers use gun turrets. To start with while they are agile, they have problems pointing in a fixed direction consistently, due to their high and continuously variable engine torque and changes in wind speeds. This is more a problem for them than it would be for a grav tank due to their large wind-catching rotors and tail. Furthermore they are incapable of pointing the fuselage downwards without also inducing forward motion. So any change in orientation induces wobble and drift that isn't inducive to accurate targetting. I would expect a grav tank to have considerably better capabilities around station keeping and orientation control.
Simon Hibbs
