What DO high tech grav tanks look like?

[F33D]

From an interesting thread over at CotI.

Do Grav "Tanks" look like Tanks?
Quote from LBB4 p.47
"All vehicles have sufficient free-flight performance that ground combat vehicles effectively no longer exist having merged with aircraft."

Considering the fact that functional requirements dictate form, current tanks are designed to defeat/defend against threat in basically two dimensions. Whether other vehicles or soldiers. An airborne tank would have to also contend with fire from below and above. (current tanks get slaughtered from above by relatively small weapons.)

Maybe sub-sonic versions would be somewhat egg shaped?...

 

[phavoc]

I'd think more like armored wedges. Even if they need no ability to generate lift they still need to pay attention to aerodynamics such as efficient air flow. Otherwise they'll have to expend additional energy where none would normally be required, plus they would generate additional heat from friction, thus making themselves even more IR detectable.

As a tank, assuming they mount a turret, they'd want to follow normal tank characteristics, such as having 360 degree field of fire. With a top-mounted turret they'd also be able to go hull-down for extra defense when necessary.

Take a look at the tanks from Renegade Legion to see some good examples. Even the ones from Hammer's Slammer's would work (aside from them being hover-tanks).

 

[CosmicGamer]

I can see form following function turning out a multi purpose vehicle with ground sensors and weapons predominantly on one side and air sensors and anti air weaponry (perhaps even anti ship) predominantly on the opposite side. Of course vehicles will still vary as they are specialized for particular types of roles.

High tech turrets to allow the vehicle to maneuver and keep weapons on target. Assuming lasers and ballistic style weapons vs guided weapons like missiles.

 

[F33D]

I'd think more like armored wedges. Even if they need no ability to generate lift they still need to pay attention to aerodynamics such as efficient air flow. Otherwise they'll have to expend additional energy where none would normally be required, plus they would generate additional heat from friction, thus making themselves even more IR detectable.

That's why I was thinking and egg/teardrop shape as they have better drag (optimized have CD as low as 0.04) and cross section & armor characteristics than a wedge for non-supersonic craft. Maybe two side mounted swiveling lasers so everything can be targeted in all directions.

 

[F33D]

I can see form following function turning out a multi purpose vehicle with ground sensors and weapons predominantly on one side and air sensors and anti air weaponry (perhaps even anti ship) predominantly on the opposite side. Of course vehicles will still vary as they are specialized for particular types of roles.

High tech turrets to allow the vehicle to maneuver and keep weapons on target. Assuming lasers and ballistic style weapons vs guided weapons like missiles.

Yes, Hi/Lo sensors would make sense.

 

[phavoc]

I'd think more like armored wedges. Even if they need no ability to generate lift they still need to pay attention to aerodynamics such as efficient air flow. Otherwise they'll have to expend additional energy where none would normally be required, plus they would generate additional heat from friction, thus making themselves even more IR detectable.

That's why I was thinking and egg/teardrop shape as they have better drag (optimized have CD as low as 0.04) and cross section & armor characteristics than a wedge for non-supersonic craft. Maybe two side mounted swiveling lasers so everything can be targeted in all directions.

The only issue here is that the heavier tanks and gun platforms can't go supersonic. Their speeds are in the 200-400kph range. The G-carrier gets up to 640kph, but that's not a true tank, just an APC.

 

[F33D]

I'd think more like armored wedges. Even if they need no ability to generate lift they still need to pay attention to aerodynamics such as efficient air flow. Otherwise they'll have to expend additional energy where none would normally be required, plus they would generate additional heat from friction, thus making themselves even more IR detectable.

That's why I was thinking and egg/teardrop shape as they have better drag (optimized have CD as low as 0.04) and cross section & armor characteristics than a wedge for non-supersonic craft. Maybe two side mounted swiveling lasers so everything can be targeted in all directions.

The only issue here is that the heavier tanks and gun platforms can't go supersonic. Their speeds are in the 200-400kph range. The G-carrier gets up to 640kph, but that's not a true tank, just an APC.

Right. I'm considering only sub-sonic design.

 

[Condottiere]

It depends on their role.

You can sacrifice aerodynamics for improved armour characteristics, assuming you're going for the MBT concept.

 

[F33D]

It depends on their role.

You can sacrifice aerodynamics for improved armour characteristics, assuming you're going for the MBT concept.

No need. The ideal aerodynamic shape also happens to be a VERY good armor and 3D radar X-sectional shape.

 

[phavoc]

Right. I'm considering only sub-sonic design.

My mistake, I misread that as supersonic.

 

[Reynard]

Since Striker days for designing those tanks, I always thought the advantage of a grav tanks was rapid deployment. They travel at maximum speed in high mode to reach the theater of war without the aid of transport vehicles and then go terrain following cruising speed to reduce visibility. At the battlefield, they drop to nape of the earth movement using terrain that protects the less armored bottom and act more like helicopters for attacking and defending.

The illustrations I've seen over the years seem reasonable. They have the overall shape of turreted tanks but are streamlined for fast flight and maneuvering.

 

[F33D]

Since Striker days for designing those tanks, I always thought the advantage of a grav tanks was rapid deployment.

The advantage is armor & firepower.

and then go terrain following cruising speed to reduce visibility. At the battlefield, they drop to nape of the earth movement using terrain that protects the less armored bottom

That works only in areas without air power of similar TL. In every battle where there has been significant air, enemy tanks get slaughtered. They will need armor all around. Not just the sides.

The illustrations I've seen over the years seem reasonable. They have the overall shape of turreted tanks but are streamlined for fast flight and maneuvering.

Reasonable if you want death from below and above. (they were drawn by a person who doesn't understand the threat environment) If you want to eliminate your tank corps it IS the way to go. :lol:

 

[Reynard]

"The advantage is armor & firepower."

And strategic planning. If it takes your side a lot longer to move assets to a theater or battle field while your opponent wisks their actual arms into the best position, they get the advantage. That's why airpower is important today while clunky ground units try to catch up.

"That works only in areas without air power of similar TL. In every battle where there has been significant air, enemy tanks get slaughtered. They will need armor all around. Not just the sides."

Of course they need sufficient armor but no army tries to Hulk out their tanks even today. They present the face that takes the brunt of attack and use terrain for a lot of protection. These are not pure air wars like fighter jet which have no choice and look how pathetically armored those things are. Any vehicle spending a lot of time in open air is going to meet auxiliary anti-tank weapons in any combined arms force. Best thing is don't present a target and keep the weakest part of the vehicle away from the enemy. Only TL 15 (or so) have the luxury of all around equal protection.

"Reasonable if you want death from below and above. If you want to eliminate your tank corps it IS the way to go."

Very reasonable because these are not all TL 15 supertanks. Form and feature are optimized for what is possible and available with tactics and terrain advantages devised for additional when the technology is lacking.survivability. No war is all about the machine.

 

[F33D]

"The advantage is armor & firepower."

And strategic planning. <BIG snip due to train wreck thread derailment>

We're talking equipment.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[phavoc]

You really should look at the stuff put out by FASA. The technology and weapons mix are well thought out. The Renegade Legion boardgame has a wide variety of tanks and weapons systems. I really liked their system because it made a lot of sense. Some weapons are more ablative and take off layers of armor while others punch a direct hole. Which is why most tanks had a mix of lasers and mass drivers. If you enjoy military fiction, look for a book called Damned If We Do by Peter Rice. It's a great book (don't bother with the follow-on books though, they kinda sucked) about tank warfare set in the game universe.

Even with anti-grav you still have trade-offs. Making a tank so heavily armored that it can shrug off most hits means its slow and unwieldy. If your primary mode of action is NOE then making the underside armor less heavy means you can add more to the front and side and top (rear armor is less too since tanks are mostly offensive).

Anti-grav means you can counter the effects of gravity. But mass is still a bitch, and moving a 100 ton (mass) tank takes less energy than a 500 ton (mass) tank. To what extent the power-to-weight ratio's make a difference is arguable since we have no information on that, just that there IS some ratio.

 

[F33D]

You really should look at the stuff put out by FASA. The technology and weapons mix are well thought out. The Renegade Legion boardgame has a wide variety of tanks and weapons systems. I really liked their system because it made a lot of sense. Some weapons are more ablative and take off layers of armor while others punch a direct hole. Which is why most tanks had a mix of lasers and mass drivers. If you enjoy military fiction, look for a book called Damned If We Do by Peter Rice. It's a great book (don't bother with the follow-on books though, they kinda sucked) about tank warfare set in the game universe.

Even with anti-grav you still have trade-offs. Making a tank so heavily armored that it can shrug off most hits means its slow and unwieldy. If your primary mode of action is NOE then making the underside armor less heavy means you can add more to the front and side and top (rear armor is less too since tanks are mostly offensive).

Anti-grav means you can counter the effects of gravity. But mass is still a bitch, and moving a 100 ton (mass) tank takes less energy than a 500 ton (mass) tank. To what extent the power-to-weight ratio's make a difference is arguable since we have no information on that, just that there IS some ratio.

Thanks. I haven't looked at my buried FASA stuff in years. I'll read up.

 

[Reynard]

"We're talking equipment."

We're talking about what drives the form of grav tanks and that involves ALL aspects not just a simplistic, narrow minded obsession for the metal. You really have no understanding for the art of war.

 

[Condottiere]

Unless the military is expecting the equivalent to clay pigeon shooting, the tanks would be only part of a combined arms operation, and their role is that of armoured fist, infantry support and will pop up and ping pong around like an attack helicopter.

 

[F33D]

Upon reviewing RCS's of different shapes the spherical teardrop works.

A sphere with a diameter of 1.13m will have an RCS of 1 m2. a flat surface with a similar area has an RCS of ~ 13,000 m2. Using standard formulas. Combined with the speed & armor enhancements provided by the shape, it would be ... uninformed to choose shapes that greatly degrade those capabilities without gains that would offset those losses.

 

[phavoc]

I'm assuming that RCS stands for Radar Cross Section?

If so, that may not be much of an issue. Assuming NOE flying, standard radar and other sensors won't be able to detect them if there is any sort of terrain available to hide behind. While Grav vehicles will certainly fly higher than NOE to get to the battlezone, they'll drop down to ground hugging mode before they come into range of the enemy. That's just common sense.

The other thing is that active sensors won't last long in a fight, as each side will work very hard to destroy the other's eye's. It's more likely that passive, or even satellite (but very small ones that can hide in orbital debris fields) sensors will be used. Sure, tanks need speed, but they need stable platforms and the ability to engage in 360 mode so they can do oblique attacks if they need to quickly move away from the enemy.

If we took tank technology today and made them into grav platforms I'm not too sure how much it would radically change. Tank designers have always tried to put the most armor towards where the enemy can strike. Newer anti-tank missiles have pop-up capability that can just destroy older tanks. But technology increases have always been the bane of tank designs. So once you know your topside is as vulnerable as your other sides you'll armor it accordingly so it's not any more vulnerable. I can see a tank designer in the far future looking at the bottom armor as a place to raid in order to put that precious mass somewhere else.