bankz5152 Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Hey, Ok this is probably going to be absurd but i thought it would be fun to think about. Instead of the Millitary using a fleet of 30 odd Tanks why not use one of these? http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...%3Doff%26um%3D1 OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebherr_T_282B - Goes the same speed as a challanger 2 40pmh But with a really big gun instead of a bucket, Missile silos, a semi automatic 120mm cannon on either side, variously placed .50 cal machine guns, rocket pods and just for the hell of it a helipad. Of course it would need a big grinder thing for removing mines. I know it would be absurd especially trying to transport it anywhere but when it got there it would destroy everything in its path. Imagine the site of it, somthing so large coming toward you covered in guns blowing *suitcase* up left right and centre. lol i know its crazy, any comments? Link to post Share on other sites
Kyrian_Zenda Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 You're not an anime fan, are you? Lots of reasons they wouldn't. Like weight, fuel consumption, sheer cost, etc. Link to post Share on other sites
bankz5152 Posted December 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 lil bit yer. Would be cool. Im still shock that somthing that big can travel 40mph! Link to post Share on other sites
mattmanic Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Firstly, 1 of those is a digger. The other is a dumper truck. Made for digging and dumping. Tanks are tanks. Made for shooting. If you were to just put a load of guns on one of those what you would end up with is a load of guns on something too large to move. Unless you could build it wherever and whenever you wanted it then that would be pointless. Assuming you could do those things then you're still limited by the fact that you'll still need about the same number of them as you would tanks to cover a battlefield because the range of the weaponry would be pretty similar. It would just be a bigger target. So that would be a few of the reasons why we don't use diggers in warfare Link to post Share on other sites
bankz5152 Posted December 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Never really thought about the target thing. OK maybe just one with a large artillery gun and some kind of command and control center. Maybe i should have put this in the humour & jokes... Link to post Share on other sites
DrKalinka Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Yes you should have... Why do you need a building sized tank to move a gun that could just as well be moved with... i dunno... A regular tank chassis? Dont need all the armour to function on the battlefield as an artillery unit. Link to post Share on other sites
The End Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Hey, Ok this is probably going to be absurd but i thought it would be fun to think about. Instead of the Millitary using a fleet of 30 odd Tanks why not use one of these? http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...%3Doff%26um%3D1 OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebherr_T_282B - Goes the same speed as a challanger 2 40pmh But with a really big gun instead of a bucket, Missile silos, a semi automatic 120mm cannon on either side, variously placed .50 cal machine guns, rocket pods and just for the hell of it a helipad. Of course it would need a big grinder thing for removing mines. I know it would be absurd especially trying to transport it anywhere but when it got there it would destroy everything in its path. Imagine the site of it, somthing so large coming toward you covered in guns blowing *suitcase* up left right and centre. lol i know its crazy, any comments? Israelis have used these type of machines, i believe the D1 bulldozer, and a crazy american citizen modified one and went on a unstoppable rampage. Link to post Share on other sites
Victory Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 ...and a crazy american citizen modified one and went on a unstoppable rampage. It wasn't just a bulldozer...it was The Killdozer. -Vic Link to post Share on other sites
Roecar Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I thought that's what the Imperial Guard used already... Link to post Share on other sites
Misfit Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Transporter.jpg Mobile fortress. Link to post Share on other sites
Habakure Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 That mobile fortress looks like a sand crawler after its been on weight watchers. Link to post Share on other sites
bbondaloose Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 . The huge monsters of machines would simply not be affective in combat. They may be able to withstand getting rocks pummeled on them, or having to carry ridiculously heavy loads, but I'm sure one good IED could take out the tracks/wheels and now you have a 50 ton of metal you probably can't replace parts easily, simply due to you having to haul it back with something even bigger. Battle Tanks are made, well, for battle. Ever since they were just an idea in a person's head, it's been made for combat, and nothing else, so every inch of the tank was made to withstand battles and wars. Link to post Share on other sites
sierra hotel Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 It wasn't just a bulldozer...it was The Killdozer. -Vic I LOLed! Link to post Share on other sites
The End Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Transporter.jpg Mobile fortress. this is most definatly the work of imperial troopers, not sand people. Link to post Share on other sites
RacingManiac Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 well in the real world...we are going bigger.... US's new M-ATV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5wT58L1uME look at it compare to the people and other vehicle in the clip.... This is basically serving the role of an up-armored Humvee, until Humvee gets replaced with JLTV, which is only slightly smaller than the M-ATV... Link to post Share on other sites
reaper16 Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Yes its a huge target, assuming the opposing force had a competent air force that big thing would be rubble as soon as they could get planes near it. Link to post Share on other sites
MCXL Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 something that large could institute point defense systems for anti aircraft/missles The big thing here though is width. Tanks are already *fruitcage* wide, and the cannon has a hard time swinging around in cities. If your tank doesnt fit down a street, you know what it is? Mobile artillery. The moble base thing could provide a very good landing and refuel point for helicopters though. The next phase in armored combat vehicles (not troop transport) are going to be smaller and slightly taller, and likely be legged. Not gundams or anything so silly, but probably 15-20 feet tall, with a back mounted gun. I doubt they will have arms, but its possible. They will not use the legs to walk, merely as suspension and to help protect the underside of the tank (relieves pressure from anti tank mines, making the vehicle crew more survivable). They wont replace main battle tanks, but I wouldn't be surprised to see like groups of 5-10 light upright tanks with 1-3 main battle tanks. I'm more then willing to go into this in depth but my fresh sockets in my mouth hurt and I want to eat my soup. Plus this topic is about super tanks. Link to post Share on other sites
Rob15 Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 The next phase in armored combat vehicles (not troop transport) are going to be smaller and slightly taller, and likely be legged. Not gundams or anything so silly, but probably 15-20 feet tall, with a back mounted gun. I doubt they will have arms, but its possible. They will not use the legs to walk, merely as suspension and to help protect the underside of the tank (relieves pressure from anti tank mines, making the vehicle crew more survivable). They wont replace main battle tanks, but I wouldn't be surprised to see like groups of 5-10 light upright tanks with 1-3 main battle tanks. I'm more then willing to go into this in depth but my fresh sockets in my mouth hurt and I want to eat my soup. Plus this topic is about super tanks. A tank with legs and guns? You mean one of these? :P Biggest problem I can see with huge vehicles such as that admittedly very cool crawler is getting them to where you need them, I mean there is probably a small large chance a war won't start where said vehicles just happen to be located at the time and to move them at least a half decent pace would require something even bigger, a huge skycrane perhaps? Where are the Russians when you want them to make some rather mad but huge machines? Link to post Share on other sites
WeirdoTransvestite Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think he means one of these, Rob. Plus, it's cooler than an AT-AT. Vehicles that large, while not impossible, are unlikely to ever be used as long as missiles can reduce it to slag from beyond the horizon. Unless it can go from 0 to 500 km/h in a quarter second like Armored Cores can. Link to post Share on other sites
bankz5152 Posted December 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Ok so the idea needs work lol Is that mobile fortress a genuine US Military idea? It looks very similar to the mobile weapons patform from Fallout 3: Broken Steel. Well not somthing that would be a main battle tank then. A Mobile Artillery/ Vehical Refuel/Rearm Station. Obviously it wouldnt as simple as wacking a big gun on a dumper. Youd have to essentially redesign it for battle. Big heavy armour plates, massively thick rubber tires lined with kevlar in certain places to protect agains IEDs. And of course automated .50cals for close protection. Correct me if im wrong or if it was a lie. I think i saw 'Anti Rocket Armour' for vehicals, from what i understood about it it uses various sensors and what not with automated shotguns that find the rocket coming toward it and blow it up 10 meters from its target. The other thing i saw on Future Weapons was a Surface - Air missle defence system for large planes. Used IR, sensors & lasers to heat the fuel tank of rockets and blow it up before it reaches its target. Using those things would help it out, ill try to find the videos on the web today. I agree with what others have said armoured bi ped 'tanks'. I wouldnt be supprised if we soon saw bi-peds with arms standing around 12 - 15 ft tall moving with squads of soldiers. Link to post Share on other sites
Kyrian_Zenda Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 That mobile fortress is used to move rockets from the manufacturing facility in Florida to the launch pad about a mile away. Not military, NASA. Link to post Share on other sites
Misfit Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 It's not really a mobile fortress, that was just my suggestion. As Kyrian Zenda said, it's a NASA Crawler Transporter used to move rockets. Link to post Share on other sites
apmaman Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I think he means one of these, Rob. Plus, it's cooler than an AT-AT. Vehicles that large, while not impossible, are unlikely to ever be used as long as missiles can reduce it to slag from beyond the horizon. Unless it can go from 0 to 500 km/h in a quarter second like Armored Cores can. I thought this.... Link to post Share on other sites
Revan Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 What would be the real benefits of a vehicle that used legs though? I mean sure it can cross more types of terrain than normal tracked/wheeled vehicles, but is it really a more stable platform to fire from? Does it offer anything over tracks? Will say though in terms of putting fear into an enemy, the whole idea of a giant vehicle would pretty much do that. That's probably why they always seemed to be used by the "empire" types in fiction; A giant vehicle may be strong, contain more weapons and troops, but it is never the type of creation that will put people at ease when they see it on the horizon. Link to post Share on other sites
Azulsky Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 It would theoretically be able to carry weapons more devastating than a MBT over a greater variety of terrain. Until they get the legs to somewhere near human balance and mobility though its a tough sell in my mind. Mech Theory in MGS makes more sense than Gundam to me, as in MGS they are designing the chassis around the weapon system it must deploy, in Gundam they are just getting fancy. Just like all super platforms(say a carrier) it would require special help to defend itself(carrier group) as it likely would be taken down by 1-2 shots from an MBT unless we make uber armour Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.