Best scifi tank?

[SapphireFox]

What makes it impossible, exactly? I mean, in the real world we had HIBEX which could pull 400g, though admittedly in a straight line - but if a missile could pull 2g of lateral acceleration it could dodge just about anything stationary, if it's clever enough. And frankly I don't think you're really in much of a position to say that missile guidance will never, ever be good enough to make it possible.

It's not the G's it can take its whether the missile can turn sharply enough. Anyways what does this have to do with the horribly designed launcher on the tank in question anyway? The missiles it fires are standard Rifts long range missiles not some special ground hugging cruise missile. They do not posses the qualities or capabilities you are trying to ascribe to them.

[Ford Prefect]

It's not the G's it can take its whether the missile can turn sharply enough.

Just ... when a person says 'if a missile could pull 2g of lateral acceleration it could dodge just about anything stationary', then the chances are they're probably talking about how quickly it can move from side to side.

[SapphireFox]

It's not the G's it can take its whether the missile can turn sharply enough.

Just ... when a person says 'if a missile could pull 2g of lateral acceleration it could dodge just about anything stationary', then the chances are they're probably talking about how quickly it can move from side to side.

Again the point is moot as the LR missile in question DOES NOT HAVE THOSE ABILITIES. The Rifts basic LRM is not designed to or capable of terrain hugging nap-of-the-earth flying.

As for your 2g comment, at 50 feet off the ground at 500 mph and dodging a rolling hill that might be true but, at waist height (3 foot average) going the full 2500 mph trying to maneuver sharply around trees, cliffs, or heaven forbid an urban environment tying to maneuver down wrecked streets partially filled with rubble that's a lot more than 2 bloody G's!

[SAMAS]

I have no problems with missiles on the sides. Its if the launcher is trying to fire a near cruise missile sized weapon pointed strait forwards and expect it to be useful for anything more than an extremely expensive direct fire cannon shot. As I said earlier it gives it too limited a field of fire to be more useful.

Keep in mind that the Iron Hammer and similar tanks such as the Grinning Skull and Iron Maiden, there sometimes is cause for the quick ability to fire multiple cannon shots (or rather the equivalent thereof) at once, such as a pissed-off Adult Dragon in front of you.

[SapphireFox]

True. Or trying to kneecap a Mecha or Giant to disable it quickly might be another good use. While the missile spam might feel somewhat cheap and gamey to me I can't say that it doesn't work, especially if you want to kill something quickly.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I'm fond of centurion tanks from the Old FASA Renegade Legion.

[Simon_Jester]

All-Terrain Scout Transport, it's the equivelant of an up-armoured Humvee with a Mk19 grenade launcher. The closest thing Star Wars has to a tank is are repulsortanks like the 2-M and AAT or things like the T3-B and T4-B.

The Dreadnought is an oversized power armour and completely incapable of offering the maneuverability of a tank.

It does however fill an "infantry tank" role on the battlefield: an armored unit that moves with the infantry and supports them with heavy weapons. This is what the tank was invented to do, but the mission died out during WWII because while accepting low speed meant increased armor protection useful for set-piece actions, it also made the tank nearly useless in mobile warfare.

A Dreadnought is a lousy excuse for an MBT because of its (presumably) low overland speed, but it's an adequate substitute for an infantry tank.

Do personal projects count?
Because a few years back I worked on the designs for a tank that would be several kilometers long, powered by steam engines the size of small apartment houses. It was to hold battleship turrets mounting 10 cannons each 1 meter wide, a small air strip and a zeppelin hangar.

Also, it was supposed to be able to ford the English channel.
I think I still have the Auto Cad blueprints I was working on... Simpler times...

[blinks] Aren't those engines grossly incommensurate with the mass of metal they're being expected to move? For that matter, who the heck is supposed to be building this?

Last that I checked those missiles are set to hug the ground at less than 100 feet not less than 100 inches. Nor have I seen any launcher for them to be fired form waist height off the ground. If fired from the ground it makes more sense to launch them skyward to give them some room to maneuver before settling into terrain hugging level.

If you can find a real world missile launcher that fires terrain hugging missiles horizontally at ground level then I will concede the idea that such a launcher on a tracked vehicle is retarded.

Bear in mind that almost all infantry missile launchers are meant to be fired from shoulder height. For a guided missile, one which of necessity has at least limited power to make turns, the "but there are obstacles in the way" is a rather strange objection. The fact that something obscures line of sight should be kind of beside the point, unless you're worried about target acquisition... in which case firing the missile up at an angle wouldn't help.

It's trivial to program a guided missile to make a sharp upward turn as it flies away from the launcher; even WWII torpedoes could do that, and they didn't actually have guidance.

I recall mention of heavy land crawlers in one of EE Smiths Lensmen books, with heavy macro cannon and shields. Those would rank above Drake's Panzers, but still less versatile then Bolo's or RL Grav Tanks.

They might well be more kickass, but not necessarily more cool. Drake's AFVs are very appealing in that they fight as their author intended: highly mobile campaigns. "Crawlers" from Gray Lensman are basically just mobile artillery, and at best they are "tanks" in the sense that their author imagined tanks: a logical descendant of the WWI tank, scaled up to the size of a mine crawler.

[Purple]

Aren't those engines grossly incommensurate with the mass of metal they're being expected to move?

That was sort of the point. I wanted to spoof on all the Panzer 1500 fanboys with their land battleships.

For example, the shells were supposed to be loaded into the guns (10 meters wide, not 1, my mistake in the last post) by a system of pulleys powered by steam locomotives. It would carry a squadron of biplanes for support on each side and a Zeppelin hangar to bomb London. The armor was supposed to be thick enough to withstand bombardment by the Royal Navy. And other idiocies like that. But it was a fun idea... I think I will get back to it when I have the time.

For that matter, who the heck is supposed to be building this?

WW1 Germany.

[SapphireFox]

Bear in mind that almost all infantry missile launchers are meant to be fired from shoulder height.

I already stated that I have no issue with those types of direct fire missiles.

For a guided missile, one which of necessity has at least limited power to make turns, the "but there are obstacles in the way" is a rather strange objection. The fact that something obscures line of sight should be kind of beside the point, unless you're worried about target acquisition... in which case firing the missile up at an angle wouldn't help.

Except if the missile is trying to terrain follow at launch height (ie waist height or 3ft) like Ford Perfect is saying it can. It would need to not only maneuver around the terrain better than any modern cruise missile but avoid impact with everything an infantryman would need to go around all while going at 2500 mph. Doing that would exceed the capabilities and safety concerns of any modern missile by far. More to the point such capabilities are beyond the standard Rifts LRM fired by the launcher in question.

It's trivial to program a guided missile to make a sharp upward turn as it flies away from the launcher; even WWII torpedoes could do that, and they didn't actually have guidance.

While a logical thing to do it would completely negate any purpose in having a waist height frontal horizontal launcher. (not that there is as much of a logical purpose for one anyway)

One could just angle the launch tubes by 45 degrees upwards and not only negate the need for a launch turn but negate much of the missile's exposure to enemy fire. I wish I had a picture to show you but... The launcher in question fires forwards and is mounted on the side of the track armor. All of the missiles are exposed to fire from the front so with a placement like that an infantryman could just hose down the launcher with weapons fire and likely detonate one or more of the missiles. That would likely take out at least a track or half the tank at worst.

I can't think of much of a need for the launcher to be placed in that position on the side track armor. At least if it was on the turret it would have a better field of fire and one wouldn't need to take off the heavy launcher and side armor to do repairs or maintenance on the tracks and drive wheels.

[SylasGaunt]

The silliness with the larger bolo tanks -- the continental siege units -- is that they're so bloody powerful, why not just put interstellar drives on the thing and make it be a warship?

Because they have that sort of warship already. Remember what makes the Bolos so stupendously powerful in ground combat is that there isn't a huge disconnect between the firepower of ground based forces and the firepower of starships. Both the bolo and the warship are packing main guns with the same punch.

[Simon_Jester]

Aren't those engines grossly incommensurate with the mass of metal they're being expected to move?

That was sort of the point. I wanted to spoof on all the Panzer 1500 fanboys with their land battleships.

As a spoof, OK. That's OK and funny.

Bear in mind that almost all infantry missile launchers are meant to be fired from shoulder height.

I already stated that I have no issue with those types of direct fire missiles.

*cough* Javelin ATGM *cough* !

Seriously, that really doesn't fit together.

Except if the missile is trying to terrain follow at launch height (ie waist height or 3ft) like Ford Perfect is saying it can. It would need to not only maneuver around the terrain better than any modern cruise missile but avoid impact with everything an infantryman would need to go around all while going at 2500 mph. Doing that would exceed the capabilities and safety concerns of any modern missile by far. More to the point such capabilities are beyond the standard Rifts LRM fired by the launcher in question.

...so what? If there's a decent amount of clearance in front of the launcher, they can just program the missile to turn up and climb at a five degree or ten degree or whatever angle as soon as it leaves the launcher.

I think you're making way too big a deal out of this. There are some good arguments for mounting the missiles parallel to the ground, like not increasing the target profile of the launch vehicle, and not having them go higher up than necessary. The problem of track maintenance is a much more sensible objection, though; that I can see.

One could just angle the launch tubes by 45 degrees upwards and not only negate the need for a launch turn but negate much of the missile's exposure to enemy fire. I wish I had a picture to show you but... The launcher in question fires forwards and is mounted on the side of the track armor. All of the missiles are exposed to fire from the front so with a placement like that an infantryman could just hose down the launcher with weapons fire and likely detonate one or more of the missiles. That would likely take out at least a track or half the tank at worst.

Obvious solution then would be to put a cover on the front of the missile tube and blow it off before launch. Also, if these things are, as you say, normally fired from long range, infantry fire coming from straight ahead isn't much of a problem, for the same reason they stopped putting gun shields on artillery pieces around a hundred years ago.

I can't think of much of a need for the launcher to be placed in that position on the side track armor. At least if it was on the turret it would have a better field of fire and one wouldn't need to take off the heavy launcher and side armor to do repairs or maintenance on the tracks and drive wheels.

That is a much more significant concern, though depending on the physical size of the missiles it might not be practical to put them there.

[SeaTrooper]

How about the tank from this work? It's the Soviet cartoon Firing Range, or Polygon as some call it.

Looks more like a SPG, or possibly a WWII tank-destroyer, rather than what I think the post is looking for. Frankly, gotta agree with Hammers Slammers. Fast, go almost anywhere, suitable for sniping from a reverse slope or charging in at great speed.

Are we looking for Infantry tanks here? Cruisers? Or a dedicated anti-armour vehicle?

[SapphireFox]

*cough* Javelin ATGM *cough* !

Seriously, that really doesn't fit together.

Seriously why would I have a problem with a missile that goes up after launch? The issue I have is when I said that a horizontal launcher on the side tracks was a stupid idea FP comes along and immediately says to the effect of "OMG IT MUST TERRAIN FOLLOWZ" at 3ft off the ground without raising to a higher altitude. Considering that the launched missile in question does not posses the ability to terrain follow and flies at a speed of around 2500 mph, to ask it to do such a feat seems ludicrous.

Obvious solution then would be to put a cover on the front of the missile tube and blow it off before launch. Also, if these things are, as you say, normally fired from long range, infantry fire coming from straight ahead isn't much of a problem, for the same reason they stopped putting gun shields on artillery pieces around a hundred years ago.

A cover is an excellent idea and should be implemented.

As to an infantryman not likely getting in range, in the modern world you would likely be correct. However this tank exists in the post apocalyptic Grim-Dark world of Rifts where science, magic, and psionics are all competing forces on the battlefield. Where a mage can make himself and his buddies invisible or a cyborg can shrug off hits from the tank's main gun to get in range! Likely, possibly not but it is a concern on the constant battlefield of Rifts Earth.

[Coyote]

My tank!



T-88 Hunter
90mm electromagnetic coilgun that can fire sabot, HEAT, HEAP, chemical, bio, or nuclear shells. 100 shells stored internally.
20mm side-sponson autocannon, firing a sheathed antimatter bolt*
15mm tri-barrel rotating cupola autocannon, anti-aircraft capable tracking, sheathed antimatter bolts.
40mm side-sponson grenade launcher, firing HE, HESH, gas (reloadable from inside).
Pintle-mounted 10mm MMG, sheathed antimetter.
Independent targeting AI with laser rangfinder on small cupola mount over main gun.
Four long-range drone AIs.
Holo-projected camouflage system with sensor-scattering properties.
Anti-gravity drive system based on matter-annihilation reactor, 6 months duration in sustained combat operations.
Full CBRN sealed, atmosphere analyzer onboard.
20 liters fresh water stored on board, ability to filter more.


*the "mm" rating for energy weapons indicates how large a bolt of energy sheathes the antimatter, meaning that it will have a longer range (and a greater "mass" of antimatter) as the laser degrades and finally exposes the antimatter, which will then explode in a flak-like 'boom' as it utterly annihilates itself in the air.


Yay, fun!

[JointStrikeFighter]

And so tall that it can never be dug in

[Coyote]

I admit, it is bigger than the average (modern) tank.

But the 30m max height on the anti-grav, and the 300 kph max speed, or the holo-flage system, makes "digging in" usually pointless.

But remember, I'm a Combat Engineer in the Reserves-- rest assured I also have some sweet Combat Engineer vehicles that make it possible. And, of course, every Engineer's dream: an automated sandbagger.

[DrStrangelove]

The Iron Hammers launchers can rotate through 180*

[Lord of the Abyss]

The silliness with the larger bolo tanks -- the continental siege units -- is that they're so bloody powerful, why not just put interstellar drives on the thing and make it be a warship?

Because they have that sort of warship already. Remember what makes the Bolos so stupendously powerful in ground combat is that there isn't a huge disconnect between the firepower of ground based forces and the firepower of starships. Both the bolo and the warship are packing main guns with the same punch.

If anything Bolos are ton-for-ton more powerful since they don't need to use volume for a space drive. And they are harder to see and target, since they are on a planet and not in empty space. A spaceship can't drive into a lake and lurk in wait.

[Ford Prefect]

The issue I have is when I said that a horizontal launcher on the side tracks was a stupid idea FP comes along and immediately says to the effect of "OMG IT MUST TERRAIN FOLLOWZ" at 3ft off the ground without raising to a higher altitude.

How about you stop misrepresenting me every time you open your mouth? That's not how it went down. You said that you found the idea of a low flying missile completely ridiculous; I pointed out that being low flying has been a design objective in real missiles. I don't know anything about the setting you're talking about; I don't even know what setting you're talking about.

[SapphireFox]

The issue I have is when I said that a horizontal launcher on the side tracks was a stupid idea FP comes along and immediately says to the effect of "OMG IT MUST TERRAIN FOLLOWZ" at 3ft off the ground without raising to a higher altitude.

How about you stop misrepresenting me every time you open your mouth? That's not how it went down. You said that you found the idea of a low flying missile completely ridiculous; I pointed out that being low flying has been a design objective in real missiles. I don't know anything about the setting you're talking about; I don't even know what setting you're talking about.

Now who is trying to misrepresent. You seem to think because I can see the difference between a reasonable low level (50-20ft) terrain following cruise missile and a missile trying to stupidly do the same a 3 feet that I have something against all terrain following missiles.

If you don't have even a vague idea of the setting then why even suggest that the missile terrain follows?

[Thanas]

As the Rhodanites appear to be on holiday, late pre-Hyperdepression Shift. 5 MT transform cannon (essentially a teleporter cannon that will drop the warhead in your shields if you have the right kind of shields and in your lap if you don't), 780MW generic EM ray gun/phaser (as in disintegrates matter via technobabble)/paralysis/machine gun style reverse tractor beam gun, 250 kps^2 out-of-atmosphere acceleration, 40 PSL max space speed, 6,400kph max atmosphere speed at sea level, max ground speed 300 kph.

I dunno if you can call a Shift a proper tank. Although the versions with threads certainly look more like modern tanks than some of the vehicles the OP mentioned.
If you want "best" in the vs. sense of the word(max. yield :p) you would probably take a different kind of Shift though, the LFT Shifts is rather underarmed for the technology incorporated.
They were always rather reluctant to give numbers for the transform-cannons of Shifts but there is a cutaway with a Shift armed with 100 GT cannon.
I only remember on instance when a Shift used a transfrom-cannon and that was not an LFT Shift but one used by the Solar Imperium, the cannon was used to knock space->ground missiles out(the missiles were sill outside the planets atmosphere the Shift was on).
If you wanted to you could probably arm an LFT-Shift with a 1-3 TT range transfrom cannon(LFT fighters which are of similar size to Shifts can carry those).

This.

[CSJM]

How about the tank from this work? It's the Soviet cartoon Firing Range, or Polygon as some call it.

Looks more like a SPG, or possibly a WWII tank-destroyer, rather than what I think the post is looking for. Frankly, gotta agree with Hammers Slammers. Fast, go almost anywhere, suitable for sniping from a reverse slope or charging in at great speed.

Are we looking for Infantry tanks here? Cruisers? Or a dedicated anti-armour vehicle?

Well, in the case of Firing Range, the main idea isn't what the tank is, it's what the tank does. Also, sinking a missile cruiser with a single pinpoint shot in the end of the cartoon should count for something. But, yeh, a mostly mundane tank in all hardware aspects bar the "empathic link" thing.

[Ford Prefect]

If you don't have even a vague idea of the setting then why even suggest that the missile terrain follows?

I didn't. I made a general comment about how people in the real world design missiles that fly as low to the ground as possible.

[SapphireFox]

I didn't. I made a general comment about how people in the real world design missiles that fly as low to the ground as possible.

I have and it makes no sense to fire a first strike weapon horizontally at almost ground level were it can smack into the hill or tree or whatever that might be in front of the tank before it can rise above the obstacle.

You know that, in the real world, there are missiles which are designed to hug the ground and follow terrain.

Whenever I hear someone say something like that in RL they are implying that not only whatever they said was true but applied to what was said previously.

I will freely admit that I got argumentative about it far too quickly, however I think that this has gone on long enough and is only barely related to the original topic anymore.

[Beowulf]

True.

For Drake's Slammers, the heavy armor relies on extreme mobility (100 km/h or higher speeds off-road, capable of firing the main gun with high precision on the move), and on active defenses to defeat antitank missiles and airborne threats. The tank portrayed in the model would still be quite vulnerable because even random fire directed at the hull would have a high chance of hitting the fan intake grilles; the "real" design is hopefully somewhat less vulnerable.

The grill keeps stuff from getting sucked into the fans, it provides no protective value. The official picture of the tank shows the fan grills being fairly similar in placement: Image taken from The Complete Hammer's Slammers Volume One.