What, because of a plasma leak or something?
Are grav tanks worth it?
- Thread starter Blue Ghost
- Start date
As Shadowdragon noted, strategically yes, but tactically? It depends.
Generally, they've got helicopter-like speeds, and aren't built for high speed or hot reentry, so they'd have to go relatively slow -- i.e. 100 kph give or take*. That would require, what, a few hours to reach their target?
So if you've got a few hours, it's ok. If you need them at target within minutes, you'll have to carry them there.
[*] Using T5, I've designed a tank that moves 500kph, but that's not typical. More common to see 50kph... i.e. Grav Tanks are helicopter-like and tank-like.
Last edited:
Earlier editions have speeds up to 260kph. Still helo-like, but not really that long.
And a drop from orbit, it only would take 20-40 min or so... because the gravitics top end would be boosted by thinner upper atmosphere plus gravity assist for the first 1/2 of the trip.
given that LEO is only 200 km, just killing excess forward velocity to match ground and falling down is only a half hour....
And a drop from orbit, it only would take 20-40 min or so... because the gravitics top end would be boosted by thinner upper atmosphere plus gravity assist for the first 1/2 of the trip.
given that LEO is only 200 km, just killing excess forward velocity to match ground and falling down is only a half hour....
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Would grav tanks be low and flat like today's tanks, or a different shape, maybe like an apache, but shorter since it needs no tail rotor? I suppose it depends on how they use cover. I imagine if they spend a lot of time at NOE height (~4m) that flat belly would make a tempting target for man-portable AT weapons. A sloping belly would be better protection at 4m but would prevent them from going to ground so easily. Another question is whether they would need a turret, or whether you would simply swing the whole grav vehicle around. I suppose that would depend on whether you use hull-down configurations and on the nature/number of secondary weapons. It may be that the main gun would be a chassis mount uses as a popup and secondaries would be in turret/cupolas.
I 'fixed' the Battlefield Meson Gun to 1cm/USP too, made more sense.
Someone asked why BMGs couldn't be used in starships - my answer was that "these small guns don't have the power to accelerate a sufficiently damaging intensity of mesons to a sufficiently high speed to achieve inter-ship ranges. However, mounted singly in starship turrets they make very effective ground-attack weapons."
I 'fixed' the Battlefield Meson Gun to 1cm/USP too, made more sense.
Someone asked why BMGs couldn't be used in starships - my answer was that "these small guns don't have the power to accelerate a sufficiently damaging intensity of mesons to a sufficiently high speed to achieve inter-ship ranges. However, mounted singly in starship turrets they make very effective ground-attack weapons."
Xerxeskingofking
SOC-13
I'd say its shape would be closer to a tank's than a helicopter's.
if a grav tank is going to spend most of its time at or around ground level, then being shaped like a trackless tank is the best shape, given the distrubution of incoming fire (which would be mostly hitting the tank in a roughly flat plane, with comparitivly little fire form above or below the tank, and with most fire coming form the front.). even so, a V-shaped hull would be likey, though a shallow V is more likey than a steep one (with fold out landing struts or wheels, for when the tank is powered down). A SAM/AT missle launched at a grav tank in flight is more likey to hit the sides or rear than the bottom, unless the missle was fired at extactly the right time in the right direction. That said, improvments in things like top attack muntions, and the higher chance of direct fire to the bottom of the tank would mean a grav tank has proportionally heavier top and bottom armour.
it would also be more "steamlined" than a modern tank, with all the secondry weapons either being pop up or having a conformal stowage postition, to minimse drag. Modern tanks have all sorts of things on top, like shearchlights, viewing periscopes, cupola hatches, secondry weapons, etc, resulting in a "messy" outline. a high speed grav tank would have a very "clean" one, with all those things either folding flush with the hull or being pop up.
Tanks would be flat as possible to tack advantage of a lower silhouette, imo. Most shots would still hit the glacis (60%) as well, even at 200-300 kph. battle just moves faster; turrets still important as to not have to be aiming the ma without changing direction of the chassis. I could see unmanned turrets though, esp as there would be no need for a loader of any type with a energy weapon for ma.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
I think that the overall shape would be determined by a number of factors.
Initially (~TL9-10) the power plant size will limit top speed because less lifters will be feasible. Since top speed will be limited, streamlined shape is less important so the early designs may look more like a helicopter or tank. Later designs will evolve into more streamlined shapes.
Mission will be a determining factor. A vehicle designed for recon may rely on speed rather than armor so could likeley look more like a speeder than a tank. Also, while a pilot or gunner could conceivably be in a prone or semi-prone position and still use the controls, this is not an optimal arrangement for troop carriers designed to drop off and recover infantry. So troop carriers, whether fighting vehicles or simple battlefield taxis, will I think usually be taller than vehicles designed as purely AFVs.
Even today there are man-portable AT weapons that pop-up and strike the top of a tank. By TL's 10+ there will be no real advantage to sloped armour as the weapons will be smart enough to hit at whatever optimum angle/portion of vehicle. Unless, you are fighting much lower TL foes but then your armor will be too much for their weapons anyway.
Sloped armor will always give the advantage of being thicker in cross-dimension than the same material thickness in vertical. The downside is that sloping will reduce usable space on the interior. As per smart missles, as well as imo the tank will have an automatic evade program, it would also automatically turn it's most heavily armored face to a likely hit (glacis probably).
Xerxeskingofking
SOC-13
I'd find that last part unlikey, if only for simple aerodynamic reasonss (pulling a high-G turn at 200KPH? a squadron of tanks being fired at would have any formation screwed as the tanks twist and weave),
I'd say the tanks would have chaff/ ECM and other active systems to defeat the incoming missle. it's eaiser to implement, doesn't take control of the tank away form the pilot at a critical time, and known to be effective.
While yes, it definitely could have chaff/ecm (nice idea), it could have a point defense laser as well in a separate pintle mount. Though the G's of a turn don't bother me, the tank could and would have G-plates similar to a starship's for reason to be operable in high G worlds or zero-G, it might still be able to stay in it's formation as well (imo tanks would operate as fours in a paralleogram) by turning on it's axis without changing direction.
Sloping means in relation to the angle the projectile strikes the armour at. If a weapon strikes at a right angle, the armour isn't "sloped" for protection consideration. A supersonic missile that changes attack angle at the last moment won't leave time for the entire tank to be rotated. The only solution at that TL will be to have sufficient armour everywhere unless the tank it mostly on the ground.
Thus, the ideal shape will be closer to a sphere. (unless you want the 'tank' to be VERY fast) This minimizes surface area to volume ratio and thus, allows for more armour than any other shape.
Though the chassis could be rotated towards incoming fire while the gun is occupied engaging targets. A supersonic projectile changing angle of attack at the last moment would tumble, nulifying effectiveness.
The main reason for this is crew survivability, as the crew is the valuble part of the system. Even if the tank is knocked out by even one hit (which would be highly likely), you want the crew to survive.
A sphere's silhouette seems too tall, imo, flattened sphere yes, plus one would have aerodynamics to reduce wind noise.
Nope, it doesn't. Go out to the test range (if you have clearance) and watch. They are already in production.
As far as silhouette, you are thinking 2D environment. A TL 10+ battlefield is 3D, in the extreme. Thus, the 3D silhouette of a sphere is as small as it gets...
Basic physics would seem to say it would tumble, so either it is travelling in an ellipse and changing trajectory before the last moment or braking to sub-sonic before impact.
Imo, a TL10+ battlefield would still be hugging the surface (and hugging the frontline to reduce the effectiveness of indirect fire) because if it flies it dies and if you can't get cover, get concealment.
Well, the TL 7 battlefield isn't like that so I doubt it'll go backwards as TL goes up. Tanks are currently dead meat if one has air power/control.
Lasers and cheaper (more abundant) tac missiles will change that though, Lasers hit at the speed of light so they can only miss if the aim is off, tac missiles will chase things beyond the horizon (5km at 2m roughly). Air power of today will be rendered irrelevant as the exposure to fire at even 100m height will make the position untenable. Air power will be SDB's like the Guardian, able to take and give a lot of punishment.
Infantry will be even more vulnerable than tanks.
Always there will be game changers, planet cracking death ships for example.
Naw, armour in Trav can handle lasers.
