I was fucking around with a tool I use to write macro fapfics and I noticed that there's a bunch of military equipment in there, and so I got dis...

I was fucking around with a tool I use to write macro fapfics and I noticed that there's a bunch of military equipment in there, and so I got distracted from my deep discourse describing in detail the dimensions of dripping and distended dicks by the far sexier topic of hot and heavy armoured warfare.

The conventional wisdom is that the wunderpanzers were a dumb idea done poorly and that Germany should have focused on producing shit that could have been turned out in larger numbers. And yet looking at modern tanks they're all King Tiger sized or bigger, and it's clear that overmatch is a greater advantage than superior numbers. Were the allies wrong to build Shermans instead of King Shermans? Would fewer, better Shermans have beaten Germany more quickly and with less loss of life? What would a King Sherman look like - a 60 tonne Allied tank designed and built primarily by the USA in ~1939? How would it have changed things?

Further, what we've seen from WW2 onwards is a steady progression in the size and weight of armoured vehicles which is only halted by a lack of infrastructure to support a larger size of vehicles. Tanks can only be so wide because they have to fit through train tunnels, for example. But if we imagine a world where there are no limitations on the size of armoured vehicles, what WOULD the optimal size of a tank be? I thought about this for a while and the simple answer is "however big you have to be to carry a cannon big enough to penetrate the enemy and armour enough to be invulnerable plus an engine powerful enough to get you around." But no sooner does this tank roll of your production line than the enemy designs one that makes its gun too weak and its armour too small, and then you do the same. Doesn't this inexorably lead towards the conclusion that you should build the largest tank that you can possibly deploy? Skip right to the end to the ladder of escalation? Should we be building 100 tonne tanks? 200 tonnes?

  1. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >gay guy is into furry shit and military history
    Why is this phenotype so common

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      My "theory" (ass-pulled bullshit) is that your brain recognises things which are sexually attractive not by looking at the whole of an object but at individual parts. We can see this when we describe a chick as "ugly body, but hot face" or "cute noise, but pointy elbows". But break it down further - your eyes don't see a nose they just see shapes and colours and lines. Everything in the world is made up of shapes and colours and lines. You could see them anywhere.

      There are a lot of "male shapes" in a tank, or in the sharp-featured face of a predatory animal like a wolf, and so it makes sense that if you're attracted to male shapes you'll be attracted to those things. That doesn't then mean that you want to fuck a tank, of course. It just means that you like to look at them, as we all like to look at beautiful things.

      Non-furries can look at a lion and see that it's majestic or look at a Leopard and see that it's a powerful and intimidating guarantor of the security of the free world (or see that it's a tyrannous and brutal implement of war and oppression, take your pick), so it's not like there has to be a sexual element to these perceptions, but it's still beauty and I reckon it all comes from the same place. Beauty goes through a "this is beautiful but is it sexy?" filter, I think. I don't think sexiness and beauty are separate thought processes. I think sexiness is a modification of the perception of beauty applied over the top.

      And it's not like the existence of a sexual element inherently makes someone criminally perverted, just as normal people who see hot women don't all then go and rape those women. There's beauty everywhere and it can be experienced in many ways, including from a distance. And for the record, I don't find tanks sexy haha. I just find them cool.

      This explains why we see correlations like you describe.

      Now let's please talk about tanks I don't wanna get banned for offtopic.

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        this is why the west is superior, russia doesn't have people like this

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      dunno about gayness but military history and furry stuff both attract autists

  2. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    god bless the weirdos

  3. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    god the fact that the roadwheels are asymmetrical on tanks with torsion bar suspension fucks me up so fucking much.

    and the M1's turret isn't even centred

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      i'm gonna have to fucking email them about this shit god damn

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        i dont see a difference

  4. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >what we've seen from WW2 onwards is a steady progression in the size and weight of armoured vehicles...
    In WW2 one of the main qualities of a "good" tank was that it could be built cheaply in the tens of thousands on a year's notice.
    In modern times militaries are generally much more boutique and prepared in advance, so tanks get bigger. But things like money and resources and time are fundamental practical considerations you will never escape.
    For every 1 nuclear-powered gigafuck tank the size of a tennis court you build, how many assets can I build capable of shooting something that can take it out? The answer, independent of almost any imaginable factor, is "more".
    Remember that tanks are vulnerable to something as simple as calling in a strike from air or arty.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      Sure but doesn't practical experience show that the solution to tank vulnerabilities is to eliminate the vulnerabilities (by adding more weight), not making more tanks? It's always going to be cheaper to add anti-drone CIWS to your existing tank than it is to replace an entire tank, so making cheap tanks just to watch them blow up is surely a false economy.

      The number of anti-tank weapons that the enemy can build is a fixed value, but the 200 tonne M1 Gigafuck can carry anti-drone EW systems and automated CIWS slaved to integrated ground control radar and APS and etc. etc. etc. whereas the 50 tonne T-15/24 obr. 2041 mod. 6 Armata would be helpless and then be dead, and all that increased production of helpless tanks does is increase your own casualties without a commensurate increase in battlefield effectiveness. At least that's what I imagine. I genuinely don't know if this reasoning is right and I'm not necessarily arguing this position. I don't have the answers to these questions.

      I guess I'm sort of focusing on the Sherman vs King Sherman issue I alluded to earlier when I conceptualise these scenarios though. Obviously there's some minimum number of tanks that you must be able to field in a given situation so you can't just build literally one super-tank and be effective. But we're assuming the country is rich enough to build enough tanks of whatever design it chooses to meet that minimum requirement.

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        I actually think you're right and the main limiting factors are just engine power allowing you to sustain a vehicle wide enough to maintain the ground pressure needed to not, you know, go through the ground. There is a reason we prefer large warships over small ones and your logic is quite sound.

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        Consider the death of the battleship. Huge floating fortresses with armor of a solid foot of steel that are limitlessly unconstrained from inflating as big your fetish wants if you're willing to accept that you can't get through some canals.
        Retired because a torpedo or guided missile a microscopic fraction of their huge sexy mass can still penetrate them.
        Navies now revolve around huge pickets and shitloads of CIWS to protect the precious, all-important, submissive and breedable ships that deploy the tiny aircraft that do all the actual damage.
        Compact, mobile offensive power is currently extremely ascendant over anything slow and fortresslike.

        • 6 days ago
          Anonymous

          That's a great counterpoint and it did occur to me after I made my post.

          The thing that occurred to me in response is that the death of the battleship wasn't just the death of a "design" of ship it was the death of a whole category of ship. It wasn't "bigness" that died, it was the logic of having battleships at all.

          If we consider their replacement - the aircraft carrier - then, well, what do we see? That bigger is better. Bigger hangars, more flight deck space, etcetera. There's a point where your ability to support the sheer size of a vessel drops off but there's no point where its raw combat power drops off - in fact, the advantage provided by overmatch increases exponentially based on the level of overmatch I'd say. The harder and faster you crush them the fewer opportunities they have to bite back.

          And there are reasonable limits to all of this, of course, and aircraft carriers are a great example. The US has global obligations so it needs X+Y number of carriers to be in the X places that it needs to be on any given day knowing that Y number of carriers will be getting repairs or ramming container ships or whatever it is that the Navy does in between going to brothels.

          But with tanks it's much easier to field enough of them to hit that minimum requirement, and once you've done that bigger might be better than more. So I definitely don't disagree with what you're saying but I think my logic holds for so long as the logic of having tanks at all holds.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      I wish PrepHole had some sort of archive where we could read the whole article featuring this gigantic freak of a tank.

  5. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks are limited in size by the maximum weight their engines can carry. Bigger tanks require more armor, but have more room to support things like bigger guns, auxiliary equipment, more crew, etc.

    However, weight scales by a cubic factor whereas surface area scales by a square factor - your vehicle will sink through the ground if you make it too big. Density doesn't care about total weight, which is why warships can be huge and if not for tactical considerations, bigger would be better.

    I think that yes, ideally you would always deploy the biggest tanks you can possibly build (that are still fast, reliable, don't sink into the ground) because that gives you the best potential for adding more frontal armor (whose mass scales LINEARLY) and putting in bigger guns. If we had engines that provided more power-to-weight then we'd use them to build even bigger tanks.

  6. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >a 60 tonne Allied tank designed and built primarily by the USA in ~1939
    T-14 Assault Tank sounds like a likely candidate. If it had come earlier, for example before Tunisia, and had had a good showing in Tunisia in terms of combat (the reliability would have been abhorrent, of course), there might have been sufficient motivation to field it to support improvements such that the kinks might well have been straightened out in time for D-Day. In real life it was hamstrung by sharing parts with the M4, which was 10 tonnes lighter, and the problems weren't worth fixing by the time it got off the ground in 1944. Conceptualisation for the T-14 started in 1941, compared to ~1937 for the Tiger.

    If we equalise the timeframes and don't try to share parts with the M4 then we can imagine the T-14 as a "Tiger" counterpart in Africa. You'd probably see the T-14's first upgrade being fitting it with M3 anti-aircraft guns (90mm) just like how the Tiger had 88mm flak guns. I don't think the Allies would have done that right off the bat but they absolutely would have copied it if they'd had a tank big enough to fit the gun easily. In real life they had to crowbar it into an open-topped Sherman called the M36. Crews loved the M36 just for the gun, so you can imagine how much they'd have liked a real tank with that weapon.

    When the Allies see Germany deploying heavier tanks in Russia they step up to the King T-14, so ~1943 after the Panther debuts at Kursk, about the same time as the King Tiger enters development. An improved M3 gun would form the armament because the base M3, although it worked, was never really designed as an anti-tank gun - same as the King Tiger. The Allies would /probably/ under-armour it, though, because muh Atlantic shipping routes, so it wouldn't be as thicc as the King Tiger. Probably ~55-60 tonnes instead of 70.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      You'd probably have to enlarge the turret on the T-14 in real life to take the M3, actually. Look at the size of the Tiger and King Tiger turrets by comparison. They're probably that big for a reason.

      If the T-14 in this alternate universe COULDN'T take the M3 it may not actually progress into being an Allied Tiger. But they could just give it a new turret.

      (Cut a hole in the back and have it stick out the back!)

  7. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    So the main issue is that one tank is fairly useless and the more tanks you have, the more likely it is that you have a tank in the right place at the right time. Also, tanks are not only for fighting tanks, they're for dealing with any problem that can be solved with a large, direct fire gun. Also, something about the square cube law means that after a certain point, rockets are more useful anyway.

  8. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Should we be building 100 tonne tanks? 200 tonnes?

    wrong direction instead of making massive tanks focus on making zillions of autonomous drones with missile and bomb and gun capabilities

    all that has to be done is kill the humans not destroy huge armored vehicles

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      >focus on making zillions of autonomous drones with missile and bomb and gun capabilities
      The problem with this approach is that a .22LR minigun slaved to a Raspberry Pi and a sensor can defeat it. The Ukrainians are shooting down Iranian flying lawnmowers with rifles. We already know exactly how to shoot down slow and lightly armoured aircraft.

      If drone spam actually does ever happen all that will happen is the old quad .50s will be dusted off and hooked up to servomotors to watch the skies once more. Maybe a larger calibre flak weapon would be more efficient.

      • 6 days ago
        Grond

        The lawnmower drones come at you one at a time, flying in a close to straight line.

        Imagine 100 tiny drones carrying grenades and shaped charge warheads, all swarming your position at the exact same time.

        Imagine them sharing real time information, so that the drones know which of your buddies have been exploded, and who hasn't.

        • 6 days ago
          Anonymous

          If only there was some way to shoot a lot of bullets very quickly.

          Alas.

          • 6 days ago
            Grond

            Forests and cities are well known for giving long line of sights.

  9. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with your suggestion is that the engines, suspension, armor all of those didn't scale up with weight, a Leopard 2 has a far higher power to weight ratio and armor protection values than the Maus making the weight justified. The Maus would have moved at walking speed at best, while the Leo 2 can get 30 miles per hour.

  10. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >macro fapfics
    Link to your work?

  11. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    dragons are so boring

    • 5 days ago
      Anonymous

      I don't know, that one's pretty cute

  12. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >fapfics
    dont mention that shit unless you're going to drop a link

  13. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    drop a link, also what do you use to write it?

  14. 5 days ago
    Anonymous

    I'm interested but only if it's consensual soft vore with a three minute orgasm while sliding down.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *