Landships, they suck. But what if they didint?

Landships, as cool as a concept they are. Cant really work becuse of ATGM's air support and inability to cross water ecc.
But whata theoritical super modern landship whoud have to be like to be viable?
Armour and anti air can be just upgraded and mounted, same with hard to kill systems. so its basicly a super bunker that can move, but what about crossing large distances, what about water. What kind of implementation do you imagine? Just theory. As irl those are (sadly) super stupid idea, same as (sadly too) heavy tanks

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    its just cheaper & easier to have another vehicle along side another
    the only theory that you're going to get will be on the level of putting gundams on the battlefield, which morons for some reason don't understand are just never going to be a thing
    hell, you might as well say that the landship is nuclear powered & has a lightning generator on it

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The idea does have surface level appeal though, so we gotta defuse why it even has any appeal in the first place

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      On the other hand, the Abrams is practically the weight of two M4 Shermans welded together, and the Bradley shows an M4-like vehicle is still perfectly viable on the field.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Combined arms is far more adaptable.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      so thats a battleship that can go on ground too?

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you solve the ground pressure problem, a landship could be a mobile ICBM platform with a bunch of laser and other point defense systems that effectively provide 360 degree horizonal coverage for the vehicle. Besides being able to put a bigass ICBM in one I don't see the point of scaling up.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if your ICBM launchers are getting rekt by conventional forces you have bigger issues on your hands

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The problem are logistics. You simply can't move a thing that big across land. Only would work in deserts and flat land.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    mines cancel it out.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    tl;dr No and you should feel bad for being so fricking dumb.

    It's moronic for the same reason as the cruiser-carrier concepts of the 30s we're moronic. If it wants to play as an MBT, then it's putting it's fragile SHORAD system into the firing line. If it wants to play at SHORAD, then it's MBT armor and guns are sitting idle. The extreme weight means that it will be drastically slower than actual MBTs and SHORAD vehicles while having less protection for its MBT duties.

    The two systems are also going to interfere with each other. The MBT turret has a massive deadzone to the rear and the SHORAD system has a hazardous area to it's front. If the tank is firing in anyways towards it's rear arc, it's liable to frick up antennas and sensors with just the muzzle blast. Meanwhile, God help the commander who has his head out when a missile is launched.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Best response

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Just use main gun as SHORAD.
      35mm with AHEAD ammo (and sabots). plus ATGM/Kamikaze drones. Basically high tier IFV weapons, only it this doesn't carry troops, has more ammo and tank armor.
      35mm with AHEAD can take out 95% targets on teh battlefield including those pesky drones.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >MBTs are already not viable
    >how would you make a landship viable

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because landships are cool

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        so cool!

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Theyd have direct fire indirect fire and air defence
    centralized combined arms is a stupid idea though
    will not explain why

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >combined arms is a stupid idea though will not explain why
      based moron

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's a joke autist

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They can work if you re-envision them as big modular platforms. You have a vehicle with a flatbed and you stick several useful things in it that you might wanna drag with you as you advance, a gun system, a mortar, an air defense battery, etc.

    Put a CIWS, some APS and EW on it and its a mobile emplacement. Put a programmable ammo artillery piece or mortar or even a HIMARS launcher and its a mobile battery. Basically, put threads on the average military truck and allow it to combine some disparate shit like a SHORAD that does its own counterbattery, an assault gun that does indirect fire too, a troop carrier thats also an engineering vehicle, etc. It would need support and it would concentrate way too much valud on a single target but you could squeeze a lot of use out of something thats doing two roles at once in the same vehicle.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You have a vehicle with a flatbed
      wrong.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bolo tier laser anti-air / anti-missile / anti-artillery.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    basically their value is superceded by units of apc's and such, especially with how the US employs them. we can refuel, do troop transfers, etc all while on the move, and they can scatter in the event of an attack for a smaller target. a landship can't really do that. so I would say you're better off with a group of more agile vehicles that just one.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lengthing vehicle many times works for more efficiency in larger scale as seen in 18 wheeled truck and 8 wheeled apcs.
    A)the vehicle behind doesn't need front armor, so that part of the weight is saved.
    B)the vehicle behind doesn't need to dedicate a driver and commander at all time, leaving more manpower.
    C)space between tracks are now fully flush and wide for extra room or open as side door
    D)assuming redundancy and fail safe done moderately correct, the combined internal, crew and power trains means it is a lot harder to total it.
    E)more complex niche subsystems like hybrid of electric, diesel and turbine is attainable
    F)more autistic role can now be practical instead of waiting things to minimaturize/autonomous.
    So probably would work on battalion level and above. Once one of the three mechanized small vehicle company get some shit started, the battalions last land ship company slips in armored m1111113 school buses each releasing a full platoon of infanties and m1111a2222 crusiers broadsiding a battery of 120mms from a safer and stronger approach.

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