if NASA can make a 6 million pound crawler, why cant we make a tank that has 5000mm RHA on all sides. What is the enemy going to do, shoot a tactical nuke at it? and dont tell me shit about bridges and terrain, ukraine is flat. FLAT.
I dunno man 6 million pounds? How many years is that going to take to make? I feel like that hard to do if your country is starving or losing a war. Hypothetically.
Doesn't the mud get like 6-8 ft deep in the wet season there, which is why fighting stalled until things froze or dried up because anything heavier than a person that's not on a road will sink (and the roads are death traps because they're such easy targets)?
In order to levitate 40 tons of tank you need 40 tons of thrust pushing it off the ground. A little more than 40 when moving actually, unless on perfectly flat roads.
The thrust force can theoretically be distributed over a wider area than the tracks giving it less ground pressure, but it will still be enough to set off mines.
Why wouldn't it set off contact mines? You realize the tank would be imparting thw exact same force on the ground beneath it as if it had tracks? Slighlty different surface area depending on the exhaust layout.
Ground pressure. You're moving from tracks that spread 60 tons over a couple foot wide tracks to a system that spreads 60 tons over the entire width and length of the vehicle.
On a conventional hovercraft that is 90% true. On what is portrayed in the op image, the "thrusters" have a smaller imprint than traditional tracks. The ground pressure under the exhaust would be at minimum the tank mass over the number of exhaust ports. TM/P# to lessen the individual port force on the ground you'd need to increase the number of ports. Or the surface area in which they produce lift, like how it's done with hovercraft bags. But again, the op pic, being what is talked about, has the same or greater ground pressure over a similarly tracked vehicle.
To con't. The op pic appears to have 12 exhaust ports/thrusters per quadrant. Assuming they all probide equal lift when stationary, and assuming the tank has a mass of 60T. Each port would be imparting 1.25 Tons of pressure beneath them. Most AT-mines require 150kg to set off but some go up to 400kg. That's well below what the tank would be putting down.
A tracked tank can be field repaired if a mine blows up under the track. Losing one of those thruster lobes doesn't seem like a thing you can fix without a new one being flown/trucked in
The force required to lift such a heavy weight would push so much dust into the air around it, it would pretty much have camo... and also blind any infantry supporting it as well as deafening them
If it's magnet-activated, yes. Otherwise, no. Human-made AT mines aren't activated by 'commercial' levels of weight for things like cars and trucks. They're only triggered by the excessive mass of tanks/AFV's.
Even the heaviest Ford King Ranch models only reach a hair over 7,000lbs. Meanwhile, even the lightest MRAP's exceed 20,000lbs. And anything lighter than one of those can be handled by small arms fire with relative ease.
>Human-made AT mines aren't activated by 'commercial' levels of weight for things like cars and trucks. They're only triggered by the excessive mass of tanks/AFV's.
b***h please. The cover on top of AT mines' detonators breaks at like 100-200kg of weight. Leave that cover off, and stepping on it will detonate it.
any magnetic mine, or those with trip wire or tild rod initiation sets would still be set off but conventional pressure-actuated mines take roughly 100kg to set off
That already exists, it's called a helicopter
Also, what's stopping a mine from being magnetically activated and still blowing up under the hover vehicle?
A hover vehicle is an inefficient version of a tracked vehicle. It's the same as the entire bottom area being tracks but it constantly burns energy. What you want is an airplane.
>Spider-tank, Spider-tank >Does whatever a Spider-tank does >Blows up shit, any size >Shoots up foot-mobiles, just like flies >Look out! Here comes the Spider-tank >(doobie doobie doobie doobie, doobie doobie doobie doobie)
>flying tank
COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS!
If you can make one you might as well just make attack copter with tank gun that can survive much weaker anti-air missiles.
So let's rather talk about the true future of mechanized warfare.
The reason GE Walking Truck failed was because as long as an human would needed to control the legs the stress and fatigue was not sustainable more than 10 minutes.
Now we are starting to see a raise in AI and vehicle capable of walking, given proper design and a sufficiently smart AI to avoid the need to expensive sensor, such machine could avoid most of the damage from mines through clearance, make the feet part expandable and they can be swapped by cheap, blunt metal if one is destroyed.
Not to forget that with such vehicle, crossing many obstacles would become trivial and hulldown tactic can be achieved without needing a lucky slope.
As for speed, there will certainly be a loss but tank are normally carried by trucks to the battlefield and tracks would only achieve their maximum velocity in field... which are the first place to be mined.
There was already walking harvester robots in the late 90s John deere bought them out and canceled it. The main problem is always the actuators. You have hydraulic, decent torque, slow and high maintenance. Electric, needs huge motors and extreme reduction gears but theoretically getting easy due to how common EV motors are.
Old stuff now and I bet that things was overbuilt to not damage the soil, always stepping in the same place, be driven like a truck, plus the requirement to stay stable and not spread the legs wide.
As AI learning go I think we might actually get a machine that learn by itself to recognize by sight the type of soil, trees, and plot itself how to traverse the obstacle with the human only telling it the direction or destination.
>implying it's not already enough to defeat a russian tank
More seriously, I expect to see a lot of vehicle with robotic arm(s) and a turret the day we master an AI who can snipe soldier (or drone) from a kilometer away.
Like microdrones, the new rule will be to have as many auto-turret, capable of shooting drone/human alike from any angle that keep the controller safe.
AI will be able to constantly scan, acquire targets and fire a precise shot before a human would be able to press the big blinking red Jetson button to authorize the kill.
First they're going to let the AI auto-kill any unmanned weapon in the battlefield area. Then its going to include manned vehicles protected by AI controlled active defenses. Shitholes like China and anywhere else that can afford it are going to just go ahead and let AI kill humans and anything without any operator authorization. But since when has the laws of war mattered to anyone that wasn't west of the Rhine?
Five years ago it was less than a decade from release in a cargo container form factor. I'm betting it gets used as a fusion rocket before terrestrial powerplant, because that's what the lead designer's PhD involved.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a functioning prototype already with the catch of the materials for it being astronomically rare.
It was functioning enough to produce power last I checked. It's a linear fusion system using, IIRC, magnetic pinch to achieve fusion, hence the rocket nature - just uncork one end and have another magnet vector the stream and you're orbiting Mars in a week. Or hovering on the radioactive remains of some brushfire war's capital.
If it's magnet-activated, yes. Otherwise, no. Human-made AT mines aren't activated by 'commercial' levels of weight for things like cars and trucks. They're only triggered by the excessive mass of tanks/AFV's.
Even the heaviest Ford King Ranch models only reach a hair over 7,000lbs. Meanwhile, even the lightest MRAP's exceed 20,000lbs. And anything lighter than one of those can be handled by small arms fire with relative ease.
There's ground pressure, speed and possibly material advantages to hover vehicles.
i need to rewatch sgt. bilko
War is obsolete if you're puccia
we need to go bigger
if NASA can make a 6 million pound crawler, why cant we make a tank that has 5000mm RHA on all sides. What is the enemy going to do, shoot a tactical nuke at it? and dont tell me shit about bridges and terrain, ukraine is flat. FLAT.
I dunno man 6 million pounds? How many years is that going to take to make? I feel like that hard to do if your country is starving or losing a war. Hypothetically.
C'mon, anon. I could believe a few hundred thousand, but 6 million?
6 million pounds, my guy.
Doesn't the mud get like 6-8 ft deep in the wet season there, which is why fighting stalled until things froze or dried up because anything heavier than a person that's not on a road will sink (and the roads are death traps because they're such easy targets)?
I don't think even a tactical nuke can penetrate armor that's 5 meters thick
Doesn't have to penetrate, just cook.
I want two of these fighting and I don't care about money or basic logic.
you know this would still set off mines, right
It actually won't.
physics say it would
In order to levitate 40 tons of tank you need 40 tons of thrust pushing it off the ground. A little more than 40 when moving actually, unless on perfectly flat roads.
The thrust force can theoretically be distributed over a wider area than the tracks giving it less ground pressure, but it will still be enough to set off mines.
it would set off magnetic mines but not contact ones, and the blast would be deflected away assuming the bottom armor is V shaped
Why wouldn't it set off contact mines? You realize the tank would be imparting thw exact same force on the ground beneath it as if it had tracks? Slighlty different surface area depending on the exhaust layout.
Ground pressure. You're moving from tracks that spread 60 tons over a couple foot wide tracks to a system that spreads 60 tons over the entire width and length of the vehicle.
On a conventional hovercraft that is 90% true. On what is portrayed in the op image, the "thrusters" have a smaller imprint than traditional tracks. The ground pressure under the exhaust would be at minimum the tank mass over the number of exhaust ports. TM/P# to lessen the individual port force on the ground you'd need to increase the number of ports. Or the surface area in which they produce lift, like how it's done with hovercraft bags. But again, the op pic, being what is talked about, has the same or greater ground pressure over a similarly tracked vehicle.
To con't. The op pic appears to have 12 exhaust ports/thrusters per quadrant. Assuming they all probide equal lift when stationary, and assuming the tank has a mass of 60T. Each port would be imparting 1.25 Tons of pressure beneath them. Most AT-mines require 150kg to set off but some go up to 400kg. That's well below what the tank would be putting down.
A tracked tank can be field repaired if a mine blows up under the track. Losing one of those thruster lobes doesn't seem like a thing you can fix without a new one being flown/trucked in
Anon you failed basic physics
What about spider tanks?
The force required to lift such a heavy weight would push so much dust into the air around it, it would pretty much have camo... and also blind any infantry supporting it as well as deafening them
Mine would still explode. Weight on it would be almost equal as with tires.
Sounds like a them problem
>ruskie star on the vehicle
the most unrealistic thing on the image
It's the Chang star
James Bond was right all along. Hovercrafts are the future.
not memeing- would a hovercraft (a real one, like in the picture) set off a landmine?
Would the air pressure set off the mine?
If it's magnet-activated, yes. Otherwise, no. Human-made AT mines aren't activated by 'commercial' levels of weight for things like cars and trucks. They're only triggered by the excessive mass of tanks/AFV's.
Even the heaviest Ford King Ranch models only reach a hair over 7,000lbs. Meanwhile, even the lightest MRAP's exceed 20,000lbs. And anything lighter than one of those can be handled by small arms fire with relative ease.
>Human-made AT mines aren't activated by 'commercial' levels of weight for things like cars and trucks. They're only triggered by the excessive mass of tanks/AFV's.
b***h please. The cover on top of AT mines' detonators breaks at like 100-200kg of weight. Leave that cover off, and stepping on it will detonate it.
any magnetic mine, or those with trip wire or tild rod initiation sets would still be set off but conventional pressure-actuated mines take roughly 100kg to set off
That already exists, it's called a helicopter
Also, what's stopping a mine from being magnetically activated and still blowing up under the hover vehicle?
Helicopters are too flimsy. We need something that can withstand auto-cannons.
And somehow your hover tank will be more resilient than an attack helicopter?
Sure, just invent a working repulsorlift and we can get right on that.
>We need something that can withstand auto-cannons.
so I guess tanks are out of the question then
WHY cant we construct a tank around this engine?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wärtsilä-Sulzer_RTA96-C
A hover vehicle is an inefficient version of a tracked vehicle. It's the same as the entire bottom area being tracks but it constantly burns energy. What you want is an airplane.
>Spider-tank, Spider-tank
>Does whatever a Spider-tank does
>Blows up shit, any size
>Shoots up foot-mobiles, just like flies
>Look out! Here comes the Spider-tank
>(doobie doobie doobie doobie, doobie doobie doobie doobie)
it is time
>it is time
To die to the superior vehicle, yes.
Bolos are based but mech hate is cringe.
Those are Hammer's Slammers hovertanks, and mechs are only good for anime where physics are LOL, Whatever.
>and mechs are only good for anime where physics are LOL, Whatever.
Well, they might work in space.
It's time to build the Shagohod.
It's time
>flying tank
COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS!
If you can make one you might as well just make attack copter with tank gun that can survive much weaker anti-air missiles.
So let's rather talk about the true future of mechanized warfare.
The reason GE Walking Truck failed was because as long as an human would needed to control the legs the stress and fatigue was not sustainable more than 10 minutes.
Now we are starting to see a raise in AI and vehicle capable of walking, given proper design and a sufficiently smart AI to avoid the need to expensive sensor, such machine could avoid most of the damage from mines through clearance, make the feet part expandable and they can be swapped by cheap, blunt metal if one is destroyed.
Not to forget that with such vehicle, crossing many obstacles would become trivial and hulldown tactic can be achieved without needing a lucky slope.
As for speed, there will certainly be a loss but tank are normally carried by trucks to the battlefield and tracks would only achieve their maximum velocity in field... which are the first place to be mined.
so...is it time?
>COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS!
You're right
Let's build the flying Gavin
>Let's build the flying Gavin
Yes, unironically. Let's make Sparks' insane dream come true
Sound like a job for the ARES!
>Aerial Reconfigurable Embedded System
There was already walking harvester robots in the late 90s John deere bought them out and canceled it. The main problem is always the actuators. You have hydraulic, decent torque, slow and high maintenance. Electric, needs huge motors and extreme reduction gears but theoretically getting easy due to how common EV motors are.
Old stuff now and I bet that things was overbuilt to not damage the soil, always stepping in the same place, be driven like a truck, plus the requirement to stay stable and not spread the legs wide.
As AI learning go I think we might actually get a machine that learn by itself to recognize by sight the type of soil, trees, and plot itself how to traverse the obstacle with the human only telling it the direction or destination.
Now weaponize it
>implying it's not already enough to defeat a russian tank
More seriously, I expect to see a lot of vehicle with robotic arm(s) and a turret the day we master an AI who can snipe soldier (or drone) from a kilometer away.
Like microdrones, the new rule will be to have as many auto-turret, capable of shooting drone/human alike from any angle that keep the controller safe.
Is it time?
AI will be able to constantly scan, acquire targets and fire a precise shot before a human would be able to press the big blinking red Jetson button to authorize the kill.
First they're going to let the AI auto-kill any unmanned weapon in the battlefield area. Then its going to include manned vehicles protected by AI controlled active defenses. Shitholes like China and anywhere else that can afford it are going to just go ahead and let AI kill humans and anything without any operator authorization. But since when has the laws of war mattered to anyone that wasn't west of the Rhine?
IT'S TIME
>I must SHART with extreme prejudice
Yes.
When Lockheed releases their fusion power plant, we'll be able to field iridium hulled hovertanks.
>fusion power plant
Wonder how that's coming along.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a functioning prototype already with the catch of the materials for it being astronomically rare.
Five years ago it was less than a decade from release in a cargo container form factor. I'm betting it gets used as a fusion rocket before terrestrial powerplant, because that's what the lead designer's PhD involved.
It was functioning enough to produce power last I checked. It's a linear fusion system using, IIRC, magnetic pinch to achieve fusion, hence the rocket nature - just uncork one end and have another magnet vector the stream and you're orbiting Mars in a week. Or hovering on the radioactive remains of some brushfire war's capital.
There's ground pressure, speed and possibly material advantages to hover vehicles.
How does a hovertank fire the gun without being thrown backwards half a mile by the recoil?
We've had recoil dampeners for quite a while now.
tracked artillery is doing really well
It's actually time.
There are already anti-hover and even anti-hello mines.