Sci-Fi Tank Designs Are Very Weird

[@Spacedock]

Tanks for watching. www.patreon.com/officialspacedock

[@Irobert1115HD]

actually a lot of WWII tanks had off center guns and one of the big cats had a off center main gun AND a off center turret.

[@Ushio01]

A naval gun turret is as large as a tank or even larger even with a similar sized gun and it's unmanned with the ammunition stored in the hull of a ship to get that rate of fire the autoloader is massive. No tank will ever have an auto loader as effective as a ship can have to the size difference.

[@MrFNP90]

Smh my head

[@90lancaster]

Some H Tanks have a "party trick" which is they can stand on their tippy toes to shoot over cover and then drop back down again afterwards some even have a very limited ability to "walk" on their tippy toes too.. I think the drive point is also the articulation point. I tend to think of them as like "All wheel drive / all wheel steering" vehicles they exist but you certainly wouldn't want all vehicles to be able to do that. an H Tank could ford a river more easily too without needing a Tank Snorkle I like H Tanks more than Giant Tanks with Multiple Turret though personally.

[@reserva120]

This is actually incorrect at nearly every level.. let alone in the realm of SCi Fi...

[@HSCrimson]

Hover tanks do have one bonus: they can be used in amphibious attacks while operating as they normally do. While this isn't useful in many settings, if you're a galactic entity that also needs to use your equipment on worlds with a lot of water, using a single standardized design that could handle the terrain of any world would help keep costs down.

[@John_Buckson]

Yes especially with galactic scale logistics

[@USSAnimeNCC-]

I’m thinking logics of it like the power or fuel and their also weight of having a drive like that meaning you have less armor and ammo

[@detachsoup6061]

That really depends on the physics included into the hovering part.

[@ztheo2280]

to be fair in that care id expect tanks to be able to be paradropped instead

[@yokai1235]

except that amphibious tanks and aquatic conversions exist to regular tanks and would probably cost way less than making a hover tank

[@mattwho81]

Halo: “the Grizzly offers the last word in long range firepower.” Mass Effect: “The Mako uses vertically aligned Eezo fields to get into perfect position to rain down fire on the target.” 40k: “Drive me Closer! I want to hit them with my Sword!!!”

[@tarektechmarine8209]

40k can do long range, but when you thousands of vehicles on the field it just ends up looking like two lines engaging anyway, the best way to break a stalemate like that would be air force or getting in along side your enemy. Or just get a titan.

[@ApocGuy]

"boys, fix the bayonets and prep the shovels" :P

[@Gm-ce5kg]

@@tarektechmarine8209 long range are for TaU (no glorious melee combat detected)

[@hang_kentang6709]

CnC: "Though I charge through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am driving a house-sized mass of fuck you." - a mammoth tank crewman

[@whitehavencpu6813]

@@hang_kentang6709 Heh the Tiberium verse vs Red Alert are almost polar opposites in war doctrine, one side focuses on artillery, long ranged weaponry with fire support and heavily armored close range units to minimize losses, the other game series focuses on insane "throw everything we got at it" including armed dolphins and swordfighting mechas.

[@dragonstormx]

The ending was surprisingly sweet. Realism shouldn't choke creativity in fiction.

[@wererat42]

Same thing applies to realistic physics on spacecraft. It's neat when creators think about it but it's shouldn't obviate more fantastical things

[@ScienzaMagia]

Yeah! I feel like "realism" has been kinda cheapened because it has many forms and people often hyperfixate on the shallowest criteria. For example, it's a lot easier for someone to say "this type of sword wouldn't have been used in the twelfth century" than it is to write a compelling character that experiences the kinds of everyday spirituality that a common person would have felt during a twelfth century mass. One of the things I really like about Spacedock is that they appeciate that realism can be fun (and is often a useful litmus test for how much an author cared about their work) but also acknowledge that softer science fiction like Star Trek can still tell incredible and compelling stories.

[@travcollier]

​@@ScienzaMagiaRealism is way less important than *consistency*. Be faithful to the rules of the setting, not necessarily the real world. Like he said, 40K gets a pass because it is [consistently] bonkers ;)

[@AsymmetricalCrimes]

I believe realism in of itself can be a creative trope. One of the shows that stand out to me is Dragon Prince, which has a lot of practically designed armor and weapons which helps it stand out from other fantasy shows.

[@Soloong_Gaybowzer]

Exactly. What we understand as "space magic" today could be a standard application of physics we haven't discovered yet 200yrs from now.

[@crisisOstrich]

Repulsorlift vehicles in Star Wars don't exert ground pressure (something about being anti-gravity not just a typical hover tank idk) one concrete example is the scene in Episode 1 where Jar Jar gets introduced and then isn't immediately flattened by the Trade Federation MTT.

[@casbot71]

If that had been a 40k Imperium hover tank Jar Jar would have been pulped, mores the pity.

[@lawrl777]

yeah, something about repulsors being arrays of miniature black holes?

[@MrFelblood]

Plus, The N64 podracer game teaches us us that Repulsors are equipped with a Grip, like a tractor beam, that allows the pilot to control what direction the craft can slide in. (You can turn it off to slide through a corner, but turn it back on to resist being sideswiped off the side of the track.)

[@kenbrown2808]

that's the spreading the ground pressure part.

[@SlavGod47]

In universe, they're faster, can glide over water, and the low ground pressure you mentioned means that they're invulnerable to mines, trenches, and other obstacles/traps (but there are anti-repulsorlift specific mines, but they're quite expensive compared to normal ones). I think it's even commented by a Rebel commander (in the EU, at least) that the Alliance would've been completely destroyed if the Empire used more repulsorlift tanks due to their invulnerability to a lot of the low-cost tactics that the Alliance used against Walkers

[@mattwoodard2535]

The hovertanks in Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak are a real exception to the "hovertanks are not good" rule. As the name suggest, Kharak is mostly desert and vehicles that float above the surface don't have to worry about being bogged down in sand as tracked vehicles do. So hovercraft are a very good idea. sm

[@PsychCaptain]

There are other exceptions. I think Renegade Legion did it well, with AntiGravity Tanks. They could be deployed from space, and, to a very minor extent, fly. But didn't because that made them vulnerable.

[@calebbarnhouse496]

Hover tanks have a lot of advantages that are ignored because when you make then it's easier to have them work like a cooler way of moving, but even still, just being able to strafe is a giant advantage to a vehicle, double so when armor facing is so important even if you assume that the armor is overall lighter, they could have armor that 90% of the time is just as good because its always facing the way they need it

[@krsanth-4142]

@@PsychCaptain I still have the Renegade Legion rule and source book from the FASA box set, and somewhere in the house are the plastic minis as well. It was an awesome game. Needs a PC version.

[@ham_the_spam4423]

also while their frictionless nature would cause problems with recoil and control, they can move very fast and outmaneuver the wheeled and tracked vehicles of the Coalition

[@hafirenggayuda]

And like the game shown, hover tech still have weakness. While Gaalsien vehicle are quick and easy to be maneuver, they need to be light and lack armor, easier to destroy than coalition's.

[@ashleyhamman]

My pet peeve with most sci-fi tanks is that generally they're designed as if they were in their first model year. They're not laden with new additions like new forms of sights, new protection equipment, or quality of life stuff for the crew like bustle racks and spares boxes.

[@aleksanderolbrych9157]

THIS! Military vehicles try to squeeze as much utility as it is possible via various additional tools, protection systems, quality of life improvements et cetera, while almost all tanks in sci-fi are just barren blocks of nonsensical design.

[@basslinedan2]

​@@aleksanderolbrych9157imagine sci-fi tanks using the equivalent of cope cages, maybe some form of jury-rigged commercial-grade plasma field generators covering the weakest spots.

[@revolverswitch]

@@aleksanderolbrych9157 from what I've seen so far, there is only one sci-fi tank that is meticulously well-thought out by it's writers. That one tank is the Panzer IV from Legend of the Galactic Heroes side story arc, it even played a massive role in the story. Some of it's features include crew capsule, infrared camouflage, and even a stove alongside a kettle.

[@KrazyKupo]

Good point, I've never seen a sci fi tank with a tea kettle.

[@Revenant-oq9ts]

I personally hate hover tanks because of how infantry cannot hug them or use them for cover. Which is part of what tanks are suppose to do. I mean going prone means you lose cover at best, and if it uses thrusters, you get fried.

[@dadab22]

You note that Warhammer 40k tanks would be a nightmare to handle logistically with all the different ammo types needed for the sponson weapons. Don't worry, that's lore accurate. There are few jobs more grueling and inneffective than the administratum.

[@ApocGuy]

they have slaves and servitors to do that job. hundreds of billions. and penal legions are quite well used too

[@dadab22]

@@ApocGuy Oh, manpower is certainly something the imperium has in abundance. I was talking getting the right ammo to the right gun of the right legion. You'll have one detatchment asking for fresh lasguns and krak grenades, and they will get autogun rounds and krak missiles. An armored diviion would ask for ammo for their heavy bolters, and they would get heavy bolters, not ammo. There is even cases where entire regiments starve to death or are driven to cannibalism because the administratum keeps sending ammo and not food.

[@battleoid2411]

@@ApocGuy It is very common in imperial guard stories for the entire regiment to nearly be wiped out simply because some clerk in the administratum somewhere made a slight typo, I'm pretty sure it happened in gaunt's ghost's that they got sent hundreds of pallets of power packs for their lasguns, just for them to be incompatible with their specific model of lasgun

[@aximili113]

@@battleoid2411 you are correct, and because of that they had to go on a mission with two mags each on the most important part of the campaign on the planet they were on. the clerk got handed a new one for it.

[@ApocGuy]

@@battleoid2411 inefficiency of imperium of man. no wonder why we're losing battles in 41st millennium .

[@kharnt.betrayer2946]

As a 40k fan, our mobile hab-blocks are perfectly normal I'll have you know.

[@ВикторФирсов-е9ф]

And a little bit paranormal, but if you pray it every fight, it's gonna be fine.

[@gamewatch6861]

@@ВикторФирсов-е9ф Don’t forget the holy incense and oils.

[@asokawhite]

Well perfect targets for a real army to train recruits in combat... They are so big you cant miss them really.

[@weldonwin]

And there is even a couple of mobile Hive Cities too

[@Neoth40k]

It's like the onmissiah once said: "Where there's a hole, there's a gun"

[@adumbratus4148]

Quad-tracks are actually useful if you have a very long tank (for whatever reason). If the tracks gets too long you can't make tight turns anymore without throwing the tracks off.

[@ham_the_spam4423]

like the Coalition's cruisers in Homeworld Deserts of Kharak and the IRL NASA Crawler, at some point individual tracks get way too long

[@Bird_Dog00]

That will only work if the individual track pod can pivot. If not, it makes no difference.

[@psiah9889]

It also makes a lot more sense if they're powered by electric motors rather than a big drivetrain, since they can be small, powerful, and it's more efficient to transfer electricity over wires than it is to push mechanical force through a complicated gearing system. This also adds some level of redundancy. And if you've already got the fancy sci-fi powerplant...

[@HansVonMannschaft]

If the hover mechanism spreads weight evenly, it allows for much heavier tanks for the same ground pressure. This is the idea behind Hammer's Slammers.

[@Kohl293]

Exactly the weight goes on the entire cross section instead of just the tracks

[@calebbarnhouse496]

It does even more then that, it also uses the ground and air around it, not just under it, realistically it could get about 5 times as much surface area for the same size, but even if you didn't want to go bigger, you could go denser, that hover tank can carry heavier loads, pull tanks stuck in mud and critically, push down barbed wire just by going over it, maku it really easy to clear for whatever they are supporting or being supported by

[@Kohl293]

@@calebbarnhouse496 someone in this comment section also mentioned amphibious ops

[@gatling216]

@@Kohl293Hammer’s Slammers addresses this issue. Their tanks are too heavy to float, but a simple screen of agricultural plastic film like you’d use to line a seedbed or make a greenhouse can provide enough weight distribution to get them across a still body of water with careful driving. The problem they encounter when it comes up is that the River they’re trying to cross is flowing too fast, so they decide to take their chances with a bridge.

[@PhilWheatInAustin]

There's also the factor in the books that the fusion bottles can only be made so light/small. One of the things the tanks and combat cars are used for is to provide mobile power to bases, infantry skimmers in the field, etc. So there is SOME thought to why.

[@rhodes3983]

Seeing that you used footage from Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak, I have a few words in its defence: 1. When it comes to size most vehicles get a free pass because they are not designed to be tanks. They are designed to be warships "sailing" the deep desert. The only real offenders are the Coalition LAV and AAV (and the assault skiff, the Gaalsien equivalent to the AAV) because those really are too big for what they're supposed to do. 2. The hoverships employed by Kiith Gaalsien are way better suited for traversing the open desert than the track based vehicles employed by the Northern Coalition, which is why the Gaalsien are one step ahead of the Coalition for most of the game. The simply get around a lot better and a lot faster.

[@simonnance]

The honour guard cruiser is a classic case of fixed main gun though. That said, I still captured as many as I could get my hands on. And that was a LOT.

[@Thepissheadman]

@@simonnanceFirst, I would say that I don’t necessarily think that those vehicles are too big. if their targets were smaller then I could understand that, but if they’re smaller still how are they supposed to damage something literally 10 times its size? Given that the honor guard is more of a long range/artillery vehicle I suppose it gets away with it, it’s not meant to fight close range so it wouldn’t need to turn quickly. As someone who used to do multiplayer people only spam one or two units so personally I have very strong feelings that multiplayer needs a balance update otherwise it’s just boring and not fun to play.

[@rhodes3983]

@@Thepissheadman I still think that at least the AAV could be a bit smaller (it really doesn't need to be building sized to kill sandskimmers), but I see your point. When it comes to the Honorguard cruiser, I agree with you. It is basically a tank destroyer scaled up to kill cruisers so it engages at long range and mostly fights rather slow targets meaning it doesn't need to turn that much. Plus it is a hovership so it can turn very easily. And if I remember correctly it also has some secondary weapons for defense.

[@hafirenggayuda]

Also, Gaalsien living on desert all their life, big and dangerous desert. Hover tech is necessary for them.

[@rhodes3983]

@@hafirenggayuda My point exactly

[@Curleyconcon]

Love seeing the 08th MS Team rep in practical designs. If you were ever iffy on Gundam since it's so bonkers in terms of Sci-Fi, give the 08th MS Team show a try, they really pulled back from wild space robots to make a more grounded approach to Gundam, and it's really good.

[@Tuning3434]

Sadly not enough Dom's. If it wasn't for the Gelgoog, the Dom and Rick Dom would be my favourite Zeon design.

[@sonwig5186]

Also IGLOO

[@Duchess_Van_Hoof]

It is also ironic seeing Zeon use hull down tanks against mobile suits, as they hold an overwhelming mobile suit advantage throughout most of the war. The Federation however has tanks actually designed for being used in Earth gravity.

[@Vespuchian]

Definitely one of the best entries in the franchise. I particularly like the emphasis they put on acoustic tracking/ranging when radar is unavailable and fighting in jungle or cities makes line-of-sight highly unreliable.

[@Soloong_Gaybowzer]

If I remember correctly, each track on the Scorpion tank has it's own electric powered motor that turns the sprocket each with individual storage batteries that are charged by the Hydrogen fueled turbine located in the back of the tank's chassis. The raised turret is so that the tank can fire affectively and on a level platform even while behind cover. Plus the turret is totally automated and sealed from the operator, which lessens casualties should the turret itself take a hit.

[@GaldirEonai]

The extra room in the tank _can_ make sense in a sci-fi context, where crew might be expected to live inside their tank for extended periods in a hostile environment. You can't exactly set up your tent outside when it's time to get some rest when your platoon is rolling around in a neon-argon trace atmosphere 500 kilometers from the nearest domed city, so crew comforts would have to be increased at least a little. Of course, in such a scenario you're probably better off not using tanks at all...

[@kuraiwolf4047]

You could also use a crewship big enough for transporting at least one or two tanks that has living quarters on-board. Then you can deploy the tanks from the ships and provide fire support for the tank crews from high up.

[@ecthelionalfa]

The british in ww2 had all their need covered by the boiler to make tea inside the thank instead of going out

[@casuallatecomer7597]

I've been thinking about how one would design a main battle tank for say Mars, it either it needs to big enough to house a human soldier in a spacesuit (perhaps with built in life support systems) or be full on land-ships where the crew live inside long term and only exit in case of emergency or when deployment is over, like on a warship.

[@GaldirEonai]

@@casuallatecomer7597 You'd want a combination of both, ideally. You still need individually sealed suits because otherwise you're at risk of losing your whole crew the first time anything pokes even a small hole in your hull (and battlefields are notoriously full of hole-poking things). But you also want a sealed, life-supporting hull so that your crew can open their suits outside of combat.

[@casuallatecomer7597]

@@GaldirEonai yeah this works too

[@erudit0rum198]

I feel like a lot of this is just the constant pressure in scifi to increase the effectiveness / importance of individual units in order to allow a hero to have an outsized influence on the outcome of a battle. Ironically, this is an area where historical fiction has an advantage over scifi. Richard Sharpe can't single handedly win battles cause like, we have the history and he actually didn't, Luke Skywalker *has* to singlehandedly win the battle cause to do otherwise would be to leave free drama on the table, it would be like having your hero defuse the bomb with an hour left on the timer.

[@Tuning3434]

Something I actually like about the Mobile Suit Gundam franchise, atleast the original 80s / 90s series. While the protagonists have an important role to play, it is usually obvious which party has reached the advantage, and which party is collapsing. The Earth Federation would have won the One Year war anyways, no matter if Amuro or the White Base crew lived or died.

[@MonkeyJedi99]

Regarding the bomb timer, I was watching some cop-drama show about a do-everything SWAT-type team, and in one scene the veteran EOD tech was admonishing the rookie tech that most real bombs don't have a visible timer, and if they do, they can lie.

[@reaganharder1480]

@@MonkeyJedi99 why would a terror bomber put a visible timer on their bomb? And why would they be honest if they did? Unless they're janking something to the point of using the buzzer output from a dollar-store timer to trigger the detonator, having a visible timer is a deliberate extra step that almost certainly adds no benefit to them.

[@MonkeyJedi99]

@@reaganharder1480 That was EXACTLY the point I was sharing, as stated by the veteran EOD tech in that show. So why are you phrasing your response as questions to me?

[@reaganharder1480]

@@MonkeyJedi99 where I come from it's common when you agree with someone to rephrase their logic with rhetorical questions. I suppose with the amount of idiots and assholes on the internet it's not unreasonable to assume I had just completely missed your point, but my comment was intended to show understanding and agreement with your point.

[@Starman_Dx]

"Who's loading them?" Tech Priest: You will after being made into a servitor for questioning the will of the Omnissiah.

[@WallOfScience]

I think electric drive systems might make quad-tracked tanks a bit more practical. Yes, you'd have to duplicate the motors, but the power plant could remain the same and in exchange you get increased traction and traction control. The gap between the tracks would still be an issue, not only for lack of surface area in contact with the ground but also because they would expose more of the undercarriage of the tank.

[@MountainGanesh]

Chrysler and the Detroit Arsenal did some design proposals for a quad-track tank using either electric or hydrostatic drive back in the '50s. It never made it off the drawing board, but it was honestly considered as a possible vehicle.

[@jd190d]

Having the motors on the sprockets would work. What would be a problem is that you have 4 points to armor and protect instead of 2 points and if you took just 1 out the tank would be crippled. I think it would be better to have 2 lighter tanks instead.

[@snperkiller1054]

If i recall correctly some current tanks already use a hybrid engine design so we know its doable, it would then become a trade-off of ground pressure and complexity for more redundancy and easier traversal of complex terrain.

[@jd190d]

@@CheapSushi I actually served on the M60 series tanks in the army. The sprocket drives the tracks. You hit the track and the tank stops. You hit the sprocket and the tank stops. With 4 treads you hit 1 sprocket or 1 tread and the tank stops. The drag from trying to move with 1 of your drive systems out will render the tank effectively immobile. There is a reason we don't build them that way, they are overly complex with no real advantage. If you have the 4 treads you would have to make the middle of the tank flexible to go over obstacles, another weak spot. It just doesn't work. If you have 2 sprockets that are electrically driven on each side the track will buckle continually from 2 drive systems on the same track so it is not a possible solution. We don't build them because it just will not work

[@jd190d]

@@snperkiller1054 I actually served on the M60 series tanks in the army. The sprocket drives the tracks. You hit the track and the tank stops. You hit the sprocket and the tank stops. With 4 treads you hit 1 sprocket or 1 tread and the tank stops. The drag from trying to move with 1 of your drive systems out will render the tank effectively immobile. There is a reason we don't build them that way, they are overly complex with no real advantage. If you have the 4 treads you would have to make the middle of the tank flexible to go over obstacles, another weak spot. It just doesn't work. If you have 2 sprockets that are electrically driven on each side the track will buckle continually from 2 drive systems on the same track so it is not a possible solution. We don't build them because it just will not work

[@mezarisage6055]

Would be cool if you could do a followup to this showing off some good sifi tank designs from fiction or theorising on how you might make a practical sifi tank.

[@erockandroll39]

Tanks are designed to serve a specific combat role. And modern tanks already serve that role pretty well. Future improvements are likely simple improvements In materials, engine, drive train, that make it lighter, faster, more armored. That being said, Future weapons might require for armor to adapt. And vice versa. Also, new combat scenarios might merit a new design that fills a new role. (How about an anti starfighter tank? ) But this wouldn't replace traditional tanks.

[@rommdan2716]

@@erockandroll39 Yeah, that sounds boring

[@klol3369]

​@@erockandroll39no one knows how the future turns out, plus there already exists anti air armored vehicles like Tunguska, they aren't in the main battle tank role

[@spare1518]

My justification for hovertanks is they are in a specialised unit(division, brigade etc.) where all vehicles are hovercrafts including troop carriers, logistics and maintenance that are organic to that unit. Their purpose is to blitz through the battlefield at crazy speed (over 200kph where tracked vehicles would flip and crash if they ran into a ditch or something) to exploit cracks in the enemy lines making a breakthrough and friendly units follow to further exploit

[@spare1518]

Come to think of it they are more like amored air Calvary with more firepower

[@tarektechmarine8209]

Yep 100% they act as fast attack. Light armoured but good enough to keep the enemy distracted and not easy to hit down.

[@isned2000]

My favorite take on hover tanks the Grav Tanks from the Traveller TTRPG, because they straight up fly. In the Traveller universe countergravity vehicles more or less completely supplant helicopters and fixed winged aviation at high enough tech levels, with Grav Tanks acting like a hybrid between armored vehicles which massively increased mobility and close air support that have the bonus capability of traveling at supersonic speeds and flying into low orbit.

[@great_hedgehog8199]

As one of the less famous but really cool designs, I have to mention the Siege Tank from StarCraft. It isn't exactly the most sci-fi take on a tank, but its ability to act as either a mobile assault vehocle or a static artillery sums up the idea of the Terrans (people) using adaptability rather than particular strength or numbers to overcome their opponents.

[@hafirenggayuda]

Siege tank feels more like portable artillery than tank.

[@electronus97]

@@hafirenggayuda fun fact they had more single target DPS unseiged than sieged. (i think this holds true in 2 as well)

[@hafirenggayuda]

@@electronus97 yeah, siege is mostly to target multiple units/ buildings and countering swarm. Edit: splash damage

[@Duchess_Van_Hoof]

Like most Terran vehicles in the original Starcraft it looks like some form of civilian vehicle for harsh environments that engineers slapped some guns on. I quite like it as the consistent theme throughout Terran unit design. Helps to sell the gritty feel of the setting.

[@aleksanderolbrych9157]

Only a tank and artillery SPG are completely different roles which require completely different vehicles and the Siege Tank is a great example of the "I have no idea how military works" tech design. Why an SPG would need a tank's armor if it is already heavy from carrying a huge gun around? An SPG is supposed to fire over a huge distance, why does it need armor to protect itself from direct fire if it will be heavier, clumsier, slower and probably have less space for ammo and main armament because of it? If an artillery gun is within enemy's range of direct weapons then it's already lost. Why would a tank carry all the ammo, weaponry and other heavy and space-wasting equipment an SPG has if it severely compromises its' role as a tank? All of this makes it bigger and heavier which makes it a bigger target, easier target, likely slower and forced to skip on actual tank-useful things like extra armor or active protection systems or whatever in order to acomodate weaponry and systems designed for an artillery piece. Which, as I mentioned in previous paragraph, is also a severely compromised direction. Why not just make them two seperate vehicles? Now, real tanks are at times used for indirect fire, but this is done from the main gun and if that could be solved by using specialised ammunition or minor gun adjustements instead of changing the vehicle into a monstrosity mix of two opposites which carry the pros of none and cons of both. I'm not saying this isn't a fun unit, but from a real world perspective its' design seems to be inherently stupid.

[@Dreamfox-df6bg]

A hover tank could just as well be it's own orbital landing craft as well as air support that has the possibility of hiding on the ground. Essentially a very flexible gunboat.

[@greggv8]

That's a Mark XX Bolo.

[@LordCrate-du8zm]

Ironically, this is something 40k does well. The new Repulsor/Impulsor/Gladiator hover tanks are used to drop from orbit (or just VERY high up) so they can flatten enemies with their superheavy tanks from behind their lines.

[@igncom1]

I do have a love for the insane early tank designs when no one had any idea what they were doing. But for a Sci-Fi setting I have always been interested in possible applications of Light Tanks. Not the biggest and heaviest doom vehicles, but a neat, quick, cheaper, and light tool for the tool box.

[@ham_the_spam4423]

Battletech has several light tanks and mechs for fulfilling different purposes. While they're the most lightly armed and armored units, they're cheap and often better at certain roles like scouting than bigger tanks and mechs

[@DeathFuryos]

I can recommend the anime "86: Eighty Six" where you have people fighting in cheap, light weight tanks with realistic take to them against rough AI.

[@lostmarble540]

hover tanks actually do have an advantage over regular tanks cuz you can play bumper cars with them

[@deedlefake]

I expected Battlezone going into this because of your intro music, but I was also hopeful for PlanetSide 2 and not only was it present twice, but you even used the music for the video. Very nice. If you want completely ridiculously massive tanks, try the Bolo series. I've only read one of the books myself, but their signature thing is AI-assist controlled mega tanks on par size-wise with an _aircraft carrier_.

[@BaronPraxis8492]

The NC theme is a nice touch. The Vanguard is surprisingly practical. But the Magrider is just cool.

[@ham_the_spam4423]

and what do you think of the Prowler?

[@BaronPraxis8492]

@ham_the_spam4423 It's fun in its own way. I miss the gatekeeper before the nerf. And lockdown can be useful.

[@whitehavencpu6813]

Hell yeah I love New Conglomerate's theme's music! And the tune in the intro is from Battlezone 2.

[@thestrikewyvern2245]

Its rather amusing he puts the Zeon Magella Attack Tank in 6:04 given the fact the Magellan Tank can eject its turret to become a VTOL Fighter and can fly just a few minutes before it can run out of fuel, also neat that the gun of the Magella would just eventually become a literally weapon their Mobile Suits can carry.

[@scottwalker6947]

My favourite designs have always been the Grav Tanks in Renegade Legion, and the "retro" designs of the Imperium in 40K.

[@rickmeyer9495]

And you can orbital drop grav tanks.

[@stcredzero]

There are videos of World of Tanks KZbinrs who can exploit vehicles with two recoiless rifles on each side of the turret. Since they are recoiless, they don't torque the turret too much. They can do very rapid follow up shots this way.

[@thekaxmax]

he made the point about RRs.

[@stcredzero]

@@thekaxmax Yes. That's why I made the comment!

[@peternordgren]

Is the Ontos in World of Tanks?

[@generalsmite7167]

Hover tanks have a place on the battlefield they don’t have to worry about terrain like mud, snow, or mountains. And though you may think it would make more sense to just make a helicopter, they don’t benefit from cover and are more likely to get detected

[@hoojiwana]

Helicopters absolutely do benefit from cover and concealment. They can hide behind trees and hills, and many have top-mounted sensors to look "over" these obstacles to find targets. - hoojiwana from Spacedock

[@yokai1235]

also a tank is fuel efficient something that a helicopter cannot be

[@cp1cupcake]

Hovertanks also bypass the main issue that has limited tank size; making something so heavy that it doesn't just sink into the ground at rest. The part about 'oversized tanks' that Spacedock has fails to remember the primary reason people build bigger tanks (or ships for that matter). If I can build one whose armor can make your weapons ineffective, then I am going to try.

[@TheTrueAdept]

@@hoojiwana not since the 1970s, I'm afraid, where radar and computer tech got good enough that it caused a ripple effect on all helicopter doctrine, changing from their previous doctrines to 'stay well behind the front lines and spam indirect fire missiles at the enemy and _hope to whomever you worship_ that a SpecOps team with a MANPAD isn't around'... the Sgt. York proved that you can get radars that can ignore ground clutter _and_ pick off a helicopter from the treeline (the actual testers swear up and down that they couldn't defeat the radar system without something solid between them and the radar set, trees were absolutely useless against it). I can bring up the quote if you want the source.

[@hoojiwana]

@@TheTrueAdept Modern missiles (particularly Spikes) are getting so good and so long ranged that sitting very far behind the lines is still perfectly viable. Sure there's vulnerabilities to AA missiles but sitting 30km away and still being able to hit things puts MANPADs out the window in terms of effectiveness. Unless they try to shoot down the missile itself of course! - hoojiwana from Spacedock

[@Echowhiskeyone]

One tank design that I've always liked are the hovertank from Hammer's Slammers. Modeled after tanks used by the US in Vietnam. And all the issues you mentioned about hovertanks, are used in the stories. Then you have the Bolos. Autonomous behemoths with lots of weapons and live for centuries or more. They seemed big and ridiculous 40+ years ago.

[@kfeltenberger]

Both are excellent examples! The laser tank from Forelorn Hope was also good.

[@Echowhiskeyone]

@@kfeltenberger Absolutely. There are many other examples, I just chose two that impacted my childhood back in the '70s and '80s.

[@nicholastuttle2445]

A Bolo wasn't really made to replace a tank, it was more designed to destroy entire armies on its own, and the larger ones could snipe capital ships in orbit

[@NHOrus]

​@@nicholastuttle2445bolo evolution is fun! Bigger tank! Bigger tank that can shoot ICBM! DEW/railguns kill everything up to horizon, obsoleting planes. Bigger tank! Bigger tank, but some normal tanks that can work around it and support it! Sapient tank!

[@nicholastuttle2445]

@@NHOrus I think the Mk 30 and above were called planetary siege platforms, basically could run an invasion on its own

[@FowaDeLuz]

I *LOVE* that you're playing the New Conglomerate theme from Planetside 2 in the background while talking about tanks with MOAR GUN!! 😆 (Technically yes, two barrel tanks would be the Terran Republic, but the whole concept of MOAR GUN is just so very NC.😄 )

[@TheArklyte]

Thumbnail: calls imperial hover tank silly. Wait till you see Tau ones with offset railgun in a rotating turret. Have you ever dreamed of turning yourself into a centrifuge after each shot? We got you covered!

[@kurisuuu48]

I would like to comment on two things: Hover-Tanks: Hovering would bring the benefit of being able to cross much more difficult terrain than tracked vehicles. Whatever space magic lets them float seems to usually work on water/swamps as well, and even things like trenches might not be a problem if the lift can be increased momentarily. Space inside tanks: I agree, the nova is ridiculously large inside. If I recall correctly this was partly done to have the player be able to actually get into the seat without either needing a large enter-animation or (what SC doesn't do) have him just pop into the vehicle. Still, a bit less would have been enough. But I gotta admit, I'm a sucker for double-guns and 4 tracks, the Mammoth from C&C is still one of my favorite tank-designs of all time

[@hoojiwana]

Which Mammoth from C&C though, there's a few! 😂 - hoojiwana from Spacedock

[@kurisuuu48]

@@hoojiwana The one from Tiberium Wars (should be the Mk.III iirc). Mostly out of nostalgia 😄

[@VxVTactics]

Wow! Didnt expect to see my footage here! Love you guys. ❤

[@fugitiveunknown7806]

I remember one interesting little game: centurion. If I remember correctly, the tanks have a gravity projector that floats them off the ground, but it needs some kind of solid object to work against (so flying with it is tough). It's a pretty efficient way of traveling, with the side effect that track hits basically never happen because the pressure from the gravity generators is strong enough to warp away almost any conventional weapon, letting all the armor get focused on the crew areas and turrets.

[@TheOneWhoMightBe]

The Halo tank (UNSC) is a standout for me, because of its height. It's so tall that there is hardly anything it can hide behind or in to reduce the chance of being spotted and targeted.

[@USSAnimeNCC-]

How are you going to hide it tho when you need too it a double edge sword

[@whee38]

The Scorpion is interesting because only the turret is very tall with the main body being really short. Kind of has some logic but not that much Edit: spelling

[@N0d4chi]

@@USSAnimeNCC- We are at a point in time in which hiding a tank generally is a rather hard task, almost impossible. With future tech able to scan entire planets for life signs and such, hiding a tank is not a priority really.

[@mrphgil974]

The operator is hidden low down. And tanks are much easier to replace than trained drivers now, let alone in the future with better automated manufacturing. The turret poking up allows you to fire over obstacles that are protecting the main hull.

[@paytonkraft7564]

And to add to that, what happens if the turret gets blown off? Scorpion designs as early as halo two focus all weapons into the raised turret. Sure, the driver survives, but offensive capability has been completely lost.

[@Molloy244]

There was a real tank design called the Hen/Chicken that was effectively two tanks linked together that looked like the Halo Skorpion, it was also going to be capable of splitting apart, using other weapon packs (like cannon and missile packs).

[@paytonkraft7564]

Y'know what space dock. I respect your opinion and appreciate your logical take on this subject. Your commentary has taught me a little bit more about military vehicle design and answered a lot of questions about tanks in real life and fictional sense. I agree that the rule of cool is definitely taken over the use of logic based design and I can understand how the two might conflict with each other.

[@RecolitusMorbus]

Can't tell you how disappointed I was when I showed my dad, a Lt.Col in the Marine Corps, as a kid my super cool tank design with four threads and two guns (because I was a huge C&C kid). That asshole just tore the entire design apart, left me deflated.

[@RecolitusMorbus]

@@ICU1337 He was a Cobra pilot and the CO of a squadron at the time, lol. But, he *was* Maintenance Officer for a long time beforehand.

[@jame3shook]

For sci-fi tanks, I read David Drake's Hammer's Slammers and was taken by the imagery as well as the realism from a former Armored Cav officer. Yes, even hover tanks need to transfer their weight to the ground and there are limits bridges can carry (novel "Rolling Hot") I do take issue with the presenter ~@4:30 as the Merkava CAN carry up to 6 passengers which are typically an infantry squad/team.

[@pavelslama5543]

1) Two guns: this may be a good way for a light automated throwaway vehicle to maximize firepower before it gets destroyed. And when it comes to the offset of the guns, that is certainly not a big problem. USS Iowa fired 16in guns one after another, with the left and right gun in each turret being significantly offset, yet it didnt jam the turret. 2) Quad tracks: this isnt as complicated as it looks like. If they are parallel, like in the case of T-28/95, its rather easy. Just put in a shaft connecting the sprockets on each side. If its sequential, as with Vityaz heavy cargo carrier, the Obj 940, or just Case Steiger Quadtrac agricultural tractor, you just have to use a driveshaft going under the joint. Or if the vehicle has no joint, like the WoT AE-Phase 1, just use a driveshaft on the bottom of the hull. Or even easier still, if its a sci-fi tank, just put in a hybrid propulsion system, put a generator behind the engine, put electric motor into each sprocket, and connect them with wires. 3) Space: Yes, its overdone in those cases, but if a tank is able to bring in a raid squad including supplies, it may not only extend its range, but also limit the danger posed by enemy infantry and protect the frontline logistics units from being exposed to danger. Our tanks have the size dimensions they have mostly for one single reason - railway. If your tank doesnt fit to a railway car, its a shitty tank and it should not be produced. However, if you have huge troop/armor transports and huge railway, you can easily work with bigger vehicles. And making it bigger makes it easier to make it armored enough in order to not be bothered by light vehicles and enemy infantry weapons. Imagine a tank that can carry a significant amount of roof and bottom armor, like a bigger Abrams with roof chobham armor. You´re not gonna javelin it away anytime soon. If you make your tank twice as wide, long and high, its surface is gonna be roughly 4 times bigger, but its volume is gonna be roughly 8 times bigger. Providing you have enough energy to propel all that mass, and that you have enough production and maintenance capabilities to deal with it, going bigger may be very advantageous, as we have seen with ships. 4) Hover tanks: Todays tanks may seriously struggle with terrain such as bog, or deep snow. Hovercraft doesnt care. And when it comes to mines, if you convert todays tanks like for example Leopard 2A7 into a sci-fi hovercraft, its ground pressure would be lover than of an infantryman´s boot. So its only going to initiate explosion of anti-personel mines. Plus you are also less likely to stay pinned down due to loosing your means of propulsion (thrown tracks). And you are also able to conduct amphibious operations without major problems. And providing you have a great energy source, you may also go bigger, maybe even a full landbattleship mode. 5) Weapons: Almost every tank carries multiple weapons. Usually its main gun, coaxial MG, AA MG, and a grenade thrower (usually used for smokes, but for example German WW2 tanks could also launch frags). But there were also examples of heavier equipment, also combining flamethrowers, rooftop mortars and other stuff. Multiple gun tanks used to be hindered primarily by communication, which in modern age really isnt a problem. So the main problem is size and weight, which according to the previous points can just go away in a sci-fi scenario. So if you have a big tank and you face endless hordes of enemy infantry, why not go for tons of machineguns everywhere? You may also make them fully automated and robotized. Add some rooftop flamethrowers. If you make your tank´s exterior waterproof and fireproof, you may use those flamethrowers even against your own vehicle if you find enemy infantry climbing on it. ... So as you can see, with changing technology, our perception of tanks may easily completely change and stuff previously considered unfeasible can prove extremely useful.

[@grantharriman284]

That shot at the Bradley was a nice touch. Pentagon Wars is an amazing movie.

[@SN1PERx64]

The NC theme from Planetside 2 is a great track to use for this content. Even included a Magrider vs Prowler for respect.

[@PeterFendrich]

Maybe a video discussing a specific contrast would be worth it: Since realistically advances in tanks are just getting smaller and sleeker, maybe we should debate the differing roles and capabilities of near future tanks versus near future powered personal armor.... The role in actual vehicle could play in the context of a unit being able to have one or two members with extremely advanced power armor.

[@tarektechmarine8209]

Ain't that funny, power armour is the near end all, at least until we get a material or method to armour tanks to a much more effective degree.

[@WandererRTF]

I think it really depends on the settings. Some (settings) have reasonably good concepts in use. Also having room to walk around (and even quarters or bunks of sorts) for the crew inside a sci-fi tank might be justified if it is intended to operate independently in hostile environments - it does make the tank a lot worse for pure combat sense though but it might be a necessity. Also hover (or 'grav', 'repulsor', 'contragrav', whatever form of handwavium is in use) style things make sense if the setting already uses something like on spaceships - also being able to fly with some kind of technology would enable those heavier tanks as they wouldn't need roads.

[@igncom1]

Yeah imagine needing to spend months at a time operating inside of a real life tank on a planet where the atmosphere is acid. Can't even step out to take a shit. It would be a nightmare!

[@rommdan2716]

I love how the video is "These are completely stupid and unrealistic stuff, but hey if you like it that's okay, just be aware your tastes are dumb".

[@xskyhawkx7821]

I had this idea for a walker-type tank in a fantasy setting where wind magic is very common, and the tank legs resemble those strandbeests from Theo Jansen

[@the_corvid97]

Have you seen the game Last Oasis? It kind of plays along with what you're describing.

[@AsymmetricalCrimes]

Wouldn't walker tanks be worse in a setting with wind magic? They're taller with only two points of ground pressure.

[@the_corvid97]

@@AsymmetricalCrimes The walkers OP is referencing have more than two legs, in fact they have a lot of them.

[@QuanticEagle]

There's a game that's main focused on tanks, but like sci-fi tanks that you should probably review and compare to this problems. As within it's lore is stated that the tanks are fully remote controlled and transported to the battlefield via teleportation. The game is Tanki Online, where one of the main focus is that you can build your own tank as you wish it, changing turrets, hulls, paints and almost everything to your likings

[@hanzzel6086]

Ahh, Tanki. I stopped playing in high-school when artillery began wiping me out within 15 seconds of spawning anywhere.

[@spencerruston406]

You forgot the critical second use case of hover tanks. Crashing into enemy fortifications and blowing up the atom bomb power level battery keeping tens of tonnes of metal hovering in the air for hours.

[@Alpostpone]

Present day heavy lift helicopters' fuel storage energy value is quite far off from atom bomb levels unfortunately

[@battleoid2411]

That is actually addressed in Hammers Slammers, their fusion powered hover tanks go up in a massive flash if the fusion bottle is breached before it can shut down, they even have specialized artillery rounds that will home in on the reactor itself to cause maximum damage

[@dakaodo]

@@Alpostpone Present day heavy lift helicopters also max out at 21 tons TOTAL for aircraft weight AND max payload (ref Super Stallion). Additionally, they carry no kinds of energy weapons/devices as often featured on SF hover tanks (whether railguns, lasers, energy shields, etc). Try adding 150 tons of armor onto a heavy lift helicopter, a multiple MW or GW laser, make the whole thing fly and shoot, and then calculate the power requirements. :D

[@dakaodo]

@@battleoid2411 In Battletech, we mocked that fusion reactor explosion as the Stackpole effect back in the 90s. :D The argument against this is that when runaway fusion reactors melt down, they kind of just fizzle at extremely high temperatures. It's not like nitroglycerin exploding when dropped. That said, I now think that a "fizzle out at extremely high temperatures" could still result in an accidental plasma jet effect like a shaped charge going off. Both descriptions could be simultaneously technically true, yet still be absolutely no consolation to the poor tanker schmuck crewing the tank at the time of reactor compromise. I also think that it's very likely that a Western-power-minded military design committee would probably specify multiple safety mechanisms to dump, shut down, and vent any catastrophic failure to protect its crew (a la ammo rack blowout panels). A more Russian/Soviet style design might not have that specification at all. And given current trends in automation, any such future tank is likely to also be capable of remote operation so the entire crew survivability issue becomes moot unless there's some Butlerian Jihad style cultural revolution that superstitiously bans killer AI robot tanks (AND magically manages to enforce this restriction on member states).

[@Alpostpone]

@@dakaodo To give a sense of scale, Mil Mi-26 has total weight of 50 tons. It carries 12 tons of fuel to achieve 8 hours of flight. Energy weapons are kinda superfluous in this conversation, the issue mostly is how people seem to imagine that keeping heavy things aloft would require ungodly amounts on energy. It really doesn't.

[@LewdestLiz]

"The moving pillbox is exactly what the Omnissiah intended. Trust me, bro, the STC said so."

[@tarektechmarine8209]

Agreed. As Dorn said the best offence is a really good defence. And as the Raven said, the battle must be won before it starts.

[@michaelkimberling7307]

Battletech has a lot of bonkers tank designs too. Including hover vehicles

[@makky-kat3719]

As a big Planetside 2 fan (and TR main), I was real excited for the Prowler to make an appearance as soon as I heard the music. A tank which, by the way, I think should've just had one autoloading cannon in the middle of its already pretty small turret.

[@anderson92]

I think more vertical launch cells are needed on ground vehicles in science fiction. Particularly if your future tech lets you make the missiles small and still pack a huge punch. There was a PlayStation 1 game where you were a mech that could transform into a hovercraft and in hovercraft mode you could unlock a vertical launch missile system towards the end of the game that let you zip around the screen crazy fast (and rather uncontrollably 😂) and not need to aim because the missiles would lock onto things on their own, and I always found that idea pretty cool for hover vehicles. A traditional hover "tank" though never made sense to me.

[@viken3368]

This sounds hilarious. I imagine a battle field full of them on both sides with just 10s of blocks of armour just spinning around whilst theres a barage of misilises from above.

[@matteste]

The reason for the Strv 103's design was due to the fact that it was meant for defensive warfare in Swedish terrain. It is a case of being hyper specialized for a specific job. As for hover tanks, one use I can think of is hybrids. They hover when they need to cross open water or particularly rough terrain while then switching to treads when they make landfall or in combat. For instance, it could be used as a means to rapidly relocate. As for wierd tanks, I definitivley say that the Magellan with its detatchable fighter turret is a strong contender. Another I can think of is probably the Loto with its distinct multipurpose design.

[@Ktotwf]

It always made me super sad that the Mass Effect universe only had an APC and not a true Battle Tank design...

[@Dark_Fusion19]

The Systems Alliance never needed a heavy tank.

[@Ktotwf]

@@Dark_Fusion19 I don't see what about the setting makes that the case tbqh

[@Dark_Fusion19]

@@Ktotwf The Alliance was a fast response force, that needed vehicles to be small enough to fit inside their frigates, so they could be deployed quickly on any planet.

[@MyVanir]

@@Ktotwf Fake fan.

[@Ktotwf]

@@MyVanir You're a fake fan? Idgi

[@zgmfx-09a]

You can yap about "the lack of space in a turret" or the "logistical issues of quad tracks" but you simply have to understand that it's implied these aren't an issue in futuristic designs, they're there because some unnamed engineer solved them through either not having any crew in the turret or using some super futuristic engine layout etc.

[@redshirt5126]

Because of this video i still remain convinced that the game C&C Tiberium wars has one of the best practical tank designs in fiction: the GDI Predator Tank

[@347Jimmy]

They were great, a realistic and sensible tank that becomes a sci-fi classic once you put the railgun upgrade on it

[@igncom1]

I still don't like the tread design on that tank.

[@MyVanir]

The video covered everything that was bad about the Predator though.

[@RoballTV]

I headcanon that Star Citizens tank is big and roomy cos you have to be in it when on planets with no atmosphere or too much gravity, for extended periods. Stretching the legs is great for not going insane.

[@bengtstrand4476]

What bugs me about many of the 40k tanks (e.g. Leman Russ, Chimera, current Land Raider) is that they have these really narrow tracks with armoured sides covering the road wheels. It looks like they would get stuck in all but the hardest surfaces. Compare with the original Land Raider model from 80s which still had the WWI aesthetic but with tracks that were wider than the armoured sides.

[@ApocGuy]

with land raider weight few times more i'd say, and twice the size of le man? baneblade and stormsword would be even worse when it comes "off the road" driving.

[@TheMugbearer]

Absolutely appreciate the Battlezone '98 clip there. ^^

[@derekp2674]

A nice counter point to the Battlezone 2 theme music in every episode here :)

[@mitwhitgaming7722]

Given recent events, I imagine any tanks of the future would be more like land ships, with their own point defenses or possibly sheilds depending on the setting.

[@ThatGuy-a48]

Or become the opposite and we just go all in IFVs and APCS ( auto cannons and ATGM can do wonders ) Seems boring but let's face super tanks are just impractical irl

[@archmagosdominusbelisarius8836]

Well thats not the point of a tank..

[@mitwhitgaming7722]

​@@archmagosdominusbelisarius8836... the point of a tank is not to support ground troops and break through enemy lines by being difficult to destroy?

[@HwangInhoBooNam]

No, they will be slightly samller but also more agile, with rapid firing weapons instead of a main heavy cannon and specially with active defenses incorporated instead of a passive armour

[@acarrillo8277]

You don't want to make a tank any taller than they are now. Hull down is very important to tankers and the taller you make the tank the tougher it is to build berms to protect them. The current MBT really is peak tank. It is more likely to go smaller or split to smaller uncrewed units with a crewed command MBT.

[@DYrahcaz91]

I appreciate you using Supreme Commander footage! If theres ever a Spacedock SupCom lore video I'd be so excited...

[@TonyTylerDraws]

Another entry in the ongoing series “Sci-fi _____ designs are weird.” Because they are!

[@awrawrwar]

The hover-tanks in 40K are funny because apparently the downward force exerted by their "anti-gravitic generators" is strong enough to crush a fully armored Chaos Space Marine. There's a scene in Dark Imperium where an Iron Warrior throws himself under a Repulsor tank with a melta charge with the intention of planting it on the bottom of the tank, and the grav-engines just squish him. The text even goes on to note that where the Repulsors travel, the sand is "crushed to a glassy shine beneath them".

[@duncanwebster3281]

A pity that the have never appeared anywhere except in the books (and RPG & wargames) but the Blower tanks in David Drake's Hammers Slammers series are done very well, nicely described and well thought out. Probably as close to a practical design for a hovertank as you will get (in my humble opinion).

[@randlebrowne2048]

David Drake was a tanker in Vietnam.

[@MonkeyJedi99]

THose books were a great read, and the most use of the word 'cyan' in any work of literature.

[@williemedicog2163]

@@randlebrowne2048he wasn’t a tanker directly, he worked interrogation for the regiment

[@WildmanTrading]

4:42 The way he just "No!" is hilarious.

[@TitterpigRancher]

Just a minor correction, the M4 Sherman wasn't really what you could classify as "super effective". It was only just effective enough. We used them because it was cheap and easy to produce in vast quantities. It was widely known that you couldn't expect to defeat the German tanks one on one in a Sherman. The saying was that the a Leopard or Tiger would take out the first Sherman, but not the other three behind it. Everything else in the video is spot on though.

[@SuperDeadzombeh]

The Sherman was capable dealing with most German tanos one on one

[@TitterpigRancher]

@@SuperDeadzombeh Sure, if it got the first engage from behind them. Head-on, one-on-one, the German tank would win most of the time. Especially the Tiger, whose front armor was basically impenetrable to the Sherman's gun.

[@coryfice1881]

@@TitterpigRancher This is a very antiquated, and frankly tired and long since debunked myth that you really shouldn't be saying. The sherman tank was superior to the most common German tank of the war the panzer 4. The panther was better but often overinflated and was mostly found on the side of the road with its drive busted, and could be beaten by a 75mm sherman if its sides were hit due to how thin the sides armour was. The Tiger was a mythical dragon that everyone swore they saw. Not to mention it was a heavy tank while a Sherman was a medium tank. Also the Sherman tank's frontal armour was ALMOST as thick as a tiger's armour and Sherman variants were thicker. I don't know where you got the idea that the Sherman could only beat a "german tank" whatever that is from behind other than whatever vape cloud you conjured out of your vaping sessions.

[@bramastoprasojo2843]

Love the 8th ms team and MS IGLOO representation. One of the best down to earth (literally) gundam series.

[@Numba003]

As a hard sci-fi fan, I appreciate these videos looking at the real science behind things. However, as a reader and writer, I also appreciate the emphasis that creativity and style are often much more important than strict realism in fiction. Thank you for another episode! God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)

[@mackenziebeeney3764]

I actually commissioned some custom science fiction tanks recently. I intentionally had one sides tank use the quad track design because it’s in service with a faction that’s forgotten how to fight an actual war. They rely more on rapid deployment of forces in established areas, so their main IFV used wheels instead of tracks. The other faction doesn’t use tracks at all, instead using these large rover-ish wheels, the faction is from mars and the IFV is based on a mining and transport rig. The tank is a dedicated design that took years and the perfection of laser tech to make best use of mars reactors.

[@cmedtheuniverseofcmed8775]

There is a philosophy that I follow in my writing: - Future tanks might not use treads or need them. - Ground warfare is about getting to the targets as fast as possible. - Hover tanks can be used if it's about getting to the target as fast as possible. - Railguns can cut through most armor with ease, so speed is more important regardless. - The concept of underwater amphibious tanks isn't as crazy as most think (especially if your alien race is aquatic). - Multi-gun turreted tanks can still work depending on future engineering vs. the cost of building multiple guns on one vehicle. - You can have really big vehicles if your alien race is naturally large in height.

[@GTalon5]

There's a video game I like to play called 'From the Depths' where you can make any craft you want. Multiple main guns on a turret is a good idea for a few reasons. Alpha strike, to damage an enemy before they damage you. Getting past point defense, by having multiple projectiles in the air at once. Redundancy, so you can keep fighting after taking damage. And hull mounted weapons are a good choice as well. You can have your biggest gun, heaviest armour, and smallest profile, all pointed at the most dangerous enemy.

[@Arashmickey]

The Prowler has some kind of telescopic barrel, so I guess that's how it deals with the recoil. The Vanguard uses a coil- or railgun, and the Maggie doesn't seem to have high recoil either, much to the disappointment of magrider pilots I'm sure.

[@sparkyails123]

I love that you called the magrider operators pilots, I think of them as an ESF that can't get off the ground for to long.

[@Arashmickey]

@@sparkyails123 if maggie gun had recoil they'd use it to get more airtime. If they could rocket jump with it they'd go completely insane.

[@mattstorm360]

I got another justification for a tank to have two guns. One gun that fires kinetic rounds and one gun that fires something like plasma or a laser. Something that doesn't use a shell and only really needs power to fire like that energy weapon you talked about. In this case, the reason for it is one weapon is excellent for overloading shields but the armor underneath is still pretty thick or has mirrors strapped to the side. Your shield breaking laser is just going to bounce right back into your face. That mirror won't reflect a sabot round unlike the shield that 'wacks' projectiles away.

[@vi6ddarkking]

The M.A.R.V from Command and Conquer 3 has baraled main gun because it was the only way to keep a good fire rate without letting the gun overheating. That and the situation where two or more scattered shots are needed to take down an enemy are honestly some of the very good excuses to justify the cool factor of multi gun turrets.

[@PSYKO-cq1is]

i love that you're still using battlezone 2 intro. That game was my childhood

[@sundragon7703]

One of my guilty pleasure tanks was the siege tank from Starcraft. It transformed from a tank into an artillery piece. For fun, brought 10-20 of them around a choke point and arranged them in a stacked formation where the primary line would be covered by a secondary line. The neutralizing of the Zerg charge was loud and bright.

[@undeadstormblade9337]

Nice to see someone mention the Merkava. Honestly when it comes to sci-fi, a sort of slightly altered Merkava wouldn't be out of place and would be an effective tank

[@popyfx2599]

my fav 2-canon tank is the Flugabwehr Panzer Gepard (irl). As you said it isn't meant to deafeat larger ground vehicles like tanks but the Gepard is very efficient in the modern area of war. Germany hasn't produced ammonition for years before the ukraine war, becouse we thought the Gepard would be absolete, but it turned out to be a great weapon against drones and missiles. The Gepard could fill a very important role in near future settings as an Anti-drone tank.

[@andrewhcit]

That's not a tank, though. That's a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun.

[@popyfx2599]

@@andrewhcit The Gepard got Panzer in its Name. Panzer = german word for Tank

[@MyVanir]

@@popyfx2599 If I called my granny's electric mobility scooter a Panzer, would you argue that it is a tank because it's called a tank?

[@Poctyk]

@@popyfx2599 Ah yes, the famous tank Panzerschiff Graff Spee, and it's cousins tanks Schützenpanzer Puma" and Panzerhaubitze 2000"

[@RedXlV]

The thing about hovertanks is that they almost always use some sci-fi anti-gravity technology rather than an air cushion, meaning that there's no reason their movements can't be much more controlled than those of a real-life hovercraft. And as for why not just make it straight-up fly instead of hovering slightly above the ground? Out-of-universe, it's simply so that they'll play the same role as tanks in the story. In-universe, depending on how the anti-gravity works (which frequently gets little if any explanation beyond "it just does"), there's all sorts of handwaves you can come up with. The most sensible would be to say it takes a significantly higher power output for the anti-gravity to lift the vehicle up to higher altitude, so a hovertank is a lot cheaper than an airplane or a helicopter because you don't need as powerful an engine to move a given amount of mass.

[@nanomachinesson2513]

Hover tanks would also potential benefit from ground effect lift, which means they MAY require less energy to operate than just making a flying platform. Plus, if the load can potentially be dispersed to the entire rectangular volume under the tank rather than just the 2 rectangular track sections, ground pressure may be considerably lower for the vehicle in question. As well, since it is moving above the soil layer, mud, sand and other soil types wouldn't apply dynamic and static frictional loads to the objects motion allowing for potentially faster accelerations and top speeds.

[@thekaxmax]

ground effect is from wings. Hovercraft / repulsorlift can't use it. Repulsorlift, like in Star Wars and others, may only be a short-range effect. Hovercraft need side skirts to keep the air in, either physical or air, and are very short on altitude.

[@vodarara7184]

It's one reason I love the Solar Auxilia Leman Russ Chassis 30,000 - They don't have the sponson's, they in some cases have a co-axil build into one of their more lethal gun options and a frontal hull weapon, which in-game can be anywhere from anti-tank firepower to anti-infantry. Being sleeker and designed for operating in the void or in far more extreme hazardous environments than the normal chassis. Compared to the 40k variants which bristle with guns.

[@tarektechmarine8209]

There was a Abrams version that I liked, I see no reason to change everything but also to not make it a ww1 tank by not having at least more advanced things like targeting and such. For 40k, tanks will be very often used against weaker targets, uprisings, disorganized chaos, eldar and orks who while can field armour are mostly infantry.

[@mcpuff2318]

Talking about the strv 103 without calling it a tank destroyer or "defensive tank"? Most impressive Would like to add that while the 103 was used alongside conventional tanks (Centurions), they acted in the exact same role and along the same doctrine. The 103 makes perfect sense for when it was created but couldn't survive the development of fully effective stabilized guns

[@caav56]

Another reason the gun was fixed was due to issues with early autoloader design.

[@Henrik_Holst]

@@caav56 it was a fixed in the design since inception and the reason was to make it as low profile as possible, it being fixed then allowed for the use of an autoloader at the time.

[@caav56]

@@Henrik_Holst Maybe, but still - autoloaders back then didn't work good in a movable gun, but fixed gun? Yep, that's good.

[@Henrik_Holst]

@@caav56 that was exactly the point :). The design concept behind the STR103 was to create a really low profile tank to minimize the target area, putting a fixed gun there removed the need for a tower so that lowered the profile, but then it _also_ allowed for the use of an autoloader since as you say those at the time didn't work for movable towers. But it was the low profile that was the driving force, the autoloader was just a nice bonus (or rather it allowed for an even less profile since you now could run it with less people).

[@MikMoen]

My Planetside NC Main highly appreciates you using the New Conglomerate theme. Vehicles that hover over the ground can traverse all types of terrain as there's no physical contact. No more getting bogged down in mud or clambering over hills and ridges.

[@jeremypintsize7606]

For comparaison a Leclerc tank ,with an autoloader for a 120 mm main gun, had firing sequence of 8 seconds and a doubling time (loading two ammunition of the same type one after the other) of less than 6 seconds... ( public data) , it had demonstrated a sufficient rate of fire to deal with six targets in one minute with more than 90% accuracy. And it date back to 199's ... And for reliable autoloader , the AMX-13 from 1952 had already a reliable one for a 75 mm... And for comparaison a Leclerc is prety ligth compared to a Challenger 2 , 57, 4 metric tons compared to challenger 2 75 metric tons. It's translate to speed Leclerc 71 km/h (44 mph) on the road, 55 km/h (34 mph) off road against Challenger 2 : 37 mph (59 km/h) on-road , 25 mph (40 km/h) off-road

[@hanzzel6086]

And it's still only on par fire rate wise with an angry 20yr old hopped up on energy drinks. Still a whole lot better than the T-72, T-80, and (most) T90's autoloader (by almost double).

[@Keilink]

The music in your intro gave me such a dopamine rush, damn I loved that game. I'm also surprised you didn't mentioned the Siege tank from SC2 x) Great work!

[@zebmaxwell7979]

In some old lore, the Massive Bane Blade tanks in 40k was labeled as "Light scout tanks" from the Dark Age STC. Imagine how big their main battle tank would be to consider the Bane Blade a scout.

[@the_corvid97]

Isn't that just a meme? I don't think I've actually seen anything to confirm that the Baneblade was just a scout.

[@legionofyuri]

​@@the_corvid97it's a meme, yes

[@tarektechmarine8209]

@@the_corvid97 that, yes. Being labelled a medium tank I think was not a meme.

[@Redwaltz4]

Imagine a BOLO. 32,000 tons of tank goodness.

[@thegreatchimp]

Nice vid and I agree with everything except the part on hover tanks. Air cushion hover tanks would be fairly niche, but an actual anti gravity tank as commonly depicted, has staggeringly better mobility than conventional ground tank. Not just increased speed and agility, but the ability to float over obstacles and water, pop up to make snap shots, even low altitude flight depending on the setting. If they existed I have no doubt they would be a game changer.

[@lifevest1]

AT-TE is the ultimate sci-fi armor.

[@mitwhitgaming7722]

Vertical terrain? More like opportunity for high ground.

[@thekaxmax]

slow as a wet week. A repulsorlift design with an altitude booster would have been a better idea.

[@mitwhitgaming7722]

@@thekaxmax I like the in-universe explanation that walker vehicles can pass through shields, but repulsorlifts can't. Gives a tactical reason to use walkers.

[@thekaxmax]

@@mitwhitgaming7722 Tell that to a repulsor tanker and he'd drive at the shield, turn the repulsor off as he gets to the shield and skid through, then turn the repulsorlift back on and keep going while making snide comments over the comm. Walkers are /slow/, battlefield bait.

[@tarektechmarine8209]

As much as I like them, they just can't win against any tank.

[@verfed]

I'm a reserve tanker in the IDF and there is room for two soldiers to sit down in the walkway between the shells or for one injured soldier lying down. If you remove the 18 shells on the left and 18 on the right you can fit three injured soldiers or six soldiers sitting down, but such tanks are rare since they now only have eight shells. We call them tankbulances

[@ThatGuy-a48]

To be honest overly large sci-fi tanks are just big targets at the end of the day ( see battleship vs aircraft carrier for example just replace torpedoes and naval bombers with ATGM and drones)

[@cp1cupcake]

That depends on what is more effective than the alternative at the time. The first few decades of carriers (up to 200 years ago depending on how far back you go) didn't really have enough damage potential to do anything substantial to a battleship. I think one of the larger reasons that the carrier vs battleship went so far against the battleship also had to do with how poorly the Japanese were able to deal with the US carriers. The didn't get the improved AA capabilities of the Allies and got rolled as a result. If you look at some of the raids of the Japanese against latter war US ships, the Japanese were having trouble against them with only minimal US air cover.

[@AbbreviatedReviews]

Oh dang, Battlezone showed up. That's a classic.

[@derekp2674]

BZ1 images and BZ2 theme music :)

[@Autism3.0]

yes they are.

[@tigerstein]

And thats why we love them.

[@JustAnotheNeoSilver]

Someone pointed out the usefulness of hovertanks on water worlds, but there's another advantage that's pointed out in the tabletop RPG Heavy Gear: Weight. Earth's Colonial Expeditionary Force uses ducted fan hovertanks with relatively light armor, meaning they can ship more tanks up and down a gravity well for the amount of reaction mass heavier tanks would require.

[@ayyyemate3131]

So, if you're doing double barrels on your main cannon, go for a vertical stack and leave a little room in the turret for an autoloader. Speaking of turrets, always include them. don't go too big or leave unused interior space. keep things compact to minimize the target you present to the enemy. keep the weapon compliment simple enough to be logistically sound but robust enough to deal with it's role.

[@CallanElliott]

That creates issues with elevation and depression.

[@maledwarfwarrior]

Switching from shells can also justify the design. Particle canons or laser weaponry would primarily be limited by heat and power generation, so using two barrels would boost rate of fire in exchange for less power per shot and a more expensive tank.

[@CallanElliott]

@@maledwarfwarrior Taking it from real tankers, the fastest way to unload a tank cannon is to fire it. Have your loader queue up the shell you want for the next shot.

[@schmick1018]

Thank you for using footage of the Top Gear Hovervan footage to illustrate the pitfalls of hover vehicle technology.

[@AdamSmith-kq6ys]

Also, note the Strv-103 was intended for use in defensive ambush - the S-tank was meant to be used with Soviet tanks wandering into carefully-sited kill-zones.

[@Dietrad]

Good and entertaining analysis. As far asI know the issue the Merkavas backdoor is the other way round.:It is designed as evacuation door that can be and is used for rearmament