NationStates Jolt Archive

http://usera.imagecave.com/Daishi/DarkangelLogo.JPG
Dark Angel New Weapon Showcase



Dark Angel Industries has recently developed the new Benchmark to which all other Land based Vessels will be graded. The A-2 Leviathan is simply the most dominating Tank produced today.



A-2 Leviathan (pronounced Lev-eye-athen)
http://usera.imagecave.com/Daishi/bigtank.jpg

Manufacturer: Dark Angel
Unit Cost: $30.3M
Crew 5: Commander, Gunner, 2 Loaders & Driver
Weight: 230 Tons
Length (Gun Forward): 513.61 inches
Turret Height: 134.3 inches
Width: 232 inches
Ground Clearance: 24 inches
Ground Pressure: 50.1 PSI
Power plant: MNFR reactor
Power Rating: 5600 HP
Hydro Kinetic Transmission: 3 Speed Forward 1 Speed Reverse
Speed - Maximum: 12 mph (Governed)
Speed - Cross Country: 9 mph
Speed - 10% Slope: 7 mph
Speed - 60% Slope: 4 mph
Acceleration (0 to 20 mph): N/A
Cruising Range: N/A
Main Armament: Duel 200mm Smooth Bore Cannon
Coaxial Weapon: 7.62 M240 Machinegun
A/A weapons: Duel 6x G/A missile launcher
NBC System: 200 SCFM - CleanCooled Air
Armor: Chadam 2 inches, Depleted Uranium 3 inches, 8 inch Titanium (Chadam covers uranium, uranium covers titanium)
Engagement range: Ground (7000 meters approx) Air (25 Miles)

No machine on the battlefield inspires as much awe as the A-2 Leviathan. It weighs almost twice the ammount of the A-1 Annex, and this tracked beast towers above nearly every ground unit, a factor that often acts more as a deterrent to war rather than an invitation. Employing 2 enormous 200mm cannons supported by two large guidance rails, the A-2 shrugs off all but the mightiest assaults and delivers sustained onslaughts against both fortified and unarmored enemy forces. The Huge 200mm Ammunition are loaded into the Cannon via a unique hydrolic pully system, and are guided along by the two loaders. The only apparent drawback to the Leviathan design is its lack of speed, which allows infrequent overunning by opponents of significant numbers. This limitation aside, The Leviathan is a monster among monsters. The stowage for the main armament ammunition is in armored ammunition boxes behind sliding armor doors. Armor bulkheads separate the crew compartment from the fuel tanks. The tank is equipped with an automatic Halon fire extinguishing system. This system automatically activates within 2 milliseconds of either a flash or a fire within the various compartments of the vehicle. The top panels of the tank are designed to blow outwards in the event of penetration by a HEAT projectile.
Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) warfare protection is provided by an overpressure clean-air conditioning air system, a radiological warning system, and a chemical agent detector. The crew are individually equipped with protective suits and masks. Its unusually wide catapillar tracks give it a stable surface to roll over softer ground, while the 4-pod system allows the Leviathan to roll over larger obsticles one pod at a time, leaving the Majority of the tank in the same possition during the climb (think Big Offroad truck going over a large rock with one tire).







Like what you see? Come visit the Dark Angel Storefront. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7313810&posted=1#post7313810) to look at everything from Handguns to Aircraft Carriers!

Only $8.3 million? For a tank like this I'd say at least $15 million...that's assuming its even feasible, I'll let the tank experts deduce that.

Only $8.3 million? For a tank like this I'd say at least $15 million...that's assuming its even feasible, I'll let the tank experts deduce that.

(thx for noticing that, it was a typo :S. supposed to be 18.3 million lol

hell I would have gone bankrupt!)

7km range for the tank? A bit optimistic hey?

Way too fast for its size, and what's the point in having 4 guns? Im not even sure if the two 8 inchers alone are feasible on one vehicle anyway.

Would its huge weight not make it slightly useless in boggy terrain, or any terrain where it might sink?

(ooc: well I had two design choices in mind. This one, which is basically a quad cannon tank, or a massive duel turret movable Anti-tank platform. This one is definately feasable. It is essentially two Artillary cannons mounted on a Huge tank turret, with smaller 120mm barrels beneith it. It is feasable, however would take rather long to load with only one loader, and thus a second loader was added. And FYI, each combination (200mm-120mm) is operated by a single gunner. So one gunner operates two cannons, the other operate the remaining two.

and 7000m range with artillary grade cannons is definatley feasable. And to fast? you call 18 mph fast? Infantry run faster then that lol)

Would its huge weight not make it slightly useless in boggy terrain, or any terrain where it might sink?

I doubt that you will ever find a heavy tank that is useful on boggy terrain period.

(ooc: is there any other comment on this Fine Machine of War? I would appretiate any feedback on it.)

Wait wait wait wait wait...I've a problem with this. Partly only a 2 loaders for four cannons? I've the thought the enviroment might not be the safetest, and the loading/firing rate my be slowed.

I'm also thinking that a nation with only a pop of 20 million and not even a month old yet producing a tank with a nuclear reactor is a bit...off. Then again I'd also think the price should be a bit more simply due to that reactor.

maybe I'm sleep deprived but...yeah. This just doesnt exactly seem right.

I'm with Neo-Soviet States here... good points outlined, and on top of that... where'd you jack the Mammoth Tank design? Mammoths have been a part of C&C since back in the day... is that from Renegade...? If you're going to thieve a giant tank, render it yourself or get something from a less obvious source...

Edit: Oh yeah that's from Renegade. Terrible job on editing the GDI logo out...

http://members.lycos.nl/ccrenegade/pics/toolstrade/3.jpg

Wait wait wait wait wait...I've a problem with this. Partly only a 2 loaders for four cannons? I've the thought the enviroment might not be the safetest, and the loading/firing rate my be slowed.

I'm also thinking that a nation with only a pop of 20 million and not even a month old yet producing a tank with a nuclear reactor is a bit...off. Then again I'd also think the price should be a bit more simply due to that reactor.

maybe I'm sleep deprived but...yeah. This just doesnt exactly seem right.


(ooc: Yes yes. two loaders, 4 cannons. One does have the ability to insert one 200mm ammunition, and then insert one 120mm ammunition. Not that difficult a concept :P and the firing rate is slowed a bit, but is made up for in devastating power. and the cannons do not have to be fired in-sync. so a 120mm cannon can be fired without its parter 200mm.

As for the nuke reactor, I have had Nuclear Reactor technology for almost 1 RL week now in my Submarines and Aircraft Carriers. It is a simple concept to downsize these reactors to be useable inside a tank. If I wanted to I could begin development of Small Nuclear arms simply by using the weapons grade Plutonium in my submarines, however I do not yet think that my Nation is ready, so I have pu this off for a few weeks :P)

I'm with Neo-Soviet States here... good points outlined, and on top of that... where'd you jack the Mammoth Tank design? Mammoths have been a part of C&C since back in the day... is that from Renegade...? If you're going to thieve a giant tank, render it yourself or get something from a less obvious source...

Edit: Oh yeah that's from Renegade. Terrible job on editing the GDI logo out...

http://members.lycos.nl/ccrenegade/pics/toolstrade/3.jpg


(ooc: good for you, you found the design for my tank. Heres a cookie. Bite me.
Yes it is a mammoth tank. and yes it is from Renegade. Its not the first time someone has used something like that for a weapon system.)

Wow... What a useless tank design.

First of all, the armor is extremely godmodded. You have 4 times the weapons of an M1, several times the armor, yet it only has twice the weight.

Also, mixed caliber main guns is a silly idea. There's a reason Iowa battleships have all 16", and the next largest gun is 5". Not 16" and 14". The point is that the 200mms and 120mms are too close together in size and purpose to use. Not to mention the idea of having 2 main guns regardless of another set is also useless. It provides no ROF advantages, and since they're all in the same turret, provides no advantages for killing targets more quickly.

And I wonder if you know what a QNFR is...

And infantry don't run at 18mph... You don't run for more than a minute at 18mph... Where did you ever get that idea from?

(OOC: I'll still proclaim i've a problem with a tank of this size with a downsized nuclear reactor being produced by a nation so small and young such as yourself. For some reason that just doesn't exactly seem feasible and simply irks me a bit.)

(And yay, NE..here to save the day)

OOC: Pssst... He doesn't have QNFR tech, primarily because it seems like he doesn't know what one is.

And his lighter tank, which is 75 tons, somehow manages to have more armor than an Iowa Battleship's turrets and deck. This has as much armor as an Iowa... And it's heavier armor, too.

(OOC: *checks armor*)

(*blinks*)

(Christ. Course now I'm wondering about the range of the missiles but..yub. NE, you've done enough to rip this apart. More than simply my finding it a bit stretching it that the tank's less than 20 mil yet has a nuclear reactor..or the fact that it does have a reactor. if I dont make since..I'm sleep deprived.)

The Nuclear Technology along with all other High Leaves of Technology have been sold/given to Black Tower by the Dr_Twist Government.

The Dr_Twist government takes no responsibility for what the Black Tower Government does with this Technology.

well it would be easy to charge 50 million for a tank like this, however people will not buy it. So be happy thats the price I ask.

It provides no ROF advantages, and since they're all in the same turret, provides no advantages for killing targets more quickly.

Meh, I think the concept is based on looking cool, not being effective.

The same as all super-heavy tanks really.

Well, Artitsa and I made a SH tank, but it's only 100 tons. And it has one main gun.

And Dr_Twist, do you know what a QNFR is? Does Blacktower? And answer my questions about the armor and weapons and everything else.

Wow... What a useless tank design.

First of all, the armor is extremely godmodded. You have 4 times the weapons of an M1, several times the armor, yet it only has twice the weight.

Also, mixed caliber main guns is a silly idea. There's a reason Iowa battleships have all 16", and the next largest gun is 5". Not 16" and 14". The point is that the 200mms and 120mms are too close together in size and purpose to use. Not to mention the idea of having 2 main guns regardless of another set is also useless. It provides no ROF advantages, and since they're all in the same turret, provides no advantages for killing targets more quickly.

And I wonder if you know what a QNFR is...

And infantry don't run at 18mph... You don't run for more than a minute at 18mph... Where did you ever get that idea from?



First of all, the armor is not God moded. For a tank that size, that ammount of armor is needed. Like I said, This is more of a mobile weapons platform then a tank.

Secondly, this is not an iowa battleship. It is a tank. It is my tank, and There is nothing wrong with the idea of those sized weapons on its turret. It is a simple explanation.

More Guns = More Shells
More Shells = More Death
Bigger Shells = Bigger Death.

When you are attacking a command center, the difference between a 200mm cannon and a 120mm cannon is great indeed. As is the difference between a 120mm cannon and something smaller. The idea behind this tank is to create a supreme Destruction vehicle. I beleive I have acomplished that. As for the ROF, you are correct. It does not give it an advantage. However, you say that it does not provide an advantage for killing targets more quickly. Again I must tell you a simple equation. More Guns + Bigger Shells = Bigger Death. What is going to do more damage to one of... say your M-33 Badgers... one 150mm cannon? or two 200mm's and two 120mm's, all hitting you simultaniously? Thats what I thought.

And QNFR is a Nuclear Fusion Reactor. To make you happy I changed the Q to an "M" for miniature. so stop being such a knob and picking at every single detail when someone produces a better vehicle then you. Thats just immature.

And I never said Infantry run at 18 mph constantley forever, thats riduculous for you to even say that. I simply said that they could, as did you (read bold text)

You don't even know what a QNFR is! It's not a Fusion reactor, fool. You just lifted it from Scandavian States (Or my) tank designs!

Actually, more guns equals less ammo, because you have less space. And what's going to do more damage? A gun that can penentrate on a single hit, that's what. You know nothing about tank design at all. It's much better to have a single gun that can take out targets in one shot than four, only half of which can penentrate the armor of modern NS tanks. And since my M88 has several times the ammo for it's gun, which could quite easily penentrate the armor on this thanks to better ammunition technology and the fact you know nothing about armor, most people will take that. Perhaps that's why it's outselling you, eh?

"Secondly, this is not an iowa battleship."
So why does it have more armor than one?

You don't even know what a QNFR is! It's not a Fusion reactor, fool. You just lifted it from Scandavian States (Or my) tank designs!

Actually, more guns equals less ammo, because you have less space. And what's going to do more damage? A gun that can penentrate on a single hit, that's what. You know nothing about tank design at all. It's much better to have a single gun that can take out targets in one shot than four, only half of which can penentrate the armor of modern NS tanks. And since my M88 has several times the ammo for it's gun, which could quite easily penentrate the armor on this thanks to better ammunition technology and the fact you know nothing about armor, most people will take that. Perhaps that's why it's outselling you, eh?

"Secondly, this is not an iowa battleship."
So why does it have more armor than one?


Again, to appease your ridiculous complaint, I have changed the Q to an M.

More Guns with more ammo (bigger tank, more space, more ammo, what dont you understand?)

And what damages more, a round that penatrate a tank at high velocity, or a cluster of rounds that completley obliterates anything they strike?

As for your Hi speed needle-esk ammunition, its advantage would clearly be neautralized by the 3 inch ceramic plate. I know enough about tank armor to know that Ceramic is proven to disapate direct or "pin prick" missiles over a greater area. So in simple english that means skinny round go splat like bug.

And its outselling me because I just produced the weapon today, and I am mature enough to not go into other peoples threads and try and tell people how bad they are at designing weapons, even though the A-2 is clearly the superior.

And it has more armor because it is a tank designed to take a licken and keep on ticken.

I started this thread to let people know about my knew design, not to get into a prissy argument with whiny little people like you. If for some odd reason you still think the M-33 is better, then thats just fantastic, go back to your thread. If your done being a knob that is.

Way too fast for its size, and what's the point in having 4 guns? Im not even sure if the two 8 inchers alone are feasible on one vehicle anyway.

I don't know, German engineers thought two fourteen-inchers were feasable on one vehicle.

Also, I have a Mammoth-derived design, and think it's worthy of note; since we never see the lower 'guns' fire, isn't it a little more reasonable to assume they're some kind of support or guide rail for the gun above them?

do you have a pic and stats of this design of yours? I am curious to see it.

You are just too ignorant to give up, aren't you. Everybody agrees with the fact that this tank doesn't work.

I don't care about how my tank is better, but this is a godmod. Do you understand? Goooooddddmoooooodddd.

First of all, with six times as much armor as Abrams, and four times as many guns, but only twice the weight, your ammo capacity goes plummeting. You'll have maybe 5 rounds per gun, with armor taking up more than half your weight, and the huge gun systems taking up the rest.

"As for your Hi speed needle-esk ammunition, its advantage would clearly be neautralized by the 3 inch ceramic plate. I know enough about tank armor to know that Ceramic is proven to disapate direct or "pin prick" missiles over a greater area. So in simple english that means skinny round go splat like bug."

So why doesn't anyone use ceramic as armor in the real world? Oh, right. Because it won't stop even modern APFSDS rounds.

Also, explain this new reactor technology? You can't just make up new types of nuclear power as you go along.

This is why you get pictures based on tanks, not make tanks based on pictures.

Do I need to get CSJ in here?

I don't know, German engineers thought two fourteen-inchers were feasable on one vehicle.



That tank was also supposed to be 1000 tons...

Mammoth Mk 5 A2 mounts 2 155mm cannons side-by-side, with an autocannon / MG power turret on top of the main turret and a THEL-alike laser PDS to the rear. Upgraded to a fusion reactor recently, rar. I think I said mass @ something like 210 tons.

A1-A2 upgrade disposed of an old gatling PDS [because the design was always a Mammoth / Overlord hybrid anyway] and the missile packs, because having explosives strapped to the side of your turret is never a brilliant idea.

That sounds feasible to me, GMC. Assuming it's 2020+ tech?

(ooc: well I had two design choices in mind. This one, which is basically a quad cannon tank, or a massive duel turret movable Anti-tank platform. This one is definately feasable. It is essentially two Artillary cannons mounted on a Huge tank turret, with smaller 120mm barrels beneith it. It is feasable, however would take rather long to load with only one loader, and thus a second loader was added. And FYI, each combination (200mm-120mm) is operated by a single gunner. So one gunner operates two cannons, the other operate the remaining two.

and 7000m range with artillary grade cannons is definatley feasable. And to fast? you call 18 mph fast? Infantry run faster then that lol)
Infantry don't run faster than 18mph. Do you even know how fast that is? Ok, let me explain:

18 miles per hour mean that they travel 18 miles in one hour. 60 / 18 = 3.75

Therefore your infantry run 1 mile in 3.75 minutes. So, you're telling me that your infantry, with full pack and equipment, can beat the best atheletes in the RL world, AND keep it up for more than 1 mile?

The artillery guns perhaps may be feasibleto have on the tank, but if you're trying to carry 8" ammo in that thing, for two guns, AND an additional two 120mm guns, you are not going to be able to carry enough ammo, even in a bigger vehicle.

Now as for the weight and speed, your tank is a little over twice the weight as an Abrams, yet has twice the 120mm armament and another 2 200mm guns. To give you an idea of how much more that will weigh, gun weights generally double for each 2" increase in calibre. Now, WWI tanks drove at about 4mph (it might even be kph, I cant remember), a standard infantry marching pace. Even with a more powerful engine, this could barely do that. As for double gunners and loaders, how are one gunner and one loader meant to service two guns at the same time, one of which uses a shell too heavy for a single man to lift?

As for that, why even have four guns? I could possibly understand two (one 200mm and one 120mm), but four is just useless, esspecially with your arrangement. The gun-under-gun system means that you can only use one of the guns at a time (as they are designed for different things, have different ranges and more importantly, need to be elevated at different angles to achieve a specific range), wasting a huge amount of space and a huge amount of weight.

Moreover, this tank will sink on anything but perfectly level ground (since your tracks are arranged in four 'pods', rather than all down each side).

In all, this thing is slightly scary, unless you actually think about it more than 5 seconds, but mostly just a very expensive waste of money; a vehicle trying to do two specialised roles and ending up just as a rubbish hybrid that can do neither. if you want to go ahead with this, then fine I'll shut up, but it's your loss, not mine.

That sounds feasible to me, GMC. Assuming it's 2020+ tech?

2070, ya.

I am quiet ashamed at some of the peoples responses in this Thread, this is a band new nation that is still learning the game and all i see is abuse and more abuse not actually trying to help... there are some nations here trying to help but some of you need to rethink what you have written.... We were all new once and we all need help.... Some of the nations in this thread should be ashamed.

I'm helping him. I am outlining his mistakes, and it should be fairly obvious from that as to how he should fix them. Simply letting him make a useless / godmodded vehicle just to have him ignored / ripped to shreds when he tries to RP with it is NOT helping.

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/c/ce/ceramics.html


scroll down... just below the table of contents you should see something interesting:

"...Boron carbide (B4C), which is used in some helicopter and tank armor..."

and jesus christ enough with the weight already. would you be happy if I added another 25 friggin tonnes???



also...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-intro.htm
scroll down about two thirds of the way...

"...Chobham spaced armor (ceramic blocks set in resin between layers of conventional armor) resolved the problem of protection versus mobility. A sophisticated fire control system provided main gun stabilization for shooting on the move and a precise laser range finder, thermal-imaging night sights, and a digital ballistic computer solved the gunnery problem, thus maximizing the utility of the 105-mm. main gun..."




NOw for a little home experiment. Take a peice of regular old bathroom ceramic tile. While leaving it attached to the wall (or whatever its on) Hit it really hard with a hammer. What happens? the Ceramic cracks, but stays together, spreading the blow over as much space as possible. Now take another peice of bathroom tile and shoot a 9mm bullet at it. What happens? same thing, and the bullet is left flat as a penny. Now imagine that bullet is your needle ammo. badabing badaboom. Now go away.

The weight should be 4 - 6 time sthat of an Abrams, equalling 240 - 360 tonnes. You dont need to be so rude, im not trying to destroy your creation, Im only trying to help yopu create something realistic.

As for the ceramics thing, I dont have a 9mm pistol, so i can't try it, but I dont really believe it. Ceramic armour has been known about and used for some time, but APFSDS is still the primary tank armour. If you're trying to say that your tank cannot be damaged by APFSDS, then sorry but no. That is on par with saying it is invlunerable, which it is not.

The only reason Chobham works is because it's layered into spaces, not because of the ceramic. Pure ceramic is less effective than Chobham. Chobham, an arrangement of metal plates, ceramic blocks and open space, is designed to stop the pressure and spalling. Pure ceramic is not better, otherwise the Abrams would have pure ceramic. And there's still the fact that you've got an insane amount of armor there, more than a battleship, and denser armor in fact.

EDIT: And I'm sorry if I'm being rude, but if they don't know about designing realistic stuff, they shouldn't make up powerplant systems, put on ridiculous amounts of armor and weapons, but then claim that they're superior to everyone else multiple times and refuse to yield to criticism.

And when I was a n00b, I did make unrealistic designs. But that stopped within a few days, and instead I bought stuff from more experienced people until I could figure out how to make my own realistic weapons.

Even if you decide to ignore all the arguments posted here, there's one thing you can't ignore..


The name is taken... by moi. :D

See Porosz for details on the Leviathan..

The weight should be 4 - 6 time sthat of an Abrams, equalling 240 - 360 tonnes. You dont need to be so rude, im not trying to destroy your creation, Im only trying to help yopu create something realistic.

As for the ceramics thing, I dont have a 9mm pistol, so i can't try it, but I dont really believe it. Ceramic armour has been known about and used for some time, but APFSDS is still the primary tank armour. If you're trying to say that your tank cannot be damaged by APFSDS, then sorry but no. That is on par with saying it is invlunerable, which it is not.


that post was directed at NE, sorry.

and I never said it was invunrable to it. It just doesnt take as much damage as conventional armor. So it can be killed, I never said it couldn't. I wasnt trying to be rude to you, Im jsut getting very annoyed with his constant nagging and whining. Im new, and I dont spend 24 hours a day trying to figure out how to build a real friggin tank. 9/10's of the stuff in these forums is not feasable in RL, but we let it slide for the sake of the game. This guy found a thread that said a tank was better then something he made, so he tore into it, and now everyone is following suit, because Im the new guy who doesnt know better. If it will make you feel bette, I shall re-arange the stats. Give me a few minutes. The NE, you can tear into the new stats and see what wou have to say then. :sniper:

Ehh... Right. There 500 other people before both of you that have used that name.

Ehh... Right. There 500 other people before both of you that have used that name.

meh... ok then.. :(

Buddy, I don't spend that much time designing NS weapons. I know you don't. And there are tanks superior to my M88. I'll admit that. But this was unfeasible. It's not that I hate you, or even dislike you. I'm sure you're a perfectly normal person in RL.

"This guy found a thread that said a tank was better then something he made, so he tore into it, and now everyone is following suit, because Im the new guy who doesnt know better."

Well, how could I not with the stats you were giving me? I wasn't even the first person to do so. People were already arguing about the costs before I got here. I bet if I hadn't posted, someone would have come along and done the same.

Ehh... Right. There 500 other people before both of you that have used that name.

Ummm what? If you are referring to the Nation name once it is created and the nation dies or be's deleted it can’t be reused by any one but the original creator....? So if u are referring to the Nation name there can only be one.

I was talking about Greenmanbry saying he had the rights to the name Leviathan.

This guy found a thread that said a tank was better then something he made, so he tore into it, and now everyone is following suit

(Actually, simply to be a smartass..6 people questioned aspects of it before New Empire arrived and gave a deeper argument about this tank. Also note that, while yes some things are atleast a little unfeasible in real life, things that lack any realism at all do catch hell.)

(DrTwist, he's referring to the name Leviathan being used for a tank.)

Nice try on your first tank but there are some real problems;

1) 200mm is almost an eight inch shell and moving that around the turret even with two people would be almost impossible. Remember it would have to be a two piece shell.

2) With proper ammunition the 120's would be deadly enough.

3) With the sheer size and weight, it's movement would be severly limited to certain locations in the world and make it a high priority target. One semi-armor piercing smart bomb, and you have one really big pile of scrap metal.

4) The technology for your naval reactors is not the same for a land based fusion reactor.

As a random note and to quote The King:

If you're going to build a land battleship, I sincerely hope you equip it with a point-defence system.

Hmm. I'd like to see you try to put a decent point defence system on a tank. Do you know how big CIWS guns are?

Not so big a postmodern supertank couldn't carry one [THELwank rather than a gun system], particularly once you start breaching the thousand-ton range.

I've been using automated 7.62mm machineguns or 20mm GLs with MM wave radar...

And Masamune Shirow? Sounds familiar... Who's he?

Somebody needs to invent the Bolo tanks and all the worlds tank industries are obsolete. :)

Hmm. I'd like to see you try to put a decent point defence system on a tank. Do you know how big CIWS guns are?

That's when you go about and mount something ala a defensive laser similar to the ones mounted on Chinese Type 98s.

Or you could go about attempting to make a less effective version CIWS with a format similar to this (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t72/t726.html). It'd fail with most, but might get something coming head on. Note the might

And Masamune Shirow? Sounds familiar... Who's he?

Tank-lovin' creator of Dominion Tank Police / Ghost in the Shell [among others].

*cough*

Yes... Tanks with self awareness heavier than a carrier zipping around on massive treads and antigrav pods with multimeter caliber guns that can shoot down space battleships. Not to mention the VLS cells, howitzers, unmanned vehicles, smaller hellbores, and the ability to withstand tacnukes.

Hell, if I were a future tech nation, I'd have them. But for modern tech... No.

That's when you go about and mount something ala a defensive laser similar to the ones mounted on Chinese Type 98s.

Or you could go about attempting to make a less effective version CIWS with a format similar to this (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t72/t726.html). It'd fail with most, but might get something coming head on. Note the might

What about TAMS?
http://www.jedsite.info/misc/tango/tams_series/tams-series.html

That's the basis for our PDS.

@ GMC:
Oh, right, him. Appleseed was cool, too.

That would indeed work and I may have to consider it for future vehicles.

*bows*

That's when you go about and mount something ala a defensive laser similar to the ones mounted on Chinese Type 98s.

Or you could go about attempting to make a less effective version CIWS with a format similar to this (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t72/t726.html). It'd fail with most, but might get something coming head on. Note the might
Laser point defence systems are useless even with ship-sized powerplants, sorry it's a no-go. THe best defence system for a tank is not to be targetted.

There, tank stats are updated. Now what you guys think?

oh, and they were saying the price was far to low, nothing ripping into the actuall tank.

Laser point defence systems are useless even with ship-sized powerplants, sorry it's a no-go. THe best defence system for a tank is not to be targetted.

Just to make sure, I'm not speaking of a laser capable of burning through metal, merely one powerful enough to take out sensors/guidance systems.

See here (http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type98.asp).

Laser point defence systems are useless even with ship-sized powerplants, sorry it's a no-go. THe best defence system for a tank is not to be targetted.

In modern terms, certainly [though General Dynamics' MTHEL is supposed to be fairly effective...According to their hype]. Postmodern with smaller high-energy powersources it could become feasible.

Actually, several were questioning your gun layout/loading and the weight/tracks.

But in any case, this seems much better. Although the armor does seem excessive (Perhaps lower it by 1/4-1/3? What do others think?), the speed reflects the high PSI this thing has well, and the armarment seems fine now.

In modern terms, certainly [though General Dynamics' MTHEL is supposed to be fairly effective...According to their hype]. Postmodern with smaller high-energy powersources it could become feasible.
Well, a QNFR would likely solve the problems of the trailer truck sized powerplant the MTHEL will use... But I'm going to keep lasers as AAD on dedicated vehicles rather than PDS for tanks for the time being.

comments on new stats...?

I'll take it 'they were saying the price was far to low' was directed towards me. Actually only one was situated on price, the others going between details involving the guns, the size, or in my case the nuclear reactor. Thus...nein.

To the revisions...I still dislike the fact that you've a nuclear reactor but I can manage.

Overall, other than the cost still pretty much a steal, it is deffinetly better/more realistic. You've corrected your mistakes a wee bit.

well is there anything else you suggest I do to make it more realistic? i cant find any other 200 tonne+ tanks around to get a price range

Well Well Well...
Where to begin... I guess I'll keep it short and sweet.

Earlier you compared an engagement between our M88 vs your Mammoth. You stated our needle weapon would not penetrate the ceramic armour... you related to a bullet against ceramic tile. Well, take that bullet and speed it upto Mach 7, then make the bullet out of Tungsten. Tell me what happens then? The bullet goes through the tile, through the floor, and into the cement of the basement. You respond by firing 4 cannons (in actuality you'd be out of our 8km engagement range. If you fired at 8km it would be very inaccurate due to the massive recoil..) when firing these Cannons, your crew inside suddenly turn to goo, sloshing around inside the turret as the Recoil jostles the turret from its ring. An Kanuck ATGM would be launched by the M88, smashing at mach 10 into the top of your tank. Of course assuming you put the same level of armour on top of your tank (stupidly) the ATGM still penetrates, liquidating your crew with Spalling. Now, because you have such heavy armour on top of your tank, you literally sink into the ground. Hoorah.

Your new design isn't bad, but theres no point to double barreled guns. The recoil is just horrendous.

Throw another can of gasoline into the fire, why don't you, Artitsa.

Jesus. Was that necessary?

Black, I'd say up the price a little. At the very least 30 million. This still seems rather cheap but...better.

My price concerns come for the reason that it is indeed a 200+ ton tank but more is the fact that it has a miniature nuclear reactor. I'd say consider the cost that a system like this would take, consider the reactor and supporting systems. I know we've not much to compare to but...yub. Then again, as NE mentioned, he and Scandanavian States have reactor-based tanks...go look at those...maybe.

Well Well Well...
Where to begin... I guess I'll keep it short and sweet.

Earlier you compared an engagement between our M88 vs your Mammoth. You stated our needle weapon would not penetrate the ceramic armour... you related to a bullet against ceramic tile. Well, take that bullet and speed it upto Mach 7, then make the bullet out of Tungsten. Tell me what happens then? The bullet goes through the tile, through the floor, and into the cement of the basement. You respond by firing 4 cannons (in actuality you'd be out of our 8km engagement range. If you fired at 8km it would be very inaccurate due to the massive recoil..) when firing these Cannons, your crew inside suddenly turn to goo, sloshing around inside the turret as the Recoil jostles the turret from its ring. An Kanuck ATGM would be launched by the M88, smashing at mach 10 into the top of your tank. Of course assuming you put the same level of armour on top of your tank (stupidly) the ATGM still penetrates, liquidating your crew with Spalling. Now, because you have such heavy armour on top of your tank, you literally sink into the ground. Hoorah.

Your new design isn't bad, but theres no point to double barreled guns. The recoil is just horrendous.


I never said anything about an engagment. and recoil? this bloody thing weighs 230 friggin tonnes! recoil? I think not.
and 8000 meter range? how do you get such a distance? (I dont ask this out of skeptisism, I ask out of curiosity, cause I would love for this thing to have a range of 8000 lol)

The recoil of a 120mm gun is around 107 tons.

The recoil of two of them and two 200mm guns would be massive.

price has been upped to $30.3B. Anything else?

The recoil of a 120mm gun is around 107 tons.

The recoil of two of them and two 200mm guns would be massive.

He doesn't have the 120mm guns anymore. More to the point, why would you ever be firing both guns at once rather than one at a time?

He stated earlier that hitting the tank with both guns at once was why he had two... But other than that, why else would 2 guns be better than one?

You wouldnt hit at the same time. At least not the same place and certainly not over any great range. Other than that it gives you a marginally increased rate of fire. It isnt really worth it, which is why I dont use double-gunned tanks.

He stated earlier that hitting the tank with both guns at once was why he had two... But other than that, why else would 2 guns be better than one?

I'm thinking more of the Overlord-style close one-two double gun salvo firing, with double-gun firing at the same time only against particularly tough targets. And hell, nothing wrong with having a tank that isn't perfect or is the product of theory which is wrong...Ain't right to have every weapon in your arsenal perfect anyway, IMAO.

He doesn't have the 120mm guns anymore. More to the point, why would you ever be firing both guns at once rather than one at a time?

Exactly. People usually take two guns on a tank as just that.. firing both weapons at the same target for maximum damage.

I don't think that's what dual main guns are for, New Empire. At least, not on the single tank I researched/produced that did have dual guns. Actually, in many tanks with dual guns, they are prevented from firing simultaneously to avoid damage caused to the systems from the recoil such firing would create.

However, with dual guns, you virutally halve the rate of fire of the tank as a whole. Instead of being able to knock out an Abrams with four direct hits in one minute, you would be able to knock it out (with four direct hits.. still) from two different guns in say... 30-40 seconds.

Someone might have other reasons for installing dual-guns on a tank. That reason is mine. I'm not saying it makes the tank stronger or more efficent.. It just maximizes the fire power if you engage in a pure land-warfare battle.

Damn.. Fast typers..

Uh, halving the ROF is bad. I assume you mean doubling it.

But has there ever been a dual gun MBT even planned? Not since the 1000 ton Ratte.

Let me put it this way: 1 gun means more ammo. Better ammo is superior to ROF against tanks, since you're putting more energy into one location. Unless the guns impact very closely to one another on the target, you're just wasting time. Overall, a gun/ammo system that can kill more quickly combined with an autoloader is much more efficient than two guns in terms of... Everything, except perhaps in taking down extremely large, fast, low flying aircraft.

But has there ever been a dual gun MBT even planned? Not since the 1000 ton Ratte.

As a sidenote, the T-28 and T-35 had multiple turrets [3 and 5, respectively] and there was an anti-air version of Maus with two flak 88s planned [which would have been pretty effective against tanks, too].

Let me put it this way: 1 gun means more ammo. Better ammo is superior to ROF against tanks, since you're putting more energy into one location. Unless the guns impact very closely to one another on the target, you're just wasting time. Overall, a gun/ammo system that can kill more quickly combined with an autoloader is much more efficient than two guns in terms of... Everything, except perhaps in taking down extremely large, fast, low flying aircraft.

To be more exact, 2 guns means you can fire the same amount of ammo twice as fast [noting the 1 gun tank / 2 gun tank scale difference you should be able to carry at very least the same amount of ammo for the same sized gun]. As a drawback, it means you empty your magazine twice as fast, hence double-gun tanks are likely to move behind MBTs rather than in front unless they're vastly larger [350-500 ton range] to accomodate large ammo loads.

Granted, the ability to fire fast isn't too useful on a modern battlefield, but in a Kursk-style engagement with huge tank forces on both sides [as is much more likely on NS than in real life] and with a decent support network behind it keeping it restocked, your double-gun tank is going to make a fair difference in combat, expecially when you're into visual-range combat.

"Granted, the ability to fire fast isn't too useful on a modern battlefield, but in a Kursk-style engagement with huge tank forces on both sides [as is much more likely on NS than in real life] and with a decent support network behind it keeping it restocked, your double-gun tank is going to make a fair difference in combat, expecially when you're into visual-range combat."

Then why not make a double turret tank? You can engage more targets, whereas a Mammoth has to engage targets virtually right next to eachother. Not to mention it increases survivabiliy.

Well, in a Kursk style situation, I'd most likely use artillery with EFP submunitions along with ATGM fire to soften them up, first, but a 2 turret tank would still work better... Hmm... Early model Bolo/Ogre, here I come!

Then why not make a double turret tank? You can engage more targets, whereas a Mammoth has to engage targets virtually right next to eachother. Not to mention it increases survivabiliy.

Well, in a Kursk style situation, I'd most likely use artillery with EFP submunitions along with ATGM fire to soften them up, first, but a 2 turret tank would still work better... Hmm... Early model Bolo/Ogre, here I come!

Well, the support systems for a second turret would probably eat into your ammo supply as well...Personally I know my nation's military would look into producing a faster tracking rate and improved fire control in the double than mounting two less armoured turrets that might interfere with each others' fire arcs and only allow you to bring one gun to bear from some angles, but that's probably a matter of how my military thinks versus how yours thinks. Hell, we still have a repeatedly-upgraded Sturmtiger in service as a superheavy tank destroyer.

Also, there is the issue of which would look better on the propaganda posters to consider as well...

Also, there is the issue of which would look better on the propaganda posters to consider as well...

Like I said, such tanks are more about looking cool then being the most effective tank for your buck.

I hate to be any more of a pain than the other but i have a question about the guns:
What exactly are you going to be shooting at with them? A big 8"er is going to have problems generating enough velocity to make APFSDS ammo worth while but then again a 8" HESH round or even basic HE would make a nice mess of most tanks. You would have an issue with range as you are aparrently using rather short barrels with out the ability to elevate them terribly far which would indicate a max range of soemthing in the 2-5km region, respectable enough agaisnt a M1A2 Abrams but agaisnt NS tanks you might be lacking...

Normally I would cosnider 200mm to be a bit big to be useful but as a dedicated line breaker designed to be used agaisnt bunkers etc they might find a niche.

Oh as for your ceramic tiles analogy its actually the wall behidn that absorbs the energy and spreads it out, the ceramics serve to break up the incoming round and absorb soem of the energy by breaking (also consider that that test would be carried out using basic FMJ ammo, not steel cored AP ammo). Ceramics are very fragile and if you based your entire armour scheme on purely ceramics the entire vehcile would crack into peices. All ceramics used in armor these days is used as part of a composite with the hard ceramic being on top of a softer long chain molecule woven material that absorbs the impact and stops the ceramic parts passing back into the armor. Chobanam is designed such that it uses the properties of all the materials involved to synergetic effect and in any heavy tank your base layer (ie the inside of the armor) is generally best amde of steel as it has the best blend of hardness and tensile strength, how you layer your composites, DU, spacing, alumina tubes etc on top of that is mroe or less upt to you.
Your current armor thickness isn't actually all that high for the frontal part of a tank. While msot govenrments are evry tight lipped as to the actual thickness of armor on in service tanks there are a couple of soruces that inidicate the front glacis of an abrams being about 800mm (31.5inchs) thick mind you a lot of that is actually empty or fluid filled space. A bit of a dodge if you can't see a way of figuring out an exact thickness of any particular section is to merely come up with what is known as an "effective thickness" ie how much protection your armor porvides measured in mms of RHA (or HHA) ie if your armour provided an effective rating of 900mm it would be the same as having 900mm of RHA on there. an Effective thickness can actually be more useful as it allows you to compare the armor to the penetration values of various weapons.

who says they cannot be elevated for increase distance? these are artillary grade cannons mind you....
Also, I had already cut the armor thickness in half. And to start the Ceramic did not make up my whole tank, merly three inches of it all over, covering 6 inches of Depleted Uranium, covering 13 inches of Titanium.

And artillery grade cannons aren't very good in terms of tank killing velocity that APFSDS uses.

Velocity>Caliber for anti armor cannon

Postmodern does give you magnetic accelerators [gauss and rail], ramjet guns and rockets to get high speed on large shells. Of course, get too fast and the front of the shell starts needing it's own heat shield...

Yes, but Blacktower is modern, not postmodern. If he is postmodern, none of his tech really reflects it.

Yes, but Blacktower is modern, not postmodern. If he is postmodern, none of his tech really reflects it.

Meh, all seems at least near-future from where I'm standing. Guess that's for him to say, tho.

who says they cannot be elevated for increase distance? these are artillary grade cannons mind you....
Also, I had already cut the armor thickness in half. And to start the Ceramic did not make up my whole tank, merly three inches of it all over, covering 6 inches of Depleted Uranium, covering 13 inches of Titanium.

Then state they are artillery guns, looking again at the picture you probably could get a semi decent degree of elavation, not any where near to sort of angle a dedicated SPG could acheive but still respectable say into the 40-50 degree region. Although saying that your bareels are still awefully short (unless you want to mention the barrel length).
No you didn't say that ceramic made up the entire tank but you did imply it as beign a wonder material all by itself.
As i said i don't really care about the exact make up i would suggest just forgetting the Xinch of A over Y inchs of B etc and jsut coem up with a semi decent scheme for yourself and merely supply a breif descriptor followed by soem effective thickness ratings. A decent combiantion armor scheme gnerally uses more than 3 layers anyway...

I Did not say your tank was bad, jsut restricted in it's usefulness, basically its a biggger heavier version of the german ww2 assault guns. On the open feild it will get own by smaller faster moving tanks with dedicated AT guns but in assault and defensive operations it will be a bit of beast.