NationStates Jolt Archive

Sharina's Trinity Industries has successfully developed the next generation of the Paragon, utilizing several new revolutionary features never seen in other main battle tanks, which should enable the Next Generation Paragon, or as it is officially termed Paragon-II, to compete with other modern tanks that are prevalent throughout the world.

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2014/paragoniia7oi.png

An early prototype of the Paragon-II MBT*.

Dimensions:

Length: 15 meters.
Width: 7 meters.
Height: 5 meters.
Weight: 75 tons.

Crew: 3.

1 Driver.
1 Gunnery Officer.
1 Technician / commander.

Power Plant Systems:

1. Bolom-II Pebblehead Nuclear Reactor. (Revolutionary Feature #1)

2. Trebonis Heavy Duty Hydrogen Fuel Cell generator.

Horsepower output: 25,000 per Bolom-II Pebblehead Nuclear Reactor and 2,000 per Trebonis generator.

Quantity: One Bolom-II Pebblehead Nuclear Reactor and one Trebonis generator.

Propulsion system:

(Revolutionary Feature #2)

The Paragon-II most striking feature is its completely re-designed propulsion system. It is the first main battle tank to do away with the standard caterpillar tank treads, and replace it with a much more versatile system which allows for unheard of mobility for armored vehicles.

The Paragon-II employs hovercraft technology used in most modern hovercraft, yet goes not one, not two, but three steps forward than conventional hovercraft.

First, it is the first heavy duty hovercraft chassis capable of mounting armor and weapon platforms on it.

Second, it is the first military vehicle to employ Sharina's newest advance, the electric-driven jet turbine. The electric jet turbine replaced the vulnerable and insufficient giant fan system, therefore enabling it to generate enough lifting power to allow for heavier loads not previously possible.

Third, it employs the latest in pebblehead nuclear technology. Sharina has managed to miniaturize the Bolom pebblehead reactor to the rough dimensions of 4 (Length) x 4 (Width) x 2 (Height) meters, hence the new Bolom-II miniaturized pebblehead reactor. The rear end of the tank houses the pebblehead reactor, therefore the extra length and width of the Paragon-II over the venerable Paragon-I. The nuclear reactor is extremely resistant to meltdown and castarophic failure compared to conventional nuclear reactors due to the nature of the pebblehead nuclear design. However, Sharina does not take any chances, therefore the tank's armor is considerably thicker around the nuclear reactor section compared to the rest of the hover-tank.

The hover-craft capability of this tank will provide it with the perfect all-terrain feature with extreme advantages over conventional tanks. It will be the first main battle tank to be able to travel through mud, swamps, sand dunes, and rivers. It is theoretically possible for the tank to travel over sea or ocean, provided the waves are not large or rough in excess of 2 to 3 meters tall. It would be possible for these tanks to cross the English Channel or the Bering Strait, but an Atlantic or Pacific crossing would be unlikely due to the extreme wave conditions.

In addition, the hovercraft technology employed eliminates the disadvantages of caterpillar treads, such as break-down in mud or sand, or vulnerability to land mines. The tank enjoys the speed of the wheel drive, along with the "all-terrain" of the caterpillar treads. The tank will not destroy roads or transportation infrastructure during its travelling, as its weight will be cushioned by air as in conventional hovercraft. Even when the tank is powered down, its entire bottom chassis will be resting on the ground, much more evenly distributing its weight than along two narrow tank treads that all conventional main battle tanks employ.

Maximum speeds:

80 kilometers per hour on flat terrain.
20 - 40 kilometers per hour in hilly and rough terrain. (Depending on severity and steepness of terrain)
60 kilometers per hour on bodies of water.
100 kilometers per hour at maximum speed on roads. (Higher speeds are un-tested)
60 kilometers per hour standard cruising speed (on flat terrain, water, and roads).

Weapons / Offense Power:

Main Weapon:

One Dual cannon turret:

The Paragon-I tested and true weapons systems have been upgraded in two areas, but most of its primary weapons systems have remained the same. The Paragon-II has upgraded from a 130mm to an enhanced 130mm cannon due to advances in shock absorption thanks to recently developed micro-hydraulics. The second significant upgrade is the replacement of machine guns with gatling guns to increase firepower, anti-armor capability, and the ability to engage any ground or airborne target.

The main weapon of the Paragon-II is a main turret that rotates 360 degrees, providing the capability to attack from any angle. The turret is capable of slanting upwards from -15 to 30 degrees from the horizontal axis, giving the Paragon the ability to attack airborne targets or targets on elevated surfaces like cliffs or mountains. This also allows the Paragon to attack from clifftops or inflict damage on targets below the Paragon.

The turret employs dual cannon armatures enclosed in one extra large barrel, to provide a multi-role attack capability. The two parts of the turret are as follows; a greatly reduced recoil in its 130mm ETC cannon, and 80mm Heavy Multi-Role Cannon.

One 130mm ETC cannon.

(Revolutionary Feature #3)

The ETC cannon is capable of firing smart rounds that have the ability to slightly alter course based on GPS targeting. This provides the cannon with much needed accuracy.

The upgraded cannon over the old Paragon-I 130mm ETC cannin is the addition of micro-hydraulics. The micro-hydraulics are concentrated in several points on the cannon barrel. The first concentration absorbs some of the recoil, then the next concentration absorbs some of the remaining recoil. The process repeats itself along the entire barrel and the five groupings of micro-hydraulics arranged inside the cannon barrel. This five-tiered recoil absorbent system should significantly reduce the recoil, making the recoil comparable to at least a 120mm ETC cannon or possibly even a 110mm ETC cannon. Most main battle tanks only have one or two recoil systems in place, while the Paragon-II has five.

One 80mm Heavy Multi-Role Cannon:

The other half of the dual cannon turret is essentially a cannon capable of firing all types of light and medium types of ammunition. Most common rounds the cannon fires is canister rounds, medium HEAT rounds, anti-personnel rounds, and anti-APC rounds.

Several types include:

Anti-personnel round.

This is a canister with dozens of small high velocity shrapnel projectiles inside. Once the canister hits its target, it bursts open, releasing a shrapnel-like storm of these small pellets, giving a new meaning to the word "Metalstorm". The pellets are usually comrpised of some hardened metal alloys such as tungsten, depleted uranium, or even lead. Lead is used to cause lead poisoning inside laceration wounds the infantry would suffer, further complicating recovery of these soldiers.

Anti-APC round.

The cannon fires a canister with several 50mm rounds with a pointed edge each inside the canister. This allows the Paragon to punch holes through APC's without expending its more valuable 130mm main ETC rounds.

High Explosive Grenade Round:

The grenade round is encased in a canister that resembles a Metalstorm round. It encloses several explosive rounds, either a group of grenades, C-4 pallets, chemical explosives, or various other high explosive shells. The canister is fired using Metalstorm technology, giving some advantanges such as quicker rates of fire, less muzzle flash, and no ejectable rounds. Upon impact, the canister burts open, and the explosives detonates.

Flourine Gas Round:

This is quickly becoming the standard throughout Sharina's ranks of Paragon-I and Paragon-II Armored divisions. Flourine gas has been recently added to Sharina's arsenal, as research tests have determined that Flourine gas has been able to damage the armor of other tanks. Flourine gas attacks the chemical and atomic bonds, sapping the strength of tough armor. Once the Flourine gas does its job, the targeted tank becomes easier for the 130mm ETC cannon to penetrate and do its job of disabling the target.

Several more rounds can be adapted to the Multi-Purpose cannon, either as a direct weapons round, or enclosed within a canister.

Secondary Weapons:

(Revolutionary Feature #4)

Three Chain-Storm Gatling gun turrets.

The three turrets, one front, one rear, and one on the secondary main turret, is equipped with Sharina's patented Chain-Storm gatling guns which employ centrifrugal technology and caseless rounds. This particular technology uses gravity and electronics to release projectiles efficiently, with fewer drawbacks than the metalstorm technology. The centrifugal technology allows the gatling guns to engage incoming infantry forces with lethality, while increasing projectile velocity and effectiveness.

The Chain-Storm, unlike its Xalis 20mm precedessor, is able to engage airborne targets such as attack heliocopters and limited CIWS defense aganist incoming missiles or bombs that are detected by sensors. Alternatively, the new gatling guns can lay down suppressing fire aganist jungle or forest canopies or any infantry rushes.

One Chain-Storm turret is mounted on the front of the Paragon-II's secondary turret (the top turret), while the other two turrets are mounted on its front and rear (not shown in the prototype picture) providing 360 degrees of cover overall. The advantage of mounting a single Gatling gun on the turret is to allow for increased firepower to cover a 360 degree field of fire. This allows anywhere on the tank to potentially be covered by two gatling guns at any given time. This boon is especially critical owing to the tank's rear enclosing the pebblehead power plant, a potentially prime target for missile or concentated anti-tank attacks. The concentration of a second gatling gun in the tank's front field of fire should serve as the extra boost required to punch through otherwise dense foliage or tough defended areas.

To employ the three Gatling guns with their increased firepower, ammunition requirements, and turret space, the Paragon-II sacrificed three systems that were on the original Paragon-I. The three systems were the anti-aircraft machine gun, TOW rocket batteries, and SLAMRAAM missiles. The gatling guns are capable of punching through heavier armor than the old 20mm Xalis machine guns, becoming able to do the duty of the TOW rocket batteries. The gatlings are capable of engaging attack heliocopters or airborne targets, doing the duty of the Xalis 20mm Anti-Aircraft machine gun. The gatlings can serve as limited CIWS duty similiar to those employed by naval vessels, which eliminates the need of SLAMRAAM missile last-ditch defenses.

Defense systems:

Valora-II Layered Armor.

(Revolutionary Feature #5)

The Valona-II is Sharina's successful attempt at improving the classic Valona-I armor blend, an effort that shall continue to provide excellent protection aganist most conventional weapons and collateral damage. The need for a heavier duty armor became readily apparent as the original Valona-I armor would not hold up aganist the increasing lethality of enemy heavy combat vehicles for a sustained period of time, much less a first strike attack. Therefore, Sharina engineers began designing and building the Valona-II, with some refinements gleaned from various foreign main battle tanks.

Trinity Industries engineers have discovered how to make the Valona-II armor scheme more efficient than its precedessor, eliminating the weak materials and reinforcing the best ones. The result is a more effective Valona armor scheme which provides protection just as good as the best main battle tanks.

The first layer is comprised of explosive reactive armor to reduce the effectiveness of HEAT warheads, one of the major tank-killer weapons. Whatever HEAT or other types of projectile penetrates the explosive reactive armor will have to deal with the newly invented tungsten-Chobham hybrid. This secondary layer of armor is an honeycomb of tungsten framing the Chobham, which combines two of the most successive armoring material into an extremely efficient blend. This should significantly reduce any major damage to the Paragon-II. The third layer, should the projectiles get that far, is comprised of ballistic ceramics which saps the strength of all types of weapon energy, drastically reducing the lethality or knocking power of the weapons. The fourth layer is concrete, which is implemented into the Paragon-II to greatly reduce, if not eliminate, all neutron radiation, rendering neutron bombs or weapons near-useless. The fifth layer is a solid titanium layer, to seperate the concrete and the final sixth layer. The sixth and final layer is a blend of rubber and kevlar which was designed to eliminate all shrapnel, remains of burned-out projectiles, shards, spall, and any chemical or biological weapon vapors from entering the insides of the tank through hull breaches.

It is estimated that the Paragon-II possesses roughly 2,200mm RHA equalivent on its front, 1,800mm RHA along its sides, and 3,000mm RHA along its rear surrounding the pebblehead nuclear reactor section.

Sensor systems:

The Paragon employs several sensor systems to increase its capacity to engage many different types of targets, while reducing the element of surprise from enemy stealth based weapons like aircraft or "stealth" tanks.

The Paragon is equipped with Radar, LIDAR, LADAR, and Infrared systems.

Miscellanous:

The Paragon's crew is able to survive for more than a week without any food or nurition supplies, thanks to the Trebonis back-up hydrogen fuel cell generator which acts as a secondary power source for the computer and sensor systems. The byproducts of the Trebonis generator is 100% pure drinkable water. This solves the logistics problem of water / liquid nourishment as the combat vehicles provide all the water the crew would need.

Human beings can survive for weeks without solid food nutrition but cannot live for more than a few days without water or liquid nourishment.

The Paragon employs full Nuclear / Biological / Chemical protection, and is much more radiation-proof thanks to the new concrete mix in its Valona-II armor scheme. Neutron and dirty bombs would be far less effective aganist the Paragon-II than aganist standard MBT's and the old Paragon-I.

Costs:

The Paragon-II costs substantially more money than the most expensive main battle tanks out there, considering the nature of its multiple new and cutting edge technologies such as a hovercraft ability, an electro-jet engine, a pebblehead nuclear plant, a revamped armor scheme, among other things. Each Paragon-II is expected to cost upwards of $30 million USD or more per tank, but the payoff is worth it, as the Paragon-II shall enjoy far more mobility than caterpillar drive based tanks are capable of.


------------------------------------------
*Small note:

Credit to goes Soviet Bloc for the drawing of the upper half of the Paragon-II as I used a picture template of his tank.

OOC:

It toom this long for SOMEONE ELSE to come up with the idea of using Hydrogen Fuel-Cells as a power source, even a back-up?! Man, and I thought I had it to myself. XD

Anywho...

IC:

Anagonia would like to congradulate Sharina on its new tank design. It is with great interest that we would like to look into this "Paragon-II" Tank. We, indeed, have a tank design of our own, bought from another Nation granted, but it has served us well. Anagonia would enjoy the benefits of another class of Main Battle Tank within our Military Capabilities.

Thank You,

Caster Oblivion
Minister of Foregin Affairs/Activities
Current Advisor to Head of Republic Senate

[OOC: Quite a few people have and the simple fact of the matter is that they arent very good as Verdant Archipelago so aptly states in this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403654

Anyway, the tank as a whole... well... a few points:

1) It's a hovercraft, which is horribly vulnerable, and doesnt work very well going up hills. I only know of one other person who has a hovertank, and that's because he has lots of thick snowy tundra that regular armoured vehicles sink into in the winter. Not really a good idea tbh.

2) Im not really sure about your nuclear reactor... I cant say Im an expert on nuclear reactors, but the smallest existing design I've ever seen was the size of a cargo container. Ie. bigger than your entire tank. You really shouldnt need a nuclear reactor in a tank, it will be extremely expensive (and I mean more expensive that it is now) and you arent able to turn off the engine in any practical sense. It's also practically impossible to safely refuel in the field.

3) I dont really see the point in the 80mm gun. The chaincannons can destroy APCs and other lightly armoured vehicles and infantry, and the 130mm gun can do everything else (including firing bigger HE-FRAG or canister rounds).

The only other thing you may want to consider is the sheer bulk of all the redundant secondary weapons you've put on this thing, but I know that others do that aswell so it isnt really a major thing.

I quite like the fact that this tank has gone some way to try to be original, and others may disagree with the points I've raised, but I think that the hovercraft element makes it way too vulnerable and I dont know if the nuclear reactor is actually possible.]

Hmm.

I appreciate your feedback, Praetonia.

First, I had the 80mm secondary cannon so that my tank could fire secondary rounds that my chain gatlings can't, like grenades, gas canisters, anti-personnel rounds, etc. over hills or obstacles that my gatlings can't get through, like walls or piles of debris in urban settings.

Second, I noticed that nobody had thought of blending hovercraft tech with tank tech- thus, I thought I'd go with it to give me more mobility for my tank aganist these uber-wonders out there. I'm going for "Doctrine: Mobility" aspect, and you gotta admit, having tanks cross rivers or the English Channel would rock, eh? :p

Third, I figured out with enough miniaturization, pebblehead nuclear reactors could be made small enough to fit in a bedroom- 4 meter x 4 meter x 2 meter should be roughly 15 feet by 15 feet by 6 1/2 feet if my calculations are correct. The nuclear reactor is needed to provide enough power to drive the hovercraft, as it cannot be done with fossil fuels- you'd run out of fossil fuels fast using an ordinary jet engine (even a low powered one), thus the need for an electro-jet that operates off electricty provided by the pebblehead reactor. That way I don't have to worry about needing 1,000 gallons of fuel every hour, the lots of fuel trucks, or having to have considerable space for fossil fuel storage/tank (no pun intended) within the tank.

Last point, I could try to compensate for the hovercraft's vulnerability by extending side-armor over the majority of the hovering apparatus like what is done with armor covering the caterpillar tank treads in today's tanks.

At least, these were the problems and issues I wanted to address and try to resolve. :)

Ok @ the 80mm cannon. That isnt the major problem with the design. The major problem is the hovercraft bit which is cool until you run over a small anti-personel mine and get your entire drive system blown away, which would happen, because a hover system doesnt make the tank exert 0 pressure on the ground, it makes it exert the same pressure over a wider area. Now even if the tank does weigh 65tons, which I would doubt considering the very heavy armament, armour and engine, that would trigger mines etc. It also means that a hit on the side could easily break the hovercraft's skirt and greatly reduce its speed and stablity. Not to mention the fact that firing a 130mm ETC gun would probably cause heavy damage to the hull due to recoil if not throw the thing backwards entirely...

I would probably be willing to accept the reactor because of the built-in vulnerabilities of the design, but you have to consider whether or not you want to spend so much money on something so very vulnerable even to its own firing system.

I must agree with Praetoria here. Unless you've got terrain which absolutely demands a hovertank, you'd do better with something else. Everything else about it is great, but hovertanks aren't that great. Contrary to popular beleif, hovertanks aren't invulnerable to mines-they still exert ground pressure and some mines are magnetic so they go off even if a tank's tread doesn't go directly over them. Combine that with the fact that he underside of a hovercraft is a less armored than that of a regular tank, and you've got yourself an achiles heel that's 15x7m.

If you're going for manueverability, which I wholeheartedly endorse, I'd look more at light tanks and armored cars. If you were to put your weapon systems and powerplant on a tank with 1/3 the armor this has, you could run circles around any enemy. And it might even be possible to airdrop it if you put money into building big enough helicopters. And it would be a lot less expensive.

Hmm... I figured the tank would be a little lighter without the heavy tank treads, the turbo diesel engine replaced by the electric driven jet engine, and the full volume / weight of all the fossil fuels "changed" into the weight of the pebblehead reactor. :confused:

Also wouldn't extending my tank's armor down a bit more reduce the risk of a side hit impacting the hover drive? A thin layer, just strong enough to stop shrapnel, rocks, and debris from exploding ground, angled projectile hits (they hit ground), etc. while not so much armor to increase 10 - 20 more tons to the tank? I've seen people do this with the classic caterpillar tanks- cover their tank treads with a "side-armor" (Is that the right word for that?).

I do plan on RP'ing these tanks as quite expensive- but the trade-off is more mobility like crossing swamps, deep rivers, muddy bogs, snow, or rough terrain that caterpillar tanks can't travel or manuever well in. My tanks would be able to do what the German tanks couldn't do in WW-II, reaching Moscow during winter, or directly assault England from France (travel over the English Channel). That'd be something nice, eh? :)

Getting rid of tracks would save weight, but adding massive fans adds an awful lot on. Combined with the fact that ti weighs the same as a modern MBT but has two heavy guns, one of which is considerably larger than anything on a RL MBT... It should weigh about 80 tons really. It does have advantages but the massive disadvantages including cost seem to nullify them in my mind.

Actually you may be able to solve some issues of the hovercraft thing by adding a few simple electrically driven wheels underneath.......

I can solve the minefield problem by simply having some mine-sweepers either clear out the area before my tanks come in (just like with any other MBT, really), or have the minesweepers escort my tanks into unknown terrain.

As for the weight, point taken.

Sileetris, thats pretty interesting. Any idea what type of wheels would be able to hold up a 65 - 80 ton chassis?

OOC: To add to the other concerns, you got /way/ too much armour at the rear, especially considering that you already got an engine at the rear. 3000mm RHA is already a bit too excessive (if they are all CE ratings, meaning ratings against HEAT warheads), and you should have the front armour several times as much as the rear, not 2/3 of it.

EDIT: Also additional criticisms. I don't know why you would put sonar onto it unless you are going to have it go underwater (and then you'll have to worry about it getting back up, and even then there isn't any point to it unless you somehow wants it to attack submarines), while I sincerely doubt the notion of using SQUID as a /practical/ military device for the detection of small land or air targets. It'd be like putting a magnet and saying that you have an effective method of detection just because it attracts certain metals.

With hovercraft, another complication is that it'll be pretty vulnerable to traps purposely designed to stall the ovement of such tanks, which may or may not involve mines. And then the advantages of the hovercraft is instantly void if you are really going to spend two times as much money just to have mine-clearing units to accompany the tanks so that their vulnerabilities wouldn't be exploited so badly. In addition, if you really insist on doing such, then you are completely nullifying one of the main advantages of tanks - mobility. Adding to this, currently by its looks the hovercraft looks as if the inflated portion can be just shredded by a heavy machine gun. And then boom, it's gone.

I can certainly understand the efforts being put into it, but while a hovertank can be unique, it isn't going to prove anything if it's just a pain in the head to actually operate as a weapon of combat.

Final note - Chobham is not a element, compound, alloy, or whatsoever, unlike how it is implied in the tank writeup of yours. It's more of a type of armour or combination of different materials designed for a tank, and is not really a material by itself. It can certainly include composites, ceramics, and tungsten, but Chobham isn't a part of it. I can understand the mistake however, given that there's too much instances where it is misunderstood.

To answer Omz's questions...

I included Sonar and Squid sensors on the Paragon-II so that it could be able to detect submarines whenever the Paragon-II crosses rivers or bodies of water similiar to the English Channel or the Bering Strait (or any small 10 - 100 mile wide water crossings).

The extra armor is employed to provide increased protection for the reactor. If it was an conventional reactor, then the armor would be much less, more along the lines of conventional main battle tank armor armor schemes. However, such an vital reactor requires considerably more protection- new battlefield thinking my nation is attempting IC'ly.

Point about traps are taken. However, how many nations have faced hovercraft based tanks in their past? What experience did they have fighting hovercraft tanks? None. Therefore it would take time for the enemy to devise effective traps, while I already have some counter-measures implemented.

Countermeasure 1: Minesweepers to clear out mines.

Countermeasure 2: There will be an extension of the armor over the rubber parts, exactly like there is an extension of the armor over conventional caterpillar treads in well-designed tanks. I've repeated this twice or so, I believe.

Countermeasure 3: I can clear out minefields or suspected booby-trapped areas with saturated artillery fire.

Basically countermeasures 1 and 3 are used with regular tanks anyway- regular tanks are just as suspectible to land mines. They have tank-mines and such in RL, so surely any sane nation would employ minesweepers or saturated artillery strikes aganist possible minefields, *no matter* whether the tanks they have are hovercraft or plain old caterpillar tank treads.

I included Sonar and Squid sensors on the Paragon-II so that it could be able to detect submarines whenever the Paragon-II crosses rivers or bodies of water similiar to the English Channel or the Bering Strait (or any small 10 - 100 mile wide water crossings).
Without getting into an essay on its ineffectiveness, I sincerely doubt that it'd have any effectiveness especially considering not only how much you've put into this tank (translating to limited space), but also that you won't have any way to actually attack the thing below you even if you've detected it thanks to some miracle. I don't know why you'd want to depoly a hovercraft tank in very deep waters in the open ocean, but another two implications are a) you most likely won't find a submarine in a river (I sincerely don't know why any sane captain would place a submarine in a river and expect it to attack or something) and b) detection of submarines using sonar in shallow waters is difficult in various aspects because of various reasons. That said, you'd also have to worry about how to deploy the sonar array without actually damaging it. Having it on the tank's belly will certainly damage it, and if the sonar array is actually towed, then a) it's just going to take up a lot of space without any benefits and b) the wire will break anyways when you are going at a high speed.
With the SQUID, once again, it's just as effective as if you get a piece of magnet and proclaim that you got a new targeting solution. It works in some aspects with scientific research, but military uses are an entirely different matter. If you really decides to put it on a tank, be my guest, but I can't find anything logical in that decision considering not only a) it'd be unable to detect anything anyways and that b) it is just a waste of space since a) already applies true if you do expect it to detect a tank 2km away.
And this is not taking into account of the fact that there simply isn't anything logical in giving tanks an anti-submarine role. I can't imagine why you would when you already have aircraft and actual vessels to do so. It'd be like expecting that you can fight tanks with your river gunboats and adding so much capability for it to do so when it isn't even fundamentally designed to do so, period.

The extra armor is employed to provide increased protection for the reactor. If it was an conventional reactor, then the armor would be much less, more along the lines of conventional main battle tank armor armor schemes. However, such an vital reactor requires considerably more protection- new battlefield thinking my nation is attempting IC'ly.
The problem isn't why you would have armour at the rear, but that given the spaces at the rear and other complications it's essentially an impossibility. If rear armouring can be as extensively deployed as armouring on the front, then we shouldn't see so many tanks (if not all tanks) having so little armour at their rear when compared to their front.

What experience did they have fighting hovercraft tanks? None.
Urm... If you really insist on defining experience as engaging in utter failures without using your head... but then people deploy new tactics and techniques for a purpose.

Therefore it would take time for the enemy to devise effective traps
I don't think it is that difficult at all. The reverse (deploying countermeasures to such traps on the tank) however, is more difficult if you take into account that the hovercraft tank already has the horrible disadvantage of being so easy to exploit from the start.

Countermeasure 2: There will be an extension of the armor over the rubber parts, exactly like there is an extension of the armor over conventional caterpillar treads in well-designed tanks. I've repeated this twice or so, I believe.
I'm talking about the bottom. Where nasty traps, obstacles, and mines will be present.

Countermeasure 3: I can clear out minefields or suspected booby-trapped areas with saturated artillery fire.
Point taken, but you can't rely on that every time, can you? With the same logic then we could just have armoured cars replacing mineblast-resistant APCs and expect that your artillery will be able to clear up the mines near that road and the village down there.

regular tanks are just as suspectible to land mines.
I don't think their bottom will be quite as much easy to damage.

whether the tanks they have are hovercraft or plain old caterpillar tank treads.
If you really insist on employing combat systems that has much of its advantages outweighted by its disadvantages though, when you already have a more effective method such as employing tanks utilizing tracks and is able to develop, deploy, and utilize them, it shouldn' be a problem unless you are mindful of appaling losses and miserable failures. Yes, hovertanks are unique, though sadly "uniqueness" does not equal "effective" in some, if many, instances. If developing huge gun-carrying barges as a replacement for battleships is what one calls unique, it sure is, though it's effectiveness will be laughable.

As for the sonar and squid, I thought they'd help in a small degree in detecting shallow water subs or midget subs like the Germans used in WW II. Once the subs were detected then the tanks would relay the location of the subs to nearby planes or such. However, should this prove too unreliable or impratical, I could remove the sonar and squid, then.

The problem isn't why you would have armour at the rear, but that given the spaces at the rear and other complications it's essentially an impossibility. If rear armouring can be as extensively deployed as armouring on the front, then we shouldn't see so many tanks (if not all tanks) having so little armour at their rear when compared to their front.

The nature of the reactor is such that it needs more protection than conventional reactors do. From what I recall, tanks have less space in the rear because of TOW launchers, fuel tanks (no pun), and the like, which this tank does not have.

In addition, necessity is the mother of invention and innovation, thus, such an endeavour would require a new re-thinking of armor schemes..

I'm talking about the bottom. Where nasty traps, obstacles, and mines will be present.

Yes this is true.

I can add a plow apparatus to clear out any debris, fences, barbed wire, or the like. Then employ sweepers or artillery to clear huge minefields or obviously mined passageways (like an approach to a fort). Should arillery not be available, then I could employ other anti-mining methods or efforts.

If you really insist on employing combat systems that has much of its advantages outweighted by its disadvantages though, when you already have a more effective method such as employing tanks utilizing tracks and is able to develop, deploy, and utilize them, it shouldn' be a problem unless you are mindful of appaling losses and miserable failures. Yes, hovertanks are unique, though sadly "uniqueness" does not equal "effective" in some, if many, instances. If developing huge gun-carrying barges as a replacement for battleships is what one calls unique, it sure is, though it's effectiveness will be laughable.

Actually, this tank is designed to go where conventional MBT's can't travel. Bogs, swamps, marshes, river crossings (not needing bridges or transport ships), heavy mud, snow, gritty sand dunes, etc. This should allow me to deploy my tanks in a new way, such as positioning them behind heavy mud pits, hull-down in swamps and bogs, or other unexpected areas. Then whenever the enemy tries to slog their way through such terrain, they'd be under fire. If they choose to bring in their MBT's, then these enemy MBT's would be hard pressed to engage in MBT vs MBT combat in such harsh terrain.

As for the sonar and squid, I thought they'd help in a small degree in detecting shallow water subs or midget subs like the Germans used in WW II. Once the subs were detected then the tanks would relay the location of the subs to nearby planes or such. However, should this prove too unreliable or impratical, I could remove the sonar and squid, then.
I'd make the tank more goal-centric (meaning, concenrating on specific purposes and objectives instead of being 'jack of all trades, master of none', which isn't a positive thing in this instance), and leave it outside of anything having to do with ground vehicles. I would use things such as aircraft and small vessels instead to do the job.


Actually, this tank is designed to go where conventional MBT's can't travel. Bogs, swamps, marshes, river crossings (not needing bridges or transport ships), heavy mud, snow, gritty sand dunes, etc. This should allow me to deploy my tanks in a new way, such as positioning them behind heavy mud pits, hull-down in swamps and bogs, or other unexpected areas. Then whenever the enemy tries to slog their way through such terrain, they'd be under fire. If they choose to bring in their MBT's, then these enemy MBT's would be hard pressed to engage in MBT vs MBT combat in such harsh terrain.
Again though, pretty much mobility is the only advantage of this, and while I can understand the intention, as a main battle tank that is to be used in large quantities and employed with a lot of responsibility in mind, a hovercraft tank is quite frankly far, far from an ideal solution. Hovering vehicles does have their uses, and perhaps you could design armoured vehicles based on hovercraft designs, but at the same time they are pretty much valuable only as specialized designs. You won't fight in such harsh terrain too many times, and in many instances where the terrain is relatively suitable for general ground combat, you have a huge disadvantage on your hand. A modern main battle tank, even taking your nation's doctrine into account, is designed with three factors: protection and armouring, firepower, and mobility. The middle factor is covered, but your tank suffers horribly in the first category, as even though the main hull itself is well-armoured, your inflated portion will leave the tank itself horribly vulnerable to not only tank-vs-tank combat, but also attacks by infantry and the threat posed by defensive obstacles and fortifications when you are on the offensive. The last one applies in some instances, but not in other instances. Therefore overall, it is overly obvious that a hovercraft design cannot fulfill all the three factors, thus it's easy to see why hovercraft designs is ill-suited for MBTs.
But since the fact about hovercraft MBTs and their difference in effectiveness when compared to tracked MBTs is already reiterated multiple times, I'll stop here for now.

I understand your points, Omz.

My nation is not one to go on the offensive, as in invading other nations willy-nilly like some NS nations do. My nation is probably 90% defensive and the other 10% would be counter-invasion should one be necessary.

So some of the problems that my hover-tank would face would be minimized if it was fighting in defense of my nation, as I'd know exactly where my minefields are, my fortifications and booby traps are, etc.

(I sincerely don't know why any sane captain would place a submarine in a river and expect it to attack or something)

This has very little to do with the argument, but a captain could put a diesel/electric in a river to sink a minesweeper. I read it in a Larry Bond book, where a German Type 206 u-boat entered the Thames river and sunk a minesweeper or two. It was pretty interesting, and although it's not a lot of damage, imagine the consequences when it comes to moral.


----------

In another note, Sharina, I respect that you're trying to make something unique. The problem with this is that a lot people who do this, like me sometimes, don't really understand everything there is to know with a certain technology. Consequently, the information we give out is skewed, and it probably won't work in real life.

Nonetheless, I find that this is how you learn the most. I, for example, learned a lot in the last two years, although a lot of was also because I'm studying to become an aeronautical engineer. Regardless, to probe, experiment, is the best way to become an expert on something.

So kodus on the design, even if in the end it doesn't work out how you wanted it to.

So some of the problems that my hover-tank would face would be minimized if it was fighting in defense of my nation, as I'd know exactly where my minefields are, my fortifications and booby traps are, etc.
The problem is that it is the reverse. Since hovertanks basically has the advantage in only firepower and mobility (again, the latter in some respects), if you put it on the defensive in many cases (though not all) its value in terms of mobility is further decreased, thus the only value you get out of it is firepower. At the same time, the second problem at hand is that, after all, you did classify this as a MBT, which isn't exactly a defensive-only platform. If you really intend this to be a defensive weapon though, I think that the MBT designation may be somewhat ill-suited, though I'm still much in doubt about the effectiveness of that on the defensive when compared to a tracked vehicle. Hovercraft may be more well-suited for specialized and/or amphibious platforms, but there's no benefit to having a hovercraft-based design when a tracked-design of the same purpose and role is clearly more effective (of course, if you design this thing with effectiveness in mind, which I assume you do but is not always the case). But then MBTs are neither specialized, really, nor are they designed explicitly with amphibious operations in mind.

I can respect uniqueness, but quite frankly, you can't expect effectiveness out of something that is clearly inferior in its intended roles when compared to other units of the same role that can achieve better results that are yet equally commonly available. There /are/ people who places effectiveness as a second priority of their list, but since you did put it in II and didn't specifically express what mindset you designed this with . . . . . I do personally think that the hovercraft-based nature is the major obstacle that prevents this from being truly a really effective design, frankly. There are certainly uniqueness and innovation, I can clearly see the efforts being put into this, and it certainly deserves recongition for not being one of those another M1A2 or T-90 copies (or an over-armoured combo of both), but . . . . .

This has very little to do with the argument, but a captain could put a diesel/electric in a river to sink a minesweeper. I read it in a Larry Bond book, where a German Type 206 u-boat entered the Thames river and sunk a minesweeper or two. It was pretty interesting, and although it's not a lot of damage, imagine the consequences when it comes to moral.
Well, I am too a reader of some of Larry Bond's work, and though I do not deny the possibility of submarines in rivers, having the sub in rivers only applies to specific circumstances and under normal circumstances I can't think why the captain would put his boat in a river where mobility is relatively limited and where on the attack it can be more easily pinpointed and destroyed by platforms such as aircraft. Morally it may pose a problem, but then there's also the point that the tank is not an ASW weapon and should not be even if it has the ability to house the required sensors (however effective it might be), and there's very few ways for such unit to actually /attack/ the sub anyways without resorting to things such as little bits of depth charges that will do little damage. In the end, its expense is not worth its performance.

UPDATE:

I increased the tonnage from 65 to 75 to make it more realistic.

I also removed Sonar and Squid from the sensor package that the Paragon-II employs as per your suggestion, Omz.

------------------------------------
To address your concerns...

This tank will be used in the environs where a standard MBT cannot operate. My nation in NS Earth is somewhat like RL China and Siberia. My landmass has considerable amounts of swampland, marshland, and jungle in its southern regions, a desert in its western region (like the Gobi Desert), and snowy tundra like Siberia in its northmost areas.

Should I create a Paragon-III with the exact same specifics, but replace the hovering aspect with caterpillar treads, then will it be OK to go? It could supplement my hover-tank.

Well, it's your choice, though I don't see how it will have more disadvantages than advantages if you do and it'd be interesting to see. I was just giving suggestions to hopefully help you to improve your unit's effectiveness if you desire so, anyways :p

Well, it's your choice, though I don't see how it will have more disadvantages than advantages if you do and it'd be interesting to see. I was just giving suggestions to hopefully help you to improve your unit's effectiveness if you desire so, anyways :p

I really appreciate your feedback and advice, Omz, as this is my third custom "equipment" project- my first two were the original Paragon-I tank and the Colossus Artillery platform from way back in X-mas.

I'm trying to think of new ideas and methods to incorporate into Sharina's equipment design as I enjoy being creative and my creativity is one of my strongest RL traits. I try to look at the "usual old classic stuff" and try to think how to make it different, or try a completely different approach like thinking out of the box.

I like to try to think and design things from the ground up, as if I was an actual weapons designer who is presented with a concept but given free hand how to make it happen. Its harder to think up original stuff if you base it off older designs or concepts, ya know?

Sadly, nations (talking about RL) have had far greater time and resources to invetigate tank design than you have, and so it's extremely unlikely that you'll come up with anything effective that isnt similar to a RL tank but with more weapons, heavier armour etc and lots of other stuff that RL nations dont have the cash for...

So, how does it overcome the inertia of a seventy-five ton object going a hundred kilometers an hour to, say, turn or stop? Lacking the nice friction that normal ground vehicles use to push off of the ground--which limits their speed but allows them to actually maneuver--what you have here is a pretty toy that goes really, really fast in a straight line but actual maneuver is a different story altogether.

Ever watch a puck on an air-hockey table? Notice how it coasts for a long time because it only has to deal with the friction of air slowing it down? Now, a little plastic puck massing a few grams and going maybe a few dozen kilometers an hour has a lot less momentum than this, and the friction due to drag won't keep up as that's a matter of surface area (although it's as aerodynamic as a brick). Note how when planes run out of fuel, drag doesn't force them down--gravity does.

This is the primary reason why the hovertank is generally a bad idea. It doesn't like to turn and the instant one starts talking about "electrically actuated wheels" one may as well not be bothering with the extra systems and extra points of failure introduced on these sorts of things. I'm sure maintenance technicians would absolutely love having these things in the shop, especially as the turbines take in dust and little pebbles that mung up the compressor and turbine blades. FOD is not fun... which happens to be why modern hovercraft use fans and props instead. They're much more forgiving to the average small rock than a delicate turbine engine.

[edit]

Second thought, just me being a nitpicking engineer: turbines produce thrust, not power. The 'power' produced by a turbine is wholly dependent on its velocity, which is a problem when finding equivalent shaft horsepowers (which is why they can only really be taken during periods of constant velocity like cruise and such). To be accurate, your tank doesn't produce horsepower; it should be producing pounds of thrust (in propulsive terms), especially as your primary powerplant produces electrical and not mechanical energy. Just information for ya.

Its harder to think up original stuff if you base it off older designs or concepts, ya know?

But that's exactly what a real-life designer does do. Look at the development history of any nation's armoured vehicles and you'll see an evolutionary progression as old, working components are kept even as new ones are tried out.

For example, the US M1A2 Abrams still mounts a .50 calibre M2HB machine gun that the crew's grandparents would be familiar with. The track design hasn't changed much since the M48 Patton from 1952.

Further, looking from, say, a British Chieftain to a modern Challenger you'll see a lot of features held over. Those are there because they work and have been proven; one need only look at the STRV-2000 or MBT-70 projects to see what happens when you try to build a tank from scratch from poorly-understood cutting-edge systems.

(sigh)

Every time I try to do something new or interesting, its not a feasible equipment.

I might as well surrender or roll over whenever someone invades me with their uber-stuff, then. :mad:

Hrm...

*Places überstuff in Sharina orbit*

Well... roll over? Hop you go!

On a more serious note, while it would be a rather trivial issue to place a (small) nuclear reactor in a tank, I'd note that until you're playing something completely insane (Like, say, not giving a damn about radioactive contamination because you have $Wank enabling you to not care 'bout it (Or are a horrible dystopia where radioactive contamination of citizens is considered acceptable), and yes, I do that. My nation's also completely insane, though), you're kinda risking a lot, in the cases when the reactor's hit by enemy fire. And the fallout isn't swallowed up by the ocean, either.

Oh, and I don't suppose that the thought of tanks moving out of fluoride clouds within seconds has crossed your mind, yes? And for the record, having worked with it, it works slowly and is not a means by which one can sucessfully weaken armour under battlefield conditions.

It remains a viable chemweapon against infantry, mind.

Hmm- Flourine gas for infantry, but what of flourine liquid to splatter on enemy armor? My 80mm secondary cannon (same armature as the 130mm cannon) can fire any multi-purpose rounds- canisters, grenades, explosives, or any round. The secondary cannon is designed to give my tank the ability to fire ANY kind of round and unparalleled weapons flexibility.

I put in the pebblehead reactor so that my tank will have the power it needs to move with electric turbines as a giant fan would be more vulnerable, stands out, and probably won't have enough power tp "push" a 75 ton platform as opposed to a light 10 ton frame like the swamp hovercraft in RL. I also use the pebblehead as I recall that it is far less likely to go up in a mushroom cloud, irradiate dozens of acres of land, and is much more resistant to damage.

I'm really trying to create something original, and a MBT that can pretty go anywhere that the NS ones can't go (like the uber-tanks of Soviet Bloc or Doomingsland). I want to try having tanks that can travel over swamps, marsh, rivers, or small sea crossings- Imagine the Germans having hovercraft tanks- then they'd be able to send their Panzers in formation from mainland France through the English Channel, to land on the British shores without need of transports as in D-Day.

Sure puts a whole new spin on tactics where I can pretty much engage any enemy invasion troop transports with these tanks, sinking hundreds of transports. Or if I need to do island hopping, I can employ these tanks to clear out Japanese type of island warfare. Or I could have these tanks dominate in mud, swamps, rice fields, etc. where NS tanks would be screwed or can't operate in.

To be honest, if NS players can create such uber stuff like 4,000mm RHA armor, invincible armor, 140mm ETC cannon, planes that fly and dog-fight at Mach 4+, build multi-million ton SD's, etc. then why is it such a stretch for a hovercraft based tank to exist?

I did not create this to be the best or most uber tank. All I'm trying to do is to create a fun and unique tank that will be enjoyable to RP with. If I wanted to create an uber-tank, I'd just rip off Soviet Bloc's specs or whatever. ;)

Hmm- Flourine gas for infantry, but what of flourine liquid to splatter on enemy armor?

Flourine is a gas at room temperature. It boils at 85 Kelvin, which is -188 Celsius. How would you keep it that cool, and how would you stop it vapourising instantly?

I also use the pebblehead as I recall that it is far less likely to go up in a mushroom cloud

No nuclear reactor would ever go up in a mushroom cloud. There's just not enough reactivity in reactor-grade material.

Imagine the Germans having hovercraft tanks- then they'd be able to send their Panzers in formation from mainland France through the English Channel, to land on the British shores without need of transports as in D-Day.

They would then run out of supplies because of the lack of aforesaid transports. And they would be more vulnerable to the mines, wooden stakes and steel tank traps on their landing beaches shredding their underside skirts and rendering them totally useless.

So what makes you think this will weigh only 75 tons when it's more heavily armed than an M1A1 and has a nuclear reactor along with associated parphelenia? Expecting other people to believe it only has 6 more tons of stuff is stretching the limits of credibility a bit.

The fundamental problem with existing designs is that a) "uberness" does have a limit. I certainly don't know you would RP with someone proclaiming how their armour is "invincible" or not, nor would I call "planes that dogfight at Mach 4" and still have the fancy switchblade wings and cool external armaments "good" in their design. It's better off trying to create an evolution of designs, each time adding something that is unique on a smaller scale, instead of - quite frankly - trying to inject an unique idea which isn't suitable in the start. Yes, it'll be able to operate on muddy fields and such, but is the advantage really worth the disadvantages?

Yes, some products does exist and they have succeeded (in various degrees) due to their design, but the problem still is that hovercraft-based ground vehicles in combat still has the vulnerability problem, especially if you put it in a MBT.

Flourine is a gas at room temperature. It boils at 85 Kelvin, which is -188 Celsius. How would you keep it that cool, and how would you stop it vapourising instantly?

Then what gas or liquid do you suggest that would be pretty reasonably effective at attacking the chemical and atomic bonds of tank armor? Something like acid or corrosion (not quite, but the general idea) to weaken the RHA of the enemy armor from like 2,000mm to maybe 1,500mm or something?

[QUOTE=GMC Military Arms]No nuclear reactor would ever go up in a mushroom cloud. There's just not enough reactivity in reactor-grade material.

Really? So what exactly does that mean should I keep my pebblehead nuclear reactor? What kinds of side-effects should happen should it be exposed or destroyed? Or will the side-effects be at a minimum?

They would then run out of supplies because of the lack of aforesaid transports. And they would be more vulnerable to the mines, wooden stakes and steel tank traps on their landing beaches shredding their underside skirts and rendering them totally useless.

Ahh- there's ways to clear out mines and obstacles. Artillery or naval bombardment.

Not only that, but the tanks could sit in the water, firing at the fortifications or machine gun nests, then that would allow the infantry to get ashore then start clearing out these "traps". The enemy navy would be sunk or badly damaged from swarms of hover-tanks in the English Channel, which should allow the troop transports to get through.

The fundamental problem with existing designs is that a) "uberness" does have a limit. I certainly don't know you would RP with someone proclaiming how their armour is "invincible" or not, nor would I call "planes that dogfight at Mach 4" and still have the fancy switchblade wings and cool external armaments "good" in their design. It's better off trying to create an evolution of designs, each time adding something that is unique on a smaller scale, instead of - quite frankly - trying to inject an unique idea which isn't suitable in the start. Yes, it'll be able to operate on muddy fields and such, but is the advantage really worth the disadvantages?

Yes, some products does exist and they have succeeded (in various degrees) due to their design, but the problem still is that hovercraft-based ground vehicles in combat still has the vulnerability problem, especially if you put it in a MBT.

I could devise mud traps to take full advantage of my hover ability.

For instance, I could make huge strips of sand or exposed soil into quicksand or deep muddy pits, which would gank up the enemy MBT's or heavy equipment, allowing my tanks to land many "free" hits or so to speak. The infantry can be dealt with by the gatling guns.

This adds a dimension of strategy and tactics by employing traps to slow down or "freeze" the enemy heavy equipment in their tracks, allowing for a rout through my hover tanks.

Then what gas or liquid do you suggest that would be pretty reasonably effective at attacking the chemical and atomic bonds of tank armor? Something like acid or corrosion (not quite, but the general idea) to weaken the RHA of the enemy armor from like 2,000mm to maybe 1,500mm or something?
In all honesty, I dont think there are any. GMC might know otherwise... but in any reasonable amount of time I dont think you can melt through tank armour.

Really? So what exactly does that mean should I keep my pebblehead nuclear reactor? What kinds of side-effects should happen should it be exposed or destroyed? Or will the side-effects be at a minimum?
It would spray extremely hot radioactive water in all directions, probably causing the reactor to explode in a conventional manner, which would then cover a reasonably sized area with radioactive dust.

Ahh- there's ways to clear out mines and obstacles. Artillery or naval bombardment.
All of which have been known about since before the First World War. Are mines obsolete? No. Do these always work with a 100% efficiency rating even in situations where they can be brought to bear? No.

Not only that, but the tanks could sit in the water, firing at the fortifications or machine gun nests, then that would allow the infantry to get ashore then start clearing out these "traps". The enemy navy would be sunk or badly damaged from swarms of hover-tanks in the English Channel, which should allow the troop transports to get through.
And the fortifications would fire back... one hit to the skirt and the tank will lose the lift necessary to keep it from sinking... not only that but the tanks wouldnt stand a chance against the enemy navy and, although they might be able to evade that navy's fire (at least in WWII), they wouldnt do it any damage and wouldnt be able to shoot with any accuracy whilst doing that. You can just put tanks into transports... much cheaper and less vulnerable.

So what makes you think this will weigh only 75 tons when it's more heavily armed than an M1A1 and has a nuclear reactor along with associated parphelenia? Expecting other people to believe it only has 6 more tons of stuff is stretching the limits of credibility a bit.

Actually, the way I see it...

Tank Treads + Fuel Tanks (no pun) + Diesel / Electric Engine of conventional caterpillar driven tanks.

My Hovertank doesn't have fuel tanks or tank treads. That means it doesn't have the weight of these heavy parts (say 10 tons or so). The weight is actually "transferred" into the power plant (a 10 ton power plant). The diesel / electric engine is replaced by the electric turbine engine.

So the weight evens out.

Actually, the way I see it...

Tank Treads + Fuel Tanks (no pun) + Diesel / Electric Engine of conventional caterpillar driven tanks.

My Hovertank doesn't have fuel tanks or tank treads. That means it doesn't have the weight of these heavy parts (say 10 tons or so). The weight is actually "transferred" into the power plant (a 10 ton power plant). The diesel / electric engine is replaced by the electric turbine engine.

So the weight evens out.
...but what you do have is 3 chaincannon turrets, an additional 80mm ETC cannon and a 130mm ETC cannon. That will add about 20 tonnes to the weight of an Abrams. Then you have twice the armour. I honestly dont know how much the engines would weigh relative to each other, but all the extraguns and armour you have will push it up.

Then what gas or liquid do you suggest that would be pretty reasonably effective at attacking the chemical and atomic bonds of tank armor? Something like acid or corrosion (not quite, but the general idea) to weaken the RHA of the enemy armor from like 2,000mm to maybe 1,500mm or something?

There's none. Corrosives act slowly, are difficult to handle, couldn't be relied on to burn through extremely stable tank armour without being so strong as to burn out of the shell holding them, and would require ridiculous accuracy against a totally stationary target, since you'd essentially have to hit the exact same spot twice.

Really? So what exactly does that mean should I keep my pebblehead nuclear reactor? What kinds of side-effects should happen should it be exposed or destroyed? Or will the side-effects be at a minimum?

Relatively minimal. Large bang, some scattered radioactive debris in the immediate vicinity.

Ahh- there's ways to clear out mines and obstacles. Artillery or naval bombardment.

Right, so you need a naval battlegroup in place [i]anyway before your tanks can land, thus defeating the whole object of being able to land without a naval group? And while you're at it, you need complete control of the air and sea in order to stage this attack, even though if you recall the Germans could not achieve air superioirity over Britain.

Not only that, but the tanks could sit in the water, firing at the fortifications or machine gun nests, then that would allow the infantry to get ashore then start clearing out these "traps".

What infantry? You have no transport ships, remember? And also, the infantry are vulnerable to those same traps and buried obstacles. Your tanks would be bobbing around, playing target for shore batteries they couldn't touch.

The enemy navy would be sunk or badly damaged from swarms of hover-tanks in the English Channel, which should allow the troop transports to get through.

MBTs versus battleships? ROFL! You wouldn't even scratch their paint!

In all honesty, I dont think there are any. GMC might know otherwise... but in any reasonable amount of time I dont think you can melt through tank armour.

Understood. I do recall that Schultaria Prime uses similiar methods to weaken tank armor, I believe.

It would spray extremely hot radioactive water in all directions, probably causing the reactor to explode in a conventional manner, which would then cover a reasonably sized area with radioactive dust.

I recall in another arguement that radiation isn't that destructive from nuclear weapons. It can simply be cleaned up and put elsewhere. I believe that the radiation and "OMG! Unhabitable" thing was discussed by me and either GMC or Der Angst in a WMD thread somewhere, can't remember where.

All of which have been known about since before the First World War. Are mines obsolete? No. Do these always work with a 100% efficiency rating even in situations where they can be brought to bear? No.

Yes- I was only proposing solutions to GMC's question / situation. Do they have to be 100% effective? Nope. Even a 50% effectiveness would be wonderful- 50% of the mines are eliminated, which means that 2x more of hover-tanks will survive. Thats a good number in my opinion.

And the fortifications would fire back... one hit to the skirt and the tank will lose the lift necessary to keep it from sinking... not only that but the tanks wouldnt stand a chance against the enemy navy and, although they might be able to evade that navy's fire (at least in WWII), they wouldnt do it any damage and wouldnt be able to shoot with any accuracy whilst doing that. You can just put tanks into transports... much cheaper and less vulnerable.

Ah- but transports can be 1-hit as well, and they aren't as fast or manueverable as an hovercraft. The tanks are vulnerable during the deploying phase where they leave the transports into the water or the beach. Look at D-Day- plenty of tanks got screwed over doing that under fire. With the hover-tanks, there's a good chance that they will be able to get to the shore in a "rush" if need be, not needing precious minutes under fire to go from the transport, slog through 1 - 4 feet deep water, then onto soggy or wet sand (while the enemy forts or such are firing upon the tank and its transport).

As for the Navy- Probably no damage to battleships, but they can do damage to destroyers and the light naval vessels. Or they could harass enemy supply ships or troop transports. This would tie up some naval assets that would otherwise be focused on bombardment or attack "my" troop transports.

I recall in another arguement that radiation isn't that destructive from nuclear weapons. It can simply be cleaned up and put elsewhere. I believe that the radiation and "OMG! Unhabitable" thing was discussed by me and either GMC or Der Angst in a WMD thread somewhere, can't remember where.
The radiation wont last very long or go very far but it will kill / seriously injure any nearby infantry, as will the superheated water.

Yes- I was only proposing solutions to GMC's question / situation. Do they have to be 100% effective? Nope. Even a 50% effectiveness would be wonderful- 50% of the mines are eliminated, which means that 2x more of hover-tanks will survive. Thats a good number in my opinion.
Not necessarily... if your enemy lays 1000 mines over a reasonably sized area (quite possible) and you destroy 500, then they could easily destroy any reasonably sized number of tanks that you seek to put across that ground. The problem isnt that mines will exist (mines exist anyway and damage normal tanks aswell), the problem is that when a conventional tank is hit bya mine most of the time it sheds a track which then needs to be replaced, whereas if a hovertank is hit by a mine then you lose your entire drive system, you incur heavy damage from the shock of it crashing suddenly into the ground and you then have to take the thing back well behind the lines and rip out and replace the entire drive system.

Ah- but transports can be 1-hit as well, and they aren't as fast or manueverable as an hovercraft.
Yes, but transports dont cost $30m, not do they?

The tanks are vulnerable during the deploying phase where they leave the transports into the water or the beach. Look at D-Day- plenty of tanks got screwed over doing that under fire.
The tanks that did badly on D-day were the "floating tanks" - the ones deployed directly from transports did very well. They dont need to "deploy", they just roll off.

With the hover-tanks, there's a good chance that they will be able to get to the shore in a "rush" if need be, not needing precious minutes under fire to go from the transport, slog through 1 - 4 feet deep water, then onto soggy or wet sand (while the enemy forts or such are firing upon the tank and its transport).
A conventional tank can fire just as well in water (within reason, obviously), and you can afford 3 for the price of 1 nuclear powered hovertank which is actually more vulnerable to enemy fire than a conventional tank once it's rolled onto the beach.

As for the Navy- Probably no damage to battleships, but they can do damage to destroyers and the light naval vessels. Or they could harass enemy supply ships or troop transports. This would tie up some naval assets that would otherwise be focused on bombardment or attack "my" troop transports.
Why would the enemy have supply ships in the middle of a battle? Why would they attack a landing with destroyers? Why would they have troop transprots during an ivnasion of their land?

There's none. Corrosives act slowly, are difficult to handle, couldn't be relied on to burn through extremely stable tank armour without being so strong as to burn out of the shell holding them, and would require ridiculous accuracy against a totally stationary target, since you'd essentially have to hit the exact same spot twice.

Okay- so I will still use flourine gas aganist infantry, snipers, and urban warfare then.

Relatively minimal. Large bang, some scattered radioactive debris in the immediate vicinity.

Conventional tanks are dead should their diesel engines be ruined- they won't be able to go anywhere. Ditto for pebblehead reactors- if pebbleheads weren't much safer and tougher than conventional nuclear reactors, then what reason would there be for RL or NS to use pebbleheads then?

The only fundamental difference here is that instead of flaming oil splattered across the terrain, we have radiation particles that can be easily cleaned up according to the radiation debate that went on on another thread (as I posted to Praetonia in the post above this).

Right, so you need a naval battlegroup in place [i]anyway before your tanks can land, thus defeating the whole object of being able to land without a naval group? And while you're at it, you need complete control of the air and sea in order to stage this attack, even though if you recall the Germans could not achieve air superioirity over Britain.

Yes- but the tanks will not have to deal with being stuck inside naval transports then get screwed over like they were in D-Day trying to land on beaches under fire.

The Germans failed to achieve air superiority over Britain because of poor planning. If I was Hitler or Hermann Goering, I'd play "decoy" games, in which I'd draw out the RAF fighters over the English Channel and destroy them out of range of British flak guns on the mainland. I'd be "enticing" the British RAF fighters out by bombing British naval assets in the English Channel.

Then once the British RAF fighters are all smashed up, then I'd replenish my bombers and fighter fuel then go right back out, and if there are no RAF fighters meeting me over the English Channel, I'd go after the first lines of defense and hammer them. I won't go for London or prime cities at first because of high casaulties if the flak guns along the coast aren't cleared out first.

What infantry? You have no transport ships, remember? And also, the infantry are vulnerable to those same traps and buried obstacles. Your tanks would be bobbing around, playing target for shore batteries they couldn't touch.

Infantry can move wooden spikes out of the way. They can cut up big steel thingys. Or in worse case scenario, the hover-tanks could put on a plow to clear out debris. I do remember that this was done by the Allies in their operations aganist Fortress Europe- D-Day and the hedge-grow country (mash down the hedges with plows).

The infantry could either follow in hover-transports or mount the tanks like firemen or trashmen. Risky, I know, but without risks, there cannot be great pay-offs or gains.

MBTs versus battleships? ROFL! You wouldn't even scratch their paint!

I have said that they won't damage battleships, but instead go after destroyers, light naval assets, troop transports, supply barges, etc.

Should the hover-tanks engage the enemy navy, it will tie up the enemy navy, distracting some ships that would otherwise be bombing the land or the invasion itself.

[OOC: Did you ask SB to use his tank? If he says no, your in copyright breach even if you posted credit..]

The Germans failed to achieve air superiority over Britain because /snip

And because the RAF wouldn't wise up to this?

OOC:

So, um....I take it I won't be able to buy anything? Really? Wow....I mean, I really wanted to buy Private Production Rights to this Hovertank, so I could have the origional verson or just create a Future-Tech verson. You know? But, of course, I could have just bought it with Private Production Rights.

Sadly, however, it seems unlikely. Even as I am interested in this, its a touchy subject.

But, Really, Sharina.......I'll still buy it for my MT Military, or even FT. I mean, we can discuss the terms ICly, because I see potential here. :D

Ah- but transports can be 1-hit as well, and they aren't as fast or manueverable as an hovercraft. The tanks are vulnerable during the deploying phase where they leave the transports into the water or the beach. Look at D-Day- plenty of tanks got screwed over doing that under fire. With the hover-tanks, there's a good chance that they will be able to get to the shore in a "rush" if need be, not needing precious minutes under fire to go from the transport, slog through 1 - 4 feet deep water, then onto soggy or wet sand (while the enemy forts or such are firing upon the tank and its transport).


I have to correct this. The only beach where armor really suffered high losses was Omaha Beach, and that was because all of the tanks sunk before they got make it to the beach, because they were dropped to early due to natural impediments to the landing craft - and the sand was far too soft for their deployment on Omaha. It has nothing to do with their ability to deploy and such - hell, the Germans [or more accurately, the Poles and Russians; who were manning the defenses] didn't have much in the way of anti-tank ordnance, except for the heavy artillery pummelling the beaches.

The radiation wont last very long or go very far but it will kill / seriously injure any nearby infantry, as will the superheated water.

That is a risk I'm willing to take. The same could be said for burning and exploding tanks like Shermans during WW II (by ammo cooking off and stuff).

Not necessarily... if your enemy lays 1000 mines over a reasonably sized area (quite possible) and you destroy 500, then they could easily destroy any reasonably sized number of tanks that you seek to put across that ground. The problem isnt that mines will exist (mines exist anyway and damage normal tanks aswell), the problem is that when a conventional tank is hit bya mine most of the time it sheds a track which then needs to be replaced, whereas if a hovertank is hit by a mine then you lose your entire drive system, you incur heavy damage from the shock of it crashing suddenly into the ground and you then have to take the thing back well behind the lines and rip out and replace the entire drive system.

I realize that. One possible solution is to employ wheels under the tank like Sileetris suggested. This would help the tank be hauled back should it be disabled.

Under combat conditions, a conventional tank with blown treads is just as dead as a hover-tank with blown dirve systems. They'd both be sitting ducks for concentrated fire.

Yes, but transports dont cost $30m, not do they?

True- but these transports won't be able to do what the hover-tanks can do, like going overland for example. Adding new features or abilities means more money, obviously.

The tanks that did badly on D-day were the "floating tanks" - the ones deployed directly from transports did very well. They dont need to "deploy", they just roll off.

I realize that. These tanks would be just as vulnerable as hovertanks if they are hit during the deployment phase. A shell into transport during deployment means the tank will either roll over (from impact), get stuck amid the shredded metal of the transport, or sink into the water or wet muddy sand.

A conventional tank can fire just as well in water (within reason, obviously), and you can afford 3 for the price of 1 nuclear powered hovertank which is actually more vulnerable to enemy fire than a conventional tank once it's rolled onto the beach.

What of the tank sinking into the muddy bottom? Firing while in mud isn't exactly the best thing to do either. It'd make the tank stuck even more, something that hovertanks don't have to deal with (the mud and getting stuck in it, I mean).

Why would the enemy have supply ships in the middle of a battle? Why would they attack a landing with destroyers? Why would they have troop transprots during an ivnasion of their land?

Supply ships = replenish ship ammo.

Destroyers = Light suppression fire aganist invading troop transports or anti-sub warfare.

Troop transports = Either during enemy invasion or counter-invasion. The hover-tanks attack those should the nation with the hover-tanks (me for example) be invaded.

[OOC: Did you ask SB to use his tank? If he says no, your in copyright breach even if you posted credit..]

I didn't use anything of his, only the picture (and I gave him full credit for the part of tank that uses his picture). The only reason I used his picture because his was the only one that I could find that could mesh into paintshop. I can't draw worth a squat, like what I explained in my "Sharina needs schematic pictures" thread from a few weeks ago.

And because the RAF wouldn't wise up to this?

They would have to send fighters to protect their navy being bombed in the English Channel anyway.

That is a risk I'm willing to take. The same could be said for burning and exploding tanks like Shermans during WW II (by ammo cooking off and stuff).
That would kill infantry standing right next to the tank. An exploding nuclear reactor would cause radiation sickness over maybe a 1km radius?

I realize that. One possible solution is to employ wheels under the tank like Sileetris suggested. This would help the tank be hauled back should it be disabled.
Which defeats the object of making a hovertank and adds an awful lot of dead weight, as well as the (high) chance that a large number of these wheels will be blown away by the blast.

Under combat conditions, a conventional tank with blown treads is just as dead as a hover-tank with blown dirve systems. They'd both be sitting ducks for concentrated fire.
A conventional tank with its tracks blown cant move until it gets a replacement track. A hovertank with its skirt blown smashes into the ground and then needs it's entire drive system replaced.

True- but these transports won't be able to do what the hover-tanks can do, like going overland for example. Adding new features or abilities means more money, obviously.
...

Transports deposit conventional tanks, which can go overland. You could buy 3 good tanks for the cost of one nuclear hovercraft tank and the transport will cost practically nothing ($100,000s).

I realize that. These tanks would be just as vulnerable as hovertanks if they are hit during the deployment phase. A shell into transport during deployment means the tank will either roll over (from impact), get stuck amid the shredded metal of the transport, or sink into the water or wet muddy sand.
What "deployment phase"? The ramp drops and the tank rolls out of the transport... no "deployment phase".

What of the tank sinking into the muddy bottom? Firing while in mud isn't exactly the best thing to do either. It'd make the tank stuck even more, something that hovertanks don't have to deal with (the mud and getting stuck in it, I mean).
As I remember, no tanks got stuck in mud on D-Day. A couple sunk, but that was because they were launched a few miles from the shore, not deployed directly from transports. And firing whilst in mud is no different to firing when not in mud.

Supply ships = replenish ship ammo.
Ships replenishing ammunition in the middle of a battle? No...

Destroyers = Light suppression fire aganist invading troop transports or anti-sub warfare.
Destroyers in the modern context = long range missile attacks against air or surface targets. They wouldnt go in range of a tank gun.

Troop transports = Either during enemy invasion or counter-invasion. The hover-tanks attack those should the nation with the hover-tanks (me for example) be invaded.
Wth? Nations launching counter invasions whilst being invaded themselves? No, no, no.

As I remember, no tanks got stuck in mud on D-Day. A couple sunk, but that was because they were launched a few miles from the shore, not deployed directly from transports. And firing whilst in mud is no different to firing when not in mud.


Nine Duplex Drive tanks sunk because they were let out too far away from the coast. There was a sand bar which hadn't been noticed by the frogmen who had studied Omaha before the landings, and it caused everything to be dropped a mile off the actual beach, including the infantry. That's one of the principle reasons Omaha went as badly as it did - if it wasn't for the airborne that landed the night before, and the Rangers at Point du Hoc, Omaha was a lost venture.

I didn't use anything of his, only the picture (and I gave him full credit for the part of tank that uses his picture)..

Yes but you still need his official permission to use it as it his personal work. Not that i think he'll mind, just a future note.

That would kill infantry standing right next to the tank. An exploding nuclear reactor would cause radiation sickness over maybe a 1km radius?

Understood. I could migitate this problem by having my infantry follow up behind the tanks at a safe distance of 5 kilometers or so.

Which defeats the object of making a hovertank and adds an awful lot of dead weight, as well as the (high) chance that a large number of these wheels will be blown away by the blast.

Okay. I just wanted to post that solution seeing that a technical guy, Sileetris, posted it. He has developed quite a few interesting technical stuff, so I thought his suggestion would make sense. :confused:

A conventional tank with its tracks blown cant move until it gets a replacement track. A hovertank with its skirt blown smashes into the ground and then needs it's entire drive system replaced.

Yes- but how can the conventional tank get its tracks repaired under combat conditions or if it is under fire? Not likely. Once the battle moves on (the fighting moves off 10+ kilometers away), then there would be ample time to repair either conventional tanks or hover-tanks.


What "deployment phase"? The ramp drops and the tank rolls out of the transport... no "deployment phase".

What I'm referring to is when during this "ramp-down" phase, the transport is hit by a shell, or the shell lands right on the ramp, destroying it. Those things *can* happen.

As I remember, no tanks got stuck in mud on D-Day. A couple sunk, but that was because they were launched a few miles from the shore, not deployed directly from transports. And firing whilst in mud is no different to firing when not in mud.

I disagree. Firing in mud would push the tank deeper into the mud as the stresses of the firing would exert force upon the ground, I believe. Newton's Law of Physics. The force exerted would make it sink deeper into the mud.

Ships replenishing ammunition in the middle of a battle? No...

What if the ships run out of ammo? Then what? Do they have to wait until after battle to be re-stocked on ammo? If so, this would mean these ammo depleted ships would be sitting ducks that can't fight back.

Destroyers in the modern context = long range missile attacks against air or surface targets. They wouldnt go in range of a tank gun.

I was referring to WW II type of destroyers attacking transports or engage in anti-sub warfare.

As for modern day destroyers, they'd still be vulnerable if they are stuck in a body of water such as the English Channel or Bering Straits. Coastlines would be anywhere between 10 - 50 miles off from the destroyer, and the hovercraft can potentially go faster than the fastest destroyer. I read somewhere that the British hovercraft ferry can go 60 MPH in the English Channel, while the fastest hydrofoil destroyers would go somewhere like 40 or 45 MPH.


Wth? Nations launching counter invasions whilst being invaded themselves? No, no, no.

No, I meant that my hovercraft tanks can destroy troop transports should the enemy be the aggressor and invade me. I wasn't referring to the enemy invading me while I invade him. I was referring to the enemy invading me first (or if the enemy repels my invasion then decides to counter-invade me in return).

Understood. I could migitate this problem by having my infantry follow up behind the tanks at a safe distance of 5 kilometers or so.
If you want, but that removes any real ability for your tanks to support your infantry.

Okay. I just wanted to post that solution seeing that a technical guy, Sileetris, posted it. He has developed quite a few interesting technical stuff, so I thought his suggestion would make sense. :confused:
It makes sense, it's jsut that you may as well just make a tracked tank if yuo're going to add wheels, drive systems etc.

Yes- but how can the conventional tank get its tracks repaired under combat conditions or if it is under fire? Not likely. Once the battle moves on (the fighting moves off 10+ kilometers away), then there would be ample time to repair either conventional tanks or hover-tanks.
Obviously it cant under fire, but the crew can replace sections of tracks within a few hours and have done so in the world wars. A mine would destroy your fans on a hovertank and the entire drive system would effectively have to be rebuilt, which will take days - weeks and will have to be done miles behind the lines.

I'm referring to is when during this "ramp-down" phase, the transport is hit by a shell, or the shell lands right on the ramp, destroying it. Those things *can* happen.
And that lasts all of 5 seconds? And the ram is designed to keep the tank in whilst it's moving through the water, it isnt necessary for the tank to disembark.

I disagree. Firing in mud would push the tank deeper into the mud as the stresses of the firing would exert force upon the ground, I believe. Newton's Law of Physics. The force exerted would make it sink deeper into the mud.
The forces exerted would make it go backwards... so unless it's actually stuck in the mud at a considerable angle (at which point you're stuck anyway) it wont make any difference.

What if the ships run out of ammo? Then what? Do they have to wait until after battle to be re-stocked on ammo? If so, this would mean these ammo depleted ships would be sitting ducks that can't fight back.
Ships carry enough ammunition so that they dont run out during battles. Rearming ships requires hours - days of quiet time.

I was referring to WW II type of destroyers attacking transports or engage in anti-sub warfare.
Right. Well that's rather irrelevent.

As for modern day destroyers, they'd still be vulnerable if they are stuck in a body of water such as the English Channel or Bering Straits. Coastlines would be anywhere between 10 - 50 miles off from the destroyer, and the hovercraft can potentially go faster than the fastest destroyer. I read somewhere that the British hovercraft ferry can go 60 MPH in the English Channel, while the fastest hydrofoil destroyers would go somewhere like 40 or 45 MPH.
...why would the destroy come anywhere near the invasion? Conversely, why would the tanks leave the invasion?

No, I meant that my hovercraft tanks can destroy troop transports should the enemy be the aggressor and invade me. I wasn't referring to the enemy invading me while I invade him. I was referring to the enemy invading me first (or if the enemy repels my invasion then decides to counter-invade me in return).
Ah I see. Well yes possibly, but so could a shore based gun which you could buy several dozen off, and armoured casemates, for the same cost as 1 hovertank.

Well damn. Here I am in the shadows of obscurity, thinking I'll bring myself into the limelight with something unique and someone not only beats me to the line, but gets pummelled for it.

:rolleyes:

Ok, perhaps what I'm thinking of is not quite the same....

In any case, this thread has been interesting but has covered pretty much all I that I knew and have been bashing my head against a wall trying to overcome. But since this little discussion is already going on, I hope no one minds if I butt in and ask for advice on my own ideas about producing a viable MT hover-tank.

*Dodges various rotten foodstuffs.*

Anyway... the "New Dracorian" hovertank (if I decide to include it) is at present going to be a high-tech machine that combines aviation know how with ground-based warfare. It'll probably be a light titanium/alumimum based frame with some light-weight internal protection (such as kevlar or a carbon-based fiber), mounting either a standard cannon equiped with a linear electromagnetic suspension system (that not one person here has even picked up on), or a metalstorm-tech area denial system (most likely RPG's), or some other weapon-wizardry that I am yet to think of. The main cause for my misgivings about feasiblity however, is in the proplosion system....... based-on VTOL technology.

Yes, you read that last bit correctly - I'm going to put jet engines on a tank. The idea is the vectored thrust can produce the 'hover' and steering. My main concerns are fuel consumption and possible additional vulnerablity by having air intakes (though I'm thinking of mitigating this a bit by having the intakes under the vehicle). There's also a number issues if the vehicle would be practical enough in it's chosen role to back up the cost of the thing.

And that's about it - my idea for a true hovertank in a MT universe. I know it would be easier just to go with <insert modification of existing tank here> (which I'm going to do anyway regardless) and just leave it at that, but a vehicle such as this is more about the character of New Dracora more than anything.... plus, they look cool and it would make a neat naval unit for fleets and ambitious assault.

You may now return to your pre-scheduled program.

If you want, but that removes any real ability for your tanks to support your infantry.

I guess I'll have to develop new tactics then. These tanks are meant to eliminate enemy heavy equipment in harsh terrain. The Gatling guns will serve as defense aganist attack heliocopters, APC's, or infantry that may attempt to attack the tank.

I may build an all-gatling gun APC for anti-infantry roles then send it in with infantry advances.

It makes sense, it's jsut that you may as well just make a tracked tank if yuo're going to add wheels, drive systems etc.

Point taken.

Obviously it cant under fire, but the crew can replace sections of tracks within a few hours and have done so in the world wars. A mine would destroy your fans on a hovertank and the entire drive system would effectively have to be rebuilt, which will take days - weeks and will have to be done miles behind the lines.

Not if I have spare drives to "snap-onto". I could have supply trucks and such with spare parts to snap onto the tank like a modular thing. That could reduce the time needed for repairs.

And that lasts all of 5 seconds? And the ram is designed to keep the tank in whilst it's moving through the water, it isnt necessary for the tank to disembark.

Once again, point taken.

The forces exerted would make it go backwards... so unless it's actually stuck in the mud at a considerable angle (at which point you're stuck anyway) it wont make any difference.

If the tank is firing at something more than 1 degree angle (gun traverse, I believe) instead of a perfectly level 0 degree angle, then the force would go at an angle, therefore making the tank sink into the muddy ground.

Ships carry enough ammunition so that they dont run out during battles. Rearming ships requires hours - days of quiet time.

Understood.

...why would the destroy come anywhere near the invasion? Conversely, why would the tanks leave the invasion?

Not if it involves narrow bodies of water as in the English Channel or the Bering Strait. Within such confined spaces, the Navy is vulnerable. Seize advantage of that opporunity.

However, if the invasion is happening on a beach or coastline of the wide open ocean, then my tanks would probably stay on shore, or go after any invading troop transports.

Ah I see. Well yes possibly, but so could a shore based gun which you could buy several dozen off, and armoured casemates, for the same cost as 1 hovertank.

Hovertanks have one thing shore based guns don't.

Mobility.

Ok, I need to jump in here, there are a couple of fundimental problems that need to be addressed.

1. Powerplant: I seriously doubt you could fit a nuclear power plant in a tank, and even pebblebeds need a lot of shielding to keep people working around them from suffering ill effects. On the plus side, the mechanism in pebblebeds is basically failsafe, preventing a dangerous meltdown and the fuel pebbles are constructed so that even if someone scores a cat-kill, there won't be much fallout. Unfortunately, the size and weight of a pebblebed system makes deployment in a tank highly unlikely.

2. Drive: Hovertanks are implausible, at least as MBTs. Even assuming your powerplant works, which I'm not ready to assume, your fans present a number of problems. Firstly, it won't be able to use any of the mineploughs or dozerblades that have been discussed. All those pieces of equipment require lots of traction... which this thing doesn't have. Secondly, to even deal with small obstructions, you're going to need a lot of momentum... which means manouvering at speed. And even the tank would be able to go very fast, even faster than you suggested, it's going to have crappy accelleration, which means manouvering at speed will be virtually impossible. So the tank isn't even going to be able to use it's remarkable speed, becuase to do so means risking running into visible traps that there isn't enough time to brake for... unless you add drogue chutes and deployable skids.

3. Lift: This thing isn't going to produce enough lift. I simmed the turbines using a spreadsheet i have... I have no idea if it's accurate, but it does a damn good job with aircraft engines, so I thought I'd give it a shot. I used a high bipass turbine with a fan diameter of 4 feet, assuming you were going to use five of them. UInfortunately, the total thrust amounted to a mear 25,000 pounds. Now, we are in ground effect, but ground effect doesn't increase lift by a factor of 6, even on land. And you need about a, oh, 30% reserve to be able to manouver, and 25% on top of that to account for fans being knocked out. So the thing is really really underpowered, even for land operations. In a swamp, it would sink. IN water, it would sink like a stone.

4. Armament and armour: I'm going to ignore my usual complaints about over-arming and armouring, which go double for a hovercraft, and focus on the effects of armament and armour on a hovercraft. Armour adds mass. Mass add inertia and weight. Both mean you need more power. The solution is clear. Cut armour. And did you consider what will happen if you fire that 130mm gun? That thing has a power output of WELL above 10 gigajoules, likely double it. Do you want me to calculate the acceleration applied to the tank? Because I can... net result, tank goes flying backwards.

Edit:
Forgot to add the good things. YOu have the benifits of hovercraft down pat, but you're trying to use them in the wrong role. The benifits of a hovercraft are mobility, not armour. So, you find a vehicle that benifits from mobility, not armour. APCs and tank destroyers. THAT'S where to look when designing a hovercraft... also, don't look at a tank and put the hover on, look at a hovercraft and armour it up.

Verdant Archipelago, what do you suggest then?

I need something that has the advantages of hovercraft, yet be able to counter heavy equipment in harsh terrain, and have the ability to fight decently in any terrain.

I thought I'd go with a nuclear reactor because it's the only viable power source to supply the power demands of maintaining an object of this size afloat without having to refuel every 30 minutes (with fossil fuels).

I thought I'd armor it because obviously, the nuclear reactor needs to be well protected and this would serve as a high priority target for the enemy.

I put the firepower on this so that it can have the potential to score kills aganist enemy tanks, APC's, heliocopters, infantry, etc.

So what should be done? I do not want to be stuck using a M1A1 Abrams because I can't think or develop anything else decent or can stand up aganist any invasion force. :(

I think the problem Sharina lies more in your Attitude than technical issues, yes the craft is implausable even so far as being statisicatally impossible but that dosent mean it wasnt a good idea, use this as a learning experience OOC and/or heck even build a few IC and start an RP about it failing and seeing a need to improve you R&D facilities. This isnt lost just because its not exactly perfect.

Overall though the IC part is Moot if you feel that unless you have an Uber-techwank tank youll be forced to just give up should you come to blows with an invadeing force...

You have options, heck used properly if all you had were light tanks in suitable numbers youd be able to at the very elast mission kill even the most fearsome of tanks. Treads even with composite skirts are still only so strong and heck use your artillery your so fond of for mroe than just mine clearing and cover an advanceing Tank Column in White Phoseperous. Though its smoke properties degrade quickly and it wont take otu a tank the fact that its buring at 5000* F should blind any sort of external thermal sights and seriously wreak havoc on communications aerials... This should make them stand out to your sensors like white spots ona black background and while they are blind strike them with volley fire or Man portable Anti-Tank missiles...

Build a tank your happy with (even if it cant defeat 4 meters or greater of RHA) and use tactics as the equalizer.

That would kill infantry standing right next to the tank. An exploding nuclear reactor would cause radiation sickness over maybe a 1km radius?


Well, considering the design used in a tank probably would be fairly simple and not a control rod system, I doubt it would be terribly explosive in nature. Also, the radiation release would not be sufficient to cause sickness to anyone not standing right next to the tank, most likely.

The only thing that can cause a nuclear reactor to explode is if it uses water as a coolant, and the core temp rises to the point where it gets split into hydrogen, then the hydrogen explodes.

If it uses graphite as a moderator, though, then it can catch fire.

Verdant Archipelago, what do you suggest then?

I need something that has the advantages of hovercraft, yet be able to counter heavy equipment in harsh terrain, and have the ability to fight decently in any terrain.

I thought I'd go with a nuclear reactor because it's the only viable power source to supply the power demands of maintaining an object of this size afloat without having to refuel every 30 minutes (with fossil fuels).

I thought I'd armor it because obviously, the nuclear reactor needs to be well protected and this would serve as a high priority target for the enemy.

I put the firepower on this so that it can have the potential to score kills aganist enemy tanks, APC's, heliocopters, infantry, etc.

So what should be done? I do not want to be stuck using a M1A1 Abrams because I can't think or develop anything else decent or can stand up aganist any invasion force. :(

There's a simple answer... no one's going to be using MBTs in marshes and swamps. Tanks avoid marshes like the plague, exactly because of these problems. If anyone attempts to use heavy weapons in harsh terrain, point out all the problems...

But if you insist on having a swamp capable amphibious vehicle, either make a swimmable tank light-medium with real inflaitable skirts or bolt on pontoons, or go for something lighter. A light vehicle armed with ATGMs is extremely dangerous to heavy tanks, especially when paired with infantry. If you want hovercraft, I'd make something that's about the same size as your MBT, but is conventionally powered and has a lower profile, with a pop up missile turret and maybe a light mortar. And light armour (for NS).... no more than 500mm. And perhaps room for 10-15 infantry. Treat it as a battletaxi and a support vehicle rather than a main battle vehicle. Like a landingcraft that can go on land. True, it'll run through fuel like there's no tomorrow, but if you want swamp-capable armoured vehicles, that's the way I'd go.

But to resist invasion, the best investment is simple, reliable tanks and artillery, lots of trucks, infantry with good ATGMs and engineering equipment, good secure communications, and fortifications with plenty of SAM coverage.

I think the problem Sharina lies more in your Attitude than technical issues, yes the craft is implausable even so far as being statisicatally impossible but that dosent mean it wasnt a good idea, use this as a learning experience OOC and/or heck even build a few IC and start an RP about it failing and seeing a need to improve you R&D facilities. This isnt lost just because its not exactly perfect.

Overall though the IC part is Moot if you feel that unless you have an Uber-techwank tank youll be forced to just give up should you come to blows with an invadeing force...

You have options, heck used properly if all you had were light tanks in suitable numbers youd be able to at the very elast mission kill even the most fearsome of tanks. Treads even with composite skirts are still only so strong and heck use your artillery your so fond of for mroe than just mine clearing and cover an advanceing Tank Column in White Phoseperous. Though its smoke properties degrade quickly and it wont take otu a tank the fact that its buring at 5000* F should blind any sort of external thermal sights and seriously wreak havoc on communications aerials... This should make them stand out to your sensors like white spots ona black background and while they are blind strike them with volley fire or Man portable Anti-Tank missiles...

Build a tank your happy with (even if it cant defeat 4 meters or greater of RHA) and use tactics as the equalizer.

Thanks, Mekugi.

I'm trying to think or devise decent equipment that goes with my science-based nation. I want to go for a nation with different or innoative ideas, instead of the standard warmonger who demands invinicible tanks or uber-sonic planes. My nation is somewhat isolationist, and places much emphasis on defense instead of offense (very much like Schultaria Prime) and be able to effectively defend my nation should it ever be invaded by the likes of Doomingsland, Soviet Bloc, Hogsweat, Automagfreek, or similiar oversized military-oriented nations.

I get frustrated when I try to design something new and original then people say it won't do squat. I'm willing to RP a research thing, but the problem is that nobody seems to want to RP anything other than War! War! War! in NS. Look at Schultaria Prime- he tries to make civilian, culture, history, diplomacy, etc. RP's and nobody really joins or shows interest other than me and a few people like him (Manhattan Prime, Lindlim, Space Union, etc.)

Thats one of the biggest hurdles I face. Whenever I try to RP something interesting that isn't war-related (explosions, death, kill, etc.) it dies out because no-one wants to help me out or RP it out. Even if I try to be creative with equipment like this hover tank, people do come in but with the intent of tearing it apart, instead of offering me ways to improve it or make it workable.

So far I believe that Verdant Archiapelgo and Omz222 were the only ones who offered me ideas how to improve it, as the others appear to slam me on how its not a good idea or feasible. If these people would be willing to RP or at the very least offer good solutions for my hover-tank instead of saying "go back to caterpillar tracks" then I'd be grateful and a happy man. :)

Well, considering the design used in a tank probably would be fairly simple and not a control rod system, I doubt it would be terribly explosive in nature. Also, the radiation release would not be sufficient to cause sickness to anyone not standing right next to the tank, most likely.
Well this is nothing more than speculation. I guessed that the radiation would be dangerous because the aircraft tested with nuclear plants required extremely thick shielding, and that's from normal operation. Unshielded, even reactor grade, material (usually in the form of dust) released from a reactor and breathed in would cause damage.

The only thing that can cause a nuclear reactor to explode is if it uses water as a coolant, and the core temp rises to the point where it gets split into hydrogen, then the hydrogen explodes.

If it uses graphite as a moderator, though, then it can catch fire.
Any kind of compressed material suddenly being released will cause an explosion (not a fireball... but then a fireball isnt an explosion).

So far I believe that Verdant Archiapelgo and Omz222 were the only ones who offered me ideas how to improve it, as the others appear to slam me on how its not a good idea or feasible. If these people would be willing to RP or at the very least offer good solutions for my hover-tank instead of saying "go back to caterpillar tracks" then I'd be grateful and a happy man.
That's because, to be blunt, this DOES NOT WORK. Keep going with it if you must... but make it a scout tank or something, or an APC, and have it mount only recoiless weapons and ATGMs. That might be worth having. But a nuclear powered hovertank? Sorry, but no.

OOC: Sharina, are you still in NATO? Or in any other active alliances?

If so, you can do what I generally do with my designs: Post your initial write-up on their boards to get feedback in front of an audience that should be open-minded. They can point you to any issues or concerns that can come up and you can make modifications before you go live with a design.

I've found that if no one says anything about a ship design on the OMP board (and I know that people have seen it), I usually just go ahead and go live with it. If someone points out something problematic, then I can revise it before I post on International Incidents.

I don't think you're getting *slammed* for your designs. It can be hard to take criticism sometimes, but I think other people are willing to help you make your design the best it can be if they see you're willing to put in the effort.

OOC: Sharina, are you still in NATO? Or in any other active alliances?

If so, you can do what I generally do with my designs: Post your initial write-up on their boards to get feedback in front of an audience that should be open-minded. They can point you to any issues or concerns that can come up and you can make modifications before you go live with a design.

I've found that if no one says anything about a ship design on the OMP board (and I know that people have seen it), I usually just go ahead and go live with it. If someone points out something problematic, then I can revise it before I post on International Incidents.

I don't think you're getting *slammed* for your designs. It can be hard to take criticism sometimes, but I think other people are willing to help you make your design the best it can be if they see you're willing to put in the effort.

To answer your question, Sarzonia, NATO is pretty much dead. I haven't seen any major NATO activity other than the AMF-Praetonia war and even that is at an minimum- Hamptonshire resigned from NATO because he might end up fighting AMF on opposite sides of the AMF-Praetonia war. Other than NATO, the only other alliance I'm in is TAPRES, but that is dead as well because of people not wanting to do non-war RP's- TAPRES isn't a military alliance, but more like an economic, technology, and diplomatic alliance.

I'm willing to take criticsm- the only issue I have with it is that people should say or critique better. What I mean by that is people should say "This modification isn't a good idea. But here's some suggestions on how to make it a feasible or good idea, or try this modification" instead of going like this "Hey this isn't possible so forget it. Go back to classic caterpillar tank design!"

I'm willing to take criticsm- the only issue I have with it is that people should say or critique better. What I mean by that is people should say "This modification isn't a good idea. But here's some suggestions on how to make it a feasible or good idea, or try this modification" instead of going like this "Hey this isn't possible so forget it. Go back to classic caterpillar tank design!"OOC: I can see where you're coming from... I guess I'm familiar enough with the majority of people who have given me the most comments and feedback that I have a sense when their comments are meant to point out an inconsistency or when I'm really off my rocker. Though I've been known to take things the wrong way if I'm not familiar with their ways of communicating.

I've been posting some of my not-ready-for-prime-time designs over here (http://s13.invisionfree.com/LineartInc/index.php?) lately. I'm not a lineart drawer, and I haven't gotten a lot of my designs drawn, but it's been a good place where I can get feedback that points out problems before I go live with a product officially.

EDIT: I also created a new board (http://s13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/) for NS designers in case you're interested.

Thanks Sarzonia. I appreciate the help and suggestion. :) One question, though. Can I get my stuff drawn or fleshed out there to decent graphical standards? I just might try to put up some of my ideas for my Navy in there if thats the right place to do so.

------------------------------

I wonder if I could resolve the hovercraft problem by substituting it with VTOL? I think a poster said something about VTOL here- if I could nuclear-power a VTOL system, it could stay up for far longer than a fossil fuel based VTOL system.

Thus, with the VTOL thing, land mines or obstacles won't be any problem as the hovertank would be able to just VTOL over the walls, spikes, debris, etc. or glide about 5 - 10 feet up over the minefields exerting no ground pressure to detonate the mines.

Thanks Sarzonia. I appreciate the help and suggestion. :) One question, though. Can I get my stuff drawn or fleshed out there to decent graphical standards? I just might try to put up some of my ideas for my Navy in there if thats the right place to do so.I've gotten a couple of designs that needed some drawing done and they've come out of that with something good. My Valkyrie strike fighter got a rendering by Space Union shortly after I posted it.

About the VTOL, I'm honestly not sure if that's a workable concept, at least not for long stretches of time. It's a great idea, but I'd think that even if it worked, it'd be prohibitively expensive to do more than for short stretches at a time and I think it'd be enormously complicated for rank and file soldiers.

Having said that, since Hogsweat posted his attempt at a hover tank (with the proviso that it was a non-working design), I've been trying to come up with something that *could* work. It would probably have its share of drawbacks, but I think coming up with one that passes muster especially in the MT world would be a great boon.

Third, it employs the latest in pebblehead nuclear technology. Sharina has managed to miniaturize the Bolom pebblehead reactor to the rough dimensions of 4 (Length) x 4 (Width) x 2 (Height) meters, hence the new Bolom-II miniaturized pebblehead reactor. The rear end of the tank houses the pebblehead reactor, therefore the extra length and width of the Paragon-II over the venerable Paragon-I. The nuclear reactor is extremely resistant to meltdown and castarophic failure compared to conventional nuclear reactors due to the nature of the pebblehead nuclear design. However, Sharina does not take any chances, therefore the tank's armor is considerably thicker around the nuclear reactor section compared to the rest of the hover-tank.



Okay, no, no, no, no. Tanks don't go with nuclear reactors first of all, second of all pebblehead? Did you mean peddle bed? No, no, no, simply impossible, its too big, you can't make it small enough because A. You need enough coolant to absorb the heat energy and make it rotate the turbine (which is impossible on tank anyways cause you can't have coolant supplied to you constantly). B. If its gonna be this small you'll have to compress all the safety systems thus is something goes wrong, such as hmm i don't know a shell hitting your tank and one of the pipes exploding from the pressure, if that happens you're screwed, the tank will become a radiatioactive hazzard. C. Its impossible by laws of nature.

Simply put don't do it. The only suggestion i might have on how to make this tank feasible is take out the nuclear reactor, otherwise, good job.

I recall that pebblehead nuclear reactors can be much smaller than conventional nuclear reactors in power plants or naval vessels.

I think a 4 meter wide by 4 meter long by 2 meter tall is a reasonable size- the size of a bedroom in a house (roughly 15 feet by 15 feet by 2 1/2 feet).

I repeat, the reason why I went with a nuclear power plant is because there is no other power plant or electrical system that would be able to provide the constant high power requirements to operate such a vehicle. Fossil fuels are a no-no because I'd have to refill it after every 15 - 30 minutes, which would mean a logistical nightmare, require too much oil, and needs an small army of trucks and personnel just to keep one tank fueled. I eliminate all those problems by going nuclear.

Why else did the US convert its aircraft carriers and submarines from conventional oil to nuclear? To reduce the re-fueling costs, logistics, and issues.

Actually, nuclear powerplants cost more to run, even on naval vessels. And, though the reactor itself is smaller than an oil powerplant, it needs more support equipment, and it has access to a massive heat sink, the sea. I really don't think you're going to be able to fit a nuke plant, even a pebble bed, into a tank... they're just way too big. And that goes double for any aircraft other than an airship. And it would almost certainly be bigger than the one you're suggesting. They need to be TALL because of the way the mechanism works, with a big hopper of uranium pebbles on top and the actual fission pile on the bottom.

I do have experience designing lighter than air vehicles (In NS, anyway =) ) and would be willing to help if you want... my msn is admiral_a@hotmail.com. Also, you might want to look at ekranoplanes, or however they're spelt. Really big low flying GEV aircraft that can carry shipkilling missiles. I think their attributes are wildly overinflated on NS, but take a look.

And I was serious about the light hovercraft with ATGMs... if any tank is stupid enough to enter a swamp, your light hovercraft will eat it for breakfast.

Thanks Verdant. I appreciate it. :)

I always thought pebbleheads could be either vertical or horizontal. I was counting on the horiztonal aspect, as I thought it would have been possible to do so. I guess I was wrong.

Am I correct in assuming ATGM = Anti-Tank Guided Missile?

I'll try to contact you via e-mail, as I appreciate your feedback and help. I still remember your help a long time ago on my first custom projects. :)

Gotta love MT hovertanks.....

1)Can stop
"Hit the breaks! HIT THE BREAKS!"

"I AM! I AM!"

*hits wall and explouds*

2)Good luck with firing.
*Fires main gun*
*Gets fliped due to recoil*

3)Nuke in a MT Tank?
*gets hit by a ATGM*
*BOOM*
*Half of the area is dead*

I get frustrated when I try to design something new and original then people say it won't do squat.
I do fully appreciate your willingness to innovate and come up with something unique (which is to be respected in itself), but I'll be blunt here if you'll excuse me -- IMHO everything has its limits, and originality uniqueness does too. The problem, quite frankly -- and I'm still trying to be as friendly as possible -- is that there are many effective systems in the world that are not quite original, but yet there are many original systems in the world that are not quite effective. Likewise, if you do get radcial, you will run into problems. Not everything is perfect, so naturally there will be limitations as to your design.

Again though, it still depends on what mindset you've designed it with - I can understand and respect the fact if you did place efficiency on the second place of your list. However, since it seems that you do appreciate efficiency, then the fact outlined above is a must-know if you do choose to be creative and have a preference of innovation rather than follow-the-trends. Again, /research counts/ - you get out what you put into it, and research is part of the game (or gamble). It's also good that you accepted a lot of criticism and comments, and that is a cruical step in finding out the "sweet spot" where originality and effectiveness meets.

For this I'd again reiterate the suggestion to make it a specialized vehicle rather than a true MBT (if you still really want the hovercraft design), something like a defensively-oriented tank hunter or sorts with reasonable mobility, amphibious operations capability, and decentr missile-based armament with a light gun armament of sorts. However if you ask me though, I'd choose a tank hunter hovercraft design over a personnel carrier one, though VA also makes excellent points as well.

I would defeinatly explore the idea of a specially designed vehicle that could carry a recoiless gun. Possibly 125-135mm.

I remember seeing someone mention DREAD as a recoilless gun. Is that true?

I woudl defeinatly explore the idea of a specially designed vehicle that could carry a recoiless gun. Possibly 125-135mm.
Lemme guess, you just took that from the crazy idea I approached you with a few hours ago? :)

Sharina- DREAD's not all it's cracked up to be. I'll let one of the others explain, for I kinda gotta go right now...

I recall in another arguement that radiation isn't that destructive from nuclear weapons. It can simply be cleaned up and put elsewhere. I believe that the radiation and "OMG! Unhabitable" thing was discussed by me and either GMC or Der Angst in a WMD thread somewhere, can't remember where.A little difference: 1. Yes, you can make sure that modern nuclear weapons use up almost all the fissionable material, resulting in minimised (Irrelevant) fallout. However, the moment you hit a nuclear reactor (Which is required to not use all its fissionable material all at once, or it would be a bomb, which would in turn defeat the point of being a reactor), you will leak fissionable materials, quite simple because the very point of a reactor is that they're not all used up, instantaneously. Hence, why they're still there.

And... yes. Of course you can clean up the damage. The problem is that your infantry will be exposed to it. Or, hell, given Sharina's defensive outlook, your own civilians will be exposed to it.

And cleaning up radioactive debris under battlefield conditions (I.e. you're shot at) is... Not a nice thing.

Oh, it does certainly have its advantages. Nice amounts of energy for the engine and gun (ETC, Rail/ coilgun), a high level of independence and at least a small part of logistics (Fuel) reduced, together with almost unlimited range.

Just, the negative points are considerably significant, even though Praetonia's 1km radius horrorscenario is doubtlessly excessively exaggerated, assuming a sufficient level of damage control engineering (I'd suppose that a 5- 50 meter radius is more like it, the vast majority of cases being in the 5- 15 meter range) and recognising the fact that a nuclear reactor in a tank simply doesn't have the resources to become a chernobyl.

Okay- so I will still use flourine gas aganist infantry, snipers, and urban warfare then.I'd go with chlorine, mostly against massed infantry and possibly urban warfare. It's true that Fluoride and fluoride acid are good to damage some things under laboratory conditions (Scratching glass), but chloride (or whatever other kinds of weaponised gas have been developed, i.e. sarin and the likes) is the better choice when you want to hit organics.

AAAAAND on a random note, given that they managed to build a nuclear reactor fitting on a missile in the fifties/ sixties... Yes. A nuclear reactor can be small enough to fit on a tank. With fifties/ sixties technology, nevermind what we can manage today.

Gotta love MT hovertanks.....

1)Can stop
"Hit the breaks! HIT THE BREAKS!"

"I AM! I AM!"

*hits wall and explouds*

2)Good luck with firing.
*Fires main gun*
*Gets fliped due to recoil*

3)Nuke in a MT Tank?
*gets hit by a ATGM*
*BOOM*
*Half of the area is dead*

1) - Directional thrust dude, directional thrust... like the space shuttle. :p

2) - http://www.automobilemag.com/news/0410_bose/

3) - Yeah nukes in small vehicles generally not a good idea... but they will not go boom; Power plants generally use fuel enriched to 3% U-235, for a nuclear explosion you require uranium enriched to at least 98% U-235.

You know, fluorine is ridiculously reactive. That's why it's not generally used in weapons applications.

Firstly, Sharina, and this is in my capacity as a moderator: regarding the copyright thing that others have come up with; no, it's not enough to simply post the original artist's name, you should telegram to seek permission to use their artwork before you do. Make sure you do that in future.

we have radiation particles that can be easily cleaned up according to the radiation debate that went on on another thread

No. You also have some that can't but isn't much of a long-term threat; Hiroshima isn't clean and won't be for centuries, but all you get there now is a slightly elevated incidence of birth defects and certain types of cancer; it's not perfect, but there are much worse places to be too.

The Germans failed to achieve air superiority over Britain because of poor planning. If I was Hitler or Hermann Goering, I'd play "decoy" games, in which I'd draw out the RAF fighters over the English Channel and destroy them out of range of British flak guns on the mainland. I'd be "enticing" the British RAF fighters out by bombing British naval assets in the English Channel.

Then you'd lose even worse that Hitler did. Nobody would follow you out when their mission was to protect the vital coastal radar stations from bombing, not shipping in the channel; the supply convoys with their Q and PQ ships were more than able to defend themselves, and the Luftwaffe didn't have the fuel supplies to go searching for them anyway.

And flak guns were never a major obstacle to Luftwaffe bombers, or anybody's bombers. Why do you think the Blitz occurred despite them being present? Why do you think the massive raids on German cities all but [i]disregarded flak and never went after it beforehand?

Then once the British RAF fighters are all smashed up, then I'd replenish my bombers and fighter fuel

From where? The Saudi oil fields, which Hitler couldn't get to even with Rommel? The Caspian Sea Oil Fields, which the Wehrmacht drowned itself in blood trying to capture at Stalingrad?

Infantry can move wooden spikes out of the way. They can cut up big steel thingys.

No, they can't. They have to get to the beach first, in transports. The beach obstacles are designed to fuck up the transports before the infantry get out of them. And you expect the defenders to just watch while your infantry dismantle the beach defences, rather than pounding them with machine guns, artillery, napalm, tanks and mortar-launched chemical weapons?

Or in worse case scenario, the hover-tanks could put on a plow to clear out debris.

No, it can't. If part of the hovercraft was in contact with the ground, it wouldn't hover and would turn into a flipcraft as soon as you tried to move it. No plough.

That is a risk I'm willing to take. The same could be said for burning and exploding tanks like Shermans during WW II (by ammo cooking off and stuff).

Why do you keep comparing this to WW2 armour? If this was a WW2 tank it would have a diesel engine good for an hour or so of fuel and carriage for about ten rounds of ammuntion. It would be worse than a Sherman in every concievable way.

Let's not even bring up that no practical hovercraft design was produced until Christopher Cockerell's design in 1952.

Under combat conditions, a conventional tank with blown treads is just as dead as a hover-tank with blown dirve systems. They'd both be sitting ducks for concentrated fire.

Red Herring fallacy. The point is that your tank is much, much more easily immobilised; since the underside is relatively delicate stuff it's easily wrecked by damage, whereas tracks are more resiliant and the underside of the tank itself is just a flat panel of armour. You are more likely to be damaged, and the damage is more likely to be severe. That your tank finds itself in the same state afterwards is irrelevant.

Understood. I could migitate this problem by having my infantry follow up behind the tanks at a safe distance of 5 kilometers or so.

Which obliterates their worth in combined arms and makes them RPG-bait.

I disagree. Firing in mud would push the tank deeper into the mud as the stresses of the firing would exert force upon the ground, I believe. Newton's Law of Physics. The force exerted would make it sink deeper into the mud.

You're disagreeing with observed evidence to the contrary, of real tanks not getting bogged down on real wet sandy beaches. If the tank has enough tread area, the stress of firing will make only a minimal difference to how deep the treads sank.

I was referring to WW II type of destroyers attacking transports or engage in anti-sub warfare.

Why? This isn't a WW2 tank, so why deliberately exaggerate it's worth by making everything else in the AO >70 years old?

Coastlines would be anywhere between 10 - 50 miles off from the destroyer

Um, no. I've seen the English channel and been across it. The ferry did not have to drop us ten miles from the coast.

Not if I have spare drives to "snap-onto". I could have supply trucks and such with spare parts to snap onto the tank like a modular thing. That could reduce the time needed for repairs.

There is no way you could describe replacing a multi-ton component as 'snapping on' something.

If the tank is firing at something more than 1 degree angle (gun traverse, I believe) instead of a perfectly level 0 degree angle, then the force would go at an angle, therefore making the tank sink into the muddy ground.

Again, reality does not back you up. Some of the Sherman DD tanks sank into the sea but none are noted to have got bogged down in mud or wet sand. And no, traverse is horizontal, elevation is vertical.

Hovertanks have one thing shore based guns don't. Mobility.

Shore defence guns have enormous concrete casemates that protect them from airstrikes, naval-sized guns, enough room for high-precision targeting equipment and bigass rotation motors to turn quickly, ammo out the wazoo and the sure knowledge the enemy has to come to them.

You have one thing they don't, but they have lots of things you don't.

"This modification isn't a good idea. But here's some suggestions on how to make it a feasible or good idea, or try this modification" instead of going like this "Hey this isn't possible so forget it. Go back to classic caterpillar tank design!"

There is no modification, set of modifications or suggestion that would make a hovercraft MBT a good idea. The concept is fundamentally flawed.

Generally, if something has never been done in real life, question one you should ask yourself before you pounce it and start nuzzling is why it has never been done. In this case, it's because there's no way to make it work. There are armed hovercraft in real life; most notably, Soviet Russia designed massive military hovercraft to transport tanks. This gives real tanks the benefits of travelling over water quickly, without saddling them with ridiculously vulnerable systems and horrible problems with momentum.

Bottom line, there's no way this would work without having an antigrav system that 'works because it works' or by having treads.

Thus, with the VTOL thing, land mines or obstacles won't be any problem as the hovertank would be able to just VTOL over the walls, spikes, debris, etc. or glide about 5 - 10 feet up over the minefields exerting no ground pressure to detonate the mines.

Except the thrust from it's VTOL system, which... would... exert...pressure... on...the... ground.

Oh, and missed this the first time around:

The fourth layer is concrete, which is implemented into the Paragon-II to greatly reduce, if not eliminate, all neutron radiation, rendering neutron bombs or weapons near-useless.

Um, no. Concrete isn't very dense and is a poor choice; you'd need a layer some two and a half inches thick just to halve the intensity of recieved gamma radiation, let alone render it near-useless. Real life tanks depleted uranium, IIRC, though lead would work if you didn't mind the weight.


2) - http://www.automobilemag.com/news/0410_bose/

What's an automotive suspension system going to do to stop a hovercraft flipping over? Also, electromagnetic suspension systems are very bad in military vehicles; by their very nature, they're either on or off.

The first section here: http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myths_Tech_Examples.html is a good reference for such things.

No. You also have some that can't but isn't much of a long-term threat; Hiroshima isn't clean and won't be for centuries, but all you get there now is a slightly elevated incidence of birth defects and certain types of cancer; it's not perfect, but there are much worse places to be too.

This may be true in RL. However in NS, nations have more money, resources, and land to dispose of the radiation. If we don't play by accepted "NS-ified" standards and we play by RL rules instead, then we wouldn't have these NS uber-tanks, 2 billion people living in the same land area as Japan, an Earth the size of Jupiter, Mach 4+ dogfighting aircraft in MT, kilometer long and multi-million ton SD's, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that radiation clean-up can be more effective today compared to Hiroshima and Chernobyl due to technology, economic, and know-how advances. To add to that, a single tank wouldn't even have the destructive "detonation" of Chernobyl. At best, only a few tons of topsoil would be irradiated, and that is much easily cleaned up compared to Chernobyl or Hiroshima.

Then you'd lose even worse that Hitler did. Nobody would follow you out when their mission was to protect the vital coastal radar stations from bombing, not shipping in the channel; the supply convoys with their Q and PQ ships were more than able to defend themselves, and the Luftwaffe didn't have the fuel supplies to go searching for them anyway.

However, should the Royal Navy be unable to defend aganist air attack in the English Channel, either through running out of flak and anti-aircraft gun ammo or their AA ships are all sunk... The RAF would be forced to contribute some fighters to help defend the Royal Navy or risk losing ships that could be used to prevent a German D-Day aganist Britain.

Not only that, but I'd keep my aircraft patrolling above the supposed German invasion (after bombing all Royal Navy ships to hell and back in the English Channel). My Luftwaffe would engage any RAF fighters or bombers that try to come and bomb my German transports, beach-heads, and the like.

From where? The Saudi oil fields, which Hitler couldn't get to even with Rommel? The Caspian Sea Oil Fields, which the Wehrmacht drowned itself in blood trying to capture at Stalingrad?

For one thing, I wouldn't attack Russia until I eliminated Britain. I would actually listen to my generals tell me that a fall or winter invasion of Russia would be suicide, and a 2-front war would be suicide as well.

I'd stick to the German-Russian NAP pact, thus allowing more men, material, and resources to be poured into the African theater of operations, thereby giving Rommel the extra punch needed to smash through Montogemery's defenses in Egypt, throwing Arabia wide open.

Only then, would I launch the invasion aganist the Britain home islands (Ireland, and the UK) as I'd have the oil and fuel necessary to undertake such an effort. IIRC, the Germans also employed synthetic fuels.

No, they can't. They have to [i]get to the beach first, in transports. The beach obstacles are designed to fuck up the transports before the infantry get out of them. And you expect the defenders to just watch while your infantry dismantle the beach defences, rather than pounding them with machine guns, artillery, napalm, tanks and mortar-launched chemical weapons?

My tanks would be providing cover for the infantry by firing from the coastlines away from the barriers and mines. I believe that tank cannons outrange machine guns. The machine gun nests would be battered by my tank cannons, while the main shore batteries would be engaged by naval ships, missiles, or aircraft. Mission-kills on the massive gun barrels.

Then I can continue to roll in, secure a beach-head, then onwards to either flank the other coastal fortifications or push into the enemy mainland.

No, it can't. If part of the hovercraft was in contact with the ground, it wouldn't hover and would turn into a flipcraft as soon as you tried to move it. No plough.

The jet engine would provide sufficient raw muscle to push through. It'd be like a champagne bottle or a pressurized canister releasing its gas and propel itself across the ground (or table or floor or whatever) and slamming things aside.

Not only that, I could just place the plow a few inches off the ground, so no direct ground contact would be made. Problem solved (or at the very least mitigated somewhat)

You're disagreeing with observed evidence to the contrary, of real tanks not getting bogged down on real wet sandy beaches. If the tank has enough tread area, the stress of firing will make only a minimal difference to how deep the treads sank.

Newton's Law of Physics. "A force has an equal opposite reaction."

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/2218/example7ij.png

X = target
Blue Arrow = Projectile path and force of the projectile.
Red Arrow = The opposite force of Blue Arrow.

The ground is muddy and not firm, thus it offers less resistance to the "red arrow force" than, say, a solid or compressed surface like concrete, roadbed, or rock.

This problem is made worse by the fact that during WW II, tanks were quite light in comparison to NS tanks. WW II tanks only weighed 30 - 50 tons (Sherman was 32-34 tons I believe, and the Tiger / Panzers were probably 40 - 50 tons). NS tanks weigh 70 - 100 tons (realistically, not the fudging that some NS'ers do) which is basically double the weight of the WW II tanks. This means that the NS tanks would be far more suspectible to the "sinking effect" demostrated in my basic drawing above.

Um, no. I've seen the English channel and been across it. The ferry did not have to drop us ten miles from the coast.

Eh? I didn't say my hover-crafts would drop stuff 10 miles from the coast, nor would they be firing at targets from 10 miles away. What are you trying to say here?

There is no way you could describe replacing a multi-ton component as 'snapping on' something.

What I envision is that the hovercraft is divided into the tank portion and the hover portion. Should the hover portion be damaged, I could employ a lock / slide mechanism to slide the tank half off the ruined hover chassis. Then bring up a spare hover chassis, then slide the tank portion into the hover chassis and lock it down.

This means repairs could be done in roughly the same time as tread-based tanks, provided that there are cranes and spare hovercraft chassis on hand. Not weeks like some of you guys have said it would take.

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/6690/example14ia.png

Purple = damaged hovercraft chassis (ruined hover drive)
Blue = Tank part of the hovercraft
Brown + Yellow = Crane
Green = New / Spare hovercraft chassis.

Hope that illustration clears up any confusion.

Again, reality does not back you up. Some of the Sherman DD tanks sank into the sea but none are noted to have got bogged down in mud or wet sand. And no, traverse is horizontal, elevation is vertical.

I stand corrected on the traverse / elevation thing.

Refer to my earlier point about NS tanks = 2x the weight of WW II tanks, therefore they are more likely to suffer from mud sinking than tanks in D-Day or Shermans.

Shore defence guns have enormous concrete casemates that protect them from airstrikes, naval-sized guns, enough room for high-precision targeting equipment and bigass rotation motors to turn quickly, ammo out the wazoo and the sure knowledge the enemy has to come to them.

You have one thing they don't, but they have lots of things you don't.

A slobberknocker that has no mobility, or a "mover" that has mobility?

Here we have the age old adage, Power VS Speed. Armor VS Mobility. Toughness VS Agility.

Generally, if something has never been done in real life, question one you should ask yourself before you pounce it and start nuzzling is why it has never been done. In this case, it's because there's no way to make it work. There are armed hovercraft in real life; most notably, Soviet Russia designed massive military hovercraft to transport tanks. This gives real tanks the benefits of travelling over water quickly, without saddling them with ridiculously vulnerable systems and horrible problems with momentum.

Ah, but there were no SD's like Doujins built in RL. There were no multiple super-powers in RL. There were no uber-tanks with 140mm ETC cannons in RL. There are no functioning battle-tested railguns in RL. Need I go on?

These things have not been done in real life (in the case of railguns, not for 10 - 20 more years), yet these things are accepted in NS. Hmm?

Except the thrust from it's VTOL system, which... would... exert...pressure... on...the... ground.

Ahh, but obstacles will be less of a problem. With VTOL, I can armor the underside of the tank and leave only the exhaust vents exposed. Consquently, mines will be less of a problem- they can still do damage by exploding under the VTOL exhaust vents, though. However, if I employ four VTOL exhaust vents, if one or two are disabled, the tank can still have some type of mobility- just like with jumbo jets losing one or two of its engines.

Um, no. Concrete isn't very dense and is a poor choice; you'd need a layer some two and a half inches thick just to halve the intensity of recieved gamma radiation, let alone render it near-useless. Real life tanks depleted uranium, IIRC, though lead would work if you didn't mind the weight.

Ahh- wouldn't depleted uranium be radioactive by its very nature? After all, uranium is the radioactive part of all nuclear reactors, correct?

This may be true in RL. However in NS, nations have more money, resources, and land to dispose of the radiation.

Money is not magic, Sharina. You can't make immutable physical laws go away by throwing huge wads of cash at them. By this logic, I can't cross the grand canyon by flapping my arms, but since NS nations have more money to spend on flapping their arms, they could!

However, should the Royal Navy be unable to defend aganist air attack in the English Channel, either through running out of flak and anti-aircraft gun ammo or their AA ships are all sunk... The RAF would be forced to contribute some fighters to help defend the Royal Navy or risk losing ships that could be used to prevent a German D-Day aganist Britain.

So you think the Royal Navy would just sit in the Channel doing nothing while it was bombed, rather than move out of the Channel to Scapa Flow where German bombers couldn't touch it?

My Luftwaffe would engage any RAF fighters or bombers that try to come and bomb my German transports, beach-heads, and the like.

Sea-Lion was the German operation to invade England; it required taking a major port intact, and even Rommel said it wouldn't work.

For one thing, I wouldn't attack Russia until I eliminated Britain. I would actually listen to my generals tell me that a fall or winter invasion of Russia would be suicide, and a 2-front war would be suicide as well.

Right, because you wouldn't have become leader of Germany on a platform of racial hatred that clouded your judgement. In other words, you wouldn't be leader of Germany at all, and there would be no WW2, so it's pointless speculating on what would happen during it.

Using your 20/20 hindsight is not 'what you would do' if you were actually there, because you'd have somehow had to have got there first.

My tanks would be providing cover for the infantry by firing from the coastlines away from the barriers and mines. I believe that tank cannons outrange machine guns. The machine gun nests would be battered by my tank cannons, while the main shore batteries would be engaged by naval ships, missiles, or aircraft. Mission-kills on the massive gun barrels.

And the shore defences wouldn't include missile launchers too? Or point defence, or ECM...You're still in this fantasy where you have hovering tanks [hovercraft invented in 1952], missiles and whatever else you like firing at a WW2 coastal position. Obviously your tanks look practical when you compare them to obsolete equipment.

The jet engine would provide sufficient raw muscle to push through. It'd be like a champagne bottle or a pressurized canister releasing its gas and propel itself across the ground (or table or floor or whatever) and slamming things aside.

No, it would hit the first thing and flip up over it, because there's nothing to stop it doing so.

Not only that, I could just place the plow a few inches off the ground, so no direct ground contact would be made. Problem solved (or at the very least mitigated somewhat)

The plough has to contact the ground! How can you possibly plough up mines if your plough blade isn't touching the ground? Even if you're only going for obstacles, you still have to touch them.

This means that the NS tanks would be far more suspectible to the "sinking effect" demostrated in my basic drawing above.

Unless they have a larger tread area, in which case the difference in ground pressure is negligable. And who the hell would try to land full-weight MBTs rather than specialised amphibious tanks on a beach?

What I envision is that the hovercraft is divided into the tank portion and the hover portion. Should the hover portion be damaged, I could employ a lock / slide mechanism to slide the tank half off the ruined hover chassis. Then bring up a spare hover chassis, then slide the tank portion into the hover chassis and lock it down.

And you don't suppose this lock / slide mechism would be prone to breakage if damaged, potentially allowing the entire upper hull to shear away from the chassis?

This means repairs could be done in roughly the same time as tread-based tanks, provided that there are cranes and spare hovercraft chassis on hand. Not weeks like some of you guys have said it would take.

So, provided you can drag up cranes and spare parts, set them up and perform a rather complex operation to remove the hull, replace it and...

...And you're comparing this to removing two pins and putting in a new track link, then replacing them? Or undoing a few bolts to change a roadwheel?

Here we have the age old adage, Power VS Speed. Armor VS Mobility. Toughness VS Agility.

No matter how mobile you are, if you can't get through my armour, I win. If you have to approach me from a certain angle, your speed is worthless.

Ah, but there were no SD's like Doujins built in RL. There were no multiple super-powers in RL. There were no uber-tanks with 140mm ETC cannons in RL. There are no functioning battle-tested railguns in RL. Need I go on?

No, you've already proven you didn't understand the point. You ask the same question of those things! None of these things exist in real life because either there is no pressing need to build them [SDs] they're too complex and expensive, and use unproven or poorly-understood cutting-edge technology technology [ubertanks] or materials technology isn't advanced enough to make them work [railguns]. By and large, either the resources or the technology is not yet available. With hovercraft-tanks, you're talking about a technology that does work in real life, but an application that hasn't been tried for it. This means we must ask: since this thing can be built, why hasn't it?

The reason it hasn't been tried is it results in a cripplingly inefficient vehicle with far too many downsides for any advantages to matter. Hovercraft can do some things, but this is not one of them, and no amount of technology can change that because this is a fundamental fact of what a hovercraft is.

iAhh- wouldn't depleted uranium be radoactive by its very nature? After all, uranium is the radioactive part of all nuclear reactors, correct?

Depleted uranium is much less radioactive, and is sandwiched between layers of metal to avoid risk to the crew. It's used for it's density, the same reason DU is used in armour-piercing bullets, in fact.

Money is not magic, Sharina. You can't make immutable physical laws go away by throwing huge wads of cash at them. By this logic, I can't cross the grand canyon by flapping my arms, but since NS nations have more money to spend on flapping their arms, they could!

I didn't say that money could solve everything.

It *can* solve some things that are otherwise too expensive in RL to accomplish. Build a coastal and land wall around your entire national borders = possible with today's tech and concrete but not possible with our RL finances but is possible with NS finances.

Or be able to field higher numbers of B-2 Bombers, like 1,000+. In RL, the US is only able to field maybe 100 B-2 Bombers because of money issues, not personnel, manpower, or logistics issues.

Therefore, using this logic, I'd be able to pay more people to do radiation clean-up, use more funds to build more radiation containers, use money to fund construction of radiation storage complexes, etc. The technology for radiation storage is there, but it can be expensive to implement in RL scale of things but inexpensive to do so in NS scale of things.

So you think the Royal Navy would just sit in the Channel doing nothing while it was bombed, rather than move out of the Channel to Scapa Flow where German bombers couldn't touch it?

Nope- if I run the British Navy off to Scapa Flow and deny them the English Channel, my objective of freeing up the English Channel of British ships that could interfere with German troop transports would be accomplished.

Sea-Lion was the German operation to invade England; it required taking a major port intact, and even Rommel said it wouldn't work.

Then consider other strategies or such. D-Day didn't need taking of major ports- the Allies invaded fortified beaches, not an urban port setting.

Right, because you wouldn't have become leader of Germany on a platform of racial hatred that clouded your judgement. In other words, you wouldn't be leader of Germany at all, and there would be no WW2, so it's pointless speculating on what would happen during it.

Hitler had known of the possibility of a 2-front war. But his insanity and megalomonia that set in 1941 onwards (when he got crazier and crazier, and less logical and rational) doomed Germany. If he didn't descend into insanity, or was replaced by, say, Rommel or Goering, then the war aganist Russia would have been delayed. This would have given Germany enough time to develop more of its excellent technologies or consolidate its strangehold over France.

Using your 20/20 hindsight is not 'what you would do' if you were actually there, because you'd have somehow had to have got there first.

I am painfully aware of this.

What I was saying was that if Hitler didn't go after Russia (or if Hitler kept his sanity and strategic mind intact) then Germany would have survived a good bit longer and may have very well conquered Britain if Germany did not have to worry about staving off the Red Army.

And the shore defences wouldn't include missile launchers too? Or point defence, or ECM...You're still in this fantasy where you have hovering tanks [hovercraft invented in 1952], missiles and whatever else you like firing at a WW2 coastal position. Obviously your tanks look practical when you compare them to obsolete equipment.

My gatling chainguns can provide limited defense aganist missiles, just like ship CIWS gatling guns do. I've always considered ECM and ECCM as sci-fi from ship or mecha combat video games.

The plough has to contact the ground! How can you possibly plough up mines if your plough blade isn't touching the ground? Even if you're only going for obstacles, you still have to touch them.

The plow can clear out wood spikes, barbed wire, metal obstacles, etc. I'd have the minesweepers deal with the mines.

Problem solved.

Unless they have a larger tread area, in which case the difference in ground pressure is negligable. And who the hell would try to land full-weight MBTs rather than specialised amphibious tanks on a beach?

Shermans in WW-II. They weren't amphibious tanks.

And you don't suppose this lock / slide mechism would be prone to breakage if damaged, potentially allowing the entire upper hull to shear away from the chassis?

The problem can be solved through mechanical engineering. Create a good network of hooks, connections, rods, etc. to do this. I wouldn't put it past human ingenuity to solve those engineering problems.

So, provided you can drag up cranes and spare parts, set them up and perform a rather complex operation to remove the hull, replace it and...

...And you're comparing this to removing two pins and putting in a new track link, then replacing them? Or undoing a few bolts to change a roadwheel?

People say that those repairs would take a few hours or a full day at most. Bringing spare hover chassis would be similiar to bringing entire new tank tread systems, but on a somewhat bigger scale.

The cranes? Easy...

http://telepresence.dmem.strath.ac.uk/jen/lego/images/ac50_1/baldwins_demag_ac535_thmb.jpg

No matter how mobile you are, if you can't get through my armour, I win. If you have to approach me from a certain angle, your speed is worthless.

Not really.

Speed has the potential to win over armor. I can outdistance and outrun the slow armor juggernauts, then dart behind them to wipe out their support (infantry, logistics, supplies, etc.) leaving the juggernauts isolated. Then once the juggernauts run out of ammo and / or fuel, they're screwed.

However, should a slug-fest take place, of course the juggernaut will win. On the other hand, should it come to strategy, raids, wipe-out of logistics, outmanuever, flanking, etc. then the armor wil lose.

No, you've already proven you didn't understand the point. You ask the same question of those things! None of these things exist in real life because either there is no pressing need to build them [SDs] they're too complex and expensive, and use unproven or poorly-understood cutting-edge technology technology [ubertanks] or materials technology isn't advanced enough to make them work [railguns]. By and large, either the resources or the technology is not yet available. With hovercraft-tanks, you're talking about a technology that does work in real life, but an application that hasn't been tried for it. This means we must ask: since this thing can be built, why hasn't it?

1. There has been no need to build these, as you said is the case with the SD's.

2. Should the need arise, certainly solutions *will* be found through research and development, as has been the case with any new equipment or technology (the ones that weren't invented or discovered through accident). If there was suddenly an overwheming need for hover-craft based tanks tomorrow or next year, I am pretty sure people will find a way to make it work, probably not right away, but it *will* happen. This happened with the first tanks. People thought it was not feasible, too unwieldly, too expensive, too complex, etc. right after WW I, but we all know how tanks turned out, don't we? ;)

The reason it hasn't been tried is it results in a cripplingly inefficient vehicle with far too many downsides for any advantages to matter. Hovercraft can do some things, but this is not one of them, and no amount of technology can change that because this is a fundamental fact of what a hovercraft is.

The same could be said for these cumbersome, inefficient, complicated, etc. tanks of WW I that had high breakdown rates, not good fuel mileage, etc.

Yet, we kept at it and finally made tanks work. If we had gave up on tanks after WW I, then we would be using horses or armored automobiles in WW II, Korea, Vietnam, or the two Gulf Wars. ;)

Depleted uranium is much less radioactive, and is sandwiched between layers of metal to avoid risk to the crew. It's used for it's density, the same reason DU is used in armour-piercing bullets, in fact.

Understood.

ADDED:

To illustrate my point regarding my hovertanks being impratical and not efficient...

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/wwi_tank.gif

First tanks. Terribly inefficient.

http://www.toysoldiers.com/products-modelvehicles/images/80005.jpg

Today's tanks. Terribly efficient.



So the hovertank *can* be developed into something effective, just like the WW 1 tanks were developed into efficient modern tanks. ;)

Therefore, using this logic, I'd be able to pay more people to do radiation clean-up, use more funds to build more radiation containers, use money to fund construction of radiation storage complexes, etc. The technology for radiation storage is there, but it can be expensive to implement in RL scale of things but inexpensive to do so in NS scale of things.

No, it can't. You can't magically clean up every trace of radiation from an area the size of a city no matter how much money you throw about.

Nope- if I run the British Navy off to Scapa Flow and deny them the English Channel, my objective of freeing up the English Channel of British ships that could interfere with German troop transports would be accomplished.

And you would escort these transports and protect them from the threat of the totally intact British Navy with what, the nonexistant Kriegsmarine surface fleet?

Then consider other strategies or such. D-Day didn't need taking of major ports- the Allies invaded fortified beaches, not an urban port setting.

That's because they had mobile harbours. Germany didn't.

What I was saying was that if Hitler didn't go after Russia (or if Hitler kept his sanity and strategic mind intact) then Germany would have survived a good bit longer and may have very well conquered Britain if Germany did not have to worry about staving off the Red Army.

What sanity? Hitler went after Russia because he thought the Russians were an inferior race who would barely be able to put up a fight. He never had much of a 'strategic mind' to begin with.

I've always considered ECM and ECCM as sci-fi from ship or mecha combat video games.

ECM is chaff, flares and signal jamming. There are whole classes of aircraft devoted to it, haven't you ever seen an AWAC?

The plow can clear out wood spikes, barbed wire, metal obstacles, etc. I'd have the minesweepers deal with the mines.

No it can't. The hovertank has no traction to push against things with, it would just flip over.

Shermans in WW-II. They weren't amphibious tanks.

The DD-Shermans were amphibious.

The problem can be solved through mechanical engineering. Create a good network of hooks, connections, rods, etc. to do this. I wouldn't put it past human ingenuity to solve those engineering problems.

If the top of the hull is designed to easily seperate, it will seperate easily when damaged. You can't achieve two directly contradictory design goals.

People say that those repairs would take a few hours or a full day at most. Bringing spare hover chassis would be similiar to bringing entire new tank tread systems, but on a somewhat bigger scale.

Who said you needed entire tank tread systems? The point was that a tank would only need part of it's treadwork fixing, whereas the delicate parts mean damage is like to require replacement of the entire drive system in yours.

The cranes? Easy...

<snip>

So that follows your hovertanks, meaning they have to slow down to the speed of a heavy wheeled crane?

Speed has the potential to win over armor. I can outdistance and outrun the slow armor juggernauts, then dart behind them to wipe out their support (infantry, logistics, supplies, etc.) leaving the juggernauts isolated. Then once the juggernauts run out of ammo and / or fuel, they're screwed.

We're talking about a coastal defence gun. You start in front of it, it has no fuel, and you can only move towards it.

2. Should the need arise, certainly solutions *will* be found through research and development, as has been the case with any new equipment or technology

No, it hasn't. No matter how good our technology became, we could not build wheeled combat vehicles to work on a WW1 battlefield. We eventually realised a totally different design was called for, hence the development of tracked vehicles.

Advances in technology cannot ever remove basic conceptual weaknesses of a particular design. You can't make an effective SSBN that could also operate as a main battle tank. You can't make an effective helicopter that could also operate as a submarine. You can't make an effective jet airliner that could tunnel underground. You might one day be able to use technology to force this system into being, but it will still be hopelessly inefficient and a waste of space.

This happened with the first tanks. People thought it was not feasible, too unwieldly, too expensive, too complex, etc. right after WW I, but we all know how tanks turned out, don't we? ;)

No, they did not. Tanks broke the deadlock of trench warfare and were hugely effective in WW1. Nobody in their right mind thought them unfeasible after their successes.

So the hovertank *can* be developed into something effective, just like the WW 1 tanks were developed into efficient modern tanks.

Non sequitur. You're saying that because one thing can be developed into something useful, from something useful, anything can be? Does that mean you also belive the Tsar Tank could be developed into a useful system and the Giant Tricycle Tanks like it would be practical?

WW1 tanks were not inefficient. Compared to hurling millions of shells around and then losing thousands of troops in useless charges, they were positively fantastic. As said, they broke the deadlock of trench warfare, finally getting the stagnant battle-lines moving again. Had they been terrible and inefficient, like, say, the Tsar Tank, they wouldn't have been developed further.

WW1 tanks look inefficient by today's standards because they are obsolete technology. Unless you're saying your brand new tank is also obsolete technology, your point doesn't hold water.

I have to correct one thing GMC:


No, they did not. Tanks broke the deadlock of trench warfare and were hugely effective in WW1. Nobody in their right mind thought them unfeasible after their successes.


That's not entirely true, in fact, the tank's original innefficiency was because of the effects of trench warfare. Indeed, at the Somme most of the tanks broke down, and their forewarning [along with the usual week long bombardments, and huge mines] caused the deaths of some forty thousand French and British personnel.

The only major case in which armor did any well during the First World War was in Calais. What broke the deadlock of trench warfare, wether or not the Europeans like to admit it, was the introduction of fresh American meat. I'm not saying the Americans saved the day through efficiency and 'usual' American superiority - no, the Americans were slaughtered. It was just the moral effect of knowning that Germany had now to deal with a country almost four times as large as its own, with fresh meat, and a terribly ferocious military capacity.

The first tanks had little to do with stopping the First World War - indeed, even the Germans came out with their own tank, and just like the Mk. Is and Mk.IIs they were horrible.

I don't think that a really good tank, which was in a sense completely modern, came out until the T-34.

That's not entirely true, in fact, the tank's original innefficiency was because of the effects of trench warfare. Indeed, at the Somme most of the tanks broke down, and their forewarning [along with the usual week long bombardments, and huge mines] caused the deaths of some forty thousand French and British personnel.

Actually, the tank was the end of trench warfare; you can't fight back even a pseudo-effective armoured vehicle with a bunch of riflemen in a trench with machine-guns. It was directly as a result of the advent of armoured warfare that there were no more trench wars. The sources I've looked at say that early tank engagements had many problems with breakdowns, but the later ones [British Mark IV, Mark V and such] did not and were quite effective; also, Germany fielded tanks extensively because such large numbers of enemy tanks were captured they didn't need their own horrendous A7V SturmPanzerKampfWagen.

And don't you mean Cambrai, not Calais?

My mistake, you're right, Cambrai. Regardless, as far as I've studied I've seen that the major advances were done after the AEF arrived in France, especially in the Meuse-Argonne area, where armored warfare was almost impossible. It is to say, the large advances made in the latter part of 1917 and the former part of 1918 were not done by large Mark V./Renault tank armies, but by good 'ol cavalry and infantry.

So, I guess it could be said that the war wasn't ended by armor, but a shift in where the attacks were coordinated at. It is to say, away from the open, flat terrain of Belgium, to the forests of Luxembourg were trench warfare was pretty damn near impossible to do as effectively as in the formerly described areas.

What's an automotive suspension system going to do to stop a hovercraft flipping over? Also, electromagnetic suspension systems are very bad in military vehicles; by their very nature, they're either on or off.

The first section here: http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Myths_Tech_Examples.html is a good reference for such things.

*Performs the forcechoke on GMC.*

"I find your lack of faith disturbing......"

:rolleyes:

Seriously, wtf does rotor bearings have to do with electric motors? I mean really, did you actually think about this 'automotive suspension system' or did you just take the first opportunity to add more literal ammo to this anti-hover opinon you seem to be building up?

Anyway, I suppose it's not my problem really if you lack vision. Afterall I didn't really want to make this system known in NS in the first place. I wanted a tactical advantage over everyone else... seems like I get to keep that advantage. Oh well, 'tis silly really - please, by all means continue building units with inferior hydraulic systems, I won't mind. :p

No, it can't. You can't magically clean up every trace of radiation from an area the size of a city no matter how much money you throw about.

Uhh... I believe it was you or Der Angst saying that if a pebblehead reactor blows up, it'd only irradiate a 50 meter diameter area, hardly the size of a city.

I clearly stated that should there be any finanical problems with clean-up efforts, it would be inexpensive in NS scale, as opposed to expensive in RL scale. Money will *not* be an issue in building radiation storage facilities, paying people hazardous pay, buying or funding the construction of radiation container vehicles, and all the sorts of radiation equipment necessary to clean up the affected areas. Therefore, I will be able to deploy and undertake the radiation clean-up efforts without worrying about money or finance problems.

How hard is it to simply scoop up irradiated soil or debris, place them in radiation containers, then send them to radiation storage facilities? It's the same as what is done with hazardous and toxic chemical and industrial spills or accidents. (shrug)

It could very well cost $1 trillion to clean up Chernobyl and make the town livable again by tearing down irradiated buildings, scoop up all the soil, etc. You need money to pay for all the expenses, logistics, worker salaries, overhead, etc. for the clean-up efforts, and that is a non-issue in NS due to nations having $100+ trillion GDP's while the US only has $7 trillion GDP, I believe.

I guess what I'm saying is that money is as plentiful as water or the air in NS, so money shouldn't be any serious impediment to getting things done, unlike in RL.

I can cite plentiful of RL examples where money prevented things from being done because of the scarity of it. If there had just been a little more money then those things that were unable to be done could have been done.

And you would escort these transports and protect them from the threat of the totally intact British Navy with what, the nonexistant Kriegsmarine surface fleet?

I can deny the English Channel through bomber superiority- the threat of bombers sinking Royal Navy warships will keep them at Scapa Flow. The RAF fighters that would try to end the Luftwaffe dominance of the English Channel would be shot down.

In RL, Germany kept sending their planes into the meat grinder in London, and it accomplished nothing. If Germany had diverted the Luftwaffe into denial of the English Channel to the UK, then it would have far more planes still alive and kicking to throw aganist any D-Day invasion (bombers attack invasion beach-heads and such) or divert some of them to other much needed fronts.

That's because they had mobile harbours. Germany didn't.

Mobile harbors? Thats a new one for me. That reminds me of Doujin's and Whittier's Floating Battle Islands that they designed here at NS a while ago.

What sanity? Hitler went after Russia because he thought the Russians were an inferior race who would barely be able to put up a fight. He never had much of a 'strategic mind' to begin with.

Actually, Hitler did have a decent strategic mind in the first few years of the war- he annexed Austria without firing a shot, I believe. He actually listened to his generals regarding the Blitzkrieg and the drive aganist France. However, when he stopped listening to his generals, thats when he lost his strategic mind.

If he had kept himself together and continued to listen to his generals, then he probably wouldn't have done such foolish mistakes like with the 2 front war. After all, he was the one who didn't want it at the beginning, hence the NAP with Russia in the first place.

ECM is chaff, flares and signal jamming. There are whole classes of aircraft devoted to it, haven't you ever seen an AWAC?

Ahh... so thats what MT ECM is. Understood.

No it can't. The hovertank has no traction to push against things with, it would just flip over.

I find it difficult to believe that a 70 - 80 ton hovertank would flip over trying to push aside a 10 ton steel barrier.

If the top of the hull is designed to easily seperate, it will seperate easily when damaged. You can't achieve two directly contradictory design goals.

Who said you needed entire tank tread systems? The point was that a tank would only need part of it's treadwork fixing, whereas the delicate parts mean damage is like to require replacement of the entire drive system in yours.

(shrugs)

Another risk for me to take for better repair speeds, I guess. I gotta sacrifice something to gain something- this is true everywhere in RL. Probably not in NS the way things are going with uber-wank or uber-stuff going on as people expect those to be unbeatable and invinicble.

So that follows your hovertanks, meaning they have to slow down to the speed of a heavy wheeled crane?

Actually they don't. The tanks would go first, then the cranes will catch up whenever they can- maybe a few hours behind, or even a day behind. Then presto, cranes set up shop and do their job. The repaired tanks race forward to join the front-line tanks.

However, should I be fighting a retreating battle (or defensive one), I could order my hovertanks to set their reactors to overload, and hopefully explode, taking out any enemies trying to capture the tanks or pass their hulks in their drive aganist me.

We're talking about a coastal defence gun. You start in front of it, it has no fuel, and you can only move towards it.

I could move at an angle towards it, or an approach that will be difficult for the coastal battery to cover both the tanks and my naval vessels off-shore.

No, it hasn't. No matter how good our technology became, we could not build wheeled combat vehicles to work on a WW1 battlefield. We eventually realised a totally different design was called for, hence the development of tracked vehicles.

Eh? I do recall we had armored cars back then. I know jeeps came in WW 2, though.

Advances in technology cannot ever remove basic conceptual weaknesses of a particular design. You can't make an effective SSBN that could also operate as a main battle tank. You can't make an effective helicopter that could also operate as a submarine. You can't make an effective jet airliner that could tunnel underground. You might one day be able to use technology to force this system into being, but it will still be hopelessly inefficient and a waste of space.

Conceptual weakness of regular tanks = unable to travel well in swamps, marsh, mud, vast deserts, over water.

Conceptual solution = Add a hovering ability to enable it to overcome its "soggy" terrain travelling weakness (mud, water, swamp, etc.)


I disagree with you with this. I do believe that there are possible ways to overcome weaknesses or shortcomings in equipment or technologies.

Take the flying car for instance. I saw on Modern Marvels two nights ago about a flying car prototype already built and the possibility of having them mass produced in 5 - 10 years from now. This means humans have found a way to make a pratical and functional multi-role vehicle, a "Ground+Air travel in one" vehicle.

No, they did not. Tanks broke the deadlock of trench warfare and were hugely effective in WW1. Nobody in their right mind thought them unfeasible after their successes.

As I recall, those WW 1 tanks were horribly ineffective compared to today's tanks. The WW 1 tanks needed 18 crewmembers in just one tank, had horrible internal ventilation, prone to 50% or higher rates of breakdown, could only travel up to maximum of 5 MPH, and complicated maintainence.

Todays tanks only need 4 crewmembers at most, excellent internal ventilation and NBC protection, reasonably good break-down rates of something like 10% or less, can travel at 40 - 50 MPH or more, somewhat more efficient mantainence, and so forth.

So... my hovertanks would be like the WW 1 tanks. Ineffective at first, but can be improved to excellent standards.

I find it difficult to believe that a 70 - 80 ton hovertank would flip over trying to push aside a 10 ton steel barrier.

Actually, though I doubt the vehicle would flip (it's far too heavy to do that), it is highly unlikely that it would go anywhere. Can you imagine the frictional force that a ten ton steel plow would generate? I doubt a vehicle on tracks, able to utilise some of it's own frictional force, would be able to produce enough force let alone a vehicle that has to rely on thrust alone....

And also while we are talking about weight, seventy to eighty tons is far too heavy for a hover platform - you would need to generate at least eighty thousand kilos of thrust just to keep the thing inflated (for hovercraft)/hovering (for VTOL-tech). I highly doubt a nuclear reactor of the proposed size could produce the torque required to produce that much thrust.

You know... You could use a nuclear powerplant. Ever heard of RTGs? Radioisotope thermoelectric generators. They used them extensively through the space race to power satellites, landers [including the LEM], experiments on the moon, etc. The Russians used them them for the same purposes as well as setting up unmanned lighthouses and beacons across the union that were powered by RTGs.

All they are is a small casing system with a nuclear fuel that, of course, decays and provides heat which produces electrical energy directly via thermocouples. You wouldn't have to use the thermocouples [which were used in space missions due to their simplicity, ruggedness, and lack of maintenance along with very long life spans] due to terrible efficiency [3-5%?] and instead could use anywhere from dynamic generators to Stirling engines.

Their one problem is the fact they don't produce all that much power. I think one of the most powerful ones could produce about 500 kw [most are around a hundred or less]. However, since they were designed for space missions they are relatively light and small [about the size of a small person]. This doesn't take into account if you use a dynamic generator [which could very well double its size and weight], but even if you use thermocouples with just one RTG along with a medium-power diesel engine or turbine even, you could produce probably the amount of power you require [assuming you have a fairly efficient drive system]. You could even pack several of them together, smaller ones, although producing less power, were much lighter and smaller. Also, in early pacemakers they carried a small RTG to power them [of course these produce but a mere trickle of power but were designed for long use, low power, the power can be increased at the expense of life span].

RTGs also, by nature, can last hundreds of years before their fuel is exhuasted [several dozen years before its power potential has decreased to a significant amount to recharge] and that's with large half-life fuels. The RTGs can probably generate even more power if you use a much smaller half-life fuel that provides immense amounts of power compared to the stable, long-lasting original RTGs. The trade off is that it won't last as long [but still plenty long... for a tank].

They're also incredibly safe... After all, these man-sized reactors were designed to survive re-entry [or some of them were] and have before. The most notable is the Apollo 13 LEM which burnt up over Fiji. Its RTG survived and is in the Tonga trench to this day.


Anyways, just an idea, it'd definately have to be coupled with a conventional powerplant but, in my view, it'd be a bit more plausible than a straight pebblebed reactor powerplant. And of course, one of these and a diesel or other powerplant would increase weight substantially but, eh, who knows... I'll let you decide.

I can deny the English Channel through bomber superiority- the threat of bombers sinking Royal Navy warships will keep them at Scapa Flow. The RAF fighters that would try to end the Luftwaffe dominance of the English Channel would be shot down.

In RL, Germany kept sending their planes into the meat grinder in London, and it accomplished nothing. If Germany had diverted the Luftwaffe into denial of the English Channel to the UK, then it would have far more planes still alive and kicking to throw aganist any D-Day invasion (bombers attack invasion beach-heads and such) or divert some of them to other much needed fronts.


No, the Luftwaffe never had a chance to gain air dominance in the channel - ever. Bombers during the Second World War were not terribly effecient against naval assets until the advent of skipping developed by B-25s during the Battle of Coral Sea in 1942. The Germans were doomed in the British Isles from the beginning since they lacked the Kriegsmarine to open the channel, and they lacked the transport aircraft to invade them through paratroopers.

The RN never faced defeat in that area, except through the use of uboats, which obviously failed. The Germans wouldn't have won either had they diverted their aircraft to other targets. Indeed, by early October the RAF was moving its airbases north of the Thames, were German fighters couldn't reach, leaving their bombers unescorted - making them easy prey for RAF fighters.

What historians do argue for the Germans is that had they left Russia alone for the time being and instead continued a policy in North Africa in support of the Italians, pushing the British out of the Middle East, the Brits would have been forced to surrender simply because their life line had been cut off. Indeed, a British defeat in the Middle East would have meant a British defeat in India by the Japanese. It wouldn't have necessarilly been a logistical nightmare for the Germans, as much as it would have been for the Italians - since it would have been placed under the Italian sphere of influence until Hitler thought it the right time to annex his former partner in crime.


Actually, Hitler did have a decent strategic mind in the first few years of the war- he annexed Austria without firing a shot, I believe. He actually listened to his generals regarding the Blitzkrieg and the drive aganist France. However, when he stopped listening to his generals, thats when he lost his strategic mind.

If he had kept himself together and continued to listen to his generals, then he probably wouldn't have done such foolish mistakes like with the 2 front war. After all, he was the one who didn't want it at the beginning, hence the NAP with Russia in the first place.


True enough, but I suggest you read the book called Inside Hitler's High Command, by Geoffrey P. Margargee. Most of the blame can be placed both on Hitler and the German generalship, since the latter forced themselves to believe that blitzrkieg would win the war, when it was blatantly obvious that it would not.

The German generals wanted to invade Russia. They themselves thought it would take six months. Unfortunately for them, Hitler stopped listening to his generals on about August 1941, where he forced Guderian south and Kleist north, leaving Moscow for later. Had he just gone with the plan Moscow would have fallen by September 1941, although that wouldn't have necessarily won the war either.

The reason Blitzkrieg did work was because Poland and France were comparatively small, as opposed to the expanses of North Africa and Russia. Not to mention that the entire plan to invade France was concocted by von Manstein, not by Hitler as so many believe [Hitler made claims that he was the true brains behind the invasion, but he was wrong].

Indeed, Hitler was perhaps the worst military strategist of the war, which is why most likely he stayed a private for all of the First World War. Him and Heinrich Himmler thought that wars were thought with huge epic battles and holding their ground - that stratagem obviously failed in the latter years of Russia, when Mansten was sacked, and Hitler began to hold out in pockets. Indeed, during the battle of Berlin Hitler asked his generals to order Steiner to envelope (!) Soviet armies besieging the city - you can see the scene in the movie Downfall - and unfortunately for him Steiner's army had been destroyed prior to the siege during the consequent Soviet spring offensives.



Mobile harbors? Thats a new one for me. That reminds me of Doujin's and Whittier's Floating Battle Islands that they designed here at NS a while ago.


Yes, I don't quite remember the names for these harbors, but I do know that only one survived the week. The rest were blown away due to high tides and wind forces.

Hmm... I appreciate the history lesson, Macabees.

I'm recalling stuff that I read about Hitler from high school (over 7 years ago), so my memory may be a little foggy. :)

You know... You could use a nuclear powerplant. Ever heard of RTGs? Radioisotope thermoelectric generators. They used them extensively through the space race to power satellites, landers [including the LEM], experiments on the moon, etc. The Russians used them them for the same purposes as well as setting up unmanned lighthouses and beacons across the union that were powered by RTGs.

All they are is a small casing system with a nuclear fuel that, of course, decays and provides heat which produces electrical energy directly via thermocouples. You wouldn't have to use the thermocouples [which were used in space missions due to their simplicity, ruggedness, and lack of maintenance along with very long life spans] due to terrible efficiency [3-5%?] and instead could use anywhere from dynamic generators to Stirling engines.

Their one problem is the fact they don't produce all that much power. I think one of the most powerful ones could produce about 500 kw [most are around a hundred or less]. However, since they were designed for space missions they are relatively light and small [about the size of a small person]. This doesn't take into account if you use a dynamic generator [which could very well double its size and weight], but even if you use thermocouples with just one RTG along with a medium-power diesel engine or turbine even, you could produce probably the amount of power you require [assuming you have a fairly efficient drive system]. You could even pack several of them together, smaller ones, although producing less power, were much lighter and smaller. Also, in early pacemakers they carried a small RTG to power them [of course these produce but a mere trickle of power but were designed for long use, low power, the power can be increased at the expense of life span].

RTGs also, by nature, can last hundreds of years before their fuel is exhuasted [several dozen years before its power potential has decreased to a significant amount to recharge] and that's with large half-life fuels. The RTGs can probably generate even more power if you use a much smaller half-life fuel that provides immense amounts of power compared to the stable, long-lasting original RTGs. The trade off is that it won't last as long [but still plenty long... for a tank].

They're also incredibly safe... After all, these man-sized reactors were designed to survive re-entry [or some of them were] and have before. The most notable is the Apollo 13 LEM which burnt up over Fiji. Its RTG survived and is in the Tonga trench to this day.


Anyways, just an idea, it'd definately have to be coupled with a conventional powerplant but, in my view, it'd be a bit more plausible than a straight pebblebed reactor powerplant. And of course, one of these and a diesel or other powerplant would increase weight substantially but, eh, who knows... I'll let you decide.

That seems brilliant for onboard systems and conventional drive shafts... but what about thrust (as is required in this situation)? Would five hundred kilowatts be enough power to drive enough turbines to fast enough speeds in order to produce the required thrust?

Im sorry to have to dissagree with what seems to be an extremely intelligent military mind here, but the Germans did attempt to draw the RAF out over the channel. It didnt work because of two things. One, the RAF had superior pilots than the German Luftwaffe. Two, the Super Marine Spitfire was superior to the German 190 in nearly every way. Once the bombers lost their fighter support the RAF would destroy them. One more thing is the fact that not too many people remember that the British had radar at the time. In my book it was a rather unfair advantage to the Luftwaffe. Hitting the British mainland when the RAF was in top form was a foolish thing to do. The generals of the Luftwaffe should have seriously looked at all aspects of a battle plan for fighter invasion before hand. Which Im sure they did though, just they didnt take into account many things. I wont be able to defend my agruement because I am currently on a school cpu and will soon be leaving. Thanks for getting me all WW2ed up today though, I needed it. :sniper: :mp5:

Im sorry to have to dissagree with what seems to be an extremely intelligent military mind here, but the Germans did attempt to draw the RAF out over the channel. It didnt work because of two things. One, the RAF had superior pilots than the German Luftwaffe. Two, the Super Marine Spitfire was superior to the German 190 in nearly every way. Once the bombers lost their fighter support the RAF would destroy them. One more thing is the fact that not too many people remember that the British had radar at the time. In my book it was a rather unfair advantage to the Luftwaffe. Hitting the British mainland when the RAF was in top form was a foolish thing to do. The generals of the Luftwaffe should have seriously looked at all aspects of a battle plan for fighter invasion before hand. Which Im sure they did though, just they didnt take into account many things. I wont be able to defend my agruement because I am currently on a school cpu and will soon be leaving. Thanks for getting me all WW2ed up today though, I needed it. :sniper: :mp5:


That's a gross over exxageration of the capabilities of the Spitfires, not to mention that the great deal of RAF aircraft during the beginnings of the battle were Hurricanes, not Spitfires. The FW-190 was somewhat inferior to the Spitfire, however, the Spitfire did not have a great deal, if none at all, advantage over the Me-109.

Furthermore, British 1941 radar systems had an optimal range of around ten kilometers, and most of those were wiped out during the early stages of the battle, although they did help turn the tide.

Moreover, the British absolutely did not have better pilots than the Luftwaffe did. No historian can ever claim that, especially when all the Luftwaffe did in terms of the individual quality of the pilot itself. Not only that, but the RAF and Luftwaffe were different in the feature. Allied pilots stressed cooperation, Luftwaffe pilots stressed individual glory - so, you can't even make that comparison here. The best pilots were most likely the Poles who fought for the RAF, but you can't even make that comparison.

The British got more kills during the Battle of Britain for the simple fact that neither the FW-190 or the Me-109 could reach over the Thames, leaving their bombers unescorted. As a consequence, the Me-110s and He-111s were made perfect prey for Spitfires and Hurricanes. The reason the British were not lured over the channel was because they were smarter than that, and instead began to transfer their aircraft north of the Thames river. Indeed, most of the RAFs bases to the south were destroyed because of German aerial superiority in terms of quality and numbers during the beginning of the battle.

That seems brilliant for onboard systems and conventional drive shafts... but what about thrust (as is required in this situation)? Would five hundred kilowatts be enough power to drive enough turbines to fast enough speeds in order to produce the required thrust?


Likely not, hence why it should be paired with say a conventional mid-size powerplant [turbine maybe or quasiturbine, who knows] devoted solely to providing thrust or whatever you need with it. Let the RTGs do the rest [all electronics, even providing a lot of assistance to the other powerplant]. It'd be hefty, but it sure seems alot more practical than a pebblebed, or at least more realistic.

Otherwise, just the reactor alone might, but the vehicle would have to be light and you'll have to a have a quirky set-up to get an efficient transmission of power to the turbines. One of these say paired with one turbine on a light hovercraft frame would make one sick light assault platform... But it'd be like a train and you'd have to at least lay off the throttle several miles before you came to rest. Or it'd have airbrakes. Airbrakes for slowing down to a speed where a skid can be deployed to slow you down further. The airbrakes can assist in maneuvering.

Wait... A super fast light artillery. Zooms to a position, deploys itself [i.e. lands and deploys support mechanisms] and opens fire. After the barrage, pull up the supports, lift her up and zoom on again. Oooooooh... I may have to look into that.

Anyways, that's my take on it.

I recall that pebblehead nuclear reactors can be much smaller than conventional nuclear reactors in power plants or naval vessels.

By pebblehead you mean peddlebed? Also you don't understand one thing, reactor on a naval vessels is made up of two compartments, in one the nuclear reactions happens and coolant evaporates, taking in all that heat energy and converting a portion of it in kinetinc energy, that in ANOTHER compartment is used to rotate the turbine that has an electrical generator that generates electricity. Even if you can somehow fit a nuclear reactor inside of a tank, once it starts going it will take about 10 minutes if not less for it to run out of coolant and unless you have more coolant you gonna have a 90-120 MeV of unconverted Heat Energy bursting your tank into flames.


I repeat, the reason why I went with a nuclear power plant is because there is no other power plant or electrical system that would be able to provide the constant high power requirements to operate such a vehicle. Fossil fuels are a no-no because I'd have to refill it after every 15 - 30 minutes, which would mean a logistical nightmare, require too much oil, and needs an small army of trucks and personnel just to keep one tank fueled. I eliminate all those problems by going nuclear.

Actually, you can use a turbo charged diesel engine quite succesfully to generate as much electrical power as you want, atleast you can say that for NS purposes.

Trust me, i am a NUCLEAR ENGINEER, you can't stick a nuclear reactor inside a tank.

Why else did the US convert its aircraft carriers and submarines from conventional oil to nuclear? To reduce the re-fueling costs, logistics, and issues.

A nuclear reactor is possible to have on an Aircraft Carrier, same with a submarine, but not on a tank.

You know... You could use a nuclear powerplant. Ever heard of RTGs? Radioisotope thermoelectric generators. They used them extensively through the space race to power satellites, landers [including the LEM], experiments on the moon, etc. The Russians used them them for the same purposes as well as setting up unmanned lighthouses and beacons across the union that were powered by RTGs.

All they are is a small casing system with a nuclear fuel that, of course, decays and provides heat which produces electrical energy directly via thermocouples. You wouldn't have to use the thermocouples [which were used in space missions due to their simplicity, ruggedness, and lack of maintenance along with very long life spans] due to terrible efficiency [3-5%?] and instead could use anywhere from dynamic generators to Stirling engines.

Their one problem is the fact they don't produce all that much power. I think one of the most powerful ones could produce about 500 kw [most are around a hundred or less]. However, since they were designed for space missions they are relatively light and small [about the size of a small person]. This doesn't take into account if you use a dynamic generator [which could very well double its size and weight], but even if you use thermocouples with just one RTG along with a medium-power diesel engine or turbine even, you could produce probably the amount of power you require [assuming you have a fairly efficient drive system]. You could even pack several of them together, smaller ones, although producing less power, were much lighter and smaller. Also, in early pacemakers they carried a small RTG to power them [of course these produce but a mere trickle of power but were designed for long use, low power, the power can be increased at the expense of life span].

RTGs also, by nature, can last hundreds of years before their fuel is exhuasted [several dozen years before its power potential has decreased to a significant amount to recharge] and that's with large half-life fuels. The RTGs can probably generate even more power if you use a much smaller half-life fuel that provides immense amounts of power compared to the stable, long-lasting original RTGs. The trade off is that it won't last as long [but still plenty long... for a tank].

They're also incredibly safe... After all, these man-sized reactors were designed to survive re-entry [or some of them were] and have before. The most notable is the Apollo 13 LEM which burnt up over Fiji. Its RTG survived and is in the Tonga trench to this day.


Anyways, just an idea, it'd definately have to be coupled with a conventional powerplant but, in my view, it'd be a bit more plausible than a straight pebblebed reactor powerplant. And of course, one of these and a diesel or other powerplant would increase weight substantially but, eh, who knows... I'll let you decide.

First of all if only 3-5% of heat gets converted there do you think the rest of the heat goes? Thats right its gets rejected and has to be thrown out. It works on a satelite, because satelite is in space, its not gonna get melted from all that heat, that heat can't start a fire, same is not true for a tank.


And actually, Russian Space Reactors generated 150 Kwt of power at most let me give you a table:

BUK: 100 Kwt
TOPAZ-I: 150 Kwt
TOPAZ-II: 135 Kwt

Those are Russian reactors made to work in space. What they used as coolant was NaK liquid metal that transfered heat from the core to the thermoelectric generator. Its all good, but the problem was that the waste heat was rejected to space by a large conical radiator. A tank can't do that, because a tank is not in space, there is gonna be a fire, oh yeah. Simply put its an impossible task, you can't put a nuclear reactor on a tank...unless...its a fusion reactor using magnetic confinement, but even then if a shell penetrates your armor and breaks one of the walls of the TAPAMAK, you're screwed you gonna have hot plasma melting right trough your tank.

American space reactors did the same thing then it came to dealing with rejected heat energy, plus they were huge, much bigger then the Russian ones, thus they had higher power levels:

SNAP-10A: 435 Kwt
SP-100: 5422 Kwt

SNAP used NaK for a coolant, SP-100 uses Li. The thing is that SP-100 was never actually put in space and SNAP was only put in space once.

Once again guys, nuclear engineer talking here. DON'T PUT NUCLEAR REACTORS ON TANKS!

Oh yeah and just to add a thing you guys might not know about peddlebed reactors. The peddles move without a patern, at different speeds, sometimes although not constantly they get stuck and then you have a problem. There is a reason why so many peple work on nuclear stations or watch over nuclear reactors on submarines, nuclear reactors need to be maintained, and its one thing then you got a 2 mile long complex with 3 back up system for each back up system, its a little different then you are trying to stick a nuclear reactor in tank and make it as compact as possible thus compramasing some of the vital safety features.

guess what I'm saying is that money is as plentiful as water or the air in NS, so money shouldn't be any serious impediment to getting things done, unlike in RL.

Nonsense. Huge nations need huge budgets for roads, education, railways, administration...These things scale. If your government has vast piles of cash around it uses for nothing, chances are your citizens are pissed at being overtaxed.

I can cite plentiful of RL examples where money prevented things from being done because of the scarity of it. If there had just been a little more money then those things that were unable to be done could have been done.

And I can cite RL examples like MBT-70 and STRV-2000 where all the money in the world couldn't have made an effective tank because the technologies were too new at the time and too poorly understood to be effective. Sometimes money isn't enough; it can take time. It can, in some cases, be totally impossible, as with the Tsar Tank.

I can deny the English Channel through bomber superiority- the threat of bombers sinking Royal Navy warships will keep them at Scapa Flow. The RAF fighters that would try to end the Luftwaffe dominance of the English Channel would be shot down.

But the Luftwaffe's actual target, British heavy industry, would be untouched by such a strategy. That was the objective of the blitz, remember?

In RL, Germany kept sending their planes into the meat grinder in London, and it accomplished nothing. If Germany had diverted the Luftwaffe into denial of the English Channel to the UK, then it would have far more planes still alive and kicking to throw aganist any D-Day invasion (bombers attack invasion beach-heads and such) or divert some of them to other much needed fronts.

They didn't know about Overlord until the day it happened, so they couldn't plan for it in advance. They thought it would be centred around capturing a port, because they didn't know about the Mulberry harbours. Anything stationed to defend against allied invasion was in the wrong place at D-Day.

Mobile harbors? Thats a new one for me. That reminds me of Doujin's and Whittier's Floating Battle Islands that they designed here at NS a while ago.

Two Mulberry harbours were built in real life and the remains of one are still visible off one of the landing beaches [Ohama, IIRC]. And Whittier didn't design Battle Island, it's a RL proposal.

If he had kept himself together and continued to listen to his generals, then he probably wouldn't have done such foolish mistakes like with the 2 front war. After all, he was the one who didn't want it at the beginning, hence the NAP with Russia in the first place.

You're ignoring the point. His hatred for the Russian race and his belief in German superiority made him believe that Russia would be unable to put up a fight. He invaded because he believed Russia would roll over and die, just like France had.

I find it difficult to believe that a 70 - 80 ton hovertank would flip over trying to push aside a 10 ton steel barrier.

It can't push against the ground because it doesn't contact it; it has no traction. Hovercraft either stop, bounce or flip when hitting a solid object.

Actually they don't. The tanks would go first, then the cranes will catch up whenever they can- maybe a few hours behind, or even a day behind. Then presto, cranes set up shop and do their job. The repaired tanks race forward to join the front-line tanks.

Um, so you have a day's timeout to replace what on a normal tank would be the work of, at most, hours?

However, should I be fighting a retreating battle (or defensive one), I could order my hovertanks to set their reactors to overload, and hopefully explode, taking out any enemies trying to capture the tanks or pass their hulks in their drive aganist me.

But didn't you just argue that your exploding reactors aren't dangerous yourself?

I could move at an angle towards it, or an approach that will be difficult for the coastal battery to cover both the tanks and my naval vessels off-shore.

More than one gun in a def battery...

Eh? I do recall we had armored cars back then. I know jeeps came in WW 2, though.

No wheeled vehicle could be built that could cross the craters, wire and mud of no-man's land without becoming bogged down. Tracked vehicles were necessary to have a hope of crossing it.

Conceptual weakness of regular tanks = unable to travel well in swamps, marsh, mud, vast deserts, over water.

Conceptual solution = Add a hovering ability to enable it to overcome its "soggy" terrain travelling weakness (mud, water, swamp, etc.)

But an MBT has no purpose being in a swamp to begin with; there's nothing for it to defend, the enemy won't bring tanks there for it to fight, and likely as not they'll just go around the swamp and ignore it. It's not part of an MBT's design brief to fight in a swamp, so it's no real surprise it can't.

And, um, tanks are perfectly ok in deserts. Haven't you heard of Desert Storm?

Take the flying car for instance. I saw on Modern Marvels two nights ago about a flying car prototype already built and the possibility of having them mass produced in 5 - 10 years from now. This means humans have found a way to make a pratical and functional multi-role vehicle, a "Ground+Air travel in one" vehicle.

A flying car was not one of the given examples. Some technological problems are insurmountable; flying cars have already been built, so they are obviously not one of them.

Even so, a flying car is unlikely to be as efficient as a purpose-built car or a purpose-built aircraft.

As I recall, those WW 1 tanks were horribly ineffective compared to today's tanks. The WW 1 tanks needed 18 crewmembers in just one tank, had horrible internal ventilation, prone to 50% or higher rates of breakdown, could only travel up to maximum of 5 MPH, and complicated maintainence.

Who cares? They weren't fighting today's tanks! By the standard you're giving, a three-masted Spanish galleon must have been useless because a whole fleet of them couldn't defeat a single modern battleship. Technology is supposed to be effective compared to contemporary technology, you can't design things so they still look effective compared to their successors a hundred years later.

So... my hovertanks would be like the WW 1 tanks. Ineffective at first, but can be improved to excellent standards.

But the WW1 tanks did not have fatal conceptual flaws, they had limitations placed on them by available technology. As technology improved, lighter alloys, better engines, improved sensors and more effective armour schemes made them into safer, more powerful fighting machines, but there was never a fundamental flaw with them like with a hovercraft-tank.

Bottom line, no matter how much money you throw at this, it will never be effective compared to a tank with treads. As many have suggested, a hover IFV might be effective as a special-purpose unit for swamp or river combat, but as an MBT a hovertank is a dead loss.

Seriously, wtf does rotor bearings have to do with electric motors?

That your suspension is totally dependant on electrical power. It's not robust, is more likely to fail, and when it does fail if I'm reading that article of yours right, it'll be an on to off failure rather than a gradual degradation of performance.

Anyway, since a hovercraft has no components in contact with the ground, what good would suspension do it?

And also while we are talking about weight, seventy to eighty tons is far too heavy for a hover platform - you would need to generate at least eighty thousand kilos of thrust just to keep the thing inflated (for hovercraft)/hovering (for VTOL-tech). I highly doubt a nuclear reactor of the proposed size could produce the torque required to produce that much thrust.

So this here 535 ton Russian hovercraft is a figment of reality's imagination?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/Hovercraft.jpg

Conceptual weakness of regular tanks = unable to travel well in swamps, marsh, mud, vast deserts, over water.

Conceptual solution = Add a hovering ability to enable it to overcome its "soggy" terrain travelling weakness (mud, water, swamp, etc.)
Solution to what? Why do you need hovertanks in the swamps?

[And lets quickly forget about mud or deserts. I believe that both, Shukow (Mud) and Rommel or Schwarzkopf (Desert) would stab you for this]

It's really simple: The swamps have issues, insofar as moving heavy units through them doesn't work. Supply lines are a pain in the ass. Any kind of sane person would either go around them or fly over them (With planes). Oh, sure, hovering vehicles are an idea, the problem is that they'll be slaughtered as soon as they leave the swamp. So, until you suspense your disbelief, add 'Rip Physics a new one!' EM/ Gravitic hovering technology approximately an impossibility away in the future, and casually disregard this issues in favour of coolness, you've failed.

And it should be noted that even physicswank floaty vehicles have to spend abnormal amounts of energy trying to stay afloat, which generally means that they're still less armoured and field less firepower than a tracked vehicle, so they're still lacking in two regards.

In any case. You have better ways to go around them, and an enemy, if he actually risked entering the swamps, would be fucked instantaneously.

So... my hovertanks would be like the WW 1 tanks. Ineffective at first, but can be improved to excellent standards.How?

Nonsense. Huge nations need huge budgets for roads, education, railways, administration...These things scale. If your government has vast piles of cash around it uses for nothing, chances are your citizens are pissed at being overtaxed.

Okay, lets take your concept and work on it.

RL Budget of Nation X:

Taxes: 50% = (Income of 2 trillion dollars)

Administration: 5% = 100 billion dollars.
Social Welfare (Welfare, Social Security, courts, etc.): 5% = 100 billion dollars.
Healthcare: 10% = 200 billion dollars.
Education: 10% = 200 billion dollars.
Emergency Services (Fire Dept, FEMA, etc.): 5% = 100 billion dollars.
Defense: 20% = 400 billion dollars.
Law & Order: 15% = 300 billion dollars.
Commerce: 10% = 200 billion dollars.
Public Transport: 10% = 200 billion dollars.
The Environment (EPA): 2.5% = 50 billion dollars.

Surplus: 7.5% = 150 billion dollars.

Now that leaves us with 400 billion dollars for military applications such as operating costs, R + D budgets, military projects, etc. with the possibility of $150 billion more dollars from "Surplus" for a total of $550 billion dollars.


Now onto NS scale...

Taxes: 50% = (Income of 100 trillion dollars)

Administration: 5% = 5 trillion dollars.
Social Welfare (Welfare, Social Security, courts, etc.): 5% = 5 trillion dollars.
Healthcare: 10% = 100 trllion dollars.
Education: 10% = 100 trillion dollars.
Emergency Services (Fire Dept, FEMA, etc.): 5% = 5 trillion dollars.
Defense: 20% = 20 trillion dollars.
Law & Order: 15% = 15 trillion dollars.
Commerce: 10% = 10 trillion dollars.
Public Transport: 10% = 10 trillion dollars.
The Environment (EPA): 2.5% = 2.5 trillion dollars.

Surplus: 7.5% = 7.5 trillion dollars.

Now that leaves us with 20 trillion dollars for military applications such as operating costs, R + D budgets, military projects, etc. with the possibility of $7.5 trillion more dollars from "Surplus" for a total of $27.5 trillion dollars.

This means NS nations would have approximately 50 times as much money to spend on MT military budgets, R + D projects, or various civilian projects. Even if we eliminate the military budget and are left with a Surplus budget of $150 billion in RL scale or $7.5 trillion in NS scale, it would be ample money to fund far more technological developments as more research labs, projects, and such would be able to be funded. Or money to spend on massive construction projects, like a modern Great Wall enclosing your entire nation, multiple International Space Stations, large artifical islands, etc.

The costs of MT stays the same whether we go by RL or NS standards (An Abrams M1A1 tank costs the same in NS as it does in RL, or the cost of concrete + steel is same in NS as in RL). Thus construction or manufacturing costs won't change while the amount of the money available does change.

And I can cite RL examples like MBT-70 and STRV-2000 where all the money in the world couldn't have made an effective tank because the technologies were too new at the time and too poorly understood to be effective. Sometimes money isn't enough; it can take time. It can, in some cases, be totally impossible, as with the Tsar Tank.

Fair enough.

However, should any concentrated efforts take place, technical problems can be solved or migitated.

But the Luftwaffe's actual target, British heavy industry, would be untouched by such a strategy. That was the objective of the blitz, remember?

I would have changed the strategy to focus on keeping the channel clear for an invasion to take place. Then the invasion could enter the British cities and do damage or disable industries that bombers couldn't do (either due to range or British RAF fighters).

They didn't know about Overlord until the day it happened, so they couldn't plan for it in advance. They thought it would be centred around capturing a port, because they didn't know about the Mulberry harbours. Anything stationed to defend against allied invasion was in the wrong place at D-Day.

Actually, D-Day could have been stopped or delayed for a sufficient period of time if the Nazi generals ordered German Panzers into the theater of operations. However, they were too afraid to wake up Hitler to tell Hitler to order the Panzers into action. If the generals took the initative without waiting for Hitler to wake up and say "yes" then D-Day could have been a rout aganist the Allies, meaning Germany would have lasted longer in the war.

And if Germany didn't lose so many bombers, fighters, and experienced pilots aganist the RAF over London, then they would have had more good planes to deny France, Germany, and the D-Day beach-heads aganist RAF and Allied bombers, which means German industry wouldn't have been so hard hit or its soldiers bombed to hell by the Allied bombers in the fields east of D-Day, can't remember the fields where a million Germans were encircled and suffered horrific casaulties from allied bombings.

You're ignoring the point. His hatred for the Russian race and his belief in German superiority made him believe that Russia would be unable to put up a fight. He invaded because he believed Russia would roll over and die, just like France had.

Granted.

However, Hitler also hated the British and France. If I was him, I'd concentrate on one foe, instead of trying to take more than one (major) or two (minor) foes at once. No hindsight or foresight involved, just common sense and common practicality.

If I hated two people, I wouldn't try to fight them both at once. I'd take one out before taking the second person I hate.

It can't push against the ground because it doesn't contact it; it has no traction. Hovercraft either stop, bounce or flip when hitting a solid object.[/quote[

I still find it difficult to believe that 10 ton or lighter object would flip over a hovercraft easily 6+ times heavier than it.

What you're suggesting is that I could just raise my hand and flip over the hovercraft should it push aganist my hand? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=GMC Military Arms]Um, so you have a day's timeout to replace what on a normal tank would be the work of, at most, hours?

Actually, the idea is that the combat moves away from the damaged tanks (should I be on the offensive), and then my soldiers set up logistics depots, camps, makeshift barracks, etc. in the now-occupied territory. During these efforts, my tanks would be in the process of being repaired then have them catch up with my front-line troops and equipment.

But didn't you just argue that your exploding reactors aren't dangerous yourself?

Overloading = more destructive than a direct hit. During overload, the reactor intentionally builds up tremendous energy for release instead of a direct hit which would hit the reactor during normal energy production.

Example...

Normal operation = 1 megawatt worth of energy..

Overload = 20 megawatts worth of energy.

So you can see, the release of a 1 megawatt energy would be far less dangerous than a 20 megawatt nuclear overload.

[QUOTE=GMC Military Arms]More than one gun in a def battery...

Those batteries would be facing towards the ocean or sea. I'd be approaching these batteries at an angle that would make it difficult for them to cover. Here's a simple picture (again lol)...

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9167/example0zt.png

No wheeled vehicle could be built that could cross the craters, wire and mud of no-man's land without becoming bogged down. Tracked vehicles were necessary to have a hope of crossing it.

Point taken. However, I recall that jeeps were able to go through rough terrain in WW 2 onwards. Therefore, with time and effort, technologies previously thought impossible to do (like your wheel example) can be made possible or practical (Jeeps in WW2 onwards).

But an MBT has no purpose being in a swamp to begin with; there's nothing for it to defend, the enemy won't bring tanks there for it to fight, and likely as not they'll just go around the swamp and ignore it. It's not part of an MBT's design brief to fight in a swamp, so it's no real surprise it can't.

Actually, suppose my cities or strategic assets were deep inside a swamp, marsh, or the middle of a lake (like Tenochitilan in RL)? Then the need *will* be there to construct armor that can deflect conventional infantry slogging through these rough terrain. Hence, armor vehicles that can traverse these areas would be needed to be made practical. Thus the birth of hovercraft based armor vehicles.

And, um, tanks are perfectly ok in deserts. Haven't you heard of Desert Storm?

Wouldn't sand grind down the gears and machinery down?

A flying car was not one of the given examples. Some technological problems are insurmountable; flying cars have already been built, so they are obviously not one of them.

Even so, a flying car is unlikely to be as efficient as a purpose-built car or a purpose-built aircraft.

True. However, I cited that example as it being possible to make a multi-purpose vehicle that many thought was impossible or impratical to do so even as recently as 5 years ago.

There are still those who say flying cars are impossible to do today or within 10 years. Yet they are wrong as the flying car prototype has already been built today.

People may say a blending of an aircraft and a submarine or automobile + submarine would be impossible. However it could be possible if the correct technologies were researched and developed.

Who cares? They weren't fighting today's tanks! By the standard you're giving, a three-masted Spanish galleon must have been useless because a whole fleet of them couldn't defeat a single modern battleship. Technology is supposed to be effective compared to contemporary technology, you can't design things so they still look effective compared to their successors a hundred years later.

The point I was making is that tanks back then in 1914 - 1920's were ineffective and lousy compared to today's tanks. That is a given with *ANY* invention or technology. Primitive at first, then is researched and developed into something better down the line.

Wooden boats were primitive compared to today's metallic ships. In the 1000's, people thought metal ships were impratical and impossible until it happened during the Civil War with first ironclads. People thought it'd be impossible to float metal like they can with wood. Yet it was done.

People in the 1500's laughed at Da Vinci's idea of submarines and flying machines until the early 1900's with German submarines during WW 1, and the Wright Brothers planes.

People thought nuclear power was science fiction like H.G. Wells and such, until it happened with the Manhattan Project.

People thought landing on the Moon or space travel was impossible until we did it from 1950's to present day.

People thought communicators in the Star Trek TV shows was impossible until the 1990's with our present day cell phones.

See what I'm getting at?

But the WW1 tanks did not have fatal conceptual flaws, they had limitations placed on them by available technology. As technology improved, lighter alloys, better engines, improved sensors and more effective armour schemes made them into safer, more powerful fighting machines, but there was never a fundamental flaw with them like with a hovercraft-tank.

Yes- but I could develop stronger rubber polymers to be more resistant aganist shrapnel and machine gun bullets. I could develop smaller or better jet engines with more thrust. I could develop anti-grav technology. I could develop better alloys that would reduce the overall weight of the hover tank while retaining the same RHA protection. I could miniaturize nuclear reactors like what was done with computers (1960's room sized computers down to today's laptops),

Bottom line, no matter how much money you throw at this, it will never be effective compared to a tank with treads. As many have suggested, a hover IFV might be effective as a special-purpose unit for swamp or river combat, but as an MBT a hovertank is a dead loss.

I could throw money to *fund* the research labs to undertake technological research cited in my response just above this quote. I could supply / fund the machines, computers, scientist salaries, equipment, etc.for these undertakings.

So this here 535 ton Russian hovercraft is a figment of reality's imagination?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/Hovercraft.jpg

This refers to my earlier point. I still can't imagine that giant hovercraft flipping over once it hits an obstacle far lighter and smaller than it.

Solution to what? Why do you need hovertanks in the swamps?

[And lets quickly forget about mud or deserts. I believe that both, Shukow (Mud) and Rommel or Schwarzkopf (Desert) would stab you for this]

It's really simple: The swamps have issues, insofar as moving heavy units through them doesn't work. Supply lines are a pain in the ass. Any kind of sane person would either go around them or fly over them (With planes). Oh, sure, hovering vehicles are an idea, the problem is that they'll be slaughtered as soon as they leave the swamp. So, until you suspense your disbelief, add 'Rip Physics a new one!' EM/ Gravitic hovering technology approximately an impossibility away in the future, and casually disregard this issues in favour of coolness, you've failed.

And it should be noted that even physicswank floaty vehicles have to spend abnormal amounts of energy trying to stay afloat, which generally means that they're still less armoured and field less firepower than a tracked vehicle, so they're still lacking in two regards.

In any case. You have better ways to go around them, and an enemy, if he actually risked entering the swamps, would be fucked instantaneously.

Actually, suppose my cities or strategic assets were deep inside a swamp, marsh, or the middle of a lake (like Tenochitilan in RL)? Then the need *will* be there to construct armor that can deflect conventional infantry slogging through these rough terrain. Hence, armor vehicles that can traverse these areas would be needed to be made practical. Thus the birth of hovercraft based armor vehicles.

Actually, D-Day could have been stopped or delayed for a sufficient period of time if the Nazi generals ordered German Panzers into the theater of operations.To be shelled by destroyers or to be bombed by fighter/ bombers?

Point taken. However, I recall that jeeps were able to go through rough terrain in WW 2 onwards. Therefore, with time and effort, technologies previously thought impossible to do (like your wheel example) can be made possible or practical (Jeeps in WW2 onwards).
You're aware that not bombarding the terrain with artillery shells worse than the worst tactical bombardement for months results in significantly less rough terrain, yes?

The point I was making is that tanks back then in 1914 - 1920's were ineffective and lousy compared to today's tanks. That is a given with *ANY* invention or technology. Primitive at first, then is researched and developed into something better down the line.What about those which failed and were never developed any further because they were simply stupid ideas? Self-Propelled wheeled bunkerbusters (ww2) come to mind, or rocket interceptors (Me 163), nuclear-powered cruise missiles (The SLAM ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missile) and that's just staying within a military context.

Actually, suppose my cities or strategic assets were deep inside a swamp, marsh, or the middle of a lake (like Tenochitilan in RL)? Then the need *will* be there to construct armor that can deflect conventional infantry slogging through these rough terrain. Hence, armor vehicles that can traverse these areas would be needed to be made practical. Thus the birth of hovercraft based armor vehicles.Which would be an insta-loss in the case of damage? I'd go with infantry, myself.

Coincidentally, if your city is inside a swamp or marsh, how to you support it? People have to travel in and out, goods have to be transported in and out. This is why in reality, we drain marshes when they're in the way. So long as they're there, a large city is quite simply impossible.

Which is also why cities are usually build where infrastructure is easy to create/ already present, and not in the middle of nowhere. Oh yes, a city in a swamp is easier to defend. Unfortunately, there's no point to have a city there to begin with.

Really, why'd millions of people want to move into the middle of a swamp, lacking connections to the rest of the country, lacking goods, luxurity, suffering diseases (Swamps are nasty like that) etc.?

Frankly, I've troubles suspending my disbelief, re: Cities in the middle of a swamp. More so than with anti-gravity.

Oh, and I'd note that you're slowly changing your point. Armed hovercraft do make somewhat more sense than hovercraft-tanks. Not in a wide role, but for specialist duties... Just, this wont help you replacing an MBT.

To be shelled by destroyers or to be bombed by fighter/ bombers?

1. These destroyers could be dealt with by the shore batteries. The fighters/bombers can be dealt with by the Luftwaffe. Historians have argued that if German generals went ahead and deployed their tanks aganist D-Day instead of hesitating and wait for Hitler to wake up and say "yes" then D-Day could have been repelled.

2. This is exactly why I wouldn't send my Luftwaffe aganist London. If I didn't send my Luftwaffe aganist London, then I'd have far more bombers and fighters to use to support my defense in D-Day (along with sending in my Panzer divisions to overwhelm the infantry and the DD-Shermans).

You're aware that not bombarding the terrain with artillery shells worse than the worst tactical bombardement for months results in significantly less rough terrain, yes?

I am not sure what point you are making here. I'm saying that jeeps are able to traverse difficult terrain that WW 1 wheeled vehicles couldn't, thus proving GMC's point incorrect that wheeled vehicles aren't practical for use in rough terrain hence the advent of the tank. This may be true in WW 1, but after WW 1, jeeps overcome that problem.

What about those which failed and were never developed any further because they were simply stupid ideas? Self-Propelled wheeled bunkerbusters (ww2) come to mind, or rocket interceptors (Me 163), nuclear-powered cruise missiles (The SLAM ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missile) and that's just staying within a military context.

Yes- but my hovercraft concept does have a purpose. Giving me the ability to move stuff around in harsh terrain or areas where caterpillar treads or wheels cannot function.

Which would be an insta-loss in the case of damage? I'd go with infantry, myself.

Coincidentally, if your city is inside a swamp or marsh, how to you support it? People have to travel in and out, goods have to be transported in and out. This is why in reality, we drain marshes when they're in the way. So long as they're there, a large city is quite simply impossible.

Which is also why cities are usually build where infrastructure is easy to create/ already present, and not in the middle of nowhere. Oh yes, a city in a swamp is easier to defend. Unfortunately, there's no point to have a city there to begin with.

Really, why'd millions of people want to move into the middle of a swamp, lacking connections to the rest of the country, lacking goods, luxurity, suffering diseases (Swamps are nasty like that) etc.?

Frankly, I've troubles suspending my disbelief, re: Cities in the middle of a swamp. More so than with anti-gravity.

Simple.

Arcologies or underground complexes for city operations.

Look at Tenocitilan in RL. It was a city built in the middle of a lake, yet it prospered.

Okay, lets take your concept and work on it. <snip>

You seriously think the budget scales linearly with population and national surface area? Aside from that, what would a nation with a budget surplus of trillions be telling it's voters it was doing with fully 7.5% of their tax money?

Long story short, your scaling there makes no sense.

However, should any concentrated efforts take place, technical problems can be solved or migitated.

Not all of them. The Tsar Tank would never be a valid design.

I would have changed the strategy to focus on keeping the channel clear for an invasion to take place. Then the invasion could enter the British cities and do damage or disable industries that bombers couldn't do (either due to range or British RAF fighters).

Meaning your invasion would be annihilated by a well-supplied British army. It's critical you destroy the enemy's industrial capacity before invading in this scenario.

Actually, D-Day could have been stopped or delayed for a sufficient period of time if the Nazi generals ordered German Panzers into the theater of operations. However, they were too afraid to wake up Hitler to tell Hitler to order the Panzers into action.

No, they didn't order the Panzers into action because they thought the D-Day landings were a feint and the real landings were coming in Cherbourg or Calais. They thought this even during the landings, because they didn't know about the Mulberry harbours and thought the allies needed to capture a port immediately.

However, Hitler also hated the British and France.

Are you even listening to yourself? The British and French were aryans in Hitler's book. The Slavic peoples were an 'inferior' race; France and England may have been Hitler's [i]enemies, but he did not wish to see the wholesale extermination of them as he did with Russians, neither did he believe them to be a weak, inferior race that would be easily conquered.

If I hated two people, I wouldn't try to fight them both at once. I'd take one out before taking the second person I hate.

What if you hated the second one much, much more and wanted to be friends with the first one because you think he's just like you really?

What you're suggesting is that I could just raise my hand and flip over the hovercraft should it push aganist my hand? :rolleyes:

Strawman. Unless you weigh ten tons and are solidly attached to the ground, no.

Actually, the idea is that the combat moves away from the damaged tanks (should I be on the offensive)

None of your policies are offensive.

During these efforts, my tanks would be in the process of being repaired then have them catch up with my front-line troops and equipment.

As opposed to a fast turn-around with an MBT that takes an hour or so at most. Again, you lose violently on maintainance downtimes.

Those batteries would be facing towards the ocean or sea. I'd be approaching these batteries at an angle that would make it difficult for them to cover. Here's a simple picture (again lol)...

But coastal defence batteries cover each other and take advantage of terrain features; no beach is a totally flat line like that. Go look at an actual map of, say, Omaha beach.

Point taken. However, I recall that jeeps were able to go through rough terrain in WW 2 onwards. Therefore, with time and effort, technologies previously thought impossible to do (like your wheel example) can be made possible or practical (Jeeps in WW2 onwards).

They were not able to get through thick mud, massive shell craters full of festering corpses and stagnant water and tons upon tons of barbed wire. No man's land is not just any 'rough terrian.' No jeep, no matter how advanced, would ever be able to cross such an expanse without getting bogged down or seriously damaged, because it's wheels don't spread it's weight effectively. In addition, the jeep is not armoured, so when it finally got across no-man's land it would instantly be disabled by enemy rifle fire and MGs.

Long story short, you're using a 'hasty generalisation' fallacy. The fact that WW2 jeeps could cross some rough terrain does not mean they could cross terrain regardless of how rough; they are also not armoured, and so cannot carry out the remainder of the mission, surviving fire from crew-served machine-guns and small arms fire as they approach the enemy trench.

It was thusly not made possible or practical, and your example sinks into the mud again.

Actually, suppose my cities or strategic assets were deep inside a swamp, marsh, or the middle of a lake (like Tenochitilan in RL)?

No modern city or strategic asset would be so placed due to problems involving supplying it with anything. Tanks could use whatever route the supplies used; without such a route, supply would be so difficult that nothing would be built there.

Then the need *will* be there to construct armor that can deflect conventional infantry slogging through these rough terrain. Hence, armor vehicles that can traverse these areas would be needed to be made practical. Thus the birth of hovercraft based armor vehicles.

Hover MBTs do not follow from this.

Wouldn't sand grind down the gears and machinery down?

With proper care and modifications, not enormously so. It would do much more damage to your hovercraft's turbine blades.

True. However, I cited that example as it being possible to make a multi-purpose vehicle that many thought was impossible or impratical to do so even as recently as 5 years ago.

Nobody thought flying cars were impossible 5 years ago. The first flying car to be built and fly was Waldo Waterman's Arrowbile, in 1937! There's nothing new whatsoever about the idea of a flying car.

People may say a blending of an aircraft and a submarine or automobile + submarine would be impossible. However it could be possible if the correct technologies were researched and developed.

No, they would never work because the combination of functions would require a highly inefficient set of sacrifices to be made. Jack of all trades is master of none.

The point I was making is that tanks back then in 1914 - 1920's were ineffective and lousy compared to today's tanks.

Yes, and it's a ridiculous point. Tanks in WW1 were lousy because they were built using inferior technology. But everything on the battlefield was built with inferior technology, so their actual effectiveness was much greater than your unfair comparison would have us believe.

That is a given with *ANY* invention or technology. Primitive at first, then is researched and developed into something better down the line.

Except dead-end technologies, like the Tsar Tank, which never get beyond the 'is stupid' phase because they're fundamentally flawed.

People in the 1500's laughed at Da Vinci's idea of submarines and flying machines until the early 1900's with German submarines during WW 1, and the Wright Brothers planes.

Da Vinci's ideas still didn't work. It's never been possible for a man to power an ornithopter by himself as Da Vinci's design called for.

People thought nuclear power was science fiction like H.G. Wells and such, until it happened with the Manhattan Project.

Hardly, it's a natural conclusion of matter-energy equivalency.

People thought communicators in the Star Trek TV shows was impossible until the 1990's with our present day cell phones.

Not at all. A smaller communications device than a radio set isn't a huge leap of the imagination.

Yes- but I could develop stronger rubber polymers to be more resistant aganist shrapnel and machine gun bullets.

Rubber is still never going to be more resiliant than armour. Your skirt will be critically vulnerable no matter how much money you throw at it.

I could develop anti-grav technology.

Then it wouldn't be a hovercraft, so you'll have discarded the part that causes all the problems in favour of something more workable. As with wheels ---> tracks in WW1.

I could throw money to *fund* the research labs to undertake technological research cited in my response just above this quote. I could supply / fund the machines, computers, scientist salaries, equipment, etc.for these undertakings.

It doesn't matter. Even the best funded research lab in the world won't be able to work miracles like you want.

You seriously think the budget scales linearly with population and national surface area? Aside from that, what would a nation with a budget surplus of trillions be telling it's voters it was doing with fully 7.5% of their tax money?

Voters? Who said my nation had to be a full democracy? ;)

There could be ample ways to hide that money- black ops, Area 51, false corporations, etc.

I'm only saying that in NS, these things *are* scaled up. We have nations easily double or even triple the size of China in terms of population and land area, with the GDP equal to the USA. That is what I mean by RL scale (USA) and NS scale (Triple-China'ed USA).

Not all of them. The Tsar Tank would never be a valid design.

Yes- I do admit that there are dead-end projects and concepts. However, I am not willing to accept that hovercraft and hover-based technologies are a dead-end design.

Meaning your invasion would be annihilated by a well-supplied British army. It's critical you destroy the enemy's industrial capacity before invading in this scenario.

No, they didn't order the Panzers into action because they thought the D-Day landings were a feint and the real landings were coming in Cherbourg or Calais. They thought this even during the landings, because they didn't know about the Mulberry harbours and thought the allies needed to capture a port immediately.

I specifically read in a WW II book that the generals were afraid to wake up Hitler pre-maturely, and they were also afraid of doing things without Hitler's approval. Hitler slept until around 11 AM (I believe) on D-Day, and the invasion took place at dawn if I'm not mistaken. Those few hours could easily have made the difference.

Also, historians *have* argued that if the panzers had gone in and fought the D-Day invasions (feint or not) then it would have been stalled or repelled.

Are you even listening to yourself? The British and French were aryans in Hitler's book. The Slavic peoples were an 'inferior' race; France and England may have been Hitler's [i]enemies, but he did not wish to see the wholesale extermination of them as he did with Russians, neither did he believe them to be a weak, inferior race that would be easily conquered.

In this scenario, Hitler should have gone aganist Russia *before* France, thus not incurring full war from Britain and France, as there was no great love for communists from the West.

The USA joined WW 2 and aganist Germany because of the whole Pearl Harbor thing and that Germany declared war aganist the US in a show of support for Japan in hopes of incurring Japanese favor aganist the USSR. If Hitler did not declare war aganist the US and instead, courted US neutrality in the war, then D-Day probably wouldn't have happened to the extent that it happened in RL.

What if you hated the second one much, much more and wanted to be friends with the first one because you think he's just like you really?

My point still stands. I wouldn't try to fight both at once. I'd go after the much hated one while maintaining peace with the second one. Then once the big bad bully was down, then I can focus fully on the first less-hated bully.

Strawman. Unless you weigh ten tons and are solidly attached to the ground, no.

Which means the hovercraft can push aside barbed wire, wood and steel piles, etc. weighing less than ten tons.

None of your policies are offensive.

Uhh? When I go on the attack aganist the enemy and push them away from the area in question, then consolidate it with depots, barracks, makeshift bases, etc. Then it'd be secure for my repair efforts to take place.

But coastal defence batteries cover each other and take advantage of terrain features; no beach is a totally flat line like that. Go look at an actual map of, say, Omaha beach.

My point still stands. I can send in my tanks at the weakest possible "cover of fire" area of the coastal batteries. No coastal battery cover is perfect or insurmontable.

They were not able to get through thick mud, massive shell craters full of festering corpses and stagnant water and tons upon tons of barbed wire. No man's land is not just any 'rough terrian.' No jeep, no matter how advanced, would ever be able to cross such an expanse without getting bogged down or seriously damaged, because it's wheels don't spread it's weight effectively. In addition, the jeep is not armoured, so when it finally got across no-man's land it would instantly be disabled by enemy rifle fire and MGs.

Perhaps not. However, this could...

http://www.vannattabros.com/adospics/kmsutrk.jpg

What I mean by this is that the barbed wire, craters, dikes, trenches, etc. would be no problem for 15 foot diameter (and 6 inch thick interior rubber) wheels. Consuqently the only issue would be rifles, machine guns, bombs, or weapons fire.

I know I'm going off on a tangent here, but I'm saying that it *is* possible, and can be done, not an impossibility such as you are suggesting.

Long story short, you're using a 'hasty generalisation' fallacy. The fact that WW2 jeeps could cross some rough terrain does not mean they could cross terrain regardless of how rough; they are also not armoured, and so cannot carry out the remainder of the mission, surviving fire from crew-served machine-guns and small arms fire as they approach the enemy trench.

I believe they mounted mortars which had range, and could fire from a distance away, landing the mortars into the trenches. Or they could mount rocket launchers (modern day) to fire into far away machine gun nests.

No modern city or strategic asset would be so placed due to problems involving supplying it with anything. Tanks could use whatever route the supplies used; without such a route, supply would be so difficult that nothing would be built there.

Yes- the tanks could use the supply routes, but I could always blow it up, making it impossible for enemy tanks to use the route to reach my city or strategic site. The enemy would be forced to bypass the whole area or get screwed up trying to press onwards. My hovercraft would be able to use any of these areas at will, engage in harass and raids, then withdraw back into the swamps where enemy MBT's or most heavy machinery cannot follow.

With proper care and modifications, not enormously so. It would do much more damage to your hovercraft's turbine blades.

Not necessarily if they're VTOL- the VTOL would blow the sand *away* from the turbines, instead of into them.

Nobody thought flying cars were impossible 5 years ago. The first flying car to be built and fly was Waldo Waterman's Arrowbile, in 1937! There's nothing new whatsoever about the idea of a flying car.

The Arrowbile was intended as a *plane*, not as an everyday automobile like today. The flying cars I'm talking about are the ones like the ones from Back to Future II- cars like today being able to hover or fly in the sky, or travel as normal cars would (no wings, runaways, hangars, etc. like with the Arrowbile). The flying cars I'm referring to can take off directly from the driveway, or an extremely short span of pavement.

No, they would never work because the combination of functions would require a highly inefficient set of sacrifices to be made. Jack of all trades is master of none.

Lets take the Automobile + Submarine concept.

The idea is to create a tank that can go underwater and overland. This would allow the tanks to catch the enemy by surprise- they would certainly not be expecting tanks to suddenly show up on their coastlines with no transports or navy in sight.

This could be an useful asset to have- I could bypass the areas that are mined and covered by multiudes of coastal batteries. I'd land these sub-tanks somewhere remote or unexpected, then slam into the enemy's rear before they know what is happening.

Think midget subs with treads or a gatling gun. ;)

Yes, and it's a ridiculous point. Tanks in WW1 were lousy because they were build using inferior technology. But everything on the battlefield was built with inferior technology, so their actual effectiveness was much greater than your unfair comparison would have us believe.

No, no no. I am not talking about WW 1 tanks fighting today's tanks. I was referring to the fact that WW 1 tanks were improved to today's tanks through technological, combat, experience, and re-design efforts.

Except dead-end technologies, like the Tsar Tank, which never get beyond the 'is stupid' phase because they're fundamentally flawed.

Yes- I do admit that there are dead-end projects and concepts. However, I refuse to accept that hovercraft and hover-based technologies are a dead-end design.

Da Vinci's ideas still didn't work. It's never been possible for a man to power an ornithopter by himself as Da Vinci's design called for.

But his gliders did. People believed it was crazy that people would be able to fly, even with gliders or a workable ornithopter. They believed it was impossible for Man to fly, yet these 1500's people were proven wrong by the Wright Brothers making glorified gliders into aircraft that could stay up and sustain flight.

Hardly, it's a natural conclusion of matter-energy equivalency.

People envisioned and theorized about it, yes, but didn't get to put it into practical use until the Manhattan project. They did not believe a sustained nuclear reaction, much less a nuclear weapon would be pratical until the 1930's and 1940's.

Not at all. A smaller communications device that a radio set isn't a huge leap of the imagination.

Star Trek was created in the 1960's I believe. During that time, radios were 10+ pounds, mounted on a soldier's back. It was clunky, clumsy, and heavy. Then we look at the Star Trek radios, which could fit in one's hand and probably weighed less than 1/4 of a pound. Fast forward to 1990's and today, where we have cell phones even smaller than the Star Trek radios, and can display text and pictures, unlike the the Star Trek ones. Thus, our radios (cell phones actually) today are more advanced than a Sci-Fi one (the Star Trek ones) in a 23rd century setting.

Rubber is still never going to be more resiliant than armour. Your skirt will be critically vulnerable no matter how much money you throw at it.

Fabric can stop bullets. Look at Kevlar and Nylon. I could conceivably research and develop a super-kevlar or super-nylon that can withstand machine gun rounds or tearing (should the skirt get snagged in obstacles).

Then it wouldn't be a hovercraft, so you'll have discarded the part that causes all the problems in favour of something more workable. As with wheels ---> tracks in WW1.

See? This confirms my point that an idea can be worked on, researched, or improved. Armored car idea was exciting and revolutionary, then when flaws are found, then people threw around designs and concepts until the tank tread idea was adopted, then implemented. After that, we all know how tanks turned out.

It doesn't matter. Even the best funded research lab in the world won't be able to work miracles like you want.

Probably not. However, they will be able to explore all different kinds of possibilities. They'd be able to pursure multiple lines of research, which should yield some results. Then accidental discoveries or interesting concepts could occur, like with the Teflon substance being an accident in a chemical lab in RL.

The Germans attempted to move their Panzers north, most notably at Mortaine in August of 1944, trying to drive to St. Lo. Although, true, it was a full two months after the original landings it does underscore the problem of German armor in Normandy because the Allies were still basing their aircraft off England, and this time had to provide constant air coverage a bit more south.

Had the Germans moved up their armor to the beaches the destroyers wouldn't have done anything. Frankly, the allies didn't have enough fire power to even effect counter-attacking infantry, as proved by the heavy Normandy fighting and subsequent German counter-attacks St. Lo and Cherbourg. But the allied air command was always a thorn in the panzer's side.

Indeed, the II SS Panzerkorp did fight in Normandy and they were very successful against allied armor, [b]however, the allied air force continously ripped open the corp's ranks.

A good story is Michael Wittman, infamous for being the most successful tank ace of the war, and even more infamous for the day that he placed himself behind a bush in Normandy, waited for five Shermans to drive by, and then took them out one by one, suffering no damage to himself. There are several stories that revolve around his knockout minutes later. One of those was that a British Firefly from around two kilometers knocked him out - there's evidence that the firefly was there, but knock outs at that range were simply unheard of, especially considering the professional skills of Wittman. The more likely story was that an American Typhoon knocked him out.

The Luftwaffe didn't have any aircraft over France. It's easy to say that the Luftwaffe simply didn't exist over France, since they were too preoccupied stopping the thousand plane raids on their cities, and then the Russian offensives to the east. So, the allied air force from day one had aerial superiority over France. It would have been impossible for those panzers to move north; moreover, they would be needed in September to stop Operation Dragoon, or the allied landing in Southern France [which they also failed to stop since most of those tanks were destroyed in Falaise].

The only way I see that the Germans could have emerged victorious on D-Day was if they had occupied the line, not with Polish and Russian troops, but with fullfledge German SS Grenadiers, and had they been able to stop the airborne offensive of the night before - which, unfortunately, was nigh on impossible, since the airborne offensive, although really a debacle, proved to be more effective than the originally planned landing. Even then, I think Juno and Gold were assured upon their landing, and with just those two beaches they could have secured the entire Normandy beachead from behind.

The war was lost for Germany August 1941, when Hitler made that fateful decision to split his armies and forget about Moscow.

The Germans attempted to move their Panzers north, most notably at Mortaine in August of 1944, trying to drive to St. Lo. Although, true, it was a full two months after the original landings it does underscore the problem of German armor in Normandy because the Allies were still basing their aircraft off England, and this time had to provide constant air coverage a bit more south.

Had the Germans moved up their armor to the beaches the destroyers wouldn't have done anything. Frankly, the allies didn't have enough fire power to even effect counter-attacking infantry, as proved by the heavy Normandy fighting and subsequent German counter-attacks St. Lo and Cherbourg. But the allied air command was always a thorn in the panzer's side.

Indeed, the II SS Panzerkorp did fight in Normandy and they were very successful against allied armor, [b]however, the allied air force continously ripped open the corp's ranks.

A good story is Michael Wittman, infamous for being the most successful tank ace of the war, and even more infamous for the day that he placed himself behind a bush in Normandy, waited for five Shermans to drive by, and then took them out one by one, suffering no damage to himself. There are several stories that revolve around his knockout minutes later. One of those was that a British Firefly from around two kilometers knocked him out - there's evidence that the firefly was there, but knock outs at that range were simply unheard of, especially considering the professional skills of Wittman. The more likely story was that an American Typhoon knocked him out.

The Luftwaffe didn't have any aircraft over France. It's easy to say that the Luftwaffe simply didn't exist over France, since they were too preoccupied stopping the thousand plane raids on their cities, and then the Russian offensives to the east. So, the allied air force from day one had aerial superiority over France. It would have been impossible for those panzers to move north; moreover, they would be needed in September to stop Operation Dragoon, or the allied landing in Southern France [which they also failed to stop since most of those tanks were destroyed in Falaise].

The only way I see that the Germans could have emerged victorious on D-Day was if they had occupied the line, not with Polish and Russian troops, but with fullfledge German SS Grenadiers, and had they been able to stop the airborne offensive of the night before - which, unfortunately, was nigh on impossible, since the airborne offensive, although really a debacle, proved to be more effective than the originally planned landing. Even then, I think Juno and Gold were assured upon their landing, and with just those two beaches they could have secured the entire Normandy beachead from behind.

The war was lost for Germany August 1941, when Hitler made that fateful decision to split his armies and forget about Moscow.

Actually, I believe that Germany *could* have held out long enough to develop its own nukes or build more jet fighters or the "wunder-weapons" that were developed in 1944 - 1945 if the USA didn't get involved in the war.

I believe if Germany didn't declare war on the US, and sank US shipping, then it wouldn't have given the USA any concrete reason to invade or send US troops into D-Day, Italy, or Europe in general.

If Germany didn't declare war on USA after Pearl Harbor, then history would have played differently. Perhaps a repelled D-Day without US troops or industry supporting such an effort.

Well, I do know that the United States had an entry plan since 1939, although it was rather clandestine. They figured that should Great Britain fall they would launch offensives on the Canary Islands, owned by Spain, and use those as floating airfields for strikes all across North Africa. However, it's true enough, had the United States not entered the war the Germans would have been in a much better position, although we have to remember the Germans had lost Stalingrad in November 1942 [yes, they were sorrounded and it didn't fall until Febuary '43, but be realistic here :p ], before the United States was even a major contender [Torch was launched November 12, 1942].

It's actually interesting though, had the Germans not expulsed/killed the Jews it's thought by many that the Germans would have had the atom bomb by 1939, unfortunately for them Hitler and his ideologies showed up - much by their own fault. The Germans couldn't have gotten the atomic bomb until well after 1949, after the Soviet Union. The Americans were guaranteed superiority in the research of the design simply because they had all the good German engineers - who were all Jewish - with them.

The way I see it, Macabees, is that if the USA wasn't involved in D-Day with Germany / Hitler not declaring war or aggravating the USA, then Germany could focus at least half of its "Western Army" towards containing the Russians.

Then as a result of this (No USA backed D-Day, Operation Torch, or invasion of Italy), Germany could hold out until 1946, 1947, or even 1948, giving them 1 - 3 more years to build more quantities of their jet planes, V2 rockets, and other aspects of superior German engineering. Or they could have gone for even more advanced planes or Tiger III or Panzer V tanks. Then they could really put the hurt on Russia, and maybe get a stalemate, assuring German at least a period of peace to rebuild its infrastructure and do even more secret projects and such.

OOC: Not to interupt the lively WWII historical debate, but I'm new and this is a very unique and quite deadly design, which suits my nation perfectly.

IC: The Outer Sanctum would like to congratulate Trinity Industries on such a fantastic design. We would be interested in more products from your company, but for now would like ten of these tanks, with the purchase of more almost sure to come.

Problem is that the Russian armory was better than the German armory throughout the war. When the Germans first rolled through Russia in Barbarossa they were greeted by some of the worst commanders in history, some of the worst tactics in history, but regardless, the KV-1, KV-2 and T-34 were able to startle them and even stop the Germans in certain areas . In response, the Germans copied the T-34 and improved on the design, designing the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II tanks. The former two appeared in November 1942, with the Tigers debuting in Operation Winter Storm [attempt to open the Stalingrad [i]kessel; December 12th, 1942], and the Panthers debuted July 6th through July 12th 1943, in Operation Citadel. Both of those tanks had major flaws that weren't corrected until August 1943, and so they didn't hold a superiority over Russian armor. When the Tiger II came out it became infamous as impenetrable, to Allied armor, the Russian IS-I and IS-II tanks were either equal or superior, and by May 1945 the Russians had began to massproduce their newest tank the IS-III, which would have been superior to anything the Germans could field.

The Russians were not bad soldiers, and their technology was great, they just suffered from poor commanders. But by the end of 1942 that problem was more or less solved, with most of the horrible commanders dead on the battlefields of Mosnoi Bor, Leningrad, Operation Mars and other previous operations, and the good commanders that had been purged in 1938 were returned, or at least some of them - like Rokossovsky. So the Russian army in 1943, although not nearly as effecient as that of Germany, was on terms where it could win the war alone. Indeed, the only reason the allies launched Overlord as early as 1944 was because they were afraid the Russians would sweep through Germany, and then into France, pulling all of Europe into their zone of influence.

I had *not* known that, Macabees. I was led to believe that the USSR had mass numbers but poor quality. Thanks for the info, Macabees. :)

You cannot discount German engineering, either. They developed the jet fighters, V-2 rockets, heliocopters, and a lot of "firsts". If they had a few more years then they would have created far superior aircraft to the Russians, and the superior German aircraft could do to the Russians what the Allies did to Germany in our historical timeline.

Once the Germans take air superiority from Russia, it can bomb these IS-III tanks and the good Russian equipment.

First of all if only 3-5% of heat gets converted there do you think the rest of the heat goes? Thats right its gets rejected and has to be thrown out. It works on a satelite, because satelite is in space, its not gonna get melted from all that heat, that heat can't start a fire, same is not true for a tank.


And actually, Russian Space Reactors generated 150 Kwt of power at most let me give you a table:

BUK: 100 Kwt
TOPAZ-I: 150 Kwt
TOPAZ-II: 135 Kwt

Those are Russian reactors made to work in space. What they used as coolant was NaK liquid metal that transfered heat from the core to the thermoelectric generator. Its all good, but the problem was that the waste heat was rejected to space by a large conical radiator. A tank can't do that, because a tank is not in space, there is gonna be a fire, oh yeah. Simply put its an impossible task, you can't put a nuclear reactor on a tank...unless...its a fusion reactor using magnetic confinement, but even then if a shell penetrates your armor and breaks one of the walls of the TAPAMAK, you're screwed you gonna have hot plasma melting right trough your tank.

American space reactors did the same thing then it came to dealing with rejected heat energy, plus they were huge, much bigger then the Russian ones, thus they had higher power levels:

SNAP-10A: 435 Kwt
SP-100: 5422 Kwt

SNAP used NaK for a coolant, SP-100 uses Li. The thing is that SP-100 was never actually put in space and SNAP was only put in space once.

Once again guys, nuclear engineer talking here. DON'T PUT NUCLEAR REACTORS ON TANKS!


The 3-5% is concerning thermocouples. Each RTG has its own coolant system [albeit not extensive since it is in a habitually cold area (depends)] and if it was put on a tank it'd obviously have a more extensive system that would likely have to haul a tank of coolant behind it as well. As for the SP-100, I know it wasn't put in space, its a very large reactor, the SNAP-10 is a larger one as well but I used its rough power (435 kW) to state the ~500. NOtice the ~ it means roughly.

Anyways, concerning the use of these tanks, I'm saying they are A MUCH MORE VIABLE AND REALISTIC OPTION to Pebblebeds. SO TECHNICALLY, you're argument had nothing to do with it. I was SIMPLY STATING that an RTG of a smaller size coupled to a generator instead of a thermocouple, would provide exceptional power as long as its combined with say a conventional diesel powerplant of mid-size, and that it was simply a more realistic option than stuffing a Pebblebed onto the tank. I WOULD NOT DO EITHER OF THEM [I really can't stand the thought of a nuclear powerplant on a vehicle and would never do anything of the sort], but I was stating that if they wish to do so, they can, in a more realistic way. OF COURSE it has its problems that you so obviously pointed out. Ugh...

What about this? How do your RTGs work that powered your remote unmanned light houses? How did the RTGs work on our aircraft for experimental purposes without melting them? How did the miniature RTGs [gram-sized] used in people not cause them to combust [they could've been atomic batteries though, didn't make it clear]? Eh? Its still a nuclear reactor not OMG surrounded by space.





AGAIN I'll state this again. I WAS SIMPLY STATING THAT IT WAS MORE A REALISTIC OPTION AND NOT OMG FORCE SOMEONE TO SHOVE RTGs OR OTHER NUCLEAR REACTORS ONTO THEIR TANKS. An RTG is simply a more realistic way of using nuclear power on a vehicle as LONG AS CERTAIN PROBLEMS are taken care of. I believe I stated that a few times in my original, or second post. I really hate doing this.

Soviet Bloc, I was wondering if you would be interested in developing a line of hovercraft products / equipment with me? I have some pretty good ideas, but I don't know how to do technical stuff very well. If you're interested in such an endeavour, then feel free to TG me. :)

Voters? Who said my nation had to be a full democracy? ;)

Your political freedoms are 'superb,' how can it not be? Even if they don't vote, they can sure as hell vote with their feet and leave the country.

Yes- I do admit that there are dead-end projects and concepts. However, I am not willing to accept that hovercraft and hover-based technologies are a dead-end design.

They aren't. A hovercraft main battle tank most certainly is.

The USA joined WW 2 and aganist Germany because of the whole Pearl Harbor thing and that Germany declared war aganist the US in a show of support for Japan in hopes of incurring Japanese favor aganist the USSR.

That's weird, since I recall lend-lease sending aid to Britain long, long before Pearl and there being significant plans to intercede in Europe before Pearl Harbour. It didn't matter one bit that Hitler declared war on America, because they'd have stomped him regardless after Pearl.

My point still stands. I wouldn't try to fight both at once. I'd go after the much hated one while maintaining peace with the second one. Then once the big bad bully was down, then I can focus fully on the first less-hated bully.

But the first one went after you first. And would be glad to stab you in the back while you spend time fighting the other one.

Which means the hovercraft can push aside barbed wire, wood and steel piles, etc. weighing less than ten tons.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

Uhh? When I go on the attack aganist the enemy and push them away from the area in question, then consolidate it with depots, barracks, makeshift bases, etc. Then it'd be secure for my repair efforts to take place.

So in order to repair any tank, you must first secure the entire area for days or weeks. That's not superior to hour-long track repairs.

My point still stands. I can send in my tanks at the weakest possible "cover of fire" area of the coastal batteries. No coastal battery cover is perfect or insurmontable.

So you must rely in the enemy's mistakes to give you any opportunities to attack at all? Even Sun Tzu knew that was the wrong way to pursue war.

Perhaps not. However, this could...

The hell it could, it would sink right up to it's axle the moment it hit a ditch or trench. It also wouldn't be able to climb out of a crater or trench once the wheels sank in, because it's the wrong shape. Huge dump trucks are designed to operate on compacted dirt at the bottom of quarries and OCM pits [a very forgiving environment for heavy vehicles], and are the heaviest vehicles with wheels that operate there.

Compare this to the heaviest tracked vehicles there, the 34,000 ton bucket-wheel excavators, and you see what a handicap wheels are.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/excavatorowned.jpg

Yes- the tanks could use the supply routes, but I could always blow it up, making it impossible for enemy tanks to use the route to reach my city or strategic site.

In which case they'd just sit there and wait for you to starve / run out of supplies. You can't destroy your own supply routes to critical facilities.

In any case, you build critical facilities where they're easy to get freight and equipment to, and cities tend to develop near fertile farmland, areas suitable for building docks, or rivers; not in the middle of swamps.

My hovercraft would be able to use any of these areas at will, engage in harass and raids, then withdraw back into the swamps where enemy MBT's or most heavy machinery cannot follow.

And then be hunted down and destroyed by attack helicopters, or pounded into nothing by artillery?

Not necessarily if they're VTOL- the VTOL would blow the sand *away* from the turbines, instead of into them.

VTOL still needs an air intake. If you're flying low enough to be a tank, you suck in lots or sand and dirt.

The Arrowbile was intended as a *plane*, not as an everyday automobile like today. The flying cars I'm talking about are the ones like the ones from Back to Future II- cars like today being able to hover or fly in the sky, or travel as normal cars would (no wings, runaways, hangars, etc. like with the Arrowbile). The flying cars I'm referring to can take off directly from the driveway, or an extremely short span of pavement.

How does that change that primitive flying cars already exist, so saying one is impossible is perverse?

This could be an useful asset to have- I could bypass the areas that are mined and covered by multiudes of coastal batteries. I'd land these sub-tanks somewhere remote or unexpected, then slam into the enemy's rear before they know what is happening.

God almighty, no. A submarine couldn't be stealthy and still have half-decent armour for a tank.

No, no no. I am not talking about WW 1 tanks fighting today's tanks. I was referring to the fact that WW 1 tanks were improved to today's tanks through technological, combat, experience, and re-design efforts.

And yet today's tanks actually have inferior obstacle crossing abilities to WW1 tanks, because their shape is a compromise between obstacle crossing, low observability and combat effectiveness, rather than being soley focused on obstacle crossing. Progress doesn't necessarily make everything better.

Yes- I do admit that there are dead-end projects and concepts. However, I refuse to accept that hovercraft and hover-based technologies are a dead-end design.

As above. A hover MBT is, military hovercraft are not.

People envisioned and theorized about it, yes, but didn't get to put it into practical use until the Manhattan project. They did not believe a sustained nuclear reaction, much less a nuclear weapon would be pratical until the 1930's and 1940's.

Who didn't? Once you understand energy-matter equivalency, a nuclear weapon is a natural conclusion.

Fast forward to 1990's and today, where we have cell phones even smaller than the Star Trek radios, and can display text and pictures, unlike the the Star Trek ones. Thus, our radios (cell phones actually) today are more advanced than a Sci-Fi one (the Star Trek ones) in a 23rd century setting.

Wow, we made something more advanced that 60s scifi. That's hardly incredible, no more than the CD writer in Batman's car looks particularly impressive today. One day I'll have to tell my kids what's supposed to be so impressive about that.

Fabric can stop bullets. Look at Kevlar and Nylon. I could conceivably research and develop a super-kevlar or super-nylon that can withstand machine gun rounds or tearing (should the skirt get snagged in obstacles).

Kevlar can't stop high-momentum penetrators, or impacts with a driving force behind them. A kevlar bulletproof vest can stop a small, light, fast-moving bullet with a lot of kinetic energy, but it can't stop a medieval crossbow bolt, longbow arrow, a strike from a sledgehammer with a sharpened tip or even a knife!

See? This confirms my point that an idea can be worked on, researched, or improved. Armored car idea was exciting and revolutionary, then when flaws are found, then people threw around designs and concepts until the tank tread idea was adopted, then implemented. After that, we all know how tanks turned out.

No, they threw wheels out and made something better. This is my exact point; your hovercraft parts won't work, you should throw them out and replace them with something that does. Hell, just make it a gravtank like I said some number of posts ago, saying it works because of $wank is the only way it would work either way.

And armoured cars were not revolutionary. Technology is evolutionary as a rule, and there's nothing radical about bolting plates of armour onto a truck.

Then accidental discoveries or interesting concepts could occur, like with the Teflon substance being an accident in a chemical lab in RL.

It's unlikely they'll accidentally re-write the laws of physics.

Your political freedoms are 'superb,' how can it not be? Even if they don't vote, they can sure as hell vote with their feet and leave the country.

Hah. NS main page stats don't really mean anything when it comes to free-form RP. Even if I had to follow my NS main page stats exactly, I could simply RP propganda, illusionary democracy, Area 51 funding, Black-hole founding, etc. where people can easily be decieved where the money goes to.

That's weird, since I recall lend-lease sending aid to Britain long, long before Pearl and there being significant plans to intercede in Europe before Pearl Harbour. It didn't matter one bit that Hitler declared war on America, because they'd have stomped him regardless after Pearl.

Germany declaring war aganist the US, and attacking US shipping only aggravated the US more, pushing the US into actually going to war in Europe and Africa aganist the Nazis.

If the Nazis didn't aggravate the US or attack US shipping, then it would have bought Nazi Germany some extra time, at least a year or so, which could have permitted Germany just enough time to contain the USSR or fight it to a standstill. The two-front war would have been less severe / distastrous for Germany if the US delayed its involvement due to Germany choosing not to aggravate the US (declare war, attack US ships, etc.)

So in order to repair any tank, you must first secure the entire area for days or weeks. That's not superior to hour-long track repairs.

I never said that my repairs would be "superior" to track repairs. I said that it would at least be equal to the track repairs or slightly longer, not extreme-long like some of you are suggesting.

The trucks carry spare track parts, correct? How is it any different from the trucks towing a new hovercraft chassis? Then the cranes follow a few hours behind- which means repairs may take 6 - 8 hours total... a few hours for cranes to arrive, then a few hours to hoist the upper half of the hovercraft onto the new, undamaged chassis + drive system.

So you must rely in the enemy's mistakes to give you any opportunities to attack at all? Even Sun Tzu knew that was the wrong way to pursue war.

Seize the mistakes the enemy make. Humans always make mistakes. No war machine or war effort is perfect, mistake-less. I'll always try to exploit the mistakes that my enemy makes. Its natural.


In which case they'd just sit there and wait for you to starve / run out of supplies. You can't destroy your own supply routes to critical facilities.

Air drops.

In any case, you build critical facilities where they're easy to get freight and equipment to, and cities tend to develop near fertile farmland, areas suitable for building docks, or rivers; not in the middle of swamps.

I don't really have to build farms- I can simply build underground hydroponics and such. Underground engineering and structures are able to be done. Or I could even go as far as building underground railroads which have already been done in RL (Germans in WW 2, various mining operations, railroad tunnels, etc.)

And then be hunted down and destroyed by attack helicopters, or pounded into nothing by artillery?

Attack heliocopters will be eaten alive by my gatling guns. That leaves artillery, which can be dealt with my aircraft. Problem solved.

VTOL still needs an air intake. If you're flying low enough to be a tank, you suck in lots or sand and dirt.

Solution = Filters.

How does that change that primitive flying cars already exist, so saying one is impossible is perverse?

I never said that flying cars are impossible. I said that some people think flying cars are impossible, but they are proven wrong.

God almighty, no. A submarine couldn't be stealthy and still have half-decent armour for a tank.

I won't need armor if its meant for sneak / surprise attack. I can get the first hits in, then it wouldn't matter because the enemy heavy-hitters would be incapaciated.

And yet today's tanks actually have inferior obstacle crossing abilities to WW1 tanks, because their shape is a compromise between obstacle crossing, low observability and combat effectiveness, rather than being soley focused on obstacle crossing. Progress doesn't necessarily make everything better.

True. However, today's tanks have the advantage in terms of speed, killing power, and armor. These are factors under question with my hovercraft- speed, killing, and armor. If those could be improved from primitive tanks to modern tanks, then surely hovercraft can be improved in speed, power, and armor.

Who didn't? Once you understand energy-matter equivalency, a nuclear weapon is a natural conclusion.

Yet, people weren't able to do so until the Manhattan Project.

Wow, we made something more advanced that 60s scifi. That's hardly incredible, no more than the CD writer in Batman's car looks particularly impressive today. One day I'll have to tell my kids what's supposed to be so impressive about that.

Things we have thought to be impossible 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago are becoming possible and feasible as we progress into the 21st century. For instance, people thought nano-technology was impossible to pull off, but it has been proven that it is possible (although not on a wide scale until maybe 2050 - 2075. People thought it wouldn't be possible until 2500 AD or so about 20+ years ago.) Another example is robotics. People thought advanced robotics weren't possible in modern times until within the last 5 - 10 years.

I guess what I'm saying is that for all we know, things we may consider not feasible or impossible to do here today in 2005, could very well become plausible and possible by 2015, 2020, 2025, or so.

Kevlar can't stop high-momentum penetrators, or impacts with a driving force behind them. A kevlar bulletproof vest can stop a small, light, fast-moving bullet with a lot of kinetic energy, but it can't stop a medieval crossbow bolt, longbow arrow, a strike from a sledgehammer with a sharpened tip or even a knife!

Hence the reason to research and develop new fabrics. Perhaps carbon fibers, diamond weaves, or other ideas, then blend them with kevlar or nylon. It is possible to research and discover new types of fabric, or develop new fabric structures.

And armoured cars were not revolutionary. Technology is evolutionary as a rule, and there's nothing radical about bolting plates of armour onto a truck.

The idea itself was revolutionary. Combining two or more ideas into a new concept can prove revolutionary.

It's unlikely they'll accidentally re-write the laws of physics.

Laws can be amended, expanded, or proven wrong. 500 years ago, people thought it was a "law" that the sun orbited the Earth. That was proven wrong.

The 3-5% is concerning thermocouples. Each RTG has its own coolant system [albeit not extensive since it is in a habitually cold area (depends)] and if it was put on a tank it'd obviously have a more extensive system that would likely have to haul a tank of coolant behind it as well. As for the SP-100, I know it wasn't put in space, its a very large reactor, the SNAP-10 is a larger one as well but I used its rough power (435 kW) to state the ~500. NOtice the ~ it means roughly.

Okay, no, still a big no, a coolant needs to be supplied constantly if you have a portable container with it, it will run out.

Anyways, concerning the use of these tanks, I'm saying they are A MUCH MORE VIABLE AND REALISTIC OPTION to Pebblebeds. SO TECHNICALLY, you're argument had nothing to do with it. I was SIMPLY STATING that an RTG of a smaller size coupled to a generator instead of a thermocouple, would provide exceptional power as long as its combined with say a conventional diesel powerplant of mid-size, and that it was simply a more realistic option than stuffing a Pebblebed onto the tank. I WOULD NOT DO EITHER OF THEM [I really can't stand the thought of a nuclear powerplant on a vehicle and would never do anything of the sort], but I was stating that if they wish to do so, they can, in a more realistic way. OF COURSE it has its problems that you so obviously pointed out. Ugh...

okay, yeah ofcourse sticking a peddlbed reactor on a tank is the same as trying to stick a cow up a chickens ass, the thing is sticking an RTG or any kind of reactor on a tank is like sticking hot metal up the chickens ass. Sorry for the chicken ass analogies but i am not a very creative person.

What about this? How do your RTGs work that powered your remote unmanned light houses? How did the RTGs work on our aircraft for experimental purposes without melting them? How did the miniature RTGs [gram-sized] used in people not cause them to combust [they could've been atomic batteries though, didn't make it clear]? Eh? Its still a nuclear reactor not OMG surrounded by space.

Okay well i didn't study those particular cases of RTG use you mentioned but on a lighthouse a constant supply of coolant can be provided, thats my educated guess, as for an aircraft...please give me more info i wanna look into this i can of course pull something out of my ass, like for example maybe they flied that plane at high enough altitudes so then they release the rejected heat energy into the air their plane is moving fast enough to not catch fire. But neither light house, nor a plane is a tank.

The thing is that putting any kind of nuclear device on a tank is impossible. Period.






AGAIN I'll state this again. I WAS SIMPLY STATING THAT IT WAS MORE A REALISTIC OPTION AND NOT OMG FORCE SOMEONE TO SHOVE RTGs OR OTHER NUCLEAR REACTORS ONTO THEIR TANKS. An RTG is simply a more realistic way of using nuclear power on a vehicle as LONG AS CERTAIN PROBLEMS are taken care of. I believe I stated that a few times in my original, or second post. I really hate doing this.

okay sorry, i get your point.

Anyways now to Sharina. If you let this tank on a battelfield it will combust after 20 minutes, so don't. Just be realistic man, there are other ways.

Hah. NS main page stats don't really mean anything when it comes to free-form RP.Are you saying that you're incapable of answering issues In Character? Wow... Not particularly impressive.

Air drops.When the enemy is capable of cutting off your city, he's in all likelyhood having air superiority. If he does not have air superiority, he wont be able to cut off your city.

In other words, it's either unnecessary, or it wont work.

I don't really have to build farms- I can simply build underground hydroponics and such. Underground engineering and structures are able to be done. Or I could even go as far as building underground railroads which have already been done in RL (Germans in WW 2, various mining operations, railroad tunnels, etc.)Lemme check. There are two reasons to do this: 1. Hyperurbanisation (Not exactly unheard of in NS) or 2. acute threats.

Given the presence of swamps, we can cut hyperurbanisation right out.

Now, how often has Sharina been invaded, again, justifying such rather expensive and (On the global market) drastically uncompetitive (Read: expensive and unprofitable) measures?

Attack heliocopters will be eaten alive by my gatling guns. That leaves artillery, which can be dealt with my aircraft. Problem solved.So why are your hovertanks retreating, them? the onyl reason to retreat is because they're threatened. Air superiority tends to remove this threat.

Also, I doubt that your gatling guns will be any more effective than normal flak, which is to say, 'Eaten Alive' is a gross overestimation.

I won't need armor if its meant for sneak / surprise attack. I can get the first hits in, then it wouldn't matter because the enemy heavy-hitters would be incapaciated.Without armour, it isn't a tank... And as a 'Submarine-Tank' wouldn't have any stealth once it is on the surface, there wont be much of a surprise, either.

True. However, today's tanks have the advantage in terms of speed, killing power, and armor. These are factors under question with my hovercraft- speed, killing, and armor. If those could be improved from primitive tanks to modern tanks, then surely hovercraft can be improved in speed, power, and armor.Certainly. How you want to make them superior, or even equal to a proper MBT on the other hand...

Yet, people weren't able to do so until the Manhattan Project.H.G. Wells, in 'The World set Free' (1914!), the Curies, and many many many other physicists of the time would tentatively disagree. The groundwork started ~ 1900, and by the twenties, they were all very busy in pushing forward. The process merely accelerated in 1939.

A little.

I guess what I'm saying is that for all we know, things we may consider not feasible or impossible to do here today in 2005, could very well become plausible and possible by 2015, 2020, 2025, or so.Utterly irrelevant. What you're using here are all very plausible technologies, used to pursue a completely irreal goal that is vastly easier and more efficiently reached using different means.

What you're trying is the equivalent of using a bow to fire a projectile when assault rifles and submachine guns have already been invented. It's possible, sure, but why bother when there's vastly more efficient ways to do so?

Are you saying that you're incapable of answering issues In Character? Wow... Not particularly impressive.

How many people RP exactly, or follow their NS main page (other than population) in their RP's? Very few. For instance, people may get "Anarchy" as their UN classification on NS, but they RP as a democracy or communism government. The player doesn't RP his nation being in Anarchy. Unless the player is uber-realist and wants to do everything down to the letter.

The NS main page is only useful for three things when it comes to RP'ing.

1. Gauge your population.
2. Answer TG's.
3. Compare your three categories- Civil Rights, Political Freedoms, and Economy.

Thats it. Nothing else to it for 95% of NS RP'ers, myself included.

When the enemy is capable of cutting off your city, he's in all likelyhood having air superiority. If he does not have air superiority, he wont be able to cut off your city.

In other words, it's either unnecessary, or it wont work.

I can supply equipment, supplies, etc. to my swamp city through air-drops. This eliminates the need of highways cutting through the swamps, and preserves the natural barriers of the swamplands.

If the enemy doesn't have air-superiority, then my air-drops can continue unabated. If the enemy is actually trying to interfere with my air-drops, I can simply swat the enemy planes out of the sky with AA defenses throughout the swamp, or my own fighters. My AA defenses will be difficult to take out through the ground, owing to the nature of the swampland.

Lemme check. There are two reasons to do this: 1. Hyperurbanisation (Not exactly unheard of in NS) or 2. acute threats.

Given the presence of swamps, we can cut hyperurbanisation right out.

I can still maintain a large city in a small land area. Vertical urbanization- or in other words, build an arcology. ;)

Now, how often has Sharina been invaded, again, justifying such rather expensive and (On the global market) drastically uncompetitive (Read: expensive and unprofitable) measures?

I've never been invaded. However, that could change any day. It doesn't hurt to be prepared, especially with the whole AMF-Praetonia war going down (and all of its spin-off wars).

So why are your hovertanks retreating, them? the onyl reason to retreat is because they're threatened. Air superiority tends to remove this threat.

Retreating from enemy uber-MBT's.

Also, I doubt that your gatling guns will be any more effective than normal flak, which is to say, 'Eaten Alive' is a gross overestimation.

My gatling guns can lock onto heat signatures, radar signatures, etc. Heliocopters give off those signatures as they aren't exactly stealthy like a B-2's. Then they fire upon these "abnormal" signatures, giving them an accuracy far surpassing WW 2 flak guns.

Without armour, it isn't a tank... And as a 'Submarine-Tank' wouldn't have any stealth once it is on the surface, there wont be much of a surprise, either.

The enemy *will* be unprepared. They will be expecting a massive ground invasion like D-Day. When I send it aganist the enemy, I will send my sub-tanks about 200 - 1000 miles away from the ongoing D-Day invasion. Then have my tanks surface onto undefended beaches, then sweep and effectively flank the enemy before they even know what the hell is happening on their flanks.

Pincer attack- crush the enemy from my D-Day beachead, and from the rear (or sides) with my sneaky sub-tanks.

Certainly. How you want to make them superior, or even equal to a proper MBT on the other hand...

So that these hovercraft can take out all sorts of heavy equipment (tanks, APC's, artillery, massive infantry concentrations, etc.) in any terrain ranging from coast/rivers all the way to desert or tundra.

H.G. Wells, in 'The World set Free' (1914!), the Curies, and many many many other physicists of the time would tentatively disagree. The groundwork started ~ 1900, and by the twenties, they were all very busy in pushing forward. The process merely accelerated in 1939.

A little.

Yes- but the fact of the matter is that at one point, people DID NOT think nuclear weapons was possible. They may not be aware of "Nuclear Weapon" but what I mean is that people may have thought a single city-destroying explosive couldn't be done at one point or another- in 1700 - 1850 for instance.

Utterly irrelevant. What you're using here are all very plausible technologies, used to pursue a completely irreal goal that is vastly easier and more efficiently reached using different means.

Vastly easier? I doubt that- with all the uber-izing going on with MBT's and planes. At the rate things are going, it will become impossible to counteract any of the NS-ified MBT's and planes because there will be too much $wank or $technobabble on them. Look at Soviet Bloc's S-37 tank for instance- a lot of stuff on it... but what happens if the S-37 evolves into something like S-50 or even S-100... nigh invinicible things.

Then it will be an chore and effort to come up with something or anything that will be able to even dent those monstrousities.

How many people RP exactly, or follow their NS main page (other than population) in their RP's? Very few. For instance, people may get "Anarchy" as their UN classification on NS, but they RP as a democracy or communism government. The player doesn't RP his nation being in Anarchy. Unless the player is uber-realist and wants to do everything down to the letter.

The NS main page is only useful for three things when it comes to RP'ing.

1. Gauge your population.
2. Answer TG's.
3. Compare your three categories- Civil Rights, Political Freedoms, and Economy.

Thats it. Nothing else to it for 95% of NS RP'ers, myself included.Odd, I do, within reason. No, of course you can't follow it exactly, that's outright impossible. But you can strive to get as close as possible without tripping over, and frankly, ignoring basically /all/ stats is... Beyond fishy.

And once again, being incapable of answering issues in character is quite, ah... Actually, I dunno how one can be incapable to manage such an excessively simple task.

I can supply equipment, supplies, etc. to my swamp city through air-drops. This eliminates the need of highways cutting through the swamps, and preserves the natural barriers of the swamplands.How did you built the city in the first place? How did its inhabitants move there? Or, for that matter, why?

If the enemy doesn't have air-superiority, then my air-drops can continue unabated. If the enemy is actually trying to interfere with my air-drops, I can simply swat the enemy planes out of the sky with AA defenses throughout the swamp, or my own fighters. My AA defenses will be difficult to take out through the ground, owing to the nature of the swampland.Read my argument again. Try to compose an answer that actually refers to it.

I can still maintain a large city in a small land area. Vertical urbanization- or in other words, build an arcology.Swamp areas aren't notorious for their ability to support heavy structures. I'm sure you remember that this is why you are using hovercraft, yes? Now, let us figure out what happens to a tall building with really huge amounts of ground pressure...

Blub.

I've never been invaded. However, that could change any day. It doesn't hurt to be prepared, especially with the whole AMF-Praetonia war going down (and all of its spin-off wars).Your citizens are very paranoid, then...

Retreating from enemy uber-MBT's.I take it that Sharinans are too stupid to embrace to glory of bombarding targets hanging close together on a narrow street, then?

Ya'know, before attacking with ground forces?

Incidentally, I like you once more pulling the subtext of 'But the others are worse!!!11' Get over it, for gods sake.

My gatling guns can lock onto heat signatures, radar signatures, etc. Heliocopters give off those signatures as they aren't exactly stealthy like a B-2's. Then they fire upon these "abnormal" signatures, giving them an accuracy far surpassing WW 2 flak guns.Forgetting the invention of longer-range ordinance and the fact that the hovercraft have signatures, too, I see...

The enemy *will* be unprepared. They will be expecting a massive ground invasion like D-Day. When I send it aganist the enemy, I will send my sub-tanks about 200 - 1000 miles away from the ongoing D-Day invasion. Then have my tanks surface onto undefended beaches, then sweep and effectively flank the enemy before they even know what the hell is happening on their flanks.Okaaaaaaaay... 1. You're assuming that a potential opponent doesn't notice their construction, 2. You're assuming that Sonar hasn't been invented, 3. You're assuming that their range is sufficient (Which means that they're actually multiple-hundred-ton tincans of throughout targetness) OR they are actually considerably small, in which case you need to transport them to near the coast, and the transport ships will... be... noticed...

And THEN you have to fight an enemy that will still have every advantage with regards to specialisation, as there's this annoying thing about multienvironment-craft generally sucking in all their intended environments...

Why, yes, sounds like a good plan.

ESPECIALLY for a defensively oriented nation.

Oh, did I mention that a submarine has to be lighter than water to resurface (Becoming heavier than water by way of temporarily taking water in to submerge)? Guess what tanks are not, and guess what's responsible for this? Hint, it starts with 'A', ends with 'r' and has 'mou' in the middle.

And guess what the submarine will, this, not have in the same, shiny, and protective armour/ volume ratio the tank has (Yes, I know you can armour ships. Their armour/ volume ratio still sucks, when compared to a tank).

So that these hovercraft can take out all sorts of heavy equipment (tanks, APC's, artillery, massive infantry concentrations, etc.) in any terrain ranging from coast/rivers all the way to desert or tundra.Read what I wrote, again. Not why, how.

Yes- but the fact of the matter is that at one point, people DID NOT think nuclear weapons was possible. They may not be aware of "Nuclear Weapon" but what I mean is that people may have thought a single city-destroying explosive couldn't be done at one point or another- in 1700 - 1850 for instance.Wrong example. You're using existing technologies for a task they're unsuited for. You're not trying to create something completely new and utterly unthinkable/ revolutionary.

What you're trying is essentially equivalent to, oh... Someone in the 15th century trying to make a caravelle landgoing by having it carry a really huge amount of horses and mounting wheels on it, then using it as a mobile artillery platform.

It's not utterly impossible. Merely pointless.

Vastly easier? I doubt that- with all the uber-izing going on with MBT's and planes. At the rate things are going, it will become impossible to counteract any of the NS-ified MBT's and planes because there will be too much $wank or $technobabble on them. Look at Soviet Bloc's S-37 tank for instance- a lot of stuff on it... but what happens if the S-37 evolves into something like S-50 or even S-100... nigh invinicible things.Awww, you're feeling inadequate?

Now, what can we do against it? Oh, right... We can presume that nations playing on a given level have a constant development process more-or-less balancing itself (Leaving space for specialisations, of course), this meaning that you'll automatically have a level capable of dealing with the threat. Usually, I'd base such on the basic data the game gives you-

Oh, right, I forgot, you ignore almost all of it. Why, yes, sucks to be you.

Odd, I do, within reason. No, of course you can't follow it exactly, that's outright impossible. But you can strive to get as close as possible without tripping over, and frankly, ignoring basically /all/ stats is... Beyond fishy.

I clearly stated that the NS main page is only good for figuring out your nation's population (in my case, roughly 2.4 billion). Then show how good your economy, civil rights, and political freedoms are. Then if you have any telegrams, use the NS page to access them "You have X Telegrams" and then answer them.

I don't RP my nation as a "Civil Rights Lovefest". I RP it as something different altogether. I'm sure that other people don't follow their NS main stats page (other than population and three primary stats). I don't RP my nation's major industries being, say, Book Publishing. I don't RP my nation as "Omnipresent government and the rest of society begins". I don't RP my nation's national animals as near-extinct. I don't RP my nation having moderate crime rates. And so on.

What of those nations that RP fantasy, FT, or Medieval times? Pretty much the only things those people would follow is population (modified somewhat- smaller population- probably 1 /10 scale, in medieval times, bigger populations in FT, probably 5x scale to account for a multi-system and multi-planet empire)... civil rights, economy, and political freedoms. Nothing else.

And once again, being incapable of answering issues in character is quite, ah... Actually, I dunno how one can be incapable to manage such an excessively simple task.

I dismiss issues I don't want to have passed. That simple. ;)

How did you built the city in the first place? How did its inhabitants move there? Or, for that matter, why?

How = Find an island in the swamp, then expand from there.

People moving = Use hover ferry ships and such.

Why = Good defense aganist invasion, in which the enemy cannot invade, occupy, or pillage the city easily.

Swamp areas aren't notorious for their ability to support heavy structures. I'm sure you remember that this is why you are using hovercraft, yes? Now, let us figure out what happens to a tall building with really huge amounts of ground pressure...

Blub.

Dig to the bedrock under the swamp. All terrain rests on rock- even oceans. ;)

Your citizens are very paranoid, then...

When your NATO allies go to war, and you don't want any part in it. Then have NATO's enemies maybe come looking for easy pickings aganist neutral nations. :rolleyes:

I take it that Sharinans are too stupid to embrace to glory of bombarding targets hanging close together on a narrow street, then?

Ya'know, before attacking with ground forces?

Incidentally, I like you once more pulling the subtext of 'But the others are worse!!!11' Get over it, for gods sake.

It'd be difficult to embrace any bombardment of narrow streets and such because I would be bombarding the enemy outside of my cities. What's more, my cities would be enclosed, and any massive bombardment of civilian cities = atrocity.

Forgetting the invention of longer-range ordinance and the fact that the hovercraft have signatures, too, I see...

My hovercraft would have cover in the swamps, with all these swamp and tropical trees. The heliocopters may not "see" my hovercraft until they're within range of my hovercraft's gatling guns. What's more, a heliocopter may be out of range of *one* of my hovercraft's gatling guns, but within range of another hovercraft due to its position.

Okaaaaaaaay... 1. You're assuming that a potential opponent doesn't notice their construction, 2. You're assuming that Sonar hasn't been invented, 3. You're assuming that their range is sufficient (Which means that they're actually multiple-hundred-ton tincans of throughout targetness) OR they are actually considerably small, in which case you need to transport them to near the coast, and the transport ships will... be... noticed...

Construction = easy to hide.

Sonar = think my sub-tanks are a bunch of dolphins or whales.

Transports = can be submersible transports.

And THEN you have to fight an enemy that will still have every advantage with regards to specialisation, as there's this annoying thing about multienvironment-craft generally sucking in all their intended environments...

The enemy will suck in my harsh terrain, no question asked. Unless they bring their own hovercraft.

Why, yes, sounds like a good plan.

ESPECIALLY for a defensively oriented nation.

Yes- I am simply hypothesizing an counter-attack, or an counter-invasion.

Oh, did I mention that a submarine has to be lighter than water to resurface (Becoming heavier than water by way of temporarily taking water in to submerge)? Guess what tanks are not, and guess what's responsible for this? Hint, it starts with 'A', ends with 'r' and has 'mou' in the middle.

I can sacrifice armor for "first strike" capability.

Wrong example. You're using existing technologies for a task they're unsuited for. You're not trying to create something completely new and utterly unthinkable/ revolutionary.

I am attempting revolutionary applications of existing technologies, i.e. using them in new ways.

What you're trying is essentially equivalent to, oh... Someone in the 15th century trying to make a caravelle landgoing by having it carry a really huge amount of horses and mounting wheels on it, then using it as a mobile artillery platform.

It's not utterly impossible. Merely pointless.

That example = pointless.

Hovercraft defending harsh terrain = *not* pointless.

Awww, you're feeling inadequate?

Now, what can we do against it? Oh, right... We can presume that nations playing on a given level have a constant development process more-or-less balancing itself (Leaving space for specialisations, of course), this meaning that you'll automatically have a level capable of dealing with the threat. Usually, I'd base such on the basic data the game gives you-

Oh, right, I forgot, you ignore almost all of it. Why, yes, sucks to be you.

Uhm.

First, you're speaking / arguing in a way such that military stats, tank stats, aircraft stats, etc. come directly from the NS main page. Which it doesn't.

Second, the only way for me to counter the uber-stuff people produce is to copy+paste their stuff and tweak the stats a few notches higher. That's poor sportsmanship, has no honor, pathetic RP'ing, and would be IGNORED by people who say "Copyright violations!".

Third, the only way I see realistic war RP's and such to happen is to have everybody play with actual MT stuff, not some NS-ified tanks, planes, etc. In other words, if people pitted M1A1 Abrams aganist Challenger II tanks, or F-16 planes aganist MiG's, etc. then I wouldn't have the need to try to come up with uber-counters to counter the uber-stuff NS players crank out everyday.

Finally, I'm not intending this to be an invincible uber-crap like some NS'ers try to do. I'm looking for an heavy equipment platform that can go anywhere terrain-wise, which opens up a lot of new tactical and strategical possibilities. I'm not looking to mount a 200mm ETC cannon, 10,000mm RHA, or uber stuff like that. :rolleyes:

Strategy and tactics is something that most NS war RP's lack, as they are basically glorified WW 1 type of battles of throwing stuff into the meat grinder. :rolleyes:

I clearly stated that the NS main page is only good for figuring out your nation's population (in my case, roughly 2.4 billion). Then show how good your economy, civil rights, and political freedoms are.Now, now. When this particular part of the argument started, GMC was referring to your superb political freedoms. Now you're kinda arguing for recognising them, despite previously kinda saying that you don't recognise them.

Mind making up your mind?

I'm sure that other people don't follow their NS main stats pageOh, certainly. Thing is, I don't exactly respect those people...

What of those nations that RP fantasy, FT, or Medieval times? Pretty much the only things those people would follow is population (modified somewhat- smaller population- probably 1 /10 scale, in medieval times, bigger populations in FT, probably 5x scale to account for a multi-system and multi-planet empire)... civil rights, economy, and political freedoms. Nothing else.As I happen to have Fantasy-, Medieval and FT nations, I can tell you with absolzute certainty that you're wrong. One certainly has to be creative with some things... But the vast majority of statistics is recognised.

I dismiss issues I don't want to have passed. That simple.... How... Why... Read what I wrote. Again. Think about it. Possibly for longer than ten seconds. Then try again.

How = Find an island in the swamp, then expand from there.

People moving = Use hover ferry ships and such.

Why = Good defense aganist invasion, in which the enemy cannot invade, occupy, or pillage the city easily.Ok. Lets try it again.

Why would you, oocly, want to move to the middle of a swamp?

'there's no phone, no lights, no motorcars, not a single
luxury,
like robonson Crusoe, it's as primitive as can be,'
Many thanks to Weird Al Yankovic

Now lets copy&paste this to Sharina's citizenry...

Dig to the bedrock under the swamp. All terrain rests on rock- even oceans.Try that IRL. Have fun. See you in a decade, when you eventually realise that draining the swamp altogether is somewhat easier and vastly more practical.

When your NATO allies go to war, and you don't want any part in it. Then have NATO's enemies maybe come looking for easy pickings aganist neutral nations.And so far, this has happened... How often?

Ah...

Furthermore, if you're worried because your allies have the diplomatic skills of orang utans, leave the alliance.

It'd be difficult to embrace any bombardment of narrow streets and such because I would be bombarding the enemy outside of my cities. What's more, my cities would be enclosed, and any massive bombardment of civilian cities = atrocity.You've lost me here. What's wrong with bombing the enemy outside of your cities?

Waitasec. You're interpreting 'Narrow streets' as 'Inside the city', no doubts.

You've lost me again. So... there are no streets, not even narrow ones, through the swamps?

Now, disregarding the thing about aerial transports being horribly expensive (That's why we're still using motorcars and ships, remember?) and thus not a viable option, what would your hovercraft be for, again? If there's only swamp, your enemy wont enter.

He'll use arty and bombs.

Well, I guess rusting hovercraft lacking enemies are a nice thing, too...

My hovercraft would have cover in the swamps, with all these swamp and tropical trees. The heliocopters may not "see" my hovercraft until they're within range of my hovercraft's gatling guns. What's more, a heliocopter may be out of range of *one* of my hovercraft's gatling guns, but within range of another hovercraft due to its position.Infrared has escaped your notice, I guess? So have Radar, Lidar, sound (Yes, a hovercraft is loud, and yes, you can build a missile homing in on the noise) etc.?

The enemy will suck in my harsh terrain, no question asked. Unless they bring their own hovercraft.Missing the point, are we? Specifically, that this was about your sub-tank idea... Remember, it's your subs, invading a coast. You're in your enemies terrain.

Oh, or would you land on your own beaches, once they're fallen? Keeping a good portion of couse forces out at sea, while you need them to defend yourself?

Perhaps it's just me, but this really doesn't sound smart.

And as far as the hovercraft are concerned, Well... Lemme think, how would I take them out... Why, yes, missiles with the aforementioned abilities are shiny.

Of course, I'd ust go around the swamp, so the question wouldn't arise. And a city covered with swamps isn't exactly a threat to my supply lines, nor is it particularly capable of producing and transporting enough material to effectively aid your war efford.

Why, yes, I'd go around it.

First, you're speaking / arguing in a way such that military stats, tank stats, aircraft stats, etc. come directly from the NS main page. Which it doesn't.
Nope. I'm arguing that a basic framework of statistics comes from the game. You know, IT/ Electronic Warfare, Military size/ Rough spending estimate, smartness/ Equipment quality, the likes.

I don't even bother with tank stats, aircraft stats, ship stats, whatever. I've a technological background within which I'm playing. I apply this to any given situation and see what I could/ would feasibly have, and what not.

And I do not have a single tank/ plane/ ship class designed out in any kind of appreciable detail.

Because personally, I find the notion that I (Or anybody on NS, or, for that matter, the planet) could design something we, IRL, have dozens, or even hundreds of engineers working for, quite laughable.

Second, the only way for me to counter the uber-stuff people produce is to copy+paste their stuff and tweak the stats a few notches higher. That's poor sportsmanship, has no honor, pathetic RP'ing, and would be IGNORED by people who say "Copyright violations!".The point of your whining?

Third, the only way I see realistic war RP's and such to happen is to have everybody play with actual MT stuff, not some NS-ified tanks, planes, etc. In other words, if people pitted M1A1 Abrams aganist Challenger II tanks, or F-16 planes aganist MiG's, etc. then I wouldn't have the need to try to come up with uber-counters to counter the uber-stuff NS players crank out everyday.
How do you know how those interact with each other? Present-day cutting-edge equipment from, say, the US; Russia, and the EU (The latter counting only marginally) hasn't seen a single encounter between it. There are only encounters between cutting-edge and decades old, or decades old and decades old.

Thus, you have zero references, and it'd all boggle down to 'RUSSIA!' 'NO! AMERICA!' bitching.

Finally, I'm not intending this to be an invincible uber-crap like some NS'ers try to do. I'm looking for an heavy equipment platform that can go anywhere terrain-wise, which opens up a lot of new tactical and strategical possibilities. I'm not looking to mount a 200mm ETC cannon, 10,000mm RHA, or uber stuff like that.Now that sounds better. It doesn't make a hovercraft an MBT, tho.

Strategy and tactics is something that most NS war RP's lack, as they are basically glorified WW 1 type of battles of throwing stuff into the meat grinder.Lies. I throw stuff into scrapyards. Organic combatants are false data.

Now, now. When this particular part of the argument started, GMC was referring to your superb political freedoms. Now you're kinda arguing for recognising them, despite previously kinda saying that you don't recognise them.

Mind making up your mind?

I follow only four stats on my NS main page.

1. Population
2. X rating of Civil Rights
3. X rating of Economy
4. X rating of Political Freedom

I don't RP or follow anything else on my NS main page other than those four categories, as it would severely restrict what I can RP. I want to RP a free-form type of government- there's no Technocracy on the NS Main Page, but I want to RP a Technocracy.

GMC argued about my Superb Political Freedoms. To answer that, it can be made to be an illusion- I can hide all my covert, secret, undesirable, etc. type of funding, investments, or projects in a variety of ways that people won't be aware of. Take Area 51 in RL- the US has excellent political freedoms being a democracy and all- but they manage to hide their top-secret research projects and such under "Department of Defense", the CIA, Area 51, or dummy corporations. Simply cite "For national security" as any excuse aganist any conspiracy theorists, or use black-ops CIA to "disappear" the conspiracy theorists.

As I happen to have Fantasy-, Medieval and FT nations, I can tell you with absolzute certainty that you're wrong. One certainly has to be creative with some things... But the vast majority of statistics is recognised.

I find it difficult to believe a medevial society having 1+ billion people. Even in RL, the world population was only 200 million or so in the 1000's - 1500's. Only after the industrial revolution, did the population explode and boom from 500 million in 1800's to 6 billion today.

The same could be said for FT. In FT, Earth is either brought under one government (World Government like in many Sci-Fi settings) or conquered by a super-power. Then the "Human Race" will continue to populate and consolidate Earth. By that time, Earth would probably have 10 billion people. Fast forward 100 years. Humans will have colonies on Mars, Europa, Io, and maybe Venus (all terraformed). That's probably a total Human population of 12 - 15 billion. Fast forward another 100 years. We have reached Alpha Centauri and possibly other nearby stars that may have habitable or terraform-able planets. Tack another few billion onto the population figure. Rinse and repeat with each successive "expansion" throughout our sector of the Milky Way. Then probably by 3000 A.D. we'll have an interstellar empire that is comprised of maybe 50 - 100 billion people.

... How... Why... Read what I wrote. Again. Think about it. Possibly for longer than ten seconds. Then try again.

You're talking about answering issues on the NS main page, aren't you?

Ok. Lets try it again.

Why would you, oocly, want to move to the middle of a swamp?

So that I won't be invaded. That simple.

'there's no phone, no lights, no motorcars, not a single
luxury,
like robonson Crusoe, it's as primitive as can be,'
Many thanks to Weird Al Yankovic

Now lets copy&paste this to Sharina's citizenry...

Underground water treatement plants, nuclear or fusion power plants, internal phone services, and the like.

Try that IRL. Have fun. See you in a decade, when you eventually realise that draining the swamp altogether is somewhat easier and vastly more practical.

Two things.

1. Enviroment- we must preserve the swamplands- look at what Hurricane Katrina did to the Gulf because of erosion of swampland, marsh, and wetlands.

2. Decade? NS nations stay in MT for hundreds of years, according to 1 RL day = 1 NS year, which is unrealistic given the inevitable progress of technology, society, and human nature.

And so far, this has happened... How often?

Ah...

Furthermore, if you're worried because your allies have the diplomatic skills of orang utans, leave the alliance.

Operation Brimestone, Operation Hellfire, the Feline Catfish Situation, and the AMF - Praetonia War are some examples of this. Also, I take a risk every time some n00b or veteran decides to go to war aganist AMF because of AMF's fame or uber-ness. Then when they struggle, they may get their allies to read up on AMF's NATO allies and decide "Oh, maybe thats' an easier target".

However, I'm actually considering withdrawing from NATO for some reasons I'd rather not discuss in public.

You've lost me here. What's wrong with bombing the enemy outside of your cities?

Waitasec. You're interpreting 'Narrow streets' as 'Inside the city', no doubts.

You've lost me again. So... there are no streets, not even narrow ones, through the swamps?

Now, disregarding the thing about aerial transports being horribly expensive (That's why we're still using motorcars and ships, remember?) and thus not a viable option, what would your hovercraft be for, again? If there's only swamp, your enemy wont enter.

I could build underground tunnels connecting my arcology city to the outside of the swamp or to another arcology city.

Underground tunnels are perfectly possible- after all multi-mile long tunnels have already been built in RL. The only thing preventing even long tunnels is the un-necessity of it, money funding issues, and time.

In NS, money is less of an issue with multi-trillion budgets. Time isn't an issue, as I explained earlier with MT nations staying MT (2000 - 2020 levels) for 100's of years... Hell, Sharina has been MT for more than 400 RL days, which means 400 years in the 1 RL day = 1 NS year timescale.

A lot of today's engineering feats can be easily done in such a "frozen MT" situation- 400 years is enough time to build a tunnel from California to China under the Pacific sea-floor. ;)

The necessity is to present an insurmontable or extremely difficult barrier aganist superpowers from invading me. In NS, nearly everyone is a super-power with militarys bigger and stronger than RL USA, China, or USSR. In RL there has only been three superpowers- USA, former USSR, and China (any year now if not already). In NS, there's probably 1000's of superpowers. In such a threatening world, drastic measures must be taken to ensure the survival of a nation, even if that means undertaking massive projects like underground tunnel networks or cities in swamps.

Infrared has escaped your notice, I guess? So have Radar, Lidar, sound (Yes, a hovercraft is loud, and yes, you can build a missile homing in on the noise) etc.?

Yes. However you're forgetting that I can have one hovercraft in a position where it can't reach the attack heliocopter or artillery battery. But the heliocopter or artillery attacking the first hovercraft could be in range of a second hovercraft's weapons.

Missing the point, are we? Specifically, that this was about your sub-tank idea... Remember, it's your subs, invading a coast. You're in your enemies terrain.

Oh, or would you land on your own beaches, once they're fallen? Keeping a good portion of couse forces out at sea, while you need them to defend yourself?

I am not talking about using the sub-tanks in defense of my nation. I'm talking about using them in a counter-invasion. Even if I had any sub-tanks (which I don't, seeing as it was a completely hypothetical situation), I'd only have maybe 100 of them, a far cry from the 1000's or 10,000's of tanks regular NS nations employ willy-nilly in war RP's. This means I'll still have plenty of conventional tanks.

Perhaps it's just me, but this really doesn't sound smart.

And as far as the hovercraft are concerned, Well... Lemme think, how would I take them out... Why, yes, missiles with the aforementioned abilities are shiny.

Gatling guns can act as a semi-CIWS function, exactly like naval gatling guns do. In fact, naval CIWS are based off gatling guns. ;)

Of course, I'd ust go around the swamp, so the question wouldn't arise. And a city covered with swamps isn't exactly a threat to my supply lines, nor is it particularly capable of producing and transporting enough material to effectively aid your war efford.

Why, yes, I'd go around it.

Not if my nation is surrounded by Himalayan-like mountains on one side, a Sahara-like desert on another side, a Siberia-like cold and lifeless tundra on a third side, and the swamplands on the fourth side. The fertile lands would be in the middle. Pretty difficult, if not impossible to invade or get into. ;)

Nope. I'm arguing that a basic framework of statistics comes from the game. You know, IT/ Electronic Warfare, Military size/ Rough spending estimate, smartness/ Equipment quality, the likes.

I take it you're referring to setting your nation in pre-MT, MT, Post-MT, or FT setting? If not, then I don't understand or see where you can get those military information from NS (not counting the I.I. or NS forums).

I don't even bother with tank stats, aircraft stats, ship stats, whatever. I've a technological background within which I'm playing. I apply this to any given situation and see what I could/ would feasibly have, and what not.

And I do not have a single tank/ plane/ ship class designed out in any kind of appreciable detail.

Because personally, I find the notion that I (Or anybody on NS, or, for that matter, the planet) could design something we, IRL, have dozens, or even hundreds of engineers working for, quite laughable.

I can understand and appreciate that. However, some people demand to see the stats and such of another player's equipment in war RP's or they'd fire IGNORE cannons and then no RP.

The point of your whining?

Whining? I don't think so.

I am merely stating the fact that for any reasonable counter, I'd have to rip-oof someone else's design or stats which is a "taboo" here at NS. I would very much prefer to original design stuff, instead. More respect and recongition that way, which means more people would be willing to RP with me, knowing I won't rip them off or cheat.

How do you know how those interact with each other? Present-day cutting-edge equipment from, say, the US; Russia, and the EU (The latter counting only marginally) hasn't seen a single encounter between it. There are only encounters between cutting-edge and decades old, or decades old and decades old.

Thus, you have zero references, and it'd all boggle down to 'RUSSIA!' 'NO! AMERICA!' bitching.

At least that's a step up better than "Too Uber! IGNORED!" or "Not feasible!" or any of that crap.

Lies. I throw stuff into scrapyards. Organic combatants are false data.

(shrug)

The "meat-grinder" stuff may not happen in *your* RP's, but they sure as hell do in most other RP's where people try to beat each other through sheer numbers.

Sharina, please respond to my criticism.

Sharina, please respond to my criticism.

My apologies- I'll try to respond to your debate. It can get difficult to keep track of debates, especially when both GMC and Der Angst hop into my threads and critique my stuff.

Credit to goes Soviet Bloc for the drawing of the upper half of the Paragon-II as I used a picture template of his tank.

I'm sure you've mentioned this already in the thread, but I CBA to scroll through nine pages while planning for a cross-country flight. You did get permission for this, ja? Or did you just eyeball it?

EDIT: Sharina, watch out, Der Angst doesn't concede points, he builds robots to enforce them XD

I'm sure you've mentioned this already in the thread, but I CBA to scroll through nine pages while planning for a cross-country flight. You did get permission for this, ja? Or did you just eyeball it?

EDIT: Sharina, watch out, Der Angst doesn't concede points, he builds robots to enforce them XD

EPIC THREE YEAR GRAVEDIG

MUNCHIE WINS THE INTERNETS

Jesus christ! Why did No Endorse decide to dig this up after 3 whole years? Seriously, what's up with this?

This is just unbelieveable.

hello thread

Jesus christ! Why did No Endorse decide to dig this up after 3 whole years? Seriously, what's up with this?

This is just unbelieveable.
Jesus Christ you're alive!

What if the nuclear reactor explodes or the hydrogen fuel cell does the same? Does it have any built in measures to contain these in case the vehicle is in the vicinity of ground troops and/or civilians as well as other tanks?