NationStates Jolt Archive


“Sloth” Class Super-Heavy Tank.

Northford
29-05-2006, 15:20
[OOC: Say hi to my The STEEL PENIS OF DEATH!!Shift+1.... I designed this as I've seen quite a few so called "Super-heavies" recently, and although the have all been good, none of them have quite fitted my needs. I designed this, then, for my nation, with the plan of manufacturing about 10 of them, and maybe fielding 4-5 in an actual invasion. This is my first design, and I don't plan to sell it (There are plenty of other storefronts selling good stuff out there), but instead I'd likea critque of my design. If you've got a quick link to the draftroom, I'd appreciate it, as I looked in my favs, and couldn't find this.

I'd really like to improve this, so if you want to comment feel free. If you want to accuse me of god-modding, thats also fine, although, I'd appreciate it if you made it constructive. Unlike some other designer(s), who I won't name, I'm not going to attempt to defend my design to the realms of stupidity ( I know there are people out there with a lot more know-how that me).... Instead I'm planning to modifiy it as nessasary.]

“Sloth” Class Super-Heavy Tank.

The STEEL PENIS OF DEATH.

Problem:

*Note: The Redbridge Complex in Northford is a large urban complex on the coast. It is our largest port/docks. Defence of Redbridge presents a particular problem, as the transport system is largly consisting of long, straight roads, about 15 lanes wide, and often many miles long. This came about when it was realised how easy it would be for a landing party to launch a group of light tanks from the docks, and, from following just one road, drive straight into the capital city

Following a recent review of the defence of the Red Bridge Complex in Northford, it was realised that the Armoured Division (The only Armoured Division in Northford, in fact) defending the Docks against Invasion was seriously lacking heavy fire support. While it had access to Howitzers, they lacked the penetration characteristics required to sink enemy naval assets, and would be relatively easy prey for bombardment by Battleship Guns.

The Northfordian defence review also took stock of the HBT and the MBT in service. These Tanks, while viable combatants against landed troops, lacked the Armour and Range to go “Toe-to-Toe” with Ships such as Cruisers and Destroyers.

In order to be able to strike Landing Craft effectively, as well as being able to threaten Naval Assets, the Commonwealth of Northford had to look for an alternative.

Although there were a number of other so called “Superheavies” on the market, these were deemed to be unsuitable, as either they were too expensive, lacked the correct armament, or did not have the ability to act as a de-facto troop carrier and Command Control Center. Also, while the Northfordian Government was focusing on naval priorities, it did not want to leave itself “undefended”. It is due to this requirement, that the present program of acquiring Ships was put on hold; PM Brooks even went so far as to say: “As much as I’d like to have a fleet of Battleships, they won’t do us a damm bit of good if can’t stop a bunch of landing craft”.

Proposed Design:

Armament:

In order for the Sloth to be able to fulfil its mission, it is provided with a large number of weapons. It’s primary weapons is a 22inch ECT Cannon, forward mounted. This was chosen as it has the ability to severely damage a Cruiser or a Light Battleship should it get a “Lucky Hit”, or to sink a Destroyer, Frigate or Landing Craft.

It can maintain a fire rate of 5 Rounds Per Minute.

While the main gun is very powerful, it is somewhat of overkill for a standard MBT, or even a standard HBT. In response to this, designers added two 4.75 Inch (120mm) ECT Cannons. These were mounted lower than the Heavy Cannon, as they would not need to vary their pitch as much. They can fire a range of munitions, ranging from HE to KE penetrators. The set-up favoured by the designers was one barrel would fire a DU Penetrator, while the other would fire a HEAT round.

Due to the built up urban nature of the Redbridge area, the ability of the Supertank to fire Indirect Munitions was not forgotten. Addressing this is a huge bank of Medium Mortars. 39 Tubes are positioned on the top of the tank. 3 Inch (Actually 81mm) in diameter, they have a range of about 5 Miles, and a confusing rate of fire. Although a single 81mm Mortar tube is capable of firing 15 Rd’s per minute, if ground based, due to the large amount of tubes, and the type of Autoloader used, this ROF is not possible.

Instead, the Crew is faced with two options. Firstly, there is the sustained fire approach. Here, one Mortar Tube fires every two seconds. This can be sustained indefinitely, and is very useful where ammunition is not an issue, or suppressive firepower is needed. The Second option is known as the “Persona-kill” by the designers. Here, all 39 tubes fire a two shot burst over 3 seconds. This 78 shot burst can occur approximately once every minute.

This is not all that the Sloth offers.

Remembering that Redbridge’s long, straight roads, along with tall multi-storey buildings would, to a pilot seem to form “canyon’s”, the designers of the Sloth recognised that there was a risk from bold Fighters.

To address this, they added 15 VLS tubes to the tank. These are able to fire a range of munitions, although long/short range AA missiles are suggested. To supplement their AA ability, and as a last ditch defence, the Sloth also has 6 CIWS (1.2”/30 mm dual mounted Auto-cannon) mounted on the roof.

Anti-Personal Weaponry presented a special problem to the designers. While the Armour was virtually impervious to conventional weaponry, computer generated trials presented a worrying situation: Assuming that the infantry avoided the guns, they could scale the tank, and block vents, barrels, and, eventually, welds their way in.

While the Armour and the Crew Protection meant that welding would be a long process, it was nevertheless worrying. Although it was on the drawing board, the tank was already becoming “full”, and there was little room to house another turret.

In response to this the designers decided on a range of rather passive defence measures. They include, 1.6”/40mm Static Grenade Launchers mounted at certain points along the hull and ”Hot Touch” Surfaces, at points, which are obvious handholds. An electric current heats up the special surface to approximately 400 Degree’s Celsius.

Infantry Compliment:

As this was supposed to be a “Supertank”, it was decided that it was befitting that it have an infantry compliment. Exiting out of the side of the Tank, the Sloth can hold 15 fully “kited-out” men. When they are inside, they can use the 3 fire ports on either side of the tank, or the “Sniper-Pouch” on either side (preferably when the tank is stationary), for precision fire.

Armour:

As this is a superheavy tank, the designers decided it should have superheavy armour. The Tank uses a layered approach as follows:

~~~~~~

This layer of Hardened Steel Slat Armour forms the first layer. The function of this is to act pre-detonate RPG’s, and light Anti-Tank Munitions. Although the main armour can do this job, the Slat armour is useful as it prevents unneeded wear or deformation of the main plates.

Non-Explosive ERA: This is applied in the form of small blocks. It acts to dissipate some of the energy of HEAT rounds.

Layer of modified Dorchester follows next. This is a dense layer, and is the thickest. Providing immunity against everything, this layer is near enough impossible to break through using traditional MBT munitions. It is approximately xxx mm thick.

After this is a honeycomb matrix of ceramic and artificial Diamond is layered. Channels of the honeycomb are perpendicular to the direction of the armour. This provides a measure of rigidity to the Sloth, thus providing it protection against Heavy Artillery and KE attacks

After this is a Composite Spalling Liner. This is designed to stop shrapnel and fragments from the main armour, and also ensure small arms fired inside the tank do not cause harm to those outside.


This Armour pattern is found throughout the Tank, both on the inside and the out. While the main bulk of the plate is on the front, there are also sizeable amounts of it on the sides and the rear, although it is not as think, not is the angle of sloping as great.

There are also “Bulkheads” within the tank itself, around vital area’s, such as the Pebblebed Generator, and the Crew areas.

Power Generation:

Due to the Sloth’s huge size, conventioal methods of power generation were to be seen as inappropriate, as they would either be too large, or require unsuitably large amount of fuel reserves.

In response to this, the designers of the Sloth instead decided to install a small Pebblebed reactor in the hull of the tank. Capable of providing vast amounts of energy, this hulk is set within reinforced armour, to provide additional protection.

As well as this, the designers also added an auxiliary diesel engine to the rear of the craft, should the Reactor fail

Propulsion

Tied into power generation is the issue of propulsion. While the Nuclear Reactor is well suited for providing the vast amounts of energy required for the ECT Gun’s, its ill suited to allowing the sloth to move at high speeds.

The maximum speed for the sloth is 7Mph, although 5Mph is the standard cruising speed. Traction is provided via 10 tracks.

Using the auxiliary diesel engine, 2Mph can be achieved, although this is not recommended for long periods.

Electronics:

To be filled in at a later point

Stat Box:

(Northfordian Statistics: British Imperial [If you don’t like, it learn, learn it… or convert the units]

Crew: 12 (1 Primary Loader, 3 Secondary Loader, 2 Drivers [Primary/Secondary], Commander, 4 Gunners, Communications/ECM)
Length: 150 Yards
Width: 30 Yards
Height: 25 Yards
Ground Clearance: 30” (2’6”)
Mass: 86 823 (long UK) Tonnes
Propulsion: Primary: Pebblebed Reactor, Auxiliary: 3 (13.7 Litre) Gallon Diesel Engine
Range: Unlimited by Nuclear Fuel, 4 Days under NBC Conditions, due to consumables
Electronics & Communications: To be filled in on a later date
Armour: Northfordian SHT Matrix
RHA Thickness (Ignoring ERA and Sloping):
Front: 36 Inches
Rear: 12 Inches
Sides: 14 Inches
Weapons:
Primary:
One 22Inch Naval ECT Gun
Secondary Armaments:
Two 4.75 Inch Smoothbore Cannons
Thirty Nine 3” Mortar Tubes

15 VLS Tubes

Twenty 1.2” Grenade Launchers

Fifteen Firing Ports, with 3 fixed .303”’s on either side

Infantry Compliment:
15 Battle-Ready men
-Or-
5 Medic’s and Ambulance Facilities.

Projected Cost of Manufacture:

1.5 Billion Universal Standard Dollars
Northford
29-05-2006, 15:29
http://img234.imageshack.us/my.php?image=utanky7xu.png

This is a "Bloc-Diagram" of what I expect it to looks like. Green indicates an area which is attached to the Cannon(s), Blue is Armour Plating, Red is associated with Engines/power generation, and the CW points to areas where the crew can operate. IVF shows the region ofthe tank where infantry can be deployed..

I know it looks terrible, but I'm on my home pc, and havn't got access to Pro-Desktop (a 3-D design prog my school has)
Northford
29-05-2006, 16:42
Bump
Gejigrad
29-05-2006, 16:51
[ More like "Mobile Artillery Platform [of Complete and Utter Doom]." ._.'

{::squeak::} ]
[NS]Kreynoria
29-05-2006, 16:56
Any land vehicle that weighs that much is impractical. It will crack roads and won't be able to cross bridges. The treads will wear out almost immediately. Your tanks also has very little protection against things that get close to it, such as other tanks and anti-tank infantry.
Northford
29-05-2006, 17:07
Kreynoria']Any land vehicle that weighs that much is impractical. It will crack roads and won't be able to cross bridges. The treads will wear out almost immediately. Your tanks also has very little protection against things that get close to it, such as other tanks and anti-tank infantry.

Thanks. How do you think I could Improve it? I calculated the weight by squaring the weight of a Challenger 2, and multiplying it by (150/Length of a Challenger 2), then adding about 100 tonnes for good measure.

This gives me a huge weight.

I initially squared the weight as I assumed that the Cross section was 4 times that of a Challenger.

When I actually drew the sketch out a minute ago, I realised my inital Calculation was wrong....

Instead, by multiplying the Weight of the Challenger by 4, then multiplying it by (150/Length of Challenger), I get

4687.5 Tonnes.

Is that more reasonable?

What do you suggest to make it better protected against light infantry?
The Aeson
29-05-2006, 17:12
Thanks. How do you think I could Improve it? I calculated the weight by squaring the weight of a Challenger 2, and multiplying it by (150/Length of a Challenger 2), then adding about 100 tonnes for good measure.

This gives me a huge weight.

I initially squared the weight as I assumed that the Cross section was 4 times that of a Challenger.

When I actually drew the sketch out a minute ago, I realised my inital Calculation was wrong....

Instead, by multiplying the Weight of the Challenger by 4, then multiplying it by (150/Length of Challenger), I get

4687.5 Tonnes.

Is that more reasonable?

What do you suggest to make it better protected against light infantry?

Well I'm no expert, but I'd suggest keeping support vehicles designed to deal with light infantry near it all times.
[NS]Kreynoria
29-05-2006, 17:17
Thanks. How do you think I could Improve it? I calculated the weight by squaring the weight of a Challenger 2, and multiplying it by (150/Length of a Challenger 2), then adding about 100 tonnes for good measure.

This gives me a huge weight.

I initially squared the weight as I assumed that the Cross section was 4 times that of a Challenger.

When I actually drew the sketch out a minute ago, I realised my inital Calculation was wrong....

Instead, by multiplying the Weight of the Challenger by 4, then multiplying it by (150/Length of Challenger), I get

4687.5 Tonnes.

Is that more reasonable?

What do you suggest to make it better protected against light infantry?


Add more small calibre machine guns.
Northford
29-05-2006, 17:31
Oh.. I'll call the weight 5250 Tonnes, as the first estimate didn't take into account the "Added" mass of the pebblebed and the "Super-Thick" (Check the RHA Values)... it was simply a scaled-up Challenger.

Considering that this gun is only supposed to go up and down a few long streets in one city, do you think that I need small caliber mg's?

When I was designing it, I first thought:

*Must be able to go "Toe-to-Toe" with Ships~~Added the Big-Gun

*Must be able to "Take out" Dis-embarked Armour~~Added a double turret of 120mm Smoothbored Cannons

*Must be able to use "Indirect Fire" in an urban setting~~Added Mortars

*Must be able to self protect against arial threats~~Added VLS and CIWS

*Must be able to protect against infantry~~Added 40mm Grenade Launcher, "Firing Ports" on sides, and had really heavy Armour


If you compare my RHA Values for my armour against, say a MBT(http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9075372&postcount=1) , do you not think I'm impervious to their munitions?

Hmm....

If I was to add a Machine Gun's, do you think I should go for the Auto-Cannon type, say 20-40mm, or actual "Small-Caliber", say 7.62mm-15mm?

I understand that Auto-Cannons can also be used against light Armour, so I think they could be useful, but I've got that huge Mortar Battery in the back.... so Wouldn't it be somewhat of an overkill?

Where about's would you suggest I put them, I'd say Co-axial with the 120mm Turrets?

Thanks for all the help so far..
Northford
29-05-2006, 18:08
OOC: Anyone is welcome to comment on this....
Gejigrad
29-05-2006, 18:11
[ Mortars are hard to aim, though. And it would be tough to hit a fast, wildly-maneuvering vehicle with one. So I'd say 10-20mm autocannons to deal with such, and infantry. True, 10mm is a little overkill on infantry, but it does deal with them nicely, especially if they have high-tech body armour, and incorporates two functions in one weapon without being over or under the limit. ]
The Macabees
29-05-2006, 18:33
Why are you designing a tank to knock out ships? In any case, one[/b] 22" ETC will not be able to sink a battleship that has [i]multiple guns of the same size. Even if lighter a naval shell will either penetrate if a direct hit, or might even kill the crew through the shockwaves caused by a near miss. Land vehicles should not be designed to engage ships - for that I'd use fixed coastal guns. A 22" mounted on a tank will have a lesser range than the same gun on a battleship since it won't be as long, nor will you be able to armour the turret as much as you would be able to armour the turret on a battleship . The more turrets you add the more armour you'll need, meaning the more weight this will stack up. Unfortunately, the more weight the higher the ground pressure, which is only solved by making the tracks larger, which might mean that you need to make the tank larger, which makes it heavier, et cetera - it's a vicious circle.

You don't need to make this the jack of all trades either. Super heavies [i]should be escorted. The Morrigan which is seeing action at Mosnoi Bor is heavily escorted by entire armoured and mechanised divisions. It's going to be knocked out nonetheless, however, as the constant strike of heavy ATGMs and fast moving penetrators is taking its toll on the armour, no matter how heavy it is. Furthermore, diamonds are a bad, bad idea. They might be hard, but they aren't ductile, meaning they will shatter given enough pressure from the impacting penetrator or high velocity jet. Non-explosive ERA is an oxymoron; the name you're looking for is non-explosive reactive armour, or NERA, which cobham already acts a bit like. It's a passive reactive armour.

And like I say always. These should be made to be destroyed. Super heavies should be reserved for storylines, not as a wanderwaffe.
Rosdivan
29-05-2006, 18:51
[[FONT="Century Gothic"] This is my first design, and I don't plan to sell it (There are plenty of other storefronts selling good stuff out there), but instead I'd likea critque of my design. If you've got a quick link to the draftroom, I'd appreciate it, as I looked in my favs, and couldn't find this.

http://s13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom


The Northfordian defence review also took stock of the HBT and the MBT in service. These Tanks, while viable combatants against landed troops, lacked the Armour and Range to go “Toe-to-Toe” with Ships such as Cruisers and Destroyers.

Actually, in a guns only engagement, modern MBTs are good enough to do so.


In order for the Sloth to be able to fulfil its mission, it is provided with a large number of weapons. It’s primary weapons is a 22inch ECT Cannon, forward mounted. This was chosen as it has the ability to severely damage a Cruiser or a Light Battleship should it get a “Lucky Hit”, or to sink a Destroyer, Frigate or Landing Craft.

It can maintain a fire rate of 5 Rounds Per Minute.

1. It's ETC. Electrothermal chemical.
2. You aren't going to get 5 rounds per minute out of it. The USS Alaska only got a maximum of 3 rounds a minute out of its 12" guns.


While the main gun is very powerful, it is somewhat of overkill for a standard MBT, or even a standard HBT. In response to this, designers added two 4.75 Inch (120mm) ECT Cannons. These were mounted lower than the Heavy Cannon, as they would not need to vary their pitch as much. They can fire a range of munitions, ranging from HE to KE penetrators. The set-up favoured by the designers was one barrel would fire a DU Penetrator, while the other would fire a HEAT round.

I don't see why there's a need for the difference, KE rounds and HEAT rounds can fire out of the same barrel.


Due to the built up urban nature of the Redbridge area, the ability of the Supertank to fire Indirect Munitions was not forgotten. Addressing this is a huge bank of Medium Mortars. 39 Tubes are positioned on the top of the tank. 3 Inch (Actually 81mm) in diameter, they have a range of about 5 Miles, and a confusing rate of fire. Although a single 81mm Mortar tube is capable of firing 15 Rd’s per minute, if ground based, due to the large amount of tubes, and the type of Autoloader used, this ROF is not possible.

Why so many tubes? If enemy forces can be hit by mortar fire no more than 5 miles away, then they are dangerously close to you. A couple 120mm mortars firing HEAT rounds will quickly put this thing out of action.


Anti-Personal Weaponry presented a special problem to the designers. While the Armour was virtually impervious to conventional weaponry, computer generated trials presented a worrying situation: Assuming that the infantry avoided the guns, they could scale the tank, and block vents, barrels, and, eventually, welds their way in.

That's why you move the tank faster than they can run at you.



As this was supposed to be a “Supertank”, it was decided that it was befitting that it have an infantry compliment. Exiting out of the side of the Tank, the Sloth can hold 15 fully “kited-out” men. When they are inside, they can use the 3 fire ports on either side of the tank, or the “Sniper-Pouch” on either side (preferably when the tank is stationary), for precision fire.

Be better to use the room for something else, that's just a waste of space that could be done better by an APC.
Leafanistan
29-05-2006, 19:01
Remember how the Germans sank their money into a mobile 800mm Gustav, and could have built dozens of IFVs, Trucks, Tanks for the same material all of those much more effective. Try mounting the 22 inch guns on a rail mount and putting the rails near the coast and just make a bunch of AFVs or trucks mounting mortars and normal tanks.

Or just make this for export and make a demonstration model to hook idiot nations. :p
Upper Weston
29-05-2006, 19:19
Why not build heavily armored shore batteries and mobile anti-ship missles launchers?
Northford
29-05-2006, 19:19
[ Mortars are hard to aim, though. And it would be tough to hit a fast, wildly-maneuvering vehicle with one. So I'd say 10-20mm autocannons to deal with such, and infantry. True, 10mm is a little overkill on infantry, but it does deal with them nicely, especially if they have high-tech body armour, and incorporates two functions in one weapon without being over or under the limit. ]

Thats a good point. I'll pop a 10mm mg and a 20mm Auto-Cannon next to the 120mm guns. I'll also reduce the 120mm Gun's down to one.

Why are you designing a tank to knock out ships? In any case, one[/b] 22" ETC will not be able to sink a battleship that has [i]multiple guns of the same size. Even if lighter a naval shell will either penetrate if a direct hit, or might even kill the crew through the shockwaves caused by a near miss. Land vehicles should not be designed to engage ships - for that I'd use fixed coastal guns. A 22" mounted on a tank will have a lesser range than the same gun on a battleship since it won't be as long, nor will you be able to armour the turret as much as you would be able to armour the turret on a battleship . The more turrets you add the more armour you'll need, meaning the more weight this will stack up. Unfortunately, the more weight the higher the ground pressure, which is only solved by making the tracks larger, which might mean that you need to make the tank larger, which makes it heavier, et cetera - it's a vicious circle.

You don't need to make this the jack of all trades either. Super heavies [i]should be escorted. The Morrigan which is seeing action at Mosnoi Bor is heavily escorted by entire armoured and mechanised divisions. It's going to be knocked out nonetheless, however, as the constant strike of heavy ATGMs and fast moving penetrators is taking its toll on the armour, no matter how heavy it is. Furthermore, diamonds are a bad, bad idea. They might be hard, but they aren't ductile, meaning they will shatter given enough pressure from the impacting penetrator or high velocity jet. Non-explosive ERA is an oxymoron; the name you're looking for is non-explosive reactive armour, or NERA, which cobham already acts a bit like. It's a passive reactive armour.

And like I say always. These should be made to be destroyed. Super heavies should be reserved for storylines, not as a wanderwaffe.


Thanks for the imput... I was expecting, in a way, for this thing to get ripped apart, and as for the comment about the wanderwaffe, I noted in the very first paragraph that this thing was not going to be sold. In fact I'm in the middle of an RP with Yallak, and although it's naval, I was hoping to do an IC propagandist news article, saying about how my forces would be "safe" from him due to this "Uber-Super-Heavy-Tank".

Back to trying to fix this thing into something viable...

How about I do this to:

Reduce the 22-Inch to something like a 12-Inch, and instead of it being a Cannon, turning it into an Indirect Howitzer.

Scale down the Armour massively, so it just has enough Frontal armour to take a "near-miss" from a ship, and thinning the rear and side's down. I'll also remove the diamonds.

As for taking the "Jack-of-all-Trades" away, when I designed this, I really did want to go for that look. I RP my Army as relativly small, so for my force, multi-purpose-ness (is that even a word? :S) is quite a good thing.

I see where you're going with that, mind you, so how about if I reduce the Mortars down to 10 120mm Tubes, and replace the fully fledged VLS Tubes with short range box missiles?

That then get's rid of this thing's ability to massivly saturate an area with explosives as well as allowing it to act as a "Cruise Missile" launchers. The Box Missiles, however I think are a "must" as this thing is a huge target for fighters.

What do you think of those modifications Macabees?

Rosdivan, I'm replying to you now...
Northford
29-05-2006, 19:26
http://s13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom

Actually, in a guns only engagement, modern MBTs are good enough to do so.

1. It's ETC. Electrothermal chemical.
2. You aren't going to get 5 rounds per minute out of it. The USS Alaska only got a maximum of 3 rounds a minute out of its 12" guns.

I don't see why there's a need for the difference, KE rounds and HEAT rounds can fire out of the same barrel.

Why so many tubes? If enemy forces can be hit by mortar fire no more than 5 miles away, then they are dangerously close to you. A couple 120mm mortars firing HEAT rounds will quickly put this thing out of action.

That's why you move the tank faster than they can run at you.


Be better to use the room for something else, that's just a waste of space that could be done better by an APC.

Firstly, thanks for the link.... I kinda wanted to run this past the people on there first, so I couild get info on the electronic's and stuff.

As for the corrections you've made, thanks. When I do a "Version II" of this thing, I'll make ammends to them. I also didnt know about the KE and HE munitions. I knew Rifled Cannons could only fire standard shells and HESH, but for some strange reason I thought Smoothbored had problems too.

As for the ROF, I've changed the gun to a Howitzer, so I'll reduce the ROF to 2rd's per minute.

For the issue of speed.... When I finish making changes, I'll increase the speed a tad, after all, I've pretty much halved the size of my main gun.

I'd still like to keep in infantry in, mind you. I know Macabee's said about not being a Jack-of-all-trades, so I'm still keeping that one open.
The Macabees
29-05-2006, 19:27
VLS actually makes sense. For the future main battle tank [2030ish] they're thinking about adding short range missile packs to the rear [where the infantry would be in the Merkava IV, for example], so for a much larger tank VLS shouldn't be a major problem. And big guns are good - I know of super heavies that mount 18 inchers... but those are beyond the 10,000 tonne range. The 3,500tonne Morrigan mounts a single 15" smoothbore.
Northford
29-05-2006, 19:28
Why not build heavily armored shore batteries and mobile anti-ship missles launchers?

'Cos they are both quite labour intensive... I RP my nation as not having a lot of people in the army, so thats kidna why I designed this.

Still, it's an awfully good idea, and, in conventional warfare would be what I'd do.
Northford
29-05-2006, 19:34
VLS actually makes sense. For the future main battle tank [2030ish] they're thinking about adding short range missile packs to the rear [where the infantry would be in the Merkava IV, for example], so for a much larger tank VLS shouldn't be a major problem. And big guns are good - I know of super heavies that mount 18 inchers... but those are beyond the 10,000 tonne range. The 3,500tonne Morrigan mounts a single 15" smoothbore.

Really?

I saw that most "Next-Gen" Tanks on NS had some kind of Missile armament, and added them to be on the safe side.

It makes sense though, after all, I remember reading something which said that the biggest threat to Cold-War tanks was a strike by Stinger-Armed Helicopters. I guess adding VLS would be able to address that.

So you think I should just trimm the Caliber a little bit and leave the Big-gun as a cannon?

Oh, and in case I havn't said it already, thanks (for not just calling me a noob, and telling me to buy a tank).
Northford
29-05-2006, 19:43
Remember how the Germans sank their money into a mobile 800mm Gustav, and could have built dozens of IFVs, Trucks, Tanks for the same material all of those much more effective. Try mounting the 22 inch guns on a rail mount and putting the rails near the coast and just make a bunch of AFVs or trucks mounting mortars and normal tanks.

Or just make this for export and make a demonstration model to hook idiot nations. :p

Have you ever heard of WIG technology? I've said quite a few times in previous RP's that I use trains that exploit that technology, which would mean that Rail-Guns (Gun's on rails) are somewhat unsuitable.

That is, however, the best idea I've heard in a while (Ever heard of a game called Enemy Territory, BTW? They have a whole map about a railgun~~random trivia). And I may "change" my country after the present RP is over to allow me to use them
Northford
29-05-2006, 20:27
Dumpie-Bump......

Should I just scrap this little idea folks?
Axis Nova
29-05-2006, 20:47
Kreynoria']Any land vehicle that weighs that much is impractical. It will crack roads and won't be able to cross bridges. The treads will wear out almost immediately. Your tanks also has very little protection against things that get close to it, such as other tanks and anti-tank infantry.


What makes you think that a) treads can't be made of more durable material and b) this thing won't have enough armor to easily repel attacks from any sort of main battle tank or infantry?

Usually things this big are armored out the wazoo.

Also, tanks this big tend to cross rivers by driving across them, not by using a bridge.
Northford
29-05-2006, 21:05
Axis Nova, when that was posted, it weighed over 50 000 Tonnes..

Seeing as I have your ear, what do you think of the design?
Northford
30-05-2006, 00:58
One last bump for the night
The Phoenix Milita
30-05-2006, 01:00
hm this ridiculous design from the same person who said a 112mm cannon on a 50 ton tank wasn't a light tank
Northford
30-05-2006, 01:04
Hmm... unlike you I'm actually asking for advice rather than just BS'ing everything away and trying to sell to noob nations.

Goodbye.
Gejigrad
30-05-2006, 01:19
hm this ridiculous design from the same person who said a 112mm cannon on a 50 ton tank wasn't a light tank

[ What a burn.

I mean, damn, I felt that one all the way over here.

Go build some ultradreadnoughts, will you? The kind with 50cm guns and a full aircraft compliment; half again the size of the Nimitz-class but five knots faster, and with two more nuclear reactors.

Go ahead and spout off if you want to, though. I can't really stop you, of course. ]
The Phoenix Milita
30-05-2006, 01:26
Gejigrad, I have never built anything like that ultra dreadnought such as you describe so you fail at being funny.

Now northford your design may be a little unrefiend, however I made you this pic that you can use for free:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/SlothClassSuper-HeavyTank.jpg
Northford
30-05-2006, 01:33
Thanks TPM :fluffle:

Seriously though, anyone, now I've made the changes reccomended, do you think it's mroe viable as a design?
New Empire
30-05-2006, 01:55
Gejigrad, I have never built anything like that ultra dreadnought such as you describe so you fail at being funny.

Now northford your design may be a little unrefiend, however I made you this pic that you can use for free:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/SlothClassSuper-HeavyTank.jpg

Well, shit. Never mind calculating a weight to tread-surface area ratio to get a PSI that would allow it to move, how can we ignore TPM's highly advanced DoGA rendering? It's not only funny, it's scientifically accurate!

...

And I think I just used up all my sarcasm. Seriously TPM, saying a supertank will sink is like saying a superdread will sink. If you get the right size to weight ratio, it will actually work. Maybe if you spent as much time researching and learning as you did overreacting to criticism, you'd have a better reputation among people who actually care about factual accuracy in design.
The Phoenix Milita
30-05-2006, 02:00
thanks for the compliment on my doga skills

As for the rest, I just have one word for you: Ogre :rolleyes:
Gejigrad
30-05-2006, 02:24
Gejigrad, I have never built anything like that ultra dreadnought such as you describe so you fail at being funny.

[ The Ultra Class BattleCarrier Was developed by Antarctica123 on contract from Automastan almost a year ago. 2 months ago Phoniex Dynamix bought out all the rights to Antarcticorp products and so now we exclusivly sell the Ultra. Due to the rise in popularity of Super Dreadnaughts we have decided to put it into ful production once again.

[image] (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/grunt74/NS1/ULTRORBW.jpg)

Statisitcs
Length: 1,699 feet <--
Width: 550 feet
Powerplant: 4 Nuclear reactors 2 Deisel-Electric Generators KW-5 <--
Propulsion: 2 bow thrusters, 5 submersible turbines
Top Speed: 36 knots <--
Aircraft Catapaults: 6
Elevators: 6
Total Aircraft: 106 + 12 helicopters <--
Weapons
(12) 20" coilguns <--
(4) 16" cannons <--
(1) 6" coilgun <--
(6) 30mm Phalanx CIWS
(8) 700mm Torpedo tubes
(20) cell HLS for Harp00n, SS-N-22 cruise missiles or Exocets
(32) cell VLS for SA-101 SAMs
(60) cell VLS for tomahawk, hatchet, or harthingy cruise missiles, or SM-2 missiles.

Price: $14 billion

Whatever you say, man. ]
The Phoenix Milita
30-05-2006, 03:08
[

Whatever you say, man. ]

And?Its 600 feet longer and twice the Width not half the size of a nimitz, its also a Trimaran an its speed is well within limits of modern technology :p
man

besides it was a primarly Automastanian design built to his specifications
Axis Nova
30-05-2006, 04:01
Axis Nova, when that was posted, it weighed over 50 000 Tonnes..

Seeing as I have your ear, what do you think of the design?


I like it. It basically seems like a gigantic tank destroyer, and with the armor the way it is you can provide maximum protection with a minimum of material.

I wouldn't use it as a mobile shore battery, though.
Northford
30-05-2006, 12:07
I like it. It basically seems like a gigantic tank destroyer, and with the armor the way it is you can provide maximum protection with a minimum of material.

I wouldn't use it as a mobile shore battery, though.


Thanks for the comments. When I finish the RP with yallak I'll probably do a "Version II", taking on board everyone's comments, maybe keeping the VLS, pretty much removing the mortars, and trimming the gun down to maybe a 16inch Cannon/12Inch Howitzer.

I'll also remove the double 120mm Turret, and make it a single, and pop in a coaxial 40mm Autocannon and a 10mm mg.
Gejigrad
30-05-2006, 12:18
And?Its 600 feet longer and twice the Width not half the size of a nimitz, its also a Trimaran an its speed is well within limits of modern technology :p
man

besides it was a primarly Automastanian design built to his specifications

[ "Half again" means you take the number, divide it by two, and then add the product to the original. Not twice.

Do tell me how I can get such speeds with modern tech, though. I wouldn't mind an upgrade on my Peregrines.

Does it make a difference if Automastwhatsit asked for it or not? No, because by having it in your to-sell list, you apparently endorse its existence. 'Nuff said. ]
The Phoenix Milita
30-05-2006, 12:41
three hulls instead of one, google the RV Triton
I've had enough hijacking for one night and I will now leave this thread...
Northford
30-05-2006, 16:40
Goodbye....

Thanks for all the feedback people, I'm going to ao version two in a bit..

In the meanitime, anymore commentS?
New Empire
30-05-2006, 19:45
As for the rest, I just have one word for you: Ogre :rolleyes:

You're actually right TPM, the Ogre is an example of when factual research can make an unusual design technically feasible.

But then again, why should I pay attention to a PSI calculation, The Macabees, GMCMA, the rest of the Draftroom, when I can listen to your statement, backed up by... An emoticon.

Remember kids, why look up information and use evidence in an argument when you can wittily display a .gif?
Northford
30-05-2006, 19:49
Hehe, New Empire, your design for a super-heavy was actually my motivation behind this....

You didn't get back to me about doing a variant, so I decided to have a go myself.

Have you thought about collaborating on maybe a "Super-Heavy" APC?

If not, it's cool....