NationStates Jolt Archive

OCC: this is FT.

Chassis
Length 100 meters
Width 40 meters
Height 20 meters
Turret
Length 20 meters
Width 35 meters
Height 7 meters
Power Plant
Fusion Reactor
Armament
1 1-24 inch Rail gun
2 16-inch rail gun 160-degree axis horizontally, 10 degree axis vertically (Chassis mounted)
28 PD laser cannons (Mounted on both Chassis and Turret)
50 Heavy Repeating Blaster Cannons(Computer Controlled)
Armor
Turret
. 1 meters of durasteel (5 times denser than tungsten. The stuff from star wars)
Chassis
.25 meters of durasteel
Crew 35 crewmembers, 12 gunners
Weight ???
Top speed 15 MPH

The Immoral UHBT is a top of the line when it comes ground vehicles with more power than a battalion of regular tanks, it could single handily defeat a force of several dozen AT-ATs or AT-TEs.

The Fusion power plant has an output of 500 GW/h, which gives power to the 4 track pods that are 10 cm thick and 15 meters long, and 1 meter wide. In the event of track being damaged, there are 4 jacks placed in the corners of the tank that can lift the tank up to 5 meters in the air. The broken track will be disconnected and lowered close to the ground, from there the tread is removed and a new tread is placed onto the fittings.

The main cannon fires a 24-inch diameter, 96-inch long shell at 6 km/s. It can elevate to 20 degrees vertically and 360 degrees horizontally. The shells are tungsten cylinders


OOC: could use some help with the wieght of the shells, and the tank itself.

OOC: Um... FT?

ooc: No offence, but that has to be the most clumsy tank design I've seen. It's more or less limited to wide open and flat terrain, not something that is altogether useful.

OOC: Um... FT?

yes.

ooc: No offence, but that has to be the most clumsy tank design I've seen. It's more or less limited to wide open and flat terrain, not something that is altogether useful.

Well, if he had the right tracks or used alternative methods of movement, such as legs, then it would be very useful.

Well, if he had the right tracks or used alternative methods of movement, such as legs, then it would be very useful.

It mentions tracks, and unless segmented(which opens up another can of weakness), a vehicle that is a hundred meters in length would have a seriously hard time on any sort of incline transition.

What about with repulsor emitters insteadof tracks.

While it would make somewhat more terrain viable, it would need a much more powerful power generator to account for the necessity of providing anti-grav to something that large.

Would changing the out put from megawatts, to gigawatts per hour work/

Well, if he had the right tracks or used alternative methods of movement, such as legs, then it would be very useful.

Not really. Legs would screw it over horribly. At this size, you'd need uranium paved streets to withstand the ground pressure.

While it would make somewhat more terrain viable, it would need a much more powerful power generator to account for the necessity of providing anti-grav to something that large.

Bah! Technically, holding something up requires no energy, as long as height is constant. That's why you don't have to power columns and such. Of course, anti-grav is likely to be less efficient, and would probably waste a lot of energy, but there's no reason why it has to.

Not really. Legs would screw it over horribly. At this size, you'd need uranium paved streets to withstand the ground pressure.

You could give it lots and lots of legs, and really big feet...;)

Would changing the out put from megawatts, to gigawatts per hour work/

Less sure about the physics aspect compared to the physical/logical aspect, but that'd probably be good.

Bah! Technically, holding something up requires no energy, as long as height is constant. That's why you don't have to power columns and such. Of course, anti-grav is likely to be less efficient, and would probably waste a lot of energy, but there's no reason why it has to.



You could give it lots and lots of legs, and really big feet...;)

A column is supported by the ground beneath it. Gravity makes things want to be in contact with the ground(or source of gravity). Anti-gravity goes against it and thus requires force in the opposite direction, which needs energy.

Many legs are asking to be destroyed.

Bah! Technically, holding something up requires no energy, as long as height is constant. That's why you don't have to power columns and such. Of course, anti-grav is likely to be less efficient, and would probably waste a lot of energy, but there's no reason why it has to.
Well, you actually need the standard constant acceleration of 9 m/s/s to keep it in the air.



You could give it lots and lots of legs, and really big feet...;)
Well, you COULD, but then you're introducing unneeded complication and additional weight for no gain, as you've still got a footprint about that of a treaded design.

I have an idea:
multiply the scale of this thing by a hundred, or a thousand, and use it for planetary defense.

Hells yeah, BOLOs FTW.

Well, you actually need the standard constant acceleration of 9 m/s/s to keep it in the air.




Well, you COULD, but then you're introducing unneeded complication and additional weight for no gain, as you've still got a footprint about that of a treaded design.

The object isn't moving up or down, so the net work in the vertical direction is zero (I think; I'm fighting with a cold at the moment, and my thinking is kind of fuzzy).

And I didn't say the 'lots of legs' plan would be useful.

I have an idea:
multiply the scale of this thing by a hundred, or a thousand, and use it for planetary defense.

Hells yeah, BOLOs FTW.


I just looked thoes up and the largest one is like 90 meters long. this thing was orginaly 500 meters long, and 100 meters wide.

Go with a SheVa if you want a Big Tank.

The object isn't moving up or down, so the net work in the vertical direction is zero (I think; I'm fighting with a cold at the moment, and my thinking is kind of fuzzy).
You're forgetting gravity, which constantly accelerates the tank downwards at 9m/s/s (assuming you're on Earth. New Nippon, for example, has about 1.2 earth gravities).

You're forgetting gravity, which constantly accelerates the tank downwards at 9m/s/s (assuming you're on Earth. New Nippon, for example, has about 1.2 earth gravities).

No I'm not. Gravity accelerates the roof of a building, too, but it doesn't collapse if you forget to plug the walls in. Anti-grav just substitutes an artificial force for the forces between atoms that hold a building up. As I said, it isn't likely to get anywhere near 100% efficiency, though. You'll have some sort of waste energy. And if you're lifting something instead of just holding it up, that's another matter entirely.

You're forgetting gravity, which constantly accelerates the tank downwards at 9m/s/s (assuming you're on Earth. New Nippon, for example, has about 1.2 earth gravities).

Just a note, Earth's gravity is 9.806650, usually shortened to 9.8 or 9.81.
Physics professors tend to enforce points about precision with bad grades.

The reason a building's roof doesn't fall down is because there is something supporting it. Not because of any other reason.

The reason a building's roof doesn't fall down is because there is something supporting it. Not because of any other reason.

This is also the reason that an anti-grav tank wouldn't fall down. It would simply be an anti-grav beam or however the device worked, instead of a material object, supporting it.

This is also the reason that an anti-grav tank wouldn't fall down. It would simply be an anti-grav beam or however the device worked, instead of a material object, supporting it.

Yes, energy that provides force that is directed in a downward manner to provide a upward force to counteract the effects of gravity. As nothing is touching the ground, you need force to push against gravity to maintain that distance. More mass needs more force which means more energy.

Exactly right except for the energy part. There's no movement, so there's no change in energy. If you're using energy to hold it up, where is the energy going and why don't walls need it?

Walls exert a force upon the roof, yes? The ground exerts a force upon your feet, which is why you don't sink.

Exactly right except for the energy part. There's no movement, so there's no change in energy. If you're using energy to hold it up, where is the energy going and why don't walls need it?

Walls exert a force upon the roof, yes? The ground exerts a force upon your feet, which is why you don't sink.

Walls do exert force on the roof, and the roof exerts force on the walls.
Feet exert force on the ground, and the ground exerts force on feet.
Since a thread for this kind of discussion exists here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471846&page=23), shall we take the discussion there and avoid clogging 1010102's thread with this debate?

Sure, but not at the moment. As I mentioned earlier, I'm fighting with a cold. I'm going to go to bed shortly and try to get some sleep. Feel free to put a post in the debate thread, though, and I'll resume this later. It's always fun having a calm, rational argument with somebody.

Oh, and closer to on topic, take a look at Central Facehuggeria's giant command tanks, described at the top of this page and the bottom of the one before (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=491258&page=9). These could potentially be used kind of like those, I suppose.