Jump to content


im just wondering why (irl) there is no "super tank"


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
46 replies to this topic

CrazedGunman #21 Posted 26 July 2011 - 09:21 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 15527 battles
  • 276
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    01-18-2011
Thanks for everyone helping me increasing my knowledge about tanks!  :Smile_honoring:   :Smile_great:

blackfox666 #22 Posted 26 July 2011 - 10:19 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16278 battles
  • 771
  • Member since:
    02-27-2011
Even if you could overcome the issue with making it mobile enough due to it weighing so much, you are forgetting one little thing. The air force. A modern jet fighter can hit a single main battle tank, I don't think it will find problems with hitting anything bigger.

Dogniss #23 Posted 26 July 2011 - 10:52 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 2778 battles
  • 113
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010
What do you think would be best World Of Modern tanks or World Of Coldwar tanks? :blink:

Tuccy #24 Posted 26 July 2011 - 11:16 PM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14456 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010
Same as "best of World of Tanks" - different tanks for different trades. Soviets for compact, well--armored tanks with big guns (tier for tier), US for large, but agile tanks capable of hull-down fighting, Germans for (at first) light armored, but mobile tanks with great guns and later for heavily armored, mobile tanks with great guns, Israelis for durable and survivable tanks, if slow, with good armament, Brits for generally the same, French similar to Germans... IOW each "school" would have its own benefits and drawbacks.

Sgt_Bones #25 Posted 27 July 2011 - 01:54 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 2849 battles
  • 648
  • [-FC-] -FC-
  • Member since:
    10-10-2010
Ahhhhhh, yes, I remember playing a boardgame  in 1977 called (yes, I just said BOARD game, ya know, like before computers, monopoly like stuff) Called O.G.R.E. which was basically what the OP is talking about, and it was fun, even if the disbelief level had to be turned way down and just taken as a game and not a possibility of actual future combat, nonetheless, it was fun, and I understand the feeling that having such a challenge could be quite fun, but hey, this is world of tanks, and its a multiplayer game, I don't think WG is interested in having something like an A.I. that may or may not work well fighting off 30 players, especially considering how lol some real players are and can be!  ;)

Cool idea, but naaaah, I don't think so!

For those that have an interest in nostalgia and would like to see what ogre was, look HERE

Vlevs #26 Posted 27 July 2011 - 07:07 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14088 battles
  • 628
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011
First up, a very nice summary of tank armor and guns from late WW2 to modern, the latter are are of course educated guesses at best. http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm

Supertanks are lovely things, impressive and inspiring. In games they tend to work because of hit-point systems that don't reflect reality very well - many games don't have 'armor' value at all, and DPS is all that matters, thus we see tanks with arrays of weapons that would do nothing against MBT armor.

In WoT where tanks need 3-10 penetrating hits to bring down, so double guns and even larger batteries would probably make sense, and one-shotting high tier tanks require calibers in order of 20 cm - arty can quite reliably one-shot tanks of same tier with penetrating hits, and you know the general opinion about that... In tabletop games where tanks can drive in the middle of infantry standing in the open, designs with umpteen MGs work really well. Multi-turreted heavy tanks were made all over until ze Germans showed that a larger number of small fast tanks is just better, and then allies proceeded to build even bigger medium tank rush.  :)

In reality, with a modern tank gun usually one penetrating hit is enough to take the enemy tank out at basically any LoS distance. And when alpha damage is 'enough' tank designer will concentrate on other things like keeping the tank cheap and 'portable'.

I prepared a more lengthy post but decided to cut it, fearing I would bore people to death. Liking this topic that much.

KraKonFOUR #27 Posted 27 July 2011 - 07:39 AM

    Player

  • Veteran
  • 27571 battles
  • 586
  • [CELL] CELL
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011
Once we develop compact/safe/cheap ultracapacitors we'll have rail-gun equipped Christie tanks all over the place. Lased PDS shoots down incoming projectiles. 30mm armor only to improve speed and provide protection against small arms fire (lased PDS not fine enough to catch bullets). Anyways, an AT missile going through the PDS net will trash the tank if it had 200mm armor of anyways...The railgun combines artillery range and precision with the tactical capabilities of a modern 'main gun'. The projectiles will be of relatively small calibre, AFSPDS only. No need for HEAT or any explosive warhead if it is going at Mach 6! For longer ranges, it aims upwards and uses laser guided missiles that can correct their trajectory.
That is the end of tank warfare until laser technology get better.

Tuccy #28 Posted 27 July 2011 - 07:53 AM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14456 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010
"End of tanks due to new gizmos" was proclaimed again and again since 1918 ;)

Your 30mm-armored wunderwaffe is going get trashed the minute it meets a MBT with same laser defence system, as the armor of MBT would still be able to provide protection (railguns are BIG things to get to hypervelocity, you need ship, not only for energy source but also for large enough structure). If you have the space, sure, railgun gives you more than chemical gun (but it is questionable whether sufficiently more, whether a combo of classic gun and missiles won't be more versatile), but on ground you have far less space to keep mobile.

FCS project, which wanted to give up armor for gadgets, is a bit passe now ;)

Vlevs #29 Posted 27 July 2011 - 08:25 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14088 battles
  • 628
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011

View PostKraKonFOUR, on 27 July 2011 - 07:39 AM, said:

Once we develop compact/safe/cheap ultracapacitors
Is this in foreseeable future or will just happen 'eventually'? With latter option other technologies will have moved quite a bit and make any predicting difficult.

View PostKraKonFOUR, on 27 July 2011 - 07:39 AM, said:

we'll have rail-gun equipped Christie tanks all over the place. Lased PDS shoots down incoming projectiles. 30mm armor only to improve speed and provide protection against small arms fire (lased PDS not fine enough to catch bullets).
I predict that even if this happens fairly soon, every advanced army will field masses of GMGs that will easily go through said 30mm armor. And not to speak of any number of autocannons on APCs, IFVs and scout vehicles that they'll also want to protect tanks from, so armor isn't likely to just reduce to 'small arms' level.

View PostKraKonFOUR, on 27 July 2011 - 07:39 AM, said:

Anyways, an AT missile going through the PDS net will trash the tank if it had 200mm armor of anyways...
Tank development already went through at least one 'armor is useless' phase with introduction of HEAT ammo and ATGMs. The fruit of this development was lightly-armored and fast Leopard tank, and so it happens that after various developments the Leopard 2A7+ is basically the best-protected tank ever. Science marches on...

View PostKraKonFOUR, on 27 July 2011 - 07:39 AM, said:

The railgun combines artillery range and precision with the tactical capabilities of a modern 'main gun'. The projectiles will be of relatively small calibre, AFSPDS only. No need for HEAT or any explosive warhead if it is going at Mach 6! For longer ranges, it aims upwards and uses laser guided missiles that can correct their trajectory.That is the end of tank warfare until laser technology get better.
APFSDS ammo travels at Mach 5 and HE is still in use. Besides, how is that end of tank warfare (like there is any ATM), when you suggest tanks just move further to NLOS engagements?

Tiger313 #30 Posted 27 July 2011 - 09:22 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 39729 battles
  • 421
  • [-FC-] -FC-
  • Member since:
    08-30-2010

View Posttheta0123, on 26 July 2011 - 08:50 PM, said:

Its still under a study  :Smile_honoring:

I would love to see huge twin barrel tanks though  :Smile-playing::Smile-playing::Smile-playing:
You want to see a twin-barrel tank, have a look at the Maus: next to the 128L55 gun is a 75L36 gun. ;)

Tuccy #31 Posted 27 July 2011 - 11:28 AM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14456 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010
Ah, valid point with autocannons, totally forgot about them ;) AC's of 30mm ilk firing APFSDS would be a danger to anything 30mm-armored, and 35mm/40mm cannons would be sure death. Much cheaper to field than railgun-firing gizmo and a totally proven technology (unless seized upon by US defense contractors and subjected to gold-plating ;))

As for twin barrel tanks, T1/M6 Heavy Tank also was to be twin barrel, with 3" and 37mm guns, and in the KV series there was an assault gun project with either 2x 76mm guns or even 1x76mm and 2x 45mm. Then of course Swedes had the project of Strv 2000 with 120/140mm gun and 40mm coaxial autocannon, French had AMX-30B2 with 105mm gun and 20mm coaxial autocannon, Centurion was to have 17pdr and 20mm originally, Maus was mentioned, Neubaufahrzeug had 75mm/24 and 37mm gun and in 1970s there was even this mad project of follow-on to Leopard tank, which was generally a TD (or a tank in the line of Swedish Strv 103), which was to be armed with two automatically-loaded 120mm guns ;)

Sure I forgot about many other mad contraptions ;)

EDIT: Then there was Slovakian T-72M2 Moderna, originally planned with a pair of 20mm autocannons and then finalised with 30mm 2A42 autocannon :)

EDIT2: And to satisfy the need for gargantuan, here is Russian 152mm SP-howitzer project Koalicija-SV:
Posted Image
Posted Image

Poison_Arrow_ #32 Posted 27 July 2011 - 11:53 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 21005 battles
  • 103
  • [-CRO-] -CRO-
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011
moderator is right, not all armor is pure steel, its a mix of other elements combined with steel, for example M1A2`s armor is still kept secret today, but they are not worried about it if the enemy has better armor cause they produce shells with uranium, so its quite disturbing power

Skroxs #33 Posted 27 July 2011 - 11:57 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 4299 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    01-07-2011

View Posttuccy, on 27 July 2011 - 11:28 AM, said:

...
(or a tank in the line of Swedish Strv 103), which was to be armed with two automatically-loaded 120mm guns ;)
...

err...  since the Strv103 was armed with one 105mm gun, was it this you were thinking of?
(if it was that you meant that is)



helli #34 Posted 27 July 2011 - 01:04 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2333 battles
  • 277
  • Member since:
    02-06-2011
I think he meant this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT_tank

Tuccy #35 Posted 27 July 2011 - 01:16 PM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14456 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010

View Posthelli, on 27 July 2011 - 01:04 PM, said:

I think he meant this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT_tank
Exactly so. Was inspired by Strv 103 design in a large portion, plus of course post-war German Jagdpanzer Kanone tank destroyers with 90mm gun.

Vlevs #36 Posted 27 July 2011 - 01:46 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14088 battles
  • 628
  • Member since:
    02-05-2011
Found the german thingy! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT_tank - kinda shame they didn't develop it further. I can guess it was built to counter 'endless' tank hordes of USSR. What a magnificent piece that would make for World of Cold War Tanks.  :Smile-playing:

I guess one of the biggest reasons huge tanks weren't made was the matter of strategic mobility, getting it where the battle is. Funnily enough this is rarely a problem in games because often tanks are produced on the spot, and very few simulate the trouble of getting 100+ -ton vehicles on the battlefield. All heavy tanks and modern MBTs flirt with size treshold of what is possible to transport via road and rail; if those aren't options, getting tank to frontline is ver slow business indeed. Maus's odd shape was because the design was tried to squeeze down to width of a railway flatcar - I don't if it actually would've. In any case, Maus had practically no business in offensive warfare - it would've made a good bunker when frontline came to it, though.  :P

I do have my own guilty pleasures when it comes to tank scheming - right now, a Leopard 2 with 155 mm smoothbore gun with capacity to fire APFSDS, ATGMs and indirect artillery fire with guided shells, topped with 40 mm GMG miniturret - that last one is coming to Leopard 2A7+. Also, kinda pity the coaxial autocannon was dropped from tank designs.

Edit: Quote from VT Tank link: "A comparison with the Leopard 2 was held, which proved that the VT 1-2 tank wouldn't have any significant advantages over the Leopard 2."
They obviously tested it wrong, it has double the firepower! Come on!

Edit 2: Too slow posting, ninja'd.  <_<

Tuccy #37 Posted 27 July 2011 - 02:02 PM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14456 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010
Not only strategic: Tactical mobility would be a problem as well. Think streams, rivers, ditches... Towns...

Formlath #38 Posted 27 July 2011 - 03:57 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 239 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011
hehe. i dont see a problem with streams or rivers... just drive into them or over them depending on width. and towns can be rebuilt!

Tuccy #39 Posted 27 July 2011 - 04:06 PM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14456 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010
Driving into them isn't problem. Driving out is :)

XxBigEyexX #40 Posted 27 July 2011 - 06:20 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2054 battles
  • 230
  • Member since:
    04-18-2011
If there was a 'super tank', then we would be the last to know, lol ;)

In-game, I think the only thing that would work would be you and your clan-mates fighting against famous tank groups (e.g.-the desert rats with rommel as the lead tank with extra armour/damage).




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users