Gravtank Idea

[Tyyr]

Yeah, plenty of room for three. Which is just about the perfect number. Driver, Gunner, Commander.

[Graham Kennedy]

To demonstrate :



Bear in mind, a good deal of the things on a normal tank aren't required here; it runs on fusion power, which is rather more compact than a present day diesel or gas turbine. Plus, even sufficient fuel for months would be tiny compared to the great big fuel tanks on a tank. Plus, no need to carry fifty or so great big rounds of ammunition, no need to have space to haul those around and shove them into the gun - in fact no loader at all.

[Coalition]

Ammo is small. How thick is the armor on the facings, as it doesn't look like much room between the pilot and the front of the tank. Not to mention the thin turret section behind the gun having either thin armor, or no room for anything behind the gun.

[Graham Kennedy]

Haven't decided on armour thicknesses yet; if needs be I can jiggle things around easily enough to make more room for thicker armour.

[Tyyr]

Ammo is small. How thick is the armor on the facings, as it doesn't look like much room between the pilot and the front of the tank. Not to mention the thin turret section behind the gun having either thin armor, or no room for anything behind the gun.

Actually ammo isn't a small concern in a tank, if it carries it. Graham's energy weapon avoids the ammo issues but on modern tanks ammo takes up a considerable volume in the tank.

[Coalition]

Ammo is small. How thick is the armor on the facings, as it doesn't look like much room between the pilot and the front of the tank. Not to mention the thin turret section behind the gun having either thin armor, or no room for anything behind the gun.

Actually ammo isn't a small concern in a tank, if it carries it. Graham's energy weapon avoids the ammo issues but on modern tanks ammo takes up a considerable volume in the tank.

That's why I was harping on about the armor thickness. Compare the thin (in width) turret behind the main gun, to the width of the main gun.

At least, using energy weapons, you are using the same fuel as what the tank uses. There might be a chemical laser that relies on chemical reactions to get the effect (vs an inefficient current laser) to get around heat issues. A railgun would be decent, as all the ammo would fit in a suitcase, and the tank's power plant charges capacitors to fire the gun. The capacitors would need to be placed in a safe location, so if the tank gets hit and they detonate, the crew doesn't die.

[Teaos]

Does the barrel need to be so long? In real tanks they are long for accuracy. If this is an energy weapon I doubt it need the same sort of barrel.

[Graham Kennedy]

I'm thinking plasma cannon, in which case longer barrel = higher muzzle velocity.

There's space on wither side of the cannon for approx 115 mm (4.5 inches) of armour as it stands; I might thicken that a bit, but it seems reasonable for side armour. By shifting the crew positions back a bit the front slope armour can but up to 225 mm (8.9 inches) thick right over the driver's head, thicker than that elsewhere.

[Monroe]

I like the updated version better. Don't forget though that people need to be able to get into their seats and move around. Space to hunch over to check the engines, get out the turret, etc is needed I think.

[Tyyr]

Wait... what? Like check the engine in combat? You don't do that, you pull back behind the lines where you can safely get out and work on the engine. You don't make repairs in combat. You pull back or bail out.

[Deepcrush]

Wait... what? Like check the engine in combat? You don't do that, you pull back behind the lines where you can safely get out and work on the engine. You don't make repairs in combat. You pull back or bail out.

True enough, a crew fiddling with a tank in open battle is just begging to be the prime target of everything around. Plus that much space being added to the inside increases the size of the tank making something that is already big an even bigger target. If you're in, then you're in and only need the space to crawl to and from you position.

[shran]

And a place to heat your tea-kettle. The designer s British, after all.

Shouldn't this tank need auxillary wheels or tracks in case the anti-grav unit breaks down or can't keep floating? In this way, it will retain mobility even while damaged and it might decrease the strain on the anti-gravity unit by letting the wheels/tracks support the tank, while the anti-gravity unit does the propulsion part. they could even be used as crue anchors to secure the tank in place in case of firing projectiles, thus reducing recoil.

[Mikey]

I like the idea of backups and failsafes, but remember - this isn't a TARDIS. There's a finite amount of room for systems. Recoil anchors would be largely unnecessary, as this thing will be armed with directed-energy weapons rather than massive projectile weapons.

[Tyyr]

Here's the thing though, a conventional drive system will require a substantial investment in internal volume of the tank, which will increase the volume which means more area to armor. You either have to go thinner overall to keep the mass the same or take a substantial increase in mass. Then there are the additional drive components (more mass and space), all of which means either thinner armor or a much heavier tank all for a drive system that won't get used most of the time. No, an axillary drive system would be a waste on something like this.

[Monroe]

Wait... what? Like check the engine in combat? You don't do that, you pull back behind the lines where you can safely get out and work on the engine. You don't make repairs in combat. You pull back or bail out.

Well you still need some way to check on it unless there's like a panel that opens to reveal the engine, like on a car.