Building A Tank Force For Your Interstellar Army | Tank Types, Naming Conventions & Doctrines 

If you like tanks you should definitely check out Spookston his videos are great.

OK now we have to get you to drive tanks Texas

Three main problems of ground forces in sci-fi: 1)they somehow get more focus then fleet in orbit as if they can fight back against it(if they deploy with ICBM launchers, maybe they can); 2)their relative impotence compared to modern day tech. We have SPGs that can shoot at 40-60km(rocket assisted or just MLRS) with enough precision to guide warhead into a hatch of a vehicle over that distance. And said warhead would be a nuke in 10ton-10kiloton range. Nothing stops said SPG from having autoloader and shooting over a dozen shells before first one reaches the target. We can arm a two man team with ATGM with similar capabilities(range would be around 10-12 km though plus no extra shots). Meanwhile sci-fi can't do much better then WWII armies:( 3)Geneva Convention restrictions somehow protect aliens, mutants and zombies. No WMDs, no poisoned ammo, no toxic flamethrower fuel, no laser to the eyes, no needle shrapnel, no dirty bombs on civilian targets, nothing!

actually most SPGs have the same type of cannon as their regular counter parts, for example the dual barreled 120mm motar system, abrams has 120mm, the difference is they sacrifice a bit of protection for gun traverse so it can be used as artillery. otherwise all tanks are spgs

Since when did you star using MS Gundam IGLOO (or gundam ingeneral) in your videos? Never noticed it before.

I have some pretty coo ideas for futurist infantry and air forces but im afraid it will get stolen if I just say what it is.

What about organizing said military?

@@jakespacepiratee3740 email it? Everybody's profile has an email. Email for privacy?

And a Planetary navy.

Logistics...where are they?

Hey just curious since you have been in both the M60A1 and the M1A1 what is the major difference between the two?

@@peterchiu1769 Hell, _everything_ is different. My M60 was a direct evolution of my father's M48, but the M1 was a completely new design. When we handed in our M60s and got the new M1s, the tanks were so different from each other that we had to spend a month retraining. The new tank was so different that the Marine Corps changed our MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) from 1811 to 1812 to distinguish the difference. So some of the differences off the top of my head: The M60 had homogeneous steel armor and the M1 has a layered composite. The M60 is powered by a 750hp AVDS 1790-2C twelve cylinder dual turbo charged diesel and the M1 has a 1500hp gas turbine engine. The M60 can do about 35 mph on the hardball and has a range of around 360 miles on 380 gallons of fuel. The M1 can do 42.5 mph on the hardball and has a range of about 300 miles on 500 gallons of fuel. The M60 is armed with an M68 (British L7) 105mm rifled gun, a coaxial mounted M60E2 7.62mm machinegun, and an M85 .50 cal in the tank commander's cupola. The M1 is armed with a German designed M256 120mm smooth bore main gun, an M240 7.62mm coax machinegun, a second M240 at the loader's position, and an M2HB .50 cal at the TC's position. The M60 has a coincidence range finder that uses parallax to determine range whereas the M1 has a laser range finder. The M60's night vision sights are the passive light amplification type and the M1 has thermal sights instead. The M60's ballistic computer was a mechanical device that used gears and cams to calculate superelevation based on range and ammunition type. The M1's ballistic computer is an actual digital computer that does the same thing, but also factors in barometric pressure, ammunition temperature, cross wind, vehicle cant (i.e. the tank is sideways on the side of a hill) and also calculates how fast you are traversing the turret and automatically applies lead. I thought the M1 was slicker than snail snot... for a few months. I slowly began to realize that it also has some short comings. For example, while the fire control system was supposedly accurate as hell, I found myself not shooting any better with it than the 60. Now granted, I was one of the better gunners in the battalion, but this fire control system isn't designed for me. It's designed to be able to have an inexperienced gunner be able to hit targets. But with all of the hoops you have to jump through to do that, it severely limits "instinctual" shooting. But, what's worse is that the M1 broke down more than our 60s did and they were harder to repair. A computer runs the engine and it take 6 _gallons_ of fuel just to start the damn thing. And if at any time that computer sees anything it doesn't like, it will abort the start and dump (I'm sorry, "purge") that 6 gallons of diesel fuel on the ground under the tank. Now that soil is contaminated, so while the mechanics are trying to figure out why the tank won't start, the crewmen are digging a hole 6 feet in diameter and 6 feet deep and putting all of that contaminated soil in barrels. The M1 is a good tank when it works, but I would never be a great M1 tanker. After about 6 months, I was longing for my good old trusty M60 back. I knew that tank, even went to TC school for that tank not because I wanted to be a TC, but to learn some tips and tricks of advanced gunnery, knowledge that was completely useless with the M1. So it's easier to say what they've got in common. They both have a 4 man crew. They both have a turret mounted high velocity main gun. They both roll on tracks... Yeah, that's about it. If you've got anything specific you'd like to ask about, feel free to fire away.

Im sad that we lost our tanks they hold our history very well and the fact that it probably saved our brothers in arms life more often than not due to its a marine tank which is more bad to the bone

@@maingun07 I hope there's no classified info in that *wink* * wink* (in reference to the recent news)

@@PrograError Ah yes, the War Thunder player that just give secret defense info to make a tank more accurate (Challenger 2)

They can crane in M1s thru the gateroom surface entrance as they did with the Stargate itself

The tricky part is making sure it doesn't flip over on the other side. Since most gates are like only buried by a few centimetres.

That’s a lot of tricky and trickier parts

@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 You, Cato Sicarius, make a good point....

@@Del_S If Stargates work logically and don't start spasmsming or materialize the tank in some weard positions like some sort of bugged videogame, which they could do, it could be fixed by putting a ramp on the other side at an equal height. Of course, that does require all Stargate-bound forces to storm gates with mass infantry, since ramps would have to be built later. But the Tau'Ri just don't have the manpower for what is basically a long term occupation project, so the planets where it would be worth it to bring a tank are limited

If i remember it right, heat dispersion/rate of fire is incredibly important for anti aircraft guns. Nothing says „screw your helicopter” like a 6000 rounds per minute stream of medium calibre projectiles

In addition, if the enemy has energy shields, the first round could take it down, and the second round could be a kill shot.

An example of how 2 barrels might work due to heat dispersion for other than rapid fire, is using energy weapons as a main gun. In Battletech having a twin barrel turret with Particle Projector Cannon's makes perfect sense for alternating fire for more rapid staggered fire, or a powerful double punch.

With heat dispersion there is a very simple solution for that: Watercooling.

@@MrMarinus18 simple doesnt particularily equal practical in this case though

This is where the fun begins

@@lingalithukingstonmanjolo723 Always

"We could go on for another 50 MINUTES?!" Don't do that, don't threaten me with a good time.

I had to wait days to find the right time to watch, but this was in my "I'll get to it...no, really, I WILL get to it, I'm not missing this"

What about good tanks?

@@tymekka3031 The grav-tank is heavily armored and armed. The TX-130 Saber Tank was a fast, heavily armed tank used for lightning fast assault by the Republic. The CIS had the AAT, which is slow but heavily armored with missiles and a heavy battle cannon for breaking through entrenched positions. The existence of the walkers in the Galactic Empire I can only chalk up to the OT being made in the 70s and everything else after realizing how stupid war walkers are.

@Bryce Pruitt Don't forget the TIE TANK

@@tymekka3031 Here are some TX-130 Saber Class Fighter Tank S-1 FireHawke Heavy Repulsortank HAVw A6 Juggernaut Armored Assault Tank Imperial Repulsortank 1-H Were some of the better ones employed by the empire.

@Bryce Pruitt not to mention, while the Republic AT-TE was a walker-tank - the imperial AT-AT was more of a heavily armoured IFV/APC

If only that armor was easy to craft.

@@joshuabonesteel2303 You must be Kawaii Anime girls to gain plot armor. Though be careful to not be the token dead teammates....Or a Harem Protagonist of the none-grimderp type...

@@joshuabonesteel2303 It is said that only the best writers know how to use it well without the enemy screaming "Bullshit! That never should've happened!"

Looking at you fury

@@joshuabonesteel2303 Bring in the mandalorian.

Das ist irgendwie verwirrend. Besonders für jemand der studiert die sprache.

always loved how German names are just a sentence describing the thing

Wouldn’t spaa be called a flakpanzer? I’m not German but it’s what they called them in ww2.

@@horsem.d.7979 From what I have gathered, I think Flak specifically denotes Anti Air Auto-cannons, while Luftabwehrpanzer is a more general term that means “Plane-Hunting Tank”. Not a native speaker though, so take that with a grain of salt.

Radpanzer😎

J U S T D O I T

Do it and your destiny will be complete

*Dew it*

*CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!*

This is totally unrelated to what you've said here, I'm just taking advantage of your comment being highly placed so that more people can potentially see this large block of text I've put a little bit of effort into concocting. I also posted this just straight up as a comment, but due to my late coming to this video, likely no one will see it. So essentially, I'm trying to pirate off of your success here. ;) Anyway, feel free to enjoy... So, as to the super-heavy tank and all its impracticalities, I think it is correct to say that they would essentially fill the role of a moving fortress. However, in technologically advanced societies, I think many of the negative aspects of the super-heavy would be cancelled out by putting it on legs. For example, with a little modification, the dreaded AT - AT could be transformed into a mobile fortress in the sky, perhaps by adding a few legs for stability and providing a 360 degree weapons coverage area. Already, the AT - AT essentially acts as a mobile artillery platform, with numerous design flaws, granted, but it has the makings of a fortress. Downscaling a little bit, the AT - OT, while also having numerous design flaws in the role of a troop transport, most notable of them being the open roof in a universe where attacks from above are common, could also be viewed as a mobile firing platform for infantry, similar to ancient siege towers. But back to my point, the advantages of legs are that the size of the 'tank' does not affect its mobility. Fortresses on wheels are halted by anything they cannot run over; buildings and trees (as they could damage the tank) for example, whilst hills would comprise an insurmountable obstacle. With legs, the fortress itself is literally above all of that. It could walk through rivers and over forests with ease, climb up mountains while remaining level, and all the while have the advantage of firing down on the enemy from above, perhaps even over fortifications if the walker is large enough. Now, because of the mobility afforded by legs, there is technically no limit to how many guns you can put on the platform. There are practical concerns, of course, such as how much weight your technologically advanced legs would hold, maintenance and repairs, and most importantly, how many proverbial eggs you want to put in one basket; while legs would support quite a bit of firepower, they still have the vulnerability of gravity, and taking out enough legs would inevitably topple the platform and render it useless. And of course, the more the platform is upscaled, the more there is to lose if the enemy just takes out a few legs. However, if the mobile fortress is necessary, or the firepower needed to penetrate city shields, for example, is so great that the weapons have to be absolutely massive, I feel that the fortress on legs is the only practical way to go. On smaller craft, the use of legs is mostly useless, because whatever marginal bonus to maneuverability gained is certainly not worth the speed given up. Speed lost on a fortress, however, is most likely not a huge concern. (Edit:) After a bit more consideration, I've thought of two potential issues with this. One, when the platform gets upscaled to a certain point, interplanetary mobility takes a serious dive, as the transports would have to be large enough to accommodate a fortress. This leads directly into the second issue, in that when adding more and more weapons to a mobile platform, it would be more economical in most cases to simply add these weapons to a starship and pound your targets from orbit, thereby retaining interplanetary, and interstellar mobility. However, as with everything, there are exceptions to these issues. For example, orbital bombardment may be impractical, depending on the weapons being used, or perhaps illegal, and the interplanetary corporations of the universe use massive weapons platforms to retain starship firepower while circumventing galactic law. Or of course, simply make the platforms small enough to be transported by starships; perhaps around the size of the AT - AT (but much better designed!), trading off massive firepower and capacity for numerical superiority. Or perhaps, your starships are just large enough to accommodate a weapons platform the size of a small town. Good luck landing that, though! Furthermore, a mobile fortress also has a few advantages a starship lacks; primarily that it is on the ground. While at first glance, this may just seem like a disadvantage in mobility, a physical presence on the ground allows for, one, a garrison to be quickly deployed from the relative safety of a fortress. Granted, a starship can technically deploy troops to anywhere on a planet, whether landing itself or deploying troop transports. However, nothing says a fortress on legs can't also hangar a few transports, and a little more realistically, the troops on a mobile fortress can also be deployed quickly, and maintain operations in an area around the fortress, which leads me into my next point, and perhaps the most important here, in that a mobile fortress can be used to secure key areas on the ground, something a starship cannot do effectively. A starship has to rely on either sensors, or data sent up from boots on the ground, and then open fire on whatever targets have been highlighted. A presence on the ground, however, can detect targets on its own using either visual acquisition or whatever sensor data it is equipped with, while also being able to rely on data relayed by infantry the fortress itself can house. Anyway, if you got through all that, I commend you! Let me know what you think of my analysis here; I will mention that most of my arguments here are made thinking that there is essentially no limit to how big you could make a weapons platform, which isn't all that realistic, considering that gravity exists, but I claim artistic liberty on this particular point ;) Anything else, feel free to point out.

Daddy's Belt has to take the cake.

"Crippling depression is even more dangerous when armed with an AK"

Soviet Tanks will never have crippling depression because they literally CANT be depressed

Name it "Student loan Debt"

I'm partial to "A Tank" 😂😂😂

Rock, paper, scissors, TANK!!

I managed to make that grunt survive on legendary, and I can’t help but imagine him going home and telling his kids the war story of how he fought on the Ark right next to Master-goddamn-Chief. God Bless him.

Yooo I just played that level in halo 3 for the first time and I started laughing uncontrollably after I heard that. Halo 3 marines have the best flavor dialogue

AND THEY AIN'T WRONG!

@@imgvillasrc1608 indeed they aren't

To be fair, the armor that a standard, expendable imperial guardsmen in any unit wears can stop a modern .50 cal AP round from an M2. So armor, and weapons in 40 K is on a whole different level than any other universe. Sure: the Russ isn’t amazing by 40 k standards, but could drive through the Entire German, American, and Russian tank force so fast the crew could have breakfast and then 2nd breakfast.

Looking at the model, yeah, I agree, however it actually has a fourth hatch in the front. Right next to lascannon. Hey, atleast it's slanted!

@@bkane573 Plus the standard 40k antitank weapon that humanity faces is a Lascannon that burns through armor and ignores things like sloped armor or shot traps. You also have melta guns that can vaporise whole chunks of tanks. The flat sides and whatnot don't really matter.

So....its just like Russ, eh?

I think the Guard's response to this line of argument would be something like the following: - Avoid encounter: We have Basilisks, Deathstrikes, etc. to prevent most encounters from happening. - Avoid detection: Let the enemies of the Emperor hear us coming and tremble! - Avoid acquisition: The more tanks we deploy, the lower the probability of any given tank being acquired as a target. Therefore we shall deploy ALL THE TANKS. - Avoid hit: The more tanks we deploy, the more likely it is that one will hit the enemy before they hit us. See above. - Avoid penetration: If we make the tank a big hollow metal box, penetrating hits will just go in one side and out the other without hitting anything vital. - Avoid kill: We have reserves.

Don’t forget they made videos on naming and creating flags for your nation

We need air force too! Ok, jokes aside, air force and actual aquatic navy are severely underpresented in sci-fi.

@@miloskaluznik48 Hard agree. Atmospheric combat is *quite* different from space/lower planetary orbit combat, and probably equally important in planetary defense/warfare. Aquatic naval ships, meanwhile make excellent weapon platforms

Maybe an infantry version as well

@@miloskaluznik48 The air forces are generally rolled into the Navy or Army and utilize starfighters in most settings.

Which means that the tank nerds will soon descend upon this comment section in droves to nitpick every conceivable detail of this video in insufferable fashion.

1000% agree.

I dream of a day when I can have the Templin Institute make a video about something I make. Not in Incoming, though.

@@Penguinmanereikel Same. Unfortunately, I’m a writer and they don’t seem to cover books that often, if ever.

Don't forget the aspiring dictators and revolutionaries. There's no story better than real war.

Yeah basically. I mean, if you've gone to the bother of making it light enough to hover, you already made it light enough to fly, so why not have it fly ;)

@@ShadowFalcon you have no idea how much this blew my mind. this is such a simple progression of logic that i'm ashamed i didn't think of this.

No, they are not. Not even close. Attack Helicopters are NOT deployed as Recon assets, there are specialised Helicopters, aircraft, drones and ground vehicles for that task far better suited to the role. Neither are they replacements for tanks as they lack the long loiter time on the battlefield tanks have, and due to the lack of armour lack the tanks survivability. And yes, tanks ARE survivable. Can anti tank missiles kill them, yes, but, when looking at the ATGM vs tank equation too many people just assume that for some idiot reason the tank is on its own. Well guess what, tanks DO NOT OPERATE ALONE. They are part of a combined arms force that includes infantry, artillery, air assets and so on. Yes, and attack helicopter can ruin a Tank platoons day... but you know what ruins an attack helicopters day? An Air Superiority fighter vectored in on the AH by AWACS. Know what ruins the day of that soldier with the RPG 12? The tanks infantry support. Know what ruins the day of the light TOW armed anti tank platforms? The Drones that spot them and drop and artillery bombardment on them. You CANNOT assess a tanks capabilities on the battlefield WITHOUT factoring in the normal support it has, or the support role it plays to the Infantry. Attack Helicopters are fucking great if you have air superiority, or even better air supremacy, but in contested airspace, or heaven forbid if your enemy has air superiority, they are so much fucking dogmeat for the AS fighters with AMRAAMS that they will not even SEE before they are dead.....

We still have light tanks dude

The only thing worse (ignoring anything related to pilots and only focusing on machinery) about helicopters is they have less reliability, require more fuel per minute (most will be cheaper per kilometre tho), and have abysmal audio stealth (i can hear a black hawk when it's out of sight behind a hill and behind some trees) and i guess less crew survivability considering you're up in the air flying not driving

Three possible solutions would be to use a recoilless rifle design, use inertia dampers, or as I've noticed in The Expanse, counter the recoil with a brief pulse of forward thrust.

@@TheEnergizingbunny Recoiless designs are not particularly practical for larger caliber (40mm+) or automatic weapons.

@@hanzzel6086 then you never heard of rarefaction wave (RAVEN) guns. All the oomph of a full-powered gun, with a fraction of the recoil.

@@TheTrueAdept I have not. They sound very interesting.

@@TheTrueAdept Unfortunately they are quite difficult to get done properly, but in sci fi I suppose that doesnt matter much.

Love this

What about your air force?

Holy shit! You're here to??!!!

What's up King, I mean general

More like interstellar work, am I right? I'll see myself out.

But modern military brass is already saying "please no more Abrams's, congress! we don't want them!" and MBTs are likely obsolete. Aircraft have gotten to the point where they are more effective and efficient for supporting infantry, and for killing enemy tanks in the conditions MBTs want (wide open space or long open corridor). And infantry AT weapons > infantry AA weapons. Missile platform, drone platform, point defense platform, and gun platform, and more missile platform, LAVs / 'trucks' with some basic ability to serve as small arms cover in a pinch, are probably more than sufficient in the future. Similar concept to firing two amraams at 40 NM at someone else's plane dedicated to post-merge tight turning and getting fighter cannon kills. He dies one to two minutes before he would have started fighting.

@@OdinBarenjagerschlos the problem with aircraft is also many, they are heavy dependent on the weather conditions and need to get near to have a clear shot when the allies are near a zone making them powerfull but restrictive in use, The tanks on the other hand make near support to the infantry and are less dependant on weather, but more in terrain.

@@blecao Not sure the weather is going to match up to the notion of a near-peer's hellfire equivalent mounted on a drone, (or something much smaller giving a 1m gps target or the dreaded data link lock) and bad weather slows down infantry anyway limiting the use of infantry-embedded tanks. (As does the noise and visibility and struggle-bussing on certain corners and terrain... against an enemy with a qrf that includes good anti-tank, I'd rather not be given away. In a hugely one sided war welcoming a direct slug out sure MBTs are nice to have, but in my experience they're collecting dust back at a big base, as operating costs and maintenance being more difficult keeps the Army too afraid to break a few parts on IEDs [yeah really].) Closeness comes on a spectrum too, fixed wings meant for under the radar flight exist, there are expendable eagle-eyed drones, and helicopters can really push the envelope, even under fire with a hill to pop up over (not really an uneven restriction, it's just like tankers prefer a mound to go turret defilade behind). And of course point defense and whatever the next TOW missile is, on basically tough utility vehicles would fit the embedded and convoy needs anyway. And the extra resources for more long range AT missile platforms waiting for target data. S tier tanks and incredibly huge carriers are badass and all, but I think prior to current planned obsolescence we'd have to lead with and build much smaller stealthier competitors if we wound up in a near-peer fight. And since missiles clearly aren't stopping their advancement even in bizarre future hypotheticals, bet on those two joining the battleship long term.

Zhukov: “Nyet, use tanks to achieve breakthrough with the support of artillery and air power, then send in the mechanized forces to keep pushing the breakthrough”

another part of why they don't want more is they have a stockpile and Congress insists on buying more each year so they have to budget for them, when they want to buy xyz instead

*happy Joakin noises*

*Happy Yukari noises*

How long's the wait?

See my post above. In the 1980s I met the people who developed the PACV and LCAC. The “Unstable Firing Platform” is the least of the problems (as the Col, and later Lt. Gen. On the project explained: Try making a tank with an Air-Hockey Puck). Also, Honor Harrington doesn’t mention that the firing of a Gun on a moving ACV or GEV causes it to crash. The Overpressure from the gun equalizes skirt pressure, or wing-pressure for a WIGE/GEV, resulting in Instant grounding, which for a GEV moving at around 200mph in WIGE… Fatally. The ACV has the problem of attempting to re-inflate its skirts, and re-floating. The ACV/GEV remain SOLELY in the realm of Logistics and Landing Craft. Now… As for Anti-Gravity. This depends upon the Metaphysics, and thus Emergent Physics of the Sci-Fi World/Universe, OR the as-yet discovered mechanisms of Gravity in our Universe. If the “Anti-Gravity” just nullifies “Mass” or “”Weight,” then you have an even worse platform than an Air-Hockey Puck, even though firing a weapon doesn’t cause your to crash. BUT… If the Anti-Gravity is via a manipulation of the Higgs Field, which allows the Vehicle to “Re-Direct Gravity,” then that technology can produce an even more stable platform than a ground tank given enough energy. The Manipulation of the Higgs Field would allow you to “Lock” a “Grav-Vehicle” either in a specific relationship to another Mass, which can be either Stationary with respect to the Center-of-Masses, or it can be a Vector related to the Center-of-Masses. That would be the ONLY “Grav-Tank” that would be viable AS a “Tank” or “Armored Vehicle.” Also, the people who claim “Put a Laser on it…” This isn’t broadly telegraphed by the world’s militaries, but Laser Weapons are doomed to oblivion by the end of this decade. Due to the development of newer hardened Aerogels (originally as heat-shields for Re-Entry Vehicles), and other similar technologies, Laser Weapons are going to be useless against any of the Developed nation’s Militaries, and out own Military’s “commitment” to them (principally in the Navy) remains solely for small-vehicle interdiction, against Navies like Iran, Pirates, or other similar threats. The work on “ICBM interception” with Lasers has pretty-much run into this reality, where if Russia and China begin hardening their Reentry Vehicles with even a ¼” of Carbon Aerogel, then no number of Lasers are going to be able to destroy or disable said reentry vehicles. And this doesn’t even include the other technologies that have to do with what are called “Super-Reflecting and Super-Refractive Meta-Materials.” These are materials where the optical properties don’t come from the “Shape” of the “Lens” or “Refracting Surface,” nor with a Polished Surface of a “Reflective Mirror-Like optic.” The Optical Properties come from the arrangement of the Molecules and Atoms in the structure of the materials. Thus, scratches, paint, dust, breaking… None of these affect the optical properties of the Meta-Materials. These are currently in Labs, but by the 2030s they will begin appearing in all manner of Military Applications. Oh! And they make Laser Rangefinders, and Laser Targeting impossible as well. And there are means to make these Meta-Materials effective against the entire EM Spectrum. So that’s going to present some problems for things like “Radar” as well. And… Other “Directed Energy Weapons.” They produce an ENORMOUS “Recoil.”

@@MatthewBaileyBeAfraid very informative. Is there anywhere i can find more like this?

Hmm, I can see hover tanks being a little more viable if they acted more like chopper gunships but can still go low to the ground act as a pseudo ground vehicle when needed.

@@johndane9754 The problem with that is that by that point, why use a tank that acts like a gunship when you can just... use a gunship? (Though ideally you'd have tanks on the ground with gunships providing CAS.)

@@FearlessSon It's more of it being able to behave as either or, when the situation calls for it. It may not always beable to act like a gunship due to circumstances of the terrain, hostile anti-air, battlefield, or other factors. Just as there would be ample amount of it to be able to act like a gunship. Without factoring in the strategic and tactical flexibility of a pseudo-flying tank, it's only a little more viable than a traditional, ground pounding tank.

“If I can hear myself think during a shelling, we need more!”

@@KillerOrca Who needs to hear anything during a shelling anyway? They order you to start the shelling. You start the shelling. As long as new shells are delivered to your position you fire them.

@@KillerOrca Kriegsman Ax44333998 here. What is this "thinking" stuff? Sounds heretical to me. Maybe you should see your regimental chaplain to talk this nonsense trough. Or just keep shelling! Sacrifice! For the emperor!!!

We also love aggressive, confrontational names for our hardware, "Stormer", "Scimitar", "Typhoon", "Challenger", "Chieftan" to name a few (It brings a proud tear to my eye)

@@geoffwilson3483 at least it's better than a Leopard right? right~?

@@PrograError I dunno, germans like their cats with Tigers, leopards, pumas Not that I'd swap challenger with leopard any day xD

@@geoffwilson3483 HMS Pansy, a flower class corvette.

@@Tomyironmane just you wait until HMS Pansy proves itself a capable and deadly naval combatant xD

It could also reduce costs and simplify logistics. For example, in WW2, most assault guns and tank destroyers (and theses days most self-propelled guns) were just modified regular tanks (especially outdated/captured vehicles). So, a modular tank could share most or/all of its main components with those, while reducing the number of production lines. You could also make infantry/cruiser variants of your vehicles too.

@@hanzzel6086though now you have to take account of fuel consumption

@@raiderdare7462 Which is why the non-fromtline variants would have very light armour (and maybe even different drive systems).

Well, yes, but the Germans don't call their tanks "water tanks". So what does "Panzer" mean?

One Winston Churchill, 1st sea lord at the time it was first being considered. Also who doesn't like the idea of the landship comity?

@@davidfinch7407 "Panzer" is just German for armor. I'm no expert but I think "Panzer" in short for "Panzerkampfwagen" which essentially translates to "armored fighting vehicle".

@@commandere2475 you are correct, ofcaurse not all german tanks/panzers are panzerkampfwagens, some are panzerspahwagens (armored recon vehicles) such as the panzer II C luchs

@@matthiuskoenig3378 Yep, that's also why you'd have panzerschiff for armored ship and even the armored knights of old had panzer in their name.

I don't like he didn't take 40k here, as there is a lot of artillery here, it's kinda the core tactic of the imperial guard.

@@-JustHuman- you ain’t wrong the imperium can’t beat orcs in galaxy at war 40K because orcs spread quickly without the range those rocket batteries

@@unifiedhorizons2663 that and orks being killed makes more orks, so sustained bombardment just makes more orks

@@oliverwalters9533 it only makes more orcs if blood remains, as it’s there blood that makes more orcs and orbital bombardment would pulverized any soft target into oblivion.

Tiny problem with that: You shoot down a ship performing an Adama Maneuver, the wreckage and debris is still falling on top of you with lethal velocity. And if the Galactica hadn't jumped out and hit the ground instead the impact would have resembled a nuke going off. The shockwave alone would have killed everyone on the ground.

and its goddamn beautiful

Truly a force to make any zeno tremble

New Zealand gave us 2 weapons of mass destruction to use against xenos Bob semple and Temuera Morrison

@@comradekenobi6908 *UNLIMITED POWER*

Grim darkness? You mean the perfect world?

Discount SCP foundation

@@TheEventHorizon909 Sort of, except they don't actually do anything to prevent stuff XP

Maybe they are documenting other universes to get Intel for their expansion?

Sauce?

@@phantomaviator1318 ..."eagles fly early"

@@phantomaviator1318 did u mean to say source lol

@@phantomaviator1318 ummm is guitar is a sauce?

@@dddf27 No, Patrick, a guitar is not a sauce. A cello isn't either

Yea, probably the wrong picture to illustrate the point... However, it should be noted that there was a second important reason for turretless designs: Using the same chassis, you can cram a larger gun in a casemate than in a turret.

HA I thought he said "turret-based" so it made complete sense to me...

​@@Bird_Dog00 like they did with the jagdpanzer :P Ah don't mind me I'm only nit picking :P

Jagdtiger is the bigger gun part.

@@gokbay3057 Man's not wrong. If I wanted to be really nitpicky tho, I'd say the jagdpanther or SU-100 fulfills both :P

Love that part.

When your protection onion is 100% powered by the blessing of Omnissiah

@@arsmariastarlight3567 Who is absolutely, definitely the Emperor (yes, absolutely, definitely, totally, stop looking at me that way, I'm being entirely serious, for all official purposes, the Omnissiah is the Emperor). ... ...unofficially though...

@@DrTssha "We recieve freedom of religion, a monopoly on crucial STCs, all necessary resources, military protection and legal right to persecute your citizens and military personnel for offenses to our religion. You recieve Baneblade." "A small price to pay for Baneblade."

@@DrTssha the main reason the Ecliesiarchy doesn't like the Cult Mechanicus is because they believe the Omnisiah (who is arguably the same as the Emperor) as a mere prophet of their god, like their robot Jesus, while the Imperial Cult says that the Emperor is a true God.

Indeed, Thats why my tank has an SPAA Customization package, swapping the 120mm cannon for Large missile pods and adding a second 20mm auto-cannon

@@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777 only twin 20mm why not go for a 30-35mm

@@jameson1239 More ammo, Even that little bit more would prove helpful, that and less recoil so less need for recoil compensators and the main weapon is AA missiles anyways, The twin 20mm is more or less "Hey look enemy Infantry, oh wait there dead now..." That and I thought about stepping it up to 25mm or 30mm but at this point I am more focused on good Combat Armor for Infantry, improving my attack helicopter (X)AH-1a "Bumblebee", or like 10 other thing that are either outdated (in my book anyway) or designed we I knew less about proper Design tactics and what not. But, Yes good question that I don't have a single good answer for why I didn't in the first place... I think I just saw a recording of a 20mm in action and it was good as Infantry support and a low altitude AA gun for you know Helicopters and drones so I thought "1, 20mm is good, but what about 2 of 'em." Since they are at the size that the Flaws of a duel barrel cannon in near nonexistent on the ammo consumption would be an issue but, "better to 99 out of 100 than all 100" a friend of mine said, but again there are AA missiles anyways so... Auto-cannons are the secondary weapon at best

@@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777 cool makes sense

@@jameson1239 Not Everything I do is "Yeah looks awesome might not work but who cares" even though I worked decently hard on the tank (designation (X)MBT-01a)

So most Astartes??

@@randomkrieger2625 Definitely Ultramarines, at the very least.

Basically the Tau Empire from Warhammer 40k where "Hammerhead Gunships" can fulfil the role of attack helicopters and main battle tanks depending on the situation.

Battle zone

Never thought about that. A heavy duty block of anti gravity propelled armor and cannons providing close air support 😮‍💨😮‍💨 Jesus

So effectively a heavy attack helicopter that has a smaller required landing footprint?

@@angryakita3870 Sort of but keep in mind it would be carrying tank armor and a tank cannon so it would be more survivable than a helo and have more striking power. Although you could add missile pods like on attack helos to make a real nightmare. You could even make Trooper Carrier versions, I imagine those would be good for strikes against targets behind enemy lines.

There is plenty anti-tank mines who have push-rod activated detonation mechanisms even now. So hover-tank hovers over and goes boom.

ironically, in SW walkers are supposedly used primarily to avoid triggering mines, specifically because repulsorlift vehicles are so common all the AT mines are designed accordingly. It's Rock Paper Scissors, only it's Repulsorlift Treads Legs eh?

@@johnj.spurgin7037 They never really explained to me how they counteracted the Square Cube Law or the issue of Ground Pressure though. The AT AT's on Hoth should have sunk to their bellies, assuming those spindly legs did not simply give way under their weight....

mines that are essentially HEAT warheads facing upwards: *exists* Hovercraft: *what is my purpose*

@@bjboss1119 "You float."

"Starship Troopers" is ridiculously unrealistic, practically self-parody in most ways, including portrayal of warfare. Most SW vehicles is style over substace.

The Starship Troopers' MI are supposed to have light mechs and not fight on foot like some 20th century grunts. And the snowspeeder is a barely weaponized civilian craft.

@@pavelvoynov5408 That’s the point, sergeant

@@pavelvoynov5408 Starship Troopers (the movie) is satire. Suggesting that it's self-parody seems to miss the point. Starship Troopers (the book) has the Mobile Infantry universally wearing high-mobility jump-jet equipped powered armour, deployed directly from orbit and carrying assorted grenades and missiles including tactical nuclear weapons.

Another issue with tanks in Starship troopers is that the enemy is largely underground and could easily fall to tank traps when the bugs start digging tunnels underneath your routes.

You also have the problem that orbital bombardment is an area-denial weapon -- you can destroy large swathes of the planet, but more precise and limited applications of schrecklichkeit would be impossible. Additionally, you have the problem of sensor discrimination -- it's a lot easier to spot and identify targets that are in proximity to your platform than ones that are thousands of miles away from your spacecraft in orbit.

Planetary shields would also prevent landings.

All I see is a mug of beer ride on a Leopard 2's barrel and no spill on uneven terrain.

The Leclerc is optimised for wine glases

The biggest reason for melee weapons though is their simplicity. In games guns always work but in reality guns are complicated devices with a lot of moving parts. In the militairy gun maintenance is taken extremely seriously and is one of the biggest aspects of discipline. If your main weapon is dirty you will get punished harshly. Short-range weapons and melee weapons though are two very different things. Melee weapons often serve as back-up weapons while short-range weapons usually are used by specialists. "battle" guns as you put them actually are not used much and are quite niche. Most armies use assault rifles as the standard weapon. Infantry almost never fights on open battlefield. On an open battlefield tanks, helicopters, artillery and other heavy weapons matter. The main job of infantry is to take objective and protect the more expensive assets. Battle rifles were very prominant in WW1 and to a lesser extent WW2. However eventually generals wised up to the fact that actually hitting a moving target at more than 150 meters really won't happen unless you are sniping. So post WW2 most nations discarded their battle weapons since in practice they are used at close range 90% of the time in which assault rifles outclass them. That last 10% higher range though can just be solved by adding a light machine gun and/or sniper to the squad. With modern weapons unaugmented unarmoured infantry really are not very useful. After all numbers mean nothing if a machine gun can kill several thousand people in a few minutes. You need trained soldiers that can take cover and take objectives without constant oversight. Also you need them to stand strong when it get's tough rather than flee. Fleeing usually get's them killed while fighting keeps them alive but untrained soldiers don't understand this.

light tanks

@@joshuajoaquin5099 the pandoran jungle is significantly denser and harder to bulldoze than earth jungles

@@McCbobbish thats why light tank exist

@@ariqasadam199 read it again

@@deathrex007 look at guedicanal, its jungle were denser and in vietnam but look, apc and light tanks still worked

is*

@@samuelleandro2275, All corrections must start with the phrase “Um actually!” No point.

um actually, fording a tank isn't planned to take place under enemy fire as it takes significant preparation and tanks are effective at range, allowing them to support a beachhead across a river and then cross after it's secure to move forward

Well, it's more of a "Challenge Accepted" kinda deal? :P

You're right: That's exactly how Humvee happened (HMMWV, "High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle").

"You have the right to be afraid BEFORE you join my beloved Corps, but to guide you back to the true path I brought this motivational device, our big green style CANNOT be defeated!!!" Avery J. Johnson.

"When I joined the corps, We didn't have any fancy Shmancy tanks. We had sticks. Two sticks, and a rock for a whole platoon! And we had to SHARE the rock!" - Avery J. Johnson

The Chief is gonna jump in this tank, roll across the bridge, and blow up any inhuman son-of-a-bitch dumb enough to get between him and the Prophet of Regret! Pull yourself together, 'cause you're goin with him! Avery J. Johnson.

"I know what the ladies like."

Sargent Johnson deserves his own unit Heavy artillery squad “smooth jazz”

Wtf was Humanity up to during the Dark Age of Technology that they would need to deploy something that made the Baneblade look like a light tank?!?!

@@Hello-og Men of Iron

the banebalde was considered a MBT during the Dark age of technology

that is just a think they say becouse they dont know what is a ligh tank Ok the humanity has even heavier ans slower than a thing that is fucking slow as hell

I didn’t choose the StuG life, the StuG life chose me.

I encourage you to look up the M-50 Ontos. It is a glorious little bastard.

good to see an other bolo fan!

For the Honour of the Regiment!

The Hellebore did not irradiate the immediate area in which is was fired. It used a heavy duty laser to remove atmosphere along the fire line and caused the projectile to turn to plasma.

Bolos had many track systems, and the later versions also used antigrav to reduce their effective weight.

And even with large-caliber weapons, having a pair of guns still has tactical advantages. The M61A5 Semovente has a crew of two. Ignoring the problems that this causes for field maintenance, there are heat buildup problems associated with a high rate of fire that has, historically, caused problems like ammunition cookoff. Having two main guns allows you to alternate their fire, giving the breech and barrel more time to cool down between shots while maintaining the same rate of fire; with a full autoloading system, keeping the appropriate tube loaded is not an issue.

God point!

It also depends how high off the ground they can hover.

The ancient one would have been a fitting name for some of the Leopard 1’s that the Canadians Army was using in Afghanistan.

Hovertank may also do better in low gravity situations, perhaps even "fly".

Not even then it wouldn’t. See my main post. Hovertanks aren’t possible. Or, they would require so much power that you could instead develop a Mach 7 to Mach 12 Aircraft or Missile capable of 20G to 30G Maneuvers. Or you could build a “Land Battleship” that was capable of traveling at 80 to 100mph… And in both cases still have “Power to Spare.” Hovertanks would exist if they were physically possible or practical, depending upon the variety (ACVs and GEVs are just an impossibility as a “Tank.” As the guy who was on the team who developed the PACV and LCAC told me in the Early-1980s: “Try building a Tank on an Air-Hockey Puck.”). And he said that was the least of the problems. They tried mounting a 40mm Bofors on the PACV. If they were moving at all, the overpressure from the gun equalized the pressure with the skirts, and the vehicle crashed. The plans to try mounting an even larger gun were abandoned. And a WIGE/GEV trying to do this would crash fatally, given the sleep required to maintain the WIGE. The list of problems with “Hovertanks” he provided was enormous. And it took me a long time to accept the reality given my relationship to a famous Wargame that dealt with Cybertanks and GEVs. The comment about the “Air-Hockey Puck” is what finally drove-home the reality. The first thing he said on the subject was: “If they were possible, we would have them.” Oh! And a Hovercraft exerts the same pressure on the ground when “floated” as it does when “Grounded.” The ONLY difference is that the “Ground Pressure” is spread over the entire area under the skirts when floated, and on the Landing Feet or Wheels when grounded. So if an ACV weighs 2 tons, then it will exert a total pressure of 2 tons on the ground beneath it when floated, and that 2 tons will be focused upon the four landing legs/wheels when grounded. It stands a better chance of not hitting a mine by grounding and moving slowly through a minefield than it would to try to “float” through it.

What "the old farts" would name their tank in Old Man's War XD

At last, a tank worthy of the Tentacult.

Yeah. While Scorpion (and Grizzly) is a horrible design, the way they are used/potrayed is damn nice.

The Scorpion tank is an interesting design. It looks cool cause Bungie always had the rule of cool over function, but it actually doesn't function horribly as you'd think. My problem with it is that as a MBT, it's iffy. It's not bad, it's more-so mid to be honest. However, it fits much better as an infantry tank. It's large as hell and has a smaller caliber gun than what people expect, which would make it a pretty good infantry support tank. I will say, the design is bad in some areas, however pretty good in others. People tend to nit pick the tread pods, saying they're not as effective. Personally I think it's generally not much better or worse than having just the two treads like we do today, it's just a minor difference in mobility that people love to target a ton even though it's not the biggest game changer. However why it's actually smart in some ways, is how easy maintained is. If one is destroyed the tank can continue to move better than how most tanks would after a tread shot cause it'd be one outta four that's down. Another huge benefit, it can be replaced quickly with minimal tools and effort by a new tread pod rather than dealing with the agony of how dealing with a de-treaded tank is now. Another design choice that makes up for some drawbacks, is the shape. It's actually sort of genius the armor design. The Scorpion, much like most UNSC vehicles, used both spaced armor, and sloped armor, making penetration from projectiles very hard as most times it'd just bounce off cause of the angle. And those that do penetrate will have to deal with spaced armor, which is another bonus. I always just wished that they used a lighter tank alongside the Scorpion to help fill in whatever drawbacks the Scorpion does have. It'd help in making the UNSC ground forces just that bit more rounded which is always a good thing.

@@spookypepper6900 the issue is also in the engine placement and funky turret design that wouldn't function well (or at all) or carry many cannon rounds. And 1-person-tank carry the risk of overloading the gunner/pilot, but they have AI so whatever. The small cannon calibre is also an issue with most tanks today, having 120, moving from 120 to 130mm because 130mm cannon is something something more efficient. And they still weight less than the scorpion.

​​​@@rpk321The Scorpion is massively under gunned compared to a modern MBT (there are even designs for 140mm and even 150mm guns being concepted/tested). It does somewhat make it up for that through it's highly advanced gun (which also partially reduces the ammunition count issue by using telescoping rounds). The caliber can be excused as it being designed to fight the Innies, who didn't have any armoured forces. And the UNSC just didn't have the time/resources to build an entirely new vehicle (especially when the Scorpion proved more than a match for Wraiths in direct combat) when the Covenant showed up. I assume that the engine is where it is because the fuel tank/batteries (it is diesel-electric, like a train (to learn more about non train d-evs, I highly recommend you check out Edison Motors). I assume that, like current d-e tank/truck concepts/production vehicles, it (unlike a train) has a battery pack (making it a battery diesel-electric) to allow for "silent running"/ improved fuel economy from the engine being able to (more or less) run at a consistent pace (even though this is absolutely not depicted in game, so I suppose it might be a direct diesel-electric, exactly like a train). The

@@hanzzel6086 From what I gathered, it's not an issue of future tech, but an issue of physical impossibility unless they have some space manipulation tech.

Also, given how Ozzel dropped Death Squadron out of lightspeed too close to the system, instead of the intended surprise he was looking for, the Rebels flipped them the bird and raised a planetary shield generator. This necessitated a ground assault. Depending on how deep the snow is on Hoth, anything other than a hovertank would be impractical if not outright useless under such conditions. This would, in turn, necessitate a walker.

How about "Student Loan Debt"?

@@mclatchyt the recruiter told me I'd get to travel the world and I had to pay for college somehow!

@@EmonWBKstudios see the world, meet new people and kill them.

@@grzegorzswist sounds good, let's go. Never really liked people! /s

That one cracked me up.

Buying GF 10k

Fast, hard-hitting and impossible to strike back against. Perfect.

Personally I like Diplomatic Option, better

Reject civilization, return to, well, you know.

@@dhwwiiexpert Monke

*_MONKE MODE_* written on the front plate is the last thing you see before a 125mm HEAT round absolutely mulches your entire body

@@jooot_6850 or an ATFSDS

Germans: All our tanks are named after fierce feline predators for their speed and- Russians: BANANA

Significant emotional events

why talk about mech when tanks are way better?

@@MCAroon09 true

@@MCAroon09 because better doesn't mean funnier

@@MCAroon09 depends on the franchise. For battletech a mech can take damage that will absolutely decimate a tank. They can also carry more weapons while still being around the weight of most tanks today

Flying mechs, quadrapeds, hover mechs, we are going to need a lot of mecha research material

"We're Gonna murder those poor dumb bastards and use their guts to grease the treads of our tanks!"

@@weldonwin SCREW THOSE CRUNCHIES!

"But they also have Tanks"

I had to look up where that quote came from. I should've guessed that it was from 40K!

@@bigmekboy175 It also references Eisenhower's D Day speech.

Slightly mobile heavy defensive turret/sentry gun like that only good if your entire military operation went sideways as far as Cadia from 40K, and usually in modern military operation you rather want your assets as spread as possible without compromising your capabilities, concentrate that many firepower into single platform is not only wasteful/inefficient but also dangerous since your enemy will have lower number of target to deal with.

The reasons why super-heavy tanks are not practical and not very survivable is Probably amplified in the Time of where it was made and often after being made and deployed

Yos

The problem with flying high is that you can easily be detected by ground forces, or ground based radar (or other detection sensor systems). There's also the issue that anything flying high can easily be countered by AA defenses. I can also point to the fact that if the hover tank can hover a certain height above ground, I can see it being classified more as a helo type unit, rather thank a tank. :/

David Drake, in Hammer's Slammers series does a good job of explaining the rationale for hover tanks, the power generation system, offensive and defensive systems and how the tanks work in the force structure.

Hover tanks might be using ground effect to hover. Just like real life hover vehicles and Ekranoplans.

@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 yeah, this. A hovertank isn't necessarily ignoring gravity entirely, just resisting it's pull. A major limitation to hovertanks is that as they are hovering, they have to effectively be weightless to some extent, or at least SHOULD be more limited in their total weight limit than normal tanks. I do support the idea of blurring the line between tank/plane/ship though. Bring landships back!

@@johnj.spurgin7037 I gather you'll like the Bora class hovercorvette. It's the largest hovercraft in the world and, as the name suggest, is also a sea-going corvette. This allows it to exit the water and move over obstacles such as swamps, coastlines and shallow water. Like all modern vesseles, the corvette main armaments are missiles, supported by a few relatively low gauge conventional weapons. This would solve the recoil issue on an hover tank too, even if I doubt a 76 mm autocannon would be as forgiving on most hovercrafts not weighting 1050 tons like this ship. It can also carry nuclear missiles.

I always named my tanks. On every tank I was on we named the tank - not the gun. (20 years on and around tanks)

That's an interesting little insight, thanks!

Good to know, thank you

@@UNSCPILOT I don't know any tank crew who named the gun instead of their tank. I suspect the confusion here may be because that's where the name of the tank goes.

Yeah... you have that backwards, Arty units still will name their guns and Armor guys name their tanks and place the name on the cannon. I've never heard of anyone just naming the gun itself

While true, simply looking at their weight class would put them there. The Abrams was comparable to a Tiger in the development phase

It’s because MBTs can function in basically every role, eliminating the need for multiple tanks.

@@idontwantmyrealnameonhere5955 exactly

@@idontwantmyrealnameonhere5955 as was the case with the medium tank during WW2, which was pretty much surmised in the video. Meanwhile, the entry on MBTs notes that an MBT is ultimately the primary tank used in a campaign or operation, and thus during WW2 the light tanks used in the pacific campaign would technically be an MBT at the time. Better to think of an abrams as a modern medium tank, and MBT to be a designation for the primary armor asset used in a given campaign.

@@johnj.spurgin7037 I guess you could say that, but the MBT designation was meant to replace all types of tanks. The first proper MBT, the British Centurion, was made to fulfill the role of cruiser tanks, medium tanks and infantry tanks. Eventually, they replaced heavy tanks and light tanks. America favored M48s and M60s (MBTs) to the M103 (The last American heavy tank.) their whole purpose it to get rid of multiple models of tanks, combining all the best parts from different classes. Mobility of a light tank, firepower of a super-heavy tank, armor of a heavy tank, and armor of a medium tank. Using MBT as a designation during a campaign was not it’s intended purpose, but rather it’s a term for the modern, multi-role tank.

maus or even the ratte wouldve made more sense

It was last designated as _super-heavy tank T28._

Given likely advances in technology, it would also probably be unmanned (either autonomous, or, if AI can't be trusted, at least remote controlled like an armed UAV). Of course, if it's remote controlled, then a manned spaceship containing control facilities would have to be in near orbit, so the speed of light doesn't cause unacceptable lag, and both the spaceship and the remote command link would have to be protected from destruction / interference by the enemy.

@@alexeyvlasenko6622 i agree with your opinion with this one about how an instellar tank would looks like, glad too see im not the only one thinking about this concept

Please dont hit Mark he has gone through enough.

there will be a problem since ADS can only decrease the pentration of APFSDS unlike other HIGH explosive projectile that get triggered when it get intercepted

@@ariqasadam199 Tbh, I wouldnt be surprised tank design went the same way as warships. Modern ships are thin skinned and focus on evasion/interception because they don't have a prayer of surviving a modern missile, no matter how much armor they pack. If you're fighting rail guns and plasma shells, it's better to focus on compartmentalizing damage and not being struck in the first place imo.

A tank like design with full 360 degree mobile propulsion would make a good space fighter ngl

No, it's simple: by a certain point, the Bolo was fitted with _spaceship capital guns_ (aka hellbores) as its main armament because technology made lasers less effective against targets and the battlescreen made projectiles useless. Due to their new guns, they became _mobile anti-orbital guns_ with self-defense capability and incredibly advanced AI. The reason that all battles became 'inside a nuclear fireball' is due to the armament and the protection required. Outside of a handful of models, a Bolo uses a single main gun with a handful of artillery and protection options. The reason that the Mk XXXIII is so massive is the fact that it has _3_ 2m hellbores in addition to enough guns to turn planets into slag. To wit, when you face a Concordiat infantry unit, you'll need a 20MT _'satchel charge'_ at close range to even hope to dislodge them. That's how insane a Bolo battlefield is.

@@TheTrueAdept I do sometimes forget the sensible aspects.

Hover tanks might be harder to crash?

Have you guys ever thought Hover tanks requires more energy than helicopter or traditional tank but lacks high mobility of helicopter or heavy armor and high caliber of normal tank?

@@publixmn2622 Ever considered that there would still be a valid mid point between the two roles? The real issue is just the overly vague and convienient nature of sci-fi hover technology. But is it so hard to imagine value in a light tank that can skim over ragged and rocky terrain unsuitable for tracks or wheels, able to adjust it's elevation, skip over buildings, bypass rivers and damaged infrastructure, whilst still being durable enough to defend against infantry, using it's mobility to steer clear of heavier tanks and flying under the effective threat range of most anti air systems? A significantly more durable "helicopter" capable of safely manoeuvring at zero altitude, but still lift up to clear any terrain obstacle, sounds fairly invaluable to me. It really depends on the hover tech though. Most sci-fi portray it in a way that feels either redundant or uselesss. Tanks like the Wraith from Halo, or the majority of repulsor craft in Starwars, are far too immobile and surface bound to provide much or any good arguments for their purpose, vs tracks. Hover tanks such as the Tau gunships in 40K however, would make any general jealous. Self propelled weapons platforms that effectively fly to location, able to cross literally any terrain, and then drop down to surface level to reduce their profile once within the combat zone, effortlessly repositioning or retreating in a moments notice. A flying light tank. Sounds pretty useful to me.

@@UnknownSquid nice! That's pretty good point actually!

in low gravity situations, most certainly could just become a gunship. But a pillbox in high gravity.... you win and lose.

The large tanks may also be mobile surface to space weapons.

even then we have to remmber WW2 US. the sherman was close to the max capacity of the transport ship carry capacity (or at least the loading crane on the ships). even then the US designed several tanks that was way heavier for internal defense in case of a invasion. (yes a few tanks was over the limit but made to work by been deconscucted a bit before the crane would pick them up). it was just that US straight up said this tank will never leave the US if its not for a trip to canada or mexico.

because tanks generally need alot of maintainance and it cost alot of money

Because when it comes to ground forces, media always focuses on the infantry. Why? Cause tank building is complicated.

Too hard to balance unless you want to make them unrealistic, looking at you cold war

That is definitely a potential role for heavy tanks in an interstellar army.

Basilisk, Medusa, Manticore...

The fact that we're still using gatling guns is proof enough that sometimes one barrel isn't enough, sometimes you just need those 7 barrels.

Dual-barrel guns may also be a manufacturing concern. For example, the Predator Annihilator tank used by Astartes forces started as a field conversion, with Space Wolves Iron Priests refitting Predators carrying antipersonnel weapons with infantry-carried lascannons to fight large numbers of Iron Warriors dreadnoughts. The twin-lascannon turret makes for a more potent armament than a single lascannon would be, in the absence of larger, dedicated tank-mounted weapons. The Imperium being as it is, this was accepted as a proper variant of the tank, with the modularity of the Predator STC being an example of divine provenance from the Machine God (all hail the Omnissiah, blessed are His algorithms). Lots of vehicle designs in the Imperium are field conversions like this, retroactively made "official" by the Adeptus Mechanicus after they've been proven to work (with the excuse of "it's not actually innovation, it was always meant to work that way, and the Machine God inspired His servants to rediscover that function"). Yeah, a single larger or more effective weapon is probably preferable to two smaller guns... But sometimes you make do with what you've got.

Use of differwnt ammo types. A shield disruptor round immedietly followed up by a armor penetrator.

Heat management is certainly a reasonable thought. You might also have two different types of weapon on the tank for different use cases, say an main gun and a secondary AA or energy weapon to deal with things the main gun is not able to work on effectively

@@UNSCPILOT If the guns have different roles, it isn't dual barrel anymore. Just a main gun, and a coaxial gun. For example, the AMX-30 used a 20 mm coaxial autocannon, while the BMP-3 uses a 30 mm. The caliber is high enough to be the main gun on IFVs (like the BMP-2), and the role is still to kill infantry and light vehicles, but it's still a coaxial gun, not an equal main gun. A dual gun turret like you describe would be if a tank had a both a 120 mm cannon, and an anti-tank laser.

Really the core features of tank design are the core features of warfare itself. Mobility, accuracy, power, survivability, reliability, and versatility.

@@benjaminparent4115 Flying tanks are more likely to be the next step but then the remaining 'outdated' tanks would be augmented with hovering tech to solve terrain problems. Or maybe turned into a mobile drone platform like those tanks on gundam.

@@benjaminparent4115 then you have weather problems.

@@benjaminparent4115 I'm sorry, are you arguing that non-hovertanks are only useful in bad weather? Because that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Hovertanks have no anchoring. You fire anything with recoil on a hovertank and you start spinning like hockey puck in 0G. There are a LOT of problems with hovertanks, which would logically relegate them to light tank duties barring design and technological innovations specifically to solve that problem.

@@benjaminparent4115 I can't agree there I'm afraid. We have flying tanks right now in modern times. They're called helicopters, and they haven't rendered tanks obsolete... not yet anyway. Keeping something airborne requires a considerably greater amount of energy expenditure, barring some sci-fi induced violation of thermodynamics. As for lack of terrain where they'd be useful... well, like what? Barring the enclosed corridors of a ship or station, a suitably designed tank or armored asset is always useful. You'd need conflicts to stop before planetfall.

If you had a laser cannon, that wouldn't be a problem. But then you have another issue - heat generation and dissipation, not to mention, you'd need a cooling system of some kind, which means added bulk and size added to the cannon shape and size, not to mention chassis design. :/

good point

Let me tell you, a conventional cannon is already pretty damn uncomfortable in an Abrams. It would probably send hover tank 100 yards back or just flip it.

@@sigmacademy I think it’s a reasonable assumption that you won’t see energy weapons on tanks in worlds where their cooling systems aren’t sufficiently compact to be efficient on tank scales.

That is a problem without some technology to anchor the tank in place (like ground pressure for a tracked or wheeled vehicle). Lasers, though aren't the only option for getting around this problem. The first is missiles, which can be fired from tubes open on both ends. The second is a sound-based weapon, like a sonic cannon, that vibrates its target to pieces. The third I can think of is some sort of molecular excitation/heat ray weapon like the Imperial melta cannon or Tau fusion cannon. A big-ass flamethrower is the fourth, and would make a very good tank for breaking through trenches, with proper infantry support.

Indeed comrade, did you bring da vodka?

Movie trailer

Mars, the Bringer of War!

Bringer of War is a good choice, but my God, it was a perfect chance to use Ghost Division.

Yet they still had huge casualties. They could have added a couple

considering they didnt actually read the book, no surprise.

Exactly - "A suit isn't a space suit -- although it can serve as one. It is not primarily armor -- although the Knights of the Round Table were not armored as well as we are. It isn't a tank -- but a single M. I. private could take on a squadron of those things and knock them off unassisted if anybody was silly enough to put tanks against M. I. A suit is not a ship but it can fly, a little on the other hand neither spaceships nor atmosphere craft can fight against a man in a suit except by saturation bombing of the area he is in (like burning down a house to get one flea!). Contrariwise we can do many things that no ship -- air, submersible, or space -- can do."

+deathsrike, manticore (like they're self propelled rocket aritllery)

I love those points, especially the third! DEATH TO XENOS!

Yes... very much #3! If we ever end up in a war with aliens... the full horrid nastiness of our inventiveness will be unleashed... how about baking them alive... Neutron Bombs! or something equally abhorrent, biological, and chemical weapons.

Me when i realise aliens didnt sign the Geneva convention:'tactical microwave time'

@@BetaX425 chemical weapons are the ones overlooked probably the second most often after the nukes. Marines in Avatar already wear gas masks to breath, they have tear gas in previous scene, they don't use it again. In Halo only Grunts wear gas masks despite being on the ship in vacuum so Marines can easily defeat Elites and Brutes in boarding action by using gas... or venting out atmosphere. And it just continues. No chemical weapons is used in Edge of Tomorrow or in Tomorrow War(second one was a fail in many regards so it's understandable) or in Quiet Place(also understandable as it works by comicbook "logic").

@@angoankhachai9333 microwave emitters, sound emitters, good old laser to the eyes. Anything that makes enemy uncomfortable and makes jobs of conventional troops easier.

"More of a terror weapon" is the explanation for every GE military design choice.

@@noblebork7444 Well... that's their thing. The Death Star is a HORRID waste of resources. Say what you will about the book, but the Darksaber WAS the smarter design choice. They all have to be symbols and invoke pride in your loyalists, and terror in your enemies.

there is kind of no point in building an interstellar air force since they would be integrated into the navy but if you mean in terms of fighters, bombers, recon, and transport it would be amazing.

@@kx4998 Space: Above and Beyond and Wing Commander would DEFINITELY need to be in that guide? ;P

@@kx4998 You still need planetary defense for when the enemy objective isn't to detroy everything. Or that you have some sort of planetary shield that force them to go inside the fighting "range" of atmospheric fighters.

​@@rpk321 yeah but you will never use a fighter that can only operate inside a planet's atmosphere, that is why there is no point building an interstellar air force. It is better off just letting the navy operate all what we consider aircrafts, like how those planes in aircraft carriers usually belongs to the navy. I am not saying there is no need for aircrafts for planetary def, but there is no need for a fighter build specifically for it or have an independent force for it and an interstellar fighter is good enough. (might not answer your question though that is how I interpret it)

@@kx4998 By your logic, the current modern US military doesn't need any Air Force aircraft. The Navy air power is all US will ever need. Do you see the problem here? If not, then continuing this debate is pointless.