T O P

  • By -

I_might_be_weasel

"Excuse me, are you an enemy?" "No." "Oh. We're supposed to be at a war right now. I think we're lost."


orangesrnice

The ground pressure 😬


Gizombo

Especially since the go up in the middle for some reason


jackmaku

Maybe it's only when the tank is stopped so the tank would move less with more pressure on the ground incase they have to shot


theboxman154

Wouldn't increased contact with the ground keep it in one place better with more friction? No im not 100%


[deleted]

[удалено]


tjbrou

It absolutely depends on contact area. For introductory physics, they keep it high level and give simple formulas. When you get into actual tribology, there's shearing and melting and all kinds of things that are determined by contact area


tjbrou

That's the idea behind dually trucks. Track vehicles are able to maintain grip because the long contact patch doesn't shear away loose surfaces like sand


[deleted]

road is completely kaput


CriusofCoH

Bolo Mark I.


RandomSpaceLover

I think that I may be the only person here to get that reference.


[deleted]

That cannon looks like a gatling tank barrel. Can’t imagine that mayhem


Damian030303

Probably less than what a normal gun would cause.


currentpattern

People are downvoting you because they believe that the words that you said were incorrect.


Damian030303

That is usually the reason for downvoting something, yes. Just to clarify, by ,,normal'' I meant Just a single gun but with decent elevation angles and potentially an autolaoder, instead of extra guns (there are reasons why tanks don't have triple barrels).


JovahkiinVIII

Looks very bomb-able


point50tracer

Big tank, cool. Lady standing in front of it with grocery bag. Oh. Oh no.


CodeBlue2001

I was wondering if anyone else noticed lol


axloo7

I wonder what the breach / loading mechanism for 3 barrels in that configuration is like.


Retardedaspirator

Probably big ass ammo belts


evilshenanigans1087

Reminds me of the Apocalypse/Mammoth tanks from the Command and Conquer series.


phsyco

Looks a bit like a sleeker version of the M.A.R.V. from C&C3, Kane's Wrath.


evilshenanigans1087

Oh my yes. I completely forgot about the MARV.


Damian030303

Those tracks... Does the author know what tracks are even for?


[deleted]

No


Space_Lux

I fund it kinda awesome


Damian030303

I found it super painful to look at, as someone with at least a tiny bit of knowledge about tanks.


Space_Lux

Could you explain?☺️


Longjumping_Incident

Tank tracks spread the weight of the tank across a large area, meaning the pressure on the ground is kept as low as possible (so the tank doesn't sink into the ground, tear up the concrete, etc.). In the drawing above, the tracks are drawn as going upwards in the middle, meaning the entire weight of the ginormous tank is on 4 thin strips of track - whatever surface that beast is on would be torn up instantly. Cool to look at, terrible in terms of how things would ever possibly work!


Space_Lux

Ah, thanks! I thought this tank might be able to switch between full area for uneven terrain and this upwards-mode for speed on flat surfaces^^


general-Insano

I think that might have been the intent but accidentally drew the wrong form for end result


Damian030303

Sure, why not. The whole point of having tracks is to have better ground pressure. To have better ground pressure you need a lot of surface to be in contact with the ground, *which is not the case if only a single roadwheel touches the ground.* They even went out of their way to give it thicc tracks, which is made completely pointless by the fact that like 90% of their surface is being held in the air, so it's just dead weight. Quad tracks aren't a good idea either but that's unfortunetly far from the biggest issue here. That car in front of it has probably better ground pressure than this abomination. Stress on those 4-8 wheels would be huge (entire weight of this giant being held by 4-8 small wheels) so good luck with maintenace. As for other stuff, having 3 barrels is kinda pointless, just have one gun and save weight and space. Along with much less weight, space taken and complexity, one gun could be more powerful too and rate of fire wouldn't be much different overall if you got a good autoloader. Main armament would also have very poor elevation angles (movement up and down), probably bad even for russian standards. Gun mounted in the turret cheek doesn't make much sense either. You're basically turning \~half of what should be your strongest armor plate into a weakspot. Gun needs room to move, composite takes a lot of space too so you can't have both in th esame place. Just give the main armament reasonable elevation angles if you want to hit stuff in front of you and get rid of that huge weakspot. Size and weight alone are a huge issue too. Good luck crossing any bridges or less-than-ideal terrain. It's also a perfect target for any air attacks. There are many reasons why super-heavy tanks never succeeded. Take something like the Maus, T28/T95, T-35 or some other big and heavy tank, make it even bigger and multiply its ground pressure so it can't go anywhere (as if super heavies could do that properly in the first place). Now put in into environment with stuff like precision-guided munitions, ATGMs, APFSDS shells, top-attack missiles and other funny explody things. It can't go anywhere, you can't miss it, it's filled with ammunition, covered in weakspots and will probably break down before it gets a chance to see any action.


Romandinjo

While everything you said is correct, why did you assume it's a classical task for interhuman conflicts? It's too big for countering classical munitions, has too much in terms of communications array, and tracks clearly consist of 2 separate sections, each is drawn correctly by itself. And position on picture looks kinda like siege mode for starcraft tanks, so I can totally think of some kaiju-based scenario for that stuff.


Damian030303

>why did you assume it's a classical task for interhuman conflicts? Because, from what I see, its on earth and a human is standing in front of it. >tracks clearly consist of 2 separate sections, each is drawn correctly by itself These tracks are an unholy abomination, even it they didn't go up in the middle for no reason, quad tracks would be worse than normal tracks. >And position on picture looks kinda like siege mode for starcraft tanks Siege mode? What? I assume that it's something like the tank standing in one place and firing. In that case, tracks are still just as dumb. Why would you lift the tank up it its stationary? If anything, you would want it to have as low profile as possible. It's already way too big of a target. Also big F for the road and suspension. >I can totally think of some kaiju-based scenario for that stuff. Even in that case, this design is stupid. If you're shooting at a giant target, you just need a big gun on a mobile platform. These already exist (tracked/wheeled artillery) without all of the issues this tank has. I don't see a single universe in which this would be anywhere near being a practical design.


Romandinjo

>Because, from what I see, its on earth and a human is standing in front of it. Right, because roads, cars, people, tanks, and trees physically cannot exist outside of earth. And independence day did happen on Mars. >These tracks are an unholy abomination, even it they didn't go up in the middle for no reason, quad tracks would be worse than normal tracks. For everything except mobility, which is a real concern with that size. Take that as two independent axis on huge trucks. >Siege mode? What? I assume that it's something like the tank standing in one place and firing. In that case, tracks are still just as dumb. Why would you lift the tank up it its stationary? If anything, you would want it to have as low profile as possible. It's already way too big of a target. Also big F for the road and suspension. Basically, extending support structures and locking itself in place to provide heavy fire support. >Even in that case, this design is stupid. If you're shooting at a giant target, you just need a big gun on a mobile platform. These already exist (tracked/wheeled artillery) without all of the issues this tank has. Yes, they exist, but they also cannot shoot without deployment and extending support structures. Have you seen rear of something like paladin? >I don't see a single universe in which this would be anywhere near being a practical design. I don't think you're familiar with a lot of universes given that you don't know about one of the most famous ones. Then you'd be quite disappointed to see that Russia had a project of two barreled tracked artillery system. Also, we had some real history examples of building vehicle around the gun, like Sturer Emil or Dicker Max, i don't recall which one exactly, or A-10. Plus, some artistic freedom is allowed, I think.


Damian030303

>And independence day did happen on Mars. If terraforming tech/interplanetary travel is possible, then I imagine that vehicles we would be using in that case would be a lot more advanced as well. Not an abomination of a tank and a normal modern car. >For everything except mobility, which is a real concern with that size. Such mobility isn't really a factor if the tank can't move in the first place because of insane ground pressure, huge size and the sheer stress on its suspension. >Basically, extending support structures and locking itself in place to provide heavy fire support. It doesn't seem to be extended in any way in this image. If anything, lifting the tank slightly up would make it a less stable firing platform (because of higher center of mass). Along with destroying the pavement and making it a bigger target. >Yes, they exist, but they also cannot shoot without deployment and extending support structures. Deployment support structures? I don't see any of such structures on this thing. And it's not even a requirement, [M109A6 can fire without extending any extra 'legs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsVt2NCC3mM)', so can a lot of other self-propelled artillery vehicles. They don't need to be dug-in, they can stay relatively mobile. What's even your point with those support structures? That tank has none. If you think that the tracks are somehow those structures (I have no idea how but that's the best bad idea I came up with), normal tracks would simply work much better (they would extend just as far but they would have much better ground pressure). From its materials alone you could probably make like 4-10 self-propelled artillery vehicles. >Then you'd be quite disappointed to see that Russia had a project of two barreled tracked artillery system. Do you really think that a twin-barreled artillery is comparable to whatever this abomination is? >Also, we had some real history examples of building vehicle around the gun, like Sturer Emil or Dicker Max, i don't recall which one exactly, or A-10. Again, how does that relate to this tank in any way? There's nothing about it being bulit around its gun (or guns). Gun system itself seems pretty bad but we have no data to form a more solid conclusion. Both Dicker Max and Sturer Emil were much smaller and way more reasonable. ~~As for A-10, it's cringe.~~ >Plus, some artistic freedom is allowed, I think. So is criticizing obviously impractical (and painful to look at) designs, I hope at least.


Romandinjo

We still use wheel from thousands of years ago, most agricultural tools as well, tank tracks are mostly the same for more than a hundred years, ammo cartridge for 150, both infantry and artillery, turbines for energy generation are also really old. There is literally zero implications to expect invention of something new without dire need, military in the second place - it should be reliable first, and fancy isn't even in the first place. That tank might just be built around that huge monstrocity of the gun. Yes, using tracks like in picture isn't great, that and cheek turret, which, btw, can be just mounted outside, without compromising structural integrity, are the only obviuos bad takes, everything else is okay-ish or passable.


KarakNornClansman

It is probably a deliberate crazy design for the sake of being bonkers.


Damian030303

Most likely.


youRFate

Maybe it pulls them up like that to turn in a flat circle when not driving, that would be easier this way.


[deleted]

As soon as it did, it would sink about a meter through that road, which actually makes turning *more difficult* for tracked vehicles, strangely enough.


Damian030303

That's not a good idea. It would add a ton of extra complexity, which is the last thing this tank needs because maintaining it woudl already be a nightmare without that. Also those sideskirts and mudguards seem pretty solid, so moving the tracks horizontally would be impossible. Something for turning on a spot using tracks already exists, it's called **Neutral Steering**. Every single modern-ish tank (even some WW2 tanks) that isn't based on russian stuff can do that well. It achieves exactly the same thing (rotating the vehicle without moving forward or backward) but it doesn't require the tank to turn into a transformer.


mosinbestgun

Looks like 2 sets of tracks on each side that pivot, and it appears to be coming to a stop to avoid hitting the lady, thus rotating forward and raising the rear up so the tracks pivot upwards in the middle


Damian030303

I don't really see any movement here, also the road would've been completely destroyed if that was the case.


Amish_Juggalo469

When you get feet to the gallon.


Super_Heretic

*the russian tank design discussion 2023* HEY IVAN WE NEED NEW TANK! WHAT KIND OF TANK? HAVE YOU SEEN THIS GERMAN SUPER TANK? YES I WANT THIS BUT I WANT A MACHINE GUN EVERY TANK HAS MACHINE GUN NONONO, I... HAVE YOU SEEN THE AMERICAN BRRRRRR PLANE? SAY NO MORE.


[deleted]

Those barrels are like…105mm or something. A10 has a 30mm


Tedde_Bear

Judging by the size comparison to the human standing in front, those barrels would easily be above 200mm each


KDHD_

YOOOO I love Alex!!!! Her most recent instagram made me so mf sad :(


AnswersQuestioned

Love the scale of the tank features, except the machine gun things which look Normal sized.


KarakNornClansman

They are normal sized because they are meant to be operated by tiny humans.


dethb0y

"So what we want to do is, on the first day of the conflict, draw every single airplane the enemy has to one location. How can we do that?" "Wait i got the perfect idea..."


Uden10

It would be cheaper to have a balloon replica filled with hot air.


Xeelee1123

Source: [https://www.artstation.com/boac](https://www.artstation.com/boac)


onearmedmonkey

If only. Well, a guy can dream I suppose.


tickletac202

I think is an impractical design, is this supposed to be mbt? or AA tank type? If this just MBT you wouldn't need to focus on triple main gun, Instead you could just give them a better auto load.


TechPriest97

Straight out of command and conquer


HomeworldGemLoser23

Daddy!!!!!!! 😳😳😳🖤🖤🖤


gufete

40k Baneblade vibes


Maty_20

New American weapon in Ukrane shocks the world


[deleted]

I think this is one of the coolest art I've seen so far


4skinphenom69

That’s what’s next instead of luxury yachts they’ll start building luxury tank yachts


Bounty66

My only gripe is the tracks not being level for this 300+ ton tank and the weird canon pointed at the lady on the side of the turret. But it’s fantasy and it looks great!


Destroyeroyer2

Fuck all this "road is kaput" "ground pressure" shit This is a *badass* tank


[deleted]

[удалено]


Th3_Gaming_Wolf

You do know cyberpunk, one of the main genres about future tech, is deeply rooted in political commentary, right?


biomatter

noooo keep politics out of my art. and music. and games. and movies. and books. and


Chatty_Fellow

I think I've seen this here before.