Advanced grav tanks - why do they have turrets?
- Thread starter l_c_jackson
- Start date
If that is the case then the grav tank needs ordnance on its underside too. A top mounted turret is not that handy for ground attack at an altitude above NOE.
As for 'classic' tank battles, I guess I really mean combat between tanks in which both sides are at the 'state of the art', as that is what MBTs are designed to face.
M1s and Challenger 2s were very effective against Iraqi T-55s and T-72s, but they were designed to fight more modern vehicles; ie, if you were going to design an AFV to take out tanks from a lesser TL, which would be the routine kind of Imperial police action, it would not need to be as formidable as the kind of grav tank designed to face Zhodani warbots and grav tanks. It would be overkill to arm all marine and army regiments with top of the range grav tanks, when a well armed Gcarrier would suffice.
The insights from Israel are also ones of adaptation. For instance, the way they have converted many tank chassis to be APCs because that kind of vehicle is more useful to them in the kind of operations they conduct nowadays, as opposed to when they mainly faced regular arab armies.
So, realistically, the Imperium will field a wide variety of 'apex predator' type AFVs, depending on which sector they are based in.
It's reasonable to think some of the high tech grav AFVs would share a lot of characteristics with a Hind or an Apache, as well as ones with traditional tank layouts.
How about an aerodynamic tank form, with upper turret, but with a fixed forward firing RF mass driver and disposable rocket pods for the assault drop, the high speed descent firing decoys and using dome mounted PDL's, to strafe the drop zone before going NOE and using the turret fusion gun for the pop up attacks.
Lighter, purer gunship forms would also be present (first escort down the heavy tanks, taking out any COACC opposition, then used for close air support and deep insertion bombing runs. Then tank destroyer type ambush AFvs (good for worlds that need garrisoning against a nearby enemy). Both these types would be much cheaper than the heavy grav tank, most likely.
I suppose a gcarrier chassis would carry most artillery, then maybe gunship conversions of air/rafts, for close support of infantry. These would be the cheapest grav AFV types, most probably.
I think wheeled and tracked vehicles would still also be useful at even TL15. A fusion gun on a wheeled mount would be a hell of a lot cheaper than the grav equivalent. For garrison worlds that's a huge bonus.
Just some thoughts. I'm not a military expert, but I do think that the future battlefield is not going to behave in exactly the same way as our modern one does, even if it can give us loads of pointers. It's the differences that make it sci-fi anyway.
ThunderChilde
SOC-13
The Sherman was designed to face the Panzer III and IV. It was primarily an infantry support tank not an MBT. Mechanicly and from an ease of construction and maintenence persective it was vastly superior. That goes for pretty much any comparison of equipment. May or may not be better, easier to make, usually much less complex.
Both were examples of superlative engineering, they just had different goals and methods. Pershings were the US heavy MBT type tank, and they would not have faired well. The HiVel 90mm underpreformed the 75L70 of the Panther for starters.
German optical gunsights for tanks were marvelous, but a bit fragile. It is a matter of Engineering Philosophy that the germans even today tend to over engineer everything. Ever work on a Mercedes engine? If you have, you know what I mean. The German's call it Engineering Excellence.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
This has been a great discussion - I've followed with interest and finally chiming in:
Good point - this is why I put the point defense system for my 'Warrior Class' vehicles under the vehicles nose. I thought it would be better placed for defending during insertion and, with inertial compensators, the vehicle can either pitch or roll to unmask the weapon when needed during NOE flight.
Actually the M1 was designed to fight against the T72, or better put, against a LOT of T72s. I believe the upgrades in the M1A1 were a response to the T80. But your point is still valid. IMTU, the Imperial military is not all equipped to TL15 nor is every formation equipped with heavy armor. Capabilities have to be matched against potential threats and everything is on a budget.
I've read that the Merkava never really lived up to expectations as a hybrid cross between an MBT and a troop carrier. That said, I see a role for all three types in the OTU and MTU. The MBT and APC working as part of a combined arms team, and heavily armed and armored hybrid designs for assaults, with lighter armed and armored versions used for operations lower on the intensity scale where appropriate, again more due to budget reasons than anything. No one can buy everything they want, so you have to make your budget work to cover as many contingencies as possible and accept risk where you have to.
I still see a need for a turret to allow flexibility to the vehicle. A fixed mount has its uses and works well when the vehicle has a reduced crew and the pilot is also the gunner. But for crewed vehicles, the pilot can fly while the gunner guns and both must be able to operate at the same time. And this is especially true if you accept (as I do) that most engagements will be at NOE altitude. This puts a premium not just on the ability to pop up to engage with direct-fire weapons, but also leads naturally to an emphasis on the ability to engage through indirect fire OVER terrain that blocks line of sight. To do that while moving requires a turret able to fire in a different direction from the vehicle facing.
These kinds of engagements were what I was thinking of when I designed the 'Warrior' Cav vehicles to operate in tandem with one section armed with fusion guns and another armed with mass drivers. Those vehicles were turreted to allow the pilot and gunner to do their tasks simultaneously.
I agree here too, for the same reason.
Good point - this is why I put the point defense system for my 'Warrior Class' vehicles under the vehicles nose. I thought it would be better placed for defending during insertion and, with inertial compensators, the vehicle can either pitch or roll to unmask the weapon when needed during NOE flight.
Actually the M1 was designed to fight against the T72, or better put, against a LOT of T72s. I believe the upgrades in the M1A1 were a response to the T80. But your point is still valid. IMTU, the Imperial military is not all equipped to TL15 nor is every formation equipped with heavy armor. Capabilities have to be matched against potential threats and everything is on a budget.
I've read that the Merkava never really lived up to expectations as a hybrid cross between an MBT and a troop carrier. That said, I see a role for all three types in the OTU and MTU. The MBT and APC working as part of a combined arms team, and heavily armed and armored hybrid designs for assaults, with lighter armed and armored versions used for operations lower on the intensity scale where appropriate, again more due to budget reasons than anything. No one can buy everything they want, so you have to make your budget work to cover as many contingencies as possible and accept risk where you have to.
I still see a need for a turret to allow flexibility to the vehicle. A fixed mount has its uses and works well when the vehicle has a reduced crew and the pilot is also the gunner. But for crewed vehicles, the pilot can fly while the gunner guns and both must be able to operate at the same time. And this is especially true if you accept (as I do) that most engagements will be at NOE altitude. This puts a premium not just on the ability to pop up to engage with direct-fire weapons, but also leads naturally to an emphasis on the ability to engage through indirect fire OVER terrain that blocks line of sight. To do that while moving requires a turret able to fire in a different direction from the vehicle facing.
These kinds of engagements were what I was thinking of when I designed the 'Warrior' Cav vehicles to operate in tandem with one section armed with fusion guns and another armed with mass drivers. Those vehicles were turreted to allow the pilot and gunner to do their tasks simultaneously.
I agree here too, for the same reason.
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
Like this? Developed from the USMC's LAV personnel transport:
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product971.html
The LAV 105MM (Gen III) (LAV-105) configuration is a Foreign Military Sales item for use in a Combat Support Company Assault Gun Platoon, which conducts direct fire against personnel, fortifications, vehicles and aircraft. The chassis is a modified GM of Canada LAV-25 chassis with a Textron Marine and Land systems 105mm Gun turret. The gun is the NATO-standard 105mm M35 LRF gun which is also used on the equally abortive M8 Ridgeway AGS.
Part of the Marine LAV-25/8x8 Coyote/Bison family of vehicles, the GEN III configurations are newly designed LAVs from ground up. The chassis is longer and wider than the baseline vehicle. Higher capacity Power Pack, Driveline and Suspension have been introduced to provide more load carrying capacity.
The LAV-105 project was initiated in 1988 in response to a USMC requirement for a mobile assault gun. The Marine Corps withdrew funding for this program in 1990, at which time the first prototype had entered initial firing tests.
In 1993, additional funding was provided to enable the completion of three prototypes for the export market.
Of course you know that once meson cannons come into play, tanks no longer need turrets: they can bury those meson cannons right at the centre of gravity of those babies with a 360 degree gimbal mount, knowing that they can aim that weapon just about in any given direction, with zero recoil - and the main gun would be just as protected as the crew.
So if you see the ones without turrets, it's probably too late to run, especially if you see the ground inexplicably start to vaporise all around you ...
So if you see the ones without turrets, it's probably too late to run, especially if you see the ground inexplicably start to vaporise all around you ...
That'd make the tank's smallest dimension the same as the length of the gun plus armor thickness. If the meson gun is any appreciable length ( as I envisage them, anyways ), then they'd be fairly large targets. Large power requirements hint at a high signature as well.
I've always treated meson guns as indirect weapons in that they are aimed with direction by forward observers or remote sensors...not line of sight. Once they fire, there is no lag time, but other than that, they would be similar to artillery.
Because of meson guns' burst radius, using them to hit targets in built-up areas would cause large amounts of collateral damage and possibly, civilian casualties; not good for propaganda warfare. I doubt there would be too many open field battles on populated worlds of any consequence, especially given that cities are often objectives or the speed of unit movements.
They are awful expensive too.
I'll leave meson guns in the hands of the navy.
To be honest, I'm of the position that if a fleet has control of the space around a planet, the other side should best surrender anyways, which leaves most actual combat in the form of low intensity conflicts and counter insurgency operations where using too much force may help swell the ranks of the enemy.
I've always treated meson guns as indirect weapons in that they are aimed with direction by forward observers or remote sensors...not line of sight. Once they fire, there is no lag time, but other than that, they would be similar to artillery.
Because of meson guns' burst radius, using them to hit targets in built-up areas would cause large amounts of collateral damage and possibly, civilian casualties; not good for propaganda warfare. I doubt there would be too many open field battles on populated worlds of any consequence, especially given that cities are often objectives or the speed of unit movements.
They are awful expensive too.
I'll leave meson guns in the hands of the navy.
To be honest, I'm of the position that if a fleet has control of the space around a planet, the other side should best surrender anyways, which leaves most actual combat in the form of low intensity conflicts and counter insurgency operations where using too much force may help swell the ranks of the enemy.
Both Turreted and non-turreted designs would exist
---------------------Hmm . . . I do not know the particular vehicle that you are referring to, but my question is do grav tanks really move that fast? I guess what you are asking requires us to think about the tactics used by grav tanks and their role.
---------------My conception of the grav tank is a cross between a tank and a jet, which makes it more or less like a faster, more heavily armed and armored ATTACK HELICOPTER in my mind.
---------------I always imagined that grav tanks would be faster than our attack helicopters of today. Maybe they can go as fast as a jet at higher altitude, but this would only be for moving to the embattled area, after that they would drop down below the horizon avoiding radar, Ladar and other forms of detection and would stay low and close to terrain in order to be hull down from the enemy. Vertical envelopments would be rare and reserved for overwhelming shock attacks against a weaker foe.
--------Also, I do not know if grav modules have vulnerable vents or anything like that, but if they did this might be yet another reason to keep lower to the ground and therefore fly slower.
-------------------Yes, I agree that there would be a lot of "STGIII-, "marder-" and "Jagdtpantheresque" types out there, because they would be less expensive.
-----------Yet, I also think your would still have turreted grav tanks. Turrets offer a lot of advantages. A turreted weapon lets you target enemies outside of your vector of flight and it may be important to be able to shoot somewhere outside of that path, as you fly over or past the target for example on the way to a destination. We can assume that modern warfare is even more fast and fluid than it is nowadays, so this is certainly an advantage.
---------Also a turbo-powered turret would potentially be able to turn faster than you could turn the whole vehicle, especially when traveling at higher speeds, which would provide you with obvious advantages.
----------I think it is probably still slower and more awkward to turn the whole vehicle as opposed to a turret.
-------------Also, Turrets provide a nearly dome-shaped or half spherical arc of fire and protection -depending on the elevation capability of the gun. This provides increased offensive capability for main guns, but also increased defensive capabilities, because many turreted weapons could be used to house point defense and secondary weaponry like anti-missile or anti-personnel weapons. These would be able to provide 360+° protection. Missiles and rounds come in fast from any direction and high tech infantry is probably also virtually undetectable until if fires on you with an anti-tank weapon! Sensors automatically linked with turreted point defense weapons could better meet this type of threat.
------------Additionally, turreted weaponry allows you to fire over cover such has the military horizon, obstacles or buildings - thereby remaining hull down. Turrets are probably unmanned and controlled from withing the protected crew compartment in the hull of the vehicle. Thus if the turret gets blown off the crew is still safe.
------------------In fact, it is not as much fun, but realistically my guess is that by tech 12 or 13 all of the gravtanks and similar combat vehicles are unmanned and remote controlled from far distant command centers. The US Army is already doing this. ECM and Jamming would become more important. Losses would be reduced and experienced tank crews could be fat X-box players with good reflexes. ; - )
----------No, I don't really see that as being a problem actually. I doubt that you need much shielding for a grav tank weapon and if you do the added weight and cost of the shielding would be less than the weight, cost and added design and mechanical complexity of a turreted weapons mount.
---------------Yes, I agree, but you are still exposing the vehicle to potentially precision and as equally deadly return fire. Enemy battlefield computers and sensors would arguably be able to target a vehicle popping up for an attack just as well as the vehicle performing the pop-up. There are a lot of factors and variables involved here, but I hope you can see the points I am trying to make even if I am not that good at expressing them?
----------------------I suppose they did that to a certain degree, but on the other hand they didn't because even with tracked vehicles there are still vehicles like the STGIII, the Jagtpanther, the marder, the SU152, SU-100, SU-85, ASU-85, the Priest, the grant and the Lee (at least one gun is fixed and internal here), an today's Swiss S-Tank. While many of them were self-propelled guns that were converted to tank killers some of them were specifically designed for the purposes of being tank destroyers. If the designers had just copied the earlier models, then they would have taken these models into account and you would have turret-less gravtanks and gravtank destroyers.
-------------What the designers did, is they either forgot to include turret-less designs (this is my primary suspicion) or they decided that for some reason this turret-less design didn't prove itself. The latter could also be argued, because most of the main battle tanks of today are turreted with the exception of the S-tank, which also is designed to drive in a direction opposite the line of fire of its main gun and therefore may be considered a bit "eccentric".
----------A interesting question here is: If the turret-less design was so cost-effective and efficient, why are there not more turret-less Main battle tanks today? I do not really know the answer to that question.
----------------To conclude: I think that you would find both turreted and non-turreted grav tanks.
Turreted tanks because of:
1.) Better cover (Turreted vehicles can fire over cover and crew and vehicle body remain protected - "hull down"
2.) 360° rapid point defense Vs infantry and incoming rounds and missiles.
3.) Firing arcs that are independent of the vehicle's direction of flight.
4.) Slower battle speeds than we might think (closer to attack helicopters than jet fighters)
Non-Turreted weapons because of:
1.) Cost reduction
2.) ease of design
3.) generally larger weapons (like a tank version of "Spinal mounts")
---------------What do you think?
---------------------Hmm . . . I do not know the particular vehicle that you are referring to, but my question is do grav tanks really move that fast? I guess what you are asking requires us to think about the tactics used by grav tanks and their role.
---------------My conception of the grav tank is a cross between a tank and a jet, which makes it more or less like a faster, more heavily armed and armored ATTACK HELICOPTER in my mind.
---------------I always imagined that grav tanks would be faster than our attack helicopters of today. Maybe they can go as fast as a jet at higher altitude, but this would only be for moving to the embattled area, after that they would drop down below the horizon avoiding radar, Ladar and other forms of detection and would stay low and close to terrain in order to be hull down from the enemy. Vertical envelopments would be rare and reserved for overwhelming shock attacks against a weaker foe.
--------Also, I do not know if grav modules have vulnerable vents or anything like that, but if they did this might be yet another reason to keep lower to the ground and therefore fly slower.
-------------------Yes, I agree that there would be a lot of "STGIII-, "marder-" and "Jagdtpantheresque" types out there, because they would be less expensive.
-----------Yet, I also think your would still have turreted grav tanks. Turrets offer a lot of advantages. A turreted weapon lets you target enemies outside of your vector of flight and it may be important to be able to shoot somewhere outside of that path, as you fly over or past the target for example on the way to a destination. We can assume that modern warfare is even more fast and fluid than it is nowadays, so this is certainly an advantage.
---------Also a turbo-powered turret would potentially be able to turn faster than you could turn the whole vehicle, especially when traveling at higher speeds, which would provide you with obvious advantages.
----------I think it is probably still slower and more awkward to turn the whole vehicle as opposed to a turret.
-------------Also, Turrets provide a nearly dome-shaped or half spherical arc of fire and protection -depending on the elevation capability of the gun. This provides increased offensive capability for main guns, but also increased defensive capabilities, because many turreted weapons could be used to house point defense and secondary weaponry like anti-missile or anti-personnel weapons. These would be able to provide 360+° protection. Missiles and rounds come in fast from any direction and high tech infantry is probably also virtually undetectable until if fires on you with an anti-tank weapon! Sensors automatically linked with turreted point defense weapons could better meet this type of threat.
------------Additionally, turreted weaponry allows you to fire over cover such has the military horizon, obstacles or buildings - thereby remaining hull down. Turrets are probably unmanned and controlled from withing the protected crew compartment in the hull of the vehicle. Thus if the turret gets blown off the crew is still safe.
------------------In fact, it is not as much fun, but realistically my guess is that by tech 12 or 13 all of the gravtanks and similar combat vehicles are unmanned and remote controlled from far distant command centers. The US Army is already doing this. ECM and Jamming would become more important. Losses would be reduced and experienced tank crews could be fat X-box players with good reflexes. ; - )
----------No, I don't really see that as being a problem actually. I doubt that you need much shielding for a grav tank weapon and if you do the added weight and cost of the shielding would be less than the weight, cost and added design and mechanical complexity of a turreted weapons mount.
---------------Yes, I agree, but you are still exposing the vehicle to potentially precision and as equally deadly return fire. Enemy battlefield computers and sensors would arguably be able to target a vehicle popping up for an attack just as well as the vehicle performing the pop-up. There are a lot of factors and variables involved here, but I hope you can see the points I am trying to make even if I am not that good at expressing them?
----------------------I suppose they did that to a certain degree, but on the other hand they didn't because even with tracked vehicles there are still vehicles like the STGIII, the Jagtpanther, the marder, the SU152, SU-100, SU-85, ASU-85, the Priest, the grant and the Lee (at least one gun is fixed and internal here), an today's Swiss S-Tank. While many of them were self-propelled guns that were converted to tank killers some of them were specifically designed for the purposes of being tank destroyers. If the designers had just copied the earlier models, then they would have taken these models into account and you would have turret-less gravtanks and gravtank destroyers.
-------------What the designers did, is they either forgot to include turret-less designs (this is my primary suspicion) or they decided that for some reason this turret-less design didn't prove itself. The latter could also be argued, because most of the main battle tanks of today are turreted with the exception of the S-tank, which also is designed to drive in a direction opposite the line of fire of its main gun and therefore may be considered a bit "eccentric".
----------A interesting question here is: If the turret-less design was so cost-effective and efficient, why are there not more turret-less Main battle tanks today? I do not really know the answer to that question.
----------------Nope, wouldn't want to shoot you down, just trying to provide some food for thought and some thought provoking counter arguements.
----------------To conclude: I think that you would find both turreted and non-turreted grav tanks.
Turreted tanks because of:
1.) Better cover (Turreted vehicles can fire over cover and crew and vehicle body remain protected - "hull down"
2.) 360° rapid point defense Vs infantry and incoming rounds and missiles.
3.) Firing arcs that are independent of the vehicle's direction of flight.
4.) Slower battle speeds than we might think (closer to attack helicopters than jet fighters)
Non-Turreted weapons because of:
1.) Cost reduction
2.) ease of design
3.) generally larger weapons (like a tank version of "Spinal mounts")
---------------What do you think?
-----------------------------YES!!! I Agree whole-heartedly. They fight like tanks!
