Tanks and other things that go "Boom".

[Murph]

Looking at the excellent Etranger site, I see the AC-12, which is touted as the worlds best hovertank. However, I see many problems with it, which I will list below. Since it was designed by FRP people, not real world tank designers.

1) Too high- this thing is way, way to high, illustrations make it look like it would have stability issues, as well as being too easy to spot.
2) Almost vertical sides- Where is the sloped armor?
3) Blind spots where the guns cannot depress enough to secure the vehicle.

M-9 Hovertank

OK, so it is obsolete, but it handles these issues better than the AC-12

LKPZ-IX

What a modern (2300) tank should look like, although the gun is vulnerable to shrapnel, as are the loading containers, and sensors.

The Cavalier and Montgomery look like well thought out designs.

Also recall that in this day, the caliber race is driven by better armor, and the need to smash it. 37-50-75-88-90-100-105-115-120-125.....

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ehr.jpg/300px-Leopard_2_A5_der_Bundeswehr.jpg Next to the M1A2, probably the BEST tank in the world today.

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

I am not going to address IFVs since I did my time as a grunt back in the 1980's in the old, reliable, vulnerable M-113.

 

[Orr]

I always thought tanks in 2300AD had reached the point that warships have already reached; that weapons had finally won out against armor.

No warship today is really armored against missile or torpedo hits. There is armor in place against shrapnel and other small stuff, but missiles and torps are just too big to defend against. The idea is to avoid being detected and getting hit in the first place.

 

[epicenter00]

2300 has a lot of elements of retro 20th century technology appearances at times. My guess is that the artists were harkening back to designs like the Char D2. It's like the American tank has a feeling (to me) of like a M48/M60 tank.

However, if you want to rationalize it away, I think it's actually easier to say that French doctrine and superior technology has made sloped armor not such a concern for designers.

For instance, modern tanks are increasingly going for a blocky, angular look with "slab sides" instead of heavy sloping because tanks are expected to fight other tanks that use long-rod KE penetrators. These dense KE penetrators are shot at such velocities and penetrate so well that sloping armor isn't that useful against them. Instead, modern armor tries to break up the penetrator using things like composite armor and perforated armor instead. Superior French materials technology in 2300 has made it so sloping armor isn't really necessary anymore.

Then you combine that with the fact that France has been the world's only great power for a long time, even longer than America has in the 20th/21st century. So French army designs might be assumed to always be a part of a large, technologically superior force, that is better equipped with the full spectrum of infantry, tanks, and air support that will always be on the attack. Despite their setback in the War of German Unification, the "ever-victorious assaulting army" mentality would have crept into design doctrine over decades and would have set there, and would be hard to shake.

French designers might have decided that maximizing interior space would be a part of maximizing habitability, important since French forces would be on the move a lot, going to a battle or breaking out after destroying the enemy. Sloping armor makes the vehicle larger but tends to reduce usable interior space. Unlike defensively deployed tanks the crew can't just jump out to stretch and walk around a bit. The high profile and the extendable turret might reflect a drive to acquire the enemy ASAP so it can be destroyed either by the tank or by close-support air elements. Since it's not defending and will be out in the open anyway to utilize French rapid-assault ideas, the high silhouette isn't as big of a deal compared to making a tank where the crew can stretch out a bit and even get up and walk around in the tank interior.

Perhaps even in insurgency operations, the AC12's sensors might give the crew a pretty good view around them without emerging from their vehicle (expensive, but France has more money to spend on its military). With superior armor technology and sensors, you want to discourage your crews from popping hatches or stepping outside, where the squishy humans can be killed by an assault rifle or hand grenade, instead of staying in the heavily armored tank which is immune to most insurgent weapons.

 

[Murph]

To some extent I agree, especially on sensors. The whisperdrome of the M-9 seems to be a good way to deploy a sensor package.

 

[Doctor_Rob]

If you look at the picture in the main rulebook (Adventurer's Guide, p57) you will see that the French AC-8 hovertank's profile is much lower (flatter) than that depicted in the Vehicle Gulde (p37). This is how I prefer to imagine it.

If one assumes the AC-12 is a derivative of the AC-8, then one can assume a similarly 'flat' profile.

(Also, one should not really ever be swayed too much by someone else's - i.e. the artist's - depiction of anything in a RPG. If you don't like it, then re-imagine it!).

Rob

 

[Jame]

I have thought of late that 2300 AD could take quite a bit of inspiration from Battletech vehicles (obviously not mechs).

 

[Murph]

I see tanks as looking a lot like the Merkava IV.

 

[Kaye]

1) Too high- this thing is way, way to high, illustrations make it look like it would have stability issues, as well as being too easy to spot.
2) Almost vertical sides- Where is the sloped armor?
3) Blind spots where the guns cannot depress enough to secure the vehicle.[/QUOTE=Murph;401145]

As someone who had to shoot at tanks with missiles (for a short while, though) I think you're overstating the problems with the design.

Every tank has blindspots. Modern tanks like the Chally 2; Abrams; Leopard 2A6 and Lecerc all have magnificent optics. The can see a mouse take a crap at 4 kilometres. However when you're 20 yards away the crew have to stick their head out of the hatches to see you. This is a serious danger to the tank and to people near it. I've nearly been overrun when doing a CTR of a armoured unit CP!

Almost vertical sides are not a problem. They're an advantage. You need seriously sloped armour when you're using rolled homogenous steel; modern composite armour often works better when applied perpendicular to the incoming weapons. When you look at the tower of a Challenger 2 or a Leopard 2; the chissel like look of the tank is caused by a relatively thin layer of applique. The real armour is a boxy structure inside that aplique. Look at a Leopard 2 A4 to see what it looks like inside.

The hight is only an issue when the weight is also distributed unevenly. Perhaps with all the hover equipment in the bottom half and only optics and crew in the top it won't topple that easily.
It does make for an awfully high silhouette though. That is a big tactical problem which has to be solved.

 

[BMonnery]

Almost vertical sides are not a problem. They're an advantage. You need seriously sloped armour when you're using rolled homogenous steel; modern composite armour often works better when applied perpendicular to the incoming weapons. When you look at the tower of a Challenger 2 or a Leopard 2; the chissel like look of the tank is caused by a relatively thin layer of applique. The real armour is a boxy structure inside that aplique. Look at a Leopard 2 A4 to see what it looks like inside.

Indeed, for any given weight of armour slab sides give more protection, especially against long projectiles which have a "bend in" effect.

In 2300AD terms an M1A2 stats are:

M1A2 Tank

Type: Tracked Battle Tank
Nation: America (pre-twilight war)
Crew: 4
Weight: 69.54 tons
Displacement Weight (like 2300 vehicles): 6.5 dTons
Armour: Front: 60 (90 on turret front), Rear: 24, Sides: 36, Top: 6, Bottom: 18
Armament: 120mm M256 crew served tube cannon; Aimed Fire Range: 1900m, Range Finder: +1, ROF: 1; Rounds Carried: 40, DPV: 37 (with APFSDSDU, doubled at close range) or EP = 15 tamped explosion (HEAT)
12.7mm machinegun; Aimed Fire Range: 1000m, Area Fire Range: 500m, Rounds carried: 900, DPV: 2.
2x 7.62mm Machineguns; Aimed Fire Range: 400m, Rounds carried: 12,000; DPV: 1
Signature: 7
Evasion: 0
Sensor Range: 3km
Cargo: none
Max Speed: 67kph
Cruise Speed: 48kph
Combat Move: 100 meters per round
Off-Road Mobilty: full
Power Plant: 1.125MW Gas turbine
Fuel Capacity: 1,460kg
Fuel Comsumption: 311kg per hour
Endurance: 4.7 hours
Cruise Range: 265 miles = 427km (Slight error shows on
my fuel consumption here)
Price: 4.3 million 1998 USD, approximately 1 million livre each for the IPM1, M1A2, due to the extra armour and electronics (the M1A2 has 9.5 tons of mostly extra armour worked in). Estimate the cost of a M1A2 is 1.3 Million Livre.

 

[mbrinkhues]

1) Too high- this thing is way, way to high, illustrations make it look like it would have stability issues, as well as being too easy to spot.
2) Almost vertical sides- Where is the sloped armor?
3) Blind spots where the guns cannot depress enough to secure the vehicle.[/QUOTE=Murph;401145]

As someone who had to shoot at tanks with missiles (for a short while, though) I think you're overstating the problems with the design.

Every tank has blindspots. Modern tanks like the Chally 2; Abrams; Leopard 2A6 and Lecerc all have magnificent optics. The can see a mouse take a crap at 4 kilometres. However when you're 20 yards away the crew have to stick their head out of the hatches to see you. This is a serious danger to the tank and to people near it. I've nearly been overrun when doing a CTR of a armoured unit CP!

Almost vertical sides are not a problem. They're an advantage. You need seriously sloped armour when you're using rolled homogenous steel; modern composite armour often works better when applied perpendicular to the incoming weapons. When you look at the tower of a Challenger 2 or a Leopard 2; the chissel like look of the tank is caused by a relatively thin layer of applique. The real armour is a boxy structure inside that aplique. Look at a Leopard 2 A4 to see what it looks like inside.

The hight is only an issue when the weight is also distributed unevenly. Perhaps with all the hover equipment in the bottom half and only optics and crew in the top it won't topple that easily.
It does make for an awfully high silhouette though. That is a big tactical problem which has to be solved.

In case of the german Boringpard 2A5 (with the 120L44) and 2A6 (with 120L55) it is even more so since these are actually 2A4 with add-on armor and not newly produced tanks so there is the old 2A4 turret under the add-on stuff. (And quite a few 2A4 started their life as older versions...)

As for "not seeing close to the tank" there is work underway with hull mounted cameras. The Puma IFV (if it will finally get into service) has a number of cameras on the hull as had at least one of the PSO/2A7+ prototypes shown.