Four treads is better than two treads. That way when you throw one or take damage you still have mobility.
What practical engineering problems are preventing this design?
Another art
>>29803530
Money
Its not air transportable.
>>29803530
Power transmission.
engine power.
money.
weight
>>29803530
Too many moving parts. Which is why it is a more fragile design.
>>29803541
What about it America has plenty of money>>29803541
>>29803617
>13 trillion dollars in debt
>"america has plenty of money"
No we dont.
>>29803617
We have plnety of money.
We're just spending it on better things than some gimmicky halo videogame bullshit.
oh boi. another "whatever i saw in an anime should be made irl" thread.
I mean, did you see how well stated the OP's thesis is? Look at all the research and citations that supports his claim. Clearly this is the future of ground warfare.
>>29803653
Yes like stockpiling thousands of Abrams in the desert that we will never use. Why not take that money and spend it on slightly fewer, better tanks?
We have experimental planes and ships so why not experimental tank to see if it works?
>>29803672
It's just art anon cool your autism I don't see you drawing tank pictures
>>29803678
because tanks are pretty fucking low on the priority list compared to things that actually matter, like aircraft, and the navy, and our nuclear weapons stock.
the abrams is good enough.
>>29803672
Why do you believe that a four wheel drive vehicle is difficult? My truck can send power to four different wheels and the transmission system is not that complicated or high tech
>>29803638
I Have No Idea How Macroeconomics And Debt Works: The Post
>>29803825
Macroeconomics isn't real anon. It's just made up bullshit to justify whatever the rulers were going to do anyway. Just like the "social contract" and earlier the "Divine right" of Kings.
The only real econ is micro econ. Which should just be called "economics."
>>29803885
OK by your logic we should be flying biplanes and communicating with sephamore. Because technology doesn't work and automatic transmission is unfathomable magic.
>>29803617
Not to waste on a tank that has higher maintenance costs, higher fuel costs, requires several engines that both increase capital and recurring costs, is physically enormous, has an increesed ground pressure and doesn't even cut the 4th crew member with an autoloader (I guess the turret could be unmaned and just be unnecessarily large like the rest of the thing, who knows).
>>29803678
>>29803678
We are making a few unneeded Abrams so the last tank plant in the united states would be able to stay open. Making a new design will happen eventually, but wew lad its going to cost some big bux and its WAY cheaper to just make a few extra Abrams so the plant is ready to start converting A1s to A3s once that program finishes up in the next few years than try and do an entirely new tank design for next fiscal year.
>>29803530
UNSCDF pls go
>>29803915
what did i even read
>>29803957
>comparing the massive differences between biplanes and jet aircraft to an extra fucking pair of tracks on a tank
Fuck off.
Why do I get the feeling most people who start these threads are basing their entire argument shit they have seen in video games?
>>29803638
>le debt maymay
weapons development isn't a significant portion of national expidenture compared to the actual big ones
>>29804074
>Halsay dindu nuffin wrong
>ONI are true MIM-104s
I get .15 credits a post, squidface.
>>29804156
>MIM-104
The la li lu le lo?
>>29804095
>f-35 development cost is at 1.5 trillion
>>29803638
19 trillion*
>>29804177
over 30 something years
>>29804177
Over a long ass period of time.
>>29804177
as the others already mention that's over it's entire development period and 1.5 trillion over a decade+ is nothing for the US.
>>29803530
We already made one.
It was so big and heavy that we weren't able to ship it to where the war was going on (to the other side of the ocean) best idea ever from the US army.
>>29804077
Idk anon, a second set of tracks sounds like less of a jump than that. . .
>>29804260
A diesel engine would be more reliable and easy to repair than a jet turbine.
It's easier to fix a smaller tread than a larger one.
You talk like a fag
>>29804325
i am really curious, how engine repairs works out on the field ?
>>29804378
Electric engine at the front powered by the Diesel electric engine at the back.
>>29804238
The best part about it was when one got lost in a farm field for 30 or something years
In the future OP, we will likely have 4 treads powered by 4 independent electric motors. But Tank transmissions are already quite complicated and prone to wear. And your idea is not feasible in the short run.
>>29803530
Four pivoting sets of treads is harder to cover with armor. It is going to require you to make the tank wider, to the point where it is unacceptablely non-road, train, or transport capable. It will also might not be able to use some bridges.
It will have to be much heavier.
All those large moving parts mean an even greater strain on logistics, and maintenance issues.
All this for a relatively small boost in manuverability. It's simply not worth the costs, in resources or money.
>>29804302
But far less of an advantage.
A jet is completely superior to a piston driven biplane.
A 4 tread tank offers few advantages, and has at least as many drawbacks.
>>29803530
Four threads are:
Twice the amount of drive trains needed
Twice the chance they throw off
Less surface area than two big tracks
>>29803612
>Too many moving parts. Which is why it is a more fragile design.
>>29803885
>More parts mean more fuckups.
Not defending OP's anime shit, but you guys seriously fail to grasp the concept of redundancy.
>>29805010
How the fuck do you lose something that big? let alone 1 of 2 of the damn things.
>>29803530
>What practical engineering problems are preventing this design?
An aircraft powerful enough to carry the fucking thing, let alone the engine/transmission for it.
Oh we can build one, but everytime it gets deployed some green-suited asshole jumps on the back and punches a grenade into the emergency super-explosive vent.
>>29803761
>I would draw one that follows a century of tank building experience and basic laws of physics.
It would probably look like shit too.
Tanks exert pressure on the ground (duh). In order to not sink into the ground to the point where the tank would be high-centered, tread is used to spread the load out over as much of the ground under the tank as possible. If a tank with four treads loses a tread, then it is still immobilized because that fourth of the tank just sinks into the ground 99% of the time. The tank might not become high centered, but would be very close to it and would not be operationally feasible, the tread would have to be replaced immediately. Just the same as if a real tank lost tread.
This is not counting the massive increase in transmission and engine requirements, which would in turn make the tank larger, which would require more armor, all of which would make the tank stupidly large, heavy, expensive, and mechanically complex. And then there is the issue that militaries have to be equipped to move their equipment, so anything that carries the tank now has to be repurchased in a much larger variety.
Your idea is unfeasible and wouldn't even work in the first place.
>>29804419
They airlift the tank if unable to tow/ship.
>>29803730
The setup on your 4x4 only requires the addition of a transfer case, front differential, and front driveshafts that all handle a comparatively tiny amount of torque compared to a tank.
The same setup in a tank would require double the amount of transfer cases and driveshafts, plus whatever gearing you need to transfer power from those driveshafts to the front or rear tracks.
The much higher torque output of the tank engine will require vastly heavier drivetrain components to be robust enough for military use. This will also add considerable parasitic loss, putting more wear on the gearboxes and reducing fuel economy.
It's not worth the increased complexity, cost, maintenance, and downsides. A better solution is having a smaller secondary track either inside or alongside the main one that can still provide power and traction to some of the rear road wheels.
>>29803530
getting high centered on thing a tank with 1 long track on each side wouldn't be bothered by
>>29810498
>Tanks exert pressure on the ground (duh). In order to not sink into the ground to the point where the tank would be high-centered, tread is used to spread the load out over as much of the ground under the tank as possible. If a tank with four treads loses a tread, then it is still immobilized because that fourth of the tank just sinks into the ground 99% of the time.
Stupidly disproportionate overblowing of risks. If that were the case 6 wheeled vehicles would sink immediatly into the ground once they lose a single wheel. Well, guess what 99% of the time they don't. That's because the ground vehicles drive on can have vastly different properties. Tracks help with mobility even in the most adverse conditions. But these conditions aren't there all of the time. In fact, many countries employ wheeled MBTs despite their higher ground pressure because in their countries the ground never gets that soft that it would require tracks. So your assessment is completely backwards. It's 99% of the time that a tank with more than two tracks would remain mobile in case it loses one, because most of the time the ground is hard enough to not require tracks anyway. In contrast to that a tank with only two tracks is always immobilized when it loses one.
>>29803957
>>29810568
>Stupidly disproportionate overblowing of risks. If that were the case 6 wheeled vehicles would sink immediatly into the ground once they lose a single wheel.
If they are the weight:surface area ratio of any tank then yes, they would.
Not to mention you are trying to drag wheels over dirt, sand, whatever.
>>29810590
No you idiot, they wouldn't. Wheeled vehicles have higher ground pressure than tracked vehicles to begin with. They sink into types of ground with all wheels intact when tracked vehicles still don't. Yet they don't sink into ground "99% of the time" once they lose a wheel you complete idiot. Because most of the time the ground is hard enough for wheels. Most of the time you don't even need tracks. Tracks are already a kind of redundancy. It means having a system that adds considerable complexity and cost over wheeled designs for the benefit of staying mobile in those few circumstances where wheels woudln't suffice. Having more than two tracks would follow the very same line of thought.
Why not just put tracks on vehicles with big inflated road wheels?>>29810618
>>29810590
>>29810568
>>29810498
>>29810618
You're retarded, tank road wheels don't provide nearly the surface area the treads do. That's why they're called road wheels.
Also LOL at trying to claim anybody said cars are in danger of sinking into the ground.
>>29810618
have you ever driven off-road?
sand, mud, whatever.
because when you do, you air down your tires like all fuck, and if you can, make your wheelbase really really long.
it's all about spreading your weight out as much as you can.
same concept with a quad-track tank.
spreads the weight out, allows it to go over looser materials and not get stuck.
>>29803915
Of course, because the agglomeration of micro phenomena does not actually yield macro phenomena, right?
You should perhaps study the field a bit before making such idiotic statements.
>>29803530
It would turn like a car and would require the driver to see like he's in a car to turn.
>>29810657
>he never heard of ground pressure
This is an Abrams road wheel.
It's basically the same as a the wheels on a forklift.
You can't drive either on most terrain.
You can't even drive them on good terrain but in mild conditions, like a slight frost.
>>29803530
>What practical engineering problems are preventing this design?
In that design, if ONE of the treads goes down it is a mobility kill.
Look at it again OP. None of those treads are redundant.
>>29803530
You know I wonder if "Trike" tanks with three sets of treads would survive better.
So have a large main tread in the main body/rear and then have two right and left "shoulder" tread sets
>>29810669
>You're retarded, tank road wheels don't provide nearly the surface area the treads do.
You call me retarded and then write the same thing I wrote before? You're retarded and can't even read.
>>29810227
at least they weren't 100 bane blades.
>>29810691
This, I drive a forktruck in a plant, once had an idiot turn around outside and two wheels went on grass, he had to towed out, the tires are basically worthless in anything but extremely smooth, clean surface.
>>29810671
You sound like you're trying to argue against me, when you're just making the very same point I did.
>>29810695
>You call me retarded
Yup, cause you're retarded. Keep screaming about stuff that everybody knows while not being able to put it together correctly. No, you don't drive a tank around without its road wheels in combat.
>>29810694
>kill shoulder tread
>tank has a high chance of rolling
>kill central tread
>can't move because of weight since the shoulders are only for steering
>try to go fast over uneven terrain
>flip because lolnobalance
>>29810707
i'm just lost at this point on who's arguing what.
apologies.
>>29810708
You're too stupid for comprehensive reading, it seems.
>>29810713
I said tanks need tread to not sink or get stuck because surface area. Four treaded tanks need four treads to operate.
He started screaming something about how that's wrong, tries to use technical words without actually making a case for why my assessment is wrong, tries to claim if what I said was true then tired vehicles would sink into the ground, and now is trying to claim we're agreeing with him.
I think he's just being huffy.
>>29810724
You're the idiot who claimed a 4-track tank would sink into the ground "99% of the time" if it loses just one track, as if that were some established and scientifically verified value. I showed you via a simple comparison with wheeled vehicles (which have even higher ground pressure than tracked vehicles) that your assumption is retarded.
Hover-tanks.
Discuss.
>>29810724
>Four treaded tanks need four treads to operate.
well yeah.
a standard tank like the M1A1 with 2 treads need both of them to operate too.
but your other points are correct.
>>29804238
couldn't 2 of the treads go down (both inner or both outer) of one set and it could still run?
the T95 was pretty fucking awesome, all things considered.
I'd really like to see what that 105 would've done to a tiger i.
>>29810734
Tank road wheels exert higher pressure than tire wheeled vehicles.
An Abrams has about half of the psi most vehicles are designed to have, but it has many times that with no tread.
>>29810709
>but, but muh optical stealth and all purpose missiles
>>29810764
That's a comparison of tracks all around vs no tracks at all, not a comparison of tracks all around vs 3/4 of tracks, which was the premise for the stupid "99% of the time" claim
>>29810764
>>29810779
To make it more clear: Look at the cases when the Abrams had one of its tracks shot loose. They only had 1/2 tracks. But they didn't all sink into the ground because of it. Some of them yes, when it was extremely muddy. But most of them didn't. They were "just" immobilized because the lost the ability to drive any other way than in circles. A tank with 3/4 tracks would still be able to get out there on its own.
>>29810735
how do you crush car with it ?
>>29810779
You're going to kick 1/4th of a tank's support out from under it, but all of it's support in that area. That area is still bearing all weight.
Come to think of it the tank would also have the added design restriction of forcing the weight to be centered along both axis, not just front to back but left to right. OP's tank would still be immobilized if either rear tread went out.
You guys know you can get tractors with four tracks instead of normal wheels eh?
They work fine, just tears up the ground a bit, hence why you normally see just the rear tracked ones..
You don't need any fancy pivots, just normal suspension, you just have four drive sprockets and four tracks,
If you had a tank, you could convert it for four tracks by putting a diff that runs to a seperate set of final drives/gearboxes
It just makes it heavier, more complicated and eats room for something that just fills a very neach roll
>>29804238
If the tank is too big to go to war
>Bring the war to the tank
>>29803638
you dont understand the quagmire of deficit spending and a military industrial complex, do you
>>29810798
>That area is still bearing all weight.
Yes. And then it has to cope with higher ground pressure, which in most cases it can. Pic related is obviously not an Abrams but illustrates my point. You can lose a track and not sink into the ground "99% of the time" with the bare wheels. But you lose the ability to steer. Not so when you lose 1/4 tracks.
>OP's tank
I don't care for that anime shit and don't talk about it. I'm expressing general thoughts about the concept of vehicles with more than 2 tracks itself. I'm well aware that there are other reasons that make implementing it infeasable, most importantly the transmission. But that doesn't mean it's infeasable for reasons of ground pressure. It's not.
>>29810841
Being able to operate/move/steer after losing a track wouldn't be niche m8
It would significantly improve tanks
>>29810791
>Hover tank on top of car
>Turn off engine
>>29810874
how pissed was the commander for that royal screw up, Ik now throwing the track happens but I dont get how you do that
>>29803915
Anon r u having a stroke?
>>29810243
Tanks are often carried on heavy trucks and flat cars. A tank with four threas will be too cumbersome in addition of being heavy.
>>29810699
CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!
>>29810791
The force used to keep a tank off the ground would have to be intense, therefore
>Float over car
>Crushed by whatever force is pushing down
>>29812992
how did tank design regress so much from now to the UNSC's time?
>>29810735
Useless for carrying armor, a long long way form technological maturity, but one day would make for an extremely good system similar to the AMX-10RC or Stryker AGS.
>>29813637
Because needs have changed in what a tank should do to be useful. You need a tank (read mobile gun system) that can easily deploy from a spaceship to the ground via Pelican. More than likely the Scorpion is designed to be 100% the best possible tank that can fit in a pelican with a squad of guys and a loaded nose cannon, but no rockets or missiles. It was specified to carry such and such a cannon and to drive so fast and then the armor and secondary weapons are whatever fit in the remaining weight.
>>29813637
it was designed by geeks who had no idea about future tank design.
>>29803530
>problems are preventing
Politics.
If you want to advance there are specific routes for that. Tank commanders have little prestige these days so new tank development is basically just paper studies. It was better when tanks did well in the Kuwait war but that is a long time ago.
>>29803565
>Its not air transportable.
The belt aggregates are detachable.
>>29803566
People are seriously talking about 140 mm ammunition. To move a reasonable amount of ammunition with you will take a lot of power and weight. Also you will need a reliable auto loader for these seriously heavy rounds and that requires even more power.
>>29803612
>Too many moving parts.
You missed the part about redundancy. One hit in the belts of a modern tank and it is immobilized. This one will remain mobile and that is crucial for survival and completing the mission.
>>29803694
>things that actually matter, like aircraft
They always hope that bombing will save the day. In he end boots on the ground is always needed.
>>29810498
>In order to not sink into the ground
Let me guess: you have never been in the Cavalry, right?
>>29813835
>26th fucking century
>90mm cannon, not even ETC or anything
>weighs a fucking huge amount
>way bigger then an abrams
>slow
>some versions with shit like manually operated un-protected machine gun
UNSC ground tech is all out of whack, you could just stick a big gun on a pelican and instantly have a super powerful hypersonic space capable hover tank.
>>29813900
I think the in universe canon explanation for the skitzo tech is because Earth elected a Hillary Clinton expy who passed restrictions on military weapons. The only reason the Spartan program was allowed to proceed was because they were designed to put down the red state sovereign citizen tax protestors in the colonies.
>>29814045
I thought the they where basically ruled by the military, the UNSC taking control at some point before the start of the series.
>>29813900
up until the ayy lmaos attack, they've spent a good 100 or so years just fighting allahu ackbars, and they do that by shitting on them from the air, or drowning them in bodies. Somewhere down the line, someone must have thought "let's just make it look cool, it ain't like it has to fight anything similar"
>>29814045
Or you know, they gave most of the R&D money to the navy, since that was the part of the armed forces that fucking mattered and who had all the advanced toys.
>>29814085
The civilian UN government was mostly vestigial by the time of the 2550s, since they had been on a total war footing for 30+ years since the covenant kept glassing world after world.
>>29814263
>70m flak cannons in fucking space
>all the advanced toys.
>navyfags actually believe this
The entire military was a joke before the ayy lmaos attacked.
>>29814297
ya, all those superMACs just developed themselves for free, whatever senpai.
If you had a quad track tank and one of the tracks got blown out surely you still wouldn't be able to really move, you would have lopsided tracks.
>>29803530
Twice the maintenance.
>>29814360
You'd have to throttle down one of the tracks on the other side to match the force from the other side, or speed up the remaining track on the side one got hit on.
>>29814360
Asssuming the thing is properly balanced. It is still possible the tank could move. The tracks would also likely be on some sort of rail system that could move forwards and backwards.
>>29803530
>engineering problems
Weight. The engines required to move a vehicle as big as it would need to be would need to be numerous, and cost ineffective.
It isn't engineering being the biggest issue, it's financial and efficiency problems.
>Financial
It costs way too much to build a 4-tracked tank. It would need double the engines/engine power, which would (roughly) quadruple the price, for engines and tracks alone.
Now...
>EFFICIENCY ISSUES
4x cost, 1.5x effectiveness. Way too inefficient for any sort of practical situation, not to mention it's a way bigger target for just about anything, ESPECIALLY including HEAT rounds, which will beat this tank into a fucking stupor.
Trust me on this, I went looking into the exact same thing two years ago, and was very disappointed.
It looks fucking badass though!
>>29803915
>Political Philosophy is bullshit.
You bet I'm fucking mad.
>>29814437
4-tracked vehicles are not new: https://youtu.be/TYm5USbSt8c
The question is how to do this efficiently.
For instance rather than having 4 fully independent aggregates you could have 2 bogies with 2 aggregates like the old and tested Garret construction: https://youtu.be/ww53e_AZJ3U
Sure, it costs. You do however gain in survivability.
As for target size you need to rather think of *exposed* size. What is below the horizon from the enemy is of little concern. And once you are exposed you now can take more hits in the wheel assembly than before.
>>29814488
As long as you call it poliphil and not polisci we're cool. Because it's not a science. It's all ex post facto justifications and rationalization.
>>29814382
This. It's just a control problem. Not that difficult. It's a drive by wire tank anyways.
Having half the treads on one side still allows you to limp out of there, turn the vehicle, etc.
>>29815036
True.
And if the threads units are articulated hydraulically as shown here >>29803538 you can re-position these units to get the damaged parts out of the way.
