StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Since, at the time, my nuclear tank was deemed lacking in the over-the-topness department, I decided to draw a new and improved version: the Wank-II Nuclear-powered Land Battleship.
Link the the (quite big) drawing

It is powered by several nuclear reactors, providing redundance.
The main gun is a multi-stage cannon that uses thermonuclear devices (one for each stage) to accelerate a high-yield nuclear shell, with a diameter of several meters, and has intercontinental range.
It is equipped with several point-defense turrets (some are even mounted on the main gun) armed with scramjet nuclear missiles, to stop incoming threats.
The medium guns are single-stage nuclear cannons (I don't know if it is the proper name, how is a such a weapon called?), while the smaller weapon mounted over the cockpit (in the lower left) is an high-powered chemical laser.
The Wank-II also houses a sizeable airwing, and most aircraft models are capable of taking off on its vast deck.

The drawing was made in Freehand, and when I will be sure about the design, I will probably start to texture it.

That is definately deserving of the name Wank!

What's it look like from the top? And what are the dimensions?

That huge gun makes it look rather stupid, and totally whacks out the overall scale of it. As it is, it looks like a heavy tank the size of a diesel locomotive.

Reminds me a bit of the rail tank from the middle of stage 2 of Metal Slug. That, or the bosses of stage 4 or so.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:What's it look like from the top? And what are the dimensions?

That huge gun makes it look rather stupid, and totally whacks out the overall scale of it. As it is, it looks like a heavy tank the size of a diesel locomotive.

Is is actually several hundred meters long, and about one hundred meter tall (only a big target, I know). I don't have a top view, but it is also rather wide.
The gun mount is that big because it has to have a almost prodigious capability to absorb shock from the explosion of the nuclear propellent. It could probably use some more small guns, to help giving it the proper scale.

TSsh, You want a real land battleship? Try one of these!
Gi-Normious 56k Death!

Melchior wrote:The gun mount is that big because it has to have a almost prodigious capability to absorb shock from the explosion of the nuclear propellent.

I'd like to know what the hell's supporting the thing.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote: I'd like to know what the hell's supporting the thing.

Threads. Hidden under several meters thick armored skirts. The Land Battleship is not able to negotiate rough terrain, if it needs to, its ample supply of triple digit megaton level weapons can easily get rid of any obstacle.

It's Dora, only stupider and not built by Nazis.

Crossroads Inc. wrote:TSsh, You want a real land battleship? Try one of these!
Gi-Normious 56k Death!

Didn't I use this one before?

And yes, you don't beat the landbb posted above.

Ace Pace wrote:

Crossroads Inc. wrote:TSsh, You want a real land battleship? Try one of these!
Gi-Normious 56k Death!

Didn't I use this one before?

And yes, you don't beat the landbb posted above.

It's possible, I hounestly can't remember where I found that pic.

Melchior wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote: I'd like to know what the hell's supporting the thing.

Threads. Hidden under several meters thick armored skirts. The Land Battleship is not able to negotiate rough terrain, if it needs to, its ample supply of triple digit megaton level weapons can easily get rid of any obstacle.

No, not the vessel itself, but the missile turret. If the whole thing is hundreds of meters long, what's preventing the length of the turret from snapping and come crashing down on top of the vessel.

And I think you meant treads, not threads.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote: No, not the vessel itself, but the missile turret. If the whole thing is hundreds of meters long, what's preventing the length of the turret from snapping and come crashing down on top of the vessel.

And I think you meant treads, not threads.

Ehm, yes, treads.
The turret is supported by its extreme thickness and by some fictional material science (mass production of carbon nanotubes, for example).

Melchior wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote: No, not the vessel itself, but the missile turret. If the whole thing is hundreds of meters long, what's preventing the length of the turret from snapping and come crashing down on top of the vessel.

And I think you meant treads, not threads.

Ehm, yes, treads.
The turret is supported by its extreme thickness and by some fictional material science (mass production of carbon nanotubes, for example).

That cannon is going to get ripped right off its mountings by its own recoil, and I don't care what it's made of. You need to redesign the turret so you don't have just one small joint holding the cannon to the rest of the tank. Turrets don't just move big guns, they provide a stable mounting and help absorb recoil, which yours can't do in its present incarnation.

From your description of it, it sounds almost like a Bolo.

Shearing forces should increase with mass, which will increase with volume, while the cohesive strength of the material should increase with cross-sectional area. In other words, making it thicker will make it break faster.

Feil wrote:Shearing forces should increase with mass, which will increase with volume, while the cohesive strength of the material should increase with cross-sectional area. In other words, making it thicker will make it break faster.

While this is true, it is not exactly designed with sound engineering as a priority. It mainly needs to look as it would be able to exist, it is probably impossible to design a pratical vehicle around the "land battleship with nuclear propelled shells" concept.

Melchior wrote:

Feil wrote:Shearing forces should increase with mass, which will increase with volume, while the cohesive strength of the material should increase with cross-sectional area. In other words, making it thicker will make it break faster.

While this is true, it is not exactly designed with sound engineering as a priority. It mainly needs to look as it would be able to exist, it is probably impossible to design a pratical vehicle around the "land battleship with nuclear propelled shells" concept.

I invite you go go over to the gaming forum and read the "supreme commander video interview" thread. Oh, watch the video too.

Melchior wrote:

Feil wrote:Shearing forces should increase with mass, which will increase with volume, while the cohesive strength of the material should increase with cross-sectional area. In other words, making it thicker will make it break faster.

While this is true, it is not exactly designed with sound engineering as a priority. It mainly needs to look as it would be able to exist, it is probably impossible to design a pratical vehicle around the "land battleship with nuclear propelled shells" concept.

Maybe if you designed it to look more like a battleship rather than a fucking tank, you could...

Actually, now that I think about it, how does that wank-o-gun elevate? It's got clearence for maybe five degrees, which makes it essentially useless as an artillery piece.

RedImperator wrote:Actually, now that I think about it, how does that wank-o-gun elevate? It's got clearence for maybe five degrees, which makes it essentially useless as an artillery piece.

Well, its minimun range is enormous, obviously. Furthermore, I decided to rework it somewhat, its design isn't satisfactory.

And I have already seen the new Supreme Commander video.

Melchior wrote:Well, its minimun range is enormous, obviously. Furthermore, I decided to rework it somewhat, its design isn't satisfactory.

It still runs into the same problem you get with turbolasers, e.g., or the guns on an AT-AT: they're limited by line-of-sight, while artillery isn't.

Melchior wrote:

RedImperator wrote:Actually, now that I think about it, how does that wank-o-gun elevate? It's got clearence for maybe five degrees, which makes it essentially useless as an artillery piece.

Well, its minimun range is enormous, obviously. Furthermore, I decided to rework it somewhat, its design isn't satisfactory.

And I have already seen the new Supreme Commander video.

Do you even know why modern artillery fires rounds on a ballistic trajectory instead of on a direct line to the target? Because no matter how powerful the gun is, gravity will pull the shell down, and a shell fired on a flat trajectory will run out of space to fall very quickly. You're expending multiple nuclear devices to do the same job an 18th century bronze cannon could.

It would make more sense if you just got rid of the damn turret and had nuclear missiles that fired vertically out of the top like on a submarine.

Seriously. I think the fact that that either never crossed your mind or you dismissed it shows that you don't know what the hell you're doing. There's a difference between designing something that's wankish and designing something that's outright stupid.

Indeed, the entire cannon assembly looks fucking terrible in addition to being absolutely horrifically described/justified.

Get the fuck rid of it.