Battle of the Questionable Tanks (40K vs SW)

[Lord Revan]

I'd suspect thanks to the weapon being low on the ground and direct fire the TIE tank would have really low range since if you're not on surface that's 100% flat the guns are bound to hit hills or mounds on the terrain thus reducing the ranged and also the horizon would be a lot closer at essentially at the ground then 1-2m up in the air like with the Leman Russ. More importantly a space port would have things like fuel "barrels" or gargo crates that could block the TIE century from shooting while the Leman Russ could fire over them.

It's even worse, since the blaster that's on the turret is *under* the cockpit bubble - so it's even lower down. I just like to think that the only reason this abomination exists is because someone high up got a serious kickback...

Yeah I knew about the turret being under the cockpit, it's almost like the designers of this thing look a list of "what NOT to do when designing a tank" and took it as a dare.

The Leman Russ may be by modern standards outdated design but at least tanks like that used to exist and were commonly used (the so called "infantry tank"). The TIE Tank on the other hand looks like something designed on a drunken bet.

[Gunhead]

That said, I suspect that the motors to drive the tracks of a TIE tank are built into the outriggers and that there is NOT a mechanical driveshaft 'axle' connecting them to the central ball. In which case a TIE tank, specifically, should be able to do a pivot steer.

In any event, though, this does not permit the tank to peek around corners, and the idea of a tank drifting is frankly silly- you could throw tracks quite easily that way.

I will note that Bats was proposing that the TIE-tank driver try to pivot steer while moving at speed. While normal tank driving on a paved surface shouldn't cause anyone to throw a track, improbable maneuvers like that really should, I would think.

Probably not in fact.. or yes but no but yes. All it would do if the system would allow you to pivot at speed, I doubt it wouldn't, would cause the vehicle to spin around wildly and possibly damage the transmission. A tank will slide along a paved road and this alone will not damage the tracks or cause them to pop out. You have to either hit something or in some other way force the road wheels to rise enough to allow the track to slide away from under it, or cause big enough of an impact to wreck the road wheel / suspension assembly which allows the track to break free. Now if what Bats is suggesting is that a tank is going 90km/h and the driver suddenly slams one side into reverse, it would probably wreck the transmission / drive sprocket and yes could possibly cause a thrown track.. but like I said, I'd think the system would prevent the driver from doing something so stupid as it would also send the thing spinning around like mad with bits of metal flying all over the place.

Pivoting is done at slow speeds, nowadays with one track with brake engaged and the tank turning around it, some construction machines retain the capability to engage reverse on one side allowing them to essentially turn in place.

At high speeds, the steering will tell the track to slow down to allow turning but within the limits of the currently selected gear or speed if the drive is direct electric, I have little experience in those so I don't really know. I.e If I'm doing say 50km/h I have the 6th gear selected, I do the tightest turn I can, the steering will tell one of the gearboxes to drop to 5th gear. If I want to turn tighter, I have to slow down and drop a gear so it goes 4th/5th 3rd/4th etc.

-Gunhead

[Purple]

Another thing to consider is that there is a reason why modern tanks, heavy, light or otherwise are limited to about 70 km/h by design. And it's not just engine power or weight or anything like that. But more importantly once you get to speeds much higher than that track wear and bad things relating to the tracks in general skyrocket. That is why you won't even any tank, even something as light as the FV101 driving around at 90 km/h.

[SilverDragonRed]

Both of the designs here are utter shit, but so shit they can throw a track on a hard flat surface?? Yea I don't think so.

-Gunhead

Honest question: How is the design of the Leman Russ utter shit? I could make a few guesses why someone would say that about the Scorpion from Halo, but I've never heard anything like that about the LR. Also, how good or bad of a design is the SM Predator?

[Purple]

Both of the designs here are utter shit, but so shit they can throw a track on a hard flat surface?? Yea I don't think so.

-Gunhead

Honest question: How is the design of the Leman Russ utter shit? I could make a few guesses why someone would say that about the Scorpion from Halo, but I've never heard anything like that about the LR. Also, how good or bad of a design is the SM Predator?

Most people who don't like it do so because it reminds them uncomfortably of the Char B1. Personally I think it is a very good tank for the context it is meant to fight in.

[Me2005]

That said, I suspect that the motors to drive the tracks of a TIE tank are built into the outriggers and that there is NOT a mechanical driveshaft 'axle' connecting them to the central ball. In which case a TIE tank, specifically, should be able to do a pivot steer....
I will note that Bats was proposing that the TIE-tank driver try to pivot steer while moving at speed.

Now if what Bats is suggesting is that a tank is going 90km/h and the driver suddenly slams one side into reverse, it would probably wreck the transmission / drive sprocket and yes could possibly cause a thrown track.. but like I said, I'd think the system would prevent the driver from doing something so stupid as it would also send the thing spinning around like mad with bits of metal flying all over the place.

That's what Simon is interpreting Bats as saying. And I'd argue we don't know enough about Imperial tank design to know whether it's set up to prevent it's own destruction or not; but that's a moot point: If it can't do it because of physics or it can't do it because of programming, it can't do it. One just also means it's also mission-killed the first time it tries the maneuver.

... turning but within the limits of the currently selected gear or speed if the drive is direct electric, I have little experience in those so I don't really know. I.e If I'm doing say 50km/h I have the 6th gear selected, I do the tightest turn I can, the steering will tell one of the gearboxes to drop to 5th gear. If I want to turn tighter, I have to slow down and drop a gear so it goes 4th/5th 3rd/4th etc.

This is Star Wars, and that is a TIE cockpit pod. There is no engine, or if there is, it's independent to each track; and certainly no transmission. Myself, I suspect the TIE generator (whatever that looks like, from the known short-range of regular TIE fighters it might just be battery powered) just provides electrical power to each side and all the drive components are inside the track. Which seems like a design prone to getting wrecked - I'm not aware of a single tank (or really any tracked vehicle) design that puts the drive train inside the track. They're all driven by sprockets and those are connected to axles that are turned somewhere in the center. The Century tank can't work that way, there just isn't room.

[Simon_Jester]

Another thing to consider is that there is a reason why modern tanks, heavy, light or otherwise are limited to about 70 km/h by design. And it's not just engine power or weight or anything like that. But more importantly once you get to speeds much higher than that track wear and bad things relating to the tracks in general skyrocket. That is why you won't even any tank, even something as light as the FV101 driving around at 90 km/h.

Star Wars has stronger materials, which may well be hard-wearing enough that this isn't a problem for them.

[Purple]

Another thing to consider is that there is a reason why modern tanks, heavy, light or otherwise are limited to about 70 km/h by design. And it's not just engine power or weight or anything like that. But more importantly once you get to speeds much higher than that track wear and bad things relating to the tracks in general skyrocket. That is why you won't even any tank, even something as light as the FV101 driving around at 90 km/h.

Star Wars has stronger materials, which may well be hard-wearing enough that this isn't a problem for them.

Even if we assume that to be true there is still the issue of what I called bad things relating to the tracks in general. Basically the faster the tank is moving the more force effects the road wheels every time it drives over anything or just turn. Thus the higher the speed the more likely it is to throw a track. And 70ish km/h is basically the limit of practicality.

[Adam Reynolds]

The Bradley can certainly powerslide:

[Purple]

Just because something can be done by bored soldiers does not mean its a smart, safe or practical thing to do.

Although this whole tangent is really irrelevant because a one crew member vehicle is not going to be driving real fast during combat anyway. There is just no way that the pilot is going to do that and still maintain situational awareness and fight.

[Batman]

Another thing to consider is that there is a reason why modern tanks, heavy, light or otherwise are limited to about 70 km/h by design. And it's not just engine power or weight or anything like that. But more importantly once you get to speeds much higher than that track wear and bad things relating to the tracks in general skyrocket. That is why you won't even any tank, even something as light as the FV101 driving around at 90 km/h.

Star Wars has stronger materials, which may well be hard-wearing enough that this isn't a problem for them.

Even if we assume that to be true there is still the issue of what I called bad things relating to the tracks in general. Basically the faster the tank is moving the more force effects the road wheels every time it drives over anything or just turn. Thus the higher the speed the more likely it is to throw a track. And 70ish km/h is basically the limit of practicality.

Who says the Centurion has road wheels? The track sections are completely closed. We have no idea how the tracks are actually driven.

[Purple]

Star Wars has stronger materials, which may well be hard-wearing enough that this isn't a problem for them.

Even if we assume that to be true there is still the issue of what I called bad things relating to the tracks in general. Basically the faster the tank is moving the more force effects the road wheels every time it drives over anything or just turn. Thus the higher the speed the more likely it is to throw a track. And 70ish km/h is basically the limit of practicality.

Who says the Centurion has road wheels? The track sections are completely closed. We have no idea how the tracks are actually driven.

How about physics?

Like, do I even need to write this post?

[Batman]

Yes. How about force fields/repulsors/tractor beams? How does physics require them to use wheels?

[Khaat]

One might be able to infer road wheels in the absence of any other described solutions, but certainly not confirm.
The schematic also lists "tread wheels", but I can't seem to (quickly) find a full-sized image you can actually read.

[Purple]

Yes. How about force fields/repulsors/tractor beams? How does physics require them to use wheels?

Does not matter. You seem fixated on the whole issue of the wheel as a physical object as opposed to what it actually is. That being a weight transfer mechanism. You might just as well use an air cushion, skid, magical force field or what have you.

The problem is plain and simply that tracks behave like an continuous band. And the faster you spin tracks around the more the forces involved want to push said tracks into a perfect circle. And once these forces are strong enough the tracks skid sideways off what ever is supporting them.

[Gunhead]

Yes. How about force fields/repulsors/tractor beams? How does physics require them to use wheels?

I simply assumed the simplest solution to a problem and that they just housed an electric motor(s) in each housing that move the track, might have the power supply there too. It's Star Wars tech so... I don't see they couldn't do it. The main thing is that regardless of how the tracks are powered, be it electric motors, force fields or force powered hamsters in a hamster wheel it doesn't really change the basic way how tracked vehicles traverse and move. Naturally if we assume some magic tech for moving the tracks, it becomes basically impossible to gauge how susceptible they are to damage / malfunctions without a lot more info on them.

-Gunhead

[Purple]

Naturally if we assume some magic tech for moving the tracks, it becomes basically impossible to gauge how susceptible they are to damage / malfunctions without a lot more info on them.

-Gunhead

On the other hand we can safely say that looking at in universe technology if you have the kind of repulsor equipment needed to do something like that you don't need the tracks in the first place. So the presence of tracks strongly implies a lack of it.

[Batman]

We can do no such thing. We know they have the repulsor technology for something like that because the Wars universe is lousy with repulsorlift vehicles, they just sometimes build ground vehicles for some reason (the preferential explanation usually being that repulsorlifts don't always work). Well all the repulsorlift vehicles we see are free floating ones. The track-driving repulsors on the Centurion would be fully enclosed, with the vehicle having ground contact at all times .
We quite simply do not have enough information to rule this out (unless Khaat is right about the schematics of course) and that STILL leaves forcefields and tractor beams.

[Simon_Jester]

The big problem with using repulsors (or other action-at-a-distance technology) to move the tracks is that while the vehicle has ground contact at all times, the vehicle doesn't have track content. There's no reason to assume that tracks held in place with force fields would be less vulnerable to slippage than tracks held in place with sprockets and metal flanges running through metal wheels. If anything they might be more vulnerable; repulsors can keep an object hovering but they don't exert any resistance to lateral forces. If they did, you couldn't use them efficiently for hovering vehicles, because the repulsor's force would act to oppose the engines.

There is no point in using tracks if not to permit mechanical contact between the vehicle and the track to be distributed over a large ground surface. If mechanical contact is not needed, there's no reason to have tracks at all; one might as well cut out the middleman and use the repulsors, tractors, pressors, zones of force, or whatever you care to call it to push against the ground directly.

[Batman]

And a lot of the time they do exactly that. However, there still seems to be a reason to use tracked/wheeled vehicles/walkers. Hence why I pointed out that this would be a fully enclosed repulsor (or whatever) system. If the reason for ground vehicles is repulsor jammers/shield interfence/name your technobabble, having them in a shielded shell might allow them to keep working.

Also notice I mentioned repulsors as one possibility. Tractor beams apparently do offer resistance t lateral forces and could be used to hold the track in place.

[Elheru Aran]

Part of the issue with a fully enclosed repulsor is that it might not be able to pass over obstacles in its path. You could use a flexible skirt of some kind, I suppose, but then you basically have a hover-craft.

[Batman]

Why would that be? I'm talking about them using repulsors to move the treads.

[Purple]

We can do no such thing. We know they have the repulsor technology for something like that because the Wars universe is lousy with repulsorlift vehicles, they just sometimes build ground vehicles for some reason (the preferential explanation usually being that repulsorlifts don't always work). Well all the repulsorlift vehicles we see are free floating ones.

Maybe you misunderstood what I said. Allow me to rephrase it:
1. We know they have repulsor tech strong enough to make aircraft fly real fast.
2. We know this vehicle is designed by taking significant chunks of an aircraft and adapting it into a tank.

Thus we know that if they had used repulsors they could have trivially made the tracks redundant. Because you do not need the traction of tracks if you can trivially make the vehicle free floating.

Ergo we are left with two options:
1. They did not use repulsors.
2. They purposefully went for a massively more complex and expensive design that involves developing and building production lines for both a track system and a brand new repulsor system orders of magnitude weaker than what they already have available.

One of these makes sense. The other is ludicrous.

The track-driving repulsors on the Centurion would be fully enclosed, with the vehicle having ground contact at all times .
We quite simply do not have enough information to rule this out (unless Khaat is right about the schematics of course) and that STILL leaves forcefields and tractor beams.

Except that there needs to be room for the tracks to bob up and down as you drive over rough ground. Which is the reason why no modern tank has side skirts that extend all the way up to the ground. Thus the track can by definition not be as fully enclosed as would be necessary to do what you want it to do. And no, flexible side skirts won't work because any skirt flexible enough to flex out of the way when it hits a rock will be flexible enough to be flexed by the track trying to run away.

Also, at this point I am frankly going to draw a line. Your arguments have become an appeal to magical force fields for which we have no evidence in cannon (past or present) ever being used in the capacity you describe. You are essentially making things up as you go along.

Why would that be? I'm talking about them using repulsors to move the treads.

You need pressure pushing down on the threads to get traction. That's how tracked vehicles move. No pressure = no traction = no movement. Without constant pressure on the threads the best you could hope for is for the tank to stay in one place whilst the things turn like a chainsaw digging into mud.

[biostem]

If they were going to use repulsors, they'd just fly normal TIEs at very low altitude - we know they can hover, so there's no reason stopping them from doing so, if that's all they wanted.

[Batman]

We can do no such thing. We know they have the repulsor technology for something like that because the Wars universe is lousy with repulsorlift vehicles, they just sometimes build ground vehicles for some reason (the preferential explanation usually being that repulsorlifts don't always work). Well all the repulsorlift vehicles we see are free floating ones.

Maybe you misunderstood what I said. Allow me to rephrase it:
1. We know they have repulsor tech strong enough to make aircraft fly real fast.
2. We know this vehicle is designed by taking significant chunks of an aircraft and adapting it into a tank.
Thus we know that if they had used repulsors they could have trivially made the tracks redundant. Because you do not need the traction of tracks if you can trivially make the vehicle free floating.

We already KNOW they can casually make the vehicle free floating, moron. They're called TIE fighters.

Ergo we are left with two options:
1. They did not use repulsors.
2. They purposefully went for a massively more complex and expensive design that involves developing and building production lines for both a track system and a brand new repulsor system orders of magnitude weaker than what they already have available.

3. The vehicle is designed for environments in which conventional free-floating repulsorlift doesn't work.

The track-driving repulsors on the Centurion would be fully enclosed, with the vehicle having ground contact at all times .
We quite simply do not have enough information to rule this out (unless Khaat is right about the schematics of course) and that STILL leaves forcefields and tractor beams.

Except that there needs to be room for the tracks to bob up and down as you drive over rough ground. Which is the reason why no modern tank has side skirts that extend all the way up to the ground.

Oh really. Look at that picture again and get back to me.

Thus the track can by definition not be as fully enclosed as would be necessary to do what you want it to do. And no, flexible side skirts won't work because any skirt flexible enough to flex out of the way when it hits a rock will be flexible enough to be flexed by the track trying to run away.

Oh. You're an expert on Wars technology now are you.

Also, at this point I am frankly going to draw a line. Your arguments have become an appeal to magical force fields for which we have no evidence in cannon (past or present) ever being used in the capacity you describe. You are essentially making things up as you go along.

Force fields, tractor beams and repulsorlift are a long established part of Wars technology. How exactly am I making them up?

Why would that be? I'm talking about them using repulsors to move the treads.

You need pressure pushing down on the threads to get traction. That's how tracked vehicles move. No pressure = no traction = no movement. Without constant pressure on the threads the best you could hope for is for the tank to stay in one place whilst the things turn like a chainsaw digging into mud.

That'd be the repulsors exerting that pressure?