Why don`t military make things bigger

[EiZei 0]

Somebody mentioned big military equipment?

[Mister Frag 0]

Somebody mentioned big military equipment?

Yeah, I read that, too.

I thought the Maus was mad, but the Ratte would have dwarfed the bloody thing. It would have been a 1000 to 2000 ton battlecruiser on tracks.

[blackdog~ 0]

What units of measurement is that in?

[Renagade 0]

Somebody mentioned big military equipment?

Yeah, I read that, too.

I thought the Maus was mad, but the Ratte would have dwarfed the bloody thing. It would have been a 1000 to 2000 ton battlecruiser on tracks.

so even though it would have been an easier target ,most weapoins back then would have had a hard time knocking it out of action if they got within range of it.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Unless  its  surface area was great enough to overcome this  

I think attack capabilities to size is another t hing to consider.

A crude example would be comparing a person versus a group of piranhas.Plus loads of little  units can be  in more places at once where as a big one can only  be  in the same place at once which is another reason why i think nature doesn`t have big animals but that would be more to do with the size of animal and  the size of  its food.

Ahh...big surface area: bigger target for air support/infantry with AT/a hull down or hidden tank/artillery/AT Gun.

Huge big monsterous tanks are great targets. I personally find them almost useless. On defense they can probobly be easy to avoid or maneuver around. On offense, they make a hell alot of noise. Urban combat is a nightmare for any armoured unit, no matter how big or small. Plus, that massive size comes with a massive cost as well as sucking up of resources. Why do you think the Germans didn't produce 1,000,000 Tigers?

I see an end for big massive tanks in the future from what I've seen. Sure, they still have their uses. But they are becoming harder to use and more dangerous to field. Plus, they are hard to transport and maintain(huge problem with the US and Canadian tanks. Thats why Canada is thinking of reducing leopard numbers to get the LAVIII's). Intimidation is one thing, but that factor is soon gone when the nice fancy million dollar machine is reduced to smoldering ruins.

I can see a use at long range warfare, sitting on top of a hill pounding into a city or area.

Not only that, if you immobilize a tank, they are the most vunerable thing on a battlefield. As well as if the situation is right, they can be easily captured by a squad or section.

[Tovarish 0]

*cough*

*cough* *cough*

[Mister Frag 0]

What units of measurement is that in?

That would have to be millimeters, i.e. the Maus would be 3.6 meters or about 12 feet wide, and the Ratte would have been 14.3 meters or 47 feet wide. An M1A1 Abrams is about 33 feet long...

[4 IN 1 0]

Somebody mentioned big military equipment?

Yeah, I read that, too.

I thought the Maus was mad, but the Ratte would have dwarfed the bloody thing. It would have been a 1000 to 2000 ton battlecruiser on tracks.

so even  though it would have been an easier target ,most weapoins back then would  have had a hard time knocking it out of action if they got within range of it.

there is a bunch of dumbass thinks that this thing would work, even now.........

[4 IN 1 0]

You guys need to stop watching cartoon robot porn and start watching quality programming, like FOX News and Dennis Leary. Wait, those two TV programs summarize all the things wrong with me.

well...........i dont really like gundam much

i like Band of Brothers more

[lonesoldier 0]

Everything comes with Pro's and Con's.

Small Things Pro's:

Hard target

Fast

Menouverable

Uses less resources

Small Things Con's:

Possibly weaker

Enemie's most probably would not fear it

Big Things Pro's:

Enemie's may fear it because of it's large size and potentially devastating firepower

Strong

Powerful

Big Things Con's:

Slow

Easy Target

Uses more resources

Less menouverable

Like mentioned earlier, you can have more smaller units, which could confuse the enemy. Small units could surround enemy positions faster too.

Although it would be cool having like... 20 -30 gigantic tanks advancing on enemy positions.

[der bastler 0]

Read John Christopher's "When The Tripods Came".

Clumsy Tripods, easily taken out by some bombers... without a chance... it seems...

The point of battlemechs:

Carry more weapons and armour, be more manoeuvrable (moving like a human)... and spread fear! The psychological factor!

Modern obstacles for battlemechs:

*control is not yet ready to process the amount of data produced by dozens-degrees-of-freedom systems in real-time (direct/inverse kinematics and dynamics)

*needed high-power source for all the actuators is not yet available; state-of-the-art power sources are too heavy

*available actuators are too heavy or too week

btw: Anyone remembering the discussion 1 Atlas vs. 20 Locusts?

[DracoPaladore 0]

Enemie's may fear it because of it's large size and potentially devastating firepower

That feart though is probobly not as strong as it used to be(WWII with Tigers Panzers and Stugs OH MY!) because already most nations have developed an armour peircing recoiless rifle(Carl Gustav) or TOW missle system(Jeeps even) that can probobly knock it out with one, two hits.

Though...the thought is pretty frightening of having several massive tanks rumbling towards your small bush with cannons roaring.

[Gollum1 0]

Enemie's may fear it because of it's large size and potentially devastating firepower

That feart though is probobly not as strong as it used to be(WWII with Tigers Panzers and Stugs OH MY!) because already most nations have developed an armour peircing recoiless rifle(Carl Gustav) or TOW missle system(Jeeps even) that can probobly knock it out with one, two hits.

Depends on the thickness of the tank´s armor, too.

[Milkman 1]

Ah, it was the Tragos. Thanks Ralph.

[ran 0]

The so called "Tzar-tank" was built in 1915. It was probably the largest tank ever made. Two huge wheels on each side were supported by two minor ones in the rear. This photo and the drawing (see below) shows a difference in shape and position of the crew's cabin. Two prototypes were made but the heavy costs made the financing cease in 1916 and the project was abandoned. The photo shows a wreck without wheels in the rear and the last of them was dismateled for scrap in 1923.

H.H. Lebedenko's design of a heavy armored tank has got to be one of the most bizarre and curious vehicles in the annals of tank development. The groundwork for this unusual concept was begun in 1917 by Lebedenko and in time, a working prototype was constructed and tested.

The "Tsar Tank", as the Battle Machine was nicknamed, was designed around a reverse tricycle wheel arrangement. The two forward, spoked wheels stood 29ft. tall. They were attached to a tuning-fork shaped hull which tapered to a real mounted wheel which provided the means for steering the tank. Each of the front wheels was likely powered by a gasoline engine rated at 200hp. This engine was probably housed in the sponson on the outside of the wheel itself. It should be pointed out that the exact location of the engines was not made clear and is being speculated on. Support girders connected the sponsons to the central tail. It is assumed that steering lines or cables ran thru the tail to the rear wheel to move it and provide a change of direction. With both engines working, the speed was rated at 20kph..

The "Tsar Tank" stood, from the bottom of the wheels to the top of the turret, 29ft.3in., a bit taller than the front wheels themselves. The "Tsar Tank" was 57ft.7in. long and it was 40ft.6in. wide. A monster tank indeed. In the middle of the tank was the main hull area which probably contained the crew ( an exact number of crewman was not given ). Above the hull area was the turret which was no doubt able to rotate to bring weapons to bear. For all its impressive size, the "Tsar Tank" tipped the scales at 40 tons.

Armaments was never specified for the "Tsar Tank" so it is assumed that none were fitted to the prototype. Proposed weapons included cannon and machineguns. Mountings for these weapons would have been in the turret and, apparently, in a secondary turret located beneath the tank. It might also be possible that some sort of weapon mountings might have been placed in the sponsons. For protection, the armor was simply rated as "resistant". Resistant to what is a question not answered.

When the prototype was finished, tests began and immediately the design showed flaws, the most serious being a lack of maneuverability. With its ungainly propulsion, it had to have been a ponderous machine which, on the battlefield, would have presented a very large target and one which certainly would have attracted unwanted attention and present a most difficult vehicle to camouflage.

Work on the "Tsar Tank" was stopped when it was seen that it would never meet expectations. Then, in 1922, H.H. Lebedenko's "Tsar Tank" ended up on the scrap heap.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Enemie's may fear it because of it's large size and potentially devastating firepower

That feart though is probobly not as strong as it used to be(WWII with Tigers Panzers and Stugs OH MY!) because already most nations have developed an armour peircing recoiless rifle(Carl Gustav) or TOW missle system(Jeeps even) that can probobly knock it out with one, two hits.

Depends on the thickness of the tank´s armor, too.

Just means you have to shoot a couple more times

[Renagade 0]

Just how many times and would ur weapons be in range before u get shot is the question

[Tamme 0]

I don't think a battlemech would be very effective. Shoot it in the legs and it's useless IMO.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Just  how many times and  would ur weapons be in range before u get shot is the question

Well, thats why you don't stand out in the middle of the field waiting for them. COVER!

Just how many times? Well..that would kinda depend on the tank.

I'm no military expert, but if you do it right, you can take care of any tank that comes across your path.

[Mister Frag 0]

I'm no military expert, but if you do it right, you can take care of any tank that comes across your path.

That's one of the reasons the US developed the M-18 "Davy Crockett" -- it was a recoilless rifle with a nuclear warhead.

It was intended to be used against both infantry and tank formations, and could be fired from a Jeep or even the shoulder. The range wasn't much more than a mile, which would have resulted in one heck of a fireworks show close to the attacker.

[Renagade 0]

A bit like burning a swarm of wasps with a burst of fire but would would the atomic missile be powerful enough to kill a massive tank that wasn`t at the centre of the blast ?

[Major Gripe 0]

Everything comes with Pro's and Con's.

Small Things Pro's:

Hard target

Fast

Menouverable

Uses less resources

Small Things Con's:

Possibly weaker

Enemie's most probably would not fear it

Nowadays smaller things that are less detectable are more frightening because of their potential to cause damage. It is basic human nature to fear the unseen. Look how much panic the revelation of the Soviet suitcase bombs caused. Small, difficult to detect and neutralise yet also packing a very powerful punch. Don't think that because its small its harmless, look at spiders!!

[Mister Frag 0]

A bit like burning a swarm of wasps with a burst of fire but would would the atomic missile be powerful enough to kill a  massive  tank that wasn`t at the centre of the  blast ?

It really depends on how close the tank would be to the explosion. You wouldn't have to completely destroy the tank to render it useless, all you would need to do is rip the treads, throw it on its side, weld or jam the turret, or incapacitate the crew through the massive noise and acceleration from a nearby nuclear explosion.

Let's not forget that the Americans had nuclear weapons and the willingness to use them even agaist civilian population centers at the time that a Ratte tank could have been fielded, so even a 1000 to 2000 ton monster like it would not have been immune.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Oh, he's talking about the Ratte? I thought he was talking about tanks in general.

[Major Gripe 0]

A bit like burning a swarm of wasps with a burst of fire but would would the atomic missile be powerful enough to kill a  massive  tank that wasn`t at the centre of the  blast ?

It really depends on how close the tank would be to the explosion. You wouldn't have to completely destroy the tank to render it useless, all you would need to do is rip the treads, throw it on its side, weld or jam the turret, or incapacitate the crew through the massive noise and acceleration from a nearby nuclear explosion.

It isn't the noise and acceleration that gets the crew its the radiation. High speed neutrons easily penetrate a tanks armour, and the crew soon die due to radiation sickness (not a good way to die ) Windborne particles could also get into the tank via the ventilation, assuming it does not have NBC protection and an overpressure system, similarly causing radiation poisoning.