Hovertank

Yes.

You only need miniaturized fusion plants giving you the energy output of a modern city for each tank, several propeller blades under the skirts of the tank and you are good to go.

There are several advantages to it.

>Increased mobility, making it amphibious and capable of moving innaccesible terrains
>Increased agility(lateral movement)
>Height adjustment for peak-a-boo tactics everywhere(also increasing or decreasing the depression of the gun beyond it's limit)

Attached: Hammerslammers.jpg (1380x750, 387K)

>sheer amount of energy required to lift a fucking tank is immense
I don`t require 70 ton tank to fly, and reactor to supply this flight

Maybe make the vehicle as light as possible? For example composite humvee is 900 pounds lighter than standard one.

Attached: road test3_web.jpg (500x375, 78K)

The lighter your vehicle is, the more agile and fast it has to be in respect to your enemy weapons. Have in mind that most AA missiles are not that powerfull, because they count on the idea that most planes are flimsy since they have to be lightly armored.

So at some point, you might as well give it wings and call it a VTOL.

>VTOL
Nah, I was thinking about armed and armored hovercraft

Attached: hovercraft.jpg (640x283, 31K)

A drone with an air pistol taped to it is a hovertank. Want to put any more shit on than that, and you get an engine system weight increase for every gram of gun or armor. Consider an attack chopper, which has lots of engine and lots of weapons but very limited armor and near zero carrying capability. Now you want to add HOW many tons of armor, instead of just hovering up in the air beyond most of the enemy's weapons while smiting death at them?

Real answer, and the reason why it was never adopted when the Soviets experimented with them, is recoil. Any appreciable gun armed on a hovertank would cause it to spazz around like an air hockey puck. You could arm it with missiles, but then, as a non-tracked, lightly armored, non-turreted craft, how is it at all a tank?

>Let's take the entire point of a tank, armor, and make it go away so it can fly.

Please fucking turn 18, then come back

Missile tank

Attached: it1.jpg (700x388, 40K)

>Let's take the entire point of a tank, armor

Attached: Keller_10.thumb.jpg.5bdc8933c560c9f1700ed978a5c8feb7.jpg (993x750, 113K)

>recoil
For 76mm cannon for 14 ton vehicle it means speed 0.2m/sec - it can be compensated by engines.

>still sets off mines because ground pressure is the same
>mine now fucks up extremely expensive turbines instead of tracks
>shooting cannon makes you have to aim again from scratch
>can't handle any terrain without slipping everywhere
>it won't lift off with all the weight of the armor or the gun
>remove those and you're left with a gay upside down helicopter
Come back when energy sources are a magnitude or two higher.

No, because it completely defeats the point of being a ground vehicle. Aside from the rational questions about its power requirements, you lose the complete bypass over terrain obstacles by not being able to fly while also desperately trying to match the loadout of a vehicle that isn't trying to technically "fly" a few feet off the ground even while stationary. Then there is the thing about recoil.

If you want better terrain handling on a vehicle use fuckin multi-billion year proven LEGS for gods sake. ANY kind of leg design will perform better than a brick floating around and pretending its a bumper car.

Legs that will embed themselves in the ground at the first sign of mud, also making the tank extremely slow or extremely complicated

>>still sets off mines
No its not. Proven by soviets

Probably wouldn't be a big deal to develop a new kind of mine with a magnetic field trigger rather than a pressure sensor.

Make "intelligent" detonator - its goes off mith EMP trawl. Rely on dumb mechanical one that is not triggered by this trawl - well, ITT hovercrafts are not activate them.

>Legs that will embed themselves in the ground at the first sign of mud
Yeah its called making a footprint. If Mr. Brachio didn't have a problem with making footprints, so will you.

You're not seriously suggesting that covering the entire bottom side of a tank with jet engines running at full blast the entire day is a less complicated solution, are you?

>bullshit jet turbines on the bottom of a tank
>the engine and power supply required to keep such a thing airborne
>less complicated than legs

It doesn't need a fancy EM sensor, put an airflow detector facing upwards with a valve to tell the direction. If there is a lot of air coming down from above then its a hover vehicle and it should go kaboom.

based on the fact that there are currently hovercrafts that can carry tanks, I'd say yes it's possible but most likely not practical

Attached: 800px-US_Navy_030113-N-2972R-114_A_Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion_(LCAC)_Vehicle_from_Assault_Craft_Unit_ (800x571, 107K)

Tanks are just too goddamn heavy and they require stability for their main guns.

Hover recce vehicles however mite b cool, especially if they don't leave visible tracks on the ground (and don't sound like a jet engine).

The LCAC's wikipedia load is 54 tons standard or 68 tons maximum. It can carry a single MBT but it is a huge thing with four turbines.

It also uses 1000 gallons of fuel every hour.

They all kind of sound like a jet engine because you need one to stay aloft. VTOL fighters only barely get away with it and only for brief periods.

There are anti-helicopter mines. But you can`t compare numbers of complex anti-helicopter mines to simple anti-tank mins - the comparison will be laughable. Same as for your mines - if the hovertank can avoid most of mines, than its sucess.

yeah but it won't be made by slavs lol

First proposed by soviet jew...

Attached: Hovercraft_tank.jpg (819x453, 40K)

...and then made by soviet slavs.

Attached: news-921_2.jpg (730x351, 18K)

>shoot cannon
>get sent backwards

Assuming you develop such technology, why would you build a vehicle that hovers close to the ground?
Why not make make it fly propperly?
With a hovertank you are just combining the disadvantages of tanks and aircraft and gain nothing in return.

The problem is not that bad You don`t fly away when you shoot a gun - and you don`t built like tank (standing, stance, grip, etc).

Near future? Nope

But it was done in the past:

>Jet propulsion is fan propulsion
And did it work? According to Wikipedia, they used airbags to keep it up and the Soviet Union included many states, he could be a Baltic or German Jew.

>proven by the Soviets
Fuck off vatnik

>And did it work?
They were unable to built tank before the war. Torpedo boat worked.

Fuck off fatnik.

Attached: 1 (1).jpg (1094x843, 42K)

>and the Soviet Union included many states, he could be a Baltic or German Jew.
He was born in Rostov, Russia.

What were they made of?
What's the name of the Jew?

>HT-95 Levkov

>The name "Levkov" may be a reference to Vladimir Israilevich Levkov, a Soviet professor who built various hovercraft vehicles and also led a project to design a hovercraft tank for the USSR in 1937.

Attached: CtHnxJKUkAAVlzn.png (875x875, 922K)

I never owned bf4
Was it really full of half-limp 2142bait like this

Yes, but using cannons is out. Too much recoil and not enough traction.

Ive never seen such a passive-agressive post

There are low recoil cannons. And recoilless rifles.

Kek it's a stridsvagn with a jet propulsion system.

Anybody remembers this kino?

Attached: Bilko.jpg (1280x599, 111K)

The tank tracks/tread is the weakest part of a tank, so to make a hovering one might be able to negate this weakness.

youtu.be/7Ri-JL7q0SY

As for how to develop this to be ergonomically... oh, that's quite an issue of engineering

Possible or not is irrelevant. Is it worth it? What would be the tactical relevance of a 20 ton armored floating cannon? Current tanks seem to do the job just fine would the benefit of floating just feet above the ground be worth the effort to make it so.

>Is it possible to make hovertank in the near future?
No. There is no kind of energy storage compact enough to hover something that size, and there isn't likely to ever be.

>You only need miniaturized fusion plants giving you the energy output of a modern city for each tank,
Don't forget the thousands of tons of neutron shielding and steam turbines the size of houses to actually turn the hard radiation into usable electrical energy

>Is it worth it?
If you want absolute cross terrain capability in a terrain not acessible even for tanks.

When you consider how we'd actually make a tank "hover" you'd be removing the weakness of relatively small explosions can disable them to Ben Sim the company retard can take out the skirting with a 9mm.

With the technology it would have to integrate for it to work (concentrated ion beams / advanced electromagnetism using the Earth's field), I think it would be more energy-efficient sticking to tracks, or even some improved air-raft technology.

Ok, here's your flying tank.

What you underageb& faggots never appreciate is the fact that petrol is already one of the most power dense energy storage mediums - having a relatively high amount of output power for the same amount of mass. You're really not getting much more without a fuckload of radiation, because you're approaching the upper limits of chemical bonds. You can't just make tiny fusion reactors, because you need an immense amount of energy to actually produce a fusion event, and then you need to somehow extract more energy from the various kinds of ionizing radiation produced. Aka a big ass heavy inefficient steam turbine. Fission reactors are unwieldy for anything smaller than a ship for similar reasons. Exotic semi-plausible shit like metallic hydrogen is quite an improvement over petrol, but it's still ultimately just a chemical fuel and thus not the orders of magnitude improvement you're looking for - if it can work at all. Antimatter could in theory work if you figured out a way to turn it into energy at just the right rate, but then the question becomes whether the ability to hover is worth lugging around a bunch of antimatter.

Attached: 1467077758936174149(2).jpg (800x361, 45K)

A skirt type hovercraft of that level would probably have at least pistol-resistant fabric. A skirtless brute-force hovercraft wouldn't have a skirt to puncture but the same company retard can also take it out with a hand grenade thrown under, though it is possible that the sheer engine wash can push it away.

Not all fusion reactions spill neutrons user.

Hover vehicles can glide over small undulations better than any other but the moment it has to go up a steep incline it all goes to shit. It isn't gripping the ground so it has no ability to use friction to its advantage. Broken terrain can also cause some large differences in how much effective lift each side engine is creating, so either it has a lot of spare energy to compensate and keep it level or it is going to rock around all over the place and potentially crash (multiple times in succession).

Just add treads for support

Attached: MYAScXJ.jpg (1077x1055, 173K)

>remove those and you're left with a gay upside down helicopter
Fuck you asshole i'm sick and it hurts to laugh

No, it's not just very difficult but it's also pointless.

>Large power consumption only to stay stationary
>Large thrusters will make a fuckton of noise and dust making it more visible than Admiral Kuznetsov
>Infantry cannot protect the tank because of the dust, noice and fragments
>Will still set off mines and IED's unless flies higher which makes it even more visible
>Every round fired will make it drift away
>Even rocks can make it immobile by getting into the airways
>Armor and armanent has to be so light that it cannot be called a tank

Attached: 1520700276812.jpg (1920x1080, 315K)

Hovertanks in fiction are usually on the lighter side. Light and medium tanks can still exist in the age of the MBT, so its a "I GUESS SO" situation.

>Will still set off mines
No, hovercrafts do not set off pressure activated mines:
youtube.com/watch?v=Q0UVNt3iNv8

No they don't eat 1k gallons of fuel every hour.

This. Antimatter is the only practical solution from a size weight packaging perspective if we don’t come to understand physics differently in the near future for whatever reason.

The trick is reliably producing and containing the antimatter for use. The energy output of antimatter would be better used in other weapons.

I used to work on these. They are great Hovercrafts. They have been in service for decades and are still reliable.

Hammer`s Slammer - anyone?

Attached: 12d8228f1d08e0f180a2522125693107.jpg (1145x742, 148K)

That's great and all, but most importantly where does the cappuccino machine go?

Low recoil isn't going to be low enough and I wouldn't count recoilless rifles of any caliber as a cannon.

Remember, you've got effectively NO TRACTION.

The drive fans can probably be adjusted to do frappe. I am more concerned about the vulnerability of eight fuck-big air intakes. Someone might reinvent the Molotov cocktail.

Halon can put out the fire.

>Low recoil isn't going to be low enough

Would you like to be inside a vehicle filling with halon gas?

You're a funny dude. It's definitely possible, I guarantee it, you just have to give me a lot of money.

Attached: sergeant bilko.png (1920x816, 2.05M)

>immune to muh mines

Old pressure mines, sure. Modern smart off-route mines, no.

youtube.com/watch?v=OssgjykszCc

Better give money to me.

Attached: the_pentagon_wars.jpg (668x360, 15K)

But it's a tank not a troop carrier.

Attached: But it's a tank not a troop carrier.jpg (296x170, 4K)

due to ground effect, hovercraft can carry shitmore armour compared to any proper flyer.

Do you want me to put a sign on it in fifty languages, "I am a tank, not a troop carrier, please shoot at me"?

Attached: HistoryofBradley.jpg (1280x720, 120K)

The problem with AM (besides the cost of a single gram) is that during annihilation you produce gamma radiation. Meaning you need literally meters of shielding just to not fry electronics

Yeah, now all you need is He3 which is more expensive, requires waaay more energy to fuse and still dumps all its energy as gammas. I don't think anybody is seriously proposing miniature fusion, ever.

fuck man, much as Pentagon Wars is dumb and misrepresentation it is a fucking good film. I need to rewatch it...

Somebody says its mostly true. And I believe him.

youtube.com/watch?v=Algpl4v9DAA

Attached: 75960532281480.jpg (839x629, 220K)

that man latter on went on to be gen mattis

In the final DLC pack only. There was absolute shit ton of 2142 teasing in that. One of the maps centered around a hangar containing an under construction titan prototype. Walker blueprints and laboratories in another, railgun sniper pickup, etc. I can't believe we got fucking V instead of 2143.

Hovercraft are designed to be lightweight, every added pound requires more engine power just to keep it off the ground.

A hover tank would need armor, a gun and ammo, and a big fuckoff engine to keep it afloat. The pressure on the ground underneath it would be huge compared to a regular hovercraft.

Progenitors of Bogatyr walker.

Attached: qaI04yi.jpg (1282x706, 52K)

Mines and IED's are now tripped by hover propulsion instead of weight.

>pic related

Attached: counter measures.jpg (1152x621, 282K)

It's much easier to destroy something than it is to protect it, especially in our age of modern weapons.

Those IED were placed on roads, waiting for convoys of trucks and armored cars that were too heavy to drive on cross terrain.

You can`t place IED in the most likely place where it will come (road) - hovercraft doesn`t need road at all.

Even with a magical fuel source, what are you going to use to generate lift? Traditional hovercraft is a no-go based on sheer impracticality, ducted fans suck, anything other than that requires tech we don't even know is physically possible.

the last DLC was. Added an infantry portable railgun, hover drone with a machine-gun, those launch-pods from 2142 and a map that was a dry dock for a prototype titan.

I'll be worried about the ability to climb slightly steep slopes
and not flipping on its side when it fires its gun
youtube.com/watch?v=fBHnNSURLEA&t=60

That remote control minigun reminds me of the Squad leader drone in 2142 which follows the SL and can have 2 machine guns on it