Imagine a land vehicle that has the 127 mm (5 in) L54 Mark 19 gun used on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.
I guess it the hull would need to be at least 20 meters long by 6 meters wide. With a height of 3 meters.
Just imagine it spewing fire just like a destroyer. Would BTFO anything.
Other urls found in this thread:
The Maus was a certified catastrophe and that's small compared to your level of autism.
>Would get BTFO by anything.
FTFY
It would br defeated by literally any terrain
>guise I have a great idea, let's just take every bad thing about every type of weapon and combine them all into one giant money/resource pit
Ships are the size they are because in 99% of situations you can't build a forward base in the ocean so you have to bring everything with you. There aren't any comparable environments on land, or at least not in areas worth fighting over.
Let's ignore all the autism for one second andentertain this thought...
>Ships flex, google torsion box. Water is usually a rather flat surface to go fast in and... "soft enough to bend around the ship" in form of waves.
Land is restrictive and ops picrelated would get stuck all the time.
>Weight, guess how fast this is and how much energy it would take to movie it even on flat ground
>Destroyer: To me that would make the most sense since Destroyers are slender and small. You could build something like the Heglund but longer where it's basically a land train (and no you couldn't get that giant railway gun thing in there), but that would be a maneuvering nightmare as well. Btw destroyers didn't sport tipple 16 or so inch artillery, but rather 5 inch single mounts, which would be more appropriate for such a thing. It goes without saying that building 10 tanks/artillery pieces instead of one landship would be in every way imaginable better and more flexible.
Because the benefit of putting a ship in water is that its a medium that is easier to move through with less friction, has automatic damping of bumbs, and requires only a tiny moving part to move a huge bulk.
Putting it on land and layering tracks is as dumb as ideas of airborne aircraft carriers. You just fail to get the basic physics.
this. until there's some kind of not only advancement, but incredibly major paradigm shift in propulsion technology, the sea is just about the only place vehicles with masses of ships can be viable in any military capacity.
Because
-anything other than extremely flat land with no obstacles would wreck its shit
-it would be so heavy that it would sink into most ground
-it would cost far too much fuel to move it
-planes are a thing and would be able to easily spot and bomb it
You know how the Nazis never built Panzer VIII Maus, imagine all those problems but 10 fold.
Hey, this might actually amount to something.
>armored trains with caterpillar tracks instead of wheels
Still needs solid ground and metal tracks fuck up roads.
>Oh no a mountain. Looks like we’re stuck forever
Its Called a tank, dipshit
Now imagine all those armored train cars can move independently of each other, that would be even more effective!
You could do the same thing by getting a bunch of tanks and making them drive in a convoy, except the tanks can split up when they have to and the rest of the convoy can still move if the lead tank is destroyed.
Here is the largest self-powered land vehicle in the word. It weighs 2,700 tons and can carry 9,000 tons. It moves at 1 MPH.
An Arleigh Burke, by contrast, weighs about 10,000 tons and moves at 34 MPH.
They're called tanks...
And just so everyone knows, THIS is the actual crawler itself. The box on top (the thing the shuttle is sitting on there) is actually a separate piece.
These are all exactly correct. I'm more suggesting that it would work as a sort of fictitious interwar design. It satisfies a creator's desire to make something cool and unique without being as fucking stupid as "just take a fucking boat and put it on tracks."
I guess in that sense it might work. Maybe the generals didn't think it through entirely and thought they could save money by maintaining fewer engines and training fewer drivers.
Ignoring OP’s autism, would something like pic related be practical?
not if it's big enough.
>guaranteed slow speed + fuckhueg size + massive fuel consumption and maintenance requirements = predictable path, very limited terrain accessibility, wet ground would bog it down every time due to weight, easy target due to these factors.
It might make sense if you had to fight on mars. The whole place is a desert and the atmosphere is too thin to support aircraft so big trucks would be the only option for long distance transport.
Or you could just get one of those large trucks.
BelAZ 75710: capacity 496t.
Add some armor.
And mount the 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun system into it.
Mass: 21t.
This has more than enough spare capacity for a lot of ammo, fuel and armor.
Do you know what mud is, stupid?
Tanks don't have the same rate of fire that a destroyer has.
Anyone got the video of the people assaulting a compound in a dump truck and getting slaughtered turning it into a blood truck?
Probably not what you're looking for, but it reminded me of this.
I want this to happen just so i can watch it get destroyed by 4 Su-22s with bombs
The enemy would just build missiles large enough to blow it up and once launched in numbers, there is NOTHING that can prevent them from hitting and taking it out.
Big, slow targets just can't take the punishment that modern missile technology can give!
Even if a country had the resources to piss away pic related would be the most practical/impractical abomination ever built. And this board has already been over why Mechs/bipedal/spider armor is a bad idea.
Ace Combat memes are one of my great joys.
This is fucking retarded, they should have at least put some sand bags on the side.
I made it just for someone like you user.
>Why aren't land ships a real thing?
Your mother is very real
Keeping those trucks running is a logistical nightmare and a half. As an example, the tires themselves have to be transported by 18 wheeler and are oversized load items in the USA and convoi exceptionnel in the EU.
>nobody posted the fat boy
To be fair, doesn't it move so slowly because any faster risks tipping the rocket/shuttle over?
Tipping isn't a problem since the road it travels down is one of the flatest man-made surfaces on earth. Vibration, however, is a major problem. Checking all those fittings, pipes, valves, nozzles, and other fiddly bits is bad enough without subjecting them to an extra hour or so of rattling around.
>guns don't even have the traversal range of the OP pic
It's even worse, desu.
Lack of gigantic sand seas on Earth
If we had them, sandships would be a thing
>Why aren't land ships a real thing??
>Just imagine it spewing fire just like a destroyer. Would BTFO anything.
What happens when equal amount of dispersed artillery target it?
There's this little thing called the square cube law and it works really hard against very large landbound things
Ships themselves are a phenomenon created by the conditions and nature of large stretches of water. On land, you have no REASON to have a ship, and something that large becomes a liability. It's why flying carriers never caught on, they just aren't needed. It's way easier to move troops and materials with small vehicles and by foot.
On this subject:
How big is too big for a warship? Where is the practicality threshold crossed?
look up 'maximum battleship'
350m is the upper limit on length iirc
>t. Wehraboo
Your Orwelllian Landship fails to even materialize due to one small fallacy that began in 1903
Have fun being a thickass Ordinance magnet for all OPFOR aviation
why does that thing have anchors and bollards?
>Anchors on the front of a giant tank
That picture is retarded
>That picture is retarded
thanks for pointing it out, nobody realized that yet.
Why is H.G. Wells drunkposting on Jow Forums again?
As awesome as that would be it's retarded.
Pic related
>Imagine a vehicle with a 127mm gun
Bore out a T-72 by 2mm?
what the fucking fuck is that stupid ass thing
Imperial Japanese Sandcrawler Mogami, in service to their allies as a transport for German and Russian forces during the Time Wars of 2272.
It was a shitty movie user, quit defending it.
I'd rather see fortress-cities make a modern comeback, but walling off sections of city nowadays would absolutely create clogged up major arteries and wreck the economy. Having a long strip of easily identifiable batteries for both land and air use is also a really stupid idea if you think about it from a bomber's perspective.
But it would look cool.
the real redpill is that Moscow is a modern fortified city, with layers of integrated (if antiquated) air defense and missile defense
but soviet shit is old and unreliable
>tfw still no Battletrucks in the modern wasteland
because artillery exists
They were going to call tanks 'landships' initially, but they thought that would make it too obvious to the enemy what they were prior to deployment, so they went with 'tanks' because they thought the first ones resembled large metal water tanks or something.
and runs exclusively on leveled ground
Damn now I want to read that series again for the nostalgia.
Fucking hell.
Is this before or after the Finno-Korean Hyperwar?
>Is this before or after the Finno-Korean Hyperwar?
Depends on which layer of simulated universes you currently reside..
This’d make a pretty gud anime though. Giant land cruisers originally built to counter a massive threat to human life, now turned into refuge cities where the only true civilizations on earth dwell anymore. Others dwelling outside land cruisers are constantly on the run from said threat, and are barbarian/bandit-tier.
Already made that. It's called Macross.
Is it any good? Or just visually appealing like most animu?
>fighter jets that transform into mechs
>giant spaceship that transforms into a giant mech
what do you think
>PHWEEEEOOUUUHHHH
How the flying fuck would that even work?
Watch DYRL...its basically a musical...with fuckloads of boom.
Veey heavy things sink into the ground. Why don't 14 year olds understand this?
Wow what a nice target for cas
How are you planning to fix the track if it breaks in combat
OP, you should stop watching any and all forms of television.
And in what situation would that RoF even help you? Its not like you are going to be on a huge open field with a shitload of targets on a nice line.
That RoF makes sense because on ships need multiple hits to sink while beeing a single target.
Because they're fucking retarded. Like you.
>This thread
>No One mentions Homeworld.
What a [spoiler]comfy[/spoiler] game
Let there be peace on Kharak
it has been made in cinema
what would otherwise be kino, was ruined by too many plot lines and actors with the acting range of a 2x4
Have you been sleeping under a rock?
So, something like John Carter movie?
Let me introduce you to the otomatic (or its younger brother the draco), mounting the OTO Melara 76 mm for big boy SPAA.
Because bombers.
Spend one day fixing tracks.
It's shit. Watch Gundam instead.
Isn't the Elephant just an oversized version of the IRL Trojan?
the bv206 does not need solid ground nor do its rubber tracks fuck up roads
otomatic
otomatic
otomatic
otomatic
>wargame flashbacks intensify
>Spend one day fixing tracks.
You mean a whole engineering division spends months on fixing the track?
Land ships ARE a thing. They are called TANKS you fuckwit.
To be fair, the crawler is old and is slow by design, it does not have to move in a rush and is carrying what is basically an irreplaceable piece of equipment balanced on its ass.