Fallout Studios Forums

Well?
Edited by AllStarZ, 17 July 2006 - 22:12.

Survivablity, that is, how well a tank is able to adapt to the terrain and deal with any threats that may be lurking amongst the terrain.


Regards,

Major Nuker

How about a single trait...

In which case I would say the armor is most important.

Wrong. Keep guessing.

If it's not survivability, and it's not armour, then what about the people driving/commanding the tank?

I mean tank attributes, not parts of the tank.

Mobility?

Still wrong.

durability, not only from getting shot at, but you don't need your tracks and engine and shit falling apart. You shouldn't have to fix any major components for the rest of the tank's life, but checkups are always good.
Edited by Moosy Crisp!, 18 July 2006 - 03:09.

The perfect merge of all attributes.

tic tac is close, very close, but not on the target yet.

Versatility

Ugh. Might as well tell you. The most important attribute is- AUGH HELP! THERE'S A PSYCHOTIC KILLER IN THE HOUSE AND HE IS K3WA ADA $ Ta$ BG NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

The crew.

No Switch, AllStar already said that was wrong.

The most important attribute is balance of all parts to a high degree, so that no part is better than the other, but all are very good. This will result in a tank which while is not the best in one field, the sum of its components renders it a superior tank.

Let us consider various situations.

Lets say we have a tank, which has great mobility, but crappy armour and firepower. The result? The tank will crumble when it encounters resistance in the form of any anti-armour weapon. This is what happened to the A-10 Cruiser Tank. Really fast tank, but couldn't take on its panzer opponents on an equal level. Lets say we mount a really powerful gun and keep the speed high. The result? You'd have something like the Hellcat Tank Destroyer. Capable of taking out several tanks in one run because it could move from one spot to the next so fast, and had a reasonably powerful gun to fight with. However, if you were to engage in prolonged fighting, or wound up in anything but an open field situation or an ambush situation, you would be likely easily killed by anything, like the above. Anyways, no matter how fast you move, you cannot dodge a tank shell.

Lets say we put really heavy armour on the tank? What will happen then? Well the Matilda tank clearly showed the error of this. The Matilda had extremely thick frontal armour that made it "Queen of the Desert" for awhile. However, it had a tiny 2-pounder gun, which couldn't penetrate standard tank armour at a distance. So it had to keep moving closer to engage the enemy, and as it moved closer, it gets into the field of fire where the tank guns are effective against the armour. The gun could not be upgraded because the turret ring was made too small so that the tank could be transported on narrow-gauge British railways. Eventually, the Germans started using their 88s against armour and brought the 75mm PAK into the field, which could eliminate it way before it could even fire its tiny, non-high explosive shell. Putting a better engine on it to make it move faster wouldn't help much either, since the the gun is still far too weak.

Lets say then, we put really heavy armour and really good firepower. Then you'd have something like the Tiger Tank. Extremely good tank killer, but a terrible tank nonetheless. It moves too slowly for Blitzkrieg or Deep Operations, and you'd never have one when you need it.

The tank also has to not be too heavy. If it is too heavy, it will require good roads, since it will sink in mud, consume more fuel, and require more maintenance as components break down under the stress.

Panther and T-34 tanks were a good example of this, Panzerkampfwagen Mk. IVs to a certain extent, and Sherman tanks during the North African campaign and against the Japanese were too.
Edited by AllStarZ, 18 July 2006 - 03:38.

The most important attribute of a tank can't be all the attributes combined....

Oh yes. This is the basis of the MBT concept. A tank that is good in all respects, so it can do it all.

but a tank with equal attributes lacks a dominant attribute and thus has no best attribute but all equal attributes.

Your question was simply misleading.

But if it has all equal attributes, it is best for armoured warfare. Read what I said. Because it has all equal yet good attributes, it has no significant weakness that can be exploited by anything else. This is why the T-34 was great. It combined to a high degree the essentials of mobility, protection and firepower.

I know, but you asked which attribute not which attributes or anything similar.

So ha

Balance is an attribute.

I said versatility...

that was a major OWNED! truthfully i would have said speed and fire power(turret speed btw) because if u can turn and shoot be4 the other guy does u would win, although up agaisnt more than 2 tanks u would be scewed.
Edited by Davey Jones, 18 July 2006 - 18:13.

Actually getting 50 tons of metal to move.