Ok hand on the block time, i never put my work in to crit which is kind of pussy as i crit lots of other peoples like im the big one and never even submit a wip so...this is for TAD IdD class thing, did all my work as fast as i could today so i could play with this all evening. its a big massive tank. ive got everyone doing a tank so we are trying to make ours the best. its to get everyone to learn about tanks and design and drawing in general. its still a wip and theres this is day 1 so theres like 3 or 4 weeks left so i need your help for ideas.
I think it wouldnt be practical or tanks would look like this, it cant go down roads or on planes. but just make believe. but i tried to make it fairly practical having admitted that. like make it low and flat so it can hide, and shoot hull down etc.
crits so far, please add more
-smaller bars and more mesh on RPG rail
more stuff and detial on turret
maybe a rail gun?
maybe Phalanx style minigun close support weapon?
bloody barrels are not aligned..
i also thought it cant really look up easily, but maybe it can sort of squat on its tracks to tilt a bit. which should be easy to do. also might try a long narrow one articulated like a train.. so it can go down streets.
anyway please tear it up or draw on it to help things. also composition and background, weak..
also, the st joan thing, i dunno, it just reminded me of tianaman which was a good moment. fuck you The Man in your stupid tank!
thanks in advance.
Last edited by Velocity Kendall; March 7th, 2013 at 08:29 AM.
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be plausible from an engineering standpoint or not, but in terms of visual coolness I'd suggest you might want to push the functionality a bit more on the next iteration...if it's supposed to be a kind of mobile howitzer then there's really no need for that much armor, nor does the turret need to be enclosed. That might give you the opportunity to include forms that are less austere, which I think might look better. Unless you're going for really austere, in which case I'd suggest losing a lot of the "nurnies" and making it the tank equivalent of a Stealth bomber.
This thing reminds me a LOT of the awesome tanks from the "Ogre" sci-fi board and miniature games of the late 1970s....sample image below. The designs for that game were more "theatrical" than "practical" or "realistic"-- but it seems to me your tank might benefit from a bit of that approach.
One simple thing is that a projectile is most effective impacting normal to the surface. If there is no requirement of making the sides of the tank flat and vertical, I'd add a bit of slanted shapes. Also, the reactive armour plates seem a bit like an afterthought. They could be a bit better integrated into the design.
Love the turret by the way
気計 - Quike "Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That is why it is called the present.."
This old Brazilian tank has a power trim system to make the wheels always have traction. I know that the Soviets thought a similar system in the 60 to produce a bomber that could use dirt runway for takeoff and landing, can not remember the model of the MIG, but it worked. In practice, they would like the legs of a spider or a scorpion, although a simple principle, which can also help. In the past, some off-road cars tried using the same system before artificial intelligence were available to make it electronically. In my opinion, if you put some wheels using this idea to your tank, you could achieve a better traction effect, because your mats fit the terrain.
From the engineering point of view, it is suitable to produce this tank... the problem is, in the battle, could it be useful? Do not forget that the Soviets eliminated many tanks Tiger through ambushes that made its firepower useless. So, it was enough to invade the tower to eliminate the crew, which was a relatively simple task when the tank was alone. Moreover, many of them were lost in the mud during the winter due to the enormous weight of the armor.
This is another example of what I am talking above
I think your tank is more suitable for the style of battles from the World War I. Nowadays, if your tank is not fast, or have a good camouflage system, it will not be used. My comments are just related to the usage aspects. About the painting, it is good.
and i take your point about traction, and practicability; theres no way it would be any use cos it couldnt drive down anything smaller than a motorway, it was purely abiout visual impact.
im thinking for the next version make it into a long articulated mobile howizter; less armour as Quike and Giacomo suggested, and instead two smaller lighter boxes, or possibly three, connected like a train. something a bit like this maybe shiould solve a lot of problems:
this retains the redundancy of havlng lots of treads too so if one get blown up youve still got 3.
[IMG]ill add more images with changes soon.[/IMG]
giacomo, those pics are perfect, ive not heard of that before but the idea of making them more tv game show esque is a good one i think.
ill add more images with changes soon. thanks a lot fellas!
First off, fuck yes. Giant tank. There need to be more concepts of giant tanks with hot chicks firing machine guns
indiscriminately into the air, but there are not, and that is a bad thing. It's a crisis, really.
There's a series of questions I always ask before I design anything.
1. What is it?
2. What is it for?
3. How does it do it?
So far as I can tell, it's working out like this:
1. Giant tank
3. Bigass gun
You've got a tank with a bigass gun, but as you have already stipulated, it's plausible functionality is severely
hampered by the fact that it's the size of Gabriel Iglesias. Some might say that you can't really make the best
tank a tank can be if your design doesn't have a obvious function. But I don't think that's necessarily the case.
I think you've already, whether you're consciously aware of it or not, determined its function. You mentioned earlier
that it's all about "visual impact", which is, as it turns out, still an important factor in warfare in general. Can't fit
down an alleyway? Who gives a shit? It's got a rotating 270mm death cannon that can level a city block in 5
seconds flat. It's a weapon of mass destruction, and there's no reason to radically redesign it. You can field the
design premise ad-hoc like this:
-Mobile command / fire-support / WMD
-Deployed via ship via hovercraft and then utilizes existing road infrastructure to move inland (even if, practically, it's
weight would destroy any road that wasn't 20' deep worth of concrete)
-Deploys on the PERIMETER of urban centers, and provides direct fire-support with the intent to virtually level whole
segments of a city. The idea here is that you unleash so much destructive power that it causes enemy combatants
to flee from the cover of the urban sprawl. In this way, you induce fear in enemy insurgents such that you displace
them as your own infantry assets push into the city. An enemy will not hold a position that they know can be utterly
annihilated at any second.
It basically takes the whole attritional aspect of urban warfare out of the equation by providing more immediate,
prolonged, AND more destructive fire-support when compared to aerial bombardment. Boom. Sold. How much
and how many?
You also have a problem with proportion. What's true of almost every tank is that the height of the turret is shorter
than the height of the chassis.
Like, let's take a look at one of the most beautiful tanks ever designed:
There's essentially a two to one ratio between the chassis and the turret.
Let's look at the M1A Abrams, the tank yours is directly based on:
You can see that ratio stays very nearly the same even in modern tanks. Why is that? Probably because that's
where the crew needs to be.
I've made a similar adjustment to yours, and honestly, I didn't actually scale the turret down so much as I increased
the depth of the chassis:
At present, your tank looks incredibly top heavy, which is counter-intuitive. You want a larger, heavier chassis in
order to help absorb recoil from the main cannon, and to provide 'comfortable' clearance for the crew (not that
there's any wanting for space in the interior...)
When it comes to complex mechanical designs, and based on my own architectural training, I tend to think in terms
of section. When you know where the internal mechanisms of the tank are, and how all of the various compartments
are supposed to work together, then you will have a much clearer image of how the tank should appear on the exterior.
What kind of compartments should there be in this tank? How large is the crew? Do they need sleeping quarters? If
there's a command center, where's the command center? What kind of propulsion system does it have? Nuclear power,
maybe? How do you load three barrel rotating 270mm cannon? I Literally play a game of 20 questions with my designs for
10 minutes, and then write down some quick, semi-plausible answers. You don't have to actually work out the internals
visually, but you could...
Fucking Hayao Miyazaki. His sketchbooks are just filled with this kind of shit, and if that doesn't give you some kind of
design boner, then I can't help you.
In any case, when I field these kinds of technical questions early in the design process, and do some preliminary
conceptualization (even if they're just notes and not initial design sketches), I wind up eliminating a lot of headaches
later on down the road. Because if I know how large the crew needs to be, then I know there has to be a certain amount
of internal space for them all. And if I know roughly the quantity of internal space required, then you I how to
handle habitable volumes relative to volumes reserved for mechanical systems. If the tank is powered by a nuclear reactor,
then I don't have to sweat about operational limitations so much, ect. Doing this kind of legwork early on ensures that I
have a much clearer design objective, and that I don't get distracted or confused later on. Of course, I'm also one to
obsess over details, and to an entirely unhealthy degree (which is why it takes me 30+ hours to finish any painting ever).
Anywho, you're off to a fantastic start. When I saw that first image posted in your sketchbook thread, I knew this shit was
gonna be hot. Can't wait to see it progress.
Last edited by The Fez; March 8th, 2013 at 07:53 PM.
THIS is CA. Not thids managerial-level shenanigans. THIS.
Angel.Yeah the mushroom, my idea was that it was some kind of scanner on an extendible pole so it could see over things, like the thing on top of an Apache Longbow. This allows it to hide behind things like hills and walls and scan the area. A periscope, effectively. But it needs lots more designing!
Hers the one I was thinking of..
Thank you so much you guys by the way.
Now, Fezmaster, heres the score, I got class on tuesday so ive got monday pencilled in to go nuts on this badboy. Your fantastic crits will go a long way, Ill update you so you can see the difference it made. And sorry, but Im lifting whole paragraphs to pass on to the team.
BTW, assuming it all survives the current unpleasantness, join TAD, youd love it and Id fucken love your brain in ID class!
VK, I'd recommend looking up the old RAND Corporation study on the future of armor. There's at least five different tank/IFV configurations theorized in there with associated hardware that I've found useful and if put into practice, very visually distinctive.
Filthy I forgot to thank you earlier, and Im reading the RAND report now so I can deliver the guts of it to the students. We talk a lot about who uses the things we;re designing, what world they inhabit, and all the design issues facing the product, much as Fez analysed above. This is a really interesting addition to that knowledge. Also Quike, youre right about the sides being too flat. I was thinking maybe break them up into wierd surfaces like in an anechoic chamber, might look kind of cool and techy.
Last edited by Velocity Kendall; March 9th, 2013 at 06:51 AM.