TL9 Heavy Tank

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

Dunno, man, I've seen some damn shifty roads.

Plus, it's outright embarrassing to lose tanks when partisans put up "detour" signs pointing off cliffs.

[dcarson]

Or when the local wiccan traps it in a salt circle. https://laughingsquid.com/performanc...f-driving-car/

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by dcarson

Or when the local wiccan traps it in a salt circle. https://laughingsquid.com/performanc...f-driving-car/

......and here you see another example of sub-sentient AI. It can decide to do a thing but will never realize why it shouldn't.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by dcarson

Or when the local wiccan traps it in a salt circle. https://laughingsquid.com/performanc...f-driving-car/

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

......and here you see another example of sub-sentient AI. It can decide to do a thing but will never realize why it shouldn't.

Honestly, looks to me like a 'won't fix, acceptable failure mode' situation. If you're making a self-driving car under the existing regulatory and public attitude, it seems like a really safe choice to make the AI absolutely refuse to violate traffic regulations for anything short of its collision-avoidance maneuvers. If the occupant wants to do something less conservative, make them take full responsibility for it.


A tank, of course, would have very different priorities.

[Polydamas]

Tanks spend a lot of time on exercises in friendly territory where road accidents are taken very seriously. That said, TL 9 tanks with bad self-driving would make for a fun story.

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Mind you, between Britain and the Soviets we managed to occupy Persia and set up a heavy load bearing logistics route into the Southern USSR built onto practically non-existent foundations. Bellum ipsem alet indeed.

I believe the Allied occupation of Iran was built around the Trans-Iranian Railway. It caused a devastating famine because roads and railways needed to move produce from the countryside into the cities were being used to move war material for the occupiers. A lot of the tanks which arrived in the USSR through Iran were lightweight Valentines about a third or a quarter the weight of a modern BMT.

[dcarson]

The US Sherman tank was suboptimal as a tank on purpose. It was too tall, which kept it narrow enough that it fit through standard railroad tunnels. It was too light, more armor would have been nice, but that meant it could be loaded by the size crane most docks have.

Similar constraints might happen for TL9 tanks.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by dcarson

The US Sherman tank was suboptimal as a tank on purpose.

I would take a bit of an issue with that depiction.

It was the best tank that:

-the US could build in tens of thousands
-that they could build in late 1941-early 1942
-that they could SHIP to England-Africa-Austrailia-Alaska-etc also in tens of thousands
-that would have high mechanical reliability once it got where it was going
-that could be reasonably maintained in the field

Yes the US could have built bigger and better tanks in 1941 era...if they were not going to leave the Western Hemisphere.

They built the tool needed for the job in front of them. They were not building for 'tank duels' but to win the war. I would expect good TL 9 strategic planners to have approx the same priorities.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by dcarson

The US Sherman tank was suboptimal as a tank on purpose. It was too tall, which kept it narrow enough that it fit through standard railroad tunnels. It was too light, more armor would have been nice, but that meant it could be loaded by the size crane most docks have.

Similar constraints might happen for TL9 tanks.

Yes, but this leaves you with the "light" Tank in UT.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by dcarson

The US Sherman tank was suboptimal as a tank on purpose. It was too tall, which kept it narrow enough that it fit through standard railroad tunnels.

I've always seen it mentioned that the height of the tank was to fit the engine in it. Also the height of the Sherman is 2.74–2.97m (9 ft 0 in–9 ft 9 in) depending on variant, and as I recall that's measured to the mounted .50 cal machine gun. The Panzer IV (the most numerous German tank) had a height of 2.68m. A Panther is 2.99m, a Tiger is 3m.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

I've always seen it mentioned that the height of the tank was to fit the engine in it. Also the height of the Sherman is 2.74–2.97m (9 ft 0 in–9 ft 9 in) depending on variant, and as I recall that's measured to the mounted .50 cal machine gun. The Panzer IV (the most numerous German tank) had a height of 2.68m. A Panther is 2.99m, a Tiger is 3m.

It was partly to fit one of the types of engine used, partly to allow for a drive shaft from the engine to the forward mounted transmission without a heavy gearbox on the engine, and partly an inherited feature from the M3 and the M2 before that.

The tall hull is one reason the M4 has a fairly low turret, as a taller one would've increased the height too much.