What's new
  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 May and June 2024 are YE 46.4 in the RP.

[Yamatai] Type 35 MBT

CadetNewb

CadetNewb

Well-Known Member
Submission Type: Main Battle Tank
Submission URL: Type 35 MBT "Jinsoku Oni"

Faction: Yamatai
FM Approval: No
Faction Art Requirement: Yes

For Reviewers:
Unapproved Sub-Articles: No
New Art: Yes
Previously Submitted: No

Notes:

This has been sitting in my inventory for a long time, and is more or less my way of introducing some real tanks into the Star Army (and eventually the setting overall) to back up our power armors. Bringing the Army part back into Star Army more or less. Several factors, including the perfect timing, have made it so I'm finally putting it up for approval as the first of its series. It's also the first time putting in a usage guide into the article too, so I hope that's looking good.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have to get to bed, but on first glance, I have some suggestions: I noticed it only has one view and it could really use more. The text description is also missing and needs to be added. Most of the H2 headers don't have text between them and the next edit button, which needs to be resolved.
 
I'm sorry I can't do much about the one view Wes - the model the artist made was deleted some time after the vehicle was finished. There's really nothing I can do to be honest, so I'm hoping this is ok.

Moving on though, I've gone ahead and added in a textual description as well, but I'd rather leave the headers as-is after switching to the smaller ones as you suggested. I tried them out, but I noticed that doing so would cause the text to be squished into the center more. And I have to admit, though the edit buttons are annoying, I actually like having the headers look bold like this. They seem to pop out more and have a stronger presence.
 
I"m not saying the headers need to be smaller necessarily, I'm saying that by using a header you're creating a section, and that blank sections go against our style guide.

Code: 
===== Systems =====
There should be some text here

==== Propulsion ====
Text should always come after any header.

  * You stay classy.
 
Ok, I understand what you're asking for now. I've never had to do this before, and it feels redundant, but I will add these details on shortly. However, I have less time than I would like today, so I want to figure out as much as possible so I can mull over solutions while away for the day. Is there anything else wrong with the tank's article Wes?
 
Seems just more of what we have today with fancy technology, rather than adapting to the conditions of the SARP era battlefield.

In a futuristic setting, does an oldschool MBT even still have its place?
 
You'd be surprised really.

While Powered Armor have the edge in maneuverability in urban combat, open terrain would make it difficult for them. The main battle tank would probably be the king in open terrain combat given that it's a sturdy base for heavier firepower than a Powered Armor.

And with the technology found in SARP, Main Battle Tanks become more durable and more accurate over longer distances. Plus, you could outfit a main battle tank with independently tracking turrets to take on multiple targets.

The only way to take out a main battle tank with SARP tech would probably be to get up close and personal with it, which is why it would be vulnerable in urban or close-terrain settings.
 
Right but turrets don't track anywhere near as smoothly or as quickly as we think they do.

And PA can fly. And most easily make around mach 1.1 in atmos.

The only way to take out a main battle tank with SARP tech would probably be to get up close and personal with it, which is why it would be vulnerable in urban or close-terrain settings.
Click to expand...

You're joking, right? Its always been easier to destroy than it has to create. Defence technology always seriously lags behind weapons technology.

PA have the benefit of being able to move erratically and quickly: Not being in the path of the trajectory and not having to evade the shot is much better than having to block with armour.
 
Not all Powered Armor fly in the setting, Osaka.

Also, flight in itself doesn't lend invincibility. Anti-air capability on Tanks (if they have that) could take out a flying target even going Mach 1.1 with adequate computer-aided tracking and targeting systems.

The main tank gun would not likely be used on Powered Armor or Light Infantry, that's more suitable to fortifications and/or other tanks. Secondary weaponry would most likely be used in that regard such as rapid-firing projectile weapons, plasma/flamethrowers (more for light infantry), or even mini-missiles.

Let me clarify a bit, I'm not saying tanks are invulnerable unless attacked up close. It's just easier to destroy them when in close-terrain settings.
 
I agree that tanks aren't that useful when infantry in this setting can completely outmaneuver and outrun them.

Rather than having a cannon turret, wouldn't it make more sense in the setting for the tank to be a computer-controlled anti-gravity hovercraft hauling hundreds of missiles that can be remotely launched by any friendly nearby soldiers?

As the leader of the Star Army of Yamatai I want to get useful stuff into the Star Army, but I'm having trouble finding legit situations where this would actually be more useful than, say, a squad of ten nekos in DAISY armor.
 
So you'd prefer something like This over a cannon and turret base. Minus the J-Pop and Mecha-frame and more tank bodied and having it hover.

I can tell you now, mines would be a hovertank's worst nightmare. Once their emitters for... hovering are out of commission the tank is just a paperweight missile or cannon emplacement. You can cover them with armor but the more you put on the bottom, the more power and complex emitter assemblies need to be to cope.

A treaded tank makes sense in that it can have a that armor on the bottom to withstand blasts. Besides. Tanks going in alone without Infantry Support is quite honestly suicidal and tactical ineptitude at its finest. Soldiers could, or should be covering said vehicles.
 
You'd need the right kind of mine (shaped charges) and the right anti-detection measures. This is a Yamataian tank, better than the Elf in a lot of ways. It's going to find mines like that. *snaps*
 
We'll, I'll try to address all the concerns here as best I can.

As Abwehran Commander said, yes, tanks do still have a use here in this setting - it's just a little different from what we're used to here IRL. And on top of that, it also differs from our own common preconceptions of tanks being slow machines as well (Leopards Jumping In Snow!). In real life, the turrets do track pretty fast (forgive all the Allāhu Akbar) and search about quite animately as though their cannon were eyes. Plus, tanks would only turn their turrets faster here in the setting, not to mention the hulls - during WWII, smart commanders would coordinate the driver and the gunner to rotate the hull and turret both in the same direction to track fast moving enemies like the Sherman and Hellcat more quickly. The same can be done here for great effect.

It needs to be kept in mind that the Driver is an independent person with brains, backing up both the Gunner and the Commander after all. The driver will likely be doing everything she can to keep the tank's front armor facing the oncoming enemy, aiding the turret's fast rotation with her hull's own.

Within SARP, as I mentioned before, the role of a tank is different, but still very, very useful. Abwehran already pointed out that the machines would have a stark advantage against power armor in longer range engagements across places like deserts and prairies, but have the tables turned in urban warfare. Even then, within the confines of a city, a tank is incredible backup for the bread and butter Power Armors - it can hang back with its flanks guarded, using its powerful cannon to demolish enemy strong points that PA find and mark, or even move forward and soak up the punishment should PA get in over their heads, covering their retreat.

Clumsy and vulnerable on its own within a city, but still surprisingly useful as backup to PA troops - it's essentially a force multiplier for them.

And though PA are very fast, the weapons I had mounted on the tank here are perfectly up to the task of fighting fast movers - especially in wide open expanses like Arctic Tundra. The commander's remote turret sports dual, hyper velocity gauss autocannons as well as mini missiles. In fact, they're the very same offensive models the Mindy and Daisy use in their calf launchers, fitted into an expanded one for the tank. And though it may seem counter intuitive, the main gun is also perfectly capable of hitting a fast moving, zig-zagging PA.

The reason why that is possible can be attributed to the 125mm HEAT-FG rounds. Those can be set to airburst in proximity to PA, and it too is fired out of a hypervelocity gauss cannon - a projectile traveling that fast is going to be difficult to dodge no matter what when its rounds can turn a near-miss into a powerful explosion and mauling, high speed fragments. Take my word for it - this is a very powerful machine in comparison to previous ones in the setting, and would set a new standard should it be used right.

I admit that mines would damage the hover capabilities of the tank, but, this is a good thing - I'd rather not have the vehicle be completely invulnerable and without some weaknesses. Yes, it has very powerful sensors over most PA, but I'm sure someone will coat a mine in something stealthy enough to get under its nose. Even then though, I had the article specifically state that those units on the underside aren't complete soft spots either - this gives GMs plenty of wiggle room for how they want the vehicle to behave, something I took into consideration when making this.

As a player and GM here on SARP, I absolutely love Power Armor, and even more so after the Iron Man films. But! I also love tanks just as much, and simply don't want them going overlooked here in this setting. That's why this was made.

(Also, the Sabot rounds are meant as the cheap ammo - programmable HEAT-FG is the standard, producing a piercing lance of liquid hot metal AND a big explosion!)
 
fetch.php


We already have the nimble TASHA. What's this have that's better than that?
 
In all honestly Wes, I wouldn't directly compare the two, since they have different roles.

Though the TASHA is smaller, faster, more nimble and just as well equipped in terms of weapons, it is not as well protected - it comes with a shield system that isn't as good. In addition to this, the Oni can be upgraded at a later date, shifting from Yama-Dura armor to either Yamataium and/or Zesuaium plates, which can also be accompanied by an improved shield generator to match the new SP of the hull. The TASHA already uses this armor, and can't receive upgrades.

If anything, the TASHA would be my weapon of choice if I were a rapid strike group that attacks, completes a specific objective and withdraws, much like we see in most plotships like the Eucharis for an example. Meanwhile, if I were to orchestrate a full planetary invasion, I would choose the Type 35 instead - it can take more punishment, while it's cannon features a better High Explosive round for demolition. The 105mm and Aether Gatling combo is good, but better suited for precision Anti-Armor work than outright destruction.

Which brings me to another issue; Aether isn't the most discreet of energy sources; should the TASHA wish to be more difficult to locate and track by enemy forces, it needs to swap over to a Fusion plant, which would also eschew use of it's Aether Gatling. Meanwhile, the Oni doesn't need to worry about that.

As I see them, the two platforms are different - the TASHA for fast, rapid strikes, the Oni for long hauls. And above all, the tank? It can be manned by a single player or a team of dedicated NPCs. Can't do that with the TASHA.

I had actually forgotten to go into detail about that, so added it in some info to that.
 
I am shamelessly double posting to notify you all that all the headers now have text under them. Please check them over to make sure they're done right - I'm more used to just having headers and then sub-headers underneath them in most cases, so wasn't sure what to put in.
 
Also, flight in itself doesn't lend invincibility. Anti-air capability on Tanks (if they have that) could take out a flying target even going Mach 1.1 with adequate computer-aided tracking and targeting systems.
Click to expand...


You realize CIWS systems can only strike super-sonic targets if they're moving TOWARD them, right?

Adequate computer targeting, nothing. You have to overcome the fluid vortex dynamics generated by the shock-cone which are going to throw your shots off my tens of meters minimum.

An AA gun is going to have trouble hitting anything smaller than a 16 wheeler unless you're using a 10 ton high precision vectored railgun with post-launch correction like a rocket or missile, which is going to make the guys you're supporting go deaf and give away your position electromagnetically from orbit if you even WARM it.

That said, you can always airburst.

As for the main gun, you're basically inventing the tank to kill other tanks and to fill a niche fighter-bombers already pull off quite nicely. This is literally a Tank-Fighter. If you're designing it to kill tanks, start asking what you can do that hurts other tanks deliberately. And expand your niche. Siege-tanks, as much as I know you hate falling back on the metaphor, are absolutely amazing. Mobile artillery! That moves and defends itself! WOW!

You should be using this as a NLOS weapon. Lock it down, stick the gun up and use parabolic timed shots to popcorn a target with varied arcs so all rounds strike the target simultaneously. It removes the need for air-strikes and air-superiority and you could have PA playing spotter and designator for precision strikes and round selection. It'd be AMAZING for holding a line or for use in urban spaces where you parabolic the round up high and land it on a specific building and implode the round inside, bringing the building down in controlled detonation.

Tanks are sitting ducks from airborne smart-weapons unless they can perform aggressive 12G+ acceleration across the ground. Flashed positron rockets would do nicely. Bonus points if you're cooking the positrons onboard and not carrying a fuel-tank of them.

Why is this? Evasion and prevention are superior to armour in every way. If you can not be seen or avoid being hit, that's armour in and of itself. Heavy metal is an old way of doing things. And its tired.

As I said before: Historically, it is always easier to destroy than it is to create: Weapons development always outpaces armour development by a minimum factor of 3:1. Its a cold hard historical truth.



In a nutshell?

Stop thinking of this as "wouldn't it be cool to have a tank?" and start thinking of it as "How does this plug into a larger cohesive force and what useful function does it honestly provide"?

Because If your unit isn't adapted to the battlefield, I don't care how thickly armour you think it is: It will be cannon-fodder for my players unless its adapted to defend against the techniques and equipment my players use. And I say my figuratively, representing any GM and any players.

War is the evolution of equipment. Adaptations overcome adversity and make your work stand out.

How, in all seriousness is this not just "a 2013 tank +1"?

If this is a future, act like it.

We don't still use muskets and cavalry for a reason.

In the future, tanks are to whatever will replace them as muskets are to rifles. The difference is going to be distinct enough to denote a new name and a new role.

For example, muskets were originally.. Useless. They didn't make kills. They intimidated your enemy and let you hold the line. It was only when rifles came into use that munitions meant jack shit, since soldiers usually ended up relying on other weapons.

Ever hear the term "a knife or a bayonet is always a loaded weapon?"

Like AC says. Go with what they could do, rather than what they are doing and try to find a niche to exploit.
 
I think part of the issue here is trying to create something that uses the provided art. So some of the theories behind this tank's purpose are limited by said art.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top