Modern main battle tanks protected by composite/ceramic armor and explosive/reactive armor packages can be remarkably durable.
The role of the main battle tank is to 1) destroy other tanks, 2) provide reconnaissance in a hot battlefield, 3) adjust the mental orientation of friendly/adversarial battlefield occupants. With all due respect to Mr. Lincoln, I propose a new definition of “tank” to include several hundred jet powered aircraft, each about the size of a basketball, packing an assortment of mission-determined ordnance ranging from HE to leaflets. Individually they are readily swatted down, but they would be unbeatable if deployed in a 360 degree hemispherical attack. And they’d be immune to manholes.
I don’t get the manhole joke, please explain for unhip guy.
So, you still have limitations regardless of how much money you throw at the issue. The real world balance isn’t cost so much as firepower, mobility and protection. You can optimize for one of those, maybe 2, but you sacrifice the 3rd, no matter how much you can spend.
I think what you are looking for is if you could spend whatever you like, what’s the best tank you could get. This wouldn’t mean it’s unbeatable, but it would be difficult to beat. Myself, I’d go with the distributed solution…built a bunch of small, mobile thanks with decent firepower and sacrifice protection because, well, there wouldn’t be a human crew and you wouldn’t care if any one were destroyed, because it would be the aggregate that would matter. If you have unlimited funds, you built millions of the things as well as some sort of logistics system to be able to deploy them anywhere in the world in huge quantities…perhaps you deploy them in orbit or something, along with your massive rods from the gods setup and whatever other high tech costly baubles you would want, then sit back on your shielded, armored underground (lava tube) moon base with multiply redundant communications system to push buttons and cause mayhem. Maybe have yourself cloned or a digital AI of you on multiple places on Earth as well as backups in case someone gets frisky by going after your comms from the moon.
I wonder how long the spheres were actually ‘inside’ the nuclear fireball though, I imagine they were ejected from the area pretty quickly. Like the legendary capping plate mentioned on that link.
markn designed a tank which was totally untouchable from above, but vulnerable from below basically.
I got that, but it seemed like the specific reference to a manhole might be a pop-culture thing.
Give it time.
Because it would collapse under its own gravitational forces and turn the crew into jelly?
Wouldn’t an infinite amount of money fill up the universe, rendering gravitational pull more or less equal in all directions?
I had not considered that.
Yes, but the forces wouldn’t balance out.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/Critical+Density
The entire universe would collapse on itself in a vastly accelerated Big Crunch.
So you’re saying the tank’s unbeatable?
If I destroy myself, and take the entire universe down with me, am I unbeaten?
I suppose that we must add a team of philosophers to our tank crew to justify our claim to be unbeaten. They are a lot cheaper than reactive armor.
Make it turretless so it won’t stand out more than 5 feet above the ground. Give it the most powerful engine so it can scoot at least 10 mph faster than other MBT’s over rough ground. Speed and low profile; the formula for survivability back in WW2.
Arm it with multiple elevating ramp launchers for autonomous anti-tank missiles that can fire in a 360-degree coverage toward at least 4 designated targets at any given time.
When I read it I immediately thought of this, which probably would be quite problematic if it happened under your average tank.
Start with a standard M1A2 SEPv3, rip out the turbine engine and replace it with a miniaturized nuclear reactor and electronic motors so that fuel is no longer a limitation. Some R&D expenses will be needed to bring the miniaturized nuclear reactor idea to market, but our money grows on trees. With all that extra power our nuclear reactor generates, we could replace the main gun with a railgun. Better yet, a laser cannon so that ammo is no longer a concern. And speaking of lasers, I’d take something like Trophy’s active protection system and convert it to use lasers too. Maybe spend some more of our tree-growing money on an active camouflage system.
The Abrams definitely had budget concerns as part of it’s design. Check out Orr Kelly’s book King of The Killing Zone for a good look at the development. The US Army was very concerned about getting a new tank design approved for purchase by Congress after the failed MBT-70 project. That project had tried to include advanced features that drove spiraling cost estimates while still not having production ready reliability.
The Abrams almost didn’t include Chobham armor because of concerns about getting it approved. A high tech, never before fielded, design for the armor was seen as being risky. Ultimately it was the IIRC Vice Chief of Staff of the Army at the time that weighed in and made the decision to take the risk. They ended up naming the tank after him.
Bastards also stripped out the coffee maker the design team had already included = in the planned driver’s compartment as a cost saving measure. :smack:
Not necessarily. What happens (because it’s become that kind of thread) if half of the universe is filled with paper currency and the other half is filled with metal coinage? While both halves are full, the differing amounts of mass in each half would create a gravity differential.
Alas, all the money in the world won’t give me a tank-mounted laser than can knock out 10 M1 Abrams tanks within a second of each other.