>What I'm talking about is essentially a modern destroyer on land. >Primary role is to protect and escort infantry.>A single, heavy armored vehicle with a suite of EW, AA, directfire, and indirect fire systems. Not necessarily the best at these roles, but its there when you need it. >Drones potentially replacing the infantry escort and providing extra infantry support. >Drones clearing mines, and recon ahead of this landship.>EW and AA to clear drone level airspace above infantry.>4+ crew to handle increased operational load controlling drones, EW and AA systems. Does a vehicle like this make sense or nah?
>>65162133You're gay OP
>>65162133Besides your homosexuality, history proved that more of simpler shit is always the solution
>>65162133Imagine the secondaries
>>65162133combined arms are just easierif one thing breaks, it means only one part of the whole is down, not your entire fleet you crammed onto a single craftplus, its more targets than a single objecti can see a form of landship happening at some point, but it would be extremely specialized, so not a "does everything" vehicle
We are the most powerful military force in the history of man. Every landship is our landship. Because what gets stuck in the mud over here, matters over there. We don't get to tow one out. Learning to use the tools of gay advanced warfare is the difference between the prospering of your thread, and utter destruction. We can't give you freedom. But we can give you the know-how to send $5b to Israel. And that, my friends, is worth more than America. Sure it matters who's got the biggest stick, but it matters a helluva lot more who's behind the guy swinging it. This is a time for donating ten of these to Israel. A time for using them for demolishing Gaza and making it into a really nice resort I can take my three kids to. History is written by your donation tonight of ten Char-2Ms to 1-877-Chars4Bibi. Let's get to work.
>>65162133>Do landships make sense in a modern war?
>what they need to mimic a fraction of Viltrum's power
>>65162147Give me an example
>>65162172if you don't know the examples, you shouldn't be trying to argue for ityou might as well be asking why nobody uses flying cars or inflatable clothes
>>65162172gooning > having a wife
>>65162172>Give me an exampleshaheds vs air-defense missiles
>>65162178A gun is more complex than a spear. Why does the guy with a gun win the fight when encountering a guy with a spear?
Not sure about combat effectiveness, but this is a logistical nightmare. This thing can not fit in any transport platforms except landing ships but if only fucking around coast areas then real ships can do better for sure. You should know the Tiger tank in WW2 was too freaking wide and must had tracks and wheels changed before on board a train. And that's still a joke about how Nazi (and German in general) loves stupidly complicated over engineered craps and thus lost every war after 1900s.
>>65162190because the gun doesn't break down after 5 miles
>>65162149I'm not arguing for a does everything vehicle that will replace combined arms warfare. I am arguing for a Swiss army knife does does a bunch of things extremely average. >AA and EW systems limited to low flying aircraft like drones. >Indirect fire limited to within 10 miles.>A small hub for controlling drones.You already see infantry in Ukraine supported with EW backpacks, mortars and drones. Doesn't it make sense to combine these low cost assets into one heavy armor platform, and essentially have a level of redundancy with the added benefit of armor and mobility.
>>65162250if its easy enough to cram onto a vehicle already, you just do that as is or upgrade to an entire new vehicle, but you don't make a "swiss army vehicle", you simply make a "better vehicle" insteadyou ever wonder why they don't make 2 turret tanks anymore? well its same reason why 2 turret tanks blow major cockits literally the very issue every military encounters when some genius says "but what if it could do everything?", and 20 years of effort go down the drain
>>65162133what benefit does it provide ? less crew/ lower footprint ? Beside acting a single point of failure.
Is it the same fag who keeps making these threads.
>>65162288Redundancy. Instead of sending a mortar, a tank, a drone team and an EW system, you can send 3 of this hypothetical vehicle.
>>65162263The Bradley is an IFV, troop carrier and anti-tank platform. It's a successful platform. There are cases where "Swiss army vehicles" work out.
>>65162133No. Go back to sucking dick.>>65162147*on the ground*most of the time
No, why?
>>65162413I used wrong image. This is essentially what I had in mind. Like a carrier strike group but with drones.
>>65162321>Is it the same fag who keeps making these threads.its staff posting discord approved threads for other staff to post in.. nothing more
>>65162133And what does it do about a single ATACMS or conventional prompt strike missile deleting this hyper expensive wunderwaffe in the first hours of the conflict?
>>65162397notice how it doesn't have 5 turrets, is the size of a house, and also somehow functions as an AWACS?its an IFV that does IFV things, its very clearly not a "swiss army vehicle", and you'd know that if you weren't retarded>>65162441thats just a fucking abrams, and i'm not even downplaying that, it really is JUST an abrams
>>65162458>And what does it do about a single ATACMS or conventional prompt strike missile deleting this hyper expensive wunderwaffe in the first hours of the conflict?copes, say it never happened and call you brown. if you have video footage of it happening, it will say its the other teams identical wundewaffe, not theirs then call you brown, and delete the post and if you prove on video its was theirs and not the 'other guys' the post will be deleted, you will be called brown, then go on a 72hr involuntary vacationits as if you have learned nothing about 6th generation warfare or how to play it
>>65162470What exactly are you whining about?
>>65162468Did you read the original post?Was referring to >a modern destroyer on land, with a similar capability suite as a destroyer.>Using drones to fill in the gaps, and organize tanks operationally like a strike carrier groupOpen your eyes and read faggot please.
>>65162455It's engagement farming like fukyamudda guy. You ever notice he doesn't ever get banned?
>>65162521you posted an image of a landship, described a landship, then later posted an image of an abrams saying that its what you wantedeither you get a landship (a retarded concept that fails every single time its been tried) or you get an abrams with drones (we have that already)you can't just flipflop from one concept to another in an attempt to look betteryou're a fucking idiot, anon
>>65162540>I was referring to a land ship in the operational and capability sense. My bad I wasn't clear enough.>I used the wrong image, to describe what I was actually thinking, my bad.>I described a destroyer on land. I figured people would get what I was driving at.
holy shit the bipolar in this threadtake some lithium. You fuckers are wasting a sunday calling eachother retards over fictional ai sloppa landships.
>>65162535>You ever notice he doesn't ever get banned?lmao... you think that?
>>65162133Yeah if they're 45-60 tons, do whatever.Won't be though.
>>65162470America had hydraulics in the 70s on pimp cars
>>65162578Dude he comes back all the time, I've gotten three days for less shit than he does.
>>65162133It was a retarded idea in 1945, let alone today.
>>65162441Oh, in that case I appologize.Please do not go back to sucking dick and kill yourself instead.
>>65162441don't know why you'd need some over engineered homocruiser when you could just use a semi-truck hauling around a bunch of FPV drones for a fraction of the cost.
>>65162607>I've gotten three days for less shit than he does.we all have buddyand that guy posting stuff "we dont like" isnt actually the 'same person' no matter how hard this board wants it to be.the reality is, this board is for discord staff to make posts approved in the discord for other staff members to react to. its not actually a board intended for anonymous use (which would be counter-productive for the staff)i guess to put it in terms this generation would understand, this board is like the on-rails shooter section of a vidya game, where youre like manning the infinite ammo machine gun fighting off hordes of anoymous posters, posting things "we dont like". untill they are reduced to ZERO the set-piece doesnt end
>>65162602it was the 90's not the 70's
>>65162133>One big expensive vehicle doing multiple jobs at oncevs.>Multiple cheaper vehicles specializing in their one jobWe all know the answer.
>>65163774sir, your big expensive vehicle that does everything at once?
>>65163806You realize the F35 remains a controversial airframe, right anon? You can't just use sorties being done on insurgents as a show of how good it is. A single loss of an airframe becomes a news story due to how expensive they are and smart munitions are vulnerable to EW.
>>65163851>You realize the F35 remains a controversial airframeNot really outside of idiots and actual shills>A single loss of an airframe becomes a news story due to howrare it is. Their unit cost is not expensive.>>65163806The F-35 is not big, expensive, nor does it do everything all at once.It can do quite a lot separately though if configured for different missions. This is actually supporting the exact opposite of what you're trying to say it does though, which is kind of hilarious.
>>65163878The F-35 program has cost 2 trillion dollars over its lifespan and is one of the most expensive defense projects in history. Its a multi role vehicle that can do any job its given and there is no reason why a ground version of this can't exist given the funding. You are touting the same line congress sissies shit their pants about 15 years ago when they tried to cancel it for those exact reasons
>>65162133Yes, but only if you build a big shed on top of it
>>65163981No, we tripod-mast now.
>>65163930No it has not cost 2 Trillion you mogoloidThat is the projected cost over the entire service life of the program until atleast 2070Trying to say present tense "has" cost is an intentional lie or someone who needs to go read a fucking book as currently it's not even a quarter of that
>>65162133No, As simply put there is no benefit to placing rear echelon support assets which are by necessity fragile like Missiles, Radar and EW onto a direct line of sight combat assetPlacing them in a single package reduces tactical and strategic mobilityIncreases fuel burdenIncreases visibility for the enemy to counterIncreases the maintainence breakdowns and support train neededNo amount of armor is protecting you from Air launched anti-armour weaponsExperince has shown time and time again that trying to be everything at once results in failure and more dispersed modular assets provide better redundancy and flexibility
>>65163930What's the cost of other US flying maggigers.
>>65162288i fucking love the boxer
>>65162133>Do landships make sense in a modern war?No.
>>65162133The problem with something like your image is too many eggs in one very expensive basket. If I were to fix it I'd put an OTO Melara on it and install a bunch of hull MGs. Still better to just have multiple tanks, IFVs, and dispersed AD.I like the idea for something that is purely defensive and is never actually meant to leave the area it's in, basically a boss. Some big obscenely armored monster that is slow but will fuck your face if you come at it. Something that spends most of it's life parked in a good spot looking pretty so the enemy is a bit less likely to try. More or less a portable bunker. It's a fun concept but honestly a solution looking for a problem.Have a sprocket design that is basically meant to be that sort of thing. MASSIVE and slow super heavy behemoth armed with a big ass naval gun. Design lore was basically these things sit in disguised bunkers on the outskirts of key cities, roll out to where they're needed in the local area, then roll right back into storage after the work's done. The gun was so strong many of the vanilla tank designs would get physics killed before penetration even registered.
>>65166204Having detection systems at multiple points is always better than direct firepower thoughbeit in this gay and age.
>>65162172BEEEEEEES
