HOME | DD
spacegoblin β Mega Tank
Published: 2008-11-09 21:50:32 +0000 UTC; Views: 38725; Favourites: 510; Downloads: 1089
Redirect to original
Description
A super-heavy tank . It has thick armour to the front and sides . The large number of heavy turrets protect it from arial attack. The tank is fully amphibious with a float attached to the exhaust, allowing it to float above the water during river crossings. This was a vital feature as few bridges can support a 1000 ton tank.The vehicle can also take refuge below water , relying on air tanks or drawing oxygen through the emergency tubing housed along the floated exhaust (which is dissengaged during such an opperation).
Multiple weapons include dozens of machine guns and numerouse multi purpose cannons able to fire AP or high explosive rounds.
A light tank and crewman have been included for scale.
Related content
Comments: 86
Shots one sustaineble volley and is then completly out of ammo
π: 0 β©: 0
this seems like (to me) and alternate much longer ww1 scenario =3
where planes have not yet become as dominante as their ww2 versions.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think this kind of tanks are vulnerable to aerial attacks but nice tank btw
π: 0 β©: 0
Main turret cannot traverse fully, unless the main gunner has a grudge against those poor sods in the rear. In addition, that thing looks like it has horrible frontal gun depression, and I don't think a float is necessary for that behemoth to be amphibious, it would just drive through the river without giving a damn. Armor is practically flat everywhere outside the turret, which means HEAT shells are going to have a field day against that thing, engine is completely exposed thanks to the rear turret cluster, and the armor looks riveted, meaning that even a deflected hit could potentially dislodge the rivets and send them flying into the interior of the tank like bullets, killing the crew, and its size means that it is an enormous target for artillery all around.Β
That being said, it looks good. Nice work.
π: 0 β©: 2
FYI most probably never intended for past-WWI combat. WWI = NO HEAT SHELLS GODDAMMIT!
π: 0 β©: 0
Thanks 
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, that makes sense. It looks like a cross between something French and Russian. I take it you've seen some of the real projects, like the T-35 and the Ratte?
π: 0 β©: 0
SO metal! I like the spades symbol on the side, is it a reference to Ace of Spades?
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks!
π: 0 β©: 0
A hell bore armed bolo would on hit KO that thing or a railgun equipped Mammoth Tank.
π: 0 β©: 1
Again. WWI ERA = NO MAMMOTH
π: 0 β©: 1
I know that I'm only stating a fact.
In fact WWI ERA also equals no = no Bolo.
π: 0 β©: 0
Cool design, it looks French and reminds me of the B1 and Mark V tanks for some reason π
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks-French tanks were a big influence on the whole project. I'm quite a fan of the French army of the time. They probably could have stopped the Germans if the strategy they were using was sound. Unfortunately in those early stages the allies were fighting the last war still-not understanding that everything had changed. Good tanks and brave soldiers but outdated doctrine unfortunately
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, the Germans took them by storm (literally!). I read somewhere that the German blitzkrieg tactics were influenced by British tank tactics before the war, if this is true, sorry Europe π
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes-the tank men in WW1 wanted to use similar tactics with their tanks (attacking on a narrow front with overwhelming tank strength and air support to punch though and attack enemy support and command areas) but were constantly over ruled and forced to spread their tanks out amongst the infantry over a wide area.
Between the wars the theory of the armoured fist was further developed-primarily by Liddle Heart and Fuller (two British officers)-one of whom published the 'Purple Primer'-a pamphlet espousing the virtues of an offensive tank formation.
Unfortunately in the case of the British army a lack of funding and the intransigence of older officers who favoured infantry and cavalry over the tank (which they saw as a freak occurrence brought on by the unique conditions of the trenches) meant that the old ways were adhered to-with tanks being designed to mostly either be split up amongst infantry units or used as recon.
Meanwhile the French were obsessed with defence, using up much of their military budget on defencive installations. The rest of the army was hampered by the strong desire to stop any enemy forces from crossing the border(memories of German occupation still being fresh in the minds of many)-and so it was strung out in a thin defensive line with very little reserve forces. Armoured units were again split up along this line rather than being concentrated in preparation for a counter attack. Thus the French army was hamstrung by the political demands that they must not surrender a single foot of French soil. A nice idea but very limiting for the French commanders.
The Germans on the other hand, having lost the previous war were happy to throw away that mode of fighting and grasp new ideas. The Purple Primer was absorbed and further developed. Their armour was no better in the early war (maybe worse) than the armour of the allies but it was concentrated. The rest , as they say is history
π: 0 β©: 1
Trying to rush in WW1 era tanks would be hard at the most with the British Mk. V rumbling along at a furious 5mph but it would still have been a better idea than to just stay with the vulnerable infantry. As for the French and their defence (heh, rhyme), they could have improved by using more flexible units such as self propelled artillery or something like that. Also, the German strategy was basically rush them and overwelm them, wasn't it? π I use the same tactics for any strategy games! π
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes-they main thing was that the Germans developed anti-tank procedures quite quickly. If there were 50 tanks attacking over a ten mile front (5 tanks per mile interspersed with infantry), the units that faced them could deal with the them. Some tanks might succeeded in places but ultimately the attack would be quite easy to stop.
However, take those 50 tanks and attack with them all at the same point in the line-all of a sudden the troops facing them cannot stop them. They may knock out one or two but a breakthrough is inevitable-and a break through in the enemy line on one point is far better than lightly bruising the enemy along a broad front (and far less costly to boot).
Pretty much-the key being rush them in a very narrow point and then just keep on going-resulting in front line units being cut off from command and supply and rear support areas (command, logistics etc) being destroyed. To punch through like a knife rather than to smash against the enemy line like a wave (as had been done in WW1).
This also involved overwhelming air support in the area being attacked. The French air force was a bit outdated but was larger than the Luftwaffe. It also had a lot of help from the RAF (at least while there was still hope of victory-after that we Brits started being a bit cautious with our air units-knowing we'd need them for the struggle to come).
What made the Luftwaffe stronger is that they were strong where they were needed. One of the advantages of being the attacker I suppose. As the great Sun Tzu said 'He that tries to be strong everywhere will be strong nowhere' -or something like that. The point being-don't spread your forces out and try to defend everything. By trying to surrender nothing to the enemy because of political pressure (to defend every square inch of French soil) the French army ended up losing it all.
π: 0 β©: 1
Spreading armour along the front is probably better for the survivibility for the infantry due to tanks being lead magnets but for generals and commanders it would be more profitable for the tanks to attack one location.
Had the Spanish Civil War not happened, it probably would have been a bit easier to stop the Luftwaffe but unfortunately they had learnt more than they would have done without the combat experience and our boys in blue and the French AF would have been able to hold them off a tad longer to prevent the German ground forces from having their precious air support during the Battle of France and the German advance on Dunkirk. It would have possibly shortened the Battle of Britain and allowed us to kick their arses easier, Rule Britannia! π¬π§ Not forgetting π¦πΊπ΅π±π³πΏπΊπΈπ³π±π¨π¦ And the other foreign pilots who helped!
π: 0 β©: 1
That's right-I think that's part of the reason why they did it. Although early on the infantry didn't like having tanks around (they thought they attracted artillery fire) as things progressed the infantry started to see the benefits of having them. Better that than 'bare chests against bullets' as Churchill put it-and the statistics held up-wherever there were tanks the attack had some success and the casualties were lower.
Yes-the Luftwaffe cut it's teeth in Spain which helped them out a lot. Also the French air force was large but also a bit out of date. I think one of the major factors was that French air defence was very weak. They had no radar system for instance-which was really vital for a defending airforce as otherwise you just have to fly patrols all the time and it's really just down to luck as to whether you encounter an attacker. By the time you're able to respond in force it's already too late.
The vast magority of the French airforce was still intact after France fell. Perhaps what they should have done (since defending was very difficult at the time) is attack the German ground forces very aggressively with their air force. This wasn't done in the early days (like when the German armies were massing on the borders) because people still hoped they might avoid a war.
After it became clear that the battle for France was lost the RAF (rather sensibly) started to withdraw and plan the defence of Britain. Given what a close run thing the battle of Britain was, it's definitely a good thing they did this (despite what the French might have thought at the time 
π: 0 β©: 0
lol-Landkreuzer would probably work better
π: 0 β©: 1
I like your designs since my first time in this site!Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks! Pen over pencils for the lines, Photoshop to add colour
π: 0 β©: 1
I was looking at this, and I felt something was off, it's a good drawing overall, except for ONE little thing: the little rings in the camoflauge don't bend with the geometry of the actual tank, so it looks weird. although it could be dazzle paint (really interesting WWI camoflauge, look it up) but still, it just makes parts of the tank look flat even though they shouldn't. OTHER than that, this is an excellently drawn piece.
π: 0 β©: 0
I do see one weakness, the exposed engine in the back. A well placed shot would disable it and also possibly destroy it if there is no armor separating the engine between the crew and ammo rooms.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's true. It also has some vents on the side that are probably less heavily armoured than other areas. The real life land ships turned out to be impracticable at best. The Soviets were the only nation that really used them in battle and these vehicles tended to be more use as props in German propaganda films than as weapons for their Russian masters. It's still a fascinating idea for me. I often find the less effective weapons more interesting than the successful ones.
π: 0 β©: 1
The impractical weapons of WWII were intresting. Such "Wonder Weapons" as the Maus, P.1000 Ratte, and the lesser known P.1500 Monster would've inefficient, but they would've been really amazing to see in action.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes-It's almost a shame they never got them built. If they had built them they would have done more harm than good to the Nazi war effort (given the amount of materials required) and it would have been quite interesting to see such monsters in real life.
π: 0 β©: 0
Why dont you do awesome stuff like this anymore?
π: 0 β©: 1
I really should. One day I'll do a whole new design book
π: 0 β©: 0
see that thing driving towards me first thought "oh shit"
π: 0 β©: 0
Yeah-thoes super tanks would have been a sight. Not sure how effective they would have been though. They have something along those lines in the new(ish) Captain America film. Giant tanks are always good
π: 0 β©: 0
One of the best fantasy tanks I have yet seen. Great coloring too!
π: 0 β©: 1
Ooh, looks like a cross of the P1000 Ratte, Char B1 Bis and the 2C Super-heavy tank.
π: 0 β©: 0
What are you planning to fight with this behemonth?
π: 0 β©: 1
Dinosaurs + Godzillas, Drakula, Blackula and Son of Kong (the only three real monsters).The origional super tanks were designed as either land battleships or mobile fortresses. They were designed as super breakthrough units, able to smash through defences and sweep aside all conventional opposition. Perhaps the tonic to the Soviet 'defence in depth'-thier answer to the Blizkrieg tactics of the German army.
Several multi turret vehicles were completed in the 30s but proved to be inneffective (hard to control and thinly armoured). Several giant tanks were designed by the Zazis but never finished.
π: 0 β©: 2
actually, the russians used two multi-turret tanks during WWII
π: 0 β©: 1
Yep-like many of the great powers they designed multi turret tanks between the wars. The difference is that the Russians actually used theirs in combat. The British and German versions were shelved as inpracticle (the Germans only built and handfull and these were only rolled steel prototypes).
I think one of the lighter British versions was used in Belgium and France, but none of them survived the Dunkirk evacuation-and they were quite obsolete at any rate, so no more were manufactured.
Generally designers and soldiers alike decided the idea was more trouble than it was worth. Once you've taken into account power source, structure that can support many turrets, storage for many different shell sizes and increased crew size, other areas (such as armour and mobility-and maximum gun size/firepower-the three most important factors) soon start to suffer.
Ah well-they look cool. I'm just glad I don't have to go to war in one. I think the larger of the Soviet tanks was designed in such a way that some of the crew could only get out if the turrets were rotated in a certain configuration. Not likely to happen if the tank catches fire. Talk about a death trap.
Thanks for the comment
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>