"Most Sci Fi-ish looking modern vehicles" Topic

I spotted this image of an Israeli merkava tank over on rt.com

To me, at least, the turret makes it look very futuristic. Which other modern vehicles look futuristic?

Stryker

Maxx Pro

I do like wheels.

Love the Merkava myself, either with the new turret or the earlier version, their Namer APC based on the Merkava also looks the business.

Also have a soft spot for the US Ontos used in Vietnam by the Marines, i'm going to be using it for my Neo Sov force.

link

Well, Marder MICV has always looked futuristic:

and the Swedish STank was always something that reminded me of an opponents AFV from a Hammer's Slammers novel:

That Striker is from my old brigade and I definatly recognize the sceneery! Where did you find that one?

owen

Gepard, and the Italian 8 x wheeled, modern recon vehicle/tank.

Of course, the modern German Luchs armored cars rank right up there as well.

The MBT-70 was pretty cool too.

I always had a soft spot for the very low, and sleek JgPz Kanone with the 90mm gun, and its cousin, the JgPz Rakete, with, or without the extra bolt on armor also.

Hi badger22
Lifted it from here
link

tbh I don't really think any of them look futuristic to me, at the risk of sounding like a pedant they look… modern. As a sci-fi fan and collector I've always found it extremely frustrating how many manufacturers like to take and abrams or a merkava and stick a laser cannon on it and say it comes from the 25th century. Just doesn't do it for me.

Rant over. Continue.

S Tank gets my vote.

The hummer Hx has a nice futuristic vibe to me. No surprise really, seeing as its a concept car. It only came to my attention because I was able to pick up a three 1/43 versions at my local dollar general.
The car:

The toy:

I'm not sure which sci-fi force I'll paint/convert them up for, but they'll find a place at some point.

Agent Brown, thank you very much. That brought back some memorys.

Owen

Samuluws, youare basicly right. However what will a tank look like 50 years from now? After all they have only been around less than 100 years. And while they have changed a lot in some ways, in others they have not changed all that much.

I doubt a WWI tank designer would have been able to predict the M1 Abrahms. But if he saw it, he would certainly be able to recognize what it is. And in a lot of ways, the role it fills.

So yes i want my future minis to look futureistic, but I am not really sure what that works out to be. I do have to admit the felids I am working on dont look all that modern, but that is probably because of the cat heads.

owen

I think some of the WWII British armoured cars look pretty sci-fi. The Humber MkII for example.

Great thread. I find the T-90 MBT and the BTR-T, and BMP-3 from the Russian arsenal have a very " the future is now" look. Reactive armour, sharp angles, remote guns, all combine to look very sci-fi.

And whatever tanks look like in the future, some of these will be around for a long, long time. Look at how long the T-55 has been in service.

Samulus, a tad harsh I feel. Most designers design sci-fi vehicles in a post-modernist way, so that their customers can relate to them. A truly futuristic shape, by its very nature would be too alien for a lot of gamers (a tear drop or rhomboid, for example). Look at famous sci-fi illustrators, they often based their machines on clearly identifiable kit (radar domes, exhaust ports, cannon, cockpits, etc). Most sci-fi films, before CGI, based their models on heavily adapted plastic kits, manufacturers are just continuing that tradition.

Just think, what would a Panther commander (a futuristic design to a WWI tanker) think of a T-64 BV?

I always liked these

Wasn't this a problem they bhad with the original Star Trek series? They looked for weird and wonderful things, finally decided people wouldn't recognise what they were meant to be, so all the futuristic looking pepper pots, etc, that they found finished up and ray guns and medical instruments – for pepper pots, they used things we could recognise.

Absolutely, in fact the original Enterprise was meant to be just the saucer section, but that was seen as too cliched. In the film Aliens, the creatures were played by professional dance/ballet performers, suspended by a cradle of wires so their movements seemed alien, even if the costumes were pretty conservative (bipedal, clearly defined body structure etc).

My guess would be that a futuristic tank would look like thin air, due to sophisticated sensor cloaking. Or literally thin air, as the concept of the tank has been made redundant. Having it trackless, with a 'futuristic' design (whatever that is) is, in itself, a conservative perspective as it still clings to the notion of armoured warfare.

The future could be very "retro".

The design would follow the defensive and offensive capabilities of the vehicles.

Possible 'shapes':

Against high velocity projectiles, vehicles may still show a lot of angled edges to help deflect the projectile.

Against energy weapons, armour could be a super conductive material and the vehicle covered in fins to radiate the energy absorbed.

Vehicles using some kind of force screen may not need to worry about the shape so could be cluttered up with anything in the way of add-ons.

I'm actually expecting a 'sea change' from heavy, passive protection (armor) to lighter, active protection (jammers and point defenses). Similar to the difference between a dreadnought and a modern missile cruiser.

HMS Dreadnought was 18,000 tons, while the USS Ticonderoga is only 9800 tons. Both are ~570ft long (though the Tico is not as beamy). Tico also has 4x the installed motive power. Sure, *IF* the Dreadnought got within 12,000 yards of the Tico, the Tico would have a horrible day. I'd like to see a dreadnought survive the attempt, however. The Harpoon missiles are each equivalent to the 12" guns and are much more likely to hit, and then there's the TASM or Tomahawk IVs. By the time the old design reaches it's longest weapon range, it's finally getting into range of the 5" guns of the Tico, having been pounded by 8 or 16 Harpoons, plus whatever other anti-ship capabilities are lurking in the VLS bays.

Same advantages to the smaller, lighter, faster tank of the future.

Another advantage of small(er) lighter vehicles is that you can move them by air instead of by ship.

Sure, the Israelis are building IFVs with MBT armor levels, but they have specific, unique requirements (being even more casualty-averse than the US!) and are basically always on the defensive. For a country that needs to deploy anywhere in the world (US, Russia, China), I expect to see lighter tanks making a comeback.

Weapons-wise, I'd expect something broadly comparable to the 120mm in terms of armor penetration, though it may well be smaller caliber (the Israelis made a 60mm that had AP performance comparable to the L7 105mm), plus some kind of indirect-fire system like a 60mm or 81mm autoloading mortar, plus remote infantry-support weapons.

Early versions are going to be 'scabbed on', while later tanks are going to have the systems integrated into their design.

The South African G6 self-propelled howitzer:

That G6 looks like a Battletech escapee, alright.

i keep expecting to see the G6 as a grav vehicle in a sci fi series. especialy the top shot make its look almost floating

Man, that G6 needs a rollbar, if they are going to take turns like that, at speed.

One bad pothole, or ditch, and it'll be upside down.

In the sci-fi anthology Supertanks, a future tank is just a 2 meter armored anti-grav sphere with an operator inside who controls a dozen attack and defense drones.

Ball bearings anyone?

-Binhan

Naval comparisons aren't really relevant to land vehicles. At sea there is basically no terrain, so detection and targeting are far more important in getting a first strike in. On land, particularly in urban areas the enemy has lots of opportunity to attack from within effective weapon range without detection effective armor is more important.

Thus the move from Hummers to Armored Hummers to MRAP's. Speed and maneuverability is less important than armor when you're in the mountains or an urban area.

Simiar effects can be seen in Vietnam and WW2 – add on armor to gun trucks, tanks and half-tracks are common, even at the expense of speed and maneuverability. If the enemy has a weapon that can hit you, you want as much armor as you can afford.

-Binhan

Not quite complete Sci-Fi, but close link
or this
link