"Grav Tanks, the Ups and Downs!" Topic

Hi I'm aiming to create a reasonably High tech Earth force for Grunts using Grav Tanks, specifically the Medium Tank and APC from Khurusan when they are up and running again (good luck John if you are reading this, hope things are getting back to normal)

My question is this, what sort of altitude would a grav tank be ale to operate, a few feet?, or are we looking at something able to work to much higher altitude, so in effect it can tactically operate like a small dropship in it's own right? Reason I'm asking is I want to know if I would have to buy additional dropships as well as the grav APC's.

Any suggestions appreciated.

It all depends on what your idea of Anti grav is. If it really is "ANTI-GRAVITY" they could go as high as they want. The old FASA Renegade legion tanks operated that way. Of course the tactical side is do you really want to exspose the bottom of the hull (probable location of the drive)to ground fire. On the hand, true AG engines wouldn't have to worry about weight, so the bottom can be armored.
On the other, other hand……

Exactly. Some stories have grav operating at only nape of the earth while others drop in from orbit..and of course some can do "pop ups" too. It's whatever floats your boat.

Ditto x2.

Star Wars called it repulser lift for the speeders so they could only go up a few feet. Most other stories I have read made them able to go into orbit if desired.

Yep, depends upon the tech.

Our Topgun Grav Tanks can drop in from orbit, at Mach 3, and fly at just under Mach 1 in level flight. At NOE level, they are capable of cruising along at 200 knots.

Of course, ours are a bit more streamlined than most models:

When desired, they can climb back up to orbit, for pickup by the assault ships.

I use 3-D Flight Stands and magnets, so they can be represented as flying at altitude, cruising at treetop level or popping up to get a quick look to fire on enemy units, stalking at NOE level, or even going hull down and powered off, sitting on the ground.

See here for more pics of our range:

link

Of course, dropships are very cool too, so good for lower tech models, or just when you want to add some other nice looking vehicles to the tabletop.

It depends on both the gravitic tech and armor/shielding tech available to the setting.

The Renegade Legion setting allowed its grav tanks to fly around freely since a side effect of the drive was complete kinetic immunity on the underside of the vehicle.

Not every setting has such luxuries, however, so the usual MO will be to start above the terrain and get closer to it, or in it, the closer you get to known enemy occupied territory. You get to combine the best parts of fast air deployment and heavy armor and weaponry on, or near, the ground.

Some grav "tanks" will be designed to operate like modern tanks, run close to the ground, and have a big turret with a big gun. Others will be designed more in line with modern helicopter gunships and ground support aircraft, and will be missile equipped, carry in-line guns, and be designed to fight from their undersides while standing off the ground or moving past the fight at high speed; preferably both.

The old Grav Armor boardgame had two categories, "hover" and "grav" mobility. Both used antigravity tech for lift, but the hover drives were much cheaper, more primitive tech that could only lift them a short distance above the surface (be it liquid or solid) below the vehicle. The full grav drives could manage landings from orbit and high-altitude, high-speed flight. Part of the cost savings of the hover AFVs came from them needing less advanced life support gear, since they weren't expected to operate in space like the grav-tanks did, although they could operate on airless moons (unlike an air-cushion/GEV hover).

When is a grav-tank a VTOL/gunship? The entire design philosophy of a tank is ground based, for ground combat. For 'flying' tanks, I think the design would be based on the type of weapons/missions. Why not use gunships, drones, and missles…? Therefore, 'grav-tanks' are obviously limited to a few feet off the ground. Don't ask me about 'grav-mecha' as this will require a great deal more explanation…

"Why not use gunships, drones, and missles…?".

Because Grav Tanks: are faster than VTOLs, can fly like jets through the atmosphere, but can hover like a helo and stalk like a tank, aren't impeded by terrain, are better armored, capable of being dropped in from orbit, and just look cool!

When is a grav-tank a VTOL/gunship?

When it needs to be? Grav armor arriving at a combat zone will slow and drop into terrain if the mission calls for it, but doctrine likely will call for the rear elements of the arriving squadron or company to act as air support for the lead elements, watching for response fire and responding to it from altitude just like gunships would, but able to change roles once the air support is not needed or *return* to an air support role should the situation change again. With the integral strategic and tactical mobility provided by such grav drives, separate gunship designs may be unneeded.

I like how H. Beam Piper did it in "Uller Uprising". The tanks flew on anti-grav to the combat zone then dropped down to use treads and their heavy gun. He also had dedicated anti-grav gun jeeps for anti infantry support, but the main air support was anti-grav gunships and heavier cruisers.

I am a believer in either all roles are done by one vehicle, a tank that flies and does the tank and gunship role, or you have a specific vehicle for each role.

I am also a firm believer in if you get too far from the ground you make a much easier target to hit. A tank 20 feet in the air is easier to see and hit then one sitting on the ground.

Putting my engineer's hat on I'd guess its an energy expended/fuel usage thingy – yes you could send them into orbit, or fly them half way round the planet, so long as you have enough energy – ie carry enough fuel.

I'd also suspect that when flying through the air they can be easily KO'd by a lot of the other advanced weaponry around so will keep their heads down whenever possible.

My favourite grav tank is Antenociti's Skorpion, I think it could arguably use Wing in Ground Effect tech to reduce energy whem operating a few feet off the ground, though i can see those Topgun ones could probably argue a similar benefit.

Personally, I'm an old Renegade Legion fan. Grav-tanks can drop in from orbit at obscene speeds, but that leaves them more likely to be hit.

They prefer to stick close to the ground to let the landscape block LOS, even though that effectively masks their nigh-invulnerable belly from incoming fire.

They really act more like helicopter gunships than ground-bound tanks. They can pop up, they can engage with a big gun (30mm chaingun is quite capable of chewing up any modern tank!), etc.

There is no right or wrong answer to your question, just personal views.

My view is that Grav Tanks should hover at about 45cms -60cms off the ground.

Tony

Personally my grav tanks are limited to a hover type effect 'a la' Hammers Slammers- the power needed for movement and the anti grav effect is 'used up' by the mass of armour and weapons etc, the 'tech' needed for anti grav is not so advanced as to allow free flight of large armoured vehicles- high enough to replace the cumbersome and high maintenance moving parts of wheels and tracks…. the flying is left for vtols,drones and flyers, ….
Having said that I have a collection of Scotia 'grav vehicles' that are purposed (in my universe!) for flight and low orbit entry- they are not that heavily armoured tho' to balance things out a little… and the models have large 'engines' on the back for fast propulsion….

As ever horses for courses and what 'fits' with your tastes….

Again, as your views on the subject permit. For me, I see them as capable of orbital entry, but heavier vehicles require transportation back to their ship. Also, in my view they are capable of flight, but the driver (pilot?) prefers to keep closer to the ground for terrain masking and a lower energy requirement but will use the capability to clear intervening obstacles.

Thanks everyone for their input, a lot to think about, not sure which way to go just yet, but i'm probably going the route of low ground clearance based on the amount of fuel payload it would take to haul something like a fully loaded MBT around at altitude.

However thanks to one and all for their input.