Timeline for Plausible reasons for Hovertanks
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
38 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 23, 2023 at 21:28 | vote | accept | Kyyshak | ||
| May 5, 2021 at 3:02 | answer | added | user1258361 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 20, 2021 at 14:22 | comment | added | Justin Thyme the Second | @Nick Dzink Controlled speed is life. Uncontrolled speed is death. It usually ends in "SPLAT". | |
| Apr 20, 2021 at 0:44 | comment | added | Nick Dzink | The easiest justification is "speed is life". If passive protection is non-factor then maneuvrability and initiative hover tech would provide over good old tracks becomes more important, while active protection remains the same on both chassis. | |
| Apr 19, 2021 at 15:13 | answer | added | sevensevens | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 19, 2021 at 14:53 | comment | added | Justin Thyme the Second | The most obvious disadvantage of any hover military weapon is that an air blast or gust of wind would scatter them all over the battlefield like leaves blown in the wind. As the question stands, it is up to the answer to specify how this would be prevented, and thus any answer is speculative. The 'How to prevent this problem...' has to be evaluated along with the 'When would...' question. Too many implied questions for any answer to be evaluated. The question concept is good, but the scope is limitless in criteria for any evaluation of an answer. | |
| Apr 19, 2021 at 14:39 | comment | added | Justin Thyme the Second | The question asks 'When would it be an advantage..." and most of the answers are 'never'. How do you rate a 'negative' answer? Pick the best reason NOT to use them? A better question, perhaps 'Why would they be used...' or something similar that eliminates negative answers from being considered, but then the question has to be absolutely specific and detailed as to type and method, or objective, of hover vehicle, in order to limit the design and rate the answers. Perhaps a better question "What type of hover vehicle would make a good hovertank?" or "What are the qualities of a good hovertank?" | |
| Apr 19, 2021 at 13:45 | answer | added | AmiralPatate | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 19, 2021 at 1:31 | comment | added | Jared K | @Kyyshak this question is in the mod queue for closure due to lack of clarity. It needs to focus in on a more specific challenge if it is going to remain open. Here's what could improve it: Add the details of the world you are creating. What is the climate? What is the technology level? What technology for hovering exists? What kind of war is happening, and what are the objectives of each side? What we look for on this site are questions that have some way to recognize a 'best' answer. As it is currently, your question has a million valid answers, with no way to know which is best. | |
| Apr 18, 2021 at 8:11 | comment | added | Demigan | @JustinThymetheSecond no reason to VTC, the question is clear. He wants to know how hover tanks could be useful. By not specifying which technology he leaves us the ability to discard a technology that you find flawed and use a superior one to clarify how you could make it plausible. If he specifies he would limit his answers unnecessarily. You'd also more easily get people who would get stuck only trying to disprove it all rather than trying to create a plausible answer. | |
| Apr 17, 2021 at 23:49 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 19, 2021 at 2:03 | |||||
| Apr 17, 2021 at 22:46 | comment | added | Justin Thyme the Second | And yes, I realize I gave an answer. But it was an answer that is more based on 'lack of specifics'. It's more an answer to 'the usefulness of tanks of any means of locomotion'. | |
| Apr 17, 2021 at 22:40 | comment | added | Justin Thyme the Second | Looking over the answers, I am tempted to VTC, based on the lack of clarity and detail in the question. The answers are all over the place, and the question gives no good criteria as to which is better or worse. Specifically, we have no idea of what is meant by 'hovertanks', and this makes all answers ambiguous. It could, in fact, be asking for the advantages of helicopters and VTOL jet fighters, which both fit the limited description. | |
| Apr 17, 2021 at 21:27 | comment | added | John | this is really going to be depend on what fictional tech you allow, can you narrow the question down a bit more, real hovercraft tech vs whatever sci-fi BS tech we can handwave are going to yield very different answers. | |
| Apr 17, 2021 at 20:51 | comment | added | Justin Thyme the Second | Hovercraft are NOT maneuverable. There are only three things you can do with a hovercraft. Go in a straight line, at any speed, and never change direction. Or be absolutely stationary, and turn a sharp corner. Or change vector, when traveling, in a very slow arc. You can not be traveling, at ANY speed, and turn a sharp corner. | |
| Apr 17, 2021 at 17:25 | comment | added | Justin Thyme the Second | There is a very big difference between ground-effect hovercraft and vertical lift. Which one do you have in mind? The concept of 'hovercraft' is usually restricted to ground-effect, not helicopters, VTOL, or quadcopter. Ground effect vehicles require a lot less energy than vertical lift. They 'sit' on the cushion of air, they are not 'thrust up' by it. Completely different technology. | |
| Apr 17, 2021 at 16:21 | answer | added | Justin Thyme the Second | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 17, 2021 at 16:13 | answer | added | Fulano | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 17, 2021 at 14:22 | comment | added | Ralph J | @mwarren Beam weapons would remove issues with recoil. | |
| Apr 17, 2021 at 12:14 | answer | added | Journeyman Geek | timeline score: 5 | |
| Apr 17, 2021 at 4:16 | answer | added | bta | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 17, 2021 at 2:55 | answer | added | Peteris | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 19:31 | answer | added | Spitemaster | timeline score: 13 | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 19:23 | answer | added | NBJack | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 17:07 | comment | added | Nuclear241 | I am inclined to quote this worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/200426/79717. It might be an advantage to have hovertanks fill in specific or specialized roles that can prove advantageous in complementing the main army. Possible roles on top of my head: minesweeping/crossing over minefields, high speed ambush/pursuit, moving on very uneven terrain (hovertanks can just.. jump a little bit?). | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 16:22 | comment | added | Matthew | Recommended reading/research: Hammer's Slammers. I want to say one of the anthologies even tries to answer this. | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 16:03 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Apr 16, 2021 at 15:11 | answer | added | Demigan | timeline score: 19 | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 12:31 | answer | added | Mon | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 12:27 | comment | added | PcMan | Hovertanks are a completely impractical idea. Why, one might as well propose to build a boat to cross the ocean, based on hover technology! | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 11:33 | answer | added | Robyn | timeline score: 6 | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 10:50 | comment | added | mwarren | @Demigan I only said it might be a problem, but it needs thinking about. The tanks thrusters could mitigate recoil, but what if the gun is firing sideways? Anyway, just mentioned it as something to think about. | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 10:46 | comment | added | Demigan | @mwarren why couldn't it and why would it be bad? Hover tech suggests ground effect, a directional thruster or whatever is used to move can counter recoil. Besides that what is more damaging: accelerating and then immediately decelerating or accelerating and then decelerating over time? Hover tanks would receive less stress from recoil as a result. | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 10:05 | answer | added | ThisIsMe | timeline score: 27 | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 9:05 | comment | added | mwarren | One problem might be recoil from the main gun (if it has one), as a hovertank cannot resist the recoil with ground contact. | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 9:00 | answer | added | Trioxidane | timeline score: 14 | |
| Apr 16, 2021 at 8:07 | history | edited | Kyyshak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Apr 16, 2021 at 8:02 | history | asked | Kyyshak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |