Return to Answer

The first problem is one of engineering. Assuming the reference to hover tanks refers to vehicles equipped with ducted air fans and a 'skirt' or similar the issue becomes one of weight vs mobility.

Any military tank fitting the classic definition has to be;

A) Heavily armed - carrying a significant weapons payload of some type;

B) Heavily armored/protected - equipped with armor and active protection systems capable of defending it from heavy weapons fire;

C) Capable of maneuvering across varied terrain over an extended range.

However with hovercraft you get a trade off. Specifically you generally get (C) at the expense of (A) & (B). This is because every kilo of weight you add in armor and weapons dramatically increases the size/power requirements of the lifting fans and fuel consumption of the vehicle. So for the cost of building a hovercraft with the armor and weapons of a main battle tank you could probably build a dozen more fuel/cost efficient 'normal' tanks - which will also be much quieter than a 'souped up' heavily armored hovercraft.

Secondly you have the maneuverability issue. Hovercraft are great at traveling over open/mixed terrain at high sped. And terrible at breaking, changing direction/cornering compared to wheeled or tracked vehicles. This is because their speed comes at the cost of traction. (Which also makes them terrible platforms for firing cannons from BTW). And if you don't think traction is important (which it is) try taking a sharp corner on an icy road at high speed. Better yet, don't try, just trust me on this. Most of the time traction is a good thing!

For these reasons no country on Earth has ever produced a heavily armored combat hovercraft

What hovercraft are good at is what the US used them for approaches to landing zones from the sea. Plus as transports for crossing soft/marshy/watered terrain.

So you could create two types of military hovercraft;

(1) High speed/large volume military transports and;

(2) High speed, lightly armored missile/light cannon armed attack craft or Edit:(forgot to add APCs)

But no tanks.

The first problem is one of engineering. Assuming the reference to hover tanks refers to vehicles equipped with ducted air fans and a 'skirt' or similar the issue becomes one of weight vs mobility.

Any military tank fitting the classic definition has to be;

A) Heavily armed - carrying a significant weapons payload of some type;

B) Heavily armored/protected - equipped with armor and active protection systems capable of defending it from heavy weapons fire;

C) Capable of maneuvering across varied terrain over an extended range.

However with hovercraft you get a trade off. Specifically you generally get (C) at the expense of (A) & (B). This is because every kilo of weight you add in armor and weapons dramatically increases the size/power requirements of the lifting fans and fuel consumption of the vehicle. So for the cost of building a hovercraft with the armor and weapons of a main battle tank you could probably build a dozen more fuel/cost efficient 'normal' tanks - which will also be much quieter than a 'souped up' heavily armored hovercraft.

Secondly you have the maneuverability issue. Hovercraft are great at traveling over open/mixed terrain at high sped. And terrible at breaking, changing direction/cornering compared to wheeled or tracked vehicles. This is because their speed comes at the cost of traction. (Which also makes them terrible platforms for firing cannons from BTW). And if you don't think traction is important (which it is) try taking a sharp corner on an icy road at high speed. Better yet, don't try, just trust me on this. Most of the time traction is a good thing!

For these reasons no country on Earth has ever produced a heavily armored combat hovercraft

What hovercraft are good at is what the US used them for approaches to landing zones from the sea. Plus as transports for crossing soft/marshy/watered terrain.

So you could create two types of military hovercraft;

(1) High speed/large volume military transports and;

(2) High speed, lightly armored missile/light cannon armed attack craft or Edit:  (I forgot to add APCs)

But no tanks.

The first problem is one of engineering. Assuming the reference to hover tanks refers to vehicles equipped with ducted air fans and a 'skirt' or similar the issue becomes one of weight vs mobility.

Any military tank fitting the classic definition has to be;

A) Heavily armed - carrying a significant weapons payload of some type;

B) Heavily armored/protected - equipped with armor and active protection systems capable of defending it from heavy weapons fire;

C) Capable of maneuvering across varied terrain over an extended range.

However with hovercraft you get a trade off. Specifically you generally get (C) at the expense of (A) & (B). This is because every kilo of weight you add in armor and weapons dramatically increases the size/power requirements of the lifting fans and fuel consumption of the vehicle. So for the cost of building a hovercraft with the armor and weapons of a main battle tank you could probably build a dozen more fuel/cost efficient 'normal' tanks

Secondly you have the maneuverability issue. Hovercraft are great at traveling over open/mixed terrain at high sped. And terrible at breaking, changing direction/cornering compared to wheeled or tracked vehicles. This is because their speed comes at the cost of traction. (Which also makes them terrible platforms for firing cannons from BTW). And if you don't think traction is important (which it is) try taking a sharp corner on an icy road at high speed. Better yet, don't try, just trust me on this. Most of the time traction is a good thing!

For these reasons plus country on Earth has ever produced a heavily armored combat hovercraft

What hovercraft are good at is what the US used them for approaches to landing zones from the sea. Plus as transports for crossing soft/marshy/watered terrain.

So you could create two types of military hovercraft;

(1) High speed/large volume military transports and;

(2) High speed, lightly armored missile/light cannon armed attack craft.

But no tanks.

The first problem is one of engineering. Assuming the reference to hover tanks refers to vehicles equipped with ducted air fans and a 'skirt' or similar the issue becomes one of weight vs mobility.

Any military tank fitting the classic definition has to be;

A) Heavily armed - carrying a significant weapons payload of some type;

B) Heavily armored/protected - equipped with armor and active protection systems capable of defending it from heavy weapons fire;

C) Capable of maneuvering across varied terrain over an extended range.

However with hovercraft you get a trade off. Specifically you generally get (C) at the expense of (A) & (B). This is because every kilo of weight you add in armor and weapons dramatically increases the size/power requirements of the lifting fans and fuel consumption of the vehicle. So for the cost of building a hovercraft with the armor and weapons of a main battle tank you could probably build a dozen more fuel/cost efficient 'normal' tanks - which will also be much quieter than a 'souped up' heavily armored hovercraft.

Secondly you have the maneuverability issue. Hovercraft are great at traveling over open/mixed terrain at high sped. And terrible at breaking, changing direction/cornering compared to wheeled or tracked vehicles. This is because their speed comes at the cost of traction. (Which also makes them terrible platforms for firing cannons from BTW). And if you don't think traction is important (which it is) try taking a sharp corner on an icy road at high speed. Better yet, don't try, just trust me on this. Most of the time traction is a good thing!

For these reasons no country on Earth has ever produced a heavily armored combat hovercraft

What hovercraft are good at is what the US used them for approaches to landing zones from the sea. Plus as transports for crossing soft/marshy/watered terrain.

So you could create two types of military hovercraft;

(1) High speed/large volume military transports and;

(2) High speed, lightly armored missile/light cannon armed attack craft or Edit:(forgot to add APCs)

But no tanks.

The first problem is one of engineering. Assuming the reference to hover tanks refers to vehicles equipped with ducted air fans and a 'skirt' or similar the issue becomes one of weight vs mobility.

Any military tank fitting the classic definition has to be;

A) Heavily armed - carrying a significant weapons payload of some type;

B) Heavily armored/protected - equipped with armor and active protection systems capable of defending it from heavy weapons fire;

C) Capable of maneuvering across varied terrain over an extended range.

However with hovercraft you get a trade off. Specifically you generally get (C) at the expense of (A) & (B). This is because every kilo of weight you add in armor and weapons dramatically increases the size/power requirements of the lifting fans and fuel consumption of the vehicle. So for the cost of building a hovercraft with the armor and weapons of a main battle tank you could probably build a dozen more fuel/cost efficient 'normal' tanks

Secondly you have the maneuverability issue. Hovercraft are great at traveling over open/mixed terrain at high sped. And terrible at breaking, changing direction/cornering compared to wheeled or tracked vehicles. This is because their speed comes at the cost of traction. (Which also makes them terrible platforms for firing cannons from BTW). And if you don't think traction is important (which it is) try taking a sharp cornet on an icy road at high speed. Better yet, don't try, just trust me on this. Most of the time traction is a good thing!

For these reasons plus country on Earth has ever produced a heavily armored combat hovercraft

What hovercraft are good at is what the US used them for approaches to landing zones from the sea. Plus as transports for crossing soft/marshy/watered terrain.

So you could create two types of military hovercraft;

(1) High speed/large volume military transports and;

(2) High speed, lightly armored missile/light cannon armed attack craft.

But no tanks.

The first problem is one of engineering. Assuming the reference to hover tanks refers to vehicles equipped with ducted air fans and a 'skirt' or similar the issue becomes one of weight vs mobility.

Any military tank fitting the classic definition has to be;

A) Heavily armed - carrying a significant weapons payload of some type;

B) Heavily armored/protected - equipped with armor and active protection systems capable of defending it from heavy weapons fire;

C) Capable of maneuvering across varied terrain over an extended range.

However with hovercraft you get a trade off. Specifically you generally get (C) at the expense of (A) & (B). This is because every kilo of weight you add in armor and weapons dramatically increases the size/power requirements of the lifting fans and fuel consumption of the vehicle. So for the cost of building a hovercraft with the armor and weapons of a main battle tank you could probably build a dozen more fuel/cost efficient 'normal' tanks

Secondly you have the maneuverability issue. Hovercraft are great at traveling over open/mixed terrain at high sped. And terrible at breaking, changing direction/cornering compared to wheeled or tracked vehicles. This is because their speed comes at the cost of traction. (Which also makes them terrible platforms for firing cannons from BTW). And if you don't think traction is important (which it is) try taking a sharp corner on an icy road at high speed. Better yet, don't try, just trust me on this. Most of the time traction is a good thing!

For these reasons plus country on Earth has ever produced a heavily armored combat hovercraft

What hovercraft are good at is what the US used them for approaches to landing zones from the sea. Plus as transports for crossing soft/marshy/watered terrain.

So you could create two types of military hovercraft;

(1) High speed/large volume military transports and;

(2) High speed, lightly armored missile/light cannon armed attack craft.

But no tanks.