Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I'm certain if this is the right place for this topic but I would like some feed-back on this question that has been rattling in my head this morning.
so Tanks, wither they be from 40k, battletech, or any other Sci-fi game, which is better; hover or tracked?
take into account not only one on one tank warfare but overall performance in a conflict area such as maintaining, deployment, applications, and even other its roll in battle formations that have other vehicle
In my opinion tracked
if a hover tank takes a strong hit then chances are they will move backwards from the forces of the blast, Hover tanks would also require more fuel because even at a stand still the engines still have to keep a tank off the ground.
a track tank would be slower, but a failure of its engines could be less catastrophic (it wont fall a few feet to the ground)
"Thank him who puts me loath to this revenge on you who wrong me not for him who wrongd"
I am going to say hover, for one reason above all others: mobility. A hover tank could traverse areas a tracked vehicle would be encumbered by, and thus be more available to protect or transport troops anywhere needed. Even the most durable and fuel efficient tank is nothing if it can be bogged down by mud or stopped by tank traps.
"Courage is not the absence of fear, it is the conquest of it." -Anon
I'd say tracked tanks. A hover tank would be half tank, half plane, and not very good at either, I think. A tank is a ground vehicle, with some specific roles, and a gunboat is an aerial vehicle, with some other specific roles. It's like combining a scout tank with an artillery piece.
From a survivability point of view, I think tracked tanks would be best. If I recall correctly, the heavyweight tracked tanks of today are upwards of 60 tonnes. I just don't see it as possible that a hover tank could have that same armour mass and still be viable.
For manoeuvrability, nothing would beat a hover tank. It would likely outpace any other road-going vehicle, perhaps (as Tutankhankh suggested) coming closer to the realm of aircraft. It couldn't be as heavily armoured as a tracked vehicle, but I think it could mount a comparable weapon system.
It's impossible (for me, at least) to say which is better. Is more armour really better than greater manoeuvrability? Both are going to have their strengths and weaknesses, and each will be better suited in different situations.
That said, I think hover tanks would make very good infantry transports, being able to get in and out quickly, and not being overly troubled by terrain.
Im gonna have to go with tracked as well. The only advantage a hover tank would have is being able to get over terrain, which can be easily solved by puting on a dozer blade or other kind of brush clearing device.
Hover!! Mobility is everything in warfare. Being able to go places other tanks can't and get places faster is priceless.
No more NG spearmen, thanks! Now I need some pump-wagons!
It depends really... are the hover tanks using engines to stay aloft, or generating a grav field?
Assuming advanced (say Tau/Eldar) gravitic technology, the hovering part is not really a problem, only the motive force will require fuel of sorts. So I assume that any species or force capable of fielding hovering Tanks of any kind will have the technology to keep them in the field as long as their tracked counter parts.
The blow-back from impacts is a good point though, although they are still likely to mass a significan amount, and so a pretty potent impact would be required to push them back, they just don't have a grip on the ground to add to the equation.
Tracked vehicles... Way more durable but alot slower and likely to have heavier armour/armaments (again depending on technology levels).
My vote would got yo grav-tanks. Any other form of hover vehicle is likely full of volatile fuel for it's hover-engines, or is just too light weight to be a viable 'tank' as such.
(On a personal note, Tau grav tanks rock).
Sokahrthumaniel has a very valid point. An engine that generates a anti-grav field alá the masters of it, i.e. Eldar and Necrons, or the Tau's or Space Marines (land speeder) apparently has no problem at all with the fuel or armour (going by pure game stats, the armour of a Hammerhead matches that of a Predator).
The Eldar tanks are, fluffwise, capable of going several hundred kilometres an hour at top speed (per the Forge World books, the maximum recorded speed of a Falcon equivalent tank is 3100 km/h. Daaaaamn!), combined with good armour (since 12 should be in the middle-class I guess. Medium tank) and some serious firepower (remember, Eldar tech is quite toned down in the game) would give it an enormous advantage over tracked vehicles.
The only real disadvantage with this is that it can become a target of air-to-air and surface-to-air weaponry and that it will never have quite the same amount of armour as a tracked vehicle, although that could be a design decision by the Eldar since they prefer speed over protection.