UFP Starfleet type 1 battletank

[Lt. Staplic]

Nice tank, Reliant, though, what's the deminsions of the thing, 'cause from the way I see it, it appears either to tall for it's legnth or off set with the height of the treds against the crew area.

Man, I really like how that thing turned out. Teaos, can we assume we have a few of these onboard Valkyrie?

I thought we'd settled the Valk's tanks with the T-120 I made specificly for that, and tailored to fit on board.

[Mark]

Ack...........I completely forgot you designed tanks as well. Perhaps we could have both types on board? Different tanks for different missions? Seafort..........your the man to ask. Any military precedent for that?

[Reliant121]

Entirely fair seafort.

i have just altered the weapons specs to retrofit the Type V phaser, instead of pulse phaser weapons. I think it can be either pulse or beam configured depending on wishes.

[Tsukiyumi]

Depends on the stats. One could be a light tank, another could be a heavy, used against fixed positions, etc.

I'm sorry Staplic, where was your design listed?

[Reliant121]

Staplic's design used Repulsor-lift/Anti-grav systems if i remember correctly. That could be a liability depending on the environment. I would think that because of that liability it would be used in less difficult environments, almost in line with the usage of a light tank. The Type 1 is designed for simplicity and reliability, meaning it is probably more durable in difficult weather environments, and no damned dampening fields is bringing this baby down!

[Tsukiyumi]

...and no damned dampening fields is bringing this baby down!

Right on. 8)

[Captain Seafort]

Ack...........I completely forgot you designed tanks as well. Perhaps we could have both types on board? Different tanks for different missions? Seafort..........your the man to ask. Any military precedent for that?

There's not really a precedent, but the anti-grav design would be faster, and probably a more stable platform for fire-on-the-move, while the tracked design would be more reliable and would be able to carry a bigger gun.

[Mark]

See? So having two makes sense!

[Sionnach Glic]

There's also the fact that tracked tanks would be far more reliable and less maintanence-intensive.

[Mikey]

Sure - the AG "tank" would be far better equipped to exploit changes on a very volatile battlefield and to support fast-moving infantry maneuvers, while the tracked type would be better suited for anti-installation or anti-armor support.

[Mark]

True

[Lt. Staplic]

no, after imput we decided mine would have tracks as well, but still have the ability for AG.

[Aaron]

There's not really a precedent, but the anti-grav design would be faster, and probably a more stable platform for fire-on-the-move, while the tracked design would be more reliable and would be able to carry a bigger gun.

As long as the gun is stabilised there shouldn't be a problem on either version. Modern MBT's can hit a target with the first round, going at speed across country.

There's also the fact that tracked tanks would be far more reliable and less maintanence-intensive.

Well there's really no way to know that, given how little we know of Trek AG. But tracked vehicles are very maintenance intensive, maybe with space-lube they wouldn't be too bad.

[Tsukiyumi]

...space-lube...

I think I have some of that. No wait, that's not what it's called...

[Mark]

Not Ben Gay is it?