Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Death Gliders vs Tanks (M1 Abrams)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Death Gliders vs Tanks (M1 Abrams)

    I'm basing this discussion on the concept that the Tauri sent armoured forces against Jaffa troops.

    Theorectically, it is a no-brainer: the firepower of tanks (any modern tank) can easily overwhelm any light infantry force. As World War 2 has proven, tanks in massed large numbers can easily break through and decimate enemy held defensive positions or lines.

    But what if the Tauri do not possess air supremacy?

    1) Even if we assume that armoured units sent through the Stargate were accompanied by highly mobile air-defence units carrying perharps anti-aircraft machine guns and stinger missiles, will a dozen Death Gliders still make short work out of an armoured battalion?

    2) Don;t forget, tanks eat up a ;ot of fuel and they require a lot of logistical support. So for the sake of arguement, we incorporate advanced reverse-engineer technology into the M1 Abrams.

    a)so the tracks of the tank get replaced by anti-gravity, turning it into a hover craft

    b) The cannon gets replaced by a giant version of the staff weapon or soe kind of energy weapon; or even the rail gun

    Arguements against:

    1) if the Tauri can incorporate anti-gravity into the tanks (I'm assuming they can; how else they lift-off the X-303 and 304?), whats stopping the designer to go several steps further and practically turn it into a flying space fighter craft with VTOL capability, albeit with heavier armour? Like an evolved version of the F-302? Thats assuming the fuel source gets changed from petrol to naquadah?

    2) if the main cannon, it gets turned into the railgun, wouldn;t that make it more like a helicopter gunship? I'm assuming that there isnlt any kind of altitude limit to the hovering capability?

    #2
    In the episode "There but for the Grace of God"

    The motherships annihilated the cities pretty fast.

    The motherships and the alkesh probably have fearsome firepower. I don;t even want to know what that kind of firepower would do to an entire armoured division.

    In the real world, anti-tank weaponary is improving. Look at the matador anti-armour missile as an exmaple.

    Comment


      #3
      well just change its main barrel to a railgun, make sure the cannon can aim up high enoug, and nothing stands in your way

      Comment


        #4
        I think Faster stuff lie wariors and stricker would be better Abrams is verry tall

        also id imagine a staff wepon would be verry good against metal armor

        Now VS the raith on the other hand easy mascre

        Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWmw1u2to5M

        Currently recruiting new staff


        Comment


          #5
          Even if the tank was a standard Abrams on a planet with flat terrain and some forrest area the tank would put up a good fight. Assuming they could target the Death Glider, one hit would take it down (especially an armour piercing round). But with support of anti-aircraft guns they could role out onto the battle field and shatter the Jaffa ranks with concentrated fire power and lightning strikes.

          Comment


            #6
            infantry staff weapons wouldnt penetrate an abrams refractive chabem armor a abrams can withstand 2 anti tank missiles for fire power examples and the abrams has 3 machine guns 1 coiaxel 7.62 machine gun on the back and 1 50.cal on the turret top and a 50.cal next to the main gun that moves with the barrel and the a1s du slap rounds from its 120mm smooth bore cannon would be enough for anything but upgrading to railgun just provides more firepower secondly with its 3 computer control machine guns it has good anti air capability plus the abrams comes with a tow missile launcher left of the main gun specifically to knockout air units as an aa defense plus gliders only have guns no missiles like our jets so they have to come close to hit a armored battalion which means they would be in range of the armors anti air defenses unlike our jets we have missiles so we can fire at stand off distances and never wander into enemy anti air defense
            I WANT A WRAITH LOL

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by wraith_ownage View Post
              infantry staff weapons wouldnt penetrate an abrams refractive chabem armor a abrams can withstand 2 anti tank missiles for fire power examples and the abrams has 3 machine guns 1 coiaxel 7.62 machine gun on the back and 1 50.cal on the turret top and a 50.cal next to the main gun that moves with the barrel and the a1s du slap rounds from its 120mm smooth bore cannon would be enough for anything but upgrading to railgun just provides more firepower secondly with its 3 computer control machine guns it has good anti air capability plus the abrams comes with a tow missile launcher left of the main gun specifically to knockout air units as an aa defense plus gliders only have guns no missiles like our jets so they have to come close to hit a armored battalion which means they would be in range of the armors anti air defenses unlike our jets we have missiles so we can fire at stand off distances and never wander into enemy anti air defense
              I agree with that. They are barly able to knock plaster off the wall in the SGC whenever they've been there so I doubt they'll be more effective against a tank.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by tauriprivatesoldier View Post
                I'm basing this discussion on the concept that the Tauri sent armoured forces against Jaffa troops.

                Theorectically, it is a no-brainer: the firepower of tanks (any modern tank) can easily overwhelm any light infantry force. As World War 2 has proven, tanks in massed large numbers can easily break through and decimate enemy held defensive positions or lines.

                But what if the Tauri do not possess air supremacy?

                1) Even if we assume that armoured units sent through the Stargate were accompanied by highly mobile air-defence units carrying perharps anti-aircraft machine guns and stinger missiles, will a dozen Death Gliders still make short work out of an armoured battalion?

                2) Don;t forget, tanks eat up a ;ot of fuel and they require a lot of logistical support. So for the sake of arguement, we incorporate advanced reverse-engineer technology into the M1 Abrams.

                a)so the tracks of the tank get replaced by anti-gravity, turning it into a hover craft

                b) The cannon gets replaced by a giant version of the staff weapon or soe kind of energy weapon; or even the rail gun

                Arguements against:

                1) if the Tauri can incorporate anti-gravity into the tanks (I'm assuming they can; how else they lift-off the X-303 and 304?), whats stopping the designer to go several steps further and practically turn it into a flying space fighter craft with VTOL capability, albeit with heavier armour? Like an evolved version of the F-302? Thats assuming the fuel source gets changed from petrol to naquadah?

                2) if the main cannon, it gets turned into the railgun, wouldn;t that make it more like a helicopter gunship? I'm assuming that there isnlt any kind of altitude limit to the hovering capability?
                i dont follow.
                Supporter of the "It's Asgard, NOT AsgUard !" campaign.

                Spoiler:

                Comment


                  #9
                  The M1 Abrams tanks, or any armour, is a logistical mightmare.

                  1) They each weigh 54 tons

                  2) They can't be transported by plane
                  3) Have to be shipped by vesel, and then by truck or train overland to the battlefront

                  Their logisical support includes

                  1) APCs
                  2) tracked veheicles for recce operations
                  artelliary
                  3) air defence
                  4) Engineering/vehicle reair units

                  Comment


                    #10
                    i still dont get wat APC means.
                    Supporter of the "It's Asgard, NOT AsgUard !" campaign.

                    Spoiler:

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Sorry, just found out that the M1 Abrams can be carried by the C-5 and C-17 military transport planes

                      APC means armoured personnel carrriers. They are basically vehicles covered in armour and depending on their size, can carry up to 10 soldiers. They ride infantry soldiers into the battlefield, along with armour units. They offer protection from small-arms fire and RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades)

                      Comment


                        #12
                        right so its basically a troop carrying RV.
                        Supporter of the "It's Asgard, NOT AsgUard !" campaign.

                        Spoiler:

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Lord Excalibar View Post
                          right so its basically a troop carrying RV.
                          Basically. They also get used as portable command vehicles when the troops are deployed and in action.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            The tanks can be very vulnerable to gould attack craft.

                            Since the Death Gliders can be shot down by stingers, lets consider the hatak scenario.

                            An entire US army armoured division moves onto the battlefield. Suddenly, an gould hatak mothership descends and hovers above the battlefield. Usingits giant staff cannons, it fires bolt after bolt onto the battlefield (those things supposedly have a firepower of 200 megatons, if we can believe what was said in the episode "There but for the grace of God").

                            The entire division gets decimated, then the Jaffa move in to pick off any stragglers.

                            Een in the real world, tanks can be very vulnerable. Take the MQ-9 Reaper UCAV. It carries 14 hellfire missiles, or the Apache attack helicopter

                            By the way, I know the M1 Abrams tank has thick armour, but can it last a attack against the Hellfire missile?

                            technologically, tank protection is losing the battle against anti-tank weapon.
                            Although armour technology is improving, its a racing battle against improving portable anti-tank missile technology, which is improving and gettin cheaper

                            Comment


                              #15
                              plasma is superheated gas. so even though its terribly weak against many sources, it can cut throug metal like a hot knife through butter. in some episodes, they just siffed right through the blast door of the control room

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X