Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Concept Art: M-tank by SpiderPrince Concept Art: M-tank by SpiderPrince
As battles moved from the fields of old to a more urban setting it became apparent, as infantry casualties rocketed upward, that tanks and other heavy weapon platforms where ill equipped to deal with these situations. Enter the M-tank.
In the year N.C.E 1567 a small technologies firm produced the first prototype M-tank as a replacement for the tank as we know it. Sporting variable weapon configurations as well as comparable or better armament than all of the weapon platforms in use at the time the M-tank was without pier. Not only in arms but in mobility. Using a tandem mobility system the M-tank is equipped for tracked movement and as such can go anywhere a normal tank can, however in addition to the tracks the M-tank is equipped for bipedal movement enabling it to walk over obstacles that would stop other weapon platforms. In addition master-slave systems enable an unprecedented level of environmental manipulation.
With modifications to the original design and after rigorous testing the M-tank became a military staple.
Add a Comment:
 
:icongerovort:
GeroVort Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Awesome robot!
The legs reminds a similar chassis in the Metal Slug  Clap 
Reply
:iconunspacy:
unspacy Featured By Owner Mar 29, 2011
wow !!!!!! love this unit!!!!!
Reply
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2011
thanks
Reply
:iconunspacy:
unspacy Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2011
you welcome
but can I use your art in my blog ???by using link and put your info
Reply
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Apr 2, 2011
sure, go for it.
Reply
:iconunspacy:
unspacy Featured By Owner Feb 18, 2011
love it
Reply
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2011
thank you
Reply
:iconunspacy:
unspacy Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2011
sorry deleted you your reply by accident sorry man can you E mail at
UNSPACY@hotmail.com
thank you
Reply
:iconwilliamcll:
williamcll Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2010
this is problamatic if it stepped on a mine
Reply
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2010
It depends on the mine. Anti-personal mines would, as one would think, do nothing. Anti-tank mines would do anything from disable the tracked movement capabilities to disable the leg entirely and at the very worst explode the ammunition pack for the primary weapon. Due to this possibility the ammunition pack is built in such a way that if there is an ammo explosion the blast is angled away from the MT, either forward or back depending on the weapon mount, to prevent major damage.
Reply
:iconwilliamcll:
williamcll Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2010
and also, holes on the ground
Reply
:iconfreddotron:
Freddotron Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2010
Very nice i like the belly turret!
Reply
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2010
thank you
Reply
:iconmadcomm:
madcomm Featured By Owner Jun 16, 2010  Student Digital Artist
Hmmm. Heavy gear II player?
Reply
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Jun 16, 2010
I did play the game. It was really good at the time and I did use the heavy gear concepts as far as the tracks in the feet and the over-all size.
Reply
:iconmadcomm:
madcomm Featured By Owner Jun 17, 2010  Student Digital Artist
All hail the dark kodiak DX
Rock on.
Reply
:iconpoetryman1:
PoetryMan1 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2010  Student Filmographer
nice work!
Reply
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2010
Thanks
Reply
:iconpoetryman1:
PoetryMan1 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2010  Student Filmographer
np friend.
Reply
:iconsanjikunsgirl:
Sanjikunsgirl Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2009
A nice concept for futuristic military development, and very well thought out.
Reply
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2009
Im still working on it. I want to get a couple more designs down before doing anything related to a story line.
Reply
:iconcanadian-weapon338:
canadian-weapon338 Featured By Owner Oct 12, 2009  Hobbyist General Artist
great work iam not going to say anything about why i think a walker is better then a tank in a city setting as i love both tanks walker etc cause as you said iam not here to fight i love ur work keep it up
Reply
:icondarkproxy:
DarkProxy Featured By Owner Aug 14, 2008  Hobbyist Writer
so who's the buyer i mean the US Army buys all General Dynamics Strykers
M1a2 tanks
Reply
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2008
Well Im not sure if Im going with the future or an alternate time line or what but in the world were M-Tanks are a reality the US is definatly not. Im dont think its even Earth Im working with here. Earth just seems like way too small of a planet for my liking. Im thinking of a world much more the size of Jupiter or Saturn.
Also I think its probably less of a question of who buys the M-Tanks as aposed to who builds them. I think Im gonna go with the ruling bodies being corpro-nations. Think of it like if General Dynamics instead of selling those tanks used them to take control of land for themselves. It'd be kinda like that.
Reply
:icondarkproxy:
DarkProxy Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2008  Hobbyist Writer
i see the all to common corporation wars as for the Jupiter and saturn they are gas giants. as for your corpronations good luck it's a hard line to walk in fiction unlike today where i was offered four years of service to blackwater in exchange for USD $780,000. i think we'll be looking at a war economy soon
Reply
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2008
Yes corprate wars would be common though I think in the instance Im working with its not so much common as ongoing. The corpro-nations dont ever really stop being at war. The fighting may die down from time to time but it never really goes away.
I know Jupiter and Saturn are gas giants, Im not saying the actual planets of Jupiter or Saturn Im saying a planet of roughly the same size.
A war economy is probably not too far off at the rate we seem to be going.
Reply
:icondarkproxy:
DarkProxy Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2008  Hobbyist Writer
oh well when you said a planet like saturn i just thought you meant that and the corpate wars not ending that is mostly what is always a reality why would the Nato allies be training troops to fight the russians and terrorists if the world has truely lost a need for cold wars' weapons races any way i can't wait to see some writing behind an M-T creation. i myslef stick to sci fi writing between governments and their "backers" as for mechs and tanks in it they complement and counter each other. i'm nervous about posting a single page on line
Reply
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2008
As tanks and the like are deployed as support for large troop forces so are M-Tanks and while infantry ambush may be a concern friendly infantry and multi unit teams push the threat ranting of any hostile troops far below acceptable levels. As for the IFV, in a combat torn metropolitan area there isnt neessarily any options other than close quarters due to large amounts of rubble and the like from the buildings.


Dont worry about staring a fight or whatever. Its kinda cool to be able to explain the reasoning behind the M-T
Reply
:icondarkproxy:
DarkProxy Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2008  Hobbyist Writer
sweet but i see an opening for an anti M-tank IFV and a missile crew but i was tought in anti tank warfare so looking at this stuff i atomaticly figure some way to kill armor
Reply
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2008
An IFV wouldnt be able to carry the kind of fire power necessary to take out an M-Tank. In addition the M-Tank was designed to be used in areas were conventional tanks and such vehicals are less effective like urban and metropolitan settings.
Reply
:iconzyamaman:
ZyamaMaN Featured By Owner Aug 18, 2008
My man, tanks and IFV's are as effective in urban settings as it's realistically possible for a fire support vehicle to ever be.

In an urban setting, a bug, hulking walker is just as mobile as a big hulking tracked vehicle, except that the walker is slower, proved much less protection for the men on the ground, and it's less protected itself.

In other words, stick to the tracks...
Reply
:icondarkproxy:
DarkProxy Featured By Owner Aug 23, 2008  Hobbyist Writer
that is correct if you're taking about the US army's little attempt that cost 42 million green backs and fell on it's face
Reply
:iconzyamaman:
ZyamaMaN Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2008
I have no idea of what are you talking about...
Reply
:icondarkproxy:
DarkProxy Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2008  Hobbyist Writer
when you mentioned all the problems that come with a walking tank there was a program in the 1980s that made three prototypes and all failed so bad that have of the men working on it had their careers ruined
Reply
:iconzyamaman:
ZyamaMaN Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2008
Oh, I had no idea!

But it's not surprising, because we still don't have the technology to make a full-sized, functioning walker vehicle.
And once we'll do, it'll be much smarter to simply improve the ordinary tracked/wheeled vehicles instead...

Also, do you have a link with information on this project?
Maybe some pics?
Reply
:icondarkproxy:
DarkProxy Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2008  Hobbyist Writer
i'm sorry i only know about the walker project because of my millitary service but on wikipedia if you type in walker there is a photo about one of the more successfull one in read i'll post the picture but the ones meant to be front line weapons i only know about because of a news letter but watch my page and i'll try to see about posting an image
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Aug 20, 2008
I honestly question the effectivness in an urban or metropolitan setting of a vehical that needs to put more than 50% of itself around a corner before effectivly using its turreted gun.
In most sci-fi settings were walkers and the like are previlent they tend to be as fast or faster than tracked or wheeled vehicals. As Im trying to add a bit of hard science to the equasion I added in the SMS tracks/wheeles to the M-Tank because yes tracked/wheeled vehicals would be faster. Ofcource in an urban or metropolitan combat setting its not nessesarily all about speed. The M-T is more about mobility. A tank, an IFV, a humvee or what have you would have to stop and find another way around a pile of rouble blocking a street, the M-T simple walks over it and keeps going.
Also often times in sci-fi settings, as in mine, there are things other than tanks and IFVs to worry about so the combat and tactics of today may not be the best things to base critasism off of.

Thanks for the comment. Like I said to the last guy its kinda cool to be able to explain the reasoning behind my works. Also dont take this as an attack on you via your comment, Im not trying to start an argument. Thanks again.
Reply
:iconzyamaman:
ZyamaMaN Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2008
Sorry for responding so late - I was somewhat busy in the last few weeks.

Anyway, here it goes:
I honestly question the effectivness in an urban or metropolitan setting of a vehical that needs to put more than 50% of itself around a corner before effectivly using its turreted gun.
Yeah, that's a problem.
But that's the only disadvantage a tracked vehicle has in comparison with a walker.

But don't don't forget that in urban settings, providing fire support is just one of an IFV's many tasks, and not necessarily the most important one.

There's also the issue of providing armor cover for your men on the ground - both mounted and dismounted.
Any conceivable walker would fail miserably in this field, while a simple heavily armored APC (like the Israeli T55-based Achzarit) does a great job at it, without providing any of the logistical ass-aches a walker would provide.

So I don't think that the ability of shooting from behind a corner is worth the sacrifice of the valuable armor protection troops need so much in urban warfare.

Besides, armored vehicles are not supposed to be hiding in cover - many times they will be required to put themselves under enemy fire to withdraw it from the troops on the ground.

In most sci-fi settings were walkers and the like are previlent
Well, that's just because the authors of such shows are totally oblivious to the main principles of armored warfare.

they tend to be as fast or faster than tracked or wheeled vehicals.
Right.
Now consider this: a walker is an INCREDIBLY energy-inefficient vehicle configurations.
Simple logic implies that.

Now, since we know that those walkers are very fast and mobile, we conclude that someone managed to produce such a powerful motor that can make even the most inefficiently designed vehicle to still be very, very fast.

Now imagine for a second what we could do if we had this kind of AMAZING motor strapped to an actually energy-efficient vehicle?
What kind of velocities it would reach!
Or, instead, we could drastically reduce the size of our old engines without sacrificing in performance, and thus saving a lot of interior space!
Or simply making the entire machine smaller, and thus, harder to hit!

The point is that a tracked/wheeled vehicle built with the same technology those walkers were built would be an incredibly effective war machine.

As Im trying to add a bit of hard science to the equasion I added in the SMS tracks/wheeles to the M-Tank because yes tracked/wheeled vehicals would be faster.
Yes, but you completely miss the entire point behind the tracks and wheels.
They are used to better distribute the weight of the machine, and to have a better grip with the contact surface.
Simply strapping wheels/tracks to the feet of your walker fails to achieve that - the area of contact with the road is still very small and the weight of the vehicle is not distributed efficiently to the ground.

Also, there's the issue of the center of the mass...

The M-T is more about mobility.
But that's the whole idea - walkers would never be as mobile as tracked/wheeled vehicles based on the same technology.

Besides, urban warfare is much more about armor and firepower than mobility.
It's all about providing fire and armor support to the men on the ground.

A tank, an IFV, a humvee or what have you would have to stop and find another way around a pile of rouble blocking a street, the M-T simple walks over it and keeps going.
I decree.
Piles of rubble are not a stable surface - they cannot support the weight of a well armored walker.
And since walkers are inherently unstable vehicles (high center of mass, poor weight distribution, poor surface grip), they are very likely to trip on some loose rock in that pile and simply flip over.

Also often times in sci-fi settings, as in mine, there are things other than tanks and IFVs to worry about so the combat and tactics of today may not be the best things to base critasism off of.
Well, it's not stated what are those new threats that modern armored vehicles cannot deal with, it's kinda hard for me to judge.
I honestly fail to conceive such incredible advancements in military technology that will render an entire warfare doctrine completely obsolete.

All I can think of is further advancements in firepower and target acquisition/tracking abilities, but as history teaches us, such advancements are being made in parallel with advancements in armor and protection technologies.
That's why I can't perceive a future when tracks and wheels will be superseded by legs.

But here's a thing I think I missed - what size your tank is, anyway?
Because everything I said applies to full-sized walker vehicles which are supposed to replace older tracks.
If we're talking about a man-sized, mobile power-armor suit which is supposed to simply reinforce the single footman, my entire argument is moot and void!

Thanks for the comment.
Sure thing ;)
I'm always glad to discuss such things.

Also dont take this as an attack on you via your comment,
God forbids, why would I think such a thing?
I were the one who contacted you first, right?

And I want to say the same thing - my reply was not intended to insult you in any way or form, even if it might seem that way sometimes.
It's kinda hard to transmit feeling through a message, so that complicates proper communication a little bit :)
Reply
:iconfrantaitantos:
Frantaitantos Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2010
I heartily agree onyour points of view, as they seem based on real battle-experience and real physics. When i first saw the drawing I thought it was some sort of personal armour, which then made sense. But I don't deem it feasible as an AFV. It mobility is so important, and we deal with an sci-fi environment, why not make it able to fly or hover? It will then be really useful. In ar urban environment infantry is queen, yes, but only when panzers accept to fight the way the infantry likes better; don't forget that panzers are truly hulking things and what they can overrun or demolish, they can shoot at from afar, and only fools will risk such an expensive material without support.
So, personal armour or infantry robots, OK, tanks, no.For tanks I would pick something different.
Reply
:iconfrantaitantos:
Frantaitantos Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2010
Besides, imagine that thing trying to reach its target inside a skyscrapper. Do you think stairs would not crumble under it?
Appleseed films personal armour is a nice design for it.
Reply
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Oct 22, 2008
Sorry it took so long to reply. Been kinda buisy.


A lot of the arguments you pose here are valid arguments if based on current technologies. I think by virtue of the M-Tank being a piece of science fiction it is assumed that it is not based on current technology. Also a lot of your argument is based off of the M-T in relation to infantry. In my setting infantry deployment for purposes of major combat is virtualy nil due to its inefectivness given the enemy at hand( see concept art Padaniod battlesuit).The M-T wasnt built to be very effective at covering for infantry since yes tanks and APCs are good at doing that. The M-T was built for a sepecialized purpose, combating a very moblie foe in metropolitan settings.

I realize this dosnt nessesarily answer questions posed but by virtue of it being science fiction there are going to be some things I can explain and some things I cant. If your able to suspend your disbelief enough in order to get enjoyment for this then thats cool but if not thats cool too.
Reply
:iconzyamaman:
ZyamaMaN Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2008
I of course wanted to say "I decry", not "I decree".
No idea how that happened...
Reply
:icondarkproxy:
DarkProxy Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2008  Hobbyist Writer
an urban setting is a grave yard to many vehicles plus a metroplis' massive sky scrapers would leave open the top side what are the anti infanry based weapons are the consealed because infantry well certain types are much more deadly then a mech or tank as for the IFV they always engage at range not CQC
ps not trying to start fight just a reminder ever since youtube
Reply
:iconbioviral:
Bioviral Featured By Owner Jun 13, 2008
Very nice design. The way you shaded it also is quite amazing.

Reminds me of the mechas from the Red Ribbon Army from Dragonball.
Reply
:iconpintoro:
Pintoro Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2008
Very interesting design!
Reply
:iconjager375:
Jager375 Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2007  Professional Digital Artist
I like the foot tracks. I am envious i didn't thought about that. ^_^
Reply
:iconnigellus:
nigellus Featured By Owner Sep 11, 2007  Student
Fuck, only few have thought of having TRACKS AS FEET!, Nice concept man!!
Reply
:iconhycanithe:
Hycanithe Featured By Owner Sep 7, 2007
Now that is somethin' I wouldn't want to run into, you know what I mean? Excellent artwork SpiderPrince, I envy your drawing skills.


I really do.
Reply
:iconspiderprince:
SpiderPrince Featured By Owner Sep 7, 2007
thanks
Reply
:iconwarrior-fenix:
Warrior-Fenix Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2007
Nice.

... cannon crotch. Tehee.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
July 9, 2007
Image Size
151 KB
Resolution
1275×1456
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
28,460 (3 today)
Favourites
166 (who?)
Comments
51
×