# Looking for a critique - Hover tanks



## AlexanderSen

I have been working on my digital painting skills doing concept art. The design is a flying / hover tank. I have two versions, and I wanted to know which one people like more - the one more abstract impressionistic-like or the one which has more line work showing through and is more detailed. Also, of course, any constructive criticism is welcome!


----------



## Phyrebrat

I chose pencil but I am a fan of impressionist styles. To me the impressionistic one looks a little imprecise - or rather, has mistakes - whereas the line version looks more exact. I know that sounds stupid bearing in mind what impressionism is, but I can't think of a clearer way to say it. I prefer the soldiers in the impressionist version, though.

The main problem I have is the skids. If you could make them a little tidier in version 1, I could be persuaded to change my preference. I prefer the luminous background and cloudiness of the first, too. I'd expect the writing to be less legible though.

I wish I could draw 

pH


----------



## mosaix

Phyrebrat said:


> I chose pencil but I am a fan of impressionist styles. To me the impressionistic one looks a little imprecise - or rather, has mistakes - whereas the line version looks more exact. I know that sounds stupid bearing in mind what impressionism is, but I can't think of a clearer way to say it. I prefer the soldiers in the impressionist version, though.
> 
> The main problem I have is the skids. If you could make them a little tidier in version 1, I could be persuaded to change my preference. I prefer the luminous background and cloudiness of the first, too. I'd expect the writing to be less legible though.
> 
> I wish I could draw
> 
> pH



This ^^

Also, the impressionist one looks somehow 'unfinished'.


----------



## hopewrites

I fully expected to like the second one, given my personal tastes.

However it felt the least finished, least story invoking of the two. After viewing the second, the obvious 'brush strokes' of the first felt more like water drops on the window through which the view was glimpsed. The faces of the first, though less distinct, have more character. The atmospheric smearing gives the first a feel of action. Where as the second is motionless.


----------



## AstroZon

AlexanderSen said:


> View attachment 30151
> View attachment 30152
> 
> I have been working on my digital painting skills doing concept art. The design is a flying / hover tank. I have two versions, and I wanted to know which one people like more - the one more abstract impressionistic-like or the one which has more line work showing through and is more detailed. Also, of course, any constructive criticism is welcome!



I like the first one better.  In fact, it's perfect! It reminds me of several Japanese artists.  Have you ever lived in Japan?


----------



## AlexanderSen

Hi, thanks for the critiques everyone! I am reworking the image and trying to use the input from the critiques. And yes, AstroZon, I did live in Japan for a while. It was a great time - they have a strong Manga and Anime market, so there is so many cool things that they have there.


----------



## AstroZon

AlexanderSen said:


> Hi, thanks for the critiques everyone! I am reworking the image and trying to use the input from the critiques. And yes, AstroZon, I did live in Japan for a while. It was a great time - they have a strong Manga and Anime market, so there is so many cool things that they have there.



Cool.  I lived there too, a few different times in fact.  Most people are familiar with Anime and Manga, but there is so much other good art in Japan.  The expressions and the eyes on the first picture are what remind me so much of Japanese illustrative art.


----------



## AlexanderSen

Based on everyone's critiques I made another version which took the best things out of the two illustrations before.


----------



## AlexanderSen

I was experimenting and also did another version of a hover tank. Similar design, but slightly different. I tried another style again this time using big thick comic book lines. I am not complete happy with the dazzle camo on the tank, I probably should look into more real life references to get the right feel.


----------



## hopewrites

The new version looks great!


----------



## AlexanderSen

hopewrites said:


> The new version looks great!



Thanks! I am now working on another version of the hover tank, here is the rough. Also, I have been working on a hover jet bike and flying car as well. I must have a thing for hover vehicles...


----------



## hopewrites

Instead of changing tires you change intake filters?


----------



## AlexanderSen

I have done another hover tank illustration, this time the tank is with turrets to fight things both above and below it. I imagine the hovering altitude of the hover tank can change, so the lower turret on the tank has a Vulcan Cannon which takes care of ground based troops that might get under the tank because of the its higher altitude. I really like how the design came around, I based the design off real-life tanks so it feels more believable to me. I like the triangle and dots insignia - it seems like a real life tank squadron insignia, but I am not completely satisfied with the skull insignia though, I just put it up as FPO for now.


----------



## VinceK

I think I preferred the earlier versions, IMO this looks like two turrets glued together with the lower half looking distinctly, upside down. On a technical point, I can't actually see (unlike the earlier versions) how it levitates, or lands? With regard to design, the concept of a 360° arc of fire is excellent, however, I don't think having a large gap at the rear of the upper turret is going to improve crew moral, or if there isn't any crew then longevity in battle. Tanks should offer the absolute minimum of surface area to enemy fire and the surfaces it does should not be flat and ideally without any gaps. I'm ignoring its vulnerability to an aerial attack. I think the skull insignia is fine. Let's be honest, if I saw this flying towards me on the battlefield I didn't think I'd paying too much attention to the markings.


----------



## AlexanderSen

Hi, I am back! And with more hover tanks.  This time I have two designs, I took into considerations your critiques and came up with these designs. One which emphasizes more an organic tank design, and another one which is more of a tank destroyer / hover gun platform.


----------



## VinceK

I think the MK 10 looks pretty good, heavily armed, well armoured, and has the look of a hover tank. Depending on how much realism you want to convey, main battle tanks tend to weigh around 60 tonnes so that would require a powerful propulsion system to ensure maneuverability in combat. The hover gun platform is interesting, it looks as though it could dart around the battle wreaking havoc, although I don't know how long the gunner would last , perhaps it could be remotely controlled or encased?


----------



## AlexanderSen

The gun platform is more of a tank destroyer type deal - a lot of fire power, but little protection. Usually used for support from behind the front lines. A glass cannon if you will. 

Thanks for the suggestion. Here's a design for a flying drone, based upon your suggestion. It flies and it's remotely controlled, I imagine it would be loaded with sensors for the remote pilot. It's in a ruined battlefield, probably hazardous for humans thus using the remote controlled vehicle.


----------



## VinceK

Yes, that looks like a Drone and it's myriad of sensors gives it menacing look. I think the lights and the grey urban camouflage add to the realism considering the ruinous background. Also the similar curved design to the MK 10 Hover Tank could indicate that they belong to the same Army.


----------



## AlexanderSen

I have some more designs based off of previous designs and people's suggestions. They are still in rough line work phase, but I did a quick tone / fill to bring out the shape of the silhouette. I will shade them later, once I refine my ideas.

I liked the design of the Hover Weapons Platform (HWP), so I did several more designs using the chassis of HWP - I see these like variants in real life. i.e. Panzer II, II , IV, V, etc. with the building and evolving of tank designs. Not exactly a Hover Tank but more like a Mobile Weapon Platform, but I thought I'd just call it a hover tank for now. Until I find a better name for it. Any suggestions would be welcome! 

The MWP-8A has an armored closed top turret like that of a regular main battle tank. As opposed to the earlier SPG version which was open topped destroyer/mobile field gun with shield, and was intended for long range support from the back lines. Finding a need for mobile armor which could be used to break through enemy lines brought the need for more protection for the crew, so a closed top turret version was built. During the design they also found a need for firing from 360 degrees due to the nature of hovering vehicles which when hovering at higher heights enemy troops could hide and shoot the tank from a blind spot underneath the vehicle. So a machine gun was mounted on the lower front hull to deal with ground threats. The MWP-8B is a up-gunned version of the WMP-8A, with a Vulcan Cannon mounted where the previous MG was placed before.

As well, there is the MWP-8C-RMS (Rocket/Missile System) design which is more an artillery role / heavy firepower support role with it's large missile rack on top of the turret, similar to that of a Sherman Calliope. It can also be armed with guided missiles instead of rockets.

I also added a sketch of a bigger more larger and more heavily armed MWP.









I would love any feedback on my latest designs!


----------



## VinceK

All good designs. I think the Vulcan cannon makes a useful addition for close quarter defense. I assume the multi-launch rocket launcher would be deployed in a static position at the rear of the army, so perhaps it should have some air defense capability?   The Mk 9 MWP looks impressive, nice drawing.


----------



## ErikB

Artwise I am a photorealistic artist and there is no appeal nor much artistic merit to impressionism or abstract in my personal opinion. But my bias against pseudo art aside, on a more practical note most artwork related to science fiction books, comics, movies, posters, fantasy art, etc is done in a realistic to photorealistic manner because it tends to appeal to the majority. 

As for hover tanks or other hovering craft it depends a lot on what it is causing your vehicle to hover but generally a bulky narrow (top heavy) craft, does not work or ring true because it is simple to topple, blow away if struck in profile, or if a port/vent/ repulsor/etc is struck or damaged. 

Think about quadcopter drones. Apply that to low profile and very stable tanks. I think you would do better focusing on horizontal bases rather than vertical hovering craft. 

Any mildly rough terrain would screw up that sort of tank. Easily tipped/unstable vehicles don't fare well in war. 

Just my opinion on the top heavy designs I am seeing on this thread. I'd spread it out. Stabilize and increase speed and mobility for your hover tanks. 

Good luck with your project.


----------



## AlexanderSen

Hi, after a bit of hiatus I am back with more hover tanks!  This hover tank is based off a tank destroyer mounted on a VTOL engine type theme. It's a pretty simple design which it's sophistication and efficiency I appreciate. I love the angles on some of the late war (WWII) tanks - sleek and elegant they both served a purpose of providing maximum protection as well as simplicity in manufacturing. It's hard to beat a solid metal plate at a good angle as protection. lol


----------



## cidetraq

AlexanderSen said:


> Thanks! I am now working on another version of the hover tank, here is the rough. Also, I have been working on a hover jet bike and flying car as well. I must have a thing for hover vehicles...



I really like this one. Something about it reminds me of Star Wars on Endor with the hoverbikes and also Inception with the earmuffs (during the winter dream level). Nice design.


----------



## AlexanderSen

Here is yet another design. This time an actual hovercraft!  I envision this vehicle as a transition from armor treaded vehicles to hover vehicles. It would be an early experimental design which was not very successful, but lead the way to more successful and mobile designs.


----------



## AlexanderSen

My latest design is based off of the German WWII Jagdpanther Tank Destroyer, and the JagdP is one my favorite designs. I just love the lines and angles this beast has.  I started the design using the Jagdpanther body and the hover chassis in some of my previous posts. I decided to use the design of the hover engines as it gives the vehicle a fast and yet robust feel to it. It has a lot of thrust with all those engines and even if one gets knocked out by the enemy it still has several that could compensate for the loss of the thruster and or hover engine. I plan on coloring it, and I am looking into camo/color schemes for the hover tank.


----------



## AlexanderSen

Here is a color scheme applied to the previous design based off the JagdPanther. I tried messing around with the design a bit, so the chassis is slightly different with less thrusters, giving it a more functional/organized look and feel. Not sure which one I like better, but I am going to try and play with the color schemes and design some more.


----------



## AlexanderSen

I was designing a Hover Tank, something more modern, with missiles instead of a cannon which have a higher explosive payload and advanced guidance (aim) systems. The piece hanging below the chassis I envision as an anti-grav / mag-lift device.


----------



## AlexanderSen

Here is another Hover Tank. Yes that's right - more hover mecha on the way!  

This armored hover vehicle is armed with a laser canon and homing missiles as its main armaments. It also has a secondary machine gun for antipersonnel roles. Like the previous design, I imagine this hovertank is propelled by something like a mag-lift (magnetic lift) or an anti-gravity drive which can be seen as the round domes on the bottom of the tank. 

Looking at it now, I can see something I can improve. I probably should go back in and clean up the line art, but I'll post this for now. I am trying to post regularly so I can improve my art. I think forcing myself to doing it consistently will help me improve. Any critiques and comments are welcome.


----------



## Foxbat

I'm not sure I agree with the logic of the hover tanks you portray (although you are quite skilled in creating them). Here's why - a hover tank as shown is counter-productive. They would be slow, lumbering and difficult to control because of their sheer weight (weight of the armour plus weight of the power plant to lift such an object). 

To me, you'd be better thinking about how modern warships are designed. they carry little or no armour, relying on low radar signature, counter-measures and agility to avoid being hit.  

So, rather than creating something that's going to take a pounding, I'd be thinking about creating something sleek with no vertical surfaces (modern warships are always at least six degrees off the vertical to provide low radar signature). I'd take a look at the Royal Navy's Type 45 Destroyer for some ideas. Without the heavy armour, the tank  could still carry a large armament but be faster, sleek and nimble, stuffed with decoys and electronic countermeasures rather than boxy, lumbering and somewhat anachronistic.

Just my thoughts


----------



## VinceK

Picking up on Foxbat's naval analogy, you could use your current design to create a much larger tank, which would be analogous to an aircraft carrier and then create smaller, more agile, tanks to act as escorts.


----------



## Joshua Jones

I think much of this depends on the faction and how they intend to use these tanks. Hover tanks immediately have an advantage over treaded tanks in that they can move sideways and diagonally rather than merely forward and backward. They may, however, be easier targets for a mobility kill than a treaded tank. If this later point is true, you may consider adding shielding around the lift mechanisms to protect them from rockets and the like. Also, consider adding multidirectional defense systems, such as micromissile arrays on the corners of the chassis or turret. 

The advantages, though, seem to imply that they will be used in more of a scout/fast assault role than a mobile fortification role. That said, I could envision a military using the mobility advantage of a hover tank as a means of moving the mobile fortification type tanks in and out of combat faster, but they would need some kind of retractable landing struts or something for that to be successful. You may want to include these either way in your design, because a lift system presumably consumes energy, meaning they will need to land for storage at some point. But, they will need to be more sturdy for a mobile fortification type tank, as they will also be providing firing stability.

You are also right about missiles being more accurate than projectiles, but they are also much more expensive and a fair bit larger. It looks like the one you have pictured has six missiles, which means you have six shots, and then it needs to be resupplied to be useful again. That isn't so much of an issue for something that uses its missiles for specialized purposes (such as the Patriot system that shoots down other missiles), but for a forward unit, that may cause serious problems. I would take a look at the MLRS system and see if a design like that may make sense for a missile turret. 

Overall, your designs are solid and well done. Keep on posting your designs, and keep up the good work!


----------



## AlexanderSen

I have been on a modelling fix lately. Did some more kitbashing. I did some kitbashing before from my previous post of a SAR(Search and Rescue) Mecha thread. This time, I am working on a hover tank based off of the German WWII Panzer III and the hover skiff from the Atlas Gundam. It's a simple design but I rather like it. The multiple thruster-like vents on the bottom makes it look believable, like something which could hover. Also the pieces I need to connect are a close fit to each other even though they are different scales(1/72 for the Pzkpfw III and 1/144 for the Gundam). Although I still need to do some scratch building with the sides. I plan to cut some polystyrene sheets to fill the gaps and connect the body top to the hover chassis.

I am also working on another design with a big cross section of parts from different series (ranging from Gundam, Armored Core, and Gasaraki!) which I'll post later when I have more time.





Also thanks for the comments they are quite interesting ideas. I really like the modern naval analogy. I'll try incorporating the suggestions, in my next series of designs and I'll also address some of the ideas in my next post.


----------



## AlexanderSen

I have been working some landships based upon some of the posts and comments in this thread. I probably should start a new thread with land ships and naval-themed hover vehicles, but in the meantime here is another hover tank - an Arctic / Winter Camo hover tank, but it is more like a flying hover gunship, somewhere between a naval ship and tank mecha. More maneuverable/mobile and able to transverse rough terrain more than regular tanks due to its hovering abilities; it is armed with a laser cannon, a conventional auto cannon, and a missile launcher, as well as some electronic counter measure defense systems.


----------



## Joshua Jones

AlexanderSen said:


> I have been working some landships based upon some of the posts and comments in this thread. I probably should start a new thread with land ships and naval-themed hover vehicles, but in the meantime here is another hover tank - an Arctic / Winter Camo hover tank, but it is more like a flying hover gunship, somewhere between a naval ship and tank mecha. More maneuverable/mobile and able to transverse rough terrain more than regular tanks due to its hovering abilities; it is armed with a laser cannon, a conventional auto cannon, and a missile launcher, as well as some electronic counter measure defense systems.
> 
> View attachment 47731


Not a bad design. The weapon load out makes some sense (laser for anti-armor, auto cannon for infantry and light armor, missiles to add operational flexibility). The lift mechanism is still a bit of an easy target, but it looks more armored now, which helps a bit. And, electronic countermeasures will help defend from missiles. 

I will give two points, though. It is still pretty vulnerable to unguided weapons like rockets and tank shells. Electronic countermeasures work by confusing guidance systems, so if there is no guidance system, there is no defense offered. The only ways to defend against such things are to shoot them down, redirect them, or detonate the warhead before it strikes the tank. Proximity warheads on micromissiles is one option, along with either laser or autocannon PD turrets and some sort of deflector shield. Or, it could simply be fast enough to dodge them at range, but that would leave it vulnerable up close. 

The other problem I see is the guy hanging out of the top. Other than making him (presumably the driver) vulnerable to sniper fire and the like, it also would be mighty chilly to be hovering around in Polar conditions with your head and torso hanging out. Imagine driving at, say, 130 kpm in the dead of winter, then winding down your window and sticking you head out. Now, imagine you do this in northern Finland. What this tank asks of the driver is actually worse, because his head and torso are exposed. This would pose a serious risk for frostbite and hypothermia. So, I would recommend adding a cockpit or simply dropping him into the body of the tank. This would also give the advantage of a HUD system he could use for targeting and intelligence. 

Overall, though, I think it is a good design. Add a metal bubble over the guy's head, and it is something I could see used in the real world. Add a physical defense for unguided munitions, and you have something which can dominate the battlefield.


----------



## AlexanderSen

I put the Artic Hovertank/Gunship into a scene. Thanks for the input JJ! Just FYI the guy standing out is the Commander and normally in combat he would stay inside only peeking out from the Commander's Copula. He is just standing to get a better view of the situation. I also used the commander standing up to give a sense of the scale of the vehicle.


----------

