Don’t forget that Halo’s Scorpion doubled down on the double treads, and then raised it by exposing the combined driver/gunner/commander. I’m at least willing to give them a pass on turret height as that at least could be due to a standard building height when fighting insurrections by other humans - having your turret just above standard offworld building height at least could be useful. I’ve even willing (just barely) to give them a pass on the treads in the same anti-insurrection circumstances - with the right suspension and armor design it could retain mobility even after having a driven sprocket blown off - that’s even a core feature of aircraft landing gear suspension systems. But exposed crew on armor? No way, that entirely blows my willing suspension of disbelief.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the reliability and maintenance issues that come with using a complex, heavy mechanism to swap a twin (!) autocannon (probably) for something that, considering the projectile velocity, lack of penetration and area of effect, is probably a bomb launcher. Regarding the stabilisers however, I think they're put to the side to handle shots where the turret is turned 90°. Conventional turretless artillery doesn't have this issue. They're also here to "lift" the tank while the tracks spin into a cross shape... Which... Means the tanks has 4 sets of tracks instead of 2, with even more moving parts and... Whoever approved this thing for production had no clue about engineering OR logistics, did he.
It’s self propelled artillery with the kind of extra armor you would want to prevent the crew from getting pulled out by any zerglings when a position gets swarmed, giving the guarding force plenty of time to push the enemy off and back also with worry of harming said crew with stray small arms or fire weapons.
Goliaths bug me way more than Siege tanks. You'd think there would be a ground-attack Goliath variant loaded with something like javelin missiles specifically for attacking fixed targets like siege tanks and bunkers.
The stabilizers are obviously at the sides if it fires to the side with its 360 degree rotating turret. The treads offer enough stabilization to the front and back. The Arclite Siege Tank has an additional stabilizing arm in the rear because of its rear-mounted turret. I think it's the coolest combat vehicle in all of fiction, and fun to use in-game. The anticipation when you trigger siege mode, hearing the hissing pneumatics and whining hydraulics and then BLAM, Terrible, Terrible Damage!
2:10 Warcraft is the game that was originally going to be bootleg Warhammer, not StarCraft. But just like how Warhammer Fantasy got its own space version that eventually changed to become more of its own thing, Warcraft got a similar treatment.
Counterpoint for the stabliizers; unlike standard artilery peices, the siege tanks turret can turn a full 360. So the issue isn't that the stabilizer aren't in the right place, it's that there isn't more at the front and back. Or you know, you can accept that the 200+ ton hunk of high-tech targeting can handle calculating through its recoil.
Your SC history is wrong. Blizzard and James Workshop stole from the same thing (Starship Troopers, Aliens, Star Trek etc) and went from there. Third Edition Tyranids doesnt even look Zerg and Protoss are closer to Space Marines than Eldar if you look beyond the surface level. --- Since youre showing the Terran DOMINION Crucio Siege Tank from SC2, the tracks are angled so it just doesnt roll back when shooting. This is a considerable improvement over the Arclite of the Terran CONFEDERACY, which actually has THREE stabilizer legs, except the third one is placed in the rear of the vehicle (or at the front where the sprite would be, so realistically, it should be able to fire some 270* degrees while static stabilized) --- Terran Siege Tanks shouldnt be viewed the same way as you would view tanks irl. The same way you can say the Lemon Rust from 40k despite the lore wank would be horrendous by modern standards because sponsons are a fuck. So the original Siege Tank was this massive fuck off cannon that was so good that they made it more mobile by putting it in tracks. You can still use it as a direct fire support weapon, but its more of a SPG than a modern definition of a tank. Also to lore dump real quick, after the Guild Wars and the Sons of Korhal rebellion, we dont really see major Terran vs Terran engagements. Instead, the focus shifts against the Zerg and Protoss. Like any sane military would do, they would orient their doctrine and designs to counter these threats. Siege Tanks dont need reactive armor because theyre not fighting humans with RPGs / ATGMs. They're fighting aliens with claws, that spit out acid, aliens that shoot lasers, anti-matter shit etc. What is reactive armor going to do agianst that? The Terrans have also developed new weapons to pretty much take the role of a "tank" via the Thor. --- From a meta / gameplay design perspective, Terrans are about doing more with less and being very flexible. This is the complete opposite of the Protoss that is highly specialized, hence the Siege Tank is a perfect vehicle for the Terrans, than splitting it off to a dedicated Tank or a dedicated Artillery (in gameplay terms, they would overlap a lot and practically share the same role but with only different stats - not good) TL;DR So yes, I do agree in that both Siege Tanks are bad when compared to the modern standard of what a MBT is. But if you factor in all the other shit like lore, history, game design, then its actually a pretty darn good SPG
To be fair, no Terran player is going to use this as a tank. It's always going to be used as artillery to block chokepoints from high ground where the enemy has no visibility on it therefore they can't target it, or backline artillery for assaults. Marauders with medics or medivacs are more likely to be the frontline assault force.
I expected to hear something about a double tank gun, 4 threads. Spa deployment takes minutes. And it's normal for self-propelled artillery to have a range less than of aircraft carrier. Kilometre size space carrier.
I honestly never used it as a tank… more like a self propelled artillery unit with decent self defense while on the move… And by moving the tracks to an angle i could accept the strange placement of the supports… But it’s not a tank… maybe if a journalist would describe it, they would call it a tank… but it’s not.
There's more Aliens Vs. Predator in StarCraft's DNA than 40k, and the entirety of the Terran faction being space hillbillies is based on the head developer's homebrew comic book about American Civil War 2.0 Sorry, I couldn't keep the "um, ekshually" contained. PS, the original has 3 stabilizers because the howitzer can rotate 360°
From a lore perspective, the Terrans had these badass cannons that were really good, the only issue is that they were static. So they slapped them on treads and made it mobile, and thats pretty much the Siege Tank in a nutshell. It's a great SPG, using it like a modern day MBT however, is insanity and a misuse
If it wasn't for the siege gun, it would be the most trash unit in the game. It's more like SP Artillery with weak tank guns. The only reason real tanks weren't included is that they learned from the lessons of Red Alert's Tank Rush... just for it to be replaced by the ZERG rush... Good job Blizzard, Top notch.
Hey, I have a random question. Do you think Flamethrower tanks would be more viable on this day and age given the possibility of attaching ATGM systems to them so they retain some anti-tank capabilities? Ignoring the moral issues with using flamethrowers and all that jazz, I mean.
I found another tank travesty for you, thank "tank" from TimeShift. Its like someone said "you know what f you un-bullpups your m3 Lee tank" Legit think its one of the worst, also very exposed treads.
Nothing on the quad tracks, maintenance and reliability, or even the strange choice in the turret and the twin guns on one side and the retractable artillery cannon on the other. Understandable considering everything else about this tank. Rule of cool and gameplay balance dominated this tank's design, and gave us this poor cobbled together mishmash of countering ideas and philosophies that just don't work together. Cool tank, fun unit in-game when used to its fullest effect, just not a good practical tank.
Greetings, Tanker! I have a scenario for you. You've been abducted by an alien race due to your RUclips channel popularity and your knowledge of Tanks. They want you to design a tank for them the only stipulation being that you must utilize the best parts from all the Sci-Fi universes you have talked about. What monstrosity are you building!?
I didnt mention the twin guns or treads because i thought i beat that horse to death already.
Don’t forget that Halo’s Scorpion doubled down on the double treads, and then raised it by exposing the combined driver/gunner/commander.
I’m at least willing to give them a pass on turret height as that at least could be due to a standard building height when fighting insurrections by other humans - having your turret just above standard offworld building height at least could be useful.
I’ve even willing (just barely) to give them a pass on the treads in the same anti-insurrection circumstances - with the right suspension and armor design it could retain mobility even after having a driven sprocket blown off - that’s even a core feature of aircraft landing gear suspension systems.
But exposed crew on armor? No way, that entirely blows my willing suspension of disbelief.
@@robertkb64dont remember the driver of the scorpion being exposed. The hatch was easy to shoot off, but there was at least one
yeah, the designers didn't think of parallex but twin cannon does look really good in games.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the reliability and maintenance issues that come with using a complex, heavy mechanism to swap a twin (!) autocannon (probably) for something that, considering the projectile velocity, lack of penetration and area of effect, is probably a bomb launcher.
Regarding the stabilisers however, I think they're put to the side to handle shots where the turret is turned 90°. Conventional turretless artillery doesn't have this issue. They're also here to "lift" the tank while the tracks spin into a cross shape... Which... Means the tanks has 4 sets of tracks instead of 2, with even more moving parts and... Whoever approved this thing for production had no clue about engineering OR logistics, did he.
In the far future, spare parts are teleported into your SCV's pockets from afar and repairs can be completed in second with nothing but a blowtorch.
It's not a tank, it's artillery. I never took it out of siege mode except to reposition. I don't care what it's named.
It's only use was to support the bunker.
they should have named it the Terran Siege Glass Cannon and everyone would be happy
It’s self propelled artillery with the kind of extra armor you would want to prevent the crew from getting pulled out by any zerglings when a position gets swarmed, giving the guarding force plenty of time to push the enemy off and back also with worry of harming said crew with stray small arms or fire weapons.
Tanks in Ukraine are used as artillery most of the time anyway.
Supporting the Siege tank with Vultures or Goliaths were a necessary thing when you want to use the Siege mode.
Goliaths bug me way more than Siege tanks. You'd think there would be a ground-attack Goliath variant loaded with something like javelin missiles specifically for attacking fixed targets like siege tanks and bunkers.
The stabilizers are obviously at the sides if it fires to the side with its 360 degree rotating turret. The treads offer enough stabilization to the front and back. The Arclite Siege Tank has an additional stabilizing arm in the rear because of its rear-mounted turret.
I think it's the coolest combat vehicle in all of fiction, and fun to use in-game. The anticipation when you trigger siege mode, hearing the hissing pneumatics and whining hydraulics and then BLAM, Terrible, Terrible Damage!
2:10 Warcraft is the game that was originally going to be bootleg Warhammer, not StarCraft. But just like how Warhammer Fantasy got its own space version that eventually changed to become more of its own thing, Warcraft got a similar treatment.
Did we play a different game?
He did say he downloaded a pirated 1.0 version as a kid...
Counterpoint for the stabliizers; unlike standard artilery peices, the siege tanks turret can turn a full 360. So the issue isn't that the stabilizer aren't in the right place, it's that there isn't more at the front and back.
Or you know, you can accept that the 200+ ton hunk of high-tech targeting can handle calculating through its recoil.
"Military grade tinnitus" lol
Your SC history is wrong. Blizzard and James Workshop stole from the same thing (Starship Troopers, Aliens, Star Trek etc) and went from there. Third Edition Tyranids doesnt even look Zerg and Protoss are closer to Space Marines than Eldar if you look beyond the surface level.
---
Since youre showing the Terran DOMINION Crucio Siege Tank from SC2, the tracks are angled so it just doesnt roll back when shooting. This is a considerable improvement over the Arclite of the Terran CONFEDERACY, which actually has THREE stabilizer legs, except the third one is placed in the rear of the vehicle (or at the front where the sprite would be, so realistically, it should be able to fire some 270* degrees while static stabilized)
---
Terran Siege Tanks shouldnt be viewed the same way as you would view tanks irl. The same way you can say the Lemon Rust from 40k despite the lore wank would be horrendous by modern standards because sponsons are a fuck. So the original Siege Tank was this massive fuck off cannon that was so good that they made it more mobile by putting it in tracks. You can still use it as a direct fire support weapon, but its more of a SPG than a modern definition of a tank.
Also to lore dump real quick, after the Guild Wars and the Sons of Korhal rebellion, we dont really see major Terran vs Terran engagements. Instead, the focus shifts against the Zerg and Protoss. Like any sane military would do, they would orient their doctrine and designs to counter these threats. Siege Tanks dont need reactive armor because theyre not fighting humans with RPGs / ATGMs. They're fighting aliens with claws, that spit out acid, aliens that shoot lasers, anti-matter shit etc. What is reactive armor going to do agianst that? The Terrans have also developed new weapons to pretty much take the role of a "tank" via the Thor.
---
From a meta / gameplay design perspective, Terrans are about doing more with less and being very flexible. This is the complete opposite of the Protoss that is highly specialized, hence the Siege Tank is a perfect vehicle for the Terrans, than splitting it off to a dedicated Tank or a dedicated Artillery (in gameplay terms, they would overlap a lot and practically share the same role but with only different stats - not good)
TL;DR
So yes, I do agree in that both Siege Tanks are bad when compared to the modern standard of what a MBT is. But if you factor in all the other shit like lore, history, game design, then its actually a pretty darn good SPG
To be fair, no Terran player is going to use this as a tank. It's always going to be used as artillery to block chokepoints from high ground where the enemy has no visibility on it therefore they can't target it, or backline artillery for assaults.
Marauders with medics or medivacs are more likely to be the frontline assault force.
I expected to hear something about a double tank gun, 4 threads.
Spa deployment takes minutes. And it's normal for self-propelled artillery to have a range less than of aircraft carrier. Kilometre size space carrier.
You should do the Battletech version of the Ontos and compare it to the irl Ontos "The Thing"
Confederacy Arclite Siege Tank as in StarCraft 1 Siege Tank? or is this for the Dominion Crucio siege tank in StarCraft 2?
I honestly never used it as a tank… more like a self propelled artillery unit with decent self defense while on the move… And by moving the tracks to an angle i could accept the strange placement of the supports… But it’s not a tank… maybe if a journalist would describe it, they would call it a tank… but it’s not.
Technically speaking it is a tank, but its role is to be self-propelled artillery first, with the tank mode only useful it its caught undeployed
The siege tank is incredible ingame. Being the core of terran pushes. Though in any real context i totalt agree with ya ofcourse!
There's more Aliens Vs. Predator in StarCraft's DNA than 40k, and the entirety of the Terran faction being space hillbillies is based on the head developer's homebrew comic book about American Civil War 2.0
Sorry, I couldn't keep the "um, ekshually" contained.
PS, the original has 3 stabilizers because the howitzer can rotate 360°
Poor tank, it wants to be two things and is not great at both!
From a lore perspective, the Terrans had these badass cannons that were really good, the only issue is that they were static. So they slapped them on treads and made it mobile, and thats pretty much the Siege Tank in a nutshell. It's a great SPG, using it like a modern day MBT however, is insanity and a misuse
Video needs a bit of echo suppression, but love the content and personality. Keep it up!
So is the halo wars rhino a better seige piece?
If it wasn't for the siege gun, it would be the most trash unit in the game. It's more like SP Artillery with weak tank guns.
The only reason real tanks weren't included is that they learned from the lessons of Red Alert's Tank Rush... just for it to be replaced by the ZERG rush...
Good job Blizzard, Top notch.
Hey, I have a random question. Do you think Flamethrower tanks would be more viable on this day and age given the possibility of attaching ATGM systems to them so they retain some anti-tank capabilities? Ignoring the moral issues with using flamethrowers and all that jazz, I mean.
Last week i woulda saw. It'd be a psychological weapon at best. But then i saw a robot dog with a flamethrower on it. Tank no drone yes.
Will you cover stuff from Helldivers soon?
I found another tank travesty for you, thank "tank" from TimeShift. Its like someone said "you know what f you un-bullpups your m3 Lee tank" Legit think its one of the worst, also very exposed treads.
Oh.my.god...
@@atankersview I am not sorry. (You're going to do a video on it?)
Nothing on the quad tracks, maintenance and reliability, or even the strange choice in the turret and the twin guns on one side and the retractable artillery cannon on the other.
Understandable considering everything else about this tank. Rule of cool and gameplay balance dominated this tank's design, and gave us this poor cobbled together mishmash of countering ideas and philosophies that just don't work together. Cool tank, fun unit in-game when used to its fullest effect, just not a good practical tank.
Its called a tank, but its really more of a SPG
Nothing on the 4 treads? :(
Pretty sure he and Spookston covered quad tracks more than once in previous vids, i.e. their videos on the Halo Scorpion.
The crucio has 6! :)
@@R17inator I know, on the Mammoth too, just weird no mention about it for the Crucio.
Can you make a review of the tank from metal slug?
yeah but its fuckin cool tho so
Perphaps you should consider how war is waged in Sci-Fi you are evaluating?
Greetings, Tanker! I have a scenario for you.
You've been abducted by an alien race due to your RUclips channel popularity and your knowledge of Tanks. They want you to design a tank for them the only stipulation being that you must utilize the best parts from all the Sci-Fi universes you have talked about. What monstrosity are you building!?
Long have I waited for this!
that's why it's a fan favorite
Agreed
Tony the terrible terran tank trasher