In relation to all of this, I'd like if ground forces burned through some kind of supply material at a high rate. That way ground wars are expensive to sustain. I think that 'logistics units' that get consumed by friendly units are a really hamfisted way of achieving that personally, but if you could for instance drop huge stockpiles of 'munitions' by the ton from cargo ships, or even just MSP, and then the ground units gobble that up as they fight, I think that would be a really fun addition. That way if you cut off ground forces from supply they will eventually starve (though I can understand this not applying to the AI since it would probably struggle to handle that intelligently) and also ground wars suddenly become very expensive as mentioned. You have to come up with a crapload of supplies somehow, either continually or at least by having a large stockpile in your arsenals. That way ground forces dont just sortof magically fight without any help once dropped.
e: I have edited this several times now and it doesn't seem to be getting much better, sorry for its somewhat disorganized state.
It's alright. The logistics unit factor has been raised before, and the exact same supply mechanic change has been offered as a solution too. You aren't wrong about logistics units being a kind of poor mechanic on the face of it.
There are numerous reasons for this. Mainly; when they were designed and for what purpose they were designed for. The UNSC was in the middle of a insurgency during the time these were designed. Because of this conflict, the tank could be fired on from a similar number of, if not more, directions than the Gunship. The tank was intended for urban combat against soft targets (insurgents with rifles and very rarely some old rockets) and fire support across open fields. They were designed to be fast over all terrain, hence the 4 treads with independent suspension, to provide mobile fire against groups of enemies preferring to stay away from actual fortified locations. The Vulture on the other hand was designed to combat those said fortifications. They were designed to rapidly drop from orbit over the fortification and hang over the target while blasting apart structures and armored targets with missiles while tearing apart vehicles and people with its autocannon fire, all while being shot at by return rocket and cannon fire from the insurgents.
Look. It's
impossible to get the same all around threat profile an aerial vehicle faces with a ground vehicle. And I mean literally impossible. Sure, mines and the like are a potential threat, but for a tank in the field most threats are going to be from the front, the sides, the top (air launched ATMs) and the back, with little comparative threat from the ground/below. Minefields are great, but once detected you can avoid or clear them, thereby cancelling their threat.
Because of this, you can stuff much of the armour weight that would otherwise be needed to protect the bottom right into the areas most under threat; the front and sides. And because a tank will be facing threats from those directions at roughly the same height from the ground as the armour you can angle the armour for even better armour protection.
Now, you say that these tanks are often brought into urban environments for a combat role. First, what moron would do that, the top is vulnerable. Second, if your choice is a tank, which can be knocked out from above while also not likely to be able to elevate its gun high enough to retaliate, or a gun ship that is apparently much more sturdy and likely to survive enemy fire in all directions and can answer with a rapid fire 30mm cannon straight to the face of the offender, why are you not using the gunship? It's the obviously superior choice due to ease of response, speed of response and likelihood of survival to make said response.
And you seem to be confused on some things. First off, I wasn't commenting on the weakness of the tanks, but the toughness of the Vulture. The Vulture is essentially a small warship with a crew of 6 that only really operates in an atmosphere (dropped from a larger, carrier like warship from low orbit, or operating from an airbase). As such, it has thick armor plating (even thicker than some actual warships). And arguing about "optimization for size/weight/volume" is just stupid in this context. The Scorpion is a MBT about 10m long by 8m wide with the hull going about 2m up (main cannon brings total height to 4m). The Vulture on the other hand is 35m long, 21m wide, and about 10m tall in the midsection. It is much more massive than the tanks. https://orig00.deviantart.net/71a5/f/2015/253/d/6/07_unsc_a_by_white0222-d993rvi.jpg (for side on comparisons).
Look, I'm confused because the way you talk about the Vulture it's the
obviously superior option for all roles normally filled by tanks. It's faster, it's tougher and it throws more boom at the enemy. Sufficiently so in fact, that it's a wonder the UNSC still uses tanks instead of turning over all their tasks to Vulture gunships.
Yes, I do realize that. However, you also have to realize protection on tanks have taken quite a turn that made them more protected against those missiles and less protected against the 30mm shells. The armor protection on the back half of the sides of the tanks is actually quite anemic compared to tanks in the past, and it is generally quite flat. And you still missed my point of the AC-220s armament being derived from the Gau-8, not being equal to it. They use much more advanced and powerful propellants, more advanced shells, better parts, etc.
Everything that you can do to a 30mm rotary cannon weapon system with such advanced technology you can do with missiles. In fact, the only way a 30mm cannon can be a better option than the much beefier warhead offered by an ATM is if all tank armour is if reactive armour that is guaranteed to perfectly defend against the first impact but the underlying armour cannot defend against 30mm shells.
The 30mm on the Vulture probably could tear up our modern day tanks from pretty much most angles of attack, that is if it doesn't just take it out with one of its air to surface missiles. Wait a second... isn't that just like your example of the A-10 using its Maverick missiles? *gasp* Also, you do realize that the Gau-8 was designed primarily as a weapon to fill the anti-tank role?
Yes, that would be similar to how an A-10 would be using its Mavericks, which is also how it should be using its Mavericks.
And no, the GAU-8 was never meant as an
anti tank weapon. It was meant as an
anti armour weapon. There is a difference.
That difference being that while all tanks are Armoured Fighting Vehicles, not all Armoured Fighting Vehicles are tanks. Armoured Personnel Carriers are
also AFVs, as are self propelled artillery guns, and self propelled AA guns, and practically every other vehicle on the battlefield because nearly all of them have some degree of armour meant to protect crew and passengers from incidental low caliber fire and shrapnel.
The difference is that tanks have relatively thick armour compared to all other AFVs, which have much thinner armour. And because they have thinner armour they are vulnerable to the GAU-8 (or rather, were, modern AFVs have improved to the point the GAU-8 is no longer (as) effective).
If, in your scenario, the A-10 could do a vertical dive onto the soviet tank (which it can't) it would tear apart those tanks anyways. This is more like what would happen when using the Vulture. It hangs above while dropping ordinance directly on top of the enemy, right into the engine decks of our soviet era tanks.
Doubtful actually. The turret armour was too thick to penetrate even at the best possible angle. The engine deck armour would indeed be more likely, but, well, there's a few very important constraints in that attack angle, most to do with not wanting to pancake the plane. That you have to fly up
well above the battlefield to set up your attack run and basically dare every soviet AA gun to light you up from miles around instead of much more sensibly flying close to the surface and hiding among the terrain is also important.