Armored Vehicles in the Interplay Fallout Verse

Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by VaultTecCivilDefense, Dec 11, 2019.

  1. VaultTecCivilDefense

    VaultTecCivilDefense First time out of the vault

    10
    Mar 24, 2019
    A troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance, and a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snowblower, but has enough ammo to take out half of D.C.

    Though this is a pretty accurate description of Bethesda's APC from Fallout 4, it does raise the question: What would armored vehicles in the Interplay Fallout Verse look like, or be inspired by?

    Oh, and to get it out of the way early, I'm not referring to the M4 Sherman style tank, from Fallout Tactics.
     
  2. naossano

    naossano So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 19, 2006
    Do power armor count ?
     
  3. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Half-way Through My Half-life

    Nov 26, 2007
    Fallout: Tactics had conventional tanks. [IIRC] 14° East had a consultant at Interplay, to ensure everything was reasonably okay and/or accurate with the Falllout IP... so presumably Fallout Tactics' tanks and other vehicles were considered okay.
     
  4. VaultTecCivilDefense

    VaultTecCivilDefense First time out of the vault

    10
    Mar 24, 2019
    Power Armor was the end state of the US Army Armored Branch, at least per Van Buren as apparently by that point the fuel stocks had been mostly exhausted.
     
  5. Sublime

    Sublime It Wandered In From the Wastes

    164
    Jun 5, 2018
    The lore implied that the US army didn't really use tanks anymore, but you already know that. I personally always wondered why they didn't use nuclear energy to power vertibirds and tanks. If they could do it on cars, why not helicopters and armored vehicles?
     
  6. Protheus

    Protheus First time out of the vault

    4
    Feb 12, 2020
    It's really weird not to use nuclear power for vertibirds or other aircraft, since Mr. Handy uses vertical electric fans powered with a nuclear battery and can hover for years. They do have compact safe nuclear power as seen with microfusion cells, nuclear cars and power armor.
     
  7. Sublime

    Sublime It Wandered In From the Wastes

    164
    Jun 5, 2018
    If I have to be honest the entire war over oil doesn't seem to make much sense to me. It could have been valuable to China, but the US had developed MF cells, which means not just fusion, but also a micro-version of fusion!!! They could have single-handedly solved their energetic problem, maybe even stopped the war with China (sharing the invention, of course).
     
  8. Protheus

    Protheus First time out of the vault

    4
    Feb 12, 2020
    It's believable though. Oil isn't only useful as energy source. Also it's quite possible that US only recently began producing energy cells and these quantities still didn't cover public demand, as most of them went to the military. Nuclear powered cars only began being manufactured (contrary to what Bethesda tries to show, where each and every car is a nuke, a red barrel for this shooter).
     
  9. Sublime

    Sublime It Wandered In From the Wastes

    164
    Jun 5, 2018
    Well as far as I know oil is also employed for some plastic materials...however at its core it's just a mix of several hydrocarbons, so I assume that with the huge amount of energy that fusion can produce plastic wouldn't be a problem. The other explanation could be more bilievable, maybe they were too caught in war, maybe to proud to cooperate with their enemies. Fallout is also about the errors of man, after all.
     
  10. Charwo

    Charwo Still Mildly Glowing

    244
    Mar 9, 2017
    Well, we don't know, BUT, based on the fact that Fallout is the Jetsons as envisioned by the 1950s, I'm gonna say hoover.

    Maybe not the frontline vehicles, but the armored scouting cars, howitzers, etc, hover and only have rudimentary all-wheel drive capacity for emergency breakdown purposes. This would make almost all-terrain vehicle appropriate, no matter how muddy or rocky or shitty. And if it helps Jules does mention hover capacity and anti-grav plates for the Highwayman after beating the Enclave. Tanks and IFVs if not the same thing, would be based on the same chassis for ease of maintenance and production. Wide tracked for invading the Soviet Union on shitty roads and tracking down partisans in third world conflict, which extensive use of anti grav plates as needed to get the vehicles out of mud or trenches or across weak bridges.

    Oh and given the nature of overengineering in the prewar (the crappy water chip lasts 90 years without maintenance remember?) These tanks are SUPER COMPLICATED but rarely break down, but if they do and a retreat is called for, the tanks are torched rather than defended.

    Stocks of armored vehicles in the States would be very very VERY low, with exports to Allied European and African countries: they help friendly regimes maintain order and then those regimes give resources to the Americans in kind. Except when Chinese subs sunk them. The Battle of the Atlantic is EVERYWHERE and US Navy is trying to preserve the trade structure that made the Pax Americana possible.

    Power armor is used so much because they can maneuver in rough terrain around Chinese formations and power armor is by definition made for crowd control. Tanks are used as blocks while more cost-effective power armor flanks and destroy, with tanks and IFV's being used as pursuit.

    EDIT: In short, never forget that military vehicles are designed around doctrine, not the other way around. So to understand what the vehicles might have looked like we need to examine doctrine, which there's no evidence of, and we can only conjecture based on the technology we've actually seen.