Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: nezumi Feb 3 2008, 04:46 PM

Assume you have the Jesus Christ of firearms, the guy who, in Shadowrun terms, throws a million die and has a -200 to all TNs. Using only small arms, does he have any chance (trivial or otherwise) of disabling a tank? I understand that it is effectively impossible, that 'one in a million chance' is optimistic, I'm simply wondering if there's a one in a billion chance, or if it simply, absolutely, physically impossible.

Posted by: Ravor Feb 3 2008, 05:05 PM

In Fourth Edition is depends on your view of how longshot tests and called shots to bypass armor work.

Posted by: Jhaiisiin Feb 3 2008, 05:16 PM

My answer would be no, you can't harm the tank with a simple pistol. These things are made to shrug off fully automatic MMG fire. A pistol just won't have the punch needed to put a hole in it, let alone disable anything.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Feb 3 2008, 05:22 PM

I would say that the answer depends on several factors. What, exactly, are you talking about when you say "small arms"?

No pistol, not even a Ruger Warhawk, should really stand a chance. Maybe a heavy pistol, a magnum pistol, with a really terrific ammunition type, might stand a chance. But don't bet on it.

Now, if the Jesus Christ of Firearms is using something a lot heavier - a full battle rifle, even a heavy rifle firing a round that one would use to kill awakened, armored elephants, then yes, especially if he's got some really terrific ammo. He could make called shots to disable sensors, or pot one into the engine compartment for a mobility kill. But it will NOT be easy.

Posted by: Nikoli Feb 3 2008, 05:23 PM

However, you could damage exposed sensors, antennae, lamps, strapped on equipment.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Feb 3 2008, 05:24 PM

It effectively depends on what type of game is being run. The tank versus pistol issue is sufficiently extreme that nobody would let the pistol killing the tank fly unless they wanted to. In other words, it would only work if the GM and the players wanted to run a Golgo 13 style campaign.

Posted by: Velocity219e Feb 3 2008, 05:33 PM

my gut response is no, not a chance in hell against a perfectly functioning MBT, Light tank or APC

I guess theoretically you could fire so much ammunition that you immobilise it in spent brass but I bet you are all using that faffy caseless stuff

my immediate thought was you'd have to get TO the tank in question and do something horrid like jamming gunports or a bowling ball and some epoxy down the main gun which would neuter it as opposed to destroying or removing it entirely from play, but it might get the crew to come out >:)


Saying that I recall as a counterpoint to that, a friend of mine who was tank crew in the UK army saying while they were on tour in saudi / afghanistan / iraq that they had some guy with a gun climb on top of their vehicle and they couldn't get him off, so they put a satchel charge into the main gun and fired it with a shell, which pretty much just engulfs the tank in a honkin great big ball of fire apparently (they did get in trouble for screwing up the interior of the gun tube / outside of the vehicle however)

This may or may not be true, but it is what I was told by a serving tank crew.

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 3 2008, 05:53 PM

i suspect that the question really is what one expect. sure, there is no way that one will see a single shot from a handgun and then have the tank blow up in spectacular fashion.

but i recall some story about a soldier killing a russian tank driver during ww2 by aiming for the view port.

but in SR those will either be bullet resistant glass, AR or even rigger immersion so...

Posted by: kzt Feb 3 2008, 05:59 PM

Viewing systems are periscopes, so no actual path. And in SR they would be mostly sensors.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Feb 3 2008, 06:29 PM

Right, in WW2 you could fire an SMG through the driver's port-think of Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan when he took out the Tiger Tank. By the 1960's there was a thick level of plexiglass over the slits and today it is periscopes.

All I can think about is maybe something that disables the tracks so the tank can't roll. Breaking some small moving part so it can't move anymore, but against the armor plate? nope. not a chance.

Posted by: mfb Feb 3 2008, 06:46 PM

i'm with Snow Fox. i'm not a tank expert, so i couldn't say for sure, but it seems like maybe a few perfectly-placed shots might be able to break a tank's treads. now, as i understand it, that's not going to 100% immobilize a tank in every terrain; it may still be able to crawl around on its road wheels if the terrain is flat enough and firm enough. and even if it can't, the tank can still blast just about everything it can see--you'll have to avoid the hell out of it.

the other option i can think of is pretty cartoonish. if you're looking straight down the barrel of the main gun, it seems like maybe you could listen for the sound of the breech being opened to load a new round and fire a shot straight in. a round bouncing around in the autoloader machinery might do... something, i dunno. if it's a tracer round, maybe the WP will burn something badly enough to knock it out of commission, or even set off one of the rounds?

in SR3, if i allowed such shots at all, i'd be houseruling the hell out of the called shot rules. at a minimum, i'd be stacking called shots--you'd be looking at a +4 TN to avoid armor, plus another +4 TN for special effect, and maybe even an additional +4 TN to hit a specific location. in SR4, i wouldn't allow such shots at all, because it's too easy for someone to stack on enough mods to make just about anything possible. or just use a longshot, if it comes down to it.

for really good infantry-on-tank action, y'all should really check out the movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094716/. it's about a group of Mujahadeen fighters taking on a lone tank in Afghanistan during the 80s Soviet invasion.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Feb 3 2008, 06:54 PM

I am reasonably certain that's the entire reason Longshot rolls exist.

Posted by: mfb Feb 3 2008, 06:58 PM

and i'm reasonably certain that it gives the GM the option of saying "no, you can't use a longshot in this situation." i don't particularly like the fact that the rules require that much GM adjudication, but since they do, i'd certainly use it.

Posted by: Cain Feb 3 2008, 07:15 PM

I think Ravor's got it. By a strict interpretation of the RAW, you can make the shot and expect it to work.

Mfb: Correct me on this, but I don't think there's any restriction on Longshot tests. There is an "impossibility limit" on burning Edge for auto-crits, but that's different.

Posted by: mfb Feb 3 2008, 07:27 PM

not specifically for longshot tests, but there is the section in The Abstract Nature of Rules that says to ignore the rules when they don't make sense.

i'm not sure this is the place for that discussion anyway. suffice to say that if i were running an SR4 game, i would be pretty liberal with my GM fiat--whether the rules back me up or not.

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 3 2008, 07:29 PM

hmm, i wonder how far some in here would push that one...

Posted by: kzt Feb 3 2008, 07:42 PM

The coax machine gun is called that because it is coaxial with the main gun. So as you try to shoot down the barrel the gunner pushes the coax switch and shoots you 50 times in the head and chest.

Posted by: mfb Feb 3 2008, 08:07 PM

hey, i said it was cartoonish, i didn't say it was smart.

Posted by: Cain Feb 3 2008, 08:12 PM

It also makes for one hell of a cinematic Longshot test.

Posted by: mfb Feb 3 2008, 09:02 PM

indeed.

Posted by: nezumi Feb 3 2008, 11:14 PM

I should have been more specific. I didn't mean if it's possible using Shadowrun mechanics, but rather whether it's possible IRL. mfb's idea is precisely what I was wondering about. My initial thought was, of course! For instance, you can keep shooting out periscopes and sensors until the tank is blind (at which point it's basically disabled until it gets another spotter, which JC of guns can then shoot out in turn). Or maybe like Snow Fox' idea, you can shoot out the treads. But as I thought about it, I wasn't so sure if that really would be possible. I mean, I'm sure they have redundant systems for their periscopes, and I have no idea if you could shoot out some part of a tread so it would stop working. I just don't have the background in military hardware to take a stance either way.

It sounds like if our super-crazy good guy were super-crazy enough, he could step out on the field and have at least A chance (as infinitesimally small as it may be), although clearly he's more likely to just get shot dead for being an idiot.

Does that sound about right?

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 3 2008, 11:23 PM

nezumi, you're taking oldschool texas shoot out duels to an entire new level
*dramatically plays the good, the bad & the ugly themesong*

Posted by: kzt Feb 4 2008, 12:49 AM

No. You can shoot at the treads all day, but there is a reason why all the tools on a tank weight >30 lbs. Treads are very heavy metal. They are bolted together with really heavy bolts on really strong rods. Two pound AT mines will blow treads, pistols won't. Typically even when the treads are forced off the tank they are still connected in a loop, and the first thing the crew has to do is break track.

Tanks are designed to have people shell them, and fragmentation from artillery shells that sprays the tank is more damaging than pistol bullets. And if you do damage the periscopes, the crew has spares for the parts that are possible to damage.

You can shove a log into the treads to screw it up, but that is why tanks don't ever operate alone, they run in pairs in the West.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Feb 4 2008, 02:52 AM

It would be impossible to disable a sealed tank with a pistol. To give an example of why - anti tank rifles have been phased out of popularity due to the impossibility to actually doing anything with the things despite WWII examples being 14.5 milimeter with high velocity tungsten penetrating rounds. Even when fired at the tracks of cold war era tanks, they do absolutely nothing. A 9mm pistol round is not going to improve the situation.


Interestingly, lots of soviet AT rifles got repurposed as sniper rifles in the Korean war, so you can draw direct comparisons to the big anti material rifles of today and even shadowrun.

Posted by: toturi Feb 4 2008, 04:08 AM

A bunch of old armor troopers with time on our hands did do a think on how some guy with a M16 could try to kill a Leopard II. The end result is yes, Jesus can do it, but only Jesus and since you needed to know where to aim and had to hit the right spot and time it so that you hit that spot at the most vulnerable moment. Longshot could do it, given the rules.

Posted by: DTFarstar Feb 4 2008, 04:42 AM

I'm too lazy to try and research this, but are the rounds in the main barrel of the tank explosive at all? If they are, you could theoretically shoot the round as it was heading down the turret and cause it to explode, possible doing some serious damage to the main gun or cooking off more rounds. IF typical tank rounds are explosive in nature. No idea if they are or not.

Chris

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 4 2008, 04:49 AM

there are two kinds i think, the high explosives used on "soft" targets, and the non-explosive used to kill other tanks...

Posted by: youngtusk87 Feb 4 2008, 05:02 AM

I think Explosive Arrows would be more effective against a tank than any bullet under 25mm.

Then again...Tom Hanks killed a tank with a pistol in Saving Private Ryan

Posted by: lunchbox311 Feb 4 2008, 05:03 AM

correct

HEAT Rounds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive_anti-tank_warhead used on "soft" targets

SABOT Rounds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabot_round used on "hard" targets

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 4 2008, 05:22 AM

would that be cybered/adept troll scale arrows?

Posted by: apollo124 Feb 4 2008, 05:32 AM

I think the near-impossibility of killing a tank with a small handgun lead to the creation of "anti-tank weapons".

Posted by: hyzmarca Feb 4 2008, 05:59 AM

HEAT and APFSDS are both anti-tank. In fact, HEAT stands for High Explosive Anti Tank. Some HEAT shells, such as the M830A used by the M1A1 Abrams have programmable multi-purpose fuses and fragmentation capability which allow the tank crew to select the optimal detonation mode for the intended target, which incidentally gives them the potential to engage aircraft.

For personnel, m1028 canister round is preferred. Essentially a 120mm shotgun shell, it is highly effective against large groups of people. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m1028.htm

Most modern tanks use Explosive Reactive Armor. The weakness of ERA is that each panel only works once. It explodes. After that it can't provide very much protection.

http://www.anzioironworks.com/20MM-TAKE-DOWN-RIFLE.htm technically qualifies as a small arm. It is man portable and man fireable, with some discomfort. It might be able to set off an ERA panel. If it can, then all you have to do is shoot the exact same panel again to penetrate the tanks armor (maybe). Most of the plate would have been blown away by the explosion leaving that single spot vulnerable. The tank, of course, would be moving at about 30MPH, turning to put its best armor toward you and shooting at you with both machine guns and canister shot.

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 4 2008, 06:02 AM

ah, canister. been in use as far back as, at least, the napoleonic era, but still just as effective

Posted by: Riley37 Feb 4 2008, 06:17 AM

kzt points out the co-axial machinegun. But that's relevant only if someone inside the tank is aware of the hero, which they might not be if, say, the hero had Invisibility. Watch those assumptions!

Rather than fire a gun down the barrel of the main gun, hoping for the perfect ricochet just as the gunner opens the breech... how about shoving a holdout pistol down the barrel, and hoping that it'll jam, and and cause trouble next time the main gun fires? The main gun shoots a big shell at high energy, so it might just push the holdout ahead of it, but barrel obstructions are generally a bad thing.

I can't imagine a way that the impact from a bullet fired from a pistol is gonna be a relevant factor.

David Drake served with an armor unit in Vietnam then wrote some science fiction involving high-tech tanks. He had some ideas about advanced sensors and AI. Also, he suggested mounting a set of small directional mines all over the tank, which when armed would go off when anyone approached the tank. A good way to discourage pistol adepts from jumping onto the tank and hoping to get the hatch open.

Posted by: DeadLogic Feb 4 2008, 10:14 AM

Actually, Allied planes were making a bombing run over the bridge when Cpt. Miller (Hanks) was firing at the Tank, the Tank was shelled by a squad of p-51 Tank busters and subsequently exploded just as Miller fired off his last round.

In my personal GM fiat I wouldn't allow a pistol to do more than disrupt sensors or other sensitive external equipment on a Tank, and if one of my Runners was actively trying to destroy the tank with a pistol I would begin to question their sanity. I have, however, destroyed an SUV during a car chase with a Physical Barrier and my power focus. That's not unreasonable. Just have to time it right... and have a SR3 Spell Pool of 6, hehe.

Posted by: toturi Feb 4 2008, 10:55 AM

I have never seen an armored vehicle with its refuel inlet armored yet. Not the M113, not the AMX13, not the M60 and not the Leopard 2.

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 4 2008, 11:19 AM

The M113 is not a tank, it's an APC. Not even an IFV. And the refuel inlet is on top of the vehicle, and from what I recall from my time serving in one it's about as armored as the rest of vehicle - which is to say, not very much. Even so, you'd have to shoot straight from top to hit inside through the inlet.

I'd think the openings for power lines in the back would be more vulnerable.

Posted by: toturi Feb 4 2008, 12:22 PM

Certain versions of the M113 can be considered IFVs. The refuel inlets in some of the more advanced versions are less armored than the rest of the vehicle.

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 4 2008, 12:28 PM

You can upgrade the M113 (the swiss had a version that had a turret with a 20mm cannon, until they switched to a modern IFV), and upgrade the armor, but it's still not really that durable, and the inlet is still on top of the tank, requiring you to fire from a high position to penetrate.

Posted by: toturi Feb 4 2008, 12:54 PM

That is true. Simply pointing out that there are weak spots on armored vehicles that are not limited to sensors or sensitive external equipment.

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 4 2008, 01:11 PM

Yes. I just think the port for power cords in the back would be better suited to shoot through - it's just a pipe piece, with a cap.

Posted by: nezumi Feb 4 2008, 02:09 PM

If you shoot through there, the tank explodes, right?

Posted by: Ed_209a Feb 4 2008, 03:16 PM

Probably not. At least not with anything less than a antimaterial rifle. If you put a round through the fuel fill or electrical diagnostics port, you will probably just make an extra maintainance task once the tank gets back to base.

A hit to the fuel filler might keep the tank out of action the next day, if it can't be refueled, but that wouldn't help you right then.

Posted by: mfb Feb 4 2008, 03:35 PM

psh. you obviously haven't watched enough movies!

Posted by: Ed_209a Feb 4 2008, 03:40 PM

Like the Airwolf pilot maybe?

Posted by: lunchbox311 Feb 4 2008, 08:08 PM

I am aware what HEAT stands for.

I was under the impression that they were not used against armored targets much, (if at all,) anymore due to the armor being so tough to breach with them; henceforth being used against softer targets, (I consider an aircraft a soft target.)

Posted by: Snow_Fox Feb 5 2008, 01:08 AM

Take it back at least another 150 years to at least the 1640's.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Feb 5 2008, 01:11 AM

Those are all at least a generation behind what was used in the first gulf war. not the MBT's of 2007 or even 1991. BUT 60 years on they'll be even more advanced. the reactive armor is just for AT weapons. I doubt hand guns would set them off and underneath is regular heavy armor.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Feb 5 2008, 01:29 AM

Err, under reactive armour is the composite armour tank hulls are made from, and any anti material rifle in production is not going to do much more than scratch the paintwork and piss off the crew.

Incidently, rattling the crew by repeatedly shooting a tank but not for killing effect can actually be effective. Tank crews bailed out when repeatedly shot by 40MM autocannons re-purposed from AA use in WWII just because of the noise.

Posted by: toturi Feb 5 2008, 02:29 AM

The Leopard 2 is 1 generation behind what was used in first gulf war?

Posted by: kanislatrans Feb 5 2008, 02:47 AM

jesus wouldn' use a gun, he'd just turn the deisel fuel into chardoney/

Posted by: mfb Feb 5 2008, 03:33 AM

the Leopard 2 is a generation behind what the US used in the first Gulf War, i believe. it's still fairly popular elsewhere in the world.

Posted by: youngtusk87 Feb 5 2008, 04:16 AM

Lol I know, hence the face.

But Chuck Norris could kill a tank with a pistol.

Posted by: kzt Feb 5 2008, 04:29 AM

But it's kind of more likely they will instead traverse the main gun and kill you.

Posted by: Trax Feb 5 2008, 04:38 AM

And in 2070, they've got a lot more features on tanks to kill you if you even give it a dirty look.

Posted by: Cain Feb 5 2008, 06:58 AM

Don't forget, small arms have gotten better as well. Enough so that pistols can fire DU rounds practically. Rather or not that's enough to do the trick is another matter, but it is a fact of 2070.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Feb 5 2008, 07:17 AM

Yeah, visibility from tanks has wildly improved since 1942. In WWII it was difficult to actually spot guns like that firing at you.

Tankers' biographies repeatedly comment on the extreme difficultly of seeing anything that was shooting at you when buttoned up. ATGs were particularly difficult to see without infantry assistance, and small caliber weapons were virtually invisible. German tankers actually liked fresh snow because it was easy to see black residue on the snow from soviet ATGs. However, in 2070 visibility will have markedly improved, so you could just die.

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 5 2008, 08:01 AM

Incorrect. The Leopard 2 is on par with the M1, and competed regularily in trials against it by different armies (such as the Swiss in the 80s, where it beat it in mobility and firepower, but lost in armor protection - the M1 losing a track in the middle of the trial probably was not impressing the brass very much). You may be confusing it with the Leopard 1, who is a contemporary of the M60, and still in use. The Leopard 2 was designed and built at the same time as the M1, and sports a similar 120mm cannon as main weapon, similar fire control system, thermo vision etc.

Currently, the Leopard 2 is on version A6 in Germany, with additional sloped armor on the front turret. What the better tank is, M1 or Leo 2, I'd not guess, but they are in the same ballpark.

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 5 2008, 08:06 AM

An aquaintance of mine was in exercises where they used panzerfausts (the modern version, not the WW2 model) with laser tag gear in a simulated battle. He said that whenever they popped up from concealment and aimed at the tank (Leopard 2), they were staring into the barrel of the cannon before the 3 seconds they needed for a kill to count on the tank were over. (I am not saying that they would really need 3 seconds to hit a tank with a panzerfaust, the exercises over here are at times a bit strange, just pointing out that tanks can react very quickly to infantry.)

Posted by: mfb Feb 5 2008, 09:24 AM

i was mainly going off the dates each was fielded; the Leopard 2 hit the ground in '79, and the Abrams in '86. i suppose seven years isn't much of a 'generation', especially if the technology hasn't seen any real updates. i'm a computer geek first and a military geek a distant second, so i'm used to seven-year-old tech being basically worthless.

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 5 2008, 09:37 AM

The M1 was not deployed in 1985, but 1980, at the time with a 105 mm cannon. Upgrades of course followed in the form of the M1A1 1985, and later the M1A2.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Feb 5 2008, 10:29 AM

Yeah, this is happening because of the improved 'recon package' that is backing up a modern tank commander. If you want to see what the recon package does for you, look at the US performance in gulf war one - they knew were ever iraqi position was, often more accurately than the iraqi's. Combined with rapid radio communications, open terrain, improved sensor packages etc, a tank commander would get great info on hostile positions (though there where multiple friendly fire incidents where a M1 driver mis-identified a bradley as a iraqi tank and shot it.)

He's going to be getting solid reporting from his other guys.

To see what happens when that recon package is stripped away, you just need to glance at the usage of IEDs in GWII. That weapon system is deployed out in the open, but it is difficult for AFV drivers to actually spot the damn things. An M1 got knocked out by some guys with an RPG firing out of a window who got away scot free and would have had much less training than your acquaintance.

In a game, you're probably going to be looking at scenario B.

Posted by: toturi Feb 5 2008, 01:16 PM

If you look at the basic tank design, it hasn't really evolved much in the past few decades. The basics physics of tank design hasn't changed. You try to put as much armor on the most powerful gun on the strongest engine.

Sometimes the older/lower tech tank may be actually more reliable and able to protect the occupants better. While upgrading an existing tank is no trivial matter but it is also relatively inexpensive compared to replacing the vehicle, especially if there isn't anything really wrong(combat effectiveness-wise) with the body or chassis of the vehicle.

Posted by: EvilP Feb 5 2008, 01:20 PM

About using invisibility against a 2070s tank - Such an advanced tank will probably be packed with every sensor in the book (and then some) at the highest rating to detect ambushes and prevent simple tricks like that from working. Ultrasound, radar, ground vibration as well as a full visual spectrum.

Tanks probably wouldn't come alone either. Something like a Renraku Stormcloud flying drone would probably always hover far above it providing tactical data and if the drone gets shot, well it wasn't too expensive compared to the tank and the crew and the tank can probably retaliate against whatever shot the drone.

I'm surprised that NO ONE seems to have mentioned the Panther XXL yet! Guess it's just not a small arm, but I'd say that would have a chance to damage a tank if used against weak spots since the fluff does state that it uses "special ammunition common to that used as the primary weapon in small tanks". However even that would take quite a lot of shots to disable a tank.

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 5 2008, 01:26 PM

I'd say with a panther assault canon, the tank's tracks would be easy to wreck.

Posted by: Ed_209a Feb 5 2008, 01:52 PM

This isn't new by any stretch, but main battle tanks in 2070 will be an entirely different creature compared ti 2008.

Aside from the better electronics, armor, weaponry, mobility, etc, the expense of the thing will almost ensure it will roll out warded and with a drone escort. When you have a vehicle that costs at least 10 million and costs you several grand every time you fire the main gun, A couple of grand for warding (every month?) and 20k in drones make a LOT of sense.

If the army in question has enough magical infrastructure, the tank might even roll out with a spirit tagging along to help out.

Posted by: nezumi Feb 5 2008, 02:18 PM

No, he'd need LOS for that...

Posted by: Ed_209a Feb 5 2008, 03:18 PM

Agreed.



A Panther (or other AMR) is the _minimum_ I would feel non-suicidal taking on an armored vehicle.

However, gun-related fluff has never been SR's strong point. Saying all light cannon shells are the same is the same as saying a .22 long rifle and a 5.56mm round are the same because the bullet is the same diameter.

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 5 2008, 03:48 PM

hmm, how does 299000 sounds?

thats what i got when i bolted 20 points of armor, a heavy turret and a normal turret, a light gauss cannon and a ares mp-lmg onto a tata hotspur

ok, so its using smart wheels, not tracks, and the sensor package isnt up to scratch, but expensive? not really. and you would need a AT weapon of some sort to harm it...

the biggest cost factor in it is the gauss cannon.

as for scenario B earlier, thats urban warfare. and thats a area where the tank should not go, ever. it was suicide in ww2, and its suicide now. to many tall places for someone to drop explosives and other stuff down on the weakest parts of the tank, the top.

Posted by: Kingmaker Feb 5 2008, 05:41 PM

You guys are completely ignoring the fact that by 2070, heavy armor will have evolved to the next level, beyond the tank to the battlemech.

At which point it will become impossible for infantry to defeat heavy armor, because how is an infantryman supposed to attack a 10m tall, 100 ton walky thing? If they try to attack the legs they get stepped on. Oh, are they supposed to climb up it an attack the cockpit?

Posted by: Ed_209a Feb 5 2008, 06:15 PM

If 10m mecha would _ever_ be possible in a semi-realistic setting, it would be one where magic works.

Posted by: kigmatzomat Feb 5 2008, 07:35 PM

The trick in any non-urban situation is to get in Panther range of the tank without it noticing you. Much easier to get a flank shot on tanks in cities thanks to copious cover. The flip side is that a 2070 MBT probably includes one or two drones in the weapon racks that will make the sniper more of a suicide mission than it already is.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Feb 5 2008, 07:53 PM

For what it's worth, unless they changed it dramatically in SR4 Panther range is 2.4 kilometers. A 2050s tank with powerful and long-range sensors would still provide a chance of being seen, but I don't really see a modern tank locating the attacker before the first shot.

~J

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 5 2008, 07:54 PM

makes me think of c&c:general, where the "american" side has tanks and other vehicles that can be upgraded by either spotter drones (basically a dedicated UAV) or a rotodrone with a machinegun and the ability to repair said vehicle given time.

Posted by: Apathy Feb 5 2008, 09:20 PM

Speaking only of current-era M1s and M1A1s IRL:

• The point most vulnerable is the crew. Visibility while "buttoned up" is still a huge challenge, and obviously any head sticking out is fair game.
• Even with the hatch down, tank commanders often use a setting that doesn't close the hatch completely and leaves about an inch of space between the hatch and the lid, which the TC can use to look around - gives a clearer picture than using the periscopes. While it would require an amazing shot, it would be possible to shoot through the gap and hit the TC.
• The primary gunner's sight is vulnerable to small arms whenever the sight doors are open. Taking out this sight would degrade the tanks accuracy, but there is a secondary sight as a backup.
• The secondary sight is not in any significant risk IRL, but could theoretically be hit with an amazingly lucky shot. Losing both sights would make the main gun innacurate at anything except searching fire or extreme close range.
• The ammo compartment is armored, but has small, less-armored 'blow out' patches on top. These patches would still resist anything smaller than probably 30mm or so. And penetrating wouldn't do anything worthwhile without also having a significant incindiary effect to cook off rounds. If the ammo compartment goes, the force of the blast is designed to direct away from the crew. So the tank and crew are still ok, but they have 40-50 fewer rounds than before to shoot at you (they'll still have a few rounds left, but not much).
• The fuel compartments are armored, and safe from anything less than a shaped charge.
• Antenna are vulnerable to blast effects, lucky shots from 50 cal or greater, etc.
• The treads are vunerable to multiple lucky shots from at least an anti-material rifle (PAC in SR terms). Blowing off roadwheels won't do much, but if you can break the track (hitting a wobbling, moving blur 2 inches thick while it wizzes by you at 30mph), you've effectively turned it into a pillbox (mobility kill). But it would still be dangerous as hell, just not moving.
• Other than that, you can't to squat to a tank without heavy weapons.

Posted by: Earlydawn Feb 5 2008, 09:33 PM

I don't even necessarily see tanks as a major military asset in 2070.. from everything I've read today, the focus is on lighter, faster units (Strykers, Bradleys) who then do their own thing until they need a hard target taken out - JDAM time!

The only way I can see tanks see being used in Shadowrun's context is one-man rigger shells using only external sensor systems, or as drone tank platoons rigged by remote and using advanced pilot software in case they get disconnected. For that matter, I don't see too much in the way of manned aircraft - by 2015, IIRC, two thirds of U.S. deep strike aircraft are supposedly going to be unmanned. What's the incentive to train ten pilots at a cost of tens of millions when you can deploy a full wing of expendable, low-signature drones under the supervision of one rigger?

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Feb 5 2008, 10:14 PM

Intrestingly, part of the reason that the US has never really gone in for autoloaders (there are lots of reasons, like limited depression of the main gun with one fitted for starters) is that actual maintanence on a tank seriously takes like 4 guys - and with drones it takes even more.

This makes me wonder if they'd actually go for one man rigger shells because how is he going to keep it running in the field? Maybe they just base other specialists out of tanks as well, and they help with the tank in addition to whatever else it is they do.

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 5 2008, 10:40 PM

tanks only really have a place in symmetrical fights, to break deadlocks (ww1 trenches). or at least thats my impression of it all.

as for maintenance, i dont think ever a tank have been much maintainable in the field beyond the tools to fix a broken thread or similar.

iirc the engine of most modern tanks are built so that they can be pulled out wholesale by a crane, and a similar, working, unit can be slipped back in.

and most likely the deal is the same with most major components. yank the cables, get the crane in, or haul it out by hand, get the replacement in, pop the cables back into place and get going.

this done by a service truck under cover of darkness or if the tank happens to end up on the correct side of the front lines.

same deal with a drone. if one get to banged up, dump it to the road side and call for a airdrop of a new one. if you can stuff 6 or so in a average transport copter resupply should never be more then a radio call away.

then there is desktop manufacturing. when one can make spare parts anywhere one can park two trucks, well...

Posted by: Cain Feb 6 2008, 05:42 AM

Basically, you're describing a Longshot test. Or an ordinary Critical Success.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Feb 6 2008, 12:40 PM

There is a school of thought and body of evidence that tanks don't really have a place in modern warfare - it is far to dangerous for them, as they can be easily taken out by far faster and more mobile weapon systems (ie jets and helicopters). However in asymmetrical warfare you have the biggest gun by far that anyone else can bring to the party, and that equals respect

As for maintaining them, tanks require a huge amount of work every day to keep the myriad of electrical systems and engineering running, and its a tricky task. Repairs are a different matter and require support staff, but some stuff just has to be done every day.

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 6 2008, 12:52 PM

heh, big guns are also more cumbersome to wield. stuff a couple or rpgs in the hands of the troops, send them into flanking positions of the tank and boom.

big guns dont do much if you cant deploy them in fear of hitting non-combatants for one thing. and another is restricted movement. tanks are built for open ground fights, not house to house like one see more and more after the main force have been taken apart in the fields outside.

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 6 2008, 01:06 PM

There's still a need for tanks. Those faster and more mobile weapon systems are even more vulnerable to portable missile launchers, and require more maintenance. When used right (which means, with combined arms, not as some lone urban scout), tanks are very effective - you won't beat a force fielding tanks if you don't have tanks, all other things being equal.

Back in the 70s, people thought the tank was past its prime, with the new AT missiles and all. But then came new armor, and tanks are still in use.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Feb 6 2008, 01:17 PM

You know aside from one incident which seems to be the result of a cain style longshot test, an M1A2 is extremely hard to damage with RPG fire from all angles, including the roof? Hence the consternation of the US military in that incident were the tank did get taken out!

The isreali merkava was designed with much the same thing in mind.

ATGM of the sort which will blow huge holes in tanks from the flanks are expensive, big and complicated to operate, and not really found in the hands of insurgents or other asymmetrical people.

Tanks also helpfully let you bring a variety of other weapons platforms to the party, including grenade launchers and machine guns that can be fired remotely from inside the tank, which in light of the previous fact is a great place to be. They are an excellent weapons platform.

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 6 2008, 01:22 PM

And it's easier to use a tank and avoid collateral damage than using artillery, jets or choppers.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Feb 6 2008, 01:29 PM

From the people I've talked to tanks are still big bad friendlies in a fire fight. All the infantry men I know have an order of preference that goes like this:
1. Air Strikes/Artillery (The More the Merrier)
2. Armor
3. People with very large guns, plenty of spare barrels, and 200 spread loaded pounds of ammunition.

Effective or not tanks are a huge morale booster, APC's and the ilk are significantly increase mobility and heavy weapons options. Nothing says safety like a belted 50 cal and 120 mm HEP rounds.

I will admit that I don't know what the statistics on armor in asymetric warfare. My thinking is that modern reactive armor is pretty effective at turning aside anything but the most modern armor piercing rounds and that there are several proven ways to decrease the effectiveness of dumb RPG rounds (armor cages, that fancy new british system that fries the round as it makes contact). In general I'd have to agree with the Deep God's assement of tanking.

Now light armor, that's a different bag of awakened fish.

Posted by: Ed_209a Feb 6 2008, 01:50 PM

It does take 4 guys for the tank equivalent of keeping a rifle clean & oiled. For example if you don't clean enough of the mud out of the tracks, when the mud dries you could shed a track.

Posted by: Ed_209a Feb 6 2008, 01:57 PM

As the tone of war shifts from NATO vs Warsaw Pact to low intensity actions, I wish Abrams tanks had more modular weaponry.

When there are no more tanks, switch to a more appropriate weapon. Trade out the high velocity 120mm, for something more like a artillery piece. Like the WW2 assault guns. A short barrel 155mm like the old Sheridan tank had might be more useful in a city. Perhaps even a heavy caliber autocannon, for more precise firepower.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Feb 6 2008, 02:11 PM

You're right about the need for tank roles to change in low intensity conflicts. Especially in the context of Shadowrun. I still think that tanks will have a role though in the same way that police still use mounted police for patrols and particularly riot control. The psychological impact of several tons of reactive armor and death spewing doom bearing down on you is probably worth the price tag. Combine that with how effective tanks are against magical threats and you have a pretty good argument for a few main battle tanks rolling around in a corporate arsenal.

But I highly doubt corps or government maintain vast battalion of armor when cybered infantry can have so much utility for a fraction of the cost. The tanks they have are probably extremely hardy, maneuverable, and able to deal out ungodly amounts of damage.

To an earlier post: I'm not at all enamored at the Striker. It's too heavy to be fielded like the Bradley and it's too lightly armored to take the punishment of an Abrams. I agree that the trend is towards lighter troop carriers but l think those have a different role than a tank. Light armor is more about troop mobility and a firm and rapid base of fire. Tanks are about "OH GOD HERE IT COMES" effect on the enemy and their hard emplacements.

Posted by: jago668 Feb 6 2008, 11:33 PM

If you were able to pop a track could you not just turn a tank into a big oven? Just pile brush, furniture, etc around it and roast marshmellows until the crew came out?

Posted by: Naysayer Feb 6 2008, 11:47 PM

If the crew idly sits there and lets you approach and pile up heaps of crap around their tank instead of training all their primary and secondary (and tertiary?) guns on your devious ass, then yes, that would not be entirely outside the realm of possibility...

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 6 2008, 11:49 PM

heh, pop a track, turn said can into a very angry road block

but yes, i see i have underestimated the utility of it in the modern battlefield.

Posted by: jago668 Feb 7 2008, 12:04 AM

Well I figure they are going to try to stop you. Just that if the situation allowed for it, was curious if it would work. Better than taking out the track(s) and sitting on your thumb.

Posted by: Naysayer Feb 7 2008, 12:09 AM

Well, IF they let you set fire to their ride, I'd wager that after a while, it would get quite uncomfortable in there, but I'd be interested what people who actually know about tanks say...

But all this talk of tracks got me wondering: weren't MBTs and the like supposed to be magical hardcore LAVs in Shadowrun? What ever happened to the GMC Banshee?!

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 7 2008, 12:17 AM

sadly the lav is more like a hind on steroids then a tank. rigger3 had it unable to hover for more then a couple of min's iirc...

Posted by: Fabe Feb 7 2008, 12:20 AM

Unless your new to Battletech I think you maybe forgetting about anti battlemech infantry, there rare but they do exist, plus rules wise mechs' actually get a penalty for trying to kick troops since they tend to scurry out of the way when BMs get too close. and then there is the battle amour.....

Posted by: jago668 Feb 7 2008, 12:34 AM

Well you also run into the 33 foot tall thing is a very easy target to hit. It will be standing above general structures, as such it will be easy prey for artillery and airstrikes. I am certain that uses could be found for them, just that they would not be a universal fix for a battlefield. Now a much smaller exo-skeleton type of armor suit thing. That would probably be much more useful. Think more Starship Troopers (book not the movie).

Posted by: Particle_Beam Feb 7 2008, 12:41 AM

I think Kingmaker only joked about the mech-warriors. Don't take it seriously.

Posted by: Cain Feb 7 2008, 03:48 AM

Once again, everyone's forgetting that armor-defeating technology will have gotten better as well. In 2070, pistols can fire solid-cored Unobtanium AV rounds that can defeat reasonably heavy armor. That might not be enough to beliveably defeat a tank, but beliveability isn't one of a RPG's strong suits.

Posted by: Earlydawn Feb 7 2008, 05:52 AM

See, I disagree with this. While advanced anti-tank weapons were a developing fear around the time that the build-up surrounding the Cold War began, tanks still had a purpose on the battlefield, because air power wasn't nearly at the level of advancement it is today. Now look at the First Gulf War. Iraq had a very large, very (regionally) advanced armor inventory, but they still got crushed.. by precision guided munitions, and aircraft engineered for the specific purpose of taking out tanks.

Now, also factor in a couple Sixth World realities. First of all, most major conflict would end up at an urban center - much like today - where the use of non-precision force is impractical; ironically, the same problem that has drastically reduced the effectiveness of artillery. Also, remember that for low costs (by military standards), you can implant regular infantry to be drastically more deadly, efficient, and survivable then their current equivalent. Finally, keep in mind that a small fraction of the population can learn hard-to-detect spells that are tailor made to either cripple or outright destroy vehicles. Contrast this against how effective, advanced and affordable drone aircraft are in 2070, and I think that spells their doom.

I think developed nations like Japan, the UCAS, and CAS would replace their tanks with lighter, more urban-friendly infantry support drone platforms, whereas third world nations would probably maintain their arsenals of older, largely ineffective tanks.

Posted by: kzt Feb 7 2008, 07:12 AM

SR has simply not addressed ADA. If you have laser pistols you have ADA lasers. This is instant death to aircraft that are not hugely armored. (It's also instant death to personnel in LOS too...) Combined with high res optical sensors, passive radar systems and high res RDF it makes light air vehicles nearly useless on a real battlefield.

It's also becoming perfectly possible to destroy AT weapons in flight. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TROPHY_Active_Protection_System is an early example.

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 7 2008, 07:59 AM

Iraq had no air force to protect their airspace. That's why I said "all other things being equal". There hasn't been any war fought between two modern armies in decades, only one superpower against some technologically inferiour foes.

Also, speaking of the 6th world, once collateral damage is no concern, the need for precision force in urban terrain lessens greatly. Not to mention that this vaunted urban terrain still needs to get supplied through non-urban terrain. Drones are only as effective as their computer network is safe. A tank won't be as easily taken over, and won't be limited to programming when cut off from communication.

Posted by: hyzmarca Feb 7 2008, 08:05 AM

Iraqi tanks were total crap. They has a half-assed knockoff of an outdated Soviet design and craptastic outdated Chinese tanks. Most of Iraqi tank kills came from M1A1s and FV4030/4s. The FV4030/4 has the distinction of over 300 kills and no loses against Iraqi tanks during Desert Storm. The drastically interior Iraqi tanks couldn't even pierce the armor of modern battle tanks with their 125mm Depleted Uranium shells at close range. Their armor was crap and easily defeated by Coalition tanks M829A1 120mm APFSDS . The range of their guns was also crap, with Coalition tanks having more than twice the accurate range as Iraqi tanks.


Only the best of the best mage can hope to come close to destroying a tank with magic and even then the drain will be enormous. Ram Tank is a pretty suicidal prospect even with the drain reduction.


I'd argue that urban environments make non-precision weapons even more practical; the current military leaders are just too wimpy to use them. More people burned to death under Allied firebombs during WWII that have been killed by all weapons of mass destruction in the history of the warfare. Imagine what it does to the morale of your enemy when they see their families slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands. They could end the insurgency in Iraq right quick if they wanted to. None of that precision-guided crap, just good old carpet bombing of civilian homes. Guerrillas can't hide amongst the population if there is no population to hide amongst.

Tanks provide a good medium between the cold aloof destruction of carpet bombing and nuclear devastation. And the visceral thrill of wanton hand-to-hand slaughter.


What is best in life?

Posted by: Earlydawn Feb 7 2008, 08:22 AM

I don't know. Even so, the U.S. is moving away from armor as we understand it, towards lighter, faster mech infantry units. I still don't think the Sixth would see armor in the same form we see it today. Everything it can do, something else can do better. If you guys want to make a case for automated armor, I'd probably agree with you. Less bodies in vehicles = less risk, and with drone technology apparently being cheaper, smarter, and more reliable then it is in 2008, I don't really see why, with a military budget, you would want to have to house, feed, and train a tank crew when a dog-brain can do it better with a higher uptime and a lower supply chain footprint. Yeah, sure.. networks are vulnerable to attack, but I think that weakness suits Shadowrun's theme perfectly.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. What I was trying to get across was the fact that the main battles in modern times are headed to the sky - once you own the sky, everything else is basically trivial, as you can essentially dominate the battlespace as you see fit. Of course, even through all our technological progression, experience has shown that you simply have to have boots on the ground, so infantry would stay. Everything else I would likely bet automated to some degree or another. While maintenance would likely be a bigger concern, I can't possibly see it as being more of a burden then all the logistics that surround supporting humans, particularly when you consider advances like desktop forges and nano-construction, all of which would be within the scope of a military budget within Shadowrun's background.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Feb 7 2008, 08:27 AM

FWIW, one significant factor in that shift may be the total absence of an equivalently-equipped foe that the US is likely to face in combat anytime soon. In SR, where if there is a superpower it's Japan and North America looks about like Europe did at the height of the Cold War (and UCAS and Sioux soldiers staring at each other with itchy trigger fingers), that factor is totally gone.

As for being unmanned, I'm not sure I agree—as probably the most heavily-armored thing on the field, it'll probably be where the Rigger is.

~J

Posted by: Fortune Feb 7 2008, 08:29 AM

What would a tank's Condition Monitor be? I mean, you'd really only have to beat a Threshold of 4 with a few multi-cast spells to pretty much take it out in one round if it's anything under 20.

Posted by: Earlydawn Feb 7 2008, 08:34 AM

Well, with satellite links, the rigger can be back in some armored bunker, vectoring drone tank platoons around and jumping into one when it needs personal attention - see the example of the pilots of Predator drones in the Middle East operating them from the United States. Matrix Security would be a concern, yes, but that fits with modern times as well. Cyberspace is viewed to be a new, critical part of the battlespace.

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 7 2008, 08:45 AM

The jury's still out on the new "Light armor" trend. Compared to Tanks, APCs and IFVs are much more vulnerable to RPGs and similar attacks.

The Israeli tend to field more tank with APC capacities (Merkavas), and are going for heavier armor, not lighter armor.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Feb 7 2008, 08:46 AM

Right, though. By sticking someone in the tank itself, you don't get to disable the whole works remotely, not without cracking the tank directly.

~J

Posted by: hyzmarca Feb 7 2008, 08:52 AM

Since there are boats with bodies of 30 I'd put a tank's around 60, meaning that you'd need to cast at Force 25 in order to have a reasonable chance to defeat one with a powerbolt.

Posted by: Fortune Feb 7 2008, 10:20 AM

I never mentioned using only one Powerbolt (or Ram, or whatever).

Multicasting lower Force spells on successive passes could chew into that Condition Monitor in a turn or two (assuming 4 successes per spell). Hell, you could just sit back and pick away with much lower Force spells over the course of several turns (given the aforementioned threshold issue), or am I missing something?

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 7 2008, 10:45 AM

That the tank will not simply let you do that without popping thermal smoke as soon as something is registered, then starting to saturate likely hiding areas with weapon fire?

Current tanks have smoke grenade launchers bolted on already, in a world with mages, LOS breaking smoke will be used by tanks regularily.

I also don't really see mages being ordered to face tanks, not when there are other ways to deal with tanks which do not risk valuable, rare mages (who should be busy warding tanks, and summoning spirits, and astrally scouting, not trying to replace a tank or tank-hunter).

Posted by: Fortune Feb 7 2008, 11:02 AM

I didn't say it was always going to be easy, nor standard practice. I was just commenting on the possibility because it came up.

As for the Body, the 30 points assigned to those ships would be partly on account of size. I think it more reasonable to list a tank at around 40.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Feb 7 2008, 11:15 AM

He said boats, not ships. If a ship has 30 points, there's no way a tank's going to have anywhere near that.

~J

Posted by: nezumi Feb 7 2008, 02:10 PM

Yeah, in the only true SR anyway, if your powerball can't beat a TN of their Object Resistance ( + Body (~20?) + Armor/2 (~20) it has no effect. So yes, a force 1 powerball COULD hypothetically hurt a tank, but you'd need to beat a TN of 48 and cast it with enough force that the tank doesn't just stage it down to nothing with its huge body.

(But it is hypothetically possible.)

Posted by: Fortune Feb 7 2008, 03:18 PM

Meh! As I posed the original tangent question about SR4 ...

Posted by: DocTaotsu Feb 7 2008, 04:16 PM

I think I'm clearly in the "Tanks in the 6th world!" camp for the reasons mentioned: Hard to kill, less likely to get taken out by something stupid like wide spectrum jamming, and capable of providing all sorts of utility. I agree with a previous poster that a giant 120 mm cannon might have limited utility in the 6th world but I'm guessing that the basic idea of a 50-60 ton tank is still alive in and kicking. I envision an SR tank to be able to do everything from deploying/servicing drones, to laying down massive suppressing fire whilst spraying chemicals and napalm on things and people. I also suspect that it makes a decent platform for any sort of anti-air capabilities as it doesn't go "pop" every time someone throws a couple of rounds at it. I also expect that they have the ability to automatically eject burning ammo and what not thus removing a tanks primary threat, itself.

The fact that the US military is doing anything is not a good indicator that it is a good idea in the first place. I think the main reason we're moving away from main battle tanks is because the M1A1 is good enough, plenty good enough. As mentioned above American and British tankers fought massive armor battles in the first Gulf war and sustained practically zero casualties. In my reading I'm seeing that the only real "kills" anyone scored were because of friendly fire and in many cases the front armor of the M1A1 actually shrugged off the fancy APFSDS we field. Ah, I'm wrong there is one KIA in a tank that took RPG fire and 3 depleted uranium rounds that found a weak spot around the turret. I wonder what that weight of fire would do to a Striker? What I'm trying to get at is that modern tanks are all but impervious to only the most determined attacks by well equipped foes.

In other words our move away from tanks is not because they aren't good at what they do (staying alive and killing other hard targets) but because the thinking is we can move towards a "Smaller, faster" military force (read: cheaper). The people who are pushing these ideas also rode into and out of office on the idea that we could comfortably occupy Iraq with 30k troops and "shock and awe". Well they were wrong, and goddamnit Donny we want our armor back, and our heavy lift helos. You can however hang on to that crappy Crusader artillery piece that shoots nice but is too damn big to take anywhere. There is merit to the idea that we need something that's heavier than a HUMVV and lighter than an Abrams but I hardly think that means were going to push all our tanks into a hole and forget about them. In Shadowrun terms I doubt a team will ever square off against a tank unless they are very stupid or very unlucky or their GM has access to Arsenal and wants to start a new game anyway. Tanks in SR are probably something reserved for "Very Bad Days" ™ and are likely kept in reserve solely for the purpose of keeping riggers alive long enough to compose an orchestra of dronecentric destruction. Besides, what rigger worth his salt wants to sit in an office and play a trideo game when they could be screaming across the battlefield in 60 tons of death dealing doom? If you're going to die of dumpshock you might as well die doing something you love.

Combat riggers have to be in the field, probably in a tank. Satcom links have up to a seconds of delay (IRL) and are subject to all sorts of jamming and atmospheric interference. The delays are not something anyone has a good work around on because these signals are already traveling at the speed of light. Additionally I refuse to believe that Ares/Aztechnology/etc would have qualms about kinetic killing satellites during a conflict, something no one has to deal with today (well, unless China gets really jumpy). Who wants to lose control of millions of dollars of drones because of sun spots, multi tiered jamming, or because some asshole shot your satcom network to pieces?

I am aware that the Airforce flies digital sorties with Predators and other UCAV's but these are hardly high performance VTOL assault crafts and the "pilots" aren't coordinating multiple vehicles with 3 to 4 initiative passes. They pretty much fly around, look at things, and occasionally pull the trigger on a fire and forget hellfire anti tank missile that does all the hardwork.

I still think that's a cool job.

Fun fact that I learned when I did a paper on depleted uranium. The longest kill recorded for a DU APFSDS round was fired from a British Challenger tank that killed a tank slightly over the horizon.

A note to my players:
I have stats for tanks. I think they are still around in decent numbers in 2070, I'm simply tickled pink at playing "Geek the mage! Troll! Sniper!" with tank sized APDS rounds that do "HELL YES" damage. If things go bad and someone has time to get tanks to where you are, you should be running already.
I'm also fond of vectored thrust vehicles that use cut down tank weaponry.

Posted by: kzt Feb 7 2008, 05:29 PM

The obvious fix is a large permanent ward, but wards just provide bonuses for inanimate objects on a roll inanimate object don't get to make. The person who wrote the warding rules for SR4 obviously doesn't read or write English as a first language. Or is an idiot. Or both.

My fix was to assume that wards just eat success equal to their power for people and objects, ignore the bonus crap. Yeah, this makes them tough. Mages are overpowered.

The "official" SR4 fix I would use would be long-term high force bound guardians using magical guard. This also makes your armor units move at 500 MPH and keeps people from swiping them when in depot.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Feb 7 2008, 05:49 PM

Which is the same way you can blow up an aircraft carrier, a skyscraper, or the the earth ZOMG! Actually, the object resistance table says 4+, and I think that + is very significant. I remember talking about this in the http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=16272&b=1&st=0&p=0&#entry0 thread a while back. Specifically Demerzel and I (not to steal credit from other people who contributed to the conversation or anything) talked about increasing OR by 1 per 5 full points of Body for vehicles, as a good rule-of-thumb. Keeps those pesky mages from powerbolting willy-nilly outside of the inter-personal conflict scale.

edited: misleading text

Posted by: Earlydawn Feb 7 2008, 06:24 PM

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that you jam the satellite and the tanks go brain dead. I'm saying drone tanks that a rigger can command / jump into from a remote command station, or can operate autonomously if they're isolated. Of course, you would be digitally vulnerable, but network security would unavoidably be a new battlefield in 2070, and I don't think that would be enough of a downside to shy away from using the matrix technology.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Feb 7 2008, 06:31 PM

I didn't think you were, I'm just saying that in a world where people are making complex actions every second and a half that losing connection for a couple of seconds might leave you with half the force you started with. I insist (because I am all knowing) that riggers need to be in or very near the battlefield to have the best chance of coming out with as many drones as they put in.

Posted by: Earlydawn Feb 7 2008, 07:34 PM

Even so, a secured forward base is going to be worlds above a command tank in terms of safety. I also don't think that lag would be as much of a factor as you think; drones, both in Shadowrun and real life, are capable of decisionmaking and reaction far faster then your average human. From what I've read, Predators practically fly themselves, while the Officers in charge of the unit simply set it a destination. It figures out how to get there. Believe me, the rigger can just provide upper-level judgment in almost real-time, and the drone(s) will fill in the holes. I doubt they'd even need to jump in.

All this precision operation capability would likely be done at a lesser cost and higher uptime then with a human crew. Yeah, the military in question would need to protect its matrix assets, but considering that most theatre-to-theatre communications would be traveling by matrix anyway, that's a concern that would have to be addressed weither our hypothetical tank platoon is drone or man based.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Feb 7 2008, 07:50 PM

This is true but in SR I though it was always cannon that one good rigger hoping in and out of drones, taking his 3-4 initiative passes can wipe the floors with an army of "mindless" pilot rating only drones.

Granted that's SR3. SR4 (which I'm not at all familiar with drone rules yet) seems to support your theory that riggers hardly if ever need to jump into drones.

I think we've reached a point in the conversation where were splitting hairs. I call it "I agree to disagree with you" and we'll just have to wait 60 odd years before I can log onto the Matrix version of dumpshock and say "Ha! I told you! lag still sucks!"

In game terms i think it's safe to say that different orgs have different philosophies and that both our positions have merit for certain mission profiles.

For runners, tanks are pretty useless since they have to exist without all that support structure. I'm sure the teams rigger has wet dreams about tooling around in a tank but... he's kinda off to begin with.

Posted by: Mr. Unpronounceable Feb 7 2008, 08:05 PM

So does counterspelling, and that works on inanimate objects as well. But OR basically works as permanent successes on a resistance roll (for direct spells, anyway.)


So basically it'd get (counterspelling + ward) rolled + an OR of whatever, to compare to the spellcasting successes.

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 7 2008, 08:08 PM

arsenal has rules for equipping a vehicle with a large sensor array and a missile defense system. it again links to one or more weapons mounted on said vehicle in a remote control equiped mount. each weapon gives a +2 on defense rolls, except lasers, those give a +4.

you need 1 slot for the array, one for the MDS, and whatever the weapon mounts need (and making those remote controlled only makes them cost 1 less then normal).

as for ADA (air defense artillery, right?), as it seems that SR4 do not care about flight time of the fired rounds, as long as target is within range, anything that can fit in a flexible mount (90 degree from center pivot) or a normal turret (90 degree vertical, 360 horizontal, so it can shoot straight up if needed it seems) can in theory make use of sensor assisted gunnery, be it active or passive.

so a vehicle scale laser, or even the gauss cannon, in a reinforced flexible mount could probably shoot down a aircraft, if needed. would be quite the sight

Posted by: DocTaotsu Feb 7 2008, 08:17 PM

Does anyone else get the feeling that SR open warfare must not be a nice place to be standing outside without radiation shielding? With all these lasers and sensors pulsing all over the place your teeth will probably start falling out.

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 7 2008, 08:36 PM

welcome to modern warfare...

or just a walk down the street, if the reports about mobile phones can be trusted...

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Feb 8 2008, 12:45 AM

Whats an ADA laser? if its Air defense artillery, which makes perfect sense actually, maybe atmospheric refraction screws up whatever they have? If you can just swat air units out of the sky things are going to be tricker.

Conventional warfare in SR4 is going to be extremely high intensity, and extremely one sided. One side will be catastrophically defeated in the opening hours, and thats that.

Its because something like eleventy billion UAVs armed with with hellfire missles and sniper rifles flying around will cause wholesale slaughter of the other teams ground forces - in a totally precision fashion. So the game is going to be sweeping the other guys UAVs out of the air, and that will be won by whoever has the best electronic warfare/EMP/EMP hardening technology, something that is decided long before anyone actually shows up. Once you've done that, you have a million billion flying things that can kill any infantry man or vehicle long before the target can A) see it B) react, and total victory is assured.

Unconventional warfare is going to much harder as the other team won't drive tanks around or wear convenient 'shoot me please' uniforms to make targeting easier. The UAVs are still going to be flapping around, so if you attract attention and don't have overhead cover things are going to go very badly for you, but that isn't an insurmountable problem.

So tanks are still going to be driving around for working in unconventional warfare and police actions, as these are the only wars anyone will ever actually fight due to the problems with total destruction in conventional warfare.

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 8 2008, 08:27 AM

The US Air Force once thought that planes did not need cannons anymore. They were proven wrong and had to add a cannon to the Phantom. Also, costs are a factor - all the UAVs need a very big infrastructure. Then add jamming, smoke generators, and camouflage, and the army that only uses Drones in a centralised assault might very well end up beaten by the army that has people out there who can act on their own initiative even with communication and sensors mostly down.

Posted by: Gerzel Feb 8 2008, 11:22 AM

Buck and Ball Brother, Buck and Ball

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 9 2008, 05:35 AM

heh, not surprised that i got called on that one

Posted by: Kagetenshi Feb 9 2008, 02:37 PM

If you use buckshot to hunt bucks, and birdshot to hunt birds, do you use grapeshot to hunt grapes?

~J

Posted by: Shrike30 Feb 9 2008, 08:41 PM

And we thought the ratio of logistics soldiers to combat soldiers was bad now...

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Feb 9 2008, 09:05 PM

Is it can it be SR military sim time?

Posted by: Sir_Psycho Feb 9 2008, 10:32 PM

Just wondering, is a 50' Cal Barrett considered small-arms? It's man-portable. Can't you fuck up an armored vehicle with that?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Feb 9 2008, 10:58 PM

A fairly lightly armored vehicle, yeah.

~J

Posted by: jago668 Feb 9 2008, 11:02 PM

Like a bradley.

Posted by: kzt Feb 9 2008, 11:10 PM

IIRC, brads are currently good against 14.5mm from all aspects and much heaver to the front.

Posted by: jago668 Feb 10 2008, 01:12 AM

Have they undergone a change since say 6 years ago? One of my friends used to drive one, and he said a 50 cal would pretty much swiss cheese one. Also he said that you might be able to get a 30 cal round in if you were able to shoot long enough with something like an lmg (he didn't think a normal 30 cal rifle would do the trick).

Posted by: Sir_Psycho Feb 10 2008, 06:51 AM

So what's a bradley? Is that a light tank? or is it a heavily armored car?

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 10 2008, 07:01 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2/M3_Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle

its a "IFV"

Posted by: hyzmarca Feb 10 2008, 07:08 AM

The Bradly is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Sort of a combination of a tank a scout vehicle and a troop transport. It carries people, does scouring, has a huge gun and can fire wire-guided missiles. It comes in a variety of flavors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_fighting_vehicle#Bradley_Stinger_Fighting_Vehicle_.28BSFV.29

Posted by: jago668 Feb 10 2008, 07:21 AM

The HBO movie about it was really amusing.

Posted by: kzt Feb 10 2008, 08:12 AM

There were armor upgrades (part of the A2 set) in 1988 or so that are supposed to stop 30mm AP cannon rounds. There were further upgrades in 2000 as part of the A3 set. My understanding is that it should be be good against 14.5 from all aspects, though I can't find any support for that in brief search. Global Security says it had 14.5mm protection on all sides initially, the A2 upgrade provided 30mm protection from all sides, with titanium roof armor added in the A3 upgrade. There is a reason that damn thing weight 33 tons without the 3 tons of add-on reactive armor tiles. It's also why the loss rate in Iraq has been fairly low. It's very tough, and quite lethal.

Posted by: jago668 Feb 10 2008, 08:22 AM

I'm just relaying what a guy that used to drive one in the late 90's early 2000 ish range told me about them. He told me, "...a 50 cal will pretty swiss cheese one, and if you catch AV rocket you might as well forget it..."

So whatever the stats say they are supposed to do, maybe the 2000 A3 upgrade you mentioned fixed it right. When he reupped 2001-2002 I don't remember which, he decided to switch and be a medical equipment repair guy. So the only thing I knew was what they were like before that time, and even that second hand.

Posted by: kzt Feb 10 2008, 08:52 AM

The army doesn't magically upgrade all the vehicles in inventory when an upgrade comes out, particularly during the "peace dividend" that gave us the Les Aspin memorial shootout in Mogadishu because we didn't need armored vehicles. It takes years, if not a decade+, to get upgrades to all deployed systems, and some never will. Reserve units tend to be screwed that way. Knew soemone who still had M60 tanks when M60A4s and M60A5s were supposed to issued to all units.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Feb 10 2008, 12:17 PM

But a UAV with a fairly large gun costs 8k, and a real soldier costs like 800k (based on current costs for a US army soldier. You can adjust depending on what you think the nuyen to dollar conversion rate is, but a car is 14k yens and a racing bike 6, implying that yens are worth more than dollars). And that drone needs a repair guy at an airbase (which in shadowrun is another drone) and a supply line to an airbase. Airbases are much easier to supply than infantry guys running around who need to do stuff like sleep and eat, and are in contact with the enemy. You can even have drone controlled artillery batteries that provide automated fire support as prioritized by a cyberlogistican - again great fire support for the guys on the ground, and doesn't require many people, and is easy to supply.

You can even get a drone to maintain other drones, so the logistics tail doesn't blow out hugely. You'd probably even need less guys, because a half squad could easily oversee a facility with 100+ dedicated maintanence drones running 24/7. Just put up a tent. They can even maintain each other.

It's not like you'd forgo your conventional soldiers either, I see them as a huge force multiplier, with each soldier/jet fighter/whatever backed up by an assortment of related purpose drones. So you don't have a single flight like today, you float dozens of drones.

Posted by: Ed_209a Feb 10 2008, 12:41 PM

I don't mean this directly towards your friend, but I talked to lots of combat arms guys when I was in the service. It was funny how many of them had crackhead ideas about at least one of the pieces of equipment they were supposed to be expert in.

A USMC NCO once told me that the secondary MOS of all enlisted personnel was to whine and complain. Making up reasons why your gear is a POS ranks at least in the top 5.

A guy in my unit was convinced our body armor was POS because it would not stop rifle ammo without plates!

You can't believe the manufacturer 100% even though they made the gizmo, and you can't believe the user 100% even though they use it every day.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Feb 10 2008, 02:32 PM

WTF? I'd agree with him. If you aren't getting issued at least 25cm of RHA, you're getting ripped off.

But then some pansy'd probably start whining about "being able to move" or "standing up"…

~J

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 10 2008, 02:48 PM

From my experiences with maintenance in the military (only on the "when can we get our APC back? Anytime this week?" end) I am not sure that this will work like you wrote. There are parts to ship for all maintenance, and any drone that maintains drones requires maintenance too. You'd end up, in my opinion, with a huge supply train. As far as I know, aircraft curently are operating, in püeace time, in a 2/3 active, 1/3 down for maintenance mode - and they have much more than one tech per craft.

I can't really see a huge army of drones operating as efficiently as a mixed force of soldiers, vehicles and drones, and then we have hacking to deal with.

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Feb 10 2008, 05:53 PM

I'm thinking a mixed force of drones, people and vehicles, probably in a 30-40?/50/10 expenditure too, I think we just have slightly different ideas of how much the costs are going to be

Remember, the drones can actually maintain each other too, humans are really not required at all for that process, except to make tactical/strategic decisions. The only reason you actually need humans is to make tactical and strategic decisions that are beyond a drone, SR has them more than capable of putting any human devised plan into action.

The supply train today is huge, and no reason to assume that would change in the future - and yeah, a combat readiness of vehicles in wartime of over 80% is pretty exceptional (US just tipped that in WWII in late 1944/1945, germany was running at about 60 percent from 1939 -> 1941, dropped to about 40% after that), though the US in GWI managed over 90 for both ground vehicles and aircraft.

However, there are huge logistical benifts to be made by the use of drones. Supply chains will be orchestrated by humans, but implemented by drones. A big bottleneck in GWI was the drivers for trucks to move the immense amount of crap around, drones have no driver fatigue so you can run the truck 24/7 except for servicing intervals.

Another major GWI bottleneck was the port facilities, but SR has a much more advanced supply chain management capability than we do. Part of the problem was the 'intresting' approach that US based logistics personnel had to things like shipping manifests, and putting what they'd said they put in the box. SR doesn't have this problem, everything and its dog is RFID tagged, so you can see whats in a container at an electronic glance. If the US guys cocked up the order and put 400 M-16's in instead of toliet paper, you'll know about it before you sent the M-16's to the guys with bowel problems. Another GWI problem was the (in)ability of the US forces to get the electronic supply chain management system working (civilian contractors actually deployed with US forces to get this going), but SR4 has a fantastic interworking matrix that enables all sorts of technology solutions - and ties into the capability to see electronic into shipping containers.

There is every reason to assume the entire port operation would be automated, with some humans to make overall supply routing decisions, and then a legion of drones (automated ships, handling equipment and trucks) to implement these directives. Drones don't get tired either, though they do break down, but they can easily run the place into the ground, and you're going to get much more accurate cargo manifests and supply requests enabling more efficient dispatch.

And yes, I'm thinking idealized solutions, and like always the supply chain is going to choke up in all sorts of places for all sorts of reasons. It's just that with the labour multipler you have in drones - one technican can oversee and entire team of maintainence drones and just step in for the tricky bits, and one foreman can manage an entire work crew of docker drones - you're going to ride them and ride them hard.

To look at it in 'fix my APC now' terms, you might be the only human on your 'team' (You'd still have a team, just stepped up the ladder one. You'd effectively be a work crew leader and your team of work crew leaders would be lead by a shop foreman), but you'd have a maybe a dozen or so drones with fully independant decision making and modest capability (probably the level of a junior technican, but they are fully qualified to operate all your equipment and conduct the majority of repairs), and a computer based parts ordering system that would automatically route parts from the closest location, give you an ETA, and then use a drone to ship them into the shop. Additionally, you could call up expert assistance at a moments notice from division or army level, or even from the US via matrix links.

Depending on the repairs, you might be able to work on half a dozen vehicles and drones at once, which is a neat capability. So a 'team' of 5 guys can work on 40-50 vehicles at once (assuming some are waiting for parts etc), which is probably a regimental level repairs facility. I'm not sure how many vehicles you'd expect in the shop at any one time.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Feb 10 2008, 06:52 PM

It's "Mechanized Infantry" from Civ 1! Woohoo, let's build them and fortify them in our cities.

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 10 2008, 08:30 PM

hmm, dont recall that. in civ2 its a humvee with a lmg on its roof i think...

Posted by: Kagetenshi Feb 10 2008, 09:02 PM

It's pretty much that in Civ I, IIRC.

Still remember the time I thought the Civ I tank was a meditating Buddha-figure with one arm outstretched. That was a nasty surprise.

And then Ghandi nuked me

~J

Posted by: bibliophile20 Feb 10 2008, 09:17 PM

I had Alexander the Great sue for peace once...

Ah, Civ 3... such fond memories.

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 10 2008, 11:33 PM

i know if someone in the neighborhood who got nuked just as he had developed the catapult...

Posted by: Kagetenshi Feb 11 2008, 12:24 AM

I wasn't quite that badly off, but I don't think I'd gotten past cannons, at least not much.

Of course, eventually I turned eight and realized that never building a second city wasn't a good idea. When I turned ten, I discovered the joys of not staying in Despotism the entire game.

~J

Posted by: bibliophile20 Feb 11 2008, 12:39 AM

And how old are you now, Kage?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Feb 11 2008, 12:59 AM

Ten and a half!

(22 for another slightly over two weeks, if I remember correctly. I actually don't remember the age I was, I'm extrapolating from how old I was when Civ I came out, plus the time between that and when I actually played it—my grandfather picked up the game pretty much immediately, but it got accidentally erased somehow before it was installed and it took about six-eight months for him to get around to picking up another copy).

~J

Posted by: bibliophile20 Feb 11 2008, 01:56 AM

Huh. And here I thought that you were much older than I am, instead of just six months or so... I guess that's my fault for confusing board seniority with actual seniority.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Feb 11 2008, 02:53 AM

No, to be a hell of a cinematic test it'd have to be done while upside down in a flip off an exploding motorcycle.



About those periscopes... shouldn't it be possible, even today, to blast them with a high powered strobing laser in hopes of frying the retinas of the driver, or at least temporarily blind him?



Hmm... Quick hardening foam epoxy grenades...


-karma

Posted by: Kagetenshi Feb 11 2008, 03:11 AM

I have spent enough time awake for a somewhat older individual, if that makes any difference

~J

Posted by: bibliophile20 Feb 11 2008, 03:30 AM

*snort*

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 11 2008, 07:55 AM

I think the periscopes are protected from that, on modern tanks. The latest French tank has a TV monitor for the driver, from what I heard, so that would not work.

Posted by: jago668 Feb 11 2008, 08:36 AM

Or it could have that bucky ball glass in them. That would prevent something like that from happening, and they can make that right now.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Feb 11 2008, 10:49 AM

People using highpowered lasers to cook eyes is already a problem and they're already taking steps to try to minimize the damage. In 70 years I tend to think that the periscope is only there for situations where all the other redundant sensor bulges are all out of comission. Using some sort of virtual cockpit drivers would have much better situational awareness, even if they weren't rigging directly.

I agree with the Deep One. Drones very likely dominate the supply/maintenance side of operations in the 6th world. If the megas and the governments of the world are willing to field mobile autodocs to work on human beings, I'm sure they have similar drones for maintenance. Hell, I’d be willing to wager that having reliable drones for maintenance has a bigger impact on militaries than having drones that shoot the hell out of people. I’d be a bit like when car building switched over from hand built to assembly line. All of a sudden you don’t need these huge armies of skilled craftsmen, you just need a crew of techs who can fix drones that (hopefully) don’t breakdown all the goddamn time.

Being a person who has a long standing animosity towards military supply I can tell you I’d much rather pull out my commlink, slap a stud on the side and dictate: “Authorization: 2 Field Medical Bags, Patrol Load.” Somewhere a machine springs to life, grabs said bags, checks the contents, restocks as appropriate, and drops them off somewhere to be picked up (hopefully by another drone since I get tired of walking to that damn complex).

(RANT/)
This would be a dream compared to:

“Hey man, I need 2 med bags.”
“What do you need them for?”
“Keeping your happy ass alive.”
“Do you have the right paperwork?”
“Uhm… yes?”
“Ah, no. These are the old forms, we use new forms now.”
“That’s fine, let me get the right form.”
“Oh we don’t have them here, you need to go to office X for that.”
“I was just there, they said this is the only form they have.”
*Pause as the supply guy rolls his eyes and looks up from his free cell game*
“Well I don’t have them.”
*Fastforward through 30 minutes of ‘Who’s on first?’ hilarity. I have to talk to no less than 3 separate people in 3 separate offices to get this cleared up.*
“Okay, here’s your bag.”
“This bag is… sticky.”
“Uhm… okay.”
“My med bag shouldn’t be sticky”
“Yeah well I’m not a corpsman, so I don’t know how to check them.”
*Growing concern from me. I open the bag and start looking at dates.*
“I was in highschool when this expired.”
“Yeah well, you’re responsible for making sure the bag is properly stocked.”
“But… you’re supply. I don’t have a room full of medical supplies I can throw into this bag. If I did I wouldn’t have to be here. And this bag… it’s sticky. Just tell me why it’s sticky?”
*Supply guy gives me the dreaded ‘Not my problem’ shrug. In a perfect world I pull out my monowire k-bar and force the handle into his eye socket.*
“I guess you could go to the clinic to get it filled.”
“But… But you’re supply… you’re whole purpose in life is to supply… the battalion, the medical battalion. That would mean you have medical supplies… right?”
“Oh we do, but they’re all expired. Someone has to order new ones.”
“Someone not you?”
“I’m not sure.”
(/RANT)

Long story short the world of logistics is currently filled with people who are glorified stock boys. Human error accounts for so much waste and inefficiency I refuse to believe that they won’t soon be replaced by robots. If you can build a machine intelligent enough to fly independent combat missions or put a wounded soldier back together, you can build something that scans barcodes and moves heavy boxes from one room to another.

I’m fairly certain they’ve done this already it’s just a matter of cost and reliability.

This is of course ignoring the fact that the universe is a cruel place and that progress doesn’t necessarily make things easier.

Posted by: jago668 Feb 11 2008, 11:31 AM

I know that Shermin-Williams is already experimenting with this somewhat in their wharehouses, or at least they were when I worked for them several years ago. So if companies are already trying to put drone type supply systems in today, then you can sure as hell bet that it is already done in 6th world 2070.

You would probably have places operating 23 hours a day. That last hour used for recharging the drones, and general maintenance. Have a guy or two going down the line of drones while they recharge. Checking for signs of wear like tire/track damage, changing oil, etc. Though even that could be done remotely with *gasp* another drone. So you could cut down on personel on shift to about 5 or 6, 1-2 for keeping up with drones, and computer systems, maybe a site manager, and the rest on site security.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Feb 11 2008, 11:43 AM

God... the most boring drone rigger job. Ever.

I imagine most repair drones have some sort of triage program that lets them perform normal maintenace whilst passing unusual cases up to a more advanced smart system and eventually on to a meat drone. SOTA warehouse rigging is probably where old riggers go to die.

Now if you're working for some struggling franchise that uses 1st generation automation and sketchy Thai repair routines... that'd be a feasible background for a shit hot rigger.

They probably don't even bring the drones down at all in the place you describe. They just have enough "shifts" to keep the working hours per drone down and have a handful down at any given time for extensive maintenance. There are probably a bunch of places where riggers just phone it.

Posted by: Ed_209a Feb 11 2008, 02:42 PM

Been there. (wish I could have) Done that.

I feel your pain. I was in a maint unit, and our supply section was crap from the top down.

Our admin section too. I actually heard one of our admin people say, "It's your responsibility to make sure your records are still here. Its _your_ career." (IE, it's not my problem if your form xx.xx gets lost.)

I will believe to my dying day that they tossed forms for people they did not like. Minor stuff like _promotion_paperwork_.

Posted by: bibliophile20 Feb 11 2008, 04:06 PM

A friend of mine was telling me about one game that he was in and how, on one occasion, they were raiding a military base. He made certain to booby-trap the supply building with as much high explosives as he could find... said it was a longtime fantasy of his.

Doctors who work for HMOs and haven't yet been completely burned out by the bureaucracy feel much the same way; I've met more than a few doctors that have wistful dreams about getting their bureaucratic tormentors on their operating tables (what happens next depends on the proclivities of the doctor; sometimes they get to "retake" anatomy class; sometimes the 'crat is sick and they get to say that his procedure was not approved.)

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 11 2008, 04:12 PM

Or the time my company was doing their 3 week refresher course (something like the US National Guard system), and we were limited to 10 live mortar grenades per platoon per day, always doing "dry runs". And then, on the last morning we'd get to fire, we suddenly had like 150 grenades per platoon handed out, and it was all "that has to be fired until noon, get to it!" We even shot illumination rounds in plain daylight (at 3K dollars a pop). All in all I think we wasted half a million in ordnance in a single morning.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Feb 11 2008, 10:40 PM

And yet I turn on Discovery Channel the other day and there's a special about a tank refurbishing/repair facility in I think Connecticut, that has automated supply and delivery drones running throughout the complex.

Little robot carts that follow buried radio guide wires around the buildings. They can go to the supply depot, grab the parts off the racks, and carry them to their destinations unaided. The system is smart enough to stop carts for obstacles, and if necessary re-route the deliveries. All this timed so each repair crew is supposed to get parts and supplies at the exact moment they need them.


-karma

Posted by: Cthulhudreams Feb 11 2008, 11:02 PM

there is a military maint drone in Arsenal that is explicitly smart enough to figure out it cannot handle the current problem, and then dial in support from somewhere. So your riggers would just be keeping an eye on the situation, then jumping in when something raises an orange flag.

You'd probably never shut down because warfare is 24/7 now and intensity is only going to increase the more robots you deploy. You'd just run the thing with 10% extra (or whatever drones) and they'd be 'down' while the rest were up - and tell your military techs that sleep is wherever they can find it.

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 12 2008, 12:05 AM

and issue truckloads of cram at the same time

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Feb 12 2008, 12:09 AM

AGNI BITCH! AGNI!

Posted by: DocTaotsu Feb 12 2008, 12:14 AM

Firing off a bunch of ammunition in a single day isn't that unusual. Typically it's done because:
A. It's about to expire (I know, I was mystified that little brass shells go bad, but they do evidently)
B. It's the end of the fiscal year and they either shoot it off and mark it as expended or take it as a loss during the next round of budgeting.

Yes it's pretty wasteful but the military is an inherently wasteful operation. When they do these mass shoot offs at least someone gets some training with them before they get shit canned. If they didn't order too much they might run out before the year is over and than nobody gets training until the next fiscal year. I wish there was a better way but until we start making smart supply drones with smarter computers to run them, I doubt it will change.

Actually the changes need to be broader reaching than that, we'd have to get into how funds at appropriated to the military, who decides how they get spent and probably significantly shorten the number of half retarded links in the supply chain.

Posted by: hobgoblin Feb 12 2008, 12:17 AM

i suspect it would be simpler to just go for a one world government so that we could retire all the armies of the world.

sadly, that would leave a good lot of people with nothing to do. i "wonder" that they would end up doing instead...

Posted by: Fuchs Feb 12 2008, 12:17 AM

I know about that - I am mad that we were strung out on a shoestring budget for the whoel course, always getting told "there's no more ordnance available, so pretend you have ordnance", and suddenly, on the very last day, we are told "here's your ordnance, now shoot it all in 4 hours!". Not much training, not much of a point.

Posted by: DocTaotsu Feb 12 2008, 12:31 AM

I think your idea and my idea of a perfect world are very different . And until I can get 10 people in a room who can decide on what kind of pizza to get in under 10 minutes, I'm not holding my breath for a one world order.

Besides, in a one world scenario, what the hell would you need an army for? Fighting space aliens? Beating up breakaway republics? But wait! Shouldn't people be allowed to decide what societal club they belong to? etc etc.

So... after 8 pages. To answer the original question:

Small Arms vs. Tanks=Nope?