Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Gebt mir Panzer!
Posted by: GreyBrother Apr 21 2009, 05:21 AM
Last night i flipped through my Rigger 3 and found three described Battle Tanks and some diverse Light Tanks/APCs. They seem to lacking in Arsenal and i am playing with the idea of GMing a campaign where the players are the crews of a vehicle.
Somebody came up with an idea of what profile a Main Battle Tank (Sigur III or the 2070 version of the Abrams) should have?
Posted by: toturi Apr 21 2009, 07:36 AM
You can blame the people who keep clamoring for Shadowrun to go back to "street" level. Maybe these people hasn't been to Bangkok lately or have already forgotten Tiananmen Square.
Posted by: Prime Mover Apr 21 2009, 12:39 PM
Been talk about a military style arc in the distant future. (conflict in South Am maybe) Maybe someday we'll get a "Fields of Fire" update.
Posted by: GreyBrother Apr 21 2009, 12:55 PM
Yeah, talked with a fellow player about playing as a mercenary tank crew and it caught me like it's been the first day i ever heard of it ^^
Anyway, how would you scale the numbers of a Battle Tank? More Armor than Body was something that sprang into my mind. Tracks are a must have and one reinforced heavy Turret. How would Tank Warfare look 2070 or Warfare in General? I just remember some german fan site theorizing about it but it didn't sound right. And where are major wars fought in the 70ties? Arabia? Africa? South America?
Posted by: InfinityzeN Apr 21 2009, 01:29 PM
Well you'll get your tanks eventually in the mentioned but not named Merc book due out everntually. You know CGL and their telling us when their releasing something. Though a couple of writers have commented on the book (pretty sure AH and the big man) that I have seen, so we know it will *eventually* be released.
Posted by: Dumori Apr 21 2009, 01:42 PM
Yeah and we also know from adams teseing that there will be a plot need for such things.
Posted by: Chrysalis Apr 21 2009, 03:59 PM
Merc: 2000 gives lots of ideas for Mercenary campaigns in Thailand...
It also gives reasons why there are few tank mercenaries.
But there is a part of me that wants things that go boom and the cringe that players insist they can use them. I like keeping such big toys in the hands of GMs.
Posted by: Warlordtheft Apr 21 2009, 04:24 PM
Didn't LAV's, and magic kind of make tanks a niche item rather than standard milspec items? The Tir Source book has a tid bit story when elves invaded the Cal Free State. Basically describing how a 20th century army fares in the 21st. It describes the use of illusion an mind control spells (on officers) to mess with CNC, dragons and spirits attacking, and the inability of the California national guard to mount a defense.
Not much on eurowars though in any of the sourcebooks (unless I missed something)-mostly just describing strategic level.
Back on topic--As for heavy tanks, there the MIG-67 LAV in arsenal, and in Rigger 1 (1st ed rules) there was the Stonewall MBT. IMHO, you are talking an Armor minimum of 30, and a body of at least 20 for a heavy tank. Speed may be an issue, and why I'd say they are a niche item rather than standard. LAVs fullfill the role of blitzing much better than a tank, though a tank would have better armor. Vehicle mounted lasers and rail guns might make this a moot point (I'd check but my books don't come to work with me).
Posted by: Fix-it Apr 21 2009, 05:50 PM
Warlordtheft hit it on the head. in the race between armor and anti-armor, armor never comes out ahead enough to be practical.
LAVs and aircraft made tanks useless due to speed and maneuverability. and "firepower" in the 6th world is such a wild card, heavy cannon don't count for much.
Posted by: Kovu Muphasa Apr 22 2009, 01:05 AM
I would love some tanks. in the LA game I am in [Going back to 2nd ed] the LAPD puchased a bunch of old M1A2 Main Battle Tanks for "Patrol Operations"
Yes we had to deal with the LATP "Los Angels Tank Police" 
Posted by: the_real_elwood Apr 22 2009, 01:09 AM
In some of the fluff shadowtalk in Fields of Fire, they talk about modern Main Battle Tanks having an "antipersonnel zone" that's kept clear of any enemy infantry by automated sentry turrets mounted on the tank. Also the shadowtalk alleges that most of the anti-armor weapons there are pretty much worthless against a MBT. But if you regularly rumble against people packing the vehicle weapons out of Rigger 3, then yeah, you could be in for a world of hurt.
Posted by: JoelHalpern Apr 22 2009, 03:10 AM
The big problem I see is that to produce a tank you need to change one of the firm rules in Arsenal, that no vehicle may have more than 20 pts of regular armor. They stuck with that rule even for the large ships (many of which are traditionally armored at least as well as tanks, and usually better.)
Joel Halpern
PS: Yes, I think it reasonable to relax the rule. The ships confused me.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 22 2009, 04:06 AM
Maybe it is just me, but why would you need (or want) Main Battle Tanks in Shadowrun... Maybe for the Desert Wars, which I could understand, but not for running the shadows in any given city...
Please explain this, as I am having trouble with the concept...
Posted by: AngelisStorm Apr 22 2009, 04:28 AM
Tanks today are legal for civilian use, and can be driven on normal roads if they have their tracks replaced with tires. (But I'm sure they make run flat tires in that size. If not, I sure don't see Monster Trucks getting flat tires in short order.)
But what if we want to run a mercenary campaign? Or the runners get into a bad situation, out in the wilderness (or decrepit barrens), and a chase scene ensues where they try to make it to their getaway vehicle, while a MBT is rolling after them and bringing down the buildings they are trying to hide in? And of course, there is always Desert Wars. (But it seems to me military equipment would be very useful for pirate campaigns, and campaigns based out of/around Hong Kong.)
Posted by: TonkaTuff Apr 22 2009, 04:36 AM
Please explain this, as I am having trouble with the concept...
I think you have it pretty well conceptualized, actually. Most of the people who want stats and info for tanks don't plan on using them in a standard "urban mercenary" shadowrun campaign, but do want to use the rules and concepts to explore a facet of the setting that would include such things (portraying a team in the Desert Wars, say).
Posted by: GreyBrother Apr 22 2009, 04:59 AM
Exactly TonkaTuff. As i said, i thought about trying a campaign where the players play a Tank Crew (or LAV, or similar vehicle). Regular Shadowrunner and a frickin Main Gun? 
No thanks, there is only that amount of suspension my disbelief can bear.
AngelisStorm: Why Hong Kong? Didn't read Runners Havens.
Posted by: Demonseed Elite Apr 22 2009, 12:03 PM
Probably as a central point for an Asian region mercenary campaign. Macao (right across the water from Hong Kong) is a big merc city and Asia has plenty of mercenary job opportunities.
Posted by: Apathy Apr 22 2009, 02:39 PM
The advent of magic (and more specifically conjuring) changes the whole paradigm for tanks. Nobody's going to want to spend $3M on a tank that can be taken out with little effort by a materializing F5 spirit that costs almost nothing. Astral defensive measures aren't good enough to completely counter spirits, so stocking a tank with a human crew is just a waste of resources. I can only think of two options to counter this:
- All tanks are [super-sized] unmanned drones.
- Tanks are redesigned to accomodate a single rigger in a form-fitting cocoon with no space for a spirit to manifest in the compartment. (This still might not be sufficient if the crew can be possessed. Maybe combining this with some of the astral defenses that induce a background count to make it harder for the spirits to succeed in possession tests.)
Posted by: crizh Apr 22 2009, 02:58 PM
CCU.
Better yet multiple CCU's for multiple 'crew' members....
Posted by: Warlordtheft Apr 22 2009, 04:21 PM
But what if we want to run a mercenary campaign? Or the runners get into a bad situation, out in the wilderness (or decrepit barrens), and a chase scene ensues where they try to make it to their getaway vehicle, while a MBT is rolling after them and bringing down the buildings they are trying to hide in? And of course, there is always Desert Wars. (But it seems to me military equipment would be very useful for pirate campaigns, and campaigns based out of/around Hong Kong.)
Best places to run a Merc Campaign IMHO:
Africa
Amazonia Azzie border
China (based out of Macao)
Portugal (would be a base of operations, seeing the world)
Austrailian Outback
Southeast Asia
Posted by: Apathy Apr 22 2009, 04:26 PM
Better yet multiple CCU's for multiple 'crew' members....
CCUs would give the best performance, but would they be cost-effective for mass production considering their limited shelf life and high maintenance costs?
Posted by: crizh Apr 22 2009, 05:05 PM
Well no less cost effective than any other Cyborg.
Can you give a Cyborg Astral Hazing?
Posted by: hobgoblin Apr 22 2009, 07:14 PM
i think i have a tank concept somewhere thats a tata hotspur on tracks, fielding a light gauss cannon.
Posted by: Critias Apr 22 2009, 07:30 PM
Please explain this, as I am having trouble with the concept...
Because there's a whole lot more to Shadowrun, the game world, than Shadowrun, the street-level criminal endeavor.
Posted by: Rasumichin Apr 22 2009, 11:08 PM
Please explain this, as I am having trouble with the concept...
As Toturi already mentioned upthread, remember Tiananmen Square back in the late 80s or Bangkok right now.
Or Prague in the 1950s or...you see where this leads.
I can completely see how Kenneth Brackhaven would call in the Metroplex Guard to respond with methods we would rather asociate with the PRC nowadays if riots in the sprawl take a particularly nasty direction.
And outdated, tracked tanks not used by the regular army anymore would make for perfect Metroplex Guard equipment.
There you go, tanks on the streets of Seattle.
Unlikely to happen in your campaign?
Well, your mileage may vary -in fact, it's very likely to vary- but the majority of groups i've GMd for would be very prone to start a city-wide riot qualifying as a national emergency if the right factors come together, either by accident or willfully.
Reasons for this could be well-known SR plotlines such as Bug invasions or AIs taking over a local arcology.
Or it could be other factors either directly caused by the players or made a whole lot worse by them.
Factors such as coming out on top of a gang war by whatever means possible (hey, once you start your own gang, you gotta do something worthwhile with it, right?).
Or simply looking for a good use for that entire warehouse full of homemade Warp and ANFO (reminds me, i still have to stat out my mad scientist concept).
Can you give a Cyborg Astral Hazing?
I don't see why it wouldn't be possible- Astral Hazing is entirely possible for purely mundane characters and cyborgs have plenty of reasons to build up the negative emotions that fuel Astral Hazing.
Of course, it would offset what i perceive to be the biggest advantage of 'borgs, their near-invisibility on the astral plane.
In general, a cyborg is per default as well protected from magic as a drone.
Pretty good defense, if you ask me, especially as, unlike the drone, he does not emit wireles signals.
So you get excellent stealth both on the astral and matrix level.
I wouldn't want to compromise one of those advantages by slapping a big, nasty, walking background count on top of Mr. Stealthy.
That's an approach better suited to CZs, IMHO.
But then, this may be not that much of a concern for a frickin' tank rigger, so...yeah, go for it.
Posted by: AllTheNothing Apr 22 2009, 11:14 PM
Can you give a Cyborg Astral Hazing?
Yes a surged brain, but the radius would be zero (I think); if expenses and possible collateral damage aren't a problem you can use a Cyberzombie as rigger, a tank within the tank (not for mass production).
Posted by: crizh Apr 22 2009, 11:16 PM
Hah, good point, lol.
What a dumbass I am sometimes, honestly.
Posted by: ICPiK Apr 22 2009, 11:24 PM
I ran a sweet merc campain based out of the Yucatan it was fun as hell. Rigger had a sweet like WWII half track crashing threw the jungle. With dudes in full mil spec pouring out of it . Was fricking sweet. Believe i killed em all with some well placed white phosphorous mortars and MMG fire. That was the the best... Enter evil laugh stage left.
Posted by: Zen Shooter01 Apr 22 2009, 11:30 PM
Apathy is quite right, spirits are the Grade A Super Plus armor killer. Just conjure, then tell it, "go kill everyone in that thing over there, that I'm looking at from the astral plane." Repeat until it stops being fun, which is never.
That presumes that there is a live crew inside the vehicle. If not, then hackers are a very big problem. MBTs would all be matrix pillboxes.
I would suppose that the greatest threat to MBTs in the 6th World - coming in even before spirits, because magicians are very few in number - would be guided missiles and the drones that carry them. I'd think that MBTs would carry automated anti-missile/anti-artillery shell laser systems. The MP Heavy Laser on something a lot like a sentry gun mount.
But I think that in the 6th World, MBTs may go the way of the battleship, for the same reasons. Too expensive, too slow, too big of a target.
Posted by: Anythingforenoughnuyen Apr 23 2009, 12:31 AM
First, there has never been such a thing as an invulnerable tank. Since the advent of tanks on the battle field there have been anti-tank weapons. Invulnerability has thus never been a part of the doctrine of tank warfare, nor has it ever been a justification for the existence of tanks.
The most heavily sighted reason for the discontinuation of the development of heavy armor is its supposed excessive vulnerability to attacks from aircraft. This is something of a fallacious argument as non-contested air attack is going to destroy any sort of ground force, regardless of what type of vehicles it consists of. However, in the face of contested airspace, the tactical value of heavy armor in increased dramatically. Heavy armor reduces vehicle vulnerability to light anti-vehicle weapons (RPGs), improvised explosive devices and other anti-mobility weapons (mines), light artillery (mortars), as well as small arms fire (machine guns, grenades). It takes a great deal of effort to stop heavy armor, and if heavy armor can be stopped, then all ground vehicles can be stopped. Light ground vehicles equipped to fight heavy armor are at a considerable disadvantage against heavy armor for a variety of reasons. Which brings up another reason why heavy armor would still have a use in Shadowrun, the best (at least ground based) weapon to fight a tank with is another tank.
In the context of Shadowrun, the role of heavy armor in an environment with enemy aircraft would have a direct analogy to the role of heavy armor in an environment with magic. If a force deploys without the ability to contest the magical space, then that force is going to loose, regardless of the type of vehicles it otherwise mounts. You are better off with your magician protected by a 70 ton MBT than you are with said magician protected by a 3 ton truck. Keep in mind also that if the possibility of chemical or biological agents is real (as it is in Shadowrun), maintaining an environment resistant to those attacks is considerably easier behind the protection of heavy armor than it is behind a lightly protected vehicle (where small arms fire will routinely penetrate the sealed environment).
Also, and this is more applicable to shadowrun than current military operations, active counter-measure technology (small caliber weapon guided by radar or inferred systems) will dramatically reduce the vulnerability of heavy armor to incoming anti-armor weapons (much more so than such systems will protect lightly armored vehicles, as such vehicles can still be easily disabled or destroyed by a close proximity blast). Such systems will in fact require an upgrade of the armor content of any force that deploys them, as accompanying infantry and light vehicles would suffer from the effects of said weapons being destroyed in close proximity to the formation.
Finally, in an environment with massive jamming being deployed by both sides, the communications disruption will reduce or eliminate remote operated systems on both sides-leaving manned vehicles still the corner stone of any assault force.
AFE 
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 23 2009, 12:38 AM
But what if we want to run a mercenary campaign? Or the runners get into a bad situation, out in the wilderness (or decrepit barrens), and a chase scene ensues where they try to make it to their getaway vehicle, while a MBT is rolling after them and bringing down the buildings they are trying to hide in? And of course, there is always Desert Wars. (But it seems to me military equipment would be very useful for pirate campaigns, and campaigns based out of/around Hong Kong.)
In a Merc game, would you not just use a MIG-67(?) LAV... As far as I know, they are what replaced Tanks in 2070... At least, I would think that they would be the replacement... so much better than a MBT...
As for Pirates... in Hong Kong... Ships are where it is at, alonmg with the occassional LAV
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 23 2009, 12:40 AM
Better yet multiple CCU's for multiple 'crew' members....
OGRE III anyone?
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 23 2009, 12:44 AM
The most heavily sighted reason for the discontinuation of the development of heavy armor is its supposed excessive vulnerability to attacks from aircraft. This is something of a fallacious argument as non-contested air attack is going to destroy any sort of ground force, regardless of what type of vehicles it consists of. However, in the face of contested airspace, the tactical value of heavy armor in increased dramatically. Heavy armor reduces vehicle vulnerability to light anti-vehicle weapons (RPGs), improvised explosive devices and other anti-mobility weapons (mines), light artillery (mortars), as well as small arms fire (machine guns, grenades). It takes a great deal of effort to stop heavy armor, and if heavy armor can be stopped, then all ground vehicles can be stopped. Light ground vehicles equipped to fight heavy armor are at a considerable disadvantage against heavy armor for a variety of reasons. Which brings up another reason why heavy armor would still have a use in Shadowrun, the best (at least ground based) weapon to fight a tank with is another tank.
In the context of Shadowrun, the role of heavy armor in an environment with enemy aircraft would have a direct analogy to the role of heavy armor in an environment with magic. If a force deploys without the ability to contest the magical space, then that force is going to loose, regardless of the type of vehicles it otherwise mounts. You are better off with your magician protected by a 70 ton MBT than you are with said magician protected by a 3 ton truck. Keep in mind also that if the possibility of chemical or biological agents is real (as it is in Shadowrun), maintaining an environment resistant to those attacks is considerably easier behind the protection of heavy armor than it is behind a lightly protected vehicle (where small arms fire will routinely penetrate the sealed environment).
Also, and this is more applicable to shadowrun than current military operations, active counter-measure technology (small caliber weapon guided by radar or inferred systems) will dramatically reduce the vulnerability of heavy armor to incoming anti-armor weapons (much more so than such systems will protect lightly armored vehicles, as such vehicles can still be easily disabled or destroyed by a close proximity blast). Such systems will in fact require an upgrade of the armor content of any force that deploys them, as accompanying infantry and light vehicles would suffer from the effects of said weapons being destroyed in close proximity to the formation.
Finally, in an environment with massive jamming being deployed by both sides, the communications disruption will reduce or eliminate remote operated systems on both sides-leaving manned vehicles still the corner stone of any assault force.
AFE
In the end, I can see your reasoning... Though I still contend that the LAV's are the tanks of the 2070's...
Posted by: Anythingforenoughnuyen Apr 23 2009, 12:48 AM
I would think that a LAV's would end up being employed in a manner much closer to that in which ground attack aircraft are employed today, and less like a MBT.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 23 2009, 12:52 AM
Maybe... they do have multiple roles that they can fill, that is for sure
Posted by: Ed_209a Apr 23 2009, 02:56 AM
The reports of the death of the main battle tank have been greatly exaggerated several times. First by guided missiles, then by the birth of the attack helicopter. In each case, tactics and design evolved.
In the battlefields of the 2070s, it will be no different. Magic and hacking will be just another threat to be countered, just like ATGMs, mines and air attack are today.
An earlier poster mentioned attack by spirit. That would definitely be a huge threat, if no tank had ever been attacked by spirit(or magic in general) before. When compared to a 3+ million nuyen weapon that probably costs 500 nuyen a mile to operate, and fires 2-3000 nuyen ammunition, whistling up spirits before each mission, and putting a mage on the maintenance crew to maintain wards seems dirt cheap.
Likewise, when it is protecting something that expensive, you can afford ridiculously high-end network countermeasures.
So, if anything, tanks from first-world nations in 2070 will be more dangerous in their battlefield than modern MBTs in today's battlefield.
Having said that though...
I think MBTs will be much rarer in 2070 than today. Except for the corporate reality trid that is Desert Wars, I don't get the feeling that there are many cases where first-world militaries go head-to-head anymore. And haven't been for a while.
The nations that can afford to will keep truly nasty MBTs on hand just because they might need them one day, but vehicles more like today's Bradley IFV and Stryker APC will see greater numbers and greater use.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 23 2009, 03:04 AM
In the battlefields of the 2070s, it will be no different. Magic and hacking will be just another threat to be countered, just like ATGMs, mines and air attack are today.
An earlier poster mentioned attack by spirit. That would definitely be a huge threat, if no tank had ever been attacked by spirit(or magic in general) before. When compared to a 3+ million nuyen weapon that probably costs 500 nuyen a mile to operate, and fires 2-3000 nuyen ammunition, whistling up spirits before each mission, and putting a mage on the maintenance crew to maintain wards seems dirt cheap.
Likewise, when it is protecting something that expensive, you can afford ridiculously high-end network countermeasures.
So, if anything, tanks from first-world nations in 2070 will be more dangerous in their battlefield than modern MBTs in today's battlefield.
Having said that though...
I think MBTs will be much rarer in 2070 than today. Except for the corporate reality trid that is Desert Wars, I don't get the feeling that there are many cases where first-world militaries go head-to-head anymore. And haven't been for a while.
The nations that can afford to will keep truly nasty MBTs on hand just because they might need them one day, but vehicles more like today's Bradley IFV and Stryker APC will see greater numbers and greater use.
I can get on board with that line of reasoning...
Posted by: Ed_209a Apr 23 2009, 03:06 AM
They would be an interesting mix of helo gunship and AFV/light tank. Slash in at several hundred KPH sometimes, wait in defensive positions for days other times.
Posted by: toturi Apr 23 2009, 04:37 AM
How expensive are the wards? You need a ward that will be able to withstand the rigours of combat(I would think the ward should survive at least BC4). Similarly for the spirits.
Posted by: GreyBrother Apr 23 2009, 05:28 AM
You wouldn't even need the ward. Pure Astral Warfare should be enough. If the spirits and magicians of the enemy have bigger problems than destroying something mundane on the physical, they won't bother except if they are desperate.
Wasn't another Problem with LAVs the short range since they have a quite limited supply of fuel? I don't have the Rigger 3 ready, it should have the numbers for that.
Posted by: The Jake Apr 23 2009, 05:56 AM
I'm sorry, i thought we were talking Panzer tanks.
Who gives a f*ck about stealth at this point?!!?
- J.
Posted by: GreyBrother Apr 23 2009, 07:20 AM
- J.
Tank Hunter Tank Crews. SCNR
Posted by: toturi Apr 23 2009, 08:01 AM
Wasn't another Problem with LAVs the short range since they have a quite limited supply of fuel? I don't have the Rigger 3 ready, it should have the numbers for that.
Sure, you can have your mages engage the other side's mages in astral warfare. But the question is naturally what if the other side won? Or simply has a temporary advantage? If you are using your mages to defend your 6 billion nuyen tank, how much are you paying them?
I thought the whole thing about mages/spirits vs tanks was that one side had tanks and no mages and the other had mages and no tanks?
Posted by: GreyBrother Apr 23 2009, 08:36 AM
But how often would that happen in a real combat? I don't think that there aren't enough military trained magicians who are capable of creating wards to protect every tank against spiritual interference. One Abrams costs approx 5 Million $, it is expensive but the US produced over 9000 (no meme intended) of those and todays anti tank weapons can frag them down to a oversized turret. So it's not a question of "Oh god, how much money do we loose if we don't protect every tank!" it's more like "So... how do we signal our enemy that it is a bad idea to mess with our troops by spiritual means?"
Remember: Mages are rare. A unit can consider itself lucky if they have one and while yes, they can ward every tank and it wouldn't be unwise, the cost-effective choice would be active magical defenses. Like spawning your own spirits to counter those of the enemy. And there are better targets for spirits and mages than a tank (which could be destroyed by one good placed stickbomb or a well placed shot from a anti tank weapon). Ritual Magic against the enemy command structure, scouting from above or just being a WMD all by yourself by hurling spells or better: Just spawn spirits. A force 3 spirit alone is immune to the main weapon a regular infantry squad bears and they don't need to be bound.
And the other side has those options as well. That's when it comes down to tactics. Do you want to give up a portion of the astral by materializing your spirit to destroy one tank?
Posted by: Fuchs Apr 23 2009, 08:48 AM
Wards are dirt cheap, and last weeks. Cost is no problem there - especially compared to the cost of maintaining a tank (or, even worse, an aircraft like a LAV). You'll have active and passive astral defenses. And any army able to field tanks in 2070 is fielding magical assets as well.
Posted by: AllTheNothing Apr 23 2009, 09:23 AM
A Force 3 spirit will most likely have a Magic attribute of 3 which grants 6 points of hardened armor, the most common antipersonel weapon infantry will use will probably be an assault rifle and ARs have a damage code of 6P AP -1 (an heavy pistol would also do the trick tanks to net hits), which means that the spirit is not immune to infantry (and we are talking of regular ammo, EX-EX and APDS ammo aren't that unlikely to be used by military, making even force 6 spirits killable if you manage to hit them).
Posted by: AllTheNothing Apr 23 2009, 09:28 AM
Passive astral defence can also be active if the wards are those tricked out from Street Magic that attack trespassers.
Posted by: GreyBrother Apr 23 2009, 10:07 AM
Whoops. Forgot to look at the AP, my bad.
Posted by: toturi Apr 23 2009, 11:37 AM
Think of how you would use your tanks and how you would support them with magic assets. Think it through. Are you sure you want to support your armored unit with magic?
Posted by: Fuchs Apr 23 2009, 11:42 AM
Wards never hurt. Any expensive vehicle like a tank will also have rigger pilots, and not conventional crews, so they'll be less vulnerable to manifesting spirits for lack of free space inside as well.
As far as magic support goes - combined arms have been proven to be superiour to other approaches.
Posted by: AllTheNothing Apr 23 2009, 12:04 PM
As far as magic support goes - combined arms have been proven to be superiour to other approaches.
I agreed that magical support never hurts but the free space part doesn't ring true to my ears, there's nothing that set the rules of the size of a materialized spirit, it could be antsized and still pack a nasty elettrical elemental strike against the elettronics or the ammunitions (or it could materialize within the rigger's breathing apparatus
).
Posted by: toturi Apr 23 2009, 12:48 PM
As far as magic support goes - combined arms have been proven to be superiour to other approaches.
I am sure that combined arms has produced results superior other approaches in the short term. But add magic in the mix? Any conflict worth using tanks on is going to produce a lot of Background Count. Should that Background Count last for any significant period of time and given the violence that produces such BC, you are looking at a potential toxic domain. A Domain that enhances the abilities of the threats that it spawns, that degrades your ability to defend against it, with highly valuable but vulnerable assets in theatre.
Posted by: AllTheNothing Apr 23 2009, 01:10 PM
Background count is going to go up in the area in which fighting takes place, which probably won't be the same over and over, the background count is going to be annoying but it would take some VERY serious dreck to make things go toxic (nuclear weapons or scrotched earth tactics like the one Azzies used in the Yukatan).
Posted by: Fuchs Apr 23 2009, 01:21 PM
And not to put too fine a point on it - unless you're of the opinion that spirits somehow can shrink to any size they want (which has ramifications that would change far more than tank tactics) then the tanks have a very good shot at killing spirits. Not much can stand up to a tanks main gun, and not much more can withstand the secondary armament.
Posted by: Kovu Muphasa Apr 23 2009, 02:26 PM
This is what we came up for a Moder Game I am running using the SR4 Rules
Name: M1A2 Abrams
Type: MBT
Crew: 4
Handling: -2
Acceleration: 10/20
Speed: 60
Sensor: 3
Body: 35
Armor: 20 [30]
Weapons:
120mm Main Gun [Heavy Manual Flexible Turret] {GM Heavy Cannon}
HMG [Commanders, Remote Flexible Turret] {Ultimax HMG-2}
GPMG [Coaxial] {Ultimax MMG}
GPMG [Loaders Remote Flexible Turret] {Ultimax MMG}
Upgrades: ECM [Rating-2], Level-1 Life Support, Passenger Protection, Satellite Communications, Searchlight, Smart Armor [Rating-10], Smoke Projector, ,Special Armor Protection: Chemical, Radiation [Rating-6], Tracked Vehicle
As far a Spirits, I thought they could not enter a "Sealed Enviroment"?
Posted by: Apathy Apr 23 2009, 02:34 PM
While manifesting spirits might need space, possessing spirits would not need any space whatsoever. As I understand it, the possessing spirit would be able to control the physical actions of the crew member, they wouldn't be able to send any instructions over DNI, so they couldn't take over the tank. Would the possessed rigger still be able to rig (as long as he was plugged in) even while his physical body was taken over? As a related question, what happens when a spirit possessed a CCU brain?
Posted by: AllTheNothing Apr 23 2009, 04:11 PM
Name: M1A2 Abrams
Type: MBT
Crew: 4
Handling: -2
Acceleration: 10/20
Speed: 60
Sensor: 3
Body: 35
Armor: 20 [30]
Weapons:
120mm Main Gun [Heavy Manual Flexible Turret] {GM Heavy Cannon}
HMG [Commanders, Remote Flexible Turret] {Ultimax HMG-2}
GPMG [Coaxial] {Ultimax MMG}
GPMG [Loaders Remote Flexible Turret] {Ultimax MMG}
Upgrades: ECM [Rating-2], Level-1 Life Support, Passenger Protection, Satellite Communications, Searchlight, Smart Armor [Rating-10], Smoke Projector, ,Special Armor Protection: Chemical, Radiation [Rating-6], Tracked Vehicle
As far a Spirits, I thought they could not enter a "Sealed Enviroment"?
The main cannon manualy operated?
Posted by: hobgoblin Apr 23 2009, 04:19 PM
i guess he chose manual as it represents a person in the turret, not that it needs to be hand cranked into posision (altho i guess thats a valid way to read the manual designation, as its never really been specified).
Posted by: Kovu Muphasa Apr 23 2009, 04:37 PM
In a Standard M1A2 the Main Gun is amied by the Gunner or the Commander, so I guess the Main Gun and the Coax could be considered Remote?
This is our LATP version
Name: M1A5LATP Abrams
Type: MBT
Crew: 4 [Commander {Mage?}, Gunner {Decker}, Loader {Spirit?}, Driver {Rigger}
Handling: -2
Acceleration: 10/20
Speed: 60
Pilot: 4
Sensor: 4
Body: 35
Armor: 20 [30]
Weapons:
120mm Main Gun [Heavy Manual Flexible Remote Turret] {GM Heavy Cannon}
HMG [Commanders, Remote Flexible Turret] {Ultimax HMG-2}
GPMG [Coaxial Remote Flexible Turret] {Ultimax MMG}
GPMG [Loaders Remote Flexible Turret] {Ultimax MMG}
Upgrades: ECM [Rating-6], Electromagnetic Shielding, Enhanced Image Screens, Fuzzy Logic, Large Landing Drone Rack, Level-1 Life Support, Manual Control Override, Missile Defense System, Multifuel Engine, Nanomaintenance System, Passenger Protection [Rating-6], Rigger Adaptation, Satellite Communications, Searchlight, Signature Masking [Rating-6], Smart Armor [Rating-10], Smoke Projector, Special Armor Protection: Chemical, Radiation [Rating-6], Tracked Vehicle
Posted by: GreyBrother Apr 23 2009, 04:46 PM
Abrams are bigger than Patrol Subs? Who knew
Seriously: Did i miss an errata or something on Body and Size of Vehicles?
Posted by: Apathy Apr 23 2009, 04:46 PM
The M1A2's cannon is loaded manually, as opposed to the T80 which has an autoloader. This is generally faster and more reliable, but requires an additional crew member.
Posted by: Warlordtheft Apr 23 2009, 04:51 PM
You could also line the crew comparment with panels of micro organisms (I forget what they are called), that way a spirit can't enter the vehicle. A mage as a vehicle commander??? Not as SOP. But in a Merc or special case yeah, that would be the best spot for him. He should go dual to watch for spirits too. He can also sling spells should he need to.
Posted by: AllTheNothing Apr 23 2009, 05:06 PM
Either FAB I or II (memory glitch), what SOP stand for?
Posted by: hobgoblin Apr 23 2009, 05:15 PM
Standard Operating Procedure, most likely...
tho reading is as a norwegian makes one think of mushrooms 
Posted by: Kovu Muphasa Apr 23 2009, 05:26 PM
SOP
Standard Operating Procedure
Commander: A good point was made of some of the reasons to have one. He could also be the one who summoned the spirit to use as the Loader.
Gunner: The Decker makes a good choice. Most of the time he would be spending it operating the local PANs, during combat all he needs is a good gunnery skills.
Loader: A Spirit is good choice for three reasons.
1] 3 IP
2] Never gets Tired
3] When that nasty Enemy Spirit shows up it can deal with it. [As for the Auto-Loaders a friend of mine [A Tanker] told me that in the short term a human loader is faster than an Auto-Loader if you are constantly shifting what ammo you want.]
Driver: A Rigger makes a good choice. He can work most of the systems from his location if anyone gets taken out; he is in one of the most protected locations. As the driver he can concentrate on driving. He will also usually have the time to operate the Drone. Who better to operate the Drones maneuvering than the guy who knows where they will be in the next 3 seconds.
As far as the Drone; A good Hovering Drone with a MG or Ares Alpha can easily help deal with soft targets and scout for you.
Posted by: Kovu Muphasa Apr 23 2009, 08:00 PM
I keep forgeting this, The consept of the mage on board was for thike the Platoon Comander, Squad Commander at most. With the LATP Game there was usualy on One per shift.
Posted by: AllTheNothing Apr 23 2009, 08:11 PM
Or maybe an Ares Firelance Vehicle Laser or a Ares Heavy MP Laser, for not so soft targets.
Posted by: Dumori Apr 23 2009, 08:18 PM
you'd want some thing not too power draining to shoot down missiles and such so not a main weapon such as the Firelance or the ones even bigger.
Posted by: Warlordtheft Apr 23 2009, 08:20 PM
As a side note, if they don't have a mage, there is no reason to not be buttoned up (all hatches closed and sealed including the commander). As to the loader, yeah humans are faster. Especially since it is their life on the line. A spirit wouldn't do as there is some training involved in the loaders position.
Posted by: PBTHHHHT Apr 23 2009, 09:17 PM
Standard Operating Procedure
Commander: A good point was made of some of the reasons to have one. He could also be the one who summoned the spirit to use as the Loader.
Loader: A Spirit is good choice for three reasons.
1] 3 IP
2] Never gets Tired
3] When that nasty Enemy Spirit shows up it can deal with it. [As for the Auto-Loaders a friend of mine [A Tanker] told me that in the short term a human loader is faster than an Auto-Loader if you are constantly shifting what ammo you want.]
Forget that, I'd rather have the summoner save his service from the spirit for anything else, it's easier and cheaper to have a metahuman loader than burn a service for a spirit who might or might not be able to do this task. Plus, if you're asking the spirit to load the appropriate ammo and such, is that a new service? Depends on the GM.
Plus, the commander for the tank and platoon should focus on his job. The summoner attached to the tank company (more likely a company or even a battalion than a measley platoon) should focus his job as magic support. Forget the whole thing of having him multi task between commanding the tank, commanding the unit and also doing the wiz mojo drek all at once.
Posted by: Apathy Apr 23 2009, 09:41 PM
I have to agree with this. Mages and TMs would not be officers, they'd be warrants. They've got special skills that makes them invaluable, and it's a waste of a limited resource to have them spend their time on anything but their specialty. Command/Control and leadership can be learned by any mundane with decent mental stats, so most officers would be mundane.
Posted by: AllTheNothing Apr 23 2009, 10:03 PM
The Firelance has an internal reserve of 100 PP (10 shots), which is replenished at the rate of 10 PP/minute; take the McDonnel-Douglas Nimrod, it has two weapon mounts so it can pack two different type of weapons, you can arm it with a laser and a machinegun loaded with APDS so that you can kill small target with the machinegun and big ones with the laser, maybe pairing them with Nimrods armed with MG and Outlaw missile lounchers for widespread havock.
Posted by: Kovu Muphasa Apr 23 2009, 10:08 PM
Plus, the commander for the tank and platoon should focus on his job. The summoner attached to the tank company (more likely a company or even a battalion than a measley platoon) should focus his job as magic support. Forget the whole thing of having him multi task between commanding the tank, commanding the unit and also doing the wiz mojo drek all at once.
As a Tank Commander after giving orders and such the TC actuly has very little to in combat other than look for targets. if the Tank is sealed he can't cast out of it. If he is sitting out side the turret hatch in combat he asking for bullet through the head.
As far as Number of Mage's in the military???
As a Military Recruter I would go to MIT&M and recrute like mad, IMHO I think most Sr. NCO's and lesser Officers would tend to be Magicaly active.
I just keep think of the night be for the attck the Sr. Mage Ritualty Summing a massive Elemental with all the others in his "Order to Soak the Drain, but that is another object.
As far as I know haveing a Spirit "Fetch" is not a sevice.
Posted by: Apathy Apr 23 2009, 11:12 PM
While visibility through the periscopes is somewhat limited, TCs can still see out when the hatch is closed. I'd imagine that a 2070 tank would provide better lines of sight via fiberoptic goggles, also. But I think that wouldn't matter, because the mages are better off behind the front lines, providing spell defense, warding, remote spirit services, and ritual castings. In a pinch they could counterattack spirit assaults via astral projection and fast movement across the battlefield.
My experience as a tank commander was that we're constantly busy and would have no time in combat situations for anything as distracting as casting or summoning. The platoon leader's constantly searching for targets, coordinating the platoon's movement so as to minimize exposure, calling in sitreps, figuring out the coordinates of that ridgeline to call in artillery/air support, looking for indications of chemical agents in the enemy artillery fire, watching for ambushes, obsticles, and terrain hazards, etc. I wouldn't want to be in a platoon where the guy in charge didn't consider leading the platoon his primary responsibility.
Posted by: Kovu Muphasa Apr 24 2009, 11:45 AM
My experience as a tank commander was that we're constantly busy and would have no time in combat situations for anything as distracting as casting or summoning. The platoon leader's constantly searching for targets, coordinating the platoon's movement so as to minimize exposure, calling in sitreps, figuring out the coordinates of that ridgeline to call in artillery/air support, looking for indications of chemical agents in the enemy artillery fire, watching for ambushes, obsticles, and terrain hazards, etc. I wouldn't want to be in a platoon where the guy in charge didn't consider leading the platoon his primary responsibility.
I bow to a real TC, most of what I know is from a Gunner.
As far as the Sitting back and providing spell support, I am to much of a Patton'ist to think that pasive.
Back to the basic tone of the discusion.
I think there is a place for a MBT in SR, even if it is a "Monster"
I still don't see how a "Mage" makes a MBT Obsolite.
Posted by: toturi Apr 24 2009, 12:28 PM
War is very serious drek.
Posted by: Fuchs Apr 24 2009, 12:37 PM
Not for background. Unless we're talking Verdun style mass battles over months, most of the background from a battle won't last long, or be particularly high - there simply are not that many soldiers dieing in those kind of wars anymore.
Posted by: Demonseed Elite Apr 24 2009, 12:41 PM
Fuchs is correct. Battlefield background count isn't that bad, in most cases, because battles are not usually prolonged engagements with high casualty rates anymore. There are exceptions, as Aztlan has proved. But that included slash-and-burn tactics, chemical warfare, mass killing, spirit warfare, and engagements over the same territory for decades.
Posted by: toturi Apr 24 2009, 12:49 PM
Any battle significant enough to field tanks (multiple numbers of very costly weaponry backed by very expensive support as well) in the conflict is a major battle and a major battle is enough for Rating 3 for the next hundred years.
So what would be the BC during and immediately after the battle? I would say a lot higher.
In the Yucatan, the background count of the astral space over the area increased more or less permanently. What would be the temporary background count that was generated during those clashes?
Posted by: Fuchs Apr 24 2009, 12:50 PM
Or in other words: Killing soldiers in battle simply does not rank high (or at all) on nature's "toxic scale".
Posted by: Fuchs Apr 24 2009, 12:59 PM
So what would be the BC during and immediately after the battle? I would say a lot higher.
In the Yucatan, the background count of the astral space over the area increased more or less permanently. What would be the temporary background count that was generated during those clashes?
By that definition half of Europe would be BC 3. WW2 alone would turn Berlin, Caen, Dieppe, all of the Bretagne, most of crete and Sicily, Monte Casino, Dunkirch, Most of Eastern Europe, in particular Budapest, Warshaw, Kiew, Kursk, Orel, and any other significant town on the Eastern front as well as dozens of western cities into areas with BC 3. Paris would be BC 3 (battle of 1814, and again in 1871). Then add the Eurowars, and you'd have even more areas contaminated.
Nowhere does it state that the default background rating for Europe is 3. The game doesn't assume that most euorpean mages are effectively operating under such conditions, so batltes can't create BCs on that scale.
Posted by: toturi Apr 24 2009, 01:01 PM
It might not rank high on the toxic scale. But it is significant on the background count. BC 1 is bad enough considering that even for a Magic 5 character, it is a 20% decrease in his Magic. What would a BC of 3 do to a normal mage? A reduction of 50 to 100% Magic.
Posted by: toturi Apr 24 2009, 01:12 PM
Nowhere does it state that the default background rating for Europe is 3. The game doesn't assume that most euorpean mages are effectively operating under such conditions, so batltes can't create BCs on that scale.
It does not need to state that the default background count rating for Europe is 3. You simply need to refer to the Domain Examples on p 121 SM and there you go. Remember that all those battles in WW2 no longer qualify for BC3 since they are >100 years from 2070.
Also following your logic, since the game does not state that level of BC most Chicago mages operate under, therefore they do not. Which is certainly up to you as the GM to handwave it off.
Posted by: Fuchs Apr 24 2009, 01:19 PM
I consider the idea that a major battle turns the area into BC3 for the next hundred years - which by the Eurowars alone would make south and eastern Europe a "don't worry about mages, they can't do much here" area - as conflicting with canon descriptions of Europe's countries. It's also rather improbable that after hundred years a BC drops from 3 to zero.
Someone messed up - either the ones writing the sourcebooks covering all those towns, for neglecting to state "Oh, and btw, all over here is BC3" - or the ones making the BC table. I also think that someone would have mentioned the BC, if up until 2045 most of Europe would have been very anti-magical.
Posted by: hobgoblin Apr 24 2009, 02:00 PM
from tank stats to background count, how do we do it?
Posted by: Warlordtheft Apr 24 2009, 02:08 PM
Someone messed up - either the ones writing the sourcebooks covering all those towns, for neglecting to state "Oh, and btw, all over here is BC3" - or the ones making the BC table. I also think that someone would have mentioned the BC, if up until 2045 most of Europe would have been very anti-magical.
Back ground count as I recall degrades pretty quickly, unless the source or cause is prolonged. Auschwitz has a permanent BC of 6 (as I recall). Meanwhile a murdersite might have a BC of 1 or 2 (depending on how violent and painfult it was), however it may last an hour or two, a day or so for 1 time mass murders.
In a battle (modern) it may not be the entire battle field with BC, it would be a fort, building, bunker or such where extensive fighting took place.
Posted by: Demonseed Elite Apr 24 2009, 03:07 PM
I'll have to look over Street Magic when I get home. Because toturi's examples certainly don't match the writer's intent (seeing as how I was the writer).
Posted by: PBTHHHHT Apr 24 2009, 06:06 PM
Bah, you're only the writer, like your intent matters in the discussion.
Though, I'm with ya hobgoblin. I love how we went from tanks to background count also. heh.
Posted by: toturi Apr 25 2009, 12:24 AM
The examples on p121 are quite clear and explicit. By all means, do tell us what your intentions were.
Posted by: Demonseed Elite Apr 25 2009, 02:35 AM
I'm guessing you're pointing at the Domain examples on page 121. When I say "major battle" there, I mean a battle of historical importance and significant scale. A battle where tanks were present doesn't necessarily qualify. Regions of the Ardennes Mountains, where the Battle of the Bulge took place, would qualify. Sections of Iwo Jima would certainly qualify (and some areas would be Rating 4 Domains where there are memorials to the battle).
These battles not only affected the soldiers present, but left a lasting impact on humanity resulting in them being remembered for decades and centuries. That's the kind of thing that impacts Astral Space significantly.
Less significant battles will produce background count and possibly even aspected background count (making them Domains), but they won't last nearly as long unless something is sustaining them like continued battling on the site or memorials.
Posted by: toturi Apr 25 2009, 03:26 AM
These battles not only affected the soldiers present, but left a lasting impact on humanity resulting in them being remembered for decades and centuries. That's the kind of thing that impacts Astral Space significantly.
Less significant battles will produce background count and possibly even aspected background count (making them Domains), but they won't last nearly as long unless something is sustaining them like continued battling on the site or memorials.
Can you think of a tank battle in the 6th world that will not be of historical importance or significant scale? Sure, a battle between tank platoons may not generate as much BC, but a clash of battalion sized or larger armor forces?
But that is not my primary point. My point was that if a battle still leaves such a Background Count about slightly less than 100 years after the fact, how high was the Background Count then?
Posted by: Demonseed Elite Apr 25 2009, 03:45 AM
Your original position didn't mention a clash of battalion sized forces:
That's the part I was disagreeing with. Tanks are fielded in battles much smaller than battalion-sized clashes. So saying that a battle that fields tanks is significant enough to generate a Rating 3 Domain for the next hundred years is the part I was responding to.
Roughly the same, possibly a rating point higher, possibly a rating point lower. The idea isn't that the Background Count in these situations has been degrading over time, it's that the event was significant enough to humanity or the Gaiasphere to be maintained at its original level. In some cases, the background count of the original event will be less, because it's the psychological and emotional impact on humanity after the fact that strengthens the background count.
Posted by: Fuchs Apr 25 2009, 11:33 AM
Which basically means killing soldiers in battle is not going to rock the astral boat much unless sometime (usually after the battle) humanity decides that this killing was very, very special.
Posted by: toturi Apr 25 2009, 11:56 AM
That's the part I was disagreeing with. Tanks are fielded in battles much smaller than battalion-sized clashes. So saying that a battle that fields tanks is significant enough to generate a Rating 3 Domain for the next hundred years is the part I was responding to.
Tanks may be fielded in battles smaller than battalion size but while one company may be holding the fort here, the other companies of the battalion will generally be out wrecking havoc on some other part of the battlefield. Taken as a whole, what would be the smallest armored battle group in a time of war?
Which is a trick question actually... To the best of my knowledge, an armored battle group generally refers to a battalion sized unit with attendant support.
For example an entire village is wiped out from the face of the planet by a military strike but there is nobody to mourn them. The initial impact may be genocide, but that impact gradually weakens because there is no one around to remember. Does Background Count gradually fade if there are no longer any emotional or psychological impact associated with the area after the initial event?
Posted by: Demonseed Elite Apr 25 2009, 01:18 PM
I tend to think it's helpful to imagine background count rating as being scales of magnitude, like the Richter scale for earthquakes. The amount of psycho-emotive trauma to go from Rating 1 background count to Rating 2 background count may not be much, but the amount needed to go from Rating 5 to Rating 6 is considerable. But yes, the original event could have a higher background count which fades. I'd just caution against huge spikes of background count, battles should not be routinely causing Rating 4, 5, or 6 background counts, even in the short term. These are special cases. Most events generate temporary background count levels of 1 or 2.
Yes. If there were regular memorials or vigils at the site, it's likely to lengthen the duration of the background count and could possibly even raise the background count if the area becomes a symbol for something.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 25 2009, 02:51 PM
Seems pretty clear to me... But hey, to each his own...
Posted by: Kovu Muphasa Apr 25 2009, 03:42 PM
I am wondering [trying to get sort of back on topic] Game Mechanicaly Speaking; How can a Mage or Speitiy take out a MBT that is buttened up?
Posted by: GreyBrother Apr 25 2009, 03:46 PM
Hey God, if i take the rules of gravitation into account a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly. SCNR
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 26 2009, 02:41 AM
Well... Cast Spell (Power Bolt) with High Force (Say 12)... Beat Object Resistance (5or 6) and then deal damage accordingly (12+ Damage anyone; sure it will be physical damage, but who cares)... Rinse and Repeat... NO Armor, No Body... Just down right Damage...
Say you got a Tank with 30 Body, you have a Damage track of 23... Two successful applications and no more tank...
Fun Times
Even Better (for less Drain) use Wreck Tank... Rinse and Repeat
Posted by: toturi Apr 26 2009, 02:56 AM
Ramp shaped barrier. Lift and topple. No need to beat OR.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 26 2009, 03:03 AM
Ah Yes... the Non-Damaging solution... and How Very True too...
Posted by: Fix-it Apr 26 2009, 03:05 AM
this. MBTs, (modern ones, anyway) are designed against extremely specific threats, namely other MBTs or vehicles trying to shoot holes in them with armor-piercing rounds, from a frontal aspect. this means they are extremely vulnerable to rear shots or track damage.
for example:
During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoilless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment.
also:
During the major combat operations in Iraq, Abrams crew members were lost when one tank of the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division, and US Marine Corps troops, drove onto a bridge. The bridge collapsed, dropping the tank into the Euphrates River, where four Marines drowned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1a2#Operation_Iraqi_Freedom, including several M1A2s disabled by RPG7s, which is a weapon that predates the Abrams by 20 years. in the technological race, Armor never wins.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 26 2009, 03:07 AM
for example:
During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoilless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment.
also:
During the major combat operations in Iraq, Abrams crew members were lost when one tank of the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division, and US Marine Corps troops, drove onto a bridge. The bridge collapsed, dropping the tank into the Euphrates River, where four Marines drowned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1a2#Operation_Iraqi_Freedom, including several M1A2s disabled by RPG7s, which is a weapon that predates the Abrams by 20 years. in the technological race, Armor never wins.
Also Very Very True
Posted by: hobgoblin Apr 26 2009, 05:22 AM
note btw that there is disabled, and there is destroyed.
take out a tanks threads during a assault, and its disabled, and useless for said assault.
but come a quiet period, said tank can have its thread refitted and brought back into fighting.
im not sure if there are more then a few things that can outright destroy a tank...
Posted by: Lindt Apr 26 2009, 07:04 AM
Well, just remember folks, the Abrams tank was built to fight the Russian T80 series in Germany while it was close to large supply centers and away from major cities. This whole urban combat thing isnt its style (nor should it be, as a MBT).
But yes, you can stop it from moving, but then you still have a 120mm cannon and 2 HMGs to worry about.
Posted by: Chrysalis Apr 26 2009, 07:49 AM
The upgraded Zil-66 AA weapons platforms fitted with tires is highly effective for peace enforcement operations in an urban environment. The Swedish Bofors grenade machinegun once vehicle mounted is highly effective in both close combat and infantry support roles.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)