Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Tank Builds
Posted by: Nexushound Sep 2 2010, 01:50 AM
Oi Chums,
Just piecing together the opposition for an upcoming session and was wondering what template you have used to build a tracked battle tank. The opposition is more of a terrorist organization than anything so there equipment is a bit outdated. No L.A.V.s for these guys. However I could see them with some surplus lightly armed APCs' from the Euro wars or maybe a used and ill repaired battle tank. What are your suggestions?
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 2 2010, 01:56 AM
Well. The Panther XXL is described as 'like the main gun on small tanks'. Vehicle damage resistance mentions that the average tank will have 4 auto-successes on a Body roll, so that's Body 16. The Ares Citymaster is an APC, and it's already Body 16/Armor 20.
It's kind of a mess. 
Posted by: Badmoodguy88 Sep 2 2010, 01:57 AM
An actual tank may have more than the usual cap of 20 armor. Also a modern tank probably has smart armor but the smart armor may have been used up.
Also you could go with a walker tank like from ghost in the shell. 
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 2 2010, 01:58 AM
It *might* help to draw on Rigger 3 for inspiration.
Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 2 2010, 02:02 AM
While I'm a huge fan of 4A, it makes me really sad that this was going to be my answer too =/
Posted by: Nexushound Sep 2 2010, 02:03 AM
Oi Chum,
Well I guess I could describe it to fit with what I want. And there is a tracked option in Arsenal. It would be a good start for a chasis and has enough body to hold the turret as well as a dismount weapons platform, like an L.M.G., is the speed appropriate though? What is the avergae tank speed today? 45 mph, 65 mph?
Posted by: Nexushound Sep 2 2010, 02:04 AM
Oi,
Unfortunatley I stopped collecting that edition after Rigger 2. I am sure I can get a copy of Rigger 3. Did they have an expanded Mil-Spec vehicle list in 3?
Posted by: Nexushound Sep 2 2010, 02:07 AM
Oi,
Yeah I think any sort of Smart Armor would have been expended long ago. Though the smart armor might be available in the black market in the area I don't think any one in the group would have the know how or tools to replace it. More likely they would just weld and bolt plates where it has become damaged. Very third world fix em up.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 2 2010, 02:10 AM
Hmm, I thought it did have a tank, but I don't seen one in the vehicle list. :/ Alas.
If you're going for third world, you should just use up-armored trucks.
Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 2 2010, 02:11 AM
LAV Striker, p. 164. Along with rules for GMs to design their own if need be.
Posted by: Badmoodguy88 Sep 2 2010, 02:12 AM
Ok first of you need special rules for caterpillar tracked "cyberlegs", then you need cyberweapon Panther XXXXL, then you need about 16 levels of dermal plating. Next fit your troll somewhere under all of that chrome, and you are done. 
Posted by: Daier Mune Sep 2 2010, 02:16 AM
y'know, i wrote up a few stat blocks on my own for 4th ed MBTs. there really isn't anything in the 4th ed cannon that comes close to a mil-spec tank. i ended up making up a vehcile based off the heavy turret with a heavy cannon, body 20 armor 20. i'll see if i still have that lying around.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 2 2010, 02:18 AM
Hmm, not in my Rigger 3, Mooncrow. Anyway. For SR4, I would start from the Citymaster and work up: less cargo space, slower, much tougher, one big Main Gun heavy turret. But, that's a Main Battle Tank idea (MBTs are preposterously tough. ), not a 'crazy terrorist tank-thing'.For that, I again suggest starting from a GAZ and giving it armor, a gun, maybe tracks…
Posted by: Nexushound Sep 2 2010, 02:20 AM
Oi Chums,
The LAV Striker is probably out of the question. Just not enough mechanics to keep it running.
Though the organization is third world the area has an overabundance of all sorts of mil-spec weapons and military surplus. The PC's are in Lagos, Africa.
I did use a few armored flat bed trucks with the pintle mount on the back but now the players are headed to the groups training ground and I want to throw a little more muscle their way. I figure they might have one well armored but lightly armed APC. The Roadmaster could fit the build but would take a few mods.
Posted by: Runner Smurf Sep 2 2010, 03:49 AM
I'd work things from the back end by looking at what anti-tank weapons do, and extrapolate. An anti-vehicular rocket does 16P with -6 AP. A Citymaster, presumably the primary target for this, has 16 Bod, 20 Armor. Which works out to 32 dice to resist, which at 4-to-1 buy is 8 successes, which works out to a baseline of 8 boxes of damage. At 16 Bod, thats 16 boxes...so it takes 2 rockets (assuming no extra successes) to fry one.
Now, a Citymaster is impressive, but it isn't a main battle tank. I'd put it at something equivalent to a modern Stryker. Considering how much redundancy, extra mass and damage protection (fire-suppression, anti-spall, blow-out panels, etc.) that a modern tank has, I'd say it makes sense to raise the body to well over 20. Considering that there is a helicopter and a fighter-bomber with body 20 in Arsenal, it should be a fair sight more than 20. With a tractor-trailer rig listed at 24 and a tilt-rotor/C-130 listed at 30, I'm thinking a military ground vehicle weighing 60-70 tons should be in the 30 to 35 range. Maybe even 40. Actually, I'd got with something nice and divisible by 4 for ease of buys and go with 36 for a light tank/APC, and 40 for a heavy.
At that kind of body rating (40) and an armor of 16, the AV rocket is going to do around 4 boxes of damage (assuming no extra successes). An M1A2/3 is largely invulnerable to anti-vehicular rockets (RPGs), except an extremely lucky shot. So, we'd need enough armor to make an RPG a non-event. Assuming the attacker has 2 net hits, that's 18 boxes of damage. 40 body eats 10 of those. To get the other 8, the armor needs to be around 38 (to cancel out the AP rating). So 40 body, 38 armor, as a minimum. Considering that a guy in a military armor suit can get up to 18, the rating actually feels a bit low to me.
Note, this is assuming that AV rockets are equivalent to RPGs. (Note: RPGs are not grenades - the common acronym is a mistranslation of the original Russian.) I'm also assuming that the balance of penetration/armor has maintained something like parity. Though, truth be told, the armor on the M1A2 is astoundingly difficult to penetrate. By the general RHA penetration, an RPG-7 HEAT can penetrate less than 50% through the front glacis of the M1. By that measure, the armor on an M1 may be something like 80. Something like a T-72 is going to be quite a bit less, at that 38 minimum.
The other big question is the armament. Two heavy machine guns - one on the top of the turret, one coaxial - is fairly standard. As are smoke grenade launchers. The primary M1A2 armament is a god-awful 120 mm piece that can blow through a T-72 after going through a couple dozen feet of sand - or go through two T-72s. (It actually has a hard time penetrating another M1, but that's another matter.) So, assuming it can fairly reliably kill something with with 40 body, 38 armor, we're dealing with a weapon that is pretty nasty, with an appalling level of AP - 30 DMG, AP of -40 is in the right ballpark. For a second rank army, something in the 25 DMG, AP of -30 would make sense.
Again, I'm assuming that the AV rockets are the equivalent of RPGs, and the Citymaster is the equivalent of a Stryker. You could argue that the AV rockets are the equivalent of a modern Javelin system, but the costs are waaaaay off ($40k for a Javelin missile vs. 1000¥ for the AV rocket). You could argue that a Citymaster is more like a Bradley...but I'd have to point out that there are multiple airplanes with more body and armor than a Citymaster.
One other thing to consider is that tank armor is heavily dependent on facing - it is much lighter behind, beneath and on top. Might keep that in mind for called shots and the like. Mind you, it's thinner - not nonexistent - 1/2 of the base value is reasonable.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 2 2010, 03:52 AM
I like your idea.
Why not consider the Main Guns first, before extrapolating a tank cannon? It might be useful (maybe not).
So, the GM Light Cannon (Bradleys) and Heavy Cannon (Tanks). (13P/-6, 17P/-8 ).
GE Vanquisher ('tank busters') is 11P/-6, minigun rules (FA only, 15 bullets), while the Vigilant (8P/-4) is for 'infantry fighting vehicles'.
I'm leaving out Gauss options, but of course they exist.
Consider the GM-Outlaw Block III Anti-Tank missile (18P/-6), as well (with weak-spot targeting).
Posted by: Nexushound Sep 2 2010, 03:55 AM
Oi Chum,
All excellent points. Definitly will keep this post up as I consider a build. Though with that said I think I am going for something more along the lines of a Bradley v.s. an Abrahms.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 2 2010, 04:07 AM
Going on the weapons I mentioned, we get that a tank can't have much more than 25 armor if the GM Heavy Cannon is going to penetrate.
For the 'tank buster' autocannon, it'd be 17+net hits, and assuming a 15 wide burst, we can expect at least 5: 22 armor.
For the anti-tank missile, 24+net hits?+weak spot: (and experiment ruined by scatter rules. ) A direct hit would be at least equal to the Heavy Cannon's 25, though; the Block V gets an extra Sensor bonus from the *target's* Sensors, increase blast radius, and -2 base DV. :/
Bored, doing the math: I think you're rolling Gunnery + Sensor + target Signature (that's +3) + optional Active Targeting bonus; for the Block V, you'd also get target's Sensor as a bonus (directly to the missile's sensor), only if the target is using Active Targeting. Theoretically, that could all add up to a very expensive, yet finally accurate, hit. IF I've read the messy rules right, hehe. 6+6+3+[net hits of Sensor+Perception+3 (6+6+3) against Reaction+Handling (6-2?)=+3]=18, 6 hits, so scatter is 4d6m - 6 sensor - 6 hits (2m without 'Sensor-Seeking effect'). That's -8 DV for the Block III, total 30 armor beaten. For the Block V, it all depends, but it should be more accurate, so more damage.
Posted by: Minchandre Sep 2 2010, 05:49 AM
One of the State of the Arts - I think 2064, though it might have been '63 - had a section on mercenary work, including full 3e stats for a number of combat vehicles including MBTs (and other less crazy options)
Posted by: Mayhem_2006 Sep 2 2010, 08:19 AM
Armour, big guns, and Ammo are heavy, so I'd start my build with the biggest load-hauler available, the Zuggsmachine, without trailer.
Then, going through the modifications list in order, depending on how advanced you want the vehicle to be, and whether it is a light scouting tank or a small battle tank, any of these might be appropriate - those marked with a star I would consider essential for a modern tank, and so I would apply as factory standard without worrying about modification capacity:
Amphibious 1
*Ammo bins
*Armour - +18 at least
ECM
*EM Shielding
*Gyrolink for main gun
Improved sensor array
Life support (at least 1, possibly 2)
*Lock on Countermeasures
Missile Defence
*Multifuel Engine
Satcom
Searchlight
Smoke Projector
*Tracked Vehicle
*Weapon Mount - Reinforced, External, Heavy Turret, Remote Control + Manual (armoured)
with GM Light or Heavy cannon
* Weapon Mount - Reinforced, External, Heavy Turret, Remote Control + Manual (armoured)
with Stoner Ares M107 HMG
Of course, other mods may also apply, depending on how advanced a vehicle this is and the role you have in mind for it.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 2 2010, 08:28 AM
Just a couple points: there's no star on it, but a tank certainly would not have Missile Defense (in the sense of the SR4 Mod). Why is the MG on a Heavy Turret; does that refer to the 'stacked turret' possibility the book mentions?
Posted by: Mayhem_2006 Sep 2 2010, 12:09 PM
Do you mean "certainly would have a missile defence" ?
And yes, the MG Turret is on top of the main turret.
Assuming advances in weapon loading technology, I would imagine that the turrets are both quite low profile, flatter than the typical modern turret.
***
Of course, tanks vary considerably...
Posted by: Runner Smurf Sep 2 2010, 02:36 PM
Good point on the cannons - I forgot about those. And now that I look at them, I really want to groan. The writers didn't do a particularly good job thinking those through.
Example, consider the GM Heavy Cannon, allegedly a main battle tank gun. 17P, -8 AP. And now consider an Ares Citymaster with Body 16, Armor 20. Assuming an attack with with 4 net hits. 21P, -8P. The Citymaster rolls some 28 dice, at 4-to-1 buy, that's 7 hits. That's 14 boxes of damage. With a body of 18, the Citymaster has 17 boxes total, so a hit on a "riot-control vehicle" from a main battle tank does not kill it. Wounds it to be sure, but doesn't kill it. Heck, it won't even reliably kill an attack helicopter: the Aguilar GX, with body 16, armor 16, will take 15 boxes of damage, but has 16. This doesn't make much sense.
Or consider the Itzcoatl Gauss Cannon that is essentially a Naval rail gun, is 18P, -10 AP. Four net hits, 22P, -10AP. Citymaster rolls 26 dice, which is 6 hits. That results in 16 boxes of damage, which again isn't enough to kill it. So...main gun on a destroyer/cruiser is unable to destroy a single armored vehicle with one shot. This is, to put it charitably, silly. Hell, a well armored troll has a decent chance at survival, if he burns edge and rolls well.
So, I'm going to have to call these guns completely bogus, as they can't even do the minimum mission that they are described as doing. (And don't get me started on how awful the laser rules are.)
Going back to the 3rd rules (SOTA 2063 and R3), we have the above mentioned Leopard III, with Body 12, Armor 40. Armor and Body don't translate particularly well. A 3rd ed city master had a body of 5 an armor of 10, just for scope. By similar ratios, a Leopard II had a a body 2.4x the Citymaster, so in 4th it should be around 38 (looking at a couple of other vehicles, the average multiplier is around 2.5-3 for 3rd to 4th). The armor is 4x the Citymaster, giving it a total armor of 64. Which is roughly in line with my 40 body, and suggests armor ratings well over 40.
Now for the Leopard IIIs armament, with is Heavy Rail Run - the Ares Vaporizer in R3 (presumably) with a damage code of 15MN. Damage codes don't convert, and worked very differently in previous editions - but by the R3 rules, that works out to about 45MN when shot at a person or regular vehicle, and they'd need to roll 4 45's just to flatline - not a chance in hell for a regular character in regular armor. Against another Leopard III, the armor reduces the damage code to merely 5MN. Which means the Leopard III gets to roll 5 dice with a target number of 5, and if he gets 6 hits, he only takes 6 boxes of damage! With a bunch of Karma (Edge) and a lot of luck, he might actually survive - but otherwise, he's pretty much toast.
So, the main armament should be able to fairly reliably destroy another tank, so the damage values need to be pretty insane, so again, something like 30P, -40AP makes sense.
Grrr. This annoys me about 4th edition. The core mechanics are pretty solid, but they didn't really think through the statistics when it comes to vehicle ratings and equipment. They evidently threw some numbers down, and didn't think much about them.
Posted by: TommyTwoToes Sep 2 2010, 02:41 PM
Example, consider the GM Heavy Cannon, allegedly a main battle tank gun. 17P, -8 AP. And now consider an Ares Citymaster with Body 16, Armor 20. Assuming an attack with with 4 net hits. 21P, -8P. The Citymaster rolls some 28 dice, at 4-to-1 buy, that's 7 hits. That's 14 boxes of damage. With a body of 18, the Citymaster has 17 boxes total, so a hit on a "riot-control vehicle" from a main battle tank does not kill it. Wounds it to be sure, but doesn't kill it. Heck, it won't even reliably kill an attack helicopter: the Aguilar GX, with body 16, armor 16, will take 15 boxes of damage, but has 16. This doesn't make much sense.
Or consider the Itzcoatl Gauss Cannon that is essentially a Naval rail gun, is 18P, -10 AP. Four net hits, 22P, -10AP. Citymaster rolls 26 dice, which is 6 hits. That results in 16 boxes of damage, which again isn't enough to kill it. So...main gun on a destroyer/cruiser is unable to destroy a single armored vehicle with one shot. This is, to put it charitably, silly. Hell, a well armored troll has a decent chance at survival, if he burns edge and rolls well.
<snip>
Would both of the guns in this example "knowckdown" the citymaster? I picture them being rolled over on their sides by the impact.
Also, (I could be mis-remembering the vehicle combat rules) but don't the crew take the same damage as the vehicle?
Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 2 2010, 02:42 PM
I don't think they were intending on us to steal tanks in Seattle. At least not until War comes out. 
Posted by: sabs Sep 2 2010, 02:44 PM
I miss the days where Vehicle Armor and Body was different from Metahuman.
A Rail Gun. Should be doing 30P -20AP
A Main Tank weapon: ~20P -15AP
Posted by: CanRay Sep 2 2010, 02:45 PM
Why not? My group has commented on wanting to raid the Supercarrier for a jet to pawn.
Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 2 2010, 02:48 PM
Yeah, but the Supercarrier doesn't have tanks.
I just think it changes the scope of the game. What kind of job has you going up against a tank?
(well, besides the one already provided
)I think in most cases military ordnance is left to the...military.
Posted by: TommyTwoToes Sep 2 2010, 02:57 PM
I just think it changes the scope of the game. What kind of job has you going up against a tank?
(well, besides the one already provided
)I think in most cases military ordnance is left to the...military.
Its possible that tanks are going by the wayside. They have added vulnerabilities in SR4, any spirit materializing inside the crew compartment, hacking their net connection, carbombs...
In the absence of the Cold War era Superpowers, smaller militaries focused on police actions and covert ops are more likely. In fact the likelyhood of anyone maintaining huge money hungry items like a Supercarrier are also pretty small. Where is the profit, unless you are running a protection racket?
When the other side potentially has Thor shots available, rolling out a couple hundred T-72's doesn't make sense. Going through the design process for a MBT when you are only going to build a hundred or so isn't very cost effective, especially with the rate of technological advancement.
Posted by: Runner Smurf Sep 2 2010, 03:07 PM
Uh-oh, somebody started asking the big questions about how viable tanks are on the battlefield of 2070. A reasonable question, but the various sourcebooks have made it clear that such things do exist, even if they haven't always statted them out. Yes, a wreck vehicle spell or spirit could ruin a tank's whole day, but that's why I think that magical countermeasures would be fairly common at the brigade level during major combat operations.
As for cost effectiveness, the number built is an order of magnitude higher than 100 - maybe even 2 orders. The number of M1s built, by wikipedia, is over 9,000. Over 25,000 T-72s have been built. Going by current development cycles, we're probably looking at one or two generations ahead of current vehicles by 2070, and while the numbers may be reduced, I still think it's enough to justify. Hell look at how much the US spent on 200 F-22s...
Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 2 2010, 03:08 PM
That's also what I was thinking. Get a platoon with enough cyber and they just might get to your tank and rip the top off before your crew can track and fire.
On the other hand, we do have LAV's/T-birds, which are typically used in a 'light armor' role which implies there's heavy armor somewhere along the line.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 2 2010, 03:17 PM
Well, they probably get a lot of work in Desert Wars.
Rolling lines of MBTs would be great for ratings!
Posted by: Sengir Sep 2 2010, 03:21 PM
Remember that the turret height also determines how far a vehicle can depress its gun, which in turn determines how far the tank will be exposed in hull-down position. So far the western design philosophy has been that the better use of cover offsets the disadvantages a larger silhouette brings when in the open, the Russians have reached the opposite conclusion.
Posted by: sabs Sep 2 2010, 04:14 PM
On the other hand, we do have LAV's/T-birds, which are typically used in a 'light armor' role which implies there's heavy armor somewhere along the line.
In ww2, when it was possible that a platoon of groundpounders could take out tanks. (satchel bombs, flame throwers) tanks that were going to engage ground units often had a platoon on their side as well, providing ground support against just such attacks.
I could see a group of tanks with a platoon attached to it.
Posted by: TommyTwoToes Sep 2 2010, 04:31 PM
I could see a group of tanks with a platoon attached to it.
First you need cybered trolls with raptor legs, then you get gnomes with those magnetic graple feet clamped onto the Troll's shoulders. Each gnome has a backpack of satchel charges, and the Troll just does full defense actions while he runs at the tank.
Posted by: sabs Sep 2 2010, 04:36 PM
heee
Okay that's funny..
Silly
but funny
Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 2 2010, 04:46 PM
I could see a group of tanks with a platoon attached to it.
Tanks are always supposed to have a platoon with it - but they can still lose a tread to an IED or a well-placed RPG shot.
Posted by: Sengir Sep 2 2010, 04:46 PM
Just do it the Battletech way, five elementals against one vehicle. Ony with a different kind of elemental...
Posted by: sabs Sep 2 2010, 04:53 PM
Sure
He was saying.. Tanks aren't viable because you throw a platoon of cyber/magic guys at it.
I was just saying.. we've had the equivalent in the past, and the Military handled it.
Tanks aren't indestructible.
They're not unbeatable.
They're just tough, mobile, and provide a nice punch.
Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 2 2010, 04:57 PM
He was saying.. Tanks aren't viable because you throw a platoon of cyber/magic guys at it.
I was just saying.. we've had the equivalent in the past, and the Military handled it.
Tanks aren't indestructible.
They're not unbeatable.
They're just tough, mobile, and provide a nice punch.
Right right. Throw a squad of cyber/mages at it, and find their own support squad there, possibly with magical support. It's hard to say whether or not the OPFOR would have magic in the first place if it was standard military vs. standard military based off the 'rarity' of magical talent in the world, let alone the armed forces, but...eh. I'd think the UCAS/CAS has been working like gangbusters to come up with a semieffective countermeasure/protection to magic for their armor.
Posted by: sabs Sep 2 2010, 04:59 PM
Given that one of their neighbors is a primarily Magical Force who has shown willingness to commit genocide to get their way
I would imagine that magical talent into their military.. is a priority.
Posted by: Mayhem_2006 Sep 2 2010, 05:01 PM
Don't forget that presumably the cannons shown are "standard ammo" - what happens to the stats when you load them up with hi-ex or Armour peircing?
Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 2 2010, 05:01 PM
I would imagine that magical talent into their military.. is a priority.
Oh, indeed! However, with the Rift right there in DeeCee and DIMR/DF paying top dollar...How many are staying in the military?
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 2 2010, 05:04 PM
Runner Smurf: 1) Agreed, SR4 and vehicles seems half-assed, and I loved Rigger 3; 2) I think you forgot to halve armor with the Gauss, not that it really changes your point.
Mayhem_2006: I meant that a tank has no business with an anti-missile system derived from aircraft carriers; it uses a network of multiple laser/machine-gun turrets to intercept missiles. I'm not saying it's impossible to *build* on a smaller vehicle, just that it doesn't make sense for a tank to be designed with it.
Posted by: sabs Sep 2 2010, 05:07 PM
Mayhem_2006: I meant that a tank has no business with an anti-missile system derived from aircraft carriers; it uses a network of multiple laser/machine-gun turrets to intercept missiles. I'm not saying it's impossible to *build* on a smaller vehicle, just that it doesn't make sense for a tank to be designed with it.
I could see a tank having "chaff" counter measures. But only a couple of rounds worth.
Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 2 2010, 05:14 PM
You could always justify a cannon's crappy DV with reactive armor.
Posted by: Warlordtheft Sep 2 2010, 05:18 PM
Actually there are some groups working on just that. One of the key issues though is the software and collateral damage to your own forces (such as when your own infantry are nearby). SImilar situation as to reactive armors (the armor that explodes to deflect the blast).
Recalling from a thread a year or so ago IMHO an MBT would have:
Warding, or other protective magical defenses.
An active missle defense system (like metal storm)
Remote MG turrets and main turret.
Tracked or an LAV.
A couple of drone racks for arial and ground recon.
Rigger control.
Armor (depending on the state of the armor vs anti-tank weapon race) could well be in the mid 30's with a body of 30.
at 60 dice, alot of damage is shrugged off. Also keep in mind the armor penetration rules.
Judging by the books
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 2 2010, 05:21 PM
Agreed. I just wanted to make it clear that I was speaking, as it were, about fluff instead of crunch. It really depends on the scale: 6-12 auto/laser turrets on a tank (in addition to the actual armaments) is excessive, but 2-3 dedicated anti-rocket units? Not excessive. Are you referring to that Israeli vehicular anti-rocket thing?
Posted by: TommyTwoToes Sep 2 2010, 05:33 PM
It really depends on the scale: 6-12 auto/laser turrets on a tank (in addition to the actual armaments) is excessive, but 2-3 dedicated anti-rocket units? Not excessive. Are you referring to that Israeli vehicular anti-rocket thing?Isn't one of the Metal Storm proposals for an anti missle system using .22 cal rounds?
I seem to remember another abomination that would throw something like 100,000 gernades into the area of a football field (in some rediculously small timeframe, like 1 second) that would overload the structure of tanks by vibrating their components apart. Seems kind of silly and how many times could a tank do that, but the tech is still new.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 2 2010, 05:39 PM
Sounds right to me, Tommy, but I'm reserving comment on anything Metal Storm until it actually (if ever) exists.
This is what I mentioned, I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_active_protection_system
Whereas the MDS is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
Posted by: Kruger Sep 2 2010, 06:37 PM
How effective would most common magic be a against a main battle tank thought?
It's got incredible mass, incredibly thick armor, a sealed crew compartment, and crew that are concealed from line of sight. I mean, magic can do a lot in Shadowrun, but most spells are going to be as useful as small arms. The best tactic for magicians would be the same as for regular grunts. Mobility kills and then attempting to close to exploit the weaknesses.
Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 2 2010, 06:45 PM
If you can toss up an earth elemental to quicksand its treads or have a fire spirit get close enough to melt a weak point, something might happen. Barring that, Invis or improved invis to sneak your way into range close enough to plant an explosive on the back of the turret. Should cook off somethin'.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 2 2010, 06:47 PM
Unless the tank has a mana barrier around it to prevent an Astral Entity (Spirit, magician, whatever) from entering it and being able to see everyone, it's dead meat to magic.
The flipside is that you can mass produce tanks, you can't do that for Magicians. That, and a spirit or five ordered to protect a column of tanks can protect them against Astral Assaults.
IIRC, however, the role of tanks is to get stuck and for Infantry to get heroic to save them. Of course, I heard that from an Infantryman, so the theory might be biased.
Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 2 2010, 06:48 PM
Signalers tell me the role of tanks is to be too far forward when the artillery comes down.
But they say that about everybody.
Posted by: sabs Sep 2 2010, 06:49 PM
What can a Astral Projecting Mage do to the tank?
He can't cast spells in the Physical.
Unless he Manifests? maybe? And then he's inside close quarters and someone shoots him in the head.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 2 2010, 06:50 PM
In the tight confines of a tank?
Admittedly, I've never been in one, but to my understanding, they don't have the legroom of your typical Buick...
Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 2 2010, 06:52 PM
IIRC, tankers are usually packing Berettas and one or two PDW's like a UMP .45 or a M4 carbine.
If it's a rigged tank...May only be one dude in there. I'm not sure.
Posted by: TommyTwoToes Sep 2 2010, 06:54 PM
Powerbolt doesn't care about the mass of the tank or it's body. It just rolls against object resistance. It has no signature and is LOS.
The fire elemental doesn't need to burn through the tank, just materialize in the ammo compartment, or engulf the crew. The tank crew probably won't have heavy enough sidearms to kill even a small elemental.
Glue (the spell) can lock the turret, treads and guns into place since the parts cannot rotate without dealing catastrophic damage to the tank.
A physical barrier cast across the muzzel of the main gun can cause the main gun to have something awful happen, what happens when the barrel is obstructed even breifly?
Posted by: CanRay Sep 2 2010, 06:55 PM
"Um, why is there no one in this tank?" "Nobody here, either." "Nope." "I got someone! Hey, where's the rest of your unit?" "I'm it. Cutbacks. I had to control all of these tanks by myself."
Posted by: Kruger Sep 2 2010, 06:58 PM
Posted by: sabs Sep 2 2010, 06:58 PM
Remember you need Force 6 spells to effect Tanks.
Force 5 will literally just bounce off.
Posted by: Kruger Sep 2 2010, 07:01 PM
Admittedly, I've never been in one, but to my understanding, they don't have the legroom of your typical Buick...
Well, there's a fair amount of space right behind the breech typically.
Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 2 2010, 07:05 PM
I prefer mines over matter. Where there is a magical solution, I've found, there can also be a technical one. And vice versa, of course.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 2 2010, 07:06 PM
That's because the breech is not a place you want to be behind.
Posted by: Warlordtheft Sep 2 2010, 08:23 PM
It's got incredible mass, incredibly thick armor, a sealed crew compartment, and crew that are concealed from line of sight. I mean, magic can do a lot in Shadowrun, but most spells are going to be as useful as small arms. The best tactic for magicians would be the same as for regular grunts. Mobility kills and then attempting to close to exploit the weaknesses.
Well, at OR6 (but is it OR6?, GM call here)--a mage can cast wreck vehicle on it. Thus bypasing all that armor and such.
Posted by: Dragonscript Sep 2 2010, 08:33 PM
The thing about most military equipment is that it tends to be in use for a long time. The US M1 tank first came into service in 1980, and there are no foreseeable plans to replace it, so i could see this tank being used for over 50 years. The M16 was first used in 1960, and there are also no plans to replace that.
If your situation is that this is a third world country with an old tank, then it would something that was built/designed in the 2030s, if not earlier, so lets look at what the next generation of current tanks could look like. First, tanks are going to get smaller instead of larger, and this is for two reason. One, the crew requirements are going to be decreased and two, armor theory has changed. About the crew requirements, lets look at what each person does on a M1 Abrams. First you have the driver, who obviously drives the tank. Second, you have the gunner who aims and fires the cannon. Third, you have the loader who loads the cannon. Last, you have the commander, who chooses the targets and coordinates the other crew positions. With shadowrun technology, you can easily cut this crew requirement in half.
The reason there is a leader on a M1 is for two reasons. First, in the late 1970s, the US Army did not think autoloader technology advanced enough to be used. Even though the Russians had already started to use autoloader technology by this time, the US Army did not trust it just yet. The second reason was that the Army wanted that additional crew member to help out with any additional tasks, such as track replacement, refueling or rearming. With an atuoloader, you do not need this crew position.
The gunner is there to obviously fire the weapon, but even now the Army has been starting to field remote control turrets on their vehicles, like the Striker. I think it is the Russians who are experimenting with a new turret design that is controlled by the commander and would not require a gunner.
By removing these two crew positions you have several benefits. First, you would only need half as many people to man the same number of tanks, so your training requirements and personal cost are half of what they were. Second, you can now make the turret smaller, and thus make the tank as a whole harder to hit.
A decent, generation old tank would look something this:
You would have an armored crew compartment that serves as the main armor of the vehicle. The main gun would be in a small remote turret that would only encase the autoloader and breech. With only needing to protect the small crew compartment, instead of the whole tank, the armor overall would be thinner, with bolted on reactive armor covering an important parts. With all this weight reduction, the tank itself can be smaller, which would serve to make it harder to hit. With an rocket protection system, look at the Quick Kill active protection system, this vehicle would be able to handle itself on a future battlefield.
Posted by: Runner Smurf Sep 3 2010, 12:25 PM
In response to Dragonscript:
Indeed, most military equipment lasts a very long time. Heck, the B-52 is currently planned to be operational up until Shadowrun started in 2050. And costs are going up. As a study concluded a while back, by current cost growth trends, in 2074 the US Military will be able to buy a single aircraft that will cost the entire budget for the year. This aircraft will have to be shared 3 and a half days a week between the Navy and the Air Force, with the Marines getting it for a day every four years. Alas, the F-22 and the F-35 haven't broken that trend. The Army and Navy are little better.
But, to be purely pedantic: There actually are plans to replace the M1A3 - Future Combat System was going to replace the M1, M2, M109 and others. It was cancelled recently (long story, good riddance), and the new project for the Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) is in full swing...and is already delayed. The M16 is being replaced as well, with the M4 largely supplanting in current operations, and the XM-8 was under consideration to replace. So while the baseline systems are old, it would appear that an ~30-40 year generation cycle can be considered for most major systems.
With the disruptions of the Awakening, Years of Chaos, I think we could safely consider that the generation cycle would have been delayed, so we may have only had one major shift, with the second coming soon. By 2070, and considering the advanced electronics, the modern combat brigade is probably very much what FCS was aiming for: lots of drones, advanced tactical networks, and with an operational tempo that makes Blitzkrieg look lethargic.
That being said, I agree with you on trends. FCS's tank replacement was looking at a 2 man crew, and was aiming to be much lighter (1/2 the weight of the M1 was the target). The Active Protection System is the big one that doesn't really exist in SR4 - a rocket to shoot down incoming rockets. Impressive as hell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5dIaDGUfLI). Even though they are going to be lighter, the RHA-equivalent isn't going to be that much lower than the M1, I think.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 3 2010, 12:33 PM
Another thing to take into consideration about Tanks is fuel consumption.
Petrochem fuels are expensive, and the costs are only getting higher! And tanks drink more thank the Troll Wino on the corner. We're already in a world where some police forces don't have the petrol to investigate crime scenes... Not that far from not having enough diesel to run tanks. Multifuel engines will help, yes, but only so much.
Posted by: TommyTwoToes Sep 3 2010, 12:37 PM
Petrochem fuels are expensive, and the costs are only getting higher! And tanks drink more thank the Troll Wino on the corner. We're already in a world where some police forces don't have the petrol to investigate crime scenes... Not that far from not having enough diesel to run tanks. Multifuel engines will help, yes, but only so much.
That is why we need mana engines.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 3 2010, 12:40 PM
"OK, we got Mana Engines. Just stay away from that Mana Warp." "What mana..." *Chug-Chug-Krunch* "Oh, that one."
Posted by: TommyTwoToes Sep 3 2010, 12:51 PM
"You know, we can get out of this Mana Warp, just need juice for about 30 seconds. Hey, Private Greenie - lay down on the engine block over here. No, this isn't a ritual knife."
"ArrggghhhhH!"
"See, no mana, no problem. Sorry Greenie. He was a pretty good trog."
Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 3 2010, 01:10 PM
We just need to start painting all our tanks red.
Posted by: sabs Sep 3 2010, 01:47 PM
The thing is.. in order to use magic on tanks. You need a 20-24 spellcasting dicepool, and minimum force 6 spells.
That's outside the range of most Shaman/Mages in the world.
So, I suspect that Magic's not as big a concern. Ghost Dance level magic? Yes, that's a problem. Going up against a Dragon.. also a problem. A squad of Shamans all with a Magic rating of 4 and a spellcating of 3/4 .. not likely they have the spell ability to just make that tank implode.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 3 2010, 02:19 PM
No, but a good "Water" spell on the dirt beneath the tank, and you got a bogged down tank.
Which, from my understanding, is another term for "Pissed off pillbox".
Also, those Magicians might have Summoning as well at the same level. A Fire Elemental ordered to "Hug the tank" would destroy their external sensors (Or blind 'em real good.), and my group has already learned to fear Plant Spirits.
"The lawn got up and beat the drek out of us. True story."
Posted by: Notsoevildm Sep 3 2010, 02:38 PM
You don't need to make the tank implode. Just have a low force fire elemental manifest inside the turret or driver's compartment and engulf the crew or set off the ammo. Crew get cooked or turned into chunky salsa. One tank less.
Posted by: sabs Sep 3 2010, 03:15 PM
Can spirits manifest somewhere where they have 0 line of sight?
Posted by: Warlordtheft Sep 3 2010, 03:23 PM
Inanimate objects have no astral form, so they just pop their heads in the crew compartment. Viola-LOS!
Posted by: Dragonscript Sep 3 2010, 03:32 PM
Runner Smurf:
I heard of that report but i think it is more tongue in cheek than anything else. Currently the F-35 is predicted to be the last mass produced manned fighter. Many experts are predicting that the "next big thing" in fighters will be the unmanned fighter, drones. This does not mean the end of the manned fighter, just that instead of several hundred being built, only a couple dozen of each model will be bought. When you remove the manned portion of an aircraft, you can make them much smaller and cheaper.
While the MGV and Future Combat System have been researched, they both were far from producing any vehicles, thus the reason for the M1A3 upgrade that is currently planned. The M1 family is predicted the be in service with the army until 2050. The BCT Ground Combat Vehicle Program is expected to replace many Army vehicles, but the first prototypes are not expected until at least 2015, with the first production vehicles in 2017. Lets be honest, with the military it would easy to add at least 5 to 10 years to those dates, if it even happens like they predict. I expect there will be an A4 & A5 mod to the M1 before they are completely replaced.
The M4 is just a smaller M16, and the only serious considerations for replacement are for upgrades like the M416 or the SCAR, which the biggest change is moving from a gas system to a piston system, but they are evolutions instead of whole system replacements, like when the M16 replaced the M14. The next major change is going to be the move to caseless ammo, or maybe a move to the 6.5 grendel or 6.8 SPC, but i doubt it.
I agree that the development cycle would be interrupted, but the Awakening have less effect than golbinization. We would see one more generation of our current mentality with combat vehicles then a quicker development cycle of first generation vehicles that took the new body forms, geopolitical realities and magic into consideration. The 2070s would see the introduction of the second generation of post Awakening combat vehicles.
CanRay
If I remember correctly, one aspect of the JLTV program is to have the vehicle use an electric motor and have, right now anyway, a diesel engine to work as a generator to provide the power, so that in the future it could be replaced with any new types of engines, like hydrogen. This thought process is also being applied to any new armored vehicles that are being developed, that way you can have the jet turbine engine in when you need the speed of fast combat or the diesel engine when you are providing peace keeping. The M1A2 is a great tank, but it requires too much fuel and in its current roles in Iraq and Afghanistan, a diesel engine would be better.
Posted by: hobgoblin Sep 3 2010, 03:42 PM
Or thanks to SR not having any kind of facing or hit zone rules, crappy armor could come from averaging the strongest with the weakest.
Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 3 2010, 03:49 PM
Hooray! Weak points averted!
Posted by: Kruger Sep 3 2010, 04:49 PM
Still doesn't stop the "Win Button" (which magic always seems to have in Shadowrun) of manifestation inside the tank unless the tank is shielded or spirits are unable to manifest in an area that isn't big enough to contain their physical form.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 3 2010, 07:29 PM
The Outlaw Block III and V anti-tank missile have a 'target weak point' effect, but you have to roll really well for it to come into play.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 3 2010, 07:58 PM
Which is why the first rule of combat is "Geek the mage first."
And, I have to admit, tanks can do it better than "Boots on the ground" as they have that nice, big cannon, probably loaded with more hi-ex rounds than armour-piercers now because of this problem.
Posted by: Mayhem_2006 Sep 4 2010, 07:07 AM
So, what would be the most cost-effective way of protecting a tank from a mage/spirit?
Posted by: Rastus Sep 4 2010, 07:58 AM
Shoot them with the main cannon before they can make a move. A GM heavy cannon does 17P/-8AP which could easily ruin a F:12 spirit and it even has a blast radius of -1/m. Costs about as much as one 105mm shell. It's cheap, efficient, and fun! Not foolproof though.
Seriously though, for all this talk about spirits manifesting in the crew compartment as a win button, has nobody thought about assigning a spirit or two to each tank, leaving them with standing orders to locate and attack any magical threats to said tank? After all, what does summoning and binding cost? Mostly just stun(or physical, if willing)damage as the worst of it, and that can be taken care of long before the mage that did the summoning needs to go into the field for whatever reason. And let's face it, if you're a bad enough
Posted by: Manunancy Sep 4 2010, 08:14 AM
In my opinion a spirit can manifest with parts of itself inside the and some out - a manifestation being basically an image and the sprit still remain ing mostly on the astral plane, this shouldn't be much of a problem. But it won't do much good beyond scaring the crap out of the crew.
Materialisation - that is pouring enough of it's power onto the material plane to affect it - is a different kettle of fish. The spirit's now material form needs to be kept together, which means that if it can't fit in, it can't materialize.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 4 2010, 11:48 AM
I've mentioned this as an option.
Posted by: Rastus Sep 4 2010, 11:54 AM
Okay, fair enough, didn't see that. Anyone other than CanRay ever think to assign bound spirits to protect tanks from magical and astral threats?
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 4 2010, 03:24 PM
I assumed everyone had thought of it, so why bother saying it? Astral speeds being so high, you just need a group of spirits running interference over the whole battle.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 4 2010, 03:27 PM
Yeah, but Astral battles are hard to catch on 'Trid, so they wouldn't be good for Desert Wars ratings...
Posted by: Summerstorm Sep 4 2010, 03:34 PM
Also i am pretty sure that the inside of such an expensive vehicle is always warded (permanent Rating 8 ward or something, reactive one - Bzzzap). The one thing i found where magical support does not help is just casting a spell on the damn thing. Since counterspelling does not apply to objects AND you can no longer intercept spells on the astral your tank will just getting crushed if someone manage to cast a "Destroy Tank on sight"-spell on it OR is just 5 or 6 or something. (That is why i wrote up that OR-Enhancing magical vehicle armor in my Sciprotect thread)
Also isn't it mentioned somewhere that some corps have a LOT of spirit support with their heavy stuff. Aztech had one blood spirit per heavy vehicle, or not?
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 4 2010, 03:39 PM
Easier to summon a spirit than build a tank, so makes perfect sense.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 4 2010, 03:42 PM
Yeah, but tanks last longer.
...
OK, when they're not being shot at, they last longer.
Posted by: sabs Sep 4 2010, 04:15 PM
Also isn't it mentioned somewhere that some corps have a LOT of spirit support with their heavy stuff. Aztech had one blood spirit per heavy vehicle, or not?
Except that you need 6+ hits to effect a Vehicle. Arguably as a GM I would say that complex war machinery like a Tank would require 7 or 8 hits. But even if you go by the basic RAW.
Only a Force 6 and above spell has even the chance of succeeding against a tank.
Force 6 spell
Gross Hits: 6 dicepool of 18-24 to do it reliably.
DrainV: 13 roughly?
A well built optimized shadowrunner could do this. But your basic in the military spellcaster? That's well outside his comfort zone.
Posted by: hobgoblin Sep 4 2010, 06:42 PM
...
OK, when they're not being shot at, they last longer.
The funny thing about tanks are that they rarely end up blown to small bits. More likely is that either the crew or some vital part have been destroyed, making the vehicle useless but recoverable. Iirc, both sides during the ww2 desert campaign used to recover tanks during the night for repairs and new crews.
Posted by: Kruger Sep 4 2010, 06:46 PM
Materialisation - that is pouring enough of it's power onto the material plane to affect it - is a different kettle of fish. The spirit's now material form needs to be kept together, which means that if it can't fit in, it can't materialize.
Posted by: WearzManySkins Sep 4 2010, 08:18 PM
From long ago online chats with the Shadowrun Devs....Tanks would be rigged and have a Combat Mage on board aka inside with the crew, with the finest optical mage sight goggle system.
Also you could have the crew compartment etc lined with thin layer of FAB II contained by the walls.
Also remember multi million new yen vehicles do not go out solo or with out support.
Posted by: the_real_elwood Sep 5 2010, 03:51 AM
If you're using Rigger 3, you can't actually build a main battle tank. The heavy railgun that is described in the book as used on "main battle tanks and naval ships" requires the extra-large turret, and there's no chassis in the book that has enough body to support an extra-large turret, or a powerplant with enough load capacity to move the thing.
Don't let that stop you though, you just have to finagle the rules a bit to use Rigger 3 to build some really cool tanks.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 5 2010, 05:20 AM
Not just in Africa. Everywhere in Europe tanks and, even more so, trucks swapped sides many times. A Russian T-34 that Germans used in the retreat from the Eastern Front was just recently rescued from a Bog in excellent condition. (Of course, the exception for this rule was the "Ronson"-Series of Sherman Tanks. Those babies "Lit up the first time, every time" just like Ronson lighters.).
There was one incident in Africa, however, that made me laugh: Two convoys, one British, one German, passed by each other. Because of the hodgepodge of trucks each side had, both thought they were on the same side.
Posted by: hobgoblin Sep 5 2010, 07:22 AM
Don't let that stop you though, you just have to finagle the rules a bit to use Rigger 3 to build some really cool tanks.
Actually there is, as they errated the turret to fit onto the largest caterpillar chassis. But the engine would need to be worked over with the infamous customization upgrade to be able to handle the load. But when done so, the gas turbine powerplant gives a design that is not far off from the M1 in performance, iirc.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)