Fly a tank?, Inspiration from the A-team! Options

[Cardul]

OK, so, I just saw the new A-team movie. First, 100% Pink Mohawk!

Second, though, there is the sequence where, when the tank they have bailed out of a c-130 in has lost two of its 3 chutes,
they use the recoil from the cannon to "steer" it so they will land in a lake, and then use the recoil from firing repeatedly
to slow the fall down even more.

While I know this likely makes physics curl up into a fetal position and cry, I am wondering:
1) Jason, if you read this, are we going to see rules for "flying a tank" in War! ?
2) If not, how would other people handle the rolls for doing such a feat if it were to happen in their game?
(Please! No saying "They burn a point of permanent edge." I want there to be honest to goodness rolls and
skills involved, so that a viewing Corp Baddy can be "What the hell are those madmen doing?")

[FlakJacket]

Flying tanks? Isn't that what T-birds are for? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[IKerensky]

If the tank recoil could slow the fall that mean the tank recoil when firing on the ground is supposed to send the tank flying.

If my players try something like that in any of my games they will go "SPLAT!!", simply and quickly "SPLAT!!".

[Gyro]

Well there would need to be a high gunnery skill in there. After that I have no clue; for the sheer mohawk of it I would cobble something together. And although it wouldn't slow it terribly much you could technically steer the tank with the recoil. Even with the recoil comps they still move quite a bit.

[The Jopp]

If the tank recoil could slow the fall that mean the tank recoil when firing on the ground is supposed to send the tank flying.

The only difference that I can think of is that the friction and mass centered on the ground would absorb the shockwave. Firing it while airborne would affect it's momentum as there is no ground to absorb the shockwave.

Still - *SPLAT* is about right regardless as they would basically have to get about 60-80 TONNES of metal to STOP before it hits the ground.

[TommyTwoToes]

Just mod the tank for lighter-than-air. Crunchy armored blimp ftw.

[hobgoblin]

flying fox gliding system, arsenal p136. Only problem is that it tops out at body 12 vehicles, tho i guess a GM could allow a custom, single use variant for anything tank like.

[svenftw]

OK, so, I just saw the new A-team movie. First, 100% Pink Mohawk!

Maybe my definition of "Pink Mohawk" is different, but I think the movie as a whole is anything but (with the exception of the tank flying scene of course). They use disguises, precision, timing, skill, and planning to pull off all of their capers. To me, that is the opposite of Pink Mohawk.

*shrug* I might be alone in that regard.

[svenftw]

If the tank recoil could slow the fall that mean the tank recoil when firing on the ground is supposed to send the tank flying.

If my players try something like that in any of my games they will go "SPLAT!!", simply and quickly "SPLAT!!".

If the players end up inside a falling tank after the cargo plane they're in gets shot down you'd just say "Okay you're all dead, roll up new characters!"?

That would suck. If you let the tank shenanigans happen (assuming here that it wasn't stolen from a movie) your players would be telling that story for decades and laughing every time they did.

I think sometimes we lose perspective on why we play these games and what is "acceptable" while fantasizing. But of course, to each their own. What works on one table gets groaned down at another table.

[hobgoblin]

SR have always had a hand of god mechanic for just such situations.

[Cardul]

The only difference that I can think of is that the friction and mass centered on the ground would absorb the shockwave. Firing it while airborne would affect it's momentum as there is no ground to absorb the shockwave.

Still - *SPLAT* is about right regardless as they would basically have to get about 60-80 TONNES of metal to STOP before it hits the ground.

They did not try to make the tank stop. They used the recoil to direct it over a lake, and then used the recoil to bleed off enough velocity that the tank would not flip when hitting the lake, nor imbed itself in the lake bottom.

Maybe my definition of "Pink Mohawk" is different, but I think the movie as a whole is anything but (with the exception of the tank flying scene of course). They use disguises, precision, timing, skill, and planning to pull off all of their capers. To me, that is the opposite of Pink Mohawk.

*shrug* I might be alone in that regard.

Yes, your definition of Pink Mohawk is different. Pink Mohawk is over the top. If it involves doing something utterly rediculous, like flying a tank, doing a shell game with cargo containers, or
even the bagdhad truck heist? Sure, there is planning and timing involved, but, that is not what makes something pink mohawk. Timing a break through a wall into an mental health ward so that
it coincides with when the 3d Movie vehicle would drive through the wall? That is pink mohawk! Pink Mohawk is as much about the theatrics as it is anything else.

[Draco18s]

They did not try to make the tank stop. They used the recoil to direct it over a lake, and then used the recoil to bleed off enough velocity that the tank would not flip when hitting the lake, nor imbed itself in the lake bottom.

Steer: maybe. But only a small amount. You'd have to be over the lake already, and even then you'd probably still clip the small boat that was directly under you at the time (so instead of killing everyone on board you instead only sink their craft).

Slow down: almost certainly not. The recoil isn't enough force, or sustained enough to make a noticeable difference (I doubt you could fire the tank cannon full auto). The terminal velocity of a tank is quite fast. The mass of a tank is also fairly large. The muzzle velocity and mass of a cannon round compared to the tank is on the order of throwing golf balls while careening down a hill on a bike in a (futile) attempt to slow down.

[Jaid]

Steer: maybe. But only a small amount. You'd have to be over the lake already, and even then you'd probably still clip the small boat that was directly under you at the time (so instead of killing everyone on board you instead only sink their craft).

Slow down: almost certainly not. The recoil isn't enough force, or sustained enough to make a noticeable difference (I doubt you could fire the tank cannon full auto). The terminal velocity of a tank is quite fast. The mass of a tank is also fairly large. The muzzle velocity and mass of a cannon round compared to the tank is on the order of throwing golf balls while careening down a hill on a bike in a (futile) attempt to slow down.

also, that boat below you that you were trying not to land on would first get shot by a fully automatic tank main gun, and *then* have a (marginally slower) 60 ton tank smash into it. on the plus side, by the time you hit the water, there probably wouldn't be much of a boat left to hit, so you would achieve your objective of 'not landing on top of the boat'.

[Doc Chase]

I say send the matter over to MythBusters and see if they'll do it.

Which would be awesome.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Well they did have 1 chute left so I don't think they were in full free fall. They were falling faster than they would like and they wanted to slow themselves down a bit. Possible probably not, but movie/game fun possible I say yes.

I'd see it as a teamwork test in the moive.

Hannibal gave off aiming coordinates. He used lets call it a tactics skill. Every hit on the test gave 1 extra die for the gunnery test.

The number of successes would work like a gymnastics test to reduce damage from a fall. I'd either magnify there hits by a number to represent the chute or just reduce the base damage due to the chute.

Edit to add: I loved the movie. It was awesome on so many levels and I liked how they made a nostalgia movie without dumbing it up like they did with the dukes of hazard and some other movies.

[Draco18s]

Well they did have 1 chute left so I don't think they were in full free fall. They were falling faster than they would like and they wanted to slow themselves down a bit. Possible probably not, but movie/game fun possible I say yes.

Falling with a partial chute is freefall. It's just a slower freefall due to the resistance the chute provides.

Mind, you're talking 2/3rds of the chute missing (that is, two of three smaller chutes gone), which assuming that it didn't just break from the force being applied to it, firing your gun downwards still won't make a damn difference.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Falling with a partial chute is freefall. It's just a slower freefall due to the resistance the chute provides.

Mind, you're talking 2/3rds of the chute missing (that is, two of three smaller chutes gone), which assuming that it didn't just break from the force being applied to it, firing your gun downwards still won't make a damn difference.

I am unsure of the difference in they weren't in full freefall, and they were in freefall but slower.

Still while all 3 chutes is what is needed to make a regular safe landing, the 1 big chute would likely if it did not snap off be a decent clip slower than a full free-fall. If anyone has studies they want to pull up on this I'd like to see them. Like how much of the other 2 chutes is for slowing the fall and how much is for stabilization so the tank lands on its treads? Sure with one chute I suspect this will still be going way to fast to survive, like how tandem jumpers need more of a chute than a solo jumper if you wont a nice safe landing.

But
1. They did have 1 chute and it was the large primary chute.
2. It was a water landing.
3. Even if they only shaved a few MPH off there decent with the shooting it was still a few MPH.


Again possible in real life, probably not. But it is cool and awesome for movie/game realities.

[svenftw]

Still while all 3 chutes is what is needed to make a regular safe landing, the 1 big chute would likely if it did not snap off be a decent clip slower than a full free-fall. If anyone has studies they want to pull up on this I'd like to see them.

I don't think that kind of drop is done in real life at all (I know they did it with Jeeps in a limited fashion, but nothing much bigger). When they have to deploy tanks out of C-130's without landing they skim the ground VERY close and let the chutes pull the tank and pallet out of the back. It never actually falls that far, it just skids on the ground.

[Doc Chase]

I don't think that kind of drop is done in real life at all (I know they did it with Jeeps in a limited fashion, but nothing much bigger). When they have to deploy tanks out of C-130's without landing they skim the ground VERY close and let the chutes pull the tank and pallet out of the back. It never actually falls that far, it just skids on the ground.

Light vehicles will airdrop as in the movie, but not tanks. They attempted a high-altitude airdrop with a drag chute.

I've noticed one other case in which a tank was airdropped, and that was in a Mack Bolan novel. take that as you will. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I did find this while verifying the airdrops. I want one.

[svenftw]

Right, and when they do tanks I'm pretty sure they get down to just a few feet of altitude. Less than 10 feet I believe although I'm no Loadmaster so I wouldn't presume to speak with specifics.

[Doc Chase]

Typically the -130 will actually touch down with the back end and the tank'll slide out, chutes will deploy, and it lifts back off. They don't stay that low that long, for obvious reasons. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Edit: Interesting. Apparently the Russians do have an airdroppable APC - by using a chute/rocket combination. They put a retro on the pallet that fires when the primer rods touch ground, and it bleeds off more than enough speed to make a gentle touchdown for the vehcile.

[MJBurrage]

The 15-ton M551 Sheridan has been airdropped once in combat (although two of the ten didn't survive the landing).

The Abrams—at least I think it was an Abrams in A-Team—is four times the weight.

[Doc Chase]

I notice both the Russian and U.S. versions of airdroppable tanks have since been retired, more or less.

[svenftw]

The 15-ton M551 Sheridan has been airdropped once in combat (although two of the ten didn't survive the landing).

The Abrams—at least I think it was an Abrams in A-Team—is four times the weight.

Sure, but those air drops were probably of the low altitude variety that Doc and I are discussing. Even though they happen at a very low altitude they are still called "air drops".

[Doc Chase]

If it was an Abrams in the movie, it shouldn't have been. An Abrams won't fit in a -130.