[X] My Assistant

[DTFarstar]

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

Chris

[hobgoblin]

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

[youngtusk87]

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

Then again...Tom Hanks killed a tank with a pistol in Saving Private Ryan (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[lunchbox311]

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

correct

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

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

[hobgoblin]

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

would that be cybered/adept troll scale arrows? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cyber.gif)

[apollo124]

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

[hyzmarca]

correct

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hobgoblin]

ah, canister. been in use as far back as, at least, the napoleonic era, but still just as effective (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smokin.gif)

[Riley37]

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

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

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

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

[DeadLogic]

Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan

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

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

[toturi]

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

[Fuchs]

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

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

[toturi]

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

[Fuchs]

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

[toturi]

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

[Fuchs]

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

[nezumi]

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

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

[Ed_209a]

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

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

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

[mfb]

psh. you obviously haven't watched enough movies!

[Ed_209a]

psh. you obviously haven't watched enough movies!

Like the Airwolf pilot maybe? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[lunchbox311]

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

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

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

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

I am aware what HEAT stands for. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

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

[Snow_Fox]

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

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

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

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

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

[Snow_Fox]

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

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

[Cthulhudreams]

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

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

[toturi]

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

The Leopard 2 is 1 generation behind what was used in first gulf war? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif)