[X] My Assistant

[kanislatrans]

jesus wouldn' use a gun, he'd just turn the deisel fuel into chardoney/ (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)

[mfb]

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

[youngtusk87]

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)

Lol I know, hence the (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) face.

But Chuck Norris could kill a tank with a pistol.

[kzt]

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.

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

[Trax]

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

[Cain]

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

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

[Cthulhudreams]

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

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

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

[Fuchs]

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

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

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

[Fuchs]

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

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

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

[mfb]

Incorrect. The Leopard 2 is on par with the M1, and competed regularily in trials against it by different armies (such as the Swiss in the 80s, where it beat it in mobility and firepower, but lost in armor protection - the M1 losing a track in the middle of the trial probably was not impressing the brass very much).

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

[Fuchs]

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

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

[Cthulhudreams]

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

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

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

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

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

[toturi]

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

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

[EvilP]

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

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

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

[Fuchs]

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

[Ed_209a]

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

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

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

[nezumi]

jesus wouldn' use a gun, he'd just turn the deisel fuel into chardoney/ (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)

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

[Ed_209a]

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

Agreed.

Guess it's just not a small arm, but I'd say that would have a chance to damage a tank if used against weak spots since the fluff does state that it uses "special ammunition common to that used as the primary weapon in small tanks". However even that would take quite a lot of shots to disable a tank.

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

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

[hobgoblin]

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

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

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

hmm, how does 299000 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) sounds?

thats what i got when i bolted 20 points of armor, a heavy turret and a normal turret, a light gauss cannon and a ares mp-lmg onto a tata hotspur (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

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

the biggest cost factor in it is the gauss cannon.

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

[Kingmaker]

You guys are completely ignoring the fact that by 2070, heavy armor will have evolved to the next level, beyond the tank to the battlemech. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

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

[Ed_209a]

You guys are completely ignoring the fact that by 2070, heavy armor will have evolved to the next level, beyond the tank to the battlemech. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

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

[kigmatzomat]

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

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

[Kagetenshi]

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

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

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

~J

[hobgoblin]

The flip side is that a 2070 MBT probably includes one or two drones in the weapon racks that will make the sniper more of a suicide mission than it already is.

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

[Apathy]

Speaking only of current-era M1s and M1A1s IRL:

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