[X] My Assistant

[Earlydawn]

I don't even necessarily see tanks as a major military asset in 2070.. from everything I've read today, the focus is on lighter, faster units (Strykers, Bradleys) who then do their own thing until they need a hard target taken out - JDAM time!

The only way I can see tanks see being used in Shadowrun's context is one-man rigger shells using only external sensor systems, or as drone tank platoons rigged by remote and using advanced pilot software in case they get disconnected. For that matter, I don't see too much in the way of manned aircraft - by 2015, IIRC, two thirds of U.S. deep strike aircraft are supposedly going to be unmanned. What's the incentive to train ten pilots at a cost of tens of millions when you can deploy a full wing of expendable, low-signature drones under the supervision of one rigger?

[Cthulhudreams]

Intrestingly, part of the reason that the US has never really gone in for autoloaders (there are lots of reasons, like limited depression of the main gun with one fitted for starters) is that actual maintanence on a tank seriously takes like 4 guys - and with drones it takes even more.

This makes me wonder if they'd actually go for one man rigger shells because how is he going to keep it running in the field? Maybe they just base other specialists out of tanks as well, and they help with the tank in addition to whatever else it is they do.

[hobgoblin]

tanks only really have a place in symmetrical fights, to break deadlocks (ww1 trenches). or at least thats my impression of it all.

as for maintenance, i dont think ever a tank have been much maintainable in the field beyond the tools to fix a broken thread or similar.

iirc the engine of most modern tanks are built so that they can be pulled out wholesale by a crane, and a similar, working, unit can be slipped back in.

and most likely the deal is the same with most major components. yank the cables, get the crane in, or haul it out by hand, get the replacement in, pop the cables back into place and get going.

this done by a service truck under cover of darkness or if the tank happens to end up on the correct side of the front lines.

same deal with a drone. if one get to banged up, dump it to the road side and call for a airdrop of a new one. if you can stuff 6 or so in a average transport copter resupply should never be more then a radio call away.

then there is desktop manufacturing. when one can make spare parts anywhere one can park two trucks, well...

[Cain]

• 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.

Basically, you're describing a Longshot test. Or an ordinary Critical Success.

[Cthulhudreams]

tanks only really have a place in symmetrical fights, to break deadlocks (ww1 trenches). or at least thats my impression of it all.

There is a school of thought and body of evidence that tanks don't really have a place in modern warfare - it is far to dangerous for them, as they can be easily taken out by far faster and more mobile weapon systems (ie jets and helicopters). However in asymmetrical warfare you have the biggest gun by far that anyone else can bring to the party, and that equals respect

As for maintaining them, tanks require a huge amount of work every day to keep the myriad of electrical systems and engineering running, and its a tricky task. Repairs are a different matter and require support staff, but some stuff just has to be done every day.

[hobgoblin]

heh, big guns are also more cumbersome to wield. stuff a couple or rpgs in the hands of the troops, send them into flanking positions of the tank and boom.

big guns dont do much if you cant deploy them in fear of hitting non-combatants for one thing. and another is restricted movement. tanks are built for open ground fights, not house to house like one see more and more after the main force have been taken apart in the fields outside.

[Fuchs]

There's still a need for tanks. Those faster and more mobile weapon systems are even more vulnerable to portable missile launchers, and require more maintenance. When used right (which means, with combined arms, not as some lone urban scout), tanks are very effective - you won't beat a force fielding tanks if you don't have tanks, all other things being equal.

Back in the 70s, people thought the tank was past its prime, with the new AT missiles and all. But then came new armor, and tanks are still in use.

[Cthulhudreams]

heh, big guns are also more cumbersome to wield. stuff a couple or rpgs in the hands of the troops, send them into flanking positions of the tank and boom.

big guns dont do much if you cant deploy them in fear of hitting non-combatants for one thing. and another is restricted movement. tanks are built for open ground fights, not house to house like one see more and more after the main force have been taken apart in the fields outside.

You know aside from one incident which seems to be the result of a cain style longshot test, an M1A2 is extremely hard to damage with RPG fire from all angles, including the roof? Hence the consternation of the US military in that incident were the tank did get taken out!

The isreali merkava was designed with much the same thing in mind.

ATGM of the sort which will blow huge holes in tanks from the flanks are expensive, big and complicated to operate, and not really found in the hands of insurgents or other asymmetrical people.

Tanks also helpfully let you bring a variety of other weapons platforms to the party, including grenade launchers and machine guns that can be fired remotely from inside the tank, which in light of the previous fact is a great place to be. They are an excellent weapons platform.

[Fuchs]

And it's easier to use a tank and avoid collateral damage than using artillery, jets or choppers.

[DocTaotsu]

From the people I've talked to tanks are still big bad friendlies in a fire fight. All the infantry men I know have an order of preference that goes like this:
1. Air Strikes/Artillery (The More the Merrier)
2. Armor
3. People with very large guns, plenty of spare barrels, and 200 spread loaded pounds of ammunition.

Effective or not tanks are a huge morale booster, APC's and the ilk are significantly increase mobility and heavy weapons options. Nothing says safety like a belted 50 cal and 120 mm HEP rounds.

I will admit that I don't know what the statistics on armor in asymetric warfare. My thinking is that modern reactive armor is pretty effective at turning aside anything but the most modern armor piercing rounds and that there are several proven ways to decrease the effectiveness of dumb RPG rounds (armor cages, that fancy new british system that fries the round as it makes contact). In general I'd have to agree with the Deep God's assement of tanking.

Now light armor, that's a different bag of awakened fish.

[Ed_209a]

Intrestingly, part of the reason that the US has never really gone in for autoloaders ... is that actual maintanence on a tank seriously takes like 4 guys - and with drones it takes even more.

'
as for maintenance, i dont think ever a tank have been much maintainable in the field beyond the tools to fix a broken thread or similar.

It does take 4 guys for the tank equivalent of keeping a rifle clean & oiled. For example if you don't clean enough of the mud out of the tracks, when the mud dries you could shed a track.

[Ed_209a]

As the tone of war shifts from NATO vs Warsaw Pact to low intensity actions, I wish Abrams tanks had more modular weaponry.

When there are no more tanks, switch to a more appropriate weapon. Trade out the high velocity 120mm, for something more like a artillery piece. Like the WW2 assault guns. A short barrel 155mm like the old Sheridan tank had might be more useful in a city. Perhaps even a heavy caliber autocannon, for more precise firepower.

[DocTaotsu]

You're right about the need for tank roles to change in low intensity conflicts. Especially in the context of Shadowrun. I still think that tanks will have a role though in the same way that police still use mounted police for patrols and particularly riot control. The psychological impact of several tons of reactive armor and death spewing doom bearing down on you is probably worth the price tag. Combine that with how effective tanks are against magical threats and you have a pretty good argument for a few main battle tanks rolling around in a corporate arsenal.

But I highly doubt corps or government maintain vast battalion of armor when cybered infantry can have so much utility for a fraction of the cost. The tanks they have are probably extremely hardy, maneuverable, and able to deal out ungodly amounts of damage.

To an earlier post: I'm not at all enamored at the Striker. It's too heavy to be fielded like the Bradley and it's too lightly armored to take the punishment of an Abrams. I agree that the trend is towards lighter troop carriers but l think those have a different role than a tank. Light armor is more about troop mobility and a firm and rapid base of fire. Tanks are about "OH GOD HERE IT COMES" effect on the enemy and their hard emplacements.

[jago668]

If you were able to pop a track could you not just turn a tank into a big oven? Just pile brush, furniture, etc around it and roast marshmellows until the crew came out?

[Naysayer]

If you were able to pop a track could you not just turn a tank into a big oven? Just pile brush, furniture, etc around it and roast marshmellows until the crew came out?

If the crew idly sits there and lets you approach and pile up heaps of crap around their tank instead of training all their primary and secondary (and tertiary?) guns on your devious ass, then yes, that would not be entirely outside the realm of possibility...

[hobgoblin]

heh, pop a track, turn said can into a very angry road block (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

but yes, i see i have underestimated the utility of it in the modern battlefield.

[jago668]

If the crew idly sits there and lets you approach and pile up heaps of crap around their tank instead of training all their primary and secondary (and tertiary?) guns on your devious ass, then yes, that would not be entirely outside the realm of possibility...

Well I figure they are going to try to stop you. Just that if the situation allowed for it, was curious if it would work. Better than taking out the track(s) and sitting on your thumb.

[Naysayer]

Well, IF they let you set fire to their ride, I'd wager that after a while, it would get quite uncomfortable in there, but I'd be interested what people who actually know about tanks say...

But all this talk of tracks got me wondering: weren't MBTs and the like supposed to be magical hardcore LAVs in Shadowrun? What ever happened to the GMC Banshee?!

[hobgoblin]

sadly the lav is more like a hind on steroids then a tank. rigger3 had it unable to hover for more then a couple of min's iirc...

[Fabe]

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?

Unless your new to Battletech I think you maybe forgetting about anti battlemech infantry, there rare but they do exist, plus rules wise mechs' actually get a penalty for trying to kick troops since they tend to scurry out of the way when BMs get too close. and then there is the battle amour.....

[jago668]

Unless your new to Battletech I think you maybe forgetting about anti battlemech infantry, there rare but they do exist, plus rules wise mechs' actually get a penalty for trying to kick troops since they tend to scurry out of the way when BMs get too close. and then there is the battle amour.....

Well you also run into the 33 foot tall thing is a very easy target to hit. It will be standing above general structures, as such it will be easy prey for artillery and airstrikes. I am certain that uses could be found for them, just that they would not be a universal fix for a battlefield. Now a much smaller exo-skeleton type of armor suit thing. That would probably be much more useful. Think more Starship Troopers (book not the movie).

[Particle_Beam]

Well you also run into the 33 foot tall thing is a very easy target to hit. It will be standing above general structures, as such it will be easy prey for artillery and airstrikes. I am certain that uses could be found for them, just that they would not be a universal fix for a battlefield. Now a much smaller exo-skeleton type of armor suit thing. That would probably be much more useful. Think more Starship Troopers (book not the movie).

I think Kingmaker only joked about the mech-warriors. Don't take it seriously.

[Cain]

Once again, everyone's forgetting that armor-defeating technology will have gotten better as well. In 2070, pistols can fire solid-cored Unobtanium AV rounds that can defeat reasonably heavy armor. That might not be enough to beliveably defeat a tank, but beliveability isn't one of a RPG's strong suits.

[Earlydawn]

There's still a need for tanks. Those faster and more mobile weapon systems are even more vulnerable to portable missile launchers, and require more maintenance. When used right (which means, with combined arms, not as some lone urban scout), tanks are very effective - you won't beat a force fielding tanks if you don't have tanks, all other things being equal.

See, I disagree with this. While advanced anti-tank weapons were a developing fear around the time that the build-up surrounding the Cold War began, tanks still had a purpose on the battlefield, because air power wasn't nearly at the level of advancement it is today. Now look at the First Gulf War. Iraq had a very large, very (regionally) advanced armor inventory, but they still got crushed.. by precision guided munitions, and aircraft engineered for the specific purpose of taking out tanks.

Now, also factor in a couple Sixth World realities. First of all, most major conflict would end up at an urban center - much like today - where the use of non-precision force is impractical; ironically, the same problem that has drastically reduced the effectiveness of artillery. Also, remember that for low costs (by military standards), you can implant regular infantry to be drastically more deadly, efficient, and survivable then their current equivalent. Finally, keep in mind that a small fraction of the population can learn hard-to-detect spells that are tailor made to either cripple or outright destroy vehicles. Contrast this against how effective, advanced and affordable drone aircraft are in 2070, and I think that spells their doom.

I think developed nations like Japan, the UCAS, and CAS would replace their tanks with lighter, more urban-friendly infantry support drone platforms, whereas third world nations would probably maintain their arsenals of older, largely ineffective tanks.

[kzt]

SR has simply not addressed ADA. If you have laser pistols you have ADA lasers. This is instant death to aircraft that are not hugely armored. (It's also instant death to personnel in LOS too...) Combined with high res optical sensors, passive radar systems and high res RDF it makes light air vehicles nearly useless on a real battlefield.

It's also becoming perfectly possible to destroy AT weapons in flight. The Trophy system is an early example.