 Anti-Vehicle weapons, Does dikote count? |
  |
 Jan 17 2005, 09:42 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 8-November 04 Member No.: 6,817  |
Wether Melee weapons could punch through veichle amror or not depends mostly on the weapon. Remember than many of these weapons were originally desinged to punch through plate mail armor.
Rapiers are right out IMO. While very efficient in concentrating the force of a blow at a very small point it would probably bend if you tried to punch through anything really toguh, it was not used to penetrate rennisance armor, and most veichle armor would escape with a scratch. Other weapons might do it though. A halberd wielded by a reasonably strong person should have no problem wrecking your regular car. A troll with a dikoted halberd and muscle-replacement would wreck most non-military veichles. This scenario can easily be recreated within the rules, without making dikoted halberd AV. Halberds are however among the weapons that would be best suited for this purpose. Pole-axes, picks, and even two-handed swords might also do the trick. A guy who makes real hand-machine forged sword replicas demonstrated the quality of his swords by putting the hood(I don't know techincal car-terms in English. I'm talking about the big plate that covers the engine area of a car) of a regular sedan on high-end and cleaving halfway through it with a single stroke. Wich ought to prove that melee weapons can damage vechles. If any one wanted to make a real AV melee-weapon you should make some sort of pole-pickaxe, getting lots of leverage and focusing the power in a small point. The head should be made out of the above mentioned Tungsten, or a core of tungsten covered with a more durable surface, with a long point, enabling it to puncture through armor and into the vital parts of a veichle. Finish it off with a monomolecular point, dikoted surface, cutting lasers (like the crescent axe) or anything you fancy and you've got yourself a weapon that'd cut through any unarmoured veichle without problem. And probably some military veichles as well provided a Troll was doing the wrecking. Or you could of course make some sort of high-powered, dikoted chainsaw from hell. So in short. Current rules picture veichles vs. melee weapons accurately enough for a simplified rpg. AV melee wepaons could indeed be made, but simply dikoting your spurs won't do the trick. |
 |
 
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 01:28 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 37 Joined: 24-October 03 From: Australia Member No.: 5,758 |
Aside from cutting the door pannel of a parked car why would you want an AV melee weapon? Try hitting a car doing 80kph and the sheer force would damd near tear your arm off, not to mention if the blade got caught and you went for a drag.....
Melee against an armoured vehicle? Lets assume that it has guns then... BIG guns.... Van lead to some cool role playing situations, but in the case were you manage to get that close to a vehicle just jam a shaped charge up its wang. Welcome to the world of Sillyrun... |
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 02:30 AM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,144 Joined: 22-September 04 Member No.: 6,690 |
Cleaving through a hood (or bonnet or whatever you want to refer to it as) is not that impressive a feat. It's a thin piece of metal. Smacking a stationary, unarmored vehicle with something big and heavy could hurt it, but armor is another story all together.
My whole spiel about attacking vehicles moving at high speeds would be rather redundant now. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 02:41 AM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 17-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Tx USA Member No.: 6,996 |
It might be useful to know what type of can opener to use for attempting to get a fellow runner out of the back of an overturned Lonestar armored transport where the lock has been frazzled. Demolitions and high explosives could be dangerous to your teammate in such a situation. Cutting torches or laser weapons, on the other hand, may be a bit more beneficial.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 03:21 AM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 18-January 05 Member No.: 6,997 |
Yeah Lasers are pretty anti-vehicular provided that it isn't a completely mirrored vehicle.
DPU does work wonders against vehicle but sometime that is a bit excessive. I for the most part use electricity against vehicles because it isn't considered normal damage. Infact if a rigger is driving the vehicle then it can make for a very interesting situation especially when they realize that they have been kicked out of their beloved vehicle by a little electricity then of course there is also dumpshock to worry about which almost always owns the rigger. Electricity can also overload sensors and cause alot of what once was working properly to screw up and go haywire. =) |
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 03:26 AM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Lasers are not considered anti-vehicular as a weapon. As a tool, they are compared to Barrier rating.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 03:36 AM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 18-January 05 Member No.: 6,997 |
It doesn't say anything against them not being anti-vehicular. It may go of barrier but the rules for barrier rating seem kind of crappy in the first place. I have seen an ares firelance cut straight through a nissan patroller 2 like a hot knife throught butter.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 03:46 AM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Um, I'm pretty sure it does say that it specifically states lasers are not anti-vehicle under the Firelance entry in R3. The Firelance will still do something like 7M against vehicles, so it's not exactly useless against them.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 18 2005, 03:50 AM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 17-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Tx USA Member No.: 6,996 |
Firelance is A/V. MP Laser & MP Laser III are non-A/V. errr... in my out-of-print copy of Fields of Fire anyhoo. I don't have Rigger3 tho' so I'll shut my hole. :D
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 03:51 AM
Post
#35
|
|||||
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
No problems. Lots of little changes were made between SR2 and 3, so just make sure you say "...in SR2..." since the assumption is you're referencing SR3. I have no idea what will happen when SR4 arrives, but nine years into it, a new edition tends to become default. :) This post has been edited by Kanada Ten: Jan 18 2005, 04:05 AM |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 18 2005, 03:53 AM
Post
#36
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
I have a better one. "The Firelance is not an anti-vehicle weapon, and so is subject to the damage reduction rule for vehicles." R3R, pg 88. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 18 2005, 05:04 AM
Post
#37
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Plate mail, which is at best 1.3-1.5 millimeters thick (16 gauge plate). Plate mail, which any ole handgun will penetrate completely through. Plate mail, of which a HMG firing APDS ammunition can penetrate 10 in a straight line. Plate mail is nothing compared to what a vehicle Armor of, say, rating 10 represents, let alone rating 20. The Ferrari Appaloosa Light Scout wheeled APC has an Armor rating of 9, while similar vehicles IRL have around 10mm of RHS-equivalent armor plating. The LAV-103 Striker Light Tank has an Armor rating of 15; the actual thickness and composition of armor of equivalent RL vehicles are mostly classified, but it's a good guess the M2A3 Bradley has around 25-30mm of spaced armor steel plating with a spall liner. If you get me a video of a sword or a polearm being rammed through a 10mm-thick armor-gradek steel plate with sufficient penetration to cause critical damage to the (very large) vehicle behind it, I'll take this whole thing seriously. That would prove that melee weapons could conceivably be about as effective against vehicles as they already are in Shadowrun, where a strong guy with an average katana and a good skill can wreck a wheeled APC without too much trouble.
Quite a bit ~= 1-1.5mm. Try that with 10mm of armor-grade steel, and at best you'll manage to scratch the surface and fuck up your blade. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 18 2005, 05:06 AM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Not to mention that most SR vehicle armor is ceramic...
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 05:10 AM
Post
#39
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
A thread on just that subject. Orichalcum still isn't required, though, just makes enchanting easier.
True, that and several other technology advances in the field would increase the effective protection of such vehicles by quite a bit -- compare the armor protection on a PzKpfw Tiger and an M1A2 Abrams, for example. This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Jan 18 2005, 05:14 AM |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 18 2005, 05:40 AM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
No, its both ceramic and steel. "Standard vehicle armor consists of hardened ceramic and metallic panels that protect both vehicle and passengers from attacks." R3R pg 131. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 18 2005, 06:16 AM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Whoever wrote that section was smart enough not to say anything specific about the nature of those ceramic or metallic materials.
For an example of the difference 60 years of technology can make: PzKpfw VI Tiger I Ausf E Weight: 57,000kg Armor Type: Electrowelded rolled homogenous nickel-steel armor, best quality of its time Front Turret Armor (Rolled Homogenous Armor equivalent): 100mm, 120mm on gun mantlet Front Hull Armor (RHAe): 100mm Leopard 2A6: Weight: 62,000kg Armor Type: Third generation composite armor with spaced armor steel plating and spall liner (for specifics, your guess is as good as mine) Front Turret Armor (RHAe): 920-940mm vs kinetic energy, 1,730-1,960mm vs chemical energy Front Hull Armor (RHAe): 620mm vs kinetic energy, 750mm vs chemical energy |
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 06:31 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 190 Joined: 24-October 04 Member No.: 6,787 |
Cutting through metal armor is easy. Just get yourself a plasma cutter. Modern day fabrication equipment, which I have used to blast holes in 1-inch steel fast. Mind you, the equipment isn't small, and you need a high voltage line. A wall socket will NOT cut it with one.
Ceramic might be a problem, but even that would melt or delaminate if you applied enough heat. As a teacher at my high school stated: "I have access to dynamite and oxy-acetylene. There is nowhere I couldn’t go if I planned it." |
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 06:43 PM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675 |
Composite, as it applies to structures from large to small, basically means that two (or more) different materials are interlocked sufficiently that they share load through a mechanism that acts perpendicular to the direction of applied force, and thereby forcing the two different materials (that don't want to act the same) to act the same with regard to deflection, etc. Spalling is the falling-off of material. When considereing concrete structures it is the surface concrete flaking off of a beam when it is loaded. Sometimes you can see it on a concrete bridge in a harsh environment (the rusty steel showing through the sides). With regard to armor I suppose spalling would be analagous to the delamination of the ceramic interlayers from the steel at the time of impact. This mechanism would serve as an energy absorber through the yielding of the metal, the breaking of the mechanism that connects the ceramic and metal, and pulverization of the ceramic (Spalling). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 18 2005, 06:45 PM
Post
#44
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675 |
Composite, as it applies to structures from large to small, basically means that two (or more) different materials are interlocked sufficiently that they share load through a mechanism that acts perpendicular to the direction of applied force, and thereby forcing the two different materials (that don't want to act the same) to act the same with regard to deflection, etc. Spalling is the falling-off of material. When considering concrete structures it is the surface concrete flaking off of a beam when it is loaded. Sometimes you can see it on a concrete bridge in a harsh environment (the rusty steel showing through the sides). With regard to armor I suppose spalling would be analogous to the delamination of the ceramic interlayers from the steel at the time of impact. This mechanism would serve as an energy absorber through the yielding of the metal, the breaking of the mechanism that connects the ceramic and metal, and pulverization of the ceramic (Spalling). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 18 2005, 06:52 PM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
prevention of spalling is important. when your material is spalling in reaction to absorption of kinetic energy, the spalled fragments are usually flung away from the material at high speeds--shrapnel, basically.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 06:55 PM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675 |
But usually the ceramic is an interlayer and the kinetic energy of a small piece of ceramic (designed to pebble, not chunk I would hope) not moving in the same line of incidence would be much lower. And the ceramic is not the innermost layer, there could be a steel innermost layer. Also, you could use a high strength welded wire fabric to reinforce the ceramic so that when it spalls most is still contained and active as load bearing structure.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 06:56 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 07:48 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Spall liners are bad. They killed HESH weapons, which were cool :(
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 08:09 PM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,453 Joined: 17-September 04 From: St. Paul Member No.: 6,675 |
HESH???
High Explosive S H ??? |
|
|
|
|
Jan 18 2005, 08:18 PM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Squash Head.
They splatted against tank armor or pillboxes and did little damage to the outside, but made it spall like crazy inside, shredding the personnel. ~J |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 2nd January 2025 - 04:14 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.