 The Indestructable Leopard III, Call in the big guns... |
  |
 Feb 9 2005, 11:37 PM
Post
#176
|
|||||||||
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,129 Joined: 11-June 03 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 4,712  |
Well, having a bias against "magescum" might be tainting your reasoning power. |
||||||||
 |
 
|
||||||||
|
Feb 10 2005, 01:06 AM
Post
#177
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 586 Joined: 22-November 02 From: Gordonsville, Virginia, U.S.A. (or C.A.S.) Member No.: 3,630 |
Rock-Steady: I'm not certain, but I think that there were at least two films made in the early 1970s in which modified Soviet T-34s substituted for German Tiger Mark Is. The films were KELLY'S HEROES (1970), starring Clint Eastwood, Carroll O'Connor, Don Rickles, and Donald Sutherland, and THE BRIDGE AT NERETVA (Yugoslavian title--Bika na Neretvi) (1969), starring Yul Brynner, Curt Jurgens, Hardy Kruger, Franco Nero, and Orson Welles. Although KELLY'S HEROES was set in France after the D-Day invasion, both films were filmed in what was then the country of Yugoslavia. I found this on The Internet Movie Database, listed under "Trivia" about KELLY'S HEROES: The "Tiger" tanks used in the film were actually Russian T-34 tanks which had been specially modified to look like Tiger tanks. This is apparent when you look at the suspension of the tanks. (T-34s used a modified Christie suspension, whereas the Tigers' wheels were much more elaborate.) P.S.: Don't get too upset about missing that. I've seen the film about 5 or 6 times (in its entirety, that is :) ) over the years, and I never noticed the difference either. --Foreigner This post has been edited by Foreigner: Feb 11 2005, 04:41 PM |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 10 2005, 03:28 AM
Post
#178
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Ah yes... The Christie suspension. I should have noticed that.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 10 2005, 03:44 AM
Post
#179
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
One question I have about this tank, since I don't have the book: Does it have built in living amenities?
You see, when considering the question of "what would a GM do if his players got ahold of one of these things and holed up in it?", if said tank doesn't have an onboard head, sooner or later, someone in the tank will want to come out of the tank. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 10 2005, 04:07 AM
Post
#180
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Living amenities, no, life support it has 150 man-hours (so 50 hours with its full crew of 3).
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 10 2005, 04:15 AM
Post
#181
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
So, with no place to "drop the kids off at the pool" you're looking at how long the tank crew can put off the call of nature.
And the answer to that? It Depends[tm]. "Depends Undergarments" is a Registered Trademark of Kimberly-Clark Corporation |
|
|
|
|
Feb 10 2005, 04:30 AM
Post
#182
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Bottles. Good for beverages at both the beginning and end of the life-cycle.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Feb 10 2005, 07:35 AM
Post
#183
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
They better be wide-mouthed bottles. I'm not just talking about end-of-life-cycle beverages.
Besides, for that, in theory, all you'd have to do is crack the hatch just enough to let the stream exit. Sure you've compromised your enviroseal integrity for a minute or two, but when you gotta go, you gotta go. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 10 2005, 08:25 AM
Post
#184
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 226 Joined: 4-June 03 Member No.: 4,685 |
If any iraqians are reading this, till the end of week all american tanks will be wiped out :) Any defenses against flying toster attack in addition to slapping player with books? As for tank, someone called numbers that armor is like 10/5/2 So in example it would be 40/20/8, reflecting that with good antitank weapons they are vulnerable from certain positions. Of course silliness with sniper rifle/ penetrating any side of armor is also ruled out. Against such weapons full armor rating is used. Mm, all this sounds good and reasonable for me. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 10 2005, 11:28 AM
Post
#185
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 637 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,528 |
I never understood why the didn't go for more Panthers and simply used a Leopard I (like in "A bridge to far") or AMX-30 since both are "close relatives". But on explosives and tanks: The "spalling" effect (travelling shockwaves break up the armor on the inside and use the fragments to kill the crew) is basically a think of the past due to a combination of spaced (small hollow layer) and composite armor as well as kevlar inlays (spalling layer). So planting a batch of plastic on a tank and firing it off will rattle the crew and the crew will than make a rattling sound with the MG. That's why HESH is slowly going out of favour. Now if you use/make a hollow charge you get the "hot jet of molten material" from the classical HEAP round (it's not a real plasma jet). Wether it is sensible in a times of automatic defences (Zap Strips, Sentry-Guns) and "sensor only" tanks with surround vision/rigger controll and all to get close to a tank is another question. Even 1941 the mortality rate among "Panzer-Nahkämpfer" troops in the east was veery low... Birdy |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 10 2005, 11:32 AM
Post
#186
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 637 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,528 |
It is well described in the rules that spirits (and even more so elementals) have problems interacting with our modern world (no "Auras" etc) and that they need clear instructions. Add in that they are also quite "literally minded" Based on that (and the fact that I consider mages too powerful) I argue for a "US Marines" style of orders: Very short and single, clearly defined jobs only. Birdy |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Feb 11 2005, 05:28 AM
Post
#187
|
|||||||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,129 Joined: 11-June 03 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 4,712 |
Just to be sure, I re-read the Conjuring section (SR3, p. 184-189), the spirit section, and relevant information regarding other spirit types in MitS. Where does it say that they can't bamph in from the metaplanes if given the "clear instructions" (as you say, and I agree, are required) to do so? I don't share your opinion that mages are the end-all of character types to play. In the game I run, the drone rigger and samurai make more headlines than the three magickers do. But, it's your game and my point isn't to tell you what to do. I'm just exploring the possibility of this being a legal move and if it is, its a great way to take out something that is nigh impervious to any other type of attack. Nothing personal against your tastes. :) |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Feb 11 2005, 06:30 AM
Post
#188
|
|
|
UMS O.G. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 444 Joined: 18-May 04 Member No.: 6,335 |
OK, I read the whole damn post and didn't see anyone come up with the AV Mine. It is 12D AV and when a tank rolls over it, the chunky salsa effect takes over and allowing for a little slop, you end up with 27D AV. Mine goes off, hits tank, bounces off, hits ground, bounces off, hits tank......until enough force is generated to breach the barrier. Simple, ignores called shot insanity and easy to pull off and obtain.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 11 2005, 06:51 AM
Post
#189
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
And utterly nonsensical from a physical standpoint, but hey, that's life.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Feb 11 2005, 07:04 AM
Post
#190
|
|||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Won't work, the 27d is the staged number, not the base power. Base power only is used to determine whether hard armor is penetrated IIRC. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 11 2005, 07:22 AM
Post
#191
|
|
|
UMS O.G. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 444 Joined: 18-May 04 Member No.: 6,335 |
Yes its silly but the question was asked about how to kill a shadowrun tank. That was it.
Yes it will work, vehicle damage does not include the word "base". It says the weapon power. The only caveats are unaugmented from burst or full auto. This isn't. Example. Hunter A calls in fire support to shred an obnoxious tank. Said weapon does 50D AV. Weapon hits six thick walls on way to the tank reducing the power to 5D AV. Using your logic, since its a 50D AV weapon it would pierce the tank. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 11 2005, 09:18 AM
Post
#192
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 401 Joined: 7-June 02 From: Living with the straw sheep. Member No.: 2,850 |
Crimson Jack
I was reviewing MITS just last night (can't remember page reference, sorry): A magician can have a spirit appear on the astral or physical directly from its home metaplane, and so avoid a ward. There are two restrictions to this. First, it uses up a service. Second, and more importantly, the spirit can only appear in the same place as the mage (approximately...) - ie, you must already be inside the ward you want to circumvent. :( |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 11 2005, 11:29 AM
Post
#193
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
How'd you get 27D for the AV Mine? The ground clearance is about 0.5 meters, and the mine has to be dug in so the whole distance counts. Even if you ignore fractions (-0.5 Power for both "waves") and the fact that most spots you place mines on have sucky BRs, you get 24D (AV) -- 1 x 12D (AV) for the blast which goes straight up to the tank, 1 x 12D (AV) which is reflected off ground below the mine and then goes straight up to the tank. If your GM agrees with your interpretation of the blast reflection rules in this matter, at best you'd make the Leo 3 resist 4D.
I absolutely wouldn't allow this. Explosives are Anti-Vehicular because they are shaped to concentrate the force of the detonation at a particular spot. "Reflection" of the pressure wave would have very little to no effect on the penetration ability of such a weapon. This'd make about as much sense as ramming it with very fast RC cars. This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Feb 11 2005, 11:30 AM |
|
|
|
|
Feb 11 2005, 11:35 AM
Post
#194
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
Besides wouldn't the barrier rating of the ground be less then the tank thus you blow a big hole in the ground instead?
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 11 2005, 04:51 PM
Post
#195
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 586 Joined: 22-November 02 From: Gordonsville, Virginia, U.S.A. (or C.A.S.) Member No.: 3,630 |
Here's a thought, folks:
And, please, no flames; at least, not yet. :P I haven't looked it up yet (it quite literally just occurred to me :) ), so I'm not certain that it'd work. How about a two-pronged assault with Elemental Spells? That is, a high-force Fireball or Hellblast spell, followed immediately by a cold-based spell of equal or greater force. I realize that modern composite armor isn't quite as sensitive to such things as Rolled Homogeneous Armor (i.e., steel alloys), but I would think that, even if such an attack didn't crack the hull like an eggshell, it would at least weaken it--especially if it were a localized spell, targeted at a specific area. Assuming it works as intended, I believe that, even if it didn't immobilize the vehicle, it would create a weak spot in the armor that would be more vulnerable to attack with conventional weaponry. --Foreigner |
|
|
|
|
Feb 11 2005, 04:58 PM
Post
#196
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Foreinger, the problem being, you need both spells at or above force (41? was it?) to affect the tank in the least.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 11 2005, 05:16 PM
Post
#197
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 586 Joined: 22-November 02 From: Gordonsville, Virginia, U.S.A. (or C.A.S.) Member No.: 3,630 |
Tarantula:
Gotcha. I'd forgotten about that part. My bad. :( What about trying it with chemicals rather than magic? Or would the end result be the same? --Foreigner |
|
|
|
|
Feb 11 2005, 05:25 PM
Post
#198
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i don't think there are any chemicals out there that could melt a hole in tank army in a timely fashion. that'd be something you'd want to do ahead of time--sneak into the enemy base, paint the chemical on the tanks, and escape undetected. then, when the battle comes, the enemy finds that his tanks have only half their usual armor.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 11 2005, 05:31 PM
Post
#199
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Of course, halving their armor really only opens them up to possibly taking some damage from such weapons as a great dragon ATGM.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 11 2005, 05:31 PM
Post
#200
|
|||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Ah, no. Because in that case the 50 never hot the tank. a 5 did. That makes the base power of the attack that hit the tank a 5. Please, please do not presume to tell me what "my logic" is, when you obviously don't have a solid grasp on it. I'll quote the book when I get home if someone hasn't done it by then.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 7th January 2025 - 03:25 AM |
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.