IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Tank Busting, How to do it on a budget
weblife
post Apr 13 2005, 10:10 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 437
Joined: 11-April 05
Member No.: 7,318



Its quite easy really. Using nothing but the SR3 rulebook.

If you toss a grenade at someone, it goes off at the end of the round. - Too inaccurate unless the vehicle is immobile.

Best solution is an underslung grenadelauncher on a shotgun or other rifletype. Fit it with a rangefinder and smartlink. Now it detonates in the air, where you aim it.

Now, aim BELOW the vehicle, the grenade must explode UNDER the vehicle.

The grenade Power will now reflect off the ground and the bottom of the vehicle, until the Power is high enough to either rip the vehicle or flip it away from the blast. (Or plow a hole in the ground, if there is a cavity below).

Setting distance between ground and vehicle to half a meter, the Power will be:

10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1 = 55S, modded to vehicle damage, its 22M - Enough to damage a tank.

Where I play, we have a houserule that means that the secondary waves also get a seperate damage check, so the grenade also does:

9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1 = 45S

8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1 = 37S

...30S, 24S, 19S, 15S, 12S, 10S

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2005, 10:22 AM
Post #2


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Try this.

A sane GM will, of course, just laugh at you if you try that, but the rules certainly do allow for it. An insane but rules-lawyery GM might well rule (and would definitely be justified by the rules in doing so) that the rebounding stops the moment the armor is breached, and thus all you'll ever really get out of this is a 2M attack.

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Apr 13 2005, 10:32 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
weblife
post Apr 13 2005, 10:33 AM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 437
Joined: 11-April 05
Member No.: 7,318



Hehe, its the same mechanic, and its even sort of realistic.

However.. That box.. Who is holding it? - Its gonna have the worst sort of recoil imaginable.

The power going out the front will also kick the entire box backwards.

I've been trying to figure out how to blow doorlock using a pressureplace over the explosive charge, but I've not found a way to affix my plate firmly enough to beat the barrier of the target.

Well, I suppose drilling holes would do it, and then use screws into the plate and door. As long as the plate and screws are minimum of the same hardness as the target, they should both give in at the same time.

Drilling holes is just not feasible when in a hurry. How to slap-attach a bomb and enhancing casing firmly enough to break barriers?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2005, 10:34 AM
Post #4


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (weblife)
[...] its even sort of realistic.

No. It's definitely not that. It's freaky and strange and funny in a sick way, but it is not realistic. To be that, it'd have to provide only a minor edge in penetration, and even that only over very short distances and never with shaped charges.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Grifter
post Apr 13 2005, 01:02 PM
Post #5


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 478
Joined: 18-December 03
From: Louisville, KY
Member No.: 5,918



Let me lend my tanker knowledge and combat experience here. In OIF, we had muliple mines, grenades, and RPG's go off under our tank, and the worse we ever suffered was getting some track links blown off. A grenade will NOT kill a tank from underneath.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edward
post Apr 13 2005, 01:37 PM
Post #6


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,073
Joined: 23-August 04
Member No.: 6,587



I believe the way the SR rules work throws a slight kink in the plan.

When you have your modified grenade damage of 55S you roll half the power in dice, target 4 to stage up the damage. That is 27 dice to stage up averaging 13 successes making 55D+5 or 27D+4 against vehicle armour

When interacting with vehicles you could instead take the vehicle code of 27M and role 13 dice target 4 giving 6 successes and a damage code of 27D+1 against vehicle armour.

The main battle tanks in SOTA63 will survive but nothing else will.

As to slap on dor busters they should be doable. I have seed footage of blasting cord in contact with steal plate and blasting cord between steal plate and a centimetre of water, the former made a minor dent, the later shredded the mettle.

I believe a package consisting of an adhesive pad, a small amount of C12 and a gel pad about 2CM thick would be able to open any door not designed specifically to withstand explosives. The package would way at most 500 grams

Edward
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2005, 01:51 PM
Post #7


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



The Grifter: Looking back, I think I wasn't emphatic enough at first. I'd say I absolutely, 100% degree that a (hand) grenade beneath a tank won't penetrate the bottom armor, except that it's so obvious it shouldn't need any agreeing. You want to inflict critical damage to an MBT with anything less than a 1kg shaped charge, you'll have to get the explosive inside the tank.

Edward: Like I said, the rules could just as well be read so that the moment you do damage through vehicle armor the "barrier" is breached and thus the damage stops accumulating. So even if you use the optional rules you mentioned (and I suggest everyone does), you're basically going to end up with something like 2S or 2D.

QUOTE (Edward)
[...] blasting cord between steal plate and a centimetre of water [...]

How thick was the steel plate, exactly? 1mm? 2mm? How much detcord was there, and what was the water in?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edward
post Apr 13 2005, 02:34 PM
Post #8


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,073
Joined: 23-August 04
Member No.: 6,587



But if your have shredded the tanks lower armour have you not already delivered a deadly wound to the tank with the bits of armour going threw critical electrical and fuel systems.

If not why only power 2 and not the grenades base power.

As to the experiment. It was difficult to see the exact thickness of the plate, probably 2-3mm thick and 50cm square defiantly more solid than any door I have ever seen (excluding the bank vault).

the detcord was a single length of about 30cm in a strait line

the water was in a thin plastic tube and sticky taped over the detcord

Edward
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2005, 03:06 PM
Post #9


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Edward)
But if your have shredded the tanks lower armour have you not already delivered a deadly wound to the tank with the bits of armour going threw critical electrical and fuel systems.

Yes, if you manage to shred the bottom armor plate of an MBT with an explosion, you have probably disabled it. With what kind of weapon, exactly, did you plan to manage this? IRL, to actually shred the bottom plate, you're talking about hundreds of kilograms of high explosives under the tank. For just punching a small hole in the bottom armor, a HEAT warhead weighing a few pounds should do the trick -- but that sort of thing by no means guarantees that you actually knock out the tank, and you'd have to get the warhead to be directed straight to the floor plate from underneath.

QUOTE (Edward)
If not why only power 2 and not the grenades base power.

Because the rule in question states that the blast rebounds only if the wall/barrier holds. Once you manage to penetrate the vehicle armor and do damage to the vehicle, the barrier no longer holds (obviously) -- thus the first rebound which raises the Power high enough for the explosion to damage the vehicle is the last rebound which is taken into account.

With a small (low Power) explosive against a high Armor rating, the last rebound is unlikely to exceed the Armor by more than a few points. Thus the effective Power after Armor is most likely 2.

QUOTE (Edward)
It was difficult to see the exact thickness of the plate, probably 2-3mm thick and 50cm square defiantly more solid than any door I have ever seen (excluding the bank vault).

If it was really 3mm thick then I must say I am really surprised. I've blown up my fair share of detcord, and I personally wouldn't use that on anything metallic that's more than 1mm thick. Without backing material, you have to have quite a lot of it (10+ meters) to reliably blow a large hole in a light wooden door.

Still, I'm well aware that you can achieve amazing things with very small amounts of explosives when properly directed. And, as always, if you've got linkage to movies where shit blows up, I'm interested.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edward
post Apr 13 2005, 03:44 PM
Post #10


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,073
Joined: 23-August 04
Member No.: 6,587



If you look at the SR rules for damage to barriers the grenade would shred the bottom armour. Iím not saying its realistic but that is what the system shows.

As to the detcord you mention
QUOTE ( Austere Emancipator)
I personally wouldn't use that on anything metallic that's more than 1mm thick. WITHOUT BACKING MATERIAL,

Emphasis mine

What form dose backing material normally take and how much dose it help the explosives.

I suspect that that was what the water in eth plastic tube did, the point of the experiment was to demonstrate increased explosive damage under water witch is the only reason that is what they where using. By giving the explosive something to push against in the other direction (if only briefly) a far greater amount of force is exerted on the target object.

the problem is that SR has no rules at all for backing materials or shaped charges to punch threw barriers such as walls and doors. You would think that the use of such tequniques would be the demolitions skill but that only adds a few points to the power, not the huge increases you actually see from eth use of these tequniques over just putting a lump of explosive on the door.

Edward
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lorthazar
post Apr 13 2005, 03:53 PM
Post #11


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 485
Joined: 25-October 04
Member No.: 6,789



Tank busting for cheap LOX and anything. You just need enough LOX.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2005, 05:16 PM
Post #12


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Edward)
If you look at the SR rules for damage to barriers the grenade would shred the bottom armour. Iím not saying its realistic but that is what the system shows.

Well, yeah, the rules when taken at face value do seem to make it possible to penetrate nearly any thickness of armor by this method. What I was really getting at, though, is that: 1) In SR, the rules if applied exactly by the letter would only let you count up that rebound which finally allows you to do some damage to the vehicle -- and when using a grenade against a heavily armored vehicle, this will tend to produce attacks with an effective Damage Code of ~2S-2D through the armor. 2) In RL, this just wouldn't happen, period. Thus whether shredding armor would knock out a tank doesn't really matter.

As for the backing material, I just meant anything that might redirect most of the blast at the actual target (in this case the wooden door). We were taught how to breach wooden doors by taking a large, stiff piece of cardboard, such as the Finnish DF standard rifle target, and coiling about 10 meters of detcord on one side. Cheap, very accessible, easy to make, very light, and it can be quickly attached to a door with tape, blowing a nice big hole in it while putting unprotected personnel more than a meter away from the blast at negligible risk.

If you wanted to blow a hole in a metal door large enough for a person to go through, I suggest you use cutting charges. You can get shaped charge "rods" that can be quickly attached to any surface and can cut through more than an inch of steel. Of course, this would still make blasting your way through a door quite useless for shadowrunners, since you probably don't want to be carrying a few pounds of rather bulky explosives per door on a run.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Grifter
post Apr 13 2005, 05:28 PM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 478
Joined: 18-December 03
From: Louisville, KY
Member No.: 5,918



As a side note, the Iraqi's would use Cold War era SABOT or HEAT rounds taken from the Soviets, and would place them beneath the surface to act as a limited AV mine, though it required wiring and a man to ignite the charges. Still, reasonably effective gainst the Bradley's and such. Not so much our M1A1s.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2005, 05:36 PM
Post #14


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (The Grifter)
As a side note, the Iraqi's would use Cold War era SABOT or HEAT rounds taken from the Soviets, and would place them beneath the surface to act as a limited AV mine, though it required wiring and a man to ignite the charges.

(Emphasis mine.) Seriously, they used APDS cannon rounds as IEDs? Wow, they're a lot stupider than I thought.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Grifter
post Apr 13 2005, 05:39 PM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 478
Joined: 18-December 03
From: Louisville, KY
Member No.: 5,918



Yeah, I shit you negative. Engineers must have pulled a hundred of those things outta the ground. I don't think they used the Sabots for dedicated tank killing, more for personell or mobility kills against soft skin vehicles. The round really couldn't reach enough velocity from that short of a distance to penetrate tank armor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2005, 05:41 PM
Post #16


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Without a barrel, I'd be surprised if the projectile itself would reach enough of a velocity to penetrate an up-armored HMMWV at 5 meters. I'd think the propelling charge would be doing more damage at that point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ES_Riddle
post Apr 13 2005, 05:54 PM
Post #17


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 8-October 04
Member No.: 6,736



I think there is a rule-based answer to disable the ridiculousness of an antipersonel grenade destroying a tank. Correct me if I'm wrong (I seem to have misplaced my SR3), but from a strict reading of the rules, blasts only reflect off barriers. A tank is not a barrier, but rather a vehicle. It has a vehicular armor rating rather than a barrier rating, so it won't reflect the blast. If you had a grenade go off between two runners, you wouldn't expect shrapnel to reflect back and forth between them until they are reduced to chunky salsa, so why should tank armor be different?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Grifter
post Apr 13 2005, 05:58 PM
Post #18


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 478
Joined: 18-December 03
From: Louisville, KY
Member No.: 5,918



Good point, Riddle.

AE-I agree with you theoretically, but I have seen some Hummers get jacked up from them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 13 2005, 06:03 PM
Post #19


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Yes, you can also read the rule like that. The section in question only mentions to "barriers" (though with a lower-case b, so it's not that obvious), and refers to the Blasts against Barriers section.

I forgot to mention that SR3 does, sort of, have rules for directing explosives, in the form of the Demolitions check for normal (instead of double) BR and +1 Power/success against TN 2. This is hardly sufficient, however, since plus 3-6 Power is insignificant when dealing with large amounts of powerful explosives.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cain
post Apr 13 2005, 11:25 PM
Post #20


Grand Master of Run-Fu
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,840
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Tir Tairngire
Member No.: 178



Don't forget, vehicle armor goes against the *base* rating of the attack. So the rebound value may not do anything to the tank.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sandoval Smith
post Apr 14 2005, 12:40 AM
Post #21


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,144
Joined: 22-September 04
Member No.: 6,690



Just out of curiosity, what is the general barrier rating of ground surfaces? I would expect that dirt, concrete, or asphalt would break well before the tank would.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edward
post Apr 14 2005, 01:09 AM
Post #22


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,073
Joined: 23-August 04
Member No.: 6,587



There is somewhere a listing of barrier ratings for vehicles to facilitate gaining entry to a vehicle rather than its simple destruction.

@ Austere Emancipator

thank you for that description of backing materials. It dose seem that a modest package including a high density jell backing, a modest quantity of explosives and a adhesive would be producible but I think the best way to blow open a door in SR is still to choose a shotgun as your primary weapon and carry a case of shock lock rounds. Especially fun if you cast stealth on the gun and the door before firing.

Edward
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tarantula
post Apr 14 2005, 01:28 AM
Post #23


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,664
Joined: 21-September 04
From: Arvada, CO
Member No.: 6,686



I think sidewalk concrete is listed at a barrier rating 10.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jari_Kafghan
post Apr 14 2005, 03:08 AM
Post #24


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,703



If sidewalk is 10, then asphalt is no more then 6 and "dirt" could be anything from 1 (topsoil) to 20(this odd stuff I run into once in a while that isn't quite rock but its close)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 14 2005, 07:50 AM
Post #25


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



If you assume that the blast will still rebound off the vehicle, but that dirt has a BR of something like 1-5, then a single "Offensive" hand grenade under an MBT could produce a hole in the ground several meters deep. Although that's no more insane than having a hand grenade knock out said MBT.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st May 2023 - 10:34 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.