Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Small Arms Vs. Tank - Any Chance At All?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
nezumi
Assume you have the Jesus Christ of firearms, the guy who, in Shadowrun terms, throws a million die and has a -200 to all TNs. Using only small arms, does he have any chance (trivial or otherwise) of disabling a tank? I understand that it is effectively impossible, that 'one in a million chance' is optimistic, I'm simply wondering if there's a one in a billion chance, or if it simply, absolutely, physically impossible.
Ravor
In Fourth Edition is depends on your view of how longshot tests and called shots to bypass armor work. cyber.gif
Jhaiisiin
My answer would be no, you can't harm the tank with a simple pistol. These things are made to shrug off fully automatic MMG fire. A pistol just won't have the punch needed to put a hole in it, let alone disable anything.
ShadowDragon8685
I would say that the answer depends on several factors. What, exactly, are you talking about when you say "small arms"?

No pistol, not even a Ruger Warhawk, should really stand a chance. Maybe a heavy pistol, a magnum pistol, with a really terrific ammunition type, might stand a chance. But don't bet on it.

Now, if the Jesus Christ of Firearms is using something a lot heavier - a full battle rifle, even a heavy rifle firing a round that one would use to kill awakened, armored elephants, then yes, especially if he's got some really terrific ammo. He could make called shots to disable sensors, or pot one into the engine compartment for a mobility kill. But it will NOT be easy.
Nikoli
However, you could damage exposed sensors, antennae, lamps, strapped on equipment.
Wounded Ronin
It effectively depends on what type of game is being run. The tank versus pistol issue is sufficiently extreme that nobody would let the pistol killing the tank fly unless they wanted to. In other words, it would only work if the GM and the players wanted to run a Golgo 13 style campaign.
Velocity219e
my gut response is no, not a chance in hell against a perfectly functioning MBT, Light tank or APC

I guess theoretically you could fire so much ammunition that you immobilise it in spent brass wink.gif but I bet you are all using that faffy caseless stuff biggrin.gif

my immediate thought was you'd have to get TO the tank in question and do something horrid like jamming gunports or a bowling ball and some epoxy down the main gun smile.gif which would neuter it as opposed to destroying or removing it entirely from play, but it might get the crew to come out >:)


Saying that I recall as a counterpoint to that, a friend of mine who was tank crew in the UK army saying while they were on tour in saudi / afghanistan / iraq that they had some guy with a gun climb on top of their vehicle and they couldn't get him off, so they put a satchel charge into the main gun and fired it with a shell, which pretty much just engulfs the tank in a honkin great big ball of fire apparently (they did get in trouble for screwing up the interior of the gun tube / outside of the vehicle however)

This may or may not be true, but it is what I was told by a serving tank crew.
hobgoblin
i suspect that the question really is what one expect. sure, there is no way that one will see a single shot from a handgun and then have the tank blow up in spectacular fashion.

but i recall some story about a soldier killing a russian tank driver during ww2 by aiming for the view port.

but in SR those will either be bullet resistant glass, AR or even rigger immersion so...
kzt
Viewing systems are periscopes, so no actual path. And in SR they would be mostly sensors.
Snow_Fox
Right, in WW2 you could fire an SMG through the driver's port-think of Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan when he took out the Tiger Tank. By the 1960's there was a thick level of plexiglass over the slits and today it is periscopes.

All I can think about is maybe something that disables the tracks so the tank can't roll. Breaking some small moving part so it can't move anymore, but against the armor plate? nope. not a chance.
mfb
i'm with Snow Fox. i'm not a tank expert, so i couldn't say for sure, but it seems like maybe a few perfectly-placed shots might be able to break a tank's treads. now, as i understand it, that's not going to 100% immobilize a tank in every terrain; it may still be able to crawl around on its road wheels if the terrain is flat enough and firm enough. and even if it can't, the tank can still blast just about everything it can see--you'll have to avoid the hell out of it.

the other option i can think of is pretty cartoonish. if you're looking straight down the barrel of the main gun, it seems like maybe you could listen for the sound of the breech being opened to load a new round and fire a shot straight in. a round bouncing around in the autoloader machinery might do... something, i dunno. if it's a tracer round, maybe the WP will burn something badly enough to knock it out of commission, or even set off one of the rounds?

in SR3, if i allowed such shots at all, i'd be houseruling the hell out of the called shot rules. at a minimum, i'd be stacking called shots--you'd be looking at a +4 TN to avoid armor, plus another +4 TN for special effect, and maybe even an additional +4 TN to hit a specific location. in SR4, i wouldn't allow such shots at all, because it's too easy for someone to stack on enough mods to make just about anything possible. or just use a longshot, if it comes down to it.

for really good infantry-on-tank action, y'all should really check out the movie The Beast of War. it's about a group of Mujahadeen fighters taking on a lone tank in Afghanistan during the 80s Soviet invasion.
ShadowDragon8685
I am reasonably certain that's the entire reason Longshot rolls exist.
mfb
and i'm reasonably certain that it gives the GM the option of saying "no, you can't use a longshot in this situation." i don't particularly like the fact that the rules require that much GM adjudication, but since they do, i'd certainly use it.
Cain
I think Ravor's got it. By a strict interpretation of the RAW, you can make the shot and expect it to work.

Mfb: Correct me on this, but I don't think there's any restriction on Longshot tests. There is an "impossibility limit" on burning Edge for auto-crits, but that's different.
mfb
not specifically for longshot tests, but there is the section in The Abstract Nature of Rules that says to ignore the rules when they don't make sense.

i'm not sure this is the place for that discussion anyway. suffice to say that if i were running an SR4 game, i would be pretty liberal with my GM fiat--whether the rules back me up or not.
hobgoblin
hmm, i wonder how far some in here would push that one...
kzt
QUOTE (mfb @ Feb 3 2008, 11:46 AM) *
the other option i can think of is pretty cartoonish. if you're looking straight down the barrel of the main gun, it seems like maybe you could listen for the sound of the breech being opened to load a new round and fire a shot straight in. a round bouncing around in the autoloader machinery might do... something, i dunno. if it's a tracer round, maybe the WP will burn something badly enough to knock it out of commission, or even set off one of the rounds?


The coax machine gun is called that because it is coaxial with the main gun. So as you try to shoot down the barrel the gunner pushes the coax switch and shoots you 50 times in the head and chest.
mfb
hey, i said it was cartoonish, i didn't say it was smart.
Cain
It also makes for one hell of a cinematic Longshot test.
mfb
indeed.
nezumi
I should have been more specific. I didn't mean if it's possible using Shadowrun mechanics, but rather whether it's possible IRL. mfb's idea is precisely what I was wondering about. My initial thought was, of course! For instance, you can keep shooting out periscopes and sensors until the tank is blind (at which point it's basically disabled until it gets another spotter, which JC of guns can then shoot out in turn). Or maybe like Snow Fox' idea, you can shoot out the treads. But as I thought about it, I wasn't so sure if that really would be possible. I mean, I'm sure they have redundant systems for their periscopes, and I have no idea if you could shoot out some part of a tread so it would stop working. I just don't have the background in military hardware to take a stance either way.

It sounds like if our super-crazy good guy were super-crazy enough, he could step out on the field and have at least A chance (as infinitesimally small as it may be), although clearly he's more likely to just get shot dead for being an idiot.

Does that sound about right?
Lionhearted
nezumi, you're taking oldschool texas shoot out duels to an entire new level
*dramatically plays the good, the bad & the ugly themesong*
kzt
QUOTE (nezumi @ Feb 3 2008, 04:14 PM) *
I should have been more specific. I didn't mean if it's possible using Shadowrun mechanics, but rather whether it's possible IRL.


No. You can shoot at the treads all day, but there is a reason why all the tools on a tank weight >30 lbs. Treads are very heavy metal. They are bolted together with really heavy bolts on really strong rods. Two pound AT mines will blow treads, pistols won't. Typically even when the treads are forced off the tank they are still connected in a loop, and the first thing the crew has to do is break track.

Tanks are designed to have people shell them, and fragmentation from artillery shells that sprays the tank is more damaging than pistol bullets. And if you do damage the periscopes, the crew has spares for the parts that are possible to damage.

You can shove a log into the treads to screw it up, but that is why tanks don't ever operate alone, they run in pairs in the West.
Cthulhudreams
It would be impossible to disable a sealed tank with a pistol. To give an example of why - anti tank rifles have been phased out of popularity due to the impossibility to actually doing anything with the things despite WWII examples being 14.5 milimeter with high velocity tungsten penetrating rounds. Even when fired at the tracks of cold war era tanks, they do absolutely nothing. A 9mm pistol round is not going to improve the situation.


Interestingly, lots of soviet AT rifles got repurposed as sniper rifles in the Korean war, so you can draw direct comparisons to the big anti material rifles of today and even shadowrun.

toturi
A bunch of old armor troopers with time on our hands did do a think on how some guy with a M16 could try to kill a Leopard II. The end result is yes, Jesus can do it, but only Jesus and since you needed to know where to aim and had to hit the right spot and time it so that you hit that spot at the most vulnerable moment. Longshot could do it, given the rules.
DTFarstar
I'm too lazy to try and research this, but are the rounds in the main barrel of the tank explosive at all? If they are, you could theoretically shoot the round as it was heading down the turret and cause it to explode, possible doing some serious damage to the main gun or cooking off more rounds. IF typical tank rounds are explosive in nature. No idea if they are or not.

Chris
hobgoblin
there are two kinds i think, the high explosives used on "soft" targets, and the non-explosive used to kill other tanks...
youngtusk87
I think Explosive Arrows would be more effective against a tank than any bullet under 25mm.

Then again...Tom Hanks killed a tank with a pistol in Saving Private Ryan nyahnyah.gif
lunchbox311
QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Feb 3 2008, 09:49 PM) *
there are two kinds i think, the high explosives used on "soft" targets, and the non-explosive used to kill other tanks...

correct

HEAT Rounds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosiv...ti-tank_warhead used on "soft" targets

SABOT Rounds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabot_round used on "hard" targets
hobgoblin
QUOTE (youngtusk87 @ Feb 4 2008, 06:02 AM) *
I think Explosive Arrows would be more effective against a tank than any bullet under 25mm.



would that be cybered/adept troll scale arrows? cyber.gif
apollo124
I think the near-impossibility of killing a tank with a small handgun lead to the creation of "anti-tank weapons".
hyzmarca
QUOTE (lunchbox311 @ Feb 4 2008, 12:03 AM) *
correct

HEAT Rounds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosiv...ti-tank_warhead used on "soft" targets

SABOT Rounds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabot_round used on "hard" targets


HEAT and APFSDS are both anti-tank. In fact, HEAT stands for High Explosive Anti Tank. Some HEAT shells, such as the M830A used by the M1A1 Abrams have programmable multi-purpose fuses and fragmentation capability which allow the tank crew to select the optimal detonation mode for the intended target, which incidentally gives them the potential to engage aircraft.

For personnel, m1028 canister round is preferred. Essentially a 120mm shotgun shell, it is highly effective against large groups of people. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...tions/m1028.htm

Most modern tanks use Explosive Reactive Armor. The weakness of ERA is that each panel only works once. It explodes. After that it can't provide very much protection.

This Baby technically qualifies as a small arm. It is man portable and man fireable, with some discomfort. It might be able to set off an ERA panel. If it can, then all you have to do is shoot the exact same panel again to penetrate the tanks armor (maybe). Most of the plate would have been blown away by the explosion leaving that single spot vulnerable. The tank, of course, would be moving at about 30MPH, turning to put its best armor toward you and shooting at you with both machine guns and canister shot.
hobgoblin
ah, canister. been in use as far back as, at least, the napoleonic era, but still just as effective smokin.gif
Riley37
kzt points out the co-axial machinegun. But that's relevant only if someone inside the tank is aware of the hero, which they might not be if, say, the hero had Invisibility. Watch those assumptions!

Rather than fire a gun down the barrel of the main gun, hoping for the perfect ricochet just as the gunner opens the breech... how about shoving a holdout pistol down the barrel, and hoping that it'll jam, and and cause trouble next time the main gun fires? The main gun shoots a big shell at high energy, so it might just push the holdout ahead of it, but barrel obstructions are generally a bad thing.

I can't imagine a way that the impact from a bullet fired from a pistol is gonna be a relevant factor.

David Drake served with an armor unit in Vietnam then wrote some science fiction involving high-tech tanks. He had some ideas about advanced sensors and AI. Also, he suggested mounting a set of small directional mines all over the tank, which when armed would go off when anyone approached the tank. A good way to discourage pistol adepts from jumping onto the tank and hoping to get the hatch open.
DeadLogic
QUOTE
Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan


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. wink.gif

In my personal GM fiat I wouldn't allow a pistol to do more than disrupt sensors or other sensitive external equipment on a Tank, and if one of my Runners was actively trying to destroy the tank with a pistol I would begin to question their sanity. I have, however, destroyed an SUV during a car chase with a Physical Barrier and my power focus. That's not unreasonable. Just have to time it right... and have a SR3 Spell Pool of 6, hehe.
toturi
I have never seen an armored vehicle with its refuel inlet armored yet. Not the M113, not the AMX13, not the M60 and not the Leopard 2.
Fuchs
The M113 is not a tank, it's an APC. Not even an IFV. And the refuel inlet is on top of the vehicle, and from what I recall from my time serving in one it's about as armored as the rest of vehicle - which is to say, not very much. Even so, you'd have to shoot straight from top to hit inside through the inlet.

I'd think the openings for power lines in the back would be more vulnerable.
toturi
Certain versions of the M113 can be considered IFVs. The refuel inlets in some of the more advanced versions are less armored than the rest of the vehicle.
Fuchs
You can upgrade the M113 (the swiss had a version that had a turret with a 20mm cannon, until they switched to a modern IFV), and upgrade the armor, but it's still not really that durable, and the inlet is still on top of the tank, requiring you to fire from a high position to penetrate.
toturi
That is true. Simply pointing out that there are weak spots on armored vehicles that are not limited to sensors or sensitive external equipment.
Fuchs
Yes. I just think the port for power cords in the back would be better suited to shoot through - it's just a pipe piece, with a cap.
nezumi
QUOTE (toturi @ Feb 4 2008, 07:54 AM) *
That is true. Simply pointing out that there are weak spots on armored vehicles that are not limited to sensors or sensitive external equipment.


If you shoot through there, the tank explodes, right?
Ed_209a
QUOTE (nezumi)
If you shoot through there, the tank explodes, right?


Probably not. At least not with anything less than a antimaterial rifle. If you put a round through the fuel fill or electrical diagnostics port, you will probably just make an extra maintainance task once the tank gets back to base.

A hit to the fuel filler might keep the tank out of action the next day, if it can't be refueled, but that wouldn't help you right then.
mfb
psh. you obviously haven't watched enough movies!
Ed_209a
QUOTE (mfb @ Feb 4 2008, 10:35 AM) *
psh. you obviously haven't watched enough movies!

Like the Airwolf pilot maybe? grinbig.gif
lunchbox311
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Feb 3 2008, 10:59 PM) *
HEAT and APFSDS are both anti-tank. In fact, HEAT stands for High Explosive Anti Tank. Some HEAT shells, such as the M830A used by the M1A1 Abrams have programmable multi-purpose fuses and fragmentation capability which allow the tank crew to select the optimal detonation mode for the intended target, which incidentally gives them the potential to engage aircraft.

For personnel, m1028 canister round is preferred. Essentially a 120mm shotgun shell, it is highly effective against large groups of people. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...tions/m1028.htm

Most modern tanks use Explosive Reactive Armor. The weakness of ERA is that each panel only works once. It explodes. After that it can't provide very much protection.

This Baby technically qualifies as a small arm. It is man portable and man fireable, with some discomfort. It might be able to set off an ERA panel. If it can, then all you have to do is shoot the exact same panel again to penetrate the tanks armor (maybe). Most of the plate would have been blown away by the explosion leaving that single spot vulnerable. The tank, of course, would be moving at about 30MPH, turning to put its best armor toward you and shooting at you with both machine guns and canister shot.

I am aware what HEAT stands for. biggrin.gif

I was under the impression that they were not used against armored targets much, (if at all,) anymore due to the armor being so tough to breach with them; henceforth being used against softer targets, (I consider an aircraft a soft target.)
Snow_Fox
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Feb 4 2008, 12:59 AM) *
HEAT and APFSDS are both anti-tank. In fact, HEAT stands for High Explosive Anti Tank. Some HEAT shells, such as the M830A used by the M1A1 Abrams have programmable multi-purpose fuses and fragmentation capability which allow the tank crew to select the optimal detonation mode for the intended target, which incidentally gives them the potential to engage aircraft.

For personnel, m1028 canister round is preferred. Essentially a 120mm shotgun shell, it is highly effective against large groups of people. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...tions/m1028.htm

Most modern tanks use Explosive Reactive Armor. The weakness of ERA is that each panel only works once. It explodes. After that it can't provide very much protection.

This Baby technically qualifies as a small arm. It is man portable and man fireable, with some discomfort. It might be able to set off an ERA panel. If it can, then all you have to do is shoot the exact same panel again to penetrate the tanks armor (maybe). Most of the plate would have been blown away by the explosion leaving that single spot vulnerable. The tank, of course, would be moving at about 30MPH, turning to put its best armor toward you and shooting at you with both machine guns and canister shot.
Take it back at least another 150 years to at least the 1640's.
Snow_Fox
QUOTE (toturi @ Feb 4 2008, 05:55 AM) *
I have never seen an armored vehicle with its refuel inlet armored yet. Not the M113, not the AMX13, not the M60 and not the Leopard 2.

Those are all at least a generation behind what was used in the first gulf war. not the MBT's of 2007 or even 1991. BUT 60 years on they'll be even more advanced. the reactive armor is just for AT weapons. I doubt hand guns would set them off and underneath is regular heavy armor.
Cthulhudreams
Err, under reactive armour is the composite armour tank hulls are made from, and any anti material rifle in production is not going to do much more than scratch the paintwork and piss off the crew.

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.
toturi
QUOTE (Snow_Fox @ Feb 5 2008, 09:11 AM) *
Those are all at least a generation behind what was used in the first gulf war. not the MBT's of 2007 or even 1991. BUT 60 years on they'll be even more advanced. the reactive armor is just for AT weapons. I doubt hand guns would set them off and underneath is regular heavy armor.

The Leopard 2 is 1 generation behind what was used in first gulf war? indifferent.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012