Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Used Tanks
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
hyzmarca
It is rare to see a Shadowrunner driving down the street in a tank for some reason. Arsenal doesn't even have any main battle tanks for some reason. Yet, there is a real civilian market for surplus tanks and it is very easy to purchase one.

http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm

All of these tanks are old, of course. The Chieftian is the most advanced MBT of the 60s and the 70s, but it is obsolete now. Its armor is unlikely to stand up to any modern anti-tank weapons, but it works very well against small arms and the anti-tank weapons of its generation. And you can apparently buy one on the internet for $45,000 (or could, both have been sold).

Demilitarized tanks shouldn't be terribly common, but they should be available in the civilian marketplace for anyone with the desire and a relatively modest sum of money compared to their initial cost. Thje M1A1 Abrams is of sufficient age to have been retired by 2070 and that means that they will be available on the civilian market for the cost of a new car. The guns would have been removed and replaced with non-functioning display pieces or simply have been rendered unfireable, but that can be remedied by a character with an weapons shop or with the appropriate contacts.

For some reason, Arsenal doesn't have any tanks, new or old. But I must ask the question of what would be a reasonable armor rating for a used MBT circa 1992?
Starmage21
Invulnerable to any and all small-arms fire.

The only thing that should have a hope of damaging it is an anti-vehicle missile/rocket or anything with a similar amount of damage from a single shot.
JeffSz
I believe there aren't any tanks in Arsenal because there is the possibility of a separate military supplement.

Tanks wouldn't likely EVER be runner gear. This is because a tank is SLOW, it's BIG, and it's LOUD; tanks chew up the pavement as they pass, and they aren't very maneuverable. "Shadowrunners" are people who do illegal things in secret. A tank is hard to keep a secret, omae. You'd get three blocks down the street before the local government or a corp took you out.

Also, you couldn't exactly hide it in your garage, and you'd be easily identified as "the guy who has a tank in his driveway". Currently in RL you can buy a tank... but you can't actually drive it anywhere or make use of it. If you were rich you might park it on your thousand-acre lawn as a centerpiece.

In the golden age of piracy, pirates did not use man-of-wars or even ships the size of the Black Pearl in That Movie. They were too big and too slow and too hard to maneuver. They went for fast, agile sloops and schooners with shallow drafts, for "attack and escape" power rather than brute force. Shadowrunners follow the same principles. Use a citymaster if you must, but anything slower and you're toast.

Tanks in SR4 would be purely military NPC equipment.

That said, while a runner would never purposely outfit himself with a tank, commandeering one in the middle of a run on an army base would be fair game. Keeping it afterwards would be out of the question, unless the PC is an idiot.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (JeffSz @ Jun 13 2008, 04:28 PM) *
Also, you couldn't exactly hide it in your garage, and you'd be easily identified as "the guy who has a tank in his driveway". Currently in RL you can buy a tank... but you can't actually drive it anywhere or make use of it. If you were rich you might park it on your thousand-acre lawn as a centerpiece.


All you have to do is put some tail lights on it and maybe modify the engine to comply with emissions standards
CanRay
IIRC, In the UK, there's provisions that allow tanks to be driven on roadways. They're old laws from WWII, apparently. For civilian ownership, they can't be armed, and that's about it. (Usually the barrel is cemented or some such.).

OK, it won't be 'Runner equipment, but how about Mercs? Mercs are a part of Shadowrun as well.

Hell, I bet there are still a few Russian T-34s still kicking around parts of the world in 2070!
Adarael
QUOTE
In the golden age of piracy, pirates did not use man-of-wars or even ships the size of the Black Pearl in That Movie. They were too big and too slow and too hard to maneuver. They went for fast, agile sloops and schooners with shallow drafts, for "attack and escape" power rather than brute force. Shadowrunners follow the same principles. Use a citymaster if you must, but anything slower and you're toast.


If there's one thing that Pirates of the Burning Sea has taught me, it's that if you have a Bermuda or Jamaica Sloop and optimize your rigging, you can ream damn near any larger, slower boat that isn't a ship of the line, because you can just hang out in their blind spots and rip their rigging up with chain shot.
Caine Hazen
QUOTE (JeffSz @ Jun 13 2008, 03:28 PM) *
In the golden age of piracy, pirates did not use man-of-wars or even ships the size of the Black Pearl in That Movie. They were too big and too slow and too hard to maneuver. They went for fast, agile sloops and schooners with shallow drafts, for "attack and escape" power rather than brute force. Shadowrunners follow the same principles. Use a citymaster if you must, but anything slower and you're toast.

Queen Anne's Revenge or Whydah much? They weren't raiders, but made great flag ships.

I should say looking at some of the bigger things in Ars you can get an idea of tank stats. I doubt with LAVs though they are that common on the battlefield anymore

I'll agree that you'd have to be running a different type of game for these to really come into play, but Merc games aren't all that uncommon.
psychophipps
The real reason why we still have huge, hideously expensive hardware like M1A1s around is because pretty much only the US and a few other first-world european nations have the money and the production to field the top-of-the-line AT weapons to take them out reliably. When you're fighting insurgents with 1950s weapons like the RPG-7, it's easy to see where the MBT is a beatdown machine. If everyone had Javelins, however...totally different story.
With the thrust of battle becoming the acquisition of markets, assets, and resources for corporations I think that hideously expensive equipment like MBT will go the way of the do-do due to costs of not only making them but also parts, training, ammunition, storage, deployment, etc. Add the fact that a 10K nuyen.gif missile will blow out a 10M nuyen.gif tank and the crew and you see a huge cost-to-gain deficit. I would treat systems more like the Striker as the SR MBT as they focus on the current trends in land warfare anyway. Relatively low cost (when compared to MBT), higher urban mobility, easier to store and deploy, can carry the same weapons, cheaper to maintain, easier training, etc.
AngelisStorm
As several people have already mentioned, Mercs for one would make use of tanks. And your saying that, should you choose to Run in a war zone, you won't have to deal with tanks that are in your way?

As for driving down the street on a rampage, eventually your hosed. But your going to do alot of damage before they bring something heavy enough in from the national guard armory to stop you.

Also your wrong that you can't drive tanks around in the US. I know there is at least one individual in the US that sells refurbished tanks, and the treads have been replaced by multiple wheels. Because it's not against the law to drive tanks on the road, it's illegal to drive treaded vehicles on the road (because it tears up said roads). I also believe that it might (in certain situations) be qualified as a "wide load," which of course has extra qualifications. (And of course you can off road them to your hearts content).

And I believe there were several famous pirates that, while they didn't sail around in full sized ships of the line (which aren't good for much, except for being in a line), some of them did use Frigates of War and other large ships, because of their firepower and carrying capacity. Because what are you gonna do about it? Unless you want the expense of several large ships wandering around looking for the pirate.

As for armor value... no clue. High enough that small arms aren't going to hurt it, low enough that a really good shots for missiles might, and... I don't know how likely the LARGE weapons from Arsenal should be to kill it, though I guesse it should be a good chance, since many of them are supposed to be the weapons on naval ships.

I'm not sure how accurate the info is (it's several years old), but .50 rounds could pierce most APC amor except the Bradley (which is only kinda a APC, it's really a small tank that carries soldiers to). Tanks were mostly immune (though I won't want to bet on a Sherman). But now that we're going towards lighter "strike" vehicles, I would expect .50 to start hurting heavy vehicles again. So it really depends on what direction you think armor has gone in 2070 vs. high end, armor piercing sniper rifle rounds. (And of course, Autocannons.)
hyzmarca
QUOTE (AngelisStorm @ Jun 13 2008, 06:19 PM) *
As several people have already mentioned, Mercs for one would make use of tanks. And your saying that, should you choose to Run in a war zone, you won't have to deal with tanks that are in your way?

As for driving down the street on a rampage, eventually your hosed. But your going to do alot of damage before they bring something heavy enough in from the national guard armory to stop you.


Rampage? That's just silly. The privately owned tank is, however, ideal for driving to and from the grocery store and other such every-day tasks in style and safety.
AngelisStorm
While I completely agree that they are perfect for grocery runs, there is a basis for tank "road rage":

(On several occasions in the last 10 years people have gone on "tank" rampages.)

One individual took a piece of heavy industrial equipment, strapped steel plates, cinder blocks, and other stuff to it, and destroyed a decent portion of the town. There was absolutely nothing they could do to stop it, until I think it either stalled or a large building fell on in (I can't remember). The driver shot himself.

And then there was the individual who really did steal a tank, and drove on down the street. Crushed alot of cars and whatnot. Can't remember how they stopped that one, I think (maybe?) the individual forgot to lock the hatch.

Btw, I don't know if I agree with psychophipps that the Striker Vehicle is the way that armored vehicles will continue to go (for the forseeable future). I think it's a really good idea to continue having virtually indestructable machines of war, especially after we've seen what can happen to our troops when they roll around in (virtually) unarmored vehicles. The intimidation alone is an excellent tactic. In recent history we've been able to stay ahead of the weapon vs. armor seesaw that destroyed mounted knights as a battlefield weapon. And I just don't really see that changing in the future (though that is pure speculation on my part).

Also frankly, tanks are just cool. Look at Ghost in the Shell for example. The episode where they are desperately trying to stop the prototype tank is just cool.
CanRay
Now, and APC or Infantry Fighting Vehicle, I can see Shadowrunners pulling out on the High-End gigs! Ones where it all matters and needs to come down on the line. You know, blockaide running contraband that is larger than the cargo space of a T-Bird.

They're designed more for speed than a MBT is (Although an MBT can motor more than most people give credit to them!), And the IFV still has enough firepower to intimidate any Security Forces around, until they can pull out their big stuff.
WearzManySkins
It is not illegal to own a armored vehicle in the US, it is illegal to a armored vehicle with any weapon any where near functional.

There are many privately owned armored cars and tanks. Yes the tanks can not be driven on most roadways but the armored cars due to having wheels can.

One exception being the M-60A series tank that a "person" took from a San Diego Military Reserve Facility 10+ years ago and went driving thru RV's light poles and LEO vehicles. The videos of its drive are still on the net. The San Diego PD had nothing to tuck or impair its illegal drive thru the city.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AcVSEY2DP0

Wonder what the outcome would have been if he had crossed the median barrier at a 90 degree angle than the oblique he did.

WMS
CanRay
The Internet... And the TV! I remember seeing that on a few different shows!
Snow_Fox
The problem with surplus tanks is that you'd have trouble with spare parts. a Sherman or Patton is, relatively easy to maintain. An Ambrahams or Challenger are much more high maintenance and without that, they're real big paperweights. There are a couple of dozen F-15 sitting in Iran, usless. Some say it's because th4e mechanics on site scragged them when the embassy was siezed in '79. The more common belief is that without trained technicians and parts, they just broke down and are now decayed beyond all hope-since the Iranians don't know how to mothball them.

There is a fairly famous bit of footage of a wack job in and M-60 driving through LA eventurally the police got on board and cut it open at the doors. admittedly driving over the line of parked bikes belonging to that go-gang you hate, in a Leopard II is amusing but you've gotta get out of the tnak at osme point.
CanRay
Again, T-34s are probably still around. And they'd be more than enough to take for a trip around town. nyahnyah.gif
Snow_Fox
sure same generation tech as the Sherman. same idea. but not as advanced as the current genreration of MBT's
WearzManySkins
QUOTE (Snow_Fox @ Jun 13 2008, 08:10 PM) *
There is a fairly famous bit of footage of a wack job in and M-60 driving through LA eventurally the police got on board and cut it open at the doors. admittedly driving over the line of parked bikes belonging to that go-gang you hate, in a Leopard II is amusing but you've gotta get out of the tnak at osme point.

Correction the location was San Diego not LA. It was not until he threw a tread while attempting to cross over a concrete center median, which stalled him, with allowed the SD LEO's to climb onto the turret, to open the hatch.

There are many videos of armored vehicles on similar rampages in modern times.

WMS
kzt
QUOTE (psychophipps @ Jun 13 2008, 04:18 PM) *
Add the fact that a 10K nuyen.gif missile will blow out a 10M nuyen.gif tank and the crew and you see a huge cost-to-gain deficit.


This the game where a flying tank costs 2 million? In SR world the prices are silly low, so your tank prices are absurd.

In the real world prices are rather different. M1's costs maybe $2-4.3 million per (It's hard to tell, as we haven't built any in 15 years) and a FGM-148 Javelin is $200,000. (More accurately each round is $80,000 and the launcher is $120,000.)
Crusher Bob
Most of the stuff they are selling is just light armor, subbing in the stats for a city master would work fine.

(Assumption: the Citymaster has all around armor roughly the equivalent to 1 inch/25mm of RHA steel)

Compared to a Citymaster the Chieftain has around 5 times as much armor on the front hull, 8 times as much armor on the turret face, around 2x on the sides, and around 1x on the rear.

A Citymaster compared to a current M1, the M1 has 24 or more times as much armor on the front hull, 32 or more times as much armor on the turret face, around 10 times as much armor on the sides, and around 3?x as much armor on the rear.

In addition, the M1 has composite armor that doubles (or more) its resistance to HEAT warheads.
psychophipps
QUOTE (kzt @ Jun 13 2008, 09:47 PM) *
This the game where a flying tank costs 2 million? In SR world the prices are silly low, so your tank prices are absurd.

In the real world prices are rather different. M1's costs maybe $2-4.3 million per (It's hard to tell, as we haven't built any in 15 years) and a FGM-148 Javelin is $200,000. (More accurately each round is $80,000 and the launcher is $120,000.)


Good point on the prices, I was just using the random number as an example. Of course, once you add in ammunition, maintenance and the crew to do it, training of the vehicle and maintenance crew, shipping, spare parts, fuel, etc and that $2-4.3 million starts looking a whole mess larger when it's all said and done.

Also a good point on the M1 vs. Javelin costs for today (don't forget all the other expenses incurred, though). Of course, by the SR timeline the Javelin will be like trying to use a first-gen Bazooka against a M1A2. Add to this the fact that the guidance systems and such will only get cheaper as time goes on, the fact that the missiles would no longer exclusively being designed, built, and used by the US military with it's virtually unlimited budget and such weapons systems will be pushed way down in price just through market competition and limited corporate budgets. In the end, however, you will note that a Javelin to M1 cost ratio is still 10-21 to one by your own admission. Perfectly acceptable for the US military for the reasons above but far from acceptable in a market-driven corporate action.
Of course, the US military has yet to face an opponent that can reliably destroy a M1, so the doctrine hasn't been developed for such a contingency nor have plans been made monetarily for such a situation. I'm quite certain that a massive change in the use and concept of future armored vehicles and their operations would result if enemies like the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraqi had weapons like the Javelin at their disposal through various corporate channels.
CanRay
No, it's 2 Million nuyen.gif , not US$2 Million. BIG difference!

The nuyen.gif is an artificially created currency by the Corporate Court that's designed to keep the world economy going no matter what. At least, that's how I've read it.

Anyhow, here are official rules for exchange rates.
hobgoblin
QUOTE (JeffSz @ Jun 13 2008, 09:28 PM) *
I believe there aren't any tanks in Arsenal because there is the possibility of a separate military supplement.


or simply that they are the deus ex machina of corps and governments. in other words, a close cousin of the orbital bovine launcher...

still, there is always rigger3 that had stats for nuclear-powered carriers. but no tanks (somewhat corrected with sota63, but they left out the base chassis stats).
CanRay
Well, I'll just have to whip something up for when my group hits the big time, and they have to GTA a Tank for some Johnson that needs one for a Merc Unit. vegm.gif
Ryu
The GM heavy cannon (MBT main armament) is 17P/-8. The AZT Itzcoatl is 18P/-10.

Soaking that kind of base damage takes a combined rating of Body+Armor of around 60. But a full soak is certainly not desireable.

Lets see what kind of armor is defeatable:

Base Penetration Values (damage+AP against vehicles):
Ballista 14+6=20
Generic AV rocket 16+6=22
Great Dragon 18+6=24
GM HC 17+8=25
Itzcoatl 18+10=28

IMO MBT armor ratings should top out at around 30, requiring a few net hits on an attack with a dedicated anti-tank weapon to penetrate. That would leave about 20-30 for body on those tanks. Another way would be extreme Body and lower armor, but thats (again, IMO) pretty much writing the penetration capability out of the game.
hobgoblin
and thats about where the current armor addon rules in arsenal lands, no?
Ryu
Normal armor 20 + smart armor 10 is the limit of armor modification, yes.

A straight armor of 30 gives you way more protection against penetration, as smart armor does not do so (Smart armor gives you an extra roll before damage resolution, which reduces damage and increases AP).
Sir_Psycho
They say that an LAV is basically a fast flying tank, right?

So why not just slap the Bod and Armour ratings of one of the canon LAVs onto the Speed and Handling of a wheeled vehicle (eg. GMC Bulldog/Rover 2066). Throw on a mortar/launcher and a HMG and you've got yourself a tank.
weblife
Todays tanks are not slow... And the modfied truck some runners drive can easily be compared to a Tank for sheer armor values.

But thats mainly due to the way armor works in SR.
Sir_Psycho
They're not slow, certainly, but they can't jam like a t-bird can.

That's why I think the speed of a Rover 2066 or a GMC Bulldog seems more appropriate. Or maybe the General Products COP.
JeffSz
QUOTE (AngelisStorm @ Jun 13 2008, 06:19 PM) *
And I believe there were several famous pirates that, while they didn't sail around in full sized ships of the line (which aren't good for much, except for being in a line), some of them did use Frigates of War and other large ships, because of their firepower and carrying capacity. Because what are you gonna do about it? Unless you want the expense of several large ships wandering around looking for the pirate.


As someone else said, those frigates were flagships; they were kept by pirates who commanded entire fleets of smaller, faster vessels. If they didn't have all those little sloops and schooners to run interference, they would sink any large ships they took after stealing all they could. These frigates were easy to take because of their lack of maneuverability, and equally easy to escape from because they couldn't travel into shallow waters. Pirates didn't sail around in a frigate and try to raid enemy ships.

Also, many of those 'famous pirates' had an exaggerated reputation. Imagine you're a ship's officer that's made his way back to a navy outpost after having his ship raided; you barely escaped with your life, and now you're possibly being faced with the choice of dishonorable discharge or another posting. Are you going to tell the truth: a 14-gun lateen-rigged schooner with 30 pirates on board took your 40-gun frigate while your trousers were around your ankles? Or are you going to say another 40-gun frigate loaded with 150+ pirates swarmed the deck, and though fighting valiantly, you lost her?
AngelisStorm
You think a Frigate is easy to take? The reason the large treasure ships were taken is because they didn't have many troops aboard, between the need to maximize carrying capacity and the long voyages. Smaller ships generally didn't screw with war ships, period. Not only did they carry more guns, they were bigger guns with greater range. And while pirates have motivation, as opposed to naval crews who were often conscripts, the saying that you can't spend the money if your dead runs true. Pirate ships tended to carry fewer men than naval ships did. And while "shallow water" is a neat trick if you can pull it off, a shallow draft was mostly useful for hiding in coves. Unless the persuing ship knows nothing about the waters they were sailing through, you weren't going to catch them on a reaf or sand bar. Sure, they might not be able to follow you, but they will just wait you out.

And are you trying to say that famous pirates aren't word of God gospel truth? Next you'll be trying to tell me that American Cowboys like Jessie James didn't pull of all the tricks they were attributed with, King Arthur is a mix of legends, and... *tries to think of another sarcastic example, but feels his point has been made* How about we leave my "famous pirates" alone, and we'll leave alone your poor captain who doesn't know how to properly wear pants.
lunchbox311
QUOTE (AngelisStorm @ Jun 13 2008, 05:24 PM) *
One individual took a piece of heavy industrial equipment, strapped steel plates, cinder blocks, and other stuff to it, and destroyed a decent portion of the town. There was absolutely nothing they could do to stop it, until I think it either stalled or a large building fell on in (I can't remember). The driver shot himself.


I have a friend who lived about 20 miles from where that whole thing went down (it went down in Gramby Colorado.... over 120 miles from my house.)
Basically what ended up stopping him was he got hung up in a building and while trying to back out of it, a redneck with a rifle got a lucky shot on an oil line and stopped the thing cold. The guy was dead in the water.
Incidentally there was an Apache helicopter on route to go destroy the modified bulldozer when it was stopped.
The driver did shoot himself. It took hours for the police to blow off the armor plates and concrete without killing the guy... only to find he had shot himself. ohplease.gif
Apathy
QUOTE (psychophipps @ Jun 14 2008, 08:20 AM) *
I'm quite certain that a massive change in the use and concept of future armored vehicles and their operations would result if enemies like the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraqi had weapons like the Javelin at their disposal through various corporate channels.

The Javelin succeeds because the smart guidance system and precision targeting allows it to attack the top of the tank, which is currently less protected than any other angle. If the next generation of tanks were to have armor on top of the tank equivalent to the protection they have on the sides, they'd be relatively invulnerable to these types of attacks. Of course, this has it's own set of tradeoffs, like increasing both total weight and vehicle profile.
WeaverMount
QUOTE (AngelisStorm @ Jun 13 2008, 07:24 PM) *
One individual took a piece of heavy industrial equipment, strapped steel plates, cinder blocks, and other stuff to it, and destroyed a decent portion of the town. There was absolutely nothing they could do to stop it, until I think it either stalled or a large building fell on in (I can't remember). The driver shot himself.



I'm sure all the goons here remember the Killdozer
Wounded Ronin
You know what? For a trip to the grocery store when you don't want to be hassled by window washers or want to minimize the chances of being carjacked, wouldn't a BMP be the best choice? I'm guessing it's more fuel efficient than a MBT, and that ambhibiousness has got to be an asset. Maybe if there were a lot of traffic one day you'd be able to take a shortcut across a lake or something.

The reason I think the BMP would be more practical is that it's got gun ports for the passengers. So you can drive the BMP but put your family members or friends in the passenger area and if anyone tries to carjack you he's going to suddenly have all these weapons blowing him away from the gun ports. I'll bet it would even be legally sound in states with carjacking laws to have a bunch of SKS carbines or something in the BMP for a little more stopping power out the gun ports than just a pistol.

And I don't think that carjackers or window washers are going to start carrying antiarmor weapons anytime soon so they can have fun trying to shoot your BMP with a handgun or even a rifle and failing.
Ryu
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Jun 16 2008, 11:17 PM) *
And I don't think that carjackers or window washers are going to start carrying antiarmor weapons anytime soon so they can have fun trying to shoot your BMP with a handgun or even a rifle and failing.


But now that meme is out there, hiding, seeking someone who drives a BMP. That is dangerous behaviour citizen! Please report to Horizon HQ for a debriefing.
weblife
The most annoying thing about pass-by-shooters, is that even a casual spray of bullets will still dent and scratch the finish. Its hell to get into A-zones with pockmarks all over the truck. Dang them kids!
AngelisStorm
QUOTE (Apathy @ Jun 16 2008, 10:18 AM) *
The Javelin succeeds because the smart guidance system and precision targeting allows it to attack the top of the tank, which is currently less protected than any other angle. If the next generation of tanks were to have armor on top of the tank equivalent to the protection they have on the sides, they'd be relatively invulnerable to these types of attacks. Of course, this has it's own set of tradeoffs, like increasing both total weight and vehicle profile.


And after the whole war thing, presumably they will get around to increasing the armor on the bottom of the tank. Though as you mentioned how that will be compensated for weight wise will be interesting to see.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (weblife @ Jun 16 2008, 05:00 PM) *
The most annoying thing about pass-by-shooters, is that even a casual spray of bullets will still dent and scratch the finish. Its hell to get into A-zones with pockmarks all over the truck. Dang them kids!


You just gave me the mental image of a young gangbanger carrying out a drive by shooting by firing out the window of a moving sedan, when all of a sudden at the end of the block a BMP erupts out onto the street from behind a hedge wall and pwns the sedan with its anti-armor weaponry.
CanRay
"Where the frag did the Halloweeners get a Bradley IFV?"
Sir_Psycho
I've always imagined that the serious gangs have a few heavily armed and armoured vehicles. Gang wars in the Z-zones actually play out like real wars with explosions and buildings falling down.
psychophipps
QUOTE (AngelisStorm @ Jun 16 2008, 03:39 PM) *
And after the whole war thing, presumably they will get around to increasing the armor on the bottom of the tank. Though as you mentioned how that will be compensated for weight wise will be interesting to see.


The great error with this logic is the fact that you can exponentially more easily and cheaply make a bigger and/or better rocket, mine or missile than you can make a bigger, heavier tank to survive this new ordinance.
A man-portable weapon sits on a shelf until you either hand it to a grunt or pack them up 12-24 at a time and toss about 10 cases of them into the back of a pick-up truck. A tank has to fueled, the crew trained, the vehicle stored, spare parts bought and stored, crews fed, ammunition bought and stored, etc. In this case, bigger certainly ain't better as no matter what you design in a tank there will soon be an organic man or semi-man portable weapon out there that will punk slap that new tank and costs 10-20 times less than the base unit cost of that tank.
The best way to go, IMO, is to design the new "tanks" to be faster, stealthier, wheeled (just like all of the next-gen tank designs I've seen) made with more off-the-shelf technology, and a greater array of multi-use weapons systems and defensive systems. They will be easier to store, cheaper to train crews, more fuel efficient, move in a standard cargo plane, cheaper to manufacture and they will not be designed to survive a direct hit from a true anti-armor weapon as that is a complete waste of time and resources.
kzt
QUOTE (psychophipps @ Jun 16 2008, 07:49 PM) *
They will be easier to store, cheaper to train crews, more fuel efficient, move in a standard cargo plane, cheaper to manufacture and they will not be designed to survive a direct hit from a true anti-armor weapon as that is a complete waste of time and resources.

That was the Rumsfeld theory of military technology. Which ran into reality in Iraq and lost badly.
psychophipps
QUOTE (kzt @ Jun 16 2008, 06:57 PM) *
That was the Rumsfeld theory of military technology. Which ran into reality in Iraq and lost badly.


Umm...huh?!?

If you're talking about the Hummers then you're mistaken. That vehicle was never designed for the use that it's being put to today in Iraq. The Hummer was designed to replace the old skool Jeeps and it has completed this task admirably. It was later that the strategic and tactical planners decided to try to make the Hummer a mobile armored weapons platform for urban use. It wasn't made for it so it sucks at it. Surprised?
As for the Striker, it has worked admirably in any theater that it has been deployed to thus far. Yes, there were some teething issues but they have been largely rectified and the crews (y'know...the guys who actually have to use the bloody thing and complete their missions with it?) absolutely love the Striker as do the infantry units that the strikers support. It's not a MBT so, again, expecting a vehicle to do things via Monday Night Quarterbacking that it's not designed to do is ridiculous.
Now we go to the US military itself. This entire apparatus, and one last time, was not trained, conceived, or equipped for the mission that it got stuck with in Iraq by the US civilian leadership (y'know...the untrained idiots on Capitol Hill who tell the military what to do?). You will note that when the US forces were sprinting across Iraq, at a rate not even imagined by military planners in any era before this action, and were kicking the crap out of anything they ran across during the fastest advance in history, they were doing A-Ok. There were some patently false claims during the advance by untrained idiot reporters that the US forces had "stalled" during those rather nasty storms early on, (the military had actually simply decided to allow their logistics and support units to catch up before advancing again) so many people got the idea early on that our equipment and/or training sucked, or something.
Roll in, kick ass and take names? You betcha! Counter-insurgency operations and long-term peacekeeping? Not set up for it.
WearzManySkins
One point it was not only the politicians that helped our military be what it not equipped to deal with, the Starred Strap Hangers and Chicken Wearers to had a good part of this.

As for the Striker the South Africans have a proven design for a vehicle in urban/rural environment, but the politicians and strap hangers had to go and design one ie reinvent the wheel.

WMS
kzt
The not needing real armor for protection is why we are buying 15,000 MRAPs (that are essentially armored trucks - not actual AFVs) that weight of 15-19 tons at a cost of 20 billion. Right?

The whole idiocy underlying General Beret's biased criteria for the Stryker (like the never met requirement for C130 transport) was exposed by the actual fighting in Iraq. The whole "If we pretend really hard we won't actually need armor because 'Networked Fires' will defeat the enemy via mystical means" strategy of Rumsfeld etc crashed to the ground in 2004.

Of course it goes back further then that, the idiocy of deciding that you could take the Armor out of armored cav units and not have any effect was pretty obvious to the casual observer.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Jun 16 2008, 04:17 PM) *
You know what? For a trip to the grocery store when you don't want to be hassled by window washers or want to minimize the chances of being carjacked, wouldn't a BMP be the best choice? I'm guessing it's more fuel efficient than a MBT, and that ambhibiousness has got to be an asset. Maybe if there were a lot of traffic one day you'd be able to take a shortcut across a lake or something.


UNfortunately, I can't find any BMPs for sale in the States, though http://www.russiantruck.co.uk/list.php?sub_headers=Tracked has several.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jun 16 2008, 11:30 PM) *
UNfortunately, I can't find any BMPs for sale in the States, though http://www.russiantruck.co.uk/list.php?sub_headers=Tracked has several.


But where does it list the prices?

EDIT: If I were rich and could buy a BMP, I'd have a sign stuck on each side saying something like, "Attempting to squeegee this vehicle is a bad idea."
Drogos
OMFG...I can buy a Hind with my Visa. The world is mine!!!!!
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