Oi Chums,

Just piecing together the opposition for an upcoming session and was wondering what template you have used to build a tracked battle tank. The opposition is more of a terrorist organization than anything so there equipment is a bit outdated. No L.A.V.s for these guys. However I could see them with some surplus lightly armed APCs' from the Euro wars or maybe a used and ill repaired battle tank. What are your suggestions?

Well. The Panther XXL is described as 'like the main gun on small tanks'. Vehicle damage resistance mentions that the average tank will have 4 auto-successes on a Body roll, so that's Body 16. The Ares Citymaster is an APC, and it's already Body 16/Armor 20.

It's kind of a mess.

An actual tank may have more than the usual cap of 20 armor. Also a modern tank probably has smart armor but the smart armor may have been used up.

Also you could go with a walker tank like from ghost in the shell.

It *might* help to draw on Rigger 3 for inspiration.

While I'm a huge fan of 4A, it makes me really sad that this was going to be my answer too =/

Oi Chum,

Well I guess I could describe it to fit with what I want. And there is a tracked option in Arsenal. It would be a good start for a chasis and has enough body to hold the turret as well as a dismount weapons platform, like an L.M.G., is the speed appropriate though? What is the avergae tank speed today? 45 mph, 65 mph?

Oi,

Unfortunatley I stopped collecting that edition after Rigger 2. I am sure I can get a copy of Rigger 3. Did they have an expanded Mil-Spec vehicle list in 3?

Oi,

Yeah I think any sort of Smart Armor would have been expended long ago. Though the smart armor might be available in the black market in the area I don't think any one in the group would have the know how or tools to replace it. More likely they would just weld and bolt plates where it has become damaged. Very third world fix em up.

Hmm, I thought it did have a tank, but I don't seen one in the vehicle list. :/ Alas.

If you're going for third world, you should just use up-armored trucks.

LAV Striker, p. 164. Along with rules for GMs to design their own if need be.

Ok first of you need special rules for caterpillar tracked "cyberlegs", then you need cyberweapon Panther XXXXL, then you need about 16 levels of dermal plating. Next fit your troll somewhere under all of that chrome, and you are done.

y'know, i wrote up a few stat blocks on my own for 4th ed MBTs. there really isn't anything in the 4th ed cannon that comes close to a mil-spec tank. i ended up making up a vehcile based off the heavy turret with a heavy cannon, body 20 armor 20. i'll see if i still have that lying around.

Hmm, not in my Rigger 3, Mooncrow. Anyway. For SR4, I would start from the Citymaster and work up: less cargo space, slower, much tougher, one big Main Gun heavy turret. But, that's a Main Battle Tank idea (MBTs are preposterously tough. ), not a 'crazy terrorist tank-thing'.For that, I again suggest starting from a GAZ and giving it armor, a gun, maybe tracks…

Oi Chums,

The LAV Striker is probably out of the question. Just not enough mechanics to keep it running.

Though the organization is third world the area has an overabundance of all sorts of mil-spec weapons and military surplus. The PC's are in Lagos, Africa.

I did use a few armored flat bed trucks with the pintle mount on the back but now the players are headed to the groups training ground and I want to throw a little more muscle their way. I figure they might have one well armored but lightly armed APC. The Roadmaster could fit the build but would take a few mods.

I'd work things from the back end by looking at what anti-tank weapons do, and extrapolate. An anti-vehicular rocket does 16P with -6 AP. A Citymaster, presumably the primary target for this, has 16 Bod, 20 Armor. Which works out to 32 dice to resist, which at 4-to-1 buy is 8 successes, which works out to a baseline of 8 boxes of damage. At 16 Bod, thats 16 boxes...so it takes 2 rockets (assuming no extra successes) to fry one.

Now, a Citymaster is impressive, but it isn't a main battle tank. I'd put it at something equivalent to a modern Stryker. Considering how much redundancy, extra mass and damage protection (fire-suppression, anti-spall, blow-out panels, etc.) that a modern tank has, I'd say it makes sense to raise the body to well over 20. Considering that there is a helicopter and a fighter-bomber with body 20 in Arsenal, it should be a fair sight more than 20. With a tractor-trailer rig listed at 24 and a tilt-rotor/C-130 listed at 30, I'm thinking a military ground vehicle weighing 60-70 tons should be in the 30 to 35 range. Maybe even 40. Actually, I'd got with something nice and divisible by 4 for ease of buys and go with 36 for a light tank/APC, and 40 for a heavy.

At that kind of body rating (40) and an armor of 16, the AV rocket is going to do around 4 boxes of damage (assuming no extra successes). An M1A2/3 is largely invulnerable to anti-vehicular rockets (RPGs), except an extremely lucky shot. So, we'd need enough armor to make an RPG a non-event. Assuming the attacker has 2 net hits, that's 18 boxes of damage. 40 body eats 10 of those. To get the other 8, the armor needs to be around 38 (to cancel out the AP rating). So 40 body, 38 armor, as a minimum. Considering that a guy in a military armor suit can get up to 18, the rating actually feels a bit low to me.

Note, this is assuming that AV rockets are equivalent to RPGs. (Note: RPGs are not grenades - the common acronym is a mistranslation of the original Russian.) I'm also assuming that the balance of penetration/armor has maintained something like parity. Though, truth be told, the armor on the M1A2 is astoundingly difficult to penetrate. By the general RHA penetration, an RPG-7 HEAT can penetrate less than 50% through the front glacis of the M1. By that measure, the armor on an M1 may be something like 80. Something like a T-72 is going to be quite a bit less, at that 38 minimum.

The other big question is the armament. Two heavy machine guns - one on the top of the turret, one coaxial - is fairly standard. As are smoke grenade launchers. The primary M1A2 armament is a god-awful 120 mm piece that can blow through a T-72 after going through a couple dozen feet of sand - or go through two T-72s. (It actually has a hard time penetrating another M1, but that's another matter.) So, assuming it can fairly reliably kill something with with 40 body, 38 armor, we're dealing with a weapon that is pretty nasty, with an appalling level of AP - 30 DMG, AP of -40 is in the right ballpark. For a second rank army, something in the 25 DMG, AP of -30 would make sense.

Again, I'm assuming that the AV rockets are the equivalent of RPGs, and the Citymaster is the equivalent of a Stryker. You could argue that the AV rockets are the equivalent of a modern Javelin system, but the costs are waaaaay off ($40k for a Javelin missile vs. 1000¥ for the AV rocket). You could argue that a Citymaster is more like a Bradley...but I'd have to point out that there are multiple airplanes with more body and armor than a Citymaster.

One other thing to consider is that tank armor is heavily dependent on facing - it is much lighter behind, beneath and on top. Might keep that in mind for called shots and the like. Mind you, it's thinner - not nonexistent - 1/2 of the base value is reasonable.

I like your idea.

Why not consider the Main Guns first, before extrapolating a tank cannon? It might be useful (maybe not).

So, the GM Light Cannon (Bradleys) and Heavy Cannon (Tanks). (13P/-6, 17P/-8 ).
GE Vanquisher ('tank busters') is 11P/-6, minigun rules (FA only, 15 bullets), while the Vigilant (8P/-4) is for 'infantry fighting vehicles'.

I'm leaving out Gauss options, but of course they exist.
Consider the GM-Outlaw Block III Anti-Tank missile (18P/-6), as well (with weak-spot targeting).

Oi Chum,

All excellent points. Definitly will keep this post up as I consider a build. Though with that said I think I am going for something more along the lines of a Bradley v.s. an Abrahms.

Going on the weapons I mentioned, we get that a tank can't have much more than 25 armor if the GM Heavy Cannon is going to penetrate.

For the 'tank buster' autocannon, it'd be 17+net hits, and assuming a 15 wide burst, we can expect at least 5: 22 armor.

For the anti-tank missile, 24+net hits?+weak spot: (and experiment ruined by scatter rules. ) A direct hit would be at least equal to the Heavy Cannon's 25, though; the Block V gets an extra Sensor bonus from the *target's* Sensors, increase blast radius, and -2 base DV. :/

Bored, doing the math: I think you're rolling Gunnery + Sensor + target Signature (that's +3) + optional Active Targeting bonus; for the Block V, you'd also get target's Sensor as a bonus (directly to the missile's sensor), only if the target is using Active Targeting. Theoretically, that could all add up to a very expensive, yet finally accurate, hit. IF I've read the messy rules right, hehe. 6+6+3+[net hits of Sensor+Perception+3 (6+6+3) against Reaction+Handling (6-2?)=+3]=18, 6 hits, so scatter is 4d6m - 6 sensor - 6 hits (2m without 'Sensor-Seeking effect'). That's -8 DV for the Block III, total 30 armor beaten. For the Block V, it all depends, but it should be more accurate, so more damage.

One of the State of the Arts - I think 2064, though it might have been '63 - had a section on mercenary work, including full 3e stats for a number of combat vehicles including MBTs (and other less crazy options)

Armour, big guns, and Ammo are heavy, so I'd start my build with the biggest load-hauler available, the Zuggsmachine, without trailer.

Then, going through the modifications list in order, depending on how advanced you want the vehicle to be, and whether it is a light scouting tank or a small battle tank, any of these might be appropriate - those marked with a star I would consider essential for a modern tank, and so I would apply as factory standard without worrying about modification capacity:

Amphibious 1
*Ammo bins
*Armour - +18 at least
ECM
*EM Shielding
*Gyrolink for main gun
Improved sensor array
Life support (at least 1, possibly 2)
*Lock on Countermeasures
Missile Defence
*Multifuel Engine
Satcom
Searchlight
Smoke Projector
*Tracked Vehicle
*Weapon Mount - Reinforced, External, Heavy Turret, Remote Control + Manual (armoured)
with GM Light or Heavy cannon
* Weapon Mount - Reinforced, External, Heavy Turret, Remote Control + Manual (armoured)
with Stoner Ares M107 HMG

Of course, other mods may also apply, depending on how advanced a vehicle this is and the role you have in mind for it.

Just a couple points: there's no star on it, but a tank certainly would not have Missile Defense (in the sense of the SR4 Mod). Why is the MG on a Heavy Turret; does that refer to the 'stacked turret' possibility the book mentions?

Do you mean "certainly would have a missile defence" ?

And yes, the MG Turret is on top of the main turret.

Assuming advances in weapon loading technology, I would imagine that the turrets are both quite low profile, flatter than the typical modern turret.

***

Of course, tanks vary considerably...

Good point on the cannons - I forgot about those. And now that I look at them, I really want to groan. The writers didn't do a particularly good job thinking those through.

Example, consider the GM Heavy Cannon, allegedly a main battle tank gun. 17P, -8 AP. And now consider an Ares Citymaster with Body 16, Armor 20. Assuming an attack with with 4 net hits. 21P, -8P. The Citymaster rolls some 28 dice, at 4-to-1 buy, that's 7 hits. That's 14 boxes of damage. With a body of 18, the Citymaster has 17 boxes total, so a hit on a "riot-control vehicle" from a main battle tank does not kill it. Wounds it to be sure, but doesn't kill it. Heck, it won't even reliably kill an attack helicopter: the Aguilar GX, with body 16, armor 16, will take 15 boxes of damage, but has 16. This doesn't make much sense.

Or consider the Itzcoatl Gauss Cannon that is essentially a Naval rail gun, is 18P, -10 AP. Four net hits, 22P, -10AP. Citymaster rolls 26 dice, which is 6 hits. That results in 16 boxes of damage, which again isn't enough to kill it. So...main gun on a destroyer/cruiser is unable to destroy a single armored vehicle with one shot. This is, to put it charitably, silly. Hell, a well armored troll has a decent chance at survival, if he burns edge and rolls well.

So, I'm going to have to call these guns completely bogus, as they can't even do the minimum mission that they are described as doing. (And don't get me started on how awful the laser rules are.)

Going back to the 3rd rules (SOTA 2063 and R3), we have the above mentioned Leopard III, with Body 12, Armor 40. Armor and Body don't translate particularly well. A 3rd ed city master had a body of 5 an armor of 10, just for scope. By similar ratios, a Leopard II had a a body 2.4x the Citymaster, so in 4th it should be around 38 (looking at a couple of other vehicles, the average multiplier is around 2.5-3 for 3rd to 4th). The armor is 4x the Citymaster, giving it a total armor of 64. Which is roughly in line with my 40 body, and suggests armor ratings well over 40.

Now for the Leopard IIIs armament, with is Heavy Rail Run - the Ares Vaporizer in R3 (presumably) with a damage code of 15MN. Damage codes don't convert, and worked very differently in previous editions - but by the R3 rules, that works out to about 45MN when shot at a person or regular vehicle, and they'd need to roll 4 45's just to flatline - not a chance in hell for a regular character in regular armor. Against another Leopard III, the armor reduces the damage code to merely 5MN. Which means the Leopard III gets to roll 5 dice with a target number of 5, and if he gets 6 hits, he only takes 6 boxes of damage! With a bunch of Karma (Edge) and a lot of luck, he might actually survive - but otherwise, he's pretty much toast.

So, the main armament should be able to fairly reliably destroy another tank, so the damage values need to be pretty insane, so again, something like 30P, -40AP makes sense.

Grrr. This annoys me about 4th edition. The core mechanics are pretty solid, but they didn't really think through the statistics when it comes to vehicle ratings and equipment. They evidently threw some numbers down, and didn't think much about them.

Would both of the guns in this example "knowckdown" the citymaster? I picture them being rolled over on their sides by the impact.

Also, (I could be mis-remembering the vehicle combat rules) but don't the crew take the same damage as the vehicle?

I don't think they were intending on us to steal tanks in Seattle. At least not until War comes out.

I miss the days where Vehicle Armor and Body was different from Metahuman.

A Rail Gun. Should be doing 30P -20AP
A Main Tank weapon: ~20P -15AP

Why not? My group has commented on wanting to raid the Supercarrier for a jet to pawn.

Yeah, but the Supercarrier doesn't have tanks.

I just think it changes the scope of the game. What kind of job has you going up against a tank?

(well, besides the one already provided )

I think in most cases military ordnance is left to the...military.

Its possible that tanks are going by the wayside. They have added vulnerabilities in SR4, any spirit materializing inside the crew compartment, hacking their net connection, carbombs...

In the absence of the Cold War era Superpowers, smaller militaries focused on police actions and covert ops are more likely. In fact the likelyhood of anyone maintaining huge money hungry items like a Supercarrier are also pretty small. Where is the profit, unless you are running a protection racket?

When the other side potentially has Thor shots available, rolling out a couple hundred T-72's doesn't make sense. Going through the design process for a MBT when you are only going to build a hundred or so isn't very cost effective, especially with the rate of technological advancement.

Uh-oh, somebody started asking the big questions about how viable tanks are on the battlefield of 2070. A reasonable question, but the various sourcebooks have made it clear that such things do exist, even if they haven't always statted them out. Yes, a wreck vehicle spell or spirit could ruin a tank's whole day, but that's why I think that magical countermeasures would be fairly common at the brigade level during major combat operations.

As for cost effectiveness, the number built is an order of magnitude higher than 100 - maybe even 2 orders. The number of M1s built, by wikipedia, is over 9,000. Over 25,000 T-72s have been built. Going by current development cycles, we're probably looking at one or two generations ahead of current vehicles by 2070, and while the numbers may be reduced, I still think it's enough to justify. Hell look at how much the US spent on 200 F-22s...

That's also what I was thinking. Get a platoon with enough cyber and they just might get to your tank and rip the top off before your crew can track and fire.


On the other hand, we do have LAV's/T-birds, which are typically used in a 'light armor' role which implies there's heavy armor somewhere along the line.

Well, they probably get a lot of work in Desert Wars.

Rolling lines of MBTs would be great for ratings!

Remember that the turret height also determines how far a vehicle can depress its gun, which in turn determines how far the tank will be exposed in hull-down position. So far the western design philosophy has been that the better use of cover offsets the disadvantages a larger silhouette brings when in the open, the Russians have reached the opposite conclusion.

In ww2, when it was possible that a platoon of groundpounders could take out tanks. (satchel bombs, flame throwers) tanks that were going to engage ground units often had a platoon on their side as well, providing ground support against just such attacks.

I could see a group of tanks with a platoon attached to it.

First you need cybered trolls with raptor legs, then you get gnomes with those magnetic graple feet clamped onto the Troll's shoulders. Each gnome has a backpack of satchel charges, and the Troll just does full defense actions while he runs at the tank.

heee

Okay that's funny..
Silly
but funny

Tanks are always supposed to have a platoon with it - but they can still lose a tread to an IED or a well-placed RPG shot.

Just do it the Battletech way, five elementals against one vehicle. Ony with a different kind of elemental...

Sure
He was saying.. Tanks aren't viable because you throw a platoon of cyber/magic guys at it.
I was just saying.. we've had the equivalent in the past, and the Military handled it.

Tanks aren't indestructible.
They're not unbeatable.
They're just tough, mobile, and provide a nice punch.

Right right. Throw a squad of cyber/mages at it, and find their own support squad there, possibly with magical support. It's hard to say whether or not the OPFOR would have magic in the first place if it was standard military vs. standard military based off the 'rarity' of magical talent in the world, let alone the armed forces, but...eh. I'd think the UCAS/CAS has been working like gangbusters to come up with a semieffective countermeasure/protection to magic for their armor.

Given that one of their neighbors is a primarily Magical Force who has shown willingness to commit genocide to get their way
I would imagine that magical talent into their military.. is a priority.

Don't forget that presumably the cannons shown are "standard ammo" - what happens to the stats when you load them up with hi-ex or Armour peircing?

Oh, indeed! However, with the Rift right there in DeeCee and DIMR/DF paying top dollar...How many are staying in the military?

Runner Smurf: 1) Agreed, SR4 and vehicles seems half-assed, and I loved Rigger 3; 2) I think you forgot to halve armor with the Gauss, not that it really changes your point.

Mayhem_2006: I meant that a tank has no business with an anti-missile system derived from aircraft carriers; it uses a network of multiple laser/machine-gun turrets to intercept missiles. I'm not saying it's impossible to *build* on a smaller vehicle, just that it doesn't make sense for a tank to be designed with it.

I could see a tank having "chaff" counter measures. But only a couple of rounds worth.

You could always justify a cannon's crappy DV with reactive armor.

Actually there are some groups working on just that. One of the key issues though is the software and collateral damage to your own forces (such as when your own infantry are nearby). SImilar situation as to reactive armors (the armor that explodes to deflect the blast).

Recalling from a thread a year or so ago IMHO an MBT would have:

Warding, or other protective magical defenses.
An active missle defense system (like metal storm)
Remote MG turrets and main turret.
Tracked or an LAV.
A couple of drone racks for arial and ground recon.
Rigger control.

Armor (depending on the state of the armor vs anti-tank weapon race) could well be in the mid 30's with a body of 30.

at 60 dice, alot of damage is shrugged off. Also keep in mind the armor penetration rules.

Judging by the books

Agreed. I just wanted to make it clear that I was speaking, as it were, about fluff instead of crunch. It really depends on the scale: 6-12 auto/laser turrets on a tank (in addition to the actual armaments) is excessive, but 2-3 dedicated anti-rocket units? Not excessive. Are you referring to that Israeli vehicular anti-rocket thing?

Isn't one of the Metal Storm proposals for an anti missle system using .22 cal rounds?

I seem to remember another abomination that would throw something like 100,000 gernades into the area of a football field (in some rediculously small timeframe, like 1 second) that would overload the structure of tanks by vibrating their components apart. Seems kind of silly and how many times could a tank do that, but the tech is still new.

Sounds right to me, Tommy, but I'm reserving comment on anything Metal Storm until it actually (if ever) exists.

This is what I mentioned, I think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_active_protection_system
Whereas the MDS is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS