http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzBPGfCq21s

57mm that goes from impact detonation to timed or proximity...

And also more speed, less altitude, moar dakka...not to mention that the concept should at lest bring some changes in military tactics, as a few hedgehog suddently are no longer effective at stopping armoured forces, APCs just got a whole lot more mobile, and you need ATGMs for air defence...

I want one.

For duck hunting.

i want one of the 8.5t Baseballs.

Well, you still don't need ATGMs to hit its engines. LAVs are still aircraft, albeit relatively heavily-armoured. They aren't tanks.
Also, frankly, military tactics wouldn't change as much as with Awakening, nanites, rigging, minuscule cams, and many, many other things not covered in any way in War!

The point of the phalanx system is to put enough uranium into a missile to cause the warhead to detonate or to destroy it with enough force that even parts of it do not have enough kinetic force to hit the ship. The only problem with metalstorm is you have to reload using an entire stack. There is a reason that it is used as a secondary weapon or for area denial such as grenades where you want to saturate the area, but have little issue with reloading.

Of course they are, just tanks with jet trusters allowing them to lift off. Hit the engines? Sure, after you've dug through the armor.

Tanks with thrusters allowing them to lift off are just that - tanks, look at the models mentioned earlier in this thread.
LAVs are nowhere near them in what comes to Body and Armour.
And you can't place vector-thrust engines under the armour.

of course you can.
all you need is open intake and outlet.
and at least outlet in different directions.

GMC Banshee light recon T-bird: Body 20, Armor 18.

That compares quite nicely to the light tanks in W!.

That kind of comparison...

Should be made by someone that has read War! and not by me.

And how exactly do you imagine that?
Also, how do you imagine shedding the heat such a powerful engine generates, if it's inside the hull?

Light tanks - yeah. Flying main battle tanks from MST - not so much.

Additionally, if you wreck the intake or output ports, just how far will that flying tank get?

Heck, a freeze foam grenade launched into the right bit will give the tank a bad day.



-k

Unless that locks the turret in place you now have a pillbox with a angry crew inside.

Intake vents? Grating.
Heat diffusion? Thermal recycling tech.

Basically nothing in the setting makes sense.
Why is this your line in the sand?

Depends on what altitude the tank was flying at the time.






-k

I fail to see these things doing much more then maybe 10-20cm above the local ground height. Want more then that get a T-bird going.

The same way they gain enough trust to lift off at a fuel consumption which makes them economic choices for smuggling outfits - the plot says so

And yeah, a vehicle billed as light recon is not a flying MBT - who would have thought...

Plot and advancing technology. We don't really know what went into the engines or anything, so...

Phlebotinum.

And Handwavium.

Isn´t duck hunting supposed to yield usable duck bits instead of duck mist clouds???

Gives "inhaling your food" a whole new meaning eh?

Not to forget Rule of Cool.Racing contraband across borders at ridiculous speed, zig-zagging wildly to escape enemy choppers, in a tank which is an extension of your body ==

Rule-Of-Cool for the Win...

Shadowrun is a good setting because it makes sense. And while this particular example may grate on my nerves cause I'm studying in the institute of aviation, I just don't think we should be handwaving everything for no reason but some bits of the fluff here and there being nonsensical.

Can't remember anything in the "plot" you're referencing on T-birds having their engines inside the hull.
Can remember someone saying that T-birds are flying tanks. I'm glad that you're with me on that question.

Cool turns freezing-solid cool when it makes sense.

Not Always...

Allow me to rephrase.

I want one. For "Duck Hunting". Wink wink, nod nod, knowwhatImeanknowwhatImean?

Momentarily back to topic.
I somehow wonder why Phalanx stats from MilSpecTech (where it's said to be obsolescent) are that much better than the autocannon stats from Arsenal... and why it doesn't have the ranges or the notion of using minigun rules or anything.
I would also like to know how can a Pegasus be upgraded into a Unicorn, as This Old Drone promises.

They also have very short operating ranges, at least according to the fluff.

Well, if you believe Target:Smuggler Havens, they can run from Vladivostok to Hawaii, or from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky to Seattle.
Hardly a "very short operating range", I'd say.

Well, here's the thing: a lot of our understanding of what makes a T-bird comes from Rigger 2 and Rigger 3. Here's what informs the idea that T-Birds have their engines inside their hull, or at least beneath the outer armor:

1) When designing a vehicle from scratch, the T-Bird hull is a distinct option from both Tilt-Wing VTOL and Fixed-Wing VTOL Aircraft hull frames. Ergo, a T-Bird *cannot* merely be a tilt wing or VTOL aircraft frame. It has to be something different.
2) Discussions of T-Birds in earlier books indicate their flight ceiling is pretty damn low - lower than tilt wing or fixed wing aircraft by a significant margin. If memory serves, the maximum flight ceiling for a light T-Bird is only somthing like 900 meters.
3) Every single picture of a T-Bird in any book, ever, has had the engines inside the hull. This has to count for *something*.
4) T-Birds get increased fuel efficiency during NOE flight, if I recall correctly? This may have been an optional rule, though.
5) T-Birds MAY be considered flying tanks, in that many tanks canonically referenced (such as the Stonewall) are ground-effect, vectored thust vehicles like T-Birds. I think t-birds are probably closer to IFVs, though.
6) The proper name for a thunderbird is "LAV", Low-Altitude Vehicle. The OTHER slang for it is "Panzer", as in flying tank.

I mean, yes, it should grate on your nerves that thunderbirds make no goddamn sense in terms of flight dynamics. None. But here's the thing: the thunderbirds/LAVs of Shadowrun - as well as Riggers in general - come from the novel Hardwired, by Walter Jon Williams, which is about smugglers who wire their brains (through "data ports" in their skulls) directly into hovertanks (called LAVs, Panzers, or Thunderbirds) to smuggle cargo in said tanks across a balkanized countryside.

So really, they have nothing to do with believability as they do with being an homage to this novel.

Edit: Using Banshee LAV stats from SR2, they hold 7500 liters of fuel, and have a fuel economy of 0.05km/L. This gives them a range of 375 km on a full tank. If they have been modded to accept external tanks, I think you can bump this to 12,500 L (2 external tanks of 2500 liters a piece), or a total range of 625 km. Compare this to the Lear-Cessna Platinum II, which holds 1500 L of fuel, and has a fuel economy of 0.5 km/L. Or a range of ... 750km. For a supersonic jet. Similarly, the BMW Blitzen has a max range of 297.5 km on a full tank of 35 liters.

Yeah. Fuel efficiency stats rarely match up with any sane estimate.

I dunno, Fatum. I think I don't believe that, based on previous information about them. They're supposed to be hellaciously fuel-hungry. They have no wings or anything, *sometimes* something approaching a lifting body, and they're massive, heavy boxes.

Metal Boxes

Now, that makes sense, unlike some of the arguments above that, which I don't want to discuss in detail.
Still, I don't think we should be using those things non-sequitur, without writing the tech they're using into the rest of the setting.

How is smuggling a profitable business, again?

Smuggle very small, very valuable things across borders that are so dangerous they require flying armor boxes. *shrug*. It's not my problem.

I remember some older edition picture of a Banshee with wings. Ok, they were more like stub-wings, but wings nonetheless.

I think that's the definition of 'less', actually. They do appear to have some little fins, yes.

I don't find the LAV acronym particularly convenient since it is already established as "Light Armored Vehicle" in the military.

In german, "panzer" just means "armor" and is the short for nearly any type of armored vehicles. In SR history, German company BMW was among the first companies to copy the vectored-thrust vehicle designed by Keruba at the beginning of the 21st century (this makes a bit more sense when you know BMW was involved in the jet engine industry through a joint-venture with Rolls-Royce until 2000 IRL ; BMW maybe not walked off this partnership in SR).

The name "Thunderbird" or "T-Bird" likely comes from the 1960s British show, which often featured that type of vehicle (though those were not "thunderbirds" and were called "helijets"). Jon Szeto somewhat retconned this in SOTA:2063 by introducing a GMC Thunderbird as model equivalent to the Eurowar-era Russian BMV.

BMV? Well, BM is obviously the same as in BMP, and stands for "fighting vehicle".
V?

I imagine it's all about what you're smuggling, how many of 'em can fit in the cargo hold of your hover-brick, and how hard it would be for any other vehicle to get that load across a given border. BTLs, skillsofts, and other electronics, orichalcum and other expensive magical stuff, top-end weaponry (packed tight enough), headware parts...there's plenty of high tech, high cost, stuff that could be worth smuggling.

Not to mention Drugs... which are a boon for the smuggliung businesss today...

You can't argue about what they're called… that's what they're called. Just use the one you like best. I'm sticking with 't-birds', despite that fact that they're not giant mythical birds *nor* John Travolta from Grease.

Yeah, I always preferred LAV's myself, even with the common designation in the Military...

Acronyms change and are used multiple times on occasion.

And for our German Speakers out there, what would "Flying Tank" be? Luftpanzerkampfwagen?

only if you're in the military which does not say one mouse trap, but instead says 1EA, trap, snap, for vermin, grey.
everybody else would just say flugpanzer or something like that.

Flugpanzer? Sounds like something that needs adjusting in the engine.

Sounds like the Red Bull folks upgraded their yearly Fleet Week event.

According to Rigger 3 they have auxilliary wings (although not mentioned, those could of course be replaced/supplemented by lifting body designs) which are used for flying outside the envelope of ground effect, although only at extreme stall speeds. In other words, short "jumps" to higher altitudes are possible, they just require a lot of speed to make up for the lacking wing surface. However it also mentions that the ground effect envelope ends at 75m, 7.5 sounds better to me...


PS: The precise translation of "flying tank" would be "Fliegender Panzer", but in practice most people would certainly shorten it to "Flugpanzer" or maybe just "F-Panzer" (like U-Boot). Or come up with a fancy pseudo-anglicism for it

Well, I like "Luftpanzer" for fancy pseudo-anglicism.