Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Tank Busting
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
weblife
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

Austere Emancipator
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.
weblife
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?
Austere Emancipator
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.
The Grifter
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.
Edward
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
Austere Emancipator
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?
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.

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
Austere Emancipator
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.
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.

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
lorthazar
Tank busting for cheap LOX and anything. You just need enough LOX.
Austere Emancipator
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.
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. Still, reasonably effective gainst the Bradley's and such. Not so much our M1A1s.
Austere Emancipator
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.
The Grifter
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.
Austere Emancipator
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.
ES_Riddle
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?
The Grifter
Good point, Riddle.

AE-I agree with you theoretically, but I have seen some Hummers get jacked up from them.
Austere Emancipator
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.
Cain
Don't forget, vehicle armor goes against the *base* rating of the attack. So the rebound value may not do anything to the tank.
Sandoval Smith
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.
Edward
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
Tarantula
I think sidewalk concrete is listed at a barrier rating 10.
Jari_Kafghan
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)

Austere Emancipator
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.
Crusher Bob
If SR explosizes rules are as wonky as some of the Champions rules, then blowing a hole the same diameter as the earth in a wall as thick as the earth (i.e. enough explosives to blow up the earth) is trivially available at your local building contractor.
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (Sandoval Smith)
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.

Folks have responded, but there's another possibility - even the toughest MBT is significantly impaired if it's dropped into the sewers below.


-karma
Arethusa
I guess it's a good thing no hand grenade would ever be able to open up the sewers, then.
Austere Emancipator
Maybe a thermal detonator...
How much asphalt + dirt/whatever is there before you get to the sewers, in general? 2 meters? To create a crater big and deep enough for an MBT to drop into it, you'd definitely need 100+kg of high explosives, less if you can dig them into the ground and direct them downwards. At which point it'd be easier just to direct them upwards and cause at least a mobility kill on the MBT.
SpasticTeapot
My idea:
Take 1 part magnesium, 1 parts Elmer's extra-tackyglue, and 4 parts napalm to 8 parts finely-ground thermite. Mix well, and add cornstarch until it reaches a consistency not unlike silly putty and is extremely sticky. Place in a baloon shortly before use.
When target is within range, throw baloon. With any luck, it will splatter into a large lump on the target's exterior. Fire at splattered mixture with incendiary or explosive round of your choice.
This should then ignite the napalm. Although napalm in itself is nasty, the magnesium which it would ignite would, in turn, ignite the thermite. The resulting heat produced should melt a nice big hole in anything with less than an inch of solid-steel armor, and shatter or warp almost all composite materials.
The one big downside to this type of weapon? You're toast (bad pun, I know) if you get anywhere near fire.

Another thing which remarkably few PC's use are passive weapons, such as caltrops. Dump a bunch of sharp objects in the vehicle's path, and the tires become punctured, then accumulate so much junk that the car loses control. Place a few buried grenades on remote fuses in front of or behind the sharp objects, so that if a driver manages to stop in time flips over after losing its tires, you can blow it to little bits without any personal risk.
Austere Emancipator
I was going to say something about composite armors vs. thermite, but you also refer to caltrops so I assume you weren't going to use these tactics against anything but HMMWV-equivalents and lighter ground vehicles.

I wouldn't count on a balloon myself. Thermate grenades are around, they are cheap and accessible, and they're meant for exactly this kind of thing. The glue is useless here -- napalm will stick to a sloped metallic surface just fine.

Actually, all that other sticky stuff would probably make the thermite melt its way into steel at a much slower rate, since it does not have as much direct contact with the steel. In any case, unless you'd be using hell of a lot of the stuff, 1" of steel armor is extremely optimistic. The AN-M14 TH3 thermate hand grenade (with 26.5 ounces of TH3) only melts its way through Ĺ" of steel armor.
weblife
How about the vehicles sensors and windows?

Would a "normal" incendiary grenade that detonates in the air, just above a vehicle, raining sticky fire all over it, not obscure vision?

Thermal sensors on the vehicle would be pressed to ignore the immediate and high heat, the cameras would have burning goo on them, and unless the window cleaners is made of fireresistant rubber, the windshield will be a mess too.

Whats your take on targeting the sensors in this manner?

As far as my original scope, this thread has gone into the woods. And its not looking back. biggrin.gif - Home grown explosives, napalm and rigging buried guerilla traps.. heh.
Austere Emancipator
It'd probably be better to have the grenade detonate in front of the vehicle. I don't think the thermate spreads much, but it might cover a decent area on the face of the vehicle if it's thrown at it and detonates in air.

It'd definitely disable thermal and video sensors (thermate burns extremely bright, enough to damage your eyes if you look straight at it). Against an MBT or other heavily armored military vehicle this might be an effective use of the grenade -- aiming at the high-center of the turret, just above the gun mantlet, would allow you to disable most of the sensors on a modern MBT and probably several on most future MBTs as well.

Against a vehicle which actually has windows of any kind, including very thick, armored composite designs, disabled sensors will only be a side-effect: people inside the vehicle will be much more concerned with the thermate burning through the vehicle. Most "fire-resistant" materials still don't like temperatures in excess of 2,000 degrees C.
Foreigner
This'll probably get me flamed pretty badly, but:

How about a combination "low tech/high-tech" approach?

In a Punisher comic several years ago, the title character incapacitated a heavily-cybered opponent by using a remote-controlled toy car packed with a charge of C-4, and detonated by remote-control; he maneuvered it under the guy's feet, and when it went off, the baddie lost both legs below the knees.

Unfortunately, both legs were cyberware, and he carried spare parts. smile.gif He was back in action two panels later.

A similar approach was used twice in the 1986 Clint Eastwood film The Dead Pool.

If such toys are available in the SR universe, I'd think it would at least be theoretically feasible. (An explosives-laden mini-drone would probably work, but I was hoping that there was a less costly delivery method out there.)

I'm at a loss as to how you'd get such a contraption past the tank's sensors, though.

--Foreigner
Austere Emancipator
The minidrone/toy car would still have to carry a shaped charge heavy enough to actually penetrate the bottom armor of the MBT and to knock it out of action. Most toy cars that I'm aware of will not manage this. With a 2005-tech, cheap toy car, you'd also have to see the MBT and the toy car while you're controlling it, so I'd be more worried about how you manage to evade the sensors instead of the car. By the 2060s-70s, MBTs would also carry EW kits that would enable them to very quickly pick out your position from the communication with the toy car/drone.

A few simple(?) solutions: 1st, only try this in urban terrain where you only have to guide the drone for a very short distance. 2nd, control the drone through a wire. A drone with a signature well above 6, rudimentary sensors to allow you to guide it without having LoS to either the drone or the MBT, and high enough load capacity to carry a warhead capable of knocking out a tank, should be easy to acquire and not too expensive.

Still, this would require access to basic rigger gear, a drone worth 500-1000 nuyen.gif, and the warhead capable of penetrating tank armor. Unless you are or have in your team a drone rigger with lots of really cheap drones and someone with a very high Demolitions skill and lots of high explosives, this isn't something you can whip up quickly. In most cases, you're better off getting Great Dragon ATGMs -- which apparently are easier for criminals to access than C-12 or thermite.
Nikoli
the drone+explosives is good for pretty much anything shy of a MBT.
The great dragons are pretty good for everything else.
Another option is the tazer-like special warheads that fry the rigger in control of the vehicle, or the dog-brain, or anyone touching the wheel for that matter. No driver = much less threatening tank.
Austere Emancipator
MBTs ought to be protected against electric attacks. It's certainly an option to keep in mind against many other types of vehicles, however.
Fortune
QUOTE (SpasticTeapot)
Take 1 part magnesium, 1 parts Elmer's extra-tackyglue, and 4 parts napalm to 8 parts finely-ground thermite. Mix well, and add cornstarch until it reaches a consistency not unlike silly putty and is extremely sticky. Place in a baloon shortly before use.
When target is within range, throw baloon. With any luck, it will splatter into a large lump on the target's exterior. Fire at splattered mixture with incendiary or explosive round of your choice.
This should then ignite the napalm. Although napalm in itself is nasty, the magnesium which it would ignite would, in turn, ignite the thermite. The resulting heat produced should melt a nice big hole in anything with less than an inch of solid-steel armor, and shatter or warp almost all composite materials.
The one big downside to this type of weapon? You're toast (bad pun, I know) if you get anywhere near fire.

Hello Mr. Homeland Security guy. wavey.gif
KarmaInferno
There's always setting up a shaped charge in a manhole pointed up, and luring the tank over it.

In the final Virtual Seattle adventure, my team set up the Uberest Shaped Charge Evar, to take out an heavily armored vehicle. Gutted a flying drone of anything but the flight elements, and packed an ungodly amount of explosives into it as an improvised shaped charge. Then a mage hit it with a number of stealthy spells to make it undetectable and we just flew it over the target vehicle. It made a car-sized crater in the road, nevermind taking out the car.

Oh, and Hi Mr Nice Government Person! wavey.gif


-karma
Austere Emancipator
You could quite easily create the ‹SCE if that were your only goal. Military applications rarely call for a shaped charge warhead heavier than about 150kg, since that's quite enough to penetrate up to 6 meters of reinforced concrete when properly applied. When you have to penetrate more than that, it's usually more efficient to use a kinetic energy penetrator combined with a smaller HE warhead. You can blow apart the heaviest MBTs on a hit to the gun mantlet at a poor angle with a warhead far lighter than that.

Still, anything below 150kg certainly has no claim to the title. [Edit]Seems there were prototypes of the BAe Broach multiple warhead system (basically a dual shaped charge design) for 2000lbs bombs, where the shaped charges alone weighed about 300kg. Heck, the German WWII Sturmtiger fired rockets with a shaped charge weighing more than 100kg.[/Edit]
PBTHHHHT
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Apr 15 2005, 02:49 PM)
Oh, and Hi Mr Nice Government Person!  wavey.gif

The funniest part is that I, myself, works for the government. biggrin.gif

But only for commerce dept, so...

Hi Mr Nice Homeland Security Person! wavey.gif
Apathy
QUOTE
but you also refer to caltrops so I assume you weren't going to use these tactics against anything but HMMWV-equivalents and lighter ground vehicles

In the real world, caltrops would have not effect on tracked vehicles. However, a rules-lawyer may note that, since the power of a caltrop is determined by the target's body in SR, they can be uber-tough against things with uber-high body ratings.

[edit] Since caltrops do (Body)L damage, and vehicles reduce damage level by one, they can never do any damage to any vehicle. However, if you were to dikote them, the damage goes up to (Bod+1)M, which may well do significant damage.
Edward
There is always the kazi system.

My GM created them once. Take a small rotor drone max out its speed and use the drone itself as a kinetic kill weapon by deliberately crashing into the MBT. With a methane engine over powered for speed and a pilot willing to push the drone beyond maximum safe speed (stress is irrelevant, we are trying to crash the thing) an impact velleity of 250m/ct would be achievable. That translates into 300KPH. I am farley shore the vehicle collision rules make this a confident kill how dos it sound for reality.

If you donít think its fast enough a jet turbine powered small fixed wing UAV could probably be pushed to 600m/ct or 720km/h.

Just make certain your RCD is set up to minimise dump shock.

As to caltrops they tend to be heavy bulky and difficult to transport in an easily assessable location. And considering they would not bypass armour on a tracked vehicle body/2-armor(L) to a tank is not likely to be an issue.

Edward
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Edward)
I am farley shore the vehicle collision rules make this a confident kill how dos it sound for reality.

Yup, at least according to the Ramming rules on sr3.143 that'd make destroying an MBT with a small rotor drone @ 250m/CT quite easy.

Realistically, it's bullshit. As in, no fucking way would it ever work. Unless the drone is heavily armored, it'd just break apart on impact and not achieve more than scratching the paint. The MBT would be unharmed regardless, unless the drone weighs 5+ tons, has a very thick tungsten alloy shell (Vehicle Armor 20+?), is shaped for penetration, and hits the roof of the rear hull at 90 degrees. At 720km/h, the Vehicle Armor requirement increases by a few points and the drone would only have to weigh ~1 ton.

Basically, at this point you're talking about a kinetic penetrator missile powered by jet turbines. Nothing ever built for any other purpose would stand any chance of penetrating. You might just as well go for this instead.
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
You could quite easily create the ‹SCE if that were your only goal. Military applications rarely call for a shaped charge warhead heavier than about 150kg, since that's quite enough to penetrate up to 6 meters of reinforced concrete when properly applied. When you have to penetrate more than that, it's usually more efficient to use a kinetic energy penetrator combined with a smaller HE warhead. You can blow apart the heaviest MBTs on a hit to the gun mantlet at a poor angle with a warhead far lighter than that.

Heh, well, it was "only" an armored limo, but we just wanted to make sure. We'd been getting rumors that the occupant might in fact have been a dragon or some sort of mega-powerful magical critter. Fortunately it wasn't.

Turns out we in fact also obliterated a significant bit of intel in the blast, which would have make later events much easier if we'd known. Ah well.

QUOTE
Still, anything below 150kg certainly has no claim to the title.

We took the highest capacity stock flying drone in the books, (no idea what that is, been a while), boosted the engine power to redline, and packed it to the gills with explosives. I have no idea how many Kg that translates into.


-karma
Weredigo
this is a bit of a brainstorm.

Coffee Can, chunk (about size of baseball) of C-4 or 5 wired with remote detonator. Fill rest of coffee can with Dikoted Ball Bearings. I wouldn't expect much if it was detonated beside or on top of the tank, but if set off underneath the tank would it punch through? If set off directly underneath the tank would it punch trough, or damage it enough to immobilize the industrial beast?
Critias
Nothing says "on a budget" quite like a coffee can full of dikoted ball bearings.
Austere Emancipator
No on all counts. Ball bearings, dikoted or not, are absolutely not the sort of projectile that will penetrate an MBT -- not unless they are propelled at speeds far in excess of anything but perhaps a massively powerful rail gun can manage.

An explosive of about baseball size would most likely prove too weak even to blow a track on a current tech (2005) MBT if it went off right underneath. A coffee can filled to the brim with C-4 might be enough to sever a track, though. A coffee can (1.5l-2l) filled with C-4 except for a small hollow and a perfectly shaped copper liner might just be enough to penetrate the bottom armor on an '05 MBT if it's pointing straight up. For a '65 MBT, I'd rather go with a cylindrical metal object with a volume of at least 5l, with C-12 instead of C-4.

[Edit]A chunk of C-4 the size of the largest allowed baseball in Major League Baseball would weigh ~0.36kg. In SR terms, that's a whopping 1D, -6/m Damage Code.[/Edit]
Demosthenes
QUOTE (Weredigo)
this is a bit of a brainstorm.

Coffee Can, chunk (about size of baseball) of C-4 or 5 wired with remote detonator. Fill rest of coffee can with Dikoted Ball Bearings. I wouldn't expect much if it was detonated beside or on top of the tank, but if set off underneath the tank would it punch through? If set off directly underneath the tank would it punch trough, or damage it enough to immobilize the industrial beast?

QUOTE
Nothing says "on a budget" quite like a coffee can full of dikoted ball bearings.


Indeed. The Dikote costs about 10 times what the ball bearings and the C-4 cost (at least, it does if you pay SI...). biggrin.gif

I don't think anything involving ball bearings, a small chunk of plastic explosive, and a coffee can is going to do much to a tank (unless the driver stops to get out and give out about the damage to the paint job)...
Critias
Well, see, what you do is slap the C-4 onto the side of the tank, take cover, and wait for the boom. Then, scramble atop the tank while he's laughing at you. After the laughter from inside stops and the tanker pops his head out to look for the guy who just wasted some C-4 (and screwed up his pin-up style paintjob of the Baroness) on his tank, you clobber him over the head with a coffee can full of ball bearings.

Then take his tank. And laugh.
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