Tanks
- Thread starter savage
- Start date
Savage,
That's more of a general RPG thing than a purely T:2013 thing.
Even a company that took military accuracy as seriously as GDW dialed back the lethality of tanks somewhat. Having tanks routinely kick PC butt as would happen in real life kind of puts a damper on things. It's the same with artillery.
T:2013 probably just dialed it back a little more than was originally done in T:2000.
Regards,
Bill
That's more of a general RPG thing than a purely T:2013 thing.
Even a company that took military accuracy as seriously as GDW dialed back the lethality of tanks somewhat. Having tanks routinely kick PC butt as would happen in real life kind of puts a damper on things. It's the same with artillery.
T:2013 probably just dialed it back a little more than was originally done in T:2000.
Regards,
Bill
Peter Schutze
SOC-12
how is the tank less dangerous than real life ?
the hmg's used would be the same effectiveness whether tank mounted or in player hands
the big gun would most likely kill you under the same backblast rules as for bazooka's etc
or did i misunderstand and rpg-7's are routinely capable of trashing a m1 abrahms on a front on shot (or any other actually) ?
the 2 times my players got involved with still mobile tanks meant 'breaking it down' via tread hits and flaming it etc and someone important died each time
the hmg's used would be the same effectiveness whether tank mounted or in player hands
the big gun would most likely kill you under the same backblast rules as for bazooka's etc
or did i misunderstand and rpg-7's are routinely capable of trashing a m1 abrahms on a front on shot (or any other actually) ?
the 2 times my players got involved with still mobile tanks meant 'breaking it down' via tread hits and flaming it etc and someone important died each time
RPGs
I believe it was Tank Overhaul (on TV) where they mentioned an M1 with 50 RPG hits and no crew damage. Now there are 6 types of RPGs including the RPG7.
Here is a quote from a web blog:
Well, my old tank commander said his tank was hit with over 12 rpg's and it didnt do anything. it would have to be a good hit too do anything. odds are it woulndt harm the crew at all. rpg's really dont do anything to an abrams. Well at least according to the soldiers that were the spearhead of the war.
Then again also depends on any unique armour package the tanks have... urban packages, etc.
I was a bit more interested in whether T2013 was aiming for a soft vehicle adventure setting by making armour more easier to kill? And whether T2000 had done the same thing.
Nope don't think so.
I believe it was Tank Overhaul (on TV) where they mentioned an M1 with 50 RPG hits and no crew damage. Now there are 6 types of RPGs including the RPG7.
Here is a quote from a web blog:
Well, my old tank commander said his tank was hit with over 12 rpg's and it didnt do anything. it would have to be a good hit too do anything. odds are it woulndt harm the crew at all. rpg's really dont do anything to an abrams. Well at least according to the soldiers that were the spearhead of the war.
Then again also depends on any unique armour package the tanks have... urban packages, etc.
I was a bit more interested in whether T2013 was aiming for a soft vehicle adventure setting by making armour more easier to kill? And whether T2000 had done the same thing.
G. Fieendish
SOC-12
I recall that the Russian Federation had produced Tandem Charge rounds for the RPG -7 launcher, in order to defeat Reactive Armour suites...
In addition, thermobaric/Fuel-Air Explosive rounds were reportedly also produced for the RPG -7, so there is a possibility that they could defeat a modern MBT's armour...
In addition, thermobaric/Fuel-Air Explosive rounds were reportedly also produced for the RPG -7, so there is a possibility that they could defeat a modern MBT's armour...
ThunderChilde
SOC-13
Abrams don't mount reactive, so the tandem charge is a moot issue. Thermobarics are blast weapons, not penetrative weapons, would have been for killing bunkers, and or pop one into a barracks and up the casualty rate, I dunno how effecting a thermobaric charge you could mount and fire from a RPG by the way, not a big warhead there.
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
British Challenger and Israeli Merkavas do mount reactive armor.
Peter Schutze
SOC-12
The newer versions of the russian tanks have reactive armour as well
Most tanks since the 90s would be fairly immune to small thermobaric effects like manportable rocket versions .... even older ones with NBC protection should be fairly OK
I'd probably allow a player to shut down a tanks engine temporarily by using one .... lack of oxygen for the engine so maybe an action or 3 where it can''t move
Most tanks since the 90s would be fairly immune to small thermobaric effects like manportable rocket versions .... even older ones with NBC protection should be fairly OK
I'd probably allow a player to shut down a tanks engine temporarily by using one .... lack of oxygen for the engine so maybe an action or 3 where it can''t move
redgriffin
SOC-1
Hi guy's I'm new here so don't be to hard on me. But I have some thought of your statements. The only country today that uses special Armor is the US which uses Burlington, a derivative of Chobham, the rest seem to use reactive because it is cheaper. As for a Fuel Air Explosive I've always seen that as an anti personnel weapon as most AFVs will be buttoned up in combat. So I think that you would not see an FAE used against tanks unless it was on a marching column.
Border Reiver
SOC-14 1K
Hi redgriffen. Welcome aboard.
In answer to your post I think you'll find that the British Challenger 2 uses a second generation of Chobham derived armour known as Dorchester. There has only ever been one Challenger 2 ever destroyed in combat and that was by another Challenger 2 (woops
)
Burlington was first generation Chobham but the latest Abrams uses a US designed second generation variant.
In answer to your post I think you'll find that the British Challenger 2 uses a second generation of Chobham derived armour known as Dorchester. There has only ever been one Challenger 2 ever destroyed in combat and that was by another Challenger 2 (woops
)Burlington was first generation Chobham but the latest Abrams uses a US designed second generation variant.
ThunderChilde
SOC-13
I do beieve that the Leopard 1 and 2 and the french Le Clrec use Chobham of one flavour or another, the Le Clerc uses a french derivative as I recall.
Hello,
This is only my second posting, so if I sound cheecky please excuse me. I finally decided to join this site after being directed here in most of my seearches! It feels good to contribute some things. I hope you'll share my enthousiasm.
The Leopard 1 is hardly used by anyone. The Leopard 2A6 version uses the original Leo 2 armour, which is a kind of Chobham. Added to that is an extra shell of hollow armour with the same kind of laminate used in Chobham, but more modern. The main thing in the current version is the armour on the bottom of the hull. This is now clad in laminate armour as well. You can see the difference because it lowers the ground clearance by about four inches.
A thing on ERA: A very important thing on ERA is the sensitivity and the 'Off' switch. When supporting infantry, it wouldn't be a good thing if an ERA package went off. It might save the tank but would easily take out a section of the men you're supposed to support!
Similar threads
