11-23-2009, 12:58 PM | #21 | |
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
Re: Who needs tanks?
Quote:
The various infantry transport and support vehicles, even in a combat role, have a useful purpose and work well within that purpose. Standing up to tanks face-to-face just isn't that role, even though the TOW missile is quite credible (900-1000mmRHA penetration at ranges to 3750m) as an offensive threat.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon |
|
11-23-2009, 01:01 PM | #22 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Re: Who needs tanks?
Quote:
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison |
|
11-23-2009, 01:01 PM | #23 |
Join Date: May 2007
|
Re: Who needs tanks?
Well, the M113 has between 2 and 6mm (ish, I don't have the exact figures) of armor plating, depending on the version, while the stryker has (I think) 14.5mm on the front hull. A Bradley has 65mm. None of these will protect against something like a tank cannon, even a crappy Cold War era one. But their job is not to engage enemy heavy armor (though the Bradley can, at range, with its ATGMs). They're meant to give rapid strategic mobility and provide some minor fire support against soft targets (medium for the Bradley). The Stryker and M113 can withstand light artillery fire (60-80mm mortars or such), but a direct hit will probably penetrate, and kill all the infantry inside.
The M1A2 Abrams has around 100mm, sloped at 80 degrees, with DU reinforcing. It can take cannons shots to the front hull, the sides would probably be penetrated, especially against modern guns. However, this makes it very heavy, (it needs a jet engine) and very fuel inefficient. Giving an APC or IFV this armor would cut down on it's operating range and speed, while still being vulnerable to heavy AT fire. The fact is, the safest place for infantry to be on a battlefield is outside of their vehicle, spread out and in cover. (That being said, I think the IDF uses a model of the Merkeva MBT without the turret as a heavy APC. Probably for urban combat where the enemy is more likely to achieve surprise and hit the AFV from a vulnerable position.) EDIT: semi-ninja-ed by DouglasCole |
11-23-2009, 01:10 PM | #24 |
Forum Pervert
(If you have to ask . . .) Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere high up.
|
Re: Who needs tanks?
I loves me my Mecha. Mecha have personality where tanks don't. You can say: "the 'Mech strikes a defiant pose before unleashing its weapons at its enemies," where a tank can't. Seriously, how does a tank strike a defiant pose? I mean, which of these two looks defiant (Tank, Mecha)?
Are Mecha realistic, or feasable? Not as we understand the future of warfare. It would take some applied phlebotium like Minofsky Particles or the Solar Reactors to make them more useful than tanks. It doesn't bother me that in order to have Mecha they really do have to be powered by Awesome. That's just another facet of how cool I think they are. Basically, in order for Mecha to be real, you have to have a fundamental reason behind it. And, as GM, you can just say "Mecha are better than tanks because, dag nabbit, I want them." |
11-23-2009, 01:31 PM | #25 | |||
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
Re: Who needs tanks?
Quote:
Interestingly, 100mm/cos(80) = 575, so your numbers work out pretty well. About four inches of armor; I'd have thought it'd be thicker. Quote:
Quote:
The AVDS-1790 now comes in 1500HP variants, for example. It also weighs 5000lbs, compared to 2500lbs for the turbine, which is probably why it was chosen. On the other hand, it uses as much fuel (nearly) idling as running flat out; Abrams tanks were upgraded with either an APU or a battery pack for this reason.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon |
|||
11-23-2009, 03:35 PM | #26 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Who needs tanks?
Quote:
Remember, Rico carried mininukes in the raid on the Skinnies and didn't consider it a heavy weapons load. If any weapon heavier than that was needed the Navy was happy to provide (from orbit, so you could be sure). The MI was the arm of _restraint_.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
11-23-2009, 04:54 PM | #27 | |
Join Date: May 2007
|
Re: Who needs tanks?
Quote:
As for the engine thing-I stand corrected. Engines aren't really my thing ;). As for the Mecha/Tank debate, I love me some tanks. Don't get me wrong, power armor (like...8ft or so tall) is cool and everything. But I can't get over the fact that mecha make no realistic sense...boring, I know. Also, I think tanks look cooler. Don't hurt me. |
|
11-23-2009, 05:07 PM | #28 | ||
Ceci n'est pas une tag.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver, WA (Portland Metro)
|
Re: Who needs tanks?
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-23-2009, 05:23 PM | #29 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Who needs tanks?
Have fun figuring out how to articulate the joints. If power armor is noticeably taller than human, about the only way to do so is via a foot extension (putting the power armor in digitigrade stance). In addition, power armor generally wants to (a) be small enough to fit through doors without having to squeeze or duck, and (b) be light enough to not fall through floors, even when moving rapidly.
|
11-23-2009, 05:26 PM | #30 | |
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
|
Re: Who needs tanks?
Quote:
__________________
My Blog: Mailanka's Musing. Currently Playing: Psi-Wars, a step-by-step exploration of building your own Space Opera setting, inspired by Star Wars. |
|
Tags |
afv, mecha, stealth, tanks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|