04-29-2020, 12:40 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Mar 2016
|
Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech
On UT226-7, whether or not hovertanks are considered superscience isn't consistent. It's listed as TL10^ in the text description, but TL10 on the table. So which is it?
|
04-29-2020, 12:49 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech
Hmm. Given the feature list, I don't see why it should be superscience so long as it doesn't have the plasma cannon. Though it could be if one deems hovering a light AFV to be an unrealistic feat of engineering.
(Side issue: none of the tank descriptions say anything about range or operating endurance, unlike most vehicles.)
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
04-29-2020, 07:34 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech
The tank seems like non-superscience, and the fairly low DR and such seem reasonable for a light fighting vehicle like a hover "tank" would need to be.
And then commentary: (because I could not resist a good rant) Basically none of the three "tanks" in UT are tanks. -The tracked vehicle is a light recon/support vehicle that is armed with a gun instead of missiles, like a successor to the Swedish Infanterikanonvagn 91 -The hover one is a coastal patrol vehicle with secondary ability as above. -The grav one is the replacement for attack helicopters. A proper tank would have a LOT more armor. A grav tank example by me can be found in: http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...90&postcount=6 But the general idea would work for for other propulsion systems. |
04-29-2020, 08:00 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech
Quote:
The hover vehicle mentioned as beign good for coastal patrol is the APC and not the hover tank. The Grav Tank isn't armed to replace an attack helicopter. It might have the mobility but is armed like a tank and lacks the flexibility of an attack heleicopter. "Proper" tanks might not be possible but the TL10 versions can take a TL 9 100mm HEAT on their front armor. Designing for the last war I guess. Note that this is only because of laminate plus EMA v. HEAT. There's no such trick for KE weapons and it would take DR 3100 to stop an APEP round from the TL9 light tank's electrothermal 100mm main gun. That would be 4x the armor of the 30 ton light tank in or twice the armor of an Abrams and is going to put you c. 120 tons for the tank so equipped. Probably no one built such a monster or if they did they found they had to leave it at home. It still might not stop side or top attacks from a 100mm HEAT either.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
04-29-2020, 08:33 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech
Light tanks have been a thing through almost all the history of tanks.
One could try to impose a different label on hover and grav 'tanks' since they aren't tracked vehicles, but the TL9 light tank is a perfectly legitimate tank. They're not MBTs, but UT does acknowledge that at least.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
04-29-2020, 10:45 PM | #6 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America, Earth?
|
Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech
Quote:
__________________
Hydration is key |
|
04-29-2020, 11:42 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech
Quote:
The TL9 'Light Battle Tank' has DR500/200, which is pretty heavy non-frontal armour, suggesting that it expects to encounter threats from unexpected directions often (i.e. it's intended for use in asymmetrical combat environments). That DR is equivalent to 7" and 3" of RHA, so it's actually pretty heavy except by the standards of 1980s to 2010s+ MBTs. The TL10 tanks with DR700/300 about the TL10 equivalent of the TL9 tank's armour. Also, there's this little note about them (UT226): "The tanks described below are all designed to be easily transported by aircraft or spacecraft. Larger ones are possible!" These are explicitly intended to be what would be called 'air mobile' today.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
04-29-2020, 11:46 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech
Quote:
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
04-29-2020, 11:58 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech
Quote:
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
04-30-2020, 12:04 AM | #10 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America, Earth?
|
Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech
I totally understand that. The problem I have is that by TL10, you need a ridiculous amount of armor to provide decent frontal protection from the serious threats, and that leaves you with so little armor on the other sides that you're super vulnerable to all sorts of weapon systems. And worse: the Boyar heavy tank ended up being mostly armor, with a very limited weapons system and maneuver.
__________________
Hydration is key |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|