Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-29-2020, 12:40 AM   #1
awesomenessofme1
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Default 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?
awesomenessofme1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 12:49 AM   #2
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default 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.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 07:34 PM   #3
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default 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.
__________________
--
GURPS spaceship unofficial errata and thoughts: https://gsuc.roto.nu/
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 08:00 PM   #4
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby View Post
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.
s.
It'd be a better rant if it were more accurate. The TL9 Light Tank is armed with both missiles _and_ gun.

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
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 08:33 PM   #5
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default 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.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 10:45 PM   #6
Verjigorm
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America, Earth?
Default Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
It'd be a better rant if it were more accurate. The TL9 Light Tank is armed with both missiles _and_ gun.

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.
I have a TL10 SM5 "heavy tank" statted out, called the Boyard, and I was able to get around 900 DR on the front at TL9 and around 1,410 at TL10. That's just enough to survive some of the bigger weapon systems, but of course: only from the front. I'm willing to bet that main battle tanks are all but obsolete at TL9 and TL10.
__________________
Hydration is key
Verjigorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 11:42 PM   #7
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby View Post
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.
The AMX-13 was a (light) tank. It had 10-40mm of armour (so about DR30-110). The AMX-30 main battle tank had no more than 80mm of armour (DR220). If the tech of the day means that any serious anti-tank weapon can get through any reasonable level of armour, there's no point adding more armour than is needed to stop light anti-tank weapons, random hits from artillery, and so on.

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."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 11:46 PM   #8
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verjigorm View Post
I have a TL10 SM5 "heavy tank" statted out, called the Boyard, and I was able to get around 900 DR on the front at TL9 and around 1,410 at TL10. That's just enough to survive some of the bigger weapon systems, but of course: only from the front. I'm willing to bet that main battle tanks are all but obsolete at TL9 and TL10.
From mid-WWII onwards "only from the front" was the standard. Yes, tankers would've liked to have good all-round protection, but it just wasn't viable.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 11:58 PM   #9
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
"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.
100mm TMLs are also a big threat. 6dx30 pi++ for a simple solid warhead makes an APEP really scary. You can't stop that on a light vehicle, so there's no point trying. Keeping out 64mm HEAT (or HEMP at TL11+) is doable, and the are up for that.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2020, 12:04 AM   #10
Verjigorm
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America, Earth?
Default Re: Minor question/possible errata from Ultratech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
From mid-WWII onwards "only from the front" was the standard. Yes, tankers would've liked to have good all-round protection, but it just wasn't viable.
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
Verjigorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.