In Gurps, how powerful do you need to fight a tank?

[Bathawk]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Maybe I'm just not getting it... but tanks seem both more and less common IRL than how Bathawk's statement reads. Well, that or my dubious understanding of GURPS is at work again, so I'm going to risk sharing my own take on this.

Unless we're in a setting where nearly all warfare is restricted to tanks, anything with "versus tanks" seems more niche than -40% indicates. I mean, even if you successfully keep it secret (Secret?) that your Damage Resistance only applies against attacks made by (or perhaps even from) tanks, you've got everything else on the battlefield to worry about. Or are tanks really that heavily present on the battlefield?

Okay, so what is the "more common" part? If we invert things, and your DR is against everything except tanks, once again you'll need to keep it secret (Secret?) because tanks aren't that far away in (for example) the United States of America. Well, in the American Midwest, anyway. We're not a war zone [insert sports joke here/], but there are a lot of military bases (outposts? Depots? Not sure what all to call them) here. I mean, most of them aren't the Army or Marines, but the Army Reserve or the National Guard... but that's enough for this to be a big issue. At least, once this gap in your defenses is known. Yeah, getting the tanks to where you (your tank-vulnerable character) are before you can flee is a nightmare, between getting authorization for the tanks and transporting them... but sooner or later, your character is probably getting shot by a tank. Barring an amazing dodge or other mitigating circumstances.

I figured -40% because a tank has the ability to attack with bullets (usually a -40% defensive limitation) and other forms of attacks (cannon, simply running a target over)...and while yes, a tank is probably less common on a WWII battlefield than infantry, if I KNOW I'm invulnerable to tank damage, and given the choice, I'm going to charge that Tiger tank instead of the pillbox of infantry...so it's probably not worth as much as say a -60% limitation

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Bathawk

I figured -40% because a tank has the ability to attack with bullets (usually a -40% defensive limitation) and other forms of attacks (cannon, simply running a target over)...and while yes, a tank is probably less common on a WWII battlefield than infantry, if I KNOW I'm invulnerable to tank damage, and given the choice, I'm going to charge that Tiger tank instead of the pillbox of infantry...so it's probably not worth as much as say a -60% limitation

Note that on real battlefields tanks rather like to have infantry close by as support. Largely because tanks have bad stealth and bad perception and can readily be ambushed by anti-tank weapons if they don't have somebody around to spot the threat for them. (And in a defensive arrangement with pillboxes the tank would definitely tend to position behind the infantry positions, so unless you're a speedster or bulletproof charging it isn't going to go well.)

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Note that on real battlefields tanks rather like to have infantry close by as support. Largely because tanks have bad stealth and bad perception and can readily be ambushed by anti-tank weapons if they don't have somebody around to spot the threat for them. (And in a defensive arrangement with pillboxes the tank would definitely tend to position behind the infantry positions, so unless you're a speedster or bulletproof charging it isn't going to go well.)

Thank you, Ulzgoroth. I don't know real-world warfare (or even fictional world warfare XP) all that well. As a layman, though, it didn't seem that odd for forces to be somehow mixed.

What makes me think a Limitation like "Only against tanks" is pretty severe, even in settings where tanks are a normal part of armies, you've got to worry about everything else: air support, artillery, and even just soldiers attacking you en masse so that you'll need something else in order to survive. Of course, I am also thinking of the original question: if you're capable of fighting a tank but have to worry some guy in the tank can pop out of the hatch and knock you out with one blow from a wrench (let alone any sort of firearm)... well... that seems to disqualify you from the job. Unless you're also a superspeedster with an amazing dodge, a teleporter (preferably with a teleportation-based dodge), a "super ninja" sneaking into enemy bases or behind enemy lines to quickly wreck tanks and then sneak away, etc.

Or I'm over- or under-thinking things again. XP I mean, a lot of this arose from you describing a specific character from another RPG, as opposed to proposing it as a general approach for GURPS. >.>

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Otaku

What makes me think a Limitation like "Only against tanks" is pretty severe, >

Yeah, if you tried to make a character with "Only against tanks" when I was GM it'd get your knuckles rapped with an old DMG I keep around for that purpose.

If I was feeling really cheesed off I could have that character killed by an Infantry Fighting Vehicle or a Self Propelled Gun but stamping out such nonsense during chargen is quicker and easier.

[King Leonidas]

if the Hero can carry a 50 cal and fly above it and shoot it with 50 BMG AP he can kill it

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Lovewyrm

Chuck boulders at it until the tank crew gives up.

Edit: Or use your super powers to relocate people before the tanks arrive at the destination.
What's the point of punching a tank? You think they'll call off the war efforts over that?

(This feels like some cartoony stuff to me and I'm not usually a fan of that, especially when it's for 'war' stuff.)

Superhumans punching tanks is prime WWII era pulp, so yes, very cartoony and silly - but probably not more cringeworthy than that often shown clip of the Hulk swinging an Abrams about by the cannon barrel.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by King Leonidas

if the Hero can carry a 50 cal and fly above it and shoot it with 50 BMG AP he can kill it

Few, if any tanks have less than DR 60 on the top. Typically in modern tanks, this will be still around DR 100+

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Few, if any tanks have less than DR 60 on the top. Typically in modern tanks, this will be still around DR 1000

Did you mean DR 100? The 4e T-72 on p. 244 of High-Tech ha DR 180 on top of the turret, and DR 90 on top of the body.

[David L Pulver]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Superhumans punching tanks is prime WWII era pulp, so yes, very cartoony and silly - but probably not more cringeworthy than that often shown clip of the Hulk swinging an Abrams about by the cannon barrel.

I put that sort of thing into GURPS Vehicles 2nd edition for 3e in the sidebar "Super Strength vs. Vehicles" (pp. 188-189), but those rules don't work for 4e. (To be honest, they were a bit inelegant for 3e as well...)

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Did you mean DR 100? The 4e T-72 on p. 244 of High-Tech ha DR 180 on top of the turret, and DR 90 on top of the body.

The T-72 is a 54 year old tank, but yes typo.

Note that this still more than DR 60, though and will stop .50 BMG AP.