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 03-19-2023, 07:03 PM   #131
ravenfish
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default Re: TL9 Heavy Tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Žorkell View Post
Dunno, man, I've seen some damn shifty roads.
Plus, it's outright embarrassing to lose tanks when partisans put up "detour" signs pointing off cliffs.
__________________
I predicted GURPS:Dungeon Fantasy several hours before it came out and all I got was this lousy sig.
ravenfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2023, 07:23 PM   #132
dcarson
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Default Re: TL9 Heavy Tank

Or when the local wiccan traps it in a salt circle. https://laughingsquid.com/performanc...f-driving-car/
dcarson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2023, 07:59 PM   #133
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: TL9 Heavy Tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcarson View Post
Or when the local wiccan traps it in a salt circle. https://laughingsquid.com/performanc...f-driving-car/
......and here you see another example of sub-sentient AI. It can decide to do a thing but will never realize why it shouldn't.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2023, 08:23 PM   #134
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: TL9 Heavy Tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcarson View Post
Or when the local wiccan traps it in a salt circle. https://laughingsquid.com/performanc...f-driving-car/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
......and here you see another example of sub-sentient AI. It can decide to do a thing but will never realize why it shouldn't.
Honestly, looks to me like a 'won't fix, acceptable failure mode' situation. If you're making a self-driving car under the existing regulatory and public attitude, it seems like a really safe choice to make the AI absolutely refuse to violate traffic regulations for anything short of its collision-avoidance maneuvers. If the occupant wants to do something less conservative, make them take full responsibility for it.


A tank, of course, would have very different priorities.
__________________
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 03-19-2023, 08:45 PM   #135
Polydamas
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
Default Re: TL9 Heavy Tank

Tanks spend a lot of time on exercises in friendly territory where road accidents are taken very seriously. That said, TL 9 tanks with bad self-driving would make for a fun story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Colonel View Post
Mind you, between Britain and the Soviets we managed to occupy Persia and set up a heavy load bearing logistics route into the Southern USSR built onto practically non-existent foundations. Bellum ipsem alet indeed.
I believe the Allied occupation of Iran was built around the Trans-Iranian Railway. It caused a devastating famine because roads and railways needed to move produce from the countryside into the cities were being used to move war material for the occupiers. A lot of the tanks which arrived in the USSR through Iran were lightweight Valentines about a third or a quarter the weight of a modern BMT.
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper

This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature

Last edited by Polydamas; 03-19-2023 at 08:48 PM.
Polydamas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2023, 04:52 AM   #136
dcarson
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Default Re: TL9 Heavy Tank

The US Sherman tank was suboptimal as a tank on purpose. It was too tall, which kept it narrow enough that it fit through standard railroad tunnels. It was too light, more armor would have been nice, but that meant it could be loaded by the size crane most docks have.

Similar constraints might happen for TL9 tanks.
dcarson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2023, 05:23 AM   #137
Witchking
 
Witchking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Athens of America
Default Re: TL9 Heavy Tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcarson View Post
The US Sherman tank was suboptimal as a tank on purpose.
I would take a bit of an issue with that depiction.

It was the best tank that:

-the US could build in tens of thousands
-that they could build in late 1941-early 1942
-that they could SHIP to England-Africa-Austrailia-Alaska-etc also in tens of thousands
-that would have high mechanical reliability once it got where it was going
-that could be reasonably maintained in the field

Yes the US could have built bigger and better tanks in 1941 era...if they were not going to leave the Western Hemisphere.

They built the tool needed for the job in front of them. They were not building for 'tank duels' but to win the war. I would expect good TL 9 strategic planners to have approx the same priorities.
__________________
My center is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack.-Foch
America is not perfect, but I will hold her hand until she gets well.-unk Tuskegee Airman
Witchking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2023, 07:49 AM   #138
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: TL9 Heavy Tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcarson View Post
The US Sherman tank was suboptimal as a tank on purpose. It was too tall, which kept it narrow enough that it fit through standard railroad tunnels. It was too light, more armor would have been nice, but that meant it could be loaded by the size crane most docks have.

Similar constraints might happen for TL9 tanks.
Yes, but this leaves you with the "light" Tank in UT.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2023, 06:45 PM   #139
Žorkell
Icelandic - Approach With Caution
 
Žorkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Reykjavķk, Iceland
Default Re: TL9 Heavy Tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcarson View Post
The US Sherman tank was suboptimal as a tank on purpose. It was too tall, which kept it narrow enough that it fit through standard railroad tunnels.
I've always seen it mentioned that the height of the tank was to fit the engine in it. Also the height of the Sherman is 2.74–2.97m (9 ft 0 in–9 ft 9 in) depending on variant, and as I recall that's measured to the mounted .50 cal machine gun. The Panzer IV (the most numerous German tank) had a height of 2.68m. A Panther is 2.99m, a Tiger is 3m.
__________________
Žorkell Sigvaldason

Viking kittens | My photos | More of my photos
Žorkell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2023, 06:51 PM   #140
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: TL9 Heavy Tank

Quote:
Originally Posted by Žorkell View Post
I've always seen it mentioned that the height of the tank was to fit the engine in it. Also the height of the Sherman is 2.74–2.97m (9 ft 0 in–9 ft 9 in) depending on variant, and as I recall that's measured to the mounted .50 cal machine gun. The Panzer IV (the most numerous German tank) had a height of 2.68m. A Panther is 2.99m, a Tiger is 3m.
It was partly to fit one of the types of engine used, partly to allow for a drive shaft from the engine to the forward mounted transmission without a heavy gearbox on the engine, and partly an inherited feature from the M3 and the M2 before that.

The tall hull is one reason the M4 has a fairly low turret, as a taller one would've increased the height too much.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is online now   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 03:08 AM.


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