Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Tank Question
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:27:25 -0700
For the tank enthusiests: Statistically speaking, what aspects of
tanks and vehicles hit in combat are affected more often? Are they
immobilized first, and how? Does the crew usually get killed before
the tank/vehicle? Do electronic/sensor systems die quickly? Etc.

If you don't have the answers but know of a good source book/journal
please let me know.

I'm doing this so I can fine tune my Vehicle Subsystem Damage rules
for Shadowrun.

Thanks,
-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 2
From: Mike Loseke <mike@******.VERINET.COM>
Subject: Re: Tank Question
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 10:43:33 -0700
Quoth David Buehrer:
>
> For the tank enthusiests: Statistically speaking, what aspects of
> tanks and vehicles hit in combat are affected more often? Are they
> immobilized first, and how? Does the crew usually get killed before
> the tank/vehicle? Do electronic/sensor systems die quickly? Etc.

The tracks are comparatively fragile compaged to much of the rest of
the tank, and would be most threatened by tank traps and mines. The crew
is the most fragile element and would wind up staring at each other like
Stan Humphries (concussion-boy in the National Football League for all
you non-mericans) after most any hit on the vehicle. If you really want to
break it down into a table then here is one you could at least start from:

Track/Roadwheels/Skirts(GEV)
Turret
Crew
External Sensors
Armor
Ammo Storage
Fuel Storage

To my knowledge, you couldn't break it down statistically without
specifying the type of attack. A hand grenade in the turret is going
to generate some chunky salsa but is going to leave the vehicle mostly
operational, unless of course the ammo storage doors are open. A sabot
round to the turret ring cuts the vehicle in half and the crew is stringy
paste, but the track would still be ok. A HEAT round, or a HESH/HEP round,
is going to kill the crew and do a lot of damage to the vehicle as well
(imagine what a tank would look like with a severe concussion and a
bunch of broken bones).

Probably the best way to order your subsystem chart in this case (or
in any case) would be to list the subsystems in order of external to
internal accessability. In this case:

Track/Skirts(GEV) (Being the most easily affected from outside)
External Sensors
Roadwheels
Armor
Fuel Storage
Turret
Crew
Ammo Storage (Being the most difficult to affect from outside)

--
Mike Loseke | Eagles may soar, but weasels
mike@*******.com | aren't sucked into jet engines.
Message no. 3
From: Jimpy <lowfyr@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Tank Question
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:15:09 -0600
Mike Loseke wrote:
>
> Quoth David Buehrer:

<snip a whole bunch a tank stuff>

> Probably the best way to order your subsystem chart in this case (or
> in any case) would be to list the subsystems in order of external to
> internal accessability. In this case:
>
> Track/Skirts(GEV) (Being the most easily affected from outside)
> External Sensors
> Roadwheels
> Armor
> Fuel Storage
> Turret
> Crew
> Ammo Storage (Being the most difficult to affect from outside)
>

Something else to consider is that almost any tank (Eastern block
vehicles not withstanding) of newer construction or in development bears
some sort of "cook off" saftey feature. That is, should the vehicle
suffer a hit to the ammunition compartment, the compartment is designed
to explode up and out of the tank, generally away from the crew. It is
not my firm belief that this would truly save the crew, but on paper it
looks good.

There is also a main battle tank in development now that has no
crewmembers in the turret and the main gun is autoloaded (another thing
that can break down if you ask me) and the whole turret is designed so
that if hit, the round will theoretically not be able to get to the crew
in the hull below (even though it would destroy the main gun). This is
how I have assumed vehicles like the Stonewall MBT are designed in my
games, given that there are still 60 years of development before those
tanks would be in production, and sixty years ago, armored warfare was
crude at best.

Just my two cents,

Jim P.
Message no. 4
From: Mike Loseke <mike@******.VERINET.COM>
Subject: Re: Tank Question
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:10:41 -0700
Quoth Jimpy:
>
> Something else to consider is that almost any tank (Eastern block
> vehicles not withstanding) of newer construction or in development bears
> some sort of "cook off" saftey feature. That is, should the vehicle
> suffer a hit to the ammunition compartment, the compartment is designed
> to explode up and out of the tank, generally away from the crew. It is
> not my firm belief that this would truly save the crew, but on paper it
> looks good.

Yep, the M1 series has blow-out panels on top of the ammo storage area
in the turret that are supposed to vent any explosion in the ammo storage
directly to the outside of the vehicle and (theoretically) save the crew.
But, in a heave firefight, the ammo doors are going to be sliding open
and shut and the blow-out panels aren't going to do squat for the crew.
Besides, they're uncomfortable to sleep on. :)

> There is also a main battle tank in development now that has no
> crewmembers in the turret and the main gun is autoloaded (another thing
> that can break down if you ask me) and the whole turret is designed so
> that if hit, the round will theoretically not be able to get to the crew
> in the hull below (even though it would destroy the main gun). This is
> how I have assumed vehicles like the Stonewall MBT are designed in my
> games, given that there are still 60 years of development before those
> tanks would be in production, and sixty years ago, armored warfare was
> crude at best.

I've always loved the off-center design of the tanks in Tron. I don't
know how functional such a design would be, but it would compartmentalize
the gun and ammo a little more from any crew. Besides, it just looks cool.

--
Mike Loseke | Eagles may soar, but weasels
mike@*******.com | aren't sucked into jet engines.
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Tank Question
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:58:53 +0100
Jimpy said on 12:15/ 5 Nov 97...

> There is also a main battle tank in development now that has no
> crewmembers in the turret and the main gun is autoloaded (another thing
> that can break down if you ask me) and the whole turret is designed so
> that if hit, the round will theoretically not be able to get to the crew
> in the hull below (even though it would destroy the main gun).

Well... That sounds very much like the 1980s/early '90s "crew in hull"
concept that was done away with when it was discovered that the turret
provided a lot of handy storage space which tanks crews tend to use, but
which tank designers somehow never seem to think about. All current tank
designs, AFAIK, have turrets with the crew inside them.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Would it make you feel much better, if it was you against the world?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Tank Question
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 22:58:53 +0100
David Buehrer said on 8:27/ 5 Nov 97...

> For the tank enthusiests: Statistically speaking, what aspects of
> tanks and vehicles hit in combat are affected more often? Are they
> immobilized first, and how?

I don't know any statistics, but the suspension is always a weak factor in
AFV designs. Any tracked vehicle can be quickly immobilized by breaking
one of its tracks, and any anti-vehicle weapons should be capable of doing
this. Standard anti-tank mines also work by this principle.

However, modern anti-tank weapons tend to have enough power to penetrate
the main armor even if they hit the suspension first, and will thereby
often damage the interior of the vehicle as well, and/or kill or injure
the crew.

> Does the crew usually get killed before the tank/vehicle?

A crew kill is the best thing you can get when shooting at an AFV, because
it means the thing surely won't be shooting back :) However, from photos
and texts, it seems to me that weapons that can kill the crew of a tank
will usually also destroy the vehicle itself to such a degree that repairs
will be difficult, if not a waste of time.

> Do electronic/sensor systems die quickly? Etc.

Periscopes are pretty vulnerable even to small arms fire. Hitting them
won't hurt the crew or disable the vehicle proper, but it will prevent the
crew from looking outside.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Would it make you feel much better, if it was you against the world?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 7
From: Jimpy <lowfyr@***********.COM>
Subject: Re: Tank Question
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:44:12 -0600
Gurth wrote:
>
> Well... That sounds very much like the 1980s/early '90s "crew in hull"
> concept that was done away with when it was discovered that the turret
> provided a lot of handy storage space which tanks crews tend to use, but
> which tank designers somehow never seem to think about. All current tank
> designs, AFAIK, have turrets with the crew inside them.
>
> --

Actually this is a newer American design, with only a single prototype
vehicle completed. A very strange AFV, lower silohuette than any other
MBT, with sharp angled (supposedly radar reflecting) edges, even the gun
is encased in a diamond shaped casing...but it is a prototype. It is
also much wider than either the M1 or Challenger series of tanks, by
five feet on the M1s.

Another chief selling feature is that it weighs less than the M1A2 (or
even the M1, or M1A1 for that matter) and would consequently be easier
to airlift(or at least cheaper).

A question for those of you fortunate enough to own the RB2, how are the
design rules? I have a friend say they suck, and I need someone to tell
me it ain't so ;)

Jim
Message no. 8
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Tank Question
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:32:15 -0700
Jimpy wrote:
/
/ Something else to consider is that almost any tank (Eastern block
/ vehicles not withstanding) of newer construction or in development bears
/ some sort of "cook off" saftey feature. That is, should the vehicle
/ suffer a hit to the ammunition compartment, the compartment is designed
/ to explode up and out of the tank, generally away from the crew. It is
/ not my firm belief that this would truly save the crew, but on paper it
/ looks good.

So this would be an option to add to the vehicle design rules.

And the possibility of an ammo explosion would be something to add to
vehicle combat.

Thanks,
-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Tank Question
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:30:40 +0100
Jimpy said on 7:44/ 6 Nov 97...

> It is also much wider than either the M1 or Challenger series of tanks,
> by five feet on the M1s.

That makes it more than 4.5 meters wide. I can't see anyone buying a
vehicle like that -- it'd take up two lanes on the road!

> A question for those of you fortunate enough to own the RB2, how are the
> design rules? I have a friend say they suck, and I need someone to tell
> me it ain't so ;)

They limit what you can do when designing a vehicle. On the one side they
are quick to use, because it's basically a matter of pick chassis, pick
engine, add in some mods, and you're done. OTOH you just can't design
anything you want to, which can be a pain in the ass. This afternoon I
decided to try and build some kind of experimental walker vehicle, based
on the large walker drone (which, going by its Body rating, is about the
size of a motorcycle) with its remote control gear removed. I quickly
found out that this can't be done simply because the thing doesn't have
the carrying capacity to fit a seat into it... :/

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Would it make you feel much better, if it was you against the world?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 10
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Tank Question
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:48:50 +0000
On 5 Nov 97 at 8:27, David Buehrer wrote:

> For the tank enthusiests: Statistically speaking, what aspects of
> tanks and vehicles hit in combat are affected more often? Are they
> immobilized first, and how? Does the crew usually get killed before
> the tank/vehicle? Do electronic/sensor systems die quickly? Etc.
>
> If you don't have the answers but know of a good source book/journal
> please let me know.
>
> I'm doing this so I can fine tune my Vehicle Subsystem Damage rules
> for Shadowrun.

You might want to take a look at first edition Twlight 2000 rules. It
has a system that determines the damage to internal componants
(including crew) and takes the shot location and the internal
location of the componants into account.





David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

====================================================
Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato
Message no. 11
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Tank Question
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:33:25 -0700
David Hinkley wrote:
/
/ On 5 Nov 97 at 8:27, David Buehrer wrote:
/
/ > For the tank enthusiests: Statistically speaking, what aspects of
/ > tanks and vehicles hit in combat are affected more often? Are they
/ > immobilized first, and how? Does the crew usually get killed before
/ > the tank/vehicle? Do electronic/sensor systems die quickly? Etc.
/ >
/ > If you don't have the answers but know of a good source book/journal
/ > please let me know.
/ >
/ > I'm doing this so I can fine tune my Vehicle Subsystem Damage rules
/ > for Shadowrun.
/
/ You might want to take a look at first edition Twlight 2000 rules. It
/ has a system that determines the damage to internal componants
/ (including crew) and takes the shot location and the internal
/ location of the componants into account.

Actually, I'm starting to get a feel for how things work from all the
great input from the list. Plus, I don't have T2000 and doubt if I
could find it :(

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 12
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Tank Question
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 15:59:25 -0500
Gurth[SMTP:gurth@******.NL] wrote:
> Jimpy said on 7:44/ 6 Nov 97...
> > A question for those of you fortunate enough to own the RB2, how are the
> > design rules? I have a friend say they suck, and I need someone to tell
> > me it ain't so ;)
>
> They limit what you can do when designing a vehicle. On the one side they
> are quick to use, because it's basically a matter of pick chassis, pick
> engine, add in some mods, and you're done. OTOH you just can't design
> anything you want to, which can be a pain in the ass. This afternoon I
> decided to try and build some kind of experimental walker vehicle, based
> on the large walker drone (which, going by its Body rating, is about the
> size of a motorcycle) with its remote control gear removed. I quickly
> found out that this can't be done simply because the thing doesn't have
> the carrying capacity to fit a seat into it... :/

Well, it has the space, it just can't carry a passenger that
weighs more than ~60 kg without slowly disintegrating...
(+1 stress/hr and travel limited to half speed if the
passenger weighs up to 90kg, pg 34)

James Ojaste

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Tank Question, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!