Actung! Panzer!

[Susano]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

I like that idea. Allows for vehicles to shrug off most attacks without having DEF in the 30s.

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

Another thought, perhaps adding some DEF with the Limitation 'Only vs. projectiles of X mm or less'?

 

That might take care of bulletproofing tanks against small-arms fire, while not having to scale up DC's on the main guns.

 

(shrug) Or you could handwave it under the 'Real Weapon' Limitation that firearms take. No way is that 37mm gun going to crack modern armor.

 

$0.02

[LordGhee]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

Thanks for this thread. I loved Golden age Champions and the WWII stuff.

 

 

Here are some notes and thoughts

 

In my view I believe that cannon balls are normal attacks and “modern†shot are killing attacks

 

Brown (Napoleonic war) Bess 9d6, Milline ball (civil war era) 2d 6 killing,

 

Every cannon had High explosive rounds, which was developed just before WWI as a top-secret project. Smoke also came in during WWI

 

 

Now when do we get real Armour piercing ammo?

 

AP - Solid shot bullet shape

APT Armour piercing with tracer.

 

These where the main ammo type at the start of the war for anti Armour role.

 

As the war progressed improved Armour was incorporated into the tanks, here the allies had an easier time for the rare metals needed to mix into the iron came from out of the combat area.

 

I think that the Germans where the first to use face-harden steels. This resisted the initial strike making the Armour tougher.

 

Again from my memory it was a British gent who notice that using a Cap on the shot of a tougher metal gave a better penetration about 30%

 

APC Armour piercing capped

APCT Armour piercing capped tracer

 

Now it is early 1941 and a conversation in America went like this.

 

“We have to fight German Armour†Infantry officer to other Infantry officer.

“I Knowâ€

“We have to fight German Armour†Infantry officer to other Infantry officer

“I Knowâ€

Repeat

 

The scientist who hope to keep their state side jobs over heard many of these conversation and deciding that a better AT weapon would keep them state side started to experiment.

 

A German scientist before the war developed a new explosive. Called a Shaped charge. This charge was formed over a hollow cone lined with copper. This (simply) causes the copper to turn to plasma and form a jet that is a powerful blowtorch, which cuts through Armour. The Germans used this new and secret weapon to knock out the Belgian concrete bunkers in 1940. The British figure out how this worked and shared this with their new allies. Well the Mit men tried to put it on cannon rounds and found out two things. When it was fired at cannon velocities the jet malformed some of the time and if it is spun the spin reduces it’s effect by half. Some wag stated “well we should put it on a bottle rocket. After some quick work shape charge warhead and rocket motor in a tube and we get a Bazooka.

 

Heat High Exposes Anti Tank a shape charge

 

 

The British in the later war took a French ideal and used it on the AP round and took a smaller round and wrapped in a Sabot which as it fires from the gun is discarded and the sub round is given increased velocity.

 

APDS Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot.

 

The British also developed the High Explosive plastic round. Basically a round filled with plastic explosive and a delayed fuse. Not much penetration power but it hits and smashes flat and detonates. This transmits the shock into the item great for bunkers.

 

HEP High Explosive Plastic

 

 

Notes

 

APDS and HEAT suffer from veining (gets inaccurate at long range), which is increased by wind and weather.

 

 

The 25mm chain gun firing HVFDSAPDU (MOREON THIS LATER) of the Bradley at 500m is more effective than the 75mm Sherman round (APC). The Sherman had gyro stabilization on the up and down motion, which allowed firing on the move (10mph)

 

 

It is late and I will post more on this later

 

Lord Ghee

[megaplayboy]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

you left out APCR(armor piercing composite rigid--a german round with a tungsten carbide core), and HESH(high explosive squash head--worked by transmitting an explosive pressure wave from the exterior to the interior of the tank, sending shrapnel flying inside).

[shadowcat1313]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

I would use the penetrating advantage to simulate HESH and other rounds that cause interior spalling damage.

[Susano]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

Actually, since the spalling kills the crew inside, I recommend Indirect. Perhaps as a Linked attack.

[LordGhee]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

HEP is the forrunner of Hesh, I kept the discussion to WWII in general. but APDS was followed by APFSDS (1950'S) AND HVAPFSDS (1960'S) AND HVAPFSDSDU.

 

intresting thing at 2000m solid ap rounds superheated and turned to dust. More on this later

 

Lord Ghee

[shadowcat1313]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

friend of mine pointed me to this site about the restoration of whats now the only running Tiger Tank in the world

 

http://www.tiger-tank.com/index.html

some rather neat detail on the tiger

[Trebuchet]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

Tanks are where you really start to bog down the HERO system' date=' as you mentioned you only have a few DC to play with which makes a Sherman vs Leopard 2 a not too uneven match up, when in actuality there should be no question on who is worried. Just for some perspective the Sherman's 75mm gun has around 400,000J of energy, the Leopards 120mm gun has inexcess of 10,000,000J, but with hero's doubling rule that differance is covered within 2d6 (6DC).[/quote']The assumption that each DC equals twice as much damage is not really supported within the HERO rules. It's a fairly common assumption, but it's mostly based on the STR Chart's lifting tables. ("Well, you can lift twice as much, so you must be able to hit twice as hard, right?") But I disagree that that automatically follows. Impact energy is based on a number of factors, including mass, hardness, and velocity.

 

While 2X damage = 1 DC is handy and fairly reasonable at lower levels, it really starts to come apart when one looks at the higher end of the damage spectrum. My gut feeling is that the damage chart would more likely be logarithmic in nature.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

I was thinking of penetrating for HESH / HEP myself, I think it fits the description pretty well, I think indirect makes it far to powerful.

 

HESH and HEP are the same thing, in the UK it is called High Explosive Squash Head, the US calls it High Explosive Plastic (and doesn't use it much).

 

APHE Armor Piercing High Explosive, this was popular with the US, Germany and I believe the USSR at the start of the war, it is a solid AP round with a small cavity for explosives in the base, basically the round pierces the armor and then detonates, the effectiveness of the secondary explosion was questionable so eventually it was done away with.

 

The Munro effect (shaped charge) was a pre war invention marketed by some Swiss buisnessmen (but not their creation), the British recognized it for what it was and took the idea royalty free (since the swiss didn't have the patent, just the idea to use it in a projectile).

 

The British were the first to use a HEAT projectile in the form of a rifle grenade, the British PIAT (Projector Infantry Anti-tank) also predates the M1 Rocket launcher (Bazooka) slightly. The Bazooa was a lucky combination of two weapons systems, A US Colonel with a rocket hobby was developing a shoulder fired rocket, and the Swiss who failed to sell thier "secret" to the British were more successful with the US who devloped a HEAT rifle grenade that turned out to be too heavy to be of any real use, the two weapons were combined creating the Bazooka.

 

 

If you can find it John Weeks' book Men against tanks is a good book on the development of AT weapons, its from 1975 so rather dated for modern weapons but it covers the development nicely, particularly WW2, plus the author has a great sense of humor which comes through.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

The assumption that each DC equals twice as much damage is not really supported within the HERO rules. It's a fairly common assumption, but it's mostly based on the STR Chart's lifting tables. ("Well, you can lift twice as much, so you must be able to hit twice as hard, right?") But I disagree that that automatically follows. Impact energy is based on a number of factors, including mass, hardness, and velocity.

 

While 2X damage = 1 DC is handy and fairly reasonable at lower levels, it really starts to come apart when one looks at the higher end of the damage spectrum. My gut feeling is that the damage chart would more likely be logarithmic in nature.

or you could just add +1d6-2d6 for modern ordnance vs. old stuff, or subtract 1-2d6 for old stuff vs. modern armor.

An 88mm would still blow through APC armor like tissue paper, though.

 

I think the standards of measurement are twofold--how would the weapon perform against a living being, and how would it perform against an armored vehicle?

Most weapons of 30mm or above would kill a human being instantly, but penetration of metal armor is more uncertain.

If we assume that the strongest, thickest armor in the world equates to about 2m of steel plate, then we can posit about 19-20+DEF for the toughest tanks, and then figure you need a weapon that will do at least 25 BODY to have a significant effect--that's about 7d6 KA. 8d6 KA would have a good chance of incapacitating a tank. 10d6 KA would obliterate it outright, and 6d6 APx2, would have an effect similar to 8d6 KA. Those are about the values given for modern tank and anti-tank ordnance in the books.

[LordGhee]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

Toadmaster sorry I should have mention APHE.

 

modern armour 1980+ have layer of super hard steel or DU and many layers of steel, cermic ect.

 

More to come we will define and list.

 

Lord Ghee

[LordGhee]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

Here I found my slope chart :

 

 

slope of 10% equals 101% of the thickness.

 

slope of 20% equals 106% of the thickness.

 

slope of 30% equals 115% of the thickness.

 

slope of 40% equals 130% of the thickness.

 

slope of 45% equals 140% of the thickness.

 

slope of 50% equals 155% of the thickness.

 

slope of 55% equals 174% of the thickness.

 

slope of 60% equals 200% of the thickness.

 

slope of 70% equals 290% of the thickness.

 

Taken from weapons and tactics of the soviet army :by David Isby Glossary

[Trebuchet]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

If we assume that the strongest' date=' thickest armor in the world equates to about 2m of steel plate, then we can posit about 19-20+DEF for the toughest tanks, and then figure you need a weapon that will do at least 25 BODY to have a significant effect--that's about 7d6 KA. 8d6 KA would have a good chance of incapacitating a tank. 10d6 KA would obliterate it outright, and 6d6 APx2, would have an effect similar to 8d6 KA. Those are about the values given for modern tank and anti-tank ordnance in the books.[/quote']IIRC TUV lists the front armor of an Abrams tank as 30 DEF Hardened. The side and top armors are significantly lower. So an average 8d6 RKA hit wouldn't even scratch the paint of an M1A2 from the front. That seems to agree with battlefield data; I believe every Abrams that has been destroyed in the Gulf and Iraq wars were either hit from the side or by a roadside explosive device. The front armor is for all practical purposes invulnerable to conventional military weapons.

[Susano]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

While we are discussing tanks, does anyone have any information of links to any pre-WWI armored vehicles and/or wagons and the like?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

 

Taken from weapons and tactics of the soviet army :by David Isby Glossary

One of the favorite books in my collection

[megaplayboy]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

IIRC TUV lists the front armor of an Abrams tank as 30 DEF Hardened. The side and top armors are significantly lower. So an average 8d6 RKA hit wouldn't even scratch the paint of an M1A2 from the front. That seems to agree with battlefield data; I believe every Abrams that has been destroyed in the Gulf and Iraq wars were either hit from the side or by a roadside explosive device. The front armor is for all practical purposes invulnerable to conventional military weapons.

 

my only problem with this is that if you take a character with 150 STR, technically their maximum potential energy equals:

lift capacity in kg x. 9.8m/sec/sec x 2 meters lift height = joules of energy

 

for 150 STR, that's 2.5 x 10^10 kg x c.20 = about 500 GigaJoules of energy

 

It's pretty clear that around 25 MJ of Kinetic energy would penetrate the frontal armor of an M1A2. Even if a ultrabrick could only channel 1 percent of that potential energy against a static target like a tank, that Abrams should still be confetti.

Keep in mind 30 DEF for a vehicle is like a PC with 30rDEF and 90 total defense. You'd have to have a game with 180 AP caps to get characters with comparable defenses--and the power to damage such vehicles effectively.

So I think the 30 DEF was a bit excessive, even if it's only for the frontal armor.

Of course, that's only if we're talking about a superpowered world. In a heroic campaign, that might be okay.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

my only problem with this is that if you take a character with 150 STR, technically their maximum potential energy equals:

lift capacity in kg x. 9.8m/sec/sec x 2 meters lift height = joules of energy

 

for 150 STR, that's 2.5 x 10^10 kg x c.20 = about 500 GigaJoules of energy

 

It's pretty clear that around 25 MJ of Kinetic energy would penetrate the frontal armor of an M1A2. Even if a ultrabrick could only channel 1 percent of that potential energy against a static target like a tank, that Abrams should still be confetti.

Keep in mind 30 DEF for a vehicle is like a PC with 30rDEF and 90 total defense. You'd have to have a game with 180 AP caps to get characters with comparable defenses--and the power to damage such vehicles effectively.

So I think the 30 DEF was a bit excessive, even if it's only for the frontal armor.

Of course, that's only if we're talking about a superpowered world. In a heroic campaign, that might be okay.

Since I'm not an engineer or a physicist, I can't comment on the accuracy of your numbers here. Let's assume your numbers are correct. How much energy in megajoules does the depleted uranium sabot round from the M1A2's 120mm main gun generate upon impact? Remember that all this energy is focused on just a single square inch (IIRC the DU penetrator is 25mm). Remember also that even the main gun from an M1A2 cannot penetrate the front armor on another M1A2. Now if the main gun, which in HERO is represented by an 8d6 AP RKA IIRC, cannot penetrate the 30 DEF Hardened armor, it's not unreasonable for a 150 STR with two fewer DCs to also fail to penetrate.

 

Now that's not to say the crew in a tank hit by a 150 ST brick wouldn't be in big trouble. The Knockback would likely stun them, if not worse. While unfortunately the new rules in TUV don't cover damage to passengers, it's reasonable to extrapolate from real world incidents. Back in the late 70's when I was in the Army an M60 tank slid off an icy road, down a low embankment, and flipped over. IIRC the entire crew was killed by the concussion caused by simply flipping over.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

I'd be surprised if the KE was more than 30MJ. And the official round listed for the m1 doesn't have the AP advantage on it.

The surface area for a punch can't be more than 10 sq. in., so if we say that the brick transfers 10% of max potential energy, and that it's effectively divided by 10 again due to surface diffusion, then that's still about 5 GJ--at the very least, there should be HESH style effects on the interior of the vehicle.

But, yeah, there are a dozen other ways to handle it--the way to think about it is "what mach number could the brick hurl an m1 at?"

[Trebuchet]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

I'd be surprised if the KE was more than 30MJ. And the official round listed for the m1 doesn't have the AP advantage on it.

The surface area for a punch can't be more than 10 sq. in., so if we say that the brick transfers 10% of max potential energy, and that it's effectively divided by 10 again due to surface diffusion, then that's still about 5 GJ--at the very least, there should be HESH style effects on the interior of the vehicle.

But, yeah, there are a dozen other ways to handle it--the way to think about it is "what mach number could the brick hurl an m1 at?"

I found one source that lists the "NATO 120mm 44 caliber gun" at 12 megajoules of energy, but I'm not confident of that data or if that is a more general purpose tank round. I'm trying to find some more help at TankNet.

 

Could you provide your rationale for assuming a 150 STR brick can do damage in the gigajoule range? (In other words, please break down your earlier calculations for us engineering-illiterate types? I'm not questioning your numbers, I just want to know what they mean and how your arrived at those numbers.) Please keep in mind that a penetrator (or any penetrating/piercing-type weapon such as a sword or bullet as opposed to a blunt instrument) also compresses the energy in time as well as physically. So it may still be delivering more energy at the precise point of impact. That's why we cut down trees with an axe and not with a club of the same mass. Same amount of energy; just much better focused in time and space.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

While we are discussing tanks' date=' does anyone have any information of links to any pre-WWI armored vehicles and/or wagons and the like?[/quote']

 

Assume you mean Pre-ww2 since there really wasn't much before ww1 (I mean 4 wheel drive trucks were a new thing back then).

 

I don't know of anything online but if you have specific needs I can probably dig up the info for you. If you are looking at WW1 there are only a dozen or so vehicles and between the wars not much more. If you just want a sampling for completeness sake I can do that too. What stats do you need and what type of vehicles should be sufficient.

[Susano]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

Assume you mean Pre-ww2 since there really wasn't much before ww1 (I mean 4 wheel drive trucks were a new thing back then).

 

I don't know of anything online but if you have specific needs I can probably dig up the info for you. If you are looking at WW1 there are only a dozen or so vehicles and between the wars not much more. If you just want a sampling for completeness sake I can do that too. What stats do you need and what type of vehicles should be sufficient.

 

Actually, I'm trying to go as far back as di Vinchi's armored car/tank. As well as Hungarian combat/war wagons. I saw a mention of US Civil War wagons outfitted for combat, has anyone seen anything like them? Or any pre-1900 wheeled tractors or other vehicles mounted with weapons? (Steam-powered land monitors anyone?). The intent is to produce a DH article with stats and the like for an assortment of armored vehicles usable in anything from Fantasy to Pulp to Golden Age. However, my desire is to slant t more towards the strange, so the T-35 5-turret tank is right in, while the T-34 is right out.

 

Simply put, I want stuff you can give to mad scientists and would-be world beaters, and have no on bat an eye.

[Toadmaster]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

Actually, I'm trying to go as far back as di Vinchi's armored car/tank. As well as Hungarian combat/war wagons. I saw a mention of US Civil War wagons outfitted for combat, has anyone seen anything like them? Or any pre-1900 wheeled tractors or other vehicles mounted with weapons? (Steam-powered land monitors anyone?). The intent is to produce a DH article with stats and the like for an assortment of armored vehicles usable in anything from Fantasy to Pulp to Golden Age. However, my desire is to slant t more towards the strange, so the T-35 5-turret tank is right in, while the T-34 is right out.

 

Simply put, I want stuff you can give to mad scientists and would-be world beaters, and have no on bat an eye.

 

I have to give you credit, you managed to ask for something I don't know.

 

I have a rather large library of books but not one that goes prior to 1915. I have seen a few books that deal with really early stuff though, I'll keep my eyes open and let you know if I find something.

 

Sounds like a good idea for DH though, I'll be watching for it.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

I found one source that lists the "NATO 120mm 44 caliber gun" at 12 megajoules of energy, but I'm not confident of that data or if that is a more general purpose tank round. I'm trying to find some more help at TankNet.

 

Could you provide your rationale for assuming a 150 STR brick can do damage in the gigajoule range? (In other words, please break down your earlier calculations for us engineering-illiterate types? I'm not questioning your numbers, I just want to know what they mean and how your arrived at those numbers.) Please keep in mind that a penetrator (or any penetrating/piercing-type weapon such as a sword or bullet as opposed to a blunt instrument) also compresses the energy in time as well as physically. So it may still be delivering more energy at the precise point of impact. That's why we cut down trees with an axe and not with a club of the same mass. Same amount of energy; just much better focused in time and space.

 

okay, here goes(this is off memory, so there's probably a little muffing up of terms):

with respect to the mechanical energy of objects in motion:

potential energy(PE) is equal to the mass times gravity(g, 9.8m/s^2) x the height of the object(distance from the ground plane)

 

Kinetic Energy(KE) is equal to the mass times the velocity (squared), times one half

 

To calculate how much potential energy a superstrong character can generate, take the listed lifting capacity for their STR rating, and apply the assumption that they can lift that weight 2 meters above the ground plane(if only for one second).

at 150 STR, the lift capacity is 25 million tons= 25 billion kilograms

25 billion times 9.8 times 2 = roughly 500 billion joules

 

Now, when we talk about projectiles, we're talking about kinetic energy.

 

So, the question is, how much of that potential energy can an untrained human being put into a punch? My guess--about 1/16th, based on leg strength being about 3 times arm strength, and the lift capacity based on all four limbs being used, and the amateur puncher being only able to put about half their arm strength into the punch.

This correlates pretty well with human martial artists being able to add up to 4d6 of damage, and a haymaker doing an extra 4d6 of damage--basically putting full body strength behind one blow.

 

So, 1/16 of 500GJ is about 33GJ--or about 1000 x the most powerful kinetic penetrators in military usage.

 

The one caveat is that in practice the punch might tend to push more than penetrate. Even then the vibratory impact might be devastating to the tank's occupants and internal components.

 

considering that 150 STR is in the Our Worlds At War Superman/Ultrapi**ed Hulk/Godzilla range, casual destruction of main battle tanks seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

It's hard to calculate how quickly the punch might be delivered. The average punch takes a half second or less to deliver, and a superhumanly strong punch might well be much faster than that.

[FPilot]

Re: Actung! Panzer!

 

Aside from good ol' DaVinci, I believe the earliest mention of tank-variety armored land battle vehicles was in the novel The Battle of Dorking, which was published around 1870. I recall that at least the Union side of the Civil War had armored artillery trains in use too. Lemme poke around the web and see what I can find. :\