Are tanks really that tough?

[Hugh Neilson]

In order to make the superhero world feel like a superhero world, yes. In a realistic heroic-level campaign, the Abrams may be suitable as is (not so sure about its main gun in any case). And in either scenario, I feel the Golden Gate bridge (and other similarly massive installations) needs to be treated as something other than just one (oversimplified) object with a single BODY stat.

In a realistic heroic-level campaign, what DC's will be tossed around? I don't think the Abrams needs 30/20 defenses or a 24 DC attack to be clearly overwhelming against heroic-level characters. That huge jump in military DCs and defenses isn't necessary there either.

[Altair]

I don't need my cinematic RPG to reflect mundane reality with scientific rigor. I do, however, demand that it reflect a cinematic reality with a high degree of plausibility. Wherever the mechanics fail to produce plausible results ("reality" be damned), they need to be fixed. Wherever objects fail to exhibit plausible behavior, their writeups need to be adjusted.

 

Pretty much this. Verisimilitude is the order of the day, and is often the concept that people are getting at when they talk about realism in a gaming context. Willing suspension of disbelief, and all that - the world needs to seem plausible, consistent, etc., otherwise people disengage.

[gewing]

Well, IIRC the Iowa's gun was rated around 9d6+1 AP Kill Xplosion, which would barely penetrate the frontal armor of an Abrams. While my suspicion is that, IRL, a 1 ton projectile impacting the front of the tank at supersonic speed would turn the Abrams into a 6 million dollar piece of abstract art spread out across a wide area.

 

Yep. 

 

There is no such thing in the real world as impenetrable armor.   

 

The M829 A3 APFSDS round used by the M1, looks like it generates about 8,893,295 ft lbs.    Due to the design, focusing the energy on a small area, it will penetrate an Amazing amount of armor.  

 

I worked some numbers for the 16 " shell, just because I am that geeky, based on the info here:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

 

 If I am not mistaken, at 42,345 yds( 38720m) the shell is STILL going 1686 fps.   It is falling at a 52.35 degree angle, so it would be a top attack. 

I am not sure I trust my math. Physics was 30 years ago.  

 My calculator says that at 1686 ft/s, the  2700 lb AP shell has 2.07xe13 ft lbs of energy.  

 

Due to angle of impact, It is only rated to penetrate 9.5 inches of side battleship armor or 14 inches of deck armor.     This was HUGE plates of steel.   I don't remember the actual test plate size, but I suspect it was as big as the whole turret of the M1.  

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder how fast the 16" shell would be going after it exited the bottom of the M1?          Then the 40 lb bursting charge would go off...

 

Such a weapon was never meant to be used on human sized point targets.   Though there was a program for a laser guided version...

 

Armor can be penetrated, or the whole structure it is mounted in can be crushed, shredded, etc... 

[Old Man]

The M829 A3 APFSDS round used by the M1, looks like it generates about 8,893,295 ft lbs.    Due to the design, focusing the energy on a small area, it will penetrate an Amazing amount of armor.  

 

Are you switching over to FASERIP?

 

That round has recorded tank kills through intervening terrain features like sand dunes.  If there is a maximum amount of AP you can buy for an attack, that round has probably exceeded it.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah that gun is slouching into AVLD territory.

[procyon]

Yep. 

 

There is no such thing in the real world as impenetrable armor.   

 

The M829 A3 APFSDS round used by the M1, looks like it generates about 8,893,295 ft lbs.    Due to the design, focusing the energy on a small area, it will penetrate an Amazing amount of armor.  

 

I worked some numbers for the 16 " shell, just because I am that geeky, based on the info here:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

 

 If I am not mistaken, at 42,345 yds( 38720m) the shell is STILL going 1686 fps.   It is falling at a 52.35 degree angle, so it would be a top attack. 

I am not sure I trust my math. Physics was 30 years ago.  

 My calculator says that at 1686 ft/s, the  2700 lb AP shell has 2.07xe13 ft lbs of energy.  

 

Due to angle of impact, It is only rated to penetrate 9.5 inches of side battleship armor or 14 inches of deck armor.     This was HUGE plates of steel.   I don't remember the actual test plate size, but I suspect it was as big as the whole turret of the M1.  

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder how fast the 16" shell would be going after it exited the bottom of the M1?          Then the 40 lb bursting charge would go off...

 

Such a weapon was never meant to be used on human sized point targets.   Though there was a program for a laser guided version...

 

Armor can be penetrated, or the whole structure it is mounted in can be crushed, shredded, etc... 

 

Sadly I can't see the site you linked as the hospital web filter blocks it.

The limitations of only having internet while at work...

 

Your math is off a bit somewhere.

You may have different numbers on the 120mm round.

I am familiar with the A2 round, which is a 20 lb penetrator moving at 5500 fps at the muzzle.  Which translates to around 9.4x10^6 ft-lb.

It will punch though over 20" of steel at 2000 yds.

(But I have never seen a recorded kill on an armored target through any substantial barrier.  The pressure involved at impact liquifies most of the metal and actually combusts the depleted uranium.  Now, soft targets that get hit by the spray that penetrates a barrier are in a lot of trouble.  Half a pound of molten-flaming supersonic metal can be ouchie...)

 

The 16" shell moving at about 1700 fps and weighing 2700 lbs is going to generate about 1.2x10^8 ft-lbs of energy.  So I think you have a decimal or conversion misplaced in your figures.

And the momentum it will transfer to the tank is going to be about the same as dropping the M1 from 3 stories in the air.

 

(Yes, I worked as a physicist...)

 

ETA

I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, but this sounds fairly accurate for the Iowa class BB's main gun projectiles.

 

The Mk. 8 APC (Armor-Piercing, Capped) shell weighed 2,700 lb (1225 kg) and was designed to penetrate the hardened steel armor carried by foreign battleships. At 20,000 yards (18 km) the Mk. 8 could penetrate 20 inches (500 mm) of steel armor plate.[24] At the same range, the Mk. 8 could penetrate 21 feet (6.4 m) of reinforced concrete.[24]

[Hugh Neilson]

That round has recorded tank kills through intervening terrain features like sand dunes.  If there is a maximum amount of AP you can buy for an attack, that round has probably exceeded it.

Maybe some Indirect?

[Ninja-Bear]

I guess its a matter of style, a tank is destroyed if you rip the turret off and flip it over just as much as if you tear it in half. Destroyed is destroyed, however you define it, in game terms its just a matter of coming up with the mechanics that render this possible.

 

 

I can tell you why I have resistance to that idea; it creates a two tiered system instead of a seamless blended single generic system and I don't want to see that. It means the creatures I build for Fantasy Hero aren't the same as the ones in Champions so I can't port them across directly. I want one game, not two.

But we already have a two-tiered system. There are diffrent rules (although minor) if you run super versus heroic. Top off my head END for strength is diffrent between the two.

[Ninja-Bear]

P.s. I suggested before about mundane equipment take a vulnerabilty limitation on the build versus super powers. Btw you could also go with GM fiat that small arms don't harm tank armor no matter the roll simular to how the default of martial arts can't break a safe no matter the dice roll.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Well I guess I do have more to say.

 

You appear to be working from a few assumptions that I disagree with:

 

#1) That some of the characters who appeared in the comics in the 1960s had a Str score of somewhere around 60.

#2) That these 60 Str characters destroyed tanks, but just barely.

#3) That the improvements in military hardware since that point in time should have resulted in a very significant increase in tanks' durability vs superheroes.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the first one, depending on the character. Ben Grimm may have been around a 55 or 60 Str in his first appearances. I don't know when the first time ol' Benji fought a tank was, but let's assume he had a 60 Str. But I'm pretty sure that Thor was way way higher than that when he first appeared.

 

The second one I do disagree with. I think the Thing could pretty easily handle 1960s tanks. He didn't have to push his Str, haymaker, and hope he rolled well. When he did fight them, he trashed them. Thor as well could smash the military technology of the day with one thwack. But that doesn't mean that is all the characters could do. They might have been able to smash modern hardware back then as well.

 

The third one I also disagree with. Just because tanks today are made out of materials that resist kinetic penetrators better than older tanks, that doesn't mean that they resist superhuman rending and tearing any better than their older counterparts. It doesn't mean that they resist Optic Blast any better.

 

 

Here's a back of the napkin suggestion:

 

1960s tank:

 

Def 8 + 6 vs "real world" equipment

Body 15

Main Gun -- 4D6+1 Explosion

Vulnerability -- x 1.5 damage vs attacks that do 5+ Body through defenses

Optional Vulnerability -- x 1.5 damage vs superhuman attacks

 

2015 tank:

 

Def 10 + 12 hardened vs "real world" equipment

Body 19

Main Gun -- 5D6+1 AP

Vulnerability -- x 1.5 damage vs attacks that do 5+ Body through defenses

Optional Vulnerability -- x 1.5 damage vs superhuman attacks

 

 

So basically your Abrams can roll around, immune to the damage that most things can do to it. It can shoot a 1960s tank, roll about 19 Body, and it penetrates enough to trigger the tank's Vulnerability (the sabot hits ammo, or a fuel tank, or whatever). So the 19 Body becomes 30 Body, the tank is at zero, and is destroyed in one shot. The 1960s tank could theoretically roll perfectly, do 25 Body, and the Abrams takes 3. It's not enough damage to trigger the Vulnerability. The Abrams takes some damage and maybe throws a track, but it's basically okay.

 

Now we look at Orange Rock Guy. Orange Rock Guy has a 60 Str. He fights a 1960s tank. He runs up and punches it, rolling 12D6. If Orange Rock Guy rolls 12 Body, then he does 4 past the tank's non-military Def of 8 (without the optional superhero vulnerability). He damages it and it loses a power. He can roll again on his next phase. If he rolls 13 Body, then the Vulnerability kicks in and he actually does like 20 Body. The tank takes 12, has 3 remaining, and is almost destroyed. If Orange Rock Guy shouts out his trademark cry "It's Crunching Stuff Time!" and haymakers, then he rolls 16 dice. If he rolls 16 Body, then it gets increased to 24. The tank takes 16 and is toast.

 

If Orange Rock Guy is transported into the distant future of 2015, he can fight an Abrams. He's less likely to trigger its "massive damage" vulnerability, but he can still regularly put Body on it, and with a haymaker and a good roll, he can get darn close to one-shotting it.

 

 

NOW... I know that tanks aren't written up that way in the Hero system. But I ask, why can't they be? Is there anything wrong with the way I have written them up? Modern tanks can still trash older tanks. There's still been a lot of technological improvement. But that improvement versus other vehicles doesn't necessarily correlate to improvement versus guys with crazy powers.

NOW YOU ARE STARTING TO GET IT!!!!

 

The key is in how you write it up. I have found a more realistic approach to military vehicles.....something I puzzled out when I was writing up vehicles for my Star Hero campain.....is that armore vehicles have two defense characteristics. One is their inherent Defense....the vehicular charcteristic. And the other is the ARMOR power (i forget what they call it in 6th)

 

Vehicle Defense is bought up as a single characteristic and acts as both PD and ED and is fully resistant. It is the basic toughness of the vehicles superstructure. Armor represents additional defense layered on top of the vehicle, such as the Chobam plates on the Abrams or the kevlar layer found on some military Humvees.

 

To write up the Abrams properly, you give it a base UNHARDENED DEF. Then add hardened armor on top. 10+12(hard) is exactly how that should work. I have written up many a sci-fi fighting vehicle (including many mecha) in exactly that way.

[NuSoardGraphite]

And if you buy some of the Defense separately as Armor, and you allow charascters to aim at different locations and equipment on a vehicle (i want to rip off the hood!) Then the armor plates become one of those locations. The Thing pushes and haymakers and aims for the front armor.

 

RIP! A chunk of armor goes flying from the front of the tank.

 

Next phase, The Thing aims for the unarmored section. He does 14 body vs Def 8. That 6 body past the tanks defenses.

 

PUNCH! BAM! WHAM!

 

 

Disabled tank.

[gewing]

 

Are you switching over to FASERIP?

 

That round has recorded tank kills through intervening terrain features like sand dunes.  If there is a maximum amount of AP you can buy for an attack, that round has probably exceeded it.

Faserip?  I would have to look up what it is.   I am just a gun geek.    They are working on a new version (maybe the E4) to be more resistant to the most recent russian Reactive Armor design.   IIRC the Relikt armor uses radar triggered linear EFP charges to cut incoming projectiles into pieces.   

 

Weapons tech is funky...

[gewing]

Sadly I can't see the site you linked as the hospital web filter blocks it.

The limitations of only having internet while at work...

 

Your math is off a bit somewhere.

You may have different numbers on the 120mm round.

I am familiar with the A2 round, which is a 20 lb penetrator moving at 5500 fps at the muzzle.  Which translates to around 9.4x10^6 ft-lb.

It will punch though over 20" of steel at 2000 yds.

(But I have never seen a recorded kill on an armored target through any substantial barrier.  The pressure involved at impact liquifies most of the metal and actually combusts the depleted uranium.  Now, soft targets that get hit by the spray that penetrates a barrier are in a lot of trouble.  Half a pound of molten-flaming supersonic metal can be ouchie...)

 

The 16" shell moving at about 1700 fps and weighing 2700 lbs is going to generate about 1.2x10^8 ft-lbs of energy.  So I think you have a decimal or conversion misplaced in your figures.

And the momentum it will transfer to the tank is going to be about the same as dropping the M1 from 3 stories in the air.

 

(Yes, I worked as a physicist...)

 

ETA

I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, but this sounds fairly accurate for the Iowa class BB's main gun projectiles.

 

The Mk. 8 APC (Armor-Piercing, Capped) shell weighed 2,700 lb (1225 kg) and was designed to penetrate the hardened steel armor carried by foreign battleships. At 20,000 yards (18 km) the Mk. 8 could penetrate 20 inches (500 mm) of steel armor plate.[24] At the same range, the Mk. 8 could penetrate 21 feet (6.4 m) of reinforced concrete.[24]

I found a figure for the M829a3 as 22 lbs at 1555m/s, 5100 ft/s,         https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/120mm/docs/M829A3_Fact_Sheet.pdf)

 

Thanks, I think I figured out what I did.   I was VERY tired (part of why I did not trust my numbers) and was making conversions based on my formula i have been using for small arms calculations, using grains.   I suppose I could have multiplied by 7000gr/lb twice...        Or just typoed it.   

 

 

If you have ANY interest in such things, try to check the site out sometime.   interesting stuff, and not just US.   It even has a chart developed by the Navy for using the 16" guns for anti-aircraft...  :0

 

Though the US did not develop a specialized anti aircraft round for it, like the Japanese did for their 18 inch guns...

[Christopher R Taylor]

But we already have a two-tiered system. There are diffrent rules (although minor) if you run super versus heroic. Top off my head END for strength is diffrent between the two. 

 

Not really.  All heroic does is flip a few toggles; you can as an option run the END 1/10 or 1/5 in any game, they suggest 1/5 in heroic but its not mandatory.  Same with pushing, in heroic its suggested you use an Ego roll but its not mandatory.

 

 

 

Though the US did not develop a specialized anti aircraft round for it, like the Japanese did for their 18 inch guns...

 

Developed nukes for em though 

[gewing]

Not really.  All heroic does is flip a few toggles; you can as an option run the END 1/10 or 1/5 in any game, they suggest 1/5 in heroic but its not mandatory.  Same with pushing, in heroic its suggested you use an Ego roll but its not mandatory.

 

 

Developed nukes for em though 

 

Well, adapted one for it, iirc. 

 

The more impressive things were the iirc 11" and 13" discarding sabot projectiles.   They could have carried the payload of an 8" tac nuke easily, and the range provided...   

 

I believe they were even thinking about laser guidance for them...

[massey]

Faserip?  I would have to look up what it is.   I am just a gun geek.    They are working on a new version (maybe the E4) to be more resistant to the most recent russian Reactive Armor design.   IIRC the Relikt armor uses radar triggered linear EFP charges to cut incoming projectiles into pieces.   

 

Weapons tech is funky...

 

FASERIP is another name for the old TSR Marvel Super Heroes RPG.  The name comes from the character stats -- Fighting, Agility, Strength, Endurance, Reason, Intuition, Psyche.

 

Old Man mentioned it because you said something could penetrate an Amazing amount of armor plate.  The FASERIP system used adjectives to describe power level.  Spider-Man, for instance, had Amazing level Agility.  Thor had Unearthly Strength, etc.

[gewing]

FASERIP is another name for the old TSR Marvel Super Heroes RPG.  The name comes from the character stats -- Fighting, Agility, Strength, Endurance, Reason, Intuition, Psyche.

 

Old Man mentioned it because you said something could penetrate an Amazing amount of armor plate.  The FASERIP system used adjectives to describe power level.  Spider-Man, for instance, had Amazing level Agility.  Thor had Unearthly Strength, etc.

I remember playing that.  once.

[Ninja-Bear]

Christopher Taylor I forgot to mention that in 5th Beastriary, they give two different point totals for each creature. This is to compensate that in heroic level charastica maxima is enforced at the heroic level. You talked about there being just a few toggles switched which is true if you want to or you could go the other way and switch superheroic to heroic however as default and published material goes, there is a two tiered system.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I forgot to mention that in 5th Beastriary, they give two different point totals for each creature. This is to compensate that in heroic level charastica maxima is enforced at the heroic level. 

 

But that's not a system change, its an accounting thing.  Again: a toggle; in most heroic games you have characteristic maxima, in superheroic you typically do not.  But you can flip that switch in either game if you choose.  This isn't representing two different games, its just representing the flexibility of the Hero system which you can use some rules for some games or not.  You can, if you want, run a superheroic game without knockback, adding in bleeding and impairing rules, require 1 END/5 active points, and hit locations.

[NuSoardGraphite]

But that's not a system change, its an accounting thing. Again: a toggle; in most heroic games you have characteristic maxima, in superheroic you typically do not. But you can flip that switch in either game if you choose. This isn't representing two different games, its just representing the flexibility of the Hero system which you can use some rules for some games or not. You can, if you want, run a superheroic game without knockback, adding in bleeding and impairing rules, require 1 END/5 active points, and hit locations.

I have done that in an IMAGE inspired supers game based on STORM WATCH. It worked beautifully.

[Ninja-Bear]

But that's not a system change, its an accounting thing. Again: a toggle; in most heroic games you have characteristic maxima, in superheroic you typically do not. But you can flip that switch in either game if you choose. This isn't representing two different games, its just representing the flexibility of the Hero system which you can use some rules for some games or not. You can, if you want, run a superheroic game without knockback, adding in bleeding and impairing rules, require 1 END/5 active points, and hit locations.

Originally you said you didn't want two different write ups for tanks because that would be a two tiered system. Yet having characters having different mechanics based on heroic/superheroic toggles switched is one tiered?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yes, because its a system with toggles that allows you to change certain specific campaign rules.  That's different, to me, than having some equipment act differently in different game settings.  Having endurance cost more in your frontier west game is one thing, having the guns do different damage in a superheroic setting than a heroic one is something else.

[Ninja-Bear]

Yes, because its a system with toggles that allows you to change certain specific campaign rules. That's different, to me, than having some equipment act differently in different game settings. Having endurance cost more in your frontier west game is one thing, having the guns do different damage in a superheroic setting than a heroic one is something else.

And thats where I disagree. If you toggle different abilities to represent the genre better, then naturally equipment and crestures also should be changed if needed.

[massey]

And thats where I disagree. If you toggle different abilities to represent the genre better, then naturally equipment and crestures also should be changed if needed.

 

This may be true, in the general sense.  However that doesn't mean that the Hero standard is to have a separate writeup for everything in the world for each genre.  Just because you might have to change something for one particular game, doesn't mean that you should have to change tank writeups for a supers game.

 

I mean, I have at least a dozen different versions of Superman on my computer.  Each one follows a different design philosophy, a separate attempt to represent the character in a new way, or squeeze him into a particular point total.  The power levels are all over the place, from animated series to Pre-Crisis butt-kicker.  So obviously it's possible to represent things in many different ways in this game.  I'm not going to tell someone that they can't adjust something for their campaign -- that's the whole point of the Hero system.

 

I think the problem with military equipment in the game is that you had a guy who loved his guns write them up.  Each one had to have something to differentiate it from the one before, so you got some stat inflation.  You couldn't have 1D6+1 RKA "pistol" anymore, you had to have a .38 differentiated from a .45, which had to also be different from a 9mm, etc.  That makes sense if you're playing Gun Store Hero, but those distinctions aren't really important if you are playing basically anything else.  A level of specificity was applied to firearms and military equipment that wasn't applied to anything else.  They were balanced against one another, but not against anything else in the game world.

[Christopher R Taylor]

You couldn't have 1D6+1 RKA "pistol" anymore, you had to have a .38 differentiated from a .45, which had to also be different from a 9mm, etc.  That makes sense if you're playing Gun Store Hero, but those distinctions aren't really important if you are playing basically anything else.  

 

 

I agree with this. Yeah I'd like a 10mm to be different than a .45 but in the end they're really so similar as to not need extensive write ups.  Its like the old polearms lists; does a Glaive really vary that much from a Bill?  Is a claymore a different sword from a flamberge?  In the real world, yes.  But in game terms, with the low level of granularity in Hero killing attacks?  No, not really.  At most a point or two of strength Min and maybe a bonus to a maneuver for some design feature.