Are tanks really that tough?

[Ndreare]

As an aside, I work with material strength calculations as a daily part of my job, and steal in real life is very, very strong.

 

A minimal accepted tensile strength for medium grade steal is 70,000 psi. Many alloys go multiples higher. It makes me wonder if the game was designed to simulate close to realism like GURPS, what kind of strength would actually be needed to go through several layers of the super alloys used in tank construction. And what the tensile strength of those materials are, do they have high elasticity to allow for deformation, stuff like that?

 

Non of that matters when trying to simulate the comic style of hitting a tank a few times to eliminate it as if it was a common mook, but I still wonder.

[L. Marcus]

 

How do you lift the turret off, or bend the main gun, in Hero rules, without overcoming its rPD?

 

AFAIK, a modern tank's turret isn't attached to the hull at all, other than gravity.

[Ndreare]

I would think it is more than gravity, a battle field can be complex and videos of those tanks binding over sand dunes at 30 miles per hour would show the bouncy turrets. But I will never know for sure as I am to old to join the military.

[massey]

 

 

AFAIK, a modern tank's turret isn't attached to the hull at all, other than gravity.

 

 

In Hero rules?  It's just Def and Body.

[Ndreare]

Some things happen outside the rules I guess. How does a man with a crow bar open a safe? It happens all the time. My FLAGS was broken into and they were able to open the safe, the cops were not even impressed by the feat. But by the game mechanics of most games even a crit would not have hurt the safe. It was huge and really, I think a 30-06 round would have bounced off it. But muscle and determination ripped it open.

 

Edit: sometimes I read what Google voice turned my words into and wonder how.

[assault]

The whole point of this thread is to find ways to allow PCs to do what we see in the comics (and, I suppose, in the movies). I say that comic/movie writers are allowing superheroes to trash modern hardware with the same ease they did in the 1960s, which makes no sense given the steep performance increase of military hardware since then. Iron Man may have tech that keeps pace (notice the teeny little missile that insta-kills that tank in the first Iron Man movie), but Mjolnir is just a magic hammer, and it hasn't changed in millenia. The Hulk may earn XP, but there is nothing in-universe I know of to explain a steady increase in his base STR that matches the military technology improvement curve.

 

An easy answer to this: Thor and the Hulk were always capable of massive overkill against the 60s tanks. They were also always capable of taking on even more advanced technology. Modern non-supertech hardware hasn't come close to closing the gap. Iron Man is, of course, supertech.

 

Also: "Mjolnir is just a magic hammer".

[massey]

As an aside, I work with material strength calculations as a daily part of my job, and steal in real life is very, very strong.

 

A minimal accepted tensile strength for medium grade steal is 70,000 psi. Many alloys go multiples higher. It makes me wonder if the game was designed to simulate close to realism like GURPS, what kind of strength would actually be needed to go through several layers of the super alloys used in tank construction. And what the tensile strength of those materials are, do they have high elasticity to allow for deformation, stuff like that?

 

Non of that matters when trying to simulate the comic style of hitting a tank a few times to eliminate it as if it was a common mook, but I still wonder.

 

Well, the exact composition of Chobham is secret, as far as I know.  I think its rumored to have depleted uranium in there somewhere.

 

This really goes back to an earlier point I made that got sort of lost.  Modern tank armor is not a uniform substance.  It wasn't some super-material that they made "really tough" just to see how tough they could make it.  It is made of a variety of materials with very particular properties, specifically designed to counter the types of attacks they were likely to face.  They layer different materials with different properties in order to get the type of resistance they want.  They know that the enemy uses X, Y, and Z weapons to penetrate, so that's what they build against.  The real world doesn't have generic "damage".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour

 

 

Due to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against a shaped charge jet and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators (KE-penetrators). The (pulverised) ceramic also stronglyabrades any penetrator. Against lighter projectiles the hardness of the tiles causes a "shatter gap" effect: a higher velocity will, within a certain velocity range (the "gap"), not lead to a deeper penetration but destroy the projectile itself instead.^[2] Because the ceramic is so brittle the entrance channel of a shaped charge jet is not smooth—as it would be when penetrating a metal—but ragged, causing extreme asymmetric pressures which disturb the geometry of the jet, on which its penetrative capabilities are critically dependent as its mass is relatively low. This initiates a vicious circle as the disturbed jet causes still greater irregularities in the ceramic, until in the end it is defeated. The newer composites, though tougher, optimise this effect as tiles made with them have a layered internal structure conducive to it, causing "crack deflection".^[3] This mechanism—using the jet's own energy against it—has caused the effects of Chobham to be compared to those of reactive armour. This should not be confused with the effect used in many laminate armours of any kind: that of sandwiching an inert but soft elastic material such as rubber, between two of the armour plates. The impact of either a shaped charge jet or long-rod penetrator after the first layer has been perforated and while the rubber layer is being penetrated will cause the rubber to deform and expand, so deforming both the back and front plates. Both attack methods will suffer from obstruction to their expected paths, so experiencing a greater thickness of armour than there is nominally, thus lowering penetration. Also for rod penetrations, the transverse force experienced due to the deformation may cause the rod to shatter, bend, or just change its path, again lowering penetration.

To date, few Chobham armour-protected tanks have been defeated by enemy fire in combat; the relevance of individual cases of lost tanks for determining the protective qualities of Chobham armour is difficult to ascertain as the extent to which such tanks are protected by ceramic modules is undisclosed.

 

It sounds to me like a guy with super-strength pounding on it is just going to smash through it, several layers at a time.

[massey]

Some things happen outside the rules I guess. How does a man with a crow bar open a safe? It happens all the time. My FLAGS was broken into and they were able to open the safe, the cops were not even impressed by the fear. But by the game mechanics of most games even a crit would not have hurt the safe. It was huge and baby, I think a 30-06 round would have bounced off it. But muscle and determination ripped it open.

 

Lockpicking skill.  

[NuSoardGraphite]

The Anti-tank missiles should be double Armor Piercing. Fired from an airplane or helicopter, they should attack the top of the armor, which whould only have 1 level of hardened. Thats 4d6k vs Def 10 on the overpowered Abrams, or vs Def 8 on the old writeup. 4 body on average or 6 body.

 

I dont have the books in front of me, but if the anti-tank weapons are not APx2, then they are wrong.

 

I have developed a very well balanced approach to technology and military weapons for my style of play. This took many years to achieve. Because I have benchmarks on where most real world objects should rank, I have starting points for designing fictional characters and weaponry to match. Then I know how many points I need to give supers if I want them to be capable of destroying tanks.

 

If you are limiting charcters to 60 active maximums, that is your problem, as that is not enough to destroy a tank. That is not enough to simulate Iron man, Hulk or Thor, let alone anyone from the Justice league. All those guys are rocking powers in the 90 active + range.

 

You have to determine where real word objects rank before you can determine the power level of your heroes. For me, I started with where completely normal humans rank. Str 10, bod 10 etc. I wrote up human scale weapons with those stats in mind (very close to 4th and 5th edition examples). Then I scaled military hardware to that model. .50 HMG is 3d6k. Average damage is 10.5 body. deadly to an unarmored human. Tank armor is 20/16. Improved Chobham with the slope is 24/20. Front is hardx2. Sides/top is hardx1. Anti-tank weaponry is scaled to match. 4d6k to 6d6k with various Ap, PEN, explosion advantages depending on thr round (the m256 rheinmetal cannon fires 120mm APFSDS rounds at. 8 million or so joules of kinetic energy which I place at 6d6k apx2. HEAT rounds are AP/PEN). An unarmored human, Body 10 hit with any of the anti-tank weaponryd would be instantly killed by their average damage (21 body from a 6d6k tank round, human is vaporized).

 

Having all that set, I am now ready to scale my superheroes to these "laws of physics". Low powered Heroes at 45 active on average. They cant even scratch a tank. Normal superhero at 60 active. Can damage some armor with a max damage hit. High powered heroes are 90 active. They can routinely damage armor, but not effortlessly. Very high powered heroes are 120 active. They can damage armor with average damage hits and heavily damage them with near max damage. Outright destroy even an Abrams in a single shot at max damage. (48 body vs 24 def and 20 body) cosmic heroes can destroy tanks and other vehicles effortlessly and even go toe to toe with milittary grade starships.

 

I'm fine with this scale. I consider Hulk and Thor and Lantern and Supes to be Very powerful Superheroes and an argument coulld be made for Supes and Lantern to be considered cosmic level. In one of my supers campaigns, players making STARTING heroes cant expect their characters to be capable of the same feats as these guys. They can build up to it with experience. Thats half the fun of the game, seeing your character grow and evolve.

 

If you do want starting supers characters to be able to mimick the feats of the greatest comic book heroes, thats totally fine...but you need to configure your own world to match that because the default Hero assumption is that they cannot....and this paradigm is supported with the point costs and the mechanics. Make your own adjustments and flavor to taste. I did years ago and boy is it tasty!

[massey]

For the record a direct question was asked and ignored, then asked again. I answered the question based on the write up of Dr. Destroyer in Villains Volume 1 and the M1A1 presented on page 51 of The ultimate Vehicle. For my own games I use penetrating on supernatural strength.

 

Hough and massey, your responses seam pretty hostile but based on the information yes you can add other elements such as other weapons, but the question was asked about a specific vehicle as listed in the book. Moving the target does not help him get his answer. As such I will answer in a hostile manner my self

 

 

 

I wasn't trying to be hostile, and I don't think Hugh Neilson was either.  I was just trying to point out how crazy high the damage and defenses have become, and there still seem to be some people who want to justify it.  If it came across as rude, my bad.

[assault]

If you are limiting charcters to 60 active maximums, that is your problem, as that is not enough to destroy a tank. That is not enough to simulate Iron man, Hulk or Thor, let alone anyone from the Justice league. All those guys are rocking powers in the 90 active + range.

 

 

The Justice League has a wide range of power levels. Most of them aren't Superman.

 

If you do want starting supers characters to be able to mimick the feats of the greatest comic book heroes, thats totally fine...but you need to configure your own world to match that because the default Hero assumption is that they cannot....and this paradigm is supported with the point costs and the mechanics.

 

Starting characters can run faster than light, travel in time and space, talk to fish.... but can't punch out tanks?

[massey]

So this is my view on it.

 

 

This is an Abrams.  As the rules stand, if I'm in front of it, unless I can do 31+ Body, there's really no point in me attacking it.  I can't hurt it.

 

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that I'm a guy who can lift 100 tons.  If I run up to that tank, jump onto the front of it, put my foot against the turret, wrap both arms around that barrel, and YANK... I bet I can pull that sucker right out of there.  There will be an awful metal wrenching sound and then there will be a barrel-sized hole in the front of the turret.  It's just held there by normal steel.  It's been welded in place.  The armor isn't resisting me.  That is how the tank is held together -- through simple steel welds.  In fact, I should be able to grab almost any piece of metal and pull it free quite easily.  In game terms, I would call this "doing Body damage" to the tank.  I'm not pounding through armored plates.  I'm not a high speed projectile.  I can just rip it to pieces.

 

None of these are a possibility with the game rules as they are.  Punching, kicking, tearing, pulling, ripping, these are all just basic "strength damage" in the game.  There's no differentiation, so the tank gets to apply its full defenses aganist anything like that that you would try.

 

I'm starting to like the "damage negation" idea.  I don't play 6th, but the idea of giving a tank 10 Def for the steel, and then a bunch of levels of damage negation vs military weaponry sounds reasonable.  I'm still not likely to make the main gun more than about a 5 or 6D6 RKA though.  It doesn't level buildings when it shoots them.

[Ndreare]

I wasn't trying to be hostile, and I don't think Hugh Neilson was either.  I was just trying to point out how crazy high the damage and defenses have become, and there still seem to be some people who want to justify it.  If it came across as rude, my bad.

I can be an a**. I am sorry for reacting that way.

[massey]

No problem, man.

[NuSoardGraphite]

So this is my view on it.

 

 

This is an Abrams.  As the rules stand, if I'm in front of it, unless I can do 31+ Body, there's really no point in me attacking it.  I can't hurt it.

 

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that I'm a guy who can lift 100 tons.  If I run up to that tank, jump onto the front of it, put my foot against the turret, wrap both arms around that barrel, and YANK... I bet I can pull that sucker right out of there.  There will be an awful metal wrenching sound and then there will be a barrel-sized hole in the front of the turret.  It's just held there by normal steel.  It's been welded in place.  The armor isn't resisting me.  That is how the tank is held together -- through simple steel welds.  In fact, I should be able to grab almost any piece of metal and pull it free quite easily.  In game terms, I would call this "doing Body damage" to the tank.  I'm not pounding through armored plates.  I'm not a high speed projectile.  I can just rip it to pieces.

 

None of these are a possibility with the game rules as they are.  Punching, kicking, tearing, pulling, ripping, these are all just basic "strength damage" in the game.  There's no differentiation, so the tank gets to apply its full defenses aganist anything like that that you would try.

 

I'm starting to like the "damage negation" idea.  I don't play 6th, but the idea of giving a tank 10 Def for the steel, and then a bunch of levels of damage negation vs military weaponry sounds reasonable.  I'm still not likely to make the main gun more than about a 5 or 6D6 RKA though.  It doesn't level buildings when it shoots them.

I can lift 200lbs, but it is very, very difficult for me to rip my 50lb sons arm out of his socket.

 

You can lift 100 tons. That tank weighs over half that amount. having difficulty ripping the turret off isnt that out of sorts. I really think comic book physics is warping your view of reality here. And yes, I know we are talking about dramatic, comic book physics, I fully acknowledge that and isnwhy I suggested that you have to design the physics for your game to perform how you want it to.

 

What you NEED to admit to yourself is that the published writeups are hosed. they are screwed. You have to comd up with your own. My writeups work for me and what I want at my table. You have to season your own game to your taste and go from there.

[massey]

I can lift 200lbs, but it is very, very difficult for me to rip my 50lb sons arm out of his socket.

 

You can lift 100 tons. That tank weighs over half that amount. having difficulty ripping the turret off isnt that out of sorts. I really think comic book physics is warping your view of reality here. And yes, I know we are talking about dramatic, comic book physics, I fully acknowledge that and isnwhy I suggested that you have to design the physics for your game to perform how you want it to.

 

What you NEED to admit to yourself is that the published writeups are hosed. they are screwed. You have to comd up with your own. My writeups work for me and what I want at my table. You have to season your own game to your taste and go from there.

 

You just need to try harder.  Really put your back into it next time.  It helps if you put your foot in the armpit area.

 

 

It's not about the weight of the object.  It's about the durability of what is holding it together.  Your 200 lbs of force is not sufficient to break the bone, or tear the tendons, muscles, flesh, and skin that holds your son's arm to his body.  The 100 tons of force that a 60 Str brick can generate is easily enough to bust a few steel welds.  

 

As far as me needing to admit the published writeups are wrong, that's what I've said this entire thread.  Did you read the post you quoted?

[Christopher R Taylor]

I'm starting to like the "damage negation" idea.  I don't play 6th, but the idea of giving a tank 10 Def for the steel, and then a bunch of levels of damage negation vs military weaponry sounds reasonable.  I'm still not likely to make the main gun more than about a 5 or 6D6 RKA though.  It doesn't level buildings when it shoots them.

 

 

I like this approach.

 

The Justice League has a wide range of power levels. Most of them aren't Superman.

 

 

True, but nobody thinks Green Arrow can shoot through a tank, either.

[assault]

"Only a desperate situation like this would bring me to fire an atomic-warhead arrow..!"

 

And you thought Batman was crazy prepared!

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Edit #2:  I'd direct everyone's attention to the Object Body Table, page 449 of 5th Edition revised rulebook.  A large bridge, as an unliving object, has 25 Body.

So does an Abrams tank. Another logic disconnect, in my view.

  

The whole point of this thread is to find ways to allow PCs to do what we see in the comics (and, I suppose, in the movies). I say that comic/movie writers are allowing superheroes to trash modern hardware with the same ease they did in the 1960s, which makes no sense given the steep performance increase of military hardware since then. Iron Man may have tech that keeps pace (notice the teeny little missile that insta-kills that tank in the first Iron Man movie), but Mjolnir is just a magic hammer, and it hasn't changed in millenia. The Hulk may earn XP, but there is nothing in-universe I know of to explain a steady increase in his base STR that matches the military technology improvement curve.

Iron Man, Hulk and Thor weren't tearing up tanks in the '60s. That would make Tony Stark, Bruce Banner and Jane Foster 75+ today. Their start dates move over time, and they are capable of tearing up tanks at the start of their careers.

 

 

I'd say most of the advances on the "military technology improvement curve" are illusory, as far as Hero stats go.

 

True, a modern tank will slaughter a 1970s tank, which will itself stomp a 1960s tank, which will beat a 1940s tank, etc. But... so what? In the real world, ANY damage that gets through a tank's armor basically destroys it. If a tank takes one Body, it usually goes boom, depending on where it hits. A big jump in power might just be the addition of an extra pip of RKA -- if it's enough to get through the armor, then it's great. The past 50 years of development might have added a grand total of +5 PD Armor and an extra D6+1 RKA.

In fairness, that extra d6+1 is four doublings of power - 16x as damaging!

 

 

For the record a direct question was asked and ignored, then asked again. I answered the question based on the write up of Dr. Destroyer in Villains Volume 1 and the M1A1 presented on page 51 of The ultimate Vehicle.

Fair enough - I asked the question as I did not have Doc D's writeup in front of me, and you answered it. The most obscenely overpowered writeup by far in the Hero Universe, at least, can take out a single Abrams one on one. But will quickly fall if the military can mobilize. And Doc D's stats are more appropriate to Galactus than Dr. Doom.

 

Also, your response was no more out of line than mine. You asked the question that was answered. Moving out to "full military assault" is a logical outgrowth, but the question of "Doc D vs a single tank" was the starting question, and your response covered it thoroughly.

 

5: Dr. D could leave at any time.

Chasing Doc D off counts as a pretty serious win in my books!

 

 

An easy answer to this: Thor and the Hulk were always capable of massive overkill against the 60s tanks. They were also always capable of taking on even more advanced technology. Modern non-supertech hardware hasn't come close to closing the gap. Iron Man is, of course, supertech.

Very true. And these characters took on Supertech in their comics as well.

 

Also: "Mjolnir is just a magic hammer".

 

Yup!

 

If you are limiting charcters to 60 active maximums, that is your problem, as that is not enough to destroy a tank. That is not enough to simulate Iron man, Hulk or Thor, let alone anyone from the Justice league. All those guys are rocking powers in the 90 active + range.

The standard for Hero characters sets their stats in that range. The characters are then described as powerful superbeings. That does not fit with the same standard stats for military armament being easily able to trash them

 

I'm fine with this scale. I consider Hulk and Thor and Lantern and Supes to be Very powerful Superheroes and an argument coulld be made for Supes and Lantern to be considered cosmic level. In one of my supers campaigns, players making STARTING heroes cant expect their characters to be capable of the same feats as these guys. They can build up to it with experience. Thats half the fun of the game, seeing your character grow and evolve.

Certainly a workable scale, but to me Supers aren't "Zero to Hero" characters. They don't start out as Newsboy Legion and gradually evolve into the Justice League.

 

If you do want starting supers characters to be able to mimick the feats of the greatest comic book heroes, thats totally fine...but you need to configure your own world to match that because the default Hero assumption is that they cannot....and this paradigm is supported with the point costs and the mechanics.

The default Hero assumption is not that heros start with 9 DC attacks and grow to 24+ either. "Very Powerful Supers" have 12-20 DC's according to the guidelines on 6eV1p35. Cosmically powerful Supers have 14+ DCs. At no level are their DC's capable of dealing with the standard Hero tank stats. Doc D is well beyond Cosmic Power DC's and well within or beyond Cosmic everything else. I believe he is one of a small handful of Hero Supers who stands a chance straight up against that tank.

[Hugh Neilson]

What is really funny is that all these superheroes can't scratch an Abrams, but there's a guy at our local game store who was in the Army very briefly, and without even trying he managed to crash one so it didn't move no more.  That's why he is no longer in the Army.

If I had a soldier who could singlehandedly trash a tank, I'd hold on to him by any means necessary!

[gewing]

While those tanks are surrounding the Good Doctor, I suspect that the aircraft dropping missiles with AoE Explosions on him would be problematic.

 

The SuperCobra carries anti-tank misiles that do 4d6 AP Explosion KA's - how are those going to penetrate the tank's defenses? They are less lethal than the Apache's chain fun (4 1/2d6 AP KA, +1 Stun Mult, Autofire). For that matter, why does so much of this hardware have increased Stun Multiples? Isn't it designed to penetrate armor, not bludgeon the target?

 

The tank has less rDef, as you note, but it cannot take Stun - Doc D can. Missiles (like those carried by aircraft) do explosive killing damage, and those dice get up there. A few infantry with LAW rockets (explosive AP killing attacks, 6 1/2d6) don't need to worry about DCV (just hit the hex), average 21 BOD and 63 STUN is putting 23 STUN past 40 hardened defenses (so 12 STUN to Doc D after damage reduction). I'm assuming Doc D has hardened defenses. If not, he's taking BOD from an average hit as well. How about those 8d6 K Explosive wire guided missiles? 28 double AP BOD and 84 average STUN (with its +1 multiple) seems like it will be pretty devastating to the Good Doctor - are his defenses double hardened? If not, that's 8 BOD and 32 STUN on an average hit. If they are, 22 STUN per hit is not insignificant - and a 4x stun multiple (1 in 3) with average BOD means 36 STUN if he's double hardened, 42 if not. A good roll may even mean he's stunned, in which case we have all those tank gunners (many, presumably, reserving for the right shot) targeting his halved DCV.

 

Now, of course, he can fly around, but even an 8 SPD can only take out so many soldiers per minute. Those missiles have massive range, and no range modifier, so they hit the hex on a 12- from quite a substantial distance away. The closer tanks will also take some damage, of course. Now, with 28 BOD - an average 11, that's 34 meters of Knockback - how muck KB res does Doc D have? He needs more than 42 meters on average if he's flying. Half DCV again.

 

Skimming through the book (pdf) looking for that, I note that rocket exhaust max'es out at an 8d6 Killing Heat Blast (although it also gets 18d6 normal physical damage). Not sold on the tank cannon being as devastating as rocket exhaust either (or the missile being quite a bit more lethal).

 

Unlike most, though, at least Doc D has a chance if the military isn't fully mobilized against him. Grond is crushed under the military's might.

I swore I was not going to butt in again, but I have a problem with the writeup of the HEAT attack anti-tank missiles. 

 

They should be AP versus a target directly hit, and EXPLOSIVE against other targets around them.  Not both at the same time.  

 

But then my old friends always said my characters should have a "greg's Character" lim of 25+ points, depending on game, due to the inefficient builds I made.  

 

AND I tend to overthink things.   I once worked out exactly how to make an Armored personnel carrier completely immune to 7.62x51mm machine guns but vulnerable to .50 caliber.  IIRC, that was a fairly standard rating for light armored vehicles.   

 

Efficiency was never my strong point.  

[NuSoardGraphite]

"Only a desperate situation like this would bring me to fire an atomic-warhead arrow..!"

 

And you thought Batman was crazy prepared!

 

That atomic warhead arrow is going to weigh in at way more than 60 active. And I would also give Arrow a 1d6k, NND, does body, continuous attack which is an acid arrow which would also be able to take out that tank in about 1 turn of continuous damage which does come in around 60 active.

 

Or I would have Lantern congifure his power pool into a big Body drain and take the tank apart that way (the tank having 0 power defense can do nothing to stop this) or I would have Man-Hunter phase through the tank to effortlesslly knock out its operators with Mental blasts. Or have batman swing on top of the tanks and toss smoke bombs from his utility belt into the tank to KO the operators.

 

There are more ways to take out the tank than just sheer brute force.

 

Of course, Superman could just simply do a Move-through on the tank as well. He could probably easily generate 30D6 doing that and heavily damage the tank in the process (and knock himself out as well!)

[gewing]

So this is my view on it.

 

 

This is an Abrams.  As the rules stand, if I'm in front of it, unless I can do 31+ Body, there's really no point in me attacking it.  I can't hurt it.

 

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that I'm a guy who can lift 100 tons.  If I run up to that tank, jump onto the front of it, put my foot against the turret, wrap both arms around that barrel, and YANK... I bet I can pull that sucker right out of there.  There will be an awful metal wrenching sound and then there will be a barrel-sized hole in the front of the turret.  It's just held there by normal steel.  It's been welded in place.  The armor isn't resisting me.  That is how the tank is held together -- through simple steel welds.  In fact, I should be able to grab almost any piece of metal and pull it free quite easily.  In game terms, I would call this "doing Body damage" to the tank.  I'm not pounding through armored plates.  I'm not a high speed projectile.  I can just rip it to pieces.

 

None of these are a possibility with the game rules as they are.  Punching, kicking, tearing, pulling, ripping, these are all just basic "strength damage" in the game.  There's no differentiation, so the tank gets to apply its full defenses aganist anything like that that you would try.

 

I'm starting to like the "damage negation" idea.  I don't play 6th, but the idea of giving a tank 10 Def for the steel, and then a bunch of levels of damage negation vs military weaponry sounds reasonable.  I'm still not likely to make the main gun more than about a 5 or 6D6 RKA though.  It doesn't level buildings when it shoots them.

I am not a tanker, but I believe the turret is basically lowered into the turret ring, and has basically a couple of bolt on flanges to keep it from bouncing out.   100 STR should, imo, tear the 35 or so ton turret off.   

 

 

One could track it with less than half that 31 points damage, probably.  Tanks that don't move, don't tend to last long.   It makes it MUCH easier to hit those weaker points on the sides, rear, top, and bottom.  

 

If the drivers hatch is open...   Tear off the commanders sight, or the Gunners sight.  I have read that the Top of the turret armor is only in the range of 25-30mm.   So 3d6 AP or a bit more should go through from above.  I don't think it is even hardened.   There have been applique armors designed to prevent  top attack shaped charge submunitions from going through, but...  They are not full coverage, and are probably ablative. 

 

 

  The bottom of the tank is also much less heavily armored, though I believe that has been beefed up from the original. 

 

The grates around the engine compartment are a lot weaker...

 

There are vulnerabilities.   PUNCHING the front of the TURRET should be really hard to do much damage.  

 

 

Hmm, The Russian based tanks usually have Reactive armor.  Probably not enough to damage a brick...

[gewing]

If I had a soldier who could singlehandedly trash a tank, I'd hold on to him by any means necessary!

It is probably a LOT easier from the INSIDE! 

[Beast]

so your 100 str punch won't hurt it

big deal my 60 str brick just has to flip it on it's back for it to make it a mission kill

if your close enough to punch it, your close enough to pick it up

\a 50 str can just lift the turret off weight is the only thing keeping it in place

and what is a tank, but a big metal box that moves on treads
20 str can lift 880lbs

shove a construction "I" beam into the treads

now it cannot move till somebody comes to remove it, so long as it did not wreck itself

your character is just a flame thrower EB type or a gas attack type
the engine needs air to work

can you think of anything to do

your a spiderman clone

spiderman blinds foes all the time

so any sights/periscopes and vision blocks can be entangled or have something block the view then entangle it to hold it in place

while your at it why not entangle the hatches so nobody can get out

the guys inside might be 15 str vs a 6d6 entangle

they now have a new hobby

 

First of all, full disclosure, I know nothing about military weapons and vehicles nor do I know much about physics, which is probably the main reason that I have to ask this.  The defensive stats for a Abrams MBT are listed at 30/20.  According to 6E2 pgs. 196-197, the 30 defense is for the front of the tank and the 20 defense is for the sides, bottom, and top.  If a character with a Strength of 100 punches the front of the tank, he would have virtually no chance of even scratching it.  A character that strong can lift 25,000 tons.  It seems like someone that powerful could make a better showing against the vehicle even when attacking its least vulnerable area.  Hell, I would think he could easily tear it in half.  Even with a Haymaker and allocating all of his Combat Skills to damage, he still is more likely than not ineffective against it.  Yes, I realize he could hit the sides, flip the damn thing over, or pick it up and throw it down the street since it weighs far less than he is capable of juggling, let along lifting, but that isn't the point. I also realize that there are optional rules in Hero System for making things more breakable in settings where real estate (and military vehicles) are commonly treated like paper (e.g. comic book settings) but once again, that isn't the point.  I just want to know are those defense numbers sound?  Is that tank really that tough?  Thanks.