Are tanks really that tough?

[NuSoardGraphite]

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?

What I mean is that you need to admit (to yourself, not to me. You hhouldnt care what I think) is that ALL of the published writeups are wrong. They ar wrong for simulating military hardware in any reasonable manner, and they are wrong for properly simulating superhero comic books.

 

If you try to simply throw out one side of the equation, it screws the pooch at that one side. Sure you get bricks vs tanks right, but now infantry can destroy tanks with a few shots from an RPG, which should under normal circumstances, be extremely difficult to do.

 

So now yyou decide to make the Abrams tougher, because its the toughest tank in the land and very few conventional weapons can stop it. 30/20. Now those pesky RPGs will bounce off like tooth picks! Only now, so will supers punches and strongest attacks. DOH!

 

So you go the other way. Raise the power level of super heroes! Bricks have 90 strength instead of a 60. 18d6 damage. With haymaker its 22d6. Not bad. Still relatively worthless against the 30/20 version of the Abrams, but more effective against the 20/16 version (6 body per hit on average to the side of the tank, three good hits puts its body into the critical zone). But now you have to raise the average defene of all the characters to compensate. Now this creates a situation where heroes who have no cause to be tough enough to take a 120mm shell to the chest can now do so (a resistant defense of 20) honestly, should Cyclops be able withstand that? No, of course not.

 

Where's the solution? Ignore the official hero writeups. sure, you can use them as a starting point and adjust up and down till you find your right balance.

 

Limiting heroes to 60 active point powers is great for gameplay balance, but terrible for simulating certain superheroic feats. This has been known for a long time. Thats why many of us ignore thensuggested 60 active point maximum within reason. Hell, I can barely keep a spell meant for a much lower powered Fantasy game below 60 active, let alone super heroes best abilities.

 

You can compromise and come up with alternate ways to damage tough objects. NND, AVLD, Drain and Transform are all viable options here. The Hulks Tank Buster ability is 2d6 NND, does body. With his STR he does 4d6k. nothing to sneeze at. Two good whacks will demolish an Abrams. 3 or 4 good whacks will destroy an Aircraft carrier (a bit unrealistic, but it starts getting weird up there)

 

Basically you need to think beyond the books. They are just suggestions and a starting point. They are not sacrosant. Play with the mechanics. Mold it to your whim. you are likely to come up with something better than what the authors did. At least something that matches your play style better.

[dmjalund]

armored vehicles should have a structural DEF as well as an Armor DEF

[Hugh Neilson]

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.

So why shouldn't GL configure his ring into a big STUN Drain to take apart most living opponents just as effectively? Actually, an INT or EGO drain is even better, as they hit zero pretty fast. Of course, he won't use that BOD Drain on a living being.

 

And Bats can't toss smoke bombs into the tank under Hero rules - they are protected by the defense of the tank. Of course, we can always rule otherwise to better simulate the tank, whether realistically or cinematically. But then, why don't we rule away that 30 defense cinematically as well?

 

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!)

Because that's what happens in the comics, right? Supes is lying, KO'd on the ground, after taking out a single tank, while the bystanders gasp in amazement. But he can take out Brainiac's spacecraft, centuries ahead of the tank in technology, because as tech evolves, it becomes weaker instead of stronger - 21st century military tech is the peak of achievement.

 

 

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

How is this done under Hero rules? Seems we are modifying the writeup to better simulate the source material and/or realistically portray the tank.

 

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

Under Hero rules, removing the turret requires damaging the tank, which requires doing BOD. Someone earlier mentioned the fairly common "bending the cannon back on itself". Seems like that is eliminating a power of the vehicle, which is one possible result of doing BOD to the tank, which means an attack that got past its defenses. I'd certainly let the Super do a called shot to pick the result on the table and the power removed. OCV penalty? Who's going to miss a tank anyway?

 

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

If you get past its defenses and inflict BOD, one result on the damage table is reduced noncombat multiples and another is loss of 10 meters of movement. Hero rules, remember?

 

A lot of these tactics suggest that the tank's armor should be limited in some fashion, whether to conventional weapons, attacks on the same plane or not protecting many components of the tank. If these tactics should work, then the writeup is wrong.

 

your character is just a flame thrower EB type or a gas attack type

the engine needs air to work

I don't recall being able to suffocate targets with my flame blast, or snuff out flames with my gas attack.

 

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

These generally work. Why do the drivers care if they can't get out? Why don't the Friends of Humanity install Minuteman control software and weaponry modules inside tanks instead of building those Minuteman robots that are so much easier for Supers to trash?

 

If tanks are that tough, and military weaponry that powerful, the villains are suffering a serious case of Plot Induced Stupidity to use the much less powerful SuperScience rather than just add things like AoE 1 hex to conventional armaments.

 

If you try to simply throw out one side of the equation, it screws the pooch at that one side. Sure you get bricks vs tanks right, but now infantry can destroy tanks with a few shots from an RPG, which should under normal circumstances, be extremely difficult to do.

 

So now you decide to make the Abrams tougher, because its the toughest tank in the land and very few conventional weapons can stop it. 30/20. Now those pesky RPGs will bounce off like tooth picks! Only now, so will supers punches and strongest attacks. DOH!

This is the issue - the military HW stats don't fit with the rest of the game's stats.

 

You can compromise and come up with alternate ways to damage tough objects. NND, AVLD, Drain and Transform are all viable options here. The Hulks Tank Buster ability is 2d6 NND, does body. With his STR he does 4d6k. nothing to sneeze at. Two good whacks will demolish an Abrams. 3 or 4 good whacks will destroy an Aircraft carrier (a bit unrealistic, but it starts getting weird up there)

So why don't Supers use these attacks against other foes? And how is it that, when Spidey tricks the Hulk into a wild swing in front of the tank, then leaps aside, Hulk's fist now bounces off the tank instead of damaging it?

[massey]

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

 

[Beast]

the limitation Real Weapons should be applied to all the powers of a tank to simulate real world effects that have worked in the past
 

For me the write ups are fine

the problem I see is 1 side (GM or Player)taking the rules as there is no flexibility

a tank is a real world weapons system in a supers universe

in the real world there are not many combat methods for flipping a tank

So why shouldn't GL configure his ring into a big STUN Drain to take apart most living opponents just as effectively? Actually, an INT or EGO drain is even better, as they hit zero pretty fast. Of course, he won't use that BOD Drain on a living being.

And Bats can't toss smoke bombs into the tank under Hero rules - they are protected by the defense of the tank. Of course, we can always rule otherwise to better simulate the tank, whether realistically or cinematically. But then, why don't we rule away that 30 defense cinematically as well?


Because that's what happens in the comics, right? Supes is lying, KO'd on the ground, after taking out a single tank, while the bystanders gasp in amazement. But he can take out Brainiac's spacecraft, centuries ahead of the tank in technology, because as tech evolves, it becomes weaker instead of stronger - 21st century military tech is the peak of achievement.
 
 

How is this done under Hero rules? Seems we are modifying the writeup to better simulate the source material and/or realistically portray the tank.


Under Hero rules, removing the turret requires damaging the tank, which requires doing BOD. Someone earlier mentioned the fairly common "bending the cannon back on itself". Seems like that is eliminating a power of the vehicle, which is one possible result of doing BOD to the tank, which means an attack that got past its defenses. I'd certainly let the Super do a called shot to pick the result on the table and the power removed. OCV penalty? Who's going to miss a tank anyway?


If you get past its defenses and inflict BOD, one result on the damage table is reduced noncombat multiples and another is loss of 10 meters of movement. Hero rules, remember?

A lot of these tactics suggest that the tank's armor should be limited in some fashion, whether to conventional weapons, attacks on the same plane or not protecting many components of the tank. If these tactics should work, then the writeup is wrong.


I don't recall being able to suffocate targets with my flame blast, or snuff out flames with my gas attack.


These generally work. Why do the drivers care if they can't get out? Why don't the Friends of Humanity install Minuteman control software and weaponry modules inside tanks instead of building those Minuteman robots that are so much easier for Supers to trash?

If tanks are that tough, and military weaponry that powerful, the villains are suffering a serious case of Plot Induced Stupidity to use the much less powerful SuperScience rather than just add things like AoE 1 hex to conventional armaments.


This is the issue - the military HW stats don't fit with the rest of the game's stats.


So why don't Supers use these attacks against other foes? And how is it that, when Spidey tricks the Hulk into a wild swing in front of the tank, then leaps aside, Hulk's fist now bounces off the tank instead of damaging it?

[massey]

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!)

 

Green Arrow isn't limited to 60 Active Points.  Most of his attacks are probably less than that, but classic Silver Age GA has some tricks up his sleeve.  Some of his trick arrows are probably very high APs.

 

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...

 

Most of the things you are talking about are "real world" solutions to tanks.  You know, if people had superpowers in the real world.  And I agree -- there are a lot of ways you could destroy one.

 

The problem we are running into is that none of that is represented in the game.  You just have an absurdly high Def score and lots of Body.

 

"I grab the turret and lift."

"30 Def."

"I kick it the tracks."

"30 Def."

"I bend the barrel back on itself."

"30 Def."

 

The writeup needs changed.

 

What I mean is that you need to admit (to yourself, not to me. You shouldn't care what I think) is that ALL of the published writeups are wrong. They ar wrong for simulating military hardware in any reasonable manner, and they are wrong for properly simulating superhero comic books.

 

If you try to simply throw out one side of the equation, it screws the pooch at that one side. Sure you get bricks vs tanks right, but now infantry can destroy tanks with a few shots from an RPG, which should under normal circumstances, be extremely difficult to do.

 

So now you decide to make the Abrams tougher, because its the toughest tank in the land and very few conventional weapons can stop it. 30/20. Now those pesky RPGs will bounce off like tooth picks! Only now, so will supers punches and strongest attacks. DOH!

 

So you go the other way. Raise the power level of super heroes! Bricks have 90 strength instead of a 60. 18d6 damage. With haymaker its 22d6. Not bad. Still relatively worthless against the 30/20 version of the Abrams, but more effective against the 20/16 version (6 body per hit on average to the side of the tank, three good hits puts its body into the critical zone). But now you have to raise the average defene of all the characters to compensate. Now this creates a situation where heroes who have no cause to be tough enough to take a 120mm shell to the chest can now do so (a resistant defense of 20) honestly, should Cyclops be able withstand that? No, of course not.

 

Where's the solution? Ignore the official hero writeups. sure, you can use them as a starting point and adjust up and down till you find your right balance.

 

Limiting heroes to 60 active point powers is great for gameplay balance, but terrible for simulating certain superheroic feats. This has been known for a long time. Thats why many of us ignore the suggested 60 active point maximum within reason. Hell, I can barely keep a spell meant for a much lower powered Fantasy game below 60 active, let alone super heroes best abilities.

 

You can compromise and come up with alternate ways to damage tough objects. NND, AVLD, Drain and Transform are all viable options here. The Hulks Tank Buster ability is 2d6 NND, does body. With his STR he does 4d6k. nothing to sneeze at. Two good whacks will demolish an Abrams. 3 or 4 good whacks will destroy an Aircraft carrier (a bit unrealistic, but it starts getting weird up there)

 

Basically you need to think beyond the books. They are just suggestions and a starting point. They are not sacrosant. Play with the mechanics. Mold it to your whim. you are likely to come up with something better than what the authors did. At least something that matches your play style better.

 

Dude, that's what I've been saying this entire time.  I don't have to "admit it" to myself when I've been saying throughout the whole thread that I think all the military weapons need altered.

 

I don't think the Hulk should pay for a special "tankbuster" ability.  That's why he has a high STR.

[Christopher R Taylor]

For me the write ups are fine

the problem I see is 1 side (GM or Player) taking the rules as if there is no flexibility

 

 

I agree, you can say that the defense applies identically to every single part of the tank, or say that portions are less protected such as the tread (at best 10 defense).  Just saying "real weapon allows the GM flexibility" makes a big difference; it gets a limitation because the machine doesn't behave like a PC.  I mean, a car is the same way; people aim for the tires because they're more vulnerable than the engine.  But if you take things too simply, a tire has the same defense as the rest of the car, as do the windows, etc.

[Scott Baker]

the limitation Real Weapons should be applied to all the powers of a tank to simulate real world effects that have worked in the past

 

For me the write ups are fine

the problem I see is 1 side (GM or Player)taking the rules as there is no flexibility

a tank is a real world weapons system in a supers universe

in the real world there are not many combat methods for flipping a tank

Yep, I agreed clear back on page 1. (http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/91443-are-tanks-really-that-tough/?do=findComment&comment=2436543)

[Mister E]

Tanks

[Hugh Neilson]

I agree, you can say that the defense applies identically to every single part of the tank, or say that portions are less protected such as the tread (at best 10 defense).  Just saying "real weapon allows the GM flexibility" makes a big difference; it gets a limitation because the machine doesn't behave like a PC.  I mean, a car is the same way; people aim for the tires because they're more vulnerable than the engine.  But if you take things too simply, a tire has the same defense as the rest of the car, as do the windows, etc.

I wonder if we could use something like the "partial coverage" limitation described for vehicle defenses, and even used to make some of the Abrams' defense only apply to attacks from the front, to incorporate such a limitation into the actual writeup, like we incorporate limitations and advantages into other writeups. No, that's just crazy talk!

[Altair]

 

I agree, you can say that the defense applies identically to every single part of the tank, or say that portions are less protected such as the tread (at best 10 defense).  Just saying "real weapon allows the GM flexibility" makes a big difference; it gets a limitation because the machine doesn't behave like a PC.  I mean, a car is the same way; people aim for the tires because they're more vulnerable than the engine.  But if you take things too simply, a tire has the same defense as the rest of the car, as do the windows, etc.

 

 

This. A thousand times this. I mean, can you imagine:

 

PC: "I want to slash the tires on this dude's armored limo."

GM: "Ok, well, that's basically an armored car, so you'll need to do at least 9 BOD."

PC: "To the tires?"

GM: "Those are the rules."

PC: "What about rule zero?"

GM: "I am incapable of creative adaptation. Beep boop."

 

And hey! Maybe somebody likes playing that way. Rock! Enjoy yourself. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that's an outlier.

[zslane]

I don't have to "admit it" to myself when I've been saying throughout the whole thread that I think all the military weapons need altered.

 

I don't think the Hulk should pay for a special "tankbuster" ability. That's why he has a high STR.

It's what I've been saying too. I think we only differ in terminology. You say "altered" and I say "nerfed". :-)

 

But something's gotta give. Either you give characters special attacks intended to get past the realistic armor numbers, or you nerf the military hardware so the special powers aren't necessary.

 

Comic book writers never have to worry about this sort of thing. If a reader sees Thor one-shot a tank and asks, "How is that possible?", the writer need only say, "He's Thor, he's powerful. There is no other explanation necessary." That's not good enough for an RPG. If a player tells the GM he intends to one-shot a tank, the GM will reasonably ask, "How is that possible?" And if your damage output isn't enough to penetrate the tank's listed armor stat, you're out of luck.

 

Writers have always had the luxury of assuming their characters could just do whatever they wanted them to do, with no understanding of physics or materials science or anything. While that 100-ton lifting capacity may have seemed like enough to make trashing a 1960s-era tank "reasonable" back in the day, that's simply not adequate anymore. But writers don't know that, nor do they care. Gamers, on the other hand, do not have the luxury of ignoring such realities. The writeups for things like Abrams tanks are going to make it painfully obvious just how obsolete the "100-ton STR Brick can trash any mundane object" perspective is.

 

In a game where everything is measured and defined numerically, we can't just hand-wave the abilities of our characters just because comic book writers do that in the source medium. Tank armor has probably doubled in terms of rPD since Thor first hit the scene in the pages of Journey Into Mystery, and yet most Marvel writers would probably assume Thor's strength is still equivalent to the old FASERIP rating of 75, or maybe a little higher (like 90). That's not nearly enough to trash an Abrams, but you wouldn't know that by reading his comic...

[Ndreare]

This whole long thread had me wondering so I decided to go looking. The book clearly addresses this in both Champions Complete and Hero 6th edition. The solution by RAW (Rules as Written) is to simply give real objects either 1/2 defense versus super powers or a x2 vulnerability versus super powers.

 

CHAMPIONS COMPLETE PAGE 142… Bend steel with his bare hands

 

HERO SYSTEM 6TH EDITION – VOLUME 2 COMBAT & CAMPAIGNS page 170… Toolkitting: Making Objects More fragile

[zslane]

Both of those solutions are what I call "nerfing the military hardware"...also known as the Paper Scenery gimmick.

[Beast]

All the stuff I listed did not nerf the tank
I used my head and thought outside the box ,or modded stuff that was done in the pass

the Polish calvary during WW2 used railroad ties by jamming them into the gaps in the road wheels and the treads to immobilze early german and russian tanks

 

all that is needed is a bit of common sense and "That's Cool"
 

Both of those solutions are what I call "nerfing the military hardware"...also known as the Paper Scenery gimmick.

[Hugh Neilson]

This whole long thread had me wondering so I decided to go looking. The book clearly addresses this in both Champions Complete and Hero 6th edition. The solution by RAW (Rules as Written) is to simply give real objects either 1/2 defense versus super powers or a x2 vulnerability versus super powers.

This does not change the fact that a blow powerful enough to demolish a large bridge (100 ktons; 9 DEF and 27 BOD on p 171 of 6e V2; 25 BOD on p 172) inflicts only 6 BOD (16 if avoiding its front armor) to the Abrams, leaving it damaged but largely intact. Two average shots from that Abrams' main gun (8d6 KA, so average 28 BOD) will more than demolish the bridge, but not scratch the tank.

 

The tank, and other military hardware, are specifically over statted compared to the rest of the world, not just to Supers.

 

BTW, the Golden Gate Bridge, according to http://gocalifornia.about.com/cs/sanfrancisco/a/ggbridge_3.htm, weighs just over 800 kilotons, so three doublings up from the Large Bridge. Since +1 BOD doubles the size of a hole in the wall, I take that to mean the GG has 30 BODM and is also demolished by 2 hits from the tank. Even if we add 5 BOD per doubling, so 15 BOD, that's 42 in total, and the tank requires all of three average hits to destroy it. +1 seems right - small and large bridges have the same defense, and the weight checks out at 6 doublings from 21 to 27 BOD. A third shell would just be overkill.

[Zephrosyne]

This does not change the fact that a blow powerful enough to demolish a large bridge (100 ktons; 9 DEF and 27 BOD on p 171 of 6e V2; 25 BOD on p 172) inflicts only 6 BOD (16 if avoiding its front armor) to the Abrams, leaving it damaged but largely intact. Two average shots from that Abrams' main gun (8d6 KA, so average 28 BOD) will more than demolish the bridge, but not scratch the tank.

 

The tank, and other military hardware, are specifically over statted compared to the rest of the world, not just to Supers.

 

BTW, the Golden Gate Bridge, according to http://gocalifornia.about.com/cs/sanfrancisco/a/ggbridge_3.htm, weighs just over 800 kilotons, so three doublings up from the Large Bridge. Since +1 BOD doubles the size of a hole in the wall, I take that to mean the GG has 30 BODM and is also demolished by 2 hits from the tank. Even if we add 5 BOD per doubling, so 15 BOD, that's 42 in total, and the tank requires all of three average hits to destroy it. +1 seems right - small and large bridges have the same defense, and the weight checks out at 6 doublings from 21 to 27 BOD. A third shell would just be overkill.

Actually, this is addressed in the Advanced Player's Guide 2 page 113.  While those rules are specifically designed for extremely large structures such as mountains and planets, the same principle could apply to smaller structures such as buildings and bridges.

[assault]

Looking at APG2:

"With these rules in mind, here’s how you’d
build an attack capable of instantly destroying
Earth: RKA 10d6 (standard effect: 30 BODY),
Area Of Effect (1m Radius; +¼), MegaScale
(affects entire Earth; +2). Total cost: 487 points."

 

Clearly this attack wouldn't count as being against the front armour of an Abrams, so the latter would take 10 Body.

 

And survive the destruction of the Earth.

[Beast]

1 thing I'd like to point out about the M1

It has never been disabled by a shot from the front

not even by a shot from the gun it mounts

[Zephrosyne]

Looking at APG2:

"With these rules in mind, here’s how you’d

build an attack capable of instantly destroying

Earth: RKA 10d6 (standard effect: 30 BODY),

Area Of Effect (1m Radius; +¼), MegaScale

(affects entire Earth; +2). Total cost: 487 points."

 

Clearly this attack wouldn't count as being against the front armour of an Abrams, so the latter would take 10 Body.

 

And survive the destruction of the Earth.

Actually, I was referencing the APG 2 in response to Hugh Nelson's post about destroying the Golden Gate Bridge--specifically option #1 where the Body of a large structure only refers to a part of it instead of the entire structure.  I wasn't addressing the potency of the tank's defenses, which I just think are too high.  Perhaps I should have been more specific.

[megaplayboy]

The Hero System vehicle sourcebook also has a writeup for an Iowa class battleship. The DEF of that vehicle, which literally has thousands of tons of steel armor? 10. No additional DEF for any component. So, an M1 tank is generally harder to seriously damage than a 50,000 ton battleship. According to "official" write-ups, anyway.

[assault]

Actually, I was referencing the APG 2 in response to Hugh Nelson's post about destroying the Golden Gate Bridge--specifically option #1 where the Body of a large structure only refers to a part of it instead of the entire structure.  I wasn't addressing the potency of the tank's defenses, which I just think are too high.  Perhaps I should have been more specific.

 

No need. I was only looking at APG2 because you reminded me it existed

[Old Man]

Short answer:  no, they are not that tough in real life.  Terminal velocity is 30D6, meaning you could drop a tank from orbit and as long as it landed on its front, it would be fine.  We know that is not the case.

 

Terminal velocity for what?  A 70-ton Abrams will have a higher terminal velocity than a sack of meat.

[Old Man]

The Hero System vehicle sourcebook also has a writeup for an Iowa class battleship. The DEF of that vehicle, which literally has thousands of tons of steel armor? 10. No additional DEF for any component. So, an M1 tank is generally harder to seriously damage than a 50,000 ton battleship. According to "official" write-ups, anyway.

 

10 seems low, but an Iowa is made of hardened steel while an M1 is made of a classified ceramic/alloy/polymer/graphite layered structure.  An M1 can bounce a hit from its own gun but that same round might go clean through an Iowa.

[Ndreare]

ever remember something then be completely unable to find it, which makes you think it was not really there?

 

I remember reading something to the effect of the Def and Body of bases and large vehicles such as navel ships represents the damage to disable it by punching through a one hex area, not necessarily the actual damage capacity if to destroy it outright. Because of the aircraft carrier comparison I just tried to find it in the books and completely fail. It makes me wonder if perhaps this is something my mind made up for a house rule. Do any of you know there's actually a rule reflecting that principle.