Welcome to GameHourz.com!
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in

American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting)

 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
   Game Forums (Home) -> GURPS RSS
Related Topics:
DAGOBERT Class Imperial Battlesuit (late 21sts century set.. - DAGOBERT Class The Imperial Army is a fairly 'typical' example of a combat for its time. It is used by the Imperial Army and (with slight by the Imperial Marines, and with slightly more..

Deliberate amnesia? - Hey gang, I'm trying to figure out how to represent (in 3ed, if possible, but I can backdate a 4ed mechanic if a case of amnesia where the character has and erased his own past from his memory. It's a TL 3 society..

TEMPLATE: Tough Mer ( as in... Mermaid Duuh!)GURPS - TEMPLATE: Tough Mer (Mermaid) All 11 or above cost 60 points ((Mer genetic weeding is done by GREAT WHITE SHARKS, & cost 10 points,DR 5 scales cost 25 (no they are NOT turtle shell I just checked),

A Song Of Ice And Fire's Dire Wolves template - As per subject, I'm trying to build a Dire Wolf PC for a campaign in the setting of A Song Of Ice And Fire, the popular book by Martin. I'll build this racial template, but since I've not a great knowledge of the book series, I'd ask help from you in..

Time Travel, [Gurps: p. 45]: time radio & time tv - In Time Travel [Gurps, p. 45] for time radio & time tv can be model @ 50 C2 PL or Power Level for time radio, while be @ 100 C2 PL for time tv: the 100 C2 PL is @ D20 or maximum D20 character @ 20 C1 DP which is 733 points @ 733 C3 DP or Default Psych
Next:  Persistance of cheat settings?  
Author Message
Rupert Boleyn

External


Since: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 1280



(Msg. 16) Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:55 pm
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>games>frp>gurps (more info?)

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 22:30:44 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
<_mwryder RemoveThis @worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>> How do they do that? Infantry supported by tanks, and everything else
>> beats infantry without tanks in any terrian where the tanks are
>> effective. ATGMs do not change that balance, and nor do laser-guided
>> munitions.

>Mines and artillery come to mind.

Mines are only useful if you have effective AT weapons overlooking
them, and grunts with ATGMS or target designators don't count when
they're being shelled (the side with tanks still gets to have
artillery, and infantry in static positions is an ideal artillery
target if all you want is to keep their heads down). Artillery is next
to useless vs tanks unless you're using laser guided AT munitions, and
that requires an operator for the designator (and using one makes you
a target), and it's _slow_.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn RemoveThis @paradise.net.nz>

 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Michael W. Ryder

External


Since: Jul 18, 2005
Posts: 286



(Msg. 17) Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:55 pm
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 22:30:44 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
> <_mwryder.DeleteThis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>> How do they do that? Infantry supported by tanks, and everything else
>>> beats infantry without tanks in any terrian where the tanks are
>>> effective. ATGMs do not change that balance, and nor do laser-guided
>>> munitions.
>
>> Mines and artillery come to mind.
>
> Mines are only useful if you have effective AT weapons overlooking
> them, and grunts with ATGMS or target designators don't count when
> they're being shelled (the side with tanks still gets to have
> artillery, and infantry in static positions is an ideal artillery
> target if all you want is to keep their heads down). Artillery is next
> to useless vs tanks unless you're using laser guided AT munitions, and
> that requires an operator for the designator (and using one makes you
> a target), and it's _slow_.


The initial post was regarding tanks being used at the end of the
century. By then I am sure that smart munitions will be available, and
even today you don't need accurate payload delivery to keep mine
clearing equipment from doing their job. Even in the Gulf war the tanks
had to wait for the mine clearing equipment to make a path for them to
use. If you can prevent that equipment from working or use artillery
deployed mines to replace cleared mines then the tanks are stuck.

 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Johnny1a

External


Since: Jan 06, 2005
Posts: 128



(Msg. 18) Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:34 pm
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

ATLAS Class Mobile Combat Platform

The ATLAS Class combat platform (used primarily by the American Army)
is designed to provide medium-range fire in combat situations.
Standard doctrine is for the ATLAS to remain behind the front lines,
using its heavy laser cannons and particle-beam projectors to clear the
sky of enemies (or at least to make life difficult for said enemies).
The main turrets are mounted atop the body, and each one contains a
universal mount enabling the weapons to track from slightly below
horizontal to vertical fire. The turrets themselves rotate fully,
giving the heavy weapons the ability to come to bear on almost any
point in a hemisphere around and above the ATLAS.

The lasers are designed to fire a steady stream of pulses, enabling
them to be 'swept' across the sky to track and destroy flying units.
The heavy lasers are effective anti-aircraft and anti-missile weapons,
and can fire for up to 60 seconds at a time before requiring a 30
second cooling cycle. By using the three laser cannon in sequence, a
steady stream of fire can be maintained. With a force of multiple
ATLAS units, it is possible to keep a web of laser beams sweeping back
and forth across the sky almost indefinitely.

The particle beams are more potent, but shorter in range, and are
usually reserved for specific targets such as aircraft with armor or
ground-targets that require extra force to break.

The ATLAS also mounts 100 muzzle-loaded missile launchers, in racks of
20, launching self-guided missiles with an effective range of about
twelve miles and a guidance system enabling to lock onto individual
targets and to track them. Each of these 'fire and forget' missiles
can course-correct and can be used as either anti-personnel or
anti-vehicle weapons. The launching racks can be fired en masse or
individually, and they use infra-red and optical sensors for guidance.
A standard tactic using the ATLAS platform is to have several units
fire their missile-racks en masse, 'saturating' the battle zone with
missiles.

The ATLAS carries up to 1000 such missiles, and carries an automatic
reloading system that can retract a missile launching array, reload it,
and redeploy it in a matter of minutes. With a source of additional
missiles, an ATLAS can serve as a constant launching platform for these
devices. Many American and allied combat units carry small
transponders which the missile guidance systems are programmed to
avoid, as a precaution against 'friendly fire' incidents. The system
is effective, but not perfect. Missile saturation launches require
careful coordination to be maximally effective and to avoid friendly
hits.

For close-range protection, the ATLAS mounts five machine-guns,
operable manually or by the computers. The ATLAS is not really
designed for defense, however, instead an ATLAS is usually deployed
with a squad of battlesuited troopers and/or a pair of SHERMAN BETA
tanks for protection (along with other forces).

The ATLAS standard 'crew' is four, one commander/pilot and three
gunners. The automatic systems can operate the ATLAS uncrewed, with
more effectiveness than with tank units, because the ATLAS usually does
not have to fight and maneuver at the same time. It is considerably
more effective with a crew, however. Computers have their limits,
even at TL9/10.

The ATLAS carries the standard life-support and NBC protective
features, and is designed to be operable completely sealed with a full
crew for up to three days. The nuclear core is designed to be able to
operate the ATLAS for its full lifetime without refueling, and so fuel
is not (usually) a consideration.



Crew: 4

Subassemblies: Vehicle +6, Body +5, Alpha Turret +3, Beta Turret +3,
Gamma Turret +3, Tracks +5.

P&P: One 2,000-kW enhanced fission reactor (200 year duration; no
access space), three 24,192,000-kWs rechargeable power cells, 1,500-kW
tracked drivetrain (short term access).

Fuel: Uranium

Occupancy: three cramped gunner stations, cramped pilot/command
station, 4-man full life support system, 4-man NBC kit, 10-cf cargo
hold [None].

Armor F RL B T U
Body 5/1,050 5/1,050 5/1,050 4/300 4/300
Alpha Turret 5/750 5/750 5/750 4/300 0/0
Beta Turret 5/750 5/750 5/750 4/300 0/0
Gamma Turret 5/750 5/750 5/750 4/300 0/0
Tracks 4/250 4/250 4/250 4/250 4/250

Weaponry Malf Type Damage SS Acc 1/2D
yds Max yds RoF TL
5.55mm rifled electric machine gun Ver. (Crit.) Cr 4d 12 10 290
2,300 20 10
218mm launcher - - 0d 20 0 0
0 1/11 10
missile Crit Exp 6dx250 - - 0
22,000 - 10
charged particle weapon Ver. Imp. 4dx140 25 24
16,000(x1/100) 48,000(x1/100) 1 10
tunable laser cannon Ver. Imp. 5dx82 30 28
70,000(x50) 210,000(x50) 4 10

Equipment
Body: oven/freezer; short range laser communicator (1,000-mile range;
scrambler); short range radio communicator (5,000-mile range; tight
beam, scrambler, direction finder); three PESAs (scan 20, 30-mile
range); two short-range PESAs (scan 15, 5-mile range); two AESAs (scan
19, 25-mile range); inertial navigation system; three small computers
(complexity 4; hardened, high capacity, neural net, robot brain); five
5.55mm rifled electric machine guns (medium barrel; recoilless,
caseless ammo, heavy auto); five machine gun cyberslave mounts; 20
218mm muzzleloader launchers; 1,000 218mm missiles (small HE warhead;
Skill-18 IRH, Skill-17 OH); two IR/visible searchlights (7-mile range);
four searchlights (1-mile range, signal lamp shutter); liquid crystal
skin (-2 spotting modifier); modest infrared cloak (-3 spotting
modifier); psi shielding (10 psi strength); modest sound baffling (-3
hearing modifier).

Alpha Turret: laser cannon universal mount; 50,000-kJ charged particle
weapon (very long range; compact); particle blaster universal mount;
100,000-kJ tunable laser cannon (normal range; compact).

Beta Turret: 100,000-kJ tunable laser cannon (normal range; compact);
laser cannon universal mount; 50,000-kJ charged particle weapon (very
long range; compact); particle blaster universal mount.

Gamma Turret: 100,000-kJ tunable laser cannon (normal range; compact);
laser cannon universal mount; 50,000-kJ charged particle weapon (very
long range; compact); particle blaster universal mount.

Statistics
Size: [LxWxH] 35 x 20 x 6.24 Payload: 1,000 lbs. Lwt: 155,905 lbs.
Volume: 4,182 cf Maint: 2.4 Hrs/Day as a variable average

HT: 8 HP: 2,400 [Body], 600 [Alpha Turret], 600 [Beta Turret], 600
[Gamma Turret], 1,200 each [2x Tracks].

Ground Performance: Motive Power 1,500-kW, Top Speed 60 mph, gAcc 4
mph/s, gDec 20 mph/s, gMR 0.75, gSR 7, Ground Pressure 974 lbs./sf, Off
Road Speed 40 mph.

Design Notes:
TL10 robotic heavy frame standard materials [Vehicle].
T TL10 DR 300 expensive laminate, U TL10 DR 300 expensive laminate, L
TL10 DR 700 expensive laminate, R TL10 DR 700 expensive laminate, F
TL10 DR 700 expensive laminate, B TL10 DR 700 expensive laminate
[Body].
T TL10 DR 300 standard laminate, L TL10 DR 500 expensive laminate, R
TL10 DR 500 expensive laminate, F TL10 DR 500 expensive laminate, B
TL10 DR 500 expensive laminate [Alpha Turret].
T TL10 DR 300 standard laminate, L TL10 DR 500 expensive laminate, R
TL10 DR 500 expensive laminate, F TL10 DR 500 expensive laminate, B
TL10 DR 500 expensive laminate [Beta Turret].
T TL10 DR 300 standard laminate, L TL10 DR 500 expensive laminate, R
TL10 DR 500 expensive laminate, F TL10 DR 500 expensive laminate, B
TL10 DR 500 expensive laminate [Gamma Turret].
TL10 DR 250 expensive composite [Tracks].
Operating Duration: 12 H 49 M 40 S.
Payload Cost: $2,200,000
Vehicle Features: computerized controls, self-sealed, ruggedized,
waterproofed, no streamlining.
Body: 30° Slope on all Faces.
Tracks: quantity 2, improved suspension, smart tracks.
Alpha Turret: full rotation, 30° Slope on all Faces.
Beta Turret: full rotation, 30° Slope on all Faces.
Gamma Turret: full rotation, 30° Slope on all Faces.
Volume: 2,133 cf [Body], 252 cf [Alpha Turret], 252 cf [Beta Turret],
252 cf [Gamma Turret], 1,280 cf [Tracks].
Area: 1,000 sf [Body], 250 sf [Alpha Turret], 250 sf [Beta Turret], 250
sf [Gamma Turret], 800 sf [Tracks].
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
copeab

External


Since: Feb 26, 2005
Posts: 657



(Msg. 19) Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:51 pm
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

forkliftramp.com wrote:
> >> A single soldier with a good ATGM can take one out
> >>long before the tank even knows it is in danger. The cost of one or
> >>even three ATGMs used to kill a tank is nothing compared to the cost of
> >>the tank.
>
> just as an fyi a good atgm pretty much requires several soldiers
> and/or a jeep to shlep about. even the one man short range jobs are
> moderately hefty for a trooper.

Although by the end of the century, robotic mines that fire ATGMs
should be relatively common, so no humans are needed except to place
and arm the mine (and maybe not even then). You could also give the
robotic mine some shortranged mobility, allowing it to move to one of
several firing positions based on enemy movement.

Brandon
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
forkliftramp.com

External


Since: Apr 11, 2005
Posts: 165



(Msg. 20) Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:55 am
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

>> A single soldier with a good ATGM can take one out
>>long before the tank even knows it is in danger. The cost of one or
>>even three ATGMs used to kill a tank is nothing compared to the cost of
>>the tank.

just as an fyi a good atgm pretty much requires several soldiers
and/or a jeep to shlep about. even the one man short range jobs are
moderately hefty for a trooper.
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
forkliftramp.com

External


Since: Apr 11, 2005
Posts: 165



(Msg. 21) Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:55 am
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:09:25 +1300, Rupert Boleyn
<rboleyn DeleteThis @paradise.net.nz> wrote:

By the time hypervelocity ATGMs are fielded
>there's a good chance active defences like ARENA will be fieldable
>too, and that makes the ATGMs an expensive gamble, unlike a tank gun.

the canadians fielded 2.75" ffar which pretty much qualify for the
hypervelocity part of that about 20 years ago. a really fast kinetic
penetrator supposed to be able to take soviet tanks through the front
arc at 2.5 km or more. wonder if such a weapon would still be viable
today?
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
copeab

External


Since: Feb 26, 2005
Posts: 657



(Msg. 22) Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:35 am
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2006 01:52:21 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab.RemoveThis@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> The FFAR is an unguided rocket, and requires an aircraft as a launch
> >> platform.
> >
> >Actually, no.They could be mounted in trainable pods on the sides of
> >tank turrets. I'll point out that the AMX-13 could carry ATGMs on
> >launch rails on both sides of it's turret, so in theory unguided
> >rockets aren't impossible.
>
> A not-insignificant amount of the velocity of one of those AP FFARs
> comes from the launching aircraft's speed. Lose that and they are
> worse than tank gun rounds, and less accurate as well.

I would hope that the FFAR would improve in 94 years.

> >(One of the features of many of my TL8 AFV designs is the inclusion of
> >a pod firing forward over the rear of the turret. It mounts six 102mm
> >artillery rockets and a pair of 70mm SAMs. Now, it's not as effective
> >as dedicated artillery rocket or SAM vehicles (which it does not
> >replace, only supplements), but it means a tank platoon can lay down
> >some quick suppressive fire and discourage attack helicopters in an
> >emergency).
>
> Not unlike the rocket arrays put on Shermans in WWII.

Somewhat similar in concept, yes, but much lighter (less than 500 lbs
loaded).

Brandon
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Rupert Boleyn

External


Since: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 1280



(Msg. 23) Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:55 am
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:25:56 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
<_mwryder.TakeThisOut@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>The initial post was regarding tanks being used at the end of the
>century. By then I am sure that smart munitions will be available, and
>even today you don't need accurate payload delivery to keep mine
>clearing equipment from doing their job. Even in the Gulf war the tanks
>had to wait for the mine clearing equipment to make a path for them to
>use. If you can prevent that equipment from working or use artillery
>deployed mines to replace cleared mines then the tanks are stuck.

You're now assuming no counter-battery fire, and no zone defence.
Neither seem likely.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn.TakeThisOut@paradise.net.nz>
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Rupert Boleyn

External


Since: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 1280



(Msg. 24) Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:55 am
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:28:30 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
<_mwryder RemoveThis @worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Correct, and most of the tanks are going to be hiding in berms to
>protect them from the infantry with ATGMs. The tanks will then become
>mobile bunkers. They will still be useful against infantry, but so is a
>.50 BMG and the machine gun is much cheaper and easier to deploy.

But it's not very mobile, and not even remotely artillery or grunt
proof. Your argument should apply just as well to WWII as to today and
tomorrow, and yet we have tanks today, and our grandparents had them
in WWII. You have to show that tomorrow will differ enough from other
times to make the tank obselete. This example does not do that.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn RemoveThis @paradise.net.nz>
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Rupert Boleyn

External


Since: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 1280



(Msg. 25) Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:55 am
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On 9 Mar 2006 01:52:21 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab.RemoveThis@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> The FFAR is an unguided rocket, and requires an aircraft as a launch
>> platform.
>
>Actually, no.They could be mounted in trainable pods on the sides of
>tank turrets. I'll point out that the AMX-13 could carry ATGMs on
>launch rails on both sides of it's turret, so in theory unguided
>rockets aren't impossible.

A not-insignificant amount of the velocity of one of those AP FFARs
comes from the launching aircraft's speed. Lose that and they are
worse than tank gun rounds, and less accurate as well.

>(One of the features of many of my TL8 AFV designs is the inclusion of
>a pod firing forward over the rear of the turret. It mounts six 102mm
>artillery rockets and a pair of 70mm SAMs. Now, it's not as effective
>as dedicated artillery rocket or SAM vehicles (which it does not
>replace, only supplements), but it means a tank platoon can lay down
>some quick suppressive fire and discourage attack helicopters in an
>emergency).

Not unlike the rocket arrays put on Shermans in WWII.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn.RemoveThis@paradise.net.nz>
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Bill J.

External


Since: Mar 05, 2006
Posts: 34



(Msg. 26) Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:52 am
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2006 01:52:21 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> The FFAR is an unguided rocket, and requires an aircraft as a launch
> >> platform.
> >
> >Actually, no.They could be mounted in trainable pods on the sides of
> >tank turrets. I'll point out that the AMX-13 could carry ATGMs on
> >launch rails on both sides of it's turret, so in theory unguided
> >rockets aren't impossible.
>
> A not-insignificant amount of the velocity of one of those AP FFARs
> comes from the launching aircraft's speed. Lose that and they are
> worse than tank gun rounds, and less accurate as well.

IIRC, the AP FFARs are also used on the Apache helicopter, which does
not always move at high speed toward its targets.
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Bill J.

External


Since: Mar 05, 2006
Posts: 34



(Msg. 27) Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:17 pm
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2006 11:52:12 -0800, "Bill J." <nolabab.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >IIRC, the AP FFARs are also used on the Apache helicopter, which does
> >not always move at high speed toward its targets.
>
> AFAIK they are not intended for use vs heavility armoured targets -
> that's what the Hellfires are for.
> --
> Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn.TakeThisOut@paradise.net.nz>

My point is just that they'd be nearly as effective launched from a
ground based platform. Tanks can and do carry much heavier weapons than
these, though.
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
copeab

External


Since: Feb 26, 2005
Posts: 657



(Msg. 28) Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:36 pm
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2006 04:35:27 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab.DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> A not-insignificant amount of the velocity of one of those AP FFARs
> >> comes from the launching aircraft's speed. Lose that and they are
> >> worse than tank gun rounds, and less accurate as well.
> >
> >I would hope that the FFAR would improve in 94 years.
>
> They'll still have fundamental problems in that unless you take the
> same care in design, manufacture, and mounting of their launch
> tubes/rails as you do for a tank gun they'll have considerable
> variation in where they pointed.

I was thinking of unguided rockets, salvo fired to wreak havoc with any
CIWS system on a tank, so I'm willing to accept that most of them won't
hit anyway.

Brandon
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Michael W. Ryder

External


Since: Jul 18, 2005
Posts: 286



(Msg. 29) Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:55 pm
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:28:30 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
> <_mwryder DeleteThis @worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Correct, and most of the tanks are going to be hiding in berms to
>> protect them from the infantry with ATGMs. The tanks will then become
>> mobile bunkers. They will still be useful against infantry, but so is a
>> .50 BMG and the machine gun is much cheaper and easier to deploy.
>
> But it's not very mobile, and not even remotely artillery or grunt
> proof. Your argument should apply just as well to WWII as to today and
> tomorrow, and yet we have tanks today, and our grandparents had them
> in WWII. You have to show that tomorrow will differ enough from other
> times to make the tank obselete. This example does not do that.


The same argument could be used for battleships. Using remotely
launched guided missiles, such as those using a periscope mounted on the
rotor of an Apache you can keep tanks out of an area without them being
able to respond. I think that tanks are only useful when you have
superiority on the battlefield, otherwise it is a war of attrition and
resupply, much like the Yom Kippur war. There are only a limited number
of battlefields where they can be useful, in jungles like Vietnam they
are confined to the cleared roads and become prime targets for ambushes.
The enemy is not going to let you use your expensive artillery
carriers in the way they were designed for if they can avoid it.
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Rupert Boleyn

External


Since: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 1280



(Msg. 30) Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:55 pm
Post subject: Re: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On 9 Mar 2006 04:35:27 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab.RemoveThis@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> A not-insignificant amount of the velocity of one of those AP FFARs
>> comes from the launching aircraft's speed. Lose that and they are
>> worse than tank gun rounds, and less accurate as well.
>
>I would hope that the FFAR would improve in 94 years.

They'll still have fundamental problems in that unless you take the
same care in design, manufacture, and mounting of their launch
tubes/rails as you do for a tank gun they'll have considerable
variation in where they pointed. Gun-grade launch systems will cost
nearly as much as a gun, so you're really just building a
multi-barrelled recoilless tank gun at that point. Now, if they were
guided hypervelocity missiles, then they'd be worth it - you could
then keep the light and cheap launch facilities. Basically, as a lauch
system for unguided projectiles a gun has a lot going for it - it
fairly easy to aim, and because all the propellant and propellant
containment stays with the gun the projectile can have a high
propoertion of payload/total weight. The downside is that the high
acceleration on firing mean delicate payloads need a lot of support
(like HE shells, for example). Of course this last problem is somewhat
shared by hypervelocity missiles/rockets.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn.RemoveThis@paradise.net.nz>
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
   Game Forums (Home) -> GURPS All times are: Ekaterinburg, Islamabad, Karachi, Tashkent (change)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 2 of 6

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]