>>44811079 we can't just assume how it will go because of lack of info. what system? what powerlevel? environment/terrain to fight in?? equipment? any other particular oddities compared to standard tanks?
>>44811162 It doesn't have to be grounded to get wiped by an EMP blast. There's bound to be a fantasy equivalent lighting/ball lightning/etc that delivers so much energy that even if it went right through the tank into the ground, it would still fry all the circuits on the way.
>>44811196 The circuits aren't on the outside of the tank so would would they be fried by the heating effects of the current? Sure, there are the cameras and the paint job might be set on fire. But an M1 is very well designed for high survivability against EMPs. If you're sending enough energy into the tank to destroy the circuits you're probably also melting the armour.
It'd make an excellent mid level boss in most games. As a final boss, the power level has usually gotten a bit ridiculous by then. A level 5 d&d party would have extreme difficulty and likely a tpk, a level 10 party could handle it but it'd still likely lead to a player death or two. A level 20 party would rofflestomp an abrams.
>>44811188 >>44811189 high level fireball or firestorm would still punch through or at least cause the engine to stop working. It doesn't really matter, almost any high level spell would render the tank useless, or the party unkillable to the tank (who lacks any magic)
>Everyone goes Ethereal >Move through the tank >Return to normal plane inside the tank >Proceed to stab the crew to death the old fashioned way
>teleport tank upside down and facing away from you
>Diplomacy the crew
>Move Earth >Move it so that the tank is now in an 18 ft hole
>'Disintegrate' the tank
>'Fear' on the tank crew
>Some kind of cold spell that freezes the whole thing into a block of solid ice
>Enlarge person >on the tank crew
>Vorpal sword goes right through the armor, literally walk up and slice it to bits (after being made invisible and hastened)
>>44811160 HEAT works by directing explosive pressure on a liner, which deforms it into a super-pressurised penetrator jet. Tandem HEAT is like that, but does it twice in quick succession to beat mechanisms that block the first one but are then useless, like reactive armour or some composites. It doesn't have much to do with actual heat.
In other words, tank armour is something like "automatically blocks one attack to this location, then is expended", so just having a stronger fireball wouldn't mean anything unless you could guarantee a follow up hit to the same spot of equal strength.
You're supposed to get creative fighting it: I've heard of adventurers fighting tanks before, and the usual way to defeat them is to wedge them into a position where they get stuck and unable to move. Could force the party to think outside of the box, since depending on how exactly you process them (as an entity or calculating HP based on the thickness of the metal that composes them), nothing short of summoning an earthquake/meteor/orb of annihilation/detonating a bag of holding will really phase them before they turn a mid to early late game party into paste.
Nevertheless, I've heard that its 120 mm gun is 5d20 or some other insane shit that'll rip the party's meatshield a new one if he isn't trying to dodge the thing like everyone else. >>44811160
The Abrams is largely made of ceramic: lightning wouldn't even classify as doing lethal damage to it, contrary to what C&C would have you believe; fireball might work, but you'll need /lots/ of fireballs, and there's probably more effective ways to destroy it what that many casters.
>>44811079 No because tanks aren't designed to exist in a vacuum. A single tank is pretty damn vulnerable, especially if it's in a defensive position or can't take advantage of its speed or maneuverability. Tanks exist with infantry, with scouts, with other kinds of units to cover weaknesses and vulnerabilities of each other.
One tank isn't that big of a deal in any setting -- even super hardcore realistic modern.
Four tanks with an infantry platoon on the other hand and an armored scout squad on the other hand...
>>44811281 >Nevertheless, I've heard that its 120 mm gun is 5d20 or some other insane shit that'll rip the party's meatshield a new one if he isn't trying to dodge the thing like everyone else. The shell that totally vapourised the guy's upper torso in Fury's tiger fight is only 88mm, so pretty much any hit is going to be fatal, realistically. But this depends A: How literally you treat hit points as injuries, and B: How legendarily heroic you assume high level D&D characters are.
>>44811268 >implying the base armor for the tank magically goes away along with reactive armor it IS solid chunk of alloy. along with other variances of stuff, depending on the compsition of it's armor.
anyway my point is follow-up shots aren't nessisarily the answer. For instance, an Abrams got hit by like 20 RPG-7s(which are definitely more capable than grenades for Armor piercing) and moved away with no significant damage. I could search for the source if you need proof, but yeah, thanks are much, MUCH tougher than what average people expect.
>>44811268 I know what HEAT is and how it works anon. I wouldn't use the term HEAT if I didn't
A 20D6 fireball or firestorm would surely cause some large problems with an Abrams, especially if down the barrel or on the engine grille. Sustain the firestorm long enough and you'll cook the crew long before the tank takes any damage.
>>44811360 >is air support an enviromental hazard for the place you fight them?? this is important. It also makes me wonder, how much of a threat would giant eagles, griffons and dragons be to modern attack helicopters and jets?
>>44811136 Even multistage shaped charge weapons are extremely ineffective at breaching spaced ceramic and steel encased depleted uranium armor.
To breach the armor on a American M1 tank with any reliability takes the heaviest man-portable weapons. Multistage RPG rounds won't do it without a blind luck "golden BB" shot.
There is a reason the preferred AT weapons of the modern world are very high velocity long rod projectiles and guided missiles with warhead weights over 10 kilograms, things no human could possibility carry.
As other people have pointed out, hitting a grounded conductive object with electricity doesn't damage it. The charge would go over the surface of the tank and into ground without passing though any sensitive materials. A lightning strike would, at most, blow the breakers and fuses in the communication equipment.
>>44811324 Yeah, I know. The actual armour plate isn't the main defensive mechanism of most modern tanks, though; it's primarily there to deal with attenuated penetrator jets or lower-velocity shrapnel that've come through reactive armour or composites. I'm aware that it's not nothing, but I was addressing the argument that having a hot enough fireball would be equivalent to the effect of tandem HEAT; HEAT uses that energy much more efficiently than a fireball.
Also you're aware that composite armour also rapidly degrades in effectiveness on the spot where it's hit, right?
>Ceramic tiles have a "multiple hit capability" problem in that they cannot sustain successive impacts without quickly losing much of their protective value.
>>44811373 yup. it's main strength is mobility, tough armor due to being made of metal, and powerful ranged weapons. attack them from above, slow them down, avoid ranged combat. basically force an urban environment or anything similar that causes that much obstruction, and hope that they don't have infantry support.
>>44811262 As a former Abrams crewman, the whole ethereal thing to get inside the tank would sooooooo not work. There's barely enough room for three normal sized people inside the turret and the driver's compartment in the hull is like a coffin.
>>44811375 minimal. modern missiles fly really goddamn far. radars are much more precise than you expect, and most missiles are mobile enough to catch targets flying over mach 4. unless you really prepared for it, they would get absolutely shredded. get an Aegis destroyer nearby, thing get even worse for them.
>>44811390 To be honest I doubt you're going to have someone walking around in 200mm +5 armour, so really you're just left with someone being hit by 120mm of metal going at 1000m/s, which is a bad time for anyone.
The way the Abrams is stated in D&D, and more importantly the way targeting works makes it as lethal as most of the more dangerous magical beasts in that setting: It can target single characters with far more precision than would be possible real-life due to the grid,
Not to mention that its completely sealed with NBC protection, so you can't moltov or otherwise drive the crew out into the open like you can an M60, and that's assuming the tank even /has/ a crew and isn't a golem, assuming D&D.
In the Arcanum RPG setting, magic and technology are at naturally opposite ends of each other, with the former causing magic to go awry and its effects to warp nature just "fizzle", and the latter causing problems like exploding equipment or your watch to go backwards.
In that specific setting, it would be pretty much impossible to take down a tank with magic unless you used something like the spell that stops something's [Time], at which point you could just go into the tank and pull the crew out before choosing what to do with them.
>>44811402 >Also you're aware that composite armour also rapidly degrades in effectiveness on the spot where it's hit, right? I think I missed that part. my apologies.
>I was addressing the argument that having a hot enough fireball would be equivalent to the effect of tandem HEAT; HEAT uses that energy much more efficiently than a fireball. it's possible if they are powerful enough. I mean, back in WW2 the seemingly immortal panzers and tigers once got wiped out by fire support form naval units. brute force, if strong enough, would naturally work. also, the treads are suprisingly vulnerable to damage.
>>44811268 Multi-stage shaped charge weapons work like that, yeah.
It's to defeat the way tank armor these days is made up of a layer of armor, then a spacer (air gap or a bit of plastic or foam) then another layer of armor.
The liquid jet is really good at drilling though solid material, but when it gets into an open space it expands and tends to splatter all across the next layer, rather then remaining a concentrated jet.
By sending a second, concentrated jet down the hole the first one makes, you can try to cut though another layer of armor!..
The liquid jet has a lot of trouble cutting the very dense materials used and rather then make a smooth hole the ceramic tends to shatter into bits that disrupt the jet. This gives sort of absurd numbers when you look at RHA equivalents, as heavy shaped charges can penetrate a huge amount of RHA, but because modern composite armors can stop them you get 'equivalents' over 90cm for bits of a tank.
>>44811402 >Also you're aware that composite armour also rapidly degrades in effectiveness on the spot where it's hit, right?
Not really. Unless you literally hit the same square centimeter more then once there won't be any loss of strength from multiple hits. You can't 'wear down the hit points' on a M1 tank by shooting it with a bunch of RPG-7 single stage HEAT rounds.
>>44811465 >I think I missed that part. my apologies.
Hey, no worries. And cheers; rare to see that on /tg/.
>it's possible if they are powerful enough. I mean, back in WW2 the seemingly immortal panzers and tigers once got wiped out by fire support form naval units. brute force, if strong enough, would naturally work. also, the treads are suprisingly vulnerable to damage.
The issue with things that are highly explosive is overpressure and spalling; composite armours actually do relatively little to counter pure explosive force, though spall liners are pretty common on most vehicles these days. However, if a fireball is the equivalent of, say, a kiloton of TNT, the sheer impact force would likely pulp the crew and probably smash the armour out of it's bearings. On the other hand, if fireballs -did- have pressure waves, you'd expect effects like pushing, knockdown, etc, and you wouldn't be immune to it if you were immune to fire, since you'd also be getting slapped across the torso with the force of it.
I think fireballs are just means of flash-burning things.
>>44811523 The "spot where it's hit" is really tiny, yeah; hence why two-stage HEAT rounds are going to be more effective uses of force than flinging multiple fireballs at it.
Again, all this is irrelevant because your actual weapon is going to be turning the ground underneath it into quicksand, or possibly hitting it with disintegrate if it's classed as an object or construct instead of worn equipment.
>>44811423 >As a former Abrams crewman oh I need to ask you a question I heard an Abrams once absorbed over 20 RPG-7 shots and got away, is this true?
>>44811460 how is it's hide like? how does it fly? how hot is it's fire?
>>44811468 >Missiles aren't built to track dragons and eagles, either they can track baseball sized objects hundreds of kilometers away, no biggie. as long as you have a body you are detected.
>I mean the issue with those ones is they're literally fucking magic this is why we need some kind of guideline. It's been like this even before the GATE threads, and it will go forever until someone steps up and lay some kind of groundwork to compare.
>>44811524 >if a fireball is the equivalent of, say, a kiloton of TNT, it does like ?(6, maybe?)d4 damage, a hand grenade does ?(same number as the fireball)d3. not really powerful.
>>44811454 >blah blah statlines jesus christ how horrifying.jpg
>>44811539 that seems to be the best answer even to parties withou modern equipment. or trapping it with random stuff jammed into it's tread and running away.
I also want to point out that this thread is suprisingly informative. I don't understand how this is possible.
>>44811524 Eh, fireball is too diffuse to really do much imo. Remember that as the level of a fireball goes up, so does the area it affects. Energy densities are surprisingly low for that spell.
Now, if you *really* want to use a fire spell to take out a tank, the best way is directed heat against the magazine. Cook off the rounds and you take out the TC, gunner, and loader (maybe the driver too, but he's really stuck in there).
>>44811539 The batteries wouldn't stop it. The turret can be traversed via hand-crank, as well as the main gun being elevation. The tank also has regular sighting and aiming abilities that don't rely on electronics. The rounds, while set of by electric charge, can also be fired manually. There's a hand crank tht builds up a small electric charge, enough to fire the gun.
Granted, it wouldn't be aiming nearly as quickly, and it would slow it down a ton, but it wouldn't stop it from firing or aiming.
>>44811380 >There is a reason the preferred AT weapons of the modern world are very high velocity long rod projectiles and guided missiles with warhead weights over 10 kilograms, things no human could possibility carry.
Mind you, on the other hand: The average Epic-tier character is normally handing down ass-whoopings to demigods and demon lords. So I'd give pretty good odds on being able to shatter tank armour.
That and stuff like Pyromancer Wizards being literally able to set Water on Fire and burn Fire Elementals (Everything Burns! was the best feat ever)
>>44811564 Probably. An RPG is meant to kill lightly armored vehicles like APCs or trucks. The only way an RPG would be able to kill a tank would be if it hit the tracks (which wouldn't have an effect on the crew, it would still be able to aim and shoot, just not move), or if it hit dead on the radiator grills, which would again, not stop it from shooting or aiming.
Plus, most RPGs in use are outdated soviet era equipment with an insanely high failure rate.
>>44811572 Yeah, this is true, but in terms of going against a few dismounted enemies, once the batteries are dead, the turret's dead. That's when you start figuring out how to unass that tank as quickly as possible.
>>44811591 >The only way an RPG would be able to kill a tank would be if it hit the tracks (which wouldn't have an effect on the crew, it would still be able to aim and shoot, just not move), or if it hit dead on the radiator grills, which would again, not stop it from shooting or aiming.
You know, it kinda annoys me how many games with any form of big nasty mechanical monster forget that Mission Kill exists.
I think Battletech is about the only thing to remember it (You get half the points for a legged mech or motive damaged vehicle even if it's still working)
>>44811567 >directed heat against the magazine that's honestly not worth the effort, might as well find an alternate that is easier than that.
>>44811577 if any case one thing we need to know is that people are not putting things to 'normal' enviroments. 'normally', fantasy adventurers move in parties. 'normally', modern armies move tonks along with mechanized infantry, and a mix of artillery and air support.
>>44811591 I also heard that chinese copies have no self-destruct mechanisms, and someone making a suggestion to use them as improvised mass infantry-aritillery. which is dumb, I know, but the imagery is what makes it memorable.
>>44811606 mostly because it slows down the game's pace. Wargame the wargame series do, however.
>>44811564 Fireballs have been Xd6 since 3rd edition. Also HP=/=TNT equivalent.
Honestly you're right though since fireball can be anything from "a less effective hand grenade that can't even knock anyone over" to "a maelstrom of fire that'll cook the crew alive" depending on who's talking.
>>44811564 >I heard an Abrams once absorbed over 20 RPG-7 shots and got away, is this true? I've been in a hmmv that was hit with an rpg and got away. Shitty russian weapons are shitty.
I know in Clancy's book about tanks he talks about an Abrams that took something a bunch of main gun hits from six t-62s while it was not able to move (popped treads, iirc), and it managed to kill them all.
>>44811630 You're always talking about monkey versions of the equipment, though. Actual soviet stuff was of higher quality and used better ammunition, and also wasn't being maintained by morons whose military was set up to terrorise civillians and nothing else.
Ammo alone is a huge factor in how effective a tank is, shells from WW2 to Korea alone gained about 30mm of penetration and larger explosive charges. If you're firing practise rounds (which some middle eastern tanks were!) you're going to be doing fuck all.
>if any case one thing we need to know is that people are not putting things to 'normal' enviroments. 'normally', fantasy adventurers move in parties. 'normally', modern armies move tonks along with mechanized infantry, and a mix of artillery and air support.
There is that.
There is also: 'Even if this IS D&D...what edition?'
Like I used 4e, where a high level party has a guy who can literally steal the colour from your eyes and a tendency to get right the fuck back up after they die because they beat the grim reaper until he ran like a bitch.
On the other hand...5e? Those guys would die like little bitches. It's just not the same scale.
3e...oh gods and demons. I don't want to try and ponder where various 3e characters would fall on that scale beyond 'Wizard could do something bullshit, non-spellcasters would sit in the corner and cry'
There is just too many variables to really work out anything.
I will say: Fighting a tank would be bloody badass for a boss fight though.
>>44811649 Also you're comparing the huge glut of manpower and resources behind the US-lead coalition invading various middle eastern nations, compared to the weak infrastructure of those countries. Compare that to the fulda gap, where you're looking at T-64s, T-72s and T-80s that're roughly equivalent to the M1 Abrams of the time and are massively superior to the M60s, and -also- outnumber them by some stupid margin like 4-1.
>>44811619 yeah, if anything making a modern main tank a boss should be done to high-epic level campaign, not low. because tonks don't travel alone, and most players are to dumb to know 'running away' is a thing in low-level campaigns.
>>44811630 >entire post are russian stuff really that bad? jesus christ.
>>44811663 >There is also: 'Even if this IS D&D...what edition?' this is where OP fucked up.
>There is just too many variables to really work out anything. exactly. only if OP specified some things. but OP is a faggot as always.
>I will say: Fighting a tank would be bloody badass for a boss fight though. I will say: taking on a battalion with armor, artillery, air, and naval support would be hella awsome. maybe epic level party attemting to hold off modern naval beach landing until help arrives?
>>44811698 >are russian stuff really that bad? jesus christ. See above. Soviet stuff was usually much higher quality than the stuff that's being used in middle eastern insurgencies today. Soviets even had the term "monkey model" for the downrated export versions.
Partly this was because lol nonsoviet countries, but it was also because if their top-tier stuff -was- getting spread all around the middle east and asia where the US could intervene and capture it then their latest and best would be under the microscope.
I'd honestly put most infantry as Minions compared to epic people. Even guns don't quite even the odds that much. It just makes them bigger, nastier minions. Epic Sword gunna put you in the ground in one hit.
Vehicles? Now those things would be fun to face down with.
A Tank Commander acting as a Leader for various aircraft and armour. An Invoker's Angels dancing with fighter jets or a Shielding Swordmage blunting the blast of a naval cannon.
>>44811698 >are russian stuff really that bad? jesus christ. It's luck of the draw. Sometimes it works as advertised, other times, not so much. They have shit manufacturing compared to the west. For the most part, their stuff is designed with this in mind, but even with that, failure rates on things like RPGs is ridiculously high. >>44811728 slavaboo gonna boo-a-slav
>>44811663 >3e...oh gods and demons. I don't want to try and ponder where various 3e characters would fall on that scale beyond 'Wizard could do something bullshit, non-spellcasters would sit in the corner and cry' Idk, +5 weapons should be able to cut through steel and a brilliant energy bow or projectiles could easily kill the crewman inside
>>44811791 >party manages to secure a marriage between the duchess and the party leader >this will secure peace in the realm >as the duchess begins to walk up the isle the wall behind her is suddenly reduced to rubble and an M1 crashes in, splattering her >the antagonist's head pops out the cupola and he winks at the party
>>44811698 >are russian stuff really that bad? jesus christ. It's a combination of really old, outdated and badly kept monkey models. And used by Arabs, who are completely retarded no matter what you give them.
>>44811136 I bet you've probably never been in a fight before, your uncanny ignorance to the real world, it's beautiful. Don't keep the dreamers outa here with hard facts /tg/, they are the breath of fresh air in a room that smells of stale doritos.
>>44811736 exactly. people really need to think on a bigger level. sure, encounter a straggler tank in a battlefield, but this should be a event for the 'batte in a city/combat zone/landing site/etc. harder encounters could be stumbling head on to an armored infantry division or a tank battalion. or being exposed to a nearby corvettes. that is laying down air to ground missiles and cannon fire. the final boss could be the aegis destroyer, it's CIWS and main gun blasting away from the shoreline and shooting down fireballs, and crews firing mounted machineguns to hold off the overpowered adventures coming toward them, while crusing away to gain time, 45 degrees, full thrust.
>>44811759 Tanks also aren't optimised to take sword strikes, and the swords are magic, so... Who the fuck knows. There needs to be a standard, otherwise it just depends on whether you're a military fanboy or dragon fanboy.
>>44811969 >There needs to be a standard I seriously wish one day some autistic genius would suddenly pop out and stat everything in accordance to real live, taking account of everything, so that we can compare and set setting, or calculate actual stats from other settings' things.
one fun thing that could happen could be a 'hell run' type of scenario where you have to run away from angry squadrons of A-10s(muh Brrrrrrts and Mavericks) or SU-25s(ROKKITS). if you are too slow to reach the mall, you're dead meat.
>>44811993 http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0001066239.pdf >In the arms likely to dominate the outcome of a future battle for Central Europe - armoured vehicles and counterweapons - the US Army, then, probably will remain quantitatively and qualitively inferior.
Oddly enough: I wouldn't stat it as an enemy. I'd stat it as a group of enemies. A battery of VLS makes for a great Artillery class enemy while the Phalanx CIWS could work really well as a psudo-defender (Going for crew or other cannons? Gunna eat lead).
With the PCs fighting near the ship or even on the deck if they can reach it.
With some acceptable breaks from reality for how close the VLS can blast away at people.
>>44812033 They're saying that at the time the report was published, yank weapons were both technically inferior to soviet ones and less numerous. Of course, it's a report that calls the M1 the XM1; the Abrams, when it was introduced, was as good or maybe a bit better than soviet tanks of the era (but remember the first ones had 105mm guns, not the 120 that's now standard). But the US never had numeric advantage over the soviets and for a long time also held a significant disadvantage in ground forces materiel.
>>44812016 yup. before 2015, gate threads, crossovers, ect. any material we find is gonna devolve into this kind of arguement unless 1. the setting are set with precision allowing no room for excuse. like saying 'in 5e', or 'in WHFB', or anything, and with 'ww2 era', 'cold war era', 'modern era' and such. 2. basically what >>44811994 said. it is likely to never happen.
>>44812031 why put them in opposite sides? I once worldbuilded about a setting where fantasyland and modern world manage to ally up, albeit shaky, and have assault droship with minotaur fire support and wyvern anti-infanty squadrons with wyvern carrier task group, Dragons WITH nukes, etc.
>>44812021 I just googled it. Yeah, there don't seem to be any, what a shame.
I'm a sucker for high RoF weapons though. I fucking love AA guns, the A-10, CIWS and similar. I love the BRRRRRRRRT. This is my current favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyWX-ttsxCs A delicious 35mm revolver cannon.
>>44812056 Though it also notes that the introduction of the Abrams might not mean much if soviet antitank tech continued to improve, which it did up until the end of the cold war (like going from Sagger to Spandrel).
>Evil Overlord with armies of golems and undead etc is seeming undefeatable >Good nation casts a great spell to call for aid from a far off land. >Portal opens and...I dunno. A company of SARS with ASLAV support are pulled through. >Neither magic nor technology has all the answers (An ASLAV will tear apart a golem in a fair fight but there is little it can do against a Wraith) so they have to work together to win.
Rather than 'Yep, I'm just gunna sit here sucking military dick about how they could TOTALLY defeat all these fictional things with no problems at all!' (Salvation War/Gate).
>>44812055 >>44812055 >Oddly enough: I wouldn't stat it as an enemy(...) huh. didn't think of that, but that might work. but the hull intergrity of the destroyer should be it's health point if they engage it from afar. since it wouldn't be that distinguishable from that range. also CIWS shooting down fireballs sound so cool.
>With the PCs fighting near the ship or even on the deck if they can reach it. that's gonna make it hard for the VLS and the CIWS to handle them, is it.
>>44812095 >spoiler high-fire rate is the best. along with high evasion, missile, precision fire, and regenerating shields.
>>44812133 there is actually a japanese web story for that. A WW2 era america, but they kick ass regardless. it's named 'when the spangled star waves'. intrested? if any the only downside is a single passage containing nationalistic views, but it's only just that in like few hundred k words.
>but the hull intergrity of the destroyer should be it's health point if they engage it from afar. since it wouldn't be that distinguishable from that range. also CIWS shooting down fireballs sound so cool.
I'd have damage done before the 'Up close' part of the battle be spread evenly between the various 'enemies' so that they've done something but likely havn't destroyed any
>that's gonna make it hard for the VLS and the CIWS to handle them, is it.
Yeah, that's where 'Acceptable breaks from reality' would come in. It's not perfectly accurate but then, I'm not sure any part of that encounter is quite working on '100% how reality says it should work'.
I was pondering the up close thing because you'd want to make melee characters that are not swordmages feel useful. I'll admit: I'm pondering this largely as 'An encounter' rather than 'An accurate depiction of what the ship could do'. Like how I'd have a tank commander doing full on Warlord stuff to other tanks.
>>44812133 >>44812175 here's the link for >>44812160 http://www26.atwiki.jp/jfsdf/pages/708.html beware, it's untranslated. there's a korean translation, but no english. google translator sucks ass, and I really need someone to hel me understand japanese.
>>44811969 >implying most of the arms used in afghanistan/middle east are soviet era I don't even know why anyone would begin to think something as retarded as this. Africa is the blackhole that swallowed soviet era shit. Current armament is, by far, modern. >tanks aren't optimized to take sword strkes Do you think swords obey some kind of crazy different physics than do other kinds of rounds? I mean yeah, you do have some point with the magic side, but you're seriously stupid if you think a tank's armor has some kind of hinderance to stopping a sword. >>44811993 >citing outdated as fuck CIA reports If you want, I can pull up some leading medical journal reports calling Joseph Lister an idiot. >also, thinking the M1 was ever "just slightly better" than any Russian tank. Pure slavaboo nonsense. The M1 was on the top of the heap for quite a while, by a wide margin. It's still top fourish for main battle tanks. The only advantage the soviets had over the M1 were numbers. Having a few hundred shitty antitank weapons per tank to kill does count for something, but pretending that it's anything more than sheer numerical superiority is foolish and ignorant.
>So I'm voting that we forever replace sidearms with wands? They fire for our purposes limitless shots with a lower weight and superior accuracy
Honestly, I think a modern military would be utterly wowed less by combat uses of magic and more 'As long as this guy isn't dead, we can have him as healthy as the day he finished basic training in a day, tops'.
That and motherfucking Handy Haversacks. I've never been military but I was in the Scouts long enough to realize that a light backpack that carries as much as the back of a jeep without ever getting heavier would be the most amazing thing ever. The sheer logistical help that would be is amazing.
>>44812185 >eah, that's where 'Acceptable breaks from reality' would come in. perhaps being exposed to too much magic bullshittery made it possible to pull off stuff that's supposed to be normally impossible?
>I'll admit: I'm pondering this largely as 'An encounter' rather than 'An accurate depiction of what the ship could do'. Like how I'd have a tank commander doing full on Warlord stuff to other tanks. I agree, but as I said in
>>44812201 then again, most modern combat is the same as well. where's that image saying 'modern combat is dominated by ranged faggots' I need it now.
>>44812206 setting like this want me to think about team and battlegroup compositions I could make if they were allies. I mean, I might have played too much wargame or xcom, but just imagine the tactical varieties you could get from united armies between heaven, fantasy, modern, and hell.
>>44812224 if anything both side will get EXTREME boost to their logistics. and as any intelligent /k/ knows, tactics<strategy<logistics.
>>44812188 >I don't even know why anyone would begin to think something as retarded as this. Africa is the blackhole that swallowed soviet era shit. Current armament is, by far, modern.
Modern weapons such as the ones penetrating modern tanks? You've got a mix of old shitty stuff used by idiots and small amounts of stuff that's done damage. It's still a tank versus insurgents, but modern era stuff is effective.
>Do you think swords obey some kind of crazy different physics than do other kinds of rounds? I mean yeah, you do have some point with the magic side, but you're seriously stupid if you think a tank's armor has some kind of hinderance to stopping a sword.
Tank armour is optimised to be struck by sabot and HEAT rounds, because these are the effective rounds. Against a sword, it's not optimised, which isn't an issue in reality because nobody's trying to stab an abrams and would be an idiot if they did. If hercules or zeus tried to stab an abrams, then there's no countermeasure for crushing force like that. But, then, it's also zeus stabbing an abrams, so again, who the fuck knows.
>>44812188 >If you want, I can pull up some leading medical journal reports calling Joseph Lister an idiot.
You're free to do whatever you want, but that doesn't really change that the USA was aware it's tanks were inferior to soviet ones, and even the at-the-time experimental models could be countered by antitank weapons being introduced.
>Pure slavaboo nonsense. The M1 was on the top of the heap for quite a while, by a wide margin. It's still top fourish for main battle tanks. The only advantage the soviets had over the M1 were numbers. Having a few hundred shitty antitank weapons per tank to kill does count for something, but pretending that it's anything more than sheer numerical superiority is foolish and ignorant.
The M1 at the time of it's introduction had a less powerful gun by some margin, and was penetrable by soviet antitank weapons. It was undoubtedly faster and more surviveable, and represented several steps of advanced tech like thermals and all-axis stabilisation that soviet vehicles lacked, but it was not, by any means, a supertank that would've trundled along, impervious to all. And even if it was, that wasn't the tank in main use at the time; that was the M60A3, which was totally inferior to soviet tanks in every respect.
>>44812248 They did eventually set up groups of demons and humans. The demons came in from the front with heavy weapons because they got it in their heads that that would get them greater honours, while humans supported and flanked. Or something its been a while since I read it.
>>44812248 >setting like this want me to think about team and battlegroup compositions I could make if they were allies. I mean, I might have played too much wargame or xcom, but just imagine the tactical varieties you could get from united armies between heaven, fantasy, modern, and hell. Did you read the second one?
For a good while after Hell got roflstomped no-one was able to get into Heaven, though they occasionally would throw things at Earth - the bowls from Revelations, mostly. In the time while earth was waiting for a route to Heaven some demonic units were formed using human technology.
>>44812269 >Tank armour is optimised to be struck by sabot and HEAT rounds, because these are the effective rounds. Against a sword, it's not optimised, which isn't an issue in reality because nobody's trying to stab an abrams and would be an idiot if they did. If hercules or zeus tried to stab an abrams, then there's no countermeasure for crushing force like that. But, then, it's also zeus stabbing an abrams, so again, who the fuck knows. How do you think directed attacks against armor work? Seriously, I'm curious what mechanism you think is in place in a sword strike that's not present in say a sabot strike?
>>44812291 You just make everything modular and easy to swap out (like the modular power block/engine system the germans use) then have a bunch of these modules stored in the plane of engine modules. You just throw the old one away, put in a new one and you're good to go.
>>44812317 Same sort of thing that happens with bulletproof armour versus stab vests, for a super basic example?
Ceramic armour (such as chally and abrams) shatters from the huge forces at moment of impact, abrading long-rod penetrators, while the rubber layer applies transverse force, putting it an angle and potentially even snapping the rod due to the high forces. The net effect is you don't have a single penetrator hitting the steel layers; you have a broken up set of tumbling shards impacting the armour at low velocity and expanded area at odd angles.
That's not really going to happen with a sword, because a sword is a continuous slicing motion, receiving energy the entire time and keeping it directed. Again, to be abundantly clear, you can't stab an abrams IRL. But a theoretical superbeing who could would not be taking ceramic armour at it's strongest points, like sabot and HEAT do.
>>44812269 To be fair, in that article the failure of armour wasn't the loss of life, it was the loss of part of a foot, and other minor injuries to the crew. Not a total loss or anything close, and the main issue was that it wasn't released to the general public for a few months. And the tank was subsequently given an up-armour kit for the bit that was hit, for operating in urban environments (heavy as fuck though)
>>44812347 >the plane of engine modules Planes and portals could do so much shit for logistics it's unreal.
>>44812415 Yeah; I'm aware. I was just trying to argue against the "immortal NATO tanks, rolling through the plains of fulda, impervious to all" myth. In an actual warfare scenario, where tanks are going to keep being shot at with no superiority of manpower and materiel on-call to deal with build ups, that's gone from being "a nasty fuckup" to a capture or kill.
>>44812294 >You're free to do whatever you want, but that doesn't really change that the USA was aware it's tanks were inferior to soviet ones, and even the at-the-time experimental models could be countered by antitank weapons being introduced. There has literally never been a time in the history of tank warfare that any tank has been immune to destruction by antitank weapons.
>The M1 at the time of it's introduction had a less powerful gun by some margin, and was penetrable by soviet antitank weapons. It was undoubtedly faster and more surviveable, and represented several steps of advanced tech like thermals and all-axis stabilisation that soviet vehicles lacked, but it was not, by any means, a supertank that would've trundled along, impervious to all. And even if it was, that wasn't the tank in main use at the time; that was the M60A3, which was totally inferior to soviet tanks in every respect. Make up your mind. Are we talking about the introductory model or are we talking about later variants where absolutely nothing you're saying is true. Here's a fun fact, we've gone well past 1986.
>>44812447 >"immortal NATO tanks, rolling through the plains of fulda, impervious to all" >That's it. I'm sick of all this "Large Armored Vehicle" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Tanks deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
>>44812459 The person who needs to make up his mind is the one who's been saying the Abrams was impenetrable, then completely 180s to "actually tanks have always been penetrable by anything".
Either we're comparing a scenario where soviet and NATO tanks would've actually fought, or we're just wanking about nationalism and classified statistics. Personally, I prefer to wank over hot drow, but to each their own.
>>44812516 Show me where I ever claimed the M1 was impervious to anything. Pure fucking slavaboo bullshit. You're goddamn arguing against something in your head. >>44812447 At no point has anyone said shit about "immortal NATO tanks" >>44812414 Fuck me, the USSR still exists? >>44812399 And you seem to think that the ceramic is the only armor that exists...ignoring that whole depleted uranium core.
But, aside from that, you use words you have no clue what they actually mean.
>>44811577 >Mind you, on the other hand: The average Epic-tier character is normally handing down ass-whoopings to demigods and demon lords. So I'd give pretty good odds on being able to shatter tank armour.
Depends on what the RHA equivalent of mithirl/adamantine/demonflesh is.
Imagine a guy walking around wearing steel armor that's around 2+ feet thick.
>>44812947 I mean, maybe, but "It would take fictional arbitrary thing strength, not slightly less fictional arbitrary thing strength" is probably the height of pointless exceptions to make. I have no idea how strong Zeus or Hercules are, they're fictional.
>>44811079 Assuming the archetypal part (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) at about lvl. 15 or so in 5e it would be a good boss within reason.
It'd still suffer from the typical problem of getting mobbed though. And a well organised party of such a layout should probably be able to take it out, with the wizard and cleric combined being able to render it immobile and blind and thus allowing the fighter and rogue to get up close and take out the crew inside.
So good mini-boss, it'd require some thinking and it'd be an interesting encounter. On the other hand, you'd then need a way to justify your party not being able to take it thereafter or find a way to balance out the power that it gives them.
>>44813236 If tanks exist in the setting, an argument could be made that they're ''land vehicles'' and considering theres a proficiency for that such things in 5e the fighter or cleric might have the necessary proficiency.
Now, if you decide to make the tank ''exotic'' then yer good as long as no-one takes the tank specific one but you do need to specify as such and possibly put yer foot down when the party starts to whine.
This is especially an issue in my setting since the gnomes have pseudo-tanks designed to fight Giants and I know my party are gonna want one at some point so they'll probably take the proficiency specifically for that purpose.
>>44813236 Easy enough to figure out if you know how to drive any vehicle. Sure you'd fuck up at first but it's not like they're designed to be unintuitive, the opposite actually. Someone that has absolutely no prior experience with driving things would probably struggle quite a bit though.
>>44813331 Honestly, why would it be a problem? One of the most awesome things about D&D, for me, has always been players coming into possession of powerful items and assets and then using them to impact the setting, thereby also changing the nature of the game. If the tank is even near to unique, you can be sure as fuck that people are going to want to steal it, for example.
Of course, this is only for games that are mostly sandbox.
>>44813342 >Easy enough to figure out if you know how to drive any vehicle. Sure you'd fuck up at first but it's not like they're designed to be unintuitive, the opposite actually. >Someone that has absolutely no prior experience with driving things would probably struggle quite a bit though. Depends on which tank you're talking about, but it's not quite that simple. Because of shit like neutral steering, someone who doesn't know what they're doing can fuck some shit up.
The biggest deal with them is shut down. You can fuck one up big time by not shutting it down in the right order.
Outside of that, there's maintenance to consider. Every hour of operation requires around four hours of maintenance.
>>44813370 Its a problem if your end game was meant to be a battle against a Balor, for example.
Your cleric could potentially drive it, becoming a near invincible healing bunker that moves, if supported right, while the rogue operates the gun and the fighter and wizard use it as a steed. Its not gamebreaking, it just increases the relevant ''power level'' of the campaign, which one has to account for.
Either one boosts the powerlevel of the enemies to retain a worthwhile challenge, one prevents the players getting it or one accepts that they've potentially made defeating your end-boss piss-easy.
>>44811079 >players encounter tank >you railroad them into confrontation rather than just walking around it >they elect to sneak up on it from behind and sit around the top hatch >starve out crew >massacre them when they surrender Tanks are great... if they have supporting infantry
>>44811123 >No, in fantasy world it would be completely invulnerable. Nothing would even scratch its armor. Lets go phoenix command is a realistic rpg made by guy that works for nasa and with ballistics He tried to make the game more compatible with other rpgs, with stats that go from 3 to 8 (and if rolled at random are rolled with a 3d6) with skills Levels that goes from 0 to 20...
light crowssbow deal 1d6 on 3.5 on phoenix command light crossbow has a DC 0.6, when the guy that you hit is 80 yards from you PS: DC value is used with penetration and body part to find damage
Lets assume that when converting to d&d a weapon DC: D&D damage - 1d6 + 2
There is also penetration that at this range is 0.6 So the convertion is D&D damage - 1d6 + 0.6
Fireball has a max damage of 10d6 on 3.5 This gives maximum possible penetration of 59.6
luckly enought the game has also a tank splatbook, and the book has the m1a1
The only places it would be able to penetrate are the red ones on pic.
PS; This convertion to d&d is not realistic problably, but anyway here it is.
you can find another way to convert 1d6 to the dc and pen and use it
>>44813380 >The biggest deal with them is shut down. You can fuck one up big time by not shutting it down in the right order. Interesting, never knew that. Sounds a lot like a scanning electron microscope actually. Once it's on it's easy enough to use but powering it up and shutting it down incorrectly can lead to major, and very expensive damage.
>>44813519 The thing is, you don't fight tank by throwing projectiles at it from the distance, tank is made to take that with ease. You don't fight tank head-on at all if you can help it. You fight tank by sneakily getting up close and stuffing Greek Fire into a visor to fry crew. Or hitting a track real hard to break it and reduce tanks mobility. Or just out-wait it and starve the crew.
>>44813650 >This spell creates a wall of rock that merges into adjoining rock surfaces. A wall of stone is 1 inch thick per four caster levels and composed of up to one 5-foot square per level. It's sorc/wiz 5, so 2-5 inches thick.
>>44813655 From: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cloudkill.htm >Holding one’s breath doesn’t help. Cloudkill doesn't require your targets to breathe.
Also, this guy: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/War_Hulking_Hurler_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build) Can throw an Abrams Tank (weighing about 60 tons) (his carrying capacity is around 150 tons) 300 meters, and can even just turn the tank upside down. If you mess around with the build a little you can even get a burrowing speed and turn up from beneath the tank.
>>44813859 You don't want to cover that sprocket. If you do, mud builds up in there and it pops your tread off. >>44813655 Most modern tanks are sealed environments. I think the more interesting question is would the spell affect the air inside the tank.
>>44813894 >You don't want to cover that sprocket. If you do, mud builds up in there and it pops your tread off. This is true, but the skirt that goes over is wedge-shaped, and should have a tail visible above the track. I'd assume he means that falls off, rather than the entire side of the tank comes careening off.
>>44811079 A properly optimized Dragonfire Inspiration Bard with Sonic dragon heritage can make the entire partys fist deal an additional 30d6 Sonic damage.
Sonic damage ignores the hardness of objects. Assuming that the Abrams depleted Uranium armor has twice the hardness and hp of steel. And the armor is around 25 inches thick. You get a total HP to punch through the armor of 25*60=150. On average with 30d6 sonic damage, that's 4-5 hits. So the party just needs to attack once each to break the armor.
>>44813909 The "shitty design" is to make the turret shorter and save weight. Soviets always prioritised lower profile and weight efficiency higher than crew safety, versus the US's post-'nam concern about how it's war would look.
>>44813708 >So really its the DMs call No. The spell clearly states: >Holding one’s breath doesn’t help, but creatures immune to poison are unaffected by the spell. Cloudkill doesn't need to get in someones lungs to work, the mere exposure kills them.
>>44813942 Yeah, I get that. I was just being lazy and not saying everything I should have said..I was pointing that out to say often, you'll see the section of skirting over that bit of the tank removed entirely or cut away to keep that from happening...but yeah I agree, he's likely talking about the skirting falling off.
>>44813942 >>44814024 Honestly, side skirts coming off is a perennial problem whenever you're driving cross-country. They're usually applique and tend to be (relatively) weakly attached. I don't know how the Abrams attempted to solve that but short of making the side skirting part of the vehicle, I can't imagine it's hugely resistant to driving through crap for hours either.
>>44814066 >I don't know how the Abrams attempted to solve that but short of making the side skirting part of the vehicle, I can't imagine it's hugely resistant to driving through crap for hours either. They're hinged and do tend to pop off in rougher terrain. They're also a nightmare to attempt to move.
>>44814043 It's a cloud that kills. >Either way, its still up against a vehicle thats hermetically sealed Wat? No. That would require the tank to be outfitted with Oxygen tanks which is not really feasible.
>>44814086 ...What? No, autoloaders are an intentional decision to reduce the crew size, dimensions of the vehicle (especially vertically), and lower weight. This has always been the case ever since T-64.
>>44814239 Eh. Soviets favoured quantity over quality. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone really.
I mean, its a bad design choice but if it means you can make 2 more tanks per 10 tanks produced, in terms of material and time saved over a version that doesnt use an autoloader, that improves yer ability to swarm the enemy.
>>44814057 >It is up to the DM on whether or not it effects the air inside of the tank. It still has to touch the crew to kill them. Erm, air gets into tanks. They dont have oxygen tanks you know, so the crew needs to breathe. It would probably also stop the engine, which needs oxygen to ignite.
By the way here is a (non-exhaustive) list of spells up to level 5 that would screw over an Abrams tank crewed by level 1-3 warriors (not necessarily kill them but make them unable to use the tank effectively at least): Lvl 1 Sleep Color Spray Lvl 2 Darkness Invisibility Pyrotechnics Lvl 3 Suggestion Invisibility Sphere Blink Shrink Item lvl 4: Black Tentacles Greater Invis Minor Creation Stone Shape Lvl 5: Cloudkill Wall of Stone Teleport Magic Jar
>>44814239 It's far from "guaranteed"; it's still two-piece ammo and not every round in the world is a pyrophoric. For most of the cold war it was facing HEAT penetrators, which soviet composite was very well protected against. And your average soviet vehicle is twenty to thirty tons lighter than it's NATO equivalent. You need to take into context what the soviets were facing when they designed the vehicles and where they fit into their strategic plan. In the soviet's case, it's a vehicle that can be crewed by conscripts, is expecting to be going through bad ground, including frequent water and outright amphibious crossings, and needs huge operational range to make the large breakthrough attacks the soviets liked. All these things suggest a vehicle which is lighter than a NATO tank, who expect to be on the defence, have favourable ground and good logistical supply, and volunteer crew, as well as additionally being very concerned with how the results of combat will be seen domestically. The soviets didn't have to care about the latter, which is also a huge factor.
The thing about height dates to WW2 where they discovered there was an effective cutoff for vehicle height, after which it's targeted much more rapidly. In any case, it's a smaller target.
>>44814351 >>It is up to the DM on whether or not it effects the air inside of the tank. It still has to touch the crew to kill them. >Erm, air gets into tanks. They dont have oxygen tanks you know, so the crew needs to breathe. >It would probably also stop the engine, which needs oxygen to ignite. The fuck? No and no. Cloudkill doesn't do anything to the oxygen. Read the spell, hell, you even linked it.
>>44814386 Well yeah but how long do you think the wizard is gonna survive after popping Cloudkill on them?
If Im a tank commander, and assuming Im a native of the plane we're on and therefore aware of magic, spellcasters and anyone that looks vaguely mystic are probably my first target, especially if they pop a spell on my ass.
And cloudkill only works on a specific area, right? So I'd drive out of it. If the wizard uses a spell to prevent that, thats an extra round of attention he has to deal with from a fucking tank.
Not to say that magic isnt the answer, my own solution here >>44813178 relies on 2 casters operating in conjunction, but just a wizard solo probably wont be able to pull it off unless hes level 20 and reality is his bitch.
>>44814043 >Wait, really? How the bugger-fuck does that even work then? Is the cloud an acid of some sort?
Most chemical weapons are nasty enough that you don't need to breathe them in for them to fuck you up. Even something as primitive as mustard gas can kill you if gas mask is your only protection(though obviously breathing it will make things that much worse). Keep that in mind when trying to figure out how something like Cloud Kill works.
>>44814390 Calling a tank "smaller" is a relative term, I guess. Being crewed by barely trained idiots is a pretty good justification for an autoloader, but still using one that's a known safety hazard and making no real attempt to fix it for 2 decades is just sad.
>>44814471 Assuming a 12th level wizard. Upon spotting the Tank, he casts invisibility, (either through winning initiative or with a celerity spell). He then moves closer to the tank, and casts Wall of stone, essentially sealing in the tank to all directions except up. He flies over the tank on his already summoned phantom steed (since it lasts the entire day and is probably his favored means of transportation by this level). He casts cloudkill. Waits until the duration runs out. Then casts cloudkill again.
The problem with Wizards are they behave more like chemically equipped invisible Apaches than tanks.
>>44814490 Can confirm. Most chemical weapons these days are liquid and will fuck you up beyond all belief just from skin absorption. Some, blister agents in particular, will fuck you up faster if you breathe them in, but they'll still tear your ass up even without that.
>>44814549 What edition is this based on, might I ask? I dont recall seeing celerity in the 5e spell list off-hand.
But yeah, fair point I guess. But Invisiblity only stops visual identification, right? Correct me if Im wrong, but doesn't the M1 Abrams have more means of target acquisition?
>>44814583 Well, on a smaller scale anyway. I mean, if you use it in the middle of a large-scale battle to kill a bunch of mooks would it still not be technically a war-crime? Or does it need to make a certain distance/kill-count to be classified a war-crime
>>44814628 Wait, flame-throwers were made illegal? Thats surprising.
Although, to be fair, the Geneva Convention isn't exactly the most effective thing to stop armies.
>>44814504 >Calling a tank "smaller" is a relative term, I guess.
Well, yeah. It's still a tank.
>Being crewed by barely trained idiots is a pretty good justification for an autoloader,
Nobody ever learnt anything in military service and everyone in the soviet union was an idiot. Gotcha.
>but still using one that's a known safety hazard
Compared to the enormous safety of getting your leg shot off, demonstrated above? It's a "safety hazard" in the sense that if your armour is penetrated, you're marginally more likely to have a worse time in a soviet vehicle than the Abrams. You're still going to have a rotten time and be out of action. And again, crew safety is a cultural priority, not an absolute one; the US can't afford another war where it's lads keep coming home in bodybags. The M1 was being designed right after Vietnam. If it weren't for that, I doubt the US would've cared much about making the crew protection so high in the event it got ammo racked.
>making no real attempt to fix it for 2 decades is just sad. I've addressed why it's not an objective flaw, but as for not replacing it, how's the F-35 coming along? Or, indeed, future combat systems? When the cold war ended, nobody needed tons of MBTs anymore.
>>44814588 Yes it can, wall of stone can be shaped however you like, and can definately go around all the sides of the tank. >>44814606 >Also, cloudkill moves. True. But not if it is surrounded by a wall of stone. Because it doesn't move up.
>>44814656 >>>44814583 >Well, on a smaller scale anyway. I mean, if you use it in the middle of a large-scale battle to kill a bunch of mooks would it still not be technically a war-crime? Or does it need to make a certain distance/kill-count to be classified a war-crime You can kill an entire village with Cloudkill, Intentional or unintentional.
However I dont think theres a clause anywhere in the Geneva convention that makes it apply to wizards.
>>44814656 Well, I believe that technically speaking, you can commit war-crime on a single person. But if we're assuming fantasy realm, it's reasonable to assume Geneva Conventions might not be a thing at all.
>>44814672 >Yes it can, wall of stone can be shaped however you like, and can definately go around all the sides of the tank. I'm not debating that it can go around the tank. I'm telling you straight up that it is not thick enough to stop a tank from moving.
>>44814731 I dont think a division of tanks could even do it though. I mean even with a lot of tanks the fact that you can just alter reality to make the tanks into butter instead makes it kind of a moot point at levels above 15. >>44814719 >>Yes it can, wall of stone can be shaped however you like, and can definately go around all the sides of the tank. >I'm not debating that it can go around the tank. I'm telling you straight up that it is not thick enough to stop a tank from moving. If you ground the tank with a solid fog first it wouldn't have time to build up enough speed to break through a wall of stone.
>>44814656 >But Invisiblity only stops visual identification, right? Correct me if Im wrong, but doesn't the M1 Abrams have more means of target acquisition?
Undefined. Keep in mind that Invisibility also stops Darkvision and the like, and Infravision in earlier editions when that was still a thing. So it could be argued that it covers the entire electromagnetic spectrum - or at least large parts of it - and not just visible light. Thermal at least would be out. I don't think Abrams uses sonar for target acquisition, at least normally.
>Wait, flame-throwers were made illegal? Thats surprising. I thought so, but now I'm not so sure. At any rate, at least they're not commonly used by militaries around the world anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons
>>44814659 >how's the F-35 coming along At last count, over budget but aside from the gun and a few systems still being under development, operational if they decide to just go with existing tech.
>everyone in the soviet union was an idiot. Gotcha. See, you're learning. The US puts in the effort to train their tank crews so that the loaders is an asset, the Soviets assumed that a loader would be as brain-dead as most of the people they sold the stuff to.
>Compared to the enormous safety of getting your leg shot off, demonstrated above? Yep, difference of one guy losing a leg vs everyone burning alive because the only places the flame from a cook-off can go is out the cupola or out the barrel.
The scary thing about a tank is the fact that it's able to be a threat to an Epic-tier character in spite of the fact that it's a mundane, mass-produced machine made of no magical material; a single tank might be a bit of a doozy, but a large unit of tanks, say one tank per party member spells serous trouble.
>>44813519 remade the math a shot on lower chest liver from light crossbow would have a 73 chance to survive One dc and pen that would make the chance to survive be 10 times lower by shooting at the same place is a pen of 0.9 and dc of 3
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.