Mech's Vrs Tanks

[Long Shot]

I have to say that I like what MGP has done with the game, and it's better then most D20 modern vehicle based games I have seen. Heck the heay weapons due good damage as they move up, and ranges get better. Ect, much better then many games like WOTC version of modern and Star Wars.

I must ask a question, and see if I am crazy.

I would strike me that a tank, the size of a modern MBT is a simplier platform to armor the a mech, and would be able to cary more armor then a mech. A tank, seams to be (from the front at least) more sloped then most mech's, giving it more armor for less weight, and defelecting some of the blast.

Also, things like reactive armor, is mounted by size of vehicle not by how much armor the vehicle has. Many of the armor add on's are sized based, not point based.

There are no Spring Plates, or spaced armor plates in the game, both increase armor vaule.

Just a thought.

I'm not sure if the armor vaule should go down as shots are taken.

I watched the tale end of a Anti-Armor Ambush in Baghdad and a M1A1 took about 120 HEAT based anti-Armor weapons and lized through it. From RPG's to SBG-9's. A BG-9 is a 106mm Recoliess Rifle which fires a HEAT round that weighs about 25LBS. So it tends to leave a mark. It was not the only M1 that was ambushed by dismounts and hit over 100 times, to my knowlege no US tankers where killed in the battle of baghdad and all the tanks that where "knocked out" where from other M1`'s after they where tracked our had there engines killed. The M1 like the box says it the great vehicle and its nice to have a few around anytime the going gets tough, or you need a few city blocks cleared

 

[Lane Shutt]

I would strike me that a tank, the size of a modern MBT is a simplier platform to armor the a mech, and would be able to cary more armor then a mech.

Do you have Armored Companies?
While the AC design rules are less realistic in that armor and damage are not allocated to sides/ front/ rear locations it does have the advantage of allowing heavy armor to be purchases cheaply. Is 100 pts armor and hardness 10 enough for your MBT?

Also, things like reactive armor, is mounted by size of vehicle not by how much armor the vehicle has. Many of the armor add on's are sized based, not point based.

IRL reactive armor would be base on size of the protected area, IIRC it would also have a rapidly decreasing chance of providing it's protection. Last I heard there was a problem of panels reacting to the detonation of adjacent panels.

Some realism is lost in favor of playability. What is the size of an arm for a medium mek? How about the back of the arm?

There are no Spring Plates, or spaced armor plates in the game, both increase armor vaule.

I'm not sure how spring plates would fit in game mechanics but assume that spaced armor is a standard feature of all armor installations.

Still good points. There are a lot of things that did not make the rules or could use revision. Maybe there will be an overhaul when the minis game comes out.

I'm not sure if the armor vaule should go down as shots are taken.

I watched the tale end of a Anti-Armor Ambush in Baghdad and a M1A1 took about 120 HEAT based anti-Armor weapons and lized through it.

There was some discussion about this during playtesting. While ablative armor is less realistic it is more playable. imagine game play where armor is constant but requires rules for non penetrating hit damage, penetrating hits, criticals, internal fires based on the design choices like location of fuel tanks (inside or outside the primary armor), spalling, crew morale effects of non penetrating hits, etc...

IIRC the original rules did not have hardness values for armor. While it added complexity the trade off greatly enhanced flavor.

Your example of the M1A1 could easily be reflected in game terms.
The M1A1 would have at least 100 pts composite armor and hardness 10 vs HEAM rounds. The RPG would be an anti mek missile launcher which has a (hit point damage) of 8D10, without a critical the SP damage would be 8 points max, lower than the hardness of the tanks armor.

--
Lane

 

[Long Shot]

Yes I have Armoured Comp, ans think its a pretty good book. Again the game is one of the Best D20 vehicle based things going.

I get the buying things like RA by the point, as the effects stay to the vehicle/mech is knocked out. You can't overload a side, with fire and force all the reactive armor to deploy then finish the vehicle off once its armor is used up. Not sure on some of the effects of it, To my understanding Iraq didn't use any RA on the vehicles, and I am not sure if it would matter. Well I never saw a Iraqi tank or IFV knocked out or captured that had RA on it, or even the mounts for it on it.
My understanding is the best version of Russian RA adds around 300-400mm of armor against a HEAT based attack. Assuming you are in a T-72 made in Iraq (or some other non-Europe based manufacture) you most likley on your way to see if Allah is really there if targeted by a 120mm HEAT or HESH round. Iraq used mostly homemade tanks, tank ammo ect, which prepformed well below even Russian Specs. A 125mm Chinese or middle east made SABO round punches about 25% less armor then a Russian one. Heck even there AK's such, with a middile east made AK, firing middile east rounds maybe firing only 3 rounds out of a mag. We had tons of captured weapons, and I learened you could even get a Russian AK to jam if you fired non Russian, European or Chinese rounds in it. I didn't think AK's jammed. But I quess the folks in the Middile east have really low quility control standards.

 

[Sundog]

Actually, the "reliability" of the AK series guns is something of an urban myth. They're actually less reliable than an M-16 or a Steyr AUG, though they're sufficiently reliable for regular battlefield use.
They got the "high reliability" moniker because basic field maintenance of one is so damn easy. A good brush and some oil is all that's needed, and it's made of solid, simple parts, so it's rare for an AK to actually break. That, and the fact that the Russians were willing to sell them for actually less than cost of production in many cases, is the reason they became the third world weapon of choice.

Also, the Russian reactive armour never was overly effective. It had a nasty tendency to burn when hit by light arms, and had only a 70% activation rate (that is, 30% of the time the reactive armour didn't detonate when a heavy shell hit). Still, the Red Army is still working on this technology, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they worked the bugs out in time.

Hmm, working reactive armour atop modern western laminates - could be a new lease of life for the armour boys...

 

[Long Shot]

My understanding was that the 3rd Gen Active Reactive armor devolped by the Russians with German help worked pretty well. Kontra-5 I think is the name of it, spelling I;m sure is wrong. While I was in Germany, I got to go to an AAR on the fighting in the break-away republics. A key point brought up there was T-72S/T-80UM's with the new reactive armor where doing quite well, Even tacking 125mm SADO in the sides from Anti-Tank guns and living through it, even at close range that is often seen in city fighting. The 3rd Gen stuff, is active, IE some of it explodes before the round hits and can deflect SABO enough to make it fail to penetrate. Also it works wounders on ATGM;s and rockets when it works. A few T-72's models where reported to have lived through similar anti-armour attacks that M1's went through in Baghdad and other Iraq cities. From my perception the Iraqi army at times fought bravely, but where poorly led. Not that the had a chance mind you, but leadership, and genreal knowlege of modern war tended to defeat them long before it ever got to the shooting part. They where brave, foolishly brave in many places, but bravely alone can;t make up for a 30 year tech gap, and a keen understanding of modern war. I,m sure my gradfather would find falt with some of the stuff we did in Iraq, and I,m sure the lessens he learened from the Germans in France where more painful. Luckly the US army is unlikley to fight a power like the Germans in the near future. And after training with the German army quite a few times they sure are not the great army of 1942 any more, any more then the US army is the army that crossed the Rhine in 45, It takes great foes and harship to truley make a great army. We in the modern US army, have never been tested like our fahters and grandfathers where.

 

[Sundog]

If that's Kontara-5 then it's two generations more advanced than the stuff I saw; it's probably a lot more effective. (Actually, the guys using the old stuff I talked to didn't overly mind the failure rate; anything that gave them a better chance to survive an incoming HEAT shell was fine by them. It was the possibility of the RA plates igniting and burning like thermite that made them wary of the stuff.)

 

[S'mon]

I'm not sure if the armor vaule should go down as shots are taken.

I watched the tale end of a Anti-Armor Ambush in Baghdad and a M1A1 took about 120 HEAT based anti-Armor weapons and lized through it. From RPG's to SBG-9's. A BG-9 is a 106mm Recoliess Rifle which fires a HEAT round that weighs about 25LBS. So it tends to leave a mark...

I think it's hard when designing modern combat rules to get armour degradation right - clearly it's something that can happen, otherwise 30mm autocannon wouldn't be effective weapons vs light armoured vehicles, OTOH it seems to take a lot of non-pentrating hits to really degrade armour effectiveness and you could fire a .50 M2HB at an Abrams all day without having noticeable effect, so setting the balance is hard. For most purposes, something like "damage most equal half the armour value to cause degradation" might work, or else set the degradation rate very low; 30mm autocannon rounds might damage the face of an Abrams' armour but it would probably take hundreds of thousands to actually wear through the stuff, whereas the same cannon used against an IFV (infantry fighting vehicle) might not penetrate initially but would rapidly tear up the armour and start to do damage to the interior & crew.