Golden age Weaponsmiths Abrams Tank

[slade2501]

Edit: this is my take on the tank presented in Merc-Ops as helpfully stated by a fellow board member. Stats severely changed and edited; no infingement intended.

GAW-M1A3 Abrams Main Battle Tank
GAW has recently uncovered a stock or M1A3 Abrams tanks in a subterranean bunker in southern Ohio.

The Abrams MBT was once the mainstay of the old U.S. Empire's mechanized armored force; quick, tough and well armed, improving upon the tank was a relatively straightforward project for the engineers of GWA. Golden Age has a small factory building new tanks, at a rate of 2-4 per month (not publicly known). GAW keeps this quiet in order to prevent provoking the Coalition.
The four man crew is comprised of a tank pilot, a main gunner who handles the main gun and the pulse laser, the communications officer who can also man a turret laser, and the commander, who can also man the second turret laser.

Model Type: GAW-M1A3 Improved Abrams Main Battle Tank
Crew: four, 1 pilot, 1 main gunner, 1 comm officer/turret gunner and 1 commander/turret gunner.
MDC by Location:

Turret Hatches (2) - 25 each
Main Turret - 91
Improved 120 mm Auto-Cannon - 50
*Turret mounted Pulse Laser- 20
*Sensor turret (1, rear turret) - 20
*Laser rifles (2, 1 at each turret hatch) - 15 each
**Track Treads (2) - 45 each
***Main Body - 366
Reinforced Pilot's Compartment - 25

*Item marked is small and requires a Called shot with a -2 penalty to strike.

**Depleting the MDC of a tread requires a Called shot at -2 to strike, but destroying one set of treads
immobilizes the tank until it can be replaced. Replacing a tread will take 1D6x10 +10 minutes by a trained
crew (12 replacements are carried standard on board) or three times as long by an inexperienced crew.

Note: for simplicity, destroying a tread does NOT destroy the whole track, but instead breaks it and immobilizes the vehicle. Replacing the broken tread repairs the track, and gets the tank rolling again. Any mechanic with a workshop and MDC material can make a new tread, costing 2000 credits and taking 1d4 hours.

***Depleting the MDC of the main body completely destroys the vehicle.

Speed:
Maximum speed: 40 mph (64kph).
Range: 500 miles (800km) before requiring refueling. The Abrams is able to negotiate gradient up to 60%, side slope to 40%, cross a water obstacle of 1.21 m deep maximum, can climb vertical obstacles of 6 ft (1.87m) and can cross a trench of 9 ft (2.81 m) maximum. The electric model can completely submerge for up to 15 minutes before the internal air begins to fowl and endanger the crew.

Statistical Data:
Height: 8ft (2.44m)
Width: 12ft (3.6m)
Length: 32ft (9.77m) to the end of gun, 26ft (7.93m) hull length
Weight: 40 tons fully loaded (shaved 20 tons off the original by using modern armor materials)
Cargo: internal storage space for a few weapons; rear turret rack capable of holding several more, or water, food, tents, etc. Equal to three large foot lockers.
Power System: flex-fuel turbine engine, 500 mile (800km) range on a 250 gallon fuel load.
Market Cost: 200,000 credits. An electric engine model (12 hour battery life) is available for 250,000 credits. Batteries recharge in 2 hours.

Weapon Systems:
1. 120mm smooth bore Auto-cannon: firing explosive shells at line of sight targets (+1, laser designator) or like an artillery unit, firing at designated coordinates without actually seeing the target (-2 strike).
The auto-cannon can rotate 360 degrees and aim up or down 60 degrees, allowing the tank to engage low-slow flyers (-3 to hit any flyer moving faster than 80mph/128kph). Laser targeting gives a +3 bonus to strike, both at rest and moving. The main gun is loud when fired, and makes a stunning flash and noise.

Primary Purpose: Anti-Tank/Anti-Robot/Anti-Dragon
Secondary Purpose: Self-Defense
Mega Damage: 6D6 MD per high explosive (HE) round to a 10ft/3m radius, or 1D4x10 MD to a 3ft/0.9m radius for Armor Piercing (AP) round.
Rate of Fire: a maximum of three attacks per melee round (auto-loader takes time to cycle rounds).
Effective Range: 6000ft (1828m) for all rounds.
Payload: 80 rounds; typically a mix of half and half, plus six smoke shells (cover a 40ft/12.2m radius).

2. Laser Pulse Rife: this gun is mounted in the turret under the main gun, forcing the whole turret to move. It serves as an anti-air weapon, defending the tank against flying power armor and aircraft.

Primary Purpose: anti-aircraft
Secondary Purpose: Anti-infantry/Soft-targets
Mega Damage: 3d6md per pulse, or 1d6x10MD per tri-pulse.
Rate of fire: 1 pulse or 1 tri-pulse per melee action.
Effective range: 3000ft (938m)
Payload: unlimited (fed by vehicle engine).


3. Top turret laser rifles (2): accessible from the top turret hatches, each swivel mounted and e-clip fed.

Primary Purpose: Anti-Infantry
Secondary Purpose:Self-Defense
Mega Damage: 3d6 MD per blast.
Rate of Fire: a single shot per melee action.
Payload: 15 shots per e-clip, 20 per long e-clip. Turret mounted ammo box holds a dozen e-clips.

5. Systems of Note: Vehicular radio with a 50 mile (80km) range, and passive night vision with a 2000ft (610m) range. Infrared and ultraviolet optics are available for a extra 5000 credits each.

[glitterboy2098]

actually the Abrams already has an official GAW write up in mercops. Pg127.
alongside the M113 APC, Humvee, a Spec Ops Dune Buggy (basically a Desert Patrol Vehicle), the A-10 Thunderbolt II, C-130 Hercules, AH-64 Apache, and CH-47 Chinook.

[slade2501]

actually the Abrams already has an official GAW write up in mercops. Pg127.
alongside the M113 APC, Humvee, a Spec Ops Dune Buggy (basically a Desert Patrol Vehicle), the A-10 Thunderbolt II, C-130 Hercules, AH-64 Apache, and CH-47 Chinook.

Its true, I just liked this redo better. It felt fit more in-line with the original (no offense to that or Merc-Ops, a great book). the missile pods seemed way outta character, the armor too thin for a MBT (even a rebuilt) and the original had dual turret anti-infantry weapons which are able to be replaced with cheap energy weapons. Instead of old machineguns with ram-jet rounds you can have cheap pulse lasers that kick out more damage than a samas railgun. I also went through the actual Abrams specs for exact dimensions, movement, speed, clearance and other options, including new rules on tank tread damage, replacement, etc. I also gave it multiple fuel/engine options, to remain competitive vs Chipwell stuff. I did keep the main gun, as I rather liked that. It just seemed to make more sense. Same with GAW building all new ones and passing them off as ancient rebuilds. Compared to most 105 PA + goods, an Abrams tank would be relatively simple compared to making a Power Armor, a hovercraft or a Robot vehicle.

Hope I didn't violate any posting rules. I felt I changed it enough to warrant showing to people.

I also have a serious love for this vehicle, and wanted to see it as a solid option for adventurers and player groups and am alternative to PA and robots.

[slade2501]

I also stated up a version of the M113 that reflects the 11th armored Cavalry "Blackhorse" ACAV (armored Cavalry Assault Vehicle) that carried a 50cal for the main turret and two M60 machine guns (one on each side) as wing guns. Very nifty vehicle for the 1960's.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Ill agree that the up-armoring on the GAW-stuff seemed really light. If you simply replaced the armor on the Abrams with an equal weight of MDC armor (which is usually *lighter* than old-school armor) it should have had a decent amount of MDC - same for any of their upgrades.

Only reason i can see it being so light is to really keep costs down, i guess.

The cannon itself doesn't need upgrading but i can see thoroughly modern rounds being made for it that inflict more damage than what you listed, simply because a mini-missile warhead is smaller than those shells. Hell, you could just use mini-missile warheads.

[slade2501]

Ill agree that the up-armoring on the GAW-stuff seemed really light. If you simply replaced the armor on the Abrams with an equal weight of MDC armor (which is usually *lighter* than old-school armor) it should have had a decent amount of MDC - same for any of their upgrades.

Only reason i can see it being so light is to really keep costs down, i guess.

The cannon itself doesn't need upgrading but i can see thoroughly modern rounds being made for it that inflict more damage than what you listed, simply because a mini-missile warhead is smaller than those shells. Hell, you could just use mini-missile warheads.

you could use mini-missile warheads. but I would argue that the cannon-firing action could detonate the missiles due to acceleration forces. would probably have to redesign the warhead trigger mechanism, and GAW probably finds it easier to reproduce the old style cannon ammo than spend time and credits designing a new round from scratch. Which would be FAR easier still than replacing the main gun. even changing out the barrel on an Abrams is quite the ***** of a job, never mind remounting the main gun or replacing a turret.

That said, they could probably try to build some specialty rounds with different explosive mixes, or gas/smoke rounds, IR-opaque smoke, radar blocking, ECM, etc. make the gun more versatile.

I have a beautiful mental vision of one of these main gun rounds slow-mo shattering some CS grunt's torso like a dinner plate filled with ketchup, his squad's scorn and laughter suddenly silenced as they are splashed with their fellow's gibs. A Samas pilot grips his railgun tighter in dawning realization of the threat as the turret gunners open fire with their laser weapons and more main gun rounds pound in, chewing 20ft bites out of the landscape and throwing troopers bodies like ragdolls. The sound of 40 tons of turbine driven battle-metal tearing up soil, rock and trees as it grinds shredded armor and flesh into the earth. The sweet poisonous smell of cordite, paired with the servo-motor whine of the turret's rotation. the returning fire gouging and scratching at armor, cutting but not deep enough. A trooper's scream radioed and sharply cut short as biting tank treads roll him under like a set of hungry giant's teeth........

[Nightmartree]

you could use mini-missile warheads. but I would argue that the cannon-firing action could detonate the missiles due to acceleration forces. would probably have to redesign the warhead trigger mechanism, and GAW probably finds it easier to reproduce the old style cannon ammo than spend time and credits designing a new round from scratch. Which would be FAR easier still than replacing the main gun. even changing out the barrel on an Abrams is quite the ***** of a job, never mind remounting the main gun or replacing a turret.

I have a beautiful mental vision of one of these main gun rounds slow-mo shattering some CS grunt's torso like a dinner plate filled with ketchup, his squad's scorn and laughter suddenly silenced as they are splashed with their fellow's gibs. A Samas pilot grips his railgun tighter in dawning realization of the threat as the turret gunners open fire with their laser weapons and more main gun rounds pound in, chewing 20ft bites out of the landscape and throwing troopers bodies like ragdolls. The sound of 40 tons of turbine driven battle-metal tearing up soil, rock and trees as it grinds shredded armor and flesh into the earth. The sweet poisonous smell of cordite, paired with the servo-motor whine of the turret's rotation. the returning fire gouging and scratching at armor, cutting but not deep enough. A trooper's scream radioed and sharply cut short as biting tank treads roll him under like a set of hungry giant's teeth........

Warning! we have a tank nut! runnnnnnnnn! (tanks, still cool in a game with giant robots and dragons)

And you should be able to manage a payload by simply changing the explosives to a non impact triggered explosive, likely something electric and run a timer. Or whats probably easier if you know your math is build the round to not detonate based on the acceleration energy but the impact energy (which should be higher coming to a sudden stop) this lets you have high explosive impact rounds. The reason to go for an electrical timed one is the ability to fire a heavy shot into/through armor and then have a timer detonate it by the crew compartment. This could be automated again by having the impact send a signal back to the timer.

they would likely be more expensive but that's the price you pay for quality, and giving your tank that extra kick

[slade2501]

you could use mini-missile warheads. but I would argue that the cannon-firing action could detonate the missiles due to acceleration forces. would probably have to redesign the warhead trigger mechanism, and GAW probably finds it easier to reproduce the old style cannon ammo than spend time and credits designing a new round from scratch. Which would be FAR easier still than replacing the main gun. even changing out the barrel on an Abrams is quite the ***** of a job, never mind remounting the main gun or replacing a turret.

I have a beautiful mental vision of one of these main gun rounds slow-mo shattering some CS grunt's torso like a dinner plate filled with ketchup, his squad's scorn and laughter suddenly silenced as they are splashed with their fellow's gibs. A Samas pilot grips his railgun tighter in dawning realization of the threat as the turret gunners open fire with their laser weapons and more main gun rounds pound in, chewing 20ft bites out of the landscape and throwing troopers bodies like ragdolls. The sound of 40 tons of turbine driven battle-metal tearing up soil, rock and trees as it grinds shredded armor and flesh into the earth. The sweet poisonous smell of cordite, paired with the servo-motor whine of the turret's rotation. the returning fire gouging and scratching at armor, cutting but not deep enough. A trooper's scream radioed and sharply cut short as biting tank treads roll him under like a set of hungry giant's teeth........

Warning! we have a tank nut! runnnnnnnnn! (tanks, still cool in a game with giant robots and dragons)

And you should be able to manage a payload by simply changing the explosives to a non impact triggered explosive, likely something electric and run a timer. Or whats probably easier if you know your math is build the round to not detonate based on the acceleration energy but the impact energy (which should be higher coming to a sudden stop) this lets you have high explosive impact rounds. The reason to go for an electrical timed one is the ability to fire a heavy shot into/through armor and then have a timer detonate it by the crew compartment. This could be automated again by having the impact send a signal back to the timer.

they would likely be more expensive but that's the price you pay for quality, and giving your tank that extra kick

I was toying with the idea of retro-fitting that a-10 warthog main gun into the Abrams chassis. tell me that wouldn't be fun......

[TeeAychEeMarchHare]

you could use mini-missile warheads. but I would argue that the cannon-firing action could detonate the missiles due to acceleration forces. would probably have to redesign the warhead trigger mechanism, and GAW probably finds it easier to reproduce the old style cannon ammo than spend time and credits designing a new round from scratch. Which would be FAR easier still than replacing the main gun. even changing out the barrel on an Abrams is quite the ***** of a job, never mind remounting the main gun or replacing a turret.

I have a beautiful mental vision of one of these main gun rounds slow-mo shattering some CS grunt's torso like a dinner plate filled with ketchup, his squad's scorn and laughter suddenly silenced as they are splashed with their fellow's gibs. A Samas pilot grips his railgun tighter in dawning realization of the threat as the turret gunners open fire with their laser weapons and more main gun rounds pound in, chewing 20ft bites out of the landscape and throwing troopers bodies like ragdolls. The sound of 40 tons of turbine driven battle-metal tearing up soil, rock and trees as it grinds shredded armor and flesh into the earth. The sweet poisonous smell of cordite, paired with the servo-motor whine of the turret's rotation. the returning fire gouging and scratching at armor, cutting but not deep enough. A trooper's scream radioed and sharply cut short as biting tank treads roll him under like a set of hungry giant's teeth........

Warning! we have a tank nut! runnnnnnnnn! (tanks, still cool in a game with giant robots and dragons)

And you should be able to manage a payload by simply changing the explosives to a non impact triggered explosive, likely something electric and run a timer. Or whats probably easier if you know your math is build the round to not detonate based on the acceleration energy but the impact energy (which should be higher coming to a sudden stop) this lets you have high explosive impact rounds. The reason to go for an electrical timed one is the ability to fire a heavy shot into/through armor and then have a timer detonate it by the crew compartment. This could be automated again by having the impact send a signal back to the timer.

they would likely be more expensive but that's the price you pay for quality, and giving your tank that extra kick

Or do like modern explosive rounds, launched grenades, rockets, etc, and the warhead doesn't arm until it's traveled X distance.

I think PB has done a massive disservice to large guns, specifically tanks and artillery. The cannon that the Abrams and Leopard mount (and similar guns on the Brit, Frog, and T-72/80/90, Chinese, etc tanks) launch a very heavy dart moving at very high speed. This will have better penetration and damage than 200 small darts that weigh a couple grams each, even if those smaller darts are moving 5x faster (which it's not...even going with GB = Mach 15, since the Abrams projectile is moving at about 4.6 times the speed of sound).

Artillery is a subject for an entirely different thread.

[Nightmartree]

I was toying with the idea of retro-fitting that a-10 warthog main gun into the Abrams chassis. tell me that wouldn't be fun......

That wouldn't be fun

Firing it is fun

[Nightmartree]

Or do like modern explosive rounds, launched grenades, rockets, etc, and the warhead doesn't arm until it's traveled X distance.

I think PB has done a massive disservice to large guns, specifically tanks and artillery. The cannon that the Abrams and Leopard mount (and similar guns on the Brit, Frog, and T-72/80/90, Chinese, etc tanks) launch a very heavy dart moving at very high speed. This will have better penetration and damage than 200 small darts that weigh a couple grams each, even if those smaller darts are moving 5x faster (which it's not...even going with GB = Mach 15, since the Abrams projectile is moving at about 4.6 times the speed of sound).

Artillery is a subject for an entirely different thread.

I can't comment on the ballistics, but I will say that somewhere around my house I have a notebook where I wrote up HK weapons. Heavy Kinetics, basically the goal being how fast and hard can you throw a solid hunk of metal and how big a piece of metal can you throw. They weren't based in any real science or calculations, but they fit nicely for the system I think. Low ammo (cause its HEAVY), high damage (if this hits you, you know it) and the satisfaction of hitting something really hard with basically a cylindrical cannon ball.

So all these rail guns are shooting dozens of shots per pull of the trigger, or you need explosives to do kinetic damage most cases. This is the single shot kinetics. Its not really what your talking about but it does move away from "Lots of little" shots and into one big one, though my focus was more on a smashing transfer of kinetic energy than penetration.

Edit: found the book, ya I was playing around with alien and scifi weapons, especially an electromagnetic firing system that went 2 ways, one firing bursts of needles at high speeds to penetrate, the other firing heavy cylinders to smash.

[TeeAychEeMarchHare]

Or do like modern explosive rounds, launched grenades, rockets, etc, and the warhead doesn't arm until it's traveled X distance.

I think PB has done a massive disservice to large guns, specifically tanks and artillery. The cannon that the Abrams and Leopard mount (and similar guns on the Brit, Frog, and T-72/80/90, Chinese, etc tanks) launch a very heavy dart moving at very high speed. This will have better penetration and damage than 200 small darts that weigh a couple grams each, even if those smaller darts are moving 5x faster (which it's not...even going with GB = Mach 15, since the Abrams projectile is moving at about 4.6 times the speed of sound).

Artillery is a subject for an entirely different thread.

I can't comment on the ballistics, but I will say that somewhere around my house I have a notebook where I wrote up HK weapons. Heavy Kinetics, basically the goal being how fast and hard can you throw a solid hunk of metal and how big a piece of metal can you throw. They weren't based in any real science or calculations, but they fit nicely for the system I think. Low ammo (cause its HEAVY), high damage (if this hits you, you know it) and the satisfaction of hitting something really hard with basically a cylindrical cannon ball.

So all these rail guns are shooting dozens of shots per pull of the trigger, or you need explosives to do kinetic damage most cases. This is the single shot kinetics. Its not really what your talking about but it does move away from "Lots of little" shots and into one big one, though my focus was more on a smashing transfer of kinetic energy than penetration.

It's not so different really.

If that Abrams cannon was loaded with a grapeshot round, equal mass and velocity, it would be absolute murder against anything unarmored or lightly armored (monsters, infantry, most light vehicles). Against other tanks, robots, or high-end PA, it's not going to do much. That's why AP munitions use ONE penetrator, and it's heavy. I probably could have done the math when I was in college, but it's been almost 10 years and I've done very little with any of the stuff I studied. I could probably find something if I spent some quality time with Google, but I'm at work right now.

[TeeAychEeMarchHare]

The cylinders would make awesome wounds against soft targets, too.

[Nightmartree]

The cylinders would make awesome wounds against soft targets, too.

Currently I have them worked up for a SDC world, the basic rifle EMHK-R2 "Slugger" does 1D6x10 damage and has 8 shots and is the only one of the 4 EMHK (Electro Magnetic Heavy Kinetics) guns to NOT have a 1/2 DMG through AR. If I converted them to rifts I'd have to choose between leaving the damage the same or halving it, and whether they still do damage through armor (probably going to do SDC damage through armor).

The big guns are the H4 "The Greeting" which weighs 55 Ibs (no idea if this is reasonable) and is a shoulder held launcher. It does 5d6x10 with 1/2 going through armor and has a range of 2400ft. 4 rounds total. This is the equivelant of a rocket launcher and likely your not carrying any reloads (i can't remember exactly but the rounds were about 5 inches...wide)

and the S13 (S17 is the same gun but 1 extra round in clip and up to 3 round burst fire), this was intended to be a sniper rifle, including being somewhat silence (at least on the guns end, bullet tends to make a lotta noise wherever it hits). Weighs 20Ibs, damage is 2D6x10 and 1/2 through armor. range is 2400ft and has 5 rounds. Has a targeting system +2 to strike, telescopic, thermographic, and night vision. The gun is the most silent of the HK weapons with only a slight crackling in the air around the user before the bullet hits.

I think i'd leave them as full damage actually, they tend to be limited more by ammo weight and small clips that anything. The R2 is supposed to weight 18 pounds fully loaded and i think 8 of that is the bullets.

[Blue_Lion]

The biggest problem I have with golden age is making the gear have poor stats because it is based on sdc gear.
If you replace the sdc armor with the same MDC as is used for MDC tanks they should have the same general mount of MDC.(the MDC comes from the armor of the tank not some high tech field.)
It should be similar damage for cannon explosive round damage for all cannons of the same size.
The iron heart 120 having a HE round doing more damage than the Abrams makes no sense to me.

[T-Willard]

I've never understood WHY they refit the M113.

That thing was complete crap. A rolling crackerbox on treads that didn't have enough armor to deflect anything serious and too much armor to go fast, as well as it rolled if it hit a beer can.

Would have been better off to refit BAFV's.

A drunken moron could make a better APC than the M113.

[TeeAychEeMarchHare]

I've never understood WHY they refit the M113.

That thing was complete crap. A rolling crackerbox on treads that didn't have enough armor to deflect anything serious and too much armor to go fast, as well as it rolled if it hit a beer can.

Would have been better off to refit BAFV's.

A drunken moron could make a better APC than the M113.

My guess would be "Because they were there". And "Because they could". Plenty of bandits, two-bit merc groups, one-horse towns, etc, would love to get their hands on something like this. Some armor is better than no armor (especially when it doesn't matter how thin it is, it's MDC, and therefore impervious to normal weapons. Plus the vehicle will keep moving and fighting until every last point is gone, since there are no rules for shots that penetrate armor and hit crew, damage engines, set off ammo, etc. But that's all looking a little deeper than your average bandit is going to look).

[glitterboy2098]

Ill agree that the up-armoring on the GAW-stuff seemed really light. If you simply replaced the armor on the Abrams with an equal weight of MDC armor (which is usually *lighter* than old-school armor) it should have had a decent amount of MDC - same for any of their upgrades.

Only reason i can see it being so light is to really keep costs down, i guess.

first, while we talk about 'armor' as if it is a separate thing, the fact is that the armor on an armored vehicle like a tank or APC is integral to the structure of the hull. you can't simply 'remove' the armor and replace it, without literally just rendering the vehicle a collection of loose parts for the drive train and weapon systems. (IRL Damaged tanks actually cannot be repaired in the field.. they have to be sent back to the manufacturer who basically re-manufacturers them, usually upgrading them in the process.
what GAW would be doing is Applique Armoring.. the addition of extra armor plating over the standard. so basically, adding a shell of newer materials over the existing SDC vehicle.
to give a visual example, this [Image] is of the prototype for the M1A1 fitted with Applique armor plating on the turret, which was one of the upgrades being considered at the time. they are basically just plates of additional composite armor bolted to the outside. (it was later decided that it would be more effective to just switch manufacturing of the tank to to a newer armor composite, and arrange for older vehicles ot be retired or sent back to be stripped down to parts and rebuilt with the new design.)

the problem with Applique armor is that there is a limit to how much you can apply without restricting the vehicles capabilities. not so much in weight as in bulk. and Applique armor is invariably weaker over all than integral armor, because the systems holding it onto the vehicle are generally weaker than the armor itself, and it tends to leave notable gaps in the protection where the plates meet, or where plates cannot be mounted.

The biggest problem I have with golden age is making the gear have poor stats because it is based on sdc gear.
If you replace the sdc armor with the same MDC as is used for MDC tanks they should have the same general mount of MDC.(the MDC comes from the armor of the tank not some high tech field.)
It should be similar damage for cannon explosive round damage for all cannons of the same size.
The iron heart 120 having a HE round doing more damage than the Abrams makes no sense to me.

It does to me because you are talking about two totally different weapon systems generations. the gun on the Iron Heart tank is built using golden age materials.. that is, MDC materials. this means it can withstand greater breech pressures and is much more resistant to barrel wear and fouling. while the system on the M1 is a 20th century system. SDC materials, albeit very good sdc materials. the iron Heart gun would be able to use a much stronger propellant charge, giving the projectile a lot more energy. that would make a huge difference for kinetic projectiles like the APFSDS.
with explosive rounds like HE and AP (HEAT), it is going to be more a case of the warheads involved, but there you run into engineering issues again. we are told that they are both 120mm weapons. but who says their ammo is compatible? the Iron Heart tank's gun might have a casing that is different than the Rheinmetall 120mm L44's ammo. which would preclude using them interchangeably. not unlike how Russia and the US both have a 7.62mm infantry caliber, but the American one is 7.62x51mm and the russian one is a short 7.62x39mm, preventing either side from using the other's ammunition.
and this is assuming the Iron heart tank even uses cased ammunition, and not something like case-telescoped or even caseless, which would prevent any sort of refit to the M1's guns to use them.

I've never understood WHY they refit the M113.
That thing was complete crap. A rolling crackerbox on treads that didn't have enough armor to deflect anything serious and too much armor to go fast, as well as it rolled if it hit a beer can.
Would have been better off to refit BAFV's.
A drunken moron could make a better APC than the M113.

they already have refitted the Bradley's. you can find those stats in the old Mercenaries, when GAW was first introduced.

and they got refit for the same reason so many countries around the world bought, and are still buying M113's. because sometimes all you need is a tracked box to cart a dozen people around in. they were never meant to be combat vehicles in the sense of them taking the fight to people, they were conceived as "battle taxi's".. cart the infantry up close to the frontline, and then hang back away from the shooting. and in that respect they were a major improvement (and still are) over the Halftracks and 2 1/2 ton trucks they were replacing, which were not even less armored, but had inferior cross country ability.
and the US army still retains M113's for a lot of non-combat purposes, even though we've largely replaced the m113's with Stryjers or Bradley's by now. the M113 remains as a mortar platform, command posts, basic cargo carriers, repair vehicle, recovery vehicle, field ambulance, and all sorts of support roles.

I was toying with the idea of retro-fitting that a-10 warthog main gun into the Abrams chassis. tell me that wouldn't be fun......

i don;lt think it would fit. the GAU-8 gun itself would certainly fit, it is about the same size as the Rheinmetal gun, but the ammo drum is massive, and would never fit into an M1. and that massive drum only allows for a handful of bursts of fire.

[taalismn]

I've never understood WHY they refit the M113.

That thing was complete crap. A rolling crackerbox on treads that didn't have enough armor to deflect anything serious and too much armor to go fast, as well as it rolled if it hit a beer can.

Would have been better off to refit BAFV's.

A drunken moron could make a better APC than the M113.

Because the same guy who wanted it named the 'Gavin' was really a long-lived alien infiltrator who finally managed to live long enough and use its mental powers to get the M113 pushed front and center as a viable FRONT LINE (rather than as a support platform) weapons system in an ever changing high tech combat environment?

[TeeAychEeMarchHare]

Instead of mounting the GAU-8 to an Abrams, how about shamelessly ripping off an idea from a novel and using a 120mm version of the Metal Storm weapon? (I don't remember which book it was in by John Ringo, but I know it was the series that takes place during the Posleen invasion of Earth. After the landings but before "Watch on the Rhine". I *believe* it was the same book that introduced the mega-cannon tank-like vehicle that the crew called "Bun-Bun", in honor of the Sluggy Freelance character of the same name).

[ShadowLogan]

Ill agree that the up-armoring on the GAW-stuff seemed really light. If you simply replaced the armor on the Abrams with an equal weight of MDC armor (which is usually *lighter* than old-school armor) it should have had a decent amount of MDC - same for any of their upgrades.

In general though alot of MDC values seem off, though surprising similar (at least ignoring creatures). Though the tank is pretty light, but at 1:1 conversion of SDC to MDC IINM you'd end up these retrofits/rebuilds with over 1,000MDC (the Mercenaries GAW Tank had 1200SDC before conversion).

you could use mini-missile warheads. but I would argue that the cannon-firing action could detonate the missiles due to acceleration forces. would probably have to redesign the warhead trigger mechanism, and GAW probably finds it easier to reproduce the old style cannon ammo than spend time and credits designing a new round from scratch. Which would be FAR easier still than replacing the main gun. even changing out the barrel on an Abrams is quite the ***** of a job, never mind remounting the main gun or replacing a turret.

I'm not sure firing a mini-missile would be best when you consider that both the AP and HE shells stated in MercOps and your initial post are equal or superior to their MM equivalents (6000ft range beats all the Mini-Missiles, and the HE does more damage, the AP is the same).

I was toying with the idea of retro-fitting that a-10 warthog main gun into the Abrams chassis. tell me that wouldn't be fun......

Size wise it could fit (length and such), though you'd probably have to take something out unless its externally mounted in a pod. Even then you'd need ammunition space. Maybe not the GAU-8, but the pod variant(s) for other platforms might be interesting, though you run into payload issues.

I think PB has done a massive disservice to large guns, specifically tanks and artiller

Scaling is a major issue with Palladium both in terms of offense, but also defense.

It should be similar damage for cannon explosive round damage for all cannons of the same size.
The iron heart 120 having a HE round doing more damage than the Abrams makes no sense to me.

Well they might be using different explosive material. We know from the missile table that there are several different levels of High Explosive (light, medium, heavy), no reason to suspect that the cannon shells would be any different.

what GAW would be doing is Applique Armoring.. the addition of extra armor plating over the standard. so basically, adding a shell of newer materials over the existing SDC vehicle.

Then why does the GAW M1A3 in MercOps come out at 40tons vs the 60tons (or better) of the M1 Abrams IINM (I don't see the A3 standard, so they might not be wrong, but as of the A2...)

the iron Heart gun would be able to use a much stronger propellant charge, giving the projectile a lot more energy. that would make a huge difference for kinetic projectiles like the APFSDS.

That might work as an explanation if the IH weapon had something to show for it in terms of range, but it doesn't given it has the same 6000ft range as the M1A3. The IH does have more options for shells, but with the information available and Palladium's wonky physics. Who knows (I'm not saying you're wrong).

[slade2501]

Instead of mounting the GAU-8 to an Abrams, how about shamelessly ripping off an idea from a novel and using a 120mm version of the Metal Storm weapon? (I don't remember which book it was in by John Ringo, but I know it was the series that takes place during the Posleen invasion of Earth. After the landings but before "Watch on the Rhine". I *believe* it was the same book that introduced the mega-cannon tank-like vehicle that the crew called "Bun-Bun", in honor of the Sluggy Freelance character of the same name).

You mean Ringo's Shiva weapons platforms?

[TeeAychEeMarchHare]

Instead of mounting the GAU-8 to an Abrams, how about shamelessly ripping off an idea from a novel and using a 120mm version of the Metal Storm weapon? (I don't remember which book it was in by John Ringo, but I know it was the series that takes place during the Posleen invasion of Earth. After the landings but before "Watch on the Rhine". I *believe* it was the same book that introduced the mega-cannon tank-like vehicle that the crew called "Bun-Bun", in honor of the Sluggy Freelance character of the same name).

You mean Ringo's Shiva weapons platforms?

Aye. After some time with Google, the book in question is "Hell's Faire", and apparently the weapon system is called Metal Storm. An Abrams chassis with a box that has 12 tank cannon barrels in it.

I seem to recall a Metal Storm weapon being made in real life, using rifle caliber bullets stuck in a block of propellant. With something like several hundred barrels and a dozen rounds per barrel.

Anyway, that, scaled up to the 120mm tank cannon.

Fun times.

[slade2501]

John Ringo is pretty farm down on the Hardness scale of Sci-fiction, and while i love his bat-crap crazy insane ideas, he often slides into almost fan-fiction areas of possibility and probability.

[TeeAychEeMarchHare]

John Ringo is pretty farm down on the Hardness scale of Sci-fiction, and while i love his bat-crap crazy insane ideas, he often slides into almost fan-fiction areas of possibility and probability.

Except, as I mentioned, it's an actual weapon system.

https://www.thebalance.com/metal-storm- ... em-3356135

That's one of the first results from Google.

Here's the entire results page:

https://www.google.com/search?q=metal+s ... e&ie=UTF-8

The idea isn't 'out there', since it's already a thing. Whether it's been scaled up to tank cannons, well, now I've got a bunch of websites to read to help the workday go by faster.

[eliakon]

John Ringo is pretty farm down on the Hardness scale of Sci-fiction, and while i love his bat-crap crazy insane ideas, he often slides into almost fan-fiction areas of possibility and probability.

Except, as I mentioned, it's an actual weapon system.

https://www.thebalance.com/metal-storm- ... em-3356135

That's one of the first results from Google.

Here's the entire results page:

https://www.google.com/search?q=metal+s ... e&ie=UTF-8

The idea isn't 'out there', since it's already a thing. Whether it's been scaled up to tank cannons, well, now I've got a bunch of websites to read to help the workday go by faster.

The basic idea is there yes.
But scaling up is the 'out there' bit.
Ringo is a fan of just ignoring inconvinent laws of physics. Recoil for example gets moved to 'but that messes with the mood' category.
The issue of barrel strenght is another (the explosion of the propellent is omni-directional. it only is because the barrel/casing is hard enough to withstand the blast that the energy is forced to vent in the desired direction.
So scaling up a metal storm to that size will also scale up recoil and blast... imensely.
The other issue is amunition. Metal storms use the entire gun barrel as the 'round' so every shot requires a brand new gun barrel!

[guardiandashi]

John Ringo is pretty farm down on the Hardness scale of Sci-fiction, and while i love his bat-crap crazy insane ideas, he often slides into almost fan-fiction areas of possibility and probability.

Except, as I mentioned, it's an actual weapon system.

https://www.thebalance.com/metal-storm- ... em-3356135

That's one of the first results from Google.

Here's the entire results page:

https://www.google.com/search?q=metal+s ... e&ie=UTF-8

The idea isn't 'out there', since it's already a thing. Whether it's been scaled up to tank cannons, well, now I've got a bunch of websites to read to help the workday go by faster.

The basic idea is there yes.
But scaling up is the 'out there' bit.
Ringo is a fan of just ignoring inconvinent laws of physics. Recoil for example gets moved to 'but that messes with the mood' category.
The issue of barrel strenght is another (the explosion of the propellent is omni-directional. it only is because the barrel/casing is hard enough to withstand the blast that the energy is forced to vent in the desired direction.
So scaling up a metal storm to that size will also scale up recoil and blast... imensely.
The other issue is amunition. Metal storms use the entire gun barrel as the 'round' so every shot requires a brand new gun barrel!

Actually the metal storm does not use the entire barrel as the round, what they do is take a barrel, and insert a trigger strip along 1 side, then they insert a case less solid propellant, followed by a round, then repeat the propellant and shell,and repeat until the barrel is full.
Then the whole loaded barrel is Inserted into the weapon/carrier. When you go to fire you electrically trigger the various round 1 at a time starting from the muzzle of the barrel.
When it works you effectively get a very rapid firing machine gun burst. The issue is that the barrel is effectively a factory reload/refurbish part, so there has to be a way to remove the expended barrels, and replace them with new loaded ones.

[taalismn]

[
When it works you effectively get a very rapid firing machine gun burst. The issue is that the barrel is effectively a factory reload/refurbish part, so there has to be a way to remove the expended barrels, and replace them with new loaded ones.

The standard idea I saw was grouping bundles of pre-loaded barrels in cassettes. Say 15-barrels in a 3x5 arrangement, with maybe a facing of 3-5 cassettes on a heavy weapon if you want to really munchkiny. You barrage-empty a whole cassette, detach it from the mounting, and swap it out for a new one.
Sure, with larger rounds, this becomes problematic, but the US MRLS(Multiple Rocket Launch System) already uses a 'speed loader' system where the two six-tube arrays in the box launcher are designed to slide out for speedy replacement, with the emptied pallet-array being reloaded/refurbished at a slower rate when there's opportunity.

[eliakon]

<snip>

The idea isn't 'out there', since it's already a thing. Whether it's been scaled up to tank cannons, well, now I've got a bunch of websites to read to help the workday go by faster.

The basic idea is there yes.
But scaling up is the 'out there' bit.
Ringo is a fan of just ignoring inconvinent laws of physics. Recoil for example gets moved to 'but that messes with the mood' category.
The issue of barrel strenght is another (the explosion of the propellent is omni-directional. it only is because the barrel/casing is hard enough to withstand the blast that the energy is forced to vent in the desired direction.
So scaling up a metal storm to that size will also scale up recoil and blast... imensely.
The other issue is amunition. Metal storms use the entire gun barrel as the 'round' so every shot requires a brand new gun barrel!

Actually the metal storm does not use the entire barrel as the round, what they do is take a barrel, and insert a trigger strip along 1 side, then they insert a case less solid propellant, followed by a round, then repeat the propellant and shell,and repeat until the barrel is full.
Then the whole loaded barrel is Inserted into the weapon/carrier. When you go to fire you electrically trigger the various round 1 at a time starting from the muzzle of the barrel.
When it works you effectively get a very rapid firing machine gun burst. The issue is that the barrel is effectively a factory reload/refurbish part, so there has to be a way to remove the expended barrels, and replace them with new loaded ones.

The same priniciple applies here.
The fact that you only get a certain number of shots ber barrel, and that you then have to replace the entire barrel makes the weapon highly specialized.
It also radically increaases the size of amunition storage since you can not store rounds themselves, but must store entire weapon barrels!
Thus an amunition locker for a tank must be as long as the canon barrel on the tank itself... not exactly a feasable proposition.
The massive rates of fire claimed by MS systems are also partially achived by using extreamly high numbers of barrells at once.
The demonstration weapon had 36 barrels and the supposed million RPS weapon was using 1,000+ of them...
not exactly feasable for real world use in most situations.
Again it is cool... or kewl tech and the drawbacks and limitations are often overlooked so as to allow for the spiffy plot element...
...but there is a reason that every military in the world is not beating a path to the door of the inventor of this to add it to their arsenal.

[Khanibal]

Or stick a NG-101 on there. Just sayin'.

[glitterboy2098]

the iron Heart gun would be able to use a much stronger propellant charge, giving the projectile a lot more energy. that would make a huge difference for kinetic projectiles like the APFSDS.

That might work as an explanation if the IH weapon had something to show for it in terms of range, but it doesn't given it has the same 6000ft range as the M1A3. The IH does have more options for shells, but with the information available and Palladium's wonky physics. Who knows (I'm not saying you're wrong).

actually the effective range of a cannon (which is what the rifts entries list) is much more derived from the length of the barrel. and in terms of damage, a more powerful charge also means you can afford to use a heavier projectile, which means more kinetic energy for APFSDS. leading to more damage, and allowing you to use denser, more energetic explosives on the HE and AP type rounds.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Heh, might be easier to re-armor the thing with Ironwood if you know a friendly Warlock or other mage with the spell.

A lot less weight, equivalent MDC. Harder to repair, i suppose, which is definitely a downside.

[eliakon]

Heh, might be easier to re-armor the thing with Ironwood if you know a friendly Warlock or other mage with the spell.

A lot less weight, equivalent MDC. Harder to repair, i suppose, which is definitely a downside.

It gets back to the fact that main body MDC is not just armor.
MDC is the armor yes... but it is also the hull integrity, the supports inside, the frame, the robustness of the systems...
After all if it was just armor running out of MDC wouldnt cause the unit to break down and die, possibly exploding as some things do...
It would instead just expose the 'inner DC' to damage.
Thus even if you replace the armor with MDC armor, unless you ALSO replace all the insides with MDC or MDC level components it is still going to be weaker than an equivilant vehicle built from the ground up as MDC.

It becomes questionable if totally rebuilding the tank from the ground up with all new parts for virtually everything is
1) still the same tank
2) cost effective
it certainly is NOT what GAW is doing. Which is one of the many reasons that it has lower MDC than a modern MBT. The other of course is that it is a design that is centuries out of date. The unit was already what one? two? hundred years out of date when the Cataclysm happened never mind 109 PA. It is almost as bad as slapping chobium hull plating on the USS Constitution and expecting it to be a viable warship again...

[glitterboy2098]

the XM-1 prototype was developed through the 70's and the first Production models went to full operational capability in 1980, with production having started in 1979. so by 2098 the M1 abrams would be 118 years old. of the 10,117 built to date (manufacturing ceased in 1993, but the factory "re-manufactures" older vehicles constantly), 3275 originated as original M1 models manufactured between 1979-85, and were later extensively rebuilt in the factory to the M1A1 standard. a further 5000 of the M1A1 was manufactured between 1986-92. all previous tanks were subsequently upgraded to the M1A2 model after 1992. (the A2 model's upgrades were primarily in terms of electronics, replacing older analog systems with more modern digital displays and systems, as well as adding integrated GPS and data transfer capabilities. it also, midway through the refits, saw the addition of compatibility with remote operated weapons emplacements, to remove the need for a crewman to leave the protection of the vehicle to make use of the hatch mounted machine gun)

so basically, any given M1 GAW is converting is likely to be at least a century old. given that their refit does not appear to use any of the electronics used on the real world M1A2's (or the various proposed M1A3 upgrades that has been in development since 2009), it seems likely that they found a large boneyard where the vehicles were placed in storage, with their electronics systems removed.

Edit: most likely they found the Anniston Army Depot in Anniston Alabama, which is about 2 hours south of GAW's headquarters near (what is today) huntsville. the Anniston Depot services most of the Army's armored vehicles. which would explain everything but the M113's and the M-48's for their ground vehicle line. (and the site has factory level equipment to refurbish vehicles, which would help explain how GAW got their start)

[Khanibal]

Well, GAW is supposed to be cheap. It's mechanically sound, but otherwise just barely superior to Chipwell.

That brings to mind another thought. Does anyone do regular preventative maintenance on their giant robots? Maybe expressed as a percentage of value per month.

[slade2501]

the XM-1 prototype was developed through the 70's and the first Production models went to full operational capability in 1980, with production having started in 1979. so by 2098 the M1 abrams would be 118 years old. of the 10,117 built to date (manufacturing ceased in 1993, but the factory "re-manufactures" older vehicles constantly), 3275 originated as original M1 models manufactured between 1979-85, and were later extensively rebuilt in the factory to the M1A1 standard. a further 5000 of the M1A1 was manufactured between 1986-92. all previous tanks were subsequently upgraded to the M1A2 model after 1992. (the A2 model's upgrades were primarily in terms of electronics, replacing older analog systems with more modern digital displays and systems, as well as adding integrated GPS and data transfer capabilities. it also, midway through the refits, saw the addition of compatibility with remote operated weapons emplacements, to remove the need for a crewman to leave the protection of the vehicle to make use of the hatch mounted machine gun)

so basically, any given M1 GAW is converting is likely to be at least a century old. given that their refit does not appear to use any of the electronics used on the real world M1A2's (or the various proposed M1A3 upgrades that has been in development since 2009), it seems likely that they found a large boneyard where the vehicles were placed in storage, with their electronics systems removed.

Edit: most likely they found the Anniston Army Depot in Anniston Alabama, which is about 2 hours south of GAW's headquarters near (what is today) huntsville. the Anniston Depot services most of the Army's armored vehicles. which would explain everything but the M113's and the M-48's for their ground vehicle line. (and the site has factory level equipment to refurbish vehicles, which would help explain how GAW got their start)

nice. I spent several hours myself hunting down internet info on tank yards, rebuild centers, parts manufacturers and depots on the east coast. there is one near Atlanta too i think. And nothing says that on Rifts earth there weren;t more built anyway.

[ShadowLogan]

Heh, might be easier to re-armor the thing with Ironwood if you know a friendly Warlock or other mage with the spell.

A lot less weight, equivalent MDC. Harder to repair, i suppose, which is definitely a downside.

It gets back to the fact that main body MDC is not just armor.
MDC is the armor yes... but it is also the hull integrity, the supports inside, the frame, the robustness of the systems...
After all if it was just armor running out of MDC wouldnt cause the unit to break down and die, possibly exploding as some things do...
It would instead just expose the 'inner DC' to damage.
Thus even if you replace the armor with MDC armor, unless you ALSO replace all the insides with MDC or MDC level components it is still going to be weaker than an equivilant vehicle built from the ground up as MDC.

This is mostly true, but there is also one other thing with all the stats that people forget: Plot Shielding. This is really the only way to explain why a multi-ton 'bot/tank/etc has as much main body as some lighter power armor (under 1ton) or for units of mass/weight why body armor is so high in comparison (per unit of mass body armor has like x100 more MDC than 'bots/tanks, not than body armor has more mdc in a direct comparison).

[Vrykolas2k]

I did a GAW Tiger I tank, need to find those stats... it was for my German Elf Techno-wizard.

[Blue_Lion]

the iron Heart gun would be able to use a much stronger propellant charge, giving the projectile a lot more energy. that would make a huge difference for kinetic projectiles like the APFSDS.

That might work as an explanation if the IH weapon had something to show for it in terms of range, but it doesn't given it has the same 6000ft range as the M1A3. The IH does have more options for shells, but with the information available and Palladium's wonky physics. Who knows (I'm not saying you're wrong).

actually the effective range of a cannon (which is what the rifts entries list) is much more derived from the length of the barrel. and in terms of damage, a more powerful charge also means you can afford to use a heavier projectile, which means more kinetic energy for APFSDS. leading to more damage, and allowing you to use denser, more energetic explosives on the HE and AP type rounds.

While accuracy is affected by length of the barrel range is not primarily determined by that. Range is most determined by propellant, the same length of barrel could have different ranges based of the amount and type of charge used to launch the round.

Cannons use the same characteristics to determine range as other projectile arms while the M4 has a shorter barrel the max range is still the same as a M16. The muzzle velocity determines how far the round can fly before it falls to the ground, that is mainly determined by the propellant of the round.

So even if the 120mm iron heart rounds where heavier the abrams would still be able to shoot them at a reduced range.
The ability of the cannon to hold up to propellants pressure could mean less propellant could be used in the abrams but as the rounds are basically the same size either cannon load them.

Given it has muzzle velocity of the abrams is just past mach 5 it should be doing damage with its DU kinetic kill round close(if not greater) to that of the GB mach 7 boom gun.(flechat style attacks tend perform greater against soft targets while larger rounds tend do better against hard targets)

[guardiandashi]

the iron Heart gun would be able to use a much stronger propellant charge, giving the projectile a lot more energy. that would make a huge difference for kinetic projectiles like the APFSDS.

That might work as an explanation if the IH weapon had something to show for it in terms of range, but it doesn't given it has the same 6000ft range as the M1A3. The IH does have more options for shells, but with the information available and Palladium's wonky physics. Who knows (I'm not saying you're wrong).

actually the effective range of a cannon (which is what the rifts entries list) is much more derived from the length of the barrel. and in terms of damage, a more powerful charge also means you can afford to use a heavier projectile, which means more kinetic energy for APFSDS. leading to more damage, and allowing you to use denser, more energetic explosives on the HE and AP type rounds.

While accuracy is affected by length of the barrel range is not primarily determined by that. Range is most determined by propellant, the same length of barrel could have different ranges based of the amount and type of charge used to launch the round.

Cannons use the same characteristics to determine range as other projectile arms while the M4 has a shorter barrel the max range is still the same as a M16. The muzzle velocity determines how far the round can fly before it falls to the ground, that is mainly determined by the propellant of the round.

So even if the 120mm iron heart rounds where heavier the abrams would still be able to shoot them at a reduced range.
The ability of the cannon to hold up to propellants pressure could mean less propellant could be used in the abrams but as the rounds are basically the same size either cannon load them.

Given it has muzzle velocity of the abrams is just past mach 5 it should be doing damage with its DU kinetic kill round close(if not greater) to that of the GB mach 7 boom gun.(flechat style attacks tend perform greater against soft targets while larger rounds tend do better against hard targets)

to be honest IF the glitterboy boomgun fires its rounds at mach 5-7 then yes a 120 mm cannon round form an abrams should everything being equal be putting similar damage down range. physics is pretty simple that way if you have 2 rounds fired at around the same velocity massing around the same they should both pack around the same kinetic energy. this is why I personally believe the glitterboy boom gun rounds (flechett) rounds are probably going even faster than what the book claims, but ....

[Jefffar]

My whole issue is the belief that a modern Battle tank is not naturally possessed with hundreds of MDC and a powerful Mega Damage cannon.

[Khanibal]

My whole issue is the belief that a modern Battle tank is not naturally possessed with hundreds of MDC and a powerful Mega Damage cannon.

True, the initial example given is of a modern-day tank shrugging off a baseball, a .357 and a slew of assault rifles (REAL assault rifles, not CNN's misdirection). It takes an anti-tank weapon to damage a tank. I don't know about hundreds though.

[slade2501]

check this out. my brain is SO happy right now, envisioning little CS people shapes pinwheeling through the air under those impacts like candle-pins.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLG2R6BhncU

[glitterboy2098]

My whole issue is the belief that a modern Battle tank is not naturally possessed with hundreds of MDC and a powerful Mega Damage cannon.

well, the M1A1 Abrams from Systems Failure has a main body of 1500 SDC with a vehicular AR of 18. (and immunity to anything under a HMG)
its 120mm main gun does 2D4x100 sdc, with a 20ft blast radius (so i'm guessing those stats are for a HEAT round)

so about 15 MDC with a gun doing 2D4md. this maps reasonably well to the statement that a man in EBA with a laser rifle is on par with a MBT in the RMB.
peraonslyl i think those stats are understrength by at least an order of magnitude (tack an extra zero on, basically, to give 150mdc and 2D4x10.. which maps exactly to the typical rifts soldier, instead of the low end adventurer gear) but whats written is written. we can't go around retconning everything after all.

[Jefffar]

Just for a point of reference, the old school SAMAS has hundreds of MDC too.

I would put a fully upgraded Abrams around about 3/4 of the Iron Fist medium tank, with the Iron Fist and Iron hammer being the next generation.

The Iron Fist is the low budget project, an attempt to equal or make modest gains on the Abrams while drastically reducing vehicle weight. This is what the US Army is asking for now.

The Iron Hammer is the big money project, attempting to pwring as much firepower and armour as they can out of a tank the mass of the modern Abrams.

The next generation is the glitterboy, armour, firepower and mobility of the heavy tank in a mu

[taalismn]

check this out. my brain is SO happy right now, envisioning little CS people shapes pinwheeling through the air under those impacts like candle-pins.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLG2R6BhncU

Why limit yourself to CS people? Bandits, Minions, mercs, etc....Gargoyles and brodkil take a little more hitting, but they're just bigger targets to soak up that much more love.

[jaymz]

My biggest issue with them "finding" and refitting these items is the fact they would likely not even be in civil defense armories by 2098......just like CS Navy having subs that would be over 120 years old when "stored" let alone adding almost 300 years to them when "found".


I went a different route and came up with later versions that were based on using MDC tech when developed entering service in the mid 21st century. The M1A4 (MDC armour on the original SDC chassis due to original development did not allow for much forming and manufacturing but was easy for armour plating) and the M1A5 which was a full MDC constructed version. I had my own "formula" for determining how much MDC to give each version and best guessed the weapon damages assuming development of better ammunition technology, while also incorporating the power system introduced in the NG books. The resulting M1A5 came out very similar to the Iron Fist Medium Tank by Iron Heart Armaments.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

My whole issue is the belief that a modern Battle tank is not naturally possessed with hundreds of MDC and a powerful Mega Damage cannon.

I sorta agree with Jeffar here, for the most part.

The main issue i think is Kev’s/Palladium’s penchant for recycling rules and work, with a secondary “most RPG writers are not experts on militaria and technology”. The MDC example was rehashed from Robotech, for example, which was written a LOT earlier.

Even as far as the mid to late 80s, we were on the cusp/just starting to enter the “MDC” era in reality. Kevin didn’t really have any way to realize that, so he pushed that jump off into the future.

I’d agree eith Jeffar’s assessment that an Abrams is already an MDC vehicle (but, in my Estimation/interpretation, the silly “SDC weapons can do MDC on bursts” is NOT a thing) - just not a heavy one. The 80s and 90s saw the rollout of the first (what would be in Palladium terms) “MDC” armors (and weve had weapons capable of inflicting light MDC since WW1, realistically speaking), but they were/are not yet the “breakthrough” ultra-modern “true” MDC materials of the Golden Age.

Current (real life) MDC armor, as the rules define MDC in Rifts, is still ultra-heavy material, but it definitely exists. An Abrams is definitely an MDC vehicle - just, as Rifts would define it, a “light” one - id say 35-50. But not 3500 SDC - actual MDC. Which means take your wimpy non-explosive SDC weapons and whistle for it.

Were also developing MDC weaponry at a rapid pace (and actually, in real life, rapidly outpacing armor development) - we have weapons now that would literally liquify an Abrams’ armor in one hit. (The Navy’s in-development Rail Gun punches throuh several FEET of steel, and its only at 50-60% of their power target). So the Abrams’ gun (in real life) is certainly also the definition of a Rifts (light) MDC weapon. Probably in the 2-3D6MD range for HEAT, a little more for an APSD-style round against other heavy armor.

The real “revolution” of the Golden-Age “true” MDC breakthroughs was making it all super-light and man-portable.

[Khanibal]

My biggest issue with them "finding" and refitting these items is the fact they would likely not even be in civil defense armories by 2098......just like CS Navy having subs that would be over 120 years old when "stored" let alone adding almost 300 years to them when "found".

100 tons of rust outside the local VFW.

[jaymz]

I think Palladium TRIED to incorporate pseudo MDC/toughness with AR/Armour/PV but mucked it up partway through.....