 July 7, 2013 - 3:49pm | I have a question that needs someone who knows a good bit about modern tanks. How effectively can a modern tank track individual humans using its cannon? Or maybe it's better asked: How effectively can a modern tank put a 105 shell into a mobile target the size of a human? Suppose you have an adventuring team/special forces situation. Just a handful of heavily armed and competent men who are trying to get by a tank, for example a M1A2 or other modern equivalent. The soldiers do not have to destroy the tank, they just have to get around it. The tank is located in the middle of the area and cannot move or use any weapon except its main cannon. The terrain is essentially flat without any cover. I'm not asking about engaging a formation. My current idea is that there would be three scales of weapons: Personal weapons are carried by characters and work best against characters. They're less effective against vehicles and completely ineffective against starships. Vehicle weapons are artillery: They are mounted on vehicles and are effective against other vehicles. Vehicle weapons have a hard time targeting characters. These weapons can't destroy starships but they might be able to knock out weapons or other systems. Starship weapons can only be mounted on true starships. They can destroy starships. Starship weapons have a hard time targeting something as small as a vehicle and can't target characters but anyone unlucky enough to be caught in the area of effect is toast. There would be some exceptions: Heavy personal weapons, like machine guns and rocket launchers, are effective against both vehicles and characters and used by both. Starships have defense grids, clusters of vehicle scale weapons to defend against fighters. |
 July 7, 2013 - 5:05pm | I seem to remember my brother talking about how they were not suppose to target a human with a wire guided missile as per the Geneva Convention so they targeted a piece of his equipment ie a belt buckle. it doesn't answer your question but I suspect there are rules/regs about using weapons over a certain size to target humans. Not that it doesn't happen. EDIT: I also remember hearing about one of those aluminum foil all emergency blankets being used to foil heat sensors on a vehicle during wargames down in GA. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 July 7, 2013 - 5:21pm | I can't help either but there are some military (or ex-military) guys here who might. Also, if you aren't already a member, try the Yahoo group "Star Frontiers Underground" We have at least one active duty soldier in that group and I believe several others who have been in the military. You might get an answer there as well. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
 July 8, 2013 - 12:09am | This I can Answer. I was a Tanker before I became a mechanic in the Army. I have 11 years experiance with it. I have manned every crew position on the Abrams. First the M1A1 and M1A2 have 120mm M256 Smoothbore, not a 105mm. The XM1, M1 M1IP all had 105mm M68 rifled cannon. There are several Factors to consider before I engage a mansized target with a 120mm round. First I only carry 40 of them If I have the 120mm or 55 of them if I have a 105mm. Killing 1 guy would be waste.But to answer the question I could do it out to 1500 meters easily. A Lazy Tank gunner can put together a shot group 9 inches in diameter at 1500meters. I could make mine hit within 6" of center consistently at that range. Could I target 1 enemy... Absolutly. But Why do that? The tank comes equiped with 7.62mm M240G Machine gun coaxially mounted to the main cannon. It uses the same sight system. I flip a switch and the computer computes for 7.62mm instead of 120mm. The ready Ammunition Box also mounted to the cannon carries 14,000 rounds of 7.62 mm ammo. A much better use of the system is to put a burst into his chest. The Loaders Station has another 7.62mm machine gun mounted to the top of the tank. The Tank commanders station has a .50 Cal M2 or M2A1. Both of those machinguns would also be more effective in this scenario. If I saw a badguy walking past my gun sight and in a panic I forgot to place the control swich to COAX and left it in MAIN. My cannon would still hit the target. I dont mean to brag but....I was that good. Most of the Gunners I worked with were very competent as well. A Few guys Do suck at gunnery though. It really depends on this: Was the gunner properly trained? Does the gunner do as he is trained or has he gotten lazy. How much practice does the gunner have? Has he kept up with his practice? As to the question of tracking targets: The Abrams can track and hit a target moving as fast as a Soviet MI-24 attack hellicopter while itself is moving at 42Mph. I hope that answers the question. Should there be scales for individuals vs vehicles vs ships? Yes dependent on a few things. An unarmored car would still be affected by small arms bullets. An armored Vehicle would not be. However I would leave lasers to the GMs discretion. I would say... If I were the GM.... 6 or more SEU to damage a tank and it would probably only do partial damage if it were from a rifle or a pistol. However a larger Laser designed to attack Armor, would do as it is designed to do. In Game, Rocket launchers should do full damage rolled because that is what the rockets were probably designed for (anti-armor). Thats my take from real world experience. Do anti personel rockets exist? Yes they do. Only someone who is desperate or dumb, fires an anti personel warhead at a tank; Especially if you have Armor peircing warheads available. The bombing starts in five minutes. |
 July 8, 2013 - 5:39pm | Just as a side note, spent 16 years as a Bradley Fighting Vehicle crewmember. From the manual "When engaging paratroopers still in the air with the 25mm chaingun, lead them two body lengths." The object is to kill the enemy, cause wounding him is just wrong. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
July 9, 2013 - 8:25am | Thanks for the answers. That's a bit more accuracy than I was hoping for (for purposes of a game. Glad it's that good for actual use) It looks like I need to make sure that smoke grenades, thermal signature suits, and radar jammers are available if I want characters to operate around hostile vehicles. I was already planning small attack drones, I guess I'll need small EW drones to blind sensors and create decoys. |
July 9, 2013 - 11:16am | It looks like I need to make sure that smoke grenades, thermal signature suits, and radar jammers are available if I want characters to operate around hostile vehicles.
For Sci-fi/Future military vehicles, all of that may be useful. If the vehicle has thermal imageing, Like the Abrams, it can see through most types of smoke and fog depending on temperature variances. However, Any Smoke grenade containing Butyl Rubber will obscure a thermal sight quite well. Has to do with the fact that there are particulates in the smoke from one of these. That stuff is hazardous to breath in though. The bombing starts in five minutes. |
 July 11, 2013 - 9:14am | @dmoffet - really great info in the answers you gave. Closest I ever got to an Abrams was almost getting run over by one during a night time field training exercise... |
July 11, 2013 - 4:37pm | I've been in one (a tank that is, don't know what kind), along with assorted other military hardware (APVs, AH-1 helicopters, 155m Howitzers, etc) when I was a kid (back in the 70's and 80's). My dad was in the Army for 11 years and we'd always get to see all the equipment at the shows they'd do for the families on major holidays like 4th of July. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
 July 14, 2013 - 7:16pm | when I was in Desert Storm some Tanker buddies of mine told me of an ambush that Sadam's "elite" troops prepped. They dug their tanks in so that only the turret was above ground and had shut everything down early enough so that the engines were cold. Anyway, the US armor hit this ambush at night, which was the intention anyway. The M1A1's thermal imager system was able to pick up the body heat of the crew members in the buried tanks. And the thermals have improved since then. Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
July 14, 2013 - 8:11pm | when I was in Desert Storm some Tanker buddies of mine told me of an ambush that Sadam's "elite" troops prepped. They dug their tanks in so that only the turret was above ground and had shut everything down early enough so that the engines were cold. Anyway, the US armor hit this ambush at night, which was the intention anyway. The M1A1's thermal imager system was able to pick up the body heat of the crew members in the buried tanks. And the thermals have improved since then. Hull Down tactics, sounds like a sollid ambush plan. Of course no plan survives contact with the need to smoke a cigarette. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
July 17, 2013 - 4:56pm | Hate to be a party pooper but No. I was in Desert Storm (Bradley Infantryman) and thermals were good but not good enough to penetrate sand and steel. However they were good enough to pick up the crews who were probably out watching for the approaching enemy AND/OR the turrets which as stated were not buried. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
