Vehicluar Gaming

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by leonpoi

As another cool note, I've been reading that the T-72 (and I guess -80 and -90) can be used to "bulldoze" a hole with its glacis plate (? or is there an attachment) in 2 minutes that is big enough for the tank to go hull-down. There is a computer game video showing it in "action"
ftp://ftp.battlefront.com/pub/misc/T...nch%20Demo.wmv

The T-72 and T-80 both have self-entrenching blades under the glacis to allow them to dig a hull-down position. I've an idea that this was first introduced in an earlier model, but can't remember which was the first tank to be fitted with it.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by avantman42

The T-72 and T-80 both have self-entrenching blades under the glacis to allow them to dig a hull-down position. I've an idea that this was first introduced in an earlier model, but can't remember which was the first tank to be fitted with it.

I think that was the Swedes' idea -- they fielded it with the S-Tank.

[leonpoi]

Ok I'm not a tank enthusiast and not a military man, so my (and my gaming groups) knowledge of military stuff is pretty small; and thus it follows that I've only come to realise that those huge box things sticking out on the turret front of tanks are the gunner's, or if there are 2, and commander's sight. Does anyone know how vulnerable these are to small-arms fire?

Also, if say my PC's tank got hit in the turret front with a rpg that failed to penetrate, would there be any chance or a good chance that the blast/concussion could damage the sight. It's sticking out there like dog's balls, so I would have said yes.

[edit]: I have some house rules which run something like this (don't have my book in front of me). Exploding rounds (or anything with a concussion value) have a Pen value even if they miss the target but are in the same 10m square (think radius 5m, same as the 1st blast region of explosives). The Pen value is C/3 rounded down - this means that the 61mm mortar would have Pen 1, and not even be able to get through soft skinned vehicles, 81mm mortar would have pen 2 and would inflict a minor damage (in addition to any shrapnel) on a soft-skinned vehicle.

If I say that the external tank sights are AP 1 or maybe 2 this means I don't have to worry about most small arms fire vs tanks gun sights, except .50 cals etc. It also means that most rpgs I would not have to worry about either. Most HEAT tank rounds would do nothing if < 120mm, otherwise they would inflict minor damage. This means that a HESH round with a high C could damage the sights without penetrating the tank armour.

Q. should this "splash damage" be applied only to frontal turret hits? I'm thinking yes.
Q. I'm thinking of making a 1 in 20 or perhaps 1 in 10 chance of frontal turret hits hitting the gun sight which would be resolved as normal except that the sight is damaged even if the penetration fails (and damage could pen from explosive or KE rounds). I think I remember reading that tanks (UK?) in Iraq were taken off the front line for repairs a few times because their sights had been damaged from non-penetrating turret hits. By the way the 1 in 10 chance would be used because that's the same chance a person has of being hit from a ricochet when their head is out of a hatch - I thought it would be good to use the same value for convenience.

Another thing, a lot of the Russian tanks and vehicles have exhaust generators which generate smoke by injecting diesel into the engine I guess. In the tw2000 context, would these smoke generators work when on alcohol fuel? I'd say no, but what would I know.

[pmulcahy11b]

Most vehicle vision blocks (the periscope-like blocks surrounding driver, commander, and loader positions) and sight heads are reasonably armored against small-arms fire and fragments, but against a decent direct rifle or heavier hit, they won't survive. And you're right; it's been a valid antiarmor technique, pretty much since tanks have been around, to force the crew to button up then blind the tank by shooting out vision blocks and sight heads; eventually, the crew has to surrender or face being roasted by Molotov cocktails or other incendiaries poured into their engine compartments. The only real problem is that they're small targets.

As far as the vehicle smoke generators, they only work with diesel fuel. Most modern armored vehicles either have them or had them -- I say had because US vehicles and those of some NATO countries are now burning jet fuel (JP-8 IIRC) and that won't work with the vehicle smoke generators. The US, for example, has removed the smoke generators from its vehicles, since they're useless now anyway. In a T2K context, US and NATO vehicles would still be burning diesel and they would not have been removed.

[leonpoi]

Thanks. this is from wiki:

In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by eight rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was under heavy small arms fire for hours. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after the repairs.

I'm thinking let them have AV 1 to stop small arms from long/extreme range - where the Pen values are Nil for small arms. Let there be a 1 in 20 chance of hitting the sight (driver) for front hull hits, or 2 in 20 for turret hits (1 = gunner, 2 = commander).

[pmulcahy11b]

What's the wiki link? I'd love to know where insurgents got a Milan -- they must have literally been using Coalition weapons against us!

[leonpoi]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

What's the wiki link? I'd love to know where insurgents got a Milan -- they must have literally been using Coalition weapons against us!

Just Challenger 2 in wikipeidia, but I remember reading it in a news article a year or two (or is it more) back. I thought exactly the same thing, where the hell did they get a ATGM from?