more striker still...

Bertil:

>>>>In fact, the M1 Abrams is essentially invulnerable to hand held
anti-tank
>>>>weapons.  So is the British Challenger, I am given to understand.

>  I'm almost willing to wager that certain ATGM's or other man portable
>weapons (FFV's HEAP Tank-mine for example) can penetrate it if they hit
>it from the side, the rear, the top or the bottom. It it had 200mm
>armor plate all around it would weigh too much for the engine and have
>too high groundpressure.

So would I.  The improved TOW was specifically designed to deal with a
tank armoured at that level.
However, the latest version of the M1 (not yet in full production, last
I heard (last year)) uses depleted Uranium inserts in it's composite
armour.  Supposed to be proof against most kinetic kill weapons, and all
HEAT rounds presently in the field.  Note that this restriction applies
to frontal armour, and part of the side armour.


>>>>Yes, and it can be worse in Traveller, since I can arrange things so
that
>>>>the M-1 equivalent is armored all-around, instead of mostly in the
front.
>>
>> >  Which will invalidate both the advantages of good tactics
(catching
>> >the tank from a less protected side) and innovative weapons (that
>> >strike the tank in a location where the armor in thin, like roof,
>> >bottom or rear).
>
>> It sure will.  So what?

>  It is bad from the point of view of the game: Tactics is not
>encouraged, just a slugfest. The half-armour vs pinpoint is a hack as
>you can pinpoint all you like if it as 500mm all around, it will still
>have 500mm all around.

As I said earlier, even with 500mm armour all around, some things HAVE
to be exposed.  If the muzzle of your weapon were under armour, it would
not be functional.  Likewise sensors.  If your sensors can penetrate
armour, then a weapon could be built to use that frequency lasered, and
ruin you.

>> Tactics and design theories change as
>> technology does.  Fact of Life.
>
>  This isn't an artifact of technology, it is a result of the design
>system.  If it was possible to vary the thickness of the armour
>independently for all faces of the vehicle, almost all designers would
>optimize the armour to be thicker than with MegaT on the sides that
>face the primary danger and thinner on the other sides: Saving weight,
>gaining G's and Mw for the weapon, and reducing cost.

No, your opinion is an artifact of your prejudices.  As any fighter
pilot will tell you, a plane has no side which faces the "primary
danger".  Grav tanks fly, usually quickly.  They are exposed to starship
fire from orbit.  THERE IS NO FACE WHICH CAN BE POINTED TO AS THE
PRIMARY THREAT ZONE!  An attack may come from any direction, or even all
at once.  If the Grav tank can't survive hits to the belly (from ground
fire in flight), or hits to the roof(from orbital bombardment or grav
tanks at higher altitude), or hits to any side (during dogfights), then
it is worthless as a weapon system.

>> PD weapons must see the rounds for at least 150m (15cm).
>> Nuclear Dampers do twice as many dice of interdict as a point defense
>> weapon of the same TL.
>>
>> >The 'Davy Crocket' nuke bazooka rides again:)
>>
>> More likely a nuke-tipped tac-missile, but you have the general idea.
>
>  At 150m I hope they have their lead underwear on. BTW: When I get
>home I'll check if any nuclear charge comes down to 4cm diameter at any
>TL.  Imagine that: A auto-grenade launcher or a gaussrifle that fires
>nukes:)

They do not have to be within 150m, just to see the shell travel that
far.  The smallest Nuke in standard Striker is 8cm (100T, TL15)

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

[email removed]

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun