Coming up with a "right" amount could be one step in the right direction.
This is typically sufficient to cause most civillian vehicles (p. 125) to immediately explode with a single hit.
The tank will usually survive 2-3 hits. Four hits pretty much guarantees that the tank is immobilized with a fair chance that it blows up spectacularly.
-DF
The tank will usually survive 2-3 hits. Four hits pretty much guarantees that the tank is immobilized with a fair chance that it blows up spectacularly.
-DF
Well, as narukagami pointed out, DR is not the same on all sides. It tends to be weakest on the bottom, top, and back.
Not that d20 Modern supports called shots anyhow.
Hardness(dr) = eff RHA mm /10
Look at the numbers that would provide for ww1, ww2, and current tanks
... and it makes statting Weapons & Vehicles real easy and acurate: just get the RHA/eRHA for them. If we know WeaponX defeats YYYmm rha, we know how much Pen/Damage to give it
Just google/yahoo whatever you want to know about, and add +RHA to the search.
Prime sources are GlobalSecurity (&FAS), and you get a lot of other sources of various dependability, like WIKI, to give a big picture
ex: google/yahoo mk82 +192 and you see places that wil tell you how much nougat the bomb has in it
If we compare the sites that gripe about how ineffective the m72LAW was back in Nam,
and reference the eRHA of those targets,
we can deduce how effective the LAW is against other RHA rated vehicles.... and the Abrams has insane gobs of eRHA vs HE/HEAT
48 on the front, half the value on the sides.
I'm trying to stat an AT mine for my campaign and from narukagami's post would statting it at 4d8 or 4d10, of course the homebrewed Claymore on DanDWiki is 10d6, would my stats be too much if I keep the DR 48 front plating, 24 side plating, 12 top armor, and 6 or 8 for the bottom of the tank or any other armored vehicles from the D20 Military vehicles book and reduce it for older models armor
Cut it open, ignore all the engineering & efficient design,
dump out the 4.9kg of CompH6,
and you have a 11lb pile of high explosives that does (4 + 10x2) d6 to tanks/folks/trees/deer
.... 24d6 of explosives prior to the mine company engineers using the high Demo skill to improve the output of a charge.
Mine design is done to get MORE kill than just a paper bag wil the explosives in it.
When you give the engineers (Demo skill) 11lbs of explosives, they will get MORE than 24d6 from it.
That is for the m21 with 4.9kg explosives, the m19 has 9.5kg of explosives
lets not say that mines are made out of bubblewrap and containment vessels that reduce the damage from what we'd get from just the explosives in a paper bag ( 21lb : 4+40 d6)
M21 AT Mine
Cut it open, ignore all the engineering & efficient design,
dump out the 4.9kg of CompH6,
and you have a 11lb pile of high explosives ...
Don't try this at home, kids. :P
Well lets look at it this way. No M1 Abrams has ever been destroyed in real life. Even close rage shots to the side of the tank by another M1 Abrms couldn't penetrate the armor. (Before you ask, the vehicle got stuck in rough terrain, could not get out, so after the crew was removed, they attempted to get rid of it so enemeies don't get any tech from it.) There are also armor pieces to cover the treads in things such as urban warfare, but obviously can be used in more then just urban enviorments.
Id say easily 50-60, hell maybe even more on the front. The top wouldn't have much less, and the sides I suppose would be half. The underside I have no idea. But unlike a post I did see in here, a LAAW would not 4 shot it. In fact, a laaw dosn't really have a snowballs chance in hell of beating it.
Well lets look at it this way. No M1 Abrams has ever been destroyed in real life. Even close rage shots to the side of the tank by another M1 Abrms couldn't penetrate the armor. (Before you ask, the vehicle got stuck in rough terrain, could not get out, so after the crew was removed, they attempted to get rid of it so enemeies don't get any tech from it.) There are also armor pieces to cover the treads in things such as urban warfare, but obviously can be used in more then just urban enviorments.
Never been destroyed...right...
I guess maybe if you don't count being disabled either (at which point its a giant paper weight/RPG magnet). Because our extremely expensive vehicles have never been penetrated by a lowly RPG. Nope. Can't have that.
Sarcasm aside, it should be pretty damn tough, but avoid the urge to make it invincible. Every tank out there can be destroyed by weapons that are already in production.
Well lets look at it this way. No M1 Abrams has ever been destroyed in real life. Even close rage shots to the side of the tank by another M1 Abrms couldn't penetrate the armor. (Before you ask, the vehicle got stuck in rough terrain, could not get out, so after the crew was removed, they attempted to get rid of it so enemeies don't get any tech from it.) There are also armor pieces to cover the treads in things such as urban warfare, but obviously can be used in more then just urban enviorments.
Never been destroyed...right...
I guess maybe if you don't count being disabled either (at which point its a giant paper weight/RPG magnet). Because our extremely expensive vehicles have never been penetrated by a lowly RPG. Nope. Can't have that.
Sarcasm aside, it should be pretty damn tough, but avoid the urge to make it invincible. Every tank out there can be destroyed by weapons that are already in production.
Until you get to the really high grade futuristic armors then its near invincible unless your hit it with a mecha/starship weapon
Well since the question is about a M1 Abrams, I'm assuming we're talking current technologies, not futuristic/theoretically possible but not developed/technically possible but too expensive for production stuff.
In d20 Modern, a handgun can take down a tank.
I feel the need to step in here. I was an M1A1 tank crewmember for around four years, so I know a thing or two about it.
First off, M1's have been taken down in the field of battle. Specifically, the mine set up that was posted on the previous page has been successful. Also, a very well placed RPG could take out an M1 (we could call it a critical hit between the hull and the turret). Tracks are not armored. In fact, they're quite vulnerable. When a track is broken by mines/projectiles, it's called a "mobile kill". Any enemy worth their spit is going for a mobile kill first and foremost with tanks, because then the crewmembers have to exit at some point. Though, to be frank, they'll call in the cavalry to safely exit the vehicle and the tank will be towed off by an M88 Hercules for repair.
Secondly, an M1 could so very easily take out another M1. It's called a Sabot round, and it is a beautiful thing. The range and penetration with this round is beyond amazing. In fact, its maximum range is not limited by the round itself (like the HEAT and MPAT rounds), but by the tank's targeting technology. Beyond the fact that it's meant for killing, the only bad thing I can see about this ammo is that it's made of depleted uranium (uranium is never depleted enough - there are now small radioactive areas in Iraq and Kuwait that the government doesn't want us to know about).
If you want to see tanks that stand up to the M1, take a look at the Merkava Mark IV, T90 Black Knight, and the Leopard 2 A6 (some say it's even better than the M1; that's German engineering for ya). There are others that compete, but these are some of the best.
I'm not too familiar with this game system or what all the crazy big weapons do for damage, so I'm not entirely sure what the tank's DR should be when you get right down to it. I just thought I'd offer some insight based on fact and experience. So, to recap, M1's are not the most amazing ground vehicle on the planet (though, they friggin' rock hard and are one of the best). They laugh at bullets, but even an RPG can take them down if the shooter is lucky/amazing. And, tracks are not not not armored. There is armor hanging about half way to cover them, but it's only so thick.
I hope this helps. I have lots more info if anyone so desires.
EDIT: Well, they don't laugh at bullets from an A-10 Warthog's 30mm GAU-8 Avenger. That'll turn any tank into swiss cheese.
Thanks for the input. Ironically, most tankers I've met were the ones who were the greatest believers in the M1's invincibility. It's nice to see that some of you guys have some sense (no offense intended, I know misinformation is just as rampant in the military as everywhere else).
"I know misinformation is just as rampant in the military as everywhere else"
My platoon sargeant told me there was no misinformation in the military 
"I know misinformation is just as rampant in the military as everywhere else"My platoon sargeant told me there was no misinformation in the military
Yeah my recruiter told me the same thing, lol.
Putting it in general terms (which should be good enough for Modern), an Abrams is "ridiculously tough" from the front and "pretty darn tough from the sides and rear".
D20 modern definately has a place in the RPG world, but it's not the system to be worrying about the relative penetration between a TOW, Hellfire and 120mm sabot.
If the hero only has a RPG, and needs to defeat a MBT, he has to find a dramatic, exciting way to shoot down from above.
If he has a TOW on a tripod, he has to find a dramatic, exciting way to shoot at it's side or rear.
The drama and excitement is much more important than mm of penetration vs RHS-equivalents.
While that would work for some occasions,
we could still try to resolve situations involving Mecha,Ships, and FutureBodyArmor
with a mechanic other than Narative GM Handwave As Plot Device
Welp, for the purpose of finding the right DR for an Abrams, I've looked at the SRD. I'm assuming a rocket-propelled grenade does something in the ballpark of 10d6 or 8d6 damage. Sorry, but I don't see it on the SRD's weapon list. Let's even it out and say 9d6.
So, a crit would do something around 54 damage with that. Since I would consider a crit able to take down a tank in a hit or two, I feel that DR 15 or 20 would be appropriate. Since it has a hardness of 20 in the SRD, I'd say just leave it.
Am I way off the mark here? Like I said before, I'm not terribly familiar with the intricacies of this system.
Sounds about right to me. As has been already pointed out, its not a system that really supports exacting precision anyway.
Welp, for the purpose of finding the right DR for an Abrams, I've looked at the SRD. I'm assuming a rocket-propelled grenade does something in the ballpark of 10d6 or 8d6 damage. Sorry, but I don't see it on the SRD's weapon list. Let's even it out and say 9d6.
So, a crit would do something around 54 damage with that. Since I would consider a crit able to take down a tank in a hit or two, I feel that DR 15 or 20 would be appropriate. Since it has a hardness of 20 in the SRD, I'd say just leave it.
Am I way off the mark here? Like I said before, I'm not terribly familiar with the intricacies of this system.
Yes, you are way off the mark. Thats a terrible idea, as a handgun would be able to successfully stand up in combat against an Abrams tank, let alone an assault rifle.
In Modern anti-vehicle weapons would have some kind of armor penetration to bypass heavy armor. So while the RPG would do 9d6 damage (using your example), it should also ignore 10 points of DR, or half, whichever is higher. (Using the d20 Mecha Armor Penetrating rule, without that it would just be flat 10, as per the LAW rocket launcher)
One of the difficulties of statting tanks and armored vehicles is you want weapons designed for the job of combatting them to be able to, but at the same time you want to avoid a 9mm from blowing up an advanced MBT. Therefore, you need to balance things with more qualities than just DR vs Dice.
Sounds about right to me. As has been already pointed out, its not a system that really supports exacting precision anyway.
You know we've done very well in balancing reality with game design using d20 Modern before. I don't get why we should have to stop trying "because its a game," or "because its supposed to be abstract," or any such nonsense.
Welp, for the purpose of finding the right DR for an Abrams, I've looked at the SRD. I'm assuming a rocket-propelled grenade does something in the ballpark of 10d6 or 8d6 damage. Sorry, but I don't see it on the SRD's weapon list. Let's even it out and say 9d6.
So, a crit would do something around 54 damage with that. Since I would consider a crit able to take down a tank in a hit or two, I feel that DR 15 or 20 would be appropriate. Since it has a hardness of 20 in the SRD, I'd say just leave it.
Am I way off the mark here? Like I said before, I'm not terribly familiar with the intricacies of this system.
Yes, you are way off the mark. Thats a terrible idea, as a handgun would be able to successfully stand up in combat against an Abrams tank, let alone an assault rifle.In Modern anti-vehicle weapons would have some kind of armor penetration to bypass heavy armor. So while the RPG would do 9d6 damage (using your example), it should also ignore 10 points of DR, or half, whichever is higher. (Using the d20 Mecha Armor Penetrating rule, without that it would just be flat 10, as per the LAW rocket launcher)
One of the difficulties of statting tanks and armored vehicles is you want weapons designed for the job of combatting them to be able to, but at the same time you want to avoid a 9mm from blowing up an advanced MBT. Therefore, you need to balance things with more qualities than just DR vs Dice.
In such a case, I'd say either raise the DR to 30 (even with RPG's surpassing DR, as that doesn't change what a handgun does against it), or change how small arms fire works against heavy armor. Like, half damage, or something. Of course, there's always the old fallback of simply saying, "No, you can't destroy a tank with a handgun, and that's just the way it is. So sayeth the GM."
Common sense should always surpass numbers.
EDIT: I suddenly thought of the scene in Saving Private Ryan where Tom Hanks is shooting the Panzer with his M1911, then it suddenly blows up on one of his shots. He looks rather bewildered as an allied plane flies overhead. Classic.
Common sense should always surpass numbers.
Oh its true, but its a fun challenge to try to make the two coincide, and greatly rewarding when you succeed.
You know we've done very well in balancing reality with game design using d20 Modern before. I don't get why we should have to stop trying "because its a game," or "because its supposed to be abstract," or any such nonsense.
No need to get so wound up. Relax, it is a game, really, I promise. I didn't realize that the LAW ignored DR. In that case it is fair to increase the DR some more, although I don't really see it being that necessary. Using the LAW as the baseline, it will still usually take multiple hits to take out the Abrams. I don't really see anything wrong with the current values.
As for balancing reality, a 9mm does 2d6 damage, and the RAW abrams has DR 20. Even with feats to increase that damage, I think you'll find it a poor choice to fight a tank with. However, if you find that to be too small because of the possibility that small arms could overcome it, then everything else should be upgraded along the same lines. So lets start with something small like an armored humvee, which should also not be penetrated by a lowly handgun. So we would end up making that DR 30, then maybe push a bradley up to 40, and an abrams to 50 or 60. Of course, then there's different vehicles and armor upgrades in between, but with 10 pts of DR difference you have room to play around.
Thats why I prefer something simple like what peteyrock suggested, either having small arms do 1/2 damage, or just using common sense, or even letting the player try to use his 9mm--until the tank returns fire. Otherwise, once you make that one change in the name of realism, you end up having to change a whole bunch of other stuff too. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it can lead to you doing a lot more work than is necessary.
Sorry to sound riled up, but too often I see threads of great ideas get crapped all over because of this inane idea that realism to any degree is blasphemy, or this odd belief that the game designers are always infallible. 
Personally, I run a near-future mecha game, so GM handwaving doesn't cut it for me when 3/4ths of the combat characters are involved in IS mecha and vehicle combat, with infantry reduced to background narrative instead.
As I said before, d20 Mecha actually provides a great alternative set of vehicle design rules that easily allows one to make vehicles with a balance of realism and game balance.
Most anti-vehicle weapons are designed with armor penetration in mind, thats what makes them anti-vehicle weapons. Every time you apply the Armor Penetration quality to a weapon it ignores another 10 hardness, apply backstabbist's "half-quality" houserules (where for the cost of half a quality you get penetration of 5) and you can have varying weapons with varying penetration. On top of this the vehicle itself can have directional-optimized armor (IRL armored vehicles and tanks are built so the front is the most protected part of the vehicle via sloped armor), chobham armor, and other effects on its hardness other than straight DR.
Also my proposed number of 48 isn't just a number I pulled from nowhere, its actually worked out using the real-life armor rating of the Abrams tank, real life vehicles do have protection ratings based on how well they protect compared to an equivalent amount of rolled steel armor in MM. Its HP you can also work out using the vehicle's mass.
See how interesting things can be when you try it?
Fair enough. And again, I'm not saying attempts at realism are evil or anything, just that the current rules already do a decent job for this particular situation (IMO). I'm not at all familiar with d20 Mecha so I can't really comment on that.
Also, again you might want to update all the other armored vehicles if you are giving the Abrams a boost. And then you'll probably want to create new antitank weapons, since the LAW won't really cut it anymore (with an average damage of 35, and adjusted DR of 38 (48-10), the average hit won't even scratch the paint, and even two crits in a row won't do the trick). Then there's antitank landmines which will also have a hard time. Of course, if you go with armor for specific target areas, then its not much of a concern.
Fair enough. And again, I'm not saying attempts at realism are evil or anything, just that the current rules already do a decent job for this particular situation (IMO). I'm not at all familiar with d20 Mecha so I can't really comment on that.
Also, again you might want to update all the other armored vehicles if you are giving the Abrams a boost. And then you'll probably want to create new antitank weapons, since the LAW won't really cut it anymore (with an average damage of 35, and adjusted DR of 38 (48-10), the average hit won't even scratch the paint, and even two crits in a row won't do the trick). Then there's antitank landmines which will also have a hard time. Of course, if you go with armor for specific target areas, then its not much of a concern.
Well, yes the idea of using a new set of vehicle rules implies overhauling the existing vehilces and vehicle weapons, though in the core set there are not that many. I think there are only 4 military vehicles in the CRB, so you'd be designing most of them yourself anyway.
Also you'd need to stat up newer anti-vehicle weapons anyway. Especially since the LAW doesn't cut it IRL anymore anyway, its pretty obsolete. So the loss of its effect coincides with reality anyway.
Seriously though, when the common tactic of an anti-tank unit armed with LAWs today is to bring 4-6 of them and fire upon the target in rapid succession until its finally incapacitated. I think using a single shot from a LAW as a measuring stick is a poor choice.
I agree the LAW is not the best measuring stick, but since it's the only one in the SRD, its what a lot of people would be using to base any further weapons on. And actually its not obsolete, it was recently refielded (with a slightly different warhead design). Of course, that may be a factor of 1) The AT-4 isn't that great either, and takes up much more space, 2) We're not fighting tanks.
Oh right, the reissue. I forgot the LAW made a comeback. But still the new LAW and the d20 Modern LAW are completely different beasts, the d20 Modern one is the 'nam era unit. You'd probably need to make a new set of stats for the new rocket.
Consider the following though: d20 Mecha is a free rule set (give me some time and I'll see if I can dig up one of the better presentations of the SRD that I used to have in my sig) that I strongly recommend adopting if you want just plain better vehicle rules.
Giving the Abrams a armor hardness of 48 with Front Optimized armor and Weak Point: Tracks means that it does not have an impossible to penetrate armor from all sides. Any tank hunter worth his salt isn't going to shoot a rocket at its front, he's going for the side, which in this case will have a DR of only 24. Assuming the rocket launcher has Armor Penetration quality or is the vanilla core LAW, it ignores 10 DR. That means its shooting against a total hardness of 14 from the side. If you're shooting at the track (which if I remember correctly halves the hardness again for a -8 or so penalty to hit) thats shooting against a total DR of only 7 at the Abram's tracks from the side. This keeps anti-tank weapons extremely useful, as well as emphasises the requirement of tactical maneuvering and shot placing.
Interesting. I was just reading the other thread on the Abrams. These Mecha rules sound pretty good, I may have to check them out.
Welp, for the purpose of finding the right DR for an Abrams, I've looked at the SRD. I'm assuming a rocket-propelled grenade does something in the ballpark of 10d6 or 8d6 damage. Sorry, but I don't see it on the SRD's weapon list. Let's even it out and say 9d6.
So, a crit would do something around 54 damage with that. Since I would consider a crit able to take down a tank in a hit or two, I feel that DR 15 or 20 would be appropriate. Since it has a hardness of 20 in the SRD, I'd say just leave it.
Am I way off the mark here? Like I said before, I'm not terribly familiar with the intricacies of this system.
From the out-of-print softback Encyclopedia of weaponry the RPG-7 is stated at the first dice damage listed above an amazing 10d6 while I forget the Recoilless Rifle and Mortars also listed in the same book
I believe the RPG-7 was included in a web enhancement for the d20 Modern Core Rulebook.
I believe the RPG-7 was included in a web enhancement for the d20 Modern Core Rulebook.
Do you happen to recall what its stats were?
So, the basic Abrams has Hardness 20.
A Desert Eagle (2d8 damage) with explosive rounds as per Urban Arcana does 3d8 damage. Coupled with the Double Tap Feat, that's 4d8 damage. An average of 16, with a maximum of 32. It won't always puncture that armor, but it can.
Even more ridiculous is the Browning BPS (2d10) with aforementioned options (4d10 damage). Average of 20, maximum 40. A shotgun stands a good chance of doing damage to the tank.
Lastly, the Barret Light Fifty. That's 4d12 damage, for an average of 24 damage and maximum of 48.
Do you happen to recall what its stats were?
I'll do you one better :
[d20 Modern Web Enhancement]
RPG-7: This Russian-made rocket-propelled grenade is common throughout the third world. Consisting of a relatively simple firing tube into which a rocket-propelled explosive can be loaded, it’s something between a grenade launcher and a true rocket launcher.
When the RPG-7 round hits its target, it explodes like a grenade or other explosive, dealing 6d6 points of damage to all creatures within a 10- foot radius (Reflex save DC 16 for half damage). Because its explosive features a shaped charge designed to penetrate the armor of military vehicles, the RPG-7 ignores up to 10 points of hardness if it strikes a vehicle, building, or object.
However, this only applies to the target struck, not to other objects within the burst radius. The RPG-7 has a minimum range of 30 feet. If fired against a target closer than 30 feet away, it does not arm and will not explode.
This weapon requires the Exotic Firearms Proficiency (rocket launchers) feat.
-
ADDITIONAL AMMUNITION
Ammunition Type (Quantity): RPG-7 (4)
Purchase DC: 17
-
RPG-7
Damage: 6d6*
Crit: —
Damage type: —
Range Increment: 100 ft.
ROF: 1
Magazine: 1 int.
Size: Large
Weight: 18 lb.
Purchase DC: 12
Restriction: Mil (+3)
Hmmm, I don't really like those stats at all. d20 Modern makes it kind of suck. Actually it really sucks. And that's a weird description. It's not "somewhere between a grenade launcher and a rocket launcher". I suppose I shouldn't have expected any different. Well I'll have to modify the stats to better fit with the newer Abrams stats that were posted here (hell this round can barely stand up to the SRD Abrams armor).
Rarely do any of the weapons receive their due.
In the supplement 'Encyclopedian of Weaponry' the RPG-7 is stated at 10d6 the same as the LAW I believe... also included in the same book are stats for Mortars, Recoilless Rifle, both US and Russian weaponry i.e. M-16/Ak-47 and a few vehicles
So with the new plan,
if BIgAl decides to carry a 1" thick steel plate around in front of him,
how much impact damage does it take to punch thru BigAl's 1" steel Hardness/DR.
Shouldnt 4-6" thick advanced composite armor be way WAY better than BigAl's 1" steel plate
Can a Garand/Rem700 30-06 (2d10) punch thru 1" steel in game
(note: it cant even dream of it irl)
The Marty McFly School of Self Defense.
Simple: It wouldn't matter, it'd just count as an improvised shield and only give an equipment bonus to defense equal to a heavy shield or a tower shield.
It'd be a bitch to sunder, though.
"Simple: It wouldn't matter, it'd just count as an improvised shield."
Ahh yes,
the classic Vanadium=Steel=Wood=WetToiletPaper shield concept
Stretch a Tshirt over a wire frame and you have a bulletproof Shield Equip+1.
With a larger frame and bedsheet, you can make a +2Equip LargeShield
.... call that bedsheet a Cotton Tower Shield and you really can stop some bullets then
Although, it would explain the Future BodyArmor defence numbers being horrible:
it doesnt matter if your armor is tissuepaper or vanadium, Heavy Armor must stay the same +Def
Leather can beat tank shells, backstabbist. I'm sure double-ply can fend off 5.56mm NATO.