Home >> Forums >> Technology >> Anti-Armor/Anti-Tank Weapons

This topic contains 3 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Sam Warren Flashpoint134 10 months, 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
  • #3646
    Profile photo of Timothy Bucklin

    In the present day high velocity tank guns firing kinetic energy perpetrators (known as APFSDS in current nomenclature, from here on known as KEPs) and the vast variety of anti-tank missiles (ATGMs) are the sole weapons able to destroy heavily armored targets with guided artillery and guided bombs gradually taking on more share of this role. But CoM has a much more diverse set of technologies than modern day, so what do your anti-armor/anti-tank weapon systems look like? Are they evolved versions of modern systems or something radically different?

    Profile photo of Nolan

    If it’s infantry-operated, it comes in the form of a particle-laser emitter that is basically what you would expect. A man points, shoots, and hopefully kills. It requires the use of power armor to carry and operate and is best used at a distance. That, though, I’ve yet to decide if it would require a heavy power exorig or a regular one, consider how big MBTs are becoming. Tank hunter teams work in pairs, are largely independent, and are attached at the battalion level as apart of a special weapons and operations company.

    Vehicles larger than a utility combat machine (HMMWV, JLTV, etc.) will have access to a larger variety of AT weapons. Lighter-armored recon vehicles will most likely carry AT missiles. Tanks like the Tm.A-14 will have access to very-large missile ordnance. There is, how ever, a variation of the Tm.A-14 that will be specifically a tank hunter rated for even heavy tanks. It’s arsenal will be far more limited to a just a powerful particle laser, a 50mm rapid kinetic cannon, and a SAM with all the defensive features of the original.

    Air superiority seems like it wouldn’t have changed much, conventionally. Missiles would be the best bet as a particle laser strafing run seems risky at best and nonsensical at worst. Though, depending on your orbital support, you might be able to call down a surgical PL strike against particular armored vehicles – though if teams on the ground are working stealth, that would be the most unstealthy thing they could possibly do. It’d be a bargain for sure.

    Profile photo of Josheua

    Part of the discussion on this needs to center around the changes that occur with capabilities of ground vehicles. With the inherent improvements in computer systems that we’ve talked about recently, this is going to include some improvement in the capability and flexibility of weapon sets a tank or other armored vehicle might carry. Tanks will have a broader weapon set that they are equipped with to deal with various targets. Whereas a tank these days has a limited window of weapons, a CoM tank is going to have both anti-tank weapons, anti-air weapons, and anti-personnel weapons. These anti-air weapons could also fill multiple roles, such as reactive weapons to defend the tank (serving to intercept weapons fired at said tank). 

    These anti-air weapons could also fill multiple roles, such as reactive weapons to defend the tank (serving to intercept weapons fired at said tank such as advanced ATGMs, etc.). 

    You could also get creative with some personnel based anti-tank weapons. I’ve always imagined Eirangardian Knights (many of whom are Gravomancers) using advanced power armor as effective anti-armor tools. A knight standing on top of a tank and raising the effective weight of the sword could drive it into the tanks armor and raise chaos inside of it.

    Soldiers could use localized/short term pads to “freeze” a tank in position allowing it to be hit more easily by precision air attack. 

    Aircraft could knock out a tank with a high powered EMP or a nano-warhead.

    I deff. think you could get creative in the “killing tank department.”



    Profile photo of Sam Warren

    To add my two cents, I think it also depended on the national options and the overall goal of the forces in combat. Like a group of pirates may wish to capture the tank; using anti-grav or more conventional traps. Whereas a counter forces of a national military might rely upon everything from conventional explosives to CAS support from Starships and Bombers. 

    To help people I feel there are three defining prompts to configure the systems for the military or force to define them:

    1. Mission – What do they want? the whole sail destruction of the Armor or its elimination as a threat.
    2. Resources – What do they have? A Particle Laser Cannon might be just as effective as an IED, what does the force have available to it at the time. People are pretty creative in life and death situations.
    3. Why not run? sometimes the best option is to put the Tank/ Armor into a position of vulnerability, such as a narrow street.

    For me I am designing the Federation military around very easy to use systems and a reliance upon asymmetric warfare practices such as highly mobile missile pods that can be deployed from dropships or orbital systems and Particle Laser Cannons that are deployed similar to an LMG in a squad. Also sometimes the dumb fire missile can still work if you are smart about it. 

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.