Reactive Armor for Vehicles in Traveller

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Lords, are there any Canon (or non-canon) ideas set down about this type of Armor in Traveller?

If not, how would you handle it as a Referee?

 

[Tucker]

Make the vehicle armor value ablative? Isn't it used up as it is hit? It's almost like Car Wars armor... What is the specific projectile reactive armor defends against?

 

[Andrew Boulton]

FF&S has rules for it. Probably FF&S2 as well.

 

[Aramond]

Reactive armor is primarily meant to defeat HEAT(HiExplosive Anti-Tank) rounds, but would probably be good against most explosive/incendiary armor pirecing rounds. It might be slightly effective against Plasma/Fusion weapons causing premature detonaation of the round reducing the penetration. It would be less effective against KE(Kinetic Energy) Rounds as well as being useless against Lasers, and Particle Accelerators.

 

[Aramond]

Reactive armor is primarily meant to defeat HEAT(HiExplosive Anti-Tank) rounds, but would probably be good against most explosive/incendiary armor pirecing rounds. It might be slightly effective against Plasma/Fusion weapons causing premature detonaation of the round reducing the penetration. It would be less effective against KE(Kinetic Energy) Rounds as well as being useless against Lasers, and Particle Accelerators.

 

[Todg]

Depending of course on how plasma/fusion weapons works.

Reactive armor has proven to be pretty much useless against KE long rod penetrators, which is a big reason that most MBTs built for tank vs. tank combat don't use it.

Reactive armor seems best utilized where HEAT type ATGMs are in use and vehicles are vulnerable to them.

The advantages of reactive armor is that it can be applied postproduction. The downside is that it is only suitable for heavy armored vehicles, since it involves strapping and explosive charge to your own vehicle hull.

 

[Anthony]

Reactive armor is listed in FF&S and I think FF&S2; it's also listed in GURPS Vehicles. There's also electrostatic/electromagnetic armor, which is similar in purpose to ERA but uses an electrical spark to disrupt the shaped jet instead of an explosion. That's listed in FF&S, FF&S2, and in one of the GURPS Vehicles expansions.

 

[far-trader]

I recall trying a few vehicle designs in FF&S(v1) using both and couldn't get them to work. In both cases iirc it was always cheaper, lighter, and used less volume to have equal protection in hard armor. So except in very special cases they seemed mostly useless.

Edited to correct brain melt as caught by Straybow below

 

[Straybow]

cheaper, lighter, less volume than hard armor sounds better, not useless&#133 help me out here

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Straybow:
cheaper, lighter, less volume than hard armor sounds better, not useless&#133 help me out here

Ugh, D'oh, poorly worded

not even close to what I meant, my brain must have still been frozen from shovelling the white stuff we got dumped with last night. Off to edit it now, thanks for spotting it Straybow.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Aramond:
Reactive armor is primarily meant to defeat HEAT(HiExplosive Anti-Tank) rounds, but would probably be good against most explosive/incendiary armor pirecing rounds. It might be slightly effective against Plasma/Fusion weapons causing premature detonaation of the round reducing the penetration. It would be less effective against KE(Kinetic Energy) Rounds as well as being useless against Lasers, and Particle Accelerators.

I have a friend who works for a European arms manufacturer. His job title is Interior Ballistics Engineer or something like that. He designs AT weapons for a living. I seem to recall him telling me that new generations of ERA are actually nearly 100% effective against things like RPGs (the Russian stuff used in Afghanistan was over 90% effective) and that some types of ERA will actually do something (thought the details elude me now) to stop penetrators. (Yes, KE rounds). How this is done, or if I'm even 100% sure, I misrecall. But I'll ask when I have a bit of time.

But for stopping GMS/TAC missiles and RPGs, this stuff is the bees knees. Maybe a bit dangerous to infantry, but that's just an unfortunate side effect...

 

[Pagan priest]

Standing anywhere near a tank that is under enemy fire is dangersous to infantry. Doesn't really matter how the tank is protected...

 

[kaladorn]

True enough, PP, but there is a difference between being exposed to fragments from incoming weapons or collateral explosion effects which might bounce back off the tank or miss the tank and projectiles originating from the tank coming out in a cloud .... think claymore mine....

Armour needs infantry, and vice versa. But sometimes they actually threaten one another. Moreso the tank than the infantry, but that's just a Gropo's life.

(Former R031 Infanteer)

 

[jatay3]

Reactive armor is to a large degree an add on. It is a way to extend the life of an ageing model. The Russians(who hardly ever throw away a tank however aged it is) liked it because of their old armor. The Israelis who have a lot of captured tanks like it too.
A few years ago there was a fuss in congress over "why don't we have it". The reason is that the US doesn't depend as much on old tanks, and thus thought it counterproductive. It might be good to make a version though.

 

[TheDS]

I'd swear I've seen pictures of M1's decked out with ERA before, if not US then Israeli.