Tanker RPG?

The older tanks had five men or more running them: driver, gunner, loader, radio operator, commander. A large steampunk tank might require even more: someone to man the heavy caliber machine gun, someone to stoke the furnace, someone to handle periodic breakdowns. The problem is that these roles were made so that each person could do his part without thinking except for the commander. That would make those roles dull to play.

If roles were handled more like they were in a B-17, it would be more interesting. Each of their roles required serious thought and effort: pilot, navigator, gunners, bombardiers, radioman, engineer to keep it flying. But I'm not sure how to divide roles that way in one tank.

Best I figure would be to have multiple vehicles with different strengths and weaknesses.

I have to ask, what is that metal bar across its roof?

Is it to give it some traction if it gets stuck in the mud or something? You pop your head out the top and push it in front of the tracks?

You take it off, attach it to a link, get out of a ditch. Some modern tanks have ways to transport logs for the same reason.

Yeah that is kind of the issue I'm having, since the RP potential of being the guy who lubes the engine seems lack luster. I'm starting to think that a combined arms approach with each PC being in charge of a section or controlling multiple players would be the way to do it.

Incidentally, a hex-based map could probably be used with the core battletech rules to make a a decent tank simulator, since, A) they already have stats for tanks, and B) the mechs themselves handle kind of like tanks (Torso twist = Turret, sponsons = right/left arm).

Do you know where I can find the Only War PDFs and any applicable splatbooks?

It seems like the best template to start from.

wh40klib(dot)ru/rpg/Only%20War/

Have fun friend.

...

drivethrurpg.com/product/144522/Hell-on-Treads

I can't suggest a system, but you should also consider doing tanks in a non war context. I did a post-apocalypse style tank game that was a lot of fun.

Unditching bar. Throw it under the tracks to get your clumsy-assed vehicle out of the trench that collapsed under it's weight, or the mud it's stuck in. The chains provided help to recover it.

I feel that a tanker RPG would be best with a tank squadron. Four tanks, specced for slightly different roles. The players RP the commanders, with the crew choices adding modifiers to rolls.

Props for going to the Bovington tank museum, OP.

Or you could go with an engineer platoon for more interesting bits.

> The problem is that these roles were made so that each person could do his part without thinking except for the commander. That would make those roles dull to play.

Yeah, nah.

OP, go watch Fury and GuP if you want a rough idea of how to put a tank crew through all kinds of fun (for the players, not necessarily the crew) scenarios.

As for the tanks itself, WW1 does have a cool aesthetic in its own right, but the British Mark series of tanks would not be enjoyable to run a campaign with, because the conditions in them were absolutely dreadful. Crews would often pass out from heat, exhaustion, and/or fumes from the engine. The armor was capable of withstanding small-arms fire, but a field gun, mortar, or nearby artillery strike would slap the shit out of even a Mark V or a Renault FT.

I'd suggest looking more at inter-war tanks or the earlier WW2 tanks, like the M3 Lee or Char B1 - both have multiple guns and enough crew positions for at least 5 players.

>go watch Fury and GuP if you want a rough idea of how to put a tank crew through all kinds of fun
If anything, OP should go and watch Polish "Four tankers and a dog" TV series. It was made during communist era, it's rife with pro-Soviet propaganda, but it's absolutely EPIC when it comes to the "adventures of a tank crew in all sorts of scenarios"

>Commander PC tries to yell an order
>No one can hear him over the noise of the engine
>Machine guns are raking the front and left side of the tank, causing red hot fragments of steel to shed of the inside of the tank, it blinds the port side 6-pdr gunner, and makes life hell for everyone else on that side
>The tank pitches down into a shell hole - no suspension so everyone is thrown forward violently - one of the right side drivers and 2 gunners are knocked unconscious, and everyone is thrown off their feet.
>The commander is ok, but he has an awful headache and is starting to feel nauseous from the engine fumes
>Artillery explodes nearby, everyone is deafened and the port rear MG gunner is killed
>The tank bogs down in some mud
>German grenades can be heard bouncing off the roof, and more machine guns rake the front - the commander is permanantly blinded by armor fragments
>The Tank breaks down trying to get out of the mud - EVERYONE OUT
>A german gas shell explodes nearby - EVERYONE GET YOUR MASKS ON
>None of the crewmen can get to their masks in time, as they're back in the tank and only one entrance is open, the other side is under 2 ft of mud.
>TPK

This is what a realistic game in a WW1 tank would be like. I would play it, but I'm a WW1 nut and love this kind of immersion, even in a hopeless situation.

>M3 Lee
>Let's build a tall tank!
>And put a turret on it!
>And the even higher commander coupula on it!
>And then deploy it on a flat-ass desert, so even Italians can have a sporting chance aiming their artillery!
Daily reminder Americans were fucking pathetic most of the time when involved in that war.

Have it be a literal land ship, play rogue trader

>Polish "Four tankers and a dog" TV series.
Can't say I've ever heard of it, but that sounds /k/ enough for me to be very interested.

Salty euro detected, no need to thank is for ending both of your wars

US support did help end both wars, largely due to massive production and manpower.

You've got to admit their tank design was way behind the mark in 1942. They didn't even have tank factories in 1940 iirc. No shame in simply being inexperienced

Everybody didn't really know what they were doing with tank designs during that time.

To be fair, compared to the enemy tanks it was facing, it was actually pretty decent, especially in a case where your choice was a newly built American tank or nothing at all.

Say what you want about the mess of turrets and MGs it had, but tanks did a lot more than just kill other tanks in the war - if I was an infantryman I'd be more scared of an M3 bristling with guns and turrets than I would be of, say, a Stuart or a T26.

You forgot about different issue
>The engine dies for no reason at all in the middle of no mans land
>No tools to fix it
>No spare parts to even try replace anything

The amount of tanks put out of commision by engine failures was just fucking amazing, even more than the absolutely brain-dead design of Mark tanks. But then again, you can always fuck up as bad as Germans with their even more retarded A7V

Seriously, is it really so damn hard to figure out basic desing? It's not a rocket science to just look at any of those tank and realise they are just awful, design-wise, not to mention their fucking quality.

I'm a Pole.
Last time I've checked, Roosvelt sold us to Stalin. So thanks a bunch for this kind of "help"

Russians had a suprisingly good guesses when designing tanks, mostly because they had to focus on:
- making a LOT of them, even before the war started (so a simple design was needed)
- making them useful for the biggest idiot from some wilderness in Siberia (so a simplified design)
- applying sloped armour from the start, because that shit allowed to save on steel, while providing the same protection (making tanks cheaper)

In short - for purely pragmatic reasons they've figured out pretty good designs "blind". And then Spanish Civil War helped a lot, just like it helped Germans to figure out how to improve Panzer III when it was still on design board.

user, who gives a fuck about tank-to-tank fight, if an artillery piece can take you out with ease, because due to its retarded height, Lee is visible from 5 km on flat terrain, aka the entire sight a human eye can have. Sherman, which still was relatively tall, wasn't visible in the same terrain from 2 km and you would rather HEAR it first, than see.

The Mark family is literally what you've got for turning a bulldozer into a fighting vehicle, while keeping the basic bulldozer design intact and just double its size. Also, due to god-awful transmission and even worse track design (again, taken from civilian vehicle with zero consideration for heavy combat duty), the tank was barely able to manouvre.
And don't forget they were build by shipyards. Those guys had no fucking clue about land vehicle construction.

>Seriously, is it really so damn hard to figure out basic desing?
Yes, if you're starting from scratch with literally no prior experience in designing a weapon or vehicle that has never existed before.

Just look at the first car - a three-wheeled single cylinder thing that looks absolutely impractical compared to even a Model T. Or the first airplane, with its weird mix of wing-warping and oddly placed control surfaces that could barely maintain steady flight.

The general idea of 'we need something to cross trenches and no mans land, carry some serious firepower, and withstand the enemy's guns' was entirely new, and automotive technology was agricultural at best in 1918.

There wasn't a lot of time to properly design these new vehicles, let alone test them - most of the designers were flying by the seat of their pants and going with what they thought might work well enough to meet the demands of the military.

The Germans seriously under-valued the tank, only making around 20 of those A7Vs and not even putting any other concepts into production, mostly because they were stuck in a defensive position by that time and there was no point wasting resources on something that may or may not serve as a breakthrough weapon.

Well, there is still the T-28, which was just plain stupid design, but "fortunately" Winter War in Finland turned out to be the best experience and data source Russians can get before starting fighting with Germans. If not that relatively short conflict, a lot of shitty tank designs would be still produced by the time of Barbarrossa, making Soviets twice as much vulnerable, as it would took additional months to phase out bad designs and crank out production of T-34s and polishing KVs

But they were dealing with this shit for 2 years. And it was obvious from the very first tank "battle" what are the flaws of Mark I. Rather than doing anything with them, they've just keep making those.

But then again, the whole war can be described in "Bunch of stubborn assholes doing the same shit over and over and over again, expecting to get different result this time around"

>Shipyards
But WHY?!
I mean Rolls-Royce did a pretty good armoured vehicle. Why no join effort?! At least you have a good vehicle project and experience in making vehicles at all, rather than thinking in terms of building land ships.

>let alone test them
There is a fucking war going around. How that's not the best testing ground?

This

It never cease to amaze me how retarded was the whole planning and R&D in WW1. Rolls did their car, which sure, was bad for muddy trenches, but was still useful everywhere where there was no mud.
Result?
Let's make 40 of those and call it a day!

Fucking NAVY started to work on tanks and building them in dockyards, two years into the war. The design is obviously utter and complete shit, since, well, navy building vehicles using shipyards, but nobody does anything about it at all and just keep making those, with such brilliant ideas like having two fucking drivers. This is not just lack of experience. That's retarded design all the way around.
End result? Almost 1k of this shit being pumped out, never mind reliability or combat effectivnes (a bundle of grenades was able to knock it out).

Germans undervalued tanks, because they were on the receiving ends of those. And they've quickly realised a single tank costs about the same amount of money as munition required to destroy 20 of those, especially how easy it was to destroy one.
So it was a no-brainer decision for them.

A7Vs were utter shit, that's not even a question, but so was literally every single tank in that war. And should it use continous tracks rather than separated ones, the design would be one of the better ones in the whole war.

>applying sloped armour from the start, because that shit allowed to save on steel, while providing the same protection (making tanks cheaper)
Sorta, but not really. The sloped armor cuts into internal space quite a lot more than flat/lightly angled armor, giving a cramped interior.

Sure, you do get better protection, but you don't really save on steel - instead of having a flat 80mm slab of frontal armor and a much thinner section of roof (20-40mm) going back from it, you'd still need more of that thick sloped armor to cover the same total area.

There was also the T-26, which lacked a radio in most cases and was a pretty standard example of a crudely engineered inter-war tank, as well as plenty of other 'light' tanks like the BT series that weren't particularly effective against enemy tanks or field guns.

>But they were dealing with this shit for 2 years.
Yes, and how long did Nazi Germany, which had become quite good at making tanks, keep on upgrading their Pz. IV instead of shifting all production to 'better' tanks?

>There is a fucking war going around. How that's not the best testing ground?
Oh, gee, I dunno, what's a better way of testing new equipment: running it through proving grounds and getting some experience in a controlled environment for 3-6 months and then evaluating and redesigning it, or sending it into combat with an inexperienced crew and letting it get shot to pieces?

Try GURPS

British Mark series of tanks would not be enjoyable to run a campaign with, because the conditions in them were absolutely dreadful. Crews would often pass out from heat, exhaustion, and/or fumes from the engine. The armor was capable of withstanding small-arms fire, but a field gun, mortar, or nearby artillery strike would slap the shit out of even a Mark V or a Renault FT.

Sounds like my kinda game right there.

>giving a cramped interior
And Russians had a requirement of height for tankers, so go fucking figure how they've cared about the crew having comfort inside.

As about radio - just about EVERYONE undervalued importance of communication between tanks, aside Germans. And they happen to have radios just because Guderian was "by trade" a communication officer, thus being fully aware how cooperation between troops and units can completely change the situation. This is one of the main reasons why Germans wrecked the shit out of everyone early in WW2, even if their tanks were literally the worst in the war up until '43 or so. Because they had a proper tactics for them.

Meant to greentext that first bit, a little drunk

>upgrading their Pz. IV
Material shortages. Literally nothing else prevented them from switching entire production to better tanks, since they had entire production lines set for IV. Besides, up to '43, IVs were still viable option, and that was the year when they were phased over, so... yeah
Then comes the production lines themselves. It took EIGHT MONTHS to recalibrate all already existing machines for Panther production.

As always, it was logistics what ultimately fucked Germans over.

Honestly, I'd enjoy it as well if the GM was good at stringing along the game in a way that meant your characters had a good chance of surviving from session to session, or rerolling wasn't a pain.

Pretty much everyone except the US had been making tanks since either WW1, or since the late 20s when they started acquiring British tanks and copying them

The US were not experienced in tank design - hence the design of the Sherman with its short barrel 75mm, laughable side and rear armor, mediocre front armor, and very high profile. They later learned from their problems - up armored the front and gave it a better gun. Also the ammunition storage was a problem so they gave it the wet storage.

That was the point I was trying to get across - the Mark series was good enough (even if it was just BARELY good enough) and changing production to something better would have been a pretty sizable drain on their industrial capability. IIRC the Brits even had a better design or two that was ready to go into production, but they decided to stick to Mark IVs and Vs because it was too much trouble to start making another tank model.

>cuts into internal space quite a lot more
well worth it. tanks are always cramped. thats just tank life

>you don't really save on steel
yes you do, do the math.

>upgrading their Pz. IV instead of shifting all production to 'better' tanks?
They did upgrade to better tanks, its just that they already had all the tools needed to create PZ.IVs, and they were still viable.

The same reason the US upgraded their Shermans, at the same time as building newer better tanks. Literally everyone does it. British upgraded their valentines, cruisers and churchills endlessly, Soviets upgraded their T-34s, even modern militaries upgrade their armor.

Also your comment about T-26 and BT-7s - they were pretty decent when they were first released (~1933) far superior to any tanks the US were building at the time. (were the US even building tanks in 1933?)

This user gets it (or so I think)

Germans used radios, because the guy behind their tank doctrine was a com officer.
French used heavy and cumberstone armour with slopes and shit, because most of the guys behind designing them had a very "fond" memories of barely making it through while driving Renault.
Russinas applied a lot of short-gap solutions about simplified design and fantastic traction designs, because they had to deal with production shortages and absolutely fucked infrastructure of their own country.
Brits applied simplified tools to help their commanders aim the fucking guns, fully knowing how shitty Mark tanks were when it comes to actually hitting anything at all.
Japs put a lot of tiny, light vehicles that could barely be called tanks, because they had to operate in areas where anything weighting half a tonne more would end up bogged down, while still being sufficient to deal with infantry-only armies on their wake
And then there are Americans, who had NO FUCKING CLUE how to design a tank, because they never had to really use them before. The entire M family was a fucking joke, design and engineering wise, until they've simply collected all the existing data from everyone and made Shermans out of it. Which still weren't that great, but were still "good enough" and cheap to make

This. also the Germans started tooling their short barrel Pz. IVs to use HEAT rounds late in the war - giving them a decent punch against most enemy amour. Germany really was ahead of the pack with regards to cold hard technology. Sure they tended to over-engineer and their factories weren't set up well to mass produce, but they came up with some pretty good shit. No one else was using HEAT rounds fired from AT cannons in 1940.

Also the Japanese light tanks made them incredibly good at getting to positions that no one thought armor could get to. They could cross improvised log bridges, allowing them to penetrate areas though unreachable by armor. Thats one of the main reasons they were able to defeat a British force twice their size in Malaya.

>were the US even building tanks in 1933?
Not really. They were in the middle of dealing with the Great Depression and there were more important things to do than armament design. Especially given how burgers weren't really fond of tanks back then, considering them as fancy toys, rather than something to stick around. Navy had very similar stance about carriers or naval AA capability, so go figure.

Which was my entire point, really.

Its funny that up until pearl harbor, everyone in the world thinks carriers are second-rate support vessels. The Japanese literally pioneered the use of carriers as a main strike force, a tactic the US would go on to emulate.

>do the math
It's past midnight here, expect some math in 8 hours if the thread is still up.

Nah, I mean as a player I'm a real masochist and I'd love to be puking and throwing up in a tank and dying to mustard gas. As a GM I'm sadistic and I'd love to put this on my players.

They'd honestly enjoy it too, I think I might give this a spin.

Do it, maybe have sanity/morale rolls that become increasingly difficult depending on how long the tank has been driving.

Yeah, I could probably use the sanity table from AFMBE or something. This actually sounds like a great idea, considering running it as a one shot tomorrow night when we get together.

>You forgot about different issue
The engine breaking down was exactly what happened in my scenario though.

>tank gets bogged down
>tank breaks down trying to get out
This happened a LOT.

Also the German 7.7cm Feldkanone made an excellent tank killer once they were trained for the AT role firing in open sights

>even if their tanks were literally the worst in the war up until '43 or so.
I would argue that the Panzer IV was pretty decent design for its time, especially its variants, while the Panther and the Tiger were overengineered messes with a single gimmick(thick frontal armor).

>single gimmick(thick frontal armor).
they also had main guns capable of annihilating any medium tank from 1000m +

I would say that counts as two gimmicks.

>And don't forget they were build by shipyards
Shipyards? Most WW1 British tanks were built by the agricultural equipment company William Foster & Co and the rolling stock manufacturing company Metro Cammell.

It's not that simple. When 30 mm of steel can do the job of 80 mm of steel, you have 50 mm of steel saved.
That means you can build almost 3 tanks rather than one from the same amount of steel. And unlike what you might think, quality steel is the main limitation when building tanks, at least in times of WW2.
Also, if a tank has 30 mm of steel used rather than 80, it weights a LOT less, so it is easier to transport. MUCH easier to transport.

Because you are aware tanks are transported by rail if they need to cross bigger distance than roughtly 50 km?

*not that hard

Sorry, I'm a bit tired myself

HOW DO I PLAY THIS

Twilight 2000.
Just about any vehicle of Wear Condition 9 (where 10 means instant destruction).
And driving through mine-field.

This is what I hate in most games, tabletop or vidya - when you move tank divisions, you literally just move tanks, riding hundreds of kilometers over the map, rather than pack them on trains.

There should be games entirely about running army logistics to teach people how fucking complicated it is to move single screw from point A to point B during war.

War in the East/West have pays some attention to that, with the normal/strategic moviment, especially when you play the soviets in 1941.

>>you don't really save on steel
>yes you do, do the math.

So let's look at a 1x1 meter bit we need to armor. With a flat plate we need a 1x1 meter piece of armor to cover that, and get 1x the effective thickness.

At an angle of X degrees, the length of armour plate we need becomes 1/cos(X). The weight, naturally, increases equally for an equal thickness plate.

The effective thickness on the other hand becomes 1/sin(90-x).

Of course, cos(x) = sin(90-x), meaning for whatever increase you have in effective thickness, you get the same increase in necessary plate size, and with that, weight.

So you're probably better off shaping the plates to create a good layout for the tank, given all that it needs to contain, than simply angling the plates in the hope of getting the plate sot behave as if they're thicker than they actually are.

Now you might of course hope for more shells outright sliding off a more angled armour. But for that you can always just try not parking square on towards the enemy. Won't work every time, but then again, should your thin, angles plates for some reason end up facing incoming fire square on (lobbed shot, you're on uneven ground, etc) then you only get the performance of their actual, thin thickness out of them, whereas the thicker, non-angled plates will never behave as thinner than they are.

Those who don't already know are unlikely to care for playing such a thing.

>Those who don't already know are unlikely to care for playing such a thing.
user, Poles managed to made absolutely based, 11/10 board game about...
... shortage economy and standing in long-ass lines.
Here is more about it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolejka_(game)

So don't tell me there is no market for a game (or even games) about logistics

To anyone who runs Only War or a modification of it: how do you handle combat and maneuver? Do you use a grid/battle map or just narrative?

Thanks!

The M3 Lee had a lower K/D ratio than either the M4 Sherman, T-34, or even the Tiger. It and the Char B1, the latter of which were able to hold off entire battalions of lesser tanks on their own, were fine for the periods and theaters they employed, and the Royal and US armies would have been adequate to win the war if they had never upgraded to the Sherman.

To put into perspective what the M3 Lee usually faced, this 25 doozy has less armor than the M5 Stuart and a weaker engine. When the Panzer IV was upgraded to the same standard as the T-34 and M4 Sherman, Lees were rotated out of the western front and into the Pacific where they served decently.

>The M3 Lee had a lower K/D ratio than either the M4 Sherman, T-34, or even the Tiger
And what the FUCK you expect from a tank used in combat for single year, versus tanks in combat for the rest of the war? Jesus, it's like you are either too stupid to read data or intentionally cherry-picking them.

> Lees were rotated out of the western front and into the Pacific where they served decently.
To be scrapped after 6 months due to shitload of logistic issues and still awful performance. And that performance was only awful and not outright horrible due to the extreme material lacks on the Japanese side.

Seriously, you are trying to defend one of the worst designs of that war. What are you? "Sahara" fanboy? That tank was shit. Insufficient armour, insufficient gun, fucking sponson gun in the 40s, rivetted armour...
It's like saying Panzer II was good, because Germans were still using them at the start of Barbarossa.

Forgot the pic, so everyone else can realise which Sahara I'm talking about

The US were building...the BT-1. Or rather, the direct descendant of the Soviet BT series. The US army stumbled upon many of the things that would later be attributed to the Soviets such as sloped armor, Christie suspention, and the need for vehicle modularity, but they wouldn't end up applying any of these lessons until the late 30s as they were utterly disinterested in tanks beyond using them as cavalry support during that period.

Lest we not forget. The M3 Lee/Grant was never intended as a MBT. it was a stopgap measure until the teething and production problems with the M4 could be sorted out. To call American tank design a sham is disingenuous. ALL tank design was awful and dated for the most part.

At the same time the Germans were still championing the Pz III as their MB. Just beginning to come to the realization that perhaps a short 50 and crap armor wasn't goign to cut it. The Italians were rolling around in tanks that were hot shit 10 years before but sadly lacking in armament and armor. And the Russians who at least had somewhat of a clue had KVs with no ammo and obsolete BT and T-26 formations dying in droves to uncoordinated attacks. The T-34 was only just beginning to make an appearance on the battlefields of late 1942 and would not become a major player until around the end of the year.

And British armor design was so fantastic at the same time that they ordered M3s for use in the desert and demanded a even bigger turret. Granted, some of that was that they lost a large portion of their armored force in France and had to scramble to rebuild. But also it was a case of the M3 having a 75mm casemate gun. That could be used to both engage infantry and tanks. The Matilda had no HE and was slow as fuck.

Here Polefag have a 7TP

>Char B1, the latter of which were able to hold off entire battalions of lesser tanks
>lesser tanks
>LESSER TANKS
Char B1 was only useful when it was facing Panzer II, armed with a pitful 20 mm auto-cannon. It's like saying Maginot Line was good, because it forced Guderian and Manstein to go through Ardennes.

By itself, Char B1 is widely considered one of the worst tanks not just of WW2, but ever fucking made. Too fucking heavy for any use, underpowered engine, single-man turret without even a fucking periscope, where the commander had to load, shoot and aim the gun, while also giving commands, outdated design by default (it was created in early 20s), shit suspension...
... and despite relatively powerful armour, 2/3 of them were destroyed during 45 day long Fall Gelb. Oh, and let's not forget how fucking expensive they were to make.

Add to that completely shit doctrine for armour use and you have a recipe for disaster.

>At the same time the Germans were still championing the Pz III as their MB.
user, Germans were championing Pz IV ever since the first one was build... but didn't have production capabilities to make them en masse till '41. Which is ironic, when you realise the tank became pretty much obsolete that very year and when they developed Panther, they had to recalibrate all the machines for months to produce them, after spending months on calibrating them for Pz IV.

And please, don't bring 7TP meme here. That tank was just as bad as any other pre-war tank. If anyone tells you otherwise, it's probably some delusional (and right-wing) Polefag.

>7TP
>As Pzkpfw 731(p)
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

heh what 17mm of armor and a 37 isn't enough for stronk Polish tank? but I was more getting at the point that pre-war and early war tank development was a shambles everywhere. Some nations were slightly ahead of the game. But pretty much every tank was crap in it's own unique and "very special" way. To single out the Lee as being awful is a bit of a stretch. As every tank was pretty awful or ineffectively used.

Why do tanks have such a hard time applying a system to them when there are over a dozen mecha games? The underlying principal is the same, is it not?

user, Lee was designed in '40, after fall of France. At this point, there was FUCKLOAD of combat data at hand.
And like always, they were ignored and they designers just went with it, to quickly shit something out.

Besides, the sponson gun was so out of place in the design, everyone called on it when it was just presented. If not an awful amount of paper-pushing, that tank would never went pass the initial concept sketch.

It's kind of funny when you realise what utter crap Germans had on their disposal in their winning days and what kind of tanks they started to develop when the war was pretty much over and it was just a matter of time from then on.

Some of it might be the nature of their layout. When a mecha takes damage you can have limbs get blown off or seize. With a tank you have a track breaking or blown off (mobility kill) , a fire and ammo explosion (hideously disfiguring and painful fire and probably near TPK if not total), shell penetration into the crew compartment (death, dismemberment, shell spalling, general loss of 1 or more PCs with little to no recourse)

Also, a Mecha is generally piloted by one individual who is the players proxy. A tank would generally have multiple PCs. How do you keep them all engaged and feeling like they are doing something important. Not very engaging to play the driver and be constantly just sitting around waiting for the commander to say. "Driver forward."

>How do you keep them all engaged and feeling like they are doing something important
Have you ever played Twilight 2000?
The game is designed in such way that even if the party is driving a cargo truck and one person has a real job, while another might man an improvised HMG, EVERYONE is involved.
Hell, driving a truck is more involving than driving actual combat vehicle.

Speaking of which, Twilight 2000 managed to even figure out how to make it interesting for people to operate SPG howitzers

Only played TW 2000 once ages ago. And it was only infantry. I'll confess I've never given it a fair shake. But at this point in my gaming life. It is probably too fiddly for me.

Simple; mecha have a bunch of redundant shit that helps to bloat their health. You can have as many layers of magical bullshit ablative armour plating as you want before losing a limb or shoulder mounted rocket launcher and keep on fighting. It's easier to suspend our disbelief.

Tanks on the other hand have very simple terms dictating what happens to them. If they get hit and the shot was of sufficient calibre to penetrate the hull, it's probably an ex-tank. Otherwise it pings off the hull. If you want explosive armour plating then you just shoot the same spot twice and repeat the above method. There is no health bloat because the players already fundamentally know what a tank is and how it works. If the tracks get shot up then the players know that they're not going anywhere. When a mecha loses a leg or even both legs it can still pull itself around and continue fighting. The tank is immobile for the rest of the encounter.

>And it was only infantry
You've literally missed all the fun that comes from having vehicles involved. Seriously, try that game again. It requires a specific party (player-wise), but can be utterly hilarious and highly entertaining thing to play.

>Entire M family was a joke

How come I hear nothing but praise from the Stuart if every recorded combat session it had ended in either a stalemate or a retreat? How come these things were chosen to be modernized over the M24 Chaffee? Why are they still in service today?

In the interests of being open to new ideas and gaming experiences. I shall look into getting a copy and at least browsing through the rules and running a one-shot.

>Cheaper
>Lighter
>Faster
>Different doctrine used
>Half of logistics already adjusted for them
It's like you are asking why in current year we are still using non-bullpup guns. Or how the fuck 1911 managed to be service pistol up until mid-80s.

Because Chaffee was used in Korea, gaining a lot of flak for being utter shit (especially given what they were facing) and Stuart was not, keeping only fond WW2 memories when facing Italians and Japs, both inept with counter-armour measures or own fighting vehicles?
It's that fucking simple. Before anyone realise they are still making Stuarts, there was a spot for an armoured recon vehicle free. Guess what took that spot.

not that guy but.
while what you say is true, i do remember that the brits acually liked the stuart a whole bunch and as far as i know they used them on north africa, mayve some other theater but i cant say for sure

The Stuart was probably more important for the fact that it represented the base of what would become one of the first fully tracked ACPs in the world that wasn't a cramped midget car like the Universal Carrier. The actual tank itself was poor; many British units removed the turret entirely because it added weight and height and was of little practical value given the Stuart's normal role as a reconnaissance unit. The Stuart's suspension was sufficient for a vehicle many times its size (like the M4 Sherman), so it could carry a 90 mm gun and a larger engine without adverse effects to its performance; the final X models replaced its suspension entirely to the point they were as distant from the Stuart as the M60 Patton was to the M48.

Much like the Panzer IV, the Stuart was a lacking design that proved to be modular enough to tack on enough things to later make it adequate. Interestingly, the XA1 represents the latest direct ancestor of the original M series, which can be traced back to the M1 Combat Car.

>How does a tank that saw heavy fighting against vastly superior vehicles is out of production, while a recon rover used as a cheap stop-gap measure against enemies lacking tank force is praised for cross-country performance
I don't know, user. I don't know.

Brits used it to put down a lot of rebellions in their colonies. And it worked wonders for them, because Americans were literally selling Stuarts for scrapping, so they were super-cheap, while still more than enough to face random partisan group armed with old-ass rifles and maybe a crate of PPsh.

Those anons get it. The tank was utter shit as a tank proper, but was great as recon vehicle and artillery tractor, with really good off-road capabilities.