Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 1765996" data-attributes="member: 326">Hi BK! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;No problem mate, I was caught up watching the Ryder Cup anyway.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!&nbsp; &nbsp; :o"&nbsp; data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" /> Easily done I'm sure you'll agree. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />He he! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />I don't know how you came to that conclusion? (Playing Star Wars d20?)Juts turn the +32 into DR 32/-.However the +32 cannot be correct given that we know 100mm cannon are practically useless against the Abrams armour. Assuming a (conservative) 3d12 for the Barrett 12.7mm, there is no way a 100mm cannon should be doing less than 8d12* (average 52, maximum 96) and thats just the kinetic damage, before we consider the explosion which you could sanction as maybe +50%.*Which I think is the Abrams damage in d20 Modern anyway. Simply using hardness means that high level fighters could cut through an Abrams like butter - which is completely unrealistic.20 gauge = 0.91mm18 gauge = 1.21mm16 gauge = 1.51mm = roughly 1/16th of an inch14 gauge = 1.89mmTherefore the Abrams (frontal) armour is considered 9 size categories (and a bit) more massive = +192 (maybe +200), which is definately more accurate than +32. Side and rear armour is probably between 25%-50% effective...what do you think?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Upper_Krust, post: 1765996, member: 326"] Hi BK! :) No problem mate, I was caught up watching the Ryder Cup anyway. :o Easily done I'm sure you'll agree. ;) He he! :D I don't know how you came to that conclusion? (Playing Star Wars d20?) Juts turn the +32 into DR 32/-. However the +32 cannot be correct given that we know 100mm cannon are practically useless against the Abrams armour. Assuming a (conservative) 3d12 for the Barrett 12.7mm, there is no way a 100mm cannon should be doing less than 8d12* (average 52, maximum 96) and thats just the kinetic damage, before we consider the explosion which you could sanction as maybe +50%. *Which I think is the Abrams damage in d20 Modern anyway. Simply using hardness means that high level fighters could cut through an Abrams like butter - which is completely unrealistic. 20 gauge = 0.91mm 18 gauge = 1.21mm 16 gauge = 1.51mm = roughly 1/16th of an inch 14 gauge = 1.89mm Therefore the Abrams (frontal) armour is considered 9 size categories (and a bit) more massive = +192 (maybe +200), which is definately more accurate than +32. Side and rear armour is probably between 25%-50% effective...what do you think? [/QUOTE]

Verification