On the other, other hand, if you have a laser-pulse weapon capable of destroying a tank's treads in one shot, you've probably got a laser-pulse weapon capable of blasting the tank apart entirely.
Honestly, only the most pedantic nerds are going to get angry at you if you have, say, a character shoot a rocket at the front of an Abrams, and the vehicle be destroyed entirely. Pop culture has long taught us that rockets > tanks, so audiences will just accept it if you base a combat scene's tension around a character struggling to get a clean (and safe) shot at an enemy tank, without quibbling over what kind of rocket they're using, or what armour the tank is equipped with.
edited 24th Dec '15 1:58:30 AM by Tungsten74
Show an affirming flame
Right; if you leave the type of rocket unspecified, and depict the struggle to get a flanking shot, we'll accept it.
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Tanks have dreadful visibility, and rely a good deal on opening hatches and getting targeting data from accompanying infantry to see the enemy. An unaccompanied tank with its hatches closed to defend itself from snipers can literally be totalled by a guy strolling up to it and lobbing a grenade down the barrel of its main gun
.
Combat footage from the Arab Spring and Ukraine is often disturbing, but is also a highly useful resource for combat writing.
What's precedent ever done for us?
On the other hand, frying the external sensors (leaving the tank blind) is a neat little trick to consider.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."