Heavy Gear vs Battletech.

[FOG3]

In the novel Ideal War, guerilla forces use what are explicity stated to be sixties-era Davey Crockett mini-nukes to take out lances of heavy 'Mechs.

Any idea on what the yield on those are?

Educational site on them, take as you will. Two digit tons of TNT on the low end although they apparently were variable up to 1 kT. Google turns up nothing with 2kT, by the way.

[PainRack]

You offered compensation values. I exceeded them. You respond by saying that clearly this shows that the compensation values are higher. This is called moving the goalposts. We know that there are repeatable events that can and WILL knock a mech over. If those are shown to be lower than the events of recoil or impact, then clearly the recoil and impact values are in error and need to be reworked to a more reasonable number. Unless you're seriously going to claim that a force that could launch a mech into the air wouldn't realistically knock it over.

The values I given were simple basic conservation of momentum values.

As for moving the goalposts, the problem is this. You aren't showing that the mechs are "limited" by it. You're establishing new lower limits for them. I thank you for your work in helping to enhance the technical side of Btech, but accusing me of moving the goalposts is odd.

Or are you simply unable to understand that if a mech can do this, claiming that the figures show they can't do that is contradictary?

Also, we KNOW that mechs can be launched into the air, because they consistantly do it themselves thanks to the jumpjets mounted on many mechs, so there's no excuse for saying that some force or another keeps them anchored to the ground.

So? No one even said anything remotely along those lines.

Frankly, you mind clarifying exactly why you protest that mechs are unable to fire autocannons? You're free to argue that firing high velocity shells may topple mechs, but there is no reason to argue that firing the very same weapons it has will overload it.

Acceleration of a shell occurs through the length of the barrel. We'll say 2 meters for your average mech (they seem to range between 1-3 most commonly, with a few 4-6 meter barrels every so often). Over the course of the barrel, they undergo an average acceleration. This acceleration times the mass equals the force required to accelerate the bullet to the said speed.

Yes. I still remember basic physics, even if my ability to apply them is limited.

In an impact, the acceleration process happens in reverse, over a much shorter distance (I was using one centimeter to give you an extra zero in your favor, but since mech armor is in millimeters and rarely centimeters, well use 0.002 meters (2mm) for the deceleration distance). The amount of force required to accelerate an object moving at a given velocity is much greater in this case, because it is undergoing acceleration over the course of a much shorter distance.

You see, this is the point where I simply don't understand what you are trying to say.

Why on earth will the force of impact be smaller? Conservation of momentum is a simple issue. I simply linked it to recoil, because that was the simplest methodology available.

By the way, the test of this very basic principle can be done with a simple egg toss. When you throw the egg, it doesn't break. When it hits a soft surface, it decelerates at a much lower rate, preventing it from breaking. When it hits a hard surface with very little "give", it undergoes very rapid deceleration, and the shell breaks, causing quite a mess.

I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you, as I am not being paid to do so as your tutor. By the way, as far as conservation of momentum is concerned, nothing is violated here. The entire system is contained:
m1v1+m2v2+m3v3+.....mnvn=P (constant). All that's considered in conservation of momentum is relative velocities, not the forces required to accelerate a given object to a given velocity.

And? I absolutely understand what you're saying.

What I'm asking is why the force of impact would be significantly less than the recoil, because there is no absolute reason to assume that impact takes place over a significant period of time. So, using Newton second law, it should have been F=dmv/t.

IOW, why would the impact be "cushioned"?

As has been stated numerous times before, your physics is wretched, and you need to take a college level mechanics course. One with a lab. One where you have to do work.

Fuck off. I did that, I passed(barely).

The problem is you now are arguing concepts which appear to be utterly contradictary and I'm asking for clarification. In fact, I think it best that you restart this whole recoil thing, because you absolutely lost me.

]"Gee, regular physics doesn't like my example, so I'm going to make up bullshit to explain it away, never mind that physics CAN come up with a better model, I'm too lazy to do it myself so here's some more bullshit for you to play with!"

So? The evidence is that incoming rounds are deflected off, without damage to the armour in terms of ablation. That would probably be an elastic collision in the first place, although like I said, the limits are entirely up to speculation.

Anyway, since you're so interested in doing the KE of autocannon attacks, I give you the basic data.
Weight of impact(assume 10 round salvo) velocity(lg range)m/s
AC/2 22kg(50mm fires 2 shells) 720,1000
AC/5 50kg 540,600,720
AC/10 100kg 450,540
AC/20 200kg 270,360

The above are basic data.... Unfortunately, ROF is unavailable for the various AC/20 cannons, so it is unknown how much a single shell weighs. However, the entire salvo can be found , by just simply using ammunition.

I have to dig up LC falling calcs on SB, if the archives still carry them. The disparity between both was problematic.........

]It's hit the point where I don't need to override any of your canon values, but rather where you need to show that my physical equations of your values is incorrect. You have repeatedly refused to do that (largely through ignorance of physics). I'm perfectly willing to accept that you've found sources that say one thing, but I'm also perfectly within my rights to say such incredible variation on one part but no variation on the other is inconsistant and that the incredible variation you cite is unrealistic and improbable, and quite possibly an outlier. By the way, I will point out that you did cite 80mm AC/2s.

No. I stated that light autocannons, which are AC/2 and AC/5 range from 20-80mm.

More importantly, you miss what I said. AC/2,AC/5 is a "dervived" value, based not on a fixed calibre, but rather, calibre and ROF combined.

By the way, no comments on the ballistics equations I worked out, or would you still like to claim that a 20mm cannon, a 50mm cannon, and an 80mm cannon all share similar ballistic properties?

I never made the fucking claim. I stated that there are multiple calibre values for AC/2s, such as the canonically shown 20,30,50mm for AC/2, 30-50mm shown for AC/5 at least, 76mm,150mm shown for LB/10X and 120mm,150mm,185mm for AC/20.

Nice strawman. Incidently, considering I was making the claim that the effective range is not the true ballistic path of the cannons(aka, their real range is much longer), the variant in ballistic properties over such a small range is insignificant.

Nope. Because YOU specifically brought up badass heat dissipation technology in the armor. If that is the case, the barrel (which is armored) should not have deformed, even after repeated firings, unless the thermal dissipation factor is rather low.

That would be true.... if the barrel was given time to cool down in the first place or if the barrel was deformed

At the offense on Capra in the First Succession War, the Enforcers of the Second Crucis Lancers are credited with laying down such a concentrated barrage of autocannon fire that the opposing forces withdrew before the Enforcers had even finished. A minor legend grew up around that engagement. Leftenant Cyril Sombelbime, commander of an all-Enforcer lance, was heard exhorting his group to fire "until your cannon glows. If need be, until it explodes!" According to the story, the leftenant's autocannon did indeed start to glow, and its eventual explosion killed the prophetic officer.

.
What happened here was the barrel started to glow, indicating that the metal was being heated and radiating off energy as light. No mention of it being deformed. As for the reason why it exploded

Many Enforcer prototypes suffer from weapon jams-in some cases, the jamming round exploded, blowing off the 'Mech's entire arm and injuring the MechWarrior.

Your ability to see the larger picture is almost as bad as your grasp of science. I'm surprised more threads with you haven't been shoved in the HoS.

Because while I make the mistakes in science and math, I don't make the mistakes in logic.... Or more importantly, I'm not dumbheaded to concede when I'm plain out wrong.

Unfortunately, I'm not wrong on autocannon calibres here.

That's one example, thank you, though I was specifically going for one where the barrels deformed, I think it's in a book somewhere, but sadly, the last time I read a BTech book I was still in high school. See, we can work together on this, in fact it's what I've been trying to get across for some time now. Now, if you could just find a few examples of mechs being knocked down, I can move on to the next part.

Deformed? Which novel have you read?

As for mechs being knocked down, they're scattered throughout the literature. However, there isn't an upper limit shown, unlike what is suggested by MW3. This is not to say that multiple factors won't force a mech to go down, its just that there has been no limit shown where impact or recoil overloaded the gyro example infinitely.
There are two examples at least I'm aware of in which its stated that the gyro was "incapable" of withstanding the forces of gravity and fell. However, the scenario is such that if it occured again, the mech may very well be able to remain standing.

That's why I said that other than the known example of nukes and the blast from such a weapon, there isn't an upper limit shown YET.

Fact that Aircraft tend to have much lower respective armor values in order to stay airborne might have something to do with it.

How do I say this...........

In terms of armour values comparison, their armour point values are the same(aka, ablative values are equal). However, the defensive value of their armour is probably weaker, based on the pierce through effect. While mechs and tanks suffer from critical failure of armour to protect internal components, aerospace fighters are more prone to such failures than ground units. The armour for fighters is also different, and should be significantly less dense.

HOWEVER, we aren't discussing about why AT ranges are 6km and BT ranges are 270m.
The topic was the effective range of the medium laser before it disperses. Both the aerospace med laser and the mech med laser are the same with presumably the same power output(based on similar damage done to mechs). We know that the AT med laser can reach out to 6km, and the range theory theorises that the mech armour, as well as tactical timings shrinks the ranges of this weapon down to 270m. This can be seen, as fighters engaging tanks and armour are shrunk to Btech range, suggesting that the armour may be responsible for this, as opposed to the limits of the laser itself.

Heck, for all we know they're a specific frequency of light that is designed to be more effiecient in atmosphere, but for some reason costs more. Or you could explain it that as you increase altitude, the atmosphere gets thinner (weaker, but plausible) or that the dust and particulates kicked up by ground units moving (especially mechs) causes additional attenuation of the beam.

The problem is that the mech medium laser remains at 270m, even on airless worlds. While dust would still be kicked up, the pattern would be significantly difference.

If you wanted to have increased range lasers to fire at aircraft in HG, that's fine, there are similar conversions for ground-based anti-aircraft guns in HG, both laser and kinetic. However, when used against ground-level targets, face normal ground-based range limitations.

However, the "normal" ground based range limitations is theorised to be a combination of timings and mech armour, not the weapon and LOS itself. It may actually help if you read the Battletech and WW1 thread, where this was thrashed out in greater detail....

Considering my sudden rash in posting mistakes, despite taking half an hour at least to post and an additional 5min check, I don't trust myself to lay out the relevent models in sufficient detail.

Wait, they actually cut up what you could do in a turn into seconds? Wow, that's a bad abstraction if I ever saw one, especially given that no mech battle I've ever heard of is move, then fire, or fire, then move, but rather moving while firing.

Its move and fire at the same time. The timing rests in the complexity of the actions, which are RPG based and derived from there and there's actually a shortage of 1s in the turn.Probably that 1s is for the mechwarrior to decide what he should be doing:D

Its also explictly mentioned that up to 5s are spent making evavise maneveurs.

When force X RELIABLY knocks a mech on to the ground, and force 10X NEVER knocks a mech on to the ground, clearly, this means that forces below 10X (and some above) cannot possible knock a mech on to the ground, and the instances of reliably knocking a mech onto the ground with force X are abberations.

Wow. That's fucking brilliant.

Except that the force from weapons fire doesn't reliably knock a mech down on the ground. Depending on how one treats the canon and game mechanics, charging is iffy and DFA does knock a mech onto the ground. Kicking is unlikely.

This isn't a question of mechs not falling to the ground after an impact. Its the question of upper limits on the gyro abilities.

Good. However, can you show a single example where a force is so great, that mechs MUST fall over? I don't have the sources, and you do. However, it should be noted that the force required to cause a mech to SOMETIMES fall over MUST be GREATER than a force that NEVER causes a mech to fall over.

Never < Sometimes < Always

All I have to do, ALL I have to do, the ONLY thing I have to do, is show a force that SOMETIMES knocks a mech over, without any other major mitigating circumstances (unstable ground/footing, for example). Any greater force would logically knock a mech clearly on its ass, no question. If you can't understand that very simple concept, you sir, are truly beyond salvation.

I do. And I already stated a known example. A nuke blast. Unknown yield.

Although I have to check the invasion of terra to see whether the FAE caused mechs to fall over, or just gutted the buildings.

Nukes would almost certainly annihilate mechs. I don't think that a Mech surviving a nuke is really a viable consideration here.

Of course. Mechs would certainly be annihilated. However, the blast did cause them to fall, and so far, there isn't another scenario where mechs, openly exposed to a nuke don't fall.

-Movement works as is described, with some variance allowed as an aberration of the simulation
-Firing a weapon does not cause noticable instability (with some rare exeptions), and can be done perpendicularly to the direction of movement.
-Only the largest kinetic weapons can cause a mech to stagger and maybe fall due to the force of impact
-Weapons do not overpenetrate armor, collisions must either be elastic or inelastic as a result
-Gyros can provide some addition force, but are not perfect, as mechs do fall. However, without Gyro support, a Mech cannot effectively stand up, and falls to the ground (this is canon).

The largest kinetic weapon that can do that is the AC/20 actually, or if one prefers, multiple medium lasers.

The game mechanic is that 20+ damage causes the pilot to roll a piloting check. The AC/20 is the only weapon that does that in a single shot. That's 200kg, at a range of 270m.

Given all of these factors, we can calculate given collisions between mechs that have caused toppling, figure out the rough force required, and establish a rough limit. Impacts need to be around this limit in order to be believable, and recoil should be, for the most part, considerably lower.

This method makes the fewest assumptions and works within the canon, only making changes to unrealistic values that would destroy continuity.

Without using game mechanics........................... I don't think it possible to answer the questions without using them. And it would be impossible to apply them consistenly, like how a 20 ton DFA, with less ke than a charging hovercraft would cause a mech to fall down. My definition of game mechanics is much looser, essentially, anything that doesn't touch on dice roll is not game mechanic, but even so......

[PainRack]

It's a stretch to apply it to the Mackie. The guy specifically said he made the sensors capable of finding a tank, not of giving a damage readout. Given that he has no idea what happened to the tank, it's pretty safe to say the Mackie didn't have it.

However, battlemechs were still used by Kerensky forces in the Amaris Uprising. Without such a damage readout, they would had been highly ineffective........

But then again.... there's no evidence for when the senor was built in the first place. Its doubtful that the CAAN were equipped with such diagnostic equipment, or if they were, the accounts that we see don't mention them.

As has been noted multiple times, weapons in Battletech exist which tear off tons of armor with a single shot. It would also be rather silly to assume that the damage done by an AC is done entirely by the last shell in a salvo, with the other nine shots just softening up the armor. Instead, it seems much more plausible to assume that each part of the salvo rips off a part of the armor as it goes. Thus, even a single shell from an AC should take down some of the armor.

True.

This mechanic, by the way, was shown by your own example of a single shard from an LBX blast tearing apart armor in the head of a mech.

Its not mine BTW. The Thor LB10X essentially got lucky and took out the plexiglass of the mech cockpit.

Um, I suggested showing craters of impact and explosive weapons, and the total energy distribution power of the lasers. But thanks for the strawman. I've got a nice collection now.

Its not a strawman.

The book is current with my bro, but the begining of End Game describes a battle on Tikonov between Victor and Katrina forces. During this battle, the rain splattering down on roads was apparently sufficient to provide enough armour, or roads were somehow so superbly armoured when coated with rain, that the pulse lasers did no damage at all and "bounced" off.

IOW, rain and tarmac is sufficient to protect against pulse lasers........

[PainRack]

The idea, by the way, of monitoring how much armor you've got left in a given area, very silly. How do you know, is your armor littered with sensors? That would drastically reduce the effective protection of the armor.

Sensors imbedded in the mech structure measures how much protection is left.

Still doesn't explain the lack of a timescale between the shots. Were they simultaneous? Did he fire the PPC first, second, or what? Why were there readouts on the Mackie and not the Merkavas. In fact, there were most likely readouts on the Merkavas, given that they were being remotely controlled, and the drone controllers needed to have situational awareness, and having data on the destructive power of the Mech weapons would have been invaluable.

Yes,. you're all correct. However, he was an observer, not part of those conducting the test itself and he was apparently observing the Mackie only.

[PainRack]

Because mech armor isn't steel, it's some strange, specially treated alloy. Its thermal properties clearly change, as you've noted yourself, from normal steel. Otherwise, we could use RHA penetration easily for mechs, as they'd be using, well, steel as armor. Because the nature of the steel has been drastically changed, we can't assume that any of the original properties remain the same.

The thermal properties are changed, however, there is no reason to assume that its going to be lower than iron. If anything, it should be a lower limit because an active defensive mechanism is conducting and radiating heat away from the impact site.

Unless you argue that "crystal aligned steel" has much lower melting points than steel, or if you're arguing with Kodiak, who attempted to did a full translation using specific heat capacities, using iron as a lower limit works.

Asteroids are commonely made up of a simple nickel-iron or silicate composite. Not specially treated diamond-laced steel that has tremendous other properties and is the result of future materials science.

Nevertheless, it does not prevent us from derviving a lower limit. The X-wing 60GJ figure is after all, a simple subsitution of metal for the Death Star neutronium laced "durasteel" alloy.

Wait...they had to up the power on their lasers to get a wooden building to burn?

The Elementals were using "warning" shots in an attempt to cower the populace into surrendering a resistance cell. Once an old man stepped forward to surrender, the point commander decided to kill him and destroy the entire neighbourhood.

Okay, well, this gives us an absolute upper limit, if we allow for one shot causing critical structural failure in brick and mortar buildings. The truth usually lies in the middle ground anyway.

Actually..... there's probably an easier way to do this........ If somebody here has Citytech that is. Or even BMR, my copy is gone. There are descriptions of what type of buildings qualify for light, medium, heavy and etc, along with the Construction Factor.

We do know that Sandhurst buildings, assumed unupgraded are considered heavy buildings. We also know that the two bridges over a river in Invasion of Terra is only 50 CF, requiring 5 PPCs to take out.

Uh, so you're saying that the weapon itself will travel from firer to target at max range? I'm a little confused.

Range of Gauss rifle:22 hexes, 660m.
Speed of Gauss rifle:using 330m/s, 726m/s.
Time=distance/speed=0.9s

[The Dark]

Hotfoot, I can only think of five CEF fleets at the moment. 2nd is in Botany Bay preparing for the invasion of Jotenheim, 3rd is defending Caprice from the Talons and Liberati, 5th is at Atlantis, 7th went missing at New Jerusalem, and 8th is rebuilding after the defeat at Terra Nova. Since Support is jokingly referred to as 9th Fleet, it would probably be safe to say 8th is the current highest-numbered fleet. It's possible that there are a 1st, 4th, and 6th fleet, but they're not mentioned in the CEF sourcebook.

The sheer scale of a CEF invasion might be problematic to BT worlds, considering the initial invasion force on Terra Nova was over 400,000 soldiers, with a second, smaller drop occurring to open a second front.

Also, the slowest CEF ship other than a Gateship (The Leviathan-class Dreadnought) can outrun anything larger than a Clan York, and only the Impavido, Kirishima, or Fredasa can outrun it. With three 6kps railguns launching nuclear warheads, it can outfight those ships which are quicker. The Deil cruisers and Io destroyers can outrun any Warship, and the Ballista gunboat outaccelerates any Dropship.

[Hotfoot]

The values I given were simple basic conservation of momentum values.

You never stated the equations you were using, just multiplied mass by...well, I'm not sure WHAT you multiplied it by, but it didn't seem to be velocity. By the way, when you do physics equations, velocity is usually measured in m/s, to get that from kph/60/60*1000.

As for moving the goalposts, the problem is this. You aren't showing that the mechs are "limited" by it. You're establishing new lower limits for them. I thank you for your work in helping to enhance the technical side of Btech, but accusing me of moving the goalposts is odd.

Or are you simply unable to understand that if a mech can do this, claiming that the figures show they can't do that is contradictary?

Are there not examples of mechs losing balance from hard manuevers? If this is so, would not that provide a lower limit? See, here's the problem. I'm looking for the lower limit. You seem to be looking for the best possible limit. Let's find some examples of collisions or manuevers that lands a mech on its mechanical ass. That will give us a true lower limit.

So? No one even said anything remotely along those lines.

You did, when you said you didn't care if the force of some of those impacts is comperable to a force required to break escape velocity.

Frankly, you mind clarifying exactly why you protest that mechs are unable to fire autocannons? You're free to argue that firing high velocity shells may topple mechs, but there is no reason to argue that firing the very same weapons it has will overload it.

I'm stating that recoil has to be a trivial value in order for it to be considered realistic.

Acceleration of a shell occurs through the length of the barrel. We'll say 2 meters for your average mech (they seem to range between 1-3 most commonly, with a few 4-6 meter barrels every so often). Over the course of the barrel, they undergo an average acceleration. This acceleration times the mass equals the force required to accelerate the bullet to the said speed.

Yes. I still remember basic physics, even if my ability to apply them is limited.

In an impact, the acceleration process happens in reverse, over a much shorter distance (I was using one centimeter to give you an extra zero in your favor, but since mech armor is in millimeters and rarely centimeters, well use 0.002 meters (2mm) for the deceleration distance). The amount of force required to accelerate an object moving at a given velocity is much greater in this case, because it is undergoing acceleration over the course of a much shorter distance.

You see, this is the point where I simply don't understand what you are trying to say.

Force of impact > Force of recoil
That is the bulk of it.
Perhaps an easier example is this. A car can go from 0-100kph in 3 seconds. Nobody is hurt, and the care remains unharmed. It then crashes into a brick wall, stopping in a very tiny fraction of a second. The car is smashed, and the occupants are lucky if they survive (this is helped by airbags and the like, which slow down your acceleration in a crash). The time it takes you to stop and the distance over which you stop are linked.

Why on earth will the force of impact be smaller? Conservation of momentum is a simple issue. I simply linked it to recoil, because that was the simplest methodology available.

I'm saying that the force of impact is, in fact, far greater, because the distance over which you stop is shorter. This is what I have been saying the whole time.

And? I absolutely understand what you're saying.

What I'm asking is why the force of impact would be significantly less than the recoil, because there is no absolute reason to assume that impact takes place over a significant period of time. So, using Newton second law, it should have been F=dmv/t.

More simply, Newton's Second Law is F=ma, or Force = Mass * Acceleration.

What you need now is the equation to determine what the acceleration of a given object is. I have supplied this over my previous posts. It is, again:

v(final)^2 = v(initial)^2 + 2a(x(final)-x(initial))

IOW, why would the impact be "cushioned"?

It's not, I never said it was. In fact, I've been consistantly saying the opposite.

Fuck off. I did that, I passed(barely).

The problem is you now are arguing concepts which appear to be utterly contradictary and I'm asking for clarification. In fact, I think it best that you restart this whole recoil thing, because you absolutely lost me.

Nothing I have said has been contradictory here. Recoil is always less than impact. Please refer to above equations.

So? The evidence is that incoming rounds are deflected off, without damage to the armour in terms of ablation. That would probably be an elastic collision in the first place, although like I said, the limits are entirely up to speculation.

No, not entirely, that's the point. I've been quantitatively attacking this. There is an answer to find, it just may not be an answer you like. However, we won't know until we get there.

Anyway, since you're so interested in doing the KE of autocannon attacks, I give you the basic data.
Weight of impact(assume 10 round salvo) velocity(lg range)m/s
AC/2 22kg(50mm fires 2 shells) 720,1000
AC/5 50kg 540,600,720
AC/10 100kg 450,540
AC/20 200kg 270,360

The above are basic data.... Unfortunately, ROF is unavailable for the various AC/20 cannons, so it is unknown how much a single shell weighs. However, the entire salvo can be found , by just simply using ammunition.

I have to dig up LC falling calcs on SB, if the archives still carry them. The disparity between both was problematic.........

Um...first off, if you're going to be making a chart, it tends to help to put spaces between your comma seperated values. Otherwise it looks like your projectiles are coming close to violating causality by travelling faster than light.

Meanwhile, you're telling me that a single AC/20 shell weighs 200kg, but then you're not sure how much it really weighs? Huh? By the way, just so you know, mass is not linearly proportional to size. A 200kg projectile of the same density is not linearly scaled from a 100kg projectile. So if the AC/10 is 100mm, an AC/20 can't be 200mm unless the projectile is, well, less dense. Also, if you're firing, on average, 10 shots would not two tons of ammo be fired from an AC/20, or are you claiming that mass fired is equal to 200kg per shot (ignoring that ammo costs in BTech assume that feed and storage is included in the cost of the ammo weight). If this is so, then each individual AC/20 shell is, in fact, 20kg, not 200kg. This makes a tremendous amount of difference for all the calculation equations, and further puts into question the mass-effect model you have presented. Modern tank lightweight hyperpenetrator sabots weigh more than 20kg, to say nothing of a solid shell.

No. I stated that light autocannons, which are AC/2 and AC/5 range from 20-80mm.

More importantly, you miss what I said. AC/2,AC/5 is a "dervived" value, based not on a fixed calibre, but rather, calibre and ROF combined.

It still doesn't change the fact that the ballistic qualities between guns in the same classification would be massively different to the point where the larger caliber guns would be effectively useless.

I never made the fucking claim. I stated that there are multiple calibre values for AC/2s, such as the canonically shown 20,30,50mm for AC/2, 30-50mm shown for AC/5 at least, 76mm,150mm shown for LB/10X and 120mm,150mm,185mm for AC/20.

Nice strawman. Incidently, considering I was making the claim that the effective range is not the true ballistic path of the cannons(aka, their real range is much longer), the variant in ballistic properties over such a small range is insignificant.

That last claim is what I'm calling you out on. I've already shown mathematically that the differences over even such a "short" range as BTech uses is NOT insiginificant, and in fact would make larger caliber light AC's almost useless except at knife-fight ranges.

Of course, that was given much larger individual projectiles that you were previously using. Clearly, the projectiles in question are only about one tenth of the mass stated in your previous posts, and must now be scaled accordingly.

That would be true.... if the barrel was given time to cool down in the first place or if the barrel was deformed

The heat from repeated firings should theoretically be far less than a sustained beam or pulse from an energy weapon or barrage of such weapons. In any case, all that's needed is to show roughly what the order of magnitude of the melting point was, and we have a lower limit for what's required to melt Battletech armor, which melts the same no matter if it's an Atlas or a Flea being hit by a small laser, they both lose the same amount of armor.

At the offense on Capra in the First Succession War, the Enforcers of the Second Crucis Lancers are credited with laying down such a concentrated barrage of autocannon fire that the opposing forces withdrew before the Enforcers had even finished. A minor legend grew up around that engagement. Leftenant Cyril Sombelbime, commander of an all-Enforcer lance, was heard exhorting his group to fire "until your cannon glows. If need be, until it explodes!" According to the story, the leftenant's autocannon did indeed start to glow, and its eventual explosion killed the prophetic officer.

.
What happened here was the barrel started to glow, indicating that the metal was being heated and radiating off energy as light. No mention of it being deformed. As for the reason why it exploded

Many Enforcer prototypes suffer from weapon jams-in some cases, the jamming round exploded, blowing off the 'Mech's entire arm and injuring the MechWarrior.

It's possible the jamming and explosions were cases of impurities in the internal structure of the barrel, which caused minor deformations under repeated firing. Still, I am thinking of another example, so if you find it, please do let me know.

Because while I make the mistakes in science and math, I don't make the mistakes in logic.... Or more importantly, I'm not dumbheaded to concede when I'm plain out wrong.

Unfortunately, I'm not wrong on autocannon calibres here.

Except you have made several mistakes in logic, and while you have made some minor concessions, you refuse to make some major ones.

Deformed? Which novel have you read?

Most of the Stackpole books, a few of the Kell Hounds, one or two of the Gray Death Legion (infantry tactics FTW), and a bunch of other scattered books. It's been a long time though.

As for mechs being knocked down, they're scattered throughout the literature. However, there isn't an upper limit shown, unlike what is suggested by MW3. This is not to say that multiple factors won't force a mech to go down, its just that there has been no limit shown where impact or recoil overloaded the gyro example infinitely.
There are two examples at least I'm aware of in which its stated that the gyro was "incapable" of withstanding the forces of gravity and fell. However, the scenario is such that if it occured again, the mech may very well be able to remain standing.

That's why I said that other than the known example of nukes and the blast from such a weapon, there isn't an upper limit shown YET.

All that I need is a sometimes example to prove that it can happen with this amount of force. Recoil needs to be significantly less, and impact needs to be slightly less or equal. I'm looking, however, specifically for examples of Mechs colliding with one another, or falling during a tight turn, or something along those lines.

How do I say this...........

In terms of armour values comparison, their armour point values are the same(aka, ablative values are equal). However, the defensive value of their armour is probably weaker, based on the pierce through effect. While mechs and tanks suffer from critical failure of armour to protect internal components, aerospace fighters are more prone to such failures than ground units. The armour for fighters is also different, and should be significantly less dense.

Fair enough. I was stating a general rule of design, by the way, not one specifically for Battletech. However, I could make the argument that while the notation in the game stays the same for the sake of simplicity, the scales involved actually shift somewhat.

HOWEVER, we aren't discussing about why AT ranges are 6km and BT ranges are 270m.
The topic was the effective range of the medium laser before it disperses. Both the aerospace med laser and the mech med laser are the same with presumably the same power output(based on similar damage done to mechs). We know that the AT med laser can reach out to 6km, and the range theory theorises that the mech armour, as well as tactical timings shrinks the ranges of this weapon down to 270m. This can be seen, as fighters engaging tanks and armour are shrunk to Btech range, suggesting that the armour may be responsible for this, as opposed to the limits of the laser itself.

If the armor is the same in both reference frames, why would it result in the change of a variable? This makes no sense to me.

The timings thing almost makes sense, except that a small laser which is easy to aim accurately should then have a much greater range associated with it than it does in the tactical game.

The problem is that the mech medium laser remains at 270m, even on airless worlds. While dust would still be kicked up, the pattern would be significantly difference.

That can safely be considered to be a level of detail missed in the abstraction of the game mechanics.

However, the "normal" ground based range limitations is theorised to be a combination of timings and mech armour, not the weapon and LOS itself. It may actually help if you read the Battletech and WW1 thread, where this was thrashed out in greater detail....

But if the same armor is used in every frame of reference, how can it possibly be used to change anything between those frames of reference. It makes no sense. That, and the timing thing just don't hold up to scrutiny.

Its move and fire at the same time. The timing rests in the complexity of the actions, which are RPG based and derived from there and there's actually a shortage of 1s in the turn.Probably that 1s is for the mechwarrior to decide what he should be doing:D

Its also explictly mentioned that up to 5s are spent making evavise maneveurs.

Ugh. Bad game mechanics. I won't penalize you for that, but I will piss on FASA's grave once more. God, what were they thinking?

Except that the force from weapons fire doesn't reliably knock a mech down on the ground. Depending on how one treats the canon and game mechanics, charging is iffy and DFA does knock a mech onto the ground. Kicking is unlikely.

This isn't a question of mechs not falling to the ground after an impact. Its the question of upper limits on the gyro abilities.

Okay, we'll use DFA. A mech launching itself onto another mech. We'll ignore downward momentum for the moment, since that should be absorbed by the normal force. Now all we need is an example, two fifty ton mechs, one with jump jets, smashing into the other.

I do. And I already stated a known example. A nuke blast. Unknown yield.

Although I have to check the invasion of terra to see whether the FAE caused mechs to fall over, or just gutted the buildings.

Let's not use weapons, but rather kinetic impacts of mechs against each other or mechs under extreme manuevering. It's simpler and has fewer possibilities for error.

Of course. Mechs would certainly be annihilated. However, the blast did cause them to fall, and so far, there isn't another scenario where mechs, openly exposed to a nuke don't fall.

Well, I suppose that works as well, if we can find the distance from ground zero and work out what the force of the shockwave is based on initial yield and distance.

The largest kinetic weapon that can do that is the AC/20 actually, or if one prefers, multiple medium lasers.

Actually, the lasers thing could be described by the armor itself providing the reactive force when it ablates, but that's another thing for the moment.

The game mechanic is that 20+ damage causes the pilot to roll a piloting check. The AC/20 is the only weapon that does that in a single shot. That's 200kg, at a range of 270m.

Actually, it's ten shots of 20kg, and this massively changes the dynamic, but it gives us a new lower limit value to toy with.

Without using game mechanics........................... I don't think it possible to answer the questions without using them. And it would be impossible to apply them consistenly, like how a 20 ton DFA, with less ke than a charging hovercraft would cause a mech to fall down. My definition of game mechanics is much looser, essentially, anything that doesn't touch on dice roll is not game mechanic, but even so......

How does a 20ton DFA have less force behind it than a charging hovercraft? Take in mind, DFA implies you're also using torque against your foe.

In any case, if game mechanics must be used, then that's what we have to use. It'd be nice if we found examples in the books, but alas, we work with what we've got.

[Hotfoot]

Hotfoot, I can only think of five CEF fleets at the moment. 2nd is in Botany Bay preparing for the invasion of Jotenheim, 3rd is defending Caprice from the Talons and Liberati, 5th is at Atlantis, 7th went missing at New Jerusalem, and 8th is rebuilding after the defeat at Terra Nova. Since Support is jokingly referred to as 9th Fleet, it would probably be safe to say 8th is the current highest-numbered fleet. It's possible that there are a 1st, 4th, and 6th fleet, but they're not mentioned in the CEF sourcebook.

Ah, okay. I knew there were at least eight, but I didn't know how many more they had squirreled away. Thank you. Any idea on ship numbers, by the way?

The sheer scale of a CEF invasion might be problematic to BT worlds, considering the initial invasion force on Terra Nova was over 400,000 soldiers, with a second, smaller drop occurring to open a second front.

True, but remember, War of the Alliance CEF only had GRELS and HT's for the most part. It's not until the ISCW (Interstellar Cold War) that they started deploying frames in any sort of serious number. It's safe to say that frame deployment would drastically reduce the total numbers involved.

Also, the slowest CEF ship other than a Gateship (The Leviathan-class Dreadnought) can outrun anything larger than a Clan York, and only the Impavido, Kirishima, or Fredasa can outrun it. With three 6kps railguns launching nuclear warheads, it can outfight those ships which are quicker. The Deil cruisers and Io destroyers can outrun any Warship, and the Ballista gunboat outaccelerates any Dropship.

I've never had any knowledge of the numerical capabilities of HG ships (I never got the space supplement), I was just working on the examples of space combat given in the story books and fluff. Thank you though, for the information.

Of course, HG fleets suffer a severe strategic disadvantage in that they are limited to the naturally-occuring Tannhauser gates, rather than the free-float FTL of BTech.

[FOG3]

Found better links, all point to low sub-kiloton yield from a W-54 and the Davy Crockett.

A site which has specifics of what one of them going off does among other things. From Rems to overpressure to operation it has the specs. Operator could vary yield from 10 to 250 tons TNT equivalent. Of course, that is a mint condition one. Give the Uranium-235 enough time to half life on you and I expect the effective yield on those would go down.

Globalsecurity.org data on the W-54 warhead and Davy Crockett. It does appear to hav a typo of having 18 tons of TNT as 0.18 kT instead of 0.018 kT.

[Nephtys]

The problem is that the mech medium laser remains at 270m, even on airless worlds. While dust would still be kicked up, the pattern would be significantly difference.

That can safely be considered to be a level of detail missed in the abstraction of the game mechanics.

Yet, the game mechanics take low/high gravity into account for ballistic weapons (throwing off their accuracy unless recalibrated). Yes, it's likely simplified for game mechanics, but why would being a few hundred meters higher make an atmosphere so much less of a factor? Weak dodge here at best.

[Hotfoot]

Yet, the game mechanics take low/high gravity into account for ballistic weapons (throwing off their accuracy unless recalibrated). Yes, it's likely simplified for game mechanics, but why would being a few hundred meters higher make an atmosphere so much less of a factor? Weak dodge here at best.

The density of the atmosphere does directly affect the dispersion of the laser, unless we're dealing with something that is clearly not a laser but is still called one (as in Star Wars Turbolasers). However, bad laser physics is very much a trend in BTech (pulse vs. beam, wtf?).

However, as mentioned, it's entirely possible that AT values are kept in similar notation, simply reduced in scale as an abstraction to provide similar "rules" in the tactical game. At this point, it's the only possibility I can see that would make sense. I'm open to alternative explanations, but classically, aircraft have far weaker armor protection than ground-based counterparts in order to maintain lift and speed. I would first assume that this remains true and that while the planes use the same materials as a mech would, they are applied in a different fashion. This would explain why a medium laser used against an Aerospace plane is effective up to 6km, but when used against a much more heavily armored 'mech or tank, is only effective at 270m, without making a claim that for some reason lasers gain range the longer you get to "aim" them. If anything, lasers are the ultimate in point and shoot technology, and unless you're firing at extreme ranges, no matter what they should have the same effective range (assume they maintain power concentration) in any given frame of reference. The only possible solution is that something causes the beam to stay coherant longer (less atmo/no atmo) or the targets in question are considerably weaker (they use the same scale of armor in game terms, but in reality the coverings are much weaker).

The lack of the true attenuation mechanic in Battletech basic game rules can be ascribed to an oversimpification of the weapons in general (there are, IIRC, more advanced rules which do take such things into account, but they are rarely used, it seems).

[Nephtys]

Yet, the game mechanics take low/high gravity into account for ballistic weapons (throwing off their accuracy unless recalibrated). Yes, it's likely simplified for game mechanics, but why would being a few hundred meters higher make an atmosphere so much less of a factor? Weak dodge here at best.

The density of the atmosphere does directly affect the dispersion of the laser, unless we're dealing with something that is clearly not a laser but is still called one (as in Star Wars Turbolasers). However, bad laser physics is very much a trend in BTech (pulse vs. beam, wtf?).

However, as mentioned, it's entirely possible that AT values are kept in similar notation, simply reduced in scale as an abstraction to provide similar "rules" in the tactical game. At this point, it's the only possibility I can see that would make sense. I'm open to alternative explanations, but classically, aircraft have far weaker armor protection than ground-based counterparts in order to maintain lift and speed. I would first assume that this remains true and that while the planes use the same materials as a mech would, they are applied in a different fashion. This would explain why a medium laser used against an Aerospace plane is effective up to 6km, but when used against a much more heavily armored 'mech or tank, is only effective at 270m, without making a claim that for some reason lasers gain range the longer you get to "aim" them. If anything, lasers are the ultimate in point and shoot technology, and unless you're firing at extreme ranges, no matter what they should have the same effective range (assume they maintain power concentration) in any given frame of reference. The only possible solution is that something causes the beam to stay coherant longer (less atmo/no atmo) or the targets in question are considerably weaker (they use the same scale of armor in game terms, but in reality the coverings are much weaker).

The lack of the true attenuation mechanic in Battletech basic game rules can be ascribed to an oversimpification of the weapons in general (there are, IIRC, more advanced rules which do take such things into account, but they are rarely used, it seems).

I'm not saying the atmosphere doesn't affect it. But does being a few hundred meters off the ground chance the atmosphere THAT much? Why by this reasoning, wouldn't a mech on a mountainside have the same range?

[Hotfoot]

I'm not saying the atmosphere doesn't affect it. But does being a few hundred meters off the ground chance the atmosphere THAT much? Why by this reasoning, wouldn't a mech on a mountainside have the same range?

Well, few hundred meters, probably not to any significant level, no. You're right in saying it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I'm tossing out a hypothesis here and there to try and explain things while breaking as few physical laws as possible, and they're not all good ones. Clearly, that one in particular doesn't hold up well. If the Aerospace fighters all were fighting at very high altitudes where atmospheric density is a tenth of what it is on the surface, one might see similar changes in range using the same weapons against the same armor. In which case, if you could get a mech that high, it could easily be a factor. Of course, given that the game is an abstracted simulation, it would be reasonable to assume that a mech on top of a very tall mountain (or on a world with very low atmospheric desnity) would encounter similar increases in range. That this mechanic is not covered in the rules would be considered an oversight on the part of the game designers.

[Sea Skimmer]

Kravasky station

In the novel Ideal War, guerilla forces use what are explicity stated to be sixties-era Davey Crockett mini-nukes to take out lances of heavy 'Mechs.

Any idea on what the yield on those are?

There are two Warheads for Davy Crocket, and in fact Davy Crocket is two weapons, one a 120mm and the other a 155mm recoilless rifle. The W-51 warhead yielded 22 tons when tested and the W-54 warhead could yield 10 or 20 tons. Variants of W-54 where also used for the GAR-11 AAM yielding 250 tons and a Special Atomic Demolition Munition yielded 10 tons or 1kt, other yield options may have existed in-between. Obviously, only a tiny fraction of the energy from any nuclear initiation would be directed at a point target like a vehicle.

A crocket is 2KT. That's plenty to take out a lot of things, you know.

That is completely incorrect, no warhead for the weapon could yield 2kt. That would have been more then a bit too powerful for weapons with 2 and 4km range respectively for the 120 and 155mm versions. The US did build a 2kt 155mm artillery shell with the W-82 warhead but that was a far later project, and most US tactical nuclear artillery shells yielded 1kt or less, 100 tons seems to have been popular for both 155 and 8-inch shells.

[The Dark]

Hotfoot, I can only think of five CEF fleets at the moment. 2nd is in Botany Bay preparing for the invasion of Jotenheim, 3rd is defending Caprice from the Talons and Liberati, 5th is at Atlantis, 7th went missing at New Jerusalem, and 8th is rebuilding after the defeat at Terra Nova. Since Support is jokingly referred to as 9th Fleet, it would probably be safe to say 8th is the current highest-numbered fleet. It's possible that there are a 1st, 4th, and 6th fleet, but they're not mentioned in the CEF sourcebook.

Ah, okay. I knew there were at least eight, but I didn't know how many more they had squirreled away. Thank you. Any idea on ship numbers, by the way?

I'm trying to hunt down ship numbers right now. The CEF has at least ten Tortoise-class Gateships plus an unspecified number of pre-Ice Gateships (at least five, since fluff strongly suggests at least one accompanied each fleet). Since only three Tortoises have left Sol, it could easily be thirteen or more ancient Gateships, since one would be needed in each system to open Gates for the Fleets. This gives us at least fifteen Gateships for the CEF, with the number probably being twenty-three or more. There are currently five dreadnoughts active, one as flag for each fleet, but there were at least seven previously, based on intelligence reports (two were destroyed by Terra Nova). Numbers of other ships are unknown, although there were at least 96 Bastille transports to carry ground soldiers. However, since the CEF overall is stated to have nearly a thousand of them, it's more probable that it had around 200 Bastilles (and thus around 1,000,000 soldiers). I may ask over at the Pod's forum if official numbers exist for ship classes, since Nick and Jock both know a lot more than I do.

Terra Nova maintains a fleet around the Gates of twenty gunships plus nuclear mines, as well as fleets supported by the North, the South, Port Arthur, and Paxton. Port Arthur has the smallest fleet, with five orbital spaceplanes, while Paxton has about half a dozen fusion-powered shuttles. The Terra Nova system has five shipyards (three around Terra Nova proper, two around the planet Hope). There are two active Gateships, four in drydock, and one mothballed, although that is due to the current peace, as all were active during the War. While exact numbers aren't given, the Valeria-class from the North is common enough that they're reduced to using the names of villages, because the major towns have been used. The Southern Richelieu exists in similar numbers. Each carries drones in addition to its armament (210 tons and 185 tons, respectively, of drones). The Jomini is a relatively new ship introduced during the Judas Syndrome that acts as a minesweeper and EW ship, although number existing is unknown. There are currently four Chimera-class Pocket Dreadnoughts, with the anticipation of five more competing within a cycle (three are ahead of schedule). Both North and South have dedicated space fighters, designed for lightning strike attacks based on a single pass through a fleet. Paxton Arms maintains an aerospace fighter capable of reaching low orbit to either perform ASAT missions or intercept invaders at the edge of the atmosphere. While overall number of ships isn't listed, it is stated that 17% of all dedicated spacecraft are military in nature. Others could be converted, given that the original Chimera was a merchant ship rebuilt and armed as a desparation measure against the CEF fleet.

The sheer scale of a CEF invasion might be problematic to BT worlds, considering the initial invasion force on Terra Nova was over 400,000 soldiers, with a second, smaller drop occurring to open a second front.

True, but remember, War of the Alliance CEF only had GRELS and HT's for the most part. It's not until the ISCW (Interstellar Cold War) that they started deploying frames in any sort of serious number. It's safe to say that frame deployment would drastically reduce the total numbers involved.

It would certainly reduce the number, but it must also be remembered that the failure was 8th Fleet being unable to remain in orbit to support and add to the ground forces. The attack on Baja Launch Facility (the second drop) was the only time during the War they managed to penetrate the drone screen around Terra Nova. Currently only two Fleets have Frames (3rd and 8th), so the majority of the Fleets are the old-fashioned ones, relying on GRELs and the hovervehicles (APC, MBT, and Arty).

Also, the slowest CEF ship other than a Gateship (The Leviathan-class Dreadnought) can outrun anything larger than a Clan York, and only the Impavido, Kirishima, or Fredasa can outrun it. With three 6kps railguns launching nuclear warheads, it can outfight those ships which are quicker. The Deil cruisers and Io destroyers can outrun any Warship, and the Ballista gunboat outaccelerates any Dropship.

I've never had any knowledge of the numerical capabilities of HG ships (I never got the space supplement), I was just working on the examples of space combat given in the story books and fluff. Thank you though, for the information.

. Some information's in the Black Talon book, some in the three space books. Accelerations range from about 0.2g for Gateships (placing them at Jumpship levels) to 4g for slow battleships (roughly equivalent to a quick Warship) to 9g for the Northern space fighter (similar to medium Aerospace fighters)

Of course, HG fleets suffer a severe strategic disadvantage in that they are limited to the naturally-occuring Tannhauser gates, rather than the free-float FTL of BTech.

True, but they can use the gates every 12 hours, while a Jumpship or Warship will need 182 hours to recharge for a second jump from Terra Nova.

[Hotfoot]

<snip long, detailed analysis>

Mmmm, lot to consider there, thanks.

It would certainly reduce the number, but it must also be remembered that the failure was 8th Fleet being unable to remain in orbit to support and add to the ground forces. The attack on Baja Launch Facility (the second drop) was the only time during the War they managed to penetrate the drone screen around Terra Nova. Currently only two Fleets have Frames (3rd and 8th), so the majority of the Fleets are the old-fashioned ones, relying on GRELs and the hovervehicles (APC, MBT, and Arty).

True. Still, I'd imagine that whenever a replacement is made from troops for Frames, it would be something like a 10-1 ratio or something similar, just due to the mass and space involved. May be slightly more or less, but I'd estimate it's in that ballpark.

. Some information's in the Black Talon book, some in the three space books. Accelerations range from about 0.2g for Gateships (placing them at Jumpship levels) to 4g for slow battleships (roughly equivalent to a quick Warship) to 9g for the Northern space fighter (similar to medium Aerospace fighters)

Hmm, nice, but that's pretty much combat burn only. How long can they maintain burn for?

True, but they can use the gates every 12 hours, while a Jumpship or Warship will need 182 hours to recharge for a second jump from Terra Nova.

Good point, forgot for a moment about the LY and number of jumps a BT ship could make. Isn't it something like 2 jumps in a row max, more maybe if you risk blowing the capacitors? Also, do you recall the ranges, and the distances between colonies in HG?

Oh, also, I finally got my hands on some reference books today. I'll be going through them for some additional info as I can.

Meanwhile, I'll see if I can do a comparison of an AC20 vs. a Heavy Field Gun. Given the nature of most AC20's, I suspect that their penetration against Heavy Gear heavy armor is not going to be terribly spectacular. Assuming a mere 10% of the total mass of an ammo box in BTech consists of loading mechanisms and structure, we're still left with the fact that less than 50% of the shells are, in fact, the projectile. Using the caseless ammunition as a model, removing the cases from the equation reduces mass and size enough to fit twice as much ammo in the box with no change in mass. Add to that the fact that there still has to be significant powder charge behind the projectile, and, well. Assuming another mere 10% remaining mass in powder, that leaves the projectile with
1000*0.9 = 900 (total mass of projectiles after removing loading gear)
900/2 = 450 (total mass of projectiles after removing casing)
450/5 = 90 (total mass of one "burst")
90*0.9 = 81 (total mass of one "burst" after removing propellant)
81/10 = 8.1 (total mass of a single projectile)

8.1 kg for a single, 200mm projectile. Take in mind this is assuming only 5% of the mass of the total shell is made up of propellant.

Assuming this is a 200mm cube (which it's not, but makes for an easier analysis, and is generous to the BTech side as a shell would tend to be much longer than it is wide), this gives us a density of 1012.5 kg/m^3. Right between water and sea water (1000 and 1025, respectively).

Even assuming 100% of each shell's mass is included in the projectile, this gives us 20kg to work with. The density of the projectile is 2500 kg/m^2. This is slightly less dense than aluminum. Iron has a density of 7870.

Assuming one shot instead of a burst, but still assuming we lose weight for reasonable purposes gives us 81kg. This gives the cube a density of 10125 kg/m^3. This is much more reasonable, and gives us a density which is considerably greater than iron, but still less than that of silver (or lead).

Assuming one shot of the full 200kg, we have a density of 25000 kg/m^3, which is denser than the most dense than iridium (which is far denser than Uranium).

Take in mind, of course, that these densities are all greater than what would normally be expected from a properly shaped shell. If the first example is true, that's a pretty bad sign.

[Typhonis 1]

IF,however , Battletech weapons are so good. Why is it tht physical attacks, punching ,kicking,death from above, and melee weapons can damage mech armor?

[Hotfoot]

IF,however , Battletech weapons are so good. Why is it tht physical attacks, punching ,kicking,death from above, and melee weapons can damage mech armor?

The hypothesis that I seem to find most plausible is that the ablation point of the armor is relatively low on the kinetic/thermal/explosive scale, but as more force is applied, the protection level increases exponentially. This in some way explains why a Gauss cannon, which has energy values so much higher than an AC/20, does less damage.

It would also explain why the weapons they use seem overspecialized to a degree. Why bother building long-range high-powered weapons when such contraptions wouldn't be feasible on mechs in terms of recoil or damage. Might as well mount several smaller weapons which individually have a much greater chance of shredding the armor in bits and pieces.

The ultimate example of this is the Clan Pirhana, which mounts a two medium lasers, a small laser, and twelve machinegun arrays. It is stated that the mech was designed specifically to destroy Inner Sphere Mechs, and can demolish rear armor almost instantly, just with the machineguns. The only reason this mech is not extensively used, apparently, is that the clan that would have deployed them was never seen after the Battle of Tukkayid.

Going by the examples set by individual accounts of small lasers and LRM impacts on non-mech targets, we unfortunately are set with a very low lower limit for the minimum ablation point of mech armor, and low firepower for those weapons. While something like a Pirhana might be a significant threat to a Mech, it is virtually no threat at all to something like a Heavy Gear Strider or Light Tank, and a minimal threat to a cadre of Gears.

However, this doesn't mean that all is hopeless for BTech. If we assume that more energy/force/explosive power is required from a single shot of a weapon as opposed to multiple shots than would proportionally be expected, they may have weapons which could realistically be threats to others, such as large lasers and PPCs. Gauss rifles are possible, but may need to be re-examined in order to better fit the reality proposed to us in the system.

Unfortunately, the missile systems, even SRMs, might be too underpowered for a single missile to do any significant damage to a properly armored target. At best, I see SRMs as equivilent to the Light Rocket Packs used in Heavy Gear.

Autocannons and machineguns, unfortunately, under strict canon, are worthless weapons. Water and Aluminum are worthless as penetrators, and their explosive power is questionable. I will be doing some calculations to determine under which conditions they may be considered worthwhile (most likely reducing the number of shots per salvo in the process). The minimum acceptable value I'm looking for is iron or steel (roughly 63kg per 200mm projectile).

Needless to say, this unnaturally low ablation level makes them particularly vulnerable in any vs. debate, as a sufficient quantity of low-powered weapons can shred a mech, and if firepower is long-ranged enough, it would be simple to play a game of keep-away long enough to cripple the opponent.

[PainRack]

Hotfoot, I'm currently unable to debate on this much further, as a result of my need for sleep.

Beside, debating this topic at 2am isn't doing wonders in the accuracy department. I just stick to correcting errata and data, until I can get loose some free time in the afternoon.

Um...first off, if you're going to be making a chart, it tends to help to put spaces between your comma seperated values. Otherwise it looks like your projectiles are coming close to violating causality by travelling faster than light.

Meanwhile, you're telling me that a single AC/20 shell weighs 200kg, but then you're not sure how much it really weighs? Huh? By the way, just so you know, mass is not linearly proportional to size. A 200kg projectile of the same density is not linearly scaled from a 100kg projectile. So if the AC/10 is 100mm, an AC/20 can't be 200mm unless the projectile is, well, less dense. Also, if you're firing, on average, 10 shots would not two tons of ammo be fired from an AC/20, or are you claiming that mass fired is equal to 200kg per shot (ignoring that ammo costs in BTech assume that feed and storage is included in the cost of the ammo weight). If this is so, then each individual AC/20 shell is, in fact, 20kg, not 200kg. This makes a tremendous amount of difference for all the calculation equations, and further puts into question the mass-effect model you have presented. Modern tank lightweight hyperpenetrator sabots weigh more than 20kg, to say nothing of a solid shell.

No. I'm saying the ENTIRE salvo weighs 200kg. A ammo slot weighs 1 ton, and an AC/20 carries sufficient ammo to fire for 5 turns. Aka, each salvo is firing 200kg worth of ordance as an upper limit.

As for the shell weight, that's also been realised a long time ago. On higher calibres, each Btech round weighs less than the modern equivalent.

It still doesn't change the fact that the ballistic qualities between guns in the same classification would be massively different to the point where the larger caliber guns would be effectively useless.

Excuse me, I think you mistook something. What makes you think that the T&T won't change? You're blindly assuming that a mech firecontrol system will blindly input the same parameters for different calibre systems.

We have only one known occasion where two similar weapon systems have different calibres, and that was a tank with 2 MGs. One MG fired a high ROF, small calibre gun while the other was the opposite.

That last claim is what I'm calling you out on. I've already shown mathematically that the differences over even such a "short" range as BTech uses is NOT insiginificant, and in fact would make larger caliber light AC's almost useless except at knife-fight ranges.

A misunderstanding is going on here. I was actually making the point that ballistic trajectory isn't sufficient to say why the range is short ....... especially once the canon 50mm AC/2 round is plugged in.

It's possible the jamming and explosions were cases of impurities in the internal structure of the barrel, which caused minor deformations under repeated firing. Still, I am thinking of another example, so if you find it, please do let me know.

Or it could be what causes most ammo jams. Problems with the ammunition feeding system. Highlander IIC, Assasin TR are all fine examples of this.

I need data! If you want another example, you have to provide some form of clue! You don't even provide the names of the novels you read..... its virtually going to be impossible to dig out any form of information.

If the armor is the same in both reference frames, why would it result in the change of a variable? This makes no sense to me.

Sigh. They AREN"T the same. The only constant is the ablative value.
Both of them are made from different materials. The main component of mech armour is crystal aligned steel, whereas for aerospace fighters, they are treated aluminium and titanium. Sure, they have the name "ferro" in them, but that just suggest its magnetic in nature, and certainly doesn't suggest that their main element is steel.

Furthermore, we know that the defensive ability is weaker than tanks and mechs, by virtue of the pierce through effect. The system of calculating critical hits for mechs and tanks is essentially a "lucky" hit, whereas for fighters, it depends on how much armour points is left on the fighter.

However, the weapons ARE the same. The Imperator autocannon of the Slayer is the same Imperator autocannon of the Cicada.

The timings thing almost makes sense, except that a small laser which is easy to aim accurately should then have a much greater range associated with it than it does in the tactical game.

Fired over a longer distance, the movement of both target and attacker will result in a much lower intensity over the target area.

Okay, we'll use DFA. A mech launching itself onto another mech. We'll ignore downward momentum for the moment, since that should be absorbed by the normal force. Now all we need is an example, two fifty ton mechs, one with jump jets, smashing into the other.

65 ton crusader smashing into a PH counts?

Let's not use weapons, but rather kinetic impacts of mechs against each other or mechs under extreme manuevering. It's simpler and has fewer possibilities for error.

Skidding then.

How does a 20ton DFA have less force behind it than a charging hovercraft? Take in mind, DFA implies you're also using torque against your foe.

Because a 50 ton hovercraft can charge at over 120kph, whereas a 20 ton DFA, as impressive as it is is still dropping from a height of 18m.

[Hotfoot]

Hotfoot, I'm currently unable to debate on this much further, as a result of my need for sleep.

You're free to post at any time that is convenient for you, I'm hardly holding that against you or making demands that data be in by a certain time.

No. I'm saying the ENTIRE salvo weighs 200kg. A ammo slot weighs 1 ton, and an AC/20 carries sufficient ammo to fire for 5 turns. Aka, each salvo is firing 200kg worth of ordance as an upper limit.

As for the shell weight, that's also been realised a long time ago. On higher calibres, each Btech round weighs less than the modern equivalent.

Okay, here's the problem with autocannons:

There's simply no way the entire mass of the ammo supply is ejected in a chemical, cased, ammunition system. It's impossible. 20kg per shell is the upper limit by your numbers of shells per salvo, and it's still too light to be an effective penetrator against modern armor. More realistic numbers put shell mass at under 10kg, which makes for extraordinarily poor penetration qualities. In order for the guns to be remotely plausible as weapons, the number of shots per burst needs to drop dramatically, like 1-3 shots.

Excuse me, I think you mistook something. What makes you think that the T&T won't change? You're blindly assuming that a mech firecontrol system will blindly input the same parameters for different calibre systems.

No, I'm assuming that the classification system is clearly broken. When you need to have a 20-45 degree difference in firing arcs between two weapons of the same classification, there's a bit of a problem involved. Additionally, any high-mass low velocity round would be much easier to dodge at range.

Also, ballistics calculations need to be reworked entirely, as previously you and I were both working with the sum of the shells, not each shell individually. This makes a collosal difference.

We have only one known occasion where two similar weapon systems have different calibres, and that was a tank with 2 MGs. One MG fired a high ROF, small calibre gun while the other was the opposite.

Speaking of, I've done a bit of digging, and have found that 20mm is the "average" size of a Machinegun in BTech, with 30mm representing heavier rounds but lower ROF, and a third, "lighter" caliber weapon with a very high rate of fire being mentioned. Given the existance of such a weapon, and my inability to check the Mechwarrior stats for the man-portable version, it seems likely that the weapon is in the 10-15mm range, and is most likely the infamous 12.7mm (.50 caliber) machinegun of note. In any event, we know that rounds smaller than 20mm are used in Mech machineguns, and can pose a threat. This gives us a value to work with concerning kinetic weapons.

A misunderstanding is going on here. I was actually making the point that ballistic trajectory isn't sufficient to say why the range is short ....... especially once the canon 50mm AC/2 round is plugged in.

Fair enough.

By the way, AC/2 rounds, assuming 50mm is the average, work out as such:
Maximum value:
1000/45 = 22.2
22.2/10 = 2.22
2.22/0.05^3 = 17760 (a good number, but assumes 100% of the shell, including casing, loading mechanism, and propellent are included in the mass)

Realistic value, having removed shell casing and minimal mass for propellant:
1000*0.9 = 900
900/45 = 20
20/2 = 10
10*0.9 = 9
9/10 = 0.9
0.9/0.05^3 = 7200 (not bad, but still lower than iron)

Or it could be what causes most ammo jams. Problems with the ammunition feeding system. Highlander IIC, Assasin TR are all fine examples of this.

Assassin TR? Assassin has 1MLas, 1LRM5, and 1SRM2. There is no autocannon on an Assassin, I'm pretty sure every model, even the Tech level 2 upgrade.

I need data! If you want another example, you have to provide some form of clue! You don't even provide the names of the novels you read..... its virtually going to be impossible to dig out any form of information.

I know, and I apologize for that. I was hoping you might recall, but if you can't, it's no big deal. I'll just check the rules in the books for possible references that might help.

Sigh. They AREN"T the same. The only constant is the ablative value.
Both of them are made from different materials. The main component of mech armour is crystal aligned steel, whereas for aerospace fighters, they are treated aluminium and titanium. Sure, they have the name "ferro" in them, but that just suggest its magnetic in nature, and certainly doesn't suggest that their main element is steel.

Actually, iron in nature. While iron and magnetics follow, ferrous materials are just ones derived from iron, IIRC. However, this plays in with ranges being different based on the different scales of protection. If fighters have less, than the weapon that can only ablate mech armor at 270m could potentially ablate aerospace armor at 6,000. This makes them highly vulnerable, of course, but aircraft should be much more flimsy than a counterpart that doesn't need to be lightweight.

Furthermore, we know that the defensive ability is weaker than tanks and mechs, by virtue of the pierce through effect. The system of calculating critical hits for mechs and tanks is essentially a "lucky" hit, whereas for fighters, it depends on how much armour points is left on the fighter.

However, the weapons ARE the same. The Imperator autocannon of the Slayer is the same Imperator autocannon of the Cicada.

Okay, so you've just answered your question as to the difference in range. Aerospace fighters are much less resiliant than mechs. Problem solved. However, this is all internal to the BTech universe. The minimum ablation level for mech armor is small as it is. Proving that Aerospace fighters have a much lower threshold only shows that they'd be even worse off than the mechs in a vs. competition.

Fired over a longer distance, the movement of both target and attacker will result in a much lower intensity over the target area.

Movement really shouldn't have anything to do with it. Lasers in BTech have often been described as bursts over very tiny fractions of a second. If they really take a second or more in order to apply the power of the laser, that makes them horrifically inefficent weapons, and virtually useless in a battlefield condition.

65 ton crusader smashing into a PH counts?

That would be an acceptable example. Is the forward momentum of the attacking mech known?

Skidding then.

Sure. We'll ignore rough terrain, since that uses the uncertainty of the ground against the mech, rather than abrupt changes in direction.

Because a 50 ton hovercraft can charge at over 120kph, whereas a 20 ton DFA, as impressive as it is is still dropping from a height of 18m.

Almost every DFA has forward momentum associated with it. It's essentially a Battlemech jump-kick.

In any event, I will continue working with the numbers as I can in order to come up with some values that make sense for BTech. Unfortunately, thanks to the data given, these numbers are likely to be pretty low regardless, but I'm going to see if I can make them somewhat sensible so that aerospace fighters don't self-destruct in re-entry.

[Typhonis 1]

One last thing. An assault mech has as much internal volume as a light mech for some strange reason.

[harbringer]

One last thing. An assault mech has as much internal volume as a light mech for some strange reason.

It may be strange typhonis but don't throw stones in glass houses in HG you can add any amount of equipment. I can have a jaguar that is air droppable, desert proofed, haywire resistant, reinforced chassis and cockpit, rugged movement system, added armour and last but not least able to carry the same weapon as any other gear its size. I can also do the same with a cheeter that has problems fitting pilots over a certain build.

Yes BT ignores physics but at least they try to be consistant about it. It always makes my day when someone says "but the mech would fall over" too bad they don't. At the end of the day FTL is impossible but people have discussed FTL tech in this thread without saying "ooohh this doesn't work since it ignores understood physics" .

Have a good day

[dragon]

Since I am missing my books has any figured out there ability to resist fall damage. That would give a rough idea on how much force their armor can withstand.

[PainRack]

No, I'm assuming that the classification system is clearly broken. When you need to have a 20-45 degree difference in firing arcs between two weapons of the same classification, there's a bit of a problem involved. Additionally, any high-mass low velocity round would be much easier to dodge at range.

Except the classification is based on how much damage is dealt to the target, at what range. Not what the weapon is.

Speaking of, I've done a bit of digging, and have found that 20mm is the "average" size of a Machinegun in BTech, with 30mm representing heavier rounds but lower ROF, and a third, "lighter" caliber weapon with a very high rate of fire being mentioned. Given the existance of such a weapon, and my inability to check the Mechwarrior stats for the man-portable version, it seems likely that the weapon is in the 10-15mm range, and is most likely the infamous 12.7mm (.50 caliber) machinegun of note. In any event, we know that rounds smaller than 20mm are used in Mech machineguns, and can pose a threat. This gives us a value to work with concerning kinetic weapons.

Errata: The Scattergun fires rounds at a much faster VELOCITY. Not ROF, than the "standard" 20mm gun.

Check my earlier post, alternatively, Bulldog TR 3026.

Assassin TR? Assassin has 1MLas, 1LRM5, and 1SRM2. There is no autocannon on an Assassin, I'm pretty sure every model, even the Tech level 2 upgrade.

And? Who said that ammo jams are limited to autocannons only? The assasin is infamous for its missiles jamming. If its solely autocannon, then the Orion 19 round clip then.

Actually, iron in nature. While iron and magnetics follow, ferrous materials are just ones derived from iron, IIRC. However, this plays in with ranges being different based on the different scales of protection. If fighters have less, than the weapon that can only ablate mech armor at 270m could potentially ablate aerospace armor at 6,000. This makes them highly vulnerable, of course, but aircraft should be much more flimsy than a counterpart that doesn't need to be lightweight.

From what I understand of latin, ferrous does mean iron in nature, although it used to indicate magnetism.

More importantly, the key emphasis is on the aluminium or titanium forming the basis or majority of the armour. Even then, its clearly seen through effects and comments on how fragile aerospace fighters are compared to mechs, that the protection afforded by aerospace armour is weaker.

Secondly, you missed the point.

The weapons are the SAME. Mech weapons and AT weapons are equivalent in every aspect. Therefore, the fact that the lasers in AT don't dissipate out at 450m is proof that the "true" range of these weapons are kilometers in nature, and as such, against any other force like modern earth or possibly HG, the AT range should be the one used.

This is an inescapable point. While projectile weapons like the ACs and Gauss rifle may be dismissed due to speed and mass problems, missiles are discounted thanks to their extremely low payload, energy weapons don't suffer from a "realism" flaw in the range theory. Therefore, there is no reason why mech energy weapons cannot compare to the ranges of modern tank guns, with the only flaw against modern units being their relatively weaker accuracy.(Abysmal comes into play once we input game mechanics. Actually, make that horrendously, cursed with Jinxed and blinded.)

Movement really shouldn't have anything to do with it. Lasers in BTech have often been described as bursts over very tiny fractions of a second. If they really take a second or more in order to apply the power of the laser, that makes them horrifically inefficent weapons, and virtually useless in a battlefield condition.

I'm suggesting that the conductive ability of the armour is fast. Considering the relative unstability of the platforms, it not unrealistic.
Its required under the various timings we worked out. Energy weapons shouldn't be firing longer than the 0.9s of projectile weapons and its specifically mentioned that mechs can "evade" enemy fire. Given the absurdity against energy weapons, the armour must be key to this evasive ability.

That would be an acceptable example. Is the forward momentum of the attacking mech known?

It was just described to be in a run..... assuming max running speed, that would be 65kph. Of course, I can't give you the speed of the target, therefore, no relative speeds.

Sure. We'll ignore rough terrain, since that uses the uncertainty of the ground against the mech, rather than abrupt changes in direction.

Skidding actually occurs on "smooth" terrain.. like city roads and ice.

In any event, I will continue working with the numbers as I can in order to come up with some values that make sense for BTech. Unfortunately, thanks to the data given, these numbers are likely to be pretty low regardless, but I'm going to see if I can make them somewhat sensible so that aerospace fighters don't self-destruct in re-entry.

Other Btechers have done the numbers before. LC for example did a relatively exhaustive series, including matching it to armour point value. They're absurdly low. Especially for the physical calcs, which are extremely high value for the punching and kicking calcs.


Anyway, I was rereadig a novel. Despite my dislike for the novel in terms of technical accuracy,(despite the fact that the author authors Btech sourcebooks, he still can conflict with them. Sigh)

Anyway, because i was doing some research on T&T for the technical thread, I just thought I post some firepower related quotes here, so I can combine them later in that thread anyway.

then turned quickly and fired his support laser at the enemy foot soldier who had managed to sneak around behind him.The weapon, designed for use against armor, left nothing behind but a pair of high-gloss combat boots trailing wisps of smoke where the DCMS soldier had been.

Chapter 20, Test of Vengenance. We ignore why the boots are "glossy". Like I said, the author is the worst of both worlds. As a Btech sourcebook author, he display no common sense. As a Btech novelist, he ignores the finer details of Btech, going for Btech lite.

she blasted her Viper into the air on pillars of flame shooting from its three-toed feet. In moments, it rose above the forest canopy and out of sight.

Proof that trees were taller than mechs.

A massive explosion erupted less than fifty meters away, tearing up trees by their roots and sending them flying in all directions. one hit Ben's Nova square in the shoulder, and the Mech staggered back a few steps.

Chapter 20, Test of Vengenance.
Oddly enough, it suggests that aerospace fighters bombs(presumably GP and laserguided) are strong enough to uproot 12-15m tall trees and send them flying 50m, to impact on a mech.

Its not directly contraindicated, unlike the SMGs and DEST portion....... but nowhere is it suggested in BMR that the bombs are that powerful. Unless of course, the aerospace fighters are delivering much more powerful bombs than norm. Still, why would any self-respecting force drop a bomb that's concentrated towards over-pressure as opposed to damage?

Like I said, the author the worst of both worlds. No common sense, contradicts the gritty details of Btech.

[Hotfoot]

It may be strange typhonis but don't throw stones in glass houses in HG you can add any amount of equipment. I can have a jaguar that is air droppable, desert proofed, haywire resistant, reinforced chassis and cockpit, rugged movement system, added armour and last but not least able to carry the same weapon as any other gear its size. I can also do the same with a cheeter that has problems fitting pilots over a certain build.

And in the case of such an advanced Jaguar, it will cost millions, potentially billions more than the previous model, and following strict interpretations of the rules, will be rife with defects. The primary limitation of the construction system is that of cost. Sure, you can miniaturize everything and try to fit in everything under the sun, but the resulting cost will be astronomical.

Yes BT ignores physics but at least they try to be consistant about it. It always makes my day when someone says "but the mech would fall over" too bad they don't. At the end of the day FTL is impossible but people have discussed FTL tech in this thread without saying "ooohh this doesn't work since it ignores understood physics" .

Thank you so much for paying attention. Maybe you can understand what I've been saying for the last several pages: We know there are forces in BTech that cause mechs to fall down. As such, all we need to do is establish what the minimum value of such a force is (and the maximum) and we have a limit towards toppling a mech. If a derived force is determined to be greater than that and is repeatedly done without toppling the mech, either there is a technology that prevents such an event (which is not mentioned and never described), or the initial values used to derive the force are in error in some fashion.

Have a good day

Been having several. How do you like your water cannons, sir?