Heavy Gear vs Battletech.

Vejut · Post by **Vejut** » 2005-11-02 10:39pm

IIRC, Arrow IV max range is 5 mapboards, or 2550m for the sphereoid version. Clan max range is 6 boards, 3060m.

Only example of ECM being mentioned for the ranges I can think of is from Mercenaries Star, by William H. Keith Jr. Grayson Death Caryle is able to shoot LRMs at a building 17km away, (or something like that), but he can't do that to mechs due to jamming...it was also mentioned for both LRMs and SRMs in the glossary. This is from memory, anybody have the actual book in front of them?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2005-11-03 02:53am

Hotfoot wrote:
Typhonis 1 wrote:okShiloette stats.acc -3 dm x18 br 60 perks and flaws..area effect,HEAT, guided,min range-1
BR 60:

Short range: 3,000m
Medium Range: 6,000m
Long Range: 12,000m
Extreme Range: 24,000m

Which is for the medium artillery missile (MAM), carried by the Southern Vandal artillery unit. A landship equipped with VHAMs (such as the Khan-class) can reach out and thump someone at 60 kilometers.

Hell, even obsolete light crewed guns have almost as much range as the Arrow IV, with a 2 kilometer range. A "light" self-propelled gun has a 10 kilometer range, which means only Long Tom outranges a Terra Novan 75mm artillery cannon. The heavy artillery outranges Long Tom by about 3 kilometers.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-11-03 09:09am

Gunhead wrote:It's game mechanics. BT started out as mech to mech game. Aerospace fighters got fleshed out later. For fighters to have any use in a BT game they need to be able to mount weapons that can damage a mech. So the designers used existing weapons. 30m hexes are far too small for an aerial battle, so they were made bigger. Since most BT games are played on hex grid, there was no reason to change the hex ranges for fighter weapons. This simplifies play when fighters are used in BT ground scale, since you don't need to do range conversions.
If we start using hex conversions then what I said about HG arty is true.
They have a max range of 120km normally, but when I put one on a plane it's range becomes 600km.

So? You still have to show that weapons can't go that far. And while AT has the cop-out that mechs are never shown to engage at 6km, that isn't true for battlespace. More fucking importantly, we do know that mechs do engage in battles at that range in SPACE. So, tell me why can't they do that against stationary targets on the ground?

So a mech can fire it's AC without falling down. This doesn't prove that ACs are something I'd call high velocity weapons. If they did they'd have a higher range and wouldn't chip targets armor. AC damage is time and time again described as chipping or denting armor. This is something that happens when a relatively low velocity projectile hits armor.

Actually, I would like quotes , because storms of fate describe them as either cracking or shattering.

Now here's biggest sticking point. Mech armor is not dense enough to deal with really high power sabot or HEAT rounds. To stop a sabot from
penetrating, you need to put something in it's way that's equally dense and
about as thick as the penetrator is long.

Normally, that's the answer.

However, a weird cosquence of the mech ablative system is that the entire armour face gets damaged, as opposed to it just simply penetrating the system. Furthermore, the Mackie trial is proof that it can take a 100-120mm round shot.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2005-11-03 09:14am

It occurs to me that since Painrack's previous figures were probably not using proper physics, I should attempt to redo the equations myself, including several ranges for high to low end values.

For the sake of argument, I'll go with a 50 ton mech with a top speed of 90kph (25m/s).

Low end: 10s to max speed and full stop
Mid range: 3s to max speed and full stop
High end: 1s to max speed and full stop

25 = 0 + a*10
25/10 = a
a = 2.5

F = 50000 * 2.5
F = 125000
1.25*10^5

25 = 0 + a*3
25/3 = a
a = 8.3

F = 50000 * 8.3
F = 416666.6
4.16*10^5

25 = 0 + a*1
a = 25

F = 50000 * 25
F = 1250000
1.25*10^6

So far, all of these values seem pretty low, especially compared to the Gauss Rifle calculations. In fact, barring torque completely from the equation (since it works both ways), the amount of force applied from firing a 300m/s 10kg projectile accelerated along the length of a 3 meter barrel is almost twice that of the 10s calculation, and about half that of the 3s calculation, while still being non-trivial in the 1s calculation. Take in mind that these are for single shots, not multiple bursts as was argued for under Painrack's model.

Clearly, this shows that more information and calculation is needed in order to achieve a better model for what KE is used by BTech guns. It should also be noted that BTech armor cannot simply ignore all Kinetic Energy, even if it ends up deflecting most, since it does not generally allow for overpenetration in collisions, the collisions must be elastic or inelastic in nature.

Meanwhile, on the heat dispersion issue, one has to remember that in the fluff and in some aspects of the game, it is possible to overheat kinetic weapons to the point of deformation of the barrels. I seem to remember one instance (though I cannot specifically remember even the book it was mentioned) of a mechwarrior firing his autocannon so often and so quickly that he in fact melted the barrel to the point of it becoming slag. Additionally, while some consider the power of the lasers and other energy weapons to be very high because of their being hooked up to a fusion reactor, I would make the following counterpoint:

The lasers in Battletech throw out a tremendous amount of waste heat in order to penetrate armor. This speaks to considerable inefficiency in the lasing arrays. It seems much more likely, in fact, that due to the inefficiency of the lasers, it is required to hook up a fusion reactor in order to provide the appropriate power. Additionally, as has been argued previously by pro-BTech posters, the fusion reactors in Mechs are not identical to fusion reactors proposed in the real world, so certain allowances have to be made for them.

In any case, just another stop as I do the calculations for Battletech.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2005-11-03 09:24am

PainRack wrote:So? You still have to show that weapons can't go that far. And while AT has the cop-out that mechs are never shown to engage at 6km, that isn't true for battlespace. More fucking importantly, we do know that mechs do engage in battles at that range in SPACE. So, tell me why can't they do that against stationary targets on the ground?

Are you bent? Do you seriously mean to tell me you don't understand what EFFECTIVE RANGE means? A shell fired from an M1A2 tank can travel for dozens of kilometers. If fired in space, it could probably hit a moon orbiting Saturn with the right calculations. However, UNDER BATTLEFIELD CONDITIONS, it's effective range on the ground remains the same.

You're making a fucking red herring that in the end is utterly worthless. Heavy Gears, yes, the fucking Gears themselves, can pull off the same shit in space you're telling us Mechs can. Which means your argument amounts to jack fucking shit. Drop it and move the fuck on.

Normally, that's the answer.

However, a weird cosquence of the mech ablative system is that the entire armour face gets damaged, as opposed to it just simply penetrating the system. Furthermore, the Mackie trial is proof that it can take a 100-120mm round shot.

Where does the KE go in such a case? Why wasn't the mech knocked on it's ass after having so much force applied? It was, apparently, an elastic collision that was dead-on, meaning little force was deflected. If you'd like, I could do the calculations for how much force was involved. I've already mentioned several times how the Mackie Trial is bullshit that we never see repeated in the BTech universe, because we clearly see other 120mm shells from autocannons tearing up mech armor quite nicely (and they're much lower velocity). Gauss cannons also do a number on mechs, as do Long Toms and Arrow IV missiles, all of which don't ascribe to your "many shots" model.

So what's going on?

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-11-03 09:25am

Hotfoot wrote:Well shit. I had a nice, long series of equations that got eaten up by a Browser crash.

However, short version for now: Hollander. 30ton mech. Assume roughly 8m tall, with a 7m long barrel, accelerating a 114kg projectile to Mach 2.2

Total force:
522,166,284N, before factoring in the fact that it's applied as Torque due to the placement of the Hollander's gun.

That's 5.2*10^8, by the by.

Not surprising. Thankfully, since we can assume that the collision with a mech results in an inelastic collision, we can compare the impacts of gauss rifle hits with mechs and see that mechs don't fall down. Showing that yes, mechs can withstand that kind of recoil.

Which is still much higher than the best values you've given yourself on the "stop on a dime" calculations, which, by the way, is about as valid as "lasers can't penetrate our navigational deflectors" as a basis for determining shield strength vs. a turbolaser.

Wrong. The "stop on a dime" is actually min limit on the amount of force the mech gyro exerts. Max Tech and Tactical Handbook explictly mentions the mech ability to go from full speed to full stop, as compared to vehicles which require time to accelerate to full speed.

Stop trying to bullshit people.The nav shields example is called a no limits fallacy. Something that I haven't committed, despite what gunhead tries to say.

On the subject of Energy Weapons: As stated previously on the description of the Aller MBT, resistance to lasers and explosive forces effectively increases armor protection by almost a meter of RHA steel. Additionally, energy weapons in HG are very likely much more efficient than the Battletech counterparts, given that they do not radiate excessive amounts of excess heat and require a fusion reactor in order to provide sufficient penetrating power. The Heavy Particle Accelerator has a range roughly 1200m (600m normal encounter range) and penetrates 225mm RHA under "optimal" conditions. It also does considerable EMP damage to targets it hits, unless they are properly shielded. This puts it in contention with the PPC.

So? The Large laser melts half a ton of armour. That's more armour plate than a 225mm depth. Unless HG armour has the same form of conductive systems that battletech has, that laser is going to be melting all its material in one spot.

Meanwhile, the deal with battlespace: In Heavy Gear, space units get increased range as well, since there's nothing in the way. You can't get out of ground-based weapon range limitations by saying "oh, gee, they're better in space". So are Gears/Fighters/Tanks in Heavy Gear. It doesn't change the fact that the ranges on the ground are very much limited in Battletech when compared to Heavy Gear. The increase in range of energy weapons is directly related to the LACK OF ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION. It doesn't do jack to change ranges in atmo. Similarly, without a parabolic curve caused by gravity, gunnery becomes much easier (granted, you need a way to stablize yourself, since you don't have gravity providing a normal force anymore, but hey).

Ahem. Atmospheric dispersion do not account for a range of horizon weapon being reduced to 90m.

The only possible explaination rests in armour and timing. Due to the pace of the battletech simulation as well as armour, the range shrinks dramatically. However, mech weapons can reach out further than 1km. It just isn't tactically feasible against units in the Btech universe. However, there shouldn't be any reason why Btech energy weapons cannot achieve battlespace or even AT ranges, because the peculiar effects of Btech armour isn't PRESENT. If we're talking about SW AT-AT, then hell yeah, Btech ranges are not going to expand because of the AT-AT shielding.

Meanwhile, the range inverse problem would not apply to Heavy Gear weapons, and you have yet to provide a reason for why they would. I would assume that the reason for low-velocity high-mass rounds in Mechwarrior is a combinations of the limits of the armor, and the limit to how much force can be applied to a mech before knocking it to the ground, this is supported by verifiable evidence we can see in the BT universe. Given that the big guns in HG are either mounted on quads, tanks, or massive landships, it becomes much less of a problem, and in fact, ceases to be one, since HG doesn't put 100mm guns on the shoulders of gears and expect them to remain standing.

And? Point out a single post where I said HG ranges will shrink.

I have made the single assertion that mech ranges aren't limited to the game mechanics for LASERS and other energy weapons, aka, PPCs.

So stop strawmanning my position. I have made only two contentions

1. Battlemech armour is peculiar, to the extent that a clear RHA penetration of mech armour isn't available.

2. Battlemechs energy weapons ranges are not going to be limited to 600m.

That's the sum totality of my contribution to the vs. The remainding time has been spent correcting mistakes made by others on the calibre of guns , range issues and etc etc etc.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-11-03 09:30am

Hotfoot wrote:Are you bent? Do you seriously mean to tell me you don't understand what EFFECTIVE RANGE means? A shell fired from an M1A2 tank can travel for dozens of kilometers. If fired in space, it could probably hit a moon orbiting Saturn with the right calculations. However, UNDER BATTLEFIELD CONDITIONS, it's effective range on the ground remains the same.

And I'm showing that its effective range in SPACE. THe reason why their range on the ground isn't that much is because of battletech armour you POS.

Where does the KE go in such a case? Why wasn't the mech knocked on it's ass after having so much force applied? It was, apparently, an elastic collision that was dead-on, meaning little force was deflected.

Where do you get the elastic collision portion? As for KE, the fact the mech is standing is proof the gyro kept the mech standing.

If you'd like, I could do the calculations for how much force was involved. I've already mentioned several times how the Mackie Trial is bullshit that we never see repeated in the BTech universe, because we clearly see other 120mm shells from autocannons tearing up mech armor quite nicely (and they're much lower velocity). Gauss cannons also do a number on mechs, as do Long Toms and Arrow IV missiles, all of which don't ascribe to your "many shots" model.

You mean you see 10 120mm shells tearing up mech armour.You never see a single 120mm shell rip up mech armour. Gauss cannons, Long Toms and Arrow IVs are part of the MASS problem. Their mass is much, much, larger than other projectile weapons.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2005-11-03 09:52am

PainRack wrote:Not surprising. Thankfully, since we can assume that the collision with a mech results in an inelastic collision, we can compare the impacts of gauss rifle hits with mechs and see that mechs don't fall down. Showing that yes, mechs can withstand that kind of recoil.

I don't think you quite understand. That was from the acceleration of a seven meter long barrel. The force from an inelastic collision is orders of magnitude greater.

Wrong. The "stop on a dime" is actually min limit on the amount of force the mech gyro exerts. Max Tech and Tactical Handbook explictly mentions the mech ability to go from full speed to full stop, as compared to vehicles which require time to accelerate to full speed.

You're seriously telling me a mech can go from 0-90kph in one second? Fine. I've done the calculations for that. Your math is still wrong, and the "minimum" force applied by a gyro in order to handle that is still orders of magnitude lower than dealing with the recoil from a single gauss cannon, much less the impact from one.

Stop trying to bullshit people.The nav shields example is called a no limits fallacy. Something that I haven't committed, despite what gunhead tries to say.

Except you are committing a no-limits fallacy when you say that it doesn't matter what the KE of a projectile is, all that matters is the mass. Where does the KE go from a direct hit? This is still something you have not answered.

So? The Large laser melts half a ton of armour. That's more armour plate than a 225mm depth. Unless HG armour has the same form of conductive systems that battletech has, that laser is going to be melting all its material in one spot.

That so? How then do you explain BTech barrels overheating and melting, if they're so bad-ass when it comes to heat dissipation? Meanwhile, once again, Heavy Gear armor, by and large, does not follow the same ablation model that BTech armor does. Until you provide enough energy to actually penetrate the armor, the armor doesn't tend to give a damn.

Ahem. Atmospheric dispersion do not account for a range of horizon weapon being reduced to 90m.

If you're talking about lasers, yes, it does. I don't think you comprehend just how much atmospheric dispersion fucks with light.

The only possible explaination rests in armour and timing. Due to the pace of the battletech simulation as well as armour, the range shrinks dramatically. However, mech weapons can reach out further than 1km. It just isn't tactically feasible against units in the Btech universe. However, there shouldn't be any reason why Btech energy weapons cannot achieve battlespace or even AT ranges, because the peculiar effects of Btech armour isn't PRESENT. If we're talking about SW AT-AT, then hell yeah, Btech ranges are not going to expand because of the AT-AT shielding.

Wait, you mean to tell me that you're arguing that Battletech armor ceases functioning as you're claiming it does when it is brought into space? Is that really your argument? That the armor needs to be on a planet in order to effectively negate range? Do you have any idea how stupid of an assumption that is? Do you even know what Occam's Razor is?

And? Point out a single post where I said HG ranges will shrink.

I have made the single assertion that mech ranges aren't limited to the game mechanics for LASERS and other energy weapons, aka, PPCs.

So stop strawmanning my position. I have made only two contentions

1. Battlemech armour is peculiar, to the extent that a clear RHA penetration of mech armour isn't available.

2. Battlemechs energy weapons ranges are not going to be limited to 600m.

That's the sum totality of my contribution to the vs. The remainding time has been spent correcting mistakes made by others on the calibre of guns , range issues and etc etc etc.

BTech armor can be as peculiar as you like, it still can't negate KE to the scale you're arguing without violating canon AND the laws of physics to such a scale as to be unreasonable.

Energy weapons are, in fact, limited to their stated ranges. Stop trying to bullshit, you're not fooling anyone. Not only do you not understand simple mechanics (arguing that barrels for BTech are, in fact, 225m in length), but it's very clear you don't understand the principles of atmospheric dispersion, or just how much a laser is actually increased in effective range thanks to being in space.

Now, I've been trying to scientifically approach the answers using proper equations. You can either help by supplying additional information, or you can keep ranting like a madman based on your false assumptions. Take your pick. I can keep proving you wrong time and time again, or we can work together and come up with the real answer.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-11-03 09:56am

Gunhead wrote:Mech TCs being able to track targets beyond their weapon range is how it should be.
If their sensor tracking couldn't see beyond their weapons range, they'd be blind as bats.
Targeting computer being able to track their tragets at kilometer range does not translate them being able to engage at those ranges. Specially when canon ranges for weapons contradict that.

Modern tank armor ablates lasers just fine.

-Gunhead

Actually, we do know mechs sensing abilities. They range up to 25 klicks, and even further if they are able to uplink to other systems like satellites etc etc etc.

However, we do know that mechs can engage at that range, thanks to battlespace conversion. Again, explain the example of Stilleto, where mechs from the GM/Johnston security force engaged pirate forces in space.

As for modern tank armour, sure, it ablates lasers. Can it ablate a laser that carries sufficient power to melt half a ton of steel? And you're accusing me of the no-limit fallacy?

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-11-03 10:03am

Hotfoot wrote:]This then fails to account for why several thousand 20mm shells are less effective than a short burst of high velocity 20mm shells (or even, a single shell). Never mind that your insistance of multiple, tightly-grouped shells is thrown out the window with Long Toms, Gauss Rifles, and other single shot weaponry proven capable of penetrating Mech armor.

Because machine guns aren't meant to achieve a "tight" grouping. Their purpose is to act as "artillery", in order to kill INFANTRY.

We can know how surprising this is from this quote.

Goody. This mean that if I come up with more quotes which say "He couldn't fire his SRMs yet, he wasn't in range, his opponent was more than 300m away", that mean you'll shut the fuck up? Gee, let me get my Stackpole collection...

Please explain why your outlier should be considered the norm for BTech ranges, instead of an aberration?

That will be bloody marvellous, because the novels is actually extremely short on range. In fact, most stories read like range and range min issues don't count, where med pulse lasers are engaging with LRMs barrages.

Never mind that even I have attributed the guns to being ARRAYS of .50 Caliber weapons. Something which would easily explain the difference in mass (as would additional armoring, cooling, etc.).

Actually, that's the Mechcommander 2 issue, and in that game, it actually compiles 4 MGs together to get a single MG array, however, if you note the tonnage, they're really using 4 MGs, as opposed to 4MGs linked together to form the .5 ton.

Oh well, pity you didn't consider that a 20mm cannon isn't 10 times as massive as a 12.7mm cannon either, and thus is insufficient proof towards your insistance that ALL Machineguns are 20mm or higher in size.

So? A 20mm cannon IRL isn't exactly .5 tons either, but it fits infinitely better than a 6kg model.

]And this explains why machineguns have higher damage to mechs in your model than AC/2's.

Oh, wait, they don't? Whoops, seems like a bit of a flaw there, doesn't it?

They don't have higher damage. AC/2 have longer range.

Shown easily with the Gauss Rifle, even using your stats. Meanwhile, please, do tell me when figurative language became scientifically valid? "Stop on a dime" offers zero mathematical value, as it is a phrase not meant to be a scientific descriptor, and it is commonly used in relative terms. "Stop on a dime" used in reference to, say, a motorcycle could not possibly mean the same thing when used in reference to, say, a drag racing car. Unless, of course, you're being an idiot. Similar phrases pop up all over in science fiction. "Lasers couldn't penetrate our deflector shields", "The power to destroy a planet is insignificant compared to the power of the Force", "Great shot kid, that was one in a million!" We don't take them literally, because they're not MEANT to be literal. You might be able to get a ballpark figure with them, but nothing concrete.

That's because "stop on a dime" is the easiest quote to draw upon, as opposed to the much more lengthy tactical handbook which states that as opposed to mechs, vehicles take time to accelerate to full speed.

Thankfully, Solaris rulebooks also gives us a hint of the timing involved in mech operations, and it shows 3s for movement is "norm".

1. You're neglecting the distance of acceleration. It does not take the bullet one second from ignition of the powder to leave the barrel. This increases the required force significantly.

Actually, why? I'm using direct momentum transfer, assuming max acceleration from the start. That gives us the max momentum possible. While the gauss rifle is an anamoly to this, due to the fact that magnetic fields are constantly accelerating it from rest till it leaves the barrel, the same isn't true for autocannons.

The scaling up is universal, is it not? Regardless, it's irrelevant. The scaling up in space is shown equally well in both systems, and can easily be explained to the lack of terrain, gravity, and atmosphere, without needing any other significant modifications.

Really? In that case, mind explaining why energy weapons suddenly lose their effectiveness at 90m, 270m, 450m and 540m?

But a machinegun array CAN'T POSSIBLY be 12.7mm

Tell me what.

SHOW ME THE FUCKING PROOF THAT ITS 12.7mm.

You know that tiny itsy bitsy thing got proof? I got a TR supporting me. Where is your proof then soldier? Show me a source from a TR or sourcebook.

Pretty much the only thing that's special about your model is that the armor is much better at resisting high-velocity shells than it is at resisting lower velocity shells.

That's one anamoly, so, yes.

Which is pretty much the problem, and why everyone calls it weak.

No, the reason why everone calls it weak is because if you take the physics from there, you notice that the armour can't be that much tougher.

Sure, a Mech might be better suited to withstanding a few high-end MBT cannon hits, but due to the ablating nature of the armor, it will fall quite quickly to many smaller cannons all firing in unison.

Assuming that the armour is ablated when the shot hits. There are quote about how the armour actually deflects shots, and indeed, is probably one of the reason why the ranges shrank in Btech.

Oh, I'm sorry, where is it stated that I have to come up with an alternate theory in order to show that yours doesn't work? Oh, right. I don't.

You right. You don't. You have to show me how my range theory don't work.

That will be pretty impressive considering that we haven't truly discussed the range theory YET.

Space isn't ground, dipshit. I don't know how many times I have to go over that. Meanwhile, why not get the info on those long toms? Where they emplacements, mech-mounted, tank mounted, or what? As for the attacking of fighters and bombers, sure, let's see some numbers. Would you get too pissy if I told you that everything you've described is handled in Heavy Gear as it is, standard, without needing to make excuses for it?

So? Since when am I addressing HG? I'm addressing Btech.

As for long toms, Long Tom TR.

While Houses Marik and Liao were fighting for the city of Garth on the planet Berenson, the Long Tom once again proved that it could play both a defensive and an offensive role. The Marik attackers set themselves up in the city of Tromoth. From there, they moved up a Long Tom rifle system to bombard the city of Garth. At the same time, House Liao moved up one of their Long Tom mobile systems to attack the Marik raiders. The two guns attempted to destroy each other for nearly a week. Finally, spies in Garth sabotaged and disabled the Liao gun, giving the Marik weapon free rein to bombard the rest of the city. This gave the Marik attackers the break they needed to take Garth.

As for the question of what type it is, you just betray your ignorance of Btech.

All Long toms(barring customised variants which are outside of canon issues) are vehicle mounted, and must be "fixed" before they fire.

Yes, because when I say it ablates, I mean that the second you piss on it the armor melts away. Nice strawman, but no. I've already said how the ablating model works, if you're going to attack some other version of it, go fuck yourself in the corner and come back when you're done.

So? The whole fucking point was that no RHA equivalent could be given because of this peculiar ability you dipshit.

You just don't get it. LACs are the lightest weapon fielded, and with the lowest range. Artillery can literally fire from beyond the curvature of the planet, to say nothing of the orbital artillery arrays. Gears, Striders, Tanks, Artillery, Gunships, Fighters, Bombers, Landships, all are factors on Terra Nova, and while the combined weight of the Inner Sphere could eventually crush all the worlds in Heavy Gear by numbers alone, the attrition rate would likely be horrendous.

Blah blah blah. Since you're talking all these nice toys, can I bring in the Star League orbital defence arrays as well as the massive PPCs, Lasers and the like that are used against dropships mentioned in Mechwarrior 2nd ed?

Hey, let's just bring in the full SLN anyway. Several ten thousand warships at the min. Have a nice day.

Heavy Gear likes to detect you from half the solar system away and toss nukes at speeds where a few seconds of PD fire is all you'll get. Just sayin'.

Guess what? The SLDF defence grid does the same thing. Although detection obviously is limited by the speed of light, since they don't have FTL sensors. Thankfully, ships aren't that fast, so they use "sucide" drones, or for Earth itself, automated cruisers.

ou can ignore something if it is a largely unsupported abberation, an outlier. If something only shows up maybe once or twice, it's pretty easy to say, "well, gee, that doesn't look right". It could be a typo, it could be bad proofreading and errorchecking. You need to corroborate your sources, find out where there is the most agreement, and use those numbers whenever possible, rather than using everything when it can cause serious complications.

Sure. Prove that its the "outlier" you dipshit.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2005-11-03 10:07am

PainRack wrote:As for modern tank armour, sure, it ablates lasers. Can it ablate a laser that carries sufficient power to melt half a ton of steel? And you're accusing me of the no-limit fallacy?

What are the thermal properties of the armor used in Battletech? What properties have been observed when BTech lasers have been used on other substances, such as wood (trees), concrete (buildings) and the like? What is the purported power output of such a laser? What is the power requirements (how much juice does one need from the reactor to fire)? What is the efficiency rating? What is the length of the lasing array? What is the diameter of the apereture?

All you're telling us is that one laser can melt a half-ton of Battletech armor. That's not enough for a quantitative measurement. I have been operating under the model of determining the relative firepower of the kinetic weapons, and deriving the damage of the other weapons from that. However, if you'd like to approach the problem from all angles, we can do that as well.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-11-03 10:10am

Hotfoot wrote:I don't think you quite understand. That was from the acceleration of a seven meter long barrel. The force from an inelastic collision is orders of magnitude greater.

That's great! It shows that mechs can stand much larger forces.

Except you are committing a no-limits fallacy when you say that it doesn't matter what the KE of a projectile is, all that matters is the mass. Where does the KE go from a direct hit? This is still something you have not answered.

Excuse me. I said that deforming energy isn't used to warp btech armour. Instead, the limiting factor is based on mass as opposed to energy.

Nowhere did I say that the ke disappears. That example is from the mech still standing, even after being hit by multiple gauss rifles.

Stop strawmanning my position.

That so? How then do you explain BTech barrels overheating and melting, if they're so bad-ass when it comes to heat dissipation? Meanwhile, once again, Heavy Gear armor, by and large, does not follow the same ablation model that BTech armor does.

Show this example of overheating and melting.

Until you provide enough energy to actually penetrate the armor, the armor doesn't tend to give a damn.
And? Half a fucking ton of steel. Can't you read? Are you telling me that HG armour has half a ton of steel in a 225mm depth?

If you're talking about lasers, yes, it does. I don't think you comprehend just how much atmospheric dispersion fucks with light.
Pray tell then. Especially do tell how our lasers can travel to the moon and bounce back with all this "atmospheric dispersion".

Wait, you mean to tell me that you're arguing that Battletech armor ceases functioning as you're claiming it does when it is brought into space? Is that really your argument? That the armor needs to be on a planet in order to effectively negate range? Do you have any idea how stupid of an assumption that is? Do you even know what Occam's Razor is?
Bullfucking shit you asshole. I said that the armour and timing is what causes the range to shrink TACTICALLY.

However in space, its a different game of TACTICS altogether.

BTech armor can be as peculiar as you like, it still can't negate KE to the scale you're arguing without violating canon AND the laws of physics to such a scale as to be unreasonable.
Show that it violates canon first you asshole.

Energy weapons are, in fact, limited to their stated ranges. Stop trying to bullshit, you're not fooling anyone. Not only do you not understand simple mechanics (arguing that barrels for BTech are, in fact, 225m in length), but it's very clear you don't understand the principles of atmospheric dispersion, or just how much a laser is actually increased in effective range thanks to being in space.
No. Please tell.

Now, I've been trying to scientifically approach the answers using proper equations. You can either help by supplying additional information, or you can keep ranting like a madman based on your false assumptions. Take your pick. I can keep proving you wrong time and time again, or we can work together and come up with the real answer.

It will be nice if you prove me wrong by showing how examples from Btech prove me wrong. As opposed to HG or strawmanning my position.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-11-03 10:25am

Hotfoot wrote:What are the thermal properties of the armor used in Battletech? What properties have been observed when BTech lasers have been used on other substances, such as wood (trees), concrete (buildings) and the like? What is the purported power output of such a laser? What is the power requirements (how much juice does one need from the reactor to fire)? What is the efficiency rating? What is the length of the lasing array? What is the diameter of the apereture?

All you're telling us is that one laser can melt a half-ton of Battletech armor. That's not enough for a quantitative measurement. I have been operating under the model of determining the relative firepower of the kinetic weapons, and deriving the damage of the other weapons from that. However, if you'd like to approach the problem from all angles, we can do that as well.

Jeez. While some of the other questions are valid, the other questions are just plain irritating.

1. Thermal properties are unknown, save that crystal conducting steel is able to conduct and radiate heat away. For simplicity sake, steel is assumed to be the melting point.

Note, the conduction of heat away from the impact point is a VITAL point of Btech armour, as its the sole explaination why half a ton of armour is melted. This is because Btech armour is cm thick at best, mm thick normally.

2. Small lasers are mentioned to cause buildings to burn in btech(Invasion of the Clans).

3. Purported power output can be calculated by using the 1s rule and comparing it to energy.

4. The last question is unanswerable, and frankly, a fucking red herring. There isn't a need to know this.

Last but not least, there isn't a "from all angles" look at it. All you need to answer is this.

1. Why would lasers not have the improved tactical range, similar to the AT 6km range against HG?

2. Why would HG armour be able to withstand the heavy lasers and PPCs of Btech?

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-11-03 10:29am

God damn it. What this thread needs is an edit button for idiots like me. I keep making minor mistakes along the way due to the need to rush out answers while cross-referencing stuff. The stupid KJ mistake is one.

Anyway, the MG array comes from MW4, not Mechcommander 2.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2005-11-03 10:45am

PainRack wrote:Because machine guns aren't meant to achieve a "tight" grouping. Their purpose is to act as "artillery", in order to kill INFANTRY.

We can know how surprising this is from this quote.

Even assuming that to be true, once you get into the range where they would achieve tight grouping, one would assume that they would utterly shred BTech armor according to your model.

That will be bloody marvellous, because the novels is actually extremely short on range. In fact, most stories read like range and range min issues don't count, where med pulse lasers are engaging with LRMs barrages.

See, that's something I loved about Stackpole. He slavishly follows the mechanics of the game in his books whenever it came to combat. You can even see him doing it in the early X-Wing Novels. Meanwhile, your assertion that ranges don't matter in most novels directly contradicts what others (such as myself) have been saying from the get-go, that ranges in the novels don't differ much (if at all) from the tactical game. In fact, your example is the only one given so far of such a discrepancy.

Actually, that's the Mechcommander 2 issue, and in that game, it actually compiles 4 MGs together to get a single MG array, however, if you note the tonnage, they're really using 4 MGs, as opposed to 4MGs linked together to form the .5 ton.

Funny, this notion was in my head before MC2 was even released. In fact, I've never even PLAYED MC2. My impressions come largely from the tech manuals and the MW2-3 series.

So? A 20mm cannon IRL isn't exactly .5 tons either, but it fits infinitely better than a 6kg model.

Not really. 20mm cannons tend to be pretty light, certainly much more so than 500kg. Especially if you're counting a .50 cal as 6kg (assuming massively improved/lighter materials. The Ma Deuce is 38kg).

They don't have higher damage. AC/2 have longer range.

Don't you see how this is a flaw in your model? At close range, machineguns can put out MORE MASS than an AC/2 can. This should shred BTech armor by your model. Yet it doesn't.

That's because "stop on a dime" is the easiest quote to draw upon, as opposed to the much more lengthy tactical handbook which states that as opposed to mechs, vehicles take time to accelerate to full speed.

Thankfully, Solaris rulebooks also gives us a hint of the timing involved in mech operations, and it shows 3s for movement is "norm".

I've already done the equations myself. Your equations were flawed. The numbers are much lower than what you say they are, even for 1s time intervals.

Actually, why? I'm using direct momentum transfer, assuming max acceleration from the start. That gives us the max momentum possible. While the gauss rifle is an anamoly to this, due to the fact that magnetic fields are constantly accelerating it from rest till it leaves the barrel, the same isn't true for autocannons.

Wait, what? Do you even understand physics at all? Instananeously accelerating something to 450m/s provides PHENOMENALLY greater force than what your calculations imply. The fact is, your numbers imply acceleration over the course of one second.

Meanwhile, even in rifles, constant acceleration holds true, because the gases continue to expand and accelerate the bullet. Weapons of the same caliber with longer barrels actually have higher muzzle velocities than carbine versions for this very reason.

In fact, assuming average acceleration over the course of the barrel was a kindness to you. If we assume a high initial acceleration, we have to assume a much larger initial force, which works against your previous calculations even more. I have consistantly been giving you low-end calculations on my part, because they are the most kind and forgiving. However, if you want, I can do the high-end calculations as well, but it would not bode well for your argument, which has already fallen apart.

Really? In that case, mind explaining why energy weapons suddenly lose their effectiveness at 90m, 270m, 450m and 540m?

Atmospheric dispersion. Light travelling in a vacuum is not the same as light travelling through matter. Take in mind I'm not even talking about visible light, but rather, ALL PHOTONIC ENERGY. Had you even basic understandings of optics, you might understand this better, though I can't say I hold out hope, seeing as how there's no realistic way you could have passed a college level mechanics course.

Tell me what.

SHOW ME THE FUCKING PROOF THAT ITS 12.7mm.

You know that tiny itsy bitsy thing got proof? I got a TR supporting me. Where is your proof then soldier? Show me a source from a TR or sourcebook.

I don't think you understand just how silly it is that you're claiming there's no way it could be 12.7mm, when AC ranges in the same class, according to you, can range from 20mm-80mm. Do you not understand how this is hypocritical?

That's one anamoly, so, yes.

It's a pretty damn big one.

No, the reason why everone calls it weak is because if you take the physics from there, you notice that the armour can't be that much tougher.

So your solution is to throw physics out the window? Because you sure don't seem to be applying it properly as it is now.

Assuming that the armour is ablated when the shot hits. There are quote about how the armour actually deflects shots, and indeed, is probably one of the reason why the ranges shrank in Btech.

And yet deflection can't account for the loss of the KE, or the abberations in your model.

You right. You don't. You have to show me how my range theory don't work.

That will be pretty impressive considering that we haven't truly discussed the range theory YET.

Your theories don't seem to have any actual evidence behind them, much less testing. Not to mention that you're increasingly going off on tangents here with no logical explanation.

So? Since when am I addressing HG? I'm addressing Btech.

This is a thread about HG vs. BTech. Go figure.

As for long toms, Long Tom TR.
While Houses Marik and Liao were fighting for the city of Garth on the planet Berenson, the Long Tom once again proved that it could play both a defensive and an offensive role. The Marik attackers set themselves up in the city of Tromoth. From there, they moved up a Long Tom rifle system to bombard the city of Garth. At the same time, House Liao moved up one of their Long Tom mobile systems to attack the Marik raiders. The two guns attempted to destroy each other for nearly a week. Finally, spies in Garth sabotaged and disabled the Liao gun, giving the Marik weapon free rein to bombard the rest of the city. This gave the Marik attackers the break they needed to take Garth.

How far apart are the cities? Or do you not have that information? The fact that the guns ineffectually fired at each other with no accurate hits speaks volumes for your proposed accuracy at range for them, by the way.

As for the question of what type it is, you just betray your ignorance of Btech.

All Long toms(barring customised variants which are outside of canon issues) are vehicle mounted, and must be "fixed" before they fire.

Really? Because, well, I've seen emplacements of such guns mentioned before. Not to mention that I'm almost certain I've seen a mech somewhere with a Long Tom strapped on.

In any case, your example fails to show any measure of effective combat range, and in fact shows that the cannons were set up to defend the cities when Mechs got to close, and were completely ineffectual when used to try and fire at each other. Good day.

So? The whole fucking point was that no RHA equivalent could be given because of this peculiar ability you dipshit.

Haha, you're so silly. We can get an RHA measurement from the guns by determining what's the highest possible KE they can put out. Meanwhile, on the armor side, all we have to do is show that there is a minimum value required to ablate the armor, find that, and apply it using a conversion.

But then I suppose it never occured to you to try doing it that way.

Blah blah blah. Since you're talking all these nice toys, can I bring in the Star League orbital defence arrays as well as the massive PPCs, Lasers and the like that are used against dropships mentioned in Mechwarrior 2nd ed?

Once again, I'm simply talking about GROUND FORCES. If you'd like, I can bring up the Million drone orbital defense network of Terra Nova from the War of the Alliance, or the nuke of the month club their navy subscribes to. Do you understand what equivilance is? I have shown, in now uncertain terms, that Terra Novan ground forces massively outrange BTech ground forces. If you respond to that with space forces, so can I. Or are you too fucking stupid to understand that?

Hey, let's just bring in the full SLN anyway. Several ten thousand warships at the min. Have a nice day.

Okay. Let's bring in the combined fleets of Terra Nova, CEF, Utopia, and every other colony in the Heavy Gear universe. Several million nukes flung at you at fractions of C. Have a nice day.

Guess what? The SLDF defence grid does the same thing. Although detection obviously is limited by the speed of light, since they don't have FTL sensors. Thankfully, ships aren't that fast, so they use "sucide" drones, or for Earth itself, automated cruisers.

You do understand there's a massive difference between a defence grid and a mobile fleet, right?

Sure. Prove that its the "outlier" you dipshit.

Fine. A single Long Tom or Gauss rifle shot can strip a mech of tremendous amounts of armor. Single large calibler autocannon shells reportedly do the same thing. Single points of impact from collisions at relatively low speeds similarly strip armor.

So why, pray tell, would a single, head on, undeflected shot NOT penetrate armor, and similarly not knock the mech on it's ass. We know for a FACT that mechs have been knocked over from hits from Gauss rifles and high-end Autocannons. Why not here? Is it because it's a super-mech? No, it's primitive, by all comparisons. The only possible explanation is the test was rigged or otherwise false.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2005-11-03 10:59am

PainRack wrote:That's great! It shows that mechs can stand much larger forces.

No, you dipshit. It shows that the forces cannot possibly be that high and still canonically relevant. They contradict forces that otherwise knock mechs on their asses.

Excuse me. I said that deforming energy isn't used to warp btech armour. Instead, the limiting factor is based on mass as opposed to energy.

Nowhere did I say that the ke disappears. That example is from the mech still standing, even after being hit by multiple gauss rifles.

Stop strawmanning my position.

Where does the KE go? It's not accelerating the mech backwards enough to knock it down, it's not overpenetrating, and deflection still can't get rid of all of it, much less explain what happens on a direct hit. IT HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE. WHERE THE FUCK DOES IT GO!?!

Show this example of overheating and melting.

Don't have it on hand, however I do remember it being in some book or another. You could probably find a reference for the mechanic in either Maximum Tech or the Master Rules.

And? Half a fucking ton of steel. Can't you read? Are you telling me that HG armour has half a ton of steel in a 225mm depth?

You're such a fucking moron. Keep reading.

Pray tell then. Especially do tell how our lasers can travel to the moon and bounce back with all this "atmospheric dispersion".

Hahaha, you're a fucking idiot! Do you know what the diameter of the beam is when it comes back? It's fucking massive! Atmospheric dispersion doesn't change the SPEED of light, it changes the diameter of the beam by scattering it! Without a coherant, focused beam, you might as well be shining a flashlight at your enemies!

Bullfucking shit you asshole. I said that the armour and timing is what causes the range to shrink TACTICALLY.

However in space, its a different game of TACTICS altogether.

GAH! What the hell do you even mean by that? Do you even know what that means?

Show that it violates canon first you asshole.

Two mechs slam into each other. They are overcome by the force of the collision and are knocked down. This force is INSIGNIFICANT compared to the force of your proposed autocannon and gauss rifle impacts. Canon, and physics have been violated.

No. Please tell.

Take a pocket laser. Shine it at an object 1m away. Note the size of the dot. Now shine it at an object 10m away. Again, note the size of the dot. You will notice a dramatic difference in the diameter of the beam. In space, the diameter of a beam is not affected by atmospheric scattering, and thus only concerns itself with the natural wavelength scattering of the light and the size of the aperature of the lasing array (the length of the lasing array matters as well, but that's not as important). The simple fact is here, that I am not your damned physics teacher. You came into this debate claiming competance and this has clearly been shown to not be the case. The fact that you've been debating this since 1999 is fucking irrelevant because you have been doing so with an insuffiencent physics background to make supported arguments. You need to pick up a fucking book, or better yet, enroll in a physics course and learn the scientific method, as well as the proper principles and equations.

It will be nice if you prove me wrong by showing how examples from Btech prove me wrong. As opposed to HG or strawmanning my position.

I've used your damn values from Battletech and applied them to the proper fucking physical equations. The fact of the matter is your equations ARE WRONG. Your application of the data is incorrect. The fact that you don't even recognize this is infuriating and only speaks of your massive ignorance and stupidity.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-11-03 12:21pm

Hotfoot wrote:No, you dipshit. It shows that the forces cannot possibly be that high and still canonically relevant. They contradict forces that otherwise knock mechs on their asses.

Check your statements for internal consistency you idiot.

Assuming an inelastic collision, we know that mechs can remain standing after being hit by a gauss rifle shot.

Therefore, assuming insignificant loss of velocity, that would mean that the force of impact is the SAME as recoil.

Where does the KE go? It's not accelerating the mech backwards enough to knock it down, it's not overpenetrating, and deflection still can't get rid of all of it, much less explain what happens on a direct hit. IT HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE. WHERE THE FUCK DOES IT GO!?!

Its converted to something else, but not used as energy to deform armour(in the case of impact not ablating armour). The most likely conclusion would tbe the standard answer of noise and heat.

You know, the same standard stuff known as wasted energy. Or are you unable to understand something called inefficiency?

Don't have it on hand, however I do remember it being in some book or another. You could probably find a reference for the mechanic in either Maximum Tech or the Master Rules.

Nope. There isn't a single reference, unless you're talking about the "juryrig" fix, which causes lasers to generate more waste heat.

And? Half a fucking ton of steel. Can't you read? Are you telling me that HG armour has half a ton of steel in a 225mm depth?

You're such a fucking moron. Keep reading.

Hahaha, you're a fucking idiot! Do you know what the diameter of the beam is when it comes back? It's fucking massive! Atmospheric dispersion doesn't change the SPEED of light, it changes the diameter of the beam by scattering it! Without a coherant, focused beam, you might as well be shining a flashlight at your enemies!

Oh god. This is great. Really. Fucking great.

Do you even know what a fucking laser is? That's right. A coherent, focused, BEAM.

Do you know what the impact of the laser on the moon is? It hits a fucking mirror and bounces BACK.

While hitting dirt and other particles does scatter the beam, it doesn't scatter to the extent that a beam powerful enough to melt half a ton of steel disappears at 450m!

GAH! What the hell do you even mean by that? Do you even know what that means?

In battlespace, the timings involved are minutes. Furthermore, mechs are specifically mentioned to face targeting difficulties due to the extreme ranges involved, even when facing "relatively" immobile targets. This is highly different from the simulation, where engagements are measured in less than 5s.(Solaris rules duels, 5s.)

Two mechs slam into each other. They are overcome by the force of the collision and are knocked down. This force is INSIGNIFICANT compared to the force of your proposed autocannon and gauss rifle impacts. Canon, and physics have been violated.

And we see that mechs are actually able to withstand impacts by gauss rifles. As well as actually hit each other and remain standing. Which very bloody hell tells you that this doesn't represent an upper limit you dipshit.

Therefore, an alternative reason for why mechs fall down is needed. And is actually given, pilots disorientation. The gyro requires both the mental balance of the pilot and the computers and gyro to remain standing, as per BMR and MWC.

May I remind you that the very fact that a mech can fire a gauss rifle means...... it can fire a gauss rifle with that recoil?

Take a pocket laser. Shine it at an object 1m away. Note the size of the dot. Now shine it at an object 10m away. Again, note the size of the dot. You will notice a dramatic difference in the diameter of the beam.

That's not due to atmospheric scattering. That's due to a pocket laser being non-highly focused.

You came into this debate claiming competance and this has clearly been shown to not be the case. The fact that you've been debating this since 1999 is fucking irrelevant because you have been doing so with an insuffiencent physics background to make supported arguments. You need to pick up a fucking book, or better yet, enroll in a physics course and learn the scientific method, as well as the proper principles and equations.

Oh really? This from the expert who claims that "momentum" needs to be multiplied by barrel lenght, when no force is acting on the mass inside there?

The fact of the matter is your equations ARE WRONG. Your application of the data is incorrect. The fact that you don't even recognize this is infuriating and only speaks of your massive ignorance and stupidity.

Oh? Bullfucking shit.

Mechs remain standing after impacts by gauss rifle. Mechs remain standing after firing gauss rifle. That means, the calcs you give are actually LOWER limits for the gyro ability. Your inability to understand lower limits and evidence is NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM.

Gunhead · Post by **Gunhead** » 2005-11-03 12:27pm

Chipping, cracking, denting. Doesn't matter. All these are something that happen at low velocity.
All the mackie quote proves is that mech armor can take a low velocity round from a 100-120mm gun.
Against low velocity attacks mech armor either shatters the round or deforms preventing penetration, possibly both. Which works pretty well, since it forces the opponent to use multiple shots to work through the armor. Too bad it provides little or no defence against high velocity attacks.

This armor model works without mystery physics you're advocating.

I don't have to prove that mech weapons can't go beyond their designated ranges, simply because there is no proof of them ever doing so.
Even if there really was, and I'd like to see that battle space quote, what you're saying is that mechs that are so nimble (which they aren't) that can dodge incoming fire at less than 1km, can be hit at 6km if they're in space.
Not to mention that at those ranges, it would take mech projectile weapons so long to reach their targets, it would be a fucking miracle if they can hit a fucking warship.

One more thing. The Gauss is the longest reaching projectile weapon in BT. So it's more than within reason to argue it achieves this because it launches it's round faster that other projectile weapons in BT. Which btw. is still not enough to do a fucking thing against RL MBT armor.

-Gunhead

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-11-03 01:10pm

Hotfoot wrote: Even assuming that to be true, once you get into the range where they would achieve tight grouping, one would assume that they would utterly shred BTech armor according to your model.

Why? They only fire 48 rounds..... That's 38 rounds more than the 20mm autocannon, which actually fire HE rounds(some other sources mention HEAP, however, BMR is the definitive source), as opposed to the AP bullets for the MG and also presumably fired in a much tighter grouping than the widely scattered MG.

See, that's something I loved about Stackpole. He slavishly follows the mechanics of the game in his books whenever it came to combat. You can even see him doing it in the early X-Wing Novels. Meanwhile, your assertion that ranges don't matter in most novels directly contradicts what others (such as myself) have been saying from the get-go, that ranges in the novels don't differ much (if at all) from the tactical game. In fact, your example is the only one given so far of such a discrepancy.

Excuse me. Did you read what I said?

I said that most novels never mention RANGE at all. There are precious few sources where a upper limit is given. There are quotes of course, where its mention that as the targets come within 300m, the mechwarrior chooses to fire certain weapons and etc etc etc, but precious few where its the "its beyond 600m, can't hit it yet" quote.

Furthermore, its also very well true that most authors are unaware of the range difference between most mech weapons, resulting in very weird scenarios where we are to assume that the two mechs stumbled onto each other within 300m.

Funny, this notion was in my head before MC2 was even released. In fact, I've never even PLAYED MC2. My impressions come largely from the tech manuals and the MW2-3 series.

And, in my errata, it says MW4.

Not really. 20mm cannons tend to be pretty light, certainly much more so than 500kg. Especially if you're counting a .50 cal as 6kg (assuming massively improved/lighter materials. The Ma Deuce is 38kg).

Actually, I gotten mixed up there. I was responding with the old argument against 7.62mm MGs. However, the 20mm cannon weight fits with .50 cal weight infinitely better.

To put it simply, I have cannon quotes telling me the calibre. You have none. Guess who wins?

Don't you see how this is a flaw in your model? At close range, machineguns can put out MORE MASS than an AC/2 can. This should shred BTech armor by your model. Yet it doesn't.

Except AC/2 fire rounds in a presumably tighter grouping. Which MGs don't.

I've already done the equations myself. Your equations were flawed. The numbers are much lower than what you say they are, even for 1s time intervals.

I'm not fucking surprised. I'm making simple quotation mistakes left right and centre, probably because its 0130h. My head was swimming, and I actually thank you for neglecting to mention I made a huge notation error. I subbed in MJ, when the values was actually KJ.

Wait, what? Do you even understand physics at all? Instananeously accelerating something to 450m/s provides PHENOMENALLY greater force than what your calculations imply. The fact is, your numbers imply acceleration over the course of one second.

I'm sticking to basic conservation of momentum. Easier on my head, especially since I returned 90% of physics back to my lecturer after 2 years of doing guard duty.

Meanwhile, even in rifles, constant acceleration holds true, because the gases continue to expand and accelerate the bullet. Weapons of the same caliber with longer barrels actually have higher muzzle velocities than carbine versions for this very reason.

There is that. I did forget about that.

I don't think you understand just how silly it is that you're claiming there's no way it could be 12.7mm, when AC ranges in the same class, according to you, can range from 20mm-80mm. Do you not understand how this is hypocritical?

Excuse me.

I shown canon proof that AC/2 ranges from 20-30mm, with even a 50mm cannon. You done nothing. Its no longer called science, logic, physics, or even anything now.

Its now called showing evidence. I have the evidence. Where's yours?

So your solution is to throw physics out the window? Because you sure don't seem to be applying it properly as it is now.

Except the canon proof shows otherwise. We have the Mackie trial to show otherwise.

And yet deflection can't account for the loss of the KE, or the abberations in your model.

Which one? The mass impacter model suffers from a known complaints of 37, the last time I checked. Unfortunately, it also happens to be the only model that works.

I'm actually would be extremely glad if someone can come up with a better working example, one that fits all canon data. So, be my guess.

Explain why a 50mm cannon, with a greater muzzle velocity can deal more damage than a 40mm cannon. Meanwhile, let's not forget those pesky LRMs and SRMs, the one thing that the mass impacter model is destroyed by, not to mention the new AP rounds.

While you're at it, let's not forget that the very same med laser can fire up to 6km when aerospace fighters are firing, as opposed to battlemechs firing. And the T&T isn't sufficiently more advanced either.

Meanwhile, you might want to tackle the issues of why the targeting computer needs to lock on..... even at point blank, visual range. Especially since visual firing is possible, as proven by the Karnov. And why the novels and elsewhere states that visual firing results in a loss of accuracy...... an odd statement considering the ranges and size involved.

There's more of course. But the above issues are just some of the simplier issues involved with Btech armour. I really hate to ask about the physical calcs yet.

Your theories don't seem to have any actual evidence behind them, much less testing. Not to mention that you're increasingly going off on tangents here with no logical explanation.

Sigh.

Range model essentially works on 3 assumptions.
1. Armour shrinks range(armour revolutionised combat quote, difference in armour for AT fighters and mechs/tanks.)

2. Timing shrinks range(Btech, AT timing turn)

3. One needs accurate shots to penetrate mech armour and cause it to ablate(Mech "evading" shots, which for energy weapons can only be rationalised by armour, T&T needs to lock onto mech, otherwise unlikely to hit, some others)

Working on the above 3 assumptions, the theory is that the effective range of mechs on the ground is only 600m in the mech simulation.

Barring the armour portion, the range theory works, especially if ECM is inputted into the solution. However, the armour portion of the theory is what's problematic.

This is a thread about HG vs. BTech. Go figure.

Right, and since when does HG disprove Btech? Go fish.

How far apart are the cities? Or do you not have that information? The fact that the guns ineffectually fired at each other with no accurate hits speaks volumes for your proposed accuracy at range for them, by the way.

1. Since when did I say anything about accuracy? Even gunhead can attest to this. I have repeatedly said that Btech accuracy is abysmal.

2. The range of the cities is not there, however, its unlikely that cities are built just 3 kilometers apart.

Really? Because, well, I've seen emplacements of such guns mentioned before. Not to mention that I'm almost certain I've seen a mech somewhere with a Long Tom strapped on.

Ahem. I say this again.

All Long Tom guns needs to be FIXED. Altough there are long tom guns built into fortresses, rare, but still there, so I retract that statement. As for the mech, its impossible to build a mech with a long tom, although there is a mech with a thumper built on it, which is the smaller cousin of the Long Tom. But that's a custom..........

In any case, your example fails to show any measure of effective combat range, and in fact shows that the cannons were set up to defend the cities when Mechs got to close, and were completely ineffectual when used to try and fire at each other. Good day.

So? The point was to show that the range of the guns isn't fixed by game mechanics.

Haha, you're so silly. We can get an RHA measurement from the guns by determining what's the highest possible KE they can put out. Meanwhile, on the armor side, all we have to do is show that there is a minimum value required to ablate the armor, find that, and apply it using a conversion.

And I showed why this would be pointless, with the 50mm cannon vs the 40mm cannon. No doubt, there is a lower limit, but its currently impossible to compile one from the data given. Unless you have some source that I'm simply unaware of, no such data on the armour resistance exists.

Why would the 50mm cannon, firing at much longer range,thus, having an increased velocity, deal less damage than the 40mm cannon?The only clue we have is the difference in ROF for the 50mm cannon, with it firing only 12 rounds per min, as opposed to what should be the "standard" 60 rounds per min.

The problem is, once you have that, where is the limit at which armour is ablated? A huge "fuzzy" line can be drawn, however, that assumption also rests in the belief that the velocity of the shell is only 1000m/s(AC/2), as opposed to a higher figure, which would be neccesary if the weapon is capable of AT range.

But then I suppose it never occured to you to try doing it that way.

To be honest, I gave up because there were too many headaches from trying to do it. Be my guest.

Once again, I'm simply talking about GROUND FORCES. If you'd like, I can bring up the Million drone orbital defense network of Terra Nova from the War of the Alliance, or the nuke of the month club their navy subscribes to. Do you understand what equivilance is? I have shown, in now uncertain terms, that Terra Novan ground forces massively outrange BTech ground forces. If you respond to that with space forces, so can I. Or are you too fucking stupid to understand that?

Actually, I'm also talking ground forces. The orbital defence grid are a series of mobile guns meant to engage enemy dropships, but similarly capable of engaging ground targets like artillery. The closest equivalent would be the railway guns of WW2.
The PPCs, LRMs and Lasers are huge defence batteries, built into castles that have the increased range to engage dropships. The suggestion is that they may have increased firepower, because they are supposedly capable of dealing "space" damage as opposed to Btech damage. Some of those facillities may target ground units, although they have been essentially destroyed.

Okay. Let's bring in the combined fleets of Terra Nova, CEF, Utopia, and every other colony in the Heavy Gear universe. Several million nukes flung at you at fractions of C. Have a nice day.

That's nice. We can have a nuke contest. Let me see, the combined dropship strength of the SLDF, estimated to be several million, combined with the warships and jumpships..............

That's a lot of davy jones crockettes being thrown around.

Okay. Diversion over. Let's get back to topic/

You do understand there's a massive difference between a defence grid and a mobile fleet, right?

Yes.

Fine. A single Long Tom or Gauss rifle shot can strip a mech of tremendous amounts of armor. Single large calibler autocannon shells reportedly do the same thing. Single points of impact from collisions at relatively low speeds similarly strip armor.

1. Gauss rifle mass 114kgs. As opposed to 100kg for the AC/10 salvo.(ten rounds of 10kg) Actually works quite nicely, or 200kg for AC/20 salvo.(ten rounds of 20kg) Hey, it works quite nicely.

2. There are no single large calibre autocannon shells impacts.

3. Welcome to the physical calcs, where the argument is that mass matters, and its the total mass of the mech. Other than the "cardboard" armour model, no model is even able to explain this. Hell, the fact the mass impacter model can even "accept" this, because a mech is after all, very heavy, actually lends evidence to the theory.

And BTW, I wasn't talking about armour issue. I was talking about the calibre. Show that the 50mm cannon calibre isn't an outlier. You also have to work to disprove the overlap between heavy and light autocannon, or otherwise AC/5 and AC/10, same calibre for AC/10 and AC/20, as well as various calibres for the AC/20s.

So why, pray tell, would a single, head on, undeflected shot NOT penetrate armor, and similarly not knock the mech on it's ass. We know for a FACT that mechs have been knocked over from hits from Gauss rifles and high-end Autocannons. Why not here? Is it because it's a super-mech? No, it's primitive, by all comparisons. The only possible explanation is the test was rigged or otherwise false.

Let me see, we have the existence of various quotes about how certain armour is invulnerable from certain calibres, as well as quotes about sloped armour and deflecting away blast........

Oh well, give me a month so I can dig up the relevent "deflect" incoming shots in the Btech technical archive thread.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-11-03 01:23pm

Gunhead wrote:Chipping, cracking, denting. Doesn't matter. All these are something that happen at low velocity.

Include shattering? That would be odd.

Beside, show me the quotes first.

As for low velocity...... mebbe.

All the mackie quote proves is that mech armor can take a low velocity round from a 100-120mm gun.

And apart from the RHA penetration, for which the "normal steel" may be the equivalent of armour for their gen, what other evidence is there that its low velocity?

Against low velocity attacks mech armor either shatters the round or deforms preventing penetration, possibly both. Which works pretty well, since it forces the opponent to use multiple shots to work through the armor. Too bad it provides little or no defence against high velocity attacks.

But, the 50mm autocannon example actually shows the INEFFECTIVENESS of high velocity attacks.

As quoted earlier, the Mithras 50mm autocannon is classed as an AC/2. That means, a 50mm shell is being fired at ranges of up to a thousand meters, which means increased velocity over the 40mm AC/5 for the Zorya, but it deals LESS DAMAGE, even thou the Zorya calibre and muzzle velocity is technically lower.

I don't have to prove that mech weapons can't go beyond their designated ranges, simply because there is no proof of them ever doing so.

You mean other than AT, BS, Star Lord? Or depending on whether you follow FASA canon policy as opposed to mine, Somerset Strikers?

Even if there really was, and I'd like to see that battle space quote, what you're saying is that mechs that are so nimble (which they aren't) that can dodge incoming fire at less than 1km, can be hit at 6km if they're in space.

Operation Stilleto, conversion from Battletech to Battlespace rules, "That's no Space Station".
The line is exactly as I said it before. Targeting coms, optimised, kilometers only.

Not to mention that at those ranges, it would take mech projectile weapons so long to reach their targets, it would be a fucking miracle if they can hit a fucking warship.

Geez, isn't that why I stated that the projectile speeds are faster? Like..... maybe the Gauss rifle reaches the speed of Mach 5.5, as quoted in battletechnology.

One more thing. The Gauss is the longest reaching projectile weapon in BT. So it's more than within reason to argue it achieves this because it launches it's round faster that other projectile weapons in BT. Which btw. is still not enough to do a fucking thing against RL MBT armor.

-Gunhead

Its actually the Clantech Ultra AC/2, which reaches out to a klick. And I just shown that the Ultra AC/2, a 50mm autocannon, with further range and aka, further velocity than a 40mm AC/5, deals less damage, even though it should have greater KE.

The argument that range is limited by "velocity" is also disproven by the Scattergun. Its a machine gun that fires smaller calibre shells than normal, but does greater damage due to its increased velocity. Similarly, the Gatling can choose either a lower ROF 30mm chaingun or a ROF 20mm chaingun.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-11-03 01:44pm

*grumble why didn't post grumble*

pg 58
BattleMech targeting and tracking systems are designed for ground combat at maximum ranges of a few kilometers.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2005-11-03 01:49pm

PainRack wrote:Check your statements for internal consistency you idiot.

Check yours, you fucking moron. Never mind you claim NOT to be falling for no limits claims, but any time I show where the force of RECOIL is greater than YOUR OWN CALCULATIONS FOR GYRO COMPENSATION, MUCH LESS THE FORCE OF IMPACT, you claim that all I've done is shown how much better mechs are. God you're fucking stupid. First you ask for proof that recoil is greater than the values you put forward, and then you try and use it as further proof of your point, never minding the speed which the force would accelerate the mech in the opposite direction.

Assuming an inelastic collision, we know that mechs can remain standing after being hit by a gauss rifle shot.

As I said before, even an inelastic collision is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER in force. We're talking launch the fucking mech into orbit forces here.

Therefore, assuming insignificant loss of velocity, that would mean that the force of impact is the SAME as recoil.

What the hell? Are you fucking RETARDED? NO! Recoil and impact are NOT the same forces. Recoil happens over time and distance far in excess of impact!

Its converted to something else, but not used as energy to deform armour(in the case of impact not ablating armour). The most likely conclusion would tbe the standard answer of noise and heat.

Noise and heat. Yes. These would be created. However, the heat would be enough to fry the mech, ripping/melting off even MORE armor, and despite all of this, the force applied is not diverted by any mechanism in what you have described. You can't simply snap your fingers and turn kinetic energy into heat. It doesn't work like that.

You know, the same standard stuff known as wasted energy. Or are you unable to understand something called inefficiency?

Are you able to understand something called ORDER OF MAGNITUDE? You can't explain away all the extra energy as waste energy, you little sack of shit.

Nope. There isn't a single reference, unless you're talking about the "juryrig" fix, which causes lasers to generate more waste heat.

Nope, I'm talking about an actual instance where someone fired his autocannon so many times that it actually warped the barrel. I forget the book, but I'm sure I can find another instance somewhere. Unfortunately, all my books are an hour away, so I can't check. All I can do, really, is show just how pathetically wrong your calculations are.

Oh god. This is great. Really. Fucking great.

Do you even know what a fucking laser is? That's right. A coherent, focused, BEAM.

Do you know what the impact of the laser on the moon is? It hits a fucking mirror and bounces BACK.

While hitting dirt and other particles does scatter the beam, it doesn't scatter to the extent that a beam powerful enough to melt half a ton of steel disappears at 450m!

Wow. You really are a fucking moron. Yes, I am aware the beam bounces back you moron. And when it comes back, the diameter of the beam is fucking huge. Not only does it have to deal with the atmospheric scattering when it travels through the atmosphere, but there is a general property of dispersion even in a vacuum, based on the diameter of the aperature and the wavelength of the light.

It doesn't matter how powerful the beam is, but rather, how LONG it stays that powerful. Clearly, it loses enough potency after the intended ranges as to not to be consequential as a weapon.

Here's a tip. I know a hell of a lot more physics than you do. Your only strength right now is that you have references from the source material in front of you. That is your only use in this discussion at this point. I suggest you learn that and leave the actual physics to the people who know what the fuck they're talking about, or at least have a fucking clue.

In battlespace, the timings involved are minutes. Furthermore, mechs are specifically mentioned to face targeting difficulties due to the extreme ranges involved, even when facing "relatively" immobile targets. This is highly different from the simulation, where engagements are measured in less than 5s.(Solaris rules duels, 5s.)

Oh, so it's five seconds now, not three? Wonderful.

Meanwhile, nothing you've said concerning space is worth considering, seeing as the phenomenon can be much more simply explained by other, existing, natural means.

And we see that mechs are actually able to withstand impacts by gauss rifles. As well as actually hit each other and remain standing. Which very bloody hell tells you that this doesn't represent an upper limit you dipshit.

Listen. Do you understand how we can determine an upper limit? We find events that have canonically knocked mechs down, calculate the forces applied, and use them as an upper fucking limit. Any numbers from that point on that don't agree with that limit are, in fact, in error. THIS IS HOW WE CAN DETERMINE THE FIREPOWER OF THE BATTLETECH WEAPONS.

If a force of X newtons can reliably knock a mech on its ass, and a force of 10X newtons can't, we have to assume that the values that caused us to end up with a result with 10X newtons is, in fact, in error, and scale them down to a more reasonable number.

This is simple observation and logic. It makes no sense at all for a larger force to NOT knock a mech down, while a smaller force can. It is blantantly inconsistant with reality. Get that through your fucking head.

Therefore, an alternative reason for why mechs fall down is needed. And is actually given, pilots disorientation. The gyro requires both the mental balance of the pilot and the computers and gyro to remain standing, as per BMR and MWC.

May I remind you that the very fact that a mech can fire a gauss rifle means...... it can fire a gauss rifle with that recoil?

You're right. A Mech can handle the recoil of a Gauss Rifle. From this, we can draw two conclusions:
1. Since the Mech can fire a Gauss Rifle, it can handle any forces below that without any concern whatsoever, using the Gauss Rifle as the upper limit of forces it can handle.
2. Since a Mech can fire a Gauss Rifle, the Gauss Rifle must be under the limit of forces a mech can safely handle. This limit can be derived by looking at other instances and determining how much force is canonically required to topple a mech.

Conclusion one is violated by instances of lesser amounts of force toppling a mech. Therefore, we can safely discard it, as any additional addendums to it would be making more assumptions than Conclusion two, and thus violate Occam's Razor.

Meanwhile, the idea of any time the pilot is off balance toppling the mech, well, no. That's just retarded. Give it up already.

That's not due to atmospheric scattering. That's due to a pocket laser being non-highly focused.

Oh, yes, how silly of me. Clearly if you do the same experiment in a vacuum you will get precisely the same measurements.

Or, wait, you won't.

Oh really? This from the expert who claims that "momentum" needs to be multiplied by barrel lenght, when no force is acting on the mass inside there?

You forget, the gases are constantly expanding inside the barrel, providing additional force on the projectile, and yes, accelerating it to a faster speed. The fact that you don't fucking realize this only further shows how fucking incompetant you are. Go on. Look at a carbine's muzzle velocity and compare it to a longer barreled version of the same gun. They're firing the same bullets, same ammo, why does one have a higher muzzle velocity if nothing matters but the initial explosion? Moreover, compare your calculations for recoil against the actual recoil measurements of real guns. You'll find a considerable difference.

Oh? Bullfucking shit.

Mechs remain standing after impacts by gauss rifle. Mechs remain standing after firing gauss rifle. That means, the calcs you give are actually LOWER limits for the gyro ability. Your inability to understand lower limits and evidence is NOT MY FUCKING PROBLEM.

Explained above. Go take a mechanics course and come back when you pass, you little shitstain.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2005-11-03 01:59pm

By the way, feel free to double check any of my equations. I've applied only the numbers you've given me, that I remember easily from the game, or that can easily be derived.

Gunhead · Post by **Gunhead** » 2005-11-03 02:07pm

On impact the round caused blast interferece, indicating it had some sort of explosive filling. If it was APHE, it is a full calibre round and is low velocity.
If it was HEAT, velocity doesn't matter.
There is nothing in the mackie quote that points towards the round being a SABOT or other solid shot. APHE is still used in BT, and otherwise their projectile tech doesn't really dazzle me.

Which brings me to the bit about the 50mm shells. This can be easily explained by variations in ammunition material. 30mm APDS we use today puts any older 50mm shell to shame. Or it was primarly meant to be an HE round therefore would not work against armor. Weapons in BT are generic, but show a lot of variation in fluff (calibre, ammo load, ROF to name a few.)
.

That armor model I made does make sense even if range factors are taken into account. If it's true, it would mean that BT weaponry should have longer ranges, and your theory about engament ranges being shortened by targeting difficulties and the need to attain multiple hits is true.

Even if the gauss is 5.5 mach, it still isn't fast enough when ranges are 6km. This would limit space combat to lasers and PPCs only. Well, against moving targets anyway.

I don't remember the exact quotes, it's been years since I read BT novels.
It really doesn't matter. If gauss is rated at 5.5 machs and has the highest velocity around (it's lesser range to AC/2's comes from the projectile being a ball). It would indicate that AC rounds in general are of lower velocity.

When talking about armor in general. All armor deflects shots if the angle of impact is bad. Here most mechs have a huge disadvantage to vehicles.
They have large vertical surfaces, and most of the time they need to have it facing towards the enemy so they can bring their maximum firepower to bear on the target.

I'm pretty sure I'm on the money on the armor model I've made. BT armor is about soaking shots rather than deflecting them. (Was in some BT book can't remember which). The most effective way for it to do that due to it's thinnes is to a) shatter the incoming round b) Deform c) Both.

-Gunhead

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2005-11-03 04:04pm

PainRack wrote:Jeez. While some of the other questions are valid, the other questions are just plain irritating.

Gee, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that asking for quantitative data was irritating. Perhaps you'd like to just avoid using quantitative data, maybe go back to using vague generalizations?

1. Thermal properties are unknown, save that crystal conducting steel is able to conduct and radiate heat away. For simplicity sake, steel is assumed to be the melting point.

Melting point of the armor, unfortunately, is something that has to be quantitatively derived from other factors if it is not known or stated.

Note, the conduction of heat away from the impact point is a VITAL point of Btech armour, as its the sole explaination why half a ton of armour is melted. This is because Btech armour is cm thick at best, mm thick normally.

That's fine, but we still need to know what the critical tempurature is.

2. Small lasers are mentioned to cause buildings to burn in btech(Invasion of the Clans).

What are the buildings constructed of? Was it wood burning, or was it another material with a much higher point of combustion?

3. Purported power output can be calculated by using the 1s rule and comparing it to energy.

What 1s rule are you talking about? Where are you getting the energy values?

4. The last question is unanswerable, and frankly, a fucking red herring. There isn't a need to know this.

I have several final questions you're not addressing. Is this about the amount of power it pulls from the reactor, or about the diameter of the apereture? All of what I asked provides useful information which can be used to corroborate the claimed firepower of said laser weaponry. Admittedly, power drain + array length + apereture is highly technical, but it can give us a high end value.

Last but not least, there isn't a "from all angles" look at it. All you need to answer is this.

1. Why would lasers not have the improved tactical range, similar to the AT 6km range against HG?

Because they are being used in the same conditions as they are used in BTech. On a planet, in atmosphere. You can't GET larger range out of a laser just by increasing the amount of time the pilot gets to aim it, the universe just doesn't work like that. In space, a laser can retain its lethal energy for a much longer distance than it can in atmosphere, because there's no air to superheat (loss of energy) or cause dispersion (loss of coherance).

2. Why would HG armour be able to withstand the heavy lasers and PPCs of Btech?

This is what I'm trying to figure out. You see, by coming up with a reasonable firepower level for BTech, I can figure out IF the BTech weapons are somehow superior or inferior. The only way to reasonably do this is to observe the effects of the lasers on materials common between the two settings (wood, cement, human flesh, what have you), not on materials with special properties that interact in special ways. Meanwhile, you seem content to say, "well, since it gets rid of half a ton of BTech armor, it will clearly punch a hole in HG armor". This conclusion is sketchy unless it is somehow supported by some bit of corroborating evidence. Right now, we've got no measure of just how strong BTech lasers really are. Clearly, the cardboard measure is just dumb writing (though it's been heavily propegated), but in order to best understand it we need evidence that can be compared easily in both universes. It's clear that armor in Heavy Gear is quite capable of standing up to lasers and particle accelerators (the Heavy Particle Accelerator is almost incapable of doing any damage to an Aller Main Battle Tank), the question is, what's the difference in power here. Remember, the power of a laser isn't just putting joules into a target, but rather putting joules into a target focused into a point.

The difference, by the way, is akin to sunbathing, and sunbathing under a giant telescope. One will tan your skin over time, the other will burn a hole in your skin over a much shorter time.