290 replies to this topic

[Dogbreed]

Couple of thoughts
1. What is a Ton in the Bt universe? is it 2000 pounds or 2240 pounds
weight, equivalent to 2000 pounds (0.907 metric ton) avoirdupois (short ton) in the U.S. and 2240 pounds (1.016 metric tons) avoirdupois (long ton) in Great Britian" - or some other equivelant
2. A 100 ton mech has a 10 ton internal structure (harden framework) with 10 heat sinks default, but if we add additional heat sink they weight 1 ton each, so a base structure for a 100 ton mech is 20 tons not include all the possible cabling, control runs, etc...
3. All weights are round to the nearest ton or .5 ton in some cases
4. A mech weights a fixed amount 100 ton, not 99 or 101, or any number not evenly divided by 5
5. It is a number used to classify and compare mechs

the ammo weight issue
1. 1 ton of mg ammo would not be just the bullets/shells is would have to include the loading mechanism and controls, and again it is rounded and it is just to simplified the mechanics of the game

for those that want a reason why mech could have been build verses what we have for AFV's like tanks, think exploring space and what type of vehicle would work best in unknown enivroment with the greatest mobility. Sure you can use self contained battle armor with transport, but then the armor has limited life support and endurance, a vehicle like a mech can carry a larger engine for endurance more lfe support, arms for manipilations. Just food for thought

these are just some passible conjectures on my part, i am sure there are others and no away invalidates other

ps: all spelling mistakes are my own

Edited by Dogbreed, 27 June 2012 - 05:39 AM.

[miliardo]

BDU Havoc, on 13 June 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

People are aware that this is FICTION, right?

Make believe?

Pretend?

Not real?


Any of this getting through?

Mechs are real!!!

[Melcyna]

Incidentally... that made me curious...

how on earth do you transport shells from ammo storage in the leg into the arm?

miliardo, on 27 June 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

Mechs are real!!!

For those that didn't know how to make that impression, look at the feet soles and where it contacts the ground, then watch carefully it's movement.

Edited by Melcyna, 27 June 2012 - 05:46 AM.

[Phasics]

miliardo, on 27 June 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

Mechs are real!!!

Pretty sure my Rotary-StiffBreeze would take that out in a few seconds

[Purlana]

miliardo, on 27 June 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

Mechs are real!!!

Wonder what the max speed on that "mech" is

Also you could probably cut through the "armor" with a knife.

Edited by Purlana, 27 June 2012 - 05:47 AM.

[Phasics]

Melcyna, on 27 June 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

Incidentally... that made me curious...

how on earth do you transport shells from ammo storage in the leg into the arm?

internal feed mechanism

hence critical hits past armour can get explosive

[Toldor]

Phasics, on 27 June 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:

I pulled it out of thin air, like pretty much every argument in this thread

doesn't make any less sense than other things I've read

Yeah ok, thats reasonable. So the mech is build out of cheesecake and has marshmallows as ammo ;-)

[Frankdark]

I think it´s more like this

7,62 -12,5mm Gatling Gun = MG
~ 17 - 22 mm = RAC2
~ 30 = RAC5

the Problem with amunition and lot´s of other things in BT is it´s based on a table Top game with turns!
i don´t like the idea of putting it 1 to 1 in Realtime

they should take the chance and remake the basic weapons.

for example:

basic AC

Ultra AC
50% bigger, 50% more weight same heat per shot
double rate of fire
25% less munition per t (loading mechanism needs more space)

LBX ( only for 10 / 20 )
50% bigger, 50% more weight, double heat per shot
25% less muniton per shot
100% more damage but spread

RAC ( gattling only for 2 / 5 )
2x bigger, 2x more weight,
25% less munition per t (loading mechanism needs more space)
25% less range
3 times rate of fire

and 2/5/10/20 is only for Range, Damage

and Heat and Damage value´s must not be Natural Numbers ( they could be like 0.5 heat )

[Melcyna]

Phasics, on 27 June 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

internal feed mechanism

hence critical hits past armour can get explosive

So for a 14m tall battlemech that would be what, a 16m long internal feed mechanism through the myomer bundle and the internal skeleton (including the length traveled to the arm mount)??

i mean, that's already stretching my suspension of disbelief with MG, but try and imagine AC/10 or AC/20 or missiles and... well... i don't know it's possible to create a plausible explanation for that (which is fine)....

they did leave it open to interpretation and did not try to explain it right? RIGHT?

[daricsoldar]

The original question brought up by the OP doesn't need asking. The first question that should have been asked, if you really want to bring the mythos and compare it to modern science is: why are we building giant robots with legs, when tanks on wheels or with hover jets are much more useful?

We probably could make a small, hydraulic mech in the current day. It's just impractical. The center of gravity for one of these mechs in comparison to a tank on land is so much higher off the ground that any kind of concussive projectile would send your mech straight on its butt, effectively destroying its combat capability.

I'm an engineering student, and I agree that 100 tons for a mech of this size and loadout is questionable, but the idea that a military would consider a mech a more effective war machine in the first place is ludicrous. We play mech games because it is awesome to see giant robots fight each other. But realistically, they're impractical, slow (for the amount of power it would take to move their legs), and ineffective against tanks with lower centers of gravity that take a heck of a lot more force to flip them on their back sides.

EDIT: changed for clarification and reference to original topic question.

Edited by daricsoldar, 27 June 2012 - 06:00 AM.

[Phasics]

Melcyna, on 27 June 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

So for a 14m tall battlemech that would be what, a 16m long internal feed mechanism through the myomer bundle and the internal skeleton (including the length traveled to the arm mount)??

i mean, that's already stretching my suspension of disbelief with MG, but try and imagine AC/10 or AC/20 or missiles and... well... i don't know it's possible to create a plausible explanation for that (which is fine)....

they did leave it open to interpretation and did not try to explain it right? RIGHT?

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain !