1386 replies to this topic

[Lord of All]

Keifomofutu, on 30 April 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

[I disagree with your disagreement]

[Well let's agree to disagree]

Edited by Niko Snow, 30 April 2013 - 03:10 PM.

[MADSix]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
If you look under the Iraq war section you will see this:
"Some Abrams were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes during the invasion. Some troops employed short-range anti-tank rockets and fired at the tracks, rear and top. Other tanks were put out of action when struck in critical places by heavy machine gun rounds."
Hmm, that looks to me like our tanks can be disabled by machine guns.

Edited by MADSix, 30 April 2013 - 09:03 AM.

[ICEFANG13]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

[Well let's agree to disagree]

[Indeed]

Edited by Niko Snow, 30 April 2013 - 03:11 PM.

[Critical Fumble]

You know, if we're arguing from fluff text on Sarna about this; while a few of the mech mounted MGs are listed as 20mm Gatling guns, elsewhere when talking about the variety mounted on battle armor it says they, ". . . fires High Calibre rifle rounds in the vicenity of 12.7 mm or 0.50 calibre. This calibre of round is better able to damage BattleMechs, BattleArmor and Combat Vehicles." Implying that even man-portable caliber weapons can damage a 'mech.

And if we're arguing from realism? Portable fusion reactors? How does anything with weight/footprint of a BT mech not sink into the ground? And how is a combat vehicle the size of a mech a good idea, anyway?

[stjobe]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

Can someone link me even one Support Machine Gun that can penetrate even todays tank armor?

I'll do it as soon as you link me a modern-day tank with the same ablative armour as a 'mech.

Sorry, but the 1000-years-in-the-future weapon they call the Machine Gun is not the same weapon as a modern machine gun. It's specifically designed to damage the 1000-years-in-the-future ablative armour of the 1000-years-in-the-future fusion-powered, artificial muscle-powered, gyro-linked-to-the-driver's-brain, 9-18m tall fighting machine.

Think about this: According to the BattleTech lore, the Autocannon is developed from the Rifle, which in turn is developed from our modern-day tank cannons, like the 120mm L44 M256 Rheinmetall main gun of the M1A1 Abrams. Now Rifles have a hard time damaging 'mech armour - they all have a -3 penalty to their damage versus 'mechs and other vehicles with 'mech armour. The Light Rifle, which does 3 damage, cannot damage 'mechs at all.

But the MG still does 2 damage versus 'mechs.

The only logical conclusion one can draw from that fact is that the BattleTech universe weapon that's called Machine Gun is very, very different from what we today call a "machine gun", and that it is, in fact, more powerful versus ablative armour than modern-day tank guns.

So you see, your request makes no sense. Neither the modern-day weaponry or the modern-day armour have any bearing on the fictional 1000-years-in-the-future weaponry and armour of the BattleTech universe.

[FupDup]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

I am aware of this, being a former Ordinance-man I've loaded many a 20mm Cannon
I've rebuilt these with my own hands.
...
My Marine side wants to be enlightened.
...
Semper Fi

I won't bother discussing most of your post's contents because the people before me have already beat me to the punch. I'd just be copy-and-pasting their posts and that would be redundant (see stjobe's post directly above).


What I will discuss, however, is an off-topic phenomenon that I am noticing in anti-MG posters. I am starting to see that a lot of them are military veterans; such as you, Merchant, and Joseph Mallen (the first two of which try to use their real-life service to gain leverage in internet arguments about fictional space robot weapons). There is a trend here. My conclusion is that military vets continuously mistake the gun they held in their hands while shooting at ragheads in sandland with the Battletech mech-mounted Machine Gun due to the naming of the latter weapon.

Late-edit: It appears that stjobe and Esplodin are both examples which refute the paragraph above (and there are obviously more out there). I guess that the anti-MG folks just obsess over what the term "machine gun" means.

Edited by FupDup, 30 April 2013 - 10:09 AM.

[Lord of All]

ICEFANG13, on 30 April 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

[Indeed]

[Indubitably]

MADSix, on 30 April 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
If you look under the Iraq war section you will see this:
"Some Abrams were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes during the invasion. Some troops employed short-range anti-tank rockets and fired at the tracks, rear and top. Other tanks were put out of action when struck in critical places by heavy machine gun rounds."
Hmm, that looks to me like our tanks can be disabled by machine guns.

Anything can happen, doesn't mean it is the norm.

Critical Fumble, on 30 April 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

You know, if we're arguing from fluff text on Sarna about this; while a few of the mech mounted MGs are listed as 20mm Gatling guns, elsewhere when talking about the variety mounted on battle armor it says they, ". . . fires High Calibre rifle rounds in the vicenity of 12.7 mm or 0.50 calibre. This calibre of round is better able to damage BattleMechs, BattleArmor and Combat Vehicles." Implying that even man-portable caliber weapons can damage a 'mech.

And if we're arguing from realism? Portable fusion reactors? How does anything with weight/footprint of a BT mech not sink into the ground? And how is a combat vehicle the size of a mech a good idea, anyway?

This is a very mature post and I agree with most of it. I salute you sir.

stjobe, on 30 April 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

I'll do it as soon as you link me a modern-day tank with the same ablative armour as a 'mech....

touche'

FupDup, on 30 April 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

Blah blah blah
There is a trend here. My conclusion is that military vets continuously mistake the M4 carbine they held in their hands while shooting at ragheads in sandland with the Battletech mech-mounted Machine Gun due to the naming of the latter weapon.

Weird how people with personal experience about things think they have a clue about them. I'm sure you know alot about something.

OH and I'd like to point out my comments on the 20mm were in response to someone trying to point out I thought we were talking about ak-47's. I did not bring that up as a point for my side of the argument although all of you have jumped on it as if I had. That of course is what is known as a RED HERRING.

Edited by Niko Snow, 30 April 2013 - 03:11 PM.

[stjobe]

FupDup, on 30 April 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

There is a trend here. My conclusion is that military vets continuously mistake the M4 carbine they held in their hands while shooting at ragheads in sandland with the Battletech mech-mounted Machine Gun due to the naming of the latter weapon.

Well, you know what they say: The measuring unit of human intelligence is the tary - that's why it's called 'milli-tary'

Nah, just joking. No offence meant, I did my service too, and I've trained on weapons from assault rifles to mortars, but I'm not quite naive enough to think that any of those will translate 1000 years in the future - just look back 1000 years and see what weaponry we had then. The pinnacle of military technology was the crossbow.

And I'm not quite illogical enough to equate a man-portable weapon to one scaled up 5-10 times to fit a 9-18m walking fighting machine. What calibre would a .50 M2 BMG be if scaled up 5 times? 63.5mm, 127mm if scaled up 10 times.

A 5.56mm gun scaled up 5 times would be a 27.8mm gun. Scale it 10 times and it's a 55.6mm gun.

Or, going the other way: Putting a .50 on a 'mech would be like you or me firing a 2.54mm gun, or even a 1.27mm one. That's smaller than a .22 round. And you're firing against armoured targets.

Edited by stjobe, 30 April 2013 - 09:29 AM.

[FupDup]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Weird how people with personal experience about things think they have a clue about them. I'm sure you know a lot about something.

I never knew that you had personal experience living in the Battletech universe and firing a giant robot's 500-kilogram Machine Gun at other giant robots covered in ablative armor.

Edited by FupDup, 30 April 2013 - 09:31 AM.

[Esplodin]

FupDup, on 30 April 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

is an off-topic phenomenon that I am noticing in anti-MG posters. I am starting to see that a lot of them are military veterans

Army Infantry vet here. Lotsa time firing 25mm cannon, 7.62, 50cal, SAW, Dragon, AT-4, etc. etc. I think it has to do more with a lack of imagination, as well as an inability to understand basic game mechanics than anything. You can destroy a modern tank fairly easily IRL if you know what you are doing.

[FupDup]

Esplodin, on 30 April 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

Army Infantry vet here. Lotsa time firing 25mm cannon, 7.62, 50cal, SAW, Dragon, AT-4, etc. etc. I think it has to do more with a lack of imagination, as well as an inability to understand basic game mechanics than anything. You can destroy a modern tank fairly easily IRL if you know what you are doing.

stjobe, on 30 April 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

Nah, just joking. No offence meant, I did my service too, and I've trained on weapons from assault rifles to mortars, but I'm not quite naive enough to think that any of those will translate 1000 years in the future - just look back 1000 years and see what weaponry we had then. The pinnacle of military technology was the crossbow.

Alrighty then, it appears that the so-called "trend" is now smashed and now I feel stupid.


Now I'll have to find some other common attribute between our opponents in this thread to determine the cause of their feelings (or maybe just give up and call it semantics about the what the words "machine gun" mean...that sounds just about right.

Edited by FupDup, 30 April 2013 - 09:47 AM.

[Esplodin]

FupDup, on 30 April 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Alrighty then, it appears that the so-called "trend" is now smashed and now I feel stupid.

Don't, because in a way you are right. Most military folks have real life experience with man portable or crew served machine guns. Practical experience makes suspension of disbelief harder. It's why people can believe in a PPC or fusion powered robots, but not something they have touched with their own hands.

It's all about imagination. I has it.

[Terror Teddy]

In the end it is still about one simple fact - Game Balance

-There is no viable light ballistic weapon for 20-40 tonne mechs without gimping the chassis due to the only weapon of choice is not really a sensible choice at all.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 30 April 2013 - 10:06 AM.

[Keifomofutu]

Terror Teddy, on 30 April 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

In the end it is still about one simple fact - Game Balance

-There is no viable light ballistic weapon for 20-40 tonne mechs without gimping the chassis due to the only weapon of choice is not really a sensible choice at all.

This right here. Pgi's desire to turn the mg into a niche weapon for a very specific and not always useful purpose does not line up well with certain lower weight mech variants in the game that have multiple ballistic slots and nothing else to realistically place in them but machine guns.

As a result entire mech variants are functionally handicapped by the current crit seeker machine gun design when what they need is a functional close range low weight weapon capable of doing decent damage.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 30 April 2013 - 10:12 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

Not to mention that PGI's only argument is the fear of boating MG's by asking us to imagine the terror of the 6MG Spider - a mech that doesnt exist.

And no mention is raised about all the OTHER boating going on that apparently is no problem according to PGI even though those weapons DO damage.

[stjobe]

Terror Teddy, on 30 April 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

Not to mention that PGI's only argument is the fear of boating MG's by asking us to imagine the terror of the 6MG Spider - a mech that doesnt exist.

And no mention is raised about all the OTHER boating going on that apparently is no problem according to PGI even though those weapons DO damage.

Yeah, it's kinda surreal to hear them talking about the devastating effects of a non-existent 6 MG Spider when just about every match has several 6 PPC Stalkers...

[Critical Fumble]

Terror Teddy, on 30 April 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

Not to mention that PGI's only argument is the fear of boating MG's by asking us to imagine the terror of the 6MG Spider - a mech that doesnt exist.

And no mention is raised about all the OTHER boating going on that apparently is no problem according to PGI even though those weapons DO damage.

In their defense, I hear Canadian beer is very good. And a 6 MG light could happen.

The epic fail part is that he said that an unstated buff (which implies most or any solution) to a weapon that most people won't even use to fill out lose hardpoints would be "devastating".

To their credit, they have said they (or at least one of them) will work on it. It probably will still be pretty sad, in which case we can start the whole cycle over again.

[Terror Teddy]

Critical Fumble, on 30 April 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

To their credit, they have said they (or at least one of them) will work on it. It probably will still be pretty sad, in which case we can start the whole cycle over again.

Yea, it at least gives us a sign that they listen to our concerns.

I dont want an OP weapon - I want something useful.

[stjobe]

Critical Fumble, on 30 April 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

And a 6 MG light could happen.

Will happen. It's the next hero 'mech, the Devastator. It's already been confirmed (well, just by me, but confirmed I tell you! Confirmed!)

[Lord of All]

Terror Teddy, on 30 April 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

In the end it is still about one simple fact - Game Balance

-There is no viable light ballistic weapon for 20-40 tonne mechs without gimping the chassis due to the only weapon of choice is not really a sensible choice at all.

But this is by design. So don't use those chassis. They should not even have been introduced as they have no role.