76 replies to this topic

[Kmieciu]

It would take one Elemental to disable both Landkreuzer P1500 Monster and Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte.

"Kill the flesh, save the metal"

[Karl Streiger]

Kmieciu, on 29 May 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

"Kill the flesh, save the metal"

Multiple Machine Cannons? Dozens of crew members.... sounds for me that you need a point of elementals....
but i bit a half point of Aerospace fighter

[Melcyna]

The idea that BT armor can withstand large caliber cannons unfortunately also fails as BT suffers from physics failure when it comes to how their armor works. (well technically everything in BT including battlemechs are ALL physics failure)

Essentially if you calculate the energy carried by their supposed weapons, the armor would be invincible to most weapons we have energy wise since it can withstand such weapons in theory.

Except they falls apart or get crushed by relatively moderate mass moving at low speed (ie: collision, melee, etc), in a nonsensical manner.

If you calculate based on that, their armor is incredibly fragile... and the massive shells used on the heavy cannons (naval cannons etc) would simply crush the mech, and if it somehow magically stops the shell, there's still the question on where the energy carried by the shell went to...

The concussion alone essentially would be fatal for the pilot inside the tin can (battlemech) even if the battlemech somehow remains intact, the mechwarrior after all... is still human.

That is assuming the battlemechs gets into range AT ALL.

Given most standard cannons used in WW2 have range measured in several kilometers, and large naval guns have sufficient accuracy against large targets including bunkers during naval bombardments (which are comparable to an Atlas really) to hit them (assuming ranging shots have been done) at 30-40km...

The Atlas essentially had to be REALLY sneaky somehow to get close without seen and shot, 45kph avg speed for Atlas incidentally aint fast...

to give an idea Naval guns had to engage warships capable of pulling speed as fast as 25knots or more (fast BB, and ships like Iowa class for example pulls off over 30knots, that's 60kph of almost 50000ton metal), which is about as fast as a 45kph Atlas, the difference of course is that even the fastest BB can't make a turn quickly, which the Atlas can. But if the Atlas makes a single predictable path... it's basically dead.

Edited by Melcyna, 29 May 2013 - 08:33 PM.

[Kyone Akashi]

The idea fails only if one does not understand that BT armor works in an ablative manner. I have posted the sourcebook excerpt on the first page of this thread.

[Karl Streiger]

Well i think strucked by a 80cm shell or a nearby hit will destroy a battlemech.... based on the mass of a shell...even for smaller caliber we are talking about Capital Shells.... while last used better proppelant (electro thermic) - the weight of the shell and that for the "explosive" is much smaller.

If you consider that a naval guass (used because kinetic energy only) lets say a Heavy Naval Gauss firing a ~7.28inch (18.5cm) massiv iron projectile with ~ 500kg... battletech damage 300

comparison a Gauss with lets say 2,000ms and a projectile weight of 125kg deals 15dmg. ~ 60 MJ

Our Heavy Naval have to spit out the projectile with at least 14,000ms to have a impact on ground of 1200 MJ (multiple of 20 of std gauss)

I'm sure that the impact of a HN-Gauss kill a Atlas in a radius of 0-60m.
The Gustav Shell weights much more as the Gauss shell but potential damage looks equal for me. (Crater size and penetration of concrete)

[Skylarr]

I agree 100% that if a BattleMech takes a direct hit from a Naval Gun it would be destroyed. But, in the BattleTech Universe weapons like Artillery Weapons and Capital Weapons cannot hit a Mech directly. They do AOE damage. This is for game balance.

There are rules for when a Warship Orbitally Bombard a battle field.

[Melcyna]

Karl Streiger, on 31 May 2013 - 01:37 AM, said:

Well i think strucked by a 80cm shell or a nearby hit will destroy a battlemech.... based on the mass of a shell...even for smaller caliber we are talking about Capital Shells.... while last used better proppelant (electro thermic) - the weight of the shell and that for the "explosive" is much smaller.

If you consider that a naval guass (used because kinetic energy only) lets say a Heavy Naval Gauss firing a ~7.28inch (18.5cm) massiv iron projectile with ~ 500kg... battletech damage 300

comparison a Gauss with lets say 2,000ms and a projectile weight of 125kg deals 15dmg. ~ 60 MJ

Our Heavy Naval have to spit out the projectile with at least 14,000ms to have a impact on ground of 1200 MJ (multiple of 20 of std gauss)

I'm sure that the impact of a HN-Gauss kill a Atlas in a radius of 0-60m.
The Gustav Shell weights much more as the Gauss shell but potential damage looks equal for me. (Crater size and penetration of concrete)

Again, the calculation works under the assumption that we use the energy value they have

But UTTERLY fails when one consider that these Battlemech are sustaining damage from collision, melee etc

if you try and calculate the mass of a melee weapon in BT for example, or a fist of a battlemech, claw, etc... and calculate how much energy they can impart on a reasonable speed, the value comes up so short off the mark that it should not possibly caused even a DENT on the armor much less damage it.

if you do the reverse and calculate how fast a BT melee weapon would have to strike with the mass they have for example then you'd quickly arrive at speed that would be impossibly fast that it contradict every portrayal of the weapon and circumstances in which they appear (essentially the weapon would be moving so quickly that the Battlemech limbs swinging the arm would be like a blur, imagine a sword quickdraw except you can't even see the arm, in some melee weapons they effectively have to reach supersonic or hypersonic speed in order to inflict the damage they are listed as)

or similarly if you reverse the process and calculate how fast a battlemech arm or limbs have to collide at another battlemech to inflict lethal damage (Death from Above??? Death from Nonsense more like it) the value becomes nonsensically large as well because of the incredibly low mass of these Battlemechs.

Kyone Akashi, on 31 May 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

The idea fails only if one does not understand that BT armor works in an ablative manner. I have posted the sourcebook excerpt on the first page of this thread.

Ablative process however requires 2 quantity that BT armor practically devoid of

A. thickness
B. mass

thickness to give enough time for the material to actually ablate and remove the energy from the threat
mass to actually ablate the energy off

the super thin thickness of BT armor also creates another problem in that upon a physical object crashing right into it, be it projectile, or another solid object... this would give it virtually no buffer to absorb the impact force without imparting them into the armor support behind it else the structure behind the armor would effectively be tenderized (and if that's a pilot then woe be to him/her)

Both of them essentially means that the BT armor has to ablate at a phenomenal speed (literally vaporizing the shell and itself for example upon contact with each other before the shell can significantly impart force to the other part of the armor layer. Effectively behaving more like reactive armor than ablative armor at all.

Incidentally, to fix the previous comment about ablative and soviet that i noticed on 1st page

Spoiler

What the soviet often use for their tank is REACTIVE armor, not ablative armor (we don't use ablative armor in the military for tanks in general though our soldiers body armor is a type of ablative armor) and the reactive armor does not offer effective protection to non shaped charge threat hence why every tank which are intended to fight another tank is still primarily armored by laminate or composite armor... the reactive armor merely providing extra layer to cover threat from HEAT warhead.

do not confuse the two... in ablative armor, the armor itself effectively disintegrates in a slow controlled manner as the incoming energy is applied, in the process taking the energy away (since the conversion of the state requires energy)

in reactive armor, the armor ACTIVELY interferes with the process by which the incoming threat to the armor acts, so instead of carrying energy away by destroying itself, it instead prevented the process by which the threat applies from becoming a threat by disrupting it. This is the reason why reactive armor are mostly effective against shaped charge threat, and ineffective against non shaped charge, shaped charge threat have a well understood process by which it attack the armor and the reactive armor panel are intended to disrupt this process, but against solid projectiles like APFSDS the reactive armor means little since a significant mass flying at high speed aren't going to budge much without sufficient mass intercepting it or an even bigger force colliding with it.

The principle difference to us are 2 fold:
in ablative armor the amount of armor required versus incoming threat energy is proportional, to stop X amount of threat you need Y amount of armor.

in reactive armor they are not necessarily proportional, you can disrupt X amount of threat with less than Y as long as the process is disrupted. But the reverse is true as well as less than X amount of threat can still cause the same amount of reactive armor to be consumed in the process.

Edited by Melcyna, 31 May 2013 - 06:08 AM.

[Kyone Akashi]

I'm using the term "ablative" in a general manner, as most people on this forum would likely not be familiar with the definition of "reactive", whereas the other one has at least found use in a lot of games by now. I'm also thinking it can well serve as a sort of over-category (meaning: any armor that protects by sacrificing parts of itself), although I confess I'm not sure whether this is an accurate usage. I had hoped it would be sufficient in the context of this discussion, as it serves no-one to go into lengthy explanations that are, in the end, redundant.

Melcyna, on 31 May 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

Ablative process however requires 2 quantity that BT armor practically devoid of
A. thickness
B. mass

thickness to give enough time for the material to actually ablate and remove the energy from the threat
mass to actually ablate the energy off

You're forgetting a third quality that can, in theory at least, easily replace either of the two you mentioned: Hardness.

As we know, different materials take different levels of kinetic energy to penetrate, which has led to the refinement of projectiles in the aforementioned "arms race" between armor and ammunition. That a greater mass is required was generally true for the past, yet modern science has already rendered this "law" inaccurate, and Battletech sci-fi takes it one step further by using crystal-alignment and radiation treatment to further maximize the protective qualities of the layer.

So, to me, the logical conclusion seems to be that both artillery projectiles as well as melee attacks are stopped by the armour, yet even though the plating successfully deflects or shatters the blow its structural integrity collapses (again, see the sourcebook citation, specifically re.: "brittleness"), resulting in this section essentially falling off.

All that an ancient, unmodified but extremely heavy projectile would have going for it would be its raw kinetic force - which is why I believe it may perhaps knock the Atlas off its feet ... but it wouldn't cause internal damage, as the round would shatter together with the armour plate it struck, with much of its own mass and energy redirected to the sides, essentially bombarding the countryside.

If it would use Battletech technology, it would certainly be more dangerous, for in that case the projectile itself would utilize different materials to increase certain qualities such as density that would enable the round to exert even more force on its target, be it by simply increasing the initial kinetic shock, or (perhaps more effective) by making the projectile sturdier so that it does not shatter as easily.

Melcyna, on 31 May 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

the super thin thickness of BT armor also creates another problem in that upon a physical object crashing right into it, be it projectile, or another solid object... this would give it virtually no buffer to absorb the impact force without imparting them into the armor support behind it else the structure behind the armor would effectively be tenderized (and if that's a pilot then woe be to him/her)

That's what the second layer is for - although a great portion of an incoming attack would not even go through as it is affected/redirected by the first one.

Edited by Kyone Akashi, 31 May 2013 - 05:13 PM.

[Melcyna]

Unfortunately as i have explained above, it is not accurate at all to refer to ablative and reactive in the same manner.

Both armor essentially losses their own mass in the process, but how they achieve the goal of stopping the threat diverge significantly. Whereas ablative armor shift into another state through a process that requires energy (and thus absorb the energy required from the incoming threat), reactive armor instead stops the threat or disrupt it by actively interfering with the process by which the incoming threat is destroying the armor.

To give a simple visualization: an ablative armor would stop a punch like a cushion to prevent damage (the cushion possibly destroyed in the process), a reactive armor would instead BREAK the arm before it reaches you to prevent it from harming you.

We don't use ablative armor in military vehicles, only reactive armor and only against shaped charge at that... the only one who uses the term ablative armor often for military vehicles are games and sci fi settings, with many of them often confusing the two as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The hardness unfortunately is also a problem in the concept itself,

Spoiler

essentially one has to choose whether to ablate and lose the mass (and thus siphoning the energy off the threat) or being hard and losing less mass (but transferring the energy to the underneath and surrounding structure).

However much it ablate means that much less energy transferred, and however much it is HARD means the opposite

Hardness is thus not a substitute in ablation factor, it's in fact running against it and if you want an armor that Bleeds off as much energy from the threat ie: ablates the most, you in fact want it to be less resistant (hard) against the threat and instead convert more readily to consume as much of the energy as possible.

It is still possible however to ablate more towards one type of threat and less to another, but this comes into it's own problem with the concept in BT (ie: why are their armor still ablating normally against physical projectiles then as they do laser?)

Kyone Akashi, on 31 May 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

That's what the second layer is for - although a great portion of an incoming attack would not even go through as it is affected/redirected by the first one.

Which doesn't help really,

Spoiler

See the thing is we get cases like battlemechs getting crushed by melee strikes, punch, kick etc... from the relatively low mass battlemech (they r incredibly low mass for something so huge) moving at a moderate speed (ie: like a dragon kick in the art) so the supporting layer doesn't give that much buffer for physical shock.

given that, a shell which doesn't weigh as much but carries even more KE and physical force from it's speed is virtually guaranteed to crush the supporting layer regardless if it punch through the armor or not.

So even if we assume the armor is somehow perfectly intact (the entire thing suffers from physics failure), the layer underneath it would not in all likelihood... nor would the materials behind that (including the pilot).

This creates a paradox essentially in that BT has weapons producing multi hundred MJ of energy and KE projectiles carrying massive energy and force, and armor that can stop it... but get crushed by a relatively low energy physical force.

And if a massive naval shell strikes the Atlas? In all likelihood the result is equivalent to an egg smashed by a meat tenderizer, the armor panels struck or rather pieces of it (since it's not one intact cast armor piece) may survive assuming it was sufficiently hard etc (as odd as that is considering they r supposed to ablate), but whatever is underneath and beyond is most certainly crushed by the sheer impact beyond recognition with the incredibly low mass of an Atlas regardless if the armor stopped it or not considering the amount of force imparted on impact by the massive AP shell of a naval gun.

Edited by Melcyna, 01 June 2013 - 07:20 PM.

[Skadi]

Nerroth, on 20 May 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

Perhaps a closer comparison in BT terms might be with something like this.

A Rattler would take the worlds largest **** on a Ratte, that thing isn't a super tank, its FORTRESS CITY on treads.

I meen for heavens sakes it can carry mechs, and can fight off aircraft, including the very large ones in orbit.

PS. Poptarts > Ratte

Edited by Skadi, 01 June 2013 - 09:12 PM.

[Kyone Akashi]

Melcyna, on 01 June 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

Unfortunately as i have explained above, it is not accurate at all to refer to ablative and reactive in the same manner. [...]

And as I have explained above, your explanation is redundant. It simply does not matter for the discussion at all.

Melcyna, on 01 June 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

The hardness unfortunately is also a problem in the concept itself,
essentially one has to choose whether to ablate and lose the mass (and thus siphoning the energy off the threat) or being hard and losing less mass (but transferring the energy to the underneath and surrounding structure).

Only if you care about the energy in the first place. For a BattleMech, it may simply pose no problem, especially as the two outer layers of armour have already been clarified to be semi-flexible, which would probably go a long way in terms of redirecting kinetic energy - not unlike throwing a rock into a body of water, just that in this case the water gets blown off in the form of damaged armor plates.

Melcyna, on 01 June 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

It is still possible however to ablate more towards one type of threat and less to another, but this comes into it's own problem with the concept in BT (ie: why are their armor still ablating normally against physical projectiles then as they do laser?)[/spoiler]They break when subjected to physical impact, and melt when subjected to energy. Obviously this has been crafted as an out-of-universe means to an end to support the game mechanics, yet with the tool of sci-fi tech it becomes possible to create an elaborate "technobabble" excuse as to why it works like it does.

[spoiler]See the thing is we get cases like battlemechs getting crushed by melee strikes, punch, kick etc... from the relatively low mass battlemech (they r incredibly low mass for something so huge) moving at a moderate speed (ie: like a dragon kick in the art) so the supporting layer doesn't give that much buffer for physical shock.

Brittleness.
I also recommend taking the actual technical descriptions in the supplements as a higher authority than the events in some novel that may well have been written for dramatic effect.

Melcyna, on 01 June 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

And if a massive naval shell strikes the Atlas? In all likelihood the result is equivalent to an egg smashed by a meat tenderizer, the armor panels struck or rather pieces of it (since it's not one intact cast armor piece) may survive assuming it was sufficiently hard etc (as odd as that is considering they r supposed to ablate), but whatever is underneath and beyond is most certainly crushed by the sheer impact beyond recognition with the incredibly low mass of an Atlas regardless if the armor stopped it or not considering the amount of force imparted on impact by the massive AP shell of a naval gun.

If we assume that the kinetic energy travels inward rather than largely or completely being directed elsewhere.

[Skylarr]

Nerroth, on 20 May 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

Perhaps a closer comparison in BT terms might be with something like this.

Rattler MKII Anti-Aerospace Mobile Fortress

Quote

Introduced 3072
Size (In Hexes) 7
Length (meters/Hexes) 90 meters/3 Hexes
Width (meters/Hexes) 90 meters/3 Hexes
Height (meters/Levels) 42 meters/7 Levels

Heat Sinks (total) 176
Construction Factor 150
Armor (per Hex) 150
Total Cargo (tons) 636
Doors (total) 6

Bays

• 4 Light Vehicle Bays
  
• 6 Jump Infantry Bays

Crew

• 43 officers
  
• 42 crew
  
• 105 gunners
  
• 177 bay personnel

Armament

• 3x Sub-Capital Laser/3
  
• 10x Large Pulse Lasers
  
• 16x Machine Guns
  
• 4x Light Machine Guns
  
• 14x Streak SRM 6
  
• 4x LRM 20 with Artemis IV
  
• 2x Heavy Gauss Rifles
  
• 2x Long Toms
  
• 2x Arrow IV

Equipment

• 14x Anti-Missile Systems
  
• 3x Barracuda

Facilities

• 98 steerage quarters
  
• 24 crew quarters
  
• 1 MASH unit
  
• 10 tons comms eqpt
  
• 2 field kitchens
  
• 4 lift hoists

BV (2.0) 14,495

The Rattler Mk II was a Word of Blake mobile structure intended to act as an anti-Aerospace platform and was based on an earlier Star League design.
Description

The modern Rattler Mk II programme began with the refurbishment of those SLDF Rattler Mk Is that had survived the Amaris Civil War shortly after the Word of Blake captured Terra in 3058, but soon expanded into the production of new platforms.
Capable of transporting 4 VTOLs and 2 companies of jump infantry, the Rattler is not particularly luxurious; the standard crew quarters are double occupancy, while the steerage quarters are intended to be triple occupancy. To support the crew, the Rattler is equipped with a full MASH, augmented by 2 additional operating theatres.

The Rattler Mk II has treads larger than the average assault 'Mech, and the complete platform stands more than forty meters tall; however, the Word of Blake went further than the SLDF did when it came to protecting the Rattler by modifying the various Castles Brian on Terra to allow the Rattlers to be stored underground until needed. The main Word of Blake headquarters on Terra, Hilton Head, had a regular garrison of 4 Rattlers, along with numerous sally ports to allow them to enter and exit underground.

The Rattler is a fearsome anti-Aerospace platform; while the Barracuda launchers allow the Rattler to reach targets in orbit, it excels at engaging sub-orbital targets. Mounting three of the largest sub-capital lasers manufactured, the Rattler also mounts defensive turrets containing Long Tom and Arrow IV systems. Smaller weapon systems are dotted around the Rattler in blisters, making engaging them on land a difficult task.
Variants

Rattler Mk I - The original SLDF Rattler mounted three additional Barracuda Launchers and had a larger cargo capacity when compared with the Mk II, but lacked the Sub-Capital Laser/3s of the modern Mk II. This gave the Mk I longer range than the modern Mk II, but at the price of increased ammunition dependency. Predating the invention of the Heavy Gauss Rifle, the Mk I mounted heavy autocannon instead. Only 12 Rattler Mk Is are known to have survived the Amaris Civil War, and all were upgraded by the Word of Blake to Mk IIs.

Notes

The description for the Rattler indicates that the Rattler Mk I had 5 Barracuda Launchers, and that the Word of Blake removed 3 of the Barracuda Launcers to install the Sub-Capital Laser/3s in place on the Mk II. That would leave 2 Barracuda Launchers on the Mk II. However, the readout of the Rattler Mk II and the Record Sheet for the Rattler Mk II show 3 Barracuda Launchers. It is not currently known if the mention of 5 Launchers on the Mk I is in error, and that the Mk I therefore had 6 launchers, or if the reference to removing 3 Launchers in the Mk II is in error, with only 2 Launchers instead being removed. No record sheet currently exists for the Rattler Mk I.

[thepartisan]

Tanks were made obsolete when the first mech came out (The Mackie). You can have heavy armour, you can have insane guns. But if your manoeuvrability sucks then you will have a hard time. Ask the history books why the T-34 was so successful when the Germans made technically superior tanks. as for the Ratte..... It would lose badly. The Atlas has better manoeuvrability and has a payload which will hurt when it gets to the side and back armour.

[Melcyna]

Just as a separate note: T-34 suffers MASSIVE disproportionate casualties vs the german panzers,

Spoiler

this occurring from the moment it was introduced (where it only faced inferior short barreled PzIV and PzIII) all the way to the final end of the war when the Soviet crew and doctrine is much better. Roughly 50% of the entire T-34 and T-34/85produced which is among the most produced military vehicle in history, were destroyed

The Mackie introduction was also never detailed in how it actually fights the tanks (because there's no way for it to be sensible and thus impossible to write plausible scenario detailing how the fight went on)

Kyone Akashi, on 02 June 2013 - 01:56 AM, said:

And as I have explained above, your explanation is redundant. It simply does not matter for the discussion at all.

Only if you care about the energy in the first place. For a BattleMech, it may simply pose no problem, especially as the two outer layers of armour have already been clarified to be semi-flexible, which would probably go a long way in terms of redirecting kinetic energy - not unlike throwing a rock into a body of water, just that in this case the water gets blown off in the form of damaged armor plates.

Brittleness.
I also recommend taking the actual technical descriptions in the supplements as a higher authority than the events in some novel that may well have been written for dramatic effect.

If we assume that the kinetic energy travels inward rather than largely or completely being directed elsewhere.

There's no where for it to go, essentially if the shell is a kinetic projectile, there are only 3 main path the energy can take on impact:

1. if the shell is deflected, it carries the remainder of the kinetic energy with it (minus the part spent on collision, zero damage deflection is not possible since some energy is transferred during the deflection itself) and of course deflection depends heavily on angle of the surface involved aside of the material hardness of which an Atlas presents virtually non existent angling on it's armor on the most probably impact location.

2. if the shell is stopped, almost the entire kinetic energy is applied directly to the armor (some will be converted to other form including sound, heat, etc that are dissipated to the air)

3. alternatively if the armor is supposed to ablate to absorb the energy then the armor absorb however much it can ablate at the same rate as the projectile is applying the energy, if the projectile applies more than the armor's fastest ablation energy transfer rate is then the remainder would be applied directly to the supporting structure.

Note that often the technical readout in the supplements are written AFTERWARDS in attempts to introduce some sensible grounds for it, which in many cases were not possible because their original lore and novel ideas were too far off the sensible physics to be justified.

The novel author in general are already restricted by the setting on what can and cannot portray etc by the holder of the BT rights (if they don't agree with the material it won't even get published).. but BT obviously weren't exactly made by ppl who understand physics or warfare for that matter that well in the first place.

Hence why the supplement that came later (that were written by ppl who ACTUALLY knows physics quite a tad better than the ones who made BT) appear somewhat contrasting with the previous material publications.

This was common incidentally in sci fi, they release a show/game/etc first then later on (or when they can be bothered and see the profit for it) they hire someone with a background in whatever aspect they need to help write the technical manual that can try and find SOMETHING out there that can be used to help justify their setting. They usually have mixed bag of success with the attempt depending on how much details are needed, Star Trek and Star Wars for example did this as well.

Back to the armor though, regardless if the armor is brittle or not the question then becomes how exactly does an armor (brittle and hard) stops regular pre Tera weapons when impact of comparable energy from the collision etc already damages if not destroy the armor and the underneath structure?

If such collision destroys the hard but brittle armor, then impact with common regular cannon shells (which impart similar effective force) would also shatters the armor as readily regardless if it penetrates or not.

This incidentally applies either way, regardless if the projectile is massive but slow or tiny but very fast, they both impart equivalent force if they carry the same kinetic energy in total and slammed on the brittle but hard armor, the only real difference being the area of the armor affected directly by it can differ significantly.

[J4ckInthebox]

A single small laser shot could probably blast its way through that primitive steel armor and fry everyone inside with ease.

Edited by J4ckInthebox, 02 June 2013 - 08:58 AM.

[Skylarr]

thepartisan, on 02 June 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

Tanks were made obsolete when the first mech came out (The Mackie). You can have heavy armour, you can have insane guns. But if your manoeuvrability sucks then you will have a hard time. Ask the history books why the T-34 was so successful when the Germans made technically superior tanks. as for the Ratte..... It would lose badly. The Atlas has better manoeuvrability and has a payload which will hurt when it gets to the side and back armour.

Tanks were not made obsolete.

Quote

Combat Vehicles
In many cases, combat vehicles can be just as good if not better than their BattleMech counterparts. Combat vehicles are structurally weaker and, for some designs, not as maneuverable as 'Mechs; a tracked vehicle for example cannot negotiate dense woodland or deep waterways as well as a 'Mech. However they do use the same weapons, armor and technology as found on 'Mechs. Ground vehicles also benefit from the fact that they have a lower center of gravity and larger footprint than 'Mechs, allowing for more stability. Though most are powered by an internal combustion engine and limited to ballistic or missile weaponry, this combined with advantages in their design allows them to shed waste heat more efficiently. Power Amplifiers allow for ICE-equipped vehicles to use lasers and other energy weapons; other vehicles are built with their own fusion engines, and are still cheaper to produce than 'Mechs.

Here is a list of tanks.
http://www.sarna.net...Combat_Vehicles

[Kyone Akashi]

Melcyna, on 02 June 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

There's no where for it to go, essentially if the shell is a kinetic projectile, there are only 3 main path the energy can take on impact:

1. if the shell is deflected, it carries the remainder of the kinetic energy with it (minus the part spent on collision, zero damage deflection is not possible since some energy is transferred during the deflection itself) and of course deflection depends heavily on angle of the surface involved aside of the material hardness of which an Atlas presents virtually non existent angling on it's armor on the most probably impact location.

2. if the shell is stopped, almost the entire kinetic energy is applied directly to the armor (some will be converted to other form including sound, heat, etc that are dissipated to the air)

3. alternatively if the armor is supposed to ablate to absorb the energy then the armor absorb however much it can ablate at the same rate as the projectile is applying the energy, if the projectile applies more than the armor's fastest ablation energy transfer rate is then the remainder would be applied directly to the supporting structure.

The way the sources describe the armor to work, it is a mix of all three
- The shell is shattered, pieces of which carrying a fracture of the kinetic energy as they and broken parts of the plating are deflected to the sides, with some pieces also penetrating further inward (where they are stopped by the second layer)
- A large part of kinetic energy is directed onto the armor plate, but instead of travelling inward, the nature of construction redirects another portion to the sides (the two outer layers of BattleMech armor are semi-flexible and thus may work like human skin - I'm sorry, I did not find a better visual representation in short time )

As a historical anecdote, Genghis Khan was said to have issued his mounted troops with silk armor as arrows would not break it, allowing for lesser injury and easier removal. The thin, extremely hard "steel skin" of the outer armor layer would work similar, just that its brittle nature causes shattering as it stops oncoming ordnance.

Melcyna, on 02 June 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

The novel author in general are already restricted by the setting on what can and cannot portray etc by the holder of the BT rights (if they don't agree with the material it won't even get published)..

They are restricted, but that does not mean that no novels that propagate contradictory details get published. There is a reason for why the rulebooks and supplements are treated as a higher authority - I did not make this up, it is straight from the official Battletech forums, and novel authors being "dramatic" was part of the reasoning behind it. [1][2]
The most glaring "dramatic effect" in novels that would almost never actually work in actual "current canon" Battletech physics is the fusion reactor blowing up like a nuke like it (supposedly) happens in every second Stackpole novel.

I'll refrain from bashing the authors for not knowing all details of the physics. It is always much easier for some fans to come along "after the fact" and nitpick minor details. To me, all that is really important is that Battletech is still sufficiently realistic to allow my suspension of disbelief to override any inconsistencies, and the supplements have done an excellent job at making things sound plausible enough. Hence I also enjoy looking for possible explanations or even cop-outs for why things may work like they supposedly do.

Melcyna, on 02 June 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

If such collision destroys the hard but brittle armor, then impact with common regular cannon shells (which impart similar effective force) would also shatters the armor as readily regardless if it penetrates or not. This incidentally applies either way, regardless if the projectile is massive but slow or tiny but very fast, they both impart equivalent force if they carry the same kinetic energy in total and slammed on the brittle but hard armor, the only real difference being the area of the armor affected directly by it can differ significantly.

I reckon that at some point, a round fired at the BattleMech will simply be so ineffective that it fails to trigger the "breaking" effect of the armor, causing the round to be shattered or deflected without actually substracting armor points (in game mechanical terms). The kinetic energy would be dealt with using the same factors as outlined above, albeit likely to different percentages.

[Skylarr]

Melcyna, on 02 June 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

The Mackie introduction was also never detailed in how it actually fights the tanks (because there's no way for it to be sensible and thus impossible to write plausible scenario detailing how the fight went on)

I do not see how you say this was not possible. The Mackie, introduced in 2439, was fighting against Merkava Mk. VI. The Mk. VI only carried four and a half tons of BAR 7 armor. According to Battletech rules half of the Mackie's weapons created a crit anytime it hit.

Quote

Basically any unit that is not built on an Armored Chassis hit by a weapon that inflicts more damage than its BAR will need to check for a critical hit, even if the weapon didn't damage internal structure.

Quote

Mackie

Unit Summation: Original Mackie BattleMech Prototype
Producer/Site: Hegemony Research and Development Department (Weapons Division), New Earth
Developing Engineer: Various
Introduction Date: 2439
Non-Production Equipment Analysis:

• Primitive Engine
  
• Primitive Cockpit
  
• Primitive Armor

Overview


The product of a massive military development project instigated by Jacob Cameron, Director General of the Terran Hegemony, the MSK-5S Mackie was the first true BattleMech. Based on Professor Gregory Atlas’ groundbreaking myomer research, the Mackie took the familiar IndustrialMech and transformed it into a design that would not merely survive on the battlefield, but would come to dominate it. Twenty of Terra’s best weapons and support firms worked on the project at the Hegemony’s top-secret weapons development enter on New Earth. After final trials at the Yakima test range on Terra, the contract to manufacture the production-version Mackie was awarded to the Skobel Corporation.

The prototype Mackie was put through its paces in 2439, turning in a brilliant performance at the hands of Colonel Charles Kincaid during live fire tests against a series of static and drone targets. This version was deployed with formations such as the 801st Heavy Armored Regiment. In 2443, a strong Kurita force raided Styx in an attempt to test Hegemony resolve. Determined to put a brake on Combine aggression, Director General Jacob Cameron gave permission for deployment of the new BattleMech. Lt. Colonel Amanda Cunningham of the 801st Heavy Armored Regiment led her lance of Mackies against—and over—the
armored spearhead of the Kurita attack, sending the Combine forces into headlong retreat. In 2455, the Lyran Commonwealth stole the plans for the Mackie from the Hesperus II manufacturing plant, and began producing its own Mackies within four years. Lyran Mackies led the 2459 campaign against the forces of the
Free Worlds League on Loric.

Shortly before these events, however, the Hegemony had introduced the MSK-6S Mackie, which sported many incremental improvements over the prototype, and subsequently became the standard production version. The most notable change was the introduction of a heavier autocannon. The HAF had feared
(correctly) that their monopoly on BattleMech technology would not last, and requested the weapons loadout for greater punch. Within decades of the introduction of this upgraded design, most of the prototype 5S models were scrapped. A few survived as museum exhibits until the fall of the Star League.

Type: MSK-5S Mackie
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Primitive)
Tonnage: 100
Battle Value: 1,436
Equipment
Internal Structure: 10tons
Engine: 360 (Primitive) 33tons

• Walking MP: 3
  
• Running MP: 5
  
• Jumping MP: 0

Heat Sinks: 17 7tons



Gyro: 4tons
Cockpit (Primitive): 5tons
Armor Factor (Primitive): 214points 20tons
............................IS.........AV
Head....................3..........9
Center Torso.......31.......31
CT (rear).............10
R/L Torso.............21......20
R/L Torso (rear)...10
R/L Arm................17.......24
R/L Leg................21.......28

Weapons and Ammo.......Location......Critical.....Mass
PPC.....................................LA.................3..........7
Large Laser.........................CT.................2..........5
Autocannon/5......................RA.................4..........8
Ammo (AC) 20.....................RT..................1...........1

Extracted from Experimental Technical Readout: Primitives, Volume 1 page 8

Quote

Merkava

Unit Summation: Primitive Merkava Heavy Tank
Producer/Site: Leopard Armor, Terra
Developing Engineer: Unknown
Introduction Date: 2384
Non-Production Equipment Analysis: Primitive Combat Vehicles


Overview
Named in homage to a late twentieth century armored vehicle of the same name, Leopard Armor’s Merkava Mk. II (“Chariot” in Hebrew) main battle tank design became the mainstay of Terran Alliance armor formations after entering service in 2294. The Mk. VI, which debuted in 2384, was the latest in a string of upgraded versions produced in the decades that followed. Boasting better armor, improved fire control,
and a new LRM 10 launcher, the classic Mk. VI continued to serve the Terran Hegemony (the descendent of the ill-fated Alliance) as the main component in its heavy armor platoons. The design served on many fronts
and in many actions during the Age of War, where it earned a reputation for ease of maintenance and its ability to soak up considerable damage but still keep on fighting. To the general public, the Merkava Mk. VI symbolized the might of the Hegemony military as much as the mighty battleships of the Hegemony Navy.Called upon more and more to operate in hostile territory and on worlds that deviated from the Terran or terraformed norm of the Hegemony, the Mk. VI began to demonstrate the limitations of an ICEpowered combat tank. In 2435, the fusion-powered Mk. VII began to replace its progenitor. Ironically, the tank that was once dubbed the “King of the Battlefield” helped usher in the weapon that would supplant it. Four modified Mk. VIs—outfitted as remote-controlled target drones— participated in the 2439 live fire tests at the Yakima test range on Terra, where the new Mackie BattleMech was put through its paces.

The Mk. VI ended its days in service with militia troops, sold for scrap, or as targets for the new BattleMechs on the target ranges. The Mk. VII was quick to follow it and the Mk. VIII superseded it in turn, only to be phased out of service itself at the conclusion of the Reunification War. Even so, the Merkava series continued to influence heavy armor design for centuries to come. Tank designs such as the Manticore and Von Luckner Heavy Tank were influenced by the battlefield experiences of the older tank.

Type: Mk. VI Merkava Heavy Tank
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Primitive)
Movement Type: Tracked (Medium)
Tonnage: 75
Equipment Rating: C/D-X-X/E
Battle Value: 477

Equipment
Chassis/Controls..............9.5tons
Engine:...........................25.5tons
Type: ICE

• Cruising MP: 3
  
• Flank MP: 5

Heat Sinks: 0


Fuel: 784 km 2
Turret: 2
Armor Factor (BAR 7): 80points...........4.5tons
....................AV
Front...........7
R/L Side.....16/16
Rear.............15
Turret...........16

Weapons and Ammo................Location...............Mass
Autocannon/5 ............................Turret ......................8
Ammo (AC) 20.............................Body .......................1
LRM 10.......................................Turret.......................5
Ammo (LRM) 12..........................Body........................1
SRM 4.........................................Turret ......................2
Ammo (SRM) 25..........................Body........................1
..
Machine Gun...............................Turret...................(.5)
Machine Gun...............................Front....................(.5)
Ammo (MG) 100...........................Body......................5
Advanced Fire Control ................Body.......................2

Crew: 10 (2 officers, 2 enlisted/non-rated, 6 gunners)
Notes: Features Armored Chassis modification

Extracted from Experimental Technical Readout: Primitives, Volume 1 page 13

*Updated the with information that I found in Experimental Technical Readout: Primitives, Volume 1

Edited by Skylarr, 02 June 2013 - 11:06 PM.

[Melcyna]

because if you think about it, (nvm that any tank is lower profile and harder to hit at range in the first place, something MWLL players are familiar with ironically, especially when they meet with Demolishers)

4 LRM10, pretty much pulverizes armor very quickly, most Atlas pilots in MWO know this well when they meet Stalker armed with 4 LRM15 or LRM10 that will quickly strip the Atlas of it's armor in just a few salvo (and here in MWO we have twice the armor of the base Atlas for that matter and AMS to help) Put mackie in a similar situation and one has to wonder how on earth does it survive that,

Oh wait, that's right they removed it to produce the remote controlled version... of course one has to wonder, if it's a remote controlled version, then it has no need for the space and weight allocated for crew so why on earth it removes a weapon still and gain nothing from the weight saving of the crew and it's compartment? Or for that matter why on earth does remote controlled equipment takes the space and weight comparable to an LRM10? Shrug, lostech...

4 AC/5, is similarly lethal due to their range and refire rate, especially when you are easy to shoot like Atlas and Mackie which represent a tall target board, we get that kind of punishment when we see quad AC/5 Jagger, or alternatively if one has played MWLL before, from Partisans armed with quad AC/5.

Assuming the mackie still intact then it gets into the effective range of it's PPC and AC/10
If it gets into the effective range of it's ML, then we get 4 SRM4 into effect on the Merkava as well which is also not survivable for long but hopefully the Mackie can quickly dispatch the Merkava at such range before it takes lethal damage.

So under the best possible terrain for the Merkava (open terrain from outer range), there's virtually zero chance the Mackie could win if they r both controlled by decent pilots since the salvo of the longer ranged weapon on the Merkavas spell death to a slow large Assault mech.

Under the best possible terrain for the Mackie (within effective range of the PPC and AC/10, and with cover to avoid LRMs or AC/5 salvos), there's no way it comes out of that without taking sizable beating either even assuming the Merkava are not allowed to move away.

And assuming the Merkava are not restricted to any of the above, nothing exactly stops them from simply moving away and continue firing as they gain distance... they are supposed to be tanks after all. Even if they only got a single AC/5 to count on with no LRM, they can just simply continue moving away and keep firing their AC/5 till they run out of ammunition or the Mackie is dead.

Edited by Melcyna, 02 June 2013 - 07:14 PM.

[Skylarr]

I do not think they put a green pilot in the Mackie. And at range the Mackie is firing a PPC and an AC/10. Both have a 30% chance of creating a Crit on the Merkava. The Merkava is returning fire with a single AC/5 at range.

BattleTech is not based off of MWLL.