76 replies to this topic

[Melcyna]

Indeed he is not in all likelihood since test pilots are supposed to be the best after all to be one. But that doesn't change the situation that he is sitting in a 100ton 54kph tall massive mech, not exactly difficult to hit by any stretch of imagination unless the merkava controller are to put simply, can't hit the broadside of a barn.

And the PPC and AC/10 would crit the merkava assuming they can do the 7 points of damage correct? Then why would the merkava not simply engage outside the range in which the PPC and AC/10 can do 7 points of damage? Their AC/5 has a better range after all even if they do less than 5 points of damage and they both are the same speed, being a tank they can just simply continue moving away while firing.

MWLL and other BT games basically creates a clear and stark picture that at what BT describes, they r wayyyy off the knockers.

Essentially what happens in MWLL and other Mechwarrior games was that since both party still aims manually, the tanks had an obvious advantage with their lower and smaller profile (something we already know from common sense, but BT never understood) and in most range duel, this stark difference makes the battlemechs a heck a lot easier to hit.

and naturally, with the kind of armament in BT, aircrafts were DECIMATING the battlemechs to pieces and were untouchable from the ground because they simply juke in and out of the maximum range of weapons while dropping bombs and missiles.

These are the kind of things that the BT creators essentially do not have a picture of when they wrote the lore etc... but quickly crop up when the rules and stats they devised are put into a game where line of sight, profile, height, speed, etc... ACTUALLY mattered on their effectiveness instead of governed by a DICE on how likely they are to hit etc..

Kyone Akashi, on 02 June 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

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)

This creates an anomaly because if some pieces actually penetrates further inward then logically this means that specific area of the armor is already breached in the outer layer as that's the only way the fragments can go through.

Any subsequent hit to this location would've just punched straight to the second layer and likely beyond.

Kyone Akashi, on 02 June 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

The way the sources describe the armor to work, it is a mix of all three
- 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 )

If it works like human skin being semi-flexible then why on earth do they not use better ballistic profile for the shells to penetrate it?

This also contradict the idea that the armor is hard and brittle as it's the opposite of being flexible

If we assume that only the outer layer is hard and brittle, while the second layer is flexible then the moment the outer layer shattered, any intact projectile would slice right through the second layer like butter..

Which means any Capped Armor Piercing shell (APCBC as they are commonly known back in WW2, yep this kind of construction was known since that long ago) type of shell design would just PULVERIZE this armor outright since the cap would shatter the outer layer, and the actual armor piercing penetrator would just punch through the flexible second layer.

Kyone Akashi, on 02 June 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

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.

??? the silk is intended to expedite removal of the arrow, the outer layer of BT armor assuming it's supposed to shatter incoming ordnance would have what exactly in common with it??? One doesn't exactly stops the projectile, only allows it to be removed more easily, the other destroys the projectile structure and creates a whole mess of fragments that went through (assuming they r using solid single cast projectile like WW1) Honestly they sound more like the opposite of each other.

Kyone Akashi, on 02 June 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

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.

This one plausible somewhat though it then begs the question, that if they have materials to make the armor, then it doesn't make sense that they'd make a projectile made of even less structurally sound material

it's like making an armor out of steel, and projectile out of wood... not particularly sensible.

The other problem is that they made the mistake of using low mass value for most battlemech etc and the weapons. This creates a paradox in that based on these values, we know how much energy roughly a mech punching another mech for example would create or a melee weapon etc...

The value basically are unrealistically low that it makes it difficult to comprehend why shells with similar energy value cannot shatter the armor layer when they both carry the same kinetic energy.

Edited by Melcyna, 02 June 2013 - 08:29 PM.

[Skylarr]

Melcyna, on 02 June 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

And the PPC and AC/10 would crit the merkava assuming they can do the 7 points of damage correct? Then why would the merkava not simply engage outside the range in which the PPC and AC/10 can do 7 points of damage? Their AC/5 has a better range after all even if they do less than 5 points of damage and they both are the same speed, being a tank they can just simply continue moving away while firing.

Mackie (Moving at a top speed of 54 km/h)

• PPC (Long Range 13-18, Damage 10 points)
  
• AC/10 (Long Range 11-15. Damage 10 points)

Merkava (Moving at a top speed of 54 km/h)

• AC/5 (Long Range 13-18, damage 5 points)

[Nik Reaper]

I've got a bit of a side question when all this stuff about tanks is being said, why is it that Mechs are superior to BT tanks of the same generation?

Many of them carry the same type of weapons, some are even better armed than most mechs like: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Burke and http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Demolisher , so if they mount the same type of armor and the weapons are the same, the only usual difference is that most vehicles don't use a fusion generator, what do mechs have going for them other than the rule of cool?

[Skylarr]

Nik Reaper, on 02 June 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

I've got a bit of a side question when all this stuff about tanks is being said, why is it that Mechs are superior to BT tanks of the same generation?

Many of them carry the same type of weapons, some are even better armed than most mechs like: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Burke and http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Demolisher , so if they mount the same type of armor and the weapons are the same, the only usual difference is that most vehicles don't use a fusion generator, what do mechs have going for them other than the rule of cool?

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.

Mechs are more maneuverable. Also, tank are more fragile (easier to Crit, disable and destroy). While Mechs are KINGS of the Battlefield, the Units that use a Combined Arms Tactics do better than those that do not.

[MustrumRidcully]

Nik Reaper, on 02 June 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

I've got a bit of a side question when all this stuff about tanks is being said, why is it that Mechs are superior to BT tanks of the same generation?

Many of them carry the same type of weapons, some are even better armed than most mechs like: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Burke and http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Demolisher , so if they mount the same type of armor and the weapons are the same, the only usual difference is that most vehicles don't use a fusion generator, what do mechs have going for them other than the rule of cool?

The rules were designed to give the mechs an advantage.
I believe a lot of it is based on making vehicles more prone to critical hits. All the armor in the world is useless if you take a crit on every hit and lose equipment and weapons every turn.

There isn't a logical reason for it.

Even the discussion about mech armour we have here - the armour would work just as well on tanks.
Ultimately the problem is that in the fight armor vs weapon, the weapon tends to be winning there is always something to break through. The goal is only to make that something rare enough that you do enough damage to the other stuff on the battle field before you face something your armour can't take.

Quote

Mechs are more maneuverable. Also, tank are more fragile (easier to Crit, disable and destroy). While Mechs are KINGS of the Battlefield, the Units that use a Combined Arms Tactics do better than those that do not.

Why are mechs more maneuverable is another question.

A 100 ton tank distributes its weight equally over a large area. A 100 ton mech focuses its weight into two narrow feet. You sink into most surface. If you try to scale an elevation with a mech, you are very likely to loose your footing as you destroy the ground. On most terrains,a mech has a drawback in moving. Being on foot is automatically a less stable platform.

---

I'd say the Ratte would lose this fight, because even if a mech 1000 years in the future is an ineffecient use of advanced weaponry, it's still advanced weaponry...

[Melcyna]

They never actually explain why on either count either

more maneuverable for example, but logically one would question why on earth a tank equipped with the same fusion engine runs slower than a battlemech using the less efficient legs. Agility wise a leg should outperform the tracks and wheels at least on normal designs (we have advanced designs on wheels that are incredibly maneuverable but they aren't very practical for combat... well just about as much as giant mechs), but speed wise we run into a logic failure since we know that's not true for legs to outrun wheels or tracks with the same power source.

Which gets more brain numbing still when one realizes that actual real tanks in the world weigh similar or more than these tanks of theirs and run FASTER with combustion engine producing power a tiny fraction of their supposed reactor, even on tanks armed with no energy weapon (ballistic and missile weapons only so there's no excuse of the reactor needing to power the energy weapon etc...)

same on the crit, why do tanks suffer more crit and more fragile when it can concentrate more armor on the same surface area and thus should in fact be more heavily armored??? shrug, lostech...

The obvious answer of course is balance and intention of the franchise, i mean if the tank are not sufficiently downplayed, then the battlemech aint exactly gonna be the star of the show.

Skylarr, on 02 June 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

Mackie (Moving at a top speed of 54 km/h)

• PPC (Long Range 13-18, Damage 10 points)
  
• AC/10 (Long Range 11-15. Damage 10 points)

Merkava (Moving at a top speed of 54 km/h)

• AC/5 (Long Range 13-18, damage 5 points)

Aye, now take 4 of that AC/5 and we try to figure out how exactly do they fail to put up a fight against the Mackie if they simply keep themselves at the edge of the engagement range.

Flip it around and take 4 of the AC/5 and 4 SRM4 if it's done on close combat and we get a similar question.

Essentially assuming both sides intended to win, the Mackie cannot realistically gloss over the Merkavas, unless of course if the Merkava do not intend to do so in the first place like what demonstrations usually are.

And this without considering on the falloff on the weapon's damage or the actual maximum range for the weapons, and that's just the tip of the iceberg before considering things like what are the actual chance of actually hitting each target, a Mackie or a Merkava from the same range considering one is a fraction of the profile of the other.

The table top rule with DICE don't exactly represent it, but we know that's not true... which sadly was what happened in games like MWLL because dice rules (like most tabletop games) does not consider them in general, but when line of sight is involved with actual aim, they do. And this is what happened in several BT games where instead of dices saying you miss or you hit based on their hit table assumption, you ACTUALLY had to aim and quickly realize that your large mech are much easier target to hit than the lower profile vehicles.

Edited by Melcyna, 03 June 2013 - 12:49 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Melcyna, on 03 June 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

same on the crit, why do tanks suffer more crit and more fragile when it can concentrate more armor on the same surface area and thus should in fact be more heavily armored??? shrug, lostech...

The obvious answer of course is balance and intention of the franchise, i mean if the tank are not sufficiently downplayed, then the battlemech aint exactly gonna be the star of the show.

Only thing i can imagine: almost every Tank has an open crew area- any hit can cause secondary effects behind the armor that will have effect on crew or systems. A tank is not crew operated - a hit anywhere will not cause much consequences at systems else where.

Other words when armor on a tank is penetrated all systems will be damaged, while same hit on a Mech could be similar to a shot right through.
Well i can remember that there are "advanced" rules for tank hit zones... and those make them real beasts.

[Victor Morson]

The Atlas.

Why?

Because the last huge tank constructed along a similar mindset - a fraction of the size of that one despite being the inspiration for C&C's "Mammoth Tanks" - was a Russian vehicle with four turrets.

The flaw? It literally would get stuck in any and all off-road terrain. Every single time.

So long story short, something this heavy would never ever be practical. It would effectively have to stick to terrain that could support it's weight, and even then, if you damaged the tread it would take the whole thing out of commission.

Realistically, modern day MBTs would absolutely obliterate an Atlas, but this thing? No.

EDIT: Also keep in mind real world military comparisons with BattleTech are rough, given it's 80ness. In fact, I kind of wish MW:O embraced it's retro-80s thing (in a non-joking way) and offered big old school CRTs and Commodore like video displays abound.

Bottom line is instead of getting "bigger and more well armed" obvious military trends are "get smaller and more networked" or "Get so high in the air nothing can hurt you." A single AC-130 could eliminate an entire battalion of 'mechs. Legs will always be a liability as well. If not for the artificial super-TACs that vehicles have in TT, they would absolutely be superior to 'mechs, and that's in their own game!

Edited by Victor Morson, 03 June 2013 - 02:15 AM.

[Victor Morson]

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.

The problem is all it will ever take to ruin a 'mech is to screw up it's knee. That's about it, really. Realistically even with ablative armor, the mere physical stress of getting that much pressure being thrown at the 'mech...

... For an example, get a sturdy metal container and put an egg inside. Now start wailing on the container with a baseball bat. Do you think the egg is going to be intact after even if the container is intact?

Edited by Victor Morson, 03 June 2013 - 02:17 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

To admit - i never got used to the idea of ablative armor.
I always think it is just "abstraction" in "real" BT its more a ultra light composite armor - that can take some serious stress.

The "armor" points are just a game abstraction - to reflect the Mech Systems inability to aim at a propper spot. for example you fire dozen of shots into the chest of a Atlas and all the shots bounce off or scratch the armor at best. however the 20th shot will hit a weak spot like a joint - or a heat sinks or else and break through the armor. Suddenly the integrity of the armor is reduced - every next shot has good chances to breakt through the armor (the internal armor diagramm is used) and cause serious damage... when internal armor is gone - the section is destroyed because the overall damage has hardly left anything intact.

Like the example of VM:

Victor Morson, on 03 June 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

... For an example, get a sturdy metal container and put an egg inside. Now start wailing on the container with a baseball bat. Do you think the egg is going to be intact after even if the container is intact?

This abstraction allows also to explain the serious damage of melee with the low damage of weapon fire.

[Melcyna]

Karl Streiger, on 03 June 2013 - 01:48 AM, said:

Only thing i can imagine: almost every Tank has an open crew area- any hit can cause secondary effects behind the armor that will have effect on crew or systems. A tank is not crew operated - a hit anywhere will not cause much consequences at systems else where.

Other words when armor on a tank is penetrated all systems will be damaged, while same hit on a Mech could be similar to a shot right through.
Well i can remember that there are "advanced" rules for tank hit zones... and those make them real beasts.

This is closer to the mark but with a few correction
tanks do not have open crew area per say, instead what tanks have are multiple crew compartments...

typical tank have 2 crew compartment at least.
1. driver
2. turret crew compartment

Note:

Spoiler

penetration on any crew compartment of a tank will not stop the tank unless the shot detonate within the crew compartment and kill the crew or destroy the equipment etc.. otherwise the shot has to intersect directly with crew or a vital equipment to do real damage. Ammo detonation killing the crew is also no longer realistically possible since they are now stored in separate compartment on modern tanks with blow off panel, and not within the crew compartment.

Whichever might be the case, penetration by delayed HE charge, HEAT, or what not... the damage or crit to the tank should only be possible when it has been penetrated, and NOT BEFORE which is the problem where BT doesn't make sense, the tanks are getting critted BEFORE the armor is even breached

Gets even more nonsensical when essentially tanks were getting crit zerged by machine guns, and you get EXPLOSION crit every single damn time.

And weirder still when one realizes that unlike a Mech where the armor has to be SPREAD ALL OVER the entire body, nothing stops someone from doing the most logical thing to a tank (that every tank design do from WW1 all the way to current age) and concentrating the armor on the most obvious place that needs to be armored... ie: the frontal arc and any section that is expected to be heavily subjected to incoming fire.

To illustrate...

a Battlemech with 5 ton of armor would have it's frontal armor spread over the front of it's torso, head, arm, and leg.
a Tank with 5 ton of armor on the other hand would have it's frontal armor spread over it's glacis, turret and some smaller portion on the side and that's pretty much it.

Considering the much smaller profile of the tank, the frontal armor of it essentially should be able to condense pretty much almost the entire 3 tons (or however many out of the 5 is devoted to the most critical area) frontal armor worth onto an area a fraction the size that the battlemech need to cover.

This logically should be even thicker than the battlemech frontal armor since the area is much smaller with the same amount of armor, so why would it be more crit prone?

Well, because:

Quote

As Randy and Wayward have said repeatedly, realistically a tank could beat an (unstable, ineffecient) "mech" any day of the week, as well as carrying more weaponry.. The rules are not there for realism. They are to keep Battlemechs the "Kings of the battlefield".

Which i have no problem with, after all i am playing the game for the same reason...
The problem only comes when some ppl actually believed the lore flatout like a country bumpkin.

Karl Streiger, on 03 June 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

To admit - i never got used to the idea of ablative armor.
I always think it is just "abstraction" in "real" BT its more a ultra light composite armor - that can take some serious stress.

The "armor" points are just a game abstraction - to reflect the Mech Systems inability to aim at a propper spot. for example you fire dozen of shots into the chest of a Atlas and all the shots bounce off or scratch the armor at best. however the 20th shot will hit a weak spot like a joint - or a heat sinks or else and break through the armor. Suddenly the integrity of the armor is reduced - every next shot has good chances to breakt through the armor (the internal armor diagramm is used) and cause serious damage... when internal armor is gone - the section is destroyed because the overall damage has hardly left anything intact.

The problem is that this then makes vehicles logically superior as they present the smallest surface area to be shot at and can be armored the easiest to cover any critical parts, instead of the other way around.

There's realistically no way to justify the system based on how our physics work or how we logically design both military or even commercial vehicles.

Edited by Melcyna, 03 June 2013 - 11:21 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Melcyna, on 03 June 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

There's realistically no way to justify the system based on how our physics work or how we logically design both military or even commercial vehicles.

Nope there is none... or at least it seems impossible.
And there are dozen of other design flaws (like storing ammunition of the same weapon in different places)

If you want to create new BattleTech rules that remove most of the logical flaws - it isn't BattleTech any longer...curious.

Best way to create a REAL difference: is to introduce something like armor threshhold allready known by AeroTech - battleMechs will hardly get any advantage but heavy armored tanks - can soak up some serious damage.
Next i would do something with movement and mobility. A battleMech should react like a human beeing...means it must be simpler to evade incoming fire. So while a tank need BP to turn most light mechs should be able to switch direction in an instant...only larger mech need more time.

That will result in heavy armored units vs high mobile armored units.
Tank got hit more often while it also can take more damage.

As you should know: actual in TT speed is better than armor

Edited by Karl Streiger, 03 June 2013 - 11:23 PM.

[Melcyna]

Plausible, though given the boost they gave to tanks on Total Warfare rules the tank's BV would have to be readjusted significantly in all likelihood, and i have a feeling that while the mechs under such idea should theoretically still be a very good if not better unit for general purpose in a typical match, it may well upsets the value rank between mechs and tanks a little bit too far.

I mean i fully understand that BT being BT, the mechs must be the top dog (i'd make sure the main star of my franchise remains a star naturally, and ensure the rule enforces that, unless there's a good reason i want to switch), and if i were them i'd probably be quite concerned at the idea that the tanks actually can do better than the mech in direct combat.

Victor Morson, on 03 June 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

Russian vehicle with four turrets.

The flaw? It literally would get stuck in any and all off-road terrain. Every single time.

I assume you meant the T-35 heavy tank, that thing technically has a myriad of issue but not quite exactly in that manner.

Spoiler

Essentially for the technology level of 1930s the tank was heavy at nearly 50ton (and over 50ton after various changes and improvements are applied), this is technically not overblown by WW2 standard but by post WW1 standard it's still quite excessive and thus stretches the limit of engineering at the time.

Which unfortunately means it's transmission can't really handle the stress in general and would often break down (ironically the same problem to lesser extent that the german faced later on with their Tiger and Panther), and once the tank broke down it's often extremely difficult if not impossible to tow the tank back to safety.

Perhaps an equally bad problem is that the multi turret concept of the T-35 are ineffective in a tank role, in theory the 4 separate turret of T-35 can engage separate targets, but in practice since the commander is the one who direct the fire and gives the order, and since he can't really focus on several targets at once the practical value of the multi turret is moot. Aside of that the multi turret creates a problem with the armor layout since it complicates the placement of armor and generates vulnerability on it's armor layout.

Note however that the tank is not exceptionally heavy or particularly big by WW2 standard, the Tiger is both heavier and actually wider (but not as long) and yet Tiger remain incredibly mobile for it's size (it was actually more mobile than the early sherman before sherman gets the HVSS upgrade) and the Maus (the heaviest and largest tank to enter service) effectively dwarf T-35 in size and weight.

Realistically, given how limited Maus mobility is... If Ratte were ever made (which would never happen but say the higher up is seriously bonker and actually built one) Ratte most likely functions NOT as a tank (because it can't) but as a mobile artillery platform. It's after all armed with a naval gun effectively and the gun is more suited for bombardment.

Would it be practical? No, it won't, but assuming that it was made (German effectively would lose the war if they actually built one by disregarding their condition as it would sap resources from pretty much every effective assets they have for no real gain with Ratte) in theory at least... if it just SAT in place and shoot anything that enters the gun range, it would be a real annoyance for the ground troops... until it gets bombed from air and artillery shelled at least.

Against something as slow and large as an Atlas, in THEORY at least... it should be able to hit it if it travels in any sort of predictable path given how large an Atlas is assuming it starts outside the engagement range of the gun. If it just lands a shot close enough to the Atlas for example with a full HE load, the blast would be more than sufficient to topple the Atlas given Atlas only weighs 100ton (tiny mass by comparison to what the naval shell were intended to smash)

If it can hit the Atlas then with an armor piercing capped shell, the Atlas in all likelihood is history... given the mass of the shell.

Edited by Melcyna, 04 June 2013 - 12:48 AM.

[Kyone Akashi]

Melcyna, on 02 June 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

This creates an anomaly because if some pieces actually penetrates further inward then logically this means that specific area of the armor is already breached in the outer layer as that's the only way the fragments can go through. Any subsequent hit to this location would've just punched straight to the second layer and likely beyond.

I imagine they would, but why is this an anomaly? A plate of armor may not always break from the first shot if that one just is not strong enough. Alternatively, it may be that the abstraction of the game simply assumes that you do not hit the same spot twice. Armor is treated as one big value per component, which you have to beat down until it reaches zero. Mechanically, there is no difference between hitting the lower right or the upper left on one location.

It would be interesting to know how the assignment of armor tonnage is supposed to work in the setting, though. The way it is described, it sounds almost as if armor plating is like a currency, a resource like ammunition to be adjusted based on the owner's specifications. It could mean additional plates, or it could mean thicker plates. It may affect the inner layers, or it may only deal with the outer one.

Melcyna, on 02 June 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

If it works like human skin being semi-flexible then why on earth do they not use better ballistic profile for the shells to penetrate it?

Perhaps they do and it's just not enough. I'm not familiar with how a projectile's shape could improve its penetration of flexible objectives above rigid ones, though. I know the opposite is (of course) possible, but how would this way work?

Melcyna, on 02 June 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

This also contradict the idea that the armor is hard and brittle as it's the opposite of being flexible

Context - hard as in "it is very strong". I agree that they could have chosen a more accurate wording, though.

Melcyna, on 02 June 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

If we assume that only the outer layer is hard and brittle, while the second layer is flexible then the moment the outer layer shattered, any intact projectile would slice right through the second layer like butter..
Which means any Capped Armor Piercing shell (APCBC as they are commonly known back in WW2, yep this kind of construction was known since that long ago) type of shell design would just PULVERIZE this armor outright since the cap would shatter the outer layer, and the actual armor piercing penetrator would just punch through the flexible second layer.

We don't have to assume - this is canonical information straight from the books. As for the penetration, this still hinges on the projectile's ability to actually punch through the armor. Just because something is called "armor piercing" does not mean it actually does pierce every armor one could think of, over thousands of years in military R&D.
Other than that, of course it is true that the general principle of such projectiles is superior to those of simpler ordnance! I have not read anything about whether or not AC ammunition makes use of it, though.

Melcyna, on 02 June 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

??? the silk is intended to expedite removal of the arrow, the outer layer of BT armor assuming it's supposed to shatter incoming ordnance would have what exactly in common with it??? One doesn't exactly stops the projectile, only allows it to be removed more easily, the other destroys the projectile structure and creates a whole mess of fragments that went through (assuming they r using solid single cast projectile like WW1) Honestly they sound more like the opposite of each other.

Easier removal is another (and certainly very useful) feature, but it would be incorrect to assume that the silk poses no obstacle to the projectile. It is "clothing" that surrounds the wearer and cannot stretch indefinitively, hence the arrow has to deal with the added resistance of the silk trying to retain its shape. After all, it cannot simply fold its entire front inwards, as the body of the wearer will prevent this. So, if it really does not break, the resistance should be remarkable. It would basically transform an arrow hit into a knife cut - one which should not go very deep.
Silk is even still being used in modern combat gear, too! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12014274

Melcyna, on 02 June 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

This one plausible somewhat though it then begs the question, that if they have materials to make the armor, then it doesn't make sense that they'd make a projectile made of even less structurally sound material

That's true. Perhaps it could be explained by the brittle nature of this special steel leading to a severe loss of performance after the round was subjected to the considerable stress of being fired through the barrel?

Just off the top of my head, mind you. I'm just looking for excuses that seem halfway plausible.

Melcyna, on 02 June 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

The other problem is that they made the mistake of using low mass value for most battlemech etc and the weapons. This creates a paradox in that based on these values, we know how much energy roughly a mech punching another mech for example would create or a melee weapon etc...
The value basically are unrealistically low that it makes it difficult to comprehend why shells with similar energy value cannot shatter the armor layer when they both carry the same kinetic energy.

Well, obviously the true background is game mechanics, but here I would try to justify it with a 'Mech's fist or close combat weapon being sheated in or even consisting largely of the same armor as the target, and thus - unlike a cannon round - better able to exert said kinetic energy instead of having it deflected.

Thin ice, as it hinges a lot on a liberal interpretation of how this combination of hardness and brittleness interacts. But ... more than good enough for a sci-fi setting, I think. Certainly more than we are presented with in other franchises.

MustrumRidcully, on 03 June 2013 - 12:25 AM, said:

Why are mechs more maneuverable is another question.
A 100 ton tank distributes its weight equally over a large area. A 100 ton mech focuses its weight into two narrow feet. You sink into most surface. If you try to scale an elevation with a mech, you are very likely to loose your footing as you destroy the ground. On most terrains,a mech has a drawback in moving. Being on foot is automatically a less stable platform.

I think the alleged mobility would stem from a BattleMech's inherent ability to "dodge" by sidestepping, and to simply "step over" some obstacles that a vehicle would have to drive around, or expend considerable energy (and time) driving over.

I would say that this advantage is dependent on the exact terrain, though, for it certainly is true that a 'Mech would sink deeper into ground, possibly ending up unable to traverse certain locations at all (which, coincidentally, was one of the many reasons for why the Ratte project was ultimately abandoned). Then again, the advantage an Atlas would have over a tracked vehicle of similar toonage stuck in a quagmire is that it has a higher chance of getting out again, as it could use one leg to stand on (assuming the ground gets more solid) whilst lifting the other upwards. The tank instead could do nothing but helplessly turn its tracks without much friction. Still, very circumstancial ...

Victor Morson, on 03 June 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

... For an example, get a sturdy metal container and put an egg inside. Now start wailing on the container with a baseball bat. Do you think the egg is going to be intact after even if the container is intact?

True, but what makes you think the other internals of a BattleMech are as sensitive as an egg? To my knowledge, this detail has never been explained - or at least it is not in the Tech Manual - but I would assume the various mechanics are designed to withstand certain amounts of stress, with the more sensitive parts using various techniques to reduce impact damage.

For example, the German Army Training Centre's simulation overwatch equipment is contained in armored boxes, which in turn get fitted into thick layers of rubber. Heavier equipment is suspended by a series of strong springs, and all cables have a small extra length to provide tolerance. Such ideas have likely been replicated for a BattleMech anyways, as even just walking could put the more sensitive equipment under stress ... and Battletech has the advantage of sci-fi materials offering (theoretically) limitless improvements over current implementation.

[Melcyna]

Which is difficult to hold since they then make scenarios or portrayal of events that gives a stark contrasting view...

When they did things like portray an Atlas hammering another mech for example, punching it or what not they fall immediately into the hole because not only do we know the mass involved here, we also know how fast in all likelihood it can achieve (either the arm or the whole mech) and how much force it can thus exert roughly.

What armor the Atlas have for it's arm and what armor the target has, is of little consequence since we can assume they are made of the same thing and thus we have collision physics scenario and can figure out just how much energy these armor can withstand from the physical impact, even if they are made of different material is of little consequence as well as the end result is no different in terms of what raw energy amount is involved.

and this value is horrifyingly low compared to what they can withstand in every other kind of threat.

This is the same kind of error and gaps like what they did with their reactor going nuclear,

Essentially they did that for a while, why? Because they thought it's how it works, they are just civilians not exactly versed with physics or what not (never mind military materials) so they just ok it and go along.

Then ppl who actually KNOWS better reads it and puts it forward that, 'Dude that makes no sense, reactor can't do that', and finally they get someone who ACTUALLY knows some degree of physics and engineering to help make a tech manual that can address this and yet attempt to justify the previous erroneous statements they made before. I certainly don't wanna be in the seat of the guy who had to do it, considering BT has more holes in it's tech science than a beehive.

Now, time for me to have some fun:

Spoiler

Kyone Akashi, on 04 June 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

I imagine they would, but why is this an anomaly? A plate of armor may not always break from the first shot if that one just is not strong enough. Alternatively, it may be that the abstraction of the game simply assumes that you do not hit the same spot twice. Armor is treated as one big value per component, which you have to beat down until it reaches zero. Mechanically, there is no difference between hitting the lower right or the upper left on one location.

It is an anomaly because of 2 things, one is that the most logical manner then is to simply double stack a shell into a staggered impact hit, this effectively guarantees penetration of this funny thin armor similar to how tandem warhead works.

if we assume that they stack multiple layer of the same armor then we run into the second anomaly in that these armor are described as INCREDIBLY thin already as it is, in fact physics defying (nonsensical essentially) thin. If they were actually stacked, that makes each of these armor plates almost paper like given the mechs have no discernible armor thickness and their technical readout diagram portray the armor in absurdly thin fashion.

Of course we could hope that future BT arts are made by better artist like MWO artist etc rather than the quite poor arts of official BT, and hopefully they'd at least make SOME EFFORT this time around to give some beefier profile on the official mechs art to make it easier to believe these things are armored, at least some of MWO art have a better passing grade.

Kyone Akashi, on 04 June 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

Perhaps they do and it's just not enough. I'm not familiar with how a projectile's shape could improve its penetration of flexible objectives above rigid ones, though. I know the opposite is (of course) possible, but how would this way work?

The material would transmit the stress it's experiencing across it's structure to an extent... if you slam it with a large surface area object for example you are dividing the force across the entire surface area in contact and giving the armor material more structure mass to actually help bleed the projectile energy off before it reach anywhere lethal.

if the material is flexible, it would be able to deform significantly as well and as it deforms the projectile would loses energy as the energy it carries in KE is instead deforming the material it comes into contact, the bigger the surface area... the more deformation on the surface occurs before any penetration inward occurs so against any sort of flexible material, the idea would be to puncture it... not to punch it and wasting energy.

Facing against this, the most obvious approach naturally is to concentrate the force into the SMALLEST possible surface area rather than BT's nonsensical larger shell or firing more random shells all around. The smaller the surface area you strike, the less of the armor material actually gets to deform or impede the projectile path and thus less projectile energy get wasted deforming the armor plates (which you could care less) and more towards the projectile penetrating deeper and through the armor to get to the juicy bits behind it (which is what you want).

Kyone Akashi, on 04 June 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

We don't have to assume - this is canonical information straight from the books. As for the penetration, this still hinges on the projectile's ability to actually punch through the armor. Just because something is called "armor piercing" does not mean it actually does pierce every armor one could think of, over thousands of years in military R&D.
Other than that, of course it is true that the general principle of such projectiles is superior to those of simpler ordnance! I have not read anything about whether or not AC ammunition makes use of it, though.

Their armor piercing shell available for standard AC doesn't describe much except that the first thing one notice is that they somehow have less accuracy and less ammo (mostly for balance really) which unfortunately doesn't get explained by actual physics...

in the real world AP shell is MORE accurate than non AP rather than the other way around...

To the best of my knowledge though, they don't use APCBC type shells in BT for the AP shell, which is not that surprising in all likelihood since ppl don't exactly know specifics in military tech unless they have interest with it nor do BT creator likely to think much about actually defeating their own armor (since that makes their entire scenario with mechs less believable, after all even the most ardent fans of mechs would have a hard time to believe the viability of battlemechs if weapons that can easily penetrate and kill them are available within the game itself and accessible).

Kyone Akashi, on 04 June 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

So, if it really does not break, the resistance should be remarkable. It would basically transform an arrow hit into a knife cut - one which should not go very deep. Silk is even still being used in modern combat gear, too! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12014274

Key word there "IF", silk can retain it's structure given enough room to stretch like several other fabric material, but this naturally gets compromised when it's restricted (the most extreme application of it is the Japanese Horo worn on the back of the mounted soldiers)

The silk serves many purpose technically other than just helping to remove the arrow, what's equally lethal and dangerous are often the fragment of either the arrowhead itself or the armor or any other bits... if these are not stopped, they'd be embedded inside the victim as well along with the main pieces of the arrow and are often virtually impossible to remove properly in those period.

Incidentally the 'blast proof pants' that you linked, they were also intended to stop fragments in general (if you followed articles related to it, you'll find that they actually made it with kevlar layer as well, which in all likelihood is the real fabric that will stop the majority of the threat fragments that the pant is intended to stop in a blast

Kyone Akashi, on 04 June 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

That's true. Perhaps it could be explained by the brittle nature of this special steel leading to a severe loss of performance after the round was subjected to the considerable stress of being fired through the barrel?

Unfortunately no,

when fired through the gun barrel, the stress runs alongside the axis of the projectile line of motion path not to mention that the projectile itself then are propelled (ie: allowed to move, if the projectile was fastened for example to something and stretched by an explosion then it'll shatter most certainly), this is drastically better than the stress the armor suffer when struck by the same projectile where not only the armor can't exactly budge but the stress is applied in both axis or plane, one in the direction of the projectile itself, the other being the projectile forcing the armor apart at the point of contact.

To think of it another way, take an arrow projectile and fire it normally...

now take the same arrow and propel it with the same speed and force but do this SIDEWAYS, at sufficiently high speed the arrow will break apart when launched sideways as they do forward

but it will break apart at earlier energy threshold when fired sideways than it does forward.

Kyone Akashi, on 04 June 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

Well, obviously the true background is game mechanics, but here I would try to justify it with a 'Mech's fist or close combat weapon being sheated in or even consisting largely of the same armor as the target, and thus - unlike a cannon round - better able to exert said kinetic energy instead of having it deflected.

If such material are actually any good for armor destroying property then as the previous point have pointed out, they'd just make the shell out of the THE SAME MATERIAL like we do with armor piercing shell.

Our current common material for APFSDS penetrator for example are depleted uranium and tungsten (depending on how adverse the nation is to DU)

and similarly the anti KE shell layer of modern tank armor is made of??

Yep, DU or tungsten heavy plate layer, usually sandwiched after the ceramic or composite armor layer that are intended to stop shaped charge threat.

Kyone Akashi, on 04 June 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

I think the alleged mobility would stem from a BattleMech's inherent ability to "dodge" by sidestepping, and to simply "step over" some obstacles that a vehicle would have to drive around, or expend considerable energy (and time) driving over.

I would say that this advantage is dependent on the exact terrain, though, for it certainly is true that a 'Mech would sink deeper into ground, possibly ending up unable to traverse certain locations at all (which, coincidentally, was one of the many reasons for why the Ratte project was ultimately abandoned). Then again, the advantage an Atlas would have over a tracked vehicle of similar toonage stuck in a quagmire is that it has a higher chance of getting out again, as it could use one leg to stand on (assuming the ground gets more solid) whilst lifting the other upwards. The tank instead could do nothing but helplessly turn its tracks without much friction. Still, very circumstancial ...

Be careful there

Like with every biped motive system, when the Atlas lift one leg up (standard sequence of a biped gait) the other leg will exert ALL the ground pressure

if the Atlas was STUCK as it is with 2 legs, each time it spends period with the walking movement and lift one leg up, it sinks the leg currently exerting all the ground pressure THAT much deeper

Effectively, there's no way ANY legged machines that is not made with ultra wide foot to spread the ground pressure as large as possible can possibly walk in any area that will sink a tracked vehicle since tracked vehicles have one of the best ground pressure.

Edited by Melcyna, 05 June 2013 - 12:32 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Meh.... Melcyna - your spoilers can ruin a man's day.... good work.

[Melcyna]

It's fun, at least i am thoroughly enjoying this especially when it goes back and forth...

back pre uni, lots of us geeks would do this for fun together during break and it was a blast, good old days...

now that we actually finished our course, worked, etc... most of us ran out of ideas to make it plausible in any way, that and when you get hard math and reality rammed into your head non stop you start doing it on the sideline a lot and well... BT is pretty sloppy with their figures and design when you actually seen a proper one and compare them, so it actually gets pretty uninteresting now with the old timers since everything settled as 'BT's common sense is lostech'

[AlexanderVicca]

Maverick01, on 21 May 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

The Landkreuzer P1500 Monster was a German prototype super heavy artillery in WW2. I'm sorry, that weapon would blow a hole through the Atlas or at least severely cripple it!

Autocannons range in caliber from 30 mm up to 203 mm.
The main armament on that thing is 800 mm! What is that an AC/100?

I do believe that is an SPG, or Mobile artillery not a tank (the StuG is as well). I personally don't agree wit the Low bar that battletech gives WW2 vehicles, the BAR of a WW 2 vehicle was it's armour value, you could fire enough rounds to kill an atlas at an M3 halftrack and you hit with every shot only to go though one side and out the other. the Ratte has to be built, chances are who ever builds it will upgrade it (probably) use more advanced shells. and to top it all off, if you go by BT rules and give weapons their respective power, you're looking at probably the Ratte's guns being Light N/Gauss, not a NAC 10. and just a tip the Ratte's turret comes from a ship and has the third gun removed.

[Nebfer]

<p>

Melcyna, on 02 June 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

</p>
<p>Which means any Capped Armor Piercing shell (APCBC as they are commonly known back in WW2, yep this kind of construction was known since that long ago) type of shell design would just PULVERIZE this armor outright since the cap would shatter the outer layer, and the actual armor piercing penetrator would just punch through the flexible second layer.</p>
<p>

</p>
<p>This is not true, APCBC ammo was not a duel penitrator, the Cap was to reduce the likelyhood of the Round from shattering it self. As Steel has a habit of shattering at velocitys above 800m/s, the Cap help it by evening out the stresses (and delaying the onsent of the so called Shatter gap). As this cap reduced the arodynamic abilitys of the projectile a second more arodynamic cap was used to improve it (hence APCBC).<br />
</p>
<div>

Quote

<br />
<p> </p>
<p>They never actually explain why on either count either<br />
<br />
more maneuverable for example, but logically one would question why on earth a tank equipped with the same fusion engine runs slower than a battlemech using the less efficient legs. Agility wise a leg should outperform the tracks and wheels at least on normal designs (we have advanced designs on wheels that are incredibly maneuverable but they aren't very practical for combat... well just about as much as giant mechs), but speed wise we run into a logic failure since we know that's not true for legs to outrun wheels or tracks with the same power source.

So if we where to give a cheetah wheels it would go faster? If their that much better then why do we not see them naturally occurring in real life (mostly rhetorical)?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Though technically speaking I think your getting to hung up on the real life side of things, true form a real life side of things theirs quite a bit wrong with B-tech in the logic and physics departments (but one can say that for a lot of made up universes). But who is to say that in ~430 years from now that science has invalidated say the laws of Thermodynamics as some silly superstition?</p>
<div>

Quote

<br />
Which gets more brain numbing still when one realizes that actual real tanks in the world weigh similar or more than these tanks of theirs and run FASTER with combustion engine producing power a tiny fraction of their supposed reactor, even on tanks armed with no energy weapon (ballistic and missile weapons only so there's no excuse of the reactor needing to power the energy weapon etc...)

<br />
<p>Actually not really, a 65 ton M1A2 Abrams has a off road speed of ~42kph, with on road being ~68kph (with a ungoverned speed that’s much faster (~120kph or so) but the guys I talked to say using it is not easy and not a good idea much of the time), The Merkava has a off road speed of 54kph, with road being 65kph, with other rules being thrown in, it can go over 108kph on roads. Interestingly in real life Tanks have typically spent about 30-35% of their mass on their automotive systems (engine, transmission, suspension and tracks, ect), also interestingly many B-tech tanks spend around 30-40% of their mass on the engine...</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
<p>

Quote

<br />
same on the crit, why do tanks suffer more crit and more fragile when it can concentrate more armor on the same surface area and thus should in fact be more heavily armored??? shrug, lostech...

</p>
<p>It's not lost tech, In B-tech Tanks simply are that much inferior, though I suspect that it's partly due to the fact that Tanks are not quite as agile as mechs and the increased crit chances are part of this, as such the mech can avoid the hits that would of caused critical hits (though technically it dose not necessary mean they avoided the hit just that they avoided the crit chance). Though in real life mechs are not as impressive as they are in Scifi for a host of reasons, but hey who knows in 400 years they might be laughing at us over this...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>B-tech Armor is a odd beast, a fair number of guys who have far more enginnering background than I do, and one who works for Catalyst simply try to explain a few thing here and their but over all efectivly state that the armor works by magic... As theirs no easy way you can make a workable theory on how it works... You can make some half decent ones but as you love to point out the flaws in them... The mater is B-tech armor IIRC largely ablative but at times negates (like real armor). When it dose this is also contradictory... Well they do suposedly have 400 some odd years over us...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>

Karl Streiger, on 03 June 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

To admit - i never got used to the idea of ablative armor. I always think it is just &quot;abstraction&quot; in &quot;real&quot; BT its more a ultra light composite armor - that can take some serious stress. The &quot;armor&quot; points are just a game abstraction - to reflect the Mech Systems inability to aim at a propper spot. for example you fire dozen of shots into the chest of a Atlas and all the shots bounce off or scratch the armor at best. however the 20th shot will hit a weak spot like a joint - or a heat sinks or else and break through the armor. Suddenly the integrity of the armor is reduced - every next shot has good chances to breakt through the armor (the internal armor diagramm is used) and cause serious damage... when internal armor is gone - the section is destroyed because the overall damage has hardly left anything intact. Like the example of VM: This abstraction allows also to explain the serious damage of melee with the low damage of weapon fire.

</p>
<p>Well the Game devs have stated while the rules are a approximation of the B-tech universe (particularly the more advanced rules), they are however still an abstraction.</p>
<p>Though the Armor particularly in the fluff is largely stated to be ablative though I do believe it has at time behaved more conventionally, or effectively if it can not stop the round out right it simply ablates.</p>
</div>

[Thecrash20]

Srm6 would hit the tank disabling their sight, disable the tracks and if it penetrates the haul it will kill the drivers, Lurms will heavy damage the turret and or completely disabling the guns if the Lurms don't end the 280mm guns then the 4 lasers will melt the barrels or just clean cut them off (not really sure if MW lasers melt Steel) and finally If the lasers or Lurms didn't do it the AC20 would punch a clean hole in the turret. But if the turret can even turn fast enough to hit the atlas I think that if one shot connects to the atlas what ever it hit would be destroyed or heavily damaged, 28 centimeter guns shoot big bullets. The other guns should be no problem 128s might hurt but the laser should easily deal with them.

Edited by Thecrash20, 30 July 2013 - 10:20 PM.