Jump to content

Machineguns And Battlemechs


171 replies to this topic

#41 Funkadelic Mayhem

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,811 posts
  • LocationOrokin Void

Posted 18 August 2013 - 10:32 AM

View PostTincan Nightmare, on 17 August 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:


People keep throwing the Gau-8 out whenever BT MG's come up, and it is a powerful weapon system, but its max armor penetration is 69mm at 500 meters and 38mm at 1000 meters. That's the reason it is mounted on an aircraft, its is shooting 'down' at the thinly armored roofs of armored vehicles. An M1 Abrams frontal turret armor is estimated at 940 to 960mm of RHA versus kinetic energy penetrators. Its why it carries an 120mm gun to engage other tanks. And Cobras and Apaches hunt tanks with TOW and Hellfire anti-tank missiles. I'm not saying those 20 and 30mm guns can't damage or destroy armor (a T-72 is reported to have been destroyed by a Bradleys 25mm chaingun, though I don't know if it was a side or rear shot), but they are not the weapon of choice for that role. Which is perfect for how MG's work in MWO right now :P.

The A10 can take out an Abrams tank with its nose gun. Iv seen the aftermath. Its what the nose gun is designed for. Every aircraft has missiles, yet they are not all called "Tank Killers". :D

#42 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,612 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 18 August 2013 - 10:41 AM

actually, you need 14 machine guns, but for mwo maybe you could attach 2 machine guns to every unused ballistic hardpoint.

#43 Qrbaza

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 137 posts

Posted 18 August 2013 - 10:51 AM

View PostCaelroigh Blunt, on 17 August 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

I will say it once again: Machineguns should NOT be able to damage BattleMechs. Look (once again) at the real world: Not even a fifty caliber machinegun can do more than scratch the paint of an Abrams tank. How is it possible in ANY universe to make a machinegun a viable weapon against reactive armor plate? Okay, machinegun ammo is better, faster, stronger, more potent in the 31st century. SO IS ARMOR. It's not right and it should be changed.


And you need to consider that MG dont damage armor but internals. Imagine armor destroyed on abrams rear where engine is. Single MG would defenitly kill the engine. So please dude my man stop being smart if your not!

#44 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 18 August 2013 - 12:01 PM

Quote

Not even a fifty caliber machinegun can do more than scratch the paint of an Abrams tank.


Machine Guns in Battletech weigh half a ton each. Thats 1000 lbs. Theyre not .50cal guns. More like 20mm cannons.

#45 TOGSolid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,212 posts
  • LocationJuneau, Alaska

Posted 18 August 2013 - 12:05 PM

View PostCaelroigh Blunt, on 17 August 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

I will say it once again: Machineguns should NOT be able to damage BattleMechs. Look (once again) at the real world: Not even a fifty caliber machinegun can do more than scratch the paint of an Abrams tank. How is it possible in ANY universe to make a machinegun a viable weapon against reactive armor plate? Okay, machinegun ammo is better, faster, stronger, more potent in the 31st century. SO IS ARMOR. It's not right and it should be changed.

Posts like this should be a bannable offense around here.

#46 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 18 August 2013 - 12:18 PM

View PostMcgral18, on 17 August 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

Not to mention the fact that the MWO MG would be more like the Gau-8 Avenger, shooting 30MM rounds. AKA, a tank hunter. It will take down armor just fine, though apparently we get a crit seeking weapon.

actually, did the math, and it more closely matches the Vulcan 20mm. Which is still quite capable!!!!
http://youtu.be/c2APUcbjnsY?t=1m44s
And to the OP, sorry, you are wrong. Both from an IRL perspective, and from a Game Lore/Mechanics perspective. The MG has ALWAYS been able to do light damage to Mechs and Armor. ALWAYS.

#47 The pessimistic optimist

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,377 posts

Posted 18 August 2013 - 04:20 PM

View PostCaelroigh Blunt, on 17 August 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

I will say it once again: Machineguns should NOT be able to damage BattleMechs. Look (once again) at the real world: Not even a fifty caliber machinegun can do more than scratch the paint of an Abrams tank. How is it possible in ANY universe to make a machinegun a viable weapon against reactive armor plate? Okay, machinegun ammo is better, faster, stronger, more potent in the 31st century. SO IS ARMOR. It's not right and it should be changed.



Edited by SirSmokes, 18 August 2013 - 04:24 PM.


#48 NKAc Street

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • 261 posts

Posted 18 August 2013 - 04:42 PM

View PostCaelroigh Blunt, on 17 August 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

I will say it once again: Machineguns should NOT be able to damage BattleMechs. Look (once again) at the real world: Not even a fifty caliber machinegun can do more than scratch the paint of an Abrams tank. How is it possible in ANY universe to make a machinegun a viable weapon against reactive armor plate? Okay, machinegun ammo is better, faster, stronger, more potent in the 31st century. SO IS ARMOR. It's not right and it should be changed.


YEAH BECAUSE MECH ARE REALZ.

#49 Tincan Nightmare

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,069 posts

Posted 18 August 2013 - 07:26 PM

View PostFunkadelic Mayhem, on 18 August 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

The A10 can take out an Abrams tank with its nose gun. Iv seen the aftermath. Its what the nose gun is designed for. Every aircraft has missiles, yet they are not all called "Tank Killers". :)


Was this a blue one blue incident since the A-10 and M1 are both US military vehicles? And again, the A-1- would have been shooting down at the roof of the Abrams, where its armor is thinnest. Show me were a Gau-8 mounted on the ground shooting into the thickest armor on an Abrams could destroy that vehicle, and then it would be a relevant argument. I am not even arguing against MG's doing damage to Mechs in MWO, in fact I would rather they just did about 2/3 of the DPS of a sm laser and dropped the increased crit thing as its very frustrating to lose your armor and then die in a few seconds from a 4 or 6 MG build. Though I have benefited from mounting them myself when the shoe was on the other foot. And any aircraft that can carry a Hellfire or Maverick or any other air-to-ground weapon capable of taking out tanks would, yes, be called a 'tank killer'. In fact the USAF is talking about replacing the A-10 with the F-35, a plane which does not mount the Gau-8. Yes the A-10 can kill tanks with its 'MG' but it is thanks to shooting them where the are weakest, similar to the way modern ATM's like the Javelin attack tanks from above where they are weakest.

#50 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 18 August 2013 - 09:40 PM

View PostTincan Nightmare, on 18 August 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

its very frustrating to lose your armor and then die in a few seconds from a 4 or 6 MG build.

Is it more or less frustrating than losing your armour and then dying in a few seconds from a 2xPPC+Gauss build? Or any other build? When your armour is gone you're not long for this world no matter what weapons your opponent mounts, and just about any build is better at stripping armour than a MG build.

#51 SweetWarmIce

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 171 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 19 August 2013 - 04:23 AM

View PostHammerfinn, on 17 August 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:


I dunno. I've been killed by these guys FAST if they do it right.


The same could be said for any build.

#52 BulletChief

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 292 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 19 August 2013 - 04:51 AM

the Mechwarrior lore really does a bad job differentiating those weapons

A 25mm Bushmaster is what you would call AC/2
Posted Image

that goes up to 75mm anti-tank cannons (~AC/10)
and 150mm auto-loaded tank shells (~AC/20)

so take the turret of an abrams and you get an AC/20 or a Bradley to get an AC/2
but in MWO there is no real difference between AC/2 and machine guns since both can be 20mm.

#53 Curccu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 4,623 posts

Posted 19 August 2013 - 04:54 AM

View PostCaelroigh Blunt, on 17 August 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

I will say it once again: Machineguns should NOT be able to damage BattleMechs. Look (once again) at the real world: Not even a fifty caliber machinegun can do more than scratch the paint of an Abrams tank. How is it possible in ANY universe to make a machinegun a viable weapon against reactive armor plate? Okay, machinegun ammo is better, faster, stronger, more potent in the 31st century. SO IS ARMOR. It's not right and it should be changed.

I WILL SAY IT ONCE AGAIN: YOU ARE INCORRECT!

#54 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 19 August 2013 - 05:25 AM

View PostBulletChief, on 19 August 2013 - 04:51 AM, said:

the Mechwarrior lore really does a bad job differentiating those weapons

A 25mm Bushmaster is what you would call AC/2
Posted Image

that goes up to 75mm anti-tank cannons (~AC/10)
and 150mm auto-loaded tank shells (~AC/20)

so take the turret of an abrams and you get an AC/20 or a Bradley to get an AC/2
but in MWO there is no real difference between AC/2 and machine guns since both can be 20mm.

No, there's really no comparison to contemporary weapons.

According to the BattleTech Universe lore, the contemporary main battle tank guns evolved into the Rifle, which was only partially effective versus BattleMech armour, so it in turn evolved into the Autocannon.

The BattleMech-mounted MG is not some little contemporary machine gun, it's a 500kg monster of a gun - and it's a fairly safe bet that it too has undergone several hundred years of evolution.

That these weapons happen to share name and/or barrel diameter with some contemporary weapons is just coincidence, the weapons themselves are nothing like our modern-day weaponry.

Let me repeat that: 1000-years-in-the-future sci-fi weaponry is not the same as modern-day real life weaponry.

However if you insist on classifying e.g a Bushmaster in BattleTech terms, it would more likely be classed as a MG than an AC/2 (as would the Vulcan and the GAU-8); the main difference between an AC/2 and a MG in BattleTech is weight (the AC/2 weighs 6 tons, the MG weighs 500 lbs, the Bushmaster 260 lbs) and range - the damage output of the AC/2 and MG is the same.

Edit: 500kg is not the same as 500lbs - Thank you Bishop Steiner!

Edited by stjobe, 19 August 2013 - 01:46 PM.


#55 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 19 August 2013 - 06:16 AM

Wasn't the Piranha (not affiliated with Piranha Games) a mech equipped mostly with MGs and designed to fight in solaris arenas fightingother battlemechs?

Someone should have told the designer that this would be a bad idea, because machine guns don't work against battlemechs.
Except they do, and the Piranha might have possibly exploited some aspects of the Solaris and BT rules that made it even stronger:
- Through Armor Crits are much more likely if you fire lots of guns.
- In the original Solaris VII rules, they played with refire rates and shorter rounds, which lead to the MG being a weapon that dealt 2 damage every 2.5 seconds or 8 damage per 10 seconds - while it still only dealt 2 damage per 10 seconds in the table top game.)

But even without these special rules, the MG did damage battletech armor and could destroy enemy mechs. Even worse - there are rules for weapons like they are used by our current tanks "light rile", which did effectively 0 damage to Battlemechs. Which means that the MGs of today have nothing to do with the MGs of Battletech.

#56 Cycleboy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 183 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 19 August 2013 - 06:58 AM

View PostTincan Nightmare, on 18 August 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

And any aircraft that can carry a Hellfire or Maverick or any other air-to-ground weapon capable of taking out tanks would, yes, be called a 'tank killer'. In fact the USAF is talking about replacing the A-10 with the F-35, a plane which does not mount the Gau-8. Yes the A-10 can kill tanks with its 'MG' but it is thanks to shooting them where the are weakest, similar to the way modern ATM's like the Javelin attack tanks from above where they are weakest.


Yes, USAF wants to retire all their A-10s... which is why the Marines are taking them off their hands, and tell the USAF to "go F*&# themselves" for close air support. The straight wing, slow air speed, strafe that the A-10 can do is ideal for armor attacks. Plus, cluster bombs, plus suppressing other ground troops as that gun chews everything (cats, dogs, cars, brick buildings, bank safes, etc) it touches. Will one pass kill an Abrams? No. That's why the MG Spider doesn't get 10 kills per game. Will 4-5 passes do it? Yeah.

#57 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 19 August 2013 - 07:03 AM

View PostMustrumRidcully, on 19 August 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

- Through Armor Crits are much more likely if you fire lots of guns.

Through-armour crits occured on snake-eyes (roll of 2 on two dice), a 1/36 chance (about 2.7%).

One-shot kills occurred on snake-eyes, followed by box-cars (roll of 2 on two dice, followed by a roll of 12 on two dice), a 1/1296 chance (0,08% or so).

And yes, firing more guns meant more chances of crits on exposed sections (each shot that hit had a 13.9% chance to crit, and on a 12 it would kill the 'mech or at least blow a limb off), which is part of the reason I think people that didn't use the MG on heavier 'mechs were selling themselves a bit short; no-heat extra crit-chances was a great thing to have in BT.

#58 Alex Warden

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,659 posts
  • Location...straying in the Inner Sphere...

Posted 19 August 2013 - 07:04 AM

View PostLord Ikka, on 17 August 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

You know, if it was a real-world discussion, you would be right. Machine guns should not be able to damage 100-ton walking tanks. However, it is a fictional universe, and even in the first book of the Gray Death Legion trilogy you will see Grayson take out an enemy Mech by blasting its cockpit with MG fire. Leave real-world out of it.

MGs are not OP in this game. They are specifically designed to destroy internal components after other weapons have stripped armor. Even with their updated damage MGs do crap damage to a component with armor, but they are deadly when armor is gone. Having 20mm armor-piercing bullets bouncing around in your components would suck, so it makes sense.

Edit: MG mm changed per Strum Wealth's info. Thanks!

read the book again...it´s EXPLICITLY stated in exactly that book, that MG´s are NOT penetrating mechs in a threatening way... he´s firing hundrets of MG bullets at his opponent,before he even scratches him.

and the damage buff seems a bit over the top imho...the critseeking mechanic on the other hand is absolutely the right way to handle MG´s... internals are not Mecharmor...

Edited by Alex Warden, 19 August 2013 - 07:07 AM.


#59 BulletChief

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 292 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 19 August 2013 - 07:09 AM

View Poststjobe, on 19 August 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

Let me repeat that: 1000-years-in-the-future sci-fi weaponry is not the same as modern-day real life weaponry.


that's the fun of battletech... a lot of technology was lost during wars so it's a nice blend of sci-fi high-tech and fairly primitive low-tech weaponry.
even today we already have some tech that is more advanced than in the b-tech universe.

you know what einstein sad about the 4th world war... Battletech is kinda like that.

Edited by BulletChief, 19 August 2013 - 07:11 AM.


#60 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 19 August 2013 - 07:23 AM

View PostAlex Warden, on 19 August 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

read the book again...it´s EXPLICITLY stated in exactly that book, that MG´s are NOT penetrating mechs in a threatening way...

Let's have a look:

"The machine gun mounted on the pintle between the driver's seat and the observer's position was standard military issue, a belt-fed chopper with a cyclic rate of 1500 rounds per minute. Its grip was familiar in Grayson's hand as he checked the ammo feed. It was one of the weapons given to the Sarghad Militia by Carlyle's Commandos when the Lance arrived to bolster Trellwan's defenses.
The hovercraft was still drifting sideways when he opened fire at the 'Mech sprawled in rubble and still-falling debris, and he had to track back to stay on target. At 20 meters, Grayson could scarcely miss. Keeping the machine gun centered on the fallen giant's head, he held down the trigger until the pulsing roar filled his ears and pounded at his hands with demon fury. Hot brass cartridges sprayed from the ejection port to fall clinking on the deck at Grayson's feet.
Heavy caliber rounds splintered and sparked across the 'Mech's shoulders and head. Grayson knew the armor on the Wasp's head was thin. There was scant room in that small, squat box for the pilot, let alone room enough heavy armor. The 'Mech tried to rise, but when the rubble shifted under its feet, it collapsed again, sliding down into the street. Piercing rounds of fire hammered and chattered as Grayson played short bursts across the machine's head. Successive rounds sought out a *****, and sent it flying in pieces that caught the sunlight as they splattered. The twin antennae on one side of the 'Mech's head were already gone, chopped away by Grayson's relentless stream of high-velocity metal.
The 'Mech slid, rolled, brought its arms underneath it. The laser lay nearby, jarred from the monster's grasp when it fell. Grayson saw the Wasp's head swinging up, searching for the weapon, as he continued burst upon burst of fire at the machine's armor.
Then the Wasp was up and moving with unexpected speed, rushing the hovercraft with gauntleted hands outstretched. Suddenly, the monster was so close Grayson could no longer angle his gun high enough to keep it trained on the head. An armored fist swung up, plunged...
Grayson lunged across the seat and yanked the hovercraft's control slick to the side, sending the machine in a slithering glide, skimming sideways across the crater by the Palace Grounds fence and into the ruin of the Palace Garden. The 'Mech recovered from its missed swing and followed, but clumsily. The pounding from the machine gun must have rattled the pilot, might even have injured him. Letting the craft's momentum carry it crabwise up the blue slope, Grayson crouched behind the machine gun again and opened fire. Bullets smashed against the scanner plate, and the charging 'Mech staggered as though wounded, stopped, and narrowly missed falling again.
There were soldiers around Grayson, he realized, brown-uniformed Militia and a sprinkling of richly-clad Guardsmen, dirty-faced and ragged but with a growing determination in their faces. They were armed only with personal weapons, but were adding the volume of their firepower to the metal hosing from Grayson's machine gun. Kai Griffith had been right The troops had responded to someone taking action. His single-handed duel with the BattleMech had rallied them, and they were forming up on his defensive line.
"The head!" He found himself screaming," his voice burned raw with the effort. "Aim for the head!"
There was a flash and a deep-throated explosion as a grenade detonated in black smoke and dirt by the 'Mech's foot. The Wasp fell, dropping to hands and knees with a clatter of armor and mass. It left raw dirt grooves in the blue sward where it moved. Grayson leaned over and adjusted the drift of his vehicle, sending it in a slow glide toward the downed 'Mech. Then he straightened up, took careful aim, and ripped out another long, rolling burst of machine gun fire.
Armor splintered, fragmenting, flashing in the air about the head of the stricken battle machine. Bullets were penetrating the head now, smashing into the cockpit and riddling it through and through. The BattleMech sagged and collapsed, face down in a junkyard heap, its metal elbows and feet akimbo, pointed at unnatural angles into the sky. Bright red blood trickled from jagged rents in the shattered cockpit."
- Decision at Thunder Rift, chapter 12

Seems like they penetrated in a very threatening way, in fact so much so that it killed the 'mech (and the MechWarrior).

Edited by stjobe, 19 August 2013 - 07:25 AM.






6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users