290 replies to this topic

[Lisha Kerensky]

FactorlanP, on 13 June 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

Also, I don't believe that Mech armor isn't simply steel plate. It is more of a composite material that is designed to absorb impact and fall away. At least, from all of the novels, that is the impression of it that I get.

So whatever this armor material is, it obviously is much lighter then the steel armors that we are familiar with today.

actually a lot of the armoured vehicles that would experience high volumes of fire and be subject to a variety of HE and AP type rounds already use some form of composite or reactive armor, they don't just hang steel plates on modern tanks anymore.

[Skylarr]

Vassago Legion, on 13 June 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

I've always thought the 100 ton "limit" was absurd when the Germans had a tank, Maus, in WW2 that weighed 188 tons, and it only had one cannon. Tanks aren't solid either, Some of them have enough room for 5 or 6 people.

Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus was a German World War II super-heavy tank completed in late 1944. It is the heaviest fully enclosed armoured fighting vehicle ever built. Only two hulls and one turret were completed before the testing grounds were captured by the advancing Soviet forces.

These two prototypes (one with, one without turret) underwent trials in late 1944. The complete vehicle was 10.2 metres (33 ft 6 in) long, 3.71 metres (12 ft 2 in) wide and 3.63 metres (11.9 ft) tall. Weighing 200 metric tons, the Maus's main armament was a 128 mm KwK 44 gun (55 calibers long barrel), based on the 12.8 cm Pak 44 anti-tank artillery piece, with a coaxial 75 mm gun. The 128 mm gun was powerful enough to destroy all enemy armored fighting vehicles at close or medium ranges, and even some at ranges exceeding 3500 meters.

The principal problem in development of the Maus was finding a powerful enough engine for its weight that could be carried in the tank. Though the design called for a maximum speed of 20 kilometres per hour (12 mph), no engine was found that could power the prototype to more than 13 kilometres per hour (8.1 mph) under ideal conditions. The weight also made it impossible to cross most bridges; it was intended to ford or submerge and use a snorkel to cross rivers.

Armour
460 mm (18 in) (in the area of the mantlet)
250 mm (9.8 in) (mantlet)
240 mm (9.4 in) (turret front)^[1]
220 mm (8.7 in) (turret side and rear, and hull front)
210 mm (8.3 in) (turret front behind the mantlet)
200 mm (7.9 in) (hull front)^[1] 190 mm (7.5 in) (hull side and rear)

Edited by Skylarr, 13 June 2012 - 03:49 PM.

[Deathjester]

Alan Mitchells, on 13 June 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

Actually no, a Ton in Battletech is a literal metric ton.

Although I believe you're right, pics... er, I mean source or it didn't happen.

[Hardcover]

To paraphrase Mystery Science Theater 3000; just repeat to yourself "it's just a game," you should really just relax.

[Skylarr]

Frostiken, on 13 June 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

What I don't understand is how mechs function on worlds with more than 1g. Is there anything in the lore that ever describes a high-gravity world that basically causes heavier mechs to crumple under their own weight?

Also, jumpjets. Jumpjets put mechs under a lot of acceleration - I honestly can't picture a heavyweight mech activating the jumpjets and dealing with the high G-forces from acceleration and landing without breaking things.

Under a mere 2g, which you'd experience after simply falling 20 meters, your Archer weighs 140 tons o_O

Naturally there'd be some wiggle-room in the 'maximum weight' of a frame just to prevent this, but realistically why are mechs limited to x tons of weapons then? Even aircraft can overload themselves but it means they can't pull as many Gs, so wouldn't a mech on a high-gravity world have to go out missing a lot of weapons, and shouldn't they be able to overload the frame on a low-gravity world?

The mind boggles.

There are rules in the TT for operating on High-G and Low-G worlds.

[Kartr]

Deathjester, on 13 June 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

Alan Mitchells, on 13 June 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

Actually no, a Ton in Battletech is a literal metric ton.

Although I believe you're right, pics... er, I mean source or it didn't happen.

Actually he's not right, there is no possible way for a "BattleTech Ton" to be a metric ton. If this were the case then the Atlas would be less dense than water and be unable to submerge, possibly not even go more than waist deep in the water. Its a convenient scale to design and classify 'Mechs around not an actual measure of mass or weight.

[Damocles]

Kartr, on 13 June 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

Actually he's not right, there is no possible way for a "BattleTech Ton" to be a metric ton. If this were the case then the Atlas would be less dense than water and be unable to submerge, possibly not even go more than waist deep in the water. Its a convenient scale to design and classify 'Mechs around not an actual measure of mass or weight.

Ever consider that there might be ballast tank intakes in the legs/torso of a mech?

[Skylarr]

Kartr, on 13 June 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

Actually he's not right, there is no possible way for a "BattleTech Ton" to be a metric ton. If this were the case then the Atlas would be less dense than water and be unable to submerge, possibly not even go more than waist deep in the water. Its a convenient scale to design and classify 'Mechs around not an actual measure of mass or weight.

The tonne (SI unit symbol: t) is a metric system unit of mass equal to 1000 kilograms. It is a non-SI unit accepted for use with SI. To avoid confusion with the ton, it is also known as the metric tonne and metric ton in the United States and occasionally in the United Kingdom. In SI units and prefixes, the tonne is a megagram (Mg), a rarely-used symbol, easily confused with mg, for milligram.
In the U.S., the National Institute of Standards and Technology supports the symbol "t" for the tonne. The abbreviation "mt" or "MT" is also used in the U.S.

In France and the English-speaking countries that are predominantly metric, tonne is the usual formal usage in writing, usually pronounced the same as ton, /tʌn/, but with the final "e" pronounced (/ˈtʌnɪ/) when it is important to clarify that the metric, rather than Imperial, term is meant. Before metrication in the UK the unit used for most purposes was the Imperial ton of 2,240 pounds avoirdupois (usually referred to as the long ton in the US), equivalent to 1,016 kg, differing by just 1.6% from the tonne. The UK Weights and Measures Act 1985 explicitly excluded from use for trade many units and terms, including the ton and the term "metric ton". However, for many purposes the Imperial and metric tons are so similar that it is not important to distinguish them, even in writing, and the long-standing spelling "ton" continues to be widely used where strictly speaking "tonne" is meant. For example, even the Guinness Book of World Records accepts metrication without marking this by changing the spelling. In the United States metric ton is the name for this unit used and recommended by NIST; an unqualified mention of a ton almost invariably refers to a short ton of 2,000 pounds (907 kg), and tonne is rarely used in speech or writing.

[Kiriko]

Tech Manual 35103, pg18, Construction Basics, Weight (Mass):

"In Classic BattleTech, most units are measured by their weight, or mass. The Classic BattleTech universe uses the metric system, with all objects defined by their weight in kilograms or metric tons. In TechManual construction, units may be constructed under the kilogram standard (battlesuits, ProtoMechs, and Small Support Vehicles) or by the tonnage standard (BattleMechs, Industrial-Mechs, Combat Vehicles, Medium and Large Support Vehicles and aerospace units)."

Edited by Kiriko, 13 June 2012 - 04:01 PM.

[Skylarr]

Lisha Kerensky, on 13 June 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

Actually a lot of the armoured vehicles that would experience high volumes of fire and be subject to a variety of HE and AP type rounds already use some form of composite or reactive armor, they don't just hang steel plates on modern tanks anymore.

Vehicle armour


Uranium

Because of its high density, depleted uranium can also be used in tank armour, sandwiched between sheets of steel armour plate. For instance, some late-production M1A1HA and M1A2 Abrams tanks built after 1998 have DU reinforcement as part of the armour plating in the front of the hull and the front of the turret, and there is a program to upgrade the rest (see Chobham armour).

FactorlanP, on 13 June 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

Also, I don't believe that Mech armor isn't simply steel plate. It is more of a composite material that is designed to absorb impact and fall away. At least, from all of the novels, that is the impression of it that I get.

So whatever this armor material is, it obviously is much lighter then the steel armors that we are familiar with today.

Armor - BattleMechs & Vehicles

Introduced in 2470 by the Terran Hegemony. In the BattleTech universe, armor is ablative in nature. This means that it is generally destroyed or blown off when hit, but in the process of doing so, it absorbs enormous energies, protecting the unit it is mounted on. While powerful blows will still rock a vehicle, there will be little, if any, internal damage as long as armor plating still remains. Armor-piercing rounds do exist for certain weapons, but they require a higher technology level and cost more. As a result, destroying a 'Mech requires either immense firepower, concentrated fire on a vulnerable location, or a lucky hit.

Standard BattleMech armor is composed of several layers providing various degrees of protection and support. The first layer is extremely strong steel, the result of crystal alignment and radiation treatment, which is also very brittle. The second layer is a ceramic, cubic boron nitride, which combined with a web of artificial diamond fibers acts as a backstop to the steel layer. These two layers rest atop a titanium alloy honeycomb structure which provides support, and a layer of self-sealing polymer sealant which allows for space and underwater operations.

Noting the ablative nature of the armor, most vehicle designers have designed the armor for quick repairs on most units. In game terms, armor is repaired at the rate of 15 minutes per point of armor. Players familiar with BattleTech video games —like MechWarrior 3 and 4— might be used to even faster repairs by mobile field bases (where a damaged 'Mech is apparently repaired in moments), but the computer games represent repairs differently than the tabletop game.

Edited by Skylarr, 13 June 2012 - 04:10 PM.

[Deathjester]

Kartr, on 13 June 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

Actually he's not right, there is no possible way for a "BattleTech Ton" to be a metric ton. If this were the case then the Atlas would be less dense than water and be unable to submerge, possibly not even go more than waist deep in the water. Its a convenient scale to design and classify 'Mechs around not an actual measure of mass or weight.

This assumes that a 'mech is fully sealed. As mechs are designed to make use of being submerged in water to help cool themselves it would make sense to allow the interior of the mech to flood when submerged. The only part of the mech that really needs to be sealed is the cockpit which makes up very little of the 'mechs structure and so would have virtually no effect on density.

[Moksha Raver]

I remember playing Traveller where a ton=1 cubic meter(?). You designed your ships around that system. I've always thought of Battlemechs in that sense. More a unit of space than actual weight. Just a thought.

[Boymonkey]

A ton is one cubic meter of water (just thought I would add that if you didnt know)

[BeforeLife]

One of the main reasons for this is that the armor in battletech(bareing warships and dropships of corse) is MILLIMETERS THICK, in rare causes centameters. That is one of the reasons for the low weight.

[Kartr]

Damocles, on 13 June 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

Ever consider that there might be ballast tank intakes in the legs/torso of a mech?

Why would they be? Considering how dense modern armor has to be to defeat modern weapons, future armor would be much more dense and correspondingly heavier. No that's not something that can be changed using "future tech' to make it less dense/heavy as armor effectiveness is related to density.

Also if this were the case then every time a 'Mech used the intakes to fill the 'Mech with water and increase its density it would also be increasing it's mass/weight at the same time. Also you have to ensure that every 'Mech has enough open internal space in order to fill it with sufficient water to increase the density to the required amount. Occam's razor suggests that the 'Mechs are simply much heavier than the official "weight" rather than some complex system that allows them to function properly.

Skylarr, on 13 June 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

<snip>

Yes I'm quite familiar with the differences between tons, tonnes, etc., your point?

Kiriko, on 13 June 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

Tech Manual 35103, pg18, Construction Basics, Weight (Mass):

"In Classic BattleTech, most units are measured by their weight, or mass. The Classic BattleTech universe uses the metric system, with all objects defined by their weight in kilograms or metric tons. In TechManual construction, units may be constructed under the kilogram standard (battlesuits, ProtoMechs, and Small Support Vehicles) or by the tonnage standard (BattleMechs, Industrial-Mechs, Combat Vehicles, Medium and Large Support Vehicles and aerospace units)."

Tech Manual is wrong, the math (volume/mass) shows that it is physically impossible for BattleMech "tonnage" to be based on the metric system.

Deathjester, on 13 June 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

This assumes that a 'mech is fully sealed. As mechs are designed to make use of being submerged in water to help cool themselves it would make sense to allow the interior of the mech to flood when submerged. The only part of the mech that really needs to be sealed is the cockpit which makes up very little of the 'mechs structure and so would have virtually no effect on density.

'Mechs are cooled by heatsinks, which are by their nature connected to the outside of the 'Mech. Heatsinks that are not connected to the exterior would simply heat up the interior of the 'Mech and do no good. Water merely needs to run across the heat exchangers on the exterior of the 'Mech.

Also you would not simply want to let water run into the interior of the 'Mech because that would allow material deposits in the water to enter the 'Mech and clog it with gunk. It would also likely lead to corrosion on critical components and possibly shorts if it comes into contact with any uncovered wiring.

BeforeLife, on 13 June 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

One of the main reasons for this is that the armor in battletech(bareing warships and dropships of corse) is MILLIMETERS THICK, in rare causes centameters. That is one of the reasons for the low weight.

Care to explain how armor with the same density or less density, which is also much much thinner than current armors is better capable of stopping enemy weapons fire?

[Grotonomus]

No because it doesn't.

[eZZip]

Lt muffins, on 13 June 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Advances in metal working and stronger and lighter composite metals decreases the weight compared to current tanks.

BT's tanks were depicted as pretty small in most of the past games, though.

[Kargush]

BELLISARIO'S MAXIM!

Don't examine this too closely

[Calavingian]

Exactly. At the end of the day, It's just a convenient in-game mechanism for describing how big one Mech is in relation to another. It's completly unrealistic. Just roll with it. If you're looking for a game systems or setting that cares about real world physics, Battletech is probably not for you.

[Boymonkey]

Cala we are just passing the time dude we know it isn't real, let us just talk rubbish