290 replies to this topic

[Boymonkey]

Now I can't find any info on how tall an Atlas is but looking at the videos etc I reckon they are pretty big so it got me thinking that an atlas should weigh more than 100 tons, I mean if you look at tanks for example a Tiger that weighs 56 tons and would look small next to a Atlas so surely they should weigh much much more.
Sorry for the boring topic it's just grating on my mind Oh and typing this passes a few min's to get me closer to playing

[Kargush]

The mechs aren't solid. Lots of open space inside them.

Besides, Rule of Cool and Bellisario's Maxim.

[Lt muffins]

Boymonkey, on 13 June 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Now I can't find any info on how tall an Atlas is but looking at the videos etc I reckon they are pretty big so it got me thinking that an atlas should weigh more than 100 tons, I mean if you look at tanks for example a Tiger that weighs 56 tons and would look small next to a Atlas so surely they should weigh much much more.
Sorry for the boring topic it's just grating on my mind Oh and typing this passes a few min's to get me closer to playing

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

[Frostiken]

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.

Edited by Frostiken, 13 June 2012 - 02:44 PM.

[Vassago Legion]

kargush, on 13 June 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

The mechs aren't solid. Lots of open space inside them.

Besides, Rule of Cool and Bellisario's Maxim.

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.

[Blackfire1]

Technically jumpjets weren't fire and forget kinda of things. You fired them and used them to land else YES you would break a leg.

[Draelren]

In a lot of the novels they use the JJ's right before they land, and then it also describes the pilots "leaning" into the landing and absorbing the shock by kneeling somewhat with the mech. Just like a human would when they jump. You don't lock your legs.

[Frostiken]

Draelren, on 13 June 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

In a lot of the novels they use the JJ's right before they land, and then it also describes the pilots "leaning" into the landing and absorbing the shock by kneeling somewhat with the mech. Just like a human would when they jump. You don't lock your legs.

The energy's gotta go somewhere

[Deathjester]

If I remember my lore correctly, the internal structure of a mech is made from a foamed metal, so it has a honeycomb like structure. Add in that mechs are mostly empty space as has been mentioned and you end up with quite low mass.

[Striker1980]

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.

I've often pondered such things, such as shouldn't an Assault 'mech with no weapons weigh as much as a medium, and therefore be able to outpace said medium with its 300xl engine pumping it up to say 100kph, however then I think further than this and I think surely when a 'Mech weighs 100 tonnes, shouldn't it shatter the earth around it with every running step and therefore sink into the earth like a driven pile.

On the subject of stuff coming loose however, mechs use Myomer to connect stuff so they'd be less likely to have say gears/treads dislodge than a tank and they'd be built of tank grade materials so heavy g's should be far less of a problem than the super light frame of an aircraft would have to deal with.

[JHare]

Structurally, anything that moves is designed with dynamic loading. As a rule of thumb, you go for 5x more than the expected static load. Something like a mech i would guess has a factor of safety a bit higher.

So long story short. It would not collaps under its own weight. What would happen is that you would have to reduce your walking speed to compensate for higher dynamics loads.

[SVK Puskin]

Colosal class mech - Ares, over 100 ton.

[FactorlanP]

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.

[Dexterm]

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.

The maus had 2 cannons. a 128mm main cannon and a side mounted 75mm cannon.

And in some of the books the describe high g and low g combat but for the most part the planets settled by the people of the BT universe were around 1g to match normal human tolerence.

[Sychodemus]

Two things to consider:

1. Mass is not necessarily the same as weight.

2. Magic.

[Deathjester]

Also I'm not sure who's tons we're using here but the Maus weighed 200 metric tons. I'm going to assume that everyone will have caught up with the metric system by 2755 so that would make it two atlas'.

[GrizzlyViking]

MWO Presents!

[Boymonkey]

Lol cheers guy the quick responses guys thanks

[Kartr]

Boymonkey, on 13 June 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Now I can't find any info on how tall an Atlas is but looking at the videos etc I reckon they are pretty big so it got me thinking that an atlas should weigh more than 100 tons, I mean if you look at tanks for example a Tiger that weighs 56 tons and would look small next to a Atlas so surely they should weigh much much more.
Sorry for the boring topic it's just grating on my mind Oh and typing this passes a few min's to get me closer to playing

Yes the Atlas masses a lot more than a mere 100 metric tons, 100"tons" is just a simple and convenient maximum number for a simple and convenient scale. The BattleMech weight scale does not in anyway reflect actual masses as that would make bulkier 'Mechs less dense than water (Atlas is a prime example).

kargush, on 13 June 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

The mechs aren't solid. Lots of open space inside them.

The Panther tank from World War 2 was more than 68% open space as I recall. Actually I believe the fighting compartment alone was 68% of the tanks entire volume. Which is undoubtedly significantly more open space than you'd find in a BattleMech since there is no need to house more than one crew member and no need for a loader to move around.

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.

Eh largely irrelevant, as any advances in metallurgy makes it possible for designers to add more items or to use denser armor thanks to weight savings in structural members. Besides the 'Mechs still have to be more dense than water which rules out the "tonnage" system being actual mass.

So basically, yes 'Mechs weigh much, much more than their "tonnage" and that system is just in place to give a framework for creating and evaluating BattleMechs and other equipment/vehicles. Think of it as an in universe version of BV used by Future Jane's.

[Alan Mitchells]

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