IraqiWalker, on 16 September 2014 - 01:36 AM, said:
That info is true to an extent on the ammo composition of artillery shells.
However, your information on BT ACs has definitely been proven lacking, by your own post where only list one type of weapon for the AC 20. Despite there being different cataloged variants that all deal the same damage, with different rates of fire, and even differ ammo counts.
{Hint: the ammo listings in TT are not rounds, they are cassettes. Each cassette has a number of shells in it. Going back to the Pontiac 100 example, a ton of ammo has 7 uses. not 7 rounds. Each use, or cassette, has 100 rounds in it, that get discharged within 10 seconds dealing a total of 20 damage (they're very small caliber)}
Agree with that... probably during poor moderation of BTech content on Sarna there is also lost such information as:
AC20 (bore caliber 185-203mm, smoohbored, self loading/semi-auto, barrel caliber L40, ammo kind - unitare, ammo type - HEAP (High Explosive Armor Pearcing))
C-U-AC20 (bore caliber 185-203mm, smoothbored single barrel or rotary, self or chain loading/full auto-burst, barrel caliber L30-40, ammo kind - reactive selfpropelled light, ammo type - EAP/Sabot)
Difference between U-AC and AC is a kind of ammo they use. If AC20 use unitare ammo than Ultra-AC20 uses a reactive selfpropelled ammo which are more compact than unitare ammo.
Another "LOL" why Clans players think that IS AC's are OP. Difference between IS and Clans that... Clans use more advanced, compact reactive selfpopelled ammo... instead of this IS use an unitare ammo. That's why C-U-AC/C-AC 5 shots bursts, and IS U-AC5 fires just reloded in all three barrels unitare ammo. Plus to that, Clans use semi-cassetes, clips to load AC/UAC's or even got an continuous loading. IS got only continuous loading with a slow rate of fire during limitator which blocks the feed when whole drum/barrel block is loaded.
Karl Streiger, on 16 September 2014 - 01:36 AM, said:
You are right from any "realistic" point of view.
The main problem is that BattleTech Armor is a kind of superb penetration resistant magic material - weighting nothing - if you use "common" material - the 19t armor for the Atlas means 13mm Aluminum - only for the front.
Maybe the BT ACs use a Superconducting technology to fuse the propellant instead of a firing pin. So more energy of the propellant is used to accelerate the bullet.
There are lot of other things that are a can of worm with BattleTech - and every attemp to "scale" BT with todays technology is about to fail.
We could discuss this in another topic - but the story is hard enough if you only consider BattleTech vs MWO - no need to bring "real" physics and technology into play
Actually the Standart Armor is Plastisteel with only around 20-30% of alloy. Ferro-Firbrus is a Steel-Fibre armor which is lighter, structurally thinner but more resistant on kinetic impact on about 10-25%. Hardened or Reinfoced armor is a cemented hard steel armor with a steel-fibre layers which is actually stronger than standart armor on 50-60% but also twice heavier.
If mechs would have Alloy armor which during use of alloy is extremely fragile most of them would be able to taken out of action with single AC5 hit. There is in TRO3087 Ferro-Alloy armor but that is also reinforced with steel fibres, cost a hell of a lot and 40% lighter than FFArmor.
So, now we know that Atls have a normal armor. Besides, 19 tons of armor means that frontal CT plate will be around 100-120mm which is more than enough. For exsample US Heavy MBT M1A2 Abrams got only... 12 tons of pure armor, Israel Merkava IV has 14,5 tons of armor and is the most heavily tank in the world except of experimental Object 640 Black Eagle also know as T80MU2 who had a full 16 tons of armor. So in BTech everything is fine with realism.
Edited by EboneezeeR, 16 September 2014 - 05:40 AM.
36
This topic is locked
