202 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

Hey Karl, this is related to a conversation in another thread but it's related to this too.

You know the laser outputs from those sheets I showed you a long while back?

As it turns out... the larger of the hand lasers (TK 70) there puts out one third of the energy that the US Army's LAWS system uses to destroy explosive materials and disable combustian engines through PT-boat / Light Naval armor in a single 0.1 second shot. (10 kilowatts versus the LAWS system's 30 kilowatts.) The estimated range for engaging aircraft and boats is 15kw to 50kw.

The most powerful laser rifle on that list is 500 KW for a 0.1 second delivery time (to which I call ********) in the TK94 (TK laser weapons seem to favor high power shots). Digging into the TK94's lore, the Thorvad and Kotch TK 94 Laser Rifle engages at short range: 50 meters, to a maximum range of 1200 meters, and is intended for use against Light to Moderately armored vehicles. Unfortunately it consumes its power pack very quickly, making a backpack worth somewhere around 20 shots at most. Damage with the Magna V7T power pack is... "Up to 200 meters, 4D6. 201 to 800 meters, 3D6. Over 800 meters 2D6." Using an Intek LaserCharge Magazine, it's 2D6 for up to 200 meters, 2D6-1 for 201 to 800 meters and over 800 meters it is 1D6.

The laser power of it is not defined, but there is also in the same book the "Magna Mark XX Heavy Laser Rifle." 4D6+2 for up to 150 meters. Though using an Intek LaserCharge magazine significantly diminishes its capabilities.

The following lasers compared to the "Engine disabling through Light Naval Armor" power of the LAWS laser system in real life of 30KW for half second beam time... and the 105kw lasers capable of destroying modern manned aircraft "in an instant" for up to several miles, provided perfectly clear skies.
"While lasers are significantly cheaper and have virtually unlimited magazines, their beams can be disrupted by atmospheric and weather conditions (especially when operating at the ocean's surface) and are restricted to line-of-sight firing to continuously keep the beam on target. More conventional systems will remain in place for larger and longer-range targets that require the use of kinetic defense"
http://www.nationald...defense-weapons (June 26, 2017)


Diverse Optics 10 Small Laser: 0.02 second discharge, 1 Megawatt (1,000 kilowatts.) (the comparison states its energy usage per second is identical to the TK94 Laser Rifle.)
(33.33x more powerful than the LAWS firepower required to disable the engine on a military grade PT boat.)
(9.5238x more powerful than the required damage to destroy a modern manned military fighter jet.)
This laser is mounted on the head of virtually every Awesome.

Harmon Medium Laser: 0.01 second discharge. 2 Megawatts (2,000 kilowatts.) (4x the power per second as the small laser above or the laser rifle.)
(66.67x more powerful than the LAWS firepower required to disable the engine on a military grade PT boat.)
(19.0476x more powerful than the required damage to destroy a modern manned military fighter jet.)
This laser is mounted on the left arm of most Shadow Hawks.

Sunglow Type 2 Heavy (Large) Laser: 0.01 second discharge. 5 Megawatts (5,000 kilowatts.) (10x the power per second as the small laser and the laser rifle above). (2.5x the power of the medium laser above).
(166.67x more powerful than the LAWS firepower required to disable the engine on a military grade PT boat.)
(47.619x more powerful than the required damage to destroy a modern manned military fighter jet.)
This laser is mounted on the right arm of the Thunderbolt 5S.

The "#x" numbers were found using 30:1 #:Blank ratios & 105:1 #:Blank ratios in this ratio calculator.
Just in case if perhaps I wrote them incorrectly, or if the ratio is not showing me how many more times the power X has over Y.


I know you said the lasers sound really weak, but if a 105 kw laser can destroy manned military aircraft such as an F14 in nearly an instant, maybe there's something to be said about lasers pumping at least 10 to 50 times that power.... and it isn't as far fetched as one might think?

Edited by Koniving, 26 June 2017 - 07:44 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

I think my issues were based on the watts and the time.

Reading only through the wiki page of the LAWS system - i found the mention of 15-30kW next to a beam duration of 2 seconds. When we convert this into energy we have 30-60 KJ of output power so somewhere between the .50 BMG and the 20mm of a Vulcan.

Given the ability to hit with much higher percentage this is ok for a anti-missile system.

With 105kW - you only decrease the beam duration - so the same energy is delivered in a shorter period of time.
with a 0.1sec beam it would still have more power as a Cheyenne Tactical so a F14 could be destroyed.
Not to mention the system shock might cause. 1050 J and 10ms beam - can burn through 10mm aluminum alloy without any issues.
http://panoptesv.com...geFromLaser.php

So strictly spooken a 5 MW Sunglow Type 2 (my favorite laser- pitty PGI did castrated my Thunderbolt) would sound decent with a beam duration of a second, it would be terrible with 2second beam.... but with a beam duration of only 0.1second it would only have the energy two bullets of the GAU-8.

[Koniving]

Beam times somewhat vary for what they are trying to do. As you said more power into less duration, or less power over a longer duration... One might ask is if the power output is set to 105 Kw, for example, is that the total energy exerted or is that the energy exerted per unit of time? For example if the 105KW is what it would consume in energy over a second and then you do a fraction of that in a beam of 0.1 seconds in duration then you've really only actually delivered 10.5 KW worth in damage. As opposed to the full 105KW in that same 0.1 seconds.

It does very specifically state on that sheet that the total energy delivered is 5 MW in the 0.1 second shot.

Given the 5MW laser in a 30 CM diameter, the 0.1 second beam in a single pulse, against 90CM of armor (the highest armor of an A1 Abrams in 1991) under "Armor Steel". Is pretty bad. But it turns out 30CM is about a foot wide, so actually while not deep that is kinda impressive.

I changed it to 10 CM wide which is a diameter of almost 4 inches. 1.51mm in a single shot. That's assuming it's almost 90 degrees on the surface of the metal (Fahrenheit). though I imagine mechs tend to be hotter. So, neat but wouldn't be worth its weight. But I then put in 4 pulses at 3 seconds apart.. (0 seconds, fire, 3 seconds fire, 6 seconds, fire, 9 seconds, fire to simulate over the course of 10 seconds)... and now we're talking, assuming you can hit the exact same space you can drill 6.04mm. But yes, changing it to 2 shots each being 1 second long and the damage is pretty extensive at 3.02 CM deep.

Tightening that shot diameter again...to say 5mm...
And we're now drilling at 1.8M (yes, meter) depths from 2 shots of 1 second each through steel armor at 5MW.
Dialing back to 0.1 second shots and 4 of them... 1.47CM penetration. This is with 2 second pauses. With 8 pulses we're getting to 6.84 CM.

As such I pretty much assume that these cannot be intended to net "one use" to equal the 3, 5, or 8 damage. Many descriptions throughout BT have them firing several time within seconds of one another and we're not seeing mechs drop like flies, especially when you consider some of the more armored lights to have 16 armor on their legs and yet multiple successive large laser blasts aren't frying them. Instead, they pierce specific parts to do internal damage while much of the armor remains intact, much like real combat situations (you don't have to go through all the armor of a tank to get to what's inside).

So one of the things I'll be putting in my hypothetical thread if I hadn't already mentioned it is a sub-hitbox system.

Right now BT has 11 hitboxes. Armor is equal all across this, and if I shot your hand or your shoulder, it diminishes overall armor... which is pretty unrealistic but given the tabletop game, it works as a 'summary'. Who is to say I can hit the same spot 4 times to drill my hole? So it works out.

But if I had several smaller hitboxes on the arm, the damage you deliver to my hand would not affect the armor on my shoulder. If I have say 16 armor on my arm as a whole (Hunchback, any variant with BT armor), the armor would then be spread over several sections of the arm.

Due to the visual nature lets instead use a Wolverineas shaped and designed for MWO (as its shoulder pauldrons and other features make for a good reference.

A stock Wolverine 6K has 18 armor per arm.

Imagine now if Looking at this, lets divide the arm into 8 sub sections. These would be Upper Arm front/back, lower arm front/back, shoulder pauldron, hand actuator, lower arm actuator and upper arm actuator. (Despite being on the arm, I would 'technically' place the Shoulder actuator on the side torso as the bridge between the torso and the arm). Barring that, the nineth would be the shoulder actuator. The "weapon" can rest on effectively the same hitbox or have its own. If shared the hitbox would expand or shrink accordingly.

Now if I shoot your hand, I can't blow off your arm, unlike in MWO. You would lose the hand, of course. But now I wouldn't have to deliver 18 damage just to get to the hand actuator. I can simply aim for it. BT attempts to allow this with "through armor criticals", the description of which implies that a lucky shot manages to damage something vital either through penetration or getting into the 'space' between armor plates. In this case careful aim could allow me to destroy your lower arm actuator, preventing the use of your elbow. This in effect would hinder your ability to use your lower-arm-mounted weapon, though allowing the elbow to go limp and raising your whole arm up would, somewhat unreliably, still allow you to use the weapon.

This would also increase the utility of a DOT (Damage Over Time) system and favoritism of light damage rapid fire weapon systems over slow firing, heavy damage weapon systems. This is because while I might have a medium laser shooting 4 times at 1.25 damage to get a total of 5 in around 10 seconds, that's 1.25 damage against an arm that out of 8 to 9 sections is dividing 18 armor over 5 of them, which if split evenly [and I would not split it evenly] is gonna have to deal with 3.6 armor. Three of my four shots would easily destroy the section I'm going for. But if I had a Gauss Rifle, what would happen after I shot the lower arm?

Well to be honest, lets assume each section of armor evenly had 3.6 units of armor. Now lets assume that each non-armor section of the 9 sections got some structure, plus the 'structure' under the armor sections (of which three are null/avoid due to their shared nature, that is the rear sections of the lower and upper arm and the pauldron).. So in total we have 6 structure sections defined as Shoulder Actuator, Upper Arm, Upper Arm Actuator, Lower Arm Actuator, Lower Arm and Hand. Lets assume we divide the structure evenly between them (mind you I wouldn't divide it evenly but for simplicity's sake). So 9 Structure divided by 6 sections is 1.5 structure per section.

Now you hit the lower arm with a Gauss Rifle. Lets assume the Left Lower Arm. 15 damage slug. Hits front lower arm armor. 3.6 armor. The slug has 11.4 damage left. Having pierced the armor it now registers as hitting the Lower Arm. 1.5 structure. The slug now has 9.9 damage left. At this point it's debatable about the rear armor even being a factor in a game, but assuming some realism it needs to exit through that armor. So another 3.6 armor to go through and now the slug has 6.3 damage left over to deliver as it continues through the now obliterated lower arm on to whatever secondary target that might exist.

Sounds awesome and favorable, right? Now imagine if side torsos and center torsos are also set up this way. Lets say you hit an Atlas in the lower right side torso. Lets assume you do in fact pierce through the section and you were aiming for his AC/10. Now lets assume your shot was a little off due to movement or what-have-you, and you pierced through a different spot of the right torso. Now say this spot didn't have anything vital, but you did punch through. Now there's a hole in the Atlas that you can see through, your Gauss Rifle needs about 8 or 9 seconds to reload. There's now a very angry Atlas coming your way and his AC/10 technically is still fully armored for paltry few lasers to try and deal with. Good luck!

Anyway the point there, is that I'm not expecting these weapons to do mass damage in a single shot, and I don't expect a mech's full armor to be at any single spot like a directional force field that we could aim. If done as multiple shots against armor that is spread out, getting through to something you're specifically aiming for should be reasonably achievable.

Also, how cool would it be if Gauss Rifles punched holes through mechs like in Battletech novels and could hit more than one mech in a line? Deathballing probably wouldn't be so common in MWO....

[Koniving]

So a quick additional note that has a very significant meaning to the laser discussion...
This:

is written when the total mech (and vehicle) weapon list comprised of this.


Which basically means, the "Beam" lasers of 1 to 2 seconds, and the "pulse" type lasers with shots of very short durations like 0.1 seconds, are all "standard" lasers rather than the 'pulse lasers' that come later.

So your Thunderbolt's large laser 5MW Sunglow laser (and the other short duration normal lasers) all definitely fire several times to collect their rated damage. Meanwhile, according to that death ray calculator, the 1 to 2 second duration lasers probably only fire once in a 10 second time frame.

I believed it in the past but wasn't able to truly confirm it until now.

Keep in mind the "Megajoules" are later corrected to Megawatts.

Edited by Koniving, 27 June 2017 - 11:30 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Well nice that you found the same clues like I did - although your solution is different

On the laser death ray page there is also another calculator - http://panoptesv.com...Scattering.html
(the whole page is a good read btw)
there is a limit to the minimum spot size because of thermal blooming, ionization wavelength and other stuff.

However - when you MechLaser focus on a small point it would evaporate everything (renegade style) heck even the tiny small laser would cause havoc at short ranges.

So i "thought" about the principle of defeating vs destroying armor. Like you described the Gauss slug vs Atlas - this is defeating armor. You punch a hole and if its not a kill shot you've done nothing.

This would also add some more dept to the different combat vehicles - >

• tank = defeat armor - hard shell soft core
  
• BA = defeat armor - hard shell soft core (exception might be "cockpit style BAs like Kanazuchi, Fenris)
  
• Mechs - destroy armor - semi hard shell - hard core

So think of a human clad in flexible armor - you have your west with some ceramic tungsten carbon nittrde alloy stuff. very hard but also very brittle / a high flexible layer is supporting that plate.

Now some guy shoot with a 50BMG at you - the bullet can penetrate that hard main armor but looses lots of energy by shattering the main plate - but thanks to the "bubble gum" the plate stays more or less intact - then the bullet hit your skin - but hey you have some woven kevlar fibers in your skin (nice isn't it) unfortunately its not enough.
Then the bullet hit your muscles - also shielded and with more durability.
But still not enough to stop the bullet.
Now it hit a rip - again super dense hard alloy - again it shatters and the bullet almost lost all its remaining energy - again a flexible net on the outside of the rip keep it intact and deny splinters to add secondary damage - finaly the bullet reaches your heart....it touches the armored outer layer and then it get stuck.
Because you have some special molekules in your veins the bleeding stopped a moment later.
So - you are hurt, you have lost some blood and somebody need to remove that bullet later - but you are still in fighting condition.
The only danger is a guy that hit the same spot again. A shot to the other side of your chest or the stomach would have similar effect. Although your helmet is very very heavy armored.

A Mech might work similar. So the best way to kill him is to destroy his protection layer by layer. Means you don't want a deep but tiny hole in but several wide holes that doesn't need to run deep
(renegade style - again)
so the spot size on the target might be bigger then it is possible.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 27 June 2017 - 10:47 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Same thematic - defeating / destroying armor:

in the lore it is said that ACs use high explosive armor piercing bullets.....
and i think this is good mix for fighting everything - from infantry to air crafts
So they are more the kind of the SAPHEI-T in the following picture:

a armor piercing (tungsten/DU dart rides on a high explosive with small incendiary effect - the fuze can also ignite when the bullet does not hit frontal (deflecting or soft soil)
The other both MP rounds - HEDP uses a shaped charge or the "Raufoss principle of a pyrotechnical detonation rather than a fuze can also be used to defeat all kinds of targets.

however - when we keep in mind that tanks might be much better armored then Mechs (everything on the outside) you would need some real AP bullets to defeat that protection.

Additional targets are buildings, bunkers, aircrafts and of course battle armor - so i added HE with a fragmented case, the Shrapnell or AHEAD bullet and a behive bullet with multiple frangible darts that shatter after impact.

Without warhead - i added 3 additional types of ammo - the base bleed effect ER-(maybe guided) ammunition - a "fin stabilized rocket" in a sabot mainly for LBX
a APFSD - maybe the correct ammunition for Ultra ACs

Don't forget that LBX and Ultra ACs are smooth-bore and don't have a rifling so you would need some measurements to stabilize the shot - of course they could also fire HEAT ammo (indifferent if i should add pure HEAT)

a option to increase the velocity is to use smaller caliber bullets and encase them in a sabot - this could allow the Marauders Whirlwind to be 120mm and to have 5 shots per casette but firing 70mm bullets in a 120mm sabot

[Karl Streiger]

This time no pictures just some curious stuff.
I startet again with the "Hetzer" I didn't liked the "first" Hetzer not because it doesn't looked good but because it doesn't have the feel of a Cargo Truck with some makeshift armor and makeshift cannon.

So I'm working on a Hetzer based on a 8 wheeler - HEMTT, MAZ, Liebher Mobile Crane style.
However I stated I want to keep the 150mm caliber - so I considered that the Hetzer uses a modified Thumper artillery piece.
(autoloader but no cartridge - so the shell and a propellant cartridge - maybe even using modified artillerie grenades .

The loader chooses the grenades and ammunition and is coding the fuse (wireless) - the loader packs 4 shells and 4 propellant cartridges in a (revolver or clip) - for a fast burst (shot)

With 4x 150mm G8 projectiles and 4x 10kg proppelant bags of almost the same size - per shot (space is a serious problem)
A quick glance at SPGs with 155mm artillery piece of today - the PzH 2000 has 60 grenades - this is the rough equivalent of 3tons for the 150mm Crusher - but boy the PzH is much bigger

So where would you place the spare ammunition?

Consider that the cannon is one one side not centered (it don't has a turret and only limited traverse)
Quick example a Tadano Mobile Crane

the driver sits alone in the uparmored cabine - the loader is somewhere in the back - gunner maybe on the side of the cannon.
But were to place the shells (a for 1t ammo - i have created boxes of roughly~1x1.5x0.8m and you need 2 boxes.
One idea is to place only 2 boxes in the rear next to the cannon - and put a closed storrage in the bottom and the side of the vehcile - when the "ready" box is empty the crew need to disembark and load the shells (31kg) and proppelant (~11kg cartridges) in the back - or slowly move them through the interior.

What do you think?
(space in battletech is magical I know)

ok the issue is not that bad:

Edited by Karl Streiger, 20 July 2017 - 05:38 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

latests work:
some nuts & bolts stuff:


as well as some more work on the Hetzer


and - i keep the Yellow Jacket always occupied in my mind right below the surface.
so please it is not necessary to send one to put its sting into my arm as a reminder

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 31 July 2017 - 10:18 PM, said:

and - i keep the Yellow Jacket always occupied in my mind right below the surface.
so please it is not necessary to send one to put its sting into my arm as a reminder

As always great work Karl, and no I'm not going to press you on that flying insect, as you are doing this in your free time, for no payment. I can wait and see what it looks like in time.

[Karl Streiger]

I lost lots of time (and I don't have much at the moment) with the "remodel" of the Poland Main C Gauss Rifle

I kept the turret mount but changed the ammunition. Those 75mm bolts weight ~38kg each and 48 are located in 2 (just rudimentary) helical mags at the side of the cannon.

The barrel points backwards in transportation (the Yellow Jacket will not attack in a head on attack (considering its prey this would be a suicide attack)

for the look and feel i try to go with a dual lift fan copter maybe with pusher prop or some F-35 jet stuff ... so more the kind of VTOL but pure helicopter - but that might change too (considering that this must be the 7th rough sketch things will stay interesting ;-)

[Karl Streiger]

Hey I don't know when I started to "recreate" the Yellow Jacket for the first time.... must been a year or so.
During this time I started and dismissed several attempts

Some facts so far. The Yellow Jacket weights 30tons - and has two pilots.... everything else is "open" - oh later i had added the idea that it should look like an insect.
So far so good.

the first - was a two seater with sits next to each other similar to black hawk or ka 52...


the railing and the knifes should have been some "protection"

with the Ka-52 in mind i create a second attempt


I positioned the Gauss Rifle at the flank but it didn't looked like a Yellow Jacket should look like.

so tested and tried several things until i had a "uglysect" - this time with a "turret" mount for the gauss rifle


it was to fat and to ugly

so my final attempt - with redesigned 75mm Poland Main C Gauss Rifle - and streamlined turret mount

not so blocky:


I love the look and feel of the latest creation (but I also loved the look and feel of the other attempts before) it looks like an fragile insect.
But I don't know if I should go the path of the later TROs (Yasha, Hawk Moth II, Strix, Red Kite, Aeron) - or the classic helicopter look
I also want to mount some stubby wings for payload (don't think this would look good with the current layout)

[Metus regem]

Personally I like the second one the best, as I'd gives the impression that it is armoured well enough, as they can take a cERPPC to the nose and still have armour there.

[Karl Streiger]

Metus regem, on 24 August 2017 - 05:41 AM, said:

Personally I like the second one the best, as I'd gives the impression that it is armoured well enough, as they can take a cERPPC to the nose and still have armour there.

The Fugly or Ka52?

or a combination of all:

Edited by Karl Streiger, 27 August 2017 - 10:26 PM.

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 24 August 2017 - 10:49 PM, said:

The Fugly or Ka52?

or a combination of all:

No I mean this one:

Karl Streiger, on 23 August 2017 - 11:24 PM, said:

so tested and tried several things until i had a "uglysect" - this time with a "turret" mount for the gauss rifle

I think with some refining in the body shapes and enlongation of the unit, perhaps with vectored thrust, it could look fantastic.

[Karl Streiger]

nothing finished but some rework ideas for the SRM Carrier and the beginning of the Demolisher


SRM carrier - instead of 10 SRM6s this is more the kind of 12 SRM4 and 2 SRM6 (same missile mass per volley) - but instead of a volley its just one missile for each kind

Demolisher - the chassis was based on the Shreck, but adde some changes (most important, the sloping of the side instead of additional armor, and a change in the l:w ration from 6:4 to 6:3

render (my first) of the Schreck

Edited by Karl Streiger, 03 November 2017 - 05:20 AM.

[Koniving]

Karl, what program is it that you're using? I like how 'clean' it looks.

[Karl Streiger]

Koniving, on 11 November 2017 - 07:27 PM, said:

Karl, what program is it that you're using? I like how 'clean' it looks.

Sketchup but using the Clean Up and Solid Volume² Plugins - very helpful.
Compared with other "free" tools like blender the start is much simpler and faster.

BTW:

Edited by Karl Streiger, 14 November 2017 - 08:45 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

little by little...
it eats hours after hours, in the same time others might make hundreds of vehicles, but i try to make it work. exhaust, radiators, autoloader, sliding breach and other stuff you don't see from the outside.
sometimes some invisible stuff like the rifling of the cannons and the nylon band on the sabots take their time.

[Karl Streiger]

[Karl Streiger]

Heavy APC (20ton) next to a Demo - the APC is bigger - but with that size it will be a perfect chassis for my "weapon carriers" - I'm looking forward to the AC2 Carrier