206 replies to this topic

[Zergling]

There sorta are rules for 'real world' military equipment in the tabletop game, starting with the 'Rifle' ballistic weapons introduced in Tactical Operations.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Light_Rifle
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Medium_Rifle
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Heavy_Rifle

Exactly what modern guns they are equivalent to is up for debate; given the Rifle weights, I suspect 90-105mm guns for Light, 115-125mm guns for Medium and 140-155mm for Heavy.


The Light does 3 damage, Medium does 6, Heavy does 9... however, against Battletech units with a BAR rating of 8 or higher, they subtract 3 points of damage, so Light does 0 damage, Medium does 3 and Heavy does 6.


In the TT, the Heavy Rifle is somewhat able to compete with the AC5; same range, 1 more point of damage against most targets, but has only 6 shots per ton of ammo, versus 20 shots per ton for the AC5.
It also produces much more heat, at 4 points per shot versus 1 for the AC5.

The Medium Rifle isn't completely worthless either; only 3 damage for 5 tons of weight, but it is more damage per ton efficient than the AC2.
But again, it is much worse in ammo efficiency at only 9 shots per ton versus 45 for the AC2, 2 heat per shot versus 1 for the AC2, and it also suffers from much less range than the AC2.




There's also Experimental Technical Readout 1945 http://www.sarna.net...l_Readout:_1945
This April Fools release from 2013 gave rules for using a variety of WW2 era tanks and aircraft.

Interestingly, the armor of the tanks is BAR 5, so it would be able to resist an Inner Sphere medium laser without an automatic critical hit, but anything doing 6 or more damage (like a Medium Pulse Laser) will go through.

Further, it has tables for equivalent weapons to those in WW2:




And damage tables for the specific weapons against BAR 5 armor:


Against higher than BAR 5 armor, damage is subtracted at 1 point per BAR above 5, so BAR 10 (normal battletech armor) would subtract 5 damage.

Of course, modern weapons are much powerful than WW2 weapons, so I think its a stretch for WW2 guns to be comparable to the Rifles when those are supposed to be similar to modern tank guns.


It'd probably be possible to create modern vehicles using the conventional vehicle construction rules (NOT the combat vehicle construction rules) with low tech values, BAR 5, 6 or 7 armor and Rifle/Vintage Machinegun armaments.

Such vehicles would be capable of damaging Mechs and other 31st century military vehicles in the tabletop game, but they would be horribly outclassed.

It'd probably be possible to create modern vehicles using the conventional vehicle construction rules (NOT the combat vehicle construction rules) with low tech values, Rifle armaments and BAR 5, 6 or 7 armor.

[Plastic Guru]

Snowbluff, on 10 October 2016 - 07:27 PM, said:

Not a good attitude to approach the problem with.

Why? Because most people posting about modern weapons and tactics have no freaking clue what their talking about? How can that not be at the center of discussion?

As you have pointed out - the dakka dakka that shakes your mech and makes most turn away is NOTHING compared to the onslaught modern weapons (and tactics) can produce.

Again...this is a game but if you take it at face value and even give BT a significant firepower advantage...one mech, one lance, or even a 3 lance assault group would literally be torn to shreds.

This is not because of earth magic but for the exact reasons I stated and something not correctly understood by someone who's never served or seen what they see. I can tell you the effects of just a simple 500 lb gravity bomb but to actually see it is something different. 2000 lb runway Paveway bombs are unbelievable in action but until you see it you just can't comprehend it....

THAT all being said...one small "Space Freighter" with a load of rocks could subdue the entire planet....doesn't have to have any high tech weaponry just simple chunks of anything handy. Uh...not that we don't have orbital weaponry <wink>. X-Ray pumped lasers and kinetic orbital kill vehicles were never deployed <wink>.

If I had 30 mechs like the people in my lance last night...the freaking "Womens Book Club" could stomp them without breaking a sweat. Apparently 'blue on blue' 'body sweeps' 'stop' 'go' and 'push' are not in their vocabulary. (12-0, 12-3, 12-2)

Plastic Guru

[SWANN]

I can't help but be reminded of the opening battle from Empire Strikes Back. What happens to all those bipedal tanks when they employ the dreaded "unbreakable taut rope"? MAYHEM THAT'S WHAT.

Edited by SWANN, 11 October 2016 - 06:58 AM.

[Snowbluff]

Plastic Guru, on 11 October 2016 - 05:41 AM, said:

Why? Because most people posting about modern weapons and tactics have no freaking clue what their talking about? How can that not be at the center of discussion?

As you have pointed out - the dakka dakka that shakes your mech and makes most turn away is NOTHING compared to the onslaught modern weapons (and tactics) can produce.

Again...this is a game but if you take it at face value and even give BT a significant firepower advantage...one mech, one lance, or even a 3 lance assault group would literally be torn to shreds.

This is not because of earth magic but for the exact reasons I stated and something not correctly understood by someone who's never served or seen what they see. I can tell you the effects of just a simple 500 lb gravity bomb but to actually see it is something different. 2000 lb runway Paveway bombs are unbelievable in action but until you see it you just can't comprehend it....

I'm wary. Normally I'd defer to an enlisted man or officer, but on the other hand it's not been too helpful in this case due to biases presented. I find the claim that a tank could one shot a Daishi cockpit questionable, for example (even given how strange the rules for the situation are).

Modern military would win against just the mechs though. I feel like airpower would be a more appropriate weapon. 2k bombs, for sure.

[RestosIII]

Plastic Guru, on 11 October 2016 - 05:41 AM, said:

Why? Because most people posting about modern weapons and tactics have no freaking clue what their talking about? How can that not be at the center of discussion?

As you have pointed out - the dakka dakka that shakes your mech and makes most turn away is NOTHING compared to the onslaught modern weapons (and tactics) can produce.

Again...this is a game but if you take it at face value and even give BT a significant firepower advantage...one mech, one lance, or even a 3 lance assault group would literally be torn to shreds.

This is not because of earth magic but for the exact reasons I stated and something not correctly understood by someone who's never served or seen what they see. I can tell you the effects of just a simple 500 lb gravity bomb but to actually see it is something different. 2000 lb runway Paveway bombs are unbelievable in action but until you see it you just can't comprehend it....

THAT all being said...one small "Space Freighter" with a load of rocks could subdue the entire planet....doesn't have to have any high tech weaponry just simple chunks of anything handy. Uh...not that we don't have orbital weaponry <wink>. X-Ray pumped lasers and kinetic orbital kill vehicles were never deployed <wink>.

If I had 30 mechs like the people in my lance last night...the freaking "Womens Book Club" could stomp them without breaking a sweat. Apparently 'blue on blue' 'body sweeps' 'stop' 'go' and 'push' are not in their vocabulary. (12-0, 12-3, 12-2)

Plastic Guru

Seriously one of the scariest weapon systems I can think of. 'shivers'

[L3mming2]

InspectorG, on 08 October 2016 - 04:28 PM, said:

US Navy would missile/nuke whatever was transporting the Whale before it even got deployed.

BT is a fictional cyberpunk universe that tried to guess at future warfare.

They didn't factor AI or miniaturization.

did not know the us developed surface to air nukes (its like swating a fly on your nose by shooting a shotgun in your own face..). as for missiles, if even mechs have point deffence against missiles (ams) i think its safe to assume there ships do to...

that being said a slow assault would be vunnerable to massed artillery and airstrikes.
a fast mech like the locust how ever would be almost inposible to hit with long range artilery and verry hard to bom, espesialy if it had ams to shoot down trakking missiles

[L3mming2]

Anjian, on 09 October 2016 - 04:48 PM, said:

Really where does it say its a 100kg projectile?

The weapon weighs 15 tons alone, which is pretty inefficient. A 120mm tank gun weighs about a ton.

What makes you think it would go through a tank? Assuming it would reach a modern tank, since a modern tank cannon is hitting the mech at distances much greater.

Furthermore there is a huge problem with gauss weapons --- the shell or solid metal slug needs to be ferro magnetic, and nickel iron itself isn't as hard as alloy steel or what you have as tank armor. If the projectile composition is softer and less dense than the target --- it BREAKS UP on impact.

Tank rounds are created with materials harder and denser than steel, such as Tungsten alloys or Depleted Uranium.

in batle tech there are 10 rounds in 1 t of gauss ammo.
and when a gauss round hits a 70 t tank and douse not penetrate it will accelerate that tank to 75.6 m/s (272 km/h) .. the inpulse moment would kill the crew

Edited by L3mming2, 11 October 2016 - 10:24 AM.

[L3mming2]

Wecx, on 09 October 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

I don't know how to respond you disagree and agree with me at the same time. Sorry, i was taught in a Military Class, that it self-sharpens in flight, and i see it happen in slow motion camera, and i have seen the effects in real life. I don't know how reliable your information is, but i have documents showing i am a trained Armor Crewmen.

Also i went to find some proof of what i learned in the military, and i found some, Starting on Paragraph 6 on this link talks about Depleted Uranium "Self-sharpening properties" There are are also X-Rays as well. Read on.

the exact words i learned in the Military, Kind of interesting huh.

http://www.globalsec...unitions/du.htm

this is a copy paste out of your link;

[color=#000000]DU can be used to engage the enemy at greater distances than tungsten penetrators or high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds because of improved ballistic properties. When they strike a target, tungsten penetrators blunt while DU has a [/color]self-sharpening[color=#000000] property. DU ammunition routinely provides a 25 percent increase in effective range over traditional kinetic energy rounds.[/color]

[color=#000000]so they have a self-sharpening property when they strike a target not in the air on route to the target...[/color][color=#000000][/color]

[Moldur]

The scale of BT is ridiculously small in comparison to real life. Missiles and bombs will go for miles in real life whereas in BT, missiles that are considered "long range" max out at 1000m--less than a mile--and what's more, they travel at a snail's pace. There's no contest. Unless you rely on the future armor of Battletech to just be impervious to everything, or the god weapons that make entire planets irrelevant, they would lose hands down.

Battletech was dreamt up by two merchant marine midshipmen in the 70s. Imagine a person who enjoys action movies and has probably read a bunch of military science fiction. Mash the two together for optimal sweetness. What you get is not a realistic creation. What you get is something designed around coolness. The facade of realism or "hard sci-fi" is only maintained by the audience's own sense of scale (lack thereof.)

A serious lack of scale is the point of contention here. Anybody who can appreciate the scale of our weaponry and machines will tell you that BT weapons have completely underwhelming range, a mech's gigantic profile is the exact opposite of what you want, etc.

This is what a painfully loud jet looks like after it dropped a 2000lb bomb on you 30 seconds ago. (hint: you can't see it.)

[Snowbluff]

L3mming2, on 11 October 2016 - 10:08 AM, said:

in batle tech there are 10 rounds in 1 t of gauss ammo.
and when a gauss round hits a 70 t tank and douse not penetrate it will accelerate that tank to 75.6 m/s (272 km/h) .. the inpulse moment would kill the crew

I'm glad you did the math on that impact. I was thinking it wouldn't be a pleasant experience.

[L3mming2]

Anjian, on 10 October 2016 - 07:03 AM, said:

God you are making this up. Nickel - Iron isn't harder than steel, and for something to penetrate and crater the projectile must be denser and harder than the surface its trying to penetrate.

If you want to compare alloys to pure tungsten, then what about comparing it to Tungsten alloys and matrices. The reason why Tungsten alloys are used for shells is because of density. The reason why DU is used is because of sheer density.

No matter how fast you fire a glass shell against a concrete wall, the glass will shatter at impact.




You are correct here, but the use of Gauss rifles or mass drivers or even railguns would still not be effective against tanks as long as you do not have the right penetrator of sufficient density and hardness.

You would have to invent a penetrator, perhaps a Tungsten alloy core or DU core which extends to an external point. Then around this core, you can wrap around a ferrous magnetic material around it. The cutaway view of this shell would look like a section of a lead pencil, with the "lead" being the high density core and point, and the "wood" being the ferrous alloy.

But this is not Battletech any longer.




For this to happen you need highly angled armor which has high effective thickness due to the slope. The effective thickness may well exceed the length of the projectile.

Except battlemechs are not like that. They got flat, thinner armor with only fewer layers than modern tanks. Unless the mech uses highly angled armor, but it will not be a Battletech mech anymore.

Likely to have flat thinner armor on the torso, which is made worse with shot traps.




Angled and sloped armor around the torso.

a hit from a a 100kg 2000m/s gauss round would accelerate a 70 t tank to 272km/h if it did not go thru the tank... so penetrating is a bit of a mood point... the crew will turn in to gou anny way...

[L3mming2]

Anjian, on 10 October 2016 - 06:08 PM, said:

Except the armor described are actually not, since they consist mostly of Titanium with steel matrices, layers of ceramic and boron nitride along with carbon/diamond fibers. That's actually within the scope of modern technology. Furthermore, these materials tend to be quite brittle, prone to fracturing. Armor needs to be malleable, as they actually absorb stress better that way.

There is no reactive armor in BT by the way, until it is rediscovered in 3063 by the Draconis Combine. And yet we have reactive armor via ERA with modern tanks. BT's plot tech point to a collapse in technology long before, so things that come from an earlier age may also be more advanced and refers to an golden age. When a golden age syndrome pops up in scifi, that means the scifi universe in question has regressed technology and has suffered multiple apocalyptic and catastrophic events such as wars and so forth, frequently plunging into cycles of dark ages and so forth. That's why the society in question does not feel more advanced, as well as political and economic systems and so forth. At times it actually feels even more backward and regressed.

A modern 120mm gun is roughly the equivalent of an AC2 in the game in terms of muzzle velocity and shell weight, so the damage isn't one but 2. And this does show that mechs can be damaged by such guns and the mech can be brought down if focus fired at the same segment.

mech AC are not kinetic weapons... only gauss... they are high explosive... and who knows how much more potent the BT high explosive compounds are...

[L3mming2]

RestosIII, on 10 October 2016 - 09:52 PM, said:

Have you heard of... manually aiming at the glass cockpit? Or our tank guns that have ranges of several kilometers? Or high altitude bombs? That's not even touching up on artillery and ship-based guns or long range missile systems.

long range arty and high altitude bombing take several secconds (ore somtimes even minutes) to get to target. a speeding locust is not easy to hit if u have to guess its location 30 s from now...
on top of that if we include long range fire support and bombing then the mech's should also get those, and i dont think our military is verry prepared against mass orbital bombarding maybe we can try and chuk spudnik at them and see if they die?

[L3mming2]

DovisKhan, on 11 October 2016 - 12:38 AM, said:

Yes, that reason being specifically instructed to waste ammo, you should google drone strike protocols, where pilots are encouraged to drop bombs regardless if they can verify there is a target or not, every flight out of base should result in a bomb dropped, irrelevant where


Modern capabilities are astounding compared to btech, there already are rockets, launch-able from predator drones that can hit the driver within a car driving 100+ kph in any terrain


Modern railgun has the velocity of 8 km/second, that's several times faster than the Gauss we have in MWO and as a result carry much, much, much more kinetic energy, it would completely disable an Atlas in 1 hit

yes it could if the atllas would be so kind to go to the test range where that rail gun (fixed) and its gigantic power supply (as in to big to be currently fitted on a ship) stands and stand in front of it..

th versions of it thy are testing for ships now is way slower (in the 7000km/h range) and its ammo ways a lot less then 100kg....

and it still needs a ship cause its so extreamly bulky and heavy...

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

I think it bears mentioning that if you want to argue that ammunition capacity it somehow grounded in reality, the 1t of ammo doesn't mean each gauss projectile is 100kg.

It makes much more sense to assume that 1t is for the entire feeding apparatus- since these areas are not discretely located but rather have a degree of modularity in that they can be moved around- with greater freedom than weapons, in fact. This modularity, and the fact that the feeding apparatus isn't calculated into the innate, naked weight of the mech (a naked energy chassis weighs as much as a naked ballsitic chassis) means that some accounting must be made for how ammunition gets from one place to another within the mech. The housing, and mechanism for bringing ammunition to the gun count as a considerable portion of the weight of the magazine if we acknowledge that Battlemechs are internally similar to modern tanks and warships (they are).

Projecting this logic onto a modern vehicle for instance:

The entire loaded ammunition carousel and autoloader on a T-72 or derivative might weigh as much as 5 tons (estimate) out of the entire 41t vehicle, of which 12t is turret, gun, and ammunition carousel.

With a loaded capacity of 22 rounds, plus 17 in the secondary magazine, the original assumption would put the entire projectile weight around 128kg. On a lower estimate of 3t for loaded carousel and autoloader, we would have 76kg per round.

Reality is that we know that complete 125mm rounds are actually between 20-30kg depending upon the particular projectile type.

Rejecting this assumption that ammunition weight per round is total weight/number of rounds allows us to recognize that actual rounds account for only around 15-35%% of the total weight of what would be "ammunition" if you translated it into the mechlab, with the large majority of that weight instead devoted to moving ammunition from one place to another (relatively small distance).

In a large vehicle like a Battlemech, with comparatively large vertical distances and having to account for safely moving ammo through articulated joints, I see no reason why that proportion wouldn't be even smaller. I roll my eyes every time I see someone calculate gauss projectiles at 100kg.

By obviously ammo/ton is purely abstract and used almost entirely as a balancing measure...

Edited by vnlk65n, 11 October 2016 - 12:44 PM.

[Plastic Guru]

RestosIII, on 11 October 2016 - 08:52 AM, said:

Seriously one of the scariest weapon systems I can think of. 'shivers'

It's called the "Rod of God"....spun at 10k RPM for stabilization in de-orbit. Typically 10 foot in length and made from Tungsten or another high temp material.....
...not that they are real or anything...

Plastic Guru

[dervishx5]

What a bunch of nerds.

[RestosIII]

Plastic Guru, on 11 October 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

It's called the "Rod of God"....spun at 10k RPM for stabilization in de-orbit. Typically 10 foot in length and made from Tungsten or another high temp material.....
...not that they are real or anything...

Plastic Guru

I took the time to find and post a picture of it, I think I know what its name is and the basic principle of what it does.

[Figure 11]

Wecx, on 09 October 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

It isnt a good old metal slug, it is a self sharpening projectile. It isn't the same thing.

Uhhhh the sabot is a still metal dart. The self sharpening bit is a property of the alloys used, but doesnt have any bearing on it being a metal projecticle (which i gave the slang name slug)

My point still stands. Firing a very hard bit of metal very very fast is still better at defeating lots of armour than heat/hesh etc shot and easier to achieve.

Explosives can get the edge back if you have lots of them, say a big 2000lb bomb but those are a bit indiscriminate.

[Albino Boo]

vnlk65n, on 10 October 2016 - 10:46 AM, said:

If you're arguing that BT weapons have ranges longer than the rules say, then you're reading your way around the lore to rationalize something that was never intended to be rational, and debating about a thing that is no longer Battletech. All the novels describe mechs fighting one another from within visual range.

No, the point I am making is the designers of the game are made decisions based particle issues like players space. The whole debate about the strength of armor versus modern weapons is pointless precisely because its not real. The basic concept of mechs violates every rule of armoured vehicle design. Mechs would be easily outperformed by 70 tanks less than the height of a locust with sloped armor and turret mounted weapons.