206 replies to this topic

[Mad Strike]

Don't know pals but when someone says "modern military vs mechs" i feel like we are comparing our tanks vs ........................

https://youtu.be/O0TiqIjF-uk?t=2m16s

P.D: When did i bacame T1 ?!!!! O-o

Edited by Mad Strike, 08 October 2016 - 07:30 PM.

[FupDup]

cazidin, on 08 October 2016 - 07:26 PM, said:

Most likely Superman. Even though Goku uses Ki Blasts and Superman is vulnerable to Magic, such as Ki, he STILL is incredibly durable AND strong and no, Goku wouldn't use Kryptonite even if he knew what it was or how it worked but those two probably wouldn't fight, either.

It's been done twice on Death Battle. Supes is indeed the winner.

It boils down to the fact that Superman doesn't have any limits while Goku is a character who encounters his limits as has to overcome them. Goku gets defeated and then has to adapt and become stronger. Superman just plain wins outright most of the time. He never has to train or adapt.

There's also really obnoxious comic book writing like that time when Superman lifted a book of infinity pages. That means that he has literally INFINITE strength. Who seriously thought of that?


I think Goku is better as a character and someone who I can have sympathy for, but Superman is just too damn overpowered. Same reason why I also hate characters like Wolverine.

PS: Did you know that Wolvie can regenerate his entire body, including adamantium skeleton, from a single drop of blood on the ground? I can't have any sympathy for a character that is basically invincible against everything. Only exception is One-Punch Man, because he's funny.

Edited by FupDup, 08 October 2016 - 07:35 PM.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

FupDup, on 08 October 2016 - 07:33 PM, said:

It's been done twice on Death Battle. Supes is indeed the winner.

It boils down to the fact that Superman doesn't have any limits while Goku is a character who encounters his limits as has to overcome them. Goku gets defeated and then has to adapt and become stronger. Superman just plain wins outright most of the time. He never has to train or adapt.

There's also really obnoxious comic book writing like that time when Superman lifted a book of infinity pages. That means that he has literally INFINITE strength. Who seriously thought of that?


I think Goku is better as a character and someone who I can have sympathy for, but Superman is just too damn overpowered. Same reason why I also hate characters like Wolverine.

PS: Did you know that Wolvie can regenerate his entire body, including adamantium skeleton, from a single drop of blood on the ground? I can't have any sympathy for a character that is basically invincible against everything. Only exception is One-Punch Man, because he's funny.

If I remember correctly, Deadpool can do the same?

[FupDup]

Shiroi Tsuki, on 08 October 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

If I remember correctly, Deadpool can do the same?

Probably.

I give him a free pass because of his humor and fourth-wall breaking.

[Anjian]

Weapons in BT have no sense of realistic ranges.

AC20 limited to 250 meters? Machine guns limited to 170 meters.

In WW2 (you can see this when you're flying a plane in War Thunder), machine guns reach past 750 meters. WW2 tanks do 1km ranges, modern tanks kill as far as 2.5km ranges.

Then when mechs encounter Russian tanks equipped with Russian Bias and Stalinium, and of course the Russian tanks win.

[Battlemaster56]

FupDup, on 08 October 2016 - 07:33 PM, said:

It's been done twice on Death Battle. Supes is indeed the winner.

It boils down to the fact that Superman doesn't have any limits while Goku is a character who encounters his limits as has to overcome them. Goku gets defeated and then has to adapt and become stronger. Superman just plain wins outright most of the time. He never has to train or adapt.

There's also really obnoxious comic book writing like that time when Superman lifted a book of infinity pages. That means that he has literally INFINITE strength. Who seriously thought of that?


I think Goku is better as a character and someone who I can have sympathy for, but Superman is just too damn overpowered. Same reason why I also hate characters like Wolverine.

I never take Death Battle fact seriously after watching some their battles, Supes is a powerhouse but if someone have who equal in strength of Superman will put him in a situation he may not win, I remember reading the Injustice comics when Supes attempt to take out Batman after he took the Superman strength pills, bats quickly and effortlessly took down Supes, and their was the DC and Marvel cross over. Hulk in that time and comic wasn't the strongest version of the Hulk and he push Superman to his limit saying it took everything he had just to beat Hulk and he was worn out from the fight

[Shiroi Tsuki]

Anjian, on 08 October 2016 - 07:44 PM, said:

Weapons in BT have no sense of realistic ranges.

AC20 limited to 250 meters? Machine guns limited to 170 meters.

In WW2 (you can see this when you're flying a plane in War Thunder), machine guns reach past 750 meters. WW2 tanks do 1km ranges, modern tanks kill as far as 2.5km ranges.

Then when mechs encounter Russian tanks equipped with Russian Bias and Stalinium, and of course the Russian tanks win.

I was thinking of the same thing, about how AC/2s have a superior range compared to AC/10s or AC/20s, when IRL, higher caliber tends to have longer ranges.
But I have always assumed that the ballistics effective range/damage is all due to armor effectiveness. MAYBE AC/10s have a longer effective firing range, but due to BT armor's effectiveness, that range is reduced significantly

[Snowbluff]

razenWing, on 08 October 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

With that said, what are modern tanks rounds "suppose" to be like? They are certainly not gauss rifle. To me, they are more like AC-2 round. Our tank fire about what... 2-3 of them a minute? Your battlemech shoots about 50 ac rounds a minute? Those caliber also goes up to AC-5, 10, and 20. So no, modern tanks in terms of raw fire power would NOT be able to match mechs 1v1. Not even close.

The gauss rifle is a near perfect measure for extrapolating the amount of damage mech weapons do, giving us a point of reference for how much punishment a mech can do. From there we can figure out mathematically how much damage (roughly)

I say we do the math with the Gauss because the rounds are likely 100% projectile, and the damage is 100% kinetic with no explosive, and that gives a more complete momentum (which the damage being done with force of impact).

A gauss rounds 1/10 of a (long? in pounds) ton. So about 100kg.

It is traveling at 2000 (in what I am assuming is) meters per second.

So the momentum is 200,000. 200,000 is 15 damage in BT terms, which is like getting hit with a train traveling at the speed of sound.

A Rheinmetal 120 gun fires at about 1750 Meter/Second, with a projectile of about 8 kg. So a measly 14,000, or like 1 point of damage (not including the small explosive charge). Someone better at math and physics than I can probably work these into forces for easier comparisons.


Remember that a LRM is only 5 kilos (10 pounds) but somehow does has much damage as a 120 cannon after slowly flying by rocket. :/

Edited by Snowbluff, 08 October 2016 - 07:52 PM.

[Anjian]

Shiroi Tsuki, on 08 October 2016 - 07:50 PM, said:

I was thinking of the same thing, about how AC/2s have a superior range compared to AC/10s or AC/20s, when IRL, higher caliber tends to have longer ranges.
But I have always assumed that the ballistics effective range/damage is all due to armor effectiveness. MAYBE AC/10s have a longer effective firing range, but due to BT armor's effectiveness, that range is reduced significantly

Except that that their range effect, as shown in the other games and in the table top games, to be the same even against tanks, VTOLs, planes and even infantry.

Weapons on BT need to have at least 5x their range to scale similarly with modern weapons.

In WW2, naval guns, like the 5" or 127mm guns in destroyers can lob shells up to 17km. 30mm to 40mm AA guns could hit aerial targets past 5km.

Also in BT, the shell and even PPC velocities are pretty low compared to modern tanks. Penetration is a function shell mass and flight velocity; there is no way you get around the physics no matter how hard the shell is. Unless you are HEAT or HESH shells, however modern tanks are also meant to defeat HEAT and HESH.

Edited by Anjian, 08 October 2016 - 08:14 PM.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

It's the truly delusional person that thinks mechs would stand a chance against modern weaponry. Gold star for exceptional hand waving skills to the people explaining away the pre-1950s tech and 270m ranges with "anti-target spoofing" and styrofoam internal structure and magic gyros. Super advanced technology just like the horrifically bad night vision, right?

I'm sure you can estimate the real strength of mech structure off of the amount of fall damage they take.

It doesn't matter though because battlemechs have zero recourse against being JDAM'd into a well-sorted substrate. IEDs, hypersonic cruise missiles and tactical nukes are all equally problematic realities of modern combat. Of course modern tanks are vastly superior combat vehicles but whatever, right?

And if all else fails, we can stoop to btech levels and regress back to the 1940s and carpet bomb them with incendiary ordnance... fire is a Btech canon-approved mech removal strategy.

[Wecx]

Vonbach, on 08 October 2016 - 05:03 PM, said:

An M1 Abrams could kill a mech instantly by simply shooting in the cockpit at 2000 meters.
Apparently no one in the battletech universe has heard of an optical sight.

Something i can respond to, Being a former M1 Abrams crew-member i can assure you that this is true.

[Wintersdark]

Snowbluff, on 08 October 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

Can we get a fact check here?

AMS have a terrible hit rate in MWO.

Well, if we want a fact check, AMS has a 100% hit rate in MWO, and deals flat dps to incoming missiles. I don't recall exactly what LRM health is or ams dps, but it's enough to destroy roughly 5 LRM's in a volley.

I *believe* it's 2dps, vs. 1 health LRM's and 2 health SRM's/SSRM's, with all overkill bring directly pushed onto the next missile.

But yeah, AMS has perfect targeting and does damage comparable to multiple heavy machine guns. I don't think modern missiles are built to withstand much of that sort of fire; I'd assume it's pretty much identical to those nifty anti-missile guns (Phalanx is it?) on modern warships, with perfect targeting.

[TheArisen]

Considering battletech mechs have glass cockpits, a single laser guided missile could kill every mech with ease. Seriously, they can put those missiles through a house's window.

As far as armor, I don't think lasers would be very effective against tanks like the Abrams & Challenger II because their armor is built to stop heat based rounds like depleted uranium, although it's possible it'd cook the crew inside. Any other MBT would get melted easily.

[GenghisJr]

Hunka Junk, on 08 October 2016 - 10:59 AM, said:

Well, in MWO, you can eyeball enemies before the systems pick it up.

The opposite is true in modern warfare.

Dire Wolf v Tomahawk Cruise Missile=fuhgeddaboutit

AMS dude

[Snowbluff]

Wecx, on 08 October 2016 - 08:55 PM, said:

Something i can respond to, Being a former M1 Abrams crew-member i can assure you that this is true.

Daishi has 33 HP on the cockpit ferro-glass, 120mm cannon does 1 point of damage as show above.

You want aircraft with PGM.

Wintersdark, on 08 October 2016 - 09:07 PM, said:

Well, if we want a fact check, AMS has a 100% hit rate in MWO, and deals flat dps to incoming missiles. I don't recall exactly what LRM health is or ams dps, but it's enough to destroy roughly 5 LRM's in a volley.

I *believe* it's 2dps, vs. 1 health LRM's and 2 health SRM's/SSRM's, with all overkill bring directly pushed onto the next missile.

But yeah, AMS has perfect targeting and does damage comparable to multiple heavy machine guns. I don't think modern missiles are built to withstand much of that sort of fire; I'd assume it's pretty much identical to those nifty anti-missile guns (Phalanx is it?) on modern warships, with perfect targeting.

Okay, there is no way they are/can be 100% accurate. I can't shoot down **** with them unless I have 2 or 3, and that's against missiles that travel at like half the speed of sound (160 m/s) and a total mass of like 10 pounds.

Mechwarrior AMS is awful.

Edited by Snowbluff, 08 October 2016 - 09:58 PM.

[razenWing]

vnlk65n, on 08 October 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

It's the truly delusional person that thinks mechs would stand a chance against modern weaponry. Gold star for exceptional hand waving skills to the people explaining away the pre-1950s tech and 270m ranges with "anti-target spoofing" and styrofoam internal structure and magic gyros. Super advanced technology just like the horrifically bad night vision, right?

I'm sure you can estimate the real strength of mech structure off of the amount of fall damage they take.

It doesn't matter though because battlemechs have zero recourse against being JDAM'd into a well-sorted substrate. IEDs, hypersonic cruise missiles and tactical nukes are all equally problematic realities of modern combat. Of course modern tanks are vastly superior combat vehicles but whatever, right?

And if all else fails, we can stoop to btech levels and regress back to the 1940s and carpet bomb them with incendiary ordnance... fire is a Btech canon-approved mech removal strategy.

Again, if you are going to do meaningful comparison, you can't take video game values vs real world values. The range/speed limitation in the video game is only because we as gamers, have a chance to do anything. If they inserted real world values? None of us would actually see one another due to all of us engaging from like 4-5 km out. That's just asinine in gameplay

Take for instance, any Call of Duty/Battlefield games. Are they a realistic equivalent of real life military? Hell no!

So in doing these debates, it's meaningless to take what you see on screen vs the concept of what they are supposed to do. As for high altitude bombing, that's the whole point of AMS, correct? Again, have to assume because 1000 years of anti-electronic warfare, our lock-on system would be mostly ineffective. A more meaningful discussion is why space future human don't use high altitude bombing with space weapons?

But truthfully, I think they do. Btech universe is a lot more indepth than 24 people brawling with battlemechs. You don't airdrop M-1 to battlefields and expect it to kick butt. You clear airspace, you send infantry escrort, you setup SAM site. If you are going to compare "let's use the entire US military against 1 battlemech," then should a more fair comparison be "the entire US military vs an entire Davion battle division?"

Battlemechs are probably always deployed after airspace cleared by future space fighters with sides setting up Naval lasers. If you remember those... they one-shot dropships in orbit. I say that's about as good of anti-air battery as the entire modern WORLD arsenal put together. Also if you remember the opening cinematics of Mechwarrior 3, the Allied battlemechs are flanked by vehicular units and infantries. So, SEAL/marines would be fighting future men with space guns that's pretty much point and click adventure.

As for weight, again, just have to assume unobtainium. Otherwise, a Direwolf using just slabs of metal would probably weigh 500 tons... and that's just dumb and not impressive sounding.

Edited by razenWing, 08 October 2016 - 10:05 PM.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

razenWing, on 08 October 2016 - 10:01 PM, said:

As for weight, again, just have to assume unobtainium. Otherwise, a Direwolf using just slabs of metal would probably weigh 500 tons... and that's just ********.

Tbh I think a Dire-shi would weigh as much as a Navy ship.

[Snowbluff]

Shiroi Tsuki, on 08 October 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

Tbh I think a Dire-shi would weigh as much as a Navy ship.

An Arleigh Burke class destroyer weighs 96 times that of a Daishi. A Daishi is about 20 meters tall, but one of those destroyers is 155 meters long. So more like a really small naval ship.

[Snowbluff]

razenWing, on 08 October 2016 - 10:01 PM, said:

So in doing these debates, it's meaningless to take what you see on screen vs the concept of what they are supposed to do. As for high altitude bombing, that's the whole point of AMS, correct?

As I've said earlier, AMS is awful in MWO, and I have no reason to believe that it's not directed by an IR missile tracker. Mombs have little to no IR signature, and the radar on Mechs only works at 800 meters on a mech sized target.

Avionics is a huge weakness of BTverse equipment, and we have no reason to believe it's not total garbage. To be fair to the writers of BT, they probably weren't aware how good sensor tech would get.

[martian]

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

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

I do not think that this was what the OP had in mind. But if you wish, I can show you how it would end ...

"Khan Malvina Hazen was enraged by this lack of honor shown by the US Navy and the US government. She decided that dezgra actions such as using nuclear weapons against her Clan cannot be left without a proper punishment. The first step was obvious. On her order, Cameron-class battlecruiser CJF Turkina's Pride opened fire on all US coastal cities suspected of harboring US Navy ships or having US Navy bases, as did other Jade Falcon Warships present in the system.

The orbital bombardment was devastating and the death toll was counted in millions. Many cities both on the East and West coast of the United States were levelled to the ground.

Facing consequences of their actions and with no possibility to retaliate or to defend themselves, the American government collapsed shortly afterwards. The surrender was complete and unconditional."