70 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Dee Eight, on 01 November 2016 - 06:55 PM, said:

You've clearly never shot low velocity large caliber weapons, or even actually witnessed them being fired to have made such a ridiculously statement. My great uncle was part of the R.C.E. in WW2 and had to use a PIAT at times, and said they were NOT exactly low recoil for what was essentially a low velocity spigot mortar. Here, this video should explain things...dry fired the recoil shakes the user violently. This for a weapon with a muzzle velocity of only 76m/sec and which weighed 32 pounds.



Or this one that includes WW2 training footage...




Also... nowhere in the BT technology/lore, is it ever said that the autocannons are "low velocity" weapons. That's an assumption on your part. Just because in the flavour text they might describe the short-barrel LB-10X autocannon of a clan Mars assault tank as a '150mm' doesn't mean every 10 class autocannon was also of that caliber, or barrel length. For that matter, how they drew the thing in the TRO artwork, doesn't actually match to the actual firing arc for a front body mounted weapon (which covers an actual arc of 180 degrees).

Nice findings.
Just to add - recoil is also based on the weight of the weapon system.
With the same projectile weight and the same muzzle velocity the heavier weapon system causes less recoil.

On the other hand - seriously, pls don't compare MWO weapon stats with real physics.
A G1 formed Gauss projectile:

with 100kg and 2000m/s
would penetrate the Iowa class belt armor at 8613m - with 30° gun elevation it would also reach 27km where as it should have enough force to break through all decks

(not to mention what would happen when I use a G2 formed projectile and increase the shell density by adding tungsten or DU, while reducing the diameter (~30km belt penetration))

and even if your shiny mech is able to take the stress - the impuls of the Gauss at 8000m is still 36,1000 N/s

~ a car with 130km/h

Edited by Karl Streiger, 02 November 2016 - 12:13 AM.

[Anjian]

razenWing, on 01 November 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

I was watching Snuggletime's latest video about the Cataphract 4x. The number of hardpoint is spot on, but the location is terrible.

But that got me thinking... in a practical warfare, is there a reason to design low mounted weapons? It seems to me like the designer could have easily "roll up the sleeves" per se, and hang the arm cannons a few meters more toward the top.

Now, on some mech, there's the case that the arms are actually not that rigid, as they have hands and can grab stuff, (For example, Atlas... I think) so that their low hanging arms aren't actually always "low hanging." (Just that, in the game, for practical purposes, they are)

But for a mech like Cataphract, it doesn't seem to be designed with a hand to start with. It's pretty much like a jet fighter with external missile hardpoints. So why do this?

I'm wondering not just form a Lore perspective, but a practical perspective. I mean, I would never design a tank with the treads higher than my cannon.

Could it be balance? Since all your kinetic energy is low to the ground, you get recoil reduction?

Could it be that it's designed to perch over a ridge? But then, a gun turret is not really well designed if the whole body has to be out there. (For practical comparison, EBJ is honestly a better a turret. And in a data-linked combat, the "super high mount" where other people can target for you is a lot better than cockpit level high mount)

Urban warfare where you only fight on horizontal planes so that mount height doesn't matter? But then, why design something with such limited application, right?

So the only other reason that I can think of, is for pilot safety. Rule 101, keep weapons away from the operator for maximum safety. (But then, ammunition storage can be stored within the torso... though you can technically argue that torso armor is a lot thicker, thus providing more protection anyhow for storing ammo)

Anyways, I don't have an answer. Wondering what's the opinion of the forum (as I know a lot of you guys are ex-veterans, perhaps you can provide better perspective on this)

(And also, this could be an interesting way to expand the roles of certain mechs... imagine if it has to do with recoil... instantly, Cataphract finds new life as a no-recoil ballistic platform whereas KDK-3 would wobble like a palm tree in hurricane.)

To lower the center of gravity so the mech doesn't keel over when firing weapons. Also makes it easier to carry weapons over terrain.

Same reason you don't shoot a heavy machine gun over your shoulder.

[Dogstar]

>Same reason you don't shoot a heavy machine gun over your shoulder

Precisely!

You didn't see the Terminator firing that minigun from over the shoulder even though it had the strength to do it. High mounted weapons are not all practical in all situations. It's only hill humping where it makes a difference.

The problem we have in MWO is that autocannons, and especially clan ultra ACs, are imbalanced when you can mount 3 or more together.

Frankly there should be a no more than two autocannons build rule.

Edited by Dogstar, 02 November 2016 - 01:11 AM.

[razenWing]

Self bump...

https://www.reddit.c..._justification/

Figure I share this. Just call me, Razen the Prophet.

[Bud Crue]

razenWing, on 04 November 2016 - 06:55 AM, said:

Self bump...

https://www.reddit.c..._justification/

Figure I share this. Just call me, Razen the Prophet.

If the Phract at 70 tons needs to be short and squat and have low points to accommodate its heavy weapon...say an AC20, then why does the physics of our MWO universe allow a significantly taller mech...oh, say a Shadow Hawk at 55 tons, to have that same weapon mounted at the very top of the mech with no problem...and give it the ability to fire that weapon while jumping, also with no problem?

Bah.

I applaud the attempt at trying to bring rationality and a mechanical justification to some of the sillier aspects of the game. But here I think we just need to accept that some designs (and I mean that: they are mere designs...artistic creations and nothing more) just don't make sense, and leave it at that.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

What will a Mech doing with only High Mounted Weapon s(shoulder) against a Infantryplatoon or Tank in 20m for the Feet ?that all in the Blind Fireroom of the HM weapons..the most used warmachines in BT not mechs , that conventionel units like Tanks,APCs,LAVs,VTOLs...

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 04 November 2016 - 07:07 AM.

[Alex Morgaine]

Wait....
Actually it's DOA. look at that crotch mount. Totally useless leech.

[Destoroyah]

Here is the thing the OP is forgetting he is trying to apply modern warfare logic to a universe that has it's own logic and disregarding that logic.

1: Battle mechs are far more resilient then most modern tanks. Many modern tanks will get destroyed or incapacitated from a single tank round or rocket, where as a battlemech can sustain several hits from heavy ordanance and still be battle field operational.
Let's say we developed a tank that could take several hits from most anti-tank weapons. Do you think we would use it the same as any other tank? No we would probaly use it as a vanguard unit with a the guns in heavily armored enbankments to prevent easy disarmament.
1.5: Battlemechs that had high mounted armaments tended to be fire support mechs and were usually much less armored compared to others of their tonnage eg. Jagermechs\Riflemen\and Maulers.

2: Targeting Computers were kind of bad in the Battletech Universe. A Awesome 8Q could alpha all 3 of its PPC's at a target and all 3 hit seperate bodyparts. It took really skilled pilots to get even partly respectable accuracy out of there weapons. So a mech with low mounted weapons could usually take the first couple of shots no problem and bring it's weapons to bare to fire at the probaly much less armored opponent.

3: Battlemech customization was very expensive and not often done so the meta setups you see with this game rarely happened. As for clans I'm not sure if they could freely change the weapons in the omnipods or just the omnipods themselves.

4: Battle field mentality is also important to consider. Clans fought under the stringent code of Zellbringer which kind of restricted them to one on one duels on the field. Also clans viewed peek and shoot tactics as kind of the cowards way to fight so high mounted weapons wasn't a big concern to them.

Taking all of this in consideration the reasoning behind why everything wasn't high mounted is not that important. A Atlas might use cover to close on it's targets, but once it got into weapons range it wouldn't fire then hide. No it'll move in using it's high durability to hammer the opponent and only retreat if noticably outmatched or outnumbered.


Now if this game didn't have the pinpoint accuracy we got now do you really think peek and shoot tactics would be as prevalent? Also if we had stricter customization rules would the KDK-3 be what it is today probaly not.

Edited by Destoroyah, 04 November 2016 - 01:28 PM.

[HauptmanT]

Dee Eight, on 01 November 2016 - 06:55 PM, said:

You've clearly never shot low velocity large caliber weapons, or even actually witnessed them being fired to have made such a ridiculously statement. My great uncle was part of the R.C.E. in WW2 and had to use a PIAT at times, and said they were NOT exactly low recoil for what was essentially a low velocity spigot mortar. Here, this video should explain things...dry fired the recoil shakes the user violently. This for a weapon with a muzzle velocity of only 76m/sec and which weighed 32 pounds.



Or this one that includes WW2 training footage...




Also... nowhere in the BT technology/lore, is it ever said that the autocannons are "low velocity" weapons. That's an assumption on your part. Just because in the flavour text they might describe the short-barrel LB-10X autocannon of a clan Mars assault tank as a '150mm' doesn't mean every 10 class autocannon was also of that caliber, or barrel length. For that matter, how they drew the thing in the TRO artwork, doesn't actually match to the actual firing arc for a front body mounted weapon (which covers an actual arc of 180 degrees).

You just backed up my argument, and didnt even realize it didnt you?

A man portable spring fired spigot mortar, firing a shaped charged warhead... completely capable of being fired by a man, standing on 2 feet.

Now in battletech terms, that shaped charge is the size of a mechs head. We are talking a single ton per shot size here. Now imagine a person firing a pistol... that is your typical AC5 to a mech. A low powered, low muzzle velocity projectile, that packs it's killing power in the warhead itself. Want an LBx-20, well grab a shotgun with some bird shot.

Now you want the power of an anti tank cannon, man portable? Boy's anti-tank rifle, PTRD, or the US's own Ma-Deuce. None of which can be fired in anything than a prone or mounted position. There is absolutely nothing in this future universe comparable, but those are high velocity weapons. The largest weapon in TT lore is the Longtom, a howitzer. Also a low velocity weapon. Fill that shotgun with a magnum slug to feel it's recoil.

There is nothing in BT lore comparable to a Piat. You're one example is useless. If you said an RPG, then perhaps we could compare to an Arrow IV. And it produces zero recoil, as it's a rocket/missile.

I will accept an apology for calling MY statement ridiculous when you clearly have little understanding of man-portable weapons.

Edited by HauptmanT, 04 November 2016 - 01:50 PM.

[Mycrus]

Now if they had it that high mounts would mean not being able to hit a mech hugging you...

[HauptmanT]

AC-5 ~ 9mm pistol.
UAC-5 ~ 9mm Submachine gun.
LBx-5 ~ 20 Gauge shotgun.

AC-10 ~ .45" ACP (12mm) pistol.
UAC-10 ~ .45" Tommy gun.
LBx-10 ~ 12 gauge shotgun.

AC-20 ~ .44" Magnum or a .50" (12.7mm) Desert Eagle. 10 gauge for LBx.

AC-2 ~ .223" (5.45mm). Dont even know what to compare a LBx-2 too. =P

If you judge by geometry, and shots per ton... we are firing up-scaled pistol rounds here. No full-powered Rifle weapons exist in this game. Because that would be far too much recoil for little gain against our assumed ceramic armor, when most of your killing power is in the warhead.

Edited by HauptmanT, 04 November 2016 - 02:13 PM.