41 replies to this topic

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

amusingly, regular AC2s fire rounds that weigh 27 lbs each (2000 lbs per ton / 75 ammo per ton = 27 lbs)

MWO messes with shots/ton, so it's actually 2000/45 = roughly 44 pounds per shot.

However, AC's don't fire a single shell in TT, unlike MWO's simplification. They fire a burst of shells, with caliber and number varying even between the same "autocannon" type.

The AC/5 on a stock Marauder is a 3-round burst 120mm cannon, while a 60mm AC/5 is burping out considerably more shells for the same damage results.

[Grus]

Khobai, on 12 December 2017 - 03:25 PM, said:

even if the ammo pack is half the weight of the ammo

that still means an AC2 shell weighs 13.5 lbs...

if a 30mm x 6 inch shell weighs 1.5 lbs... then an AC2 shell thats also 30mm and weighs 13.5 lbs would have to be 9 times longer.

or about 54 inches? so like 4.5 feet long

thats silly.

depends on the mass of the projectile. Ie if it's using a steel penitrater or a DU/tungsten core.

[Khobai]

Realistically... Id say its more like:

AC2 = 105mm-120mm (standard tank shell)
AC5 = 120mm-135mm (tank destroyer shell)
AC10 = 135mm-150mm (6 inch naval shell)
AC20 = 175mm-200mm (8 inch naval shell)

I mean that makes more sense given the weight of the ammo.

Edited by Khobai, 12 December 2017 - 03:33 PM.

[Quandoo]

Arctic Cheetah + ECM + 6x heavy mg is fun. It can be very dangerous if played right.

Edited by Quandoo, 12 December 2017 - 03:29 PM.

[Grus]

Khobai, on 12 December 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

Realistically... Id say its more like:

AC2 = 105mm-120mm (standard tank shell)
AC5 = 120mm-135mm (tank destroyer shell)
AC10 = 135mm-150mm (6 inch naval shell)
AC20 = 175mm-200mm (8 inch naval shell)

I mean that makes more sense given the weight of the ammo.

well that's not "cannon" pun intended.. but I get what your saying.

[Asym]

Khobai, on 12 December 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

Realistically... Id say its more like:

AC2 = 105mm-120mm (standard tank shell)
AC5 = 120mm-135mm (tank destroyer shell)
AC10 = 135mm-150mm (6 inch naval shell)
AC20 = 175mm-200mm (8 inch naval shell)

I mean that makes more sense given the weight of the ammo.

Ah, guys.........this is make believe.......

Mechs are bipeds that use some form of gyro-stabilization system integrated with a terrain sensing system..... There is no way in any world that many of the calibers described could even work in a stabilized bipedal platform:

Google the Gau-19. I had a link that just wouldn't work? I added it just to give you a real world example of volume of fire. (12.7mm) Look at the cases.

Gau-12 and 22 are 25mm.
Gau-8 is 30mm.
There were tests in the 1950's with a 40 and 50 mm rotary systems (3, 5 and 7 bbls) and they didn't work out because of the massive feed systems and twisting (torque) energy released. They were tested in 5" twin turrets you see on most US vessels. Those turrets were too light and too small so the project never made it out of prototyping....and, wouldn't have worked. By the way, the GAU's work in AC that aren't as strong as a mech would be.... The difference is that AC are in the air when they are fired and the energy dynamics are radically different than if they were on the ground... Ask A-10 pilots about firing the Gau-8 and the care that must be given to do so.......(think rudder input and auto trim to keep the AC LOS/LOF.)

Just a game ! So, let's not let reality get in the way of the game, eh?! Who really cares what caliber this stuff is:
It's Make Believe. Enjoy it....

Edited by Asym, 12 December 2017 - 04:34 PM.

[Dee Eight]

Magnumaniac, on 12 December 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

You have your M1A1 Abrams, I'll have the gun from the A-10 Warthog (commonly known as the "tank-buster") - which is roughly what a Battletech machine gun equates to... let me know how that works out for you

From the front of the tank...it won't work out very well for the A-10... the 30mm can get thru the roof, or rear armor of your typical MBT... but against the front of the glacis plate or turret... LOL... about all its gonna do is mess up the optics. Only way it'll hut the tank is if you miraculously get one down the gun tube when the breech is open. Not to mention against russian tanks...you have to deal with fact that those cannon launched missiles they use, are capable of engaging an aircraft also. A-10s are armored...but not to withstand an anti-tank missile.

ALSO....

MG's in Battletech are generally not 30mm autocannons of today. They're more like the same MGs we have today... except they're on armored remote weapon stations just as they're used on many IFV/MBTs and some warships. A RAC/2 is basically the battletech version of the GAU-8, and a RAC/5 is essentially just a larger caliber as for example Hotchkiss had a rotary 5 barrel cannon in 1 pounder (37mm) and 3 pounder (47mm) versions over a hundred years ago, at a time when the american gatling gun was still using a rifle caliber. Battletech's HMGs would be like the .50BMG, 12.7mm DshK or 14.5mm KPV.

[Dee Eight]

Khobai, on 12 December 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

Realistically... Id say its more like:

AC2 = 105mm-120mm (standard tank shell)
AC5 = 120mm-135mm (tank destroyer shell)
AC10 = 135mm-150mm (6 inch naval shell)
AC20 = 175mm-200mm (8 inch naval shell)

I mean that makes more sense given the weight of the ammo.

Calibers in battletech don't work like that. Autocannons in BT are rated by the damage scored, not by the specific size of the projectile. A particular AC might fire a single large shell, or it might fire a burst of shells of smaller caliber, to achieve the same resulting damage. There are flavour text examples in the TRO's for example, mentioning specific makes of ACs with a metric caliber listed. The Clan Zorya light tank identifies its LB 5-X as a 40mm, the Clan KU Wheeled Assault tank identifies its Ultra/10 as a 75mm, and the Clan Ishtar Heavy Fire Support tank similarly describes both its LB 10-X and Ultra/10 ACs are being 75mm and in fact goes on to talk about how both use the same caliber, the barrel types/feed systems are different so they cannot cross-feed to one another's ammo bins. The Clan Mars Assault Vehicle describes its LB 10-X on the other hand as a 150mm caliber. These are all btw in the SAME TRO:3060.

[Khobai]

Quote

Calibers in battletech don't work like that. Autocannons in BT are rated by the damage scored, not by the specific size of the projectile

im talking about MWO. we know the AC2 shells come out one at a time.

[qS Sachiel]

Khobai, on 12 December 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

im talking about MWO. we know the AC2 shells come out one at a time.

2's yes but not ultras in higher ratings (eg clan). I assume you're not being a pedant though because yes all shells come out 1 by 1, but in the case of c-UAC a volley is produced to effect the same damage, meaning the individual impulse of each round must be a fraction of the single round equivalent.

The point stands correct however that multiple makes and their associated different caliber rounds are standardised to a rating 2/5/10/20 based upon damage in mwo, and fiction aside, discussing the weapon performance based on caliber is either futile or erroneous.

Edited by qS Sachiel, 12 December 2017 - 07:23 PM.

[davoodoo]

Im not gonna mention gun weight itself.

lets look at ammo, heavy machine gun have only 1000 rounds per ton, lets say that ammo bin weights 100kg, thats still 0.9kg per round.
30x173mm shell weighs 0.67-0.72kg

so yeah 30-40mm automatic gun.

Edited by davoodoo, 12 December 2017 - 07:27 PM.

[Kroete]

Whizbang AGNC, on 12 December 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

And Bad in 1000 years MG won't even exist except in a museum. Over in the display next to the flintlocks. Stupid!

In 1000 years there will be no museum and mankind or they will still use massdrivers.

Maybe not the type we know as mgs, but throwing some bunch of metal with lots of speed will allways be cheap, simple and effective. What only matters is speed and weight for them to be effective against any kind of armor or forcefields.

If you fire a bullet of 1 kilo with 99.99% speed of light you will get around 90.000.000.000.000.000 Joules,
thats a little more then the 63.000.000.000.000 Joules of Little Boy with a lot smaller impact point.

[stealthraccoon]

I’m kinda going along with the idea that the FASA guys only had some vague referencing material when they were writing up some of these rules, so the basis in reality was likely from a ‘70’s edition of Encyclopedia Britanica... because the internet’s didn’t always exist, kids!

Edited by stealthraccoon, 12 December 2017 - 07:36 PM.

[dario03]

stealthraccoon, on 12 December 2017 - 07:35 PM, said:

I’m kinda going along with the idea that the FASA guys only had some vague referencing material when they were writing up some of these rules, so the basis in reality was likely from a ‘70’s edition of Encyclopedia Britanica... because the internet’s didn’t always exist, kids!

Plus some liberal usage of "hey this sounds cool".

So MGs being viable makes sense to me.

[LordNothing]

i think they are still going the wrong direction with the hmgs. what it needs to be doing is bridging the gap between mg and ac2. more damage, less crit. not to mention its ammo capacity is what really keeps it down. range buff helps a bit, but its still gonna be meh.

Edited by LordNothing, 12 December 2017 - 08:07 PM.

[BlueStrat]

Shadowomega1, on 12 December 2017 - 02:37 PM, said:

While an M2 .50 cal weigh in around 80 to 150 lbs the weapon on a mech weighs between 500 to 1000 lbs. Furthermore .50 cal round weighs .09 to .1 lbs per round where in MWO it is 1lb per round.

If we compare it to modern equipment than what is classed as "Machine Gun" is more of a 20mm to 40mm cannon.

I know it's 2000 rounds per ton of MG ammo, but I think much of that weight is the belts/racks/magazines that hold the rounds themselves and the mechanical/electrical mechanisms that are part of the ammunition feeding systems.

I would equate MWO MGs to WW2 German MG151/15 15mm autocannons with a mixed-ammo feed of armor-piercing shells to chew through armor and high explosive minengeschos shells to destroy internals.

A bit larger than .50BMG and not as high a velocity, but still not as fat or slow as the 20mm-chambered version of the MG151.

Edited by BlueStrat, 12 December 2017 - 08:39 PM.

[Shadowomega1]

BlueStrat, on 12 December 2017 - 08:28 PM, said:

I know it's 2000 rounds per ton of MG ammo, but I think much of that weight is the belts/racks/magazines that hold the rounds themselves and the mechanical/electrical mechanisms that are part of the ammunition feeding systems.

I would equate MWO MGs to WW2 German MG151/15 15mm autocannons with a mixed-ammo feed of armor-piercing shells to chew through armor and high explosive minengeschos shells to destroy internals.

A bit larger than .50BMG but not as high velocity, but still not as fat or slow as the 20mm-chambered version of the MG151.

Those would be included with the weapons weight, as those are vital to the weapon itself, and I highly doubt those feeding belts would add in another 400 to 800 lbs.

The Bushmaster III which is a 35*228 caliber cannon weighs in at 480 lbs including the Receiver, Feeder, and Barrel.

*edit add*
While reading down the Machine Gun Brand/Company List there are two names that stand out.

Coventry Light Autogun Coventry Metal works
Gatling Gun 20mm Quikscell Company.

Edited by Shadowomega1, 12 December 2017 - 08:57 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Khobai, on 12 December 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:

im talking about MWO. we know the AC2 shells come out one at a time.

MWO just plain hoses the TT equivalents right off the bat, but that's PGI for you.

[BlueStrat]

Shadowomega1, on 12 December 2017 - 08:47 PM, said:

Those would be included with the weapons weight, as those are vital to the weapon itself, and I highly doubt those feeding belts would add in another 400 to 800 lbs.

The Bushmaster III which is a 35*228 caliber cannon weighs in at 480 lbs including the Receiver, Feeder, and Barrel.

You could be right. But we do not know the design/architecture of these MGs. Much of the ammunition cycling mechanisms may be incorporated into the ammunition packaging. There's just no way to tell, honestly. We're talking about a fictional weapon system 1,000 years in the future. Modeled in a computer game for entertainment. We may as well be comparing phasers to disruptors to lightsabers.

My observations are just my personal opinion. Much is based on my subjective experience using the MG151/15 in War Thunder combined with my experience with and (admittedly limited...I'm no expert but not ignorant) knowledge of firearms, and then attempting to draw purely subjective parallels here.

Edited by BlueStrat, 12 December 2017 - 09:11 PM.

[Davegt27]

Quote

Rat Patrol

now your dating your self lol