144 replies to this topic

[Anjian]

Full scale mech assaults on cities.

[Greyhart]

just got to put my 2pence worth in here.

Only interested in the Mechwarrior stuff due to the computer games but here are the elements that make the setting engaging:

1. large cut off universe, difficult to travel and communicate.
2. it's all gone to pot due to fighting with no prospects of winning or losing due to the size of the universe.
3. It is like the dark ages where the tech is still there but how it works is lost i.e. space magic.
4. mechwarriors are like knights in magic steeds with magic weapons.
5. alien invasion without the aliens (screwed up social structures).
6. space kings and pirate lords etc.

in essence it is like a fantasy story in a post industrial world. The next village is a weeks hike away and might as well be a different world. There used to be wizards who have left their magic laying around after they killed each other in an epic conflict.

That feeling of making do in a less than perfect world, trying to regain what was lost and dealing with strange things.

[ROSS-128]

When it comes to the "why are we using mechs at all", the real elephant in the room is tanks rather than cruise missiles.

We use mechs because it's cool, and really that's about all they have going for them outside of a very specific application of bringing armored support to rocky, mountainous terrain (the only terrain type where legs are actually better than wheels or treads).

The tank's advantage is simple geometry. A compact box shape has a much better surface-volume ratio than a humanoid form, allowing it to use less total armor to achieve a greater thickness. The treatment of BT armor as being purely ablative actually exaggerates this advantage, since for purely ablative armor, thickness is everything. The tank's compact form factor also means it doesn't need to dedicate as much weight to structure, especially since it doesn't have to support any hanging pieces (ie arms). Its structure is also less bulky because its favorable geometry simply allows it to support more weight with less material.

A tank is also easier to put sloped armor on than a mech, which helps further increase the effective thickness of the armor using simple trigonometry. A tank also basically always has high mounts, because the turret goes on top if the designer is competent.

Additionally, its transmission system is simpler, smaller, and lighter than all the myomers and actuators that you need to operate a mech's arms and legs. This effectively reduces both the size and weight of a given engine for the same power.

Put all that together and a tank can carry more armor, more guns, and have a more powerful engine than a mech of the same weight, while also costing a fraction of the CBills. Of course this isn't reflected in BT rules because what kind of mech game would this be if mechs were so astoundingly outclassed anywhere outside the mountains? Well, actually the better armor efficiency *is* reflected in the rules because having fewer hit locations translates to more armor per location at the same weight, but in BT they offset that by giving all land vehicles only 5 structure and making them more vulnerable to through-armor criticals so that tanks rarely get to *use* all of that armor, and instead tend to die an ignoble death from a through-armor critical and turning all that armor into a paperweight.

Anyway basically we get around this by artificially inflating the mechs' performance and handwaving about where that performance comes from so that we can actually have a mech game. And in the case of through-armor criticals by nerfing vehicles in such a way as to nullify many of their inherent advantages.

[Karl Streiger]

ROSS-128, on 18 December 2017 - 07:51 AM, said:

When it comes to the "why are we using mechs at all", the real elephant in the room is tanks rather than cruise missiles.

Yep .... While digging into the "why Mechs?" problematic, I found some reasons that speak for Mechs.
The first reason - Mechs are not tanks on legs... this over simplified message always gives me creeps when reading while waiting for a game.... (and i really hate 90% of your messages on that loading screen)

A mech need to be more mobile than a tank. Lets consider the "real" ranges. For example my take of the Demo and the ChemSet 185mm can reach a muzzle velocity of almost 1500m/s and combat distance is the horizon. When engaging a Mech at 2km distance the dart (APFSDS) still need 2seconds to get there. A Mech linked to a powerful diagnostic computer and multiple sensors will see the "blast" of your gun and turn the Mech into motion before your bullet arrives. When it can turn and sidestep fast enough (and you can do this even in MWO from time to time) - the shot will pass harmless.

If the target was a tank - it would have a much harder time to evade the incoming round.
Add the interns of a Mech to the mix. muscles synthetic - maybe each strang is independent protected by nano tubes or kevlar. internal bones - again very hard material. if everything in the mech is redundant - it might highly be possible. that your ultra penetrating dart goes in on one side and goes out on the other without dealing any significant damage. Heck there would not be any impulse that might smash the mech to the ground... just a shudder ad warning light and thats it.
On the other side a tank with a thick outer layer might be harder to crack but a round that goes through will be a 90% kill shot.

[ROSS-128]

The problem with "dodging bullets" is that you're ignoring what it takes to accelerate a 20+ ton mech to that degree.

Let's say your mech's profile is about 4m wide. You could assume the shot is aimed center mass and move 2m, but that's not necessarily a safe assumption so it'd be safer to move at least the 4m you'd need to be completely clear of your previous position.

For 2km at 1500m/s you have 1.33s to make this move. But you're not moving at a constant velocity, you're starting from rest, so the distance you can cover is based on your acceleration.

Fortunately, by taking your initial velocity and starting position to be zero we can simplify the formula for how far you can move to at^2/2. Putting in the numbers we have we get a=4*2/1.78 or 4.49m/s^2, almost half a G.

So, how much force do you need to accelerate 20 tons that much? Well 20 metric tons is 20,000kg, and conveniently 20 short imperial tons is actually pretty close to that too (18,140kg). BT weights are probably in short imperial tons, but I'll use metric tons because it's easier and close enough. If they are in long tons it's still not too far off in the other direction (20320kg), so metric tons are a good approximation for that too.

Force is simply mass times acceleration, so 4.49 times 20,000 is 89,800N of force. The most likely point of failure here is the ground, since this force has to be applied to the ground parallel to the surface in order to move you. This means the force will be resisted by the shear strength of the dirt you're standing on: if it's less than 89,800N, the ground will give way and your mech will fall flat on its face.

And that's assuming zero sensor delay, zero computational delay, zero command delay, and zero ramp-up time on the actuators. Each of those will cost precious hundredths of a second that will raise the required acceleration (and thus force) exponentially.

Of course, the other thing to consider is even if you clear all those hurdles, at that point all you've done is given your opponent a math problem for "how close do I need to be to have a good chance of hitting?"


It really is better to just stick to "because mechs look cool we're going to ignore all the problems they have."

[Y E O N N E]

Anjian, on 18 December 2017 - 03:34 AM, said:

Not with the particular kind of guidance system you have on many land attack cruise missiles right now.

Patently false. As of Block IV, TLAMs have the appropriate hardware and software to switch to radar recognition mode once it enters the area the target is expected to be found in. This is specifically to hit moving land targets.

And for earlier methods, needing surveillance on the target is not an unrealistic or insurmountable obstacle for the real world or BattleTech.

There is no reason not to be able to strike a 'Mech from immense range except for AMS, but AMS can be overwhelmed.

[a gaijin]

It's kind of sad to see so many BT & MechWarrior fans baited into what is such an obviously blatant trollpost.



...


Nice job, raisinWing

[Anjian]

Yeonne Greene, on 18 December 2017 - 12:22 PM, said:

Patently false. As of Block IV, TLAMs have the appropriate hardware and software to switch to radar recognition mode once it enters the area the target is expected to be found in. This is specifically to hit moving land targets.

And for earlier methods, needing surveillance on the target is not an unrealistic or insurmountable obstacle for the real world or BattleTech.

There is no reason not to be able to strike a 'Mech from immense range except for AMS, but AMS can be overwhelmed.

WRONG AGAIN.

Block IV only redirect to alternative fixed targets. The seeker happens to be visual, not radar directed. It beams a visual image of its target and of the battlefield to its controllers via a TV camera.

http://www.navy.mil/...0&tid=1300&ct=2

https://www.raytheon...ducts/tomahawk/

There was testing on adding a passive radar seeker, meaning it homes in on the radar emissions of the target, like an ARM, but this was not accepted into service. For this to happen on a moving ground target, the ground target needs to be emitting its own radar, and not radar silent. This appears to be intended for targeting an SAM battery, but SAM batteries don't deploy their radar while they are on the move, but only when they are stationed and set up. The word 'moving' applied to this context should be reinterpreted as "relocatable".

Antiship capability through a dual seeker will be added to Tomahawks, a revival of the TASM concept, but that's not going to happen until the next decade.

AMS can easily take out a cruise missile, the way it handles swarms of LRMs makes handling solitary missiles, mince meat.

If you think its a smart idea for cruise missiles to target moving targets without visual recognition and controller authorization, think of what the enemy can do with a Toyota pickup with a radar reflector or emitter on the back.

Loiter isn't the best thing a cruise missile can do, although doing it is a plus. But there are more efficiewnt means of doing this. There is such a thing called Loiter Munitions, or Loiter Missiles. They are the ones that do what you think cruise missiles should do.

https://en.wikipedia...elilah_(missile)

But there is nothing there that UAVs with Hellfires and Mavericks can do better.

Edited by Anjian, 18 December 2017 - 08:50 PM.

[Anjian]

Karl Streiger, on 18 December 2017 - 08:11 AM, said:

Yep .... While digging into the "why Mechs?" problematic, I found some reasons that speak for Mechs.
The first reason - Mechs are not tanks on legs... this over simplified message always gives me creeps when reading while waiting for a game.... (and i really hate 90% of your messages on that loading screen)

A mech need to be more mobile than a tank.

Which is the point why Japanese mecha always move so fast. Even with 'realistic' mechs, the mechs are made to be smaller, more agile, and they skate faster than a motorbike. This is reflected with Ryousuke Takahashi's Dougram --- which is the anime that invented the Battletech style of combat you see --- to his next creation, Armored Trooper Votoms, which has skating mechs, and which Heavy Gear was inspired from.

Quote

Lets consider the "real" ranges. For example my take of the Demo and the ChemSet 185mm can reach a muzzle velocity of almost 1500m/s and combat distance is the horizon. When engaging a Mech at 2km distance the dart (APFSDS) still need 2seconds to get there. A Mech linked to a powerful diagnostic computer and multiple sensors will see the "blast" of your gun and turn the Mech into motion before your bullet arrives. When it can turn and sidestep fast enough (and you can do this even in MWO from time to time) - the shot will pass harmless.

If the target was a tank - it would have a much harder time to evade the incoming round.
Add the interns of a Mech to the mix. muscles synthetic - maybe each strang is independent protected by nano tubes or kevlar. internal bones - again very hard material. if everything in the mech is redundant - it might highly be possible. that your ultra penetrating dart goes in on one side and goes out on the other without dealing any significant damage. Heck there would not be any impulse that might smash the mech to the ground... just a shudder ad warning light and thats it.
On the other side a tank with a thick outer layer might be harder to crack but a round that goes through will be a 90% kill shot.

If you ever played tank games like World of Tanks and War Thunder, you will be introduced to many tank tactics, one of which is the hull down position. The tank uses a depression, then depresses the gun over the hump, which covers the tank glacis. At this position, the ground itself covers much of the tank, and you have a very very thin target to shoot at. And whatever you shoot at, the tank's armor is angled in such a way that it increases the effective thickness of the armor. Effective thickness means the armor's physical thickness multiplied with the geometry or angle of the striking project, and this greatly increases the effective thickness. This is where tank games differ from mech games, as the tank player is angling and positioning his tank to assure the maximum effective thickness --- he does not look square with his torso straight to the enemy, but rather shifts it at an angle. There is no concept of hit distribution. You either deflect or get penned.

Tank games differ from mech games because in a tank game, it calculates for penetration based on effective thickness and shell velocites before it registers damage. If tank deflection mechanics are applied to a mech game, very angled mechs are going to win, e.g. Stalker vs. Atlas.

As for the shelling going through a target, there is something called inertial fuses, and the fuse delay can be adjusted to prevent overpenetration. This happens in both real life but also simulated in game mechanics. This makes the difference of killing a soft skinned vehicle outright, or putting multiple shots into it before killing it. In any case if the AP shell will guarantee an overpenetration, just throw in an HE or HESH shell.

Edited by Anjian, 18 December 2017 - 09:10 PM.

[Lugin]

Karl Streiger, on 18 December 2017 - 08:11 AM, said:

Yep .... While digging into the "why Mechs?" problematic, I found some reasons that speak for Mechs.
The first reason - Mechs are not tanks on legs... this over simplified message always gives me creeps when reading while waiting for a game.... (and i really hate 90% of your messages on that loading screen)

A mech need to be more mobile than a tank. Lets consider the "real" ranges. For example my take of the Demo and the ChemSet 185mm can reach a muzzle velocity of almost 1500m/s and combat distance is the horizon. When engaging a Mech at 2km distance the dart (APFSDS) still need 2seconds to get there. A Mech linked to a powerful diagnostic computer and multiple sensors will see the "blast" of your gun and turn the Mech into motion before your bullet arrives. When it can turn and sidestep fast enough (and you can do this even in MWO from time to time) - the shot will pass harmless.

If the target was a tank - it would have a much harder time to evade the incoming round.
Add the interns of a Mech to the mix. muscles synthetic - maybe each strang is independent protected by nano tubes or kevlar. internal bones - again very hard material. if everything in the mech is redundant - it might highly be possible. that your ultra penetrating dart goes in on one side and goes out on the other without dealing any significant damage. Heck there would not be any impulse that might smash the mech to the ground... just a shudder ad warning light and thats it.
On the other side a tank with a thick outer layer might be harder to crack but a round that goes through will be a 90% kill shot.

The other big advantages are crew size and survivability.

Mechs need 1 crew. (until the superheavy tripods, but that's special case)
Vehicles need a varying number of crew dependent on unit mass.

When a mech is slagged, the pilot lives, unless: Head blown off (or destroying cockpit crit), or if an ammo explosion or area of effect weapon destroys CT.

When a vehicle is destroyed, the crew is dead.

Not going to dig out the book/page refs, need to go to sleep for work.

-edit: Minor grammar

Edited by Lugin, 18 December 2017 - 09:10 PM.

[xRatas]

ROSS-128, on 18 December 2017 - 11:07 AM, said:

The problem with "dodging bullets" is that you're ignoring what it takes to accelerate a 20+ ton mech to that degree.

Let's say your mech's profile is about 4m wide. You could assume the shot is aimed center mass and move 2m, but that's not necessarily a safe assumption so it'd be safer to move at least the 4m you'd need to be completely clear of your previous position.

Not arguing against your physics, but dodging something is not really just jumping out of the way.

Dodging in martial arts is done by rotating the body, so that the movement is basically counterbalanced. I'd also argue sidesteping uses gravity instead of working against it, giving you reasonable boost for your acceleration for one step. This would allow you to use lot more myomers than just legs to do the complete dodge.

Edited by xRatas, 18 December 2017 - 11:42 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Anjian, on 18 December 2017 - 09:06 PM, said:

As for the shelling going through a target, there is something called inertial fuses, and the fuse delay can be adjusted to prevent overpenetration. This happens in both real life but also simulated in game mechanics. This makes the difference of killing a soft skinned vehicle outright, or putting multiple shots into it before killing it. In any case if the AP shell will guarantee an overpenetration, just throw in an HE or HESH shell.

For a fuze you might drop the APFS-DS dart and go for the ammunition (stuff) BT is using in lore - the good old Semi Armor Piercing with Explosives - fired from the time of the Dreadnought until the Cold War. in other words you sacrifice velocity, range and penetration for more stopping power.
Still in "development" but while writing a short story about a Demolisher - the commander chooses a Mech and the gunner switches to API and SAPHE - a fast 3 round salvo (autoloader ~so 3sec for a single gun or ~1.5sec for both guns)

the gunner will fire a statistical spread and will not aim dead on target, nor will he try to shoot at any fancy target like the head or the arm. He will go dead center for the first round- center, the second might go 4m left little bit deeper and the third 6m to the right and deeper too.
Range will be several kilometers - the tank crew can not close further if they want survive. While hull down and in concealment - the driver will go reverse as soon as the Gunner called ready.
Its possible that the tank lost its LOS before the bullets arrive.

[Y E O N N E]

Anjian, on 18 December 2017 - 08:08 PM, said:

WRONG AGAIN.

Block IV only redirect to alternative fixed targets. The seeker happens to be visual, not radar directed. It beams a visual image of its target and of the battlefield to its controllers via a TV camera.

http://www.navy.mil/...0&tid=1300&ct=2

https://www.raytheon...ducts/tomahawk/


There was testing on adding a passive radar seeker, meaning it homes in on the radar emissions of the target, like an ARM, but this was not accepted into service. For this to happen on a moving ground target, the ground target needs to be emitting its own radar, and not radar silent. This appears to be intended for targeting an SAM battery, but SAM batteries don't deploy their radar while they are on the move, but only when they are stationed and set up. The word 'moving' applied to this context should be reinterpreted as "relocatable".

Antiship capability through a dual seeker will be added to Tomahawks, a revival of the TASM concept, but that's not going to happen until the next decade.

Those are, in fact, Block IV improvements. So, still Block IV. Not so wrong. The dual-mode radar seeker is exactly what I was referring to.

Also, by "next decade" you mean three or four years from now in 2021. Don't be so deliberately disingenuous with your wording.

I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics with you. You obviously know exactly what I meant. Anything else is you attempting to cloud up the argument.

Quote

AMS can easily take out a cruise missile, the way it handles swarms of LRMs makes handling solitary missiles, mince meat.

Sure, a subsonic one like a TLAM. It's going to have a tough time with a super or hyper-sonic terminal approach, though, especially if you launch multiples. Given how how much a C-bill is worth and how many millions of those C-bills a 'Mech is worth, I'd say the economics for a saturation attack work against the 'Mech every time.

Laser AMS might have an easier time, but even that one is still limited by its tracking abilities. And at that, I can just equip my missile with the same kinds of light-weight ablative armor that 'Mechs enjoy so it tank damage long enough to reach the target.

There is no argument that you can make supporting the lack of cruise missile strike capabilities against a 'Mech that rely on anything other than handwavium. Even if we didn't have the ability to hit a moving target from hundreds to thousands of kilometers away right this second, the technology is imminent so it's moot.

[Anjian]

Yeonne Greene, on 19 December 2017 - 12:41 AM, said:

Those are, in fact, Block IV improvements. So, still Block IV. Not so wrong. The dual-mode radar seeker is exactly what I was referring to.

Also, by "next decade" you mean three or four years from now in 2021. Don't be so deliberately disingenuous with your wording.

I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics with you. You obviously know exactly what I meant. Anything else is you attempting to cloud up the argument.

Wrong again. Passive mode radar seeker does not work on moving objects that does not emit radar. The only ground objects that emit radar are radar stations for SAMs. And they will only do this when set up and stationary.

There is no Air to Surface ground (not sea) missile that relies on radar homing (homing is different from radar contour matching, which is what the Tomahawk uses to follow terrain contour). The reason for this is simple --- the ground has backscatter and appears as a solid mass with the tank or target, when illuminated from above. That's why every air to surface missile and PGM are guided optically.

Its different with the sea because the sea provides radio contrast from the metal object of the ship. All antiship missiles from the very beginning of their invention, all use active radar homing. The so called TASM, or Tomahawk antiship missile, uses in fact, the seeker and guidance system of the Harpoon, and in exchange has no land attack capability whatsover, as the Harpoon seeker and guidance system has displaced that of the TLAM Tomahawk. The new dual seeker system that is coming on board by 2025 or something like that, is only possible because miniaturization technology enables you to put the terrain contour following system of the land attack TLAM crammed with the Harpoon seeker. Bear in mind that the Harpoon seeker cannot be used for land attack purposes because it is tuned for the radio sea contrast and scatter, not ground contrast and ground scatter.

Quote

Sure, a subsonic one like a TLAM. It's going to have a tough time with a super or hyper-sonic terminal approach, though, especially if you launch multiples. Given how how much a C-bill is worth and how many millions of those C-bills a 'Mech is worth, I'd say the economics for a saturation attack work against the 'Mech every time.

Laser AMS might have an easier time, but even that one is still limited by its tracking abilities. And at that, I can just equip my missile with the same kinds of light-weight ablative armor that 'Mechs enjoy so it tank damage long enough to reach the target.

There is no argument that you can make supporting the lack of cruise missile strike capabilities against a 'Mech that rely on anything other than handwavium. Even if we didn't have the ability to hit a moving target from hundreds to thousands of kilometers away right this second, the technology is imminent so it's moot.

There are supersonic and hypersonic missiles, but their targets are much bigger. Like USN carriers. On the sea. Or other ships that are hundreds of feet in length. Once again, even on supersonic missiles, the same principles of guidance are there: Sea attack - active radar homing; land attack - optical/thermal guidance with GPS navigation. Basically a remote controlled kamikaze.

If you are going to hit a mech with a large missile in the first place, you need to find it first, and you won't find it without using a slow moving aerial vehicle that can loiter over the battlefield for long conditions, and one thing a mech can enjoy over a tank, is that from above, its maybe less visible because its standing and not spread out. You can develop an algorithm to work with optical digital cameras to identify squares and rectangles on the ground to identify tanks and houses, but how will you identify a much more complex shape like a mech? What if the mech uses ECM and optical camouflage? Once you have a drone in the air, what is not going to stop it from getting shot down by a SAM from a mobile battery, AA tank or even a mech, that's like say, designed for AA purpose.

No find, no shoot.

Edited by Anjian, 19 December 2017 - 01:44 AM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Lugin, on 18 December 2017 - 09:08 PM, said:

The other big advantages are crew size and survivability.

Mechs need 1 crew. (until the superheavy tripods, but that's special case)
Vehicles need a varying number of crew dependent on unit mass.

When a mech is slagged, the pilot lives, unless: Head blown off (or destroying cockpit crit), or if an ammo explosion or area of effect weapon destroys CT.

When a vehicle is destroyed, the crew is dead.

Not going to dig out the book/page refs, need to go to sleep for work.

-edit: Minor grammar

None of the Battlemech advantages you describe are things only Battlemechs can have. If 1 guy can pilot a highly complex walking robot, then 1 guy should be able to pilot a much simpler tank.

And there's no reason driving a tank should be any less survivable than piloting a Battlemech. Mech pilots are put in big, highly-visible cockpits that are several meters from the ground, while tank crews are entirely surrounded by armor. Sure, mechs have ejection seats, but again, there's no reason a tank can't be outfitted with one as well.

Anjian, on 19 December 2017 - 01:39 AM, said:

Wrong again. Passive mode radar seeker does not work on moving objects that does not emit radar. The only ground objects that emit radar are radar stations for SAMs. And they will only do this when set up and stationary.

There is no Air to Surface ground (not sea) missile that relies on radar homing (homing is different from radar contour matching, which is what the Tomahawk uses to follow terrain contour). The reason for this is simple --- the ground has backscatter and appears as a solid mass with the tank or target, when illuminated from above. That's why every air to surface missile and PGM are guided optically.

Its different with the sea because the sea provides radio contrast from the metal object of the ship. All antiship missiles from the very beginning of their invention, all use active radar homing. The so called TASM, or Tomahawk antiship missile, uses in fact, the seeker and guidance system of the Harpoon, and in exchange has no land attack capability whatsover, as the Harpoon seeker and guidance system has displaced that of the TLAM Tomahawk. The new dual seeker system that is coming on board by 2025 or something like that, is only possible because miniaturization technology enables you to put the terrain contour following system of the land attack TLAM crammed with the Harpoon seeker. Bear in mind that the Harpoon seeker cannot be used for land attack purposes because it is tuned for the radio sea contrast and scatter, not ground contrast and ground scatter.

There are supersonic and hypersonic missiles, but their targets are much bigger. Like USN carriers. On the sea. Or other ships that are hundreds of feet in length. Once again, even on supersonic missiles, the same principles of guidance are there: Sea attack - active radar homing; land attack - optical/thermal guidance with GPS navigation. Basically a remote controlled kamikaze.

If you are going to hit a mech with a large missile in the first place, you need to find it first, and you won't find it without using a slow moving aerial vehicle that can loiter over the battlefield for long conditions, and one thing a mech can enjoy over a tank, is that from above, its maybe less visible because its standing and not spread out. You can develop an algorithm to work with optical digital cameras to identify squares and rectangles on the ground to identify tanks and houses, but how will you identify a much more complex shape like a mech? What if the mech uses ECM and optical camouflage? Once you have a drone in the air, what is not going to stop it from getting shot down by a SAM from a mobile battery, AA tank or even a mech, that's like say, designed for AA purpose.

No find, no shoot.

I'm not sure there's much of a distinction between "We have mech-killing missiles today" vs "We'll have mech-killing missiles in 10 years" when talking about how impractical Battletech's mechs are as a weapon.

And I don't see why Mechs should be harder to identify than tanks. "I wonder where the giant enemy robots are? Could it be this big hot metal thing that's vaguely humanoid in shape? "

You wouldn't even need a slow-flying drone to spot a giant robot. A fast, high-altitude drone should be able to spot one as well. Or a network of seismic sensors that report the rhythmic thump of robots stomping dirt. Or just a guy with a radio saying "Hey, there's giant robots near these coordinates".

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 19 December 2017 - 02:09 AM.

[Anjian]

Karl Streiger, on 18 December 2017 - 11:42 PM, said:

For a fuze you might drop the APFS-DS dart and go for the ammunition (stuff) BT is using in lore - the good old Semi Armor Piercing with Explosives - fired from the time of the Dreadnought until the Cold War. in other words you sacrifice velocity, range and penetration for more stopping power.
Still in "development" but while writing a short story about a Demolisher - the commander chooses a Mech and the gunner switches to API and SAPHE - a fast 3 round salvo (autoloader ~so 3sec for a single gun or ~1.5sec for both guns)

the gunner will fire a statistical spread and will not aim dead on target, nor will he try to shoot at any fancy target like the head or the arm. He will go dead center for the first round- center, the second might go 4m left little bit deeper and the third 6m to the right and deeper too.
Range will be several kilometers - the tank crew can not close further if they want survive. While hull down and in concealment - the driver will go reverse as soon as the Gunner called ready.
Its possible that the tank lost its LOS before the bullets arrive.

Again, assuming if you find the tank, which is also easier to thermally conceal.

Against a mech I am thinking more of HEAT and HESH. Shaped charges have the same punch regardless of speed, range and velocity. The sheer explosion of the charge against the mech armor as it tries to blow a shaped or directed plume will also have the effect of knocking a mech down completely. HEAT would have the same penetration and the same damage regardless whether its 100 meters, 500 meters or 1000 meters, and it does not matter if you have a snub nose cannon or a long barreled cannon --- cannon barrel length affects muzzle velocity due to the build up of gases.

Semi-AP is not universally used as a naval round, as most ships use AP, when ship to ship, and HE against land targets. With HE shells, like the Japanese for example, they got the fuse at the back of the shell rather than the front, and so is triggered by a massive change of inertia.

Edited by Anjian, 19 December 2017 - 01:59 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

so it boils down to engagement range. (the penetration dept (tandem charge) is linked with the diameter of the shell - so you would use rather big shells so maybe less velocity.

btw i also don't buy the mech killing missile idea.... with excpetion of a hyper velocity missile - that is nothing more than granting a small vehicle a big "kinetic gun" - a missile will face active and passive counter measures.
not only ecm but also trophy active kill systems.

so you would need a couple of missiles to overwhelm the defense (see - ablative armor)

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Kaeb Odellas, on 19 December 2017 - 01:50 AM, said:

None of the Battlemech advantages you describe are things only Battlemechs can have. If 1 guy can pilot a highly complex walking robot, then 1 guy should be able to pilot a much simpler tank.

And there's no reason driving a tank should be any less survivable than piloting a Battlemech. Mech pilots are put in big, highly-visible cockpits that are several meters from the ground, while tank crews are entirely surrounded by armor. Sure, mechs have ejection seats, but again, there's no reason a tank can't be outfitted with one as well.



I'm not sure there's much of a distinction between "We have mech-killing missiles today" vs "We'll have mech-killing missiles in 10 years" when talking about how impractical Battletech's mechs are as a weapon.

And I don't see why Mechs should be harder to identify than tanks. "I wonder where the giant enemy robots are? Could it be this big hot metal thing that's vaguely humanoid in shape? "

You wouldn't even need a slow-flying drone to spot a giant robot. A fast, high-altitude drone should be able to spot one as well. Or a network of seismic sensors that report the rhythmic thump of robots stomping dirt. Or just a guy with a radio saying "Hey, there's giant robots near these coordinates".

ok in the old BT the Mechs most only up to 8m -12m (Warhammer the Misslebox in 12 m) and a Main Tank going a Shadowhawk up to the Hip...not like the modern Pacific Rim MWO Mechs..in a City a better armored Overview is very good against targets in Buildings (Seeing Black Hawk Down) and Helicopters for this a easy Target

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 19 December 2017 - 03:35 AM.

[Lugin]

Kaeb Odellas, on 19 December 2017 - 01:50 AM, said:

None of the Battlemech advantages you describe are things only Battlemechs can have. If 1 guy can pilot a highly complex walking robot, then 1 guy should be able to pilot a much simpler tank.

And there's no reason driving a tank should be any less survivable than piloting a Battlemech. Mech pilots are put in big, highly-visible cockpits that are several meters from the ground, while tank crews are entirely surrounded by armor. Sure, mechs have ejection seats, but again, there's no reason a tank can't be outfitted with one as well.

Congratulations, book and page hunting I go.

On crew, from the construction rules:

TechManual, p103 said:

Every Combat Vehicle must have control systems, reflecting cockpits or crew stations from which the vehicle is operated. These control systems provide sensors and basic life support, but do not include ejection systems. The weight these systems take up is equal to 5 percent of the Combat Vehicle’s weight, rounded up to the nearest half-ton (regardless of motive type).

Tractor/trailers: Combat Vehicles built as Trailer units do not require control systems unless they are also expected to operate without a suitable Tractor unit or are expected to employ heavy weapons and equipment while operating independently of a unit with an engine.

Tech Base: Vehicular control systems are standardized and equally available to vehicles of Clan or Inner Sphere tech bases.

Space: Combat Vehicle control systems do not affect the amount of internal equipment space available.

Omnivehicles: As control systems are required for all Combat Vehicle types, their tonnage—once established for the OmniVehicle’s base configuration—may not change between its base, prime or alternate configurations.

Crew: Though not generally tracked in Total Warfare standard rules play, larger Combat Vehicles typically have larger crews. To reflect this, Combat Vehicles are presumed to have 1 crewman for every 15 tons of vehicle weight (or fraction thereof). Combat Vehicles are always assumed to have the crew stations required for all their crew members (including any supplemental crew derived from equipment). Trailer units without engines or heavy weapons and equipment do not require crew.

On survivability:

Total Warfare, p128 said:

DESTROYING A UNIT
Under the specific conditions described below, a unit is considered destroyed. Destroyed units are removed from the map in the end of the phase in which they were destroyed, and have no further effect on game play.

’MECHS
A ´Mech is considered destroyed and out of the game if its MechWarrior dies or the ´Mech suffers three engine hits (remember to count engine slots in the side torso if that torso is destroyed). The destruction of the head, cockpit or center torso has the same effects and renders a ’Mech destroyed.
MechWarrior Survival: The MechWarrior dies when the destruction/loss of the head or cockpit occurs, or if the center torso is destroyed by an ammunition explosion or area-effect weapon. If the center torso is destroyed in any other fashion, the MechWarrior does not automatically die. CASE mounted in the center torso does not protect a MechWarrior from a center torso ammo explosion.

PROTOMECHS
A ProtoMech is considered destroyed and out of the game if its pilot dies or the ProtoMech suffers three critical torso hits. The destruction of the center torso has the same effect. A ProtoMech pilot is killed when the ProtoMech is destroyed.

VEHICLES
A vehicle is considered destroyed and out of the game when all of its internal structure circles in one location (including the turret, if any) are marked off, or when its Critical Hit Effects indicates that it is destroyed. A vehicle’s crew is killed when the vehicle is destroyed.

INFANTRY
Conventional infantry platoons are considered destroyed when all circles in the unit row have been marked off. Battle armor units are destroyed when all circles in each unit member’s row have been marked off.

AEROSPACE UNITS
All aerospace units are considered destroyed and out of the game if their Structural Integrity (SI) is reduced to 0 or if the unit in question is destroyed through a critical hit (see Aerospace Units, p. 234).
If an aerospace unit is destroyed while airborne, it breaks up in the air and so does not crash to the ground, or have any other effects in game play. A pilot/crew is killed if the aerospace unit is destroyed.

Regarding ejection seats:

TechManual, p214 said:

Tech Base: Inner Sphere and Clan

Unit Restrictions: Only IndustrialMechs, Small Support Vehicles and Medium/Large Support Vehicles with a Airship, Fixed-Wing or VTOL motive system may install ejection seats.

Game Rules: Ejection seats have no impact in Total Warfare. Rules for ejection appear in Tactical Operations, p. 196.

Construction Rules: BattleMechs, fighters and Small Craft incorporate ejection systems into their cockpit designs automatically, while DropShips must use escape pods and lifeboats.
Units mounting ejection seats must mount the type intended for their design (Support Vehicle for Support Vehicles; IndustrialMech for IndustrialMechs). The IndustrialMech ejection seat critical slot must be assigned to the unit’s head. Support Vehicle ejection seats take up no equipment slots but must be noted on the unit’s record sheet.

Tanks are not Support Vehicles, nor is their motive system one of those listed.

There is, however the EXPERIMENTAL (read: NON-PRODUCTION) Combat Vehicle Escape Pod:

Tactical Operations, p309 said:

R&D Start Date: 3032 (Federated Commonwealth)

Prototype Design and Production: 3038 (Federated Commonwealth)

A radical concept in Combat Vehicle escape systems, the Combat Vehicle Escape Pod (CVEP) is a cramped, self-sealing mini-cabin built into a vehicle’s rear quarter and used to escape certain destruction in hostile atmospheres. Though it is modeled on the design of the Lyran Commonwealth’s revolutionary full-head ejection system for BattleMechs, the compartmentalized design and segregated control stations of most Combat Vehicles negates much of its value by forcing the vehicle crew to decide on their own when the time has come to employ the emergency egress system, rather than auto-ejecting them to safety in the event of catastrophe. This single flaw has effectively prevented the CVEP from entering full-scale production.

Rules Level: Experimental

Available To: CV

Tech Base (Ratings): Inner Sphere (D/X-X-E)

Game Rules: Only Combat Vehicles may mount a CVEP, which is treated as a weapon item in the rear and may thus be damaged by any weapon critical hits to that location. During the Movement Phase of any turn, the crew of a Combat Vehicle may choose to use the CVEP to escape their vehicle, so long as the system has not been previously damaged. Once launched, the crew makes a Piloting Skill roll with a +2 target modifier. If successful, the pod travels up to 4 hexes (at the controlling players’ choice) directly behind the vehicle, where a standard MechWarrior Ejection roll (see p. 196) with a +2 modifier is required to see if the pod lands safely. A failure on either the launching roll or the landing roll indicates that the ejected crew suffers physical damage from the violent escape, with each failure resulting in a hit to one crewman (determined randomly). Once the pod lands, the crew may step out and make for safety as a conventional foot infantry unit (with a size equal to the surviving crewmen), or—if landed on water or in an otherwise toxic environment—remain in the capsule to await rescue.

Attacks against a jettisoned CVEP may be made as if targeting an immobile unit, in which case the CVEP is considered breached (and its occupants—if any—killed) after sustaining more than 2 points of damage. Once a CVEP is jettisoned (whether successfully or not), the vehicle is considered to have suffered a Crew Killed result and is treated as destroyed for the remainder of the scenario.

Jettisoned CVEPs may not be salvaged and reinstalled once deployed.

There are the applicable rules.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Lugin, on 19 December 2017 - 07:00 PM, said:

Congratulations, book and page hunting I go.

On crew, from the construction rules:


On survivability:


Regarding ejection seats:


Tanks are not Support Vehicles, nor is their motive system one of those listed.

There is, however the EXPERIMENTAL (read: NON-PRODUCTION) Combat Vehicle Escape Pod:


There are the applicable rules.

I'm not talking about the tabletop rules. I think we've already established that the tabletop rules don't make any logical sense. There's no logical reason a mech would be safer for its pilot than a tank, and no reason a mech would be easier to pilot than a tank. The only reason mechs are more powerful than tanks in BT is because BT's arbitrary rules make them so.