80 replies to this topic

[Spheroid]

Koniving, on 29 March 2018 - 08:06 AM, said:

I use them on a single Crab, the hero Crab.

I was able to pull off a Crab versus King Crab against quad AC/5s through cunning and ambush.

However, they are really lacking in a number of departments to really be viable.

A shame they don't go by the original description of LBX, of firing a "Flak-like projectile" that "fragments" after leaving the barrel (presumably, like a flak projectile, after a timed fuse or proximity fuse triggers it to do so). People take the "shotgun" aspect a little too literally. Did it ever occur to anyone else that the LBX's superior accurate range despite "being a shotgun" was a little suspicious? Especially since in the original LBX description in TRO 2750, it is due to an on board targeting system attached to the gun?

What targeting system makes a shotgun more accurate? ....Nothing could.
But what targeting and control system makes a flak weapon system more accurate?
There was a video I had seen on a modern flak projectile and gun that has multiple settings, including "Timed fuse with proximity priority, proximity detonation" and variations of impact priority. With demonstrations of each and it had LBX all over it, as the shell fragments under whichever setting conditions it is given prior to firing and literally "shotguns" the target to death.

They should have never gone with shotgun model. Even ancient MW2 went with the exploding submunitions approach, albeit it was impact fuzed. I say this because Battletech does have a shotgun type weapon in the form of HAGs. Fewer cluster hits were rolled as range increases as a way of simulating dispersion. If and when they add HAGs you end with a similar functioning redundant weapon system.

[Dee Eight]

You're welcome...

[Koniving]

Dee Eight, on 29 March 2018 - 08:43 AM, said:

You're welcome...

Was having tremendous trouble finding it again, as I kept looking up flak rather than trying to look specifically for the BOFORs brand. Thank you.

[Koniving]

Spare Parts Bin, on 29 March 2018 - 04:44 AM, said:

I quit playing Battletech around the time the Clans came out. Loved the BT novels but Clan tech was so much better. I did not want to play against it.

You should have seen the slaughter in King Crab versus Dire Wolf (and other Tabletop battles)
Specifically the Project Phoenix mechs MWO released versus Clan Invasion 1's first four, done in tabletop all stock.

The Clan mechs were slaughtered. In the first combat move the Dire Wolf pulled, after bursting through a building to catch a Battlemaster off guard, the Battlemaster and Shadow Hawk both proceeded to kick the Dire Wolf, destroying all four right leg actuators in a single turn.... from there it was quite pathetic. The Kit Fox did no better. The Nova and Summoner performed admirably, netting a kill each in this four against four, but both were subsequently slaughtered. The Nova passed out from heat exhaustion despite pumping his lasers at 40% power to keep the heat low, due to engine damage and melting heatsinks after losing a side toso,leg and arm (and putting up several minutes of gun and jump resistance before being cornered), achieving a third kill for the Clans along the way (that pilot's second kill).

Their advantages really depend on the situation. Ideally though you would not fight just Mechs against Clan Mechs, you'd take advantage of all the IS had. Satellites, recon sensors, aerotech fighters, tanks, infantry committing grand theft mech, spotters and artillery, etc.

Although just minor level 3 rules really level out the field without the full mixed force. Through armor criticals almost neutralize the advantage of Clan XL engines (3 engine crits = no more mech, and 2 makes them a ticking time bomb due to rapidly melting their heatsinks with the heatsink taxing rule, every time they hit 5 points above what they can cool, they roll to see if they lose a heatsink, with as many as seven rolls as the most I've been personally hit with). Then there's rapid fire ACs, where at a hefty risk any AC can rival a UAC, except there's a chance of it exploding in addition to the permajam risk. Long as the IS gets close enough, the Clan advantages are pretty nil beyond better accuracy and piloting rolls from basic pilots. Even number teams is a bit of a challenge requiring more tactical scheming on the IS side, but if you play to the lore sized teams it really is a fair game.

Edited by Koniving, 29 March 2018 - 09:08 AM.

[Dee Eight]

The Saab CV90 series is my personal fave for tracked AFV families.

This is the vehicle and ammunition demonstration to prospective clients in 1992...



There's also this sales promo video that includes an APFSDS-T hit on the side of a "MBT" tank target...which was actually Soviet T-34-85 by the looks of it, which at least is representative of what some third world countries are still using, but the earlier videos show the tungsten sabot round going thru the equivalent of 140mm RHA plate, which would be enough to go thru the front of a T-34 also. Its enough to defeat the hull sides and turret sides of a T-54/55 and there are thousands of those in service still.

[Throe]

Metus regem, on 27 March 2018 - 01:07 PM, said:

That's been my complaint as well, specifically on the LB-20X, that weapon is so heavily punished for the lack of dual ammo types and crit splitting on top of being a sand blaster weapon...

I've been advocating for the IS LB-20X to be 8 or 9 crits, to make it mountable in arms with LAA or LAA and Hand, with my preference to be 8 crits due to the scatter nature of the shot and how ineffective crit damage really is from low damage weapons like LB sub-munitions.

Then again, I'd also make the HGR 9 crits, but with a new hard point type just for it that could only be found on ST's, just so that we could one day get mechs like the Crusader 8S that use a HGR and isXL engine...

What I hear back from some players is "That's not TRO accurate!" to that I say, neither is MWO!

No. Please don't add more hardpoint restrictions.

[Alex Morgaine]

Put 2 lb5 with 2 erll on a huntsman. Barely any ammo and the er are hot but it did well. Might drop one LL for ammo.

[Throe]

Koniving, on 29 March 2018 - 08:06 AM, said:

What targeting system makes a shotgun more accurate? ....Nothing could.

I'm not really trying to argue against you here, or to point out any problems or complications with any implementation of a weapon in MWO, so don't take this the wrong way. This is just a response to the statement that nothing can make a shotgun more accurate, and is more theory craft than anything related specifically to MWO or the weapons we see in it.

A choke can make a shotgun more accurate. Indeed if we're talking about massive high tech war machines, there's no reason the spread of such a weapon couldn't be adjusted on the fly with a real-time-adjustable-choke to fire a more appropriate spread at any given range. However, there is no choke adjustment that can make a shotgun more accurate beyond a certain rather short range. This does vary based on the size of the shot, the gauge, and the powder load, but it's still never going to be considered a "long range" weapon.

While certainly there are a variety of problems presented by chokes on real life shotguns, I have to imagine that in 1000+ years, such problems would be easily solved or significantly mitigated with enough improvement to design, materials, or mechanical systems.

[Dee Eight]

In point of fact, while we're calling them shotguns... they're in the source material a smooth bore autocannon... they could be firing cannister or flechette shot, programmable pre-fragmented ammunition or proximity fused shells. The lore flavour text says an LB-10X of at least one brand manufactured for the clans was a 150mm caliber. That's a plenty big enough shell that it could also be using guided sub-munitions which are released close to the target (similar to how the starstreak missile system works today, or one of the payload options for the JSOW which have replaced conventional cluster bombs in the US military).

[Zergling]

Dee Eight, on 29 March 2018 - 01:02 PM, said:

In point of fact, while we're calling them shotguns... they're in the source material a smooth bore autocannon...

No, they are clearly rifled weapons in the weapon images:




It's the Ultra Autocannons that are specifically said to be smooth-bore: http://www.sarna.net...ltra_Autocannon

Quote

the result was a weapon that resembled a normal autocannon - with a shorter, smooth-bore barrel - but had a superior effective range compared to standard AC/5s or LRMs and could operate at either normal or double the rate of fire.^[1][3]

Easy mistake to make though; I made it a bunch of times before I finally noticed.

Edited by Zergling, 29 March 2018 - 01:22 PM.

[Spheroid]

@Dee: The official art shows them with rifle banding.



We don't know how most autocannons are built, but generally the UACs are fluffed as smoothbore in text. I know not what construcion standard autocannons follow. In real life the British 120mm Challenger gun does have a longer effective range then the M1A1 smoothbore.

That is real life though, Battletech fluffs the range as attributable better firecontrol. Then again a UAC-5 outperforms an AC-5.

[Johnny Z]

ShiverMeRivets, on 28 March 2018 - 04:48 AM, said:

While we're are on the subject of small LBXs, why does the LBX2 take 4 critical slots, while the AC2 take only 1?
Is it so much better that it needs some penalty? Crit seeking is good, but AC2 get a (smaller) bonus too.

First thing I noticed is how bad the stats are on these.

[Koniving]

Throe, on 29 March 2018 - 11:24 AM, said:

I'm not really trying to argue against you here, or to point out any problems or complications with any implementation of a weapon in MWO, so don't take this the wrong way. This is just a response to the statement that nothing can make a shotgun more accurate, and is more theory craft than anything related specifically to MWO or the weapons we see in it.

A choke can make a shotgun more accurate. Indeed if we're talking about massive high tech war machines, there's no reason the spread of such a weapon couldn't be adjusted on the fly with a real-time-adjustable-choke to fire a more appropriate spread at any given range. However, there is no choke adjustment that can make a shotgun more accurate beyond a certain rather short range. This does vary based on the size of the shot, the gauge, and the powder load, but it's still never going to be considered a "long range" weapon.

While certainly there are a variety of problems presented by chokes on real life shotguns, I have to imagine that in 1000+ years, such problems would be easily solved or significantly mitigated with enough improvement to design, materials, or mechanical systems.

An interesting concept.
Though an adjustable choke, machine controlled based on range, considering what is expressly written as explosive fragments or "Cluster bombs"... is terrifying to think of how that would turn out.

[Koniving]

Spheroid, on 29 March 2018 - 01:22 PM, said:

@Dee: The official art shows them with rifle banding.



We don't know how most autocannons are built, but generally the UACs are fluffed as smoothbore in text. I know not what construcion standard autocannons follow. In real life the British 120mm Challenger gun does have a longer effective range then the M1A1 smoothbore.

That is real life though, Battletech fluffs the range as attributable better firecontrol. Then again a UAC-5 outperforms an AC-5.

It largely depends on autocannon. (The same fluff that says a UAC/5 outperforms an AC/5 in terms of range also states that they are generally smaller shots, too.)
"Being of a lower caliber"
Now this said, my caliber listings taken from numerous novels actually show that in terms of girth, that is actually false and often they have similar calibers. But caliber isn't just girth, it is also the length of the shell. As such the shells could be shorter.

The "accurate range" isn't the maximum range (which is expressly stated to be outwards of 2,000 meters), but the general expected effective range in the hands of your average gunner against a target of approximately 12 meters in size (height, length/width/whatever) in battlefield conditions. (BattleTechnology had the sniper rule which allowed you to extend your accurate range to twice, even three times range under the condition of being stationary and 'aiming' for 1 to 2 turns before firing, MaxTech simplified this to a simple unlockable pilot/gunner trait that just doubled the available range of any weapons in use at any time).

As such, a shorter bullet -- while realistically hurting the maximum potential range -- could factor in other aspects such as reduced recoil/kickback, spread, etc. of firing in order to allow for a tighter shot group to achieve a longer "effective" accurate range.

But back to autocannons...
There's actually numerous variations to standard ACs, with the most notable extreme being the Chemjet Gun, which is an AC/20 that uses chemical injection to fire its large 185mm shells EITHER directly at the target OR up and over obstacles like a mortar. (There's no official rule to encompass this, its purely fluff and used in novels as a sort of edge for this 'Mech Killer').
As such, though, it is pretty appearant there's no "one clear answer" for how they are. Much like an Assault Rifle could be anything from an M16, to a SCAR-L, to an M416, to an AK-47, AK-74, AN-94, G36, L85 (Love this gun btw), etc.. Okay those are pretty similar feed wise so lets look at SMGs. Like the SMG could be an MP5, MP7, UMP-45, P90 or my personal favorite, the M960, and feed differently enough that a blanket statement can't cover them all.

Much like traditional tank cannons can be smoothbore or rifled (and yes, rifled ones still exist) or how some feature muzzle breaks and some don't.

Takes 5:45 of "This has it, but this doesn't, this does, this doesn't, these two have the same gun and yet here's one but not there, etc.." Before he gets into why it exists and what it does, why they use it and why they don't use it.

At a certain point many modern tanks are shown, of them only the British Challenger appears to have a rifled barrel. A bit of a curiosity, though understandable depending on the ammo being used.

[Dee Eight]

The british still use rifled barrels because they prefer HESH to HEAT, and HESH works better when the projectile is spun (both for accuracy and effect of how it operates).

Muzzle brakes are used to tame the recoil effects, and typically are used to allow larger guns to be fitted to lighter AFV's and Tanks than could otherwise safely use it. Structurally safe to use it that is. An M1A1 weighs north of 60 tons, and doesn't need a muzzle brake to tame the recoil of its 120mm gun. A 8x8 LAV on the other hand is only about 20 tons, and DOES need a muzzle brake for the various tank guns it could be equipped with (either the external weapon station 105mm as on the US ARmy's M1128 Stryker MGS or the two-man turret with 105mm and 120mm options from Cockerill as the Saudi National guard are getting on their new LAVs they're buying from GDLS-Canada).

Edited by Dee Eight, 29 March 2018 - 05:59 PM.

[Zergling]

Dee Eight, on 29 March 2018 - 05:59 PM, said:

The british still use rifled barrels because they prefer HESH to HEAT, and HESH works better when the projectile is spun (both for accuracy and effect of how it operates).

Yep, although the British are aware of the drawbacks of a rifled gun though in terms of kinetic energy perpetrator performance (along with the fact HESH is kinda useless against composite armoured targets), and actually do want to swap to a smoothbore gun, but budget constraints have prevented them from doing so.

Edited by Zergling, 29 March 2018 - 06:31 PM.

[Dee Eight]

HEAT is kinda useless against composite armored targets also though, so they're really not improving matters going to a smooth bore in that regards.

[Zergling]

Dee Eight, on 29 March 2018 - 08:15 PM, said:

HEAT is kinda useless against composite armored targets also though, so they're really not improving matters going to a smooth bore in that regards.

Smoothbore tank guns aren't for HEAT; that's a bit of a myth.

The reason is to do with long-rod kinetic energy perpetrators. Basically, longer (and thinner) projectiles are desirable for KE penetration, but beyond a certain length/diameter ratio, they can't be stabilised by spinning them with rifling anymore; fins are required (resulting in armor-piercing-fin-stabilised-discarding-sabot ammunition).

While projectiles above that length/diameter limit can be fired from rifled guns, it requires a sort of 'sleeve' on the ammunition to prevent it from engaging with the rifling and spinning.
Further, the rifling increases barrel friction, reducing the potential muzzle velocity.

So for APFSDS ammunition penetration (which is the primary tank-killing weapon for these sorts of guns), rifling isn't just unnecessary but actually counterproductive.


And the 120mm L30 gun used by the Challenger 2 is further handicapped by it using two-piece ammunition, which limits potential projectile length.
The combination of those two handicaps means that, in terms of armor penetration, the L30 is probably the worst performing gun used by a modern MBT.

Although to be fair, the two-piece ammunition handicap is by far the worst of the two handicaps; the 105mm L7/M68 gun is rifled too, and for its caliber it is an excellent performer.
Hell, with M900 APFSDS the 105mm's penetration is only barely behind that of the 120mm L30 with its best APFSDS ammunition, the L27 CHARM 3.

Edited by Zergling, 29 March 2018 - 09:43 PM.

[PAYWALL]

The only LBX5 build i used with some success is the 4xLBX5 black widow. It has very narrow spread and you can land very fast many "lbx 20" slugs.

[Dee Eight]

Watch the chieftain's hatch video on the chieftain MBT.. he explains why they use two-piece ammunition (its actually 3 if you count the primer cartridge).