950 replies to this topic

[KalebFenoir]

They can still build freaking trans-dimensional warp engines to travel between stars, but can't build a targetting system for a battlemech that doesn't weigh more than a ton and take up possibly up to half a torso's space depending on how many weapons it integrates. Makes you wonder how big the 'computer' rooms on those Jumpships are. I'm thinking a football field long, with the calculating power of today's laptops. After all, they have to calculate all sorts of dimensional physics and calculate whether or not they'll pull a Han Solo's Warning by accident. ("A little too close to a black hole...")

[Kaziganthi]

KalebFenoir, on 13 February 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

They can still build freaking trans-dimensional warp engines to travel between stars, but can't build a targetting system for a battlemech that doesn't weigh more than a ton and take up possibly up to half a torso's space depending on how many weapons it integrates. Makes you wonder how big the 'computer' rooms on those Jumpships are. I'm thinking a football field long, with the calculating power of today's laptops. After all, they have to calculate all sorts of dimensional physics and calculate whether or not they'll pull a Han Solo's Warning by accident. ("A little too close to a black hole...")

Have you actually looked in your jumpship and dropship handbook. An Overlord class dropship can carry 36 mechs plus extra payload. The smallest jumpship can take 1 of these and the docking ring is about 1/5 of the run of the ship. The entire centre of the ship is a big battery running its length, so regardless if it was a footbal field in size for the computer, they'd have the room.

[Melcyna]

You could technically assume that the computer is the size and mass of the JUMPSHIP itself and it still wouldn't made sense
to give an idea of the difference in complexity and size/weight we're talking here,

On one end we have:

1. Fire control computer to direct and aim weapons on the mech on a combat ranging at sub 1KM distance

it doesn't even give lead calculation, just plain gun director (you can barely call the device you use to direct the gun in this manner a fire control computer) and to do so at distance so short and trivial it's practically point blank for vehicle guns.

and this weighs measured in TONs

And on the other end:

2. A computer for calculating jump across light years of distance involving variables directly tied with the space objects gravitational field and constants

If we are to scale the two together using the mech fire control computer as the base unit, the jumpship computer would be of size and mass unmeasurable and impossible to construct due to the size and calculation complexity needed

And just to indicate how ludicrous this sense of scale is compared to ours:

in early 20th century, from around 1910 or so we had ANALOG computers or more specifically electromechanical analog computers which in WW2 were capable of doing things like controlling gun turrets and assisting the gunner by providing him with the gunnery solution based on estimated range (which the gunner estimate using his gunsight mechanism), windspeed, gravity, and angle ... and thus provides him with the necessary lead and aim point where he should aim to hit his intended target

it can do all this, and allowed bombers like B-29 the ability to have the gunners link multiple turrets at once and slave them to his gunsight aim with each turret having the correct adjustment taking into account all the above

and it weighs? 50lbls...

A WW2 computer.. electromechanical ANALOG computer does more than a BT mech fire control computer, the analog WW2 computer giving the gunner ACTUAL gunnery solution to hit a moving target (and one of the fastest and most difficult to hit target too... fighter aircraft) and it weighs a mere 50lbls

[Brenden]

[UnseenFury]

Spoiler

Zakatak, on 08 October 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure that is divine intervention.

Not sure why God would help a bunch of killers and mercs though.

Browncoat that believes in God? Ow..

[Mutuh]

-In the future, a hula girl accessory costs more than several tons of ammunition.

[Elder Thorn]

Quietly Crazy, on 03 August 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

-The Magistracy of Canopus. Legalized prostitution/sex tourism runs their economy. And this is from a society that is ruled by women.

i don't see a problem here, tbh

[Brenden]

-Catapults don't have the same problem Javilins have.

[SlimJim8519]

Ok, how about the environmental issue:

Like, think about whatkind of exotic materials, gasses and other toxic and harmful substances those battlemechs will be carrying inside of them, like normal engine fluids, coolant agents, anti-corrosion...fluids?, heavy metals, and things I cannot even fathom right now (not to mention things like possibly? uranium depleted shells and friggin' fusion reactor!) to make all those lasers and fancy systems to work.

Or guess they run with just a tad of vaseline into joint sprockets once every month.
And what will happen after the battle: isn't the whole battlefield rendered into wasteland dotted by radiated mech wrecks, leaking poisonous substances into soil, and into groundwater and into local flora & fauna? I can imagine what a lovely neighbourhood will it be after heavy cityfight and the battle has moved somewhere else.

Atleast the heaviest battlefields could be imagined to be most inhospitable places for years to come.

[Melcyna]

SlimJim8519, on 17 February 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

Ok, how about the environmental issue:

Like, think about whatkind of exotic materials, gasses and other toxic and harmful substances those battlemechs will be carrying inside of them, like normal engine fluids, coolant agents, anti-corrosion...fluids?, heavy metals, and things I cannot even fathom right now (not to mention things like possibly? uranium depleted shells and friggin' fusion reactor!) to make all those lasers and fancy systems to work.

Or guess they run with just a tad of vaseline into joint sprockets once every month.
And what will happen after the battle: isn't the whole battlefield rendered into wasteland dotted by radiated mech wrecks, leaking poisonous substances into soil, and into groundwater and into local flora & fauna? I can imagine what a lovely neighbourhood will it be after heavy cityfight and the battle has moved somewhere else.

Atleast the heaviest battlefields could be imagined to be most inhospitable places for years to come.

In this they have slightly a bit more credence because they are pretty much fusion reactor based which unlike the fission reactors are not fueled with highly radioactive fuel nor does it produce one through it's primary reaction (in direct contrast to fission reaction, fusion reaction at least the ones we know of anyway with available fuels right now do not produce radioactive material waste directly from the reaction)

which is not to say they don't generate large amount of radiation while operating, or that they don't generate radioactive waste (the massive amount of neutrons generated can irradiate whatever material is used to absorb them, so while it may not directly create radioactive waste through the reaction, it CAN produce one depending on what is used to absorb them) but unlike a fission reaction the end result is much less radioactive overall (taking into account that it's low level waste decays very quickly compared to the fission waste which remains radioactive for a VERY long time)

it's part of the whole point why ppl want to move towards fusion reaction as far as nuclear power is concerned if at all possible and why it's considered much cleaner overall than the fission reaction (except we're still having serious trouble getting existing design to generate more power than it consumes to start and maintain it in the first place, so we still have a LONG way to go with fusion tech)

Edited by Melcyna, 17 February 2013 - 11:19 PM.

[Jay Kerensky]

Ridiculous fact:

This thread is longer than my attention span.

I may have alzheimers, but at least I don't have alzheimers!

[Mishatron]

- Even though your theatre of war is an entire planet, it is considered more valuable to have a few dozen barely mobile High Value Targets than a few thousand tanks or aircraft.

[BrianLocke]

Ok I want to address several issues I have seen posted over and over here.

Armor: The armor on battlemechs is destroyed when hit. This is called ablation. Modern body armor uses this in the ceramic inserts that absorb the energy of bullets by disintegrating. The energy incoming is expended in the destruction of that armor, preventing any from passing through.

Targeting of energy weapons: Lasers have focal lengths, limiting their effective ranges. At longer ranges the beam begins to diverge and loses energy density, The atmosphere it passes through also causes the beam to diverge and absorbs some of the energy. PPCs fire beams of charged particles, essentially lightning at the target, again the atmosphere plays a role in degrading and de-focusing the beam. Add into the fact that the Mech is moving, bouncing, and jostling the laser as it is fired then you begin to see the problem keeping it on target.

Ranges of Autocannons: Unlike the way they are showed in game, Autocannons, don't fire a single bullet, but a stream of high explosive rounds. The bigger the AC, the bigger the rounds being fired, and the greater the recoil, so keeping them on target at longer ranges becomes problematic. Therefore an AC20 has only a 270m range while an AC2 has a very long range.

Missiles: SRMs are unguided so they are direct fire, at longer ranges they disperse and don't hit anything of significance. LRMs are guided but with a limited guidance to keep weight down and increase warhead damage. Larger single missiles exist in game called thunderbolts I believe, but with the advent of AMS systems, they became easily defeatable.

Finally, it's a game, in order to make it fun, they had to place arbitrary limits, and remember it was created in the mid 80's before many of the computers and technology we use every day were anywhere near as capable as they are now.

[Skylarr]

BrianLocke, on 20 February 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

Ok I want to address several issues I have seen posted over and over here.

Finally, it's a game, in order to make it fun, they had to place arbitrary limits, and remember it was created in the mid 80's before many of the computers and technology we use every day were anywhere near as capable as they are now.

I am glad to see that there is someone who understands why things are the way they are in BattleTech. It was designed as a strategy TT game. I am sure we all could sit here and discuss why there are limits. But, no people want to complain that they cannot fire at an enemy many miles away and kill it in one shot.

[Melcyna]

Which is natural actually when you try to mix things with reality because that is the objective in any real military which is to say to eliminate the opposing force as efficiently as possible (ie: preferably with the earliest possible attempt to eliminate the possibility of a counter attack that will cause damage at you), this applies to everything including ground warfare, air, sea and space (our theoretical space engagement is based on the same principle)

of course the problem is in mixing a game designed by normal ppl (ie: non military or even knowledgeable with basic military concept) for normal ppl with point of view of real world military which normal ppl don't really understand.

BrianLocke, on 20 February 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

Ok I want to address several issues I have seen posted over and over here.

Armor: The armor on battlemechs is destroyed when hit. This is called ablation. Modern body armor uses this in the ceramic inserts that absorb the energy of bullets by disintegrating. The energy incoming is expended in the destruction of that armor, preventing any from passing through.

Spoiler

Unfortunately this ignores the reasoning of why ablation is used in the first place and why it is not used elsewhere

Ablation armor method is a COMPROMISE, a compromise of space for weight primarily... and resilience as well for that weight (since they lose effectiveness as they stop the threat and thus becomes useless afterwards), which incidentally also brings to bear a lot of different question... for example how exactly is BT armor supposed to ablate properly when it's so thin, a modern body armor for example has ceramic plate which is quite thick partly in order to facilitate ablation in the first place... but you can't really do so (especially against physical projectile) when you have no thickness and thus mass of armor to ablate from in the first place.

make no mistake, if we could armor our soldier with sufficient armor to stop incoming ballistic threat without ablation method WE WOULD DO SO, because such armor would be capable of withstanding numerous hits without losing it's integrity which means the soldier (until incapacitated) can remain combat effective despite sustaining repeated hits.

in reality we do not have the capability to armor a soldier with such degree of protection for the most part since the weight becomes prohibitive and will render the soldier non combat effective.

SO, we sacrifice space (the ablative plates used in body armor is quite thick despite their weight) and resilience (the plates shatter after sustaining one or several direct hits from rifle rounds, early SAPI plates shatter after just 1 direct hit, later ones can sustain several) for an armor that is somewhat light enough (actually it's still pretty heavy) that a soldier can remain mobile.

In any situation where we can afford the space and weight allocation, a NON ablative armor is obviously preferable

But this is particularly true in gun protection with vehicles since deflection is one of the primary method in which one can stop a ballistic threat from killing you WITHOUT actually needing to stop the ballistic projectile completely, but deflection doesn't really work with ablative armor method. You want deflection since it cost a LOT less energy and thus armor strength to deflect a projectile (we don't really care where the projectile goes after deflected really as far as the armor is concerned as long as it's away from the protected vehicle) than it is to STOP it completely

in BT however, for some reason ablative armor is illogically physically SUPERIOR to any other armor they had which makes no sense as dispersing or deflecting incoming threat and energy is ALWAYS preferable since it's more energy efficient than stopping it completely.

BrianLocke, on 20 February 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

Targeting of energy weapons: Lasers have focal lengths, limiting their effective ranges. At longer ranges the beam begins to diverge and loses energy density, The atmosphere it passes through also causes the beam to diverge and absorbs some of the energy. PPCs fire beams of charged particles, essentially lightning at the target, again the atmosphere plays a role in degrading and de-focusing the beam. Add into the fact that the Mech is moving, bouncing, and jostling the laser as it is fired then you begin to see the problem keeping it on target.

Spoiler

Which is why the laser would be fired in milli or nano second length pulse (this is how real military laser is applied, and ironically in BT lore the laser is also fired in a time window so short it's practically instant), no matter how much the mech may move it pales in comparison to the laser's illumination period

within that tiny fraction of a second, the targeted spot is practically stationary for all intent and purpose even if the mech moves twice or three times faster than they could in the lore.

BrianLocke, on 20 February 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

Ranges of Autocannons: Unlike the way they are showed in game, Autocannons, don't fire a single bullet, but a stream of high explosive rounds. The bigger the AC, the bigger the rounds being fired, and the greater the recoil, so keeping them on target at longer ranges becomes problematic. Therefore an AC20 has only a 270m range while an AC2 has a very long range.

Spoiler

This unfortunately creates more illogical problem than answers.

If the recoil is bigger then the question becomes WHY mount it on such unstable platform in the first place

and if so then why is the vehicle mounted or static mounted AC not have more range (answer: gameplay balance) since physically anything more stable than a walking platform ie: EVERYTHING on the ground not mech really would be capable of a more stable shot of the AC than the mech which logically means an AC-20 mounted on a stationary gun should be capable of fully accurate shot up to whatever maximum range the shell's effective propellant is.

This also means that you are throwing LOTS of AC-20 shells missing along the way over it's maximum range to account for the damage you lost, in the lore this is never really discussed of course but to give an idea:

if the shell is supposed to be able to maintain lethal velocity up to 600m for example (where AC-20 can still damage a mech) but lost more than half of the damage potential, then more than half of the AC-20 shells being streamed out MISSED and is now heading SOMEWHERE (physical projectile don't just vanish or lose their energy into thin air) so even if they don't follow the original path they are supposed to be still carrying enough energy to damage a mech

One can see how this reasoning of AC range limitation becomes a problem in a game, based on the idea that larger AC caliber have more recoil and thus inaccurate over longer range this doesn't mean the shells that missed simply vanished and only smaller amount hits the target, this basically means they SPRAYED the whole area like a hose with AC shells which means for any given AC caliber and range, they would have to behave like a shotgun over their maximum range and the damage wouldn't be localized to a specific spot like a single shell either.

BrianLocke, on 20 February 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

Missiles: SRMs are unguided so they are direct fire, at longer ranges they disperse and don't hit anything of significance. LRMs are guided but with a limited guidance to keep weight down and increase warhead damage. Larger single missiles exist in game called thunderbolts I believe, but with the advent of AMS systems, they became easily defeatable.

Spoiler

hint: unguided doesn't mean unstabilized (SRM in BT behaves like drunken missile really, well actually all their missiles behave like one and being unguided they technically shouldn't be called a missile in the first place since the definition of a missile means guided)

dumb fire rockets can be stabilized, that is to say when fired, these rockets will attempt to maintain their heading (as they were fired) and continue in this direction to the best of it's ability

they are not guided, they simply are maintaining the path they were set when they were released

in the real world, we do this with the century old gyroscope among others (a tech so basic and simple yet apparently lost in BT), which can remain accurate enough to be fired at targets multi kilometers away (our heli gunships are quite adept at doing this)

BrianLocke, on 20 February 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

Finally, it's a game, in order to make it fun, they had to place arbitrary limits, and remember it was created in the mid 80's before many of the computers and technology we use every day were anywhere near as capable as they are now.

Spoiler

Even by 80s standard, BT is FAR backward

the real answer is that arbitrary limits COMMON to average joe of the time was used, that is to say if we take what an average joe would know about physics (answer: not much if any at all), or how war is waged (same thing), or how politic works out (no jokes about american geography please) we'll come up with the lore BT had.

By 1980s standard, pretty much everything in BT makes no sense be it computer tech, weapon tech, and what not (as i said before, as early as WW2, we had SUPERIOR gunnery computer weighing a fraction of BT's mech targeting computer)

Don't get me wrong, it's just a game and we can enjoy it fine as a game

But don't mix BT with real world by trying to justify it, because it will NEVER work, BT doesn't use a sensible logic with real world concept be it in tech, warfare, or anything else

and as a game it's FINE as long as we don't try and justify it, but the moment you do try to justify it then it just becomes silly.

Edited by Melcyna, 25 February 2013 - 06:03 AM.

[KalebFenoir]

Melcyna, on 24 February 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

in BT however, for some reason ablative armor is illogically physically SUPERIOR to any other armor they had which makes no sense as dispersing or deflecting incoming threat and energy is ALWAYS preferable since it's more energy efficient than stopping it completely.

Perhaps that's because in the BT universe, of all the myriad armour-types to have been developed and survive the Succession Wars and the fall of the Star League and all the other horrible catastrophes that happened along the way, Ablative armour was the only one the designs were kept intact for, or perhaps it's simply easier to make the stuff than any of the more advanced armour? As for the thinness of the armour on a battlemech, I always thought that it was the same thickness as a standard modern tank's armour. But if you believe it's thinner, then suspend disbelief and blame it on 'new alloys and ceramics from the FUTURE.'

Melcyna, on 24 February 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

Which is why the laser would be fired in milli or nano second length pulse (this is how real military laser is applied, and ironically in BT lore the laser is also fired in a time window so short it's practically instant), no matter how much the mech may move it pales in comparison to the laser's illumination period

within that tiny fraction of a second, the targeted spot is practically stationary for all intent and purpose even if the mech moves twice or three times faster than they could in the lore.

While this is true about military lasers, you gotta remember that the lasers used in BT, and probably are being developed by the military are HETlasers in all honest. High Energy Thermal lasers. Quite different from regular light lasers. To generate a HETlaser of the sizes needed on a battlemech, or to burn missiles out of the air in modern times, the laser actually does need a few seconds of solid contact to build enough heat to hurt. If you want to, look up those anti-missile laser tests they do for the military, and watch how long it takes to destroy a moving missile with one. You might be surprised that it even takes a full second or two. I think the one they're working on is the ADAM HELaser.
Lasers are also only as good as their targetting arrays. A pinpoint laser is only good if you can bring it on target. We can shoot down missiles right now, but not by hand; it's all computer controlled. In BT, the closest you get to computer controlled is slaving the lasers targetting to your own crosshairs, which means YOU are the targetting computer, and the mech's computer is just adapting your movements to where the laser is aimed. The BT Targetting Computer equipment is basically a large version of the anti-shake camera zoom focussing on your phone or digital camera, writ-large. It enables the targetting to maintain a basic lock even if YOU as the pilot, and main focussing unit, cannot.

Melcyna, on 24 February 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

This unfortunately creates more illogical problem than answers.

If the recoil is bigger then the question becomes WHY mount it on such unstable platform in the first place

and if so then why is the vehicle mounted or static mounted AC not have more range (answer: gameplay balance) since physically anything more stable than a walking platform ie: EVERYTHING on the ground not mech really would be capable of a more stable shot of the AC than the mech which logically means an AC-20 mounted on a stationary gun should be capable of fully accurate shot up to whatever maximum range the shell's effective propellant is.

This also means that you are throwing LOTS of AC-20 shells missing along the way over it's maximum range to account for the damage you lost, in the lore this is never really discussed of course but to give an idea:

if the shell is supposed to be able to maintain lethal velocity up to 600m for example (where AC-20 can still damage a mech) but lost more than half of the damage potential, then more than half of the AC-20 shells being streamed out MISSED and is now heading SOMEWHERE (physical projectile don't just vanish or lose their energy into thin air) so even if they don't follow the original path they are supposed to be still carrying enough energy to damage a mech

One can see how this reasoning of AC range limitation becomes a problem in a game, based on the idea that larger AC caliber have more recoil and thus inaccurate over longer range this doesn't mean the shells that missed simply vanished and only smaller amount hits the target, this basically means they SPRAYED the whole area like a hose with AC shells which means for any given AC caliber and range, they would have to behave like a shotgun over their maximum range and the damage wouldn't be localized to a specific spot like a single shell either.

I've never believed that the ACs were single-shot semi-automatic pistols (big *** ones) for mechs. With the exception of the LB-X, Ultras and Rotary, and some designs of AC-20, I've always assumed that the ACs fired like actual autocannons; kind of like machineguns, but a notch slower, with way heavier shells. I even remember watching footage of a german strike plane from WWII, one that had 'auto-cannons' mounted on the wings, to see how they fired. The 'auto' in auto-cannon just meant that the gun was mechanically fed, rather than manually loaded like traditional cannons were. So in that sense, the ACs in the game and in BT are 'correct'.

I had an arguement with one of my buddies in a match with optional rules, where we were debating whether or not an AC spread a stream of shells, like in the novels, or a single big shell like in the current MWO. We finally decided to relegate it to 'if you look at a mech design, and it looks like it should fire rapidly, instead of burp-shots, then that's what it does.' It's the only way we could rectify how the Hunchback must look when it fires, as opposed to something like the Kraken. Depending on the design of the gun itself, the style-of-fire is different.

We decided not to deal with the issue of 'lost shells', partly on the basis that it caused a headache, but also because, if the AC fired like a slow machinegun, the pilot could hold the trigger down until the computer said 'enough' and killed his feed till it cooled a bit. He could put out a load of shells, and maybe enough of them hit target, since they are all straight-line weapons. It's not very realistic, but the alternative is to consider the rules for ACs like the rules for SRM and LRMs; cluster into five points, distribute, and don't argue.

Melcyna, on 24 February 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong, it's just a game and we can enjoy it fine as a game

But don't mix BT with real world by trying to justify it, because it will NEVER work, BT doesn't use a sensible logic with real world concept be it in tech, warfare, or anything else

and as a game it's FINE as long as we don't try and justify it, but the moment you do try to justify it then it just becomes silly.

Thank you, that's the best thing I've heard so far. This topic was supposed to be about 'ridiculous battletech facts' as a joke, but way too many people (including myself I must admit in some cases when the comments posted are just idiotic), take it too seriously. Justifying their tech level in BT is hard, given what we have now, as opposed to what we had in the 80s. So it shouldn't be done. I seriously wish people would stop posting the 'We have this now, but they don't have it then, wtf it'd make it so much better if they did' posts. Those people do not understand the humor of the topic.

[Melcyna]

KalebFenoir, on 25 February 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

Perhaps that's because in the BT universe, of all the myriad armour-types to have been developed and survive the Succession Wars and the fall of the Star League and all the other horrible catastrophes that happened along the way, Ablative armour was the only one the designs were kept intact for, or perhaps it's simply easier to make the stuff than any of the more advanced armour? As for the thinness of the armour on a battlemech, I always thought that it was the same thickness as a standard modern tank's armour. But if you believe it's thinner, then suspend disbelief and blame it on 'new alloys and ceramics from the FUTURE.'

Spoiler

Thing is, they are not technically more advanced, basic armor concept like deflection and angling to maximize it's effectiveness, is some of the oldest knowledge of armor known to man used since middle ages (where they reached the height of knight's armor design), we can't quite say that ablative armor is simpler to make for example because the very concept of ablation armor method makes them more difficult to construct than rigid armor...

Unlike normal armor where you simply defeat the incoming threat by having more thickness and mass than the threat has energy to spend to punch through the armor (and deflection or dispersion comes into play as a method for bleeding off as much energy the threat have as possible with the least amount of expenditure on the armor), ablative armor has to actually defeat the incoming threat energy by ablating, be it by collapsing itself, or by disintegrating or otherwise changing it's state or actively counter the process in which the incoming threat is applying it's energy.

By the very virtue of it's mechanism, ablative armor is FAR more complex and difficult to construct (and thus more expensive) than regular armor, that they can construct it, and not rigid armor essentially would make no sense (and we don't try to make sense of it since... well they don't)

KalebFenoir, on 25 February 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

While this is true about military lasers, you gotta remember that the lasers used in BT, and probably are being developed by the military are HETlasers in all honest. High Energy Thermal lasers. Quite different from regular light lasers. To generate a HETlaser of the sizes needed on a battlemech, or to burn missiles out of the air in modern times, the laser actually does need a few seconds of solid contact to build enough heat to hurt. If you want to, look up those anti-missile laser tests they do for the military, and watch how long it takes to destroy a moving missile with one. You might be surprised that it even takes a full second or two. I think the one they're working on is the ADAM HELaser.
Lasers are also only as good as their targetting arrays. A pinpoint laser is only good if you can bring it on target. We can shoot down missiles right now, but not by hand; it's all computer controlled. In BT, the closest you get to computer controlled is slaving the lasers targetting to your own crosshairs, which means YOU are the targetting computer, and the mech's computer is just adapting your movements to where the laser is aimed. The BT Targetting Computer equipment is basically a large version of the anti-shake camera zoom focussing on your phone or digital camera, writ-large. It enables the targetting to maintain a basic lock even if YOU as the pilot, and main focussing unit, cannot.

Spoiler

True on the THEL, but the thing is this

Those military lasers? they were firing at mortar, missiles, artillery shells... each of which are traveling at speed fast enough that no human can quite exactly shoot them, not to mention that shells and missiles often spin as they fly through the sky (in shells often the result of rifling on the barrel) in some missiles, they rotate normally as a method to induce stability (especially crucial in the case of high velocity missiles)

by contrast, these mech are traveling at speed a tiny fraction of them and are moving positively lazy in comparison to how much rotation shells and missiles make in flight.

And the funny thing of course is that while BT mech targeting computer is incredibly primitive, those things you mentioned incidentally is what we call stabilization or gyro stabilization (because they are usually done with a gyro function mechanically), they DO have an AMS and their AMS can track their missiles (though at extremely short range in comparison to us)

So we have an odd scenario here where they got the most primitive targeting computer ever (it's a gun director and stabilizer, that's it, no gunnery targeting assist whatsoever), but their AMS obviously had the capability to lock and track moderately fast small objects (BT missiles are so incredibly slow, we had a joke that some of their larger missiles must had helium balloon inside it to remain aloft despite the slow speed and non existent flight surface)

Yeah, we don't really try to make sense of the whole deal since it's rather obvious we can't...

KalebFenoir, on 25 February 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

I've never believed that the ACs were single-shot semi-automatic pistols (big *** ones) for mechs. With the exception of the LB-X, Ultras and Rotary, and some designs of AC-20, I've always assumed that the ACs fired like actual autocannons; kind of like machineguns, but a notch slower, with way heavier shells. I even remember watching footage of a german strike plane from WWII, one that had 'auto-cannons' mounted on the wings, to see how they fired. The 'auto' in auto-cannon just meant that the gun was mechanically fed, rather than manually loaded like traditional cannons were. So in that sense, the ACs in the game and in BT are 'correct'.

Spoiler

Note: autocannon means JUST THAT, automatic cannon...

so from definition point of view BT autocannon firing single or multiple shells in a stream at once per shot was never a problem ie: as far as autocannon is concerned it makes no real difference though in our world we don't normally refer to large guns with autoloaders as autocannon, because all that matters is that they all have mechanism to load the next shells themselves in the firing cycle and thus requires no manual loading between each shells by the user which is given since we don't exactly expect mechwarriors to load their AC shells manually.

The issue between whether it's single or multiple shells firing rapidly only becomes a problem when one tries to justify it with physics, especially to explain it's incredibly short range with recoil because regardless of whether it's single or multiple shells fired rapidly... BT autocannon DEFIES physics convention either way for different reason.

We know this of course (BT? Physics? hahaha... right, anyway) but once in a while you get ppl who with their limited knowledge of one tries to justify it and then you get the whole furball (and i am ABSOLUTELY delighted at picking them off and pointing out every single physics error on the way, i do enjoy this a tad too much at times)

incidentally what you are referring with "german strike plane" is probably the Stuka mounting a 37mm Bordkanone (not the largest autocannon mounted on airplane mind you even for WW2 era), those 37mm autocannon actually can fire quite fast, however the Stuka pilot only has 12 shells on each gun, he CANNOT afford to miss because missing means likely he will end up returning empty handed with no kill, so he has to make EVERY shell count but it only takes a SINGLE hit on his target from good angle for him to do the job, if they wanted to... those 37mm autocannon can be fired in full rate of fire like the ground version (and it was pretty fast at 160 rpm)... just don't expect them to hit the pilot's target.

All aircraft cannons with the exception of the massive 75mm cannon that were experimented upon on bombers, or the gunships which carried a howitzer or mortar in the case of modern spectre gunships, are obviously autocannon since the pilot can't go out and load their cannon in flight, so the cannons had to be capable of self contained operation until the ammunition storage on it is expended.

KalebFenoir, on 25 February 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

We decided not to deal with the issue of 'lost shells', partly on the basis that it caused a headache, but also because, if the AC fired like a slow machinegun, the pilot could hold the trigger down until the computer said 'enough' and killed his feed till it cooled a bit. He could put out a load of shells, and maybe enough of them hit target, since they are all straight-line weapons. It's not very realistic, but the alternative is to consider the rules for ACs like the rules for SRM and LRMs; cluster into five points, distribute, and don't argue.

Spoiler

Ironically? in MW3 that's exactly what they did... ACs fired a stream of shells
And 'gyro overload' abuse aside, it's pretty much what one expect... in effect.

Is it realistic? strictly speaking, all our autocannon are used in short bursts, normally to keep jam chance low and temperature stable (since autocannon users often don't have the luxury of unjamming their weapon mid fight and in the case of aircraft they sometimes can't unjam it at all without returning to base though modern ones can do so) so it's operation by firing shells in burst or full salvo is technically not a problem as far as realistic or not is concerned.

What will NEVER make sense though (and thus we will never justify it) is it's utilization in BT mounted on their battlemech and their concept to defeat their equally nonsensical ablative armor.

KalebFenoir, on 25 February 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

Thank you, that's the best thing I've heard so far. This topic was supposed to be about 'ridiculous battletech facts' as a joke, but way too many people (including myself I must admit in some cases when the comments posted are just idiotic), take it too seriously. Justifying their tech level in BT is hard, given what we have now, as opposed to what we had in the 80s. So it shouldn't be done. I seriously wish people would stop posting the 'We have this now, but they don't have it then, wtf it'd make it so much better if they did' posts. Those people do not understand the humor of the topic.

We enjoy making fun of it since it's entertaining, what's even MORE enjoyable is when you get ppl trying to use physics or military concept ATTEMPTING to justify BT concepts with what they know of either (which is usually next to none, or worse... completely wrong understanding, someone obviously fell asleep in their physics class at school given some of the basic failures of concept is incredibly low level)

and then you shoot them down, preferably with the lowest blow possible...

Some of us enjoy these too much?

Guilty as charged good sir, guilty as charged... but hey that's why internet is so entertaining...

[KalebFenoir]

Melcyna, on 25 February 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Note: autocannon means JUST THAT, automatic cannon...

so from definition point of view BT autocannon firing single or multiple shells in a stream at once per shot was never a problem ie: as far as autocannon is concerned it makes no real difference though in our world we don't normally refer to large guns with autoloaders as autocannon, because all that matters is that they all have mechanism to load the next shells themselves in the firing cycle and thus requires no manual loading between each shells by the user which is given since we don't exactly expect mechwarriors to load their AC shells manually.

The issue between whether it's single or multiple shells firing rapidly only becomes a problem when one tries to justify it with physics, especially to explain it's incredibly short range with recoil because regardless of whether it's single or multiple shells fired rapidly... BT autocannon DEFIES physics convention either way for different reason.

We know this of course (BT? Physics? hahaha... right, anyway) but once in a while you get ppl who with their limited knowledge of one tries to justify it and then you get the whole furball (and i am ABSOLUTELY delighted at picking them off and pointing out every single physics error on the way, i do enjoy this a tad too much at times)

incidentally what you are referring with "german strike plane" is probably the Stuka mounting a 37mm Bordkanone (not the largest autocannon mounted on airplane mind you even for WW2 era), those 37mm autocannon actually can fire quite fast, however the Stuka pilot only has 12 shells on each gun, he CANNOT afford to miss because missing means likely he will end up returning empty handed with no kill, so he has to make EVERY shell count but it only takes a SINGLE hit on his target from good angle for him to do the job, if they wanted to... those 37mm autocannon can be fired in full rate of fire like the ground version (and it was pretty fast at 160 rpm)... just don't expect them to hit the pilot's target.

All aircraft cannons with the exception of the massive 75mm cannon that were experimented upon on bombers, or the gunships which carried a howitzer or mortar in the case of modern spectre gunships, are obviously autocannon since the pilot can't go out and load their cannon in flight, so the cannons had to be capable of self contained operation until the ammunition storage on it is expended.

Actually, I think you nailed right on the head for the plane I was thinking of. It WAS a Stuka that I saw in the video... Good show and 'Holy Crap Are You Psychic??' moment.

Personally I loved listening to my friend describe the firing sound of the BT autocannons. Standard ACs sounded and looked like oversized pistols unless they were the aforementioned multi-shell types, in which case they still were like semi-auto pistols in speed. LB-X were clearly shotguns. Ultras were a double-tap variety of AC, or in the case of the multiple-shell type, if you took the sound of the standard model and multiplied the speed by 2. And the RAC... oh the RAC. Once it spun up to full velocity, just picture the A-10 Warthog's main gun. And then have it jam so horribly within the first shell firing that the entire feed is destroyed, the mechanism jams, the gun effectively dismantles itself from the inside, and you can't use it again. XD Ever.

[flying1ace]

Even though in the 31st century, where they have battlemechs, they still can't figur out how to make missiles fire both long range and short.

some mechs trade an ER PPC for an axe. Ridiculous.

An electric pulse can block more missiles than an antimissile system.

im done

[Skylarr]

flying1ace, on 26 February 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Even though in the 31st century, where they have battlemechs, they still can't figur out how to make missiles fire both long range and short.

some mechs trade an ER PPC for an axe. Ridiculous.

An electric pulse can block more missiles than an antimissile system.

im done

Quote

Essay: BattleMech Technology

Major Computer Systems & Sensors

Battle Computer/Targeting & Tracking system

The Battle Computer (BC), located in the cockpit, coordinates and monitors the overall movement and weapons fire. It is the BC that makes sure that the MechWarrior's commands have priority. The BC makes certain that weapons are pointed towards what the MechWarrior is indicating, even if that requires overriding other systems and warnings and putting an arm through the wall of a nearby building. It is the BC that does the computing for "Targeting and Tracking."

The BC is the "gateway" that filters the data from the DI computer, converting it to information that is useful for the MechWarrior so the MechWarrior does not need to interpret it. It also coordinates all of the weapons Targeting and Tracking (T&T) systems, feeding them and the MechWarrior data on internal checks that the DI computer has run. The BC also controls the Target Interlock Circuits (TIC) of the 'Mech.

BattleMech targeting and tracking systems consist more than just the BC - the system is a network of sophisticated sensors, sub-computers, and programming. Thermal imaging, light amplification, radar, laser tracking, uv tracking, and magnetic anomaly sensors are generally used as primary sensors, supplemented by seismic sensors, motion detectors, chemical analyzers, microwave, tracking, and many others, depending on what equipment a 'Mech mounts. However, MechWarriors are not overwhelmed with raw data... The BC compresses, interprets, and prioritizes the information. When the MechWarrior gets the info, it is displayed on the cockpit displays or on the neurohelmet heads-up display (HUD) in with all the various selected sensor information synthesized into a single viewing mode, with important things tagged by the computer with graphic icons onscreen.

Sensor readouts can either overlap a target or reveal an area. For example, thermal sensors display a green (cold) to white (hot) image of the battlefield. The MechWarrior can opt to display other 'Mechs with thermal imaging and leave the battlefield in true colors. Extra sensor readings can be added or subtracted from the displays as the MechWarrior wishes. Normally the battle computer will synthesize all of the various sensor inputs onto the display, although in a simplified form.
Identify Friend/Foe (IFF) is a key ability of the T&T system. It eases the burden of identifying targets for MechWarriors in battle conditions, especially in poor visibility. Friendly and enemy 'Mechs are tagged with differing graphic tokens. IFF broadcast beacons are used by the BattleMechs targeting and tracking system to avoid accidental missile fire at a friendly 'Mech, though the system can be manually overridden.

Battlemech sensory processors and programming stand out for their ability to recognize other units and classify them by type and as friend or foe. Virtually all T&T suites can tell what type of unit is being detected, and can even make educated guesses at what variant that unit is. The system is surprisingly intuitive and at times it will present an interesting "guess." For example, the famous Inner Sphere naming of the Clan Timber Wolf OmniMech. The first Inner Sphere BattleMech to encounter one saw it as a cross between two designs it already knew - the Marauder and Catapult designs, thus the name "Mad Cat" was born.
BattleMechs can also share some sensor data. Specialized C3, C3i, and other hardware takes this to new heights, but all BattleMechs can at the least handle basic sensory data from friendly 'Mechs in order to pinpoint enemy positions, or share more detailed information. This is usually done with a separate communications channel, and can be difficult to maintain during battle.

In a pinch, the BC can stand in for the DI computer, but this reduces the amount of information gathered and degrades the overall performance of the BattleMech to about 60% of normal. This translates to 60% of the sensors giving "old" or inaccurate data and weapons systems being unable to track and accurately hit whatever the pilot is indicating.

Diagnostic Interpretation Computer

The DI computer is a network of distributed computers that monitor and coordinate the most of the internal functions and components of a BattleMech. As noted earlier, the internal structure, armor, actuators, myomers, and other components are wired with sensors and data/control lines. The DI computer uses this network to monitor the health and status of all of the connected components. In so doing, the DI tracks the 'Mechs state of readiness and feeds this to the Battle Damage Assessment computer (BDA) which in turn translates and displays this information on readouts for the MechWarrior. All other interpretive computers and all sensors are subordinated to the DI.

However, the DI handles more than simple status assessment. The DI also uses its network of lines as a back-up data feed to other components. For example, if a BattleMech's hand is dangling by a piece of armor, the DI can determine the status of the finger actuators through data lines in the armor. While the BattleMech would not be able to do much with the hand, it would be able to communicate with it. This capability allows BattleMechs to function even as they suffer from massive internal damage. The DI computer itself is quite redundant and damage resistant. The DI locates some key hardware in the cockpit, but the rest of its hardware is scattered throughout the BattleMech nearer to systems the DI hardware controls. These sub-processing units are setup very redundantly and are capable of managing systems for other damaged DI sub-systems. For example, DI computers located in the engine might wind up handling leg actuators after a penetrating shot lobotomizes the DI processors in the legs. It is the DI, via sensors attached to the ammo bins in a 'Mech, that activates the automated pilot ejection system in the case of an ammunition explosion.

The DI can stand in for a damaged Battle Computer, but the 'Mech operates at about 70% of it's normal effectiveness.

Manager

The DI computer manages all the systems in a BattleMech. All components have their own controlling sub-computers which are brought together by the DI system. The DI, for example, sends commands to actuator MCUs in order to promote smooth limb motions. Each weapon system sub-computer will send it's state of readiness or malfunction to the DI computer. More advanced DI computers will indicate to the MechWarrior what the cause of the problem is and try to fix the malfunction, all with no input from the MechWarrior. The DI also keeps the 'Mech from damaging itself. For instance, it will cut back on systems that generate heat when the 'Mech suffers from heat sink damage or is in a very hot environment. It is also capable of overriding the "common sense" of the component level systems. When the MechWarrior demands it, the DI will run the engine hot even if the engine control computer is trying to keep the engine cool. When a MechWarrior pushes throttle forward, it is the DI controls the engine power, the gyro, and coordinates actuators. When a BattleMech takes damage, the DI is what reconfigures leaking heat sinks, bypasses severed myomers and tries to re-route power to disconnected weapons.

Security

The DI also handles 'Mech security. Normal security routines involve the MechWarrior thinking his way through several commands while wearing the neurohelmet, along with voice recognition, codes input from the keyboard, or even 'Mech gesture "code keys." The DI computer also decides whether or not to scramble a would-be thief's brain with the neurohelmet. Clanners normally do not pay attention to this aspect of security, since, according to them, "there are no thieves in Clan society."

Systems status sensors

BattleMechs have an extensive network of status sensors that send information about various systems up to higher-level systems. There are jump jet ready indicators, ammo low/critical indicators, heat build-up, proximity warning, incoming transmission warnings, IFF engaged/disabled, limb overstress indicators, engine shielding sensors that track the status of the fusion reactor core and magnetic shielding, armor sensors, and various others.

The internal structures, myomer, armor, and other systems are laced with sensors and data lines connected to the various computer systems of the BattleMechs . Sensors will transfer their information across any part of the 'Mechs internal data network that is not damaged. This sensor information is usually sent via multiple routes, in case one route is damaged. 'Mech sensors are very redundant in this right.

All of the sensor, MechWarrior condition, and communications data are recorded into capable "black box" computers that can survive virtually any kind of damage... from an ammo explosion to a failed orbital drop. This is the so-called "BattleROM" box. It uses read only rom chips, which are very hard to modify in the field. Because of this, battleROM data is used for court martials and other such sensitive proceedings. BattleROM boxes usually record the last 200 active hours of a BattleMech.

Every Combat Unit has a Targetting computer and an Electrinic Counter Measure Unit. This is why Combat Units need to get close to each other. After the Helm Memory Core, and recovered Tech from the Clans, is discovered the more advance system start to come online.