58 replies to this topic

[TheRulesLawyer]

Nightwish, on 24 January 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

1. Watch FPS russias video if him ripping apart a concrete barrier
2. Yes but they are much higher velocity (higher velocity = alot more force)
3. a 747 isn't realy vehicle mounted
4. I was thinking of the nuclear warheads you get on the nuclear rocket launcher (About the size of a watermelon)
5. I admit only one was built and it had serious heat and energy problems but it existed
6. You should see what happens when a uranium armour piercing round hits tank plate

If you want to start a fire rate contest the M16 vulcan (turret) fires 24000 rounds per minute (although not DU)

Just to prove the massive speed a IRL railgun slug moves at... you see the fire behind it in the pictures people post?
(a submarine propeler creates bubbles behind it because it spins so fast it creates such a low preasure behind the blades that water boils a room temperature, hence the bubbles)
you can actually make water explode if you heat it to 1700C. Air can explode without fuel to at even higher temperatures. The fire behind the railgun slug is caused because it moves so fast that the air behind it gets to such a low preasure it ignites. Thats pretty damn fast.

You can heat water to any temp you like if it has no impurities for bubbles to form on (just to explain how water can explode at 1700C)

Its night where I am so I bid you good day... ummm night

1) Concrete isn't that tough. I have no doubt a .50 would tear it apart given a little time.
2) They are naval weapons scale. Not armor mounted weapons scale. Not really the same thing. Battletech has naval weapons too.
3) They have ground mounted ones too from what I understood, but still its not the same as armor penetrating lasers.
4) How big a rocket do you think you need to carry a warhead the size of a watermelon. Admitted its the closest thing to being right on the list, but we're still a good ways off in size I think.
6) Oh I know the DU shells on a a-10 will tear apart a tank. Two things though. Top armor and its 30mm. That's a big difference.

I only mentioned the ROF since you said no current gun could fire DU shells at a couple hundred RPM. I figure a RAC would be very similar to the GAU-8 avenger.

If you want to get into battletech physics vs RL physics there are a whole lot of things to complain about. No need to exaggerate what modern systems can do.

[Godzilla Enthusiast]

The battletech universe has multiple key technologies that if hey worked would mean they would not need to fight us merely negotiate trade agreements.

1) working fusion engines with a plentiful fuel source that does not appear to be rare in any way.
2) jumpships/dropships. Do you have any idea what you could do to the earth merely by providing thrust to a near earth asteroid?


They have nukes see the first succession war and the jihad.

[SumthinBurnin]

the rail gun hasnt left development yet, there are no plasma cannons beyond theory. nice post though. I think PewPew is probably very close to right.

PewPew, on 24 January 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

In the real world, the idea of third generation/mobility warfare is to maneuver and get the first hit. In dogfights and tank battles alike, whoever gets the first hit off will survive and defeat their opponent. Once that concept is nullified due to stronger armor, the BT universe went back to a mixture of previous generations of warfare, even resembling pre-modern warfare with feudal knights, etc.

This would also explain why weapon systems changed as well. The main gun on a main battle tank in real life can effectively engage at 3,000m, while most long range weapons in Mechwarrior games have effectively engaged at around 1,000m. Because mechs can survive more than one shot, the hope is not to invest a lot into one shot, but to be ready for the inevitable close quarters combat. That is, an investment in a variety of weapons, higher rates of fire, as well as harder hitting, but shorter range weapons. If you think about it, assault cannons in BT probably have much smaller amounts of propellant to fire fairly large rounds. This would allow mechs to fire more damaging rounds while still having plenty of space to store lots of ammo.

Case in point. AC-20 is equal to modern day artillery (200mm) but it has 0 range, hell they dont even give it a decent barrel length. All other AC's get longer barrels = better range/acc.

[IceSerpent]

Nightwish, on 24 January 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Has anyone noticed that weapons in real life are much better than the weapons in real life?

There's probably some deep philosophical meaning there...just saying

[Arctic Fox]

Comparing BattleTech's weapons to reality is generally a useless endavour, but...

Nightwish, on 24 January 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

4. IG - An Arrow artillery missile can demolish a few buildings from several miles
IRL - An equivelent sized/ranged missile can carry a tactical nuclear warhead

An Arrow IV can, canonically, carry a nuclear warhead.

[tony katdander]

just so everyone knows...this is the battle tech universe and in real life there are no mechs so...just renember that not everything has to be realistic.or has to be compared to real life.battle tech was started back in the old days and back then 1 atlas could destrou a company of tanks so compare it to old military.not the new advanced military

[Patrio Sioux Daltum]

If Mechwarrior was realistic, we couldn't have nice things.

[Zakatak]

Nerts, on 24 January 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Actually, FF armour is reinforced with titanium and diamond.

Diamond is extremely brittle and sensitive to heat and doesn't make good armor, unless you use diamond vapor disposition.

Anyway, regarding the first post...
1. A Cheytac is .408, not a .50, and a 50 caliber can by no means "level" a tank, not even close. It might damage the engine if you puncture a thinner piece of armor (it's half a metre thick in some places).
2. The US Navy railgun has 33 megajoules of kinetic energy, the HGauss is 500 megajoules (Ek=.5mv^2), so the HGauss is much more powerful.

Everything else is limited by Battletech game rules which shouldn't have been put in MW to begin with.

Edited by Zakatak, 24 January 2012 - 02:14 PM.

[Catamount]

Just a note on the GAU-8 vs a 50 caliber infantry weapon.

A 50 caliber round has on the order of 20 kilojoules of energy per round. Now, that's pretty impressive, but it's a long ways from killing a tank.

The GAU-8 mixes ammunition for maximum effect, but for either type of round, you're looking at just a little shy of half a megajoule per round (at 4200 rounds per minute, no less, which works out to something in the ballpark of 30 megawatts of energy). Keep in mind that that's just for the kinetic energy of the impacting round, and doesn't even include any explosive yield.


In short, the latter can kill a tank pretty effectively, but the former is barely going to scratch the paint.

Edited by Catamount, 24 January 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Zakatak]

The GAU-8 Avenger is so awesome, it can carry a plane as an accessory.



While were on this topic, DCS A-10C is the best simulator ever and you should get it if you have a HOTAS.

Edited by Zakatak, 24 January 2012 - 03:10 PM.

[Damocles]

/Man reads thread



/

[Solis Obscuri]

I think this explains it pretty well:

Kip Wilson, on 17 January 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

I'll give you the fact that our weapons today have damage rates that approach those in the BT universe. The main difference however is armor technology. Let me provide a little blurb from the Star Leage Sourcebook detailing the first combat run of the Mackie against (at the time) the best tanks available. Pay special attention to what they say about the Mackie's armor... (and yes this is a direct quote, I have the book sitting on my shelf)

Quote

One of the tanks opened fire. Its shot was true and hit the 'Mech just above the right hip. Everyone in the brightly lit bunker seemed to hold his breath as all the readouts fuzzed into snow at the blast interference. No damage! A piece of steel no thicker than my finger, strengthened by radiation casting techniques and impregnated with a sheet of woven diamond fibers, had stopped cold an armor-piercing shell. That same shell would have gone straight through a third of a meter of normal steel.

So really, its not the weapons but the armor technology that is still far superior in the BT universe. So yes, in order for weapons of the same size and damage capability as today would need a drastic increase in damage capabilities just to contend with first generation Mackie battlemech armor.

Also, I've yet to see a .50cal that blows up tanks (except in Iron Man 2), a laser that can sustain firing with enough intensity to cut down a building 3.5 miles away, a viable military plasma/particle cannon weapon (though god knows they spent enough on "Star Wars" under Reagan...), or a 747 with the tail held on by diamond filament duct tape (this sounds like some Spooner-ish amalgamation of carbon fibre aircraft parts, commercially available carbon filament tape, and the "unbreakable diamond filament tether" from Futurama.) I'm curious as to where you deriving this information from.

[Graphite]

BT is fictional. Of course it isn't "realistic".

Anyway, if you want to compare BT weapons to RL weapons you need to have some constant, and tanks and cars are NOT constant between BT and RL.

The only constant is infantry: make all your comparisons against infantry, and this topic might actually be interesting, regardless of results.

Edited by Graphite, 24 January 2012 - 04:17 PM.

[Damocles]

Graphite, on 24 January 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

BT is fictional. Of course it isn't "realistic".

Anyway, if you want to compare BT weapons to RL weapons you need to have some constant, and tanks and cars are NOT constant between BT and RL.

The only constant is infantry: make all your comparisons against infantry, and this topic might actually be interesting, regardless of results.

Yes.


@ All else:

[STi]

Yes this is the case with almost literally every game. To make a game truly realistic would make it extremely boring to play. The good thing about a futuristic game is you can make your own rules.

That said, the idea of actual pilots in walking battle machines that have to get within visual range to shoot at each other is kind of "dumb" in a "real life" sort of way. The first practical issue with this is even today's weapons are getting quite ranged. Of course, it's pointless to literally try and compare today's weapons with the weapons and its effects in this game. And I saw some people trying.
The point made by the OP is way more evident in other games.

[Trireaper]

duh weapons in real life are better
do you really think it takes 13 shots to kill someone with a M4?

[Canned_Dman]

It's a game! What about dropships, jumpships and warships. They are a bit better than our space station, antiquated space shuttles and such...
Also there are no real ocean going vessels like aircraft carriers, cruisers etc. The 100 ton sub is a joke. Imagine a huge sub carrying nothing but arrow IV's sneaking up and working in conjunction with tag equipped mechs. you could really change the game but its just game play it the way that makes it fun!

[boogle]

Nightwish, on 24 January 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

you can actually make water explode if you heat it to 1700C. Air can explode without fuel to at even higher temperatures. The fire behind the railgun slug is caused because it moves so fast that the air behind it gets to such a low preasure it ignites. Thats pretty damn fast.

You can heat water to any temp you like if it has no impurities for bubbles to form on (just to explain how water can explode at 1700C)

This is not accurate at all.

Water (or any liquid) can only be heated until its vapor pressure reaches the ambient pressure of the surrounding fluid (in this case air) or exceeds the tensile strength of its container. Under normal atmospheric conditions (sea level, 1 atm) water cannot be heated any higher than 212F (100C for you metrics); with the vapor pressure of water at a given temperature directly related to atmospheric pressure.

Also, air does not 'ignite' behind a rail gun slug; the extreme heat is caused by friction, not combustion. And even if it was caused by combustion it is practically impossible for LOW pressure to be the catalyst for ignition. Whether or not a reaction will occur is governed by the velocity and frequency (temperature and pressure respectively) of molecular collisions, and whether this meets or exceeds the necessary activation energy.

[boogle]

Extreme realism, in my opinion, is not necessarily desirable in a fictional universe. Part of the fun of science fiction is to imagine a possible but rather unlikely set of future conditions. Plenty of scifi doesn't make any sense at all; take, for example, star trek TOS and battlestar galactica.

In the original star trek they had transporters and energy weapons and artificial gravity, while their hand-held radios were gigantic and their computers were still using transistors. In battlestar galactica they had faster than light travel and sentient robots while possessing (what we would consider to be) barbaric and ineffective medicine and used manually aimed ballistic weaponry.

sorry for the double post, I forgot to mention this stuff above.

[NotNewHere]

tony katdander, on 24 January 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

just so everyone knows...this is the battle tech universe and in real life there are no mechs so...just renember that not everything has to be realistic.or has to be compared to real life.battle tech was started back in the old days and back then 1 atlas could destrou a company of tanks so compare it to old military.not the new advanced military

I was wondering when someone would say somthing along those lines?