78 replies to this topic

[Kartr]

Stone Profit, on 01 March 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

I dont know where you get the height you used for the Atlas, but as I understood it mechs fall between roughly 10 to 13 meters. now assuming that the atlas, being taller due to humanoid shape, and at the upper weight limit, is 13 meters. would you mind doing your calculations using that figure? I suck at math, and I dont want to screw it up. I would greatly appreciate it.

Using the 1:3:9 ratio for height:width:depth and a height of 12m (using 12 because first its easier and second it'll give a higher density), you would have 12m*4m*1.33m=63.84m^3. 100,000kg/63.84m^3=1,566.4kg/m^3.

However I have a hard time believing that a 'Mech is only 13m tall. For reasons which I will go into below.

Stone Profit, on 01 March 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

I dont recall that. Perhaps you could find and link to that?

BattleMech




Interior of a Mad Dog BattleMech
Overview

A BattleMech (often abbreviated 'Mech, although that could technically also refer to IndustrialMechs) is an armored combat vehicle of roughly humanoid shape, some 10 to 14 meters (about 30 to 40 feet) tall and typically massing from 20 to 100 tons. 'Mechs are best suited for ground combat, although they are also capable of operation under water, in vacuum and/or in zero-g environments (space).

That diagram of the Mad Dog cannot be correct. The launchers appear to be LRM-15's however they only have 15 missiles each with absolutely no room for reloads or a reload mechanism. This is my biggest problem with 'Mechs being only 14m tall tops. With dimensions like that you don't have room to store 50 150mm shells for one ton AC/20 ammo let alone the reloading mechanism. Where do the recoil systems go? What about missile reloads? How about the spacing for the missile loading system because it would be dangerous to have the missiles mounted tip to tail. Plus if you had them mounted tip to tail you loose one of the biggest advantages of missiles, the lack of recoil.

Tanks are very cramped places, but they have some room so that crew members can move around and do their jobs, including load the cannon. In a 'Mech you have to replace the loader with machinery which is going to take up more room, plus you have more weapons systems. It's not so hard to believe on a laser boat, but on something like a Jaegermech or a Rifleman, with multiple AC's that are drawing ammo from multiple bins and the ability to draw ammo from bins anywhere in the 'Mech. The volume a 'Mech should require is significantly bigger than just 13m in height.

For example an Abrams is roughly 8m long, if that's the torso of a 'Mech you have to be able to fit all the ammo and feed systems in there, plus the engine, plus electronics, plus myomer, hip actuators and shoulder actuators, plus heat disposal systems, plus any weapons etc. Oh and don't forget the machinery and other bits to rotate the torso. That just seems like a lot to cram into an 8m*3.5m*2m area. Even if you could fit all that in there then you'd have to add in the legs which on most 'Mechs are about half the height and on some more than half. So you're talking 16m tall at this point or maybe taller. So I think an 18m tall Atlas is hardly out of line, plus FD's Atlas has to be the best looking and most believable one yet and it's probably even taller judging by the scale of the people walking around.

Stone Profit, on 01 March 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

A single 'Mech can easily destroy a city block. A BattleMech's only true equal is another 'Mech—artillery, aircraft, and tanks are disadvantaged against them without BattleMech support or a strong advantage in numbers.

the Devs are trying to stick to canon, so I dont think your info is correct

Eh 'Mechs shouldn't have an advantage over tanks. The only reason they do is the game rules were written to make 'Mechs super powerful.

Tracked vehicles should only be barred from depth 1 or greater water and changing more than 2 terrain levels in a single hex. The German army showed how silly the idea that heavy forests can stop tanks back in 1939-40 when they invaded France through the Ardennes.

Tracked vehicles should get an automatic -1 on all attack rolls because they're more stable, better recoil handling characteristics and they have dedicated gunners. The should have no penalty for attacking while cruising and only +1 for attacking while flanking, due to the much much smoother ride and again a dedicated gunner. They should also get an automatic -1 on piloting/driving rolls because of their dedicated driver. Vehicles should also have the choice to sacrifice 1 slot per facing to have sloped armor, halving the damage done by all direct fire attacks, it wouldn't have an effect on indirect LRM fire, artillery, mines or attacks from one level or greater above the tank.

'Mechs should be the preferred planetary attackers since they can drop from space to secure an LZ, while tanks should be the preferred defenders.

shapeshifter, on 01 March 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

This
Another example is Spider silk, about 5 X as strong as steel for the same weight.

Spider silk is incredible strong when you use it as cable, but if you strike it from the side it's going to flex and offer no real protection. The rigidity of steels and ceramics is one of the major reasons they're used for armor. Also their density, which is especially important when you consider that 'Mech armor is ablative. 'Mech armor needs to be fairly dense and a little bit softer than modern armor in order to act the way it does.

Whether the armor is made in space or on the ground has no bearing on how dense its going to be, so special armors crafted in space are not going to be lighter than the same armor made on the surface of a planet, they might be more homogenous as the heavier elements in them wouldn't be pulled down by gravity.

[CeeKay Boques]

Well done. You have proved that Mechs aren't viable using your 2012 knowledge.

In the1800s they said man coulnd't fly.

This year and last, for a few months, we believed that JUST possibly neutrinos could go faster than light.

You just don't have all the pieces, and you certainly dont' have all the pieces availabe in 3048.

[Deadbot1]

Look at the size of a typical fighter plane compared to a tank...size is not the only factor in weight.

Considering advances in metallurgy, composites, and construction techniques, 100 tons might almost be to heavy. The framework might be made of foamed metals of advanced composites. Same for armors. Actually, if I remember any of the old tabletop game rules, these ideas were covered. It has been 15 years since I last played, can't remember. Talking about that, look at the advances made in those 15 years!

Also, I have to agree with a few above...just don't sweat it and get back to your post Mechwarrior!

Edit: As for rigidity being a factor in armor(they spider silk thing) Kevlar works by NOT being to rigid. If was overly rigid it would fracture under impact. The best armors are made of alternating layers(composites) of rigid and flexible materials. Rigid to slow down and absorb impacts, flexible to spread the forces over greater surface areas....oops, here comes the CO...gotta go.

Edited by Deadbot1, 01 March 2012 - 05:48 PM.

[Kartr]

Stone Profit, on 01 March 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

what about the fusion engine, which is essentially a box to contain the fusion reaction in magnetic fields? What about the coolant system?

The coolant system is going to have coolant running through it which is going to be more dense than air. The fusion engine, well we don't really know how big it is or how much physical shielding it has, so its impossible to say how dense it is. It should be more dense than the crew compartment of a tank though.

Stone Profit, on 01 March 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

there are many different small areas that have open space as well that you just cant know of without having a breakdown. To say the only empty interior space in an abrams is the crew compartment and the ammo bays is rediculous. the barrel of the main gun has a hollow space inside. The fuel tank is a large empty interior space when considering an unloaded or gross vehicle weight, which is the only way I know of that is generally used for these calculations. Not to mention that you would need to knock off several tons for ammo in the empty atlas, at least 5 for a standard atlas. these things, combined with the lighter materials available, make the atlas viable in the setting given, at least in my opinion.

I wasn't saying the only empty space in an Abrams was the crew compartment and the ammo bay. My point was that the crew compartment is a large (comparatively) open space that the Atlas and other 'Mech do not have an analogy for. Since they don't have a comparable compartment a 'Mech is going to be more dense based on the fact that it has less space filled with air.

The gun barrel is something that an 'Mech has so they cancel each other out, fuel is less dense than the metals and/or ceramics and since 'Mechs apparently don't have fuel tanks they don't have anything comparable which means Abrams are going to be less dense. Sure you can take out the ammo from a 'Mech, but then you have to do it for tank as well.

The main point though is that the Atlas is only 1.5kg/m^3 by the scaled up from a human method and less than 500kg/m^3 by scaling from the height, using 18m as the height. The only calculation that is remotely believable is the one based on a 12m tall Atlas who's volume has been scaled from a human. The 12m height is highly suspect though because it won't have the volume for its ammunition or feeding mechanisms.

Technoviking, on 01 March 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Well done. You have proved that Mechs aren't viable using your 2012 knowledge.

In the1800s they said man coulnd't fly.

This year and last, for a few months, we believed that JUST possibly neutrinos could go faster than light.

You just don't have all the pieces, and you certainly dont' have all the pieces availabe in 3048.

I have enough pieces to know that BattleMechs cannot be less dense than water. I also have enough pieces to know that you need significantly more volume for ammo and feed mechanisms than is established by canon fluff. Is it possible that in 3048 they could make 'Mechs that are actually feasible, sure why not, I don't have a problem with that. What they can't do is make more volume fit into less volume, or make metals and ceramic constructs that are less dense than water and yet walk through water. That's what I have a problem with.

The other thing is 'Mechs will never be truly viable vs tanks, because any materials science advances you make can be applied to both and the lower profile, sloped armor, lower ground pressure, greater stability, multiple specialist crew, better stability, better recoil management, smoother ride, etc are going to win out over 'Mechs every time. Large targets, tall targets, high centers of gravity, multiple vulnerable joints, on top of the advantages tanks have that I've already mentioned. The advantages 'Mechs have are dropping from space to secure an LZ, being able to jump over ravines and tank traps, hands to preform manual labor and easier to load aboard spherical dropships.

Deadbot1, on 01 March 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Edit: As for rigidity being a factor in armor(they spider silk thing) Kevlar works by NOT being to rigid. If was overly rigid it would fracture under impact. The best armors are made of alternating layers(composites) of rigid and flexible materials. Rigid to slow down and absorb impacts, flexible to spread the forces over greater surface areas....oops, here comes the CO...gotta go.

However BattleTech armor is homogenous in nature, otherwise it would behave differently depending on how much was left. Kevlar only works against low velocity rounds with fairly large diameters. That's why they issue steel backed ceramic plates to stop rifle rounds.

Edited by Kartr, 01 March 2012 - 06:04 PM.

[Iron Wardog]

Kartr, on 01 March 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

Actually this is an incorrect way to figure the volume because all you've done is increase one dimension by 10. You essentially measured a rectangle 18m tall 0.5m wide and 0.25m thick (very roughly estimating the human dimensions). To accurately scale it up you would have to increase all dimensions by 10. This means a thousand fold increase in volume 10x10x10=1000. So the density of an Atlas using a corrected version of your method would be 100,000kg/68,000m^3=1.5kg/m^3 to two significant figures.

1m^3 = 1000dm^3 so my numbers stand.

Kartr, on 01 March 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

The Abrams can't be less dense than water (1000kg/m^3). So I took the Abrams and subtracted a third of it's height to account for the suspension and recalculated the volume, but I didn't factor in the turret being smaller than the over all dimensions even though its part of the height. Partly make up for the tracks being "removed" and mostly to just make it simpler. So with 2/3s the overall height the M1 Abrams has a rough volume of 47.6m^3. The Abrams masses over 61,000kg so 61,000kg/47.6m^3=1,281.5kg/m^3 which is more dense than water.

To calc the actual volume of a tank would take an unreasonably large amount of work. And point of it being or not denser than water is moot since the value simply serves as a rough magnitude reference (though the real number is probably denser than water, even though there are several amphibious AFVs and it is most likely the geometry of the tank more than its density that makes most tanks submersible).

[Kartr]

Iron_Wardog, on 02 March 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

1m^3 = 1000dm^3 so my numbers stand.

My bad, I read your original post to quickly and missed the "d" in dm^3.

Iron_Wardog, on 02 March 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

To calc the actual volume of a tank would take an unreasonably large amount of work. And point of it being or not denser than water is moot since the value simply serves as a rough magnitude reference (though the real number is probably denser than water, even though there are several amphibious AFVs and it is most likely the geometry of the tank more than its density that makes most tanks submersible).

True which is why I only approximated the volume. The point of it being less dense than water is important. Firstly because it shows that the calculations for the Abrams density is off and isn't giving a reasonable point of comparison because its not dense enough. Secondly because if 'Mech is less dense than water, even if it seems to be somewhat plausible when compared to our point of reference, then its obviously impossible.

We're not discussing amphibious AFVs and the Abrams is more dense than water. One of the reasons that amphibious AFVs are less dense than water is because most (if not all) have large open spaces inside to carry troops, something most MBTs don't have.

Finally I'd like to point out that simply scaling up from a human isn't going to give you an accurate approximation as a human is much less rectangular than an Atlas. An "average" human is also going to be less bulky than an Atlas. Scaling up from an "Average" human is going to get you a Maximum possible density for an Atlas. Getting a ratio of height to width to depth from visuals is going to give you a much more accurate idea of the volume and therefor a more accurate density.

[Solis Obscuri]

Kartr, on 29 February 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

Fun bit of calculation:

Roughly eyeballing the Atlas FD drew, it has a ratio of 1/9:1/3:1 (depth:width:height) not including the arms. If the Atlas is 18m tall that makes it 6m wide and 2m in depth for a total volume of roughly 216m^3 and a mass of 100,000kg. That's roughly 463kg/m^3, water has a density of 1,000kg/m^3 which means an Atlas would float on water.

If it's 13m tall, it has an overall density of 100,000kg/118.93m^3 = 840.83kg/m^3.

Though I'd actually be inclined to modify the volume by, say, .67, since the Atlas is not a solid rectangular prism, which gives us 1,255kg/m^3. At 125% the density of water at 0ºC, the Atlas would definitely sink.

Not to mention, it wouldn't have any trouble wading in either instance, floating wouldn't occur until most of the surface area of the 'mech was submerged.

GuntherK, on 01 March 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

What i find funny is that a 120mm armour piercing round from a modern tank can one shot kill another 60 ton tank at ranges up to 2 kilometers, in fact an hand held missile like the Javelin can do the same.

But in the year 3000, battlemechs cant hit a barn dor at more than 600 meters, and need massive amounts of laser, missile, ballistic, gauss or ppc shots to bring another battlemech down.

Why ? Because it would be a very dull game if you could one shot kill an enemy mech at 5 kilometers, as soon as you detected it on your sensors and with a single guided missile.

So, i just tend to regard some details of battletech rules as a religious dogma, either you accept it or not but they cant be proved by science.

Per BT fluff, the armor on a 'mech is dramatically more effective than anything we have today. Even the early battlemech armor used on the Mackie was able to withstand multiple hits from MBTs. As a result, it takes a lot more volume of fire to take out a 'mech than a modern MBT. I think the fluff for combat range is a combination of needing to be fairly close to defeat armor (loss of kinetic energy and beam focus), and increased prevalence of electronic countermeasures on the battlefield of the future (limitations of missile lock/lock distance, possible effects on targetting systems, no IFF to pick out targets outside of visual range).

In a way, BT is the opposite of our modern industrialized warfare - while currently our offensive/destructive technology so far surpasses our defensive countermeasures that threat deterence (and in some cases "pre-emptive strikes") have become the preferred defenses, in BT the defensive technologies and armor are so effective that mechanized battles are drawn-out affairs, and battles must be fought at close range again, instead of beyond the horizon.

Kartr, on 01 March 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

However I have a hard time believing that a 'Mech is only 13m tall. For reasons which I will go into below.

That diagram of the Mad Dog cannot be correct. The launchers appear to be LRM-15's however they only have 15 missiles each with absolutely no room for reloads or a reload mechanism. This is my biggest problem with 'Mechs being only 14m tall tops. With dimensions like that you don't have room to store 50 150mm shells for one ton AC/20 ammo let alone the reloading mechanism. Where do the recoil systems go? What about missile reloads? How about the spacing for the missile loading system because it would be dangerous to have the missiles mounted tip to tail. Plus if you had them mounted tip to tail you loose one of the biggest advantages of missiles, the lack of recoil.

Tanks are very cramped places, but they have some room so that crew members can move around and do their jobs, including load the cannon. In a 'Mech you have to replace the loader with machinery which is going to take up more room, plus you have more weapons systems. It's not so hard to believe on a laser boat, but on something like a Jaegermech or a Rifleman, with multiple AC's that are drawing ammo from multiple bins and the ability to draw ammo from bins anywhere in the 'Mech. The volume a 'Mech should require is significantly bigger than just 13m in height.

How much space does that 50 150mm shells take up, exactly? 6"x24" per each, maybe? Stacked 10x10, that's 5'x5'x2', or roughly 1.5m x 1.5m x .75m. Fairly bulky, the scale might need to be a bit bigger to work realistically. The scale for the light 'mechs always sounded about right, but some of the listed sizes I've seen for heavies and assault 'mechs always seemed a little small for the systems contained.

Kartr, on 01 March 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Eh 'Mechs shouldn't have an advantage over tanks. The only reason they do is the game rules were written to make 'Mechs super powerful.

Tracked vehicles should only be barred from depth 1 or greater water and changing more than 2 terrain levels in a single hex. The German army showed how silly the idea that heavy forests can stop tanks back in 1939-40 when they invaded France through the Ardennes.

Tracked vehicles should get an automatic -1 on all attack rolls because they're more stable, better recoil handling characteristics and they have dedicated gunners. The should have no penalty for attacking while cruising and only +1 for attacking while flanking, due to the much much smoother ride and again a dedicated gunner. They should also get an automatic -1 on piloting/driving rolls because of their dedicated driver. Vehicles should also have the choice to sacrifice 1 slot per facing to have sloped armor, halving the damage done by all direct fire attacks, it wouldn't have an effect on indirect LRM fire, artillery, mines or attacks from one level or greater above the tank.

'Mechs should be the preferred planetary attackers since they can drop from space to secure an LZ, while tanks should be the preferred defenders.

Tanks have the advantage of being a lot cheaper than 'mechs. I'm not seeing where they have any bonus to stability except maybe on flat terrain ('mech legs should adjust to rough terrain better) and as for dedicated tank crew roles, 'mechs operate through the neurohelmet interface so a lot of functions related to maneuvering can be effectively "automated" by autonomic neural functions, whereas I've never seen it suggested that BT tanks operate under the same interface, which would explain the need for dedicated crew roles.

Kartr, on 01 March 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Spider silk is incredible strong when you use it as cable, but if you strike it from the side it's going to flex and offer no real protection. The rigidity of steels and ceramics is one of the major reasons they're used for armor. Also their density, which is especially important when you consider that 'Mech armor is ablative. 'Mech armor needs to be fairly dense and a little bit softer than modern armor in order to act the way it does.

Harder, actaully, but conceptually similar to current 2nd gen Chobham armour. As per spider silk, lousy material for stopping an impact, but useful for resisting penetration - like the aramid fibers used in body armor, and like the spall liners and DU or tungsten mesh used in modern armor, and like the diamond fiber mesh utilized in 'mech armor per the fluff.

Kartr, on 01 March 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Whether the armor is made in space or on the ground has no bearing on how dense its going to be, so special armors crafted in space are not going to be lighter than the same armor made on the surface of a planet, they might be more homogenous as the heavier elements in them wouldn't be pulled down by gravity.

The fluff is that the Zero-G environment allows for formation of different crystal alignments than would be possible in a planetary environment.

It's all sci-fi stuff, but I do appreciate that there's at least an attempt to justify how things work in BT.

[Larry Headrick]

Ok this has ben bugging me for a while now. Maybe it is just semantics (because they didn't exist in the 80s.) but really couldn't the people who produce the fluff have changed the diamond fiber mesh on the mechs armor to the real world equivalent of a Carbon nanotube?

I mean diamonds are carbon in a crystalline matrix so is the nano tube it is just a slightly deferent matrix. so the tube would be as strong or stronger than diamond right?

More info on the carbon nanotube can be found here.

Edited by Larry Headrick, 02 March 2012 - 05:21 PM.

[Menander]

I have a few comments to make on my first post =D.

1) Armor: In the Battletech universe the arms race has reversed positions from what it is at now. In our current time weapons, not armor are the determining factor of conflict and this has largely been the case since the refinement of gunpowder weapons somwhere in the 17th and 18th centuries. However is Battletech armor has reached the point where the most advanced weapons of the time period, lets say a PPC or a Gauss Rifle, can be stopped by armor. I'm not going to get into the science of this as it is pointless but this is the idea.

The implications of this are that one couldn't rely on range and accuracy to win you battles. So rather than a main battle tank v. main battle tank analogy a more fitting one would be a renaissance era knight v. knight in which the armor of the two members involved in a combat would prolong it well past the first blow.

2) 'Mech Design: One must remember that by the period the game will be placed in, the mid 31st century, mechs had been around for around 600 years or since around the mid 25th century. Despite this production had largely ceased around the end of the 1st and 2nd succession wars in the mid 29th century. What this meant was that only the mechs that were simply designed and easy to repair survived the 200 years between the 2nd succession war and 3050. Even with the discovery of the Helm Memory Core in 3039 the ten years between then and the start date of the game in 3049 gave the Houses little time to actually implement and use this new technology in a meaning or widespread fashion. As a result only the most rugged mechs survived, albeit in terrible shape.

As previously mentioned mechs ,like the thorn, weren't solid but rather hollow. This was due to the nature of mech armor which was meant to disperse energy weapons. On top of this ballistics or other physical weapons could pierce the mech without destroying it or killing the pilot, unlike a tank where if a weapon pierced the interior the crew would turn into red mist.

As a reference to this the note on the XL versus standard fusion engines. The standard engine left space in the side torsos making it a harder target and thus making the mech more survivable. As a trade off the XL engine reduced the survivability of the mech by making a piercing shot more likely to cripple the mech but gave it superior speed.

These designs that survived very much informed upon the ideas that people had of what made a good mech. Even in our own context a reliable easily repairable weapon is the best in the eyes of both the solider and the government behind it. Look at the AK-47 its a 60 year old weapon and even the original models are considered comparable in some ways to weapons that have come out in the last 10 years.

3) Mech mobility: Canon Battletech never disputed the reign of the tank in flat open terrain. Thats why the houses still use them. The thing is though that a tank cannot go everywhere. The main advantage of the mech is that they could perform quite well in all forms of environment or terrain; they were generalists.

This may not seem that important in the currently Cold War framed idea of armor warfare that many of us have a basic idea about; where there are well defined battle lines and lines of supply and communication. One must make note however that the scale of battletech is no longer on the nation wide war scale but the galactic. Mechs needed, and could, range across the entirety of a planet on campaign and often would have to in order to secure it.

4) Socio-Cultural: The mechwarrior was revered in his society, one should never forget this when you think about this settings. They are the elite in every way; socially, economically, militarily and politically. One had to be able to afford, maintain and use their mech to hold onto it and pass it down to their progeny during the period between the end of the Star League amd 3050. It wasn't necessarily about mechs being the perfect weapon in these peoples eyes; no matter how true or untrue this may have been. The idea of being a mechwarrior and the status attached continued to draw people to it regardless of what the reality was. They were knights, samurai, navy SEALs, etc. all rolled into one, they knew it and so did everyone else.


And there you go, my humble contribution to the thread.

Enjoy =D

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Actually if you used vehicles in TT they quite often were mech killers. Just look up the Shrek,Behemoth or Patton. It's why I hope we get at least NPC vehicles for the IS for the arrival of the vatborn.

[Thomas Covenant]

Technoviking, on 01 March 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Well done. You have proved that Mechs aren't viable using your 2012 knowledge.

In the1800s they said man coulnd't fly.

This year and last, for a few months, we believed that JUST possibly neutrinos could go faster than light.

You just don't have all the pieces, and you certainly dont' have all the pieces availabe in 3048.

You think they would have figured out how to peacefully resolve conflicts in 1000 years. lol

[Kartr]

Solis Obscuri, on 02 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

If it's 13m tall, it has an overall density of 100,000kg/118.93m^3 = 840.83kg/m^3.

Though I'd actually be inclined to modify the volume by, say, .67, since the Atlas is not a solid rectangular prism, which gives us 1,255kg/m^3. At 125% the density of water at 0ºC, the Atlas would definitely sink.

The arms are not included in my estimation of the volume of FD's Atlas and are large enough to make up for the fact it's not a perfect rectangle.

Solis Obscuri, on 02 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Not to mention, it wouldn't have any trouble wading in either instance, floating wouldn't occur until most of the surface area of the 'mech was submerged.

So depth 1 water is problematic, depth 2 or deeper is impossible and walking under the water like they do in books is impossible.

Solis Obscuri, on 02 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Per BT fluff, the armor on a 'mech is dramatically more effective than anything we have today. Even the early battlemech armor used on the Mackie was able to withstand multiple hits from MBTs. As a result, it takes a lot more volume of fire to take out a 'mech than a modern MBT. I think the fluff for combat range is a combination of needing to be fairly close to defeat armor (loss of kinetic energy and beam focus), and increased prevalence of electronic countermeasures on the battlefield of the future (limitations of missile lock/lock distance, possible effects on targetting systems, no IFF to pick out targets outside of visual range).

Of course it takes a greater volume of fire to destroy a 'Mech than a modern MBT, 'Mechs are designed to take fire from AC/20's that fire 10 150mm shells per shot or an equivalent number of heavier/lighter shells. However when compared to in universe tanks built using the same technological base the tanks should be superior.

The Merkava tanks were lightly armed, thinly armored tanks who's combined BV points was barely greater than that of the lone Mackie plus they were driven by remote. With a pilot driving the trial vehicle and the tanks being remote driven drones, the whole test had a pre-dertmined outcome. Finally if BTech properly modeled the capabilities of tanks then they would be superior to 'Mechs.

Solis Obscuri, on 02 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

In a way, BT is the opposite of our modern industrialized warfare - while currently our offensive/destructive technology so far surpasses our defensive countermeasures that threat deterence (and in some cases "pre-emptive strikes") have become the preferred defenses, in BT the defensive technologies and armor are so effective that mechanized battles are drawn-out affairs, and battles must be fought at close range again, instead of beyond the horizon.

Not sure what you mean by this. It sounds like you're combining Mutual Assured Destruction theories from the Cold War strategy on the nation scale to modern vehicles aremor. There is no "threat deterence" when it comes to how armor works. As for "pre-emptive strikes" you always want to strike an enemy first when you're on the ground and in the fight, other than that truism I don't know what you mean by "pre-emptive strikes" when you're talking about vehicle combat.

The ranges in BT are only short when playing the original TT or the video games, when playing BF (from what I hear) ranges are much closer to 2km+ instead of the rediculously short ones they are in TT. Even then the armoring and weapons is simply a logical extension of the path armor and weapons have taken in the past. Better engines lead to more heavily armored tanks, leads to heavier guns, leads to better armor leads to better engines leads to more armor, leads to heavier guns, etc. We're approaching the point where all or nothing armoring scheme is impenetrable by standard weapons. That's why AT missiles are all designed to fly over the top of the tank and strike down against the thinner flatter top armor and why we have depleted uranium penetrators on our AT shells. With BT level of power they can create armor that is so dense and thick it has to be ablated away by numerous repeated strikes in the same area. One reason AC's were developed, to more quickly ablate away the armor.

Solis Obscuri, on 02 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Tanks have the advantage of being a lot cheaper than 'mechs. I'm not seeing where they have any bonus to stability except maybe on flat terrain ('mech legs should adjust to rough terrain better) and as for dedicated tank crew roles, 'mechs operate through the neurohelmet interface so a lot of functions related to maneuvering can be effectively "automated" by autonomic neural functions, whereas I've never seen it suggested that BT tanks operate under the same interface, which would explain the need for dedicated crew roles.

Tanks are more stable because the constantly have greater surface contact, plus they have very very low centers of gravity. 'Mech legs would actually have a harder time over rough terrain just like a human has a harder time over rough terrain. Greater chance of slipping and falling when you're stepping over or onto uneven objects. Plus a 'Mechs center of gravity and the position of its arms and torso change with every step, even over perfectly flat and smooth ground.

As for the neurohelmet it ties the 'Mechs gyros into the pilots sense of balance. It doesn't read his mind and know where he/she wants to go. The helmet can't torso twist, move forward, move back or sidestep for the 'Mech. Nor can it detect the terrain ahead and plot the best course through it taking advantage of cover and avoiding obsticals. It can't aim for the pilot, it can't make radio calls for the pilot, it can't coordinate the 'Mechs position and action for the pilot, basically it can't do anything that requires higher levels of thought process. Unlike a tank which has multiple crew members to handle different tasks so that they don't all have to be multi-tasking geniouses.

Solis Obscuri, on 02 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Harder, actaully, but conceptually similar to current 2nd gen Chobham armour. As per spider silk, lousy material for stopping an impact, but useful for resisting penetration - like the aramid fibers used in body armor, and like the spall liners and DU or tungsten mesh used in modern armor, and like the diamond fiber mesh utilized in 'mech armor per the fluff.

Actually if you read article you'll notice that the armor is not designed to ablate, that the harder layers were less effective against kinetic energy (gauss rifles and to some extent AC's) and is made of layers that react differently against different types of attacks. BattleTech armor on the other hand always reacts to attacks in the same way, meaning it has to be homogenous. It is also ablative which means some of it has to be lost every time it takes a hit. That implies softer as hard armor would either stop the round without flexing or would see the round penetrate all the way through, without having any material lost. If BT armor was harder than modern armor it would likely shatter and fail completely under high kinetic energy attacks.

The fluff is wrong. The BT armor cannot be layered the way the fluff says it is, otherwise it wouldn't react the same to attacks no matter how much was blown off.

Btw that article is really hard to follow as it shifts from subject to subject within the same sentance. At one moment its talking about the metal layer and how it is placed behind the matrix, but it should be used as a backing for the matrix because the extreme hardness would reflect more damage should the metal layer strongly deform but not defeat the penetrator. Its a poorly written article if you ask me and whomever wrote it should've gotten a proof reader to fix his/her subject verb conjugations and whatnot.

Solis Obscuri, on 02 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

The fluff is that the Zero-G environment allows for formation of different crystal alignments than would be possible in a planetary environment.

It's all sci-fi stuff, but I do appreciate that there's at least an attempt to justify how things work in BT.

I like the attempt to justify how things work and would love to buy it, unfortunately most of it doesn't make sense when its examined more carefully.

[trycksh0t]

Yes, the Maus was much higher weight in a smaller package. WWII tech was heavy, bulky, and inefficient. BTU tech is still fairly bulky, but lighter, more efficient, and more powerful. The Atlas also has DRASTICALLY greater firepower than a Maus, and greater protection, because of advances in weapon design.

Also, attempting to provide real-world logic and science to a science fiction setting, by definition not entirely based on reality, it is never really going to work out. I gave up on that awhile ago, and just enjoy the setting for what it is, with all of it's quirks intact.

[kameren]

why is everyone asuming that a tank is manually loaded it has an auto loader on it as well.

[Kartr]

Menander, on 02 March 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

I have a few comments to make on my first post =D.

Congratulations on your first post!

Menander, on 02 March 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

1) Armor: In the Battletech universe the arms race has reversed positions from what it is at now. In our current time weapons, not armor are the determining factor of conflict and this has largely been the case since the refinement of gunpowder weapons somwhere in the 17th and 18th centuries. However is Battletech armor has reached the point where the most advanced weapons of the time period, lets say a PPC or a Gauss Rifle, can be stopped by armor. I'm not going to get into the science of this as it is pointless but this is the idea.

The implications of this are that one couldn't rely on range and accuracy to win you battles. So rather than a main battle tank v. main battle tank analogy a more fitting one would be a renaissance era knight v. knight in which the armor of the two members involved in a combat would prolong it well past the first blow.

This isn't quite true, tanks through all eras have be designed to resist enemy fire up to and including multiple rounds. This is why the top down attack was developed and implemented via missiles. Tanks can trade blows and it takes an incredibly powerful weapon (more powerful than their own main gun) to penetrate the frontal and side facings of the armor.

In fact BT armor is simply an extrapolation of this concept. The better the power plants and drive systems the thicker and more dense the armor can get thus providing better defenses. Until weapons can no longer keep up as happened towards the end of WW2 and is beginning to happen again. To defeat the ultra thick and dense armors of the future weapons had to hit repeatedly in the same area to weaken it enough to penetrate. Since every impact is going to stress and weaken hard armor the design was changed to a softer armor that would deform and ablate rather than running the risk of stressing the entire armor to the point where a single shell could cause catastrophic failure.

Its not so much of an idea where weapons have been reduced to the point of edged weapons on armor like Knights jousting or swinging a sword, its already like that with tank cannons. Its more like the archer with his armor penetrating longbow has been negated due to incredibly thick and dense armors. In this case the archer is the AT missile delivering attacks designed to defeat weaker areas of armor.

Menander, on 02 March 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

As previously mentioned mechs ,like the thorn, weren't solid but rather hollow. This was due to the nature of mech armor which was meant to disperse energy weapons. On top of this ballistics or other physical weapons could pierce the mech without destroying it or killing the pilot, unlike a tank where if a weapon pierced the interior the crew would turn into red mist.

Thorn?

If you're trying to disperse a heat based weapon like a laser you don't make large portions hollow, you try and diffuse the beam. In other words you want a material that is easily vaporized so that it ejects a cloud of particles to disrupt the lasers coherency and thus power. Yet the material has to be sufficiently dense and hard to stop kinetic weapons and yet remain soft enough to deform and peel/gouge off. Top it off with the fact that it has to be thick enough to do all of that repeatedly. Additionally leaving large spaces empty for no real purpose makes you a larger easier to hit target which is exactly the opposite of how you want to be.

'Mechs still have a crew compartment which can be breached and is actually easier to breach because it can't be as heavily armored as a tank compartment. In addition while you may not have crew inside to kill with a penetrating shot you have all sorts of innards that can catastrophically destroy the 'Mech. Its actually worse for a 'Mech because the armor is thinner for the same amount of "weight." And any damage to ammo or the reactor could see the entire 'Mech explode underneath you. While a tank has much better armor to weight ratios and if it was modeled correctly would trade space for slope causing all weapons to do half damage.

Menander, on 02 March 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

These designs that survived very much informed upon the ideas that people had of what made a good mech. Even in our own context a reliable easily repairable weapon is the best in the eyes of both the solider and the government behind it. Look at the AK-47 its a 60 year old weapon and even the original models are considered comparable in some ways to weapons that have come out in the last 10 years.

Considered comparable to what? The M-16? That's been around almost as long. Besides the only reasons the AK-47 is considered "good" is because its easy to maintain and extremely plentiful. Its actually a rather crap gun with very low accuracy. There are many many modern rifles that are leagues beyond the AK-47 in every area (including reliability) except for one and that is quantity. AK-47s aren't widely used because they're good, they're widely used because they're plentiful.

Also if the AK-47 is such a good weapon in the eyes of its soldiers and nation, why was it replaced by the AK-74?

Menander, on 02 March 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

3) Mech mobility: Canon Battletech never disputed the reign of the tank in flat open terrain. Thats why the houses still use them. The thing is though that a tank cannot go everywhere. The main advantage of the mech is that they could perform quite well in all forms of environment or terrain; they were generalists.

The only places tanks can't go are vertical or near vertical slopes/terrain and under water (though that's possible using snorkel gear and with fusion engines probably don't even need that). 'Mechs can jump over, on top of or into terrain to steep for tanks, but there's not a lot of terrain that requires that ability.

'Mechs only real mobility advantage is that they have legs that act like massive shock absorbers and its easier to mount jetpacks on them and control their fall. This means they have a strategic mobility advantage because they can be space dropped. They're also easier to load in tall ships like spherical DropShips because they're like upright tanks, so you can fit similar firepower in a vertical space without needing multiple elevators or ramps to load them. This makes them great for securing LZs as they can drop in and defend the area until the tanks are unloaded, and they're good for raids as they can drop in secure the target and an LZ and then quickly load onto their spherical DropShip for a get away.

Menander, on 02 March 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

This may not seem that important in the currently Cold War framed idea of armor warfare that many of us have a basic idea about; where there are well defined battle lines and lines of supply and communication. One must make note however that the scale of battletech is no longer on the nation wide war scale but the galactic. Mechs needed, and could, range across the entirety of a planet on campaign and often would have to in order to secure it.

Actually I've thought long and hard about this and I believe that its the primary reason 'Mechs became so important. Their ability to quickly secure LZs from space along with their ability to quickly load on to DropShips means they're the perfect spear head for an invasion or the perfect raiders when talking about warfare on an interplanetary scale.

They can quickly change the battle lines by dropping into a new location on the planet, much like modern paratroopers can and often did in WW2. In reality the only real changes are the month long supply lines and the fact you can move your beach heads fairly easily simply by taking off and dropping down on a different part of the planet, bringing your supply lines with you in the form of DropShips and your LZ.

So you're pretty much spot on with this point. The only problem is that it doesn't change the fact that tanks if modeled correctly are the physically superior combatant. The one thing they lack is the ability to drop from orbit. However if you use a company of 'Mechs to secure an LZ and then unload your tanks the tanks will be the better force for taking and holding land freeing up your 'Mechs to conduct raids on other portions of the planet.

Menander, on 02 March 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

4) Socio-Cultural: The mechwarrior was revered in his society, one should never forget this when you think about this settings. They are the elite in every way; socially, economically, militarily and politically. One had to be able to afford, maintain and use their mech to hold onto it and pass it down to their progeny during the period between the end of the Star League amd 3050. It wasn't necessarily about mechs being the perfect weapon in these peoples eyes; no matter how true or untrue this may have been. The idea of being a mechwarrior and the status attached continued to draw people to it regardless of what the reality was. They were knights, samurai, navy SEALs, etc. all rolled into one, they knew it and so did everyone else.

You kind of have this backwards. The MechWarrior is revered in society yes, but thats not something that makes 'Mechs more important or superior to tanks. Rather its the fact that 'Mechs are like the special forces, or the Marines, dropping in ahead of the main army to secure beach heads or conduct raids against enemy infrastructure. The importance of 'Mechs for warfare in the far future is what makes MechWarriors important.

The revered nature of MechWarriors is due to their high profile, the glamorous idea of "the few the proud" the "tip of the spear," these might warriors who defy the odds and pit themselves against a superior enemy on far fields of battle. Fighting for glory and the <insert house> way against the damn dirty <insert derogatory term for enemy houses> on some distant world. The tanker drives the more deadly machine that is more vital for the defense of home and hearth, but the MechWarrior is the one in the news because he/she is the one dropping in first or conducting raids.

The fame and the fact that warfare has become a way of life by the time of the Star Leagues formation, turned the MechWarrior into a celebrity and that is why they're revered and often wealthy. The fact that you need wealth to maintain incredibly complex machines that are going to have much higher maintenance costs/needs is why 'MechWarriors tend to come from the "nobility" and the wealthy. In the end creating a self perpetuating system where only the rich and famous can afford 'Mechs, so only the rich and famous have them and they decide the policy and with generations of fame and fortune feel like their entitled to more. Because they need more fame and power they launch wars to gain them, which since they're MechWarriors on the front lines they get even more fame and so the cycle of destruction and greed marches ever on.

kameren, on 02 March 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

why is everyone asuming that a tank is manually loaded it has an auto loader on it as well.

I've never made that assumption. It doesn't change the fact that you need more room inside for more crew members.

Edited by Kartr, 02 March 2012 - 09:22 PM.

[kameren]

acyually u did [color=#959595]including load the cannon[/color][color=#959595]. In a 'Mech you have to replace the loader with machiner[/color]

stupid copy past crap grr

is also a reason u cant be over 5foot 9 or 10 and be a mbt crew member as well as the driver has too be shorter and lays almost flat inside the vehicle

main compartment has two people in it with very little moving around room at all.

so they are not hollow like everyone is saying either they are pretty much solid all the way thru with three hollow spots engine/fuel area ammo storage and a small crew compartment.

now figure in the room for the myomers inside the mech that have to reach everywhere and have hooke on points like muscles also all the tubing for the coolant that u dont want too bunch up so collant stops flowing is prolly a three foot gap at least between outer layer of armor and the internal structure on a mech.

[Kartr]

kameren, on 02 March 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

acyually u did [color=#959595]including load the cannon[/color][color=#959595]. In a 'Mech you have to replace the loader with machiner[/color]

stupid copy past crap grr

You'll notice that I was talking about modern battle tanks not future tanks. Yes the loader won't be a position in BT tanks as the weapons are autoloaded. You still need room for the gunner, driver, radio operator/hull gunner, commander and any other gunners you may have.

kameren, on 02 March 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

is also a reason u cant be over 5foot 9 or 10 and be a mbt crew member as well as the driver has too be shorter and lays almost flat inside the vehicle

Maybe for some tanks, but not for all. The official tanker height limit for the US Army is 6 feet 2 inches tall, almost 6 inches more that your estimate. It completely depends on the tank. Those super cramped sizes are more in line with Soviet tanks during WW2 and the Cold War rather than tanks as a whole.

kameren, on 02 March 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

main compartment has two people in it with very little moving around room at all.

Looks like its not as cramped as you make it out to be.

kameren, on 02 March 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

so they are not hollow like everyone is saying either they are pretty much solid all the way thru with three hollow spots engine/fuel area ammo storage and a small crew compartment.

Technically they are hollow, but technicalities aside they have significantly more open space inside than a BattleMech because they have 4 times the crew.

kameren, on 02 March 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

now figure in the room for the myomers inside the mech that have to reach everywhere and have hooke on points like muscles also all the tubing for the coolant that u dont want too bunch up so collant stops flowing is prolly a three foot gap at least between outer layer of armor and the internal structure on a mech.

Three foot gap? Really? You're just going to start pulling numbers out of you @$$ now? Yes there is going to be some open space around the legs but there's hardly going to be three feet all the way around, which equates to an increase in diameter of the leg by almost 2 meters. With no need to accommodate crew members they are going to pack the 'Mechs as efficiently as possible. Coolant lines are going to be attached to the inside of the framework that supports the armor to keep them from flapping around and getting in the way, just like wires and hoses are secured in vehicles and aircraft.

As for the Myomer the more I think about it the less likely I think it would actually be used. It certainly wouldn't be used for anything other than the knees and elbows. Hips, ankles, shoulders and wrists are all much more efficiently moved by a simple motor. Artificial muscle are just to bulky and inefficient in those positions. Fortunately only using myomer at the elbows and knees allows damaged 'Mechs to have dangling musculature which gives authors more exciting images to play with. All the other joints wouldn't give the same effect when damaged.

[kameren]

that space u see in the picture is the entire space for two people inside of it and u cant see everything that is inside of the tank. the light u see over there is for the tank comander. the guy u see is the loader assistant gunner radio operator and anything else besides driving that is needed too be done. and if u look it is only a small part that is open and it is only between the space the turret ring sits at as well how do u get that is alot of space have u actually ever sat in one. and sorry max height is 6 foot 1 inch and if u are driver is a tight squeeze for you. and as for not flappin around as it is in aircraft an aircraft does not need too be able to bend. i bend a knee that is alot of crompression on that one area i move a flap a cable moves and pulls it down not going to compress anything.

[kameren]

and that doesnt mean u can stand straight up and down in the tank means u can sit in it and not have ur head bashed into the top of it.

[kameren]

and once again current tanks run on auto loaders for the most part