78 replies to this topic

[draeke]

Kartr, on 02 March 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

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.


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.




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



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



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.

Kartr:

You are truly knowledgable on all things battletech and US armor in general. Are you an Israeli armor/artillery officer? if you are just an engineer your knowledge alone is very impressive!

[Kartr]

Kameren if you think of something you want to add to your post after you posted it, you can use the edit button. That way you don't have to keep spamming posts.

kameren, on 02 March 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

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, on 02 March 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

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.

By the authority with which you speak about this topic I take it you're a US Army Tanker and have extensive experience with the M1 Abrams and the amount of room crew members have?

There are all sorts of moving parts in airplanes and vehicles that require different types of lines to bend, its not a new concept that's never been done before and it doesn't take 3ft of space to do. Also those elastic bands that hold up your trousers, same concept and they don't get so much thicker/thinner when they're stretched or relaxed. Muscles in the human body don't increase their circumference that drastically when flexed and unlike real muscles myomer won't get bigger and stronger the more they're worked, so you don't have to leave room for them to grow.

draeke, on 02 March 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:

Kartr:

You are truly knowledgable on all things battletech and US armor in general. Are you an Israeli armor/artillery officer? if you are just an engineer your knowledge alone is very impressive!

<ignore sarcasm>Engineering student and 4 years as an Anti-armor Assaultman in the USMC, who's been inside a few different tanks. I wouldn't consider myself to be possessing of an impressive abundance of knowledge, I just have good googling skills. Also I like figuring out how things would have to work to do what they do and am pretty good at visualizing mechanical interactions in three dimensions.</ignore sarcasm>

[draeke]

Kartr, on 02 March 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

Kameren if you think of something you want to add to your post after you posted it, you can use the edit button. That way you don't have to keep spamming posts.


By the authority with which you speak about this topic I take it you're a US Army Tanker and have extensive experience with the M1 Abrams and the amount of room crew members have?

There are all sorts of moving parts in airplanes and vehicles that require different types of lines to bend, its not a new concept that's never been done before and it doesn't take 3ft of space to do. Also those elastic bands that hold up your trousers, same concept and they don't get so much thicker/thinner when they're stretched or relaxed. Muscles in the human body don't increase their circumference that drastically when flexed and unlike real muscles myomer won't get bigger and stronger the more they're worked, so you don't have to leave room for them to grow.


<ignore sarcasm>Engineering student and 4 years as an Anti-armor Assaultman in the USMC, who's been inside a few different tanks. I wouldn't consider myself to be possessing of an impressive abundance of knowledge, I just have good googling skills. Also I like figuring out how things would have to work to do what they do and am pretty good at visualizing mechanical interactions in three dimensions.</ignore sarcasm>

Kartr:

Fellow brother in arms going on 10 years (8 enlisted/2 commissioned), I was wondering how you had such intimate knowledge about US armor. Your posts didn't make it sound as if you were US military. Either way you have great knowledge on the subject, hope we don't lose your knowledge to corporate america. I've had the offer myself MI/Signal background and they all seem like douches, 4YR ENG degree hope you made it into MIT or Cal Burkley man!

[Sarah Dalrymple]

Here's my take on the subject:

It's a game. And the core books say that the Atlas is 100 tons and has awesome stuff to make your opponent go BOOM.

That's good enough for me.

http://www.sarna.net...as_(BattleMech) has all the details I need to know, because it's a fictional universe with fictional futuristic gear.

Atlas is my second most favorite 'mech. My first being a custom-build Goliath, that due to a fluke in programming code allowed me to have THREE gauss rifles AND a targeting computer.

Can I have that Goliath in-game? Pretty please?

And on a random note, if 100 tons isn't enough, might I interest you in a 135 ton model? http://www.sarna.net...es_(BattleMech)

[Kartr]

draeke, on 02 March 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Kartr:

Fellow brother in arms going on 10 years (8 enlisted/2 commissioned), I was wondering how you had such intimate knowledge about US armor. Your posts didn't make it sound as if you were US military. Either way you have great knowledge on the subject, hope we don't lose your knowledge to corporate america. I've had the offer myself MI/Signal background and they all seem like douches, 4YR ENG degree hope you made it into MIT or Cal Burkley man!

My bad I thought you were being sarcastic. Feel pretty stupid now, but hey its hard to tell with a text only medium.

My goal is to own my own company and revolutionize air transportation by bringing back the Airship in a modern incarnation. Utilizing solar cells, high capacity-light weight batteries and electric engines, as close 100% green transportation as physically possible and it can carry the same loads as a C-130 or even C-5 if you make it big enough and be able to take off and land vertically!

Sleeper cabins and restaurants for the passenger versions maybe even actual theaters to watch the latest release as you sail through the sky, not a hint of turbulence or engine noise. Take an aerial cruise of Europe living in a sky palace floating serenely above the world, no hectic worries of the modern world as you cruise down to the Mediterranean. Any clime any time!

Disaster relief versions that compress a full surgical suite into a tiny space and literal tons of supplies. Drop down in the middle of the worst devastation and start unloading supplies and aid workers. As you make room in the Airship expand the suite out to where you can conduct operations, have an ICU and a ward to take care of people. Once the immediate cases are no longer coming in and your ward is full, head back to civilization and turn them over to hospitals, load back up on supplies and go back to continue helping people. Maybe your second or third trip you carry heavy machinery to help them start building.

So many possibilities when you can carry vast weights and volumes, take off and land vertically and run entirely off solar power. That's the hope and goal anyway.

[RogueSpear]

The thing everyone seems to be forgetting is that tanks are a superior medium in the BT universe - but 'mechs are more useful, high profile and intimidating. To draw a real world comparision: In modern times, the tank is viewed as the pinnacle of ground warfare. It's well armed, heavily armoured, usually can move at a decent speed, and look pretty badass.
Except they are very much a niche vehicle. Tanks are nearly entirely useless in urban combat. M1 Abrams can be killed by a molotov cocktail if it gets into the right location and chokes the air intakes for the engine. They don't have room to manoeuvre, they have shots raining down on their weaker top armour, etc, etc. Tanks do fundamentally rely on open terrain to be used effectively.
Battlemechs however combine the arms and armour of a tank with the mobility of an infantryman and the resilience and framework allowing operation in space and hotdropping. Stick an Atlas in urban combat and sure, it's usefulness is reduced, but it's easily going to disadvantage a tank in the same environment. An Atlas stands at 4 stories in height (according to the original fluff) and nearly/just 6 according to the 18m height PGI have given, and doesn't actually possess significantly weaker top armour, instead just having weaker rear armour - the same as a tank. However unlike a tank, it can turn much easier to face flanking units.
In addition terrain that gives even tanks pause will not overly inconvenience a mech, especially if that mech possesses hands. Rockclimbing in your Atlas anyone?
In the BT universe, many of the engagements are simply harassment tactics. In modern warfare, mechanized units are the best for this, using tracked vehicles moving at speed. However this is hard to do, and harder if airlifting is involved as it takes a lot of time to unsecure and dismount the vehicles from their transports (Leaving aside having to leave the plane). In the BT universe, you're not raiding across a country border, you're raiding another planet. Dropships require immediate ground support, hotdropping 'Mechs. 'Mechs also don't need tied down, instead being able to be locked in place with armoured cradles (See the Wednesday Hot Drop bonus), allowing further mechs to dismount swiftly. Simply crossing a galaxy to burn a farm is a waste of resources, most raids will be focussing on destroying enemy infrastructure like factories, spaceports, under-garrisoned bases. Most often, these are located in or near cities - and regardless will contain many buildings. I could go on, but I think it's obvious when logically reasoned in the warfare of the BT universe, 'Mechs are simply the more useful and dynamic unit.
But tanks are still used. Why? Because unlike 'mechs they're not ridiculously hard to maintain. Tanks are used for their low cost, efficiency and low training times (Mechwarriors spend their entire lives training). They're an excellent garrison unit. However, they are no longer the driving force of the military, and haven't been since the Mackie was released - nearly all R&D goes into the Battlemech. With all the lost tech and change in strategy and emphasis on the Battlemech, tanks have falllen by the wayside - and that is why 1-1 in open field Battlemechs defeat tanks - because the tank is not built to the same standard and is crewed (generally) by a far lower trained and experienced crew. Also taking the height difference into account, and a 'mechs ability to dodge (Sidestepping, suddenly changing direction, zigzagging, etc), A mech is able to throw of any individual tank's aim and blast it in the top armour.

Fundamentally though? Welcome to Battletech. We like 'mechs here. Stop trying to ruin the fun and just roll with the awesome

Disclaimer: Actually using the Awesome battlemech not required, but advised.

OT: Kartr, I look forward to seeing how you do with that airship project. If you can get some solid designs down and acquire funding...interesting things could be on the horizon. But I'm just a games student with a taste for tanks and physics, I have no idea how feasible it would actually be in practice - but I'd love to watch you find out

Edit: Also on the sloped armour comment from earlier, that mechanic does not make sense for a few reasons. Firstly, sloped armour does not reduce the damage of a projectile, just it's chance to penetrate. It would have no effect on energy weapons, and probably fail to affect missiles (Which strike the top armour/flat, depending on trajectory). For ballistics, in essence sloped armour increases the thickness of the armour at the point of impact. An angle of 60 degrees will double the effective thickness of the armour, but that will drastically increase the tanks horizontal hull profile, or reduce the interior space by far more than '1 slot'. In addition, armour in the BT universe seems to be based on a similar system to Dorchester (The previously mentioned Chobham type 2 armour) which is essentially 1 inch square (I don't know the depth) ceramic tiles mounted in a steel matrix. Sloping the armour actually decreases the effectiveness of the armour.

How chobham armour works:
[color=#000000]

Quote

Due to the extreme [/color]hardness[color=#000000] of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against a [/color]shaped charge[color=#000000] jet and they shatter [/color]kinetic energy penetrators[color=#000000] (KE-penetrators). The (pulverised) ceramic also strongly [/color]abrades[color=#000000] any penetrator. Against lighter projectiles the hardness of the tiles causes a "shatter gap" effect: a higher velocity will, within a certain velocity range (the "gap"), not lead to a deeper penetration but destroy the projectile itself instead.[/color]^[1][color=#000000] Because the ceramic is so [/color]brittle[color=#000000] the entrance channel of a shaped charge jet is not smooth — as it would be when penetrating a metal — but ragged, causing extreme asymmetric pressures which disturb the geometry of the jet, on which its penetrative capabilities are critically dependent as its mass is relatively low. This initiates a [/color]vicious circle[color=#000000] as the disturbed jet causes still greater irregularities in the ceramic, until in the end it is defeated. The newer composites, though tougher, optimise this effect as tiles made with them have a layered internal structure conducive to it, causing "crack deflection".[/color]^[2][color=#000000] This mechanism using the jet's own energy against it, has caused some to compare the effects of Chobham to those of [/color]reactive armour[color=#000000].

[/color]

Why this is adversely affected by sloping:
[color=#000000]

Quote

Ceramic tiles draw little or no advantage from [/color]sloped armour[color=#000000] as they lack sufficient toughness to significantly deflect heavy penetrators. Indeed, because a single glancing shot could crack many tiles, the placement of the matrix is chosen so as to optimise the chance of a perpendicular hit, a reversal of the previous desired design feature for conventional armour. Ceramic armour normally even offers better protection for a given [/color]areal density[color=#000000] when placed perpendicularly than when placed obliquely, because the cracking propagates along the [/color]surface normal[color=#000000] of the plate.[/color]^[7][color=#000000] Instead of rounded forms, the turrets of tanks using Chobham armour typically have a slab-sided appearance.

[/color]



[color=#000000]Both quotes taken from wikipedia. [/color]


Hopefully that helps. Also as a point of interest, Chobham type 2 armour (Dorchester) is currently still classified, no doubt why that wiki article listed earlier was so poorly written - whoever wrote it was probably working on hearsay and guesswork. However the only tank in the world armoured in it, the Challenger 2, has only ever seen 2 units damaged and one destroyed. 'Damaged' seems to mean penetrated rather than external modules damaged. The destroyed Challenger 2 was taken out in a friendly fire incident where a HESH warhead from another Challenger 2 hit the open commander's cupola, sending burning shrapnel into the tank and causing an internal ammo explosion. IIRC, the ammo storage has now been corrected to avoid/reduce a repeat of the incident. One Challenger 2 has also been confirmed to have survived at least 14 RPGs and a MILAN anti tank missile. It had it's optics damaged, but was repaired and back in action inside of 6 hours. Another took over 70 RPGs, with no major damage (That I know of).
/Tank ramble.

Edited by RogueSpear, 03 March 2012 - 02:24 AM.

[Miles Tails Prower]

I would point to Clarke's 3rd law here.

In the extremely distant future. Battlemechs are built from materials that don't exist, using advanced metalurgy methods that don't exist, by new engineering principals that don't exist, in factories that don't exist.

The bottom line is that Battlemechs don't exist in our real world, so they don't have to play by the rules in our real world. All the designers have to do, is portray Battletech in a way that doesn't stretch the player's mind to the point that they stop thinking about how awesome X or Y game is, and on the possibilities of how realistic or unrealistic said game is.

If you can manage that, then you're a huge step closer to immersing your players into your universe successfully.

Edited by Miles Tails Prower, 03 March 2012 - 03:05 AM.

[Stone Profit]

Thomas Covenant, on 02 March 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

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

We havent stopped fighting in the last thousand years, why would the next be any different? Theres always someone who wants what another has, and will try to take it by force of arms. The only way to stop it is if everyone has everything they could possibly want, and that just seems unlikely.

[Alaskan Viking]

This has always bothered me too, how does a giant assault mech only weight 100 tons? They walk right over little ant like main battle tanks all day long because they are vastly larger, but a modern MBT weighs over 60 tons....????? Why not recalculate the tonnage of all the mechs, or say it is 100 Ultra long tons, or space tons, or some other fictional unit of weight....

[Kartr]

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

The thing everyone seems to be forgetting is that tanks are a superior medium in the BT universe - but 'mechs are more useful, high profile and intimidating. To draw a real world comparision: In modern times, the tank is viewed as the pinnacle of ground warfare. It's well armed, heavily armoured, usually can move at a decent speed, and look pretty badass.

Actually we haven't forgotten and covered it just a couple of posts ago. BattleMechs while inferior machines tactically (should get their giant robot rears kicked by tanks every time) are the strategically more useful machine. Hot dropping to secure LZs or conduct raids, quicker loading onto DropShips and fewer people to brief on objectives makes them great for the limited warfare of the IS post 2nd Succession War. Their utility and the general lack of total war in the last 300+ years lead to a devaluation of the Tank despite its superior tactical abilities. This happened most dramatically in the minds of the public though almost equally as great in the military establishment drawn from that public.

Until someone launches a war of unification that requires large armies to take and hold ground the tank isn't going to be valued by the military establishment. Ironically until the tank is more highly valued and the art of tank design is brought back and the full potential unleashed, no one is going to be able to conduct such a unification war.

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

Except they are very much a niche vehicle. Tanks are nearly entirely useless in urban combat. M1 Abrams can be killed by a molotov cocktail if it gets into the right location and chokes the air intakes for the engine. They don't have room to manoeuvre, they have shots raining down on their weaker top armour, etc, etc. Tanks do fundamentally rely on open terrain to be used effectively.

Hmm the videos I've seen of urban combat in Iraq with M1's demolishing enemy strong points and generally kicking a$$ seems to put lie to the fact that tanks are "nearly useless" in urban combat. Tanks are extremely useful in urban combat, their armor allows them to engage MG positions and other strong points that would annihilate infantry. WW2 saw heavy use of tanks and self propelled guns in urban environments, vehicles that were far from useless and were often vital to success.

Hmm I must've missed the molotov cocktail kill lesson when I was at division schools doing Anti-Armor Assaultman training back in 2006. Maybe it was because I was gone for a week evaluating the EFV and driving BMP2s (BMP2 is an amazingly smooth ride and a joy to drive, even though everything is labeled in Russian ). A molotov cocktail is going to choke off oxygen to the engine at worst. That would render it immobile till the cocktail stopped burning and the engine could get O2.

However I'm pretty sure the designers of the M1 have taken such "AT weapons" into consideration when designing the tank, after all infantry using grenades to kill tanks was something the Germans encountered during the Kursk salient battles. A tactic that was only made effective for two reasons, the tanks outstripped their infantry support and they didn't have MGs to fend off the infantry themselves (the inferior Porsche designs didn't have MGs and were the hardest hit by these tactics).

Tanks are most effective in open terrain because they get to dictate the pace and location of the battle. However they are still extremely effective in much more enclosed terrain. Examples are the Bocage in France which German tankers used to extreme effect to savage Allied forces. Or the Battle of the Bulge where the forest fighting, combined with the general immobility caused by harsh winter weather (muddy terrain would affect 'Mechs worse than tanks), once again allowed the German tankers to achieve great success against the Allied forces.

Yes tanks need proper air, artillery and infantry support to be their most effective in any terrain. That 's because real wars are not won by a single magic weapon, they're won by the proper application of combined arms doctrine. This applies to any military conflict between two armies, including future armies on distant worlds. To achieve their fullest potential 'Mechs need to be supported by infantry, artillery and air support just like tanks. BattleTech tends to gloss this over as its a game of 'Mech on 'Mech, focusing on a single aspect of warfare.

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

Battlemechs however combine the arms and armour of a tank with the mobility of an infantryman and the resilience and framework allowing operation in space and hotdropping. Stick an Atlas in urban combat and sure, it's usefulness is reduced, but it's easily going to disadvantage a tank in the same environment. An Atlas stands at 4 stories in height (according to the original fluff) and nearly/just 6 according to the 18m height PGI have given, and doesn't actually possess significantly weaker top armour, instead just having weaker rear armour - the same as a tank. However unlike a tank, it can turn much easier to face flanking units.

The BattleMech is actually much less mobile than an infantryman. Infantry can take and hold buildings, clearing room by room. 'Mechs and tanks can only destroy buildings not capture them. Powersuited armor is closer to combining tank levels of protection with infantry flexibility, but 'Mechs are to big to be anything other than walking tanks and as such cannot achieve the flexibility of infantry, or do the jobs infantry can do.

The height of a 'Mech is a mixed blessing. True it makes it harder for people to shoot down on it and it can engage targets on multiple levels immediately around it. However that height makes it a much bigger target and makes the center of gravity so high that it becomes vulnerable to attacks that knock it down. Also while it doesn't have weaker top armor it has weaker bottom armor. So it would be vulnerable to enemy infantry hiding until it goes by and then striking with heavy weapons against its rear armor. Even in urban terrain the 'Mech is not the clear choice, because once again you have to apply combined arms.

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

In addition terrain that gives even tanks pause will not overly inconvenience a mech, especially if that mech possesses hands. Rockclimbing in your Atlas anyone?

Having rock climbed both as a civilian for fun, and as a Marine for mountain training I know how challenging it can be. I also know that you need all kinds of equipment to do it safely. I'm not saying it isn't impossible that 'Mechs with hands can climb cliffs I'm just saying its highly improbable. The jump jet is what gives them an advantage in mountainous terrain, plus their smaller "foot print" that could theoretically let them fit through smaller passes that would stop or at least impede wider bodied tanks.

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

In the BT universe, many of the engagements are simply harassment tactics. In modern warfare, mechanized units are the best for this, using tracked vehicles moving at speed. However this is hard to do, and harder if airlifting is involved as it takes a lot of time to unsecure and dismount the vehicles from their transports (Leaving aside having to leave the plane). In the BT universe, you're not raiding across a country border, you're raiding another planet. Dropships require immediate ground support, hotdropping 'Mechs. 'Mechs also don't need tied down, instead being able to be locked in place with armoured cradles (See the Wednesday Hot Drop bonus), allowing further mechs to dismount swiftly. Simply crossing a galaxy to burn a farm is a waste of resources, most raids will be focussing on destroying enemy infrastructure like factories, spaceports, under-garrisoned bases. Most often, these are located in or near cities - and regardless will contain many buildings. I could go on, but I think it's obvious when logically reasoned in the warfare of the BT universe, 'Mechs are simply the more useful and dynamic unit.

Yes I covered this early in this post and several posts ago. 'Mechs are easier to load and can hot drop making them a more strategically flexible unit perfect for raids.

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

But tanks are still used. Why? Because unlike 'mechs they're not ridiculously hard to maintain. Tanks are used for their low cost, efficiency and low training times (Mechwarriors spend their entire lives training). They're an excellent garrison unit. However, they are no longer the driving force of the military, and haven't been since the Mackie was released - nearly all R&D goes into the Battlemech. With all the lost tech and change in strategy and emphasis on the Battlemech, tanks have falllen by the wayside - and that is why 1-1 in open field Battlemechs defeat tanks - because the tank is not built to the same standard and is crewed (generally) by a far lower trained and experienced crew. Also taking the height difference into account, and a 'mechs ability to dodge (Sidestepping, suddenly changing direction, zigzagging, etc), A mech is able to throw of any individual tank's aim and blast it in the top armour.

Much of this is true, though a crew of averaged trained tankers should easily be a match for an overworked 'MechWarrior. The focus on BattleMechs due to their strategic advantages and the fact limited wars primarily fought as a series of raids limited the usefulness of tanks. This lead to a stagnation of tank design and the belief that tanks are inherently inferior to 'Mechs which in turn lead to even less thought and effort going into design and doctrine.

The height of a 'Mech is actually one of its biggest weaknesses not one of its strengths. It makes it a much larger target, makes it less stable, especially when firing (think shooting a rifle stand vs laying prone), and causes it to weave when moving creating difficulties in aiming. None of those are problems tanks suffer from, making them more accurate standing still or on the move and makes them harder to hit. As for the height allowing them to shoot the weak armor of the top that is only true of the 'Mech is standing in the same "hex" as the tank. Otherwise if you do the trig (and I have) a 'Mech will always strike the frontal/side facings of a tank and never the top, unless using indirect LRM fire.

As for the Mackie test, I would love to sit down with someone and actually play that out. Why wouldn't 4 tanks be able to flank and destroy the Mackie's rear armor? With AC/5s and LRM-15s the Merkava's should've been able to hold the Mackie at range and pick it apart. I'm pretty sure the event was rigged to impress the officials in charge of funding the BattleMech concept, a concept the military probably came up with to solve the need to secure LZs on hostile planets.

Its not letting me post the second half. Keeps merging them together and freaking out.

Could someone add a one line comment so I can post the second half of my reply?

Different computer, maybe it'll let me post now!

Edited by Kartr, 03 March 2012 - 03:09 PM.

[Nighthound]

Ayayayayay ..... we (my friends and me) have a saying regarding Battletech.

It is called Battletech not Logitech!

It would be totaly ridiculous to build a battlemech .... why? ..... Cause you will end up with a giant 10 to 14 Meter tall Target! There is a reason our Tanks are getting flatter by the decade so they are less likely to get hit. ...... grrrrrr .... now I get started myself .....gnaaaa

[Kartr]

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

Fundamentally though? Welcome to Battletech. We like 'mechs here. Stop trying to ruin the fun and just roll with the awesome

I'm not trying to ruin the fun, I've loved BattleTech since I cracked the database on the MW2 cd (couldn't play it because the PC didn't have the right specs), loved it more when I played MW3. Over Christmas this year I got to play the TT for the first time and spent hours going through different TRO's and read the Revised Master Rules cover to cover. I love this game its a ton of fun, my problem is when people say its "realistic," none of it is realistic! Just accept that and enjoy it, don't try and say its realistic though because that's when we're going to have problems and I'll call a Trial of Grievance and we'll meet in a Circle of Reason

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

OT: Kartr, I look forward to seeing how you do with that airship project. If you can get some solid designs down and acquire funding...interesting things could be on the horizon. But I'm just a games student with a taste for tanks and physics, I have no idea how feasible it would actually be in practice - but I'd love to watch you find out

Thanks!

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

Edit: Also on the sloped armour comment from earlier, that mechanic does not make sense for a few reasons. Firstly, sloped armour does not reduce the damage of a projectile, just it's chance to penetrate. It would have no effect on energy weapons, and probably fail to affect missiles (Which strike the top armour/flat, depending on trajectory). For ballistics, in essence sloped armour increases the thickness of the armour at the point of impact. An angle of 60 degrees will double the effective thickness of the armour, but that will drastically increase the tanks horizontal hull profile, or reduce the interior space by far more than '1 slot'. In addition, armour in the BT universe seems to be based on a similar system to Dorchester (The previously mentioned Chobham type 2 armour) which is essentially 1 inch square (I don't know the depth) ceramic tiles mounted in a steel matrix. Sloping the armour actually decreases the effectiveness of the armour.

Reduce it by 2 slots per facing, the numbers can be tweaked and since when armor is hit by lasers its often described as "rivulets of molten metal running down the armor" (can't remember a specific source right now) it apparently isn't ceramic its metal. Plus since the armor is ablative you'd want to increase the thickness and by angling it you can increase the effective thickness without increasing the effective weight.

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

How chobham armour works:


Why this is adversely affected by sloping:


Hopefully that helps. Also as a point of interest, Chobham type 2 armour (Dorchester) is currently still classified, no doubt why that wiki article listed earlier was so poorly written - whoever wrote it was probably working on hearsay and guesswork. However the only tank in the world armoured in it, the Challenger 2, has only ever seen 2 units damaged and one destroyed. 'Damaged' seems to mean penetrated rather than external modules damaged. The destroyed Challenger 2 was taken out in a friendly fire incident where a HESH warhead from another Challenger 2 hit the open commander's cupola, sending burning shrapnel into the tank and causing an internal ammo explosion. IIRC, the ammo storage has now been corrected to avoid/reduce a repeat of the incident. One Challenger 2 has also been confirmed to have survived at least 14 RPGs and a MILAN anti tank missile. It had it's optics damaged, but was repaired and back in action inside of 6 hours. Another took over 70 RPGs, with no major damage (That I know of).
/Tank ramble.

I'm still pretty sure BTech armor isn't ceramic and doesn't work like modern Chobham armor. However until I've had my materials classes and/or gotten to learn how Chobham works from an engineer who actually knows what it does I can't definitively say that its not ceramic, just that it melts and ablates which isn't how ceramics work, to the best of my knowledge.

Alaskan Viking, on 03 March 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

This has always bothered me too, how does a giant assault mech only weight 100 tons? They walk right over little ant like main battle tanks all day long because they are vastly larger, but a modern MBT weighs over 60 tons....????? Why not recalculate the tonnage of all the mechs, or say it is 100 Ultra long tons, or space tons, or some other fictional unit of weight....

My guess is that "tons" isn't actually a measure of weight. Actually I know it isn't a measure of weight because then it would vary from planet to planet. My best guess is that "tons" is an in universe scale of effectiveness per mass, similar in concept to the BV system used in TT. The higher the number the more effective it is.

[Dragon Lady]

Kartr, on 02 March 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

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


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.

As someone else who's cruched the numbers from the "Hot Drop" trailer, when I did my "back of the envelope" calculation for the density of an 18m tall Atlas, I didn't base it on the build of an average 70kg man, but that a 100kg bodybuilder, which IMO is what an Atlas reminds me of. Since humans are on average neutrally buoyant, you can get get their volume in m³ simply through this calculation: 1000/weight (kg) = volume (m³) A 100kg man would have a volume of 0.10 m³. An 18m tall atlas is 10.5 times the height of the average man, which means that it has a volume of about 120m³. One cubic meter of water just happens to weigh exactly one metric ton... so I agree that a 18m tall Atlas will float. But then, the table-top game is very clear about Battlemechs being no taller than 12 meters, which gives an Atlas a density about 40% that of steel.

[RogueSpear]

I only have a couple of minutes so I'm only going to address a couple of points:
1) I know you're not trying to ruin the fun, I was teasing and also warning myself, I'm infamous for trying to work real world physics into our RPs and causing needless arguments...
2) On the 'Mech rockclimbing/infantry mobility, I didn't mean scaling sheer 90 degree walls or room clearing, I meant things like a tank being unable to traverse a 60 degree slope, whereas a 'Mech could conceivably climb it, pick it's way through boulders and so on. The smaller footprint and ability to move in a manner similar to an infantryman was what I was referring to - not a 1-1 direct equality.
3) With the chobham armour I was referring to the steel matrix and the tileset. Chobham uses ceramic tiles mounted in steel, Ferrofibrous mounts diamonds in an 'endo steel' lattice. Diamonds and steel melt (Presumably future space steel does as well. I believe Diamond melts before the point at which it would combust as well) producing the effect you mentioned, and sloping would cause the damage to affect more tiles at once. Because of the weight chobham defeats the penetrators, and assuming I read it correctly and that BT armour functions on a similar principle, allowing lasers to melt and penetrators to crack and dislodge additional tiles would compromise the total armour integrity a lot faster rather than if it hit square on. I actually use this to justify the ablating of armour in BT - the overall integrity is being reduced by tiles being melted together, knocked out of alignment, blown off from warheads that explode internally etc. Mechs rarely use perpendicular armour (Rule of Cool, moving parts) so it seems feasible to me.
4) A tank and a 'Mech developed on even terms will go down to chance and who the greater skilled pilot is. The Mech has the ability to dodge a little better, more efficient use of cover, and it's harder to score an immobility or crew kill (The former being what I was referring to with the Molotovs - modern armour is relatively immune to internal fuel explosions and similar, but it will force the tank immobile and unpowered until the flaming liquid/rag is removed) due to the design. Example, a shot that removes a Mech's arm leaves all other parts intact. A shot that destroys the weapon system on the right torso does not affect the twin on it's left, etc. Tanks have (essentially) either the hull or turret to be damaged, the loss of either rendering the unit combat ineffective or destroyed, mount fewer guns, and harder to counter turn circles.
Conversely tanks have multiple crew and a lower profile, as well as the stability point you raised. Mechs are less accurate and have a huge profile.
5) Nearly useless was an exaggeration, I guess in my head I was thinking of back alleys and cramped towns rather than a more open city. Even still, I do think a Mech would have the advantage. Plus, where is the weaker bottom armour on many mechs? An Atlas doesn't have a bottom, and the Flea is positively expecting infantry fire, why would it have lower protection on the underside? The larger a mech is the more unlikely it is to have weaker bottom armour.
Out of time, gotta go. But again, the 'Mech is simply far better designed and it's pilot is far better trained (Plus all the handwavium allowing the pilot to...pilot easier, neurohelmet and 360 screen for balance, multiple joysticks for dragging selections for each weapon to be computed and fired at will, etc. In practice, I think the crew of the tank would be more overworked, since it also needs to communicate and wait on speech time and reaction time for orders - a mechwarrior doesn't.
And gone

[Kartr]

Dragon Lady, on 03 March 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

As someone else who's cruched the numbers from the "Hot Drop" trailer, when I did my "back of the envelope" calculation for the density of an 18m tall Atlas, I didn't base it on the build of an average 70kg man, but that a 100kg bodybuilder, which IMO is what an Atlas reminds me of. Since humans are on average neutrally buoyant, you can get get their volume in m³ simply through this calculation: 1000/weight (kg) = volume (m³) A 100kg man would have a volume of 0.10 m³. An 18m tall atlas is 10.5 times the height of the average man, which means that it has a volume of about 120m³. One cubic meter of water just happens to weigh exactly one metric ton... so I agree that a 18m tall Atlas will float. But then, the table-top game is very clear about Battlemechs being no taller than 12 meters, which gives an Atlas a density about 40% that of steel.

Except I think that the 12m height cannot be accurate, especially not for 'Mechs that utilize AC's and missiles. The volume necessary for the storage of the rounds simple isn't there if the 'Mech is only 12m tall.

This isn't a problem though when we understand that 100 tons isn't actually a measure of weight or even mass, but rather an in game BV style system to roughly approximate the abilities of a 'Mech, Tank, weapon, etc. Because then 'Mechs can be made as tall and heavy as they need to be to work. The numbers are only fluff after all, hardly binding.

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

I only have a couple of minutes so I'm only going to address a couple of points:
1) I know you're not trying to ruin the fun, I was teasing and also warning myself, I'm infamous for trying to work real world physics into our RPs and causing needless arguments...

Heh I hear you, though my main problem is with people claiming stuff is feasible when a thoughtful look shows that it isn't.

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

2) On the 'Mech rockclimbing/infantry mobility, I didn't mean scaling sheer 90 degree walls or room clearing, I meant things like a tank being unable to traverse a 60 degree slope, whereas a 'Mech could conceivably climb it, pick it's way through boulders and so on. The smaller footprint and ability to move in a manner similar to an infantryman was what I was referring to - not a 1-1 direct equality.

It would need to be a fairly steep incline as I'm pretty sure 60 degree slopes are doable by modern tanks. Boulders in a gully would be more a 'Mech thing, like you say stepping around or over them. When 'Mechs reach terrain that tanks cannot climb and use their humanoid abilities to climb them, they would loose a lot of their fighting ability. Trust me fighting in the mountains is rough, but yeah that might be another area where 'Mechs have an advantage. Raids, Landings and mountain troop style actions.

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

3) With the chobham armour I was referring to the steel matrix and the tileset. Chobham uses ceramic tiles mounted in steel, Ferrofibrous mounts diamonds in an 'endo steel' lattice. Diamonds and steel melt (Presumably future space steel does as well. I believe Diamond melts before the point at which it would combust as well) producing the effect you mentioned, and sloping would cause the damage to affect more tiles at once. Because of the weight chobham defeats the penetrators, and assuming I read it correctly and that BT armour functions on a similar principle, allowing lasers to melt and penetrators to crack and dislodge additional tiles would compromise the total armour integrity a lot faster rather than if it hit square on. I actually use this to justify the ablating of armour in BT - the overall integrity is being reduced by tiles being melted together, knocked out of alignment, blown off from warheads that explode internally etc. Mechs rarely use perpendicular armour (Rule of Cool, moving parts) so it seems feasible to me.

See this actually makes more sense than anything I've heard anyone else suggest so far. The only thing is you only have a system for FF armor, how would it work for standard armor? Still not entirely sold on the concept, especially about the diamonds part, but I'm getting there.

Currently envisioning it more of an inverse to what you're describing. A ceramic lattice/rebar style structure into which dense metallic alloys are poured. This gives you the metal to vaporize when struck by lasers, the rigidity of ceramic with the softness of metal to defeat penetrators and it would have the cracks to defeat the HEAT rounds the way the Chobham wiki article describes. FF would use carbon nanotubes (the diamond filament in 2012 terms) throughout the structure to add more flex, bind it together better and increase the number of "cracks." It would have to be a fairly large number of nanotubes to bulk out the armor, but it shouldn't make it much heavier.

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

4) A tank and a 'Mech developed on even terms will go down to chance and who the greater skilled pilot is. The Mech has the ability to dodge a little better, more efficient use of cover, and it's harder to score an immobility or crew kill (The former being what I was referring to with the Molotovs - modern armour is relatively immune to internal fuel explosions and similar, but it will force the tank immobile and unpowered until the flaming liquid/rag is removed) due to the design. Example, a shot that removes a Mech's arm leaves all other parts intact. A shot that destroys the weapon system on the right torso does not affect the twin on it's left, etc. Tanks have (essentially) either the hull or turret to be damaged, the loss of either rendering the unit combat ineffective or destroyed, mount fewer guns, and harder to counter turn circles.
Conversely tanks have multiple crew and a lower profile, as well as the stability point you raised. Mechs are less accurate and have a huge profile.

If the tank has a fusion engine then it wouldn't have to worry about its air intakes getting filled with smoke, since there's no combustion reaction.

The tank should be able to counter "turn circles" better because it has a 360 degree rotation on the turret. You might be able to get behind him, but he can still hit you with his main armament. There's nothing in BTech rules that limits tanks to carrying less weapons than 'Mechs. Plus since tanks don't have to worry about heat unless they're using energy weapons, they can theoretically mount more weapons and not worry about heat.

The only time shots that destroy arms or torsos that doesn't affect the rest is if there's no ammo, or there's CASE. Torso gets destroyed its adjacent arm and its weapons get knocked off the 'Mech. If there's ammo in a destroyed location you can loose the entire 'Mech in short order, its not that different from tanks.

Plus while 'Mechs have more locations to hit which means damage tends to be spread out more (at least in TT), tanks get more than twice the armor protection per location for an equal tonnage of armor. Personally I'd rather have the better accuracy, turret and protection of a tank than anything the 'Mech can offer.

RogueSpear, on 03 March 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

5) Nearly useless was an exaggeration, I guess in my head I was thinking of back alleys and cramped towns rather than a more open city. Even still, I do think a Mech would have the advantage. Plus, where is the weaker bottom armour on many mechs? An Atlas doesn't have a bottom, and the Flea is positively expecting infantry fire, why would it have lower protection on the underside? The larger a mech is the more unlikely it is to have weaker bottom armour.
Out of time, gotta go. But again, the 'Mech is simply far better designed and it's pilot is far better trained (Plus all the handwavium allowing the pilot to...pilot easier, neurohelmet and 360 screen for balance, multiple joysticks for dragging selections for each weapon to be computed and fired at will, etc. In practice, I think the crew of the tank would be more overworked, since it also needs to communicate and wait on speech time and reaction time for orders - a mechwarrior doesn't.
And gone

Er did I say bottom? I meant back. Even in cramped cities tanks are useful, skyscrapers may be a problem as the tank won't be able to elevate the gun straight up, but once again you should have supporting infantry moving through the buildings clearing them out.

Eh 'Mechs are only better designed because of game fiat. A well designed tank should easily best a 'Mech of equal or even greater tonnage. Also the crews don't have to be as well trained as the 'MechWarrior to preform at an equal level, because they're not trying to do a bajillion things at once. Kind of like how the Knights got superseded by crossbows and then muskets. You didn't have to train for a life time to use a crossbow and you could easily kill a knight. Same sort of concept.

[Dragon Lady]

Kartr, on 03 March 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

Except I think that the 12m height cannot be accurate, especially not for 'Mechs that utilize AC's and missiles. The volume necessary for the storage of the rounds simple isn't there if the 'Mech is only 12m tall.

This isn't a problem though when we understand that 100 tons isn't actually a measure of weight or even mass, but rather an in game BV style system to roughly approximate the abilities of a 'Mech, Tank, weapon, etc. Because then 'Mechs can be made as tall and heavy as they need to be to work. The numbers are only fluff after all, hardly binding.

I can't deny that with real-world technology, Battlemechs are improbable. But then we're talking about {reverb}future technology{/reverb}, so I'm willing to let a few of the improbabilities slide.

By my rough calculations, a 12m tall atlas would have an interior volume of 35 m³. 120 LRMs weigh one ton, or about 8kg per missile. The closest real-world equivalent I could quickly find via a google search would be this one. 120 of these missiles could fit into a magazine of 1 cubic meter. So the Atlas' 12 salvos of LRMs would take up about 6% of its internal volume if they were the same size as the Bantam... and I sincerely doubt that 30th century missile technology would be the same as 1950's technology. SRMs, having a higher ratio of warhead to propellant, probably takes up less volume than LRMs.

Looking up the equivalent of an Autocannon/20 round was tougher, but based on this article, a ton of AC/20 ammo shouldn't need more than 0.16 cubic meters. Thus the Atlas' AC magazine shouldn't take up more than 1% of its internal volume. Altogether, no more than 10% of its volume is needed for its ammo ***uming a cold-war era level of technology. Personally, I think that {reverb}future technology{/reverb} should be able to cut that volume at least in half due to its superior materials science.

Curiosly, the 5 critical slots used by the Atlas' ammo are about 9% of its total critical spots.

I will grant you that there is obviously some streamlining of things for the sake of the game, especially weapon ranges, but one of the things I've liked about the original Battletech game is that, with the aid of {reverb]future technology{/reverb}, the 'Mechs were at least plausible.

(edit: forgot to add second link)

Edited by Dragon Lady, 03 March 2012 - 08:18 PM.

[trycksh0t]

Alaskan Viking, on 03 March 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

This has always bothered me too, how does a giant assault mech only weight 100 tons? They walk right over little ant like main battle tanks all day long because they are vastly larger, but a modern MBT weighs over 60 tons....????? Why not recalculate the tonnage of all the mechs, or say it is 100 Ultra long tons, or space tons, or some other fictional unit of weight....

The only reason 'Mechs "walked over" tanks is because tanks were terribly portrayed in the MechWarrior games. While a 'Mech could easily stomp on something like a Harasser , an IS era tank such as a Rommel , Patton , or Von Luckner are as much of a danger to 'Mechs as another 'Mech. And they are not "vastly larger", this is another issue with the MechWarrior franchise, as most 'Mechs are only slightly taller than a modern day M1 Abrams stood on end.

[RogueSpear]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't pouring molten metal into the lattice defeat the point and weld it in place? I only named Ferrofibrous because it's the only one that I actually know how the armour is put together - I don't know details about the rest ><

On the tanks and guns thing, since we're talking realistically about how a tank is better, ealistically where does a tank have space for extra guns? One/two weapons in the turret (Most likely a twinlinked version of the same weapon) due to space issues unless you're building a superheavy, one in the hull (removing the ability to have a forward mounted engine), sponsons, and maybe mounting an LRM rack on top of the turret á la http://en.wikipedia....alliope]Sherman Calliope[/URL]. Plus in a tank, every weapon needs more space (So crew can move around it) and an extra gunner (Excepting twinlinked weaponry). The battlemech has a huge advantage in the targetting computers they use due to how they manage the weaponry. As for a single gunner doing the same with the same compute, I imagine it's harder to coordinate two sponsons, turret weapon (And a coaxial weapon?), hull mounted cannon and a missile rack since they all cover different firing arcs (Excepting the turret weapons and LRM racks, and sponsons obv have the ability to also cover the front).
Also in the BT universe due to the extreme cost and difficulty of production of fusion engines and low priority on tracked vehicles, very few tanks have fusion engines and stick to internal combustion. My point on the turn circle was more that a 'Mech is able to counter it's own turn circle due to the articulated legs, and can change direction at a greater angle, etc. I wasn't referring to fighting circle strafing, which the tank may have the edge in (Not sure how easily birdjoint and less flexible humanoid mechs [ie, ones without ball joints in the hips, etc] would be able to turn around on the move).
Aye you did say bottom armour Combined arms is always going to be important, but unsupported 'Mechs do have the advantage over traditional armour.

Sorry for not quoting you as I go here, I haven't figured out how to use the multiquote feature yet...

[CCC Dober]

OP: Mech armor is so far ahead of anything we currently have at our disposal, it's like comparing a stealth bomber to the means of a cave man. Not even remotely in the same league. The short story is that zero-gravity produced steel is supposed to be free of irregularities and as such incredibly strong, reaching the theoretical maximum strength. Whereas traditional steel produced under gravity can't and as a result is incredibly inefficient by comparison. The vehicles made from steel as we know it are chunky, heavy beasts that have only a fraction of the theoretical protection that can be achieved with steel. Hence why Mech armor is so thin by comparison and seem fragile when in fact it is the exact opposite. All of this is based on a hypothetical material produced under conditions that are currently out of our reach and understanding. That's the concept as far as I understood it.

[Stripes]

I second that:
Zero-G industry can produce materials far superior to same ground based tech - it is not speculation, a scientific fact, fact of previous century.