78 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

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

I firmly believe that the 20-100 tons by 5 is a purely arbitrary system established for ease of creating and running a game. It's simple, it's easy, it creates a benchmark for capabilities and it creates a framework around which you can build new things. Every game needs some sort of baseline to balance things from and the tonnage system works great here.

This is really the case. That's the reason a lot of fans don't want 'mechs over 100 tons, and balked at the one Dark Age trainwreck to try. It's really a "capability level" more than anything; obviously there would be, even the tonnage was accurate, 102 ton mechs or 98 ton mechs, but it's always in multiples of 5 as well.

[Damocles]

While not entirely relevant I am going to link Nebfers' epic MWLL thread which includes many attempted real world comparisons and just a good load of data for people that like to read through it. (And I guess for people that get off just tearin things apart).

http://forum.mechliv...ic,10125.0.html

[CCC Dober]

Victor Morson, on 04 March 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

This is really the case. That's the reason a lot of fans don't want 'mechs over 100 tons, and balked at the one Dark Age trainwreck to try. It's really a "capability level" more than anything; obviously there would be, even the tonnage was accurate, 102 ton mechs or 98 ton mechs, but it's always in multiples of 5 as well.

Conveniently, all the weight limits are suddenly forgotten when a point of Elementals rides into Battle on a Clan Mech or when Mechs are used to lug around crates. That extra weight is a clear indicator that there is no hard limit on tonnage as the numbers would have you believe it. From a design perspective it does make sense not to overload Mechs in order to maintain structural integrity in most common situations.

For every imposed limit however, be it weight, power etc. there is also a tolerance that allows to go above that limit, like you can manage the heat levels in a BattleMech. It can be argued that this will wear down/damage systems considerably faster and increases maintenance efforts/costs. That is true, but at the end of the day it is a cost vs risk consideration and I believe Mechwarriors should be allowed to make that call within reasonable limits i.e. +10% fully accepting the possible consequences. Idk if this is canon or not, but the examples I have listed above are typical and should allow for a bit freedom in that regard.

[Stone Profit]

CCC_Dober, on 04 March 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Conveniently, all the weight limits are suddenly forgotten when a point of Elementals rides into Battle on a Clan Mech or when Mechs are used to lug around crates. That extra weight is a clear indicator that there is no hard limit on tonnage as the numbers would have you believe it. From a design perspective it does make sense not to overload Mechs in order to maintain structural integrity in most common situations.

Uh, I hate to break it to ya, but long before Omnimechs were carrying points of Elementals around (which is a special ability of Omnis due to the varied distribution of weapons according to different configurations), Mechs have always been able to carry a certain amount of extra weight externally, either with cargo nets or their hands with a corresponding limiting of speed. even a 70 ton Abrams can carry extra stuff if it wants, the 70 tons is how much the vehicle weighs, not how much the engine is capable of moving.

Edited by Stone Profit, 04 March 2012 - 11:35 AM.

[Alaric Wolf Kerensky]

Clearly as other have stated, the 100 ton limit was simply bullshit thrown onto the table by the creators. Sure, 100 tons sounds HUGE. But in terms of actual military hardware, it is quite minuscule. Sure, you can attempt to justify it by so called "advanced ultra-light" materials, but truth is you can only go so light, remove so much density before you critically compromise shock and damage resistance. If BattleMechs were truly made as light as they supposedly are, an AC/5 would have a chance at cracking internal structures from impact forces. An AC/20? Just forget about it!

Bottom line is, the tonnage ratings have absolutely no effect on anything. All they are for is to give you a relative comparison of different 'Mechs, so that you can easily tell a 100t Atlas is significantly larger than a 65 ton Catapult. Whether an Atlas is rated at 100t, or 1000t, it changes nothing but the description.

[CCC Dober]

Yeah I can agree with that. The 'weight limit' is just there to make Mechs comparable. They would surely deviate from that limit on a daily basis, sometimes would even be considered overloaded. It's just a balancing mechanism to disallow utterly stupid configurations. I can agree on that in terms of fair play, but it's just a crutch that does not do BT realities any justice.

[Graefin Zeppelin]

Very interesting discussion I must say.
I only can say that per default we must assume that Mechs are superior to conventional arms in this age or we cant justify their widespread use or their importance.

Like Godzilla is the king of monsters the Battlemech is the queen of the Battlefield in this age.Realistic or not.
This however does not allow us to throw plausibility out of the window entirely. Realism is gradual after all.

[CCC Dober]

The main appeal is probably that a Mech has incredible mobility and flexibility compared to tanks, infantry and space/aircraft. Individually, all the combat units listed above excel in at least one aspect, where the Mech would be 2nd best, if at all. But it still represents one of the most technologically advanced ground based weapon platforms and as such rightfully deserves the throne of 31st century warfare.

[Kartr]

Dragon Lady, on 03 March 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

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.

If you had 120 Bantam missiles they would have a volume of 120*(0.85*[pi*0.11]) = 3.9 cubic meters, not including the gaps between the round fuselages. Rounding up for the gaps between missiles the volume would be closer to 4 or more cubic meters per "ton" of ammo.

Now we know that SRMs are man portable and unguided, so I'm going to use the rocket launcher I trained on and deployed with in the Marine Corps for a comparison. The SMAW rockets are almost exactly the length of the launcher (760mm) and have a diameter of 83mm. The volume of a SMAW rockets would exceed, 0.016 cubic meters (from 0.76*[pi*0.083m^2]) with 100 missiles per "ton" of SRM 2/4 and 90 missiles per "ton" of SRM6 ammo, you have 0.16 cubic meters and 0.14 cubic meters .

However SRMs pack more punch and in artwork are much larger than the SMAW. If we use the Javelin or the TOW which appear to be much closer to the proper size and are still manportable we get even larger numbers.
Javelin: individual missile = 0.056 cubic meters, LRM "ton" = 6.7 cubic meters, SRM "ton" = 5.6 cubic meters
TOW: individual missile = 0.084 cubic meters, LRM "ton" = 10.1 cubic meters, SRM "ton" = 8.4 cubic meters

Keep in mind that the missiles we see sticking out of the tubes in most of the artwork are even larger than this, so by using modern missiles as comparison we're actually lowballing the volume not highballing with inferior "modern" tech.

Dragon Lady, on 03 March 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

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.

Ac/20s are actually the easiest weapon to calculate the volume for. Sarna tells us that there is one AC/20 that fires 10 150mm rounds per shot, which means 50 150mm per ton of ammo. We also know that there is a 203mm AC/20, using a ratio of rounds per "shot" and the caliber we find that a 203mm cannon would need roughly 7.5 rounds per shot. In order to get a more fair (ie smaller) approximation I'm going to assume each shot only fires 7 rounds.

The closest thing I could find quickly for a 203mm shell was this article. Using the smaller length we get 0.74m^3 (from 7*[pi*203mm^2]*813mm) per shot. 1 "ton" of AC/20 ammo would then take up 3.7m^3 not including the empty space where they circular shells don't meet. Even if we assume that future materials science and the fact that the shell isn't ship based and halve the length you still get 1.85 cubic meters per "ton" of AC/20 ammo.

Dragon Lady, on 03 March 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

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

5 critical slots for ammo ranges from 9.25 cubic meters at the lowest (all AC/20 ammo) to 50.5 cubic meters at the highest (all LRM ammo using TOW missile dimensions. Without the Atlas's ammo numbers sitting in front of me I can't tell you what the total ammo volume is, so the min/max will have to suffice to get my point across.

If your calculated volume is correct then the lowest possible ammo volume is more than 25% of the Atlas's total volume, if the largest possible ammo volume is correct then it is almost 1.5 times larger than your calculated volume for the Atlas.

Dragon Lady, on 03 March 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

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)

See this is my gripe and why I'm in this debate, none of it is plausible. Everything is rule of cool with wildly too small 'Mechs, to big missiles, and way to little mass. The game is fun, enjoy the game, but do not try to accuse it of being "plausible" because it's the furthest thing from.

RogueSpear, on 04 March 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

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 ><

Well what I was thinking was that ceramics have a very high melting point and vaporization point. When using ablative armor against lasers the concept is that as the beam strikes the armor some of it is vaporized creating a cloud of gas that diffuses the rest of the laser spreading it out and weakening the effect. So when defending against lasers it makes more sense to have a material with a lower vaporization point. So I'm thinking the majority of the armor would be metal.

HEAT rounds are a shaped charge which create a "jet" of heat and pressure to defeat armor. Shaped charges (and by extension HEAT rounds) need a certain "standoff" from the target to achieve their full effect. Rule of thumb when we made improvised shaped charges in the Marine Corps was 2/3s the diameter of the charge for the stand off distance.

According to that wiki article on Chobham armor you linked the hardness of the ceramic causes the channel carved by the explosive jet to be uneven disrupting the geometry of the jet severely decreasing its effectiveness. So by creating a framework (lattice) of ceramic and filling it with metal you have the "jet" moving through the overall armor at different speeds severely decreasing its effectiveness. Since its mostly metal it would have a lot of material for laser strikes to ablate into vapour to defeat the laser. All of this would account for the homogenous rather than layered behavior of the armor, while still being incredibly effective against HEAT rounds.

FF armor would take this basic concept and bulk out the armor by adding a matrix of carbon nano-tubes to further decrese the effectiveness of a HEAT round's "jet" by giving yet another material with different behavior. It would also vaporize fairly easily under a laser strike to help with the defeat of laser weaponry. Carbon nanotubes are very light and could account for the increase in bulk without an increase in weight. Though "ton" is more likely a rating of effectivenss per mass rather than an actual weight.

RogueSpear, on 04 March 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

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).

To answer this I'm going to link a series of tanks and other AFVs that have multiple weapons.

The Mark VIII and other WW1 Tanks: These tanks had 2 primary weapons mounted on the side of the tank in sponsons. This kind of mounting would force a tank to be taller than modern tanks, but could still be done.

The Neubaufahrzeug, the T-35, the Vickers A1E1, the SMK, the T-100 and the Type 95 are all examples of multi-turreted tanks with multiple weapons. These designs were ultimately discarded because they were to heavy for the engines and suspension available and because of the complexity which with BTech technology wouldn't be a problem, after all 'Mechs and tanks in universe carry multiple weapons all the time.

The M3 Lee is an example of a tank which had a hull mounted heavy weapon and a turret mounted medium weapon. The design suffered from the same flaws as a tank destroyer or self propelled gun and its turret mounted weapon wasn't sufficently powerful enough to deal with more agile targets that evaded the main cannon. Imagine an urban fighting tank with this style configuration, Hull mounted AC/20 turret mounted Large Pulse Laser and an SRM 6 launcher mounted like the TOW's on the M2 Bradley.

The M2 Bradley IFV is a modern example of multiple weapon systems. Its primary armament is a turret mounted 30mm chain gun and a turret mounted TOW launcher with two TOWs ready to launch (SRM 2 anyone?).

The B-29 is linked here because of its fire control system. The B-29 had four independantly rotating turrets which could be controlled from any of four gunners positions. If they could do it in the 1940's I'm pretty sure they can do it in the 3040's.

Yes you would need more room for additional crew and you would probably have to move the engine to the rear. However did you know that the Panther, which was the most advanced tank of WW2 and the precursor to the MBT, had a rear mounted engine and transferred the power to the front.

Oh interesting side bar to all those who say tanks are extremely cramped and mostly solid, the Panther's fighting compartment (crewspace) was 67% of the entire volume.

Anyway my point is, that it is possible to mount multiple weapons on tanks. Yes your primary turret would probably have twin linked cannons and a coaxial anti-infantry weapon. That is mostly due to ammo loading constraints though and you could probably mount additional lasers in the turret as well. SRMs/LRMs mounted to either side of the turret like the Bradley and perhaps a vertical launch system for LRMs on the back of the turret. Hull mounted, secondary turret and sponson mounted weapons are also a possiblity and with remote aiming you could have all the gunners arranged within the main fighting compartment.

And yes I agree that the anthromoporhic nature of BattleMechs and placement of weapons on them is probably easier for one person to cordinate. However with a tank the gunner can call off target assignments to specific gunners and they can devote their full attention to hitting that target, ie no targeting penalty. In fact this is historically supported by the fact that the T-34 was less effective for having its vehicle commander also be the gunner.

The crew for a BattleTech tank could be: driver and radio operator/hull gunner positioned forward and the hull gunner has a MG or a small pulse laser to deal with infantry. Vehicle commander and primary gunner positioned in the main turret with a twin Gauss rifle, coaxial small pulse laser or mg, SRM/LRMs mounted on either side of the turret, LRM mounted VLS style on the back of the turret. Two secondary gunners positioned back to back in the fighting compartment remotely controling two or sponsons secondary turrets remotely each turret with a Medium Laser and a small pulse laser. Add 4 heat sinks to handle the extra laser weapons.l

RogueSpear, on 04 March 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

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).

Fusion engines actually seem to have been fairly common on Star League era tanks and are coming back after the Helm Memory Core and the Clan Invasion. However yes during the Succession wars tanks were less likely to get fusion engines, which puts them at a disadvantage.

I'm still confused as to what you mean by "counter its own turn circle." Are you referring to turn radius? Because even there I think tanks would have the advantage as they can spin their tracks in opposite directions, litterally turning in place.

RogueSpear, on 04 March 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

Aye you did say bottom armour Combined arms is always going to be important, but unsupported 'Mechs do have the advantage over traditional armour.

Perhaps over the traditional single turret tank, but I think multi-turret tanks with their ability independantly target would be on par. I still think the only real advantage 'Mechs have over tanks is their strategic one, hot dropping and quick loading.

RogueSpear, on 04 March 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

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

Multi-quote allows you to quote multiple posts. If you want to quote me the way I quote you, you have to get a little tricky.
1. copy the [ quote blahblah blah ] before my post
2. place [ /quote ] after the section you want to address
3. paste the open quote section ahead of the next section of quoted text.
Hope that helps!

[Sgt Kartr]

Had to make a second account. The forums only let you have so many quotes in a single post and I wind up using more than that, so I have to make multiple posts. However if no one has responded after my posts then it appends my new post to the bottom of the last and screws up the formatting because there's too many quotes.

[CeeKay Boques]

You're not really being rational you're just having math fun. I can appreciate that!

Let me add this to the mix.


A bunch of nuclear weapons fall, and war ensues, and years of technology is lost. We do NOT stand on the shoulders of giants, but remake it with the sticks and stones and computer at hand.

What is the material of the TOW missile? What is the fuel? Why are those relevant to "magic space" missiles and fuel? Who says they haven't been able to put the entire warhead power and rocket speed of a TOW missile inside something as small as thimble? I guarentee you 1000 years ago the TOW missile wasn't even concieveable.

[Kartr]

CCC_Dober, on 04 March 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:

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.

Sources? Because from what I've been able to find with some googling that isn't the case. Current casting techniques already remove irregularities and if metals are refined in zero-g there's no gravity to seperate the slag from the metal. It sounds like its crystaline structures that recieve the most benefit from zero-g manufacturing, as their structures aren't deformed by their own weight as they grow.

However if you have sources I could read that point to the opposite I'd be happy to read them.

CCC_Dober, on 04 March 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:

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.

Hmm and this is compared to the BTech vehicles which are significantly clunkier than modern AFVs. Nor are modern tanks protected by steel any more, or at least not entirely like steel. Rather they use ceramics that are significantly harder than steel, in a steel matrix, see the Chobham article RogueSpear C/P over into this thread.

Fragile and strong are also terms that don't apply to 'Mech armor the way they do to modern armor. BattleMech armor is ablative which tends to a softer material that will quickly vaporize to diffuse lasers interlaced with something much harder to defeat the HEAT round "jet." BattleMech armor cannot be "thin" as that is the opposite of what ablative armor needs to be. Ablative armor needs to be thick so that you can sacrifice it over and over again. Thin armor is possible when you know that your thin material will entirely defeat attacks, if you're expecting it to "fail" over and over again (ablate) then you need it to be very thick so that you can take multiple hits.

Graefin Zeppelin, on 05 March 2012 - 02:05 AM, said:

Very interesting discussion I must say.
I only can say that per default we must assume that Mechs are superior to conventional arms in this age or we cant justify their widespread use or their importance.

BattleMechs are superior in one way, they are a strategically more flexible unit. This is because they can be hot dropped into the target zone and are easier to load onto dropships for a quick evac, or to respond to an enemy landing half the world away.

Tactically convential arms are going to be superior to 'Mechs any day. Conventional arms however lack strategic flexibility of BattleMechs and in a universe where total war isn't the norm (2nd Succession war was teh last) BattleMechs reign supreme. Hanse Davion and his military recognized that and that's why they created RCTs which are a combined arms force featuring conventional arms as an integral and important feature. This understanding of total war vs the limited war of the post 2nd Succession war era, is one of the major reasons the FedCom was able to roll over large portions of the CapCon worlds quickly and relatively easily, while fighting off ComStar attacks and blackouts.

[Kartr]

Technoviking, on 05 March 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

You're not really being rational you're just having math fun. I can appreciate that!

Let me add this to the mix.


A bunch of nuclear weapons fall, and war ensues, and years of technology is lost. We do NOT stand on the shoulders of giants, but remake it with the sticks and stones and computer at hand.

Yet at no point do they ever regress further than the 21st century level of technology, except on the most backwater, dark continent style of planets. In fact the majority of the galaxy is more advanced than we are today, with FTL travel, FTL communication, etc. etc.

While the knowledge to make the most advanced equipment may have been lost, they still were able to make lasers that are significantly more compact and deadly than what we can today. Same with fusion plants, and advanced alloy skeletons, and advanced armors, though they weren't able to build them as cheaply as they could have before the 2nd Succession war.

The idea that the Succession Wars bombed mankind so far back into to technological there was a "dark age" is absurd, nor is it what we see. Rather what we see is an industrial regression. The wars bombed the infrastructure so badly that much of the modern technology was only buildable in small quantities (relatively speaking). Only the most advanced and cutting edge of technology was lost and that was due more to neglect and ComStar's meddling than the wars themselves. Because rather than continue refining and perfecting their technological advances, cutting edge scientists were co-opted to act as pseudo engineers in the war effort and those that weren't were kidnapped and/or assassinated by ComStar.

Industrial decline rather than a scientific decline.

Technoviking, on 05 March 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

What is the material of the TOW missile? What is the fuel? Why are those relevant to "magic space" missiles and fuel? Who says they haven't been able to put the entire warhead power and rocket speed of a TOW missile inside something as small as thimble? I guarentee you 1000 years ago the TOW missile wasn't even concieveable.

Sure maybe they could've put all that firepower in something size of a TOW missile but no, all the art work we see shows missiles that are much bigger than TOW missiles. I can't believe people are even arguing this when the Mad Dog and Timber Wolf illustrations have missiles that would be closer to 0.5m diameter sticking out of launchers. There is obviously no room in those 'Mechs for 120 LRMs so why are people even trying to defend it with "superior technology blah blah blah" why?

This whole thread started because people couldn't accept the fact that BattleMechs and the BattleTech universe are extremely implausible and that 100t was simply a nice big number to put at the top of a scale that had to do with relative capabilities. Accept that and enjoy the game, its fun, its rule of cool that's it.

But no, people couldn't let it be and had to insist that it's "plausible" and "future tech ftw" in spite of the fact that a look at the artwork shows its impossible and a little math just reinforces that, and digging a little deeper just reinforces it further.

Look I want BattleTech to be as plausible as possible, because I love the universe and the games, books, fluff, etc. That's one reason I pick it apart, because I want to come up with plausible explanations. Things like "BattleMechs are the more strategically flexible unit and became dominant because of that" or "BattleTech armor is a thick plate made up of a ceramic matrix filled with a metal alloy that vaporizes to diffuse lasers and defeats HEAT rounds due to the ceramic matrix that deforms the shaped charge 'jet.'" Why must we accept and defend ludicrously impossible fluff when with a little work and knowledge we can create sensible fluff that fits with what we see in the narrative (rules, books, etc.)?

Edited by Kartr, 05 March 2012 - 03:04 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

Your Argument : It would never work!

Their Argument: It would never work! (in a way smaller time frame!) These are scientists, and educators at the top of their field. If you're going to inject your "reality" into my fantasy, here's a bit of the same! Maybe the missiles are made on the fly with plastic printers using molecules they replicate.

1. “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” — Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), maker of big business mainframe computers, arguing against the PC in 1977.
2. “We will never make a 32 bit operating system.” — Bill Gates
3. “Lee DeForest has said in many newspapers and over his signature that it would be possible to transmit the human voice across the Atlantic before many years. Based on these absurd and deliberately misleading statements, the misguided public … has been persuaded to purchase stock in his company …” — a U.S. District Attorney, prosecuting American inventor Lee DeForest for selling stock fraudulently through the mail for his Radio Telephone Company in 1913.
4. “There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States.” — T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, in 1961 (the first commercial communications satellite went into service in 1965).
5. “To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth – all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances.” — Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, in 1926
6. “A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.” — New York Times, 1936.
7. “Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.” – Simon Newcomb; The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later.
8. “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.
9. “There will never be a bigger plane built.” — A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people
10. “Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality in 10 years.” -– Alex Lewyt, president of vacuum cleaner company Lewyt Corp., in the New York Times in 1955.
11. “This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy during World War II, advising President Truman on the atomic bomb, 1945.[6] Leahy admitted the error five years later in his memoirs
12. “The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.” — Ernest Rutherford, shortly after splitting the atom for the first time.
13. “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932
14. “The cinema is little more than a fad. It’s canned drama. What audiences really want to see is flesh and blood on the stage.” -– Charlie Chaplin, actor, producer, director, and studio founder, 1916
15. “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty – a fad.” — The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford’s lawyer, Horace Rackham, not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903
16. “The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.” — Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer, British Post Office, 1878.
17. “This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” — A memo at Western Union, 1878 (or 1876).
18. “The world potential market for copying machines is 5000 at most.” — IBM, to the eventual founders of Xerox, saying the photocopier had no market large enough to justify production, 1959.
19. “I must confess that my imagination refuses to see any sort of submarine doing anything but suffocating its crew and floundering at sea.” — HG Wells, British novelist, in 1901.
20. “X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883.
21. “The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous.” — Comment of Aide-de-camp to Field Marshal Haig, at tank demonstration, 1916.
22. “How, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense.” — Napoleon Bonaparte, when told of Robert Fulton’s steamboat, 1800s.
23. “Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever.” — Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1889 (Edison often ridiculed the arguments of competitor George Westinghouse for AC power).
24. “Home Taping Is Killing Music” — A 1980s campaign by the BPI, claiming that people recording music off the radio onto cassette would destroy the music industry.
25. “Television won’t last. It’s a flash in the pan.” — Mary Somerville, pioneer of radio educational broadcasts, 1948.
26. “[Television] won’t be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.” — Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox, 1946.
27. “When the Paris Exhibition [of 1878] closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.” – Oxford professor Erasmus Wilson
28. “Dear Mr. President: The canal system of this country is being threatened by a new form of transportation known as ‘railroads’ … As you may well know, Mr. President, ‘railroad’ carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of 15 miles per hour by ‘engines’ which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and snort their way through the countryside, setting fire to crops, scaring the livestock and frightening women and children. The Almighty certainly never intended that people should travel at such breakneck speed.” — Martin Van Buren, Governor of New York, 1830(?).
29. “Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.” — Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.
30. “The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to no one in particular?” — Associates of David Sarnoff responding to the latter’s call for investment in the radio in 1921.


How's it gonna be in 3049?

[Kartr]

Technoviking, on 05 March 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Your Argument : It would never work!

Their Argument: It would never work! (in a way smaller time frame!) These are scientists, and educators at the top of their field. If you're going to inject your "reality" into my fantasy, here's a bit of the same! Maybe the missiles are made on the fly with plastic printers using molecules they replicate.

<snip a lot of pointless quotes>

How's it gonna be in 3049?

I'm not saying it would never work, I'm saying we see that it doesn't physically work.

We see missiles sticking out of the tubes on many 'Mechs, there is no place in those 'Mechs for missiles of that volume to be stored, especially not hundreds of them. We are given caliber sizes for the AC/s and specifically told that one AC/20 fires 10 150mm rounds per "shot" which gives us a definite place to start our evaluation.

If they make them of the fly using rapid prototyping style equipment or Star Trek style replicators then they need to say so. They also need room to store the compounds and elements to use in the prototyper/replicator/thingy, if it uses some sort of null-space/quantum rabbit hole/bazinga thing then they need to tell us. However they tell us that the technology used is similar to what we have today (not in so many words, but its there when you read what tech they have).

Look all I'm saying is that people need to stop saying that it's plausible. Or the concept art needs to be re-done to give plausible sizes. This is one reason I like FD's artwork, the 'Mechs look bigger, the guns look smaller, the missile pods seem bigger, the spaces between the missiles is larger, the missiles are smaller, etc. Is it 100% realistic? No, but it is so much better, so much closer, the impossibility of it all no longer smacks you across the face.

Edited by Kartr, 05 March 2012 - 04:10 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Larry Headrick, on 02 March 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

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?

My prediction: carbon nanotubes are all the rage now, in 20+ years people will be making fun of how all our early 22nd century referenced nanotubes in everything, when clearly the way of the future would be (insert hot science topic from 20 years in the future).

Kartr, on 02 March 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

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.

Yes and no. MAD is one concept, sure, the true military reductio ad absurdum of the concept, but the general trend of military technology in the past several centuries has emphasized superior firepower over superior protection, from when firearms supplanted armored soldiers, to when suppressive automatic fire became a means to secure space from incursions by infantry, carrier-launched aircraft attacks supplanting the armored rings of dreadnaught battleships, and in armored cavalry there are far greater potentials to destroy vehicles from beyond visible range (MLRS, guided munitions, etc.) than there is effective defense against it. These places additional improtance on launching teh first attack, as it can be expected to be accurate and decisive. In BT, the reverse has become true, with decisive engagements occuring only at closer ranges, and I listed some of the canonical "fluff" arguments why the systems are supposed to work as they do.

Kartr, on 02 March 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

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.

Depends on the era and weapons technology. 3025 engagement start closer than, say, 3050s and later, when you're seeing lots more Clan tech and gauss rifles which are effective out to 1km or further.

Kartr, on 02 March 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

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.

I'd concur that a quadmech would have a stability advantage over a bipedal design, but I can certainly walk over terrain that a wheeled or tracked vehicle cannot.

Kartr, on 02 March 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

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.

But it, in conjunction with the specialized control set-up, allow a single pilot to control the physical motion of the 'mech in ways that a tank commander can't simultaneously operate his periscope for situational awareness while at the same time driving and at the same time moving the turret and aiming the gun. The 'mech control set-up seems much more reminiscent of a fighter cockpit, where one individual can maneuver a vehicle in a number of ways while using weapons and comms, instead of being designed for multiple crewmen to focus only on a few functions.

Kartr, on 02 March 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

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.

I never said chobham was designed to ablate, or that 'mech armor was designed not to. I simply stated that the layering sequences were similar. In theory, 'mech armor would have to have many sequences of armor in order to acheive that ablative effective. I did state that 'mech armor was not "soft" per canon, it sandwiched softer layers underneath extremely hard plating, supported by a lightweight honeycomb substructure which would effectively operate as void space for defeating certain type of AP rounds.

Kartr, on 02 March 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

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.

What if each "point" is another layer of aligned-crystal steel over ceramic and diamond fiber over self-sealant and honeycomb?

Kartr, on 02 March 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

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.

Longbows don't do that well against armor, and properly curved plate with a minimum of gaps and "shot trap" protrusions would deflect most arrows hamlessly. Really heavy armor doesn't come into play until muskets hit the battlefield in large numbers, and those supplant the bow because they are better at penetrating armor, require less training to use effectively than a longbow, and can be more cheaply supplied with mass-produced ammunition.

Kartr, on 02 March 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

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.

Depends to a large degree on how they've been treated and the manufacturing tolerances. AK's have been built in a lot of different places to different standards, and the simplicity of the action made them very tolerant to low standards of production and rough use while still functioning, even though accuracy could suffer badly.

Kartr, on 02 March 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

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.

There's the question also of how quickly/directly terrain can be crossed, and whether the vehicle can still maneuver or fight effectively while doing so. I believe part of the theory with 'mechs is that they suffer fewer reductions to movement rates and fighting capability while crossing rugged terrain.

Kartr, on 02 March 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

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.

All things considered, they're certainly as capable at holding static positions and a much more cost effective option. I'd imagine they'd get some benefits by having a lower profile when dug-in, which wouldn't work very well with a 'mech. Still not buying that they are de facto "superior combatants" all-around, particularly since the 'mech has more capability to dictate the terms of engagement to it's benefit.

Kartr, on 05 March 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

Look all I'm saying is that people need to stop saying that it's plausible. Or the concept art needs to be re-done to give plausible sizes. This is one reason I like FD's artwork, the 'Mechs look bigger, the guns look smaller, the missile pods seem bigger, the spaces between the missiles is larger, the missiles are smaller, etc. Is it 100% realistic? No, but it is so much better, so much closer, the impossibility of it all no longer smacks you across the face.

That's fine. A lot of BT art doesn't seem to exactly be on the same page with the game mechanics, and I don't think it helped that the game started out with a set of TT rules and 'mech gamepiece designs directly borrowed from unrelated anime which weren't designed to function in quite the same ways.

Edited by Solis Obscuri, 05 March 2012 - 08:43 PM.

[Hayashi]

Don't forget the important thing a Mech can contain a lot of empty space in order to give the myomers space in which to move. That empty space increases its size but does nuts for increasing weight.

Mechs are not airtight, or they'd overheat and blow up. Thus an Atlas would still sink because water would flow into those spaces, and the remaining material is denser than water.

[Orzorn]

Hayashi, on 05 March 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

Mechs are not airtight, or they'd overheat and blow up. Thus an Atlas would still sink because water would flow into those spaces, and the remaining material is denser than water.

Not quite. The rules themselves contradict this. If a mech's armor is breached in water, then that internal section is immediately destroyed.

So a mech is some how heavy enough to sink, but also has spaces inside of it (of that there is no doubt. What else could all those unused criticals be?), while also allowing a 15 meter tall monster like an Atlas to weigh only 100 tons.

I guess all I can say is "Its the future, I ain't gotta explain ****."

[Gaizokubanou]

Orzorn, on 05 March 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

I guess all I can say is "Its the future, I ain't gotta explain ****."

Or my favorite explanation that makes more sense.

Wizards did it. Mechs are powered by sorcery.

WIZARDS.