57 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

If you're going to appeal to modern physics (which is more apples to oranges) ... than if mechs fired upon took knock, the mechs that fired upon them would take even more KE in recoil; which they don't.

Nor do we have a way for accounting for the capability of the 'mechs gyro systems, or the fact that 'mechs actually change stance to not fall over (they lean into oncoming fire, for example), and there's no way to calculate the ultimate capabilities of the neurohelmet interface.

That line of reasoning is a loosing game.

It really boils down to, do we respect the lore and the BTUniverse, or do we disrespect it for some irrational feeling of "what's fun for me?"

I can tell you, MW as a video game genre would never had been made if someone who really understood what it would be like to be a mechwarrior didn't think that it was a cool thing.

Who's to say that they don't experience recoil (and, yes, recoil to the attacker ≥ knock to the target), but have various means of suppressing its effects?

For example, perhaps ACs and MGs (and Gauss Rifles?) operate on some form of recoil operation?

Quote

• Ready to fire position. Bolt is locked to barrel, both are fully forward.
  
• Recoil of firing forces bolt and barrel fully to the rear, compressing the return springs for both.
  
• Bolt is held to rear, while barrel unlocks and returns to battery under spring force. Fired round is ejected.
  
• Bolt returns under spring force, loads new round. Barrel locks in place as it returns to battery.

Quote

• Ready to fire position. Bolt is locked to barrel, both are fully forward.
  
• Upon firing, bolt and barrel recoil backwards a short distance while locked together. Near the end of the barrel travel, the bolt and barrel unlock.
  
• The barrel stops, but the unlocked bolt continues to move to the rear, ejecting the empty shell and compressing the recoil spring.
  
• The bolt returns forward under spring force, loading a new round into the barrel.
  
• Bolt locks into barrel, and forces barrel to return to battery.

Quote

• Ready to fire position. Bolt is locked to barrel, both are fully forward.
  
• Upon firing, the firearm recoils backwards into the shooter's body. The inertial mass remains stationary, compressing a spring. The bolt remains locked to the barrel, which in turn is rigidly attached to the frame.
  
• The compressed spring forces the inertial mass rearwards until it transfers its momentum to the bolt.
  
• The bolt unlocks and moves to the rear, ejecting the fired round and compressing the return spring.
  
• The bolt returns to battery under spring force, loading a new round and locking into place.
  
• The shooter recovers from the shot, moving the firearm forward into position for the next shot.

Alternatively, they could use some form of blowback or blow-forward operation to control recoil.

(I can see how ACs and MGs could use blowback or blow-forward, though I would think it would be trickier to pull it off with a Gauss Rifle.)

Given the canon artwork for each weapon (available on Sarna.net):

Gauss Rifle


Standard Autocannon


LB-X Autocannon


Ultra Autocannon


It seems that each has a shroud-like structure that could be either part a blow-forward mechanism (illustrated above) or simply a thermal shroud, as well as what appear to be one or more pistons which may also be part of the recoil-damping system.

Of interest, I think, is the ACs' resemblence to real-world weapons like the M256 120 mm gun used on the M1 Abrams:

From what I can gather, it uses a variant of a blowback operation.

Moreover, the BattleMech's gyro and such could be used in conjunction with such systems (which would be integral to the weapons themselves) to provide substantial reduction - or outright negation - of the negative effects of recoil (which is not the same thing as there being no recoil at all), yes?

[LordDeathStrike]

exactly, you can have a recoiless weapon cause massive impact knock, its recoiless because the energy accelerating the projectile is doing so over a longer period of time then the projectile stopping when it hits target (note that if its armor piercing and just punches right threw the target isnt going to take significant knock, but its going to have a hole in it).

the weapons also use the recoil energy to reload for rapid fireing, this absorbs some of the recoil, more is spent at the muzzle breaks which vent it opposite direction to the recoil to help mitigate.

so initially yes, force = opposite reacting force, but due to not all of us being brain dead we built weapons that use the recoil force up on things like accelerating the bullet over time, reloading the weapon, ejecting the spect casing, and muzzle breaks.

an example, my .308 sniper rifle kicks my shoulder with around 8 psi when fired. if i shoot it at a steel plate of the same mass of my person, the round imparts over 80 psi to a sensor behind the plate. this happens because of muzzle breaks round acceleration physics compared to deccelaration, and the action of the auto loading weapon itself.

remember kids, physics is only magic if you dont bother to learn how it works in the real world.

as to the previous post to this one, guass rifles work like e-mag rail trains, and the new naval rail guns. theres an acceleration track system in the barrel that magnetically repels the round at massive velocity with very low energy requirements compared to setting off a controlled explosion to do the same thing, the kickback is dealth with via the acceleration curve of the object, the projectiles mass, and the mass of what the gun is mounted too being able to just absorb it with its lack of moveing alreadys inertia (think of it this way, on arm mounted 100 ton mechs dual guass rifles, any kick the rifles produce is spent swinging the massive arms back, which can easily be hydraulically countered, or abosrbed by the myomer muscle systems)

very smart nerds thought this all out decades ago for the TT

Edited by LordDeathStrike, 15 March 2012 - 08:43 PM.

[Pht]

Strum Wealh, on 15 March 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

Who's to say that they don't experience recoil (and, yes, recoil to the attacker ≥ knock to the target), but have various means of suppressing its effects?

The people that maintain the lore; who haven't mentioned anywhere that I've seen that recoil and knock are large enough factors such that they affect 'mechs; to which there is a single exception, for the largest of the gauss rifles; you take a PSR if you fire it on the move.

As for your arguments about recoil supression; I'm not going to argue agains them, because I don't think there's really any reason to.

I do feel obliged to point out again, that battlemechs have multiple systems all tailor made to keep a mech upright and *stable* while taking fire on a battlefield.

Their entire acutator controller network is setup to be able to sense and control for incoming fire; the gyro system senses for and controls for it, and the mechwarrior's sense of balance handles what the 'mechs balance system can't handle. These are known facts, from what amounts to the most authoritative written source on the technical topics, which, along with the general lack in the story sources of any warrant for saying that recoil and knock are big enough factors for battlemechs in combat, that indicate that there's no good warrant knock and recoil being big in the MW video games.

Besides which, the reasons given for having these effects can be just as well addressed by other already existing and far less questionable things.

[Strum Wealh]

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

The people that maintain the lore; who haven't mentioned anywhere that I've seen that recoil and knock are large enough factors such that they affect 'mechs; to which there is a single exception, for the largest of the gauss rifles; you take a PSR if you fire it on the move.

CBT Master rules specifically states on page 138 that the recoil of the Heavy Gauss Rifle is such that it can only be mounted in torso locations, and TechManual specifically states on page 218 that the recoil from the Heavy Gauss Rifle is enough to "destabilize the firing unit".

From Classic BattleTech Starterbook: Wolf and Blake:

Quote

The LB 10-X autocannon in the Zeus’ left forearm belched fire and kicked, the recoil momentarily swinging the Zeus’ torso out of alignment.

From BattleTech Starter: Fist and Falcon:

Quote

All eighty-five tons of the BattleMaster shook with recoil as the Gauss rifle fired.

From Blood of Heroes (see here):

Quote

Alex waited for the targeting cross hairs to flash red, then hit the firing studs for both missile racks in quick succession. The Archer staggered under the multiple recoil of forty missiles streaking from the tubes.

Also:

Quote

The GLH-2D utilizes two massive M-7 Gauss Rifles, with two tons of ammo for each rifle. It was a showing of the powerful new weapons at the time and earned it the nickname of "Gausszilla". One problem with the two massive rifles was the recoil. During the Reunification War, multiple reports of catastrophic failure of the shoulder couplings came in from the front lines.

Quote

Shadow Hawk IIC 7 - This Clan Snow Raven variant is used in space combat to support or repel boarding attacks. By carrying eight Improved Jump Jets tied into extended capacity fuel tanks, the Shadow Hawk IIC 7 can maneuver in space very easily. On the ground the smaller XL Engine used reduces the top speed slightly, but the jump jets easily compensate for this. To reduce handling problems in space the weapons array consists of low-recoil ER Large and Medium lasers with a Medium Pulse Laser. In fact the only recoil-inducing weapon is the ATM-6 in the right torso. Three tons of ammunition space allow the IIC 7 pilot to tailor the weapon load depending on the situation.

Quote

The Heavy Gauss Rifle is a new, deadly innovation by Lyran Alliance scientists introduced in 3061. Applying their "bigger is better" philosophy to Gauss technology, the Heavy Gauss Rifle is one of the heaviest battlefield weapons in existence, and has a correspondingly high damage potential. Indeed, the recoil from the weapon is so great that the rifle cannot be mounted in a vehicle's turret or 'Mech's arms, as firing the rifle would essentially rip it off. A 'Mech firing the rifle may even be knocked down by the recoil. At close range, the rifle can inflict damage exceeding that of even an Autocannon/20, and so it has earned the handle of "Thor's Hammer" among LAAF troops.

Quote

The Improved Heavy Gauss Rifle also inflicts a great deal of structural stress when it fires; This limits the Improved Heavy Gauss Rifle to torso locations on BattleMechs or hull mountings on combat vehicles as the recoil and stress would rip the arm or turret off the vehicle. These immense forces also destabilize the unit, making it more difficult to operate in combat.

It would seem that there are several canon instances of ballistic and missile weapons - from LB-X AC-10s to LRM-20s to standard Gauss Rifles to both standard and improved versions of the Heavy Gauss Rifle - causing recoil, and of said recoil being enough to give even BattleMechs some trouble.

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

As for your arguments about recoil supression; I'm not going to argue against them, because I don't think there's really any reason to.

I do feel obliged to point out again, that battlemechs have multiple systems all tailor made to keep a mech upright and *stable* while taking fire on a battlefield.

Their entire acutator controller network is setup to be able to sense and control for incoming fire; the gyro system senses for and controls for it, and the mechwarrior's sense of balance handles what the 'mechs balance system can't handle. These are known facts, from what amounts to the most authoritative written source on the technical topics, which, along with the general lack in the story sources of any warrant for saying that recoil and knock are big enough factors for battlemechs in combat, that indicate that there's no good warrant knock and recoil being big in the MW video games.

Besides which, the reasons given for having these effects can be just as well addressed by other already existing and far less questionable things.

While BattleMechs may have advanced systems (the DI computer and its balancing protocols, together with the gyro) to keep them upright across uneven terrain and while under fire and can be equipped with additional optional systems to further assist in compensating for recoil (e.g. the targeting computer system and its integrated "recoil compensators" (Tech Manual, pg. 238)), I say the instances cited earlier in this post demonstrate that the former (DI computer/gyro) is actually rather limited in regard to being able to deal with recoil and even the latter, while improving upon the former's capabilities, is not enough to compensate in the most extreme of cases (HGRs/iHGRs).

Moreover, as it is canonically clear that recoil is an issue (why would the targeting computer system include "recoil compensators" if it weren't?), I say it stands to reason (and doesn't seem to be explicitly discounted in the canon) that ACs and other recoil-generating weapons would probably have some form of recoil-damping system integrated into their construction.

Your thoughts?

[Pht]

Someone willing to actually interact and quote original sources...what a refreshing thing!

Ahead of time just to make it clear, I am not saying that the weapons will have zero recoil when fired, I'm saying that the 'mech compensates for the recoil generated and the mechs on the recieving end compensate for whatever level of knock recieved.

Strum Wealh, on 15 March 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

CBT Master rules specifically states on page 138 that the recoil of the Heavy Gauss Rifle is such that it can only be mounted in torso locations, and TechManual specifically states on page 218 that the recoil from the Heavy Gauss Rifle is enough to "destabilize the firing unit".

Yes, and that is the one specific outlier that I mentioned; and even at that, it makes you do a PSR roll - not a gunnery roll! That means the recoil doesn't cause it to go off target.

Quote

From Classic BattleTech Starterbook: Wolf and Blake: ...

-----------

From BattleTech Starter: Fist and Falcon:...

-------------

From Blood of Heroes (see here):

So far, a single instance, and somewhat questionable without the context.
---------------------
They don't indicate the effect the shaking has in your quote here.
---------------------
Yes, they commonly mention the pushback from firing lots of missiles, which do not suffer targeting problems because of it; it's a well known factor and we don't know if it affects other weapons or not, which very well may have compensation routines, and strictly speaking, we don't know if the stagger is enough to throw aim off for the other weapons from the quote.

Quote

Also:...

The galahad fluff text only says they had recoil problems which have since been fixed; in fact, it seems to be mentioned as somewhat of a design flaw and outlier.

The shadowhawk IIC fluff is only saying that it produces recoil; which does not necessitate the additional conclusion that said recoil is enough to throw the 'mechs aim off.

I already mentioned the HGR. There is no other weapon with those kinds of recoil generation problems. The improved HGR is just another version of the HGR; it's no suprise that it has the same problems.

Quote

It would seem that there are several canon instances of ballistic and missile weapons - from LB-X AC-10s to LRM-20s to standard Gauss Rifles to both standard and improved versions of the Heavy Gauss Rifle - causing recoil, and of said recoil being enough to give even BattleMechs some trouble.

So far you've only produced one quote - the one about the zues and the lbx; a singular instance. I'd be interested to see the full context to see if they give a "why.'

Quote

While BattleMechs may have advanced systems (the DI computer and its balancing protocols, together with the gyro) to keep them upright across uneven terrain and while under fire and can be equipped with additional optional systems to further assist in compensating for recoil (e.g. the targeting computer system and its integrated "recoil compensators" (Tech Manual, pg. 238)), I say the instances cited earlier in this post demonstrate that the former (DI computer/gyro) is actually rather limited in regard to being able to deal with recoil and even the latter, while improving upon the former's capabilities, is not enough to compensate in the most extreme of cases (HGRs/iHGRs).

You do realize that if these systems cannot compensate for knock that they would have an even harder time with recoil? The recoil systems of the various weapons don't dump their recoil energy into nowhere land, they dump it into the mech firing the weapons.

If you accept your own argument than 'mechs would have to suffer even more from recoil effects than from knock effects.

It's not possible to have your cake and eat it too.

Quote

Moreover, as it is canonically clear that recoil is an issue

It is not. So far, the source you've quoted has not clearly and expressly said that recoil (or knock) affects the 'mechs at a level to affect their targeting and balance (The HGRs are the extreme and merely serve to illustrate the upper end of the 'mech's capabilities in this area), nor have any of the quotes, by good and necessary implication implied such.

Quote

(why would the targeting computer system include "recoil compensators" if it weren't?), I say it stands to reason (and doesn't seem to be explicitly discounted in the canon) that ACs and other recoil-generating weapons would probably have some form of recoil-damping system integrated into their construction.

Your thoughts?

I don't think that said weapons do not have those recoil systems; I'm not arguing that at all.

I'm arguing that the said recoil systems work, and that the 'mech itself has to handle the recoil energy, and so can absorb the knock that virtaually any incoming fire will generate.

[LordDeathStrike]

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Someone willing to actually interact and quote original sources...what a refreshing thing!

Ahead of time just to make it clear, I am not saying that the weapons will have zero recoil when fired, I'm saying that the 'mech compensates for the recoil generated and the mechs on the recieving end compensate for whatever level of knock recieved.



Yes, and that is the one specific outlier that I mentioned; and even at that, it makes you do a PSR roll - not a gunnery roll! That means the recoil doesn't cause it to go off target.




So far, a single instance, and somewhat questionable without the context.
---------------------
They don't indicate the effect the shaking has in your quote here.
---------------------
Yes, they commonly mention the pushback from firing lots of missiles, which do not suffer targeting problems because of it; it's a well known factor and we don't know if it affects other weapons or not, which very well may have compensation routines, and strictly speaking, we don't know if the stagger is enough to throw aim off for the other weapons from the quote.



The galahad fluff text only says they had recoil problems which have since been fixed; in fact, it seems to be mentioned as somewhat of a design flaw and outlier.

The shadowhawk IIC fluff is only saying that it produces recoil; which does not necessitate the additional conclusion that said recoil is enough to throw the 'mechs aim off.

I already mentioned the HGR. There is no other weapon with those kinds of recoil generation problems. The improved HGR is just another version of the HGR; it's no suprise that it has the same problems.



So far you've only produced one quote - the one about the zues and the lbx; a singular instance. I'd be interested to see the full context to see if they give a "why.'



You do realize that if these systems cannot compensate for knock that they would have an even harder time with recoil? The recoil systems of the various weapons don't dump their recoil energy into nowhere land, they dump it into the mech firing the weapons.

If you accept your own argument than 'mechs would have to suffer even more from recoil effects than from knock effects.

It's not possible to have your cake and eat it too.



It is not. So far, the source you've quoted has not clearly and expressly said that recoil (or knock) affects the 'mechs at a level to affect their targeting and balance (The HGRs are the extreme and merely serve to illustrate the upper end of the 'mech's capabilities in this area), nor have any of the quotes, by good and necessary implication implied such.



I don't think that said weapons do not have those recoil systems; I'm not arguing that at all.

I'm arguing that the said recoil systems work, and that the 'mech itself has to handle the recoil energy, and so can absorb the knock that virtaually any incoming fire will generate.

too stay upright on its feet, ac 20 slugs/gauss bullits are still gonna throw off your aim as they toss you around with impacts.

[Pht]

LordDeathStrike, on 15 March 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

too stay upright on its feet, ac 20 slugs/gauss bullits are still gonna throw off your aim as they toss you around with impacts.

LDS, do you have a source for this?

[Thomas Hogarth]

Rule of Cool: 'Mechs which do not care that they are being hit with massively destructive forces, and can return fire with these massively destructive forces as easily as you can fire a weapon in Wolfenstein 3D, or... the opposite?

It should be noted that lasers should produce some sort of recoil. Not as much as what reality says a laser of that magnitude should create, but some.

[Lycan]

Pht, on 13 March 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

Mechs have legs, they can be shot. This is not a problem; people only seem to complain about legging because it is effective, and people do what's effective most of the time.

Okay, here we go again.

Legging is only a problem if it results in the destruction of your mech and your removal from the match. If legging a mech just means that the mech is either slowed down and/or rendered immobile (depending on severity of damage) then, IMO, there's nothing wrong with it.

Edit: I do like the idea of recoil/impact recoil though. As long as it doesn't allow for the complete lock down of a mech under attack that is.

Edited by Lycan, 16 March 2012 - 01:32 AM.

[LordDeathStrike]

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

LDS, do you have a source for this?

mech 3 and 4 and mechcommander games, not a TT player so i cant ref a TT rule about it but others have (as in heavy guass rifles limited to torsos due to kickback and other things like that). at any right one of the only things mech 4 did right was heavy guns cause you to shake violently, and if enough heavy fire hit you high on the torso or in a leg (say 3 heavy/assault mechs focusing fire) you would fall down and get shot while prone unless they were clanners looking for a sporting fight.

[Strum Wealh]

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Someone willing to actually interact and quote original sources...what a refreshing thing!

Yeah... feels good, doesn't it?

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Ahead of time just to make it clear, I am not saying that the weapons will have zero recoil when fired, I'm saying that the 'mech compensates for the recoil generated and the mechs on the recieving end compensate for whatever level of knock recieved.

I would agree, to a point.

Logically, any weapon platform - BattleMechs included - should be able to (mostly) handle the firing of its own weapons, and such heavy platforms as BattleMechs (especially the heavy- and assault-class 'Mechs) would be expected to be generally unperturbed by both the firing of single smaller/lighter weapons (AC-2, AC-5, LRM-5, etc) or small groups (say, up to four or so) thereof and strikes from the same, while substantially larger and more powerful weapons (AC-10, AC-20, Gauss Rifle, LRM 20, etc) would have more pronounced effects on said BattleMechs.

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Yes, and that is the one specific outlier that I mentioned; and even at that, it makes you do a PSR roll - not a gunnery roll! That means the recoil doesn't cause it to go off target.

With a single-shot, relatively short-barreled, high-velocity weapon like a HGR, I for one wouldn't expect the projectile to be in the barrel long enough for recoil to have any significant effect on the projectile - that will go where it was aimed.
Whether the recoil of firing the weapon has the 'Mech subsequently ending up on its keister, however, is another matter (one abstracted to being resolved by the PSR), yes?

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

So far, a single instance, and somewhat questionable without the context.
---------------------
They don't indicate the effect the shaking has in your quote here.
---------------------
Yes, they commonly mention the pushback from firing lots of missiles, which do not suffer targeting problems because of it; it's a well known factor and we don't know if it affects other weapons or not, which very well may have compensation routines, and strictly speaking, we don't know if the stagger is enough to throw aim off for the other weapons from the quote.

Well, I did include direct links to the sources, the first two are PDFs (viewable in-browser, depending on one's set-up) and the third is in e-book format on epubbud.

An extended quotation for the first (Wolf and Blake, pg. 08):
"It was a heavy machine, a gray-painted Excalibur. She saw the silver flash of the Gauss rifle round that caved in Barstow’s cockpit, shearing the Phoenix Hawk’s head clean off even as the Hawk’s lasers stitched emerald light across the Excalibur’s torso. Stacy snarled a wolf’s smile and squeezed her triggers.

The LB 10-X autocannon in the Zeus’ left forearm belched fire and kicked, the recoil momentarily swinging the Zeus’ torso out of alignment. Stacy fought her controls and brought the Zeus’ other weapons to bear even as the cannon fire tore at the Excalibur’s chest. The heavy PPC erupted to life, cutting at the Excalibur’s shattered armor and exploding through it. White-hot ravening particles ate at the ’Mech’s inner structure, tearing at the protection around its fusion engine. A flare on the Zeus’s infrared monitors told her she denuded the engine of protection, and it automatically shut down to prevent a rupture. The Excalibur collapsed backward, smoking, as Stacy slowed the Zeus near the wreckage of Barstow’s Phoenix Hawk."
It seems to be an account of one Captain Stacy Church of the Black Widow Company, combating the Manei Domani on Outreach in 3070.

An extended quotation for the second (Fist and Falcon, pg. 03):
"The BattleMaster’s primary targeting reticule flashed from red to green as the assault ’Mech exited the building. Michael jerked his controls, bringing the crosshairs to rest over the Mad Cat’s torso. He breathed in, half a breath, waiting until he felt the shot, then squeezed the trigger. All eighty-five tons of the BattleMaster shook with recoil as the Gauss rifle fired. The hiss-crack of the hypersonic round firing blended with the bang as the solid shot struck the Mad Cat high on the chest, just beneath the box missile launcher. Michael squeezed his other trigger. Four needle-sharp ER medium lasers flickered, burning away more armor. The Mad Cat lurched sideways, half-crushing the sheet-metal wall of the building it’d been examining."
It seems to be an account of one Michael Guillaume of the Kewran Wolfhounds, combating the Jade Falcons on Albany-8 in 3071.

An extended quotation for the third (Blood of Heroes, chapter 28):
"'Captain Radcliffe, concentrate on the Union.' Radcliffe's tank platoon included a trio of Harasser missile platforms, two fitted out with SRM launchers, the third mounting a heavier LRM system. Although they lacked the punch of the fire-support 'Mechs, the hover tanks had the advantage of being fast and maneuverable. They could get in close, take their shots, and withdraw again quickly before the DropShip gunners could react—or at least that was the plan. Combined with sustained fire from Carlyle's Archer, they would certainly make the crew of the Union Class notice the Legion.

Alex waited for the targeting cross hairs to flash red, then hit the firing studs for both missile racks in quick succession. The Archer staggered under the multiple recoil of forty missiles streaking from the tubes.

Slow and stately, the DropShip was lifting off, but it gathered speed as it rose from the tarmac like some impossible prehistoric flying beast disturbed from an age-long slumber. There was a rippling of explosions near the underside of the spherical vessel as some of Alex's missiles found their mark, but he didn't even bother with the BDA readouts. He knew the attack wouldn't cause enough damage to penetrate the thick armor. Not yet."
It seems to be an account of one Alex Carlyle of the Gray Death Legion, combating what seem to be elements of the Free Skye Movement on Glengarry in 3056.

In each case, there doesn't seem to have been any damage to the 'Mech-in-question or its systems, nor does there seem to be a case of unstable terrain or poor footing on the part of the 'Mech-in-question.
As such, it would seem like the cited recoil/rocking is part of normal operations.

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

The galahad fluff text only says they had recoil problems which have since been fixed; in fact, it seems to be mentioned as somewhat of a design flaw and outlier.

The shadowhawk IIC fluff is only saying that it produces recoil; which does not necessitate the additional conclusion that said recoil is enough to throw the 'mechs aim off.

I already mentioned the HGR. There is no other weapon with those kinds of recoil generation problems. The improved HGR is just another version of the HGR; it's no suprise that it has the same problems.

Given that the Galahad did remain in SLDF service and eventually evolved into the Clans' Glass Spider (which the IS codenamed... Galahad! ), I would be inclined to agree.
However, the example of Guillaume's BattleMaster would seem to indicate that the recoil from a standard Gauss Rifle can be significant and noticeable (if not necessarily "an issue") to even an assault-class 'Mech (and a presumably well-designed one at that).

The example of the Shadow Hawk IIC was meant more to back up the example of Carlyle's Archer, in demonstrating that the missile systems (even smaller ones like the ATM-6) do produce some recoil (as opposed to being wholly recoilless).
Though, the recoil of the small missile rack is presumably small enough that even a light 'Mech in space combat would be minimally affected, while dual-fired twin LRM-20s will apparently cause noticeable rocking in even a 70-ton Archer.

And... well, the HGRs' issues have already been covered in sufficient depth, yes?

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

So far you've only produced one quote - the one about the zues and the lbx; a singular instance. I'd be interested to see the full context to see if they give a "why.'

See above.

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

You do realize that if these systems cannot compensate for knock that they would have an even harder time with recoil? The recoil systems of the various weapons don't dump their recoil energy into nowhere land, they dump it into the mech firing the weapons.

If you accept your own argument than 'mechs would have to suffer even more from recoil effects than from knock effects.

It's not possible to have your cake and eat it too.

I do seem to recall acknowledging that, in general, "recoil to the attacker ≥ knock to the target‏".

However, I see the process of maintaining balance while firing such weapons to involve two systems:
1.) the recoil damping system built into the weapons themselves, and
2.) the balancing system inherent to the 'Mech (controlled by the DI computer, and employing the gyro and the BattleMech's DIC-controlled proprioception ("the sense of the relative position of neighbouring parts of the body and strength of effort being employed in movement")).

The combined effects of both (1) and (2) would allow most BattleMechs to mostly deal with the effects of recoil from their own ballistic and missile weapons (with energy weapons having so little recoil as to be negligible), but only (2) would help dealing with knockback and armor loss from being struck with another platform's weapons.
After all, how would having a recoil damping system integral to 'Mech A's right-arm-mounted AC-10 help 'Mech A deal with the momentum and KE transfer from being struck in the right-torso by a slug from 'Mech B's right-arm-mounted Gauss Rifle?

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

It is not. So far, the source you've quoted has not clearly and expressly said that recoil (or knock) affects the 'mechs at a level to affect their targeting and balance (The HGRs are the extreme and merely serve to illustrate the upper end of the 'mech's capabilities in this area), nor have any of the quotes, by good and necessary implication implied such.

Given that the firing of an LB-X AC-10 was able to "momentarily swing a Zeus’ torso out of alignment" to the point that the pilot had to "fight her controls to bring the Zeus’ other weapons to bear even as the cannon fire tore at the target", it would seem that recoil can (not necessarily must, but can) have some effect on targeting.
(FWIW, that exact Zeus variant is listed on Sarna.net as the "ZEU-9WD Zeus-X Stacy" (though, Sarna cites its creation date as 3071 while Wolf and Blake specifically gives the date of the described battle as January 22, 3070 ), with the Zeus' LB-X AC-10 being named in Wolf and Blake as a Defiance Disintegrator.)

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

I don't think that said weapons do not have those recoil systems; I'm not arguing that at all.

I'm arguing that the said recoil systems work, and that the 'mech itself has to handle the recoil energy, and so can absorb the knock that virtaually any incoming fire will generate.

I, too, believe that these systems "work", but I also feel that there is enough evidence to reasonably support the claim that they have their limits, and are able to negate only most - not all - of the effects of both the recoil generated by firing the larger, higher-damage weapons.

Your thoughts?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 16 March 2012 - 07:17 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

I do find it interesting that in most of the literature, the Gauss Rifles seem to be sited as always having the most recoil effects when the actual physics of the Tech puts it at the low end of the recoil generating weapons. Being a frictionless based electromagnetic system reduces recoil generation by it sheer nature. Perhaps the writers can't seem to get past the fact that those rifles fire what amounts to a 250lb projectile, or their actual understanding was rather limited.

Depending on the layout of the electromagnets, most forces generated are up or out in relation to the gun itself versus the forward or backwards of conventional explosive based (powder burning) projectile guns.

Here is a clip of a Gauss Rifle (technically sound but scaled down obviously) Note how little, if any recoil is seen.

Gauss Rifle

[Siilk]

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

LDS, do you have a source for this?

Err... Common sense and knowledge of basic physics?

[Thomas Hogarth]

Imagine the 2009 trailer without weapon impacts. How boring would that be?

[Garth Erlam]

SquareSphere, on 13 March 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

In short

• Target arm = arm weapon aim sway when hit with enough force, arms tend to not be able to mount as much armor as a torso.
  
• Target torso = lesser cockpit knock effect, obviously the main way to destroy mech when torso is breached
  
• Target legs = no knock effect, can now mount as much armor as a torso section.

A very similar version of this is already in place.

[Pht]

Strum Wealh, on 16 March 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

Logically, any weapon platform - BattleMechs included - should be able to (mostly) handle the firing of its own weapons, and such heavy platforms as BattleMechs (especially the heavy- and assault-class 'Mechs) would be expected to be generally unperturbed by both the firing of single smaller/lighter weapons (AC-2, AC-5, LRM-5, etc) or small groups (say, up to four or so) thereof and strikes from the same, while substantially larger and more powerful weapons (AC-10, AC-20, Gauss Rifle, LRM 20, etc) would have more pronounced effects on said BattleMechs.

You're presupposing the point that's being debated.

Quote

With a single-shot, relatively short-barreled, high-velocity weapon like a HGR, I for one wouldn't expect the projectile to be in the barrel long enough for recoil to have any significant effect on the projectile - that will go where it was aimed.
Whether the recoil of firing the weapon has the 'Mech subsequently ending up on its keister, however, is another matter (one abstracted to being resolved by the PSR), yes?

It doesn't matter how short the barrel is. What matters is whether the 'mech can handle the kinetic force imparted; and the barrel length in a gauss rifle only denotes how quickly the kinetic force is dumped into the 'mech, not how much is dumped.

We do know that the HGR gives more recoil than the regular gauss rifles; we also know that it only matters if you try to fire it on the move, and that even than it doesn't exceed the ability of the 'mech to be able to handle it accurately.

Quote

Well, I did include direct links to the sources, the first two are PDFs (viewable in-browser, depending on one's set-up) and the third is in e-book format on epubbud.

An extended quotation for the first (Wolf and Blake, pg. 08):
"It was a heavy machine, a gray-painted Excalibur. She saw the silver flash of the Gauss rifle round that caved in Barstow’s cockpit, shearing the Phoenix Hawk’s head clean off even as the Hawk’s lasers stitched emerald light across the Excalibur’s torso. Stacy snarled a wolf’s smile and squeezed her triggers.

The LB 10-X autocannon in the Zeus’ left forearm belched fire and kicked, the recoil momentarily swinging the Zeus’ torso out of alignment. Stacy fought her controls and brought the Zeus’ other weapons to bear even as the cannon fire tore at the Excalibur’s chest. The heavy PPC erupted to life, cutting at the Excalibur’s shattered armor and exploding through it. White-hot ravening particles ate at the ’Mech’s inner structure, tearing at the protection around its fusion engine. A flare on the Zeus’s infrared monitors told her she denuded the engine of protection, and it automatically shut down to prevent a rupture. The Excalibur collapsed backward, smoking, as Stacy slowed the Zeus near the wreckage of Barstow’s Phoenix Hawk."
It seems to be an account of one Captain Stacy Church of the Black Widow Company, combating the Manei Domani on Outreach in 3070.

An extended quotation for the second (Fist and Falcon, pg. 03):
"The BattleMaster’s primary targeting reticule flashed from red to green as the assault ’Mech exited the building. Michael jerked his controls, bringing the crosshairs to rest over the Mad Cat’s torso. He breathed in, half a breath, waiting until he felt the shot, then squeezed the trigger. All eighty-five tons of the BattleMaster shook with recoil as the Gauss rifle fired. The hiss-crack of the hypersonic round firing blended with the bang as the solid shot struck the Mad Cat high on the chest, just beneath the box missile launcher. Michael squeezed his other trigger. Four needle-sharp ER medium lasers flickered, burning away more armor. The Mad Cat lurched sideways, half-crushing the sheet-metal wall of the building it’d been examining."
It seems to be an account of one Michael Guillaume of the Kewran Wolfhounds, combating the Jade Falcons on Albany-8 in 3071.

An extended quotation for the third (Blood of Heroes, chapter 28):
"'Captain Radcliffe, concentrate on the Union.' Radcliffe's tank platoon included a trio of Harasser missile platforms, two fitted out with SRM launchers, the third mounting a heavier LRM system. Although they lacked the punch of the fire-support 'Mechs, the hover tanks had the advantage of being fast and maneuverable. They could get in close, take their shots, and withdraw again quickly before the DropShip gunners could react—or at least that was the plan. Combined with sustained fire from Carlyle's Archer, they would certainly make the crew of the Union Class notice the Legion.

Alex waited for the targeting cross hairs to flash red, then hit the firing studs for both missile racks in quick succession. The Archer staggered under the multiple recoil of forty missiles streaking from the tubes.

Slow and stately, the DropShip was lifting off, but it gathered speed as it rose from the tarmac like some impossible prehistoric flying beast disturbed from an age-long slumber. There was a rippling of explosions near the underside of the spherical vessel as some of Alex's missiles found their mark, but he didn't even bother with the BDA readouts. He knew the attack wouldn't cause enough damage to penetrate the thick armor. Not yet."
It seems to be an account of one Alex Carlyle of the Gray Death Legion, combating what seem to be elements of the Free Skye Movement on Glengarry in 3056.

In each case, there doesn't seem to have been any damage to the 'Mech-in-question or its systems, nor does there seem to be a case of unstable terrain or poor footing on the part of the 'Mech-in-question.
As such, it would seem like the cited recoil/rocking is part of normal operations.

I didn't realize you'd linked to online versions.

Yes, the blurb from the zues has the recoil causing torso misalignment (I'm being nice and not pointing out that it said the torso misaligned, not that the alignment change actually affected targeting) - we don't know if the torso weapons were capable of realigning themselves internally.

The baisc point being, you've not listed (nor do I remember seeing any, but I'm going to go ask the people who get paid to know!) any instances where it actually has recoil causing the firing 'mech aiming problems. We can't just assume what's not in the text because it fits our preconcieved notions (and yes, I know that's a double edged sword).

Quote

Given that the Galahad did remain in SLDF service and eventually evolved into the Clans' Glass Spider (which the IS codenamed... Galahad! ), I would be inclined to agree.
However, the example of Guillaume's BattleMaster would seem to indicate that the recoil from a standard Gauss Rifle can be significant and noticeable (if not necessarily "an issue") to even an assault-class 'Mech (and a presumably well-designed one at that).

The example of the Shadow Hawk IIC was meant more to back up the example of Carlyle's Archer, in demonstrating that the missile systems (even smaller ones like the ATM-6) do produce some recoil (as opposed to being wholly recoilless).
Though, the recoil of the small missile rack is presumably small enough that even a light 'Mech in space combat would be minimally affected, while dual-fired twin LRM-20s will apparently cause noticeable rocking in even a 70-ton Archer.

Again, I've not argued that the gauss rifles or any other weapons don't have recoil.

The question is, does this recoil affect the 'mechs ability to aim it's weapons in any meaningful sense? If we can't find this actually in the text than we can't say it's present.

Quote

I do seem to recall acknowledging that, in general, "recoil to the attacker ≥ knock to the target‏".

However, I see the process of maintaining balance while firing such weapons to involve two systems:
1.) the recoil damping system built into the weapons themselves, and
2.) the balancing system inherent to the 'Mech (controlled by the DI computer, and employing the gyro and the BattleMech's DIC-controlled proprioception ("the sense of the relative position of neighbouring parts of the body and strength of effort being employed in movement")).

The combined effects of both (1) and (2) would allow most BattleMechs to mostly deal with the effects of recoil from their own ballistic and missile weapons (with energy weapons having so little recoil as to be negligible), but only (2) would help dealing with knockback and armor loss from being struck with another platform's weapons.
After all, how would having a recoil damping system integral to 'Mech A's right-arm-mounted AC-10 help 'Mech A deal with the momentum and KE transfer from being struck in the right-torso by a slug from 'Mech B's right-arm-mounted Gauss Rifle?

The recoil systems of the individual weapons still do nothing more than pass the recoil "on to the 'mech" to handle.

I did not propose that the recoil damping systems of a 'mechs weapons help with knock effects. I wonder where you've gotten that from... ???

All I did was point out that there are other systems specifically built to handle knock and that sort of thing.

Quote

Given that the firing of an LB-X AC-10 was able to "momentarily swing a Zeus’ torso out of alignment" to the point that the pilot had to "fight her controls to bring the Zeus’ other weapons to bear even as the cannon fire tore at the target", it would seem that recoil can (not necessarily must, but can) have some effect on targeting.

You've actually put things into the text that it doesn't say. I don't think you've done it on purpose, btw.

"The LB 10-X autocannon in the Zeus’ left forearm belched fire and kicked, the recoil momentarily swinging the Zeus’ torso out of alignment. Stacy fought her controls and brought the Zeus’ other weapons to bear even as the cannon fire tore at the Excalibur’s chest."

lbx fires, causes recoil which causes torso movement

Pilot fights the controls

than brings weapons to bear

The text actually does not say that the torso movement is why the pilot had to fight the controls, and it doesn't even link the control fighting to bringing the weapons to bear!
1
Good and necessary consequence... it's amazing how much our preconceptions can put into a text!

So, could the author have meant that the recoil caused aiming problems? Maybe, but his text doesn't necessitate that conclusion!

Hopefully there's a good answer from the guys that get paid to know these answers... I am most interested myself.

Thomas Hogarth, on 16 March 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Imagine the 2009 trailer without weapon impacts. How boring would that be?

Who said anything about not having weapons impacts? I certanly didn't.

[Strum Wealh]

Pht, on 20 March 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

You're presupposing the point that's being debated.

I was more going for "that would be the logical/reasonable/smart thing to do; doing otherwise would be presumably indicative of unsound engineering philosophies/practices".

Pht, on 20 March 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

It doesn't matter how short the barrel is. What matters is whether the 'mech can handle the kinetic force imparted; and the barrel length in a gauss rifle only denotes how quickly the kinetic force is dumped into the 'mech, not how much is dumped.

We do know that the HGR gives more recoil than the regular gauss rifles; we also know that it only matters if you try to fire it on the move, and that even than it doesn't exceed the ability of the 'mech to be able to handle it accurately.

I disagree with the dismissal of the importance of barrel length in coilgun (Gauss Rifle) design (e.g. its effect on coil size, number of coils, coil spacing, and required current (among other things) WRT change of momentum of the slug), but that is getting to be rather beside-the-point.

Pht, on 20 March 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

I didn't realize you'd linked to online versions.

Yes, the blurb from the zues has the recoil causing torso misalignment (I'm being nice and not pointing out that it said the torso misaligned, not that the alignment change actually affected targeting) - we don't know if the torso weapons were capable of realigning themselves internally.

The baisc point being, you've not listed (nor do I remember seeing any, but I'm going to go ask the people who get paid to know!) any instances where it actually has recoil causing the firing 'mech aiming problems. We can't just assume what's not in the text because it fits our preconcieved notions (and yes, I know that's a double edged sword).

And I would imagine that if they were a.) getting paid by-the-word and b.) not limited by page real estate and printing budgets, the writers likely would have described, in excruciating detail, every knock, bump, and scratch inflicted on the BattleMechs, their pilots, their surroundings, and so on.

But they didn't​ include such detail-heavy descriptions, so it falls to reasonable deduction to "fill in the blanks".

Pht, on 20 March 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

Again, I've not argued that the gauss rifles or any other weapons don't have recoil.

The question is, does this recoil affect the 'mechs ability to aim it's weapons in any meaningful sense? If we can't find this actually in the text than we can't say it's present.

The answer to the the question would seem to be "under certain conditions, yes".

Going back to the Shadow Hawk IIC 7, the text specifically states, "To reduce handling problems in space the weapons array consists of low-recoil ER Large and Medium lasers with a Medium Pulse Laser. In fact the only recoil-inducing weapon is the ATM-6 in the right torso."
The specifically- and explicitly-stated reason for going with a "low recoil", mostly-laser-based loadout was to "reduce handling problems in space".
The writers shouldn't - and, indeed, don't - need to explicitly explain why weapons with little or no recoil would be preferable for spaceborne combat platforms (especially relatively low-mass platforms such as starfighters and light BattleMechs)... because it should be (expected to be) obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Newton's Third Law and what it means in a microgravity environment.

And, again, there is the example of Capt. Stacy Church's Zeus during the battle on Outreach, which I will further elaborate upon below...

Pht, on 20 March 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

The recoil systems of the individual weapons still do nothing more than pass the recoil "on to the 'mech" to handle.

I did not propose that the recoil damping systems of a 'mechs weapons help with knock effects. I wonder where you've gotten that from... ???

All I did was point out that there are other systems specifically built to handle knock and that sort of thing.

I did not intend to imply that you had advanced that argument; for whatever reason at the time (the exact reason escapes recall at the moment), I seem to have felt that that particular point had warranted reinforcing.

Pht, on 20 March 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

You've actually put things into the text that it doesn't say. I don't think you've done it on purpose, btw.

"The LB 10-X autocannon in the Zeus’ left forearm belched fire and kicked, the recoil momentarily swinging the Zeus’ torso out of alignment. Stacy fought her controls and brought the Zeus’ other weapons to bear even as the cannon fire tore at the Excalibur’s chest."

lbx fires, causes recoil which causes torso movement

Pilot fights the controls

than brings weapons to bear

The text actually does not say that the torso movement is why the pilot had to fight the controls, and it doesn't even link the control fighting to bringing the weapons to bear!
1
Good and necessary consequence... it's amazing how much our preconceptions can put into a text!

So, could the author have meant that the recoil caused aiming problems? Maybe, but his text doesn't necessitate that conclusion!

Hopefully there's a good answer from the guys that get paid to know these answers... I am most interested myself.

So, back to Stacy's Zeus...

As stated before, I believe that the writers - limitations of per-page real estate and printing costs, along with assuming that their readers are fairly intelligent and possessed of at-least-reasonable ability to deduce things from context without having to have every possible detail spelled out for them - opted to write in such a way as to provide enough information to let the readers reasonably fill in the blanks.

Looking at the story in Wolf and Blake, there is no evidence of the Zeus coming under fire from the Blakist Excalibur or any of its allies up to or through said Excalibur's destruction, and no evidence of the Zeus' footing being particularly unstable at that point (though, it is mentioned to have stepped into a half-meter sinkhole earlier in the story, so its likely that another instance of uneven or unstable footing would have been mentioned).
So, from that, we can reasonably deduce that there were no non-environmental external factors acting on the Zeus as it fired its autocannon.

Moreover, the autocannon is, in the text, described as having "belched fire and kicked, the recoil momentarily swinging the Zeus’ torso out of alignment".
So, we know that the autocannon itself "kicks" (that is, recoils), and that, in the seeming absence of any other factors acting on the Zeus at that moment, that it is this "kicking" (recoil) that "momentarily [swings] the Zeus’ torso out of alignment".

From Wolf and Blake, we know of the Stacy's Zeus' loadout:

"She brought the Zeus around and brought her throttle up, trusting Rondema to keep pace in her lighter ’Mech. The PPC was already hot, the pulse lasers in the eighty-ton assault ’Mech’s torso pre-heated, the medium lasers in the eighty-ton assault ‘Mech’s torso pre-heated, and the Disintegrator cannon already loaded with cluster-shot mayhem."
"...the fearsome heavy PPC in the Zeus’ right gauntlet erupted in cyan-tinged vengeance..."
"The LB 10-X autocannon in the Zeus’ left forearm belched fire and kicked..."
(Though, Sarna seems to indicate that the 'Mech has only two ER Medium Lasers in addition to the HPPC and the LB-X... )

So, the passage describes the AC's recoil - in spite of any recoil-damping system in the gun itself and any as sufficient to wrench the Zeus' torso "out of alignment".
("Out of alignment" with what? Presumably, "out of alignment" with regard to keeping the Zeus' torso-mounted weapons (the previously-mentioned lasers) pointed at the target, the Excalibur... or, out of alignment with regard to keeping the Zeus' torso centered to its own legs? And, how much "out of alignment"? Again, context and reasonable deduction count...)

As for Stacy's "fighting the controls"... given that she is apparently a high-caliber pilot (in TT terms, she was apparently a Gunnery 1/Piloting 2 pilot; for points of comparison, "Inner Sphere Elite" is apparently Gunnery 2/Piloting 3, "Clan Elite" is apparently Gunnery 1/Piloting 2, Phelan Kell was apparently a Gunnery 1/Piloting 1 pilot, and Kai Allard-Liao was apparently a Gunnery 0/Piloting 0 pilot).
So, it seems unlikely that she would have too much trouble keeping her 'Mech under control in most situations.
(Though, that does open up the question of what happened to the LB-X's recoil-damping system... )

Also, I would note that the (arm-mounted) HPPC was only used after Stacy had "brought the Zeus’ other weapons to bear", and there is no mention of the (torso-mounted) lasers having been fired at the Excalibur.

Overall, the scene seems to play out as described - Stacy, after watching her comrade die at the hands of the Blakist Excalibur, fires her arm-mounted AC and, after working the controls to recover from said firing of the AC, finishes the Excalibur with the HPPC mounted in the other arm.

How do you interpret the scene?

--------------------

Pht, on 20 March 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

Who said anything about not having weapons impacts? I certanly didn't.

I suspect it probably came out of:

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

It is not. So far, the source you've quoted has not clearly and expressly said that recoil (or knock) affects the 'mechs at a level to affect their targeting and balance (The HGRs are the extreme and merely serve to illustrate the upper end of the 'mech's capabilities in this area), nor have any of the quotes, by good and necessary implication implied such.

-----

I don't think that said weapons do not have those recoil systems; I'm not arguing that at all.

I'm arguing that the said recoil systems work, and that the 'mech itself has to handle the recoil energy, and so can absorb the knock that virtaually any incoming fire will generate.

Apparently, some felt that the implication of those statements was the belief that a BattleMech, being able to "absorb the knock that virtaually any incoming fire will generate", would experience no knockback effects from incoming fire.

[Pht]

Just a quick one atm, more later!

Strum Wealh, on 21 March 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

But they didn't​ include such detail-heavy descriptions, so it falls to reasonable deduction to "fill in the blanks".

It is not reasonable to put meanings into a text instead of drawing them out of what is actually expressed in the sense of the text.

If putting meaning into a text is allowable, the text can mean literally anything, and than communication is impossible.

Witness how politicians horribly mangle and twist language, to the chagrin of everyone who wants meaningful communication.