78 replies to this topic

[Hef]

Riddle me this, fellow warriors: How much 'mech should you realistically expect to get for 100t?
Well if we look to one of history's biggest war machines, the German Maus, you may be surprised at just how easy it is to hit 200t without having something even as tall as a flea.
The Maus specifications (according to wiki) are thus:
Specifications
Weight     200 metric tons (220.5 short tons)
Length     10.2 metres (33 ft 6 in)
Width     3.71 metres (12 ft 2 in)
Height     3.63 metres (11 ft 11 in)
Now sure that's "old" technology and you'd probably get a little more bang for your buck with new ceramic armours and the like, but you also won't get anything nearly as tall as an ATLAS for 100t unless it is made from balsa wood.
So what's the explanation here? Are tons redefined in the Battletech universe to be something much larger than a ton as we know it, or were the creators of Battletech just pulling big numbers out of their arse (which is more likely) without logically thinking "now how much 'mech am I actually going to get for that weight?".

[Damocles]

Battletech is not the real world and methods used to create these mechs are not real either?

[ItsGonRain]

As it more than a 1000 years ahead of I would say they have found a newer material or have created another material that is stronger then steel but also lighter. You have to remember that metal isn't the defacto piece of armour any more. Look a kevlar. It's a modern body armour that's made out of fibers(i think).1000 years of SCIENCE!!! can create a lot of interesting stuff.

[Taw Jackson]

here is a practical example.........US Navy is testing out (official unclassified announcement was today) an electro magnetic rail gun, video of the test is online if you search for it. Barrel size seems to be on par with a 5" gun. Given 1000 years to advance the technology, it is conceivable that a Gauss Rifle type weapon could be refined and impemented.

Think of the advancements in manufacturing, design, use of lasers in the past 100 years.......

Could all of this happen (100 ton assault Mech's battling it out like Godzilla vs Mega Godzilla) given advances in many different fields? I think it's plausible. But who knows.

[Kartr]

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.

The only problem is that you have people who try and justify it and come up with reasons for how it is feasible, or even practical. Totally ignoring the fact that the system is designed to balance a game who's main draw is a completely infeasible and impractical concept. Don't believe that the "ton" is a real ton and don't presume that 'Mechs make any sense and just have fun with the coolness of it.

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

Edited by Kartr, 29 February 2012 - 07:11 PM.

[Elizander]

I have stopped trying to use reason and logic on giant robots a long time ago. I just have as much fun with them when I can.

[tacobellkiller]

Basically giant walking mechs are hardly practical or realistic, they really don't have capabilities that make them superior to more conventional weapons platforms and they would act as fodder to air support and artillery. However they do allow for awesome gameplay experiences and that more than completely makes up for the lack of realism in the basic mech concept. Realism should be maintained when possible but game designers are not mechanical engineers, especially when you consider that many of these concepts (like the 100 ton limit, LAM's, heavy gauss rifles launching a quarter ton shell to multiples of the speed of sound, and plenty of other ideas) were created to design a balanced multiplayer tabletop strategy game. They could spend a lot of time trying to adjust these values into more realistic realms but what value would that really add to the game, as long as the feel of stomping around in a giant death machine is adequately translated into the game.

[BarHaid]

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

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

Heh heh. That is going to be soooo embarrassing the first time that someone tries to enter a water hex!

[Maurice]

WHAT.......................................

[Jacob Carlyle]

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

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

I like it, but going by the posted dimensions of the Maus in the first post, it has a density of approx 1500kg/m^3 (for even more giggles, work out the density of an F15-Eagle [tip: It's basically a triangle]), steel is approx 8000kg/m^3.
Remember there is a lot of empty space in a bipedal frame, and there will be even more inside the superstructure. It's not entirely out of the question that something the size of a mech would max-out at 100t.

[Iron Wardog]

The average volume for a human body is 68 dm^3.
The average height is 1.75m.
Since the Atlas is 18m tall let's round it and say the Atlas has 10x more volume.
That gives 68m^3.
100000kg/68m^3
Round again that gives 1.5t/m^3

For reference an M1 abrams is around 60000kg / (7.93*3.66*2.2)m^3 discounting a bit of height because of the turret
That gives something like 940kg/m^3

It's all rough approximation but the values don't seem completely unreal.

Edited by Iron_Wardog, 01 March 2012 - 03:18 PM.

[Stone Profit]

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

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

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

[GuntherK]

A main batle tank nowadays can weight 60 or more tons. So i find acceptable that tomorrow walking tanks will weight between 20 to 100 tons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somewhere the devs said the in game Atlas is 18 meters tall, the Atlas is probably one of the talest (and ugliest) mechs.

[CeeKay Boques]

When we make Magic Ferro armor in the vaccuum of space to give it rigidity, then we'll be on the same page.

Right now I think we use... Steel and Titanium? Made right here on gravity land. Not light stuff at all.

Magic Space armor bro!

[Stone Profit]

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

Somewhere the devs said the in game Atlas is 18 meters tall, the Atlas is probably one of the talest (and ugliest) mechs.

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

BattleMech




Interior of a Mad Dog BattleMech
Overview

A BattleMech (often abbreviated 'Mech, although that could technically also refer to IndustrialMechs) is an armored combat vehicle of roughly humanoid shape, some 10 to 14 meters (about 30 to 40 feet) tall and typically massing from 20 to 100 tons. 'Mechs are best suited for ground combat, although they are also capable of operation under water, in vacuum and/or in zero-g environments (space).
A single 'Mech can easily destroy a city block. A BattleMech's only true equal is another 'Mech—artillery, aircraft, and tanks are disadvantaged against them without BattleMech support or a strong advantage in numbers.

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

Edited by Stone Profit, 01 March 2012 - 03:52 PM.

[GuntherK]

I think it was on a tread regarding the Leopard or the video trailers. But one of the devs said they were using the figure of 18 meters for the Atlas. I know what canon says regard mechs height, they just considered the Atlas really tall.
Maybe someone can locate that post.

[Shapeshifter]

ItsGonRain, on 29 February 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

As it more than a 1000 years ahead of I would say they have found a newer material or have created another material that is stronger then steel but also lighter. You have to remember that metal isn't the defacto piece of armour any more. Look a kevlar. It's a modern body armour that's made out of fibers(i think).1000 years of SCIENCE!!! can create a lot of interesting stuff.

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

[Stone Profit]

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

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

Did the math, dont know if its wrong, but at 14m ( i was being generous) it comes to be 1035.19668kg/m^3, which is slightly heavier than water. Also, you have to take into account the fact that there are interior spaces which are empty. some mechs such as the Thorn could have techs crawl inside the mech to effect repairs.

[Kartr]

Jacob Carlyle, on 01 March 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

I like it, but going by the posted dimensions of the Maus in the first post, it has a density of approx 1500kg/m^3 (for even more giggles, work out the density of an F15-Eagle [tip: It's basically a triangle]), steel is approx 8000kg/m^3.
Remember there is a lot of empty space in a bipedal frame, and there will be even more inside the superstructure. It's not entirely out of the question that something the size of a mech would max-out at 100t.

Actually a bipedal frame should have less empty space than a tank. Especially if it's using pseudo muscles to move the limbs. After all one reason a tank has open space inside is so that the crew members can move around and carry out their jobs. A 'Mech only has one person in it so it makes sense there would be less open volume. About the only open volume that would carry across is the ammo storage, but you're going to get much more density from the autoloading system that moves shells from their bin to the ACs than you would if you had a person moving them by hand.

Iron_Wardog, on 01 March 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

The average volume for a human body is 68 dm^3.
The average height is 1.75m.
Since the Atlas is 18m tall let's round it and say the Atlas has 10x more volume.
That gives 68m^3.
100000kg/68m^3
Round again that gives 1.5t/m^3

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

Iron_Wardog, on 01 March 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

For reference an M1 abrams is around 60000kg / (7.93*3.66*2.2)m^3 discounting a bit of height because of the turret
That gives something like 940kg/m^3

It's all rough approximation but the values don't seem completely unreal.

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

[Stone Profit]

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

Actually a bipedal frame should have less empty space than a tank. Especially if it's using pseudo muscles to move the limbs. After all one reason a tank has open space inside is so that the crew members can move around and carry out their jobs. A 'Mech only has one person in it so it makes sense there would be less open volume. About the only open volume that would carry across is the ammo storage, but you're going to get much more density from the autoloading system that moves shells from their bin to the ACs than you would if you had a person moving them by hand.


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


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

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