Why Battletech weapons *are* realistic. An explanation for BT bashers.
Edward O. Royce
Hi.
This is a reprint from another newgroup, but I figured that it would be appropriate to
post it here. So here it is:
Phillip Benton wrote:
>
> "Edward O. Royce" <ero...@injersey.com> wrote:
>
> >Paul Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> I just looked on the demo CD I got in a mag, it shows a worms
> >> eye view of a clan wolf timberwolf. Anyway, check out near the cockpit.
> >> it says Lt Col <blah blah blah>. Well, dont clans not use LT col? They
> >> have like star colonel, star commander and star captain but no lt colonel
> >> right?
>
> >It's a Timber Wolf that got captured at the battle of Wolcott.
>
> >:-)
>
> >ed
>
> Good cover-up!
>
> Phil Benton
> Alshain MechWorks
> spe...@tsrcom.com
Ahhhmmmmaaaa faaasstttt on dat footwork! :)
Now watch me explain why the ranges in BT *are* realistic!
1. In BT each hex used is 30 meters across. That's 900 square meters
of space for a mech to be in while staying within the boundries of the
hex.
2. In BT each "turn" is ten seconds of time. Go ahead and look at your
watch and count out ten seconds. It's a lot of time. A heavy mech
(Warhammer) coud run 17.78 (59 feet) meters per second while a light
mech (Locust) can run 39 (129 feet) meters per second.
3. In BT the average (from my own experiences only) engagement distance
is 10 hexes or 300 meters.
4. The circumference of the circle with a radius of 300 meters (10
hexes) is 943 meters.
5. The length of one (1) degree at a radius of 300 meters is 2.6
meters.
6. Therefore a single hex worth of space, at a distance of 300 meters,
occupies about 12 degrees of vision.
7. A heavy mech (Warhammer), running perpedicular to the observer at a
range of 300 meters, can move 68 degrees (+- 12 degrees for the hex
itself) relative to the observer.
8. A Light mech (Locust), running perpedicular to the observer at a
range of 300 meters, can move 150 degrees (+- 12 degrees for the hex
itself) relative to the observer.
9. A "standard" mech that is 10 meters tall , 3.5 meters wide (across
the shoulders) and about 2.5 meters deep (thickness of the chest) is, to
a an observer at 300 meters, 3.8 degrees high, 1.34 degrees wide and 1
(approx) degree thick.
10. The targeting recticle of a HUD is, probably since we don't have
factual data other than MW2 or Netmech, at least 1 degree in height and
width.
11. This means that if the mech is turned sideways from an observer, at
300 meters of course, then the recticle has zero (0) horizontal
tolerance and 3 degrees vertical tolerance.
12. This means that if the mech is facing the observer, at 300 meters,
then the recticle has 0.34 degrees horizontal tolerance and 3 degrees
vertical tolerance.
13. If the target mech is a Warhammer (not a very speedy mech) moving
perpendicular to the observer then the observer would have to track a 1
degree recticle across a 68 degree track (+- 12 degrees) maintaining
it's position with zero (0) horizontal tolerance and 3 degrees vertical
tolerance.
14. If the target mech is a Locust moving perpendicular to the observer
then the observer would have to track a 1 degree recticle across a 150
degree track (+- 12 degrees) maintaining it's position with zero (0)
horizontal tolerance and 3 degrees vertical tolerance. (assuming the
same physical dimensions as the Warhammer, which is not so)
Of course it would be easier to hit when you are closer, which is why
most battles occur at less then 150 meters in netmech, and MUCH MUCH
harder when the target is farther away.
BTW a 10 meter tall mech at 1000 meters is 0.5 degrees in height.
I use degrees to show, spatially, the difficulty in trying to do the
targeting manually. In BT the targeting, other than a little help from
the onboard computers, is MANUAL. That's why the Clanners have a
targeting computer!
Now someone is bound to say, what about zooming? What about telescopic
sights and other what not. Well they are nice, but if you ask anyone
who has actually used a telescopic sight, any motion on the part of the
observer tends to magnify the difficulty in using it. After all aren't
you moving too?
Well what about gyroscopic stabilized magnifying whatchamacallits?
That's a targeting computer that the Clanners have.
:)
ed
BTW I cheated a little with #13 and #14. This would cause the mechs in
question to curve around the observer. In reality (if THAT can apply to
BT) what would be described is a triangle (and a truly obtuse one in the
case of the Locust and Clanners :P ). I just didn't feel like doing any
sin,cosin and etc. Just lazy so if someone want's to refute me, please
add that so I don't have to do the work. Thanks.
Also Brian Leung says I cheated with #1 too since a hex pattern superimposed over a 30
meter by 30 meter square does not fully fit and so it does not equal 900 meters. But we
will ignore him as being to logical and factual to listen to. :P Besides it doesn't
really change the analysis that much.
--
Mechwarrior [CBS]Flashheart - ero...@injersey.com | Member of the NRA
Clan Black Sheep (Registry) | Member of ACOG
3rd Cluster - Goldschlager Guards |
2nd Binary - The Four Lagers of the Apocolypse |
2nd Star - ???? |
Edward O. Royce
Batter Up! :)
Bill McHale wrote:
... snip
> Uh, right. Almost everything you have said is correct, but that does not
> make weapon ranges in BT realistic.
A good starting opinion to get the blood flowing.
> To begin with almost everthing that you have talked about involves engagement
> range, not weapon ranges which are too entirely different things. I think
Hmmm. The weapons ranges that extend beyond the engagement ranges are
entirely moot. If I could shoot a laser to a range of 3 lightyears, but
I can only hit you if you're 500 meters away (and keep the beam on
target enough to do damage) then what is the point of dealign with
weapons ranges?
When you play do you deal with the weapons range of missed shots? Do
you track the flight path of each missile and check to see if it hits
something? Or do you do what everyone else does and simply mark it off
as insignificant?
> that few people would argue that most engagements are fought at ranges far less
> than the effective range of the weapons used (an exception is Desert Storm
> where the ground was often really flat and good for Tank battles).
Yup. That's why it's called effective range and not engagement range or
attack range. It's the range where the attacker has the best
opportunity to deliver a damaging effective attack.
> Now you say that targeting is done manually, which is true just as the gunner
> on an M1 tank lines up a shot with his turrent. The fact is that modern
Sort of.
> weapons often are devestatingly accurate and effective at ranges far greater
Which weapons? Remember that in BT the armor used is highly effective
in disapating the force of a kinetic shot or the shock of a laser
strike. The kind of "1 shot 1 kill" that everyone talks about rarely
exists in the BT universe because of the effectiveness of that armor.
Besides even today, with the M1A2 and it's Chobham and depleted uranium
armor, tanks are almost completely protected against the guided missiles
that used to strike fear into the hearts of most tankers.
So what if you're "devatstatingly accurate"? It's doing effective
damage that counts, not just hitting. I could use the laser diode from
a presentation pointer and "hit" you with it easily. Doesn't mean
you're going to clutch your chest and keel over now does it?
> than in BT. Further telescopic targeting systems can often compensate for the
> difficulties that are added from their use (particularly since the tanker or
> mechwarrior is not personally holding the weapon being fired.
Well again so what? You have a telescopic, gyrostabilized thingamajig.
You're saying that these kind of attack tools aren't available in BT.
Why not? The history of warfare has been the history of attack and
defense technology in and out of sync. How do you know that there
aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of each
mech?
Besides in every modern case, except the Vulcan cannon which I will get
to, the "weapon" involved fires a single round. So what? Each
ammo using weapon in BT fires multiple rounds. How does that affect the
firing? Have you ever seen the recoil of a 120mm round causes a 60 ton
tank to shift around? Now multiply that by 10 or 20. Remember the
premise behind BT allows the level of survivability that is impossible
today with or without "modern" arms.
As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line with what
BT says it is.
> Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
> As for targeting computers, BT ones are silly. As a whole they seem to have
> less power than a 386 computer but weigh several thousand times as much, and
> this after centuries of advancement. Besides why doesn't someone take them
I think that you are predisposed to a particular point of view and I
doubt that you will listen to my opinions with an open ear, but here we
go.
There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give me an
indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers. Considering
that they are able to maneuver a 100 ton piece of machinery, through the
air, over a hundred meters or so of terrain and then land I would hazard
to say thay you really didn't think about the above statement long
enough.
> out of aerospace fighters? Those things have engagement ranges of tens of
> thousands of kilometers and at those ranges are as effective as mech weapons.
> That has to be done with computers, and pretty damed sophisticated ones at
> that. If adapted to slow moving mechs at ground ranges they would achieve a
> 99% hit capability?
With no atmosphere, obstacles, high levels of gravity and simple
(relatively speaking) newtonian mechanics, who says they are that great?
Remember that the first moon shots were pretty much done with slide
rules and the space shuttle had (in the beginning I think) computers the
equivelant of the Commodore 64.
Believe me, computing trajectories in an atmosphere, with obstacles,
highly voltile movements and a high gravity field is more than difficult
enough. Which is why it has been only recently when a Main Battle Tank
could actually fire on the move. Something that mechs take for granted.
> Finally the weapon ranges are silly, particularly for Auto cannons which have
> shorter ranges as they get larger, the exact opposite of what happens in the
> real world.
Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an Abrams!
Remember that no hard statistics were ever made available for this game.
None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In BT the
premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in disapating
damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
The premise behind the "bigger the cannon, shorter the range" can be
attributed to simple math. If the weight of a single round is made
constant, then in order to make that round do more damage, something has
to be reduced in order that the "payload" is increased. Simply
increasing the size of the round only works so far, until you hit
engineering obstacles which is what is assumed in BT.
With the weight of a cannon round constant, then in order to increase
the "payload" the propellant has to be reduced. Please remember that in
BT a single "round" fired in a game is supposed to consist of many
rounds fired in a stream.
> In other words it is not only pointless, but impossible to prove that anything
> about BT mechs are realistic. If you like the game, fine, so do I.
I thought I did a good job. Certainly I've answered everything in your
post.
BT is the
> way it is to achieve a semblance of game balance (I won't talk about what new
> tech has done to the game). If you want realism try HG (which I prefer for
> that reason), Mekton Zeta limiting yourself to non-transformable road strikers,
> or write your own (well actually I saw Starship Troopers in a game shop the
> other day).
Whatever floats yer boat. But if you prefer HG, then ok, just don't
tell me that you think BT is not realistic and then go on to say that a
game based on "battle armor" IS.
Sounds silly.
ed
Bill McHale
Edward O. Royce (ero...@injersey.com) wrote:
: Now watch me explain why the ranges in BT *are* realistic!
A whole lot of stuff snipped to save band with
: I use degrees to show, spatially, the difficulty in trying to do the
: targeting manually. In BT the targeting, other than a little help from
: the onboard computers, is MANUAL. That's why the Clanners have a
: targeting computer!
: Now someone is bound to say, what about zooming? What about telescopic
: sights and other what not. Well they are nice, but if you ask anyone
: who has actually used a telescopic sight, any motion on the part of the
: observer tends to magnify the difficulty in using it. After all aren't
: you moving too?
Uh, right. Almost everything you have said is correct, but that does not
make weapon ranges in BT realistic.
To begin with almost everthing that you have talked about involves engagement
range, not weapon ranges which are too entirely different things. I think
that few people would argue that most engagements are fought at ranges far less
than the effective range of the weapons used (an exception is Desert Storm
where the ground was often really flat and good for Tank battles).
Now you say that targeting is done manually, which is true just as the gunner
on an M1 tank lines up a shot with his turrent. The fact is that modern
weapons often are devestatingly accurate and effective at ranges far greater
than in BT. Further telescopic targeting systems can often compensate for the
difficulties that are added from their use (particularly since the tanker or
mechwarrior is not personally holding the weapon being fired.
Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
As for targeting computers, BT ones are silly. As a whole they seem to have
less power than a 386 computer but weigh several thousand times as much, and
this after centuries of advancement. Besides why doesn't someone take them
out of aerospace fighters? Those things have engagement ranges of tens of
thousands of kilometers and at those ranges are as effective as mech weapons.
That has to be done with computers, and pretty damed sophisticated ones at
that. If adapted to slow moving mechs at ground ranges they would achieve a
99% hit capability?
Finally the weapon ranges are silly, particularly for Auto cannons which have
shorter ranges as they get larger, the exact opposite of what happens in the
real world.
In other words it is not only pointless, but impossible to prove that anything
about BT mechs are realistic. If you like the game, fine, so do I. BT is the
way it is to achieve a semblance of game balance (I won't talk about what new
tech has done to the game). If you want realism try HG (which I prefer for
that reason), Mekton Zeta limiting yourself to non-transformable road strikers,
or write your own (well actually I saw Starship Troopers in a game shop the
other day).
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
Do not ask me if these are the opinions of my employer, I am not even sure
they are my own! -Bill McHale, Assistant Systems Administrator
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
Prabal Nandy
In article <3223B0...@injersey.com>,
>Hmmm. The weapons ranges that extend beyond the engagement ranges are
>entirely moot. If I could shoot a laser to a range of 3 lightyears, but
>I can only hit you if you're 500 meters away (and keep the beam on
>target enough to do damage) then what is the point of dealign with
>weapons ranges?
Current day battle tanks have the CAPABILITY of engaging and destroying
the enemy at ranges in excess of a kilometer. Btech can't do that... Heavy
Gear can. So, whose weapons are more realistic?
>When you play do you deal with the weapons range of missed shots? Do
>you track the flight path of each missile and check to see if it hits
>something? Or do you do what everyone else does and simply mark it off
>as insignificant?
Sure... both ways, either/or, depending on what we feel like that day.
>Yup. That's why it's called effective range and not engagement range or
>attack range. It's the range where the attacker has the best
>opportunity to deliver a damaging effective attack.
Yeah... and at least _I_ think that range should be pushing the Kilometer
range for a decent weapon/missile... not in the hundred-yard range! Sheesh!
>Which weapons? Remember that in BT the armor used is highly effective
>in disapating the force of a kinetic shot or the shock of a laser
Oh?
Seems like it ain't too good at absorbing a mecha-fist, kick, or ram attack
by a small suburban minivan! (Unlike an M1, btw)
>exists in the BT universe because of the effectiveness of that armor.
>Besides even today, with the M1A2 and it's Chobham and depleted uranium
>armor, tanks are almost completely protected against the guided missiles
>that used to strike fear into the hearts of most tankers.
Okay.. fine.
Then explain to me how BT armor takes damage from EVERYTHING while real-life
armor does not. Hell, in BTech you could pitch rocks at an atlas and eventually
break through the armor (GRIN). Better example is the MG, that does damage no
matter HOW tough the mech's armor is supposed to be. Why the ablation at all?
>Well again so what? You have a telescopic, gyrostabilized thingamajig.
> You're saying that these kind of attack tools aren't available in BT.
>Why not? The history of warfare has been the history of attack and
Well.. the crappy weapons ranges for one.
>defense technology in and out of sync. How do you know that there
>aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of each
>mech?
Because there are no RULES for it?
By your argument, the crappy 1ton ram-vehicle has the SAME defensive
electronics suite of the 100ton massive buttbuster top of the line mecha.
Btech doesn't deal with this stuff, HG does.
Which is more realistic then?
>Besides in every modern case, except the Vulcan cannon which I will get
>to, the "weapon" involved fires a single round. So what? Each
Oh?
What about the avenger? (HG terms: VHAC)
The Bradley's gun? (HG Terms: LAC or LRF)
Vulcan Cannon (HG Terms: LAC)
Bofors 30mm guns (HG Terms: MAC or HAC)
M-61 (HG: LMG)
Etc etc...
>firing? Have you ever seen the recoil of a 120mm round causes a 60 ton
>tank to shift around? Now multiply that by 10 or 20. Remember the
>premise behind BT allows the level of survivability that is impossible
>today with or without "modern" arms.
Why would anyone USE a multi-firing 120mm gun with recoil like that, with
range and damage so much LESS than a 'modern day' 120mm single-firing cannon?
That's the "Battletech Paradox".
>As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line with what
>BT says it is.
What does Battletech say it is?
>> Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
>You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
No...
I mean painting a target with laser beams and having a variety of different
forms of guided rockets, shells, and yes, artillery home in on it.
>There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give me an
>indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers. Considering
That's for sure.
They obviously use Squirrels!
>that they are able to maneuver a 100 ton piece of machinery, through the
>air, over a hundred meters or so of terrain and then land I would hazard
>to say thay you really didn't think about the above statement long
>enough.
Yeah, they can do all that and STILL not hit a target standing right in front
of them. Must be using Win95, eh? "Quick! Close that window! Double click,
DOUBLE click! DAMN! I crashed the system! Quick, reboot! Darn, the Locust got
away! Try again!"
>Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
>autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an Abrams!
The real question is: What USE would such a weapon be?
> None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In BT the
>premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in disapating
>damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
Oh?
But then how come EVERYTHING does damage TO it? Shouldn't it be able to
'shrug off' insufficient amounts of damage, just like any REAL LIFE tank can?
>The premise behind the "bigger the cannon, shorter the range" can be
>attributed to simple math. If the weight of a single round is made
>constant, then in order to make that round do more damage, something has
>to be reduced in order that the "payload" is increased. Simply
Uh...
What about increasing the powder behind the damn shell? Sheeet man, people
just don't MAKE crappy bullets like that in real life! I mean, you're assuming
that the shells are going to be of the same volume or something, which is
ridiculous!
>increasing the size of the round only works so far, until you hit
>engineering obstacles which is what is assumed in BT.
They sure hit the obstacles pretty soon, eh?
>the "payload" the propellant has to be reduced. Please remember that in
>BT a single "round" fired in a game is supposed to consist of many
>rounds fired in a stream.
Sure... Okay... Not like the RULES ever give you the opportunity to strafe,
saturate, burst, or 'walk' fire (Which you can do in HG). This makes Btech's
multi-bullet streams absolutely moot hand-waving.... while in HG they actually
DO something with the idea!
>tell me that you think BT is not realistic and then go on to say that a
>game based on "battle armor" IS.
>Sounds silly.
Battle-Armor sounds silly to you? I thought you LIKED Battletech?
--
\~~~~~\__ ~~\___/~~ __/~~~~~/ /pr...@sunset.bph.jhu.edu\ Lord of the Flies
~<==\__\_<O\:/O>_/__/==>~ /http://sunset.bph.jhu.edu \ 1st MPC Division
<_/ //=\ ^ /=\\ \_> \na...@vms.ccit.arizona.edu/ Colony World Myops
\| (|) |/ \ na...@ccit.arizona.edu / Velox-Durus-Infestus
Edward O. Royce
Step right this way .... Batter #2
Prabal Nandy wrote:
>
> In article <3223B0...@injersey.com>,
>
> >Hmmm. The weapons ranges that extend beyond the engagement ranges are
> >entirely moot. If I could shoot a laser to a range of 3 lightyears, but
> >I can only hit you if you're 500 meters away (and keep the beam on
> >target enough to do damage) then what is the point of dealign with
> >weapons ranges?
>
> Current day battle tanks have the CAPABILITY of engaging and destroying
> the enemy at ranges in excess of a kilometer. Btech can't do that... Heavy
> Gear can. So, whose weapons are more realistic?
Where did you hear this drivel? When the M1A2 engages another tank, a T-80 as an example, it
has to be within 700 meters or the kinetic penetrator has a high probability of not
penetrating. If the shot is a head on one, the shot would have to go through the glacis
plate, then the range is even less.
> >When you play do you deal with the weapons range of missed shots? Do
> >you track the flight path of each missile and check to see if it hits
> >something? Or do you do what everyone else does and simply mark it off
> >as insignificant?
>
> Sure... both ways, either/or, depending on what we feel like that day.
Ok. So a weapon's maximum range doesn't make a difference then.
> >Yup. That's why it's called effective range and not engagement range or
> >attack range. It's the range where the attacker has the best
> >opportunity to deliver a damaging effective attack.
>
> Yeah... and at least _I_ think that range should be pushing the Kilometer
> range for a decent weapon/missile... not in the hundred-yard range! Sheesh!
Why? You're not considering the original premise. In BT mech armor is effective in
disapating damage and so multiple shots are necessary to inflict enough material stress to
exceed the engineered tolerances. Unless it's a Gauss Rifle of course.
> >Which weapons? Remember that in BT the armor used is highly effective
> >in disapating the force of a kinetic shot or the shock of a laser
>
> Oh?
> Seems like it ain't too good at absorbing a mecha-fist, kick, or ram attack
> by a small suburban minivan! (Unlike an M1, btw)
Do you want to get hit by a mech fist? I wouldn't. Consider that if a mech is made
proportionately to a human being then the fist/arm would wieght how much on a 100 ton mech?
would you say 12 to 15 tons? Using the figure of 12 tons the fist would have a range of
motion of how much on a 10 meter tall mech? Why don't we use the figure of 5 meters. So we
have a 12 tons mass moving a distance of 5 meters in how much time? Since each turn is 10
seconds long and has to account for all actions, let's say .5 seconds for the blow to land.
So we have 12 metric tons of mass, moving 5 meters, in .5 seconds. How much force is that?
As for the ram attack, even the physical attacks, you are off topic. I did *not* state that
all the rules were realistic, try fusion reactors for one, but that the weapons ranges *were*
for the game paradigm.
*Ding* you are penalized 1 point for wandering off the subject.
> >exists in the BT universe because of the effectiveness of that armor.
> >Besides even today, with the M1A2 and it's Chobham and depleted uranium
> >armor, tanks are almost completely protected against the guided missiles
> >that used to strike fear into the hearts of most tankers.
>
> Okay.. fine.
> Then explain to me how BT armor takes damage from EVERYTHING while real-life
What do you mean by everything? Falling (100 metric ton mech falls 10 meters, go boom), what,
please specify.
> armor does not. Hell, in BTech you could pitch rocks at an atlas and eventually
> break through the armor (GRIN). Better example is the MG, that does damage no
> matter HOW tough the mech's armor is supposed to be. Why the ablation at all?
Well that MG is supposed to be a automated feed weapon ranging from 12.5 mm to 20mm. I would
think a .50 cal would do something? As for rocks? Where did you read that? From the
Mechwarriors book for roleplaying?
> >Well again so what? You have a telescopic, gyrostabilized thingamajig.
> > You're saying that these kind of attack tools aren't available in BT.
> >Why not? The history of warfare has been the history of attack and
>
> Well.. the crappy weapons ranges for one.
No the weapons have good range, the ability to hit is what sucks. If you're going to support
your argument then please do so.
> >defense technology in and out of sync. How do you know that there
> >aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of each
> >mech?
>
> Because there are no RULES for it?
Are rules necessary? How detailed do the rules have to be in order to have a playble and
enjoyable game? Does HG, which I assume is your favorite game, include rules for when the
pilot, in battle armor, needs to scratch his nose and can't? Hmmm. Roll less than 3 or
you're distracted on table 3-14.
Many things are subsumed by the assumption that there are things that are either beyond our
control, or that we don't need to control, and that exists in *every* game. Except for Gamma
World. A friend made up additional rules to Gamma World that covered just about everything,
including digestion.
> By your argument, the crappy 1ton ram-vehicle has the SAME defensive
> electronics suite of the 100ton massive buttbuster top of the line mecha.
What's the big deal with electronics suites? Most of the weapons in BT are "dumb". They have
*no* electronics to spoof. They have no guidance systems to help them attack a target. It
isn't until much later when Streak, Narc, Arrow and other weapons appear that a self guided
weapon even appears.
Do you really think that a better radio or a better jammer is going to help you avoid a 120mm
"dumb" round?
As for no rules on electronics suites, if you want to play in that time period, there are the
Probes and ECM packages. So what is your argument?
> Btech doesn't deal with this stuff, HG does.
Should I care? This is about BT.
*Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for introducing irrelevant material.
> Which is more realistic then?
Ohh. Ok. Battle armor is really realistic then. I'm sure I saw some on ESPN last night.
*Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making silly statements.
> >Besides in every modern case, except the Vulcan cannon which I will get
> >to, the "weapon" involved fires a single round. So what? Each
>
> Oh?
> What about the avenger? (HG terms: VHAC)
> The Bradley's gun? (HG Terms: LAC or LRF)
> Vulcan Cannon (HG Terms: LAC)
> Bofors 30mm guns (HG Terms: MAC or HAC)
> M-61 (HG: LMG)
>
> Etc etc...
These aren't related to the Vulcan? Hmmm. Wait a second while I ponder the existence of
related similar weapons with nothing in common. Try the AC/2, try a beer, try a valium, try
thinking about your statements please.
*Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for bringing up irrelevant statistics from another
game and not reality.
> >firing? Have you ever seen the recoil of a 120mm round causes a 60 ton
> >tank to shift around? Now multiply that by 10 or 20. Remember the
> >premise behind BT allows the level of survivability that is impossible
> >today with or without "modern" arms.
>
> Why would anyone USE a multi-firing 120mm gun with recoil like that, with
> range and damage so much LESS than a 'modern day' 120mm single-firing cannon?
> That's the "Battletech Paradox".
To *get* through the damage disapating armor. *Get* it?
> >As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line with what
> >BT says it is.
>
> What does Battletech say it is?
AC/2.
> >> Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
> >You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
>
> No...
> I mean painting a target with laser beams and having a variety of different
> forms of guided rockets, shells, and yes, artillery home in on it.
Oh. You mean C3 computers. Why, I _do_ believe they exist in BT. Hmmmm.
> >There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give me an
> >indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers. Considering
>
> That's for sure.
> They obviously use Squirrels!
*Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant statements that are unfunny. If
the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing, the point will be returned.
Please make your answer in the form of a question.
> >that they are able to maneuver a 100 ton piece of machinery, through the
> >air, over a hundred meters or so of terrain and then land I would hazard
> >to say thay you really didn't think about the above statement long
> >enough.
>
> Yeah, they can do all that and STILL not hit a target standing right in front
> of them. Must be using Win95, eh? "Quick! Close that window! Double click,
> DOUBLE click! DAMN! I crashed the system! Quick, reboot! Darn, the Locust got
> away! Try again!"
*Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant statements that are unfunny. If
the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing, the point will be returned.
Please make your answer in the form of a question.
> >Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
> >autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an Abrams!
>
> The real question is: What USE would such a weapon be?
To *get* through the damage disapating armor. *Get* it? (again)
> > None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In BT the
> >premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in disapating
> >damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
>
> Oh?
> But then how come EVERYTHING does damage TO it? Shouldn't it be able to
> 'shrug off' insufficient amounts of damage, just like any REAL LIFE tank can?
What tank? What is the level of damage? What is the relevance? What about reading my
arguments and not making my case for me?
Thank you, I will mark you down on my calendar for fruit cake this Christmas. You sir, are a
definite mark on the underclothing of history. :)
> >The premise behind the "bigger the cannon, shorter the range" can be
> >attributed to simple math. If the weight of a single round is made
> >constant, then in order to make that round do more damage, something has
> >to be reduced in order that the "payload" is increased. Simply
>
> Uh...
> What about increasing the powder behind the damn shell? Sheeet man, people
> just don't MAKE crappy bullets like that in real life! I mean, you're assuming
> that the shells are going to be of the same volume or something, which is
> ridiculous!
Hmmm. What about weight? Why is the standard sidearm round in the US a 9mm? It is smaller
than a .45. Why do they use it? Because they can carry more ammo. With difficulty in
hitting a target, the ability to put more rounds downrange is an attractive bargin.
> >increasing the size of the round only works so far, until you hit
> >engineering obstacles which is what is assumed in BT.
>
> They sure hit the obstacles pretty soon, eh?
How about including actual information and not simple one liners? Or at least make them
funny.
> >the "payload" the propellant has to be reduced. Please remember that in
> >BT a single "round" fired in a game is supposed to consist of many
> >rounds fired in a stream.
>
> Sure... Okay... Not like the RULES ever give you the opportunity to strafe,
> saturate, burst, or 'walk' fire (Which you can do in HG). This makes Btech's
> multi-bullet streams absolutely moot hand-waving.... while in HG they actually
> DO something with the idea!
Hmmm. I keep on yelling but there ain't no one there. If you did that then you would be
hitting with a smaller percentage of rounds? Yes? In that case it would be possible that you
wouldn't do enough kinetic shock at a single point to cause material breakdown.
If you want to play with the grownups, please read and then reply to what is written.
> >tell me that you think BT is not realistic and then go on to say that a
> >game based on "battle armor" IS.
> >Sounds silly.
>
> Battle-Armor sounds silly to you? I thought you LIKED Battletech?
Hmmmm.
Battle armor = personal suit of armor ala Elemental.
BattleMech = ground fighting vehicle pilioted by human.
See the difference? The aim of this thread is to dicuss BT weapons. If you want to plug HG,
then get your own thread. Otherwise don't waste my time.
ed
--
Mechwarrior [CBS]Flashheart - ero...@injersey.com | Member of the NRA
Clan Black Sheep (Registry) | Member of ACOG
3rd Cluster - Goldschlager Guards |
2nd Binary - The Four Lagers of the Apocolypse |
4th Star - 100% Blue Agave Rangers |
Jonathan R Bezeau
: Now watch me explain why the ranges in BT *are* realistic!
Where exactly did you do this? You explain that it's hard to hit things.
Is it, really? We should compare to manually sighted vehicles like WWII
planes and even machineguns/cannons on aircraft today.
Do you fight with those at ranges greater than 300m? Is it feasible?
Also, given your information, it would logically suggest similar range
bands for all weapons. What about a machinegun, which sprays a veritable
cloud of lead but has barely a hope in hell of nailing a mech at 105m?
(you can throw a bullet farther than that I'll wager)
Why can a 200mm cannon barely chuck a slug 270 metres, even if the firer
and target are standing still there is that "end of range" thing that
crops up at 10 hexes.
Yes, a mech "occupies" a large volume of space, walker modes don't lend
themselves to on-the-move accuracy, and mechs move pretty quick when they
want to, but this doesn't explain the extremely short (unrealistically so
:) ranges of these weapons even when both the firer and target are immobile.
Jonboy
Jonathan R Bezeau
: Bill McHale wrote:
: ... snip
: > Uh, right. Almost everything you have said is correct, but that does not
: > make weapon ranges in BT realistic.
: A good starting opinion to get the blood flowing.
:
: > To begin with almost everthing that you have talked about involves engagement
: > range, not weapon ranges which are too entirely different things. I think
: Hmmm. The weapons ranges that extend beyond the engagement ranges are
: entirely moot. If I could shoot a laser to a range of 3 lightyears, but
: I can only hit you if you're 500 meters away (and keep the beam on
: target enough to do damage) then what is the point of dealign with
: weapons ranges?
Because I can stop my mech ten klicks away from your base and nail its
co-ordinates with LRMs. Because if you have to stop (like you fell over
or something) I can nail you at ten kilometres, if I can get your
co-ords. It's kind of nice to pay attention to that kind of thing for
tactical reasons. There are very few trees that dodge madly about, and I
still can't hit ANY if they're 120m away with my .80cal machinegun.
: When you play do you deal with the weapons range of missed shots? Do
: you track the flight path of each missile and check to see if it hits
: something? Or do you do what everyone else does and simply mark it off
: as insignificant?
Do you differentiate between the effective and maximum range of a weapon,
and use the max range if targeting something that's not covered by ECM
and weaving madly? Ten seconds is a long time if you're lining up a
crosshair over a speck on your HUD, especially if it's an immobile speck.
: > Now you say that targeting is done manually, which is true just as the gunner
: > on an M1 tank lines up a shot with his turrent. The fact is that modern
: Sort of.
: > weapons often are devestatingly accurate and effective at ranges far greater
: Which weapons? Remember that in BT the armor used is highly effective
: in disapating the force of a kinetic shot or the shock of a laser
: strike. The kind of "1 shot 1 kill" that everyone talks about rarely
: exists in the BT universe because of the effectiveness of that armor.
: Besides even today, with the M1A2 and it's Chobham and depleted uranium
: armor, tanks are almost completely protected against the guided missiles
: that used to strike fear into the hearts of most tankers.
And in five years I garauntee that they'll have a weapon that can rip a
M1A1 with chobbam and uranium a brand new bunghole. At range. T-72s used
to be scary shit. They're nothing now, and it'll happen to everyone's
current favorite tanks too.
: So what if you're "devatstatingly accurate"? It's doing effective
: damage that counts, not just hitting. I could use the laser diode from
: a presentation pointer and "hit" you with it easily. Doesn't mean
: you're going to clutch your chest and keel over now does it?
So a .80 MG can't do "effective damage" against a forest of trees or a
swarm of pesants at 120m?
I can believe the ranges of lasers in BT, you want to focus all the
energy up close so it doesn't get wasted by atmosphere. The lower the
laser power, the closer you want to focus.
: > than in BT. Further telescopic targeting systems can often compensate for the
: > difficulties that are added from their use (particularly since the tanker or
: > mechwarrior is not personally holding the weapon being fired.
: Well again so what? You have a telescopic, gyrostabilized thingamajig.
: You're saying that these kind of attack tools aren't available in BT.
: Why not? The history of warfare has been the history of attack and
: defense technology in and out of sync. How do you know that there
: aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of each
: mech?
You mean shit that can make a 10x3.5x2.5 metre mech invisible to the
human eye? Wow. They don't even mention that in the fluff text. All you
need to get high accuracy on a LOS weapon like a Gauss Rifle is a nice
scope and a still mech. If you have gyrostabilization, you can skip the
still mech, on your part. Since there are no sensor-spotting rules for
BT, we can assume that either all soptting is by sensor so they ignore
it, ore all spotting is by eyeball, which I think since mechs have
windows and vision-slits.
: Besides in every modern case, except the Vulcan cannon which I will get
: to, the "weapon" involved fires a single round. So what? Each
: ammo using weapon in BT fires multiple rounds. How does that affect the
: firing? Have you ever seen the recoil of a 120mm round causes a 60 ton
: tank to shift around? Now multiply that by 10 or 20. Remember the
: premise behind BT allows the level of survivability that is impossible
: today with or without "modern" arms.
: As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line with what
: BT says it is.
Against what? Fighters flying at X hundred KPH... yes, I play fighter
videogames (Air Combat is a favorite) and even on those it's
nigh-impossible to hit a fast, weaving and dodging target. But if a
bomber just flies in a straight line, it's easily wastable at MUCH longer
ranges.
: > Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
: You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
Which don't incresae the effective range of the weapon in the slightest,
though they should. The missile keeps re-orienting itself to the target
as it closes, the target gets "bigger and bigger" from the missile's
point of view, and BOOM! you should be able to hit from the maximum range
of a missile in 3150. Which is 660 metres. Ooh, I wish our boys could get
range like that.
: There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give me an
: indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers. Considering
: that they are able to maneuver a 100 ton piece of machinery, through the
: air, over a hundred meters or so of terrain and then land I would hazard
: to say thay you really didn't think about the above statement long
: enough.
I might agree with that. The mass of the Targeting Computer could easily
be the stabilization and servos required to move the outlandishly massive
guns.
: With no atmosphere, obstacles, high levels of gravity and simple
: (relatively speaking) newtonian mechanics, who says they are that great?
: Remember that the first moon shots were pretty much done with slide
: rules and the space shuttle had (in the beginning I think) computers the
: equivelant of the Commodore 64.
The shuttle still has the computing power of a C-64 driving it.
Astronauts bring up laptops to work on :)
But seeing something moving at (hundreds of?) thousands of metres per
second when it's a good 100000km away, and HIT it with an AC/5 is not
something that a normal eye or even a mediocre computer and sensor suite
could possibly do. The moon is NOT dodging, covered with ECM and decoys,
and they had much longer than a couple minutes to figure their shot.
: Believe me, computing trajectories in an atmosphere, with obstacles,
: highly voltile movements and a high gravity field is more than difficult
: enough. Which is why it has been only recently when a Main Battle Tank
: could actually fire on the move. Something that mechs take for granted.
These tanks firing on the move can fire on the move at 2 kilometers from
target and hit it. That's not bad. Mechs can't manage 450m, against
similar (only bigger) targets, which is. And yes, our tanks are using
basically optical systems, rather than anything that you can screw with
(like emissions/heat/whatever)
: Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
: autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an Abrams!
As much fun as you might make of him, it is actually true that bigger
guns typically fire farther. Bigger tank guns fire farther, bigger rifles
fire farther, bigger SMGs fire farther.
Now, I suppose that the recoil on a 200mm cannon is hellishly noticable
(probably worse given that all the designs they're on place the cannon on
the shoulder or the arm, the two locations on the body with the MOST
leverage), but it should get some kind of maximum range that is actually
reflective of what's being fired... Tell me that an "errant" burst of
200mm high-explosive shells is insignificant in city combat, or combat
within a kilometer of a city.
: Remember that no hard statistics were ever made available for this game.
: None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In BT the
: premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in disapating
: damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
Unless you're using gauss or lasers or SRMs or just about anything except
pulse lasers and ACs. Wait... that IS everything but pulse lasers and ACs.
: The premise behind the "bigger the cannon, shorter the range" can be
: attributed to simple math. If the weight of a single round is made
: constant, then in order to make that round do more damage, something has
: to be reduced in order that the "payload" is increased.
But the weight of the shell ISN'T constant. You get fewer bursts with
larger ACs, and you can't tell me that they'll build huge cannons with
better rate of fire than tiny ones. That's silly... how do you think the
"minigun" came about?
: With the weight of a cannon round constant, then in order to increase
: the "payload" the propellant has to be reduced.
If the propellant is reduced and you use a larger mass, you're slitting
your wrists when it comes to more damage. You get less kinetic energy,
since less propellant has to push more mass...
Jonboy
Bill McHale
On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Edward O. Royce wrote:
> Batter Up! :)
>
> Bill McHale wrote:
> ... snip
> > Uh, right. Almost everything you have said is correct, but that does not
> > make weapon ranges in BT realistic.
>
> A good starting opinion to get the blood flowing.
>
> > To begin with almost everthing that you have talked about involves engagement
> > range, not weapon ranges which are too entirely different things. I think
>
> Hmmm. The weapons ranges that extend beyond the engagement ranges are
> entirely moot. If I could shoot a laser to a range of 3 lightyears, but
> I can only hit you if you're 500 meters away (and keep the beam on
> target enough to do damage) then what is the point of dealign with
> weapons ranges?
There is a difference between effective range and engagement range.
Effective range is the range where the weapon can both reasonably hit and
do damage. Engagement range is where combat usually occurs. Usually, but
not always Engagement range is less than effective range for the simple
reason that the line of sight is blocked well before the effective range
of most weapons are reached.
For example if WWIII had ever started in Europe, it was generally figured
that tank battles would occur at about 1000 meters, this despite the fact
that the main cannons on all variants of the M1 are effective at 4 kilometers
or more. The simple fact is that there are usually hills, hills and or towns
in the way in Germany.
In Desert Storn M1's engaging T72's at ranges of two to three kilometers
was not unheard of, and most of these resulted in one shot kills.
>
> When you play do you deal with the weapons range of missed shots? Do
> you track the flight path of each missile and check to see if it hits
> something? Or do you do what everyone else does and simply mark it off
> as insignificant?
>
What does that have to do with engagement ranges, you can and do miss at
50 meters, if you don't worry about it at short range, why at long?
> > that few people would argue that most engagements are fought at ranges far less
> > than the effective range of the weapons used (an exception is Desert Storm
> > where the ground was often really flat and good for Tank battles).
>
> Yup. That's why it's called effective range and not engagement range or
> attack range. It's the range where the attacker has the best
> opportunity to deliver a damaging effective attack.
Notice though you will never see an engagement range given for a real weapon,
the reason; that is not dependent on the machine, but the conditions in which
it is used.
>
> > Now you say that targeting is done manually, which is true just as the gunner
> > on an M1 tank lines up a shot with his turrent. The fact is that modern
>
> Sort of.
>
> > weapons often are devestatingly accurate and effective at ranges far greater
>
> Which weapons? Remember that in BT the armor used is highly effective
> in disapating the force of a kinetic shot or the shock of a laser
> strike. The kind of "1 shot 1 kill" that everyone talks about rarely
> exists in the BT universe because of the effectiveness of that armor.
> Besides even today, with the M1A2 and it's Chobham and depleted uranium
> armor, tanks are almost completely protected against the guided missiles
> that used to strike fear into the hearts of most tankers.
>
> So what if you're "devatstatingly accurate"? It's doing effective
> damage that counts, not just hitting. I could use the laser diode from
> a presentation pointer and "hit" you with it easily. Doesn't mean
> you're going to clutch your chest and keel over now does it?
>
Ah, but see the point is that the weapons cannot only hit, but seriously
damage or destroy their targets. As for which weapons try the 120 mm cannon
system on the M1. And while it is true that the current M1A2 is all but
secure from infantry lauched missles and has good protection against all
other weapons, that is just today, who knows what the next innovation
will be that will make the chobam as ineffective as steel is today.
> > than in BT. Further telescopic targeting systems can often compensate for the
> > difficulties that are added from their use (particularly since the tanker or
> > mechwarrior is not personally holding the weapon being fired.
>
> Well again so what? You have a telescopic, gyrostabilized thingamajig.
> You're saying that these kind of attack tools aren't available in BT.
> Why not? The history of warfare has been the history of attack and
> defense technology in and out of sync. How do you know that there
> aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of each
> mech?
>
> Besides in every modern case, except the Vulcan cannon which I will get
> to, the "weapon" involved fires a single round. So what? Each
> ammo using weapon in BT fires multiple rounds. How does that affect the
> firing? Have you ever seen the recoil of a 120mm round causes a 60 ton
> tank to shift around? Now multiply that by 10 or 20. Remember the
> premise behind BT allows the level of survivability that is impossible
> today with or without "modern" arms.
Sorry but you are wrong. Every single vehicle mounted weapon in the US
military (other than backup weapons like a tank's machine guns) has
sophisticated targeting computers to help the gunner hit his target, this
includes the 25mm chain gun used on the M2 Bradleys (which iirc has a
range of about a kilometer), the 20 mm gatling cannons that
arm almost all of our nations fighters...
>
> As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line with what
> BT says it is.
Ok, I am not sure what the range is for the Vulcan, but it is used for
anti aircraft work, so it would almost have to have a range of 1000 meters
if it is even going to make the pretense of being effective.
>
> > Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
>
> You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
No, like the tow (Tube launched, Optically tracked, Wire guided missles),
the Infantry Dragon (which has a good kill probability against most modern
tanks), the laser guided bombs and missles that were used in desert
storm... When it comes down to it Narc is kind of pathetic compared to
what we have now.
>
> > As for targeting computers, BT ones are silly. As a whole they seem to have
> > less power than a 386 computer but weigh several thousand times as much, and
> > this after centuries of advancement. Besides why doesn't someone take them
>
> I think that you are predisposed to a particular point of view and I
> doubt that you will listen to my opinions with an open ear, but here we
> go.
>
I am predisposed to facts, and the fact of the matter is that in BT
computers weigh what they did 30 years ago. In the 1990's (and the
future) the computers that would be required for the most sophisticated of
ground targets shouln't weigh more than twenty ponds sheilded. I know why
BT did it (for game balance) but there is no way that that any one could
claim that it was realistic.
> There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give me an
> indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers. Considering
> that they are able to maneuver a 100 ton piece of machinery, through the
> air, over a hundred meters or so of terrain and then land I would hazard
> to say thay you really didn't think about the above statement long
> enough.
>
You obviously did not read my sig file, or you would realize that I know
more about computers than you will ever know. I don't need to think about
this because I know what they are like, spend 12 hours a day with them
seven days a week. As for their targeting abilities, line of sight
targeting at under a kilometer's range is almost child's play and can be
done fairly effectively, hell vietnam era tanks and jets more than matched
these abilities.
> > out of aerospace fighters? Those things have engagement ranges of tens of
> > thousands of kilometers and at those ranges are as effective as mech weapons.
> > That has to be done with computers, and pretty damed sophisticated ones at
> > that. If adapted to slow moving mechs at ground ranges they would achieve a
> > 99% hit capability?
>
> With no atmosphere, obstacles, high levels of gravity and simple
> (relatively speaking) newtonian mechanics, who says they are that great?
> Remember that the first moon shots were pretty much done with slide
> rules and the space shuttle had (in the beginning I think) computers the
> equivelant of the Commodore 64.
>
Yeah but the shuttle was not trying to hit a target that was trying to
avoid it at a range of tens of thousands of kilometers, considerably
different than anything NASA has tried to do.
> Believe me, computing trajectories in an atmosphere, with obstacles,
> highly voltile movements and a high gravity field is more than difficult
> enough. Which is why it has been only recently when a Main Battle Tank
> could actually fire on the move. Something that mechs take for granted.
>
Uh, tanks have been able to fire on the move for thirty years or more,
granted modern targeting systems make it easier to hit, but to fire on the
move only requires gyro stabalization.
> > Finally the weapon ranges are silly, particularly for Auto cannons which have
> > shorter ranges as they get larger, the exact opposite of what happens in the
> > real world.
>
> Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
> autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an Abrams!
>
No never seen one either but compare a 20mm auto cannon with a 30mm auto
cannon and the 30mm will outdistance the 20 mm every time.
> Remember that no hard statistics were ever made available for this game.
> None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In BT the
> premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in disapating
> damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
>
I never had too much problem with that (well I did but that is for a
different post), its the ranges that are not realistic.
> The premise behind the "bigger the cannon, shorter the range" can be
> attributed to simple math. If the weight of a single round is made
> constant, then in order to make that round do more damage, something has
> to be reduced in order that the "payload" is increased. Simply
> increasing the size of the round only works so far, until you hit
> engineering obstacles which is what is assumed in BT.
Take some physics courses. The only thing that determines the damage that
is done by a round is the kinetic energy that it imparts to its target.
You can get the same damage by hitting a tank with a five kilogram round
at 1000 m/s as you would with a 10 pound round at 500 m/s. Further if you
can concentrate that energy on a smaller target you are better off, this
is why the M1 sabot round wich is actually much smaller than the barrel it
is fired from, is far more effective than the heat rounds that it can fire
at destroying tanks. If the autocannons fire explosive rounds, then it
would be far better to use missles instead.
>
> With the weight of a cannon round constant, then in order to increase
> the "payload" the propellant has to be reduced. Please remember that in
> BT a single "round" fired in a game is supposed to consist of many
> rounds fired in a stream.
In any case, the thing here is, why reduce either. If it is recoil, that
can be compensated for, if not on a mech then on a ground vehicle.
>
> > In other words it is not only pointless, but impossible to prove that anything
> > about BT mechs are realistic. If you like the game, fine, so do I.
>
> I thought I did a good job. Certainly I've answered everything in your
> post.
>
Hardly.
> BT is the
> > way it is to achieve a semblance of game balance (I won't talk about what new
> > tech has done to the game). If you want realism try HG (which I prefer for
> > that reason), Mekton Zeta limiting yourself to non-transformable road strikers,
> > or write your own (well actually I saw Starship Troopers in a game shop the
> > other day).
>
> Whatever floats yer boat. But if you prefer HG, then ok, just don't
> tell me that you think BT is not realistic and then go on to say that a
> game based on "battle armor" IS.
>
Heavy Gears are not Battle Armor, they are small mecha that fill the role
that light tanks and armored fighting vehicles fill today.
Besides we were discussing the realism of the respective treatment of
weapons.
Bill
***************************************************************************
The opinions expressed are mine and are not intended to represent those of
UCS, or UMBC. -Bill McHale, Assistant Systems Administrator
Cryckyt ver3.0
OK, I -know- I'm drifting off topic here, bit I -know- the answer to
this one.
Bill McHale wrote:
Bits 'n bits deleted
> : Hmmm. What about weight? Why is the standard sidearm round in the US a 9mm? It is smaller
> : than a .45. Why do they use it? Because they can carry more ammo. With difficulty in
> : hitting a target, the ability to put more rounds downrange is an attractive bargin.
>
> Actually I think the longer effective range of the 9mm and greater accuracy
> probably had as much to do with it.
>
The real reason is that the 9mm round is the most common round in the
world. This assures that no matter where you go, you'll always have
ammo for your pistol. Unfortunately, this doesn't make it the most
-effective- round.
--
Cryckyt ver2.3
Top Ten Ways to tell the difference between the Crow and a mime
#10 If it's beating someone up, it's the Crow. If someone's beating it
up, it's a mime.
#9 People want to give mimes the bird. The Crow already has one.
#8 Poke it in the eye with a stick. If it says "ouch," it's the Crow
#7 Mimes are French, and the Crow never surrenders!
#6 To become a Crow, you must experience great pain and suffering. To
watch a mime, you -will- experience great pain and suffering.
#5 No one thinks it's cool when a mime comes back from the dead.
#4 Mimes can't stand up to multiple gunshot wounds. (We tried.)
#3 Only some people can accept the Crow's need to kill his tormentors.
Everyone understands the need to kill mimes.
#2 The Crow kills bad people. All a mime kills is a good day in New
York City.
#1 If Brandon Lee had played a mime, he'd be alive today and it'd be
his career that'd need the reviving.
Andrew Gryn
OK..here's something to consider, too. Have you ever seen a dogfight
between two F-117 Nighthawks? Since both planes use stealth tech, and
any use of high-powered radar would give them away, you can BET such a
fight would be a close, furious affair, with weapons operating at far
shorter range than they are normally capacble of.
To say that such a fight won't happen is just wishful thinking. The F-22
is paetially stealthed, and it's only a matter of time until two military
forces with this tech bump heads.
This has always been my impression of Battletech weapons. These weapons
almost certainly can go far past their stated Btech ranges, but outside
the stated Max. range, they have almost no chance of aquiring a target.
There is just too much ECM on the 31st century battlefield.
Andy Gryn
High Executioner of Munch
William E. Ward
In article <3223A7...@awod.com>, "Paula M. R. Hart" <pmh...@awod.com> writes
:
> William E. Ward wrote:
> >
> > In article <4vsona$9...@tribune.usask.ca>, ac...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
> > (Paul Brown) writes:
> > > William E. Ward (w...@magician.larc.nasa.gov) wrote:
> > > : In article <4vo5rt$4...@tribune.usask.ca>, ac...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
> > > : (Paul Brown) writes:
> > > : >
> > > : > I just looked on the demo CD I got in a mag, it shows a worms
> > > : > eye view of a clan wolf timberwolf. Anyway, check out near the
> > > : > LT col? They have like star colonel, star commander and star captain
> > > : > but no lt colonel right?
> > >
> > > : Uh, Paul, look on the box as well... it's ALWAYS been there.... but
> > > : then, even FASA has done it in the "Official" artwork with some of their
> > > : sourcebooks. Anyone remember that pretty MadCat on the first Compendium?
> > > : The one with the MadCat and the half destroyed Elemental on the cover?
> > >
> > > First compendium? I thought the hardcover came first
> >
> > Oh, the creak of my ancient bones... <little old man mode> No, sonny, we
> > had other books when I was new. We had the original "Rules of War" to
> > bind them all together too, nice book, Atlas on the Cover, oh, back in
> > '87 I think.... Then we had those darn cats, er, no, Clans, yes, and they
> > came in in one of those Comstar Documents, TR-3050, which was followed
> > quickly by the Compendium. The Compendium came out in 1989-1990, if'n I
> > recall, and was THE book for many years, the Battletech Bible, so to speak.
> > Had a picture of a MadCat and Toad on the Cover, Toad was half destroyed,
> > but still fighting, you could see the pain killers being shot into the
> > poor SOB. Late '93, I believe, they came out with that new fangled
> > Hard Cover Compendium, which was a rewrite to allow FASA to clarify some
> > of those rules, to remove some stuff about Aerospace fighters which made
> > them all but unplayable with the Blue Book, unfortunately, and put a
> > picture (different) of another MadCat on the cover. Lately, they've
> > even had a new softcover of the Blue Book, but I was referring to the
> > old Black Book, with the OTHER MadCat picture </old man mode>.
> >
> > May be off a bit on the dates, it's been a >LONG< time I've been playing,
> > but other oldster players will know the book I meant. It had something
> > like Colonel Something on the side. For that matter, so did the beautiful
> > model picture they did....
> As I am another of those oldsters and actually have the old compendium, the
> actual caption under the cockpit is "CC: J. Biske".
And what kind of rank is CC? How about the big picture inside the old
Compendium? One of them DOES have a standard style nomenclature.... but then,
you can get around that by saying that it is an honorific in battle, with
Clan ranks translating into ancient Star League ranks, with the designation
on the side being a way the clans revere the ancient Star League custom of
putting their rank and name on their mechs. Since the Star League had certain
ranks, the Clans put those same rank titles on their mech as a "Link" to the
past... even though the current rank is different. May sound strange, but
it DOES fit in with the Clans reverence of all things Star League... keep
the traditions while changing the actuality.
--
William Ward
The Rare Mech Times
http://www.cs.odu.edu/~ward_w/btech.html
Bill McHale
: penetrating. If the shot is a head on one, the shot would have to go through the glacis
: plate, then the range is even less.
Actually, I believe that 700 meters is the head on 1 shot kill range for a
T-80. Besides, there are plenty of targets that are not T-80's and there will
plenty of opportunities to hit the tanks from the side.
: > >When you play do you deal with the weapons range of missed shots? Do
: > >you track the flight path of each missile and check to see if it hits
: > >something? Or do you do what everyone else does and simply mark it off
: > >as insignificant?
: >
: > Sure... both ways, either/or, depending on what we feel like that day.
: Ok. So a weapon's maximum range doesn't make a difference then.
:
: > >Yup. That's why it's called effective range and not engagement range or
: > >attack range. It's the range where the attacker has the best
: > >opportunity to deliver a damaging effective attack.
: >
: > Yeah... and at least _I_ think that range should be pushing the Kilometer
: > range for a decent weapon/missile... not in the hundred-yard range! Sheesh!
: Why? You're not considering the original premise. In BT mech armor is effective in
: disapating damage and so multiple shots are necessary to inflict enough material stress to
: exceed the engineered tolerances. Unless it's a Gauss Rifle of course.
Well gee now a Gauss rifle, considering how it is described in BT is a pretty
useless weapon on todays battlefield. It fires a nickle ferros slug that
weighs 125 kilograms. Iirc it is often descibes a ball, this is the single
worst shape for an anti armor round on the planet. Further if it was to have
an advantage over a regular round it would have to be accelerated to
several times the speed of sound. The recoil of this would almost certainly
knock anything over.
:
: > >Which weapons? Remember that in BT the armor used is highly effective
Sorry, a modern tank, like the M1 are completely immune to machine gun fire.
I would say that even the 25mm chain gun used by the Bradley would have a hard
time damagaing these beasts.
:
: > >Well again so what? You have a telescopic, gyrostabilized thingamajig.
: > > You're saying that these kind of attack tools aren't available in BT.
: > >Why not? The history of warfare has been the history of attack and
: >
: > Well.. the crappy weapons ranges for one.
: No the weapons have good range, the ability to hit is what sucks. If you're going to support
: your argument then please do so.
Yeah except a relatively simple TOW (which other than invisibility has no known
counter other than shooting the gunner) will achieve hits and kills at a
greater range than anything in BT.
:
: > >defense technology in and out of sync. How do you know that there
: > >aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of each
: > >mech?
: >
: > Because there are no RULES for it?
: Are rules necessary? How detailed do the rules have to be in order to have a playble and
: enjoyable game? Does HG, which I assume is your favorite game, include rules for when the
: pilot, in battle armor, needs to scratch his nose and can't? Hmmm. Roll less than 3 or
: you're distracted on table 3-14.
Now you are being silly. The point is that BT's premise is that the greatest
weapons of war ever created by man have effective engagement ranges that make
WWII tanks look good.
: Many things are subsumed by the assumption that there are things that are either beyond our
: control, or that we don't need to control, and that exists in *every* game. Except for Gamma
: World. A friend made up additional rules to Gamma World that covered just about everything,
: including digestion.
: > By your argument, the crappy 1ton ram-vehicle has the SAME defensive
: > electronics suite of the 100ton massive buttbuster top of the line mecha.
: What's the big deal with electronics suites? Most of the weapons in BT are "dumb". They have
: *no* electronics to spoof. They have no guidance systems to help them attack a target. It
: isn't until much later when Streak, Narc, Arrow and other weapons appear that a self guided
: weapon even appears.
Yeah, but the point is that we have far better guidance systems available now.
: Do you really think that a better radio or a better jammer is going to help you avoid a 120mm
: "dumb" round?
No, but realisticly it should make it harder for the gunner to draw a bead on
you.
: As for no rules on electronics suites, if you want to play in that time period, there are the
: Probes and ECM packages. So what is your argument?
Even the little that they add is pathetic, and not realistic, which is the
point of this thread.
: > Btech doesn't deal with this stuff, HG does.
: Should I care? This is about BT.
: *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for introducing irrelevant material.
So what the point is that BT does not deal with reasonable factors that effect
the weapons of war.
: > Which is more realistic then?
: Ohh. Ok. Battle armor is really realistic then. I'm sure I saw some on ESPN last night.
We are talking about SF here, and Gears are not Battle Armor, they are small
piloted mecha (the pilot sits in them). Further we are talking about weapons
used on the mechs, not the reasonableness of the mechs themselves (in which
BT is not even close).
: *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making silly statements.
:
: > >Besides in every modern case, except the Vulcan cannon which I will get
: > >to, the "weapon" involved fires a single round. So what? Each
: >
: > Oh?
: > What about the avenger? (HG terms: VHAC)
: > The Bradley's gun? (HG Terms: LAC or LRF)
: > Vulcan Cannon (HG Terms: LAC)
: > Bofors 30mm guns (HG Terms: MAC or HAC)
: > M-61 (HG: LMG)
: >
: > Etc etc...
: These aren't related to the Vulcan? Hmmm. Wait a second while I ponder the existence of
: related similar weapons with nothing in common. Try the AC/2, try a beer, try a valium, try
: thinking about your statements please.
: *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for bringing up irrelevant statistics from another
: game and not reality.
What a moron, sure he put these weapons in HG terms, but they are all real
weapons. Further you did say that the Vulcan cannon was the only exception.
You did not say oh machine guns and autocannon that are similar to the
vulcan cannon are the only exception to no targeted auto fire weapons.
What you are really saying "Besides in every modern case, the "weapon" involved
fires a single round, except for those that fire multiple rounds.
:
: > >firing? Have you ever seen the recoil of a 120mm round causes a 60 ton
: > >tank to shift around? Now multiply that by 10 or 20. Remember the
: > >premise behind BT allows the level of survivability that is impossible
: > >today with or without "modern" arms.
: >
: > Why would anyone USE a multi-firing 120mm gun with recoil like that, with
: > range and damage so much LESS than a 'modern day' 120mm single-firing cannon?
: > That's the "Battletech Paradox".
: To *get* through the damage disapating armor. *Get* it?
Yeah except when it comes down to it a modern missle would make a whole hell of
a lot of sense. Range dozens of kilometers, give it a 500 kg warhead and it
should destroy any mech with a single hit. (figure the average lrm weighs
about 8 1/3 kilogram. A spread of 20 which does 20 pts maximum will weigh
about 167 kg. Now even assuming that every missle is nothing but warhead,
which is silly, a 500 kg warhead ought to do 60pts of damage to a single
location which would be enough to destroy any location on any mech that it hit.
Now if we assumed a more realistic 1 or 2 pound kilogram warhead the damage
will do between 250 to 500 pts to a single location, which will take out
adjacent locations and destroy the mech.).
Finally according to the rules a single pull of the trigger on a an ac20
expends 200 kg of amunition. If that average round weighs 20 kg that is
only 10 shots in 10 seconds, far less than the lighter autocannons, so there is
the give you need to allow your vehichle to handle it, thus the weapon
ranges ought to be a hell of a lot more than they are.
:
: > >As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line with what
: > >BT says it is.
: >
: > What does Battletech say it is?
: AC/2.
:
: > >> Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
: > >You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
: >
: > No...
: > I mean painting a target with laser beams and having a variety of different
: > forms of guided rockets, shells, and yes, artillery home in on it.
: Oh. You mean C3 computers. Why, I _do_ believe they exist in BT. Hmmmm.
:
Yeah but what about weapons that can be guided by the gunner, and what about
the fact that on the modern battlefield one of the units can be an infantry man
with the laser, and the people launching the attack can also be infantry.
: > >There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give me an
: > >indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers. Considering
: >
: > That's for sure.
: > They obviously use Squirrels!
: *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant statements that are unfunny. If
: the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing, the point will be returned.
: Please make your answer in the form of a question.
Gosh what an idiot.
:
: > >that they are able to maneuver a 100 ton piece of machinery, through the
: > >air, over a hundred meters or so of terrain and then land I would hazard
: > >to say thay you really didn't think about the above statement long
: > >enough.
: >
: > Yeah, they can do all that and STILL not hit a target standing right in front
: > of them. Must be using Win95, eh? "Quick! Close that window! Double click,
: > DOUBLE click! DAMN! I crashed the system! Quick, reboot! Darn, the Locust got
: > away! Try again!"
: *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant statements that are unfunny. If
: the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing, the point will be returned.
So tell me have you finished first grade yet.
: Please make your answer in the form of a question.
:
: > >Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
: > >autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an Abrams!
: >
: > The real question is: What USE would such a weapon be?
: To *get* through the damage disapating armor. *Get* it? (again)
:
Yeah except... aw never mind. Try this go take a few physics classes, then
read some military history, and come back when you know how weapons in the
real world work.
: > > None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In BT the
: > >premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in disapating
: > >damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
: >
Any mech that can be damaged by falling down cant have very effective armor.
: > Oh?
: > But then how come EVERYTHING does damage TO it? Shouldn't it be able to
: > 'shrug off' insufficient amounts of damage, just like any REAL LIFE tank can?
: What tank? What is the level of damage? What is the relevance? What about reading my
: arguments and not making my case for me?
ANY tank in the real world can shrug off attacks from machine guns and infantry
with out missles. And as you have pointed out the composite armor on the Wests
most advanced MBT make them all but invincible to most small missles. You
could run a truck into an M1 and the paint would be barely scratched.
: Thank you, I will mark you down on my calendar for fruit cake this Christmas. You sir, are a
: definite mark on the underclothing of history. :)
:
: > >The premise behind the "bigger the cannon, shorter the range" can be
: > >attributed to simple math. If the weight of a single round is made
: > >constant, then in order to make that round do more damage, something has
: > >to be reduced in order that the "payload" is increased. Simply
: >
: > Uh...
: > What about increasing the powder behind the damn shell? Sheeet man, people
: > just don't MAKE crappy bullets like that in real life! I mean, you're assuming
: > that the shells are going to be of the same volume or something, which is
: > ridiculous!
: Hmmm. What about weight? Why is the standard sidearm round in the US a 9mm? It is smaller
: than a .45. Why do they use it? Because they can carry more ammo. With difficulty in
: hitting a target, the ability to put more rounds downrange is an attractive bargin.
Actually I think the longer effective range of the 9mm and greater accuracy
probably had as much to do with it.
As for the autocannon 20, 20 kg a round is more than sufficient for most of
today's rounds and that would give you ten in a round. Though of course if
everything you say is correct, then the kick back from the gauss rifle would
ought to knock the mech onto its back, particularly the ones mounted on the
light mechs.
:
: > >increasing the size of the round only works so far, until you hit
: > >engineering obstacles which is what is assumed in BT.
: >
: > They sure hit the obstacles pretty soon, eh?
: How about including actual information and not simple one liners? Or at least make them
: funny.
:
: > >the "payload" the propellant has to be reduced. Please remember that in
: > >BT a single "round" fired in a game is supposed to consist of many
: > >rounds fired in a stream.
: >
: > Sure... Okay... Not like the RULES ever give you the opportunity to strafe,
: > saturate, burst, or 'walk' fire (Which you can do in HG). This makes Btech's
: > multi-bullet streams absolutely moot hand-waving.... while in HG they actually
: > DO something with the idea!
: Hmmm. I keep on yelling but there ain't no one there. If you did that then you would be
: hitting with a smaller percentage of rounds? Yes? In that case it would be possible that you
: wouldn't do enough kinetic shock at a single point to cause material breakdown.
If there are multiple rounds, I hate to disappoint you but even with
sophisticated targeting, you aint going to get them to all hit the same point
on a target. Hell you really should have to treat them like missle hits.
: If you want to play with the grownups, please read and then reply to what is written.
And if you want to, please get a brain and learn about something before you
speak.
:
: > >tell me that you think BT is not realistic and then go on to say that a
: > >game based on "battle armor" IS.
: > >Sounds silly.
: >
: > Battle-Armor sounds silly to you? I thought you LIKED Battletech?
: Hmmmm.
: Battle armor = personal suit of armor ala Elemental.
: BattleMech = ground fighting vehicle pilioted by human.
Again a Gear is not worn, but ridden in and driven, it is not POWER ARMOR.
: See the difference? The aim of this thread is to dicuss BT weapons. If you want to plug HG,
: then get your own thread. Otherwise don't waste my time.
Why not, you don't seem to have a problem wasting ours, and being insulting to
boot, so we figured we would return the favor.
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
Do not ask me if these are the opinions of my employer, I am not even sure
they are my own! -Bill McHale, Assistant Systems Administrator
DTM Gladding
[snip]
: Okay.. fine.
: Then explain to me how BT armor takes damage from EVERYTHING while real-life
: armor does not. Hell, in BTech you could pitch rocks at an atlas and eventually
: break through the armor (GRIN). Better example is the MG, that does damage no
: matter HOW tough the mech's armor is supposed to be. Why the ablation at all?
[snip]
: But then how come EVERYTHING does damage TO it? Shouldn't it be able to
: 'shrug off' insufficient amounts of damage, just like any REAL LIFE tank can?
[snip]
I'm going to regret this, I know I am.
Battletech armor is *designed* to ablate. Too long since in read the
background fluff, but basically I belive the intent was that it absorbs
energy weapon fire - the energy goes into vapourising a largish chunk of
armor rather than cutting through a tiny hole and slicing things up inside.
Why this occurs with projectile weapons ? Don't ask me :) Best guess would
be that the only AC rounds you get in BTech are pretty much all HE shells,
AFAIK. (remind me to finish the fin stablised penetrator rounds ruels
somtime.) The AC's are smoothbore as well I think.
Anyway - that's my tiny input into this riot that rages around here. Given
a chance, and the 2 pounds spare in my pocket, I *do* plan to try the HG demo
game, so please - lay off the flames.
[donning absestos, just in case]
Dave Gladding, Don of the MoB (TransAtlantic Relations and TroubleCausing)
VTR-9B Pilot, Kzinti Captain 1st Rank (CVA "SharpClaw")
'darkness on the edge, shadows where I stand / I search for the time on a watch
with no hands / I want to see you clearly, come closer than this / but all
I remeber are these dreams in the mist' - Heart "These Dreams"
Daniel Williams
Robert D. Stafford wrote:
>
> One last request, quit bitching about who is better/who is worse/who is
> realistic/etc. It is only a game, let those who like BT, HG, or HZ play
> their own game, if they want to try the others let them, I'd rather hear
> reviews/ideas on the different games than BT sucks compaired to BLAH...
> if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all
>
> -da Weaz
>
> *breaks out the bottle of halon to put out the flames*
AMEN!!!
DAN
Chad Barnett
I think that comparing the realism of weapons between HG and
Battleteck is unrealistic and unfair to both games. Battletech was a
game designed to bring back an almost medieval sense to futuristic
warefare, of mechs slugging it out in a contest of skill, firepower,
and stamina. But most importanly, FASA designed the game to be played
on their map sheets at a certain scale. If FASA had decided to
produce a game that like most war games used a measuring tape and
inches/cm, the ranges could have been larger and more realistic. FASA
has sold alot of those map sheets, and the game will continue to be
played with hexes for as long at they sell.
I for one have played both games, and don't like Heavy Gear. Not
becasue of competition the the game Battletech, but I can't stand a
game where good dice rolling will defeat tactics everytime. If I'm
going to play a game like that, I'd play Dirtside (another game
designed not to be played on hexes, so the ranges are more realistic)
and its a fairly simple game to play.
The only reason Battletech weapons have such crappy ranges, is a
Marketing strategy by FASA.
Chad
William Lubelski
On 29 Aug 1996 18:26:24 GMT, kry...@execpc.com (Steve Pettit) wrote:
>In article <502h74$5...@ccshst05.uoguelph.ca>, jbe...@uoguelph.ca says...
>>And in five years I garauntee that they'll have a weapon that can rip a
>>M1A1 with chobbam and uranium a brand new bunghole. At range. T-72s used
>>to be scary shit. They're nothing now, and it'll happen to everyone's
>>current favorite tanks too.
>
> Why wait five years? The Army was testing the next generation of Main
>Arms out at Sandia two years ago, tossing KEAP rounds out of a modified
>Krupp/Rheinmetal 120mm Smoothbore gun at speeds in excess of 3000 m/s. It's
>called ETC (ElectroThermal Chemical), and it works really well. The recoil
>and power consumption still have to be worked on, though...
As a side note, the US Navy has a working (experimental) railgun, with
a barrel approximately 1.5 meters long. The whole thing could fit in
the back of a pickup. And it's projectiles can reach speeds equal to
or exceeding the KEAP round. Oh, and I believe it has a higher rate
of fire than most Main Arms. Don't have any idea of its power
consumption, though.
[snip]
>Steve
>
William
Bill McHale
Chad Barnett (chad...@intergate.bc.ca) wrote:
: I think that comparing the realism of weapons between HG and
: Battleteck is unrealistic and unfair to both games. Battletech was a
: game designed to bring back an almost medieval sense to futuristic
: warefare, of mechs slugging it out in a contest of skill, firepower,
: and stamina. But most importanly, FASA designed the game to be played
: on their map sheets at a certain scale. If FASA had decided to
: produce a game that like most war games used a measuring tape and
: inches/cm, the ranges could have been larger and more realistic. FASA
: has sold alot of those map sheets, and the game will continue to be
: played with hexes for as long at they sell.
I am not exactly sure what the relevance of hex's is to this post, it is not
about BT's weapons, and both games are played on hex sheets anyway. As are
a very large percentage of the wargames produced. (Try most of the games
by Avalon Hill or GDW for example). And hexes have nothing to do with the
range at which the games are played.
: I for one have played both games, and don't like Heavy Gear. Not
: becasue of competition the the game Battletech, but I can't stand a
: game where good dice rolling will defeat tactics everytime. If I'm
: going to play a game like that, I'd play Dirtside (another game
: designed not to be played on hexes, so the ranges are more realistic)
: and its a fairly simple game to play.
Good dice rolling will not win you every game of Heavy Gear. What I believe
you object to is that a good dice roll will make a crippling or killing
shot likely with most weapons, while most mech's in BT can be hit anywhere from
once to a dozen times without any direct effect on movement or weapons fire.
Its simple, in Heavy Gear your tactics have to account for the fact that
your machines can be destroyed with a single shot, you must therefore make
the best possible use of cover and movement to avoid getting hit. In BT
on the other hand concentrating firepower on a single mech at a time is a far
better tactic.
In other words, if you try to use the tactics of the other game, you are going
to think that die rolling is the prime determinant of the outcome of the game.
Both games are great, HG is more realistic.
: The only reason Battletech weapons have such crappy ranges, is a
: Marketing strategy by FASA.
Actually I think it was a design decision to make the game more playable.
I have no problems with that. The problem I do have is with people trying
to say the Battletech weapons are realistic.
: Chad
Joseph Poulin
I have to disagree with your analysis. Sure, it might be
difficult to hit a crossing target, but Mechs are SLOW. Especially
compared to modern tanks or even pre-WWII naval ships. Both of those
have very little problem with the kind of targets you are talking about.
As long ago as WWII people were using collections of gears and
gyros to compensate for their own movement and target movement. It's not
all that tough.
Joe
Robert D. Stafford
On 29 Aug 1996, Joseph Poulin wrote:
> I have to disagree with your analysis. Sure, it might be
> difficult to hit a crossing target, but Mechs are SLOW. Especially
> compared to modern tanks or even pre-WWII naval ships. Both of those
> have very little problem with the kind of targets you are talking about.
>
btech mechs are slow?? hrmm tell me has anyone else hurd of a
tank going 215KPH?? The dasher runs at that speed according to fasa with
masc engaged. I am sorry but my roomate was a tank pilot in the US Army
and the fastest he has ever gone in one was around 65-70 mph which is
ruffly 100-120kph. In Btech there are tanks that move quickly and slowly
depending on the design. You try to hit another tank with a M-16 moving
at 65 mph accross rough terrain. Let's see you hit it. BTW no bashing
anyone but all this talk about Btech/HG/MZ being better and/or more
realistic is all BS. I'm sorry to say but it all depends who is running
the game. Personally i play Mechwarrior and have a battle hear and
there. depending what planet/defences/who controls it, is what the
players are up against. Any cities, mostly tanks/infantry and maybe a
few small mechs. Anywhere else, mostly mechs with tank/areospace
arty/strafing runns. BTW for all terrain vehicles tanks in all truth
suck in alot of places.
> As long ago as WWII people were using collections of gears and
> gyros to compensate for their own movement and target movement. It's not
> all that tough.
You are forgetting one thing. you try mounting a gun on your arm
and having a gyro keep your arm in one place, then try to move it. Yes,
technology has a lot to do with it and it sounds like you have never
really read the history of BTech. AKA the loss of technology due to
constant war for many centruies. Before bashing, please read up on all
the history of the game, etc.
Edward O. Royce
Emery Calame wrote:
>
> In <3224CF...@injersey.com> "Edward O. Royce" <ero...@injersey.com>
> writes:
> >
> >Step right this way .... Batter #2
> >
> >Prabal Nandy wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3223B0...@injersey.com>,
> >>
> >> >Hmmm. The weapons ranges that extend beyond the engagement ranges
> are
> >> >entirely moot. If I could shoot a laser to a range of 3
> lightyears, but
> >> >I can only hit you if you're 500 meters away (and keep the beam on
> >> >target enough to do damage) then what is the point of dealign with
> >> >weapons ranges?
> >>
> >> Current day battle tanks have the CAPABILITY of engaging and
> destroying
> >> the enemy at ranges in excess of a kilometer. Btech can't do that...
> Heavy
> >> Gear can. So, whose weapons are more realistic?
> >
> >Where did you hear this drivel? When the M1A2 engages another tank, a
> T-80 as an example, it
> >has to be within 700 meters or the kinetic penetrator has a high
> probability of not
> >penetrating. If the shot is a head on one, the shot would have to go
> through the glacis
> >plate, then the range is even less.
>
Maybe. But I doubt it.
> >> >When you play do you deal with the weapons range of missed shots?
> Do
> >> >you track the flight path of each missile and check to see if it
> hits
> >> >something? Or do you do what everyone else does and simply mark it
> off
> >> >as insignificant?
> >>
> >> Sure... both ways, either/or, depending on what we feel like that
> day.
> >
> >Ok. So a weapon's maximum range doesn't make a difference then.
>
> Not in most informal games when the players wish to screw around, no,
> they don't. Duh?
I was making a point and making sure that the point was understood. Duh.
> >> >Yup. That's why it's called effective range and not engagement
> range or
> >> >attack range. It's the range where the attacker has the best
> >> >opportunity to deliver a damaging effective attack.
> >>
> >> Yeah... and at least _I_ think that range should be pushing the
> Kilometer
> >> range for a decent weapon/missile... not in the hundred-yard range!
> Sheesh!
> >
> >Why? You're not considering the original premise. In BT mech armor
> is effective in
> >disapating damage and so multiple shots are necessary to inflict
> enough material stress to
>
> Nope. In Btech the armor aloughs off to machine gun rounds, flamers,
> and what have you. It's not based on penetration but on ablation. It's
> a pure attrition of armor with no real attention to variable levels of
> penetration.
Nice try, but true machineguns are small arms and do little if any damage. Flamers just increase
the heat of a mech. Ablation also requires the exceeding of engineering tolerances. So what
you're saying is that those tolerances are extremely low? Doesn't make a lot of sense.
> >exceed the engineered tolerances. Unless it's a Gauss Rifle of
> course.
> >
> >> >Which weapons? Remember that in BT the armor used is highly
> effective
> >> >in disapating the force of a kinetic shot or the shock of a laser
> >>
> >> Oh?
> >> Seems like it ain't too good at absorbing a mecha-fist, kick, or
> ram attack
> >> by a small suburban minivan! (Unlike an M1, btw)
> >
> >Do you want to get hit by a mech fist? I wouldn't. Consider that if
> a mech is made
> >proportionately to a human being then the fist/arm would wieght how
> much on a 100 ton mech?
> >would you say 12 to 15 tons? Using the figure of 12 tons the fist
> would have a range of
> >motion of how much on a 10 meter tall mech? Why don't we use the
> figure of 5 meters. So we
> >have a 12 tons mass moving a distance of 5 meters in how much time?
> Since each turn is 10
> >seconds long and has to account for all actions, let's say .5 seconds
> for the blow to land.
>
> While we're at it let's make up the answer too! :)
What was made up? The weight? It's a proportion of the overall mass. The length of the strike?
It's in proportion too. The time? How much time could it take if the turn is 10 seconds and
comprises movement, weapon attacks, kicking (one kick) and punching (two possible punches). What
would you say it was? I have yet to see any meaningful data out of you.
> >So we have 12 metric tons of mass, moving 5 meters, in .5 seconds.
> How much force is that?
>
> I'd say that you aren't answering the question.
You mean the phrase below? The one that he made? vvvvvvvvvv
"> >> Seems like it ain't too good at absorbing a mecha-fist, kick, or
> ram attack"
> >As for the ram attack, even the physical attacks, you are off topic.
> I did *not* state that
> >all the rules were realistic, try fusion reactors for one, but that
> the weapons ranges *were*
> >for the game paradigm.
>
> >*Ding* you are penalized 1 point for wandering off the subject.
>
> So you too have a bag of tired cliche's? Golly! How...uh..unique!
> And creative!
And you have no relevant data to contribute. You have not demonstrated a single thread of logic
nor have you even attempted to refute an argument.
*Ding* you are penalized 1 point for being unfunny. You must watch Monty Python reruns until you
become funny.
> >> >exists in the BT universe because of the effectiveness of that
> armor.
> >> >Besides even today, with the M1A2 and it's Chobham and depleted
> uranium
> >> >armor, tanks are almost completely protected against the guided
> missiles
> >> >that used to strike fear into the hearts of most tankers.
> >>
> >> Okay.. fine.
> >> Then explain to me how BT armor takes damage from EVERYTHING while
> real-life
> >
> >What do you mean by everything? Falling (100 metric ton mech falls 10
> meters, go boom), what,
> >please specify.
>
> Machine guns Fer instance. :) Oh wait...don't tell me...unspecified
> super machine guns....
You mean .30 cal machine guns? They are small arms. Be specific. Or at least be more amusing in
your taunts. ***YAWN** :-O
> >> armor does not. Hell, in BTech you could pitch rocks at an atlas and
> eventually
> >> break through the armor (GRIN). Better example is the MG, that does
> damage no
> >> matter HOW tough the mech's armor is supposed to be. Why the
> ablation at all?
> >
> >Well that MG is supposed to be a automated feed weapon ranging from
> 12.5 mm to 20mm. I would
> >think a .50 cal would do something? As for rocks? Where did you read
>
> Not against a LOT of modern armor. But that's off topic. Ding! Ding! Oh
> scew it. I don't do it as well as you! :(
Oh. A .50 cal is completely ineffective eh? <laugh> you bet. <laugh>
Like any vehicle, mechs for one, a tank is comprised of many parts that aren't as well armored as
others. The front of a tank, the Glacis plate, is the heaviest but many other parts are extremely
vulernable. Like treads. Ask any tanker what it means to lose a tread in battle and you'll see
someone start to shudder.
Takes practice to be truly annoying Grasshopper.
> that? From the
> >Mechwarriors book for roleplaying?
>
> He's probably being sarcastic or exagerating or something.
Oh.. Well I can deal with that. Ok.
> >> >Well again so what? You have a telescopic, gyrostabilized
> thingamajig.
> >> > You're saying that these kind of attack tools aren't available in
> BT.
> >> >Why not? The history of warfare has been the history of attack and
> >>
> >> Well.. the crappy weapons ranges for one.
> >
> >No the weapons have good range, the ability to hit is what sucks. If
> you're going to support
> >your argument then please do so.
>
> You have a six hex long level 2 height wall. You fire at it from one
> hex beyond maximum range. What happens in the rules? Do you get an
> automatic hit, ot don't you? Heh, Heh!
Nope you don't. There are no automatic hits in this game. Like real life, there's always a chance
of failure.
> >> >defense technology in and out of sync. How do you know that there
> >> >aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of each
> >> >mech?
> >>
> >> Because there are no RULES for it?
> >
> >Are rules necessary? How detailed do the rules have to be in order to
> have a playble and
>
> They are when you are arguing about rules. At least I thought they
> were. I mean isn't the alleged subject of a post relevant to discussion
> of said post? No? Well, I tried....
> (Call me a hypocrite NOW! Psst. It's your cue! Your on! Oh...come on!)
Nope not talking about rules. Talking about weapons ranges being realistic. As for what this
person was talking about, he was talking about radios. You should read prior to posting.
> >enjoyable game? Does HG, which I assume is your favorite game,
> include rules for when the
> >pilot, in battle armor, needs to scratch his nose and can't? Hmmm.
> Roll less than 3 or
> >you're distracted on table 3-14.
>
> I happen to know that table 3-14 is found in McNatally and Turner's
> Freshman Concepts of Modern Chemistry and Not in HG. So there! Anyway
> he didn't say anything about being playable, just realistic. And he was
> talking about how it's baloney to go quoting bits of doo dah that ain't
> in the rules to explain away the weird bits of other rules...
Hmm. And I was stating my opinion on what level of "reality" and complexity was necessary for a
game. You should read prior to posting.
> >Many things are subsumed by the assumption that there are things that
> are either beyond our
> >control, or that we don't need to control, and that exists in *every*
> game. Except for Gamma
> >World. A friend made up additional rules to Gamma World that covered
> just about everything,
> >including digestion.
>
> Yeah yeah, nice fake, but I ain't taking it.
Really. It's true. He also came up with heat retention rules for wearing plastic armor, based on
body locations covered and the thickness/density of the plastic. He's an engineer so I guess we
can forgive him, but cross my heart, it's true.
As for the digestion it was for potential infections in the torso if you got hurt too soon after
eating.
I don't think we ever play a single game, but he had a lot of rules.
> >> By your argument, the crappy 1ton ram-vehicle has the SAME
> defensive
> >> electronics suite of the 100ton massive buttbuster top of the line
> mecha.
> >
> >What's the big deal with electronics suites? Most of the weapons in
> BT are "dumb". They have
> >*no* electronics to spoof. They have no guidance systems to help them
> attack a target. It
>
> Well, at least we agree on that. According to the rules nearly
> everything from 3025 is dead on line of sight dumb firing stuff. Cool.
Neat. I got one.
> >isn't until much later when Streak, Narc, Arrow and other weapons
> appear that a self guided
> >weapon even appears.
>
> Well, allegedly self guided. Again they appear to be weaker, shorter
> ranged, and generally not anywhere near on pare with NATO or HG stuff.
> Arrow I'll call Guided. Narc is maybe a little like target
> illumination. Arrow is just more likely to hit as far as the rules are
> concerned.
Ok. I can agree with that.
> >Do you really think that a better radio or a better jammer is going to
> help you avoid a 120mm
> >"dumb" round?
>
> It might. Depends on who's firing it and how they are targeting. Not
> all modern indirect fire is radar, self, or wire guided. Probably not
> though. So what? Connect it to your thesis eh?
Why would I want to?
> >As for no rules on electronics suites, if you want to play in that
> time period, there are the
> >Probes and ECM packages. So what is your argument?
>
> That Btech has silly short ranges mainly. At least I thought that was
> his argument. I agree with him, but I'd still call it a fun game. What
> exactly is YOUR point?
My point is that he didn't have a point. So I guess you don't either.
> Nope. But then I don't get alpha strike machine gun mechs
> either...although it's lots of fun when you get an ammo hit. :)
I can understand the reference to the ammo hit. It is fun to watch.
> >> >As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line with
> what
> >> >BT says it is.
> >>
> >> What does Battletech say it is?
> >
> >AC/2.
>
> Nope. Not even. Please.
Then what is it?
> >> >> Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
> >> >You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
> >>
> >> No...
> >> I mean painting a target with laser beams and having a variety of
> different
> >> forms of guided rockets, shells, and yes, artillery home in on it.
> >
> >Oh. You mean C3 computers. Why, I _do_ believe they exist in BT.
> Hmmmm.
>
> Yep, but not the way you seem to think they do. They weigh a LOT(with
> cheese!) and they only work on othger mechs carrying the slave bits.
So? They do work and they do exist.
> >> >There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give me
> an
> >> >indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers.
> Considering
> >>
> >> That's for sure.
> >> They obviously use Squirrels!
> >
> >*Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant
> statements that are unfunny. If
>
> Yah. That's a real crime. Ding.
Hmmm. You need a humor tutor.
> >the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing, the
> point will be returned.
> > Please make your answer in the form of a question.
>
> Y'know...that just ain't cute. You might want to work on it.....
Everyone else thought it was funny. Maybe you just don't have a sense of humor.
> >> >that they are able to maneuver a 100 ton piece of machinery,
> through the
> >> >air, over a hundred meters or so of terrain and then land I would
> hazard
> >> >to say thay you really didn't think about the above statement long
> >> >enough.
> >>
> >> Yeah, they can do all that and STILL not hit a target standing
> right in front
> >> of them. Must be using Win95, eh? "Quick! Close that window! Double
> click,
> >> DOUBLE click! DAMN! I crashed the system! Quick, reboot! Darn, the
> Locust got
> >> away! Try again!"
> >
> >*Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant
> statements that are unfunny. If
> >the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing, the
> point will be returned.
> > Please make your answer in the form of a question.
>
> Yeah yeah.
You know if you really object to this, you don't have to respond to each one.
> >> >Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
> >> >autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an
> Abrams!
> >>
> >> The real question is: What USE would such a weapon be?
> >
> >To *get* through the damage disapating armor. *Get* it? (again)
>
> Naaah. Use a flamer. It gets through too. :)
Hmmm. Fusion hot plasma? As hot as the photosphere of the sun? I'll accept that and say thank
you for making my point.
> >> > None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In BT
> the
> >> >premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in disapating
> >> >damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
> >>
> >> Oh?
> >> But then how come EVERYTHING does damage TO it? Shouldn't it be
> able to
> >> 'shrug off' insufficient amounts of damage, just like any REAL LIFE
> tank can?
> >
> >What tank? What is the level of damage? What is the relevance? What
> about reading my
> >arguments and not making my case for me?
>
> Your arguments are every bit as juvenile and pedestrian as you seem to
> think his are. Ironic no?
You seem to make a habit of not including a single bit of relevant argument, logic or data.
My god, you're a politician aren't you!?
> >Thank you, I will mark you down on my calendar for fruit cake this
> Christmas. You sir, are a
> >definite mark on the underclothing of history. :)
>
> Takes one to know one I guess.
Nope you're a kid with a 'puter.
> >> >The premise behind the "bigger the cannon, shorter the range" can
> be
> >> >attributed to simple math. If the weight of a single round is made
> >> >constant, then in order to make that round do more damage,
> something has
> >> >to be reduced in order that the "payload" is increased. Simply
> >>
> >> Uh...
> >> What about increasing the powder behind the damn shell? Sheeet
> man, people
> >> just don't MAKE crappy bullets like that in real life! I mean,
> you're assuming
> >> that the shells are going to be of the same volume or something,
> which is
> >> ridiculous!
> >
> >Hmmm. What about weight? Why is the standard sidearm round in the US
> a 9mm? It is smaller
> >than a .45. Why do they use it? Because they can carry more ammo.
>
> Nope. Because they jam less often and because they are a little easier
> to convince other NATO countries to adopt as an ammo standard for
> pistols and sub machine guns. You just have to extend the clip a little
> to carry just as much ammo. There is a .45 version of the Mac-10
> though. :)
<laugh> <laugh>
You're off base on that. The 9mm was selected for interchangability of ammo, the ability to carry
more ammo and because the 9mm was seen as more "modern".
Other NATO countries were already using the 9mm for years before we adpoted it.
The average 9mm pistol and smg magazine handles more rounds than a .45.
As for jamming. That is a function of magazine, throat and chamber. I.E. the magazine and the
weapon. The ammo has pretty much nothing to do with it as long as it is recent manufacture
production ammo kept in regulated conditions.
<laugh> <laugh>
> With difficulty in
> >hitting a target, the ability to put more rounds downrange is an
> attractive bargin.
>
> Naaah. You'd carry a machine pistol if that was the case.
What do you think the standard military weapons are? The assault rifle is a high powered machine
pistol. Mostly derived from the MP-44.
> >> >increasing the size of the round only works so far, until you hit
> >> >engineering obstacles which is what is assumed in BT.
> >>
> >> They sure hit the obstacles pretty soon, eh?
> >
> >How about including actual information and not simple one liners? Or
> at least make them
> >funny.
>
> Maybe he will if you will. Huh?
Hmmm. You should work on that. You come across as petulant.
> >> >the "payload" the propellant has to be reduced. Please remember
> that in
> >> >BT a single "round" fired in a game is supposed to consist of many
> >> >rounds fired in a stream.
> >>
> >> Sure... Okay... Not like the RULES ever give you the opportunity to
> strafe,
> >> saturate, burst, or 'walk' fire (Which you can do in HG). This makes
> Btech's
> >> multi-bullet streams absolutely moot hand-waving.... while in HG
> they actually
> >> DO something with the idea!
> >
> >Hmmm. I keep on yelling but there ain't no one there. If you did
>
> Hmm. Maybe it's you rather crappy yelling skills. Or possibly you
> haven't picked up on the bulletain board like nature of a newsgroup.
> They can't exactly answer back in the same post y'know.
Hmmm. You don't know how to transpose do you? I do know that they cannot answer in the same post.
Be funny, be useful, be interesting. Be someone else because otherwise you don't have a hope.
> that then you would be
> >hitting with a smaller percentage of rounds? Yes? In that case it
> would be possible that you
> >wouldn't do enough kinetic shock at a single point to cause material
> breakdown.
>
> And this is not some cheesy speculation because?
I back it up with some logical cheesy speculation. instead of continually responding in unfunny
and unimaginative one liners.
> >If you want to play with the grownups, please read and then reply to
> what is written.
>
> Get off your horse kid! Jesus, you sound even more #$&@*ed up than me!
That, I assure you, is more than just difficult.
> >> >tell me that you think BT is not realistic and then go on to say
> that a
> >> >game based on "battle armor" IS.
> >> >Sounds silly.
> >>
> >> Battle-Armor sounds silly to you? I thought you LIKED Battletech?
> >
> >Hmmmm.
> >Battle armor = personal suit of armor ala Elemental.
> >BattleMech = ground fighting vehicle pilioted by human.
> >
> >See the difference? The aim of this thread is to dicuss BT weapons.
> If you want to plug HG,
> >then get your own thread. Otherwise don't waste my time.
>
> I think you've probably wasted more of your time than he could. Please
> get help.
Certainly not from you. You've been absolutely no help whatsoever.
> God you're an ass.
"> Takes one to know one I guess."
Emery Calame
In <322379...@injersey.com> "Edward O. Royce" <ero...@injersey.com>
writes:
>
>Now watch me explain why the ranges in BT *are* realistic!
>
>1. In BT each hex used is 30 meters across. That's 900 square meters
>of space for a mech to be in while staying within the boundries of the
>hex.
Uhhh no actually. Wrong Formula. Hex is an operative word.
>2. In BT each "turn" is ten seconds of time. Go ahead and look at
your
>watch and count out ten seconds. It's a lot of time. A heavy mech
>(Warhammer) coud run 17.78 (59 feet) meters per second while a light
>mech (Locust) can run 39 (129 feet) meters per second.
Uh huh.
>3. In BT the average (from my own experiences only) engagement
distance
>is 10 hexes or 300 meters.
Usually gets more like seven unless you play with the old combined arms
ideas and use fire support, long range support, and attack lances...
Then it quite naturally varies.
>4. The circumference of the circle with a radius of 300 meters (10
>hexes) is 943 meters.
Approximately.
>5. The length of one (1) degree at a radius of 300 meters is 2.6
>meters.
>
>6. Therefore a single hex worth of space, at a distance of 300 meters,
>occupies about 12 degrees of vision.
Nope. This isn't going to takle the weapon range issue.
Think about torso twists, rear firing weapons and the like. No sale.
>7. A heavy mech (Warhammer), running perpedicular to the observer at a
>range of 300 meters, can move 68 degrees (+- 12 degrees for the hex
>itself) relative to the observer.
>
>8. A Light mech (Locust), running perpedicular to the observer at a
>range of 300 meters, can move 150 degrees (+- 12 degrees for the hex
>itself) relative to the observer.
>
>9. A "standard" mech that is 10 meters tall , 3.5 meters wide (across
>the shoulders) and about 2.5 meters deep (thickness of the chest) is,
to
>a an observer at 300 meters, 3.8 degrees high, 1.34 degrees wide and 1
>(approx) degree thick.
>
>10. The targeting recticle of a HUD is, probably since we don't have
>factual data other than MW2 or Netmech, at least 1 degree in height
and
>width.
Or actually in your neuro helmet. Remeber those?
>11. This means that if the mech is turned sideways from an observer,
at
>300 meters of course, then the recticle has zero (0) horizontal
>tolerance and 3 degrees vertical tolerance.
This will help you with firing arcs only.
>12. This means that if the mech is facing the observer, at 300 meters,
>then the recticle has 0.34 degrees horizontal tolerance and 3 degrees
>vertical tolerance.
>
>13. If the target mech is a Warhammer (not a very speedy mech) moving
>perpendicular to the observer then the observer would have to track a
1
>degree recticle across a 68 degree track (+- 12 degrees) maintaining
>it's position with zero (0) horizontal tolerance and 3 degrees
vertical
>tolerance.
>
>14. If the target mech is a Locust moving perpendicular to the
observer
>then the observer would have to track a 1 degree recticle across a 150
>degree track (+- 12 degrees) maintaining it's position with zero (0)
>horizontal tolerance and 3 degrees vertical tolerance. (assuming the
>same physical dimensions as the Warhammer, which is not so)
>
>Of course it would be easier to hit when you are closer, which is why
>most battles occur at less then 150 meters in netmech, and MUCH MUCH
>harder when the target is farther away.
Nope. Unless it was running mostly toward you or mostly away from you
you'd have a bitch of time lining it up mannually. Play Tie fighter
some time. Yes I know it's not real, but it's very relevant.
>BTW a 10 meter tall mech at 1000 meters is 0.5 degrees in height.
>
>I use degrees to show, spatially, the difficulty in trying to do the
>targeting manually. In BT the targeting, other than a little help
from
>the onboard computers, is MANUAL. That's why the Clanners have a
>targeting computer!
Sorry but no. It's kind of mannual except when you consider back firing
weapons., and the targetting computer weighs a ton and up. The
difficulty of auto targeting isn't going to give you a one ton machine.
Btech doesn't have rules for mannual vs. automatic targetting either.
That's novels talking and not the game dynamics which is what the
bashing ususally centers around.
>Now someone is bound to say, what about zooming? What about
telescopic
>sights and other what not. Well they are nice, but if you ask anyone
>who has actually used a telescopic sight, any motion on the part of
the
>observer tends to magnify the difficulty in using it. After all
aren't
>you moving too?
If you can quickly zoom in on a moving target with a remote camera you
can usually shoot it. That would be what you would use for your
targeting too. Zooming would be great for locating the enemy at a
distance, where recon was unavailable, sniping on near stationary units
and such. But not in Battletech where this ain't part of the game.
>Well what about gyroscopic stabilized magnifying whatchamacallits?
>That's a targeting computer that the Clanners have.
Prove it.
Anyway I think the crappy ranges are a matter of heat exaustion brought
on by sitting on a fusion pile and not keeping enough ice in your
underwear. I sit in my car with no air conditioning on some days and I
couldn't operate firing controls no matter how sophisticated.
Sometimes I can fins my radio station though.
Em
Steve Pettit
>M1A1 with chobbam and uranium a brand new bunghole. At range. T-72s used
>to be scary shit. They're nothing now, and it'll happen to everyone's
>current favorite tanks too.
Why wait five years? The Army was testing the next generation of Main
Arms out at Sandia two years ago, tossing KEAP rounds out of a modified
Krupp/Rheinmetal 120mm Smoothbore gun at speeds in excess of 3000 m/s. It's
called ETC (ElectroThermal Chemical), and it works really well. The recoil
and power consumption still have to be worked on, though...
>
>: So what if you're "devatstatingly accurate"? It's doing effective
>: damage that counts, not just hitting. I could use the laser diode from
>: a presentation pointer and "hit" you with it easily. Doesn't mean
>: you're going to clutch your chest and keel over now does it?
>
>So a .80 MG can't do "effective damage" against a forest of trees or a
>swarm of pesants at 120m?
>
>I can believe the ranges of lasers in BT, you want to focus all the
>energy up close so it doesn't get wasted by atmosphere. The lower the
>laser power, the closer you want to focus.
Focusing itself becomes a limitation of a laser wepaon, too. you can only
focus a beam so far before the adjustments to get the extra 10m become so
minute that even the smallest error will throw the whole beam out of whack.
And there is no such thing as a perfect lens.
Steve
Emery Calame
In <3224CF...@injersey.com> "Edward O. Royce" <ero...@injersey.com>
writes:
>
>Step right this way .... Batter #2
>
>Prabal Nandy wrote:
>>
>> In article <3223B0...@injersey.com>,
>>
>> >Hmmm. The weapons ranges that extend beyond the engagement ranges
are
>> >entirely moot. If I could shoot a laser to a range of 3
lightyears, but
>> >I can only hit you if you're 500 meters away (and keep the beam on
>> >target enough to do damage) then what is the point of dealign with
>> >weapons ranges?
>>
>> Current day battle tanks have the CAPABILITY of engaging and
destroying
>> the enemy at ranges in excess of a kilometer. Btech can't do that...
Heavy
>> Gear can. So, whose weapons are more realistic?
>
>Where did you hear this drivel? When the M1A2 engages another tank, a
T-80 as an example, it
>has to be within 700 meters or the kinetic penetrator has a high
probability of not
>penetrating. If the shot is a head on one, the shot would have to go
through the glacis
>plate, then the range is even less.
I dunno, He probably read it in Jane's or something.
>> >When you play do you deal with the weapons range of missed shots?
Do
>> >you track the flight path of each missile and check to see if it
hits
>> >something? Or do you do what everyone else does and simply mark it
off
>> >as insignificant?
>>
>> Sure... both ways, either/or, depending on what we feel like that
day.
>
>Ok. So a weapon's maximum range doesn't make a difference then.
Not in most informal games when the players wish to screw around, no,
they don't. Duh?
>> >Yup. That's why it's called effective range and not engagement
range or
>> >attack range. It's the range where the attacker has the best
>> >opportunity to deliver a damaging effective attack.
>>
>> Yeah... and at least _I_ think that range should be pushing the
Kilometer
>> range for a decent weapon/missile... not in the hundred-yard range!
Sheesh!
>
>Why? You're not considering the original premise. In BT mech armor
is effective in
>disapating damage and so multiple shots are necessary to inflict
enough material stress to
Nope. In Btech the armor aloughs off to machine gun rounds, flamers,
and what have you. It's not based on penetration but on ablation. It's
a pure attrition of armor with no real attention to variable levels of
penetration.
>exceed the engineered tolerances. Unless it's a Gauss Rifle of
course.
>
>> >Which weapons? Remember that in BT the armor used is highly
effective
>> >in disapating the force of a kinetic shot or the shock of a laser
>>
>> Oh?
>> Seems like it ain't too good at absorbing a mecha-fist, kick, or
ram attack
>> by a small suburban minivan! (Unlike an M1, btw)
>
>Do you want to get hit by a mech fist? I wouldn't. Consider that if
a mech is made
>proportionately to a human being then the fist/arm would wieght how
much on a 100 ton mech?
>would you say 12 to 15 tons? Using the figure of 12 tons the fist
would have a range of
>motion of how much on a 10 meter tall mech? Why don't we use the
figure of 5 meters. So we
>have a 12 tons mass moving a distance of 5 meters in how much time?
Since each turn is 10
>seconds long and has to account for all actions, let's say .5 seconds
for the blow to land.
While we're at it let's make up the answer too! :)
>So we have 12 metric tons of mass, moving 5 meters, in .5 seconds.
How much force is that?
I'd say that you aren't answering the question.
>As for the ram attack, even the physical attacks, you are off topic.
I did *not* state that
>all the rules were realistic, try fusion reactors for one, but that
the weapons ranges *were*
>for the game paradigm.
>*Ding* you are penalized 1 point for wandering off the subject.
So you too have a bag of tired cliche's? Golly! How...uh..unique!
And creative!
>> >exists in the BT universe because of the effectiveness of that
armor.
>> >Besides even today, with the M1A2 and it's Chobham and depleted
uranium
>> >armor, tanks are almost completely protected against the guided
missiles
>> >that used to strike fear into the hearts of most tankers.
>>
>> Okay.. fine.
>> Then explain to me how BT armor takes damage from EVERYTHING while
real-life
>
>What do you mean by everything? Falling (100 metric ton mech falls 10
meters, go boom), what,
>please specify.
Machine guns Fer instance. :) Oh wait...don't tell me...unspecified
super machine guns....
>> armor does not. Hell, in BTech you could pitch rocks at an atlas and
eventually
>> break through the armor (GRIN). Better example is the MG, that does
damage no
>> matter HOW tough the mech's armor is supposed to be. Why the
ablation at all?
>
>Well that MG is supposed to be a automated feed weapon ranging from
12.5 mm to 20mm. I would
>think a .50 cal would do something? As for rocks? Where did you read
Not against a LOT of modern armor. But that's off topic. Ding! Ding! Oh
scew it. I don't do it as well as you! :(
that? From the
>Mechwarriors book for roleplaying?
He's probably being sarcastic or exagerating or something.
>> >Well again so what? You have a telescopic, gyrostabilized
thingamajig.
>> > You're saying that these kind of attack tools aren't available in
BT.
>> >Why not? The history of warfare has been the history of attack and
>>
>> Well.. the crappy weapons ranges for one.
>
>No the weapons have good range, the ability to hit is what sucks. If
you're going to support
>your argument then please do so.
You have a six hex long level 2 height wall. You fire at it from one
hex beyond maximum range. What happens in the rules? Do you get an
automatic hit, ot don't you? Heh, Heh!
>> >defense technology in and out of sync. How do you know that there
>> >aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of each
>> >mech?
>>
>> Because there are no RULES for it?
>
>Are rules necessary? How detailed do the rules have to be in order to
have a playble and
They are when you are arguing about rules. At least I thought they
were. I mean isn't the alleged subject of a post relevant to discussion
of said post? No? Well, I tried....
(Call me a hypocrite NOW! Psst. It's your cue! Your on! Oh...come on!)
>enjoyable game? Does HG, which I assume is your favorite game,
include rules for when the
>pilot, in battle armor, needs to scratch his nose and can't? Hmmm.
Roll less than 3 or
>you're distracted on table 3-14.
I happen to know that table 3-14 is found in McNatally and Turner's
Freshman Concepts of Modern Chemistry and Not in HG. So there! Anyway
he didn't say anything about being playable, just realistic. And he was
talking about how it's baloney to go quoting bits of doo dah that ain't
in the rules to explain away the weird bits of other rules...
>Many things are subsumed by the assumption that there are things that
are either beyond our
>control, or that we don't need to control, and that exists in *every*
game. Except for Gamma
>World. A friend made up additional rules to Gamma World that covered
just about everything,
>including digestion.
Yeah yeah, nice fake, but I ain't taking it.
>> By your argument, the crappy 1ton ram-vehicle has the SAME
defensive
>> electronics suite of the 100ton massive buttbuster top of the line
mecha.
>
>What's the big deal with electronics suites? Most of the weapons in
BT are "dumb". They have
>*no* electronics to spoof. They have no guidance systems to help them
attack a target. It
Well, at least we agree on that. According to the rules nearly
everything from 3025 is dead on line of sight dumb firing stuff. Cool.
>isn't until much later when Streak, Narc, Arrow and other weapons
appear that a self guided
>weapon even appears.
Well, allegedly self guided. Again they appear to be weaker, shorter
ranged, and generally not anywhere near on pare with NATO or HG stuff.
Arrow I'll call Guided. Narc is maybe a little like target
illumination. Arrow is just more likely to hit as far as the rules are
concerned.
>Do you really think that a better radio or a better jammer is going to
help you avoid a 120mm
>"dumb" round?
It might. Depends on who's firing it and how they are targeting. Not
all modern indirect fire is radar, self, or wire guided. Probably not
though. So what? Connect it to your thesis eh?
>As for no rules on electronics suites, if you want to play in that
time period, there are the
>Probes and ECM packages. So what is your argument?
That Btech has silly short ranges mainly. At least I thought that was
his argument. I agree with him, but I'd still call it a fun game. What
exactly is YOUR point?
>> Btech doesn't deal with this stuff, HG does.
Nope. But then I don't get alpha strike machine gun mechs
either...although it's lots of fun when you get an ammo hit. :)
>> >As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line with
what
>> >BT says it is.
>>
>> What does Battletech say it is?
>
>AC/2.
Nope. Not even. Please.
>> >> Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
>> >You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
>>
>> No...
>> I mean painting a target with laser beams and having a variety of
different
>> forms of guided rockets, shells, and yes, artillery home in on it.
>
>Oh. You mean C3 computers. Why, I _do_ believe they exist in BT.
Hmmmm.
Yep, but not the way you seem to think they do. They weigh a LOT(with
cheese!) and they only work on othger mechs carrying the slave bits.
>> >There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give me
an
>> >indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers.
Considering
>>
>> That's for sure.
>> They obviously use Squirrels!
>
>*Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant
statements that are unfunny. If
Yah. That's a real crime. Ding.
>the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing, the
point will be returned.
> Please make your answer in the form of a question.
Y'know...that just ain't cute. You might want to work on it.....
>> >that they are able to maneuver a 100 ton piece of machinery,
through the
>> >air, over a hundred meters or so of terrain and then land I would
hazard
>> >to say thay you really didn't think about the above statement long
>> >enough.
>>
>> Yeah, they can do all that and STILL not hit a target standing
right in front
>> of them. Must be using Win95, eh? "Quick! Close that window! Double
click,
>> DOUBLE click! DAMN! I crashed the system! Quick, reboot! Darn, the
Locust got
>> away! Try again!"
>
>*Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant
statements that are unfunny. If
>the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing, the
point will be returned.
> Please make your answer in the form of a question.
Yeah yeah.
>> >Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
>> >autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an
Abrams!
>>
>> The real question is: What USE would such a weapon be?
>
>To *get* through the damage disapating armor. *Get* it? (again)
Naaah. Use a flamer. It gets through too. :)
>> > None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In BT
the
>> >premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in disapating
>> >damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
>>
>> Oh?
>> But then how come EVERYTHING does damage TO it? Shouldn't it be
able to
>> 'shrug off' insufficient amounts of damage, just like any REAL LIFE
tank can?
>
>What tank? What is the level of damage? What is the relevance? What
about reading my
>arguments and not making my case for me?
Your arguments are every bit as juvenile and pedestrian as you seem to
think his are. Ironic no?
>Thank you, I will mark you down on my calendar for fruit cake this
Christmas. You sir, are a
>definite mark on the underclothing of history. :)
Takes one to know one I guess.
>> >The premise behind the "bigger the cannon, shorter the range" can
be
>> >attributed to simple math. If the weight of a single round is made
>> >constant, then in order to make that round do more damage,
something has
>> >to be reduced in order that the "payload" is increased. Simply
>>
>> Uh...
>> What about increasing the powder behind the damn shell? Sheeet
man, people
>> just don't MAKE crappy bullets like that in real life! I mean,
you're assuming
>> that the shells are going to be of the same volume or something,
which is
>> ridiculous!
>
>Hmmm. What about weight? Why is the standard sidearm round in the US
a 9mm? It is smaller
>than a .45. Why do they use it? Because they can carry more ammo.
Nope. Because they jam less often and because they are a little easier
to convince other NATO countries to adopt as an ammo standard for
pistols and sub machine guns. You just have to extend the clip a little
to carry just as much ammo. There is a .45 version of the Mac-10
though. :)
With difficulty in
>hitting a target, the ability to put more rounds downrange is an
attractive bargin.
Naaah. You'd carry a machine pistol if that was the case.
>> >increasing the size of the round only works so far, until you hit
>> >engineering obstacles which is what is assumed in BT.
>>
>> They sure hit the obstacles pretty soon, eh?
>
>How about including actual information and not simple one liners? Or
at least make them
>funny.
Maybe he will if you will. Huh?
>> >the "payload" the propellant has to be reduced. Please remember
that in
>> >BT a single "round" fired in a game is supposed to consist of many
>> >rounds fired in a stream.
>>
>> Sure... Okay... Not like the RULES ever give you the opportunity to
strafe,
>> saturate, burst, or 'walk' fire (Which you can do in HG). This makes
Btech's
>> multi-bullet streams absolutely moot hand-waving.... while in HG
they actually
>> DO something with the idea!
>
>Hmmm. I keep on yelling but there ain't no one there. If you did
Hmm. Maybe it's you rather crappy yelling skills. Or possibly you
haven't picked up on the bulletain board like nature of a newsgroup.
They can't exactly answer back in the same post y'know.
that then you would be
>hitting with a smaller percentage of rounds? Yes? In that case it
would be possible that you
>wouldn't do enough kinetic shock at a single point to cause material
breakdown.
And this is not some cheesy speculation because?
>If you want to play with the grownups, please read and then reply to
what is written.
Get off your horse kid! Jesus, you sound even more #$&@*ed up than me!
>> >tell me that you think BT is not realistic and then go on to say
that a
>> >game based on "battle armor" IS.
>> >Sounds silly.
>>
>> Battle-Armor sounds silly to you? I thought you LIKED Battletech?
>
>Hmmmm.
>Battle armor = personal suit of armor ala Elemental.
>BattleMech = ground fighting vehicle pilioted by human.
>
>See the difference? The aim of this thread is to dicuss BT weapons.
If you want to plug HG,
>then get your own thread. Otherwise don't waste my time.
I think you've probably wasted more of your time than he could. Please
get help.
God you're an ass.
Em
Edward O. Royce
Step right up and win a kewpie doll....
Jonathan R Bezeau wrote:
>
> Edward O. Royce (ero...@injersey.com) wrote:
> : Hi.
>
> : Now watch me explain why the ranges in BT *are* realistic!
>
> Where exactly did you do this? You explain that it's hard to hit things.
> Is it, really? We should compare to manually sighted vehicles like WWII
> planes and even machineguns/cannons on aircraft today.
> Do you fight with those at ranges greater than 300m? Is it feasible?
You mean the 20mm cannons with the .5 mile ranges? The cannons that have radar guidance
and tracking aids for the pilot but have a range of 1/2 of a mile? Less than a
kilometer? Those?
What is your point? That I am right or that I am wrong?
> Also, given your information, it would logically suggest similar range
> bands for all weapons. What about a machinegun, which sprays a veritable
> cloud of lead but has barely a hope in hell of nailing a mech at 105m?
> (you can throw a bullet farther than that I'll wager)
>
> Why can a 200mm cannon barely chuck a slug 270 metres, even if the firer
> and target are standing still there is that "end of range" thing that
> crops up at 10 hexes.
Ta da! Because if it hits, it doesn't do enough damage to register. Remember that
damage disapating armor?
> Yes, a mech "occupies" a large volume of space, walker modes don't lend
> themselves to on-the-move accuracy, and mechs move pretty quick when they
> want to, but this doesn't explain the extremely short (unrealistically so
> :) ranges of these weapons even when both the firer and target are immobile.
>
> Jonboy
See previous response.
ed
--
Mechwarrior [CBS]Flashheart - ero...@injersey.com | Member of the NRA
Clan Black Sheep (Registry) | Member of ACOG
3rd Cluster - Goldschlager Guards |
2nd Binary - The Four Lagers of the Apocolypse |
Edward O. Royce
Hurry! Hurry! Hurry! Step right up and you too can ....
Bill McHale wrote:
>
> Edward O. Royce (ero...@injersey.com) wrote:
> : Where did you hear this drivel? When the M1A2 engages another tank, a T-80 as an example, it
> : has to be within 700 meters or the kinetic penetrator has a high probability of not
> : penetrating. If the shot is a head on one, the shot would have to go through the glacis
> : plate, then the range is even less.
>
> Actually, I believe that 700 meters is the head on 1 shot kill range for a
> T-80. Besides, there are plenty of targets that are not T-80's and there will
> plenty of opportunities to hit the tanks from the side.
I doubt that in any but utterly perfect situations, but assuming that you are correct, what is the
relevance to this thread?
> : > >When you play do you deal with the weapons range of missed shots? Do
> : > >you track the flight path of each missile and check to see if it hits
> : > >something? Or do you do what everyone else does and simply mark it off
> : > >as insignificant?
> : >
> : > Sure... both ways, either/or, depending on what we feel like that day.
>
> : Ok. So a weapon's maximum range doesn't make a difference then.
> :
> : > >Yup. That's why it's called effective range and not engagement range or
> : > >attack range. It's the range where the attacker has the best
> : > >opportunity to deliver a damaging effective attack.
> : >
> : > Yeah... and at least _I_ think that range should be pushing the Kilometer
> : > range for a decent weapon/missile... not in the hundred-yard range! Sheesh!
>
> : Why? You're not considering the original premise. In BT mech armor is effective in
> : disapating damage and so multiple shots are necessary to inflict enough material stress to
> : exceed the engineered tolerances. Unless it's a Gauss Rifle of course.
>
> Well gee now a Gauss rifle, considering how it is described in BT is a pretty
> useless weapon on todays battlefield. It fires a nickle ferros slug that
> weighs 125 kilograms. Iirc it is often descibes a ball, this is the single
> worst shape for an anti armor round on the planet. Further if it was to have
> an advantage over a regular round it would have to be accelerated to
> several times the speed of sound. The recoil of this would almost certainly
> knock anything over.
Hmmm. It is ball shaped because the people who designed it were the people who came up with the
Sgt. York (a truly pitiful and failed project). As for the rest. A railgun can indeed accelerate
a round to that speed. If you got the power and the density of the accelerating coil to do it,
then you can. As for recoil, why should there be a lot of recoil? I watched a demo of one of the
first railguns on tv once and they had this track loosely nailed to a table. The "projectile" went
over 200 mph before hit it the cushion. Hell the Navy is interested in the railgun because of this
and the rate of fire.
> :
Hmm. I guess then that a stream of 25mm rounds into the treads wouldn't do anything? As for the
rest. Remember that the 30mm Avenger cannon is used in the A-10 to *kill* tanks. As for the 25mm
it can do a very respectable job all by itself.
> :
> : > >Well again so what? You have a telescopic, gyrostabilized thingamajig.
> : > > You're saying that these kind of attack tools aren't available in BT.
> : > >Why not? The history of warfare has been the history of attack and
> : >
> : > Well.. the crappy weapons ranges for one.
>
> : No the weapons have good range, the ability to hit is what sucks. If you're going to support
> : your argument then please do so.
>
> Yeah except a relatively simple TOW (which other than invisibility has no known
> counter other than shooting the gunner) will achieve hits and kills at a
> greater range than anything in BT.
Hmmm. TOW is wire guided. Have you ever seen a TOW break it's wire? Truly amusing unless it is
coming back at you.
As for kills. That is one weapon, one shot, one hit. In BT that does not equate to a kill.
Besides the TOW goes at 100 meters a second. It would take 10 seconds to go the 1,000 meters and
then the entire time you *cannot* move! If you do, the missile's dead because you're going to
break a wire. So much for that one.
> :
> : > >defense technology in and out of sync. How do you know that there
> : > >aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of each
> : > >mech?
> : >
> : > Because there are no RULES for it?
>
> : Are rules necessary? How detailed do the rules have to be in order to have a playble and
> : enjoyable game? Does HG, which I assume is your favorite game, include rules for when the
> : pilot, in battle armor, needs to scratch his nose and can't? Hmmm. Roll less than 3 or
> : you're distracted on table 3-14.
>
> Now you are being silly. The point is that BT's premise is that the greatest
> weapons of war ever created by man have effective engagement ranges that make
> WWII tanks look good.
IF the range to damage a target is short, then it is short. What was the range that a Sherman had
to be to penetrate a King Tiger? Zero. It could *not* penetrate the armor of a King Tiger. What
was the range of a PAK38 to kill a T-34? Zero it could *not* kill a T-34 which is why it was
called the "doorknocker". There were reports of T-34's driving around with 10-20 hits from a PAK38
. There were also reports of a KV-1 that got hit over 40 times and still wouldn't die.
So what's your point in all this?
> : Many things are subsumed by the assumption that there are things that are either beyond our
> : control, or that we don't need to control, and that exists in *every* game. Except for Gamma
> : World. A friend made up additional rules to Gamma World that covered just about everything,
> : including digestion.
>
> : > By your argument, the crappy 1ton ram-vehicle has the SAME defensive
> : > electronics suite of the 100ton massive buttbuster top of the line mecha.
>
> : What's the big deal with electronics suites? Most of the weapons in BT are "dumb". They have
> : *no* electronics to spoof. They have no guidance systems to help them attack a target. It
> : isn't until much later when Streak, Narc, Arrow and other weapons appear that a self guided
> : weapon even appears.
>
> Yeah, but the point is that we have far better guidance systems available now.
Really? When have you seen one our weapons hit a mech?
> : Do you really think that a better radio or a better jammer is going to help you avoid a 120mm
> : "dumb" round?
>
> No, but realisticly it should make it harder for the gunner to draw a bead on
> you.
If it's a dumb weapon with no guidance systems, like a bullet, then how can it be affected? Why
should a radio jammer affect a weapons performance?
> : As for no rules on electronics suites, if you want to play in that time period, there are the
> : Probes and ECM packages. So what is your argument?
>
> Even the little that they add is pathetic, and not realistic, which is the
> point of this thread.
No. The point of this thread is that the *weapons* _ranges_ <<are>> realistic. It has almost
nothing to do with radios.
> : > Btech doesn't deal with this stuff, HG does.
>
> : Should I care? This is about BT.
>
> : *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for introducing irrelevant material.
>
> So what the point is that BT does not deal with reasonable factors that effect
> the weapons of war.
*Ding* the person is penalized one point for making yet another unsupported statement. If the
person wishes to recover the point they must make a relevant statement with supporting logic.
> : > Which is more realistic then?
>
> : Ohh. Ok. Battle armor is really realistic then. I'm sure I saw some on ESPN last night.
>
> We are talking about SF here, and Gears are not Battle Armor, they are small
> piloted mecha (the pilot sits in them). Further we are talking about weapons
> used on the mechs, not the reasonableness of the mechs themselves (in which
> BT is not even close).
I have never played HG, I couldn't care less about HG and the topic is not HG. That was my point.
As for reasonableness. <severe cramps from laughing himself silly> This is the wrong newsgroup
for that.
> : *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making silly statements.
> :
> : > >Besides in every modern case, except the Vulcan cannon which I will get
> : > >to, the "weapon" involved fires a single round. So what? Each
> : >
> : > Oh?
> : > What about the avenger? (HG terms: VHAC)
> : > The Bradley's gun? (HG Terms: LAC or LRF)
> : > Vulcan Cannon (HG Terms: LAC)
> : > Bofors 30mm guns (HG Terms: MAC or HAC)
> : > M-61 (HG: LMG)
> : >
> : > Etc etc...
>
> : These aren't related to the Vulcan? Hmmm. Wait a second while I ponder the existence of
> : related similar weapons with nothing in common. Try the AC/2, try a beer, try a valium, try
> : thinking about your statements please.
>
> : *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for bringing up irrelevant statistics from another
> : game and not reality.
>
> What a moron, sure he put these weapons in HG terms, but they are all real
> weapons. Further you did say that the Vulcan cannon was the only exception.
> You did not say oh machine guns and autocannon that are similar to the
> vulcan cannon are the only exception to no targeted auto fire weapons.
Ok. You got me there. But I would like to think that people can draw some basic conculsions. But
definitely a point to you on that. Except the machine gun. That is a small arms weapon and has no
place in this discussion.
> What you are really saying "Besides in every modern case, the "weapon" involved
> fires a single round, except for those that fire multiple rounds.
Yup.
> :
> : > >firing? Have you ever seen the recoil of a 120mm round causes a 60 ton
> : > >tank to shift around? Now multiply that by 10 or 20. Remember the
> : > >premise behind BT allows the level of survivability that is impossible
> : > >today with or without "modern" arms.
> : >
> : > Why would anyone USE a multi-firing 120mm gun with recoil like that, with
> : > range and damage so much LESS than a 'modern day' 120mm single-firing cannon?
> : > That's the "Battletech Paradox".
>
> : To *get* through the damage disapating armor. *Get* it?
>
> Yeah except when it comes down to it a modern missle would make a whole hell of
> a lot of sense. Range dozens of kilometers, give it a 500 kg warhead and it
> should destroy any mech with a single hit. (figure the average lrm weighs
> about 8 1/3 kilogram. A spread of 20 which does 20 pts maximum will weigh
> about 167 kg. Now even assuming that every missle is nothing but warhead,
> which is silly, a 500 kg warhead ought to do 60pts of damage to a single
> location which would be enough to destroy any location on any mech that it hit.
> Now if we assumed a more realistic 1 or 2 pound kilogram warhead the damage
> will do between 250 to 500 pts to a single location, which will take out
> adjacent locations and destroy the mech.).
That's called an Arrow IV and it does have a range in the dozens of kilometers. You're pretty
close to it in your calculations too.
> Finally according to the rules a single pull of the trigger on a an ac20
> expends 200 kg of amunition. If that average round weighs 20 kg that is
> only 10 shots in 10 seconds, far less than the lighter autocannons, so there is
> the give you need to allow your vehichle to handle it, thus the weapon
> ranges ought to be a hell of a lot more than they are.
Well the AC/2's average "round" weight is 22 kg. Assuming 10 shots there then it's 2.2 kg per
round. Although this statistic doesn't mean much since we don't know what the bore is or the rate
of fire for any AC.
Heck it could be 100 2kg shots in 2 seconds.
> :
> : > >As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line with what
> : > >BT says it is.
> : >
> : > What does Battletech say it is?
>
> : AC/2.
> :
> : > >> Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
> : > >You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
> : >
> : > No...
> : > I mean painting a target with laser beams and having a variety of different
> : > forms of guided rockets, shells, and yes, artillery home in on it.
>
> : Oh. You mean C3 computers. Why, I _do_ believe they exist in BT. Hmmmm.
> :
> Yeah but what about weapons that can be guided by the gunner, and what about
> the fact that on the modern battlefield one of the units can be an infantry man
> with the laser, and the people launching the attack can also be infantry.
Dismount an LRM launcher and give'm Artemis fire control. It's not who shoots, it's what is shot.
> : > >There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give me an
> : > >indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers. Considering
> : >
> : > That's for sure.
> : > They obviously use Squirrels!
>
> : *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant statements that are unfunny. If
> : the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing, the point will be returned.
> : Please make your answer in the form of a question.
>
> Gosh what an idiot.
No. He just has an image of what should be and is unwilling to allow anything to cloud that image.
Most people suffer from it, myself too on occasion, especially in relation to sports figures and
political leaders. We just want our reality to really exist, when sometimes it doesn't.
> :
> : > >that they are able to maneuver a 100 ton piece of machinery, through the
> : > >air, over a hundred meters or so of terrain and then land I would hazard
> : > >to say thay you really didn't think about the above statement long
> : > >enough.
> : >
> : > Yeah, they can do all that and STILL not hit a target standing right in front
> : > of them. Must be using Win95, eh? "Quick! Close that window! Double click,
> : > DOUBLE click! DAMN! I crashed the system! Quick, reboot! Darn, the Locust got
> : > away! Try again!"
>
> : *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant statements that are unfunny. If
> : the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing, the point will be returned.
>
> So tell me have you finished first grade yet.
Yup. Never finished high school though. Guess it really doesn't matter anymore.
> : Please make your answer in the form of a question.
> :
> : > >Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
> : > >autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an Abrams!
> : >
> : > The real question is: What USE would such a weapon be?
>
> : To *get* through the damage disapating armor. *Get* it? (again)
> :
>
> Yeah except... aw never mind. Try this go take a few physics classes, then
> read some military history, and come back when you know how weapons in the
> real world work.
I do. I have played military simulations for 20 years. I have been in the military. I know about
tactics, strategy and the way weapons *really* work and not the romantic drivel that is available
everywhere.
> : > > None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In BT the
> : > >premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in disapating
> : > >damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
> : >
>
> Any mech that can be damaged by falling down cant have very effective armor.
A 100 metric ton mech falling will cause the head of the mech to describe a 10+ meter arc as it
hits the ground. Anyone care to calc the amount of energy in that?
> : > Oh?
> : > But then how come EVERYTHING does damage TO it? Shouldn't it be able to
> : > 'shrug off' insufficient amounts of damage, just like any REAL LIFE tank can?
>
> : What tank? What is the level of damage? What is the relevance? What about reading my
> : arguments and not making my case for me?
>
> ANY tank in the real world can shrug off attacks from machine guns and infantry
> with out missles. And as you have pointed out the composite armor on the Wests
> most advanced MBT make them all but invincible to most small missles. You
> could run a truck into an M1 and the paint would be barely scratched.
Mechs *do* shrug off attacks from small arms. The weapons that do damage in BT are *not* small
arms.
Infantry do damage to mechs in the same way they do damage to tanks. Explosive packages as either
satchel charges or anti-tank grenades.
A mech can run into a truck and not scratch it's paint. It's in the rules.
> : Thank you, I will mark you down on my calendar for fruit cake this Christmas. You sir, are a
> : definite mark on the underclothing of history. :)
>
> :
> : > >The premise behind the "bigger the cannon, shorter the range" can be
> : > >attributed to simple math. If the weight of a single round is made
> : > >constant, then in order to make that round do more damage, something has
> : > >to be reduced in order that the "payload" is increased. Simply
> : >
> : > Uh...
> : > What about increasing the powder behind the damn shell? Sheeet man, people
> : > just don't MAKE crappy bullets like that in real life! I mean, you're assuming
> : > that the shells are going to be of the same volume or something, which is
> : > ridiculous!
>
> : Hmmm. What about weight? Why is the standard sidearm round in the US a 9mm? It is smaller
> : than a .45. Why do they use it? Because they can carry more ammo. With difficulty in
> : hitting a target, the ability to put more rounds downrange is an attractive bargin.
>
> Actually I think the longer effective range of the 9mm and greater accuracy
> probably had as much to do with it.
9mm doesn't really have a longer range. Most sidearms cannot be counted on to fire effectively
beyond 50 feet. More than that and you're at the range. As for accuracy, if you want to talk
about small arms, the IPSC standard arm is a .45 cal 1911.
> As for the autocannon 20, 20 kg a round is more than sufficient for most of
> today's rounds and that would give you ten in a round. Though of course if
> everything you say is correct, then the kick back from the gauss rifle would
> ought to knock the mech onto its back, particularly the ones mounted on the
> light mechs.
You don't know that it's a 20kg round. Therefore you don't know that there are 10 in a stream. As
for kick from a Gauss, I explained that in a comment above.
> :
> : > >increasing the size of the round only works so far, until you hit
> : > >engineering obstacles which is what is assumed in BT.
> : >
> : > They sure hit the obstacles pretty soon, eh?
>
> : How about including actual information and not simple one liners? Or at least make them
> : funny.
> :
> : > >the "payload" the propellant has to be reduced. Please remember that in
> : > >BT a single "round" fired in a game is supposed to consist of many
> : > >rounds fired in a stream.
> : >
> : > Sure... Okay... Not like the RULES ever give you the opportunity to strafe,
> : > saturate, burst, or 'walk' fire (Which you can do in HG). This makes Btech's
> : > multi-bullet streams absolutely moot hand-waving.... while in HG they actually
> : > DO something with the idea!
>
> : Hmmm. I keep on yelling but there ain't no one there. If you did that then you would be
> : hitting with a smaller percentage of rounds? Yes? In that case it would be possible that you
> : wouldn't do enough kinetic shock at a single point to cause material breakdown.
>
> If there are multiple rounds, I hate to disappoint you but even with
> sophisticated targeting, you aint going to get them to all hit the same point
> on a target. Hell you really should have to treat them like missle hits.
You will if you shoot really really really really fast. Which would make it harder to target since
you would have to be positively on the target and couldn't just "walk" it on.
> : If you want to play with the grownups, please read and then reply to what is written.
>
> And if you want to, please get a brain and learn about something before you
> speak.
I have. I did. I do. Try it, you'll like.
> :
> : > >tell me that you think BT is not realistic and then go on to say that a
> : > >game based on "battle armor" IS.
> : > >Sounds silly.
> : >
> : > Battle-Armor sounds silly to you? I thought you LIKED Battletech?
>
> : Hmmmm.
> : Battle armor = personal suit of armor ala Elemental.
> : BattleMech = ground fighting vehicle pilioted by human.
>
> Again a Gear is not worn, but ridden in and driven, it is not POWER ARMOR.
Who cares. I don't and won't. It wasn't the purpose of this discussion and I wanted to end it.
> : See the difference? The aim of this thread is to dicuss BT weapons. If you want to plug HG,
> : then get your own thread. Otherwise don't waste my time.
>
> Why not, you don't seem to have a problem wasting ours, and being insulting to
> boot, so we figured we would return the favor.
If people don't take the time to answer the post with a minimum of intelligence, then why should I
be forgiving of it? I try to answer all posts that are directed to me. If this person wants to
play, then they should play correctly.
As for the returning of the favor, when did that happen? Was I asleep?
Edward O. Royce
Bill McHale wrote:
... snip
> you object to is that a good dice roll will make a crippling or killing
> shot likely with most weapons, while most mech's in BT can be hit anywhere from
> once to a dozen times without any direct effect on movement or weapons fire.
Good armor eh?
> Its simple, in Heavy Gear your tactics have to account for the fact that
> your machines can be destroyed with a single shot, you must therefore make
> the best possible use of cover and movement to avoid getting hit. In BT
> on the other hand concentrating firepower on a single mech at a time is a far
> better tactic.
Great armor eh?
> In other words, if you try to use the tactics of the other game, you are going
> to think that die rolling is the prime determinant of the outcome of the game.
> Both games are great, HG is more realistic.
Nope. Unsupported opinion. Very much like "tastes great!" and "less filling!". Nice,
but irrelevant.
> : The only reason Battletech weapons have such crappy ranges, is a
> : Marketing strategy by FASA.
>
> Actually I think it was a design decision to make the game more playable.
> I have no problems with that. The problem I do have is with people trying
> to say the Battletech weapons are realistic.
Nope. Diminishing technology base, difficulty in targeting and great armor to name a few.
As for the last sentence, you can post an effective refutation any time you like. We'll
be here.
Cryckyt ver3.0
Edward O. Royce wrote:
Bits 'n bits deleted
> >
> > and target are standing still there is that "end of range" thing that
> > crops up at 10 hexes.
>
> Ta da! Because if it hits, it doesn't do enough damage to register. Remember that
> damage disapating armor?
>
Ummmmm, this is the part of the argument that throws me. A 5kg shell
travelling at 800m/s is -still- roughly traveling at 800m/s after it's
gone 500m (the atmosphere won't slow it down -that- much). So -why-
does the armor start dissipating damage then?
--
Cryckyt ver3.0
Edward O. Royce
Batter up.
--
Jonathan R Bezeau wrote:
>
> Edward O. Royce (ero...@injersey.com) wrote:
> : Batter Up! :)
>
> : Bill McHale wrote:
> : ... snip
> : > Uh, right. Almost everything you have said is correct, but that does not
> : > make weapon ranges in BT realistic.
>
> : A good starting opinion to get the blood flowing.
> :
> : > To begin with almost everthing that you have talked about involves engagement
> : > range, not weapon ranges which are too entirely different things. I think
>
> : Hmmm. The weapons ranges that extend beyond the engagement ranges are
> : entirely moot. If I could shoot a laser to a range of 3 lightyears, but
> : I can only hit you if you're 500 meters away (and keep the beam on
> : target enough to do damage) then what is the point of dealign with
> : weapons ranges?
>
> Because I can stop my mech ten klicks away from your base and nail its
> co-ordinates with LRMs. Because if you have to stop (like you fell over
They have a range of 10 klicks? Good try but stop making up ranges ok? It'll make
people take you less seriously.
> or something) I can nail you at ten kilometres, if I can get your
> co-ords. It's kind of nice to pay attention to that kind of thing for
> tactical reasons. There are very few trees that dodge madly about, and I
> still can't hit ANY if they're 120m away with my .80cal machinegun.
What has a range of 10 klicks? There are many missiles in use today that don't have a
range beyond 1 klick so where *did* you get that information. Are you making things up
again?
> : When you play do you deal with the weapons range of missed shots? Do
> : you track the flight path of each missile and check to see if it hits
> : something? Or do you do what everyone else does and simply mark it off
> : as insignificant?
>
> Do you differentiate between the effective and maximum range of a weapon,
> and use the max range if targeting something that's not covered by ECM
> and weaving madly? Ten seconds is a long time if you're lining up a
> crosshair over a speck on your HUD, especially if it's an immobile speck.
Oh. Well that explains everything. I deal with ranges where the weapon will actually do
something and everyone else is dealing with how far something can fly. So in light
gravity I should be able to send a Gauss Rifle projectile around the planet to hit
someone behind me eh?
Well. An immobilized target does give you a -4 to hit and you get to target the limb.
As for 10 seconds being enough time, I beg to differ, in many cases 10 seconds is not
enough time to do anything. It depends on the complexity of the task. Have you changed
a tire in 10 seconds?
> : > Now you say that targeting is done manually, which is true just as the gunner
> : > on an M1 tank lines up a shot with his turrent. The fact is that modern
>
> : Sort of.
>
> : > weapons often are devestatingly accurate and effective at ranges far greater
>
> : Which weapons? Remember that in BT the armor used is highly effective
> : in disapating the force of a kinetic shot or the shock of a laser
> : strike. The kind of "1 shot 1 kill" that everyone talks about rarely
> : exists in the BT universe because of the effectiveness of that armor.
> : Besides even today, with the M1A2 and it's Chobham and depleted uranium
> : armor, tanks are almost completely protected against the guided missiles
> : that used to strike fear into the hearts of most tankers.
>
> And in five years I garauntee that they'll have a weapon that can rip a
> M1A1 with chobbam and uranium a brand new bunghole. At range. T-72s used
> to be scary shit. They're nothing now, and it'll happen to everyone's
> current favorite tanks too.
Sure thing. And at about the same time they'll come up with a way to defeat it that
weaponry advance. Otherwise all tanks would die and tank producing firms tend to avoid
that whenever possible.
> : So what if you're "devatstatingly accurate"? It's doing effective
> : damage that counts, not just hitting. I could use the laser diode from
> : a presentation pointer and "hit" you with it easily. Doesn't mean
> : you're going to clutch your chest and keel over now does it?
>
> So a .80 MG can't do "effective damage" against a forest of trees or a
> swarm of pesants at 120m?
When have you tried to shoot at trees with a machinegun. And where on earth did you get
the impression that machineguns in BT are .80 in diameter?
> I can believe the ranges of lasers in BT, you want to focus all the
> energy up close so it doesn't get wasted by atmosphere. The lower the
> laser power, the closer you want to focus.
Nope. Keep in mind that when a laser goes through the atmosphere it is ionizing the air.
A super duper ultra maximum without peer mondo bongo laser may have a range of 1 meter
because it has created a ball of plasma right in front of the lens.
Same thing with a laser that hits. The vaporized materials will cause a cloud to obscure
the strike point that will degrade the laser.
> : > than in BT. Further telescopic targeting systems can often compensate for the
> : > difficulties that are added from their use (particularly since the tanker or
> : > mechwarrior is not personally holding the weapon being fired.
>
> : Well again so what? You have a telescopic, gyrostabilized thingamajig.
> : You're saying that these kind of attack tools aren't available in BT.
> : Why not? The history of warfare has been the history of attack and
> : defense technology in and out of sync. How do you know that there
> : aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of each
> : mech?
>
> You mean shit that can make a 10x3.5x2.5 metre mech invisible to the
> human eye? Wow. They don't even mention that in the fluff text. All you
Have you been smoking something? Where on earth did I say that? Where on earth did you
get that. Where on ..... well, not on earth necessarily but whatever planet is your
favorite, did you figure that?
> need to get high accuracy on a LOS weapon like a Gauss Rifle is a nice
> scope and a still mech. If you have gyrostabilization, you can skip the
> still mech, on your part. Since there are no sensor-spotting rules for
> BT, we can assume that either all soptting is by sensor so they ignore
> it, ore all spotting is by eyeball, which I think since mechs have
> windows and vision-slits.
Hmmm. A nice Leupold 10x and a Gauss Rifle, my recipe for vension.
How do you know that the Gauss is so accurate? It fires a ball of steel for a
projectile. Hell the thing probably curves and spins worse than a paintball or a musket
round.
Also why do you think that gyrostabilization is a magic cookie? There are levels in
everything and if the motion is severe enough, like when a 100 ton mech takes a few step,
that gyrostabilization may be insufficient.
As for a still mech, you are assuming that *no* movement is required on the part of the
attacker to fire, not even limbs. A bad premise.
As for spotting rules, well, read the rules again please, they're there.
> : Besides in every modern case, except the Vulcan cannon which I will get
> : to, the "weapon" involved fires a single round. So what? Each
> : ammo using weapon in BT fires multiple rounds. How does that affect the
> : firing? Have you ever seen the recoil of a 120mm round causes a 60 ton
> : tank to shift around? Now multiply that by 10 or 20. Remember the
> : premise behind BT allows the level of survivability that is impossible
> : today with or without "modern" arms.
>
> : As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line with what
> : BT says it is.
>
> Against what? Fighters flying at X hundred KPH... yes, I play fighter
> videogames (Air Combat is a favorite) and even on those it's
> nigh-impossible to hit a fast, weaving and dodging target. But if a
> bomber just flies in a straight line, it's easily wastable at MUCH longer
> ranges.
With what cannon are you talking about? What range are you talking about? What is
relevant data concerning this so I can actually refute data and not just an unsupported
opinion?
> : > Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
>
> : You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
>
> Which don't incresae the effective range of the weapon in the slightest,
> though they should. The missile keeps re-orienting itself to the target
Why should the range increase? Why can't the Narc beacon have a limited signal range?
> as it closes, the target gets "bigger and bigger" from the missile's
> point of view, and BOOM! you should be able to hit from the maximum range
> of a missile in 3150. Which is 660 metres. Ooh, I wish our boys could get
> range like that.
3150? Ohh I see. Wrong century. I was wondering what the problem was. Other than that
I still don't see the relevance of your statement to my premise.
> : There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give me an
> : indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers. Considering
> : that they are able to maneuver a 100 ton piece of machinery, through the
> : air, over a hundred meters or so of terrain and then land I would hazard
> : to say thay you really didn't think about the above statement long
> : enough.
>
> I might agree with that. The mass of the Targeting Computer could easily
> be the stabilization and servos required to move the outlandishly massive
> guns.
Well hey! I got one. <making imaginary chalk line> cool.
> : With no atmosphere, obstacles, high levels of gravity and simple
> : (relatively speaking) newtonian mechanics, who says they are that great?
> : Remember that the first moon shots were pretty much done with slide
> : rules and the space shuttle had (in the beginning I think) computers the
> : equivelant of the Commodore 64.
>
> The shuttle still has the computing power of a C-64 driving it.
> Astronauts bring up laptops to work on :)
Really? What kind? It would be neat to use a "SpaceBook" or "OrbitalPad". :)
> But seeing something moving at (hundreds of?) thousands of metres per
> second when it's a good 100000km away, and HIT it with an AC/5 is not
> something that a normal eye or even a mediocre computer and sensor suite
> could possibly do. The moon is NOT dodging, covered with ECM and decoys,
> and they had much longer than a couple minutes to figure their shot.
You can do it on your home computer. You can do it in Excel. You just need some basic
data (from radar) and the formulas.
> : Believe me, computing trajectories in an atmosphere, with obstacles,
> : highly voltile movements and a high gravity field is more than difficult
> : enough. Which is why it has been only recently when a Main Battle Tank
> : could actually fire on the move. Something that mechs take for granted.
>
> These tanks firing on the move can fire on the move at 2 kilometers from
> target and hit it. That's not bad. Mechs can't manage 450m, against
2 kilometers? I think you're exagerating quite a bit.
> similar (only bigger) targets, which is. And yes, our tanks are using
> basically optical systems, rather than anything that you can screw with
> (like emissions/heat/whatever)
You mean like image enhancing sensors, passive light amplifcation and heat detectors?
Like on the M1 Abrams?
> : Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
> : autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an Abrams!
>
> As much fun as you might make of him, it is actually true that bigger
> guns typically fire farther. Bigger tank guns fire farther, bigger rifles
> fire farther, bigger SMGs fire farther.
That's the point. There is no indication that an AC/20 has a larger bore or larger round
than an AC/2. The rating is the damage inflicted at the ranges specified. So the
arguments over relative ammunition sizes is pointless. Which is what I was trying to
imply.
> Now, I suppose that the recoil on a 200mm cannon is hellishly noticable
> (probably worse given that all the designs they're on place the cannon on
> the shoulder or the arm, the two locations on the body with the MOST
> leverage), but it should get some kind of maximum range that is actually
> reflective of what's being fired... Tell me that an "errant" burst of
> 200mm high-explosive shells is insignificant in city combat, or combat
> within a kilometer of a city.
See previous comment and remember that most people don't bother with missed shots. We
should but they tend to detract from the game speed. Besides the damage listed on the
stats is the damage inflict at range on a mech. There is no data to support that the
errant 200mm (if there are any) would do anything because we *don't* know what is the
standard round. If it is like the tanks of today then it's a big tungsten penetrator.
A 200mm tungsten penetrator will do a lot to a mech or a tank, but not a whole lot
against a building. It would put a new entrance in it though.
> : Remember that no hard statistics were ever made available for this game.
> : None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In BT the
> : premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in disapating
> : damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
>
> Unless you're using gauss or lasers or SRMs or just about anything except
> pulse lasers and ACs. Wait... that IS everything but pulse lasers and ACs.
So what's your point? These weapons do enough damage that multiple hit's aren't
necessary? Why thank you for joining me in this thread. Welcome aboard.
> : The premise behind the "bigger the cannon, shorter the range" can be
> : attributed to simple math. If the weight of a single round is made
> : constant, then in order to make that round do more damage, something has
> : to be reduced in order that the "payload" is increased.
>
> But the weight of the shell ISN'T constant. You get fewer bursts with
> larger ACs, and you can't tell me that they'll build huge cannons with
> better rate of fire than tiny ones. That's silly... how do you think the
> "minigun" came about?
Ok. You obviously have better data than I do. What *is* the bore of a AC/20? Aren't
you making unsupported assumptions?
> : With the weight of a cannon round constant, then in order to increase
> : the "payload" the propellant has to be reduced.
>
> If the propellant is reduced and you use a larger mass, you're slitting
> your wrists when it comes to more damage. You get less kinetic energy,
> since less propellant has to push more mass...
True. If kinetic energy is the method of doing damage. In the case of HE though, the
round's speed is irrelevant.
ed
----
Wangen, David B
> Well gee now a Gauss rifle, considering how it is described in BT is a pretty
> useless weapon on todays battlefield. It fires a nickle ferros slug that
> weighs 125 kilograms. Iirc it is often descibes a ball, this is the single
> worst shape for an anti armor round on the planet. Further if it was to have
> an advantage over a regular round it would have to be accelerated to
> several times the speed of sound. The recoil of this would almost certainly
> knock anything over.
Gauss Rifles would not cause that much recoil, since they use magnets to accelerate the projectile,
not gunpowder like conventional autocannons.
David B. Wangen
Jonathan R Bezeau
: > Current day battle tanks have the CAPABILITY of engaging and destroying
: > the enemy at ranges in excess of a kilometer. Btech can't do that... Heavy
: > Gear can. So, whose weapons are more realistic?
: Where did you hear this drivel? When the M1A2 engages another tank, a T-80 as an example, it
: has to be within 700 meters or the kinetic penetrator has a high probability of not
: penetrating. If the shot is a head on one, the shot would have to go through the glacis
: plate, then the range is even less.
Try it with a HEAT or shaped-charge warhead, which doesn't need kinetic
energy. You can get all sorts of kills at nice long ranges (against stuff
that has weak enough armor). What about HE versus infantry at 2 km: no
problem.
: > Sure... both ways, either/or, depending on what we feel like that day.
: Ok. So a weapon's maximum range doesn't make a difference then.
Except for when you want to hit an immobile target. Or you're stationary.
Or you try and hit something further out than 300m. Effective range based
on damage only counts for kinetic-damage weapons like MGs and Gauss.
Missiles and ACs use high-explosive rounds which aren't affected much by
their speed.
: > Yeah... and at least _I_ think that range should be pushing the Kilometer
: > range for a decent weapon/missile... not in the hundred-yard range! Sheesh!
: Why? You're not considering the original premise. In BT mech armor is effective in
: disapating damage and so multiple shots are necessary to inflict
enough material stress to
: exceed the engineered tolerances. Unless it's a Gauss Rifle of course.
Or a missile. Or a beam laser. Or a PPC. OR A STERNSCHNACT HEAVY PITSTOL!
The heavy pistol listed in MWII does damage to a mech on a roll of 5-9 on
2d6 (or somethign similar), and that IS with a single shot.
An entire MG burst does twice the damage, at comparable range.
: Do you want to get hit by a mech fist? I wouldn't. Consider that if a mech is made
: proportionately to a human being then the fist/arm would wieght how much on a 100 ton mech?
: would you say 12 to 15 tons?
Wasps would have to be far less than that. Like one ton. Those still do
damage.
: As for the ram attack, even the physical attacks, you are off topic. I did *not* state that
: all the rules were realistic, try fusion reactors for one, but that the weapons ranges *were*
: for the game paradigm.
Not really. You were saying that it took multiple hits to damage a mech.
A ramming vehicle can do it in one (and that's far less energy than a
Gauss Rifle.)
: > Okay.. fine.
: > Then explain to me how BT armor takes damage from EVERYTHING while real-life
: What do you mean by everything? Falling (100 metric ton mech falls 10 meters, go boom), what,
: please specify.
Everything (n): all objects.
Including in BT: falling rubble, human sidearms, mortars, puny missiles
that can't kill an average human, 20mm cannons firing HE warheads.
: Well that MG is supposed to be a automated feed weapon ranging from 12.5 mm to 20mm. I would
: think a .50 cal would do something? As for rocks? Where did you read
that? From the : Mechwarriors book for roleplaying?
The MG can't hit anything beyond 90m. That's REALISTIC for a weapon of
such a calibre? What? Whose physics are you using?
: > Well.. the crappy weapons ranges for one.
: No the weapons have good range, the ability to hit is what sucks. If
you're going to support : your argument then please do so.
AC/5: 50mm cannon. You can't hit a stationary target 540 metres away.
Gee, that's realistic! Especially for a cannon that's 4x heavier than
what we make with only 1/3 the range.
: > By your argument, the crappy 1ton ram-vehicle has the SAME defensive
: > electronics suite of the 100ton massive buttbuster top of the line mecha.
: What's the big deal with electronics suites? Most of the weapons in
BT are "dumb". They have
: *no* electronics to spoof.
THEN WHY THE HELL ARE THEY PITIFUL COMPARED TO MODERN WEAPONS OF THE SAME
CALIBRE AND ABOUT 1/2 THE MASS????????
They have no guidance systems to help them attack a target. It
: isn't until much later when Streak, Narc, Arrow and other weapons
appear that a self guided : weapon even appears.
And those aren't noticably better than dumb rockets. Sad world.
: Do you really think that a better radio or a better jammer is going to
help you avoid a 120mm : "dumb" round?
Apparently it's the only reason my shutdown atlas isn't being nailed by
someone a measly 500m away with his 12-ton AC/10... It can't be thick air
stopping the rounds 1/4 as far as what an M1's main gun can shoot.
: *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for introducing irrelevant material.
*Ding* you're penalized one point for using a lame joke twice.
: *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making silly statements.
*Bzzzt* "I'll take 'Guys hanging on to a bad joke for $200, Alex."
: These aren't related to the Vulcan? Hmmm. Wait a second while I ponder the existence of
: related similar weapons with nothing in common. Try the AC/2, try a
beer, try a valium, try : thinking about your statements please.
Vulcan cannons weigh much less than six tons. They are also the absolute
longest ranged weapons is BT, which is certainly untrue in RL.
*Ding* you're penalized a point for basing your whole argument on a
single piece of equipment.
: *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for bringing up irrelevant statistics from another
: game and not reality.
*Bang* I shot the bell. God, that's annoying. I hope you're not married,
for your wife's sake.
"Would you like milk in your tea, dear?"
"*Ding* You're penalized one point for forgetting sugar..."
: > Why would anyone USE a multi-firing 120mm gun with recoil like that, with
: > range and damage so much LESS than a 'modern day' 120mm single-firing cannon?
: > That's the "Battletech Paradox".
: To *get* through the damage disapating armor. *Get* it?
Why, when a PISTOL can do the same?
: > Yeah, they can do all that and STILL not hit a target standing right in front
: > of them. Must be using Win95, eh? "Quick! Close that window! Double click,
: > DOUBLE click! DAMN! I crashed the system! Quick, reboot! Darn, the Locust got
: > away! Try again!"
: *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant statements that are unfunny. If
: the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing, the point will be returned.
: Please make your answer in the form of a question.
*Dork* your're dodging the question: What's stopping my Atlas' main gun
from hitting a stationary Jagermech 60 metres away. Pleasy make your
reply in the form of something sensible.
: > The real question is: What USE would such a weapon be?
: To *get* through the damage disapating armor. *Get* it? (again)
A pistol can penetrate mech armor.
: > But then how come EVERYTHING does damage TO it? Shouldn't it be able to
: > 'shrug off' insufficient amounts of damage, just like any REAL LIFE tank can?
: What tank? What is the level of damage? What is the relevance? What
about reading my : arguments and not making my case for me?
Pistol rounds can damage mech armor. Man-carried pistol rounds. Look up
MWII. You don't have a "base" for your BT armor. I do, the minimum weapon
that can harm it.
: Hmmm. I keep on yelling but there ain't no one there. If you did
that then you would be
: hitting with a smaller percentage of rounds? Yes? In that case it
would be possible that you
: wouldn't do enough kinetic shock at a single point to cause material
breakdown.
Unlike a pistol round.
: Battle armor = personal suit of armor ala Elemental.
: BattleMech = ground fighting vehicle pilioted by human.
: See the difference? The aim of this thread is to dicuss BT weapons.
Like the little claws on battlearmor that eat mech armor for lunch?
That's hardly requiring ultiple hits to penetrate.
Jonboy
Edward O. Royce
Emery Calame wrote:
>
> In <322379...@injersey.com> "Edward O. Royce" <ero...@injersey.com>
> writes:
> >
> >Now watch me explain why the ranges in BT *are* realistic!
> >
> >1. In BT each hex used is 30 meters across. That's 900 square meters
> >of space for a mech to be in while staying within the boundries of the
> >hex.
>
> Uhhh no actually. Wrong Formula. Hex is an operative word.
As I posted below, Brian Leung responded to that. All things considered, the difference is
slight.
> >2. In BT each "turn" is ten seconds of time. Go ahead and look at
> your
> >watch and count out ten seconds. It's a lot of time. A heavy mech
> >(Warhammer) coud run 17.78 (59 feet) meters per second while a light
> >mech (Locust) can run 39 (129 feet) meters per second.
>
> Uh huh.
>
> >3. In BT the average (from my own experiences only) engagement
> distance
> >is 10 hexes or 300 meters.
>
> Usually gets more like seven unless you play with the old combined arms
> ideas and use fire support, long range support, and attack lances...
> Then it quite naturally varies.
A difference of style then.
> >4. The circumference of the circle with a radius of 300 meters (10
> >hexes) is 943 meters.
>
> Approximately.
Within a .1 meters is good enough for me.
> >5. The length of one (1) degree at a radius of 300 meters is 2.6
> >meters.
> >
> >6. Therefore a single hex worth of space, at a distance of 300 meters,
> >occupies about 12 degrees of vision.
>
> Nope. This isn't going to takle the weapon range issue.
> Think about torso twists, rear firing weapons and the like. No sale.
Try your math. 30 / (943 / 360) = 12.
> >7. A heavy mech (Warhammer), running perpedicular to the observer at a
> >range of 300 meters, can move 68 degrees (+- 12 degrees for the hex
> >itself) relative to the observer.
> >
> >8. A Light mech (Locust), running perpedicular to the observer at a
> >range of 300 meters, can move 150 degrees (+- 12 degrees for the hex
> >itself) relative to the observer.
> >
> >9. A "standard" mech that is 10 meters tall , 3.5 meters wide (across
> >the shoulders) and about 2.5 meters deep (thickness of the chest) is,
> to
> >a an observer at 300 meters, 3.8 degrees high, 1.34 degrees wide and 1
> >(approx) degree thick.
> >
> >10. The targeting recticle of a HUD is, probably since we don't have
> >factual data other than MW2 or Netmech, at least 1 degree in height
> and
> >width.
>
> Or actually in your neuro helmet. Remeber those?
Whichever. The targeting recticle or sight still takes up space.
> >11. This means that if the mech is turned sideways from an observer,
> at
> >300 meters of course, then the recticle has zero (0) horizontal
> >tolerance and 3 degrees vertical tolerance.
>
> This will help you with firing arcs only.
What on earth are you talking about? If the target mech is turned sideways to you then the
profile presented to the observer is .... Does that help?
> >12. This means that if the mech is facing the observer, at 300 meters,
> >then the recticle has 0.34 degrees horizontal tolerance and 3 degrees
> >vertical tolerance.
> >
> >13. If the target mech is a Warhammer (not a very speedy mech) moving
> >perpendicular to the observer then the observer would have to track a
> 1
> >degree recticle across a 68 degree track (+- 12 degrees) maintaining
> >it's position with zero (0) horizontal tolerance and 3 degrees
> vertical
> >tolerance.
> >
> >14. If the target mech is a Locust moving perpendicular to the
> observer
> >then the observer would have to track a 1 degree recticle across a 150
> >degree track (+- 12 degrees) maintaining it's position with zero (0)
> >horizontal tolerance and 3 degrees vertical tolerance. (assuming the
> >same physical dimensions as the Warhammer, which is not so)
> >
> >Of course it would be easier to hit when you are closer, which is why
> >most battles occur at less then 150 meters in netmech, and MUCH MUCH
> >harder when the target is farther away.
>
> Nope. Unless it was running mostly toward you or mostly away from you
> you'd have a bitch of time lining it up mannually. Play Tie fighter
> some time. Yes I know it's not real, but it's very relevant.
That is what I just said. Are you agreeing with me? As for Tie fighter, it's not relevant at
all. It's a different game where sound goes through space. Not a very good start for a
realism argument.
> >BTW a 10 meter tall mech at 1000 meters is 0.5 degrees in height.
> >
> >I use degrees to show, spatially, the difficulty in trying to do the
> >targeting manually. In BT the targeting, other than a little help
> from
> >the onboard computers, is MANUAL. That's why the Clanners have a
> >targeting computer!
>
> Sorry but no. It's kind of mannual except when you consider back firing
> weapons., and the targetting computer weighs a ton and up. The
> difficulty of auto targeting isn't going to give you a one ton machine.
> Btech doesn't have rules for mannual vs. automatic targetting either.
Back firing weapons can't be manual? I think you should sit for a second and think about it.
If you can fire forward, why can't you fire rearward?
So what if the targeting computer weighs a ton or more?
The targeting computer gives you a -3 to hit. That is a rule the last time I looked.
> That's novels talking and not the game dynamics which is what the
> bashing ususally centers around.
What novel are you talking about? What are you talking about?
> >Now someone is bound to say, what about zooming? What about
> telescopic
> >sights and other what not. Well they are nice, but if you ask anyone
> >who has actually used a telescopic sight, any motion on the part of
> the
> >observer tends to magnify the difficulty in using it. After all
> aren't
> >you moving too?
>
> If you can quickly zoom in on a moving target with a remote camera you
> can usually shoot it. That would be what you would use for your
> targeting too. Zooming would be great for locating the enemy at a
> distance, where recon was unavailable, sniping on near stationary units
> and such. But not in Battletech where this ain't part of the game.
Nice try. But it don't wash. If the distance is enough that you need to zoom, then in order
to zoom (without having to reacquire the target) the assumption is that the target remains in
the sights. If the target is in the sights, then you shouldn't have to zoom.
> >Well what about gyroscopic stabilized magnifying whatchamacallits?
> >That's a targeting computer that the Clanners have.
>
> Prove it.
Ok. It's in the rulebook! There, that was easy.
> Anyway I think the crappy ranges are a matter of heat exaustion brought
> on by sitting on a fusion pile and not keeping enough ice in your
> underwear. I sit in my car with no air conditioning on some days and I
> couldn't operate firing controls no matter how sophisticated.
> Sometimes I can fins my radio station though.
I think I will leave that statement for you and you only.
ed
--
Mechwarrior [CBS]Flashheart - ero...@injersey.com | Member of the NRA
Clan Black Sheep (Registry) | Member of ACOG
3rd Cluster - Goldschlager Guards |
2nd Binary - The Four Lagers of the Apocolypse |
Edward O. Royce
Joseph Poulin wrote:
>
> I have to disagree with your analysis. Sure, it might be
> difficult to hit a crossing target, but Mechs are SLOW. Especially
> compared to modern tanks or even pre-WWII naval ships. Both of those
> have very little problem with the kind of targets you are talking about.
Slow? A locust going at 140 kph is slow? A Stalker can outrun an M1
Abrams. So can an Atlas. Slow?
> As long ago as WWII people were using collections of gears and
> gyros to compensate for their own movement and target movement. It's not
> all that tough.
Oh. So a Sherman could do Fire on the Move?
No it couldn't and they didn't, except in battleships.
James Bobolia
Bill McHale wrote:
>
> Yeah except when it comes down to it a modern missle would make a whole hell of
> a lot of sense. Range dozens of kilometers, give it a 500 kg warhead and it
> should destroy any mech with a single hit. (figure the average lrm weighs
> about 8 1/3 kilogram.
Assuming it's a metric ton.
> A spread of 20 which does 20 pts maximum will weigh
> about 167 kg. Now even assuming that every missle is nothing but warhead,
> which is silly, a 500 kg warhead ought to do 60pts of damage to a single
> location which would be enough to destroy any location on any mech that it hit.
> Now if we assumed a more realistic 1 or 2 pound kilogram warhead
1 or 2 pounds or 1 or 2 kilograms? I'm to tired to do the calculations but I think you're looking at a mass of
1 or more tons. Each warhead according to the rules comes out to either 7.6 or 8.3 kgs depending on what you
define a ton. (metric or standard)
> the damage
> will do between 250 to 500 pts to a single location, which will take out
> adjacent locations and destroy the mech.).
It does seem silly that a normal person weighs about 9 to 15 missiles but I think the biggest drawback to
mounting missiles this big would be ammo. In long engagements, you've used up most of your space and mass
allocations to only a small number of rounds and with dumb missiles (rockets) you don't have a guarantee of
hitting.
Anyway it seems that certain areas of technology had fallen back a bit but that can be explained by the
distance between factions, constant fighting and the stranglehold on communications.
Just my two cents worth
Bill McHale
William Lubelski (bod...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: On 29 Aug 1996 18:26:24 GMT, kry...@execpc.com (Steve Pettit) wrote:
: >In article <502h74$5...@ccshst05.uoguelph.ca>, jbe...@uoguelph.ca says...
: >>And in five years I garauntee that they'll have a weapon that can rip a
: >>M1A1 with chobbam and uranium a brand new bunghole. At range. T-72s used
: >>to be scary shit. They're nothing now, and it'll happen to everyone's
: >>current favorite tanks too.
: >
: > Why wait five years? The Army was testing the next generation of Main
: >Arms out at Sandia two years ago, tossing KEAP rounds out of a modified
: >Krupp/Rheinmetal 120mm Smoothbore gun at speeds in excess of 3000 m/s. It's
: >called ETC (ElectroThermal Chemical), and it works really well. The recoil
: >and power consumption still have to be worked on, though...
: As a side note, the US Navy has a working (experimental) railgun, with
: a barrel approximately 1.5 meters long. The whole thing could fit in
: the back of a pickup. And it's projectiles can reach speeds equal to
: or exceeding the KEAP round. Oh, and I believe it has a higher rate
: of fire than most Main Arms. Don't have any idea of its power
: consumption, though.
: [snip]
I am sure that that is without the power supply unit (which is the gun powder
(or rather its modern equivalent) in most guns). The army had developed one
but it required a huge flywheel to supply the electricity.
Josh Martin
>And what kind of rank is CC? How about the big picture inside the old
>Compendium? One of them DOES have a standard style nomenclature.... but then,
>you can get around that by saying that it is an honorific in battle, with
>Clan ranks translating into ancient Star League ranks, with the designation
>on the side being a way the clans revere the ancient Star League custom of
>putting their rank and name on their mechs. Since the Star League had certain
>ranks, the Clans put those same rank titles on their mech as a "Link" to the
>past... even though the current rank is different. May sound strange, but
>it DOES fit in with the Clans reverence of all things Star League... keep
>the traditions while changing the actuality.
>
>--
> William Ward
> The Rare Mech Times
> http://www.cs.odu.edu/~ward_w/btech.html
If I remember my history(!?!) correctly, the Clans were formed to RID the
survivors of the Exodus Fleet's exodus from the Pentagon Worlds. They did away
with everything that had to do with the Innersphere. The
lance/company/battalion/regiment concept was the defacto grouping in the Star
League, yet they invented the star/binary/cluster/galaxy grouping to distance
themselves from the Innersphere. Why would they then use out-dated rank
nomenclatures to signify thier mechs? Besides, the pilots didn't own thier
mechs, they all belonged to the Clan. Pilots were allowed to choose mechs to
pilot for each individual mission, but most pilots stayed with the designs that
they were familiar with. In the Innersphere, Mechwarriors seldomly changed
mechs, usually only if their original mech was destroyed. In the novels,
however, Clanners seem to change mechs more often than they change their
sheets. The Clans revere the Star League, but they have perverted its ideals
through thier 3 centuries of isolation.
Josh
Emery Calame
In <32265C...@injersey.com> "Edward O. Royce" <ero...@injersey.com>
A very commonly experienced difference of style.
>> >4. The circumference of the circle with a radius of 300 meters (10
>> >hexes) is 943 meters.
>>
>> Approximately.
>
>Within a .1 meters is good enough for me.
>
>> >5. The length of one (1) degree at a radius of 300 meters is 2.6
>> >meters.
>> >
>> >6. Therefore a single hex worth of space, at a distance of 300
meters,
>> >occupies about 12 degrees of vision.
>>
>> Nope. This isn't going to takle the weapon range issue.
>> Think about torso twists, rear firing weapons and the like. No sale.
>
>Try your math. 30 / (943 / 360) = 12.
Math will do nothing to defelect the impact of rear firing weapons, or
torso twists on the argument or even link it with your long list of
facts. Yes you can multiply, but no it doesn't do beans for
establishing effective ranges that match those of BTech.
>> >7. A heavy mech (Warhammer), running perpedicular to the observer
at a
>> >range of 300 meters, can move 68 degrees (+- 12 degrees for the hex
>> >itself) relative to the observer.
>> >
>> >8. A Light mech (Locust), running perpedicular to the observer at a
>> >range of 300 meters, can move 150 degrees (+- 12 degrees for the
hex
>> >itself) relative to the observer.
>> >
>> >9. A "standard" mech that is 10 meters tall , 3.5 meters wide
(across
>> >the shoulders) and about 2.5 meters deep (thickness of the chest)
is,
>> to
>> >a an observer at 300 meters, 3.8 degrees high, 1.34 degrees wide
and 1
>> >(approx) degree thick.
>> >
>> >10. The targeting recticle of a HUD is, probably since we don't
have
>> >factual data other than MW2 or Netmech, at least 1 degree in height
>> and
>> >width.
>>
>> Or actually in your neuro helmet. Remeber those?
>
>Whichever. The targeting recticle or sight still takes up space.
Which again does nothing to support your arguments (for reconstructing
a view screen from the rules) or defelect my objections.
>> >11. This means that if the mech is turned sideways from an
observer,
>> at
>> >300 meters of course, then the recticle has zero (0) horizontal
>> >tolerance and 3 degrees vertical tolerance.
>>
>> This will help you with firing arcs only.
>
>What on earth are you talking about? If the target mech is turned
sideways to you then the
>profile presented to the observer is .... Does that help?
Nope. Your whole position to date is only going to mean dick to firing
arcs. No rules exist to differentiate between areas within a firing
arc. There are no to hit numbers to apply here. Again this is mere
speculation and not explanation.
Further more quite a few mechs are wider from the front than they are
to the side.Quite few aren't. You are simply barking up the wrong
tree with this whole silly mess. You aren't dealing with Btech you are
dealing with loads and loads of assumptions, then asking us to take
them as givens and then requiring us to accept them as valid support of
the argument that Btech ranges are reasonable and realistic
refelections of the effective range of weapons instead of purely
artificial constructions designed to make the game easier to handle.
No. What you said was that it'll be easier to hit things closer to you
than far away. I mean just look up. You kept my quotes intact. That's
not the same as saying that a target moving towards or away from you is
easier to hit than one running a perpendicular course to your own.
>fighter, it's not relevant at
Yes it is.
>all. It's a different game where sound goes through space. Not a
very good start for a
>realism argument.
That isn't true if I turn down my speakers. Now there is no sound.
Happy? :)
It does however do a lot to show when something is easier to hit...when
it moves towards you or away from you and not streaking from one side
of the screen to the other. Y'see Tie fighter's engine draws a big
cyllinder from the firers position to the maximum range of the weapon
in a mapped 3d space. It emits from roughly the firing reticle and does
not spread. Not realistic, but very much a valid demonstrator that it's
easier to hit a moving target when you don't have to chase it from left
to right.(Since we are talking 3d).
>> >BTW a 10 meter tall mech at 1000 meters is 0.5 degrees in height.
>> >
>> >I use degrees to show, spatially, the difficulty in trying to do
the
>> >targeting manually. In BT the targeting, other than a little help
>> from
>> >the onboard computers, is MANUAL. That's why the Clanners have a
>> >targeting computer!
>>
>> Sorry but no. It's kind of mannual except when you consider back
firing
>> weapons., and the targetting computer weighs a ton and up. The
>> difficulty of auto targeting isn't going to give you a one ton
machine.
>> Btech doesn't have rules for mannual vs. automatic targetting
either.
>
>Back firing weapons can't be manual? I think you should sit for a
second and think about it.
Well gee. Tanks for the assumption that I didn't. Okay, fine. How could
they be? You have to control weapons up front, and you have to control
weapons in back. You have to put a cross hair over each one. Possibly
while moving and under assault from both sides. Last time I checked
rear firing weapons didn't prevent you from firing forward weapons(but
who knows with new editions flying around... or have rules for firing
blind. No firing penalty for firing both exists. Since we are talking
about a ten second turn here to do this in it's pretty obvious that
Mechs do at least some of their own targeting.
> If you can fire forward, why can't you fire rearward?
>
>So what if the targeting computer weighs a ton or more?
It's unrealistic. That's what. The whole topic, remember?
>The targeting computer gives you a -3 to hit. That is a rule the last
time I looked.
-1 and it lets you make called shots.
>> That's novels talking and not the game dynamics which is what the
>> bashing ususally centers around.
>
>What novel are you talking about? What are you talking about?
The Btech novels that talk about double Joy sticks controlling the
weapons.. There are about 20-something of them presently. Apparently
they aren't to be viewed as canon. Now, lets break it down for the
ignorant and the stubborn. The Novels give lots of details that have
nothing to do with the game mechanics. Bashers pick on th4 game
mechanics and novels both. Those wishing to "fight back" against the
Btech bashers usually quote the novels and Mechwarrior to defelct
obscure and generally weave around the objections of the said bashers.
There, that was simple now wasn't it.
>> >Now someone is bound to say, what about zooming? What about
>> telescopic
>> >sights and other what not. Well they are nice, but if you ask
anyone
>> >who has actually used a telescopic sight, any motion on the part of
>> the
>> >observer tends to magnify the difficulty in using it. After all
>> aren't
>> >you moving too?
>>
>> If you can quickly zoom in on a moving target with a remote camera
you
>> can usually shoot it. That would be what you would use for your
>> targeting too. Zooming would be great for locating the enemy at a
>> distance, where recon was unavailable, sniping on near stationary
units
>> and such. But not in Battletech where this ain't part of the game.
>
>Nice try. But it don't wash.
Yes it does. Use the program that picks up and zooms the camera input
on the target and tell it control your machine guns, zap zaps etc.
Then you'll be able to hit as often as you sucessfully zoom in on your
target.
If the distance is enough that you need to zoom, then in order
>to zoom (without having to reacquire the target) the assumption is
that the target remains in
>the sights. If the target is in the sights, then you shouldn't have
to zoom.
Which makes no sense whatsoever. But fine.
>> >Well what about gyroscopic stabilized magnifying whatchamacallits?
>> >That's a targeting computer that the Clanners have.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>Ok. It's in the rulebook! There, that was easy.
The fact that the targeting computer is a gyroscopic stabilized
magnifying whatchamacallit is not in any current edition of the
rulebook and certainly not in the past ones.
Easy but false.
>> Anyway I think the crappy ranges are a matter of heat exaustion
brought
>> on by sitting on a fusion pile and not keeping enough ice in your
>> underwear. I sit in my car with no air conditioning on some days and
I
>> couldn't operate firing controls no matter how sophisticated.
>> Sometimes I can fins my radio station though.
>
>I think I will leave that statement for you and you only.
Actually to me you appear to be a tiresome, condescending, fatuous,
stuck up, little, cliche-flinging twerp in desperate need of a class on
Socratic debate. But that's just me.
Em
Edward O. Royce
Bill McHale wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Edward O. Royce wrote:
>
> > Batter Up! :)
> >
> > Bill McHale wrote:
> > ... snip
> > > Uh, right. Almost everything you have said is correct, but that does not
> > > make weapon ranges in BT realistic.
> >
> > A good starting opinion to get the blood flowing.
> >
> > > To begin with almost everthing that you have talked about involves engagement
> > > range, not weapon ranges which are too entirely different things. I think
> >
> > Hmmm. The weapons ranges that extend beyond the engagement ranges are
> > entirely moot. If I could shoot a laser to a range of 3 lightyears, but
> > I can only hit you if you're 500 meters away (and keep the beam on
> > target enough to do damage) then what is the point of dealign with
> > weapons ranges?
>
> Effective range is the range where the weapon can both reasonably hit and
> do damage. Engagement range is where combat usually occurs. Usually, but
> not always Engagement range is less than effective range for the simple
> reason that the line of sight is blocked well before the effective range
> of most weapons are reached.
Ok. But only in relation to "modern" arms. This does nothing to disprove my post.
> For example if WWIII had ever started in Europe, it was generally figured
> that tank battles would occur at about 1000 meters, this despite the fact
> that the main cannons on all variants of the M1 are effective at 4 kilometers
> or more. The simple fact is that there are usually hills, hills and or towns
> in the way in Germany.
Ok. Germany is picturesque. I can deal with that.
> In Desert Storn M1's engaging T72's at ranges of two to three kilometers
> was not unheard of, and most of these resulted in one shot kills.
T-62's maybe? But not T-72's. That I don't believe.
> >
> > When you play do you deal with the weapons range of missed shots? Do
> > you track the flight path of each missile and check to see if it hits
> > something? Or do you do what everyone else does and simply mark it off
> > as insignificant?
> >
>
> What does that have to do with engagement ranges, you can and do miss at
> 50 meters, if you don't worry about it at short range, why at long?
I was showing the fallacy of keeping track of maximum ranges. Only the effective range is
useful.
> > > that few people would argue that most engagements are fought at ranges far less
> > > than the effective range of the weapons used (an exception is Desert Storm
> > > where the ground was often really flat and good for Tank battles).
> >
> > Yup. That's why it's called effective range and not engagement range or
> > attack range. It's the range where the attacker has the best
> > opportunity to deliver a damaging effective attack.
>
> Notice though you will never see an engagement range given for a real weapon,
> the reason; that is not dependent on the machine, but the conditions in which
> it is used.
Ok. I agree with that.
> >
> > > Now you say that targeting is done manually, which is true just as the gunner
> > > on an M1 tank lines up a shot with his turrent. The fact is that modern
> >
> > Sort of.
> >
> > > weapons often are devestatingly accurate and effective at ranges far greater
> >
> > Which weapons? Remember that in BT the armor used is highly effective
> > in disapating the force of a kinetic shot or the shock of a laser
> > strike. The kind of "1 shot 1 kill" that everyone talks about rarely
> > exists in the BT universe because of the effectiveness of that armor.
> > Besides even today, with the M1A2 and it's Chobham and depleted uranium
> > armor, tanks are almost completely protected against the guided missiles
> > that used to strike fear into the hearts of most tankers.
> >
> > So what if you're "devatstatingly accurate"? It's doing effective
> > damage that counts, not just hitting. I could use the laser diode from
> > a presentation pointer and "hit" you with it easily. Doesn't mean
> > you're going to clutch your chest and keel over now does it?
> >
>
> Ah, but see the point is that the weapons cannot only hit, but seriously
> damage or destroy their targets. As for which weapons try the 120 mm cannon
> system on the M1. And while it is true that the current M1A2 is all but
> secure from infantry lauched missles and has good protection against all
> other weapons, that is just today, who knows what the next innovation
> will be that will make the chobam as ineffective as steel is today.
ETC main guns, rail guns, etc, etc. But again the basic premise is that the armor of BT mechs
is highly capable of disapating damage. They (FASA) go into several paragraphs on it alone
(in their source books). So again the 120mm may be king of the hill here, doesn't mean
anything in BT game terms.
> > > than in BT. Further telescopic targeting systems can often compensate for the
> > > difficulties that are added from their use (particularly since the tanker or
> > > mechwarrior is not personally holding the weapon being fired.
> >
> > Well again so what? You have a telescopic, gyrostabilized thingamajig.
> > You're saying that these kind of attack tools aren't available in BT.
> > Why not? The history of warfare has been the history of attack and
> > defense technology in and out of sync. How do you know that there
> > aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of each
> > mech?
> >
> > Besides in every modern case, except the Vulcan cannon which I will get
> > to, the "weapon" involved fires a single round. So what? Each
> > ammo using weapon in BT fires multiple rounds. How does that affect the
> > firing? Have you ever seen the recoil of a 120mm round causes a 60 ton
> > tank to shift around? Now multiply that by 10 or 20. Remember the
> > premise behind BT allows the level of survivability that is impossible
> > today with or without "modern" arms.
>
> Sorry but you are wrong. Every single vehicle mounted weapon in the US
> military (other than backup weapons like a tank's machine guns) has
> sophisticated targeting computers to help the gunner hit his target, this
> includes the 25mm chain gun used on the M2 Bradleys (which iirc has a
> range of about a kilometer), the 20 mm gatling cannons that
> arm almost all of our nations fighters...
Hmmm. That is the Vulcan.
> >
> > As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line with what
> > BT says it is.
>
> Ok, I am not sure what the range is for the Vulcan, but it is used for
> anti aircraft work, so it would almost have to have a range of 1000 meters
> if it is even going to make the pretense of being effective.
Actually it has an effective range of .5 miles. A little less than a kilometer.
> >
> > > Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
> >
> > You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
>
> No, like the tow (Tube launched, Optically tracked, Wire guided missles),
Wire guided, but again the armor must be defeated in order to do any good.
> the Infantry Dragon (which has a good kill probability against most modern
*NOT* a chance. I used to carry these. They suck (along with the TOW). Wire guided missiles
generally bite due to: slow speeds (around 100 meters per second and you can't _move_ while
it's in flight), wire breakage (ever have one of those things come back at you?) and high
signature (makes a bitchin dust cloud if you're not really careful).
> tanks), the laser guided bombs and missles that were used in desert
You mean like an Arrow IV?
> storm... When it comes down to it Narc is kind of pathetic compared to
> what we have now.
We have a homing beacon that is missile based that will allow us to hit a target every time?
When did this happen?
> >
> > > As for targeting computers, BT ones are silly. As a whole they seem to have
> > > less power than a 386 computer but weigh several thousand times as much, and
> > > this after centuries of advancement. Besides why doesn't someone take them
> >
> > I think that you are predisposed to a particular point of view and I
> > doubt that you will listen to my opinions with an open ear, but here we
> > go.
> >
> I am predisposed to facts, and the fact of the matter is that in BT
> computers weigh what they did 30 years ago. In the 1990's (and the
> future) the computers that would be required for the most sophisticated of
> ground targets shouln't weigh more than twenty ponds sheilded. I know why
> BT did it (for game balance) but there is no way that that any one could
> claim that it was realistic.
Oh? Are you basing this on the IBM PC and it's clones? Guess again. The higher the
computing power, the greater the heat output. We can build CPU's that can slag themselves on
boot up. So as for tonnage, there's a lot of things that go into equipment, let's not second
guess on this one.
> > There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give me an
> > indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers. Considering
> > that they are able to maneuver a 100 ton piece of machinery, through the
> > air, over a hundred meters or so of terrain and then land I would hazard
> > to say thay you really didn't think about the above statement long
> > enough.
> >
> You obviously did not read my sig file, or you would realize that I know
> more about computers than you will ever know. I don't need to think about
> this because I know what they are like, spend 12 hours a day with them
> seven days a week. As for their targeting abilities, line of sight
> targeting at under a kilometer's range is almost child's play and can be
> done fairly effectively, hell vietnam era tanks and jets more than matched
> these abilities.
Really? I've been programming for nearly 20 years and my career has spanned Mainframes,
Minicomputers, microcomputers, LAN's, WAN's, MAN's, Internet, C, C++, JAVA, Cobol, Pascal,
Delphi, Visual Basic, Oracle, MS SQL server, Lotus Notes, CGI, Perl, SYS/36, AS/400, etc, etc,
etc, etc, etc ad nauseum. My resume is 3.5 pages long and in *small* type.
So who cares about your experience?
BTW I'm 32 years old. But who cares about that?
Don't make assumptions without a logical basis.
As for trajectories in Vietnam. There is a humorous story of two NVA tanks (that's right,
tanks) that was spotted crossing a rice paddy. The air force tried everything they could to
knock those tanks out. They tried using 500 lb bombs dropped from F-4's and doing a bombing
run on a (relatively since it was a rice paddy) fast moving evading target. After many misses
one of the tanks was disabled (thrown track) and the other got away.
Yep. It's rrreeeeaaaalll easy to calc trajectories.
> > > out of aerospace fighters? Those things have engagement ranges of tens of
> > > thousands of kilometers and at those ranges are as effective as mech weapons.
> > > That has to be done with computers, and pretty damed sophisticated ones at
> > > that. If adapted to slow moving mechs at ground ranges they would achieve a
> > > 99% hit capability?
> >
> > With no atmosphere, obstacles, high levels of gravity and simple
> > (relatively speaking) newtonian mechanics, who says they are that great?
> > Remember that the first moon shots were pretty much done with slide
> > rules and the space shuttle had (in the beginning I think) computers the
> > equivelant of the Commodore 64.
> >
> Yeah but the shuttle was not trying to hit a target that was trying to
> avoid it at a range of tens of thousands of kilometers, considerably
> different than anything NASA has tried to do.
But it easily could which is why anti-satellite weapons exist.
> > Believe me, computing trajectories in an atmosphere, with obstacles,
> > highly voltile movements and a high gravity field is more than difficult
> > enough. Which is why it has been only recently when a Main Battle Tank
> > could actually fire on the move. Something that mechs take for granted.
> >
> Uh, tanks have been able to fire on the move for thirty years or more,
> granted modern targeting systems make it easier to hit, but to fire on the
> move only requires gyro stabalization.
Really? The M-60 could in the 60's? Not.
> > > Finally the weapon ranges are silly, particularly for Auto cannons which have
> > > shorter ranges as they get larger, the exact opposite of what happens in the
> > > real world.
> >
> > Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
> > autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an Abrams!
> >
> No never seen one either but compare a 20mm auto cannon with a 30mm auto
> cannon and the 30mm will outdistance the 20 mm every time.
But can you hit with it at that distance? Can you do effective damage at that distance?
> > Remember that no hard statistics were ever made available for this game.
> > None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In BT the
> > premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in disapating
> > damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
> >
> I never had too much problem with that (well I did but that is for a
> different post), its the ranges that are not realistic.
See above.
> > The premise behind the "bigger the cannon, shorter the range" can be
> > attributed to simple math. If the weight of a single round is made
> > constant, then in order to make that round do more damage, something has
> > to be reduced in order that the "payload" is increased. Simply
> > increasing the size of the round only works so far, until you hit
> > engineering obstacles which is what is assumed in BT.
>
> Take some physics courses. The only thing that determines the damage that
> is done by a round is the kinetic energy that it imparts to its target.
What about HEAP? It's plasma jet _cuts_ the target's armor.
> You can get the same damage by hitting a tank with a five kilogram round
> at 1000 m/s as you would with a 10 pound round at 500 m/s. Further if you
Nope. Not true. A 5 kg round will have, nominally, a smaller cross section so it should have
a higher per square centimeter material stress at the impact point.
Even assuming the cross section was a constant between the two different rounds and that you
are correct in your assumption, which I don't agree, the effects would be different.
According to your halving logic then
20 lb = 250 m/s
40 lb = 125 m/s
80 lb = 62.5 m/s
160 lb = 31 m/s
320 lb = 16 m/s
640 lb = 8 m/s
1,280 lb = 4 m/s
2,560 lb = 2 m/s
So a late model sedan, with a nail sticking out the hood, hitting an M1 at a speed of 4 mph
(2 m/s) is the same as a 5 kg, with the same cross section as the nail, at 1000 m/s.
Nope.
> can concentrate that energy on a smaller target you are better off, this
> is why the M1 sabot round wich is actually much smaller than the barrel it
> is fired from, is far more effective than the heat rounds that it can fire
> at destroying tanks. If the autocannons fire explosive rounds, then it
> would be far better to use missles instead.
The sabot is used to gain higher velocity.
> >
> > With the weight of a cannon round constant, then in order to increase
> > the "payload" the propellant has to be reduced. Please remember that in
> > BT a single "round" fired in a game is supposed to consist of many
> > rounds fired in a stream.
>
> In any case, the thing here is, why reduce either. If it is recoil, that
> can be compensated for, if not on a mech then on a ground vehicle.
Really? My assumption was based on the engineering efforts being maxed out. My assumption
was that it was not possible to make a bigger/better round due to material engineering, stress
, recoil and/or effectiveness.
<sarcasm>
Heck. Why don't we just make the recoil less and then we can just put a 150mm hypervelocity
smoothbore on the M1. Should be better than the 120mm. It's 30mm larger for one thing.
</sarcasm>
> >
> > > In other words it is not only pointless, but impossible to prove that anything
> > > about BT mechs are realistic. If you like the game, fine, so do I.
> >
> > I thought I did a good job. Certainly I've answered everything in your
> > post.
> >
> Hardly.
What haven't I answered then? If you still have valid points and/or questions then write it
down. Just don't keep rehashing the same thing ok?
> > BT is the
> > > way it is to achieve a semblance of game balance (I won't talk about what new
> > > tech has done to the game). If you want realism try HG (which I prefer for
> > > that reason), Mekton Zeta limiting yourself to non-transformable road strikers,
> > > or write your own (well actually I saw Starship Troopers in a game shop the
> > > other day).
> >
> > Whatever floats yer boat. But if you prefer HG, then ok, just don't
> > tell me that you think BT is not realistic and then go on to say that a
> > game based on "battle armor" IS.
> >
> Heavy Gears are not Battle Armor, they are small mecha that fill the role
> that light tanks and armored fighting vehicles fill today.
Who cares?
> Besides we were discussing the realism of the respective treatment of
> weapons.
My point exactly. So you can flog yourself repeatedly. Thank you.
Emery Calame
In <32265A...@injersey.com> "Edward O. Royce" <ero...@injersey.com>
Yeah. So?
>> >> >When you play do you deal with the weapons range of missed
shots?
>> Do
>> >> >you track the flight path of each missile and check to see if it
>> hits
>> >> >something? Or do you do what everyone else does and simply mark
it
>> off
>> >> >as insignificant?
>> >>
>> >> Sure... both ways, either/or, depending on what we feel like
that
>> day.
>> >
>> >Ok. So a weapon's maximum range doesn't make a difference then.
>>
>> Not in most informal games when the players wish to screw around,
no,
>> they don't. Duh?
>
>I was making a point and making sure that the point was understood.
Duh.
The point you made was unlear, uneeded, and damn well stupid. Duh?
Surely you could see from his answer that there was nothing worth
fighting with or for there?
>> >> >Yup. That's why it's called effective range and not engagement
>> range or
>> >> >attack range. It's the range where the attacker has the best
>> >> >opportunity to deliver a damaging effective attack.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah... and at least _I_ think that range should be pushing the
>> Kilometer
>> >> range for a decent weapon/missile... not in the hundred-yard
range!
>> Sheesh!
>> >
>> >Why? You're not considering the original premise. In BT mech
armor
>> is effective in
>> >disapating damage and so multiple shots are necessary to inflict
>> enough material stress to
>>
>> Nope. In Btech the armor aloughs off to machine gun rounds, flamers,
>> and what have you. It's not based on penetration but on ablation.
It's
>> a pure attrition of armor with no real attention to variable levels
of
>> penetration.
>
>Nice try, but true machineguns are small arms and do little if any
damage. Flamers just increase
Yep. But they penetrate the arnor with is more than heavy machine guns
will do to modern tank armor. Really.
>the heat of a mech. Ablation also requires the exceeding of
engineering tolerances. So what
Flamers cause 2 damage. Always did, always will.
>you're saying is that those tolerances are extremely low? Doesn't
make a lot of sense.
Low to the point of not ablating when faced with dink weaponry?
Chuckle! Okay.
Your proportion itself was made up. Unless you have a nice stable frame
+armor point versus weight vesrus same in other mechs from limb to limb
chart it's made up.
>It's in proportion too. The time? How much time could it take if the
turn is 10 seconds and
>comprises movement, weapon attacks, kicking (one kick) and punching
(two possible punches). What
>would you say it was? I have yet to see any meaningful data out of
you.
It doesn't mater what I would say it is. It isn't given, therefore the
time was made up. You made it up. See? Just like the proportion.
Estimations based on your own prejudices used as evidence isn't kosher
amigo!
>> >So we have 12 metric tons of mass, moving 5 meters, in .5 seconds.
>> How much force is that?
>>
>> I'd say that you aren't answering the question.
>
>You mean the phrase below? The one that he made? vvvvvvvvvv
>"> >> Seems like it ain't too good at absorbing a mecha-fist, kick,
or
>> ram attack"
The question is why do we ablate flawlessly with sharper more
penetrating attacks than with physical combat? You didn't answer it.
You just said that punching and being rammed suck.
>> >As for the ram attack, even the physical attacks, you are off
topic.
>> I did *not* state that
>> >all the rules were realistic, try fusion reactors for one, but that
>> the weapons ranges *were*
>> >for the game paradigm.
>>
>> >*Ding* you are penalized 1 point for wandering off the subject.
>>
>> So you too have a bag of tired cliche's? Golly! How...uh..unique!
>> And creative!
>
>And you have no relevant data to contribute. You have not
demonstrated a single thread of logic
>nor have you even attempted to refute an argument.
Your data is just as irrelevant considering it tends to be made up and
therefore invalid data. This is the path I have taken to refute you
with is not actually logical but more rhetorical. You do know the
difference between syntax errors and sematic ones? You do appreciate
that both are errors leading to flasehood, inaccuracy and invalidity of
th aruguments that employ them?
>*Ding* you are penalized 1 point for being unfunny. You must watch
Monty Python reruns until you
>become funny.
Again, your "Ding" stuff is stupid. Kangaroo courts shouldn't be run by
actual Kangaroos.
>> >> >exists in the BT universe because of the effectiveness of that
>> armor.
>> >> >Besides even today, with the M1A2 and it's Chobham and depleted
>> uranium
>> >> >armor, tanks are almost completely protected against the guided
>> missiles
>> >> >that used to strike fear into the hearts of most tankers.
>> >>
>> >> Okay.. fine.
>> >> Then explain to me how BT armor takes damage from EVERYTHING
while
>> real-life
>> >
>> >What do you mean by everything? Falling (100 metric ton mech falls
10
>> meters, go boom), what,
>> >please specify.
>>
>> Machine guns Fer instance. :) Oh wait...don't tell me...unspecified
>> super machine guns....
>
>You mean .30 cal machine guns? They are small arms. Be specific. Or
at least be more amusing in
>your taunts. ***YAWN** :-O
Yes. Yawn indeed. Not a taunt so much as an objection to the silly
sidetrack about the term everything that you so witlessly pounced on.
Machine guns penetrate the wonder armor. See. Crappy small arms fire(or
at least small arms support fire) wich is not established to be .30,
fifty, or .32 caliber at all in any source. More irrelevant
psueda-factia eh? Well I may be stupid but I have company.
>> >> armor does not. Hell, in BTech you could pitch rocks at an atlas
and
>> eventually
>> >> break through the armor (GRIN). Better example is the MG, that
does
>> damage no
>> >> matter HOW tough the mech's armor is supposed to be. Why the
>> ablation at all?
>> >
>> >Well that MG is supposed to be a automated feed weapon ranging from
>> 12.5 mm to 20mm. I would
>> >think a .50 cal would do something? As for rocks? Where did you
read
>>
>> Not against a LOT of modern armor. But that's off topic. Ding! Ding!
Oh
>> scew it. I don't do it as well as you! :(
>
>Oh. A .50 cal is completely ineffective eh? <laugh> you bet.
<laugh>
Yep. Against modern armor. <laugh.> (Hint...That's why .50 caliber is
used primarily against softer targets...) :) Try firing a BAR at ye
'old M-60 sometime. Well, get permission first.
>Like any vehicle, mechs for one, a tank is comprised of many parts
that aren't as well armored as
>others. The front of a tank, the Glacis plate, is the heaviest but
many other parts are extremely
>vulernable. Like treads. Ask any tanker what it means to lose a
tread in battle and you'll see
>someone start to shudder.
Treads are pretty easily prone to not being defined as armor by those
in the know. Isn't it a sad sick little world we live in? I'm like you.
I'd pretty much like to live in a world where we armor everything with
tank treads so you can win with icky little lame ass stuff and be happy
myself. Really.
>Takes practice to be truly annoying Grasshopper.
Frankly you've been practicing. But you haven't practiced
argumentation.
>> that? From the
>> >Mechwarriors book for roleplaying?
>>
>> He's probably being sarcastic or exagerating or something.
>
>Oh.. Well I can deal with that. Ok.
Yeah yeah. Thank you for not going "ding" and launching on some
ineffective side track and pretending that this made you look smart.
>> >> >Well again so what? You have a telescopic, gyrostabilized
>> thingamajig.
>> >> > You're saying that these kind of attack tools aren't available
in
>> BT.
>> >> >Why not? The history of warfare has been the history of attack
and
>> >>
>> >> Well.. the crappy weapons ranges for one.
>> >
>> >No the weapons have good range, the ability to hit is what sucks.
If
>> you're going to support
>> >your argument then please do so.
>>
>> You have a six hex long level 2 height wall. You fire at it from one
>> hex beyond maximum range. What happens in the rules? Do you get an
>> automatic hit, ot don't you? Heh, Heh!
>
>Nope you don't. There are no automatic hits in this game. Like real
life, there's always a chance
>of failure.
And those automatic hits do what to your effective vs. actual maximum
range as refelcted by the rules argument? Hmmm? :)
>> >> >defense technology in and out of sync. How do you know that
there
>> >> >aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of
each
>> >> >mech?
>> >>
>> >> Because there are no RULES for it?
>> >
>> >Are rules necessary? How detailed do the rules have to be in order
to
>> have a playble and
>>
>> They are when you are arguing about rules. At least I thought they
>> were. I mean isn't the alleged subject of a post relevant to
discussion
>> of said post? No? Well, I tried....
>> (Call me a hypocrite NOW! Psst. It's your cue! Your on! Oh...come
on!)
>
>Nope not talking about rules. Talking about weapons ranges being
realistic. As for what this
>person was talking about, he was talking about radios. You should
read prior to posting.
Not when you are the poster I shouldn't. I could pretty much get away
with typing:
"Bullshit you Twonk!"
Em
And it would suffice. He wqsn't just talking about radios learn to read
in context.
>> >enjoyable game? Does HG, which I assume is your favorite game,
>> include rules for when the
>> >pilot, in battle armor, needs to scratch his nose and can't? Hmmm.
>> Roll less than 3 or
>> >you're distracted on table 3-14.
>>
>> I happen to know that table 3-14 is found in McNatally and Turner's
>> Freshman Concepts of Modern Chemistry and Not in HG. So there!
Anyway
>> he didn't say anything about being playable, just realistic. And he
was
>> talking about how it's baloney to go quoting bits of doo dah that
ain't
>> in the rules to explain away the weird bits of other rules...
>
>Hmm. And I was stating my opinion on what level of "reality" and
complexity was necessary for a
>game. You should read prior to posting.
Yes and it had no relevance whatsoever to anything involved in the
post. He wasn't talking about what level of realism was necessary for
playing a game enjoyably, nor did you mention of it contribute anything
to the argument. In short you were not responding to or adressing his
point but flinging a rahter tiresome cheap and(again) witless
observation of your own. But since Ad HOc declarations are now by your
precedent to be viewed as valid contributions allow me.
"Never eat anything bigger than your head!"
Are you sure you want me reading your piddle before I post? It give you
a much better chance...
>> >Many things are subsumed by the assumption that there are things
that
>> are either beyond our
>> >control, or that we don't need to control, and that exists in
*every*
>> game. Except for Gamma
>> >World. A friend made up additional rules to Gamma World that
covered
>> just about everything,
>> >including digestion.
>>
>> Yeah yeah, nice fake, but I ain't taking it.
>
>Really. It's true. He also came up with heat retention rules for
wearing plastic armor, based on
>body locations covered and the thickness/density of the plastic. He's
an engineer so I guess we
>can forgive him, but cross my heart, it's true.
Yes, and irrelevant. Y'know, like resistence? That's why people don't
carry ohm symbols around to oh...never mind. Tech jokes are beyond you.
>As for the digestion it was for potential infections in the torso if
you got hurt too soon after
>eating.
Roll D6 and take a Malox.
>I don't think we ever play a single game, but he had a lot of rules.
Obviously a painful experience from which you never fully recoverd.
>> >> By your argument, the crappy 1ton ram-vehicle has the SAME
>> defensive
>> >> electronics suite of the 100ton massive buttbuster top of the
line
>> mecha.
>> >
>> >What's the big deal with electronics suites? Most of the weapons
in
>> BT are "dumb". They have
>> >*no* electronics to spoof. They have no guidance systems to help
them
>> attack a target. It
>>
>> Well, at least we agree on that. According to the rules nearly
>> everything from 3025 is dead on line of sight dumb firing stuff.
Cool.
>
>Neat. I got one.
Yeah, but is it enough for you to hang yourself with?
>> >isn't until much later when Streak, Narc, Arrow and other weapons
>> appear that a self guided
>> >weapon even appears.
>>
>> Well, allegedly self guided. Again they appear to be weaker, shorter
>> ranged, and generally not anywhere near on pare with NATO or HG
stuff.
>> Arrow I'll call Guided. Narc is maybe a little like target
>> illumination. Arrow is just more likely to hit as far as the rules
are
>> concerned.
>
>Ok. I can agree with that.
>
>> >Do you really think that a better radio or a better jammer is going
to
>> help you avoid a 120mm
>> >"dumb" round?
>>
>> It might. Depends on who's firing it and how they are targeting. Not
>> all modern indirect fire is radar, self, or wire guided. Probably
not
>> though. So what? Connect it to your thesis eh?
>
>Why would I want to?
Oh. It's supposed to dangle? Okay then.
>> >As for no rules on electronics suites, if you want to play in that
>> time period, there are the
>> >Probes and ECM packages. So what is your argument?
>>
>> That Btech has silly short ranges mainly. At least I thought that
was
>> his argument. I agree with him, but I'd still call it a fun game.
What
>> exactly is YOUR point?
>
>My point is that he didn't have a point. So I guess you don't either.
Yeah well it wouldn't be the first off target guess you've given us. My
point is mainly that Btech is Unreralistic as far as ranges and weapons
damage are concerned.
Well. Whatever. The armor rules suck, and the rnages suck. Still a fun
game but very unrealistic whgich puts my thesis counter to your own.
>I can understand the reference to the ammo hit. It is fun to watch.
>
>> >> >As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line
with
>> what
>> >> >BT says it is.
>> >>
>> >> What does Battletech say it is?
>> >
>> >AC/2.
>>
>> Nope. Not even. Please.
>
>Then what is it?
An AC/2. Sometimes you have to restrict yourself to available
information in order to get an answer that isn't pure speculation.
>> >> >> Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
>> >> >You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
>> >>
>> >> No...
>> >> I mean painting a target with laser beams and having a variety
of
>> different
>> >> forms of guided rockets, shells, and yes, artillery home in on
it.
>> >
>> >Oh. You mean C3 computers. Why, I _do_ believe they exist in BT.
>> Hmmmm.
>>
>> Yep, but not the way you seem to think they do. They weigh a
LOT(with
>> cheese!) and they only work on othger mechs carrying the slave bits.
>
>So? They do work and they do exist.
Yep. But curiously they don't fit in with the dumb firing 120mm
theories of yesteryear do they lone ranger?
>> >> >There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give
me
>> an
>> >> >indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers.
>> Considering
>> >>
>> >> That's for sure.
>> >> They obviously use Squirrels!
>> >
>> >*Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant
>> statements that are unfunny. If
>>
>> Yah. That's a real crime. Ding.
>
>Hmmm. You need a humor tutor.
You need at least eight and possibly an increase of B12 in your diet.
I hear crow is high in B12. :)
>> >the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing,
the
>> point will be returned.
>> > Please make your answer in the form of a question.
>>
>> Y'know...that just ain't cute. You might want to work on it.....
>
>Everyone else thought it was funny. Maybe you just don't have a
sense of humor.
Well everybody is probably a little broad as far as terms go for your
statement there. Hmmm. This is a little too similar to the old, "You
didn't have an orgasm? Maybe you're frigid argument....." "All the
other girls liked it okay...." Sheesh....
Yeah I could use cut and paste and save myself some trouble... :)
>> >> >Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
>> >> >autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an
>> Abrams!
>> >>
>> >> The real question is: What USE would such a weapon be?
>> >
>> >To *get* through the damage disapating armor. *Get* it? (again)
>>
>> Naaah. Use a flamer. It gets through too. :)
>
>Hmmm. Fusion hot plasma? As hot as the photosphere of the sun? I'll
accept that and say thank
>you for making my point.
Vehicle flamers work too.(Flamers on ICE vehicles that is..) Hee Hee!
Sheez! s'Too dang easy!
>> >> > None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In
BT
>> the
>> >> >premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in
disapating
>> >> >damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
>> >>
>> >> Oh?
>> >> But then how come EVERYTHING does damage TO it? Shouldn't it be
>> able to
>> >> 'shrug off' insufficient amounts of damage, just like any REAL
LIFE
>> tank can?
>> >
>> >What tank? What is the level of damage? What is the relevance?
What
>> about reading my
>> >arguments and not making my case for me?
>>
>> Your arguments are every bit as juvenile and pedestrian as you seem
to
>> think his are. Ironic no?
>
>You seem to make a habit of not including a single bit of relevant
argument, logic or data.
Just as you seem to have a habit of making up data, ignoring logic, and
hee hee! Like you you've given a relevant argument there? Hee Hee!
>My god, you're a politician aren't you!?
Sure that must be it. I'm trying to get the RGM vote crucial to
capturing the south. You on the other hand, flawless scientist, and
impeccable logician, that you pretend to be cut from the same cloth as,
must be a troll. Probably an aquatic one. The kind that you can't
digest in Advanced Gamma World.
>> >Thank you, I will mark you down on my calendar for fruit cake this
>> Christmas. You sir, are a
>> >definite mark on the underclothing of history. :)
>>
>> Takes one to know one I guess.
>
>Nope you're a kid with a 'puter.
Takes one to know One I guess. :P
9mm wasn't modern to Europe at all. The interchangeability of ammo was
a direct result of it's being chosen as NATO standard, and bull shit.
The Magazine carries the ammo, not the pistol. 9mm magazines vary in
size even for the same pistol. It's just plain false.
>Other NATO countries were already using the 9mm for years before we
adpoted it.
Yep, but not as a NATO standard.
>The average 9mm pistol and smg magazine handles more rounds than a
45.
There is no avergae pistol or SMG magazine and never wqas. Just
commonly a0vailable ones.
>As for jamming. That is a function of magazine, throat and chamber.
Mostly barrel, chamber, and cycling mechanism actually, and ammo did
come into it at the time that 9mm was chosen as the standard pitol ammo
of the NATO nations.
I.E. the magazine and the
>weapon. The ammo has pretty much nothing to do with it as long as it
is recent manufacture
>production ammo kept in regulated conditions.
Yep. And recent manufacture has what to do with the adoption of NATO
standard rounds? Nothing? Because it wasn't that recent?
><laugh> <laugh>
>
>> With difficulty in
>> >hitting a target, the ability to put more rounds downrange is an
>> attractive bargin.
>>
>> Naaah. You'd carry a machine pistol if that was the case.
>
>What do you think the standard military weapons are? The assault
rifle is a high powered machine
>pistol. Mostly derived from the MP-44.
No. It's a true automatic rifle. Longer bullets, rifling
grooves,extended barrel in comparisom with a machine pistol, you know.
The basics. Different ammo. Doesn't fit in a holster or shoulder strap
as well. Pluleeze.
Besides the Machine pistol is not viewed as a side arm. It's a main
armament.
But thanks for laughing.
>> >> >increasing the size of the round only works so far, until you
hit
>> >> >engineering obstacles which is what is assumed in BT.
>> >>
>> >> They sure hit the obstacles pretty soon, eh?
>> >
>> >How about including actual information and not simple one liners?
Or
>> at least make them
>> >funny.
>>
>> Maybe he will if you will. Huh?
>
>Hmmm. You should work on that. You come across as petulant.
Naah. Me? Couldn't be.
>> >> >the "payload" the propellant has to be reduced. Please remember
>> that in
>> >> >BT a single "round" fired in a game is supposed to consist of
many
>> >> >rounds fired in a stream.
>> >>
>> >> Sure... Okay... Not like the RULES ever give you the opportunity
to
>> strafe,
>> >> saturate, burst, or 'walk' fire (Which you can do in HG). This
makes
>> Btech's
>> >> multi-bullet streams absolutely moot hand-waving.... while in HG
>> they actually
>> >> DO something with the idea!
>> >
>> >Hmmm. I keep on yelling but there ain't no one there. If you did
>>
>> Hmm. Maybe it's you rather crappy yelling skills. Or possibly you
>> haven't picked up on the bulletain board like nature of a newsgroup.
>> They can't exactly answer back in the same post y'know.
>
>Hmmm. You don't know how to transpose do you? I do know that they
cannot answer in the same post.
> Be funny, be useful, be interesting. Be someone else because
otherwise you don't have a hope.
Actually I'm beating the snot out of you. YOu aren't funny, intersting,
useful, or someone else either as I might point out. Just kind of
juvenile, and ineffective.
>> that then you would be
>> >hitting with a smaller percentage of rounds? Yes? In that case it
>> would be possible that you
>> >wouldn't do enough kinetic shock at a single point to cause
material
>> breakdown.
>>
>> And this is not some cheesy speculation because?
>
>I back it up with some logical cheesy speculation. instead of
continually responding in unfunny
>and unimaginative one liners.
There is not logical cheezy speculation. The two things, they cancel
each other out! And Ding is not funny or imaginative.
>> >If you want to play with the grownups, please read and then reply
to
>> what is written.
>>
>> Get off your horse kid! Jesus, you sound even more #$&@*ed up than
me!
>
>That, I assure you, is more than just difficult.
Nope. You ARE more #$&@ed than I am. You just can't assure someone that
the sky is not blue. Even when it's raining. Your charisma is that bad.
>> >> >tell me that you think BT is not realistic and then go on to say
>> that a
>> >> >game based on "battle armor" IS.
>> >> >Sounds silly.
>> >>
>> >> Battle-Armor sounds silly to you? I thought you LIKED
Battletech?
>> >
>> >Hmmmm.
>> >Battle armor = personal suit of armor ala Elemental.
>> >BattleMech = ground fighting vehicle pilioted by human.
>> >
>> >See the difference? The aim of this thread is to dicuss BT
weapons.
>> If you want to plug HG,
>> >then get your own thread. Otherwise don't waste my time.
>>
>> I think you've probably wasted more of your time than he could.
Please
>> get help.
>
>Certainly not from you. You've been absolutely no help whatsoever.
Yes well, I suppose not. That was abit too optimistic of me wasn't.
>> God you're an ass.
>
>"> Takes one to know one I guess."
No. Asses are pretty easy to spot.
And you ARE a ass.
And I was right. You aren't worth the trouble.
Byeeee.
Em
Darrin Lee Bright
In article <505s3b$a...@usafa2.usafa.af.mil>,
>Gauss Rifles would not cause that much recoil, since they use magnets to accelerate the projectile,
>not gunpowder like conventional autocannons.
Uh...no. It would cause just as much recoil. F=MA, you can't get
around that. Hell, even LASERS cause recoil. Not much, but they do
(ever heard of a light sail?)
--
"Uh...yeah, I uh... suck blood all the time..." - The Tick
--
* * * Darrin Bright - Duck Ezra - Muse of Tedium * * *
= = ============================================ = =
Simon H. Lee
In article <5068ot$p...@cymbal.aix.calpoly.edu>,
dbr...@cymbal.aix.calpoly.edu (Darrin Lee Bright) wrote:
>In article <505s3b$a...@usafa2.usafa.af.mil>,
>>Gauss Rifles would not cause that much recoil, since they use magnets to
accelerate the projectile,
>>not gunpowder like conventional autocannons.
>
>Uh...no. It would cause just as much recoil. F=MA, you can't get
>around that. Hell, even LASERS cause recoil. Not much, but they do
>(ever heard of a light sail?)
Off-topic diversion: For another flame war, someone watched how
much the blasters recoiled in Star Wars and determined how much energy a
laser would have to have to move something back that much... it came out to
a VERY large number (terajoules?)
--
__________________A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E !___________________
| __ |
| (__ * _ _ _ _ "You... dropped your rock." |
| __)|| | |(_)| \ |
|_________________________________________________________________________|
Bill McHale
: ... snip
: > you object to is that a good dice roll will make a crippling or killing
: > shot likely with most weapons, while most mech's in BT can be hit anywhere from
: > once to a dozen times without any direct effect on movement or weapons fire.
die result will damage a Gear. There is almost no way that a machine gun
will damage a MBT (the attacker would have to roll a result 14 higher than
his target, this almost never happens).
: Good armor eh?
:
: > Its simple, in Heavy Gear your tactics have to account for the fact that
: > your machines can be destroyed with a single shot, you must therefore make
: > the best possible use of cover and movement to avoid getting hit. In BT
: > on the other hand concentrating firepower on a single mech at a time is a far
: > better tactic.
: Great armor eh?
Kind of like the real world where a T-80 can be taken out by a single shot
from the 120mm main gun on an M1.
: > In other words, if you try to use the tactics of the other game, you are going
: > to think that die rolling is the prime determinant of the outcome of the game.
: > Both games are great, HG is more realistic.
: Nope. Unsupported opinion. Very much like "tastes great!" and "less filling!". Nice,
: but irrelevant.
:
While the header puts it in your thread, the simple fact is that to this post
you are irrevelent.
: > : The only reason Battletech weapons have such crappy ranges, is a
: > : Marketing strategy by FASA.
: >
: > Actually I think it was a design decision to make the game more playable.
: > I have no problems with that. The problem I do have is with people trying
: > to say the Battletech weapons are realistic.
: Nope. Diminishing technology base, difficulty in targeting and great armor to name a few.
: As for the last sentence, you can post an effective refutation any time you like. We'll
: be here.
You are mistaking the explination that they give for the effect with the
cause of the effect itself. I imagine that designers decided that it would
be really cool if they could have giant robots clash like Knights use to,
but the problem is how do you minimize the effect of technology which in
1000 years which should pretty much gaurntee a hit with every shot?
Answer have a declining technology base.
As for BT weapons being realistic you have yet to make your case.
Bill McHale
: Jonathan R Bezeau wrote:
: >
: > Why can a 200mm cannon barely chuck a slug 270 metres, even if the firer
: > and target are standing still there is that "end of range" thing that
: > crops up at 10 hexes.
: Ta da! Because if it hits, it doesn't do enough damage to register. Remember that
Wait a minute you have implied for a while that autocannons used explosive
round, whose damage has almost nothing to do with the force they hit with (as
long as it it enough to set off the charge). Therefore effective range should
be almost the same as the actual distance that it can travel, a lot like
artillery guns. Therefore you must assume that the autocannons really
cannot hit a target more than 270 meters away.
: damage disapating armor?
:
: See previous response.
: ed
: --
: Mechwarrior [CBS]Flashheart - ero...@injersey.com | Member of the NRA
: Clan Black Sheep (Registry) | Member of ACOG
: 3rd Cluster - Goldschlager Guards |
: 2nd Binary - The Four Lagers of the Apocolypse |
: 4th Star - 100% Blue Agave Rangers |
--
Michael Kelly
In article <32252D...@concentric.net>,
"Cryckyt ver3.0" <ma...@concentric.net> wrote:
>OK, I -know- I'm drifting off topic here, bit I -know- the answer to
>this one.
>
>Bill McHale wrote:
> Bits 'n bits deleted
>> : 9mm? It is smaller than a .45. Why do they use it? Because they can
>>
>>
>
>The real reason is that the 9mm round is the most common round in the
>world. This assures that no matter where you go, you'll always have
>ammo for your pistol. Unfortunately, this doesn't make it the most
>-effective- round.
Also, both the guns and the ammo are cheaper than .45's, but I'm sure no
government would let mere *money* affect how well they equip their men. (That
was sarcasm BTW)
Mike Kelly.
Cryckyt ver3.0
Bill McHale wrote:
God only knows what deleted
>
> Well to begin with 700m is more than most BT weapons be a factor of 2.
> Second, are you trying to tell me that the tankers of the world are just
> going to line up opposite of each other and blast. Whatever happened to
> manuever, to terrain that you have to move around, etc.
Geez, how many times does he have to tell you? BT mechs have that
"damage resistant armor" (I thought -all- armor was damage resistant?
Must be all that leftover +1 plate mail armor from the AD&D universe,
welded together). You have that stuff, and you don't -need- real world
tactics.
Cryckyt ver3.0
Edward O. Royce wrote:
Bits 'n bits deleted
>
> When did this happen?
How about a GPS (Global Positioning System) guided missile? I believe
those are in the works. Imagine a missile with a built in GPS so it
knows where its at (with accuracy to less than half a meter), and you
can program it to head to whatever specific location you want.
And they already have GPS rangefinders that allow you to accurately
detect the location of whatever you're aiming at (Infantry make
-wonderful- spotters), and you can feed that info to the missile.
Bill McHale
[A whole bunch snipped at random locations to save space.]
: Bill McHale wrote:
: >
: > Actually, I believe that 700 meters is the head on 1 shot kill range for a
: > T-80. Besides, there are plenty of targets that are not T-80's and there will
: > plenty of opportunities to hit the tanks from the side.
: I doubt that in any but utterly perfect situations, but assuming that you are correct, what is the
: relevance to this thread?
Well to begin with 700m is more than most BT weapons be a factor of 2.
Second, are you trying to tell me that the tankers of the world are just
going to line up opposite of each other and blast. Whatever happened to
manuever, to terrain that you have to move around, etc.
: >
: > : Why? You're not considering the original premise. In BT mech armor is effective in
: > : disapating damage and so multiple shots are necessary to inflict enough material stress to
: > : exceed the engineered tolerances. Unless it's a Gauss Rifle of course.
: >
: > Well gee now a Gauss rifle, considering how it is described in BT is a pretty
: > useless weapon on todays battlefield. It fires a nickle ferros slug that
: > weighs 125 kilograms. Iirc it is often descibes a ball, this is the single
: > worst shape for an anti armor round on the planet. Further if it was to have
: > an advantage over a regular round it would have to be accelerated to
: > several times the speed of sound. The recoil of this would almost certainly
: > knock anything over.
: Hmmm. It is ball shaped because the people who designed it were the people who came up with the
: Sgt. York (a truly pitiful and failed project). As for the rest. A railgun can indeed accelerate
Ok, so it is now the case that the designers didn't know enough about
ballistics to make a round the proper shape, know enough to make the rest of
the weapons realistic.
: a round to that speed. If you got the power and the density of the accelerating coil to do it,
: then you can. As for recoil, why should there be a lot of recoil? I watched a demo of one of the
: first railguns on tv once and they had this track loosely nailed to a table. The "projectile" went
: over 200 mph before hit it the cushion. Hell the Navy is interested in the railgun because of this
: and the rate of fire
The reason that the recoil would be so great is called basic physics. Remember
Newton? He came up with this physical law where for every action there must
be an equal and opposite reaction. It is called conservation of momentum.
If we assume that the Gauss Rifle accelerates a 125 kg slug (which can be
found by dividing 1000kg (a metric ton) by 8 (the rounds of Gauss ammunition
per ton)) to approximately 4 times the speed of sound, or about 1155.6 m/s
(a very rough estimate using 650 mph as mach1 and converting from there).
Now some basic physics (which I can see you never had). If we assume that
the round stays in the barrel for about 1/10 of a second the following
figures are generated. By using v=at, we see that the acceleration of
the round is 11556 m/s^2 which when pluged into f=ma gives a force
of 1,444,445 newtons. And a barrel of about 5.6 meters.
Oh BTW 1.4 million newtons is roughly equivalent to being rammed by an
Atlas moving at 52 kph, or almost full running speed of a 3025 version.
Now going back to the conversation of momentum. That is the force that
the Gauss rifle imparts to its round, but it is pushed (and by the fact that
it is connected to the mech, the mech itself) equally hard in the opposite
direction. Thus every time the mech fires the rifle it has to absorb a
force equivalent to being rammed by an Atlas. Now mind you the gun can
be designed to compensate somewhat, but there is no way in hell that a 30
ton mech should be able to handle this monster.
: Hmm. I guess then that a stream of 25mm rounds into the treads wouldn't do anything? As for the
: rest. Remember that the 30mm Avenger cannon is used in the A-10 to *kill* tanks. As for the 25mm
: it can do a very respectable job all by itself.
:
Yeah but that 30mm cannon is hugh by the standards of other cannon, if we
assume that the vulcan is an AC2 then the Avenger has to be considered
an AC5.
As for the Bradly's gun vs tanks. Would you like to provide some proof or
are you just making unsupported statements like you claim the rest of us are.
: > :
: > : > >Well again so what? You have a telescopic, gyrostabilized thingamajig.
: > : > > You're saying that these kind of attack tools aren't available in BT.
: > : > >Why not? The history of warfare has been the history of attack and
: > : >
: > : > Well.. the crappy weapons ranges for one.
: >
: > : No the weapons have good range, the ability to hit is what sucks. If you're going to support
: > : your argument then please do so.
: >
: > Yeah except a relatively simple TOW (which other than invisibility has no known
: > counter other than shooting the gunner) will achieve hits and kills at a
: > greater range than anything in BT.
: Hmmm. TOW is wire guided. Have you ever seen a TOW break it's wire? Truly amusing unless it is
: coming back at you.
Now who is not being relevant? I never said that the TOW was a perfect weapon,
Just a dangerous and accurate one.
: As for kills. That is one weapon, one shot, one hit. In BT that does not equate to a kill.
: Besides the TOW goes at 100 meters a second. It would take 10 seconds to go the 1,000 meters and
: then the entire time you *cannot* move! If you do, the missile's dead because you're going to
: break a wire. So much for that one.
That's why you don't stand in open ground when you fire it. Yes you are
vulnerable (iirc that is how both the Arabs and the Israelis dealt with
wire guided rockets.
:
: > :
: > : > >defense technology in and out of sync. How do you know that there
: > : > >aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of each
: > : > >mech?
: > : >
: > : > Because there are no RULES for it?
: >
: > : Are rules necessary? How detailed do the rules have to be in order to have a playble and
: > : enjoyable game? Does HG, which I assume is your favorite game, include rules for when the
: > : pilot, in battle armor, needs to scratch his nose and can't? Hmmm. Roll less than 3 or
: > : you're distracted on table 3-14.
: >
: > Now you are being silly. The point is that BT's premise is that the greatest
: > weapons of war ever created by man have effective engagement ranges that make
: > WWII tanks look good.
: IF the range to damage a target is short, then it is short. What was the range that a Sherman had
: to be to penetrate a King Tiger? Zero. It could *not* penetrate the armor of a King Tiger. What
: was the range of a PAK38 to kill a T-34? Zero it could *not* kill a T-34 which is why it was
: called the "doorknocker". There were reports of T-34's driving around with 10-20 hits from a PAK38
: . There were also reports of a KV-1 that got hit over 40 times and still wouldn't die.
Actually that tends to go aginst your premise. In other words there are many
weapons that are completely ineffective in damaging units (such as machine
guns used against tanks) but in BT all weapons damage all targets.
: So what's your point in all this?
The point is that when compared to today, the weapons in battletech are
ineffective and unrealistic.
:
: >
: > Yeah, but the point is that we have far better guidance systems available now.
: Really? When have you seen one our weapons hit a mech?
:
So you are suggesting that a 12 meter tall 100 ton slow moving vehicle is
going to be much harder to hit at range than a fast moving 2.8 meter (guessing
at the height, but that seems reasonable for most modern tanks)
tall tank?
: > : Do you really think that a better radio or a better jammer is going to help you avoid a 120mm
: > : "dumb" round?
: >
: > No, but realisticly it should make it harder for the gunner to draw a bead on
: > you.
: If it's a dumb weapon with no guidance systems, like a bullet, then how can it be affected? Why
: should a radio jammer affect a weapons performance?
Because most modern weapons at the very least have advanced targeting systems.
While the round itself might be dumb, it makes it a lot easier to hit when
you know you are pointing in the right direction. I propose that it is those
that you would want to jam (or mess up in some other way).
: >
: > Even the little that they add is pathetic, and not realistic, which is the
: > point of this thread.
: No. The point of this thread is that the *weapons* _ranges_ <<are>> realistic. It has almost
: nothing to do with radios.
:
: > : > Btech doesn't deal with this stuff, HG does.
: >
: > : Should I care? This is about BT.
: >
: > : *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for introducing irrelevant material.
: >
: > So what the point is that BT does not deal with reasonable factors that effect
: > the weapons of war.
: *Ding* the person is penalized one point for making yet another unsupported statement. If the
: person wishes to recover the point they must make a relevant statement with supporting logic.
Actually you have not proved that they have, you started this thread, the
burden of proof rests with you.
:
: > : > Which is more realistic then?
: >
: > : Ohh. Ok. Battle armor is really realistic then. I'm sure I saw some on ESPN last night.
: >
: > We are talking about SF here, and Gears are not Battle Armor, they are small
: > piloted mecha (the pilot sits in them). Further we are talking about weapons
: > used on the mechs, not the reasonableness of the mechs themselves (in which
: > BT is not even close).
: I have never played HG, I couldn't care less about HG and the topic is not HG. That was my point.
Then stop making comments about it that are uniformed and wrong.
: As for reasonableness. <severe cramps from laughing himself silly> This is the wrong newsgroup
: for that.
:
You are a moron. You start this whole thread saying that the weapons in BT
are realistic, and then complain that saying that something is reasonable has
no place in this group. Almost everything you say makes you look less and
less intelligent.
: > : >
:
I looked up Arrow IV's last night they have a range of 4 mapsheets, hardly
dozens of kilometers, but still, they are not what I am talking about.
They spread their damage over 7 hexes (the one they hit, and the 6
surrounding it). I am talking about a dedicated anti mech missles that
weighs about 5 to 6 tons, can be launced from a vehichle or mech and using
a shaped charge does all its damage to a single location. Similar to modern
anti ship missles (but much more advanced).
: > Finally according to the rules a single pull of the trigger on a an ac20
: > expends 200 kg of amunition. If that average round weighs 20 kg that is
: > only 10 shots in 10 seconds, far less than the lighter autocannons, so there is
: > the give you need to allow your vehichle to handle it, thus the weapon
: > ranges ought to be a hell of a lot more than they are.
: Well the AC/2's average "round" weight is 22 kg. Assuming 10 shots there then it's 2.2 kg per
: round. Although this statistic doesn't mean much since we don't know what the bore is or the rate
: of fire for any AC.
: Heck it could be 100 2kg shots in 2 seconds.
:
: > :
: > : > >As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line with what
: > : > >BT says it is.
: > : >
: > : > What does Battletech say it is?
: >
: > : AC/2.
: > :
: > : > >> Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
: > : > >You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
: > : >
: > : > No...
: > : > I mean painting a target with laser beams and having a variety of different
: > : > forms of guided rockets, shells, and yes, artillery home in on it.
: >
: > : Oh. You mean C3 computers. Why, I _do_ believe they exist in BT. Hmmmm.
: > :
: > Yeah but what about weapons that can be guided by the gunner, and what about
: > the fact that on the modern battlefield one of the units can be an infantry man
: > with the laser, and the people launching the attack can also be infantry.
: Dismount an LRM launcher and give'm Artemis fire control. It's not who shoots, it's what is shot.
Except iirc an Artemis fire control weighs one ton, kinda heavy for an
infantry man to carry.
:
: > : > >There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give me an
: > : > >indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers. Considering
: > : >
: > : > That's for sure.
: > : > They obviously use Squirrels!
: >
: > : *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant statements that are unfunny. If
: > : the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing, the point will be returned.
: > : Please make your answer in the form of a question.
: >
: > Gosh what an idiot.
: No. He just has an image of what should be and is unwilling to allow anything to cloud that image.
: Most people suffer from it, myself too on occasion, especially in relation to sports figures and
: political leaders. We just want our reality to really exist, when sometimes it doesn't.
The computers should be at least as effective as today's computers. They
operate the same for tanks as they do for mechs, therefore it should be
possible to draw comparistons with modern equivalents, by which standards,
they suck big time.
: > :
: > : > >that they are able to maneuver a 100 ton piece of machinery, through the
: > : > >air, over a hundred meters or so of terrain and then land I would hazard
: > : > >to say thay you really didn't think about the above statement long
: > : > >enough.
: > : >
: > : > Yeah, they can do all that and STILL not hit a target standing right in front
: > : > of them. Must be using Win95, eh? "Quick! Close that window! Double click,
: > : > DOUBLE click! DAMN! I crashed the system! Quick, reboot! Darn, the Locust got
: > : > away! Try again!"
: >
: > : *Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant statements that are unfunny. If
: > : the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing, the point will be returned.
: >
: > So tell me have you finished first grade yet.
: Yup. Never finished high school though. Guess it really doesn't matter anymore.
:
: > : Please make your answer in the form of a question.
: > :
: > : > >Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
: > : > >autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an Abrams!
: > : >
: > : > The real question is: What USE would such a weapon be?
: >
: > : To *get* through the damage disapating armor. *Get* it? (again)
: > :
: >
: > Yeah except... aw never mind. Try this go take a few physics classes, then
: > read some military history, and come back when you know how weapons in the
: > real world work.
: I do. I have played military simulations for 20 years. I have been in the military. I know about
: tactics, strategy and the way weapons *really* work and not the romantic drivel that is available
: everywhere.
:
Lets see, HS dropout in the military... Must have been on the General Staff.
So you are saying that a term (or heck lets be generous two terms) makes you
the final word on the weapons of the Universe, even when such weapons
violate the laws of physics?
: > : > > None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In BT the
: > : > >premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in disapating
: > : > >damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
: > : >
: >
: > Any mech that can be damaged by falling down cant have very effective armor.
: A 100 metric ton mech falling will cause the head of the mech to describe a 10+ meter arc as it
: hits the ground. Anyone care to calc the amount of energy in that?
:
: > : > Oh?
: > : > But then how come EVERYTHING does damage TO it? Shouldn't it be able to
: > : > 'shrug off' insufficient amounts of damage, just like any REAL LIFE tank can?
: >
: > : What tank? What is the level of damage? What is the relevance? What about reading my
: > : arguments and not making my case for me?
: >
: > ANY tank in the real world can shrug off attacks from machine guns and infantry
: > with out missles. And as you have pointed out the composite armor on the Wests
: > most advanced MBT make them all but invincible to most small missles. You
: > could run a truck into an M1 and the paint would be barely scratched.
: Mechs *do* shrug off attacks from small arms. The weapons that do damage in BT are *not* small
: arms.
Wait you called machine guns small arms above.
: Infantry do damage to mechs in the same way they do damage to tanks. Explosive packages as either
: satchel charges or anti-tank grenades.
Thats funny, I have played BT for years, and never once has that been an
option to arm infantry with. They can be armed with rifles, lasers, blasers
and srms, but never have they said anywhere anti-tank grenades. further
why would such grenades allow a laser armed platoon do more damage than one
armed with conventional armor?
: A mech can run into a truck and not scratch it's paint. It's in the rules.
Granted, I don't know how big the round is, but you are completely wrong about
the Gauss rifle's kick back, see my post from above.
:
: > :
: > : > >increasing the size of the round only works so far, until you hit
: > : > >engineering obstacles which is what is assumed in BT.
: > : >
: > : > They sure hit the obstacles pretty soon, eh?
: >
: > : How about including actual information and not simple one liners? Or at least make them
: > : funny.
: > :
: > : > >the "payload" the propellant has to be reduced. Please remember that in
: > : > >BT a single "round" fired in a game is supposed to consist of many
: > : > >rounds fired in a stream.
: > : >
: > : > Sure... Okay... Not like the RULES ever give you the opportunity to strafe,
: > : > saturate, burst, or 'walk' fire (Which you can do in HG). This makes Btech's
: > : > multi-bullet streams absolutely moot hand-waving.... while in HG they actually
: > : > DO something with the idea!
: >
: > : Hmmm. I keep on yelling but there ain't no one there. If you did that then you would be
: > : hitting with a smaller percentage of rounds? Yes? In that case it would be possible that you
: > : wouldn't do enough kinetic shock at a single point to cause material breakdown.
: >
: > If there are multiple rounds, I hate to disappoint you but even with
: > sophisticated targeting, you aint going to get them to all hit the same point
: > on a target. Hell you really should have to treat them like missle hits.
: You will if you shoot really really really really fast. Which would make it harder to target since
: you would have to be positively on the target and couldn't just "walk" it on.
:
Then why not just use the larger round with more explosive in it. This would
be far more effective anyway since the amount of explosive it could carry
would increase dramatically as the linear dimensions of the round did.
: > : If you want to play with the grownups, please read and then reply to what is written.
: >
: > And if you want to, please get a brain and learn about something before you
: > speak.
: I have. I did. I do. Try it, you'll like.
You have not proved so to me as of yet.
:
: > :
: > : > >tell me that you think BT is not realistic and then go on to say that a
: > : > >game based on "battle armor" IS.
: > : > >Sounds silly.
: > : >
: > : > Battle-Armor sounds silly to you? I thought you LIKED Battletech?
: >
: > : Hmmmm.
: > : Battle armor = personal suit of armor ala Elemental.
: > : BattleMech = ground fighting vehicle pilioted by human.
: >
: > Again a Gear is not worn, but ridden in and driven, it is not POWER ARMOR.
: Who cares. I don't and won't. It wasn't the purpose of this discussion and I wanted to end it.
:
Then why did you mention it. What was simply stated about HG is that the
weapons themselves are more realistic, not the premise behind the mechs.
: > : See the difference? The aim of this thread is to dicuss BT weapons. If you want to plug HG,
: > : then get your own thread. Otherwise don't waste my time.
: >
: > Why not, you don't seem to have a problem wasting ours, and being insulting to
: > boot, so we figured we would return the favor.
: If people don't take the time to answer the post with a minimum of intelligence, then why should I
: be forgiving of it? I try to answer all posts that are directed to me. If this person wants to
: play, then they should play correctly.
Yes you have certainly used a minimum of intelligence in this post. If you had
read anything in this group in the last week or so you would have realized that
any post about the supposed "realism" of BT was going to draw fire from the HG
advocates. You shall reap what you have sown.
As for your replies, besides showing a tenuous grasp on reality, they have
been condescending from the start, and have often been down right nasty.
: As for the returning of the favor, when did that happen? Was I asleep?
You were asleep that explains your posts.
Michael Kelly
>Everyone else thought it was funny. Maybe you just don't have a
>sense of humor.
That *ding* crap? People actually thought that was funny? Who said it was
funny?
Mike Kelly.
Michael Kelly
In article <322641...@injersey.com>,
"Edward O. Royce" <ero...@injersey.com> wrote:
>Batter up.
>
>Jonathan R Bezeau wrote:
>>
>> Edward O. Royce (ero...@injersey.com) wrote:
>> : Batter Up! :)
>>
>> : Bill McHale wrote:
<snip>
>> : Hmmm. The weapons ranges that extend beyond the engagement ranges are
>> : entirely moot. If I could shoot a laser to a range of 3 lightyears, but
>> : I can only hit you if you're 500 meters away (and keep the beam on
>> : target enough to do damage) then what is the point of dealign with
>> : weapons ranges?
>>
>> Because I can stop my mech ten klicks away from your base and nail its
>> co-ordinates with LRMs. Because if you have to stop (like you fell over
>They have a range of 10 klicks? Good try but stop making up ranges ok?
>It'll make people take you less seriously.
AGGGH!!! Here's a little tip, it'll make yours and everyone elses experiences
in RGM a lot more enjoyable. The tip is: try to understand/read other peoples
posts before adding stupid follow-ups.
The range of 10k was, as I understand, arbitrarily chosen to make a point. The
point, as I understand, was that actual weapons ranges often extend beyond the
engagement ranges they have for moving targets. This fact would allow the mech
in the above example to engage a non-moving target (i.e. your base at the
outermost limits of his weapons actual range).
>> or something) I can nail you at ten kilometres, if I can get your
>> co-ords. It's kind of nice to pay attention to that kind of thing for
>> tactical reasons. There are very few trees that dodge madly about, and I
>> still can't hit ANY if they're 120m away with my .80cal machinegun.
>What has a range of 10 klicks? There are many missiles in use today that
>don't have a range beyond 1 klick so where *did* you get that information.
>Are you making things up again?
He is using an arbitrary number (r) greater than (e) the engagement range of a
weapon (w) to make a point (p). Okay?
You are latching onto the minor details in his post and avoiding the points
being made, why? Can't you think of any relevant arguments against them?
>> : When you play do you deal with the weapons range of missed shots? Do
>> : you track the flight path of each missile and check to see if it hits
>> : something? Or do you do what everyone else does and simply mark it off
>> : as insignificant?
>
>> Do you differentiate between the effective and maximum range of a weapon,
>> and use the max range if targeting something that's not covered by ECM
>> and weaving madly? Ten seconds is a long time if you're lining up a
>> crosshair over a speck on your HUD, especially if it's an immobile speck.
>Oh. Well that explains everything. I deal with ranges where the weapon will
>actually do something and everyone else is dealing with how far something can
>fly. So in light gravity I should be able to send a Gauss Rifle projectile
>around the planet to hit someone behind me eh?
Well, seeing as how, in Btech, the distance from the target and the damage the
weapon does are unrelated (ie same damage at short, medium and long range)
then if you could fire it that far the Gauss shell would still do it's 15 pts
of damage. Cool.
Besides, engagement ranges aren't just about being close enough that your
shots will do damage, when the rangeit's also about range to pene
>Well. An immobilized target does give you a -4 to hit and you get to target
>the limb. As for 10 seconds being enough time, I beg to differ, in many
>cases 10 seconds is not enough time to do anything. It depends on the
>complexity of the task. Have you changed a tire in 10 seconds?
No, I haven't changed a tire in 10 secs, but it can be done. Besides what he
said was that it was along time when aiming, it is, especially when aiming at
a stationary target.
Hmmm, again you jump on a minor detail in order to avoid the point being made,
this is getting sad. Calibre aside, are you saying that a MG can't do
effective damage to trees at 120m? Wow, they must have inproved their armour a
hell of a lot since I last saw one!
>> I can believe the ranges of lasers in BT, you want to focus all the
>> energy up close so it doesn't get wasted by atmosphere. The lower the
>> laser power, the closer you want to focus.
>Nope. Keep in mind that when a laser goes through the atmosphere it is
>ionizing the air. A super duper ultra maximum without peer mondo bongo laser
>may have a range of 1 meter because it has created a ball of plasma right in
>front of the lens.
>Same thing with a laser that hits. The vaporized materials will cause a
>cloud to obscure the strike point that will degrade the laser.
>> : > than in BT. Further telescopic targeting systems can often compensate
>> : > for the difficulties that are added from their use (particularly since
>> : > the tanker or mechwarrior is not personally holding the weapon being
>> : > fired.
>>
>> : Well again so what? You have a telescopic, gyrostabilized thingamajig.
>> : You're saying that these kind of attack tools aren't available in BT.
>> : Why not? The history of warfare has been the history of attack and
>> : defense technology in and out of sync. How do you know that there
>> : aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of each
>> : mech?
>>
>> You mean shit that can make a 10x3.5x2.5 metre mech invisible to the
>> human eye? Wow. They don't even mention that in the fluff text. All you
>Have you been smoking something? Where on earth did I say that? Where on
>earth did you get that. Where on ..... well, not on earth necessarily but
>whatever planet is your favorite, did you figure that?
>> : How do you know that there
>> : aren't counter measures that are a part of the sensor suite of each
>> : mech?
I would say it came from here, the use of the term counter measures indicates
to me, to him and to most people I know, equipment that helps to reduce the
effectiveness of enemy weapons through ECM, chaff, flares and so on. If you
had left his whole paragraph intact his meaning would be swiftly aparant.
>> need to get high accuracy on a LOS weapon like a Gauss Rifle is a nice
>> scope and a still mech. If you have gyrostabilization, you can skip the
>> still mech, on your part. Since there are no sensor-spotting rules for
>> BT, we can assume that either all soptting is by sensor so they ignore
>> it, ore all spotting is by eyeball, which I think since mechs have
>> windows and vision-slits.
Now do you understand? If all that was needed to ensure a hit was a scope and
a steady firing platform then you would have to make the mech invisible to
"counter" it.
>Hmmm. A nice Leupold 10x and a Gauss Rifle, my recipe for vension.
>How do you know that the Gauss is so accurate? It fires a ball of steel for
>a projectile. Hell the thing probably curves and spins worse than a
>paintball or a musket round.
That's irrelevant, the Gauss Rifle was, I suspect, another arbitrary example,
this time of a LOS weapon. he is not saying it is so accurate, he's saying
*if* it was. He could have said "All you need to get high accuracy on a LOS
weapon like the ACME Cream Pie gun is a nice scope and a still mech." the
point he made would be the same.
>Also why do you think that gyrostabilization is a magic cookie? There are
>levels in everything and if the motion is severe enough, like when a 100 ton
>mech takes a few step, that gyrostabilization may be insufficient.
Again, largely irrelevant, if the weapons had gyrostabilization then the mech
could move and fire effectively, that's all, but this is not the point.
>As for a still mech, you are assuming that *no* movement is required on the
>part of the attacker to fire, not even limbs. A bad premise.
*Yawn* I think he meant that if the firing mech wasn't walking then it'd be
more accurate.
>As for spotting rules, well, read the rules again please, they're there.
Bravo! Yet again you latch onto the little details completely missing the
point. Did you get training for this or is it a natural skill?
>> : Besides in every modern case, except the Vulcan cannon which I will get
>> : to, the "weapon" involved fires a single round. So what? Each
>> : ammo using weapon in BT fires multiple rounds. How does that affect the
>> : firing? Have you ever seen the recoil of a 120mm round causes a 60 ton
>> : tank to shift around? Now multiply that by 10 or 20. Remember the
>> : premise behind BT allows the level of survivability that is impossible
>> : today with or without "modern" arms.
>>
>> : As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line with what
>> : BT says it is.
>>
>> Against what? Fighters flying at X hundred KPH... yes, I play fighter
>> videogames (Air Combat is a favorite) and even on those it's
>> nigh-impossible to hit a fast, weaving and dodging target. But if a
>> bomber just flies in a straight line, it's easily wastable at MUCH longer
>> ranges.
>With what cannon are you talking about? What range are you talking about?
>What is relevant data concerning this so I can actually refute data and not
>just an unsupported opinion?
With the Vulcan cannon. I belive he's talking about the "nominal" range
against fast, maneuverable targets.
While you're asking for relevant data here, you said the Vulcan cannons
"nominal range is right in line with what BT says it is." Can we have the
relelvant data so that we can refute it rather than just an unsupported
opinion?
>> : > Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
>>
>> : You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
>>
>> Which don't incresae the effective range of the weapon in the slightest,
>> though they should. The missile keeps re-orienting itself to the target
>Why should the range increase? Why can't the Narc beacon have a limited
>signal range?
No reason, except that when a missile is self-guided the range to which it can
be effectively fired is increased, a target, especially a fast moving one, is
hit easier at shorter ranges, as over a greater distance it can "evade"
incoming missile fire but a self-guided missile can make minor course changes
to counter this, thereby increasing it's effective range.
And if the NARC beacon has such a short range why bother with it?
>> as it closes, the target gets "bigger and bigger" from the missile's
>> point of view, and BOOM! you should be able to hit from the maximum range
>> of a missile in 3150. Which is 660 metres. Ooh, I wish our boys could get
>> range like that.
>3150? Ohh I see. Wrong century. I was wondering what the problem was.
>Other than that I still don't see the relevance of your statement to my
>premise.
Perhaps if you'd stop looking so hard for minor flaws and details you might.
There's a saying where I come from about USENET, "Those who have to resort to
criticising spelling or grammer mistakes have already lost the argument."
Oh and before you reply saying "Spelling and Grammer? I wasn't talking about
either I was just saying that he got the year wrong." I presume that he has
"misspelt" 3050.
>> : There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give me an
>> : indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers. Considering
>> : that they are able to maneuver a 100 ton piece of machinery, through the
>> : air, over a hundred meters or so of terrain and then land I would hazard
>> : to say thay you really didn't think about the above statement long
>> : enough.
>>
>> I might agree with that. The mass of the Targeting Computer could easily
>> be the stabilization and servos required to move the outlandishly massive
>> guns.
>Well hey! I got one. <making imaginary chalk line> cool.
Yeah, whatever. <looking at legions of chalk lines against you>
<space stuff snipped>
>> : Believe me, computing trajectories in an atmosphere, with obstacles,
>> : highly voltile movements and a high gravity field is more than difficult
>> : enough. Which is why it has been only recently when a Main Battle Tank
>> : could actually fire on the move. Something that mechs take for granted.
>>
>> These tanks firing on the move can fire on the move at 2 kilometers from
>> target and hit it. That's not bad. Mechs can't manage 450m, against
>2 kilometers? I think you're exagerating quite a bit.
No he's not. Of course, if the target is also on the move it is a little
harder, but still possible. Against stationary targets (like hull down
vehicles, buildings and so on) it's no problem though.
>> similar (only bigger) targets, which is. And yes, our tanks are using
>> basically optical systems, rather than anything that you can screw with
>> (like emissions/heat/whatever)
>You mean like image enhancing sensors, passive light amplifcation and heat
>detectors? Like on the M1 Abrams?
Yes, basically optical like those you mentioned.
>> : Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
>> : autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an Abrams!
>>
>> As much fun as you might make of him, it is actually true that bigger
>> guns typically fire farther. Bigger tank guns fire farther, bigger rifles
>> fire farther, bigger SMGs fire farther.
>That's the point. There is no indication that an AC/20 has a larger bore or
>larger round than an AC/2. The rating is the damage inflicted at the ranges
>specified. So the arguments over relative ammunition sizes is pointless.
>Which is what I was trying to imply.
There's no indication that they have a larger bore apart from the pictures in
the TR's no. Mind you, given that everything else we have is based on those
same rules and diagrams, perhaps that's enough.
>> Now, I suppose that the recoil on a 200mm cannon is hellishly noticable
>> (probably worse given that all the designs they're on place the cannon on
>> the shoulder or the arm, the two locations on the body with the MOST
>> leverage), but it should get some kind of maximum range that is actually
>> reflective of what's being fired... Tell me that an "errant" burst of
>> 200mm high-explosive shells is insignificant in city combat, or combat
>> within a kilometer of a city.
>See previous comment and remember that most people don't bother with missed
>shots. We should but they tend to detract from the game speed. Besides the
>damage listed on the stats is the damage inflict at range on a mech. There
>is no data to support that the errant 200mm (if there are any) would do
>anything because we *don't* know what is the standard round. If it is like
>the tanks of today then it's a big tungsten penetrator.
>A 200mm tungsten penetrator will do a lot to a mech or a tank, but not a
>whole lot against a building. It would put a new entrance in it though.
>> : Remember that no hard statistics were ever made available for this game.
>> : None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In BT the
>> : premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in disapating
>> : damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
>>
>> Unless you're using gauss or lasers or SRMs or just about anything except
>> pulse lasers and ACs. Wait... that IS everything but pulse lasers and ACs.
>So what's your point? These weapons do enough damage that multiple hit's
>aren't necessary? Why thank you for joining me in this thread. Welcome
>aboard.
His point was that you are wrong. You stated that multiple hits are neccessary
to breach the armour, they are not. It is possible in btech to completely
cripple a mech with a single pistol round. (Get a CT crit, roll 12 on the crit
table then take out the gyro).
I lost track of the number of times you simply ignored Jonathans points to
attack minor details.
Mike Kelly.
Janne Kemppi
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who has biggest guns of all?
Weapon Name of Weapon BT Muzzle Burst
Unit in Question Class Diam. Size
=====================================================
Demolisher ChemJet Gun AC/20 185mm ?
Monitor ChemJet Gun AC/20 185mm ?
MechBuster Zeus 75 Mark IX AC/20 ? 4 (DU round)
Hetzer AC/20 150mm 10
Scorpion MG 20mm
Warrior SarLon AC/2 30mm 10
(source: 3026 Technical Readout)
YellowJacket carries a Gauss Rifle with Mach 2.2 muzzle velocity.
(source: 3058 Technical Readout)
Clint
ag...@kd3bj.ampr.org (Andrew Gryn) wrote:
>OK..here's something to consider, too. Have you ever seen a dogfight
>between two F-117 Nighthawks? Since both planes use stealth tech, and
>any use of high-powered radar would give them away, you can BET such a
>fight would be a close, furious affair, with weapons operating at far
>shorter range than they are normally capacble of.
>To say that such a fight won't happen is just wishful thinking. The F-22
>is paetially stealthed, and it's only a matter of time until two military
>forces with this tech bump heads.
>
>This has always been my impression of Battletech weapons. These weapons
>almost certainly can go far past their stated Btech ranges, but outside
>the stated Max. range, they have almost no chance of aquiring a target.
>There is just too much ECM on the 31st century battlefield.
> Andy Gryn
> High Executioner of Munch
I was just curious, would the two F-117's try lasing each other to
drop their laser-guided BOMBS at each other? Plus, it would have to
be a close fight, the plane is not equipped with any radar.
Clint
My USNF/MF Homepage:
http://www.corpcomm.net/~texas29/usnf.html
Janne Kemppi
Janne Kemppi (jke...@raita.oulu.fi) wrote:
: Mirror, mirror on the wall, who has biggest guns of all?
I forgot to add AC/5 class autocannon in Marauder which shoots
120mm rounds at bursts of 100 rounds each (source: Mercenay's Star)
Dr. Teeth
In Article <3224CF...@injersey.com>
"Edward O. Royce" <ero...@injersey.com> writes:
>> Current day battle tanks have the CAPABILITY of engaging and destroying
>> the enemy at ranges in excess of a kilometer. Btech can't do that... Heavy
>> Gear can. So, whose weapons are more realistic?
>
>Where did you hear this drivel? When the M1A2 engages another tank, a T-80 as an example, it
>has to be within 700 meters or the kinetic penetrator has a high probability of not
>penetrating. If the shot is a head on one, the shot would have to go through the glacis
>plate, then the range is even less.
That's only on the T80. Against other tanks, like the
highly-popular-in-the-export-market T72, The M1 can engage the targets *much*
further out - like in the 2km range. 1km in this case is easy as pie.
*Ding* 1 point penalty for narrow focus of examples, with an assist for not
doing homework (replying to an adult conversation, I believe?)
>> Yeah... and at least _I_ think that range should be pushing the Kilometer
>> range for a decent weapon/missile... not in the hundred-yard range! Sheesh!
>
>Why? You're not considering the original premise. In BT mech armor is effective in
>disapating damage and so multiple shots are necessary to inflict enough material stress to
>exceed the engineered tolerances. Unless it's a Gauss Rifle of course.
and...
>> >exists in the BT universe because of the effectiveness of that armor.
>> >Besides even today, with the M1A2 and it's Chobham and depleted uranium
>> >armor, tanks are almost completely protected against the guided missiles
>> >that used to strike fear into the hearts of most tankers.
>>
>> Okay.. fine.
>> Then explain to me how BT armor takes damage from EVERYTHING while real-life
>
>What do you mean by everything? Falling (100 metric ton mech falls 10 meters, go boom), what,
>please specify.
>
>> armor does not. Hell, in BTech you could pitch rocks at an atlas and eventually
>> break through the armor (GRIN). Better example is the MG, that does damage no
>> matter HOW tough the mech's armor is supposed to be. Why the ablation at all?
>
>Well that MG is supposed to be a automated feed weapon ranging from 12.5 mm to
> 20mm. I would
>think a .50 cal would do something? As for rocks? Where did you read that? From the
>Mechwarriors book for roleplaying?
The MG damage here is the crux of probe's argument and the weak link in
the armor argument. In BT, armor is so effective at dissapating damage that
it takes multiple shots to defeat the engineering tolerances. That the
premise, correct. So, we have armor that is *so* effective at dissapating
damage that is is totally ablative. The MG, a lowly 12.7mm at worst, 20mm at
best, can slowly but surely defeat this engineering marvel. So this material,
which can withstand several vollies from large weapons such as an AC/10 (Tank
gun? - you decide!), is privy to damage from a mere 20mm projectile. And the
20mm weapon firing it can shoot a *maximum* of what, 90m? 90m. Let me say
that again. 90m. I can understand to a degree this limitation when firing at
armor (Kenitic energy dissapating quickly over a short range), but this
limitation applies to firing at infantry too. See the problem?
To use a real world example, I'll use the M1. It's armor is very
effective, capable of stopping most rounds to it's front. A 120mm tank
(Soviet/Russian) has very little chance of penetrating this armor, and usually
needs a falling shot at that. Such a round, when not penetrating, doesn't
weaken the armor to any measurable degree. Subsequent rounds are going to
have the same slight chance to do damage. They *would* leave a pit int he
armor, or rather a hole that they are lodged in. Even if they did weaken the
armor, a 20mm round hiting an M1 ain't gonna do dick but scrape the paint. It
will not weaken the armor *one iota*.
So, we have modern grade armor and armor composites that are not ablative,
and we have the 'engineering marvel' that is BT armor, that can stop multiple
projectiles, but will *always* be penetrated eventually, even with 20mm
weapons. What kind of crap is that? To conclude the point here in no
uncertain terms, the original premise of BT armor being so good is demonstrably
ridiculous and consequently false. It was proven false by Probe by way of the
BT MG. That's what he meant by taking damage from EVERYTHING.
>> Oh?
>> What about the avenger? (HG terms: VHAC)
>> The Bradley's gun? (HG Terms: LAC or LRF)
>> Vulcan Cannon (HG Terms: LAC)
>> Bofors 30mm guns (HG Terms: MAC or HAC)
>> M-61 (HG: LMG)
>>
>> Etc etc...
>
>These aren't related to the Vulcan? Hmmm. Wait a second while I ponder the existence of
>related similar weapons with nothing in common. Try the AC/2, try a beer, try a valium, try
>thinking about your statements please.
>
>*Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for bringing up irrelevant statistics
>from another game and not reality.
Read again - Third line. Vulcan - HG's LAC. The others are present to
make an obvious point that HG has very easy-to-follow RL analogues that allow
you to simulate RL weapons, vehicles, etc. Being able so simulate reality to
a higher degree is a rather academic reason proving a system's realism.
*Ding* 1 point penalty for failing to read the text in front of your face.
*Ding* *Ding* 2 point penalty for failing to make an obvious connection
between statistics the reality the represent, because you didn't read them.
Does BT have *accessible* RL analogues. Hardly.
>> Why would anyone USE a multi-firing 120mm gun with recoil like that, with
>> range and damage so much LESS than a 'modern day' 120mm single-firing cannon?
>> That's the "Battletech Paradox".
>
>To *get* through the damage disapating armor. *Get* it?
Um no. Please explain please. It's better to have a weapon that has less
range and worse penetration to get through *tougher* armor? What is this,
Reagonmic weapon design?
*Ding* 1 point penalty for lack of grasp of reality.
>> >As for the Vulcan cannon, it's nominal range is right in line with what
>> >BT says it is.
>>
>> What does Battletech say it is?
>
>AC/2.
So a kinetic kill weapon that fires a very large amount of ammo has
changed into a comparatively low rate of fire weapon that primarily uses a
chemical energy damage projectile? cf Realism. As in not.
>> No...
>> I mean painting a target with laser beams and having a variety of different
>> forms of guided rockets, shells, and yes, artillery home in on it.
>
>Oh. You mean C3 computers. Why, I _do_ believe they exist in BT. Hmmmm.
*Ding* 1 point penalty for comparing apples and oranges. C3 is a
information sharing device that shares targeting information, allowing all
types of weapons to hit more easily. Laser targeting makes it much easier for
*guided* weapons to hit. By your own definition, most BT weapons are
unguided, so there is not possible whay for them to use laser targeting. So,
C3 is *not* Laser Targeting.
C3 is a holy grail that allows weapons that have crappy ranges shoot at
lower ranges. The lower ranges simulate the lack of ability to penetrate the
armor, correct (that engineering marvel again), but looking at someone else's
targting scope, and *manually* targeting from that info, allows a weapon to
magically gain kinetic energy and be able to penetrate the armor. An MG
slaved to a C3 fires at range 3, but is linked to another c# node at range
one. Now this weapon, which has trouble penetrating past 90m, can now
violate, grossly I might add, the laws of physics and penetrate as if it was
at 30m range. Damn, that *is* good. And oh *so* realistic!
>> >There is nothing that I have ever seen that could possibly give me an
>> >indication of the computing ability of a mech's computers. Considering
>>
>> That's for sure.
>> They obviously use Squirrels!
>
>*Ding* the person is penalized 1 point for making irrelevant statements that are unfunny. If
>the person can make a relevant statement that is at least amusing, the point will be returned.
> Please make your answer in the form of a question.
*Ding* 1 point for a pot calling the kettle black technical foul.
>> >Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
>> >autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an Abrams!
>>
>> The real question is: What USE would such a weapon be?
>
>To *get* through the damage disapating armor. *Get* it? (again)
Um, no. (again). cf using weapons that are *worse* than modern day
weapon to penetrate *thougher* (presumably) armor *more easily*. A 120mm
autocannon would be a hellacious engineering problem, and is more
appropriately called a rapid-fire tank gun rather than and Autocannon.
Semantics. However, even so, it would be better to have a gun that could
penetrate the armor *in a single* shot than a multiple fire gun - less ammo to
carry, and once to you get to 100mm+ rounds, ammo storage is a big issue. But
then, we're talking about penetrating armor that's vulnerable to 20mm
projectiles - so weaker-but-more-of-em projectiles are better in a sense.
Stupid weapons for stupid armor.
>> > None are really needed. It comes back to effective damage. In BT the
>> >premise is that because armor is extremely efficient in disapating
>> >damage (remember this) multiple hits are necessary to breach it.
>>
>> Oh?
>> But then how come EVERYTHING does damage TO it? Shouldn't it be able to
>> 'shrug off' insufficient amounts of damage, just like any REAL LIFE tank can?
>
>What tank? What is the level of damage? What is the relevance? What about reading my
>arguments and not making my case for me?
>
>Thank you, I will mark you down on my calendar for fruit cake this Christmas. You sir, are a
>definite mark on the underclothing of history. :)
See above arguments. The mere fact that the 'engineering marvel' that is
BT armor is so vulnerable makes it neither engineered nor a marvel. THis
fosters unrealistic weapons that can penetrate unrealistic armor, and *that8
is relevant to this argument.
*Ding* 1 point penalty for failing to make obvious connections. Again.
>> Sure... Okay... Not like the RULES ever give you the opportunity to strafe,
>> saturate, burst, or 'walk' fire (Which you can do in HG). This makes Btech's
>> multi-bullet streams absolutely moot hand-waving.... while in HG they actually
>> DO something with the idea!
>
>Hmmm. I keep on yelling but there ain't no one there. If you did that then
> you would be hitting with a smaller percentage of rounds? Yes? In that
>case it would be possible that you wouldn't do enough kinetic shock at a
>single point to cause material breakdown.
>
>If you want to play with the grownups, please read and then reply to what is
>written.
To the first question, no. Saturation fire and burst fire both make it
more likely to penetrate armor because there are *more* projectiles hitting
the targeting, increasing the chance of one of them doing *something* bad.
The damage resulting is due to one or two rounds in many (a lower percentage
hitting out of rounds fired, granted) is what does the damage - not an
ablative process. Walking fire allows high rate of fire weapons fire those
weapons in a hose of fire fashion to fire at multiple targets. One can't to
that in BT, but one can certainly to that in RL. qv Puff the Magic Dragon.
The point here is that in HG, as in real life, a high ROF doesn't ablate
armor at wittleing it away to nothing. a high ROF allows you to 1) increase
the odds of multiple rounds hitting and thus increase the odds that *one* on
them (or more, really) will hit a spot that will do damage. And 2), a high
ROF will allow one to engage multiple targets by raining down lead in a spread
pattern. Both are realistic, and neither is present in BT. A coinkydink? I
think not. cf Realism.
To sum up: BT weapons are not realistic. They fail to mimic reality as we
know it, and fail miserably. Armor in BT is unrealistic at worst, and
extremely unpractical at best.
Dr. Teeth
In Article <Dwwo...@lboro.ac.uk>
D.T.M.G...@lboro.ac.uk (DTM Gladding) writes:
>I'm going to regret this, I know I am.
>
>Battletech armor is *designed* to ablate. Too long since in read the
>background fluff, but basically I belive the intent was that it absorbs
>energy weapon fire - the energy goes into vapourising a largish chunk of
>armor rather than cutting through a tiny hole and slicing things up inside.
>
>Why this occurs with projectile weapons ? Don't ask me :) Best guess would
>be that the only AC rounds you get in BTech are pretty much all HE shells,
>AFAIK. (remind me to finish the fin stablised penetrator rounds ruels
>somtime.) The AC's are smoothbore as well I think.
>
>Anyway - that's my tiny input into this riot that rages around here. Given
>a chance, and the 2 pounds spare in my pocket, I *do* plan to try the HG demo
>game, so please - lay off the flames.
>
>[donning absestos, just in case]
I'll be gentle. ;)
That being the case - that BT armor is ablative, it would make sense to
have a dual layer/composite armor structore. Metal on the outside and
plastic on the inside. The reason is thus: the metal layer could stop the
smaller rounds cold, so that they cannot dissapate the ablative layers over
time. THis leaves the ablative layer tos top the big rounds that can
penetrate the metal layer. Sort of like an ballistic cloth inner shroud that
vehicles use now to help stop spalling - the ablative layer is insurance
against the big stuff, and since they are fired in less volume, a liget
compostie can do the job effectively. That is, high volume fire (smaller
calibers), which can shread an ablative material, are prevented from hitting
it at al by the metal. So a higher degree of protection can be achieved by an
overall lower mass of armor. Furthermore, you can space the layers, further
dissipating the high caliber rounds. BT makes no pretence of having this,
however. This unfortunate oversight help dim BTs light for me.
There, that wasn't so bad, was it?
Dr. Teeth
In Article <322668...@injersey.com>
>> was not unheard of, and most of these resulted in one shot kills.
>
>T-62's maybe? But not T-72's. That I don't believe.
I've read reports to confirm this. Couldn't tell you off the top of my
head where, but I do remember hearing about this.
>> Take some physics courses. The only thing that determines the damage that
>> is done by a round is the kinetic energy that it imparts to its target.
>
>What about HEAP? It's plasma jet _cuts_ the target's armor.
Are you sure about this? I know HEAT rounds *don't* work this way,
although a lot of folks think they do. If HEAP uses the same Monroe Effect
principle, what they in fact do is form a molten metal KE penetrator that
punches into the armor. I don't have relevant reference materials at hand to
prove or disprove the application to HEAP rounds. Anyone?
Paul Brown
Prabal Nandy (na...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu) wrote:
: Current day battle tanks have the CAPABILITY of engaging and destroying
: the enemy at ranges in excess of a kilometer. Btech can't do that... Heavy
: Gear can. So, whose weapons are more realistic?
Does it matter? Its a game, its supposed to be fun!
: Okay.. fine.
: Then explain to me how BT armor takes damage from EVERYTHING while real-life
: armor does not. Hell, in BTech you could pitch rocks at an atlas and eventually
: break through the armor (GRIN). Better example is the MG, that does damage no
: matter HOW tough the mech's armor is supposed to be. Why the ablation at all?
The machine gun isnt an AK-47 It a half ton Mini Gun. Hell, for all
we know, the rounds might be slightly explosive. Or are shaped in such a
way that they can damage armour. (IE, like on the old guns, if you shot a
bullet into a tree, it makes a whole. Then if you cut the same kinda
bullet a certain, it could make one hell of a hole)
The post I replied to it too long, so this is all I am gonna write
Steve Pettit
(Sorry 'bout this side note...)
>>> And in five years I garauntee that they'll have a weapon that can rip a
>>> M1A1 with chobbam and uranium a brand new bunghole. At range. T-72s used
>>> to be scary shit. They're nothing now, and it'll happen to everyone's
>>> current favorite tanks too.
Why wait five years? The US Army has been test firing ETC
(ElectroThermoChemical - relies on converting an energetic working fluid
into plasma for propulsion) rounds down at Sandia for the last couple of
years, out of a modified Krupp/Rheinmetal 120mm Smoothbore Main Arm. Results
look promising, effectively doubling the striking power of the weapon.
Standard Tungsten/Dep. Uranium Sabot.
Steve
(Who wonders if he should start a "Why BT weapons are UNrealistic" thread...)
Simon H. Lee
>>> Take some physics courses. The only thing that determines the damage
that
>>> is done by a round is the kinetic energy that it imparts to its target.
>>
>>What about HEAP? It's plasma jet _cuts_ the target's armor.
>
> Are you sure about this? I know HEAT rounds *don't* work this way,
>although a lot of folks think they do. If HEAP uses the same Monroe
Effect
>principle, what they in fact do is form a molten metal KE penetrator that
>punches into the armor. I don't have relevant reference materials at hand
to
>prove or disprove the application to HEAP rounds. Anyone?
HEAT uses a shaped-charge warhead to get the Monroe Effect (the jet
of molten metal). HEAP (Or HEP, depending on which side of the Atlantic
you're on) slaps a big lump of plastic explosive on the outer armor and
detonates it to cause interior damage through spalling (not actually
penetrating the armor).
Timothy J. Gallion
> Bill
>
> ***************************************************************************
> Do not ask me if these are the opinions of my employer, I am not even sure
> they are my own! -Bill McHale, Assistant Systems Administrator
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
> ***************************************************************************
advanced technology and targeting systems. All weapons hit if the
targeting system can lock on to the enemy. Remember, that as soon as
technology builds a better targeter someone is going to make alot of
money jamming that targeter.
If you want a game where the dice do not factor into who wins and is
pure strategy and skill. Try Wehrmacht.
The mecha in Wehrmacht are over 200 ft. tall and move at over 500mph.
We don't believe that there will be a "Dark Ages". Our game is based on
weapons technology getting more and more sophisticated.
Our basic railgun fires a 2.7m slug with a depleted uranium core and the
rest of the weapons are even more powerful.
--
邢 唷��
Marcus Fong
In article <322673...@concentric.net>, "Cryckyt ver3.0"
<ma...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> > Why can a 200mm cannon barely chuck a slug 270 metres, even if the firer
>> > and target are standing still there is that "end of range" thing that
>> > crops up at 10 hexes.
>>
>> Ta da! Because if it hits, it doesn't do enough damage to register.
Remember that
>> damage disapating armor?
>
>Ummmmm, this is the part of the argument that throws me. A 5kg shell
>travelling at 800m/s is -still- roughly traveling at 800m/s after it's
>gone 500m (the atmosphere won't slow it down -that- much). So -why-
>does the armor start dissipating damage then?
The atmosphere might. Remember, drag is proportional to the square of the
velocity.
But anyway, if we're talking about a 200mm autocannon, what he probably meant
was that at extended ranges the shells would disperse too much and not be as
effective.
--------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Fong
1st year Engineering / Information Technology student
Australian National University
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Chverchko
Clint (tex...@corpcomm.net) wrote:
: ag...@kd3bj.ampr.org (Andrew Gryn) wrote:
: >OK..here's something to consider, too. Have you ever seen a dogfight
: >between two F-117 Nighthawks? Since both planes use stealth tech, and
: >any use of high-powered radar would give them away, you can BET such a
: >fight would be a close, furious affair, with weapons operating at far
: >shorter range than they are normally capacble of.
: >To say that such a fight won't happen is just wishful thinking. The F-22
: >is paetially stealthed, and it's only a matter of time until two military
: >forces with this tech bump heads.
: >
: >This has always been my impression of Battletech weapons. These weapons
: >almost certainly can go far past their stated Btech ranges, but outside
: >the stated Max. range, they have almost no chance of aquiring a target.
: >There is just too much ECM on the 31st century battlefield.
: drop their laser-guided BOMBS at each other? Plus, it would have to
: be a close fight, the plane is not equipped with any radar.
Really, this isn't germaine to the point he was trying to make, one which
I agree w/ wholeheartedly. If 2 pure stealth fighters were to end up in
a dogfight, because sensors would be blinded for the most part except for
powerful radar bursts now and then to burn through stealth
features/jamming for some targetting info. Things would come back down
to dogfights. Simply put, if the missiles blind to the target (which is
definition of stealth) it can't track hit. This requires return to human
sight guidance of AC's and MG's, some hypervelocity missiles with simple
tracking.
Prabal Nandy
In article <509quo$j...@tribune.usask.ca>,
>: the enemy at ranges in excess of a kilometer. Btech can't do that... Heavy
>: Gear can. So, whose weapons are more realistic?
> Does it matter? Its a game, its supposed to be fun!
Uh...
I thought the subject of this thread was about REALISM. And yes, Heavy
Gear is fun _and_ realistic! (Well, about as realistic as a game based around
zippy-fast, 6 ton big-robos can be.)
>: break through the armor (GRIN). Better example is the MG, that does damage n>: matter HOW tough the mech's armor is supposed to be. Why the ablation at all
> The machine gun isnt an AK-47 It a half ton Mini Gun. Hell, for all
Heh heh... which leads me to the next point: "Why the HELL does a machine
gun that weighs (Gasp!) 1000 pounds, have a range LESS than that of a hand
held rifle?" It's just plain goofy!
--
\~~~~~\__ ~~\___/~~ __/~~~~~/ /pr...@sunset.bph.jhu.edu\ Lord of the Flies
~<==\__\_<O\:/O>_/__/==>~ /http://sunset.bph.jhu.edu \ 1st MPC Division
<_/ //=\ ^ /=\\ \_> \na...@vms.ccit.arizona.edu/ Colony World Myops
\| (|) |/ \ na...@ccit.arizona.edu / Velox-Durus-Infestus
Prabal Nandy
>>Battletech armor is *designed* to ablate. Too long since in read the
> That being the case - that BT armor is ablative, it would make sense to
>have a dual layer/composite armor structore. Metal on the outside and
>plastic on the inside. The reason is thus: the metal layer could stop the
>smaller rounds cold, so that they cannot dissapate the ablative layers over
>time. THis leaves the ablative layer tos top the big rounds that can
>penetrate the metal layer. Sort of like an ballistic cloth inner shroud that
The irony is that while Btech tries to explain its armor as a combination
of all this stuff, it's Heavy Gear (and Mekton too, I think) that actually
allows you to layer on all of this stuff, and customize your armor types
with multilayered composites (Yes, that have definate game effects),
INCLUDING ablatives if you want.
Of course, after several years of gaming, Btech is FINALLY getting some
different armor types... unfortunately, it's all still ablative!
Prabal Nandy
In article <agryn.8...@kd3bj.ampr.org>,
>This has always been my impression of Battletech weapons. These weapons
>almost certainly can go far past their stated Btech ranges, but outside
>the stated Max. range, they have almost no chance of aquiring a target.
But how does this apply to _Ballistic_ weapons? After all... a bullet
doesn't lose hardly any velocity in just 90 meters!
>There is just too much ECM on the 31st century battlefield.
That argument WOULD make sense, if it wasn't for the fact that A: Btech
doesn't have rules for 'standard' ECM, which implies that even a crappy
1 ton scratchbuild vehicle would automatically have it too. B: What would
be the point of all those _extra_ ECM systems, if everyone already has
ECM so powerful to deflect (giggle) bullets!? GRIN!
Prabal Nandy
>>OK..here's something to consider, too. Have you ever seen a dogfight
>>between two F-117 Nighthawks? Since both planes use stealth tech, and
>I was just curious, would the two F-117's try lasing each other to
>drop their laser-guided BOMBS at each other? Plus, it would have to
>be a close fight, the plane is not equipped with any radar.
GRIN!
Now THAT is something I'd pay to see on those "Discover Channel" Aircraft
video offers! Sheesh, about the only way one of these puppies could kill the
other would be to drop one of those ol' 250 pounders on the other while its
still in the hangar!
Prabal Nandy
In article <322761...@concentric.net>,
>Geez, how many times does he have to tell you? BT mechs have that
>"damage resistant armor" (I thought -all- armor was damage resistant?
"Damage Resistant" or "Guaranteed to take damage from EVERYTHING!" armor?
>Must be all that leftover +1 plate mail armor from the AD&D universe,
GRIN!
Prabal Nandy
In article <3228CF...@execpc.com>,
>Tyrant Games in its new game,Wehrmacht, has solved the problem of
>advanced technology and targeting systems. All weapons hit if the
>targeting system can lock on to the enemy. Remember, that as soon as
Kinda like "Streak" in Btech, eh?
>technology builds a better targeter someone is going to make alot of
>money jamming that targeter.
It's hard to jam a passive targetting system, you know!?
>If you want a game where the dice do not factor into who wins and is
>pure strategy and skill. Try Wehrmacht.
Diceless gaming! Yeah!
>The mecha in Wehrmacht are over 200 ft. tall and move at over 500mph.
Uhhhh... Uhhh....
>We don't believe that there will be a "Dark Ages". Our game is based on
>weapons technology getting more and more sophisticated.
And bigger and bigger and bigger apparently...
>Our basic railgun fires a 2.7m slug with a depleted uranium core and the
>rest of the weapons are even more powerful.
I don't think using DU ammo on a rail gun makes a whole lot of sense,
actually.
v. Baumgarten
jke...@raita.oulu.fi (Janne Kemppi) wrote:
<snip>
>:
>I forgot to add AC/5 class autocannon in Marauder which shoots
>120mm rounds at bursts of 100 rounds each (source: Mercenay's Star)
>
Hmmm.. one ton=1000kg of ac/5 ammo gives us 20 "shots". At 100 rounds
per "shot", that leaves us with 1/2 kg 120mm shells (including
propellant). A modern day 120mm shell (Rheinmetall smoothbore , Abrams
and Leopard II) weighs between ~22kg(HE/HEAT dual purpose rounds) and
~25kg (sabot), and the 120mm gun comes at 3.3 tons, 4.8 including
armored mantlet . No wonder BT ACs loose their damage potential so
fast, they shoot with styrofoam rounds!! :-)
CVB
"Wars result when one side either misjudges its chances or
wishes to commit suicide; and not even Masada _began_ as a
suicide attempt. In general, both parties expect to win.
In the event, they are wrong more than half the time."
- J. Pournelle, "Hammer's Slammers"
v. Baumgarten
dbr...@cymbal.aix.calpoly.edu (Darrin Lee Bright) wrote:
>In article <505s3b$a...@usafa2.usafa.af.mil>,
>>Gauss Rifles would not cause that much recoil, since they use magnets to accelerate the projectile,
>>not gunpowder like conventional autocannons.
>Uh...no. It would cause just as much recoil. F=MA, you can't get
>around that. Hell, even LASERS cause recoil. Not much, but they do
>(ever heard of a light sail?)
While F=ma is correct, is gives you only the average recoil force. You
have to take into account that a gauss weapon would use a (nearly)
constant acceleration, while more than 80% of the accelartion of
conventional gun happens in the first 20% of barrel length - at least
that was what a Rheinmetall engineer who was involved with the design
of the 120mm smoothbore (Leopard II, Abrams) once wrote in an article.
(Give or take a few % according to design and chemical properties of
propellant). So you have much higher recoil in the first few
milliseconds in a conventional weapon than in a gauss rifle.
>--
> "Uh...yeah, I uh... suck blood all the time..." - The Tick
>--
> * * * Darrin Bright - Duck Ezra - Muse of Tedium * * *
> = = ============================================ = =
v. Baumgarten
"Edward O. Royce" <ero...@injersey.com> wrote:
<snip of stuff concerning the "Lt.Col." tag on a clan mech>
>Now watch me explain why the ranges in BT *are* realistic!
>1. In BT each hex used is 30 meters across. That's 900 square meters
>of space for a mech to be in while staying within the boundries of the
>hex.
>2. In BT each "turn" is ten seconds of time. Go ahead and look at your
>watch and count out ten seconds. It's a lot of time. A heavy mech
>(Warhammer) coud run 17.78 (59 feet) meters per second while a light
>mech (Locust) can run 39 (129 feet) meters per second.
>3. In BT the average (from my own experiences only) engagement distance
>is 10 hexes or 300 meters.
>4. The circumference of the circle with a radius of 300 meters (10
>hexes) is 943 meters.
>5. The length of one (1) degree at a radius of 300 meters is 2.6
>meters.
>6. Therefore a single hex worth of space, at a distance of 300 meters,
>occupies about 12 degrees of vision.
>7. A heavy mech (Warhammer), running perpedicular to the observer at a
>range of 300 meters, can move 68 degrees (+- 12 degrees for the hex
>itself) relative to the observer.
>8. A Light mech (Locust), running perpedicular to the observer at a
>range of 300 meters, can move 150 degrees (+- 12 degrees for the hex
>itself) relative to the observer.
>9. A "standard" mech that is 10 meters tall , 3.5 meters wide (across
>the shoulders) and about 2.5 meters deep (thickness of the chest) is, to
>a an observer at 300 meters, 3.8 degrees high, 1.34 degrees wide and 1
>(approx) degree thick.
>10. The targeting recticle of a HUD is, probably since we don't have
>factual data other than MW2 or Netmech, at least 1 degree in height and
>width.
>11. This means that if the mech is turned sideways from an observer, at
>300 meters of course, then the recticle has zero (0) horizontal
>tolerance and 3 degrees vertical tolerance.
>12. This means that if the mech is facing the observer, at 300 meters,
>then the recticle has 0.34 degrees horizontal tolerance and 3 degrees
>vertical tolerance.
>13. If the target mech is a Warhammer (not a very speedy mech) moving
>perpendicular to the observer then the observer would have to track a 1
>degree recticle across a 68 degree track (+- 12 degrees) maintaining
>it's position with zero (0) horizontal tolerance and 3 degrees vertical
>tolerance.
>14. If the target mech is a Locust moving perpendicular to the observer
>then the observer would have to track a 1 degree recticle across a 150
>degree track (+- 12 degrees) maintaining it's position with zero (0)
>horizontal tolerance and 3 degrees vertical tolerance. (assuming the
>same physical dimensions as the Warhammer, which is not so)
>Of course it would be easier to hit when you are closer, which is why
>most battles occur at less then 150 meters in netmech, and MUCH MUCH
>harder when the target is farther away.
>BTW a 10 meter tall mech at 1000 meters is 0.5 degrees in height.
>I use degrees to show, spatially, the difficulty in trying to do the
>targeting manually. In BT the targeting, other than a little help from
>the onboard computers, is MANUAL. That's why the Clanners have a
>targeting computer!
>Now someone is bound to say, what about zooming? What about telescopic
>sights and other what not. Well they are nice, but if you ask anyone
>who has actually used a telescopic sight, any motion on the part of the
>observer tends to magnify the difficulty in using it. After all aren't
>you moving too?
>Well what about gyroscopic stabilized magnifying whatchamacallits?
>That's a targeting computer that the Clanners have.
>:)
>ed
<snip>
(Sorry, my newsreader won't post if there is more than 50% quote in a
reply, so I had to shorten and defrag the original post a little)
I think that you should have named the post "Why Battletech weapons
ranges could be considered realistic under the condition that the
target moves perpendicular to the target at certain speeds and
distances" :-)
I would wholeheartedly agree with you if your intention had been to
show that it should be more difficult to hit a target moving
perpendicular to the firer than a target moving towards or away from
him (except that it would be hard to write a rule that covers exactly
what constitutes perpendicular movement, when a fast mech can change
course several times during one movement phase), but IMHO it's a bit
far fetched to explain the short ranges of BTech weapons under all
conditions with just one very specific example.
Why are the ranges just as short if you shoot at a target moving
straight at you over flat terrain? You should have to track your
targeting circle or recticle or whatever exactly 0 degrees and at
least for line-of-sight weapons there should be no difference if a
target is 270 or 300 meters distant.
Why can't you fire at an immobile target at longer range than at a
mobile one? Imagine a 3025 Victor in front of a bunker. For some
reason (minefields, deep canyon, whatever) he can't get closer than
300 meters, and so the bunker crew can sunbath on their roof while a
frustrated mechwarrior watches his shells and SRMs to drop just 30
meters short.
If the the allegedly short ranges are solely due to targeting
problems, then why could I not fire a 500 kg (!) machinegun at more
than 90 meters, when I can do so with other weapons? After all, even a
cal. 50 MG has a much longer range than 90 meters, and at 500kg, a
Btech MG should be at least in the 15-20mm group, and when I can keep
my targeting recticle on target at 120 meters to hit with an AC/20
then I should be able to hit with a MG, too.
Now I'll cheat a little (I _have_ read some of the follow-on posts)
and "anticipate" your arguments concerning limited effective weapons
range due to damage-dispersing armor etc.
First of all, all the wonderfull capabilities of BTech armor can be
ignored when there _is_ no armor. Let's assume for a moment that, as
you insist, Btech armor is so tough that it can't be damaged by a
machine gun at more than 90 meters. But what about infantry? They are
unarmored, they die in droves when subjected to machinegun fire at 90
meters in the open, and at 120 meters they are suddenly immune to lead
poisoning? What about buildings? At 270 meters I can blow away some
light buildings with a single AC/20 burst, at 300 meters I cannot even
scratch the paint???
Next, now let's assume armored targets. I think most of us agree that
there a two main types of damage done by projectile <sp?> weapons:
either kinetic or explosive. The latter will do roughly the same
amount of damage wether they hit at short or extremely long range, and
so there really is no reason why a rocket, missile or AC round with a
HE/HEAT warhead should suddenly stop doing damage beyond a certain
range as long as it can hit the target. Weapons that do damage by
transfering kinetic energy _will_ lose damage potential beyond a
certain range (I include lasers and PPCs in this group, since their
energy dissipates over range, too), but it's pretty hard to believe
that they lose _all_ damage potential so quickly (RL example: 120mm
sabot round with a muzzle velocity of ~1700m/s has still well over
1000 m/s at 1000 meters, max range at 15 degrees elevation is ~17km)
and that they drop from 100% efficency to 0% over the course of just
30 meters.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing BT. I play since <B. Adams> IT WAS
THE SUMMER OF '89 </B. Adams>, and I still enjoy it, but I'm not
expecting too much realism from it.
BTW, FASA themselves at least once indirectly aknowledged that the
ranges are artificially shortened. Check the 3026 TR. In the infantry
heavy weapons section (mortars, GLs and such) they give ranges for the
Mechwarrior RPG and for the boardgame, and the latter are invariably
shorter.
Michael Kelly
In article <agryn.8...@kd3bj.ampr.org>,
ag...@kd3bj.ampr.org (Andrew Gryn) wrote:
<F-117 stuff sent the way of the Dodo>
>This has always been my impression of Battletech weapons. These weapons
>almost certainly can go far past their stated Btech ranges, but outside
>the stated Max. range, they have almost no chance of aquiring a target.
>There is just too much ECM on the 31st century battlefield.
>
This actually almost makes sense and has been proposed on several occasions,
but consider the following standard responses.
1) If Btech weapons could fire further *if* the target did not have this
alleged inbuilt ECM. Then why can't they fire at say an ordinary building
at beyond this range? Or, given the coordinates, use it's LRM's to bombard
an enemy base?
2) For a LOS weapon (AC or whatever) supposing I simply paint you with a laser
beam and use it to aim. How does your ECM counter this? (Although aerosols
could do it). Why not just use the conventional optically based targetting
systems used by modern tanks? They are, I believe, impervious to ECM and
can hit a moving target at ranges much farther than BT weapons.
3) If high ECM levels are the reason that mechs can't target and hit distant
targets then this problem is with the targetting system and so shouldn't
affect the weapons ranges. This means that almost all weapons could be
fired to their maximum range before the targetting systems are nullified
by ECM ie an AC/20 should have the same range as a AC/2, ranging out until
the mech can no longer lock on targets. As this is not the case then the
problem is with the weapons and not with the targetting systems.
Basically you're saying "yeah, but it *might* be because ..." Nothing in the
rules or the history indicates it's so.
Mike Kelly.
Michael Kelly
Thank you. I agree wholeheartedly.
I also think Edward O'Royces original post was basically wrong and that he
completely failed to uphold his arguments later on, instead attacking minor
points and (typing/spelling) mistakes. The classic defences of a man who a)
completely and wilfully fails to understand what was being said to him, or b)
has no proper retort and yet simply cannot admit to being wrong.
Mike Kelly.
Janne Kemppi
v. Baumgarten (sv...@berlin.netsurf.de) wrote:
: jke...@raita.oulu.fi (Janne Kemppi) wrote:
: <snip>
: >:
: >I forgot to add AC/5 class autocannon in Marauder which shoots
: >120mm rounds at bursts of 100 rounds each (source: Mercenay's Star)
: >
: I could't believe the numbers, but they are actually there.
: Hmmm.. one ton=1000kg of ac/5 ammo gives us 20 "shots". At 100 rounds
: per "shot", that leaves us with 1/2 kg 120mm shells (including
: propellant). A modern day 120mm shell (Rheinmetall smoothbore , Abrams
: and Leopard II) weighs between ~22kg(HE/HEAT dual purpose rounds) and
: ~25kg (sabot), and the 120mm gun comes at 3.3 tons, 4.8 including
: armored mantlet . No wonder BT ACs loose their damage potential so
: fast, they shoot with styrofoam rounds!! :-)
Remember that technology has detoriated so styrofoam ammunition might be
'Lostech'. They are probably made of some very light wood like balsa one
uses in kites and flyers... :)
Aetius
In article <3224CF...@injersey.com>, "Edward O. Royce"
<ero...@injersey.com> writes:
>You sir, are a definite mark on the underclothing of history. :)
This is one I'll have to remember for future use. :)
Aetius, the last Roman.
Aetius
In article <5024g7$t...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
na...@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu (Prabal Nandy) writes:
> Current day battle tanks have the CAPABILITY of engaging and
destroying
>the enemy at ranges in excess of a kilometer. Btech can't do that...
Heavy
>Gear can. So, whose weapons are more realistic?
But how often does this happen? Not very, I'm here to say. Maximum range
engagements can occur above 1,000 meters, but they require almost perfect
conditions. Said CAVU style conditions, any ground grunt knows, only
exist during planning. Go watch some of that CNN video, and some of the
video that the tankers themselves took during Desert Storm. Yes, kills
were made at extreme range, but the majority of the fighting took place
much closer. This argument is supported by another one below. Oh, and I
beg to say, BTech can do that -- Clan AC/2s can fire accurately out to
over 900m, and I believe that the ELRMs can get out to over 1000.
> Yeah... and at least _I_ think that range should be pushing the
Kilometer
>range for a decent weapon/missile... not in the hundred-yard range!
Sheesh!
In modern infantry combat, the engagement range is generally less than
fifty meters. Why? Because most of the time you can't see crap, and when
you can, you can't hit it worth a damn, because both of you are running,
shouting, getting shot at, etc.
Now, you say, but that is infantry, not vehicles. That's true. Vehicles
are worse. Visibility, especially at close range, is abysmal. The same
distraction factors apply multiplied by 10, because there are more threats
and it is harder to hide. Now, give both sides M1A2 Abrams tanks.
Suddenly engagement ranges are shortened almost to point blank, simply
because while you can blow away a T-72 at two kilometers, you cannot do
the same to an M1 (which is why we love 'em). Inner Sphere armies do not
have the luxury of superior technology and weapons.
> Seems like it [Btech armor] ain't too good at absorbing a mecha-fist,
kick, or ram > attack by a small suburban minivan! (Unlike an M1, btw)
I would beg to differ. The very fact that it can withstand the impact of
a ton of heavy armor moving at high speed with thirty tons of weight
behind it seems to argue pretty strongly for its toughness. The same
attack on an M1 would crush it like an eggshell. The armor on the M1 is
designed to resist point penetration, not massive impact spread across a
whole side of the tank. Have you ever seen the result of two M1s running
into each other? I have. It is not a pretty sight, and neither vehicle
came out of it able to fight. If you got a minivan up to about a hundred
miles an hour and slammed into a tank, any tank, I guarantee you the tank
will not come out unscathed. More on this in a second.
> Then explain to me how BT armor takes damage from EVERYTHING while
real-life
>armor does not. Hell, in BTech you could pitch rocks at an atlas and
eventually
>break through the armor (GRIN). Better example is the MG, that does
damage no
>matter HOW tough the mech's armor is supposed to be. Why the ablation at
all?
Because at some point, you are going to run out of options in building
armor. Right now, we are fairly close to the end of modern static armor
development. There is not much more that our science can devise to resist
a moving projectile. On the other hand, high velocity projectile weapons
development is just getting underway. Try M1 armor against a modern
penetrator round moving at, oh say, five times the current attainable
velocities (rail gun). Ablative (or dynamic) armor is an attempt to get
around this shortcoming of static armor, by dissipating impact energy
rather than "reflecting" or resisting it. For a historical example, look
at the development of the armored knight and the longbow/gunpowder
weapons. Of course, ablative armor has the fault of losing capability due
to smaller, less powerful attacks, but hey -- do you want to lose a little
to a machine gun or the whole mech to an autocannon on the first hit?
As a side note, modern armor does take damage from hits that do not
penetrate. After two or three such hits, the armor becomes weakened and
useless, as the ceramic elements shatter from the stress and the metal
warps and becomes brittle
> Why would anyone USE a multi-firing 120mm gun with recoil like that,
with
>range and damage so much LESS than a 'modern day' 120mm single-firing
>cannon?
>That's the "Battletech Paradox".
Because the modern 120mm cannon would do at most one point of damage, more
likely none at all, like a puck hitting an angled ice wall. Furthermore, a
BattleMech could put down twenty times that amount of fire in ten seconds.
Multiple or continuous hits are required to do the kind of damage that
would affect a Mech, and hits that were at substantially higher velocities
with much larger projectiles. This is the classic confusion of velocity
with range. Range is not about how fast the round is going or how big it
is, although that plays a large and limiting role. It is about what is
possible with the given control systems and aiming apparatus, which in
mechs are quite advanced but still suffer from being under human go/no go
control (i.e., a trigger). Our stabilization systems today could not
begin the handle the huge number of variables involved in mounting a
weapon on a mech for accurate fire.
>>> Oh and don't forget weapons that can be guided to target.
>>You mean like the Narc Beacon and missiles?
>
> No...
> I mean painting a target with laser beams and having a variety of
different
>forms of guided rockets, shells, and yes, artillery home in on it.
Next time you want to LD a target, remember this: LD's tend to be
low-power, short-range lasers, usually limited to less than a thousand
meters depending on conditions (in other words, you are in range). Also
remember that if you LD a target, and that target has laser sensors, you
have just LD'd yourself -- lasers go both ways. Guided weapons are slow,
jammable/spoofable, and can be shot down with a fair amount of difficulty.
As the Egyptians discovered when they started using the Sagger, guided
weapons can be effective but good countermeasures can take care of most of
the problem. In BTech, this problem would be infinitely worse. Try this
sometime: go outside with a laser pointer. Now, get your friend to go
out about fifty meters, and then have him start running around and dodging
and weaving. Then try to hold the laser steady on one point of your
friend's body. Doesn't work too well, does it? You might be able to land
something in their general vicinity, but that wouldn't work too well
against a mech, where large-scale direct impacts are required to create
serious damage.
> Yeah, they can do all that and STILL not hit a target standing right in
front
>of them.
Neither can you, all of the time, and a human being is probably the most
integrated, advanced targeting system there is, able to handle multiple
targets in three dimensions with astonishing speed.
> What about increasing the powder behind the damn shell? Sheeet man,
people
>just don't MAKE crappy bullets like that in real life! I mean, you're
assuming
>that the shells are going to be of the same volume or something, which is
>ridiculous!
There is a point where your propellant gives diminishing returns. So what
if you increase the amount of propellant? The rounds become so large you
can only carry one or two. What's the use in that? This argument is
explained very well in David Drake's Hammer's Slammers -- at some point,
you either have to decrease the size of the projectile to get more
velocity (and range, sort of) or increase the size of the projectile and
lose velocity(but you gain explosive energy at impact). We are already
almost at the limits of our current propellants, but several promising new
types are in the works. There are chemical limits to such development,
which we can assume to have been reached in BTech.
> Sure... Okay... Not like the RULES ever give you the opportunity to
strafe,
>saturate, burst, or 'walk' fire (Which you can do in HG). This makes
Btech's
>multi-bullet streams absolutely moot hand-waving.... while in HG they
actually
>DO something with the idea!
Such rules only add complexity. Such fire is assumed to be used as
appropriate by the trained pilots in the mechs. If expert fire is not
used, it is represented by a gunnery penalty. Simple, elegant, and
streamlined. BTech is much more about tactics than simple gunnery
techniques.
These periods of heightened lethality and shortened range are not new to
human history. For example, the switch from bows to muskets was such a
change -- a good longbowman could hit targets at up to 300 yards, while
the effective range of the early muskets was under a hundred. Still, the
change was made because the musket made armor obsolete and was much more
lethal than the arrow. The human sphere in the time of BattleTech is
undergoing a similar change, but the weapons technology is developing at
the same rate as gunpowder weapons did and the armor of the time is much
more resistant to new types of weapons.
I hope this answers the question, but I doubt it will. Later...
Aetius, the last Roman
Marcus Fong
>Edward O. Royce (ero...@injersey.com) wrote:
>: Ta da! Because if it hits, it doesn't do enough damage to register.
Remember that
>
>Wait a minute you have implied for a while that autocannons used explosive
>round, whose damage has almost nothing to do with the force they hit with (as
>long as it it enough to set off the charge). Therefore effective range should
>be almost the same as the actual distance that it can travel, a lot like
>artillery guns. Therefore you must assume that the autocannons really
>cannot hit a target more than 270 meters away.
No, I think he meant that more than 270 metres away, the burst of autocannon
shells would disperse too much to be effective (i.e. the armour could dissipate
the effect of 1 or 2 high-explosive shells but not 10 or 20).
But that's just my opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Fong
1st year Engineering / Information Technology student
Australian National University
"Drifting gently down the stream,
Lingering in the golden gleam,
Life, what is it but a dream?"
-Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"
--------------------------------------------------------
Paladin
Clint wrote:
>
> ag...@kd3bj.ampr.org (Andrew Gryn) wrote:
>
> >OK..here's something to consider, too. Have you ever seen a dogfight
> >between two F-117 Nighthawks? Since both planes use stealth tech, and
> >fight would be a close, furious affair, with weapons operating at far
> >shorter range than they are normally capacble of.
>
> >To say that such a fight won't happen is just wishful thinking. The F-22
> >is paetially stealthed, and it's only a matter of time until two military
> >forces with this tech bump heads.
> >
> >almost certainly can go far past their stated Btech ranges, but outside
> >the stated Max. range, they have almost no chance of aquiring a target.
> >There is just too much ECM on the 31st century battlefield.
>
>
> > High Executioner of Munch
>
> > agryn%rb...@kd3bj.ampr.org
>
> I was just curious, would the two F-117's try lasing each other to
> drop their laser-guided BOMBS at each other? Plus, it would have to
> be a close fight, the plane is not equipped with any radar.
Heeheeheehahahahahoohoohoohehehahahahaha!!!!
(Regaining composure) Bet you'll get a response saying "No stupid,
they'd be shooting their Chainguns at each other!" (losing composure)
Hahahahohoheeheehahahahahoohoohehehaha!!!!
> Clint
>
> My USNF/MF Homepage:
> http://www.corpcomm.net/~texas29/usnf.html
Paladin
Bill McHale
First of all I would like to thank Aetius for a thoughtful, reason reply
to the preceding posts, far better than the person who started this
thread. Of course that does not mean that I agree with it :-)
Aetius (aet...@aol.com) wrote:
: But how often does this happen? Not very, I'm here to say. Maximum range
: engagements can occur above 1,000 meters, but they require almost perfect
: conditions. Said CAVU style conditions, any ground grunt knows, only
: exist during planning. Go watch some of that CNN video, and some of the
: video that the tankers themselves took during Desert Storm. Yes, kills
: were made at extreme range, but the majority of the fighting took place
: much closer. This argument is supported by another one below. Oh, and I
: beg to say, BTech can do that -- Clan AC/2s can fire accurately out to
: over 900m, and I believe that the ELRMs can get out to over 1000.
Sure, we never had a problem with the idea that engagements usually happen
at shorter range, our problem was that it was impossible to do it at longer
ranges with heavy autocannons.
: In modern infantry combat, the engagement range is generally less than
: fifty meters. Why? Because most of the time you can't see crap, and when
: you can, you can't hit it worth a damn, because both of you are running,
: shouting, getting shot at, etc.
: Now, you say, but that is infantry, not vehicles. That's true. Vehicles
: are worse. Visibility, especially at close range, is abysmal. The same
: distraction factors apply multiplied by 10, because there are more threats
: and it is harder to hide. Now, give both sides M1A2 Abrams tanks.
: Suddenly engagement ranges are shortened almost to point blank, simply
: because while you can blow away a T-72 at two kilometers, you cannot do
: the same to an M1 (which is why we love 'em). Inner Sphere armies do not
: have the luxury of superior technology and weapons.
That is granted, but certain weapons should be as capable of doing damage
(though not of hitting their target) at long range. Consider any gun that
fires any sort of he round.
: I would beg to differ. The very fact that it can withstand the impact of
: a ton of heavy armor moving at high speed with thirty tons of weight
: behind it seems to argue pretty strongly for its toughness. The same
: attack on an M1 would crush it like an eggshell. The armor on the M1 is
: designed to resist point penetration, not massive impact spread across a
: whole side of the tank. Have you ever seen the result of two M1s running
: into each other? I have. It is not a pretty sight, and neither vehicle
: came out of it able to fight. If you got a minivan up to about a hundred
: miles an hour and slammed into a tank, any tank, I guarantee you the tank
: will not come out unscathed. More on this in a second.
Ok, seems reasonable to me, I will buy it.
: Because at some point, you are going to run out of options in building
: armor. Right now, we are fairly close to the end of modern static armor
: development. There is not much more that our science can devise to resist
: a moving projectile. On the other hand, high velocity projectile weapons
: development is just getting underway. Try M1 armor against a modern
: penetrator round moving at, oh say, five times the current attainable
: velocities (rail gun). Ablative (or dynamic) armor is an attempt to get
: around this shortcoming of static armor, by dissipating impact energy
: rather than "reflecting" or resisting it. For a historical example, look
: at the development of the armored knight and the longbow/gunpowder
: weapons.
I am not sure I quite follow your parrallel here. The armor kept getting
better, and by Agincort French Armor was able to resist almost all arrow
shots (its a myth that the battle was won by arrows read John Keegan's Face
or Battle).
Of course, ablative armor has the fault of losing capability due
: to smaller, less powerful attacks, but hey -- do you want to lose a little
: to a machine gun or the whole mech to an autocannon on the first hit?
Ok, this all makes sense and I will buy it so far.
: As a side note, modern armor does take damage from hits that do not
: penetrate. After two or three such hits, the armor becomes weakened and
: useless, as the ceramic elements shatter from the stress and the metal
: warps and becomes brittle
I always wondered about that, tanks (oop, I meant thanks, freudian slip)
: Because the modern 120mm cannon would do at most one point of damage, more
: likely none at all, like a puck hitting an angled ice wall. Furthermore, a
: BattleMech could put down twenty times that amount of fire in ten seconds.
: Multiple or continuous hits are required to do the kind of damage that
: would affect a Mech, and hits that were at substantially higher velocities
: with much larger projectiles. This is the classic confusion of velocity
: with range. Range is not about how fast the round is going or how big it
: is, although that plays a large and limiting role. It is about what is
: possible with the given control systems and aiming apparatus, which in
: mechs are quite advanced but still suffer from being under human go/no go
: control (i.e., a trigger). Our stabilization systems today could not
: begin the handle the huge number of variables involved in mounting a
: weapon on a mech for accurate fire.
Ok, now here is where I have some problems:
1. While I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the kinetic warhead
might be made almost ineffective, a heat or heap warhead should still be
effective. I am not sure how much weight of a modern 120mm HE round is
actually taken up by the warhead, but let us be generous and give it about
25% (if it is less we will assume that propellant technology has improved as
well) or about 6 kg. In a previous post I showed that an average LRM missle
weighed 8.3 kg and it was reasonable to assume that the warhead was only
1 or at most 2 kg. That means that the round could reasonably assumed to
do from 3 to 6 points of damage on a shot. Further I believed that you
mentioned earlier that the M1's main gun weighed about 5 tons. Even allowing
for a compressed range, this should give the gun a range similar to the
original AC2 or at the very least AC5. In other words the M1's cannon updated
for 3050 should have the range of an ac2, the damage of ac5, but weigh less
than either of them.
2. Sure it is reasonable to assume that there would be sever difficulties in
mounting a weapon on a mech, and that it might be less accurate as a result.
But that should not apply to tanks, which even know we know how to be very
accurate with.
3. Gauss rifles still do damage with a single impact based hit. This would
suggests that this weapon would be far better used if it used explosives
instead. Since the round is 125kg, it can be assumed that 70-80 kg could
be explosives. Assuming 2 kg for an LRM warhead suggests that the round
ought to be able to do 35-40 points of damage.
: Next time you want to LD a target, remember this: LD's tend to be
: low-power, short-range lasers, usually limited to less than a thousand
: meters depending on conditions (in other words, you are in range). Also
: remember that if you LD a target, and that target has laser sensors, you
: have just LD'd yourself -- lasers go both ways. Guided weapons are slow,
: jammable/spoofable, and can be shot down with a fair amount of difficulty.
: As the Egyptians discovered when they started using the Sagger, guided
: weapons can be effective but good countermeasures can take care of most of
: the problem. In BTech, this problem would be infinitely worse. Try this
: sometime: go outside with a laser pointer. Now, get your friend to go
: out about fifty meters, and then have him start running around and dodging
: and weaving. Then try to hold the laser steady on one point of your
: friend's body. Doesn't work too well, does it? You might be able to land
: something in their general vicinity, but that wouldn't work too well
: against a mech, where large-scale direct impacts are required to create
: serious damage.
Of course modern targeting computers can do a lot for us, once it has locked
on to the target, of course it don't help get the lock.
: There is a point where your propellant gives diminishing returns. So what
: if you increase the amount of propellant? The rounds become so large you
: can only carry one or two. What's the use in that? This argument is
: explained very well in David Drake's Hammer's Slammers -- at some point,
: you either have to decrease the size of the projectile to get more
: velocity (and range, sort of) or increase the size of the projectile and
: lose velocity(but you gain explosive energy at impact). We are already
: almost at the limits of our current propellants, but several promising new
: types are in the works. There are chemical limits to such development,
: which we can assume to have been reached in BTech.
Of course one could always use nuclear popellants :-)
The main problem is that as I understand it autocannons in BT use explosive
rounds to do the damage. That means (as you pointed out earlier) that the
range should be more dependent on targeting ability than how far the shell
can fly. If we assume that the shell flies farther than the 270 m that the
original ac20 was limited to, then we have to assume that targetting in the
31st century is almost completely ineffective.
: Such rules only add complexity. Such fire is assumed to be used as
: appropriate by the trained pilots in the mechs. If expert fire is not
: used, it is represented by a gunnery penalty. Simple, elegant, and
: streamlined. BTech is much more about tactics than simple gunnery
: techniques.
except strafing is a tactic that can be very important. I don't know about
the current rules but 2 ed rules did allow lasers to strafe. Further while
it might be argued that ac would not do enough damage to tanks, the same
cannot be said about infantry, imagine the ability to take out several platoons
on a single pass.
: These periods of heightened lethality and shortened range are not new to
: human history. For example, the switch from bows to muskets was such a
: change -- a good longbowman could hit targets at up to 300 yards, while
: the effective range of the early muskets was under a hundred. Still, the
: change was made because the musket made armor obsolete and was much more
: lethal than the arrow.
Now here I have a definite problem. Granted the musket made armor less
effective, but armor could still be protection, particularly at long range.
The real difference had to do with several factors:
1. A musket could be learned in a fraction of the time that the bow could.
It might take a week to train a man to use a musket effectively, 10 years
to train an archer.
2. Combined Pike and Musket formations (later to be replaced with Muskets with
bayonetts) which all but eliminated the attack value of cavalry (unless of
course a formation had already been cracked.), the primary users of armor.
3. A hugh increase in the size of early modern armies made it prohibitively
expensive to outfit the entire army in both armor and muskets.
Oh, just a note, against an unarmored target, the arrow was just as effective
as the musket ball in making a target ineffective. Further it was more
accurate, had a longer range(as you pointed out), and much better rate of fire
(compare 6 aimed shots a minute to the one or two of the musket.).
Like I said above, Thanks for a reasoned rational post. While we may disagree,
debating you is a pleasure.
y@n
Dr. Teeth wrote:
> I'll be gentle. ;)
>
> have a dual layer/composite armor structore. Metal on the outside and
> plastic on the inside. The reason is thus: the metal layer could stop the
> smaller rounds cold, so that they cannot dissapate the ablative layers over
> time. THis leaves the ablative layer tos top the big rounds that can
> penetrate the metal layer. Sort of like an ballistic cloth inner shroud that
> against the big stuff, and since they are fired in less volume, a liget
> compostie can do the job effectively. That is, high volume fire (smaller
> calibers), which can shread an ablative material, are prevented from hitting
> it at al by the metal. So a higher degree of protection can be achieved by an
> overall lower mass of armor. Furthermore, you can space the layers, further
> dissipating the high caliber rounds. BT makes no pretence of having this,
> however. This unfortunate oversight help dim BTs light for me.
> There, that wasn't so bad, was it?
Just adding my two bits here-
Digging into the moth infested vault of (very) old games, cough, cough...
Look! Here is the original boxed set of Citytech (advanced battletech circa 1980's). If
you look in the back of the rule book, you'll find the most interesting part. It's a
section about a bunch of mechwarriors in a bar telling stories (I'm not making this
up!). The first story is about two techies. The most intesting part of this story for us
is when the narrator is talking about scavenging for armor. He says that they found some
building facing, but you need something to cover it with. So then it was like christmas
when they found a bunch of (civilian) transport trucks in an old wharehouse. Building
facing (bulky, impact absorbing stuff) under sheet metal (resists small arms
penetration). Sound familiar? I swear this is straight from the donkey's mouth, from the
first edition of battle tech, when all the designs still looked cool because they were
borrowed from Macross, Crusher Joe, and Dugram.
The real issue is that there are certain Battletech players who can't hndle criticism of
their favorite game. I keep running into these people. The worst part is that they
invite the criticism. I'll be drawing mecha, and they'll go "Oh look! A Mech!" and then
I'll say "Well, I'm not really into Battletech." So then they ask "Why Not?!?" They
invite it.
It all goes back to the basic design of the game. It is not a reality based game. The
designers did not sit down and think about how actual weapons and damage work in real
life. They just wanted to design a fun war game with mecha, and they did. It was based
upon past roleplaying games, not real life. Basically, it just uses a hit points system
like D&D or Palladium. I do concede that when it came out, it was ahead of its time in
that it actually separated armor from the mechanical structure (vs. Palladium for
instance), but the fact is that it is still just an extension of the old hitpoint
system, a convention which is out dated and should be dropped.So here we have a fun
little tactical game with cool mecha. Then two very bad things happened. One, it got
very popular, and two, they lost their liscense agreements for the japanese mecha
designs. Suddenly they had to meet the high demand with their own creativity, and the
result is what you see today. I admit, I havn't investigated moderm BT materials, but I
do know that the effect on some players was to make them pretentious and self righteous,
so they feel they must somehow justify the game's oversights, instead of just saying:
"Well, it was invented back in the 80's when the only realistic armor-damage system was
Cyber-punk and they couldn't redo the system once it became popular, and well, it's
fun!"
The basic fact is that attacking Battletech for being unrealistic is like attacking
Risk, It's pointless because it wasn't designed to be.
However, the same goes for defending it.
O.K. go ahead, flame me.
( )
-\ /- Devon Hume
|X| Winter King Publishing
/V\
Dan Higdon
Cryckyt ver3.0 <ma...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<322765...@concentric.net>...
> How about a GPS (Global Positioning System) guided missile? I believe
That works great if you have GPS satellites in orbit. I don't think those
would last long
in any BTech game. At least I know *I* would take them out before
attacking a planet!
hdan
Emery E./Eugene A. Calame
On Thu, 29 Aug 1996 16:34:15 GMT, "Robert D. Stafford"
<staf...@vetmed.wsu.edu> wrote:
>On 29 Aug 1996, Joseph Poulin wrote:
>
>> I have to disagree with your analysis. Sure, it might be
>> difficult to hit a crossing target, but Mechs are SLOW. Especially
>> compared to modern tanks or even pre-WWII naval ships. Both of those
>> have very little problem with the kind of targets you are talking about.
>>
> btech mechs are slow?? hrmm tell me has anyone else hurd of a
>tank going 215KPH?? The dasher runs at that speed according to fasa with
>masc engaged. I am sorry but my roomate was a tank pilot in the US Army
>and the fastest he has ever gone in one was around 65-70 mph which is
>ruffly 100-120kph. In Btech there are tanks that move quickly and slowly
>depending on the design. You try to hit another tank with a M-16 moving
No point in that really.
>at 65 mph accross rough terrain. Let's see you hit it. BTW no bashing
>anyone but all this talk about Btech/HG/MZ being better and/or more
>realistic is all BS. I'm sorry to say but it all depends who is running
Nope. It's opinion. The validity of such statements will vary
according to the definitions of better and realistic. Once you have
criteria to meet for those terms you can go to town though
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Btech is quintessentially inferior
to HG. I like HG better but that doesn't mean beans to people who are
making the compariosm for themselves. You can have a hell of a lot of
fun playing Btech and I don't think very many posters to this thread
and it's parents would have you believe otherwise. Btech's unrealistic
weapons have been a sort of griping point to many even before HG or
Mekton were significant contributors to rec,games.mecha . House rules
like Nuclear Battletech, Omega rules, and others have attempted to
adress this. It doesn't ruin Btech though for many people. Some will
no doubt disagree.
Still in terms of range HG weapons are more realistic. That's nothing
to fight about.
Anyway if somebody runs a game where the ranges don't suck then
technicly he ain't playin Btech anymore.
>the game. Personally i play Mechwarrior and have a battle hear and
>there. depending what planet/defences/who controls it, is what the
>players are up against. Any cities, mostly tanks/infantry and maybe a
>few small mechs. Anywhere else, mostly mechs with tank/areospace
>arty/strafing runns. BTW for all terrain vehicles tanks in all truth
>suck in alot of places.
Yup. Still Mechwarrior and Btech are two differnt fish.
>> As long ago as WWII people were using collections of gears and
>> gyros to compensate for their own movement and target movement. It's not
>> all that tough.
>
>
> You are forgetting one thing. you try mounting a gun on your arm
>and having a gyro keep your arm in one place, then try to move it. Yes,
>technology has a lot to do with it and it sounds like you have never
>really read the history of BTech. AKA the loss of technology due to
The history of Btech is pretty irrelevant to the discussion. It's the
rules that have folks in a tizzy. Most of the rationalizations for why
the ranges and damage system really are realistic tend to be on the
weak side. Again it has nothing to do with Btech being playable or
enjoyable. It's just something some people want to talk about and some
don't. If those who didn't want to talk about it didn't take it so
personally and tell those who do that they are wrong/stupid and
obliged to shut up then things would probably be smoother for both
parties. No one is telling you what you have to play from now on. If
they did you wouldn't have to worry anyway because the options by
which they might enforce such a policy would be pretty sparse.
>constant war for many centruies. Before bashing, please read up on all
>the history of the game, etc.
Again the history of the game is meaningless to this particular
context of the bashing. Besides the novels have been sort of made
non-canon anyhoo so it's pretty hopeless.
>One last request, quit bitching about who is better/who is worse/who is
>realistic/etc. It is only a game, let those who like BT, HG, or HZ play
>their own game, if they want to try the others let them, I'd rather hear
>reviews/ideas on the different games than BT sucks compaired to BLAH...
>if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all
Well what you want to hear is nice and all, but it's not what others
want to post, and no one is forcing you to read this thread.
Otherwise don't think that most of us bashers have it out for Btech
players. We don't. Everything is cool.
Em
> -da Weaz
>
> *breaks out the bottle of halon to put out the flames*
Happy trails
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eugene A. Calame e.ca...@worldnet.att.net
Austin, TX USA
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Joseph Poulin
: On 29 Aug 1996, Joseph Poulin wrote:
: btech mechs are slow?? hrmm tell me has anyone else hurd of a
An average mech speed would be 86kph. Assault mechs go only
53kph. That sounds slow to me.
: tank going 215KPH?? The dasher runs at that speed according to fasa with
: masc engaged. I am sorry but my roomate was a tank pilot in the US Army
: and the fastest he has ever gone in one was around 65-70 mph which is
: ruffly 100-120kph. In Btech there are tanks that move quickly and slowly
There you go. An M-1 can do almost 100kph on a good road. That's
faster than any heavy or assault mech that I can think of and many
mediums.
: at 65 mph accross rough terrain. Let's see you hit it. BTW no bashing
: anyone but all this talk about Btech/HG/MZ being better and/or more
Actually, the thread is about how realistic BTech weapons are.
You know, those wonderful half ton MGs that can only shoot 90 meters?
Joe
Prabal Nandy
No.. actually, I won't flame you... I agree with you!
Problem is, your message's spacing is so funky I can't quote you and respond
properly.. but yeah, I agree... Btech is the "D&D" of mecha gaming. Armor
is like hit points etc etc. Which is not to say Btech isn't fun.. because it
IS fun. It just isn't terribly realistic... but hey! that shouldn't be the only
reason you're playing it. (It certainly wasn't when I was playing it.)
That being said... as almost all of us old-school RPGers started with D&D
(Sheesh, remember when their adventure books were like 20 pages long?) and
moved on to better things... one shouldn't be too surprised to see gamers
start with Btech (After all, it is roughly balanced and a cinch to learn!) and
go on to other, more specialized and customizable mecha games!
What say ye, o' Btechers and Gearheads and Mektonners? (Any "Mecha!" players
still dowsing around here? Sheesh, that's a game that came and went!)
Rick Pikul
In article <32265D...@injersey.com>,
"Edward O. Royce" <ero...@injersey.com> wrote:
>Joseph Poulin wrote:
>>
>> I have to disagree with your analysis. Sure, it might be
>> difficult to hit a crossing target, but Mechs are SLOW. Especially
>> compared to modern tanks or even pre-WWII naval ships. Both of those
>> have very little problem with the kind of targets you are talking about.
>
>Abrams. So can an Atlas. Slow?
>
>> As long ago as WWII people were using collections of gears and
>> gyros to compensate for their own movement and target movement. It's not
>> all that tough.
>
Yes, and so could the M3 Stuart, M3 Grant, M5 Stuart, M24, A8, and the
LVT(1)A.
>
>No it couldn't and they didn't, except in battleships.
Yes they could, and they did.
Phoenix, FALH
Rick Pikul
sh...@cornell.edu (Simon H. Lee) wrote:
>
> HEAT uses a shaped-charge warhead to get the Monroe Effect (the jet
>of molten metal). HEAP (Or HEP, depending on which side of the Atlantic
>you're on) slaps a big lump of plastic explosive on the outer armor and
>detonates it to cause interior damage through spalling (not actually
>penetrating the armor).
>
You're thinking HESH (High Explosive Squash Head), HEAP (HE, Armour
Percing) is an AP round that has a HE warhead. The idea behind HEAP is that
the round punches through (like an AP round), and then explodes. As an
anti-tank round it was a falure (they tended to shatter when they hit),
however the larger size of bombs and naval guns allow them to work.
Phoenix, FALH
Simon H. Lee
In article <50g0si$95o...@patacake.uwaterloo.ca>,
WHOOPS! Okay, it was a typo (See, I wrote HEP later and that "P"
crept in on "HESH"... my bad). Got a job at FASA for me? :)
Copperhead is HESH, right? But that's fired from artillery,
usually...
--
Okay, listen up! This one's on the Internet! I'm here to log on, so check
your six! I'm gonna read my mail, and I'm gonna surf Usenet. It's gonna
be a real knife fight. Now I'm gonna utilize my filters and perhaps even a
killfile. And when I'm done, you'll have messages. It might be flames,
and it might be spam. And one more thing... it's okay to be scared!
Dr. Teeth
In Article <50ah2g$n...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
sh...@cornell.edu (Simon H. Lee) writes:
> HEAT uses a shaped-charge warhead to get the Monroe Effect (the jet
>of molten metal). HEAP (Or HEP, depending on which side of the Atlantic
>you're on) slaps a big lump of plastic explosive on the outer armor and
>detonates it to cause interior damage through spalling (not actually
>penetrating the armor).
Ah, so the HESH round is an improved/more effective HEAP round?
Rick Pikul
marcus...@student.anu.edu.au (Marcus Fong) wrote:
>In article <50715o$8...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:
>>artillery guns. Therefore you must assume that the autocannons really
>>cannot hit a target more than 270 meters away.
>
>No, I think he meant that more than 270 metres away, the burst of autocannon
>shells would disperse too much to be effective (i.e. the armour could
>dissipate the effect of 1 or 2 high-explosive shells but not 10 or 20).
Then why can't I stand my atlas 300m away from the SkyDome and start
blowing holes in it with my AC20?
Phoenix, FALH
Simon H. Lee
In article <50ha7a$p...@crick.bms.com>,
Okay, okay, I made a bleepin' typo. Replace HEAP with HESH and let
me be!
Brant L. Sponberg
In article <01bb9877$ba7858c0$d4a6...@hyperion.charybdis.com>,
More to the point, GPS can only really be used to correct the guidance of
ballistic and cruise missiles during mid-course flight--it won't guide a
missile all the way to its target--it's just not accurate enough even if
you have access to the military P-code. Of course, you can think up any
sci-fi GPS-type system you want for Btech (you might also take a look at
Renegade Legions's orbital artillery support if you're interested in this
stuff--I do space and defense policy stuff for a living so feel free to
contact me for more "real" data on these types of systems).
--
Top Sign the Scientists at NASA Have Gone Nuts (ª Worldwide Pants Inc.)
1. In a recent Martian microfossil report, the word "Klingon" appears 97 times.
°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°¥°
These photons configured by: Brant L. Sponberg--"bls...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu"
Brant L. Sponberg
In article <50g12a$95o...@patacake.uwaterloo.ca>,
Rick Pikul <RWP...@SCIENCE2.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <32265D...@injersey.com>,
>"Edward O. Royce" <ero...@injersey.com> wrote:
>>Joseph Poulin wrote:
>>Slow? A locust going at 140 kph is slow? A Stalker can outrun an M1
>>Abrams. So can an Atlas.
Barely--depends on which Abrams you're talking about also.
> Yes, and so could the M3 Stuart, M3 Grant, M5 Stuart, M24, A8, and the
>LVT(1)A.
Yes, any tank can "fire on the move." The M1 is simply the first one to
do it with any kind of battlefield reliability and accuracy.
Dr. Teeth
In Article <50ee10$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>I hope this answers the question, but I doubt it will. Later...
>
>Aetius, the last Roman
It was certainly at the very least much more lucid and well-thought than
some of the posts I've seen here. It doesn't answer all of the questions,
perhaps, but you did make some very good points. I must mull....
Bill Silvey
y@n (mar...@televar.com) wrote:
: The real issue is that there are certain Battletech players who can't hndle criticism of
THanks for enlightening us poor hacks who play Battletech. Guess what,
Brainiac? I play (and enjoy) Battletech and I fully well know it doesn't
have "realistic" weapons. Guess what else? Neither does Heavy Gear.
The closest thing to a "realistic" armored warfare game available is
Close And Destroy -- and if you want to play I hope you've got a
gymnasium and $400 worth of 1/285th scale modern day armored miniatures
to play with, comprende?
: It all goes back to the basic design of the game. It is not a reality based game. The
: designers did not sit down and think about how actual weapons and damage work in real
: life. They just wanted to design a fun war game with mecha, and they did. It was based
: upon past roleplaying games, not real life. Basically, it just uses a hit points system
: like D&D or Palladium. I do concede that when it came out, it was ahead of its time in
: that it actually separated armor from the mechanical structure (vs. Palladium for
: instance), but the fact is that it is still just an extension of the old hitpoint
: system, a convention which is out dated and should be dropped.So here we have a fun
: little tactical game with cool mecha. Then two very bad things happened. One, it got
: very popular, and two, they lost their liscense agreements for the japanese mecha
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, WRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG WRONG. Wrong.
FASA has never /ever/ "lost their license" to use the Dougram/Crusher
Joe/Macross designs. They've shelved them in favor of "original"
artwork-based designs. Nothing more. The designs will stay with the
game, the artwork (sadly) will be "purged".
: The basic fact is that attacking Battletech for being unrealistic is like attacking
: Risk, It's pointless because it wasn't designed to be.
: However, the same goes for defending it.
I agree with that much, at least.
--
#WARNING: THIS .SIG :BIOHAZARDOUS:|Online Orlando and I don't speak #
# ()() |for each other. Really. #
# () |Unsolicited email spooled for $200#
#FOR DISPOSAL EMAIL WSI...@OO.COM| ...really... #
Denver Chuan-hin Tam
>
>: Really? You design these things? I've never heard of a 120mm
>: autocannon in the real world but I would like to see one on an Abrams!
It's called a 5in naval mount.
Also comes in 3in (76mm) sizes, some of which shoot 1 round per second.
This assumes you mean 'Autocannon' to be any autoloading cannon built to
be operated without a crew.
If you want one specifically mounted on a tank, check out the 75mm gun
on an AMX-13. Fed by two autoloading 6 roung mags, can fire them off
*real* fast,..all 12 rounds. And that's a 30+ year old design.
--Den
--
+------------------------------------------------+
| Denver can be reached at dc...@eos.ncsu.edu |
| "If we are never given any opportunity to fall |
| down, then we will never learn to get up." |
Aetius
Thanks, Bill, I'll try to keep it up. :) But....
In article <50evje$u...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale)
writes:
>That is granted, but certain weapons should be as capable of doing damage
>(though not of hitting their target) at long range. Consider any gun
that
>fires any sort of he round.
This is true. However, one round from a BTech autocannon impacting on the
BattleMech would have a minor effect, perhaps half a point of damage.
Only if the whole burst could be placed on target would the real damage
occur. What the game system assumes is that the MechWarriors, the highly
trained soldiers that they are, hold their fire until it can be effective.
Now, you could hit a shut-down mech from much further out, seeing as
how it is not maneuvering. The assumption here is that the MechWarrior
has more to worry about than some shut down enemy who is 1500 meters away.
If the mech was closer, it would be worth the ten seconds to wipe it out,
but since it doesn't affect me directly just this second and there's this
Atlas...well you get the idea. The weapons are capable of inflicting
damage at longer ranges -- its just not significant in game terms, and
would require a whole new addition to the combat system to handle it.
>I am not sure I quite follow your parrallel here. The armor kept getting
>better, and by Agincort French Armor was able to resist almost all arrow
>shots (its a myth that the battle was won by arrows read John Keegan's
Face
>or Battle).
It could resist arrows, but not the increasingly effective muskets (which
at the time of Agincourt were not in use). I also disagree with John
about the use of the longbow, because it did have one important effect --
it caused the French knights to dismount and attack on foot (the horses
were hideously vulnerable to the arrows). As the pike/musket formations
emerged, the knights were rendered useless, as they could not charge these
formations and were cut to pieces if they tried. The parallel here is
that modern weapons are the arrows -- long range, lethal to relatively
unprotected targets, and very accurate. BTech weapons are the muskets --
shorter range, easier to use, much more lethal to well-protected targets
than the arrows (if it didn't kill you, it sure did break a couple of ribs
- ouch). Sure, they could kill out to about five hundred yards, but damn
if you could hit with one past about a hundred (we're talking Brown Bess
here, not Kentucky Long Rifles).
>1. While I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the kinetic
warhead
>might be made almost ineffective, a heat or heap warhead should still be
>effective. I am not sure how much weight of a modern 120mm HE round is
>actually taken up by the warhead, but let us be generous and give it
about
>25% (if it is less we will assume that propellant technology has improved
as
>well) or about 6 kg. In a previous post I showed that an average LRM
missle
>weighed 8.3 kg and it was reasonable to assume that the warhead was only
>1 or at most 2 kg. That means that the round could reasonably assumed to
>do from 3 to 6 points of damage on a shot. Further I believed that you
>mentioned earlier that the M1's main gun weighed about 5 tons. Even
allowing
>for a compressed range, this should give the gun a range similar to the
>original AC2 or at the very least AC5. In other words the M1's cannon
updated
>for 3050 should have the range of an ac2, the damage of ac5, but weigh
less
>than either of them.
Ah, but you are forgetting -- there's over a thousand years of explosives
development and penetrator design between now and then. The BTech LRM
warhead may weigh only 2 kg, but the damage it does (HEAP or HEAT or
whatever they came up with) is much greater than the 120mm HEAT round due
to much better ammunition and explosive design. These folks have been at
war for over three hundred years -- the ammunition design would have
improved substantially from ours, even given the lost tech. Necessity is
the mother of invention.
>2. Sure it is reasonable to assume that there would be sever difficulties
in
>mounting a weapon on a mech, and that it might be less accurate as a
result.
>But that should not apply to tanks, which even know we know how to be
very
>accurate with.
The BattleTech weapons on the mechs would be more accurate than modern
weapons -- if they only had to fire one round. It is the same difference
between a submachine gun and a single action rifle -- the rifle is more
accurate at longer ranges, but if you had to hit the target with twenty
rounds in order to damage it, it would be useless. Stabilization problems
become much more acute with higher rates of fire and the heavy recoil
associated with the more powerful BTech weapons -- and such problems would
affect both tanks and BattleMechs, although granted it would have a
slightly lesser effect on the ground vehicles (but more so on hovercraft).
Again, you could hit out at long ranges, but the damage would be
insignificant in game terms.
>3. Gauss rifles still do damage with a single impact based hit. This
would
>suggests that this weapon would be far better used if it used explosives
>instead. Since the round is 125kg, it can be assumed that 70-80 kg could
>be explosives. Assuming 2 kg for an LRM warhead suggests that the round
>ought to be able to do 35-40 points of damage.
The Gauss rifle is an attempt to get around the armor defense using a
different method. For HEAT warheads and other shaped-charge type weapons,
size is not that much of an issue. Just a regular HE warhead would have
to be huge (i.e., an artillery shell) in order to get blast damage on a
BattleMech -- shrapnel is ineffective. So the damage for the explosive
Gauss round would be more like 10 points, or even five, because it is not
a linear progression. The AC/20 shells are fired in bursts of 200 kg
total weight, which argues for a quite a large amount of explosives at
high velocity in addition to multiple strikes to get the 20 points of
damage that they do.
The Gauss, on the other hand, does damage through impact, not explosive
force. It is designed to twist and bend things the wrong way, crush
armor, bend supports, and generally wreak havoc through momentum. In this
respect it is similar to the damage done by physical attacks, at least in
the results of the damage. Such a weapon, however, would suffer from the
same problems as the old muskets -- the large rounds are extremely
unstable in flight and would not be very accurate at long range. While
you could shape the round to be more aerodynamic, it would defeat the
purpose of the weapon.
>Of course one could always use nuclear popellants :-)
The mechs are already shielded..... :) although I wouldn't want to be
around after a planet was fought over. It's bad enough with the fusion
explosions.
>The main problem is that as I understand it autocannons in BT use
explosive
>rounds to do the damage. That means (as you pointed out earlier) that
the
>range should be more dependent on targeting ability than how far the
shell
>can fly. If we assume that the shell flies farther than the 270 m that
the
>original ac20 was limited to, then we have to assume that targetting in
the
>31st century is almost completely ineffective.
It is not just targetting ability, as I explained earlier, but the
difficulty of the target (who is very maneuverable and trying not to get
hit), control of the weapon, and the ability to hit with multiple rounds.
The weapons being used are extremely powerful and difficult to control,
with immense recoil. The 270 meters was about the point where the damage
from a strike would be too diluted to register in game terms. Again, this
could be done in the system, but is too insignificant to warrant the added
complexity.
>except strafing is a tactic that can be very important. I don't know
about
>the current rules but 2 ed rules did allow lasers to strafe. Further
while
>it might be argued that ac would not do enough damage to tanks, the same
>cannot be said about infantry, imagine the ability to take out several
platoons
>on a single pass.
Strafe exactly how? It was my understanding that that was the way the
lasers operated, MW2 aside. A continuous beam, swept across the target
and held steady as much as possible to inflict maximum damage. The system
assumes that if firing at infantry, you are already strafing and sweeping
the weapon across the whole hex, trying to hit as many as possible. I've
always thought that the damage to infantry should be more random, but it
is difficult to figure out an easy system that is significantly better
than the current one. The infantry is vulnerable enough already --
there's no need to make it worse.
>Now here I have a definite problem. Granted the musket made armor less
>effective, but armor could still be protection, particularly at long
range.
>The real difference had to do with several factors:
Which is why BTech weapons have short ranges: the armor is sufficient for
the weak, single strikes at long range.
In order for the armor to remain protection, however, it had to become
heavier and heavier. Soon it was practically useless, since a knight
could not fight on the ground because he couldn't get up if knocked down.
The heavier armor was proof against the arrows (most of the time), but not
against the muskets at short range, and was prohibitively expensive, and
so dropped out of use. Also, the horses were very vulnerable to both
weapons (you can't heavily armor both the horse and the rider, something
has to give somewhere).
>1. A musket could be learned in a fraction of the time that the bow
could.
>It might take a week to train a man to use a musket effectively, 10 years
>to train an archer.
True. No historical parallel is perfect. :)
>2. Combined Pike and Musket formations (later to be replaced with Muskets
with
>bayonetts) which all but eliminated the attack value of cavalry (unless
of
>course a formation had already been cracked.), the primary users of
armor.
True. Musket/Pike formations had 1)high close range firepower and 2) the
ability to make the counter strike of the cavalry very dangerous to the
cavalry. The two together could beat up any armored cavalry formation.
The archers, while more accurate at long range, did not have that ability.
However, archers against such a Musket/Pike formation were very
effective, and could tear them to pieces at long range, which is why
cavalry remained in existence and skirmishers often used bows and
crossbows. In the case of BTech, the skirmishers have to have the big
weapons if they hope to do significant damage, because all the targets are
well-protected.
>3. A hugh increase in the size of early modern armies made it
prohibitively
>expensive to outfit the entire army in both armor and muskets.
True, because the armor was becoming a real hassle to make due to its
intricate and heavy construction, and in any case was questionable
protection. This is why they went to the breastplate style stuff --
helped against swords and pistols. You'll also see the beginnings of
modern armor design in the crested breast plates and sloped armor -- for
deflecting stray shots and sword thrusts.
>Oh, just a note, against an unarmored target, the arrow was just as
effective
>as the musket ball in making a target ineffective. Further it was more
>accurate, had a longer range(as you pointed out), and much better rate of
fire
>(compare 6 aimed shots a minute to the one or two of the musket.).
True. I meant against an armored target of the late, heavy armor variety.
I yield the floor once again.
Aetius, the last Roman
Emery E./Eugene A. Calame
On 3 Sep 1996 18:11:31 GMT, wsi...@oo.com (Bill Silvey) wrote:
>y@n (mar...@televar.com) wrote:
>: The real issue is that there are certain Battletech players who can't hndle criticism of
>: their favorite game. I keep running into these people. The worst part is that they
>
>THanks for enlightening us poor hacks who play Battletech. Guess what,
>Brainiac? I play (and enjoy) Battletech and I fully well know it doesn't
>have "realistic" weapons. Guess what else? Neither does Heavy Gear.
>The closest thing to a "realistic" armored warfare game available is
>Close And Destroy -- and if you want to play I hope you've got a
HG is more realistic though. :) Fight! Fight!
>gymnasium and $400 worth of 1/285th scale modern day armored miniatures
>to play with, comprende?
Nahhh. You're thinking of Games Workshop stuff now. :)
>: It all goes back to the basic design of the game. It is not a reality based game. The
>: designers did not sit down and think about how actual weapons and damage work in real
>: life. They just wanted to design a fun war game with mecha, and they did. It was based
>: upon past roleplaying games, not real life. Basically, it just uses a hit points system
>: like D&D or Palladium. I do concede that when it came out, it was ahead of its time in
>: that it actually separated armor from the mechanical structure (vs. Palladium for
>: instance), but the fact is that it is still just an extension of the old hitpoint
>: system, a convention which is out dated and should be dropped.So here we have a fun
>: little tactical game with cool mecha. Then two very bad things happened. One, it got
>: very popular, and two, they lost their liscense agreements for the japanese mecha
>
>Wrong. Wrong, wrong, WRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG WRONG. Wrong.
>FASA has never /ever/ "lost their license" to use the Dougram/Crusher
>Joe/Macross designs. They've shelved them in favor of "original"
>artwork-based designs. Nothing more. The designs will stay with the
>game, the artwork (sadly) will be "purged".
Yeah, I've never heard of them losing their liscense either or anyone
actually proving it to be invalid. Anyhoo I would guess that they
shelved the old illos partly to keep further law-suits from cropping
up. Even if you win a law suit is a waste of funds and time. Oops.
That was obvious and therefore condescending so I guess I'll get
called a Braniac too now. Sigh.
>
>: The basic fact is that attacking Battletech for being unrealistic is like attacking
>: Risk, It's pointless because it wasn't designed to be.
I don't agree. It's a valid criticism and hey! Maybe the earlier
poster was right. Maybe Some Btechers are a bit fragile on the
subject. As for atacking Btech that term kind of speaks for itself.
Criticism of Btech does not constitute an attack and the whole fight
mentality is kind of silly if you ask me. But it's nothing HG bunnies
aren't capable of matching right guys? Remember your "weenie roast"
about whether cetain designs were ahem borrowed from an old Japanese
TV show? Hmmm? The fanaticism unleashed was to say the least painfully
similar.
Not that I'm above hypocracy. Anyway Btech isn't realistic in terms of
weapons and dmage, and that's okay. But so is talking about it's being
unrealistic. Probably nobady really wanted to start a real fight over
it. Just some playful ribbing. Keep in mind that most HG players who
post here go back a long way with Btech and have fond(if unrealistic)
memories of the game.
>: However, the same goes for defending it.
Hey! That's not pointless either. Just silly. :)
>I agree with that much, at least.
Cool. Peace and mercy to all the world.
Em
>--
>#WARNING: THIS .SIG :BIOHAZARDOUS:|Online Orlando and I don't speak #
># ()() |for each other. Really. #
># () |Unsolicited email spooled for $200#
>#FOR DISPOSAL EMAIL WSI...@OO.COM| ...really... #
Happy trails
Bill McHale
Bill Silvey (wsi...@oo.com) wrote:
: THanks for enlightening us poor hacks who play Battletech. Guess what,
: Brainiac? I play (and enjoy) Battletech and I fully well know it doesn't
: have "realistic" weapons. Guess what else? Neither does Heavy Gear.
: The closest thing to a "realistic" armored warfare game available is
: Close And Destroy -- and if you want to play I hope you've got a
: gymnasium and $400 worth of 1/285th scale modern day armored miniatures
: to play with, comprende?
This is exactly the sort of thing that his post was about. The simple
fact is that Battle Tech does not attempt to make the weapons plausible
by what we know about reality. We don't have a problem with that per say,
as individuals we perfer a game that is a little more plausible.
Sure HG does not completely model reality, but it does try to make the
weapons and their effects somewhat realistic, or at least plausible.
Heck, DP9 runs their designs by Military expersts to make sure that they
are not to unreasonable, thus you will not see 200mm autocannons.
But that is not what the post was about anyway. Iirc he did not even
mention HG, he simply said that he personally found BT too unrealistic to
be plausible, and that many of the people who play BT seem to become
unreasonable when he tells them why he does not play.
Further if you remember, in this particular thread at least, it was not
the HG proponents that started it, rather it was a BT player who set
himself up by proclaiming how realistic that BT weapons were.
: Wrong. Wrong, wrong, WRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG WRONG. Wrong.
: FASA has never /ever/ "lost their license" to use the Dougram/Crusher
: Joe/Macross designs. They've shelved them in favor of "original"
: artwork-based designs. Nothing more. The designs will stay with the
: game, the artwork (sadly) will be "purged".
Chill, that rumor has been flying around so long that it should not
suprise you that there are still people who think its true. Simply
correct them and leave them be ok.
: : The basic fact is that attacking Battletech for being unrealistic is like attacking
: : Risk, It's pointless because it wasn't designed to be.
: : However, the same goes for defending it.
: I agree with that much, at least.
So why the hell did you attack him so hard. If you had followed this
thread at all you would have realized that unlike you there is a very
sizable percentage of the BT population that thinks that the game is
realistic. Further looking at the original post he never mentioned HG or
any other game other than BT. He was simply answering the screwhead that
started this thread by proclaiming loudly that BT weapons were realistic.
If you enjoy BT great, so do I and actually so do a lot of the people that
play MZ and HG regularly. That those systems might be somewhat more
realistic or plausible has little to do with this thread. Sure some of us
have mentionied it, improperly I might add, but when it comes down to it,
this thread is not really about any of those other games.
Emery E./Eugene A. Calame
On 3 Sep 1996 18:11:01 -0400, aet...@aol.com (Aetius) wrote:
>Thanks, Bill, I'll try to keep it up. :) But....
>
>In article <50evje$u...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale)
>writes:
>
>>That is granted, but certain weapons should be as capable of doing damage
>
>>(though not of hitting their target) at long range. Consider any gun
>that
>>fires any sort of he round.
>
>This is true. However, one round from a BTech autocannon impacting on the
>BattleMech would have a minor effect, perhaps half a point of damage.
>Only if the whole burst could be placed on target would the real damage
>occur. What the game system assumes is that the MechWarriors, the highly
>trained soldiers that they are, hold their fire until it can be effective.
All of the above is not covered by the rules. And the rules is what
most f the criticism stems from.
> Now, you could hit a shut-down mech from much further out, seeing as
>how it is not maneuvering. The assumption here is that the MechWarrior
>has more to worry about than some shut down enemy who is 1500 meters away.
> If the mech was closer, it would be worth the ten seconds to wipe it out,
>but since it doesn't affect me directly just this second and there's this
>Atlas...well you get the idea. The weapons are capable of inflicting
>damage at longer ranges -- its just not significant in game terms, and
>would require a whole new addition to the combat system to handle it.
Yep. That would be the direction that a lot of the criticizers would
probably encourage the game to move in, or at least develop house
rules to that end.
>>I am not sure I quite follow your parrallel here. The armor kept getting
>
>>better, and by Agincort French Armor was able to resist almost all arrow
>>shots (its a myth that the battle was won by arrows read John Keegan's
>Face
>>or Battle).
>
>It could resist arrows, but not the increasingly effective muskets (which
>at the time of Agincourt were not in use). I also disagree with John
>about the use of the longbow, because it did have one important effect --
>it caused the French knights to dismount and attack on foot (the horses
>were hideously vulnerable to the arrows). As the pike/musket formations
>emerged, the knights were rendered useless, as they could not charge these
>formations and were cut to pieces if they tried. The parallel here is
>that modern weapons are the arrows -- long range, lethal to relatively
>unprotected targets, and very accurate. BTech weapons are the muskets --
>shorter range, easier to use, much more lethal to well-protected targets
>than the arrows (if it didn't kill you, it sure did break a couple of ribs
>- ouch). Sure, they could kill out to about five hundred yards, but damn
>if you could hit with one past about a hundred (we're talking Brown Bess
>here, not Kentucky Long Rifles).
It's a nice parallel but I can't help but think that this isn't really
the case. Btech weapons are just poor approximations of modern and
futuristic weapons because it was felt that more accurate ones would
probably slow down gameplay, lead to longer range engagements thus
preventing neato physical combats, and still be suspect to the detail
freaks and sci-fi purists. They just threw some numbers out and used
them.
Nope. Don't buy it. Check out what it does to soft targets, like
infantry. Please stick to the rules when formulating explanations. The
background is not what we are arguing over here. At least I got the
impression that it isn't. The rules are what the participants are
attempting to justify and rebuke. The background is pretty much
outside the debate where actual game processes conflict with or do no
indoicate their existence. Right?
>war for over three hundred years -- the ammunition design would have
>improved substantially from ours, even given the lost tech. Necessity is
>the mother of invention.
They're bottle rockets okay? They buy 'em from road side stands before
the battle. :) That's what the rules make them seem like and that's
what people are harangueing on.
>>2. Sure it is reasonable to assume that there would be sever difficulties
>in
>>mounting a weapon on a mech, and that it might be less accurate as a
>result.
>>But that should not apply to tanks, which even know we know how to be
>very
>>accurate with.
>
>The BattleTech weapons on the mechs would be more accurate than modern
>weapons -- if they only had to fire one round. It is the same difference
>between a submachine gun and a single action rifle -- the rifle is more
>accurate at longer ranges, but if you had to hit the target with twenty
>rounds in order to damage it, it would be useless. Stabilization problems
>become much more acute with higher rates of fire and the heavy recoil
>associated with the more powerful BTech weapons -- and such problems would
>affect both tanks and BattleMechs, although granted it would have a
>slightly lesser effect on the ground vehicles (but more so on hovercraft).
> Again, you could hit out at long ranges, but the damage would be
>insignificant in game terms.
Which game terms? The game terms don't employ rnage at all when
figuring damage. Rapid firing guided rockets doesn't really affect
their accuracy in modern weapons. Really it shouldn't affect
futuristic ones should it? Or are they completely unguided?
I don't think that saying that the context or frame of reference in
which we experience range, damage and accuracy is deceptive when
applied to these future equivalents for our modern weaponry. It just
has too many holes in it. It also has too little support from the
rules at hand.
>>3. Gauss rifles still do damage with a single impact based hit. This
>would
>>suggests that this weapon would be far better used if it used explosives
>>instead. Since the round is 125kg, it can be assumed that 70-80 kg could
>>be explosives. Assuming 2 kg for an LRM warhead suggests that the round
>>ought to be able to do 35-40 points of damage.
>
>The Gauss rifle is an attempt to get around the armor defense using a
>different method. For HEAT warheads and other shaped-charge type weapons,
>size is not that much of an issue. Just a regular HE warhead would have
>to be huge (i.e., an artillery shell) in order to get blast damage on a
>BattleMech -- shrapnel is ineffective. So the damage for the explosive
Actually machine gun can effect this armor. Why aren't there warheads
along the lines of a half ton of mchine gun ammo for damage effect
then? Why don't we have missles that do more than 15-20 pts. of
damage? Why does this miraculous warhead do less damage than an MG ?
>Gauss round would be more like 10 points, or even five, because it is not
>a linear progression. The AC/20 shells are fired in bursts of 200 kg
>total weight, which argues for a quite a large amount of explosives at
>high velocity in addition to multiple strikes to get the 20 points of
>damage that they do.
Ummm. Hmmm. Actually about all we know about Autocannons is how far
they shoot and what they do. That's it. The rest is background and
apparently subject to change from mech to mech. One mech's AC/5 may
not use the same ammo in the same ammpounts as another mech's AC/5.
It's a designation that appears to be based on effect rather than any
specific set of definitions. All you know about any AC/5 in the Btech
context is what damage it will do, at what range it can do it, how
many firings of the weapon you have on board, what will happen when it
is hit, how many critical spaces it takes up, how much heat one firing
will produce, and how much it weighs. these are the things that define
an autocannon, not a muzzle diameter of x mm., an ammunition
type(Long, Dispensing sabot, teflon coated, or a rate of fire
measuring real quantities of ammo as opposed to weights expended by a
single firing. DU, etc.) I think thaqt goig into phantom detail here
is a mistake.
> The Gauss, on the other hand, does damage through impact, not explosive
>force. It is designed to twist and bend things the wrong way, crush
>armor, bend supports, and generally wreak havoc through momentum. In this
>respect it is similar to the damage done by physical attacks, at least in
>the results of the damage. Such a weapon, however, would suffer from the
>same problems as the old muskets -- the large rounds are extremely
>unstable in flight and would not be very accurate at long range. While
>you could shape the round to be more aerodynamic, it would defeat the
>purpose of the weapon.
It might or might not. Gnerally I would think that enough force behind
something will tend to sabilize it's flight. If you have a force
pushing the object ahead at a much much greater degree of energy than
gravity, air resistence, or non-symmetry deformations of the ideal
motion then I think at some point you'll have deformations of the
intended motion so small that they won't be significant in determining
damage or accuracy. Of course that may be naive on my part. But really
this is a chunk of whatever hurtling forward at some relevant
percentage of the velocity of light when traveling through a vaccuum
and the kind of forces that can do that ought to overwhelm the
tendency of a globe to tumble, spin, and drop. Dontcha' think?
Or maybe they aren't that high velocity after all and tend to be
relatively low powered mass drivers.
>>Of course one could always use nuclear popellants :-)
>
>The mechs are already shielded..... :) although I wouldn't want to be
>around after a planet was fought over. It's bad enough with the fusion
>explosions.
Depending on how bad they are... Really I gather that a fusion
explosion is really just a big heat wave. Sure, firestorms suck, but
there apparently isn't a whole lot of heavy Neutron radiation
involved. So you could go back one day. And I think we all know that a
near nuke would throw a mech a long way away and kill the utter *&#%$^
out of it's pilot. 9 points of armor won't save you from Mother
Fire-Nuke anymore than it will a lucky shot with an LRM 15. And yep, I
got lucky and killed a guy with 10 LRMS tot the head in one shot. IF
bottle roclkets can do it then how could a mech hope to survive the
big Mushroom? Other than ye old plot device anyhoo...
>>The main problem is that as I understand it autocannons in BT use
>explosive
>>rounds to do the damage. That means (as you pointed out earlier) that
>the
>>range should be more dependent on targeting ability than how far the
>shell
>>can fly. If we assume that the shell flies farther than the 270 m that
>the
>>original ac20 was limited to, then we have to assume that targetting in
>the
>>31st century is almost completely ineffective.
>
>It is not just targetting ability, as I explained earlier, but the
>difficulty of the target (who is very maneuverable and trying not to get
>hit), control of the weapon, and the ability to hit with multiple rounds.
> The weapons being used are extremely powerful and difficult to control,
>with immense recoil. The 270 meters was about the point where the damage
Lasers with intense recoil? Rocket launchers without dry launch
options or vented tubes? Okay...
>from a strike would be too diluted to register in game terms. Again, this
>could be done in the system, but is too insignificant to warrant the added
>complexity.
According to some....
>>except strafing is a tactic that can be very important. I don't know
>about
>>the current rules but 2 ed rules did allow lasers to strafe. Further
>while
>>it might be argued that ac would not do enough damage to tanks, the same
>>cannot be said about infantry, imagine the ability to take out several
>platoons
>>on a single pass.
>
>Strafe exactly how? It was my understanding that that was the way the
>lasers operated, MW2 aside. A continuous beam, swept across the target
>and held steady as much as possible to inflict maximum damage. The system
>assumes that if firing at infantry, you are already strafing and sweeping
>the weapon across the whole hex, trying to hit as many as possible. I've
>always thought that the damage to infantry should be more random, but it
>is difficult to figure out an easy system that is significantly better
>than the current one. The infantry is vulnerable enough already --
>there's no need to make it worse.
Strafing rules are pretty over simplified in my pinion.
>
>>Now here I have a definite problem. Granted the musket made armor less
>>effective, but armor could still be protection, particularly at long
>range.
>>The real difference had to do with several factors:
>
>Which is why BTech weapons have short ranges: the armor is sufficient for
>the weak, single strikes at long range.
Ummm Nope. I think it's just the artificial nature of the rules. They
weren't made to mimic anything, just to yield a certain type of play.
> In order for the armor to remain protection, however, it had to become
>heavier and heavier. Soon it was practically useless, since a knight
>could not fight on the ground because he couldn't get up if knocked down.
>The heavier armor was proof against the arrows (most of the time), but not
>against the muskets at short range, and was prohibitively expensive, and
>so dropped out of use. Also, the horses were very vulnerable to both
>weapons (you can't heavily armor both the horse and the rider, something
>has to give somewhere).
I think that knights will offer no real equivalent of Jump Jets, MASC,
or other post 3050 gadgets. It's not really a Knight like game. I'd
say it's pretty much your typical off the top of the head sci-fi
wargame rules. Realism is a pretty new concept in sci-fi wargames.
Simulation used to be a buzzward as opposed to a real design goal.
Maybe Btech is more like the old war of chariots?
>>1. A musket could be learned in a fraction of the time that the bow
>could.
>>It might take a week to train a man to use a musket effectively, 10 years
>>to train an archer.
>
>True. No historical parallel is perfect. :)
I'm not sure what purpose this parallel served actually. Just an
attempt to illustrate the general style of warfare?
>>2. Combined Pike and Musket formations (later to be replaced with Muskets
>with
>>bayonetts) which all but eliminated the attack value of cavalry (unless
>of
>>course a formation had already been cracked.), the primary users of
>armor.
>
>True. Musket/Pike formations had 1)high close range firepower and 2) the
>ability to make the counter strike of the cavalry very dangerous to the
>cavalry. The two together could beat up any armored cavalry formation.
>The archers, while more accurate at long range, did not have that ability.
> However, archers against such a Musket/Pike formation were very
>effective, and could tear them to pieces at long range, which is why
>cavalry remained in existence and skirmishers often used bows and
>crossbows. In the case of BTech, the skirmishers have to have the big
No. I think cavalry remained in existence primarily because it was the
traditional glory role and a favorite of certain nobles and pretenders
to noblese. Cavalry evetually became a mater of highly mobile pistol
and rifle men(after the true age of muskets and flintlocks I fear) and
eventually became helicopters and mechanized armor units who used the
term to convey more tradition than any accuracy of role on the
battlefield.
>weapons if they hope to do significant damage, because all the targets are
>well-protected.
>
>>3. A hugh increase in the size of early modern armies made it
>prohibitively
>>expensive to outfit the entire army in both armor and muskets.
>
>True, because the armor was becoming a real hassle to make due to its
>intricate and heavy construction, and in any case was questionable
>protection. This is why they went to the breastplate style stuff --
>helped against swords and pistols. You'll also see the beginnings of
>modern armor design in the crested breast plates and sloped armor -- for
>deflecting stray shots and sword thrusts.
I was under the impression that full armor was *never* that common on
the ancient battlefields. It was more common for troops to carry a
leather helm and an axe and possibly some kind of splint mail or a
cuirass type affair. Full armor, and articulated armor tended to be on
nobles and generals and money bags and not on the main body of troops.
At least that's the impression I get running around museums and
chatting with tour leaders...
At some point mobility and freedom of movement were recognized as
being more valuable than heavy protective coverings in western
warfare. Whether this coincided with the early muskets, and the older
blunderbusses and heavy Crossbows and such I am not educated enough to
say.
>>Oh, just a note, against an unarmored target, the arrow was just as
>effective
>>as the musket ball in making a target ineffective. Further it was more
>>accurate, had a longer range(as you pointed out), and much better rate of
>fire
>>(compare 6 aimed shots a minute to the one or two of the musket.).
>
>True. I meant against an armored target of the late, heavy armor variety.
I've heard it said that anything an arrow can do an atl-atl can do
better. But then I've heard a lot of crap. What do you think?
Em
>I yield the floor once again.
>Aetius, the last Roman
Happy trails
Edward O. Royce
Michael Kelly wrote:
>
> In article <agryn.8...@kd3bj.ampr.org>,
> ag...@kd3bj.ampr.org (Andrew Gryn) wrote:
>
> <F-117 stuff sent the way of the Dodo>
>
> >This has always been my impression of Battletech weapons. These weapons
> >almost certainly can go far past their stated Btech ranges, but outside
> >the stated Max. range, they have almost no chance of aquiring a target.
> >There is just too much ECM on the 31st century battlefield.
> >
> but consider the following standard responses.
>
> 1) If Btech weapons could fire further *if* the target did not have this
> alleged inbuilt ECM. Then why can't they fire at say an ordinary building
> at beyond this range? Or, given the coordinates, use it's LRM's to bombard
> an enemy base?
The problem is that the original rules never included buildings and when they
did, the original rules were never revised. There was an attempt to include
rules for "extreme range" weapons that I could post. I have an old
Battletechnology that has them. They're pretty good and I personally prefer to
play with them.
As for ECM. ECM plays a limited role in my mind in BT. Usually it's economics
and transport that requires the use of "dumb" weapons and possibly the loss of
technology.
> 2) For a LOS weapon (AC or whatever) supposing I simply paint you with a laser
> beam and use it to aim. How does your ECM counter this? (Although aerosols
> could do it). Why not just use the conventional optically based targetting
> systems used by modern tanks? They are, I believe, impervious to ECM and
> can hit a moving target at ranges much farther than BT weapons.
There aren't any laser guided weapons in BT. If you could hit with a laser
designator, you might as well hit with a Large Laser.
As for the "the conventional optically based targettin systems" I personally
believe it is due to the time element. Usually in BT the time frame is in tenths
of a minute. Even assuming that a mech has equivalent tech to an M1 tank, the
mech would have to not jump, not be forced to make piloting roles (jarring
movement) and possibly not move through rough/forested terrain (in order to
maintain the lock). Under these conditions that mech would probably get hammered
by another mech.
In a siege condition those conditions would apply and so I suppose you might have
a case.
My reasoning is that I believe an M1 is capable of 3 aimed rounds per minute,
which translates to 1 every other turn in BT.
> 3) If high ECM levels are the reason that mechs can't target and hit distant
> targets then this problem is with the targetting system and so shouldn't
> affect the weapons ranges. This means that almost all weapons could be
> fired to their maximum range before the targetting systems are nullified
> by ECM ie an AC/20 should have the same range as a AC/2, ranging out until
> the mech can no longer lock on targets. As this is not the case then the
> problem is with the weapons and not with the targetting systems.
The problem is, as stated before, the amount of kinetic energy needed to inflict
the requisite amount of damage. If your shots spread over the target and are not
grouped closely enough, they might not be able to do enough damage. This problem
would, of course, be heightened with longer ranges.
> Basically you're saying "yeah, but it *might* be because ..." Nothing in the
> rules or the history indicates it's so.
The rules are abstract. I prefer them that way so that I can get on to the
business at hand, which is having fun. If any really prefers mondo rules, then
try War in the Pacific. The only large scale wargame that I know of that
incorporates rules to cover the curvature of the earth.
> Mike Kelly.
ed
--
Flashheart - ero...@injersey.com | Member of the NRA
| Member of ACOG
Edward O. Royce
Andrew Gryn wrote:
>
> OK..here's something to consider, too. Have you ever seen a dogfight
> between two F-117 Nighthawks? Since both planes use stealth tech, and
> any use of high-powered radar would give them away, you can BET such a
> fight would be a close, furious affair, with weapons operating at far
> shorter range than they are normally capacble of.
Actually you would never see a dogfight between these two planes because they
don't carry Air to Air missiles or guns. But I understand the spirit of your
case.
> To say that such a fight won't happen is just wishful thinking. The F-22
> is paetially stealthed, and it's only a matter of time until two military
> forces with this tech bump heads.
I always understood it to be an Air Superiority fighter. The strike aspects are
almost secondary so the stealthing isn't the most important aspect.
> This has always been my impression of Battletech weapons. These weapons
> almost certainly can go far past their stated Btech ranges, but outside
> the stated Max. range, they have almost no chance of aquiring a target.
> There is just too much ECM on the 31st century battlefield.
I'm not sure about ECM. I do think that the rationale is that since the
targeting is manual, the ability to hit is greatly reduced to the stats used in
BT.
Edward O. Royce
Prabal Nandy wrote:
>
> In article <5095cv$1...@news.corpcomm.net>, Clint <tex...@corpcomm.net> wrote:
>
> >>OK..here's something to consider, too. Have you ever seen a dogfight
> >>between two F-117 Nighthawks? Since both planes use stealth tech, and
>
> >drop their laser-guided BOMBS at each other? Plus, it would have to
> >be a close fight, the plane is not equipped with any radar.
>
> Now THAT is something I'd pay to see on those "Discover Channel" Aircraft
> video offers! Sheesh, about the only way one of these puppies could kill the
> other would be to drop one of those ol' 250 pounders on the other while its
> still in the hangar!
Believe it or not a laser guided anti-tank missile could probably do it. I tried it
in Jane's ATF (not a good comparison, just for kicks) and that simulation allowed it.
Of course the other pilot has to be pretty oblivious.