Battletech in World War I

[Nephtys]

For BT Game mechanics, the mech mounted machine gun is basically a 20mm AP cannon. Personel-portable machine guns are represented by weapons carried by infantry platoons, and are generally utterly ineffective. A single Locust mech can easilly mow down batallions of rifle and machine gun troops.

Mobility with said mechs is incredible by WW1 standards. Hitting 150Km/h for light mechs regularly, with jump jets covering 180 meters easilly in 10 seconds is scary, and can clear obstacles with ease. WW1 artillery is not going to be a real danger to mechs beyond light class, which regularly absorb mach 5 1/8th ton gauss projectiles, or 10-shell bursts of 120mm AC shells (AC20).

So yeah, em. Even with abysmal game ranges, there's absolutely nothing that can stop a company or binary of Battletech mechs. Machine gun bullets to the head causing pilot damage is a game mechanic, and makes no sense either. Anti-tank bullets causing noticible damage is silly, given the use of twenty-kilogram SRM HEAT warheads doing not very much at all either.

So Mechs win.

[Sarevok]

For BT Game mechanics, the mech mounted machine gun is basically a 20mm AP cannon. Personel-portable machine guns are represented by weapons carried by infantry platoons, and are generally utterly ineffective. A single Locust mech can easilly mow down batallions of rifle and machine gun troops.

Except said machine gun has a range less then 200 m meaning very slow and weak bullets. Yet it can kill Mechs.

Mobility with said mechs is incredible by WW1 standards. Hitting 150Km/h for light mechs regularly, with jump jets covering 180 meters easilly in 10 seconds is scary, and can clear obstacles with ease.

Thats about 64.8 km / h for jumpjets. And iirc few light mechs can actualy reach 150 km / h.

WW1 artillery is not going to be a real danger to mechs beyond light class, which regularly absorb mach 5 1/8th ton gauss projectiles

Highly questionable without calculations.

So yeah, em. Even with abysmal game ranges, there's absolutely nothing that can stop a company or binary of Battletech mechs. Machine gun bullets to the head causing pilot damage is a game mechanic, and makes no sense either. Anti-tank bullets causing noticible damage is silly, given the use of twenty-kilogram SRM HEAT warheads doing not very much at all either.

Arent the SRM missiles themselves less then 20 kg in mass ?

[Batman]

Arent the SRM missiles themselves less then 20 kg in mass ?

Less then 10, actually. One ton of SRM ammunition represents 100 or more missiles.
Mind you, that's the entire missile. So much for 20 kg worth of warhead.

[Nephtys]

For BT Game mechanics, the mech mounted machine gun is basically a 20mm AP cannon. Personel-portable machine guns are represented by weapons carried by infantry platoons, and are generally utterly ineffective. A single Locust mech can easilly mow down batallions of rifle and machine gun troops.

Except said machine gun has a range less then 200 m meaning very slow and weak bullets. Yet it can kill Mechs.

Mobility with said mechs is incredible by WW1 standards. Hitting 150Km/h for light mechs regularly, with jump jets covering 180 meters easilly in 10 seconds is scary, and can clear obstacles with ease.

Thats about 64.8 km / h for jumpjets. And iirc few light mechs can actualy reach 150 km / h.

WW1 artillery is not going to be a real danger to mechs beyond light class, which regularly absorb mach 5 1/8th ton gauss projectiles

Highly questionable without calculations.

So yeah, em. Even with abysmal game ranges, there's absolutely nothing that can stop a company or binary of Battletech mechs. Machine gun bullets to the head causing pilot damage is a game mechanic, and makes no sense either. Anti-tank bullets causing noticible damage is silly, given the use of twenty-kilogram SRM HEAT warheads doing not very much at all either.

Arent the SRM missiles themselves less then 20 kg in mass ?

1. The issue really is either in game mechanics, or targetting issues, not weapon range itself, especially in the case of machine guns.

2. I was referring running speeds, which are pretty well documented. Many mechs of 3050 era can hit that speed, and since we're talking about clan mechs.. well there's a few.

3. I figure a fragmenting shell designed for throwing shrapnel is not going to be nearly as effective as a hypersonic projectile of that mass.

4. Sorry on the SRM thing, I was looking at the RPG weight on single-shot portable mech-class SRMs.

[Batman]

1. The issue really is either in game mechanics, or targetting issues, not weapon range itself, especially in the case of machine guns.

Not only does that speak worlds about their targeting, but if it is targeting one wonders why they display the same abysmal ranges against stationary targets, leave alone huge ones.
Plus the fact that they can be damaged by machine guns at all speaks volumes.

3. I figure a fragmenting shell designed for throwing shrapnel is not going to be nearly as effective as a hypersonic projectile of that mass.

Assuming it is hypersonic in the first place, of course. Which the apparent lack of recoil rather says it isn't.

4. Sorry on the SRM thing, I was looking at the RPG weight on single-shot portable mech-class SRMs.

You are forgiven.

[PainRack]

BT weapons have abysmal range, projectile weapons have no recoil worth mentioning and ammunition weights completely incompatible with their stated calibres, and their armor weight is a joke. Wether you take the game data or the novels BT 'Mechs are outclassed by just about any force that's advanced enough to have internal combustion engines.

Do we have to do this again?
I demonstrated that mechs ranges are definitely greater than the standard Btech game, and the limitations from there is due to a myriad number of factors. The fact that it can engage aerospace fighters in the toposphere, and Battlespace conversion fluff specifically stating that its targeting computers have a range of kilometers is ample proof to show otherwise.

Your second statement is also false, unless of course, you're linking the comparison to what the expected recoil should be.

The armour may be thin, but its protection against energy weapons is high, and the trade off appears in the ablative nature against kinetic impacts. Even then, there exists a semi-consistent theme in Btech fluff to explain why this is so, although I won't bring it out until as LC says, I can iron out the holes the Atlas can walk through.

Except said machine gun has a range less then 200 m meaning very slow and weak bullets. Yet it can kill Mechs.

No. The novels as well as the RPG fluff yields much greater ranges for MGs. The game mechanic is limited by the engagement time as well as protection for mechs, although I will repeat that the damage is not physically consistent in terms of our laws of physics.

Highly questionable without calculations.

There are gauss rifle calcs out there..... the problem is, artillery is simply inconsistent in damage. Look at the Thumper vs Sniper damage profiles and compare them to modern artillery for example. There simply is no consistent theme here, or at least, none that I can find.

Not only does that speak worlds about their targeting, but if it is targeting one wonders why they display the same abysmal ranges against stationary targets, leave alone huge ones.
Plus the fact that they can be damaged by machine guns at all speaks volumes.

I addressed this the last time, remember?

Again, the "MG" for mechs and vehicles based, is a 20-30mm cannon at least. It is mentioned that ROF is important, as 30mm cannon has a slower ROF than the faster 20mm, although damage is approximately the same(as per TR fluff).

The very mere fact that MGs can provide supporting fire for urban firefights is proof that the range cannot be simply 90m.

The problem lies in finding out why the 20mm autocannon has a range of out to 650m but the 20mm cannon has a range of 90m against mechs.

Assuming it is hypersonic in the first place, of course. Which the apparent lack of recoil rather says it isn't.

And where did this assumption come from? This is frankly one of the few areas where the novels, TR fluff and game fluff concur.

[Dark Hellion]

Gauss rifles velocity is specifically stated as mach 2.2 in some bokk IIRC.

The armour may be thin, but its protection against energy weapons is high, and the trade off appears in the ablative nature against kinetic impacts

And on a wierd note, Painrack, I think this is perhaps a perfect description of Btech armour as I have understood it in my days playing Btech (which somewhat sadly are probably over for good).
My theory is that as part of the whole dark age thing, Btech mechs are designed for a battlefield where lasers and PPC ruled the day, when the Star League fell, the ability to make the high tech weapons like ER lasers and ERPPC fell to the wayside and the cheap production of obviously simpler projectile weapons took over. However, since the mech factories really didn't change production that much, the armour was still designed to absorb thermal damage, and thus the low protection against weapons like the Autocannon and Gauss rifle.
How does that sound to you Painrack?

[FOG3]

Is it not just as easy to say that the Star League hadn't had a war in how many centuries? Thus they weren't interested in producing war capable units, but units designed to keep the poorly armed Plebians in line? Thus low accuracy and the "intimidation" factor became more important to them as they want to scare them into submission rather then necessarily kill them. However the Great Houses, if they even remembered, pressed them into war and in the following battles so much data was lost they're just clueless on it? Or maybe they deliberately destroyed it sometime before the Succession Wars and launched a disinformation campaign.

A terror weapon would explain the awe they're held in, no? A rigged test would explain the weirdness in the Macky incident, no?

[Nephtys]

Is it not just as easy to say that the Star League hadn't had a war in how many centuries? Thus they weren't interested in producing war capable units, but units designed to keep the poorly armed Plebians in line? Thus low accuracy and the "intimidation" factor became more important to them as they want to scare them into submission rather then necessarily kill them. However the Great Houses, if they even remembered, pressed them into war and in the following battles so much data was lost they're just clueless on it? Or maybe they deliberately destroyed it sometime before the Succession Wars and launched a disinformation campaign.

A terror weapon would explain the awe they're held in, no? A rigged test would explain the weirdness in the Macky incident, no?

Well, even with the Star League, there was an active arms race between the great houses, as well as the League being occupied in dozens of small wars until the Amaris Coup. Personally, I explained the Mackie absorbing a 120mm HEAT shell to again, the energy-resistant armor that seems to fit the profile of mechs, and that the tank being deployed against the test Mackie as a 400 year old relic.

Assuming it is hypersonic in the first place, of course. Which the apparent lack of recoil rather says it isn't.

I was under the impression gauss shells were about mach 5. And no recoil? Well, mechs are designed to absorb recoil. The lower-velocity Heavy Gauss Rifle forces mechs to make rolls to see if their gyros can handle the recoil or not, so there you go.

[FOG3]

Uh Merkavas didn't start out with 120mm cannons. No number implies a Merkava 1 if it's even referring to a IDF machine, no?

This is it, right? How did AP turn into HEAT here? Not to mention if they're ancient as specified why do we assume they were using full power ammo? Does not using a ancient tank not seem the perfect cover for a rigged test? Use ammo way beyond its use by date and cover up that little tidbit and it seems perfect rigged propoganda material as opposed to a legit test. I'm pretty sure the gunpowder/explosives would be quite decomposed. Trick would be finding one that would actually still fire.

[Batman]

1. MG calibre. Assuming ammo weights comparable to todays they're .50 or so.
2. Range. Why can they hit aerospace fighters moving a several hundred kph at kilometre ranges but not a 'Mech right on top of them? Why do 'Mechs NOT exhibit vastly increased range against huge immobile targets?
3. Recoil. Sorry. Let's ignore their material being nowhere stronger enough by a sufficient margin than todays to not rip the arms off for arm-mounted weapons. You accelerate a 125 kg piece of iron (a spherical one )to Mach 2.2 or 5 or whatever in a fraction of a second and you expect me to buy that the gyro compensates for that?
4. Targeting. Anybody who manages to miss a 15m tall bulky humanoid at anything less than a kilometre with the naked eye leave alone supposedly sophisticated targeting systems using a Valendamned lightspeed weapon deserves to be shot.

[PainRack]

How did AP turn into HEAT here? Not to mention if they're ancient as specified why do we assume they were using full power ammo? Does not using a ancient tank not seem the perfect cover for a rigged test? Use ammo way beyond its use by date and cover up that little tidbit and it seems perfect rigged propoganda material as opposed to a legit test. I'm pretty sure the gunpowder/explosives would be quite decomposed. Trick would be finding one that would actually still fire.

Except for one thing. Star League Sourcebook explictly states that Terran Hegemony units were running into rebels which were using 20th century AT weapons. Other data also state that colonial units were then using equipment from the Soviet Civil War. Therefore, there is no reason to assume why the test would had been obselete against "modern" munitions, because that was the threat the Terran Hegemony was facing. Furthermore, since we know from the Battle of Ingress that those 20th century AT missiles were effective if they could penetrate the countermeasures, the fact that any new revolutionary armour must protect against such effects is virtually a given.

1. MG calibre. Assuming ammo weights comparable to todays they're .50 or so.

That's a problem with virtually all mech weapons. Can we just assume this to be a irrevocable inconsistency and ignore it?

2. Range. Why can they hit aerospace fighters moving a several hundred kph at kilometre ranges but not a 'Mech right on top of them? Why do 'Mechs NOT exhibit vastly increased range against huge immobile targets?

Bat, I addressed this the last time. First of all, game mechanics are the only thing saying that mechs don't exhibit increased ranges against immobile targets. There exists vague data in some novels like the Jade Falcon trilogy(which I hesitate to use due to vast inconsistency already prevalent in the material) as well as sourcebooks in which mechs and vehicles can fire at targets which will logically be out of their range. The Long Tom readout is a perfect example of this, unless cities are now built 1 kilometer away from each other. Nothing conclusive, however, the theory works.

We also discussed the combined theories of engagement timing as well as armour effectiveness in shortening the effective range of armoured combat.

3. Recoil. Sorry. Let's ignore their material being nowhere stronger enough by a sufficient margin than todays to not rip the arms off for arm-mounted weapons. You accelerate a 125 kg piece of iron (a spherical one Smile )to Mach 2.2 or 5 or whatever in a fraction of a second and you expect me to buy that the gyro compensates for that?

Let's ignore the fact that the Mech can walk. That is more than ample proof that their material strenght is vastly superior to ours, even though the physics behind it is totally wrong.

4. Targeting. Anybody who manages to miss a 15m tall bulky humanoid at anything less than a kilometre with the naked eye leave alone supposedly sophisticated targeting systems using a Valendamned lightspeed weapon deserves to be shot.

I said this before. Both Battletech, Solaris and Mechwarrior explictly states that mechwarriors engage in maneveuring, and Solaris explictly states that Mechwarriors can dodge enemy fire. This similarly applies to vehicles due to the reasoning behind the "immobile to hit modifier" ruling. Add that in to the effectiveness of armour and it helps explains the accuracy of Btech targeting.

And on a wierd note, Painrack, I think this is perhaps a perfect description of Btech armour as I have understood it in my days playing Btech (which somewhat sadly are probably over for good).
My theory is that as part of the whole dark age thing, Btech mechs are designed for a battlefield where lasers and PPC ruled the day, when the Star League fell, the ability to make the high tech weapons like ER lasers and ERPPC fell to the wayside and the cheap production of obviously simpler projectile weapons took over. However, since the mech factories really didn't change production that much, the armour was still designed to absorb thermal damage, and thus the low protection against weapons like the Autocannon and Gauss rifle.
How does that sound to you Painrack?

Dark Hellion, we both know what I will say. We both agree that Btech armour is ablative, however, unlike you, I also believe that Btech armour is physically capable of deflecting incoming shells. This is an explicity ability from both novels and sourcebook. The existing theory for ke attacks lies in the fact that Btech armour is extremely thin, and I believe it leaves certain areas virtually unprotected. The data supports the idea that range plays a vital factor in penetration, due to the fluff behind infantry swarm attacks having a critical to hit roll. However, the theory isn't workable because some of the observed data doesn't factor in yet. I'm working on it, but frankly, I don't see how it can come out to be consistent yet.

Ultimately, we may have to admit that there will be no consistent theory behind the KE protection for Btech armour, however, its proven capabilities are another issue altogether.

[FOG3]

How did AP turn into HEAT here? Not to mention if they're ancient as specified why do we assume they were using full power ammo? Does not using a ancient tank not seem the perfect cover for a rigged test? Use ammo way beyond its use by date and cover up that little tidbit and it seems perfect rigged propoganda material as opposed to a legit test. I'm pretty sure the gunpowder/explosives would be quite decomposed. Trick would be finding one that would actually still fire.

Except for one thing. Star League Sourcebook explictly states that Terran Hegemony units were running into rebels which were using 20th century AT weapons. Other data also state that colonial units were then using equipment from the Soviet Civil War. Therefore, there is no reason to assume why the test would had been obselete against "modern" munitions, because that was the threat the Terran Hegemony was facing. Furthermore, since we know from the Battle of Ingress that those 20th century AT missiles were effective if they could penetrate the countermeasures, the fact that any new revolutionary armour must protect against such effects is virtually a given.

So they're literally meaning things like RPG-7 rounds with 400 years for the explosives to deteriorate were effective... I'm pretty sure that's well beyond the shelf life of that stuff. Why are they using ~400 year old equipment... unless this wasn't the first Dark Age, and they can't make decent armor or AT munitions up to 20th century standards anymore. ~400 years later causes a few things to happen that don't translate into performance when brand new. So ~400 year old out of date muntions doesn't mean zilch about being able to take on a Merkava that hasn't been rusting for 400 years, but is brand new with fresh from the factory munitions, ie modern hardware.

[Dark Hellion]

Ultimately, we may have to admit that there will be no consistent theory behind the KE protection for Btech armour, however, its proven capabilities are another issue altogether.

Good enough for me. It is simply to inconsistant from novels to sourcebooks to make a good theory. And I have no problem with deflection of small arms, this is explicitely stated in MW3 anyways. Its just that small calibre weaponry can damage even the largest mechs, probably for many of the reasons you state, but it does very limit thier survivability on most battlefields.

[Batman]

1. MG calibre. Assuming ammo weights comparable to todays they're .50 or so.

That's a problem with virtually all mech weapons. Can we just assume this to be a irrevocable inconsistency and ignore it?

No. Not when we're putting them on a real-world battlefield. Especially not in a vs.

2. Range. Why can they hit aerospace fighters moving a several hundred kph at kilometre ranges but not a 'Mech right on top of them? Why do 'Mechs NOT exhibit vastly increased range against huge immobile targets?

Bat, I addressed this the last time. First of all, game mechanics are the only thing saying that mechs don't exhibit increased ranges against immobile targets.

I'd prefer Bats if you don't mind. And what you need is something supporting them doing so.

There exists vague data in some novels like the Jade Falcon trilogy(which I hesitate to use due to vast inconsistency already prevalent in the material) as well as sourcebooks in which mechs and vehicles can fire at targets which will logically be out of their range.

Can you get those quotes? I never ran across anything like that but my collection is far from complete.

The Long Tom readout is a perfect example of this, unless cities are now built 1 kilometer away from each other.

Long Tom is arty. We're talking 'Mech ranges. The M110 beung able to hit targets 22 km away doesn't mean an Abrams can, too.

Nothing conclusive, however, the theory works.

A theory without conclusive evidence is...how shall I put it-worthless?

We also discussed the combined theories of engagement timing as well as armour effectiveness in shortening the effective range of armoured combat.

Hmf. I'll drop that one for the moment.

3. Recoil. Sorry. Let's ignore their material being nowhere stronger enough by a sufficient margin than todays to not rip the arms off for arm-mounted weapons. You accelerate a 125 kg piece of iron (a spherical one Smile )to Mach 2.2 or 5 or whatever in a fraction of a second and you expect me to buy that the gyro compensates for that?

Let's ignore the fact that the Mech can walk. That is more than ample proof that their material strenght is vastly superior to ours,

Excuse me but that's garbage. Today's problems with bipedal mechanized locomotion have nothing to do with material strength and everything with balance.

even though the physics behind it is totally wrong.

Come again? It is entirely physically possible to make a walking 'Mech.
It's just completely pointless.

4. Targeting. Anybody who manages to miss a 15m tall bulky humanoid at anything less than a kilometre with the naked eye leave alone supposedly sophisticated targeting systems using a Valendamned lightspeed weapon deserves to be shot.

I said this before. Both Battletech, Solaris and Mechwarrior explictly states that mechwarriors engage in maneveuring, and Solaris explictly states that Mechwarriors can dodge enemy fire.

Which ought to be impossible against a lightspeed weapon.

This similarly applies to vehicles due to the reasoning behind the "immobile to hit modifier" ruling. Add that in to the effectiveness of armour and it helps explains the accuracy of Btech targeting.

No. It merely reduces its suckitude by a fraction of a percent or so.

[PainRack]

So they're literally meaning things like RPG-7 rounds with 400 years for the explosives to deteriorate were effective... I'm pretty sure that's well beyond the shelf life of that stuff. Why are they using ~400 year old equipment... unless this wasn't the first Dark Age, and they can't make decent armor or AT munitions up to 20th century standards anymore. ~400 years later causes a few things to happen that don't translate into performance when brand new. So ~400 year old out of date muntions doesn't mean zilch about being able to take on a Merkava that hasn't been rusting for 400 years, but is brand new with fresh from the factory munitions, ie modern hardware.

No. They're made the weapons. My adobe still isn't up yet, and I don't have time to do a search for this in the forums, so, give me some time and I post the relevent extracts.

No. Not when we're putting them on a real-world battlefield. Especially not in a vs.

Then I submit that the orginal specifications as dictated by the TR overrules weight constraints.

I'd prefer Bats if you don't mind. And what you need is something supporting them doing so.

Not really. The theory already works on one end, aka, we have proof that Btech weapons can extend out to that range. The only thing lacking is that we haven't shown it can hit ground targets out to that range, conclusively.

Can you get those quotes? I never ran across anything like that but my collection is far from complete.

They depicted LRMs firing across the river at Tukayid, when the range is more than 600m as stated earlier on. Similarly, Duncan Demons opened fire with mech machine guns at infantry, before the SRM platoons were in range, even though game mechanics placed SRM platoons as having higher range than MGs. There are also weapons fire directed at buildings stories with small arms, that would not have been achievable if the range was truly 30m from the Cavallero storybooks.
The problem lies in the fact that all of the above stories are full of technical and historical fallacies, although Duncan Demons is slightly better off. Its error isn't outright blatently wrong or inconsistent, it just has way too much armour and ammo than possible. Something that's reflected in virtually all the books.

Long Tom is arty. We're talking 'Mech ranges. The M110 beung able to hit targets 22 km away doesn't mean an Abrams can, too.

However, the Long Tom game range is much shorter than this. Furthermore, again, from First Strike, conversion to Battlespace rules, "Mechs targeting computers are optimised to engage at kilometers only".

A theory without conclusive evidence is...how shall I put it-worthless?

The first portion works, aka, we know that mech weapons do have that range. It stands to reason that it should work on the ground too. This is like arguing that evolution is false, when we didn't know what DNA and genetics is, even though we knew the processes of selection and mutation works.

.

Excuse me but that's garbage. Today's problems with bipedal mechanized locomotion have nothing to do with material strength and everything with balance.

And who said it has anything to do with today's problems? The fact is, a 100 ton mech can walk or even run. It can jump. All this stress on the legs of mech already suggest extremely strong structural strength.

Come again? It is entirely physically possible to make a walking 'Mech.
It's just completely pointless.

Really? If one takes a look at mech technology, it suggests that scaling the structure in volume makes the structure stronger, as opposed to scaling the load-bearing space by area.
Tell me that isn't a violation of physics as we know it.

Which ought to be impossible against a lightspeed weapon.

Lightspeed weapons still have the limiting factor of robotics and human+computer targeting. What this suggests is that the poor accuracy is due to the high situational awareness of mechs and vehicle pilots, being able to notice T&T systems locking on to them and evading it.

No. It merely reduces its suckitude by a fraction of a percent or so.

*:D True. Unless it carries over into the vs, which would be hard to argue against visuals.

Good enough for me. It is simply to inconsistant from novels to sourcebooks to make a good theory. And I have no problem with deflection of small arms, this is explicitely stated in MW3 anyways. Its just that small calibre weaponry can damage even the largest mechs, probably for many of the reasons you state, but it does very limit thier survivability on most battlefields.

Its not just small arms DH. There are quotes where the armour deflects shells from autocannons and missiles.

[PainRack]

Viciousness on Ingress
..........After the fight,we discovered that the enemy on Ingress somehow had access to ancient blueprints of missile weapons. These things were really antiques- some of the plans were for a missile used by the military of the old United States of America. All the enemy had to do was retool a few factories and they could start churning out weapons like toys.

Star League Sourcebook.

[Gunhead]

A tank can hit a moving target to 1500m with optical systems. The target is the frontal silhoutte of a T-55. Now with optical I do mean without laser range finders or any other active system to measure the distance to target. At this range a hit is almost guaranteed.
It takes less than a second for an APFSDS-T to cross the distance and hit it's target. So how are weapons that hit instantly (lasers) somehow dodgeable, when the only thing needed to hit is a simple crosshair?


-Gunhead

[Nephtys]

A tank can hit a moving target to 1500m with optical systems. The target is the frontal silhoutte of a T-55. Now with optical I do mean without laser range finders or any other active system to measure the distance to target. At this range a hit is almost guaranteed.
It takes less than a second for an APFSDS-T to cross the distance and hit it's target. So how are weapons that hit instantly (lasers) somehow dodgeable, when the only thing needed to hit is a simple crosshair?

Well, one reason is gameplay mechanics. The game would be no fun if your veteran mechwarrior got taken out by being merely outnumbered and shot by super-accurate weapons, wouldn't it? But realistically, mechs are terribly agile. They maneuver much more unpredictably than a tank can too, which is apparent if you've played say... Mechwarrior 4. Even at close range, it's pretty hard to hit mechs dodging and waving and jumping, even with instant-hit lasers.

[FOG3]

You mean the Mechwarrior 4 intro movie?

Lyran trooper: Damn that 10 meter tall Vulture is barely moving in a straight line across my sights at a range of 68 meters. How can I hit him?

Heck they were missing with things even when he stopped moving. The wall behind him took a good portion of the beating, and they did show the damage. The Mechwarrior 3 intro shows similar abysmal accuracy except when they're literally right on top of each other. Just how many of that 10 missile Firefly swarm actually hit after a lock at rather short range, maybe 2? The in game movies go along with the other on poor accuracy.

[Lancer]

You mean the Mechwarrior 4 intro movie?

Lyran trooper: Damn that 10 meter tall Vulture is barely moving in a straight line across my sights at a range of 68 meters. How can I hit him?

Heck they were missing with things even when he stopped moving. The wall behind him took a good portion of the beating, and they did show the damage. The Mechwarrior 3 intro shows similar abysmal accuracy except when they're literally right on top of each other. Just how many of that 10 missile Firefly swarm actually hit after a lock at rather short range, maybe 2? The in game movies go along with the other on poor accuracy.

in-game material (even the cutscenes) are tenuous at best compared to fluff such as the novels.

[PainRack]

A tank can hit a moving target to 1500m with optical systems. The target is the frontal silhoutte of a T-55. Now with optical I do mean without laser range finders or any other active system to measure the distance to target. At this range a hit is almost guaranteed.
It takes less than a second for an APFSDS-T to cross the distance and hit it's target. So how are weapons that hit instantly (lasers) somehow dodgeable, when the only thing needed to hit is a simple crosshair?
-Gunhead

Armour and reaction times. The idea is that the armour protection is high enough that one requires extremely precise hits to penetrate it. However, the converse side of this protection is that the armour protection is extremely thin.

[Gunhead]

If it's precision that's required to penetrate mech armor, then mech's are right out. Unless a mech comes equipped with multiton targeting computer, two lasers won't hit the same part of a targeted mech, even though the lasers were located next to each other. This at ranges less than 1000m.

Even with the TC, they are only accurate enough to hit the mech, and still can't effectively place their shots against weak spots.

In modern tank to tank combat, 1500m is a range where the enemy will hit you. It takes ranges 3000m and above to make misses even remotely likely.
This is why tanks advance in cover using infantry style cover and move tactics.
One more thing. At these ranges speed is pretty much irrelevant as a countermeasure against enemy fire. Even a T-72 can traverse it's turret 17 degrees/1s. So you better be going pretty fucking fast for the turret not to be able to keep up.

So unless someone shows me mech's doing the fucking swan lake, they're badly outranged and outgunned by tanks.

-Gunhead

[PainRack]

If it's precision that's required to penetrate mech armor, then mech's are right out. Unless a mech comes equipped with multiton targeting computer, two lasers won't hit the same part of a targeted mech, even though the lasers were located next to each other. This at ranges less than 1000m.

The argument is that there are potential "weaker" spots in the mech armour, where shots that hit will penetrate more easily. That and the protection of the armour itself.

In modern tank to tank combat, 1500m is a range where the enemy will hit you. It takes ranges 3000m and above to make misses even remotely likely.

I will not, repeat, I will not deny that modern tank gunnery is more accurate than Btech gunnery. However, the range question is answered by a variety of factors that include engagement timings and armour protection.

One more thing. At these ranges speed is pretty much irrelevant as a countermeasure against enemy fire. Even a T-72 can traverse it's turret 17 degrees/1s. So you better be going pretty fucking fast for the turret not to be able to keep up.

The argument was that the "weak" spots in the mech could be protected at longer ranges. Not at the kind of knife edge range in Btech.

So unless someone shows me mech's doing the fucking swan lake, they're badly outranged and outgunned by tanks.

-Gunhead

Despite the fact that Battlespace conversion states their targeting computers are optimised to kilometers only? Despite known incidents of mechs engaging and destroying aerospace fighters?

[Gunhead]

In terms of weak points and armor angle most mechs are totally horrid. The thing is, modern tanks with their vastly superior FC, could take advantage of said weak points. Mechs hit them only by chance.

As to their armor, well it's really craptastic. Their Gauss which does oogles of damage to mech armor, has zero chance of penetration against frontal sector of any even relatively modern tank. Sure it generates lots of joules, but it spreads it impact energy to a such a large surface, that it actually has the hitting power of a HMG/square cm.

Not to mention the fact that mech armor can be damaged by puny autocannons at 1000m, where a tank would worry about them scratching their paintjob.

So your armor+FC factors have merit in a mech to mech engament, but not when comparing RL tanks against mechs.

As to the mech/aerospace conversions. I remember one mech vs. aerospace fight in the novels. There are more me thinks, but it's been a while I read them.
Here's a RL example. A SU-57 can engage air targets up to 6000m, and ground targets to 2000m. This is because against air targets it's easier to have that 6000m of LOS, and air targets cannot be armored to such a degree that they cannot be harmed by a 57mm shell.
In BT aerospace fighters can have heavy armor, but almost ½ of all hits are critical, so from my experience most fighters are downed by critical hits.
So you should have increased ranges against air targets even in BT, and if they'd have shit for FC, nothing would be flying over areas protected by laser weaponry.

Timing might be an issue for mechs, not for modern tanks. The FC system on the abrams works so, that the go/no go is handled by the gunner. But it's the FC that actually fires the gun. If for some reason the target is lost, the gun will not fire. This can be overridden by the gunner.

Even with less sophisticated FC systems, the pilot on the mech hasn't got the time to really do anything. At 3000m a SABOT will cross the distance in 2 seconds. With modern SABOTs it's less than that.

-Gunhead