Battletech in World War I

[SylasGaunt]

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

IIRC 'Lethal Heritage' also puts the MGs (at least the ones on a phoenix hawk) at being .50 cals.

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.

How does armor effectiveness affect accuracy?

[MKSheppard]

Precisely. Early on, the French have no anti-tank weapons

Yes they do.

The M1897 75mm howitzer, or the French 75. It even has an AP shell,
for engaging ships

[PainRack]

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.

And who says Mechs hit them only by chance? You?
Perhaps its time for me to reiterate the model again.

Mechs have weapons that can engage targets at "kilometers" range. Using pure game mechanics and conversion to AT, if not BS, LRMs has a range of 6 kilometers and so on and forth. Therefore, why is it that Battletech, a simulation of ground combat limits range down to 600 odd meters?

1. Its not a case of ground combat occuring at short range only. we have incidents of fluff where game weapons occur at range further than games, Long tom TR, Duncan Demons MGs and etc.

2. Assuming that the model is an accurate simulation, which all data suggests it is, other factors must come in. The various factors identified so far are

-Engagement timings. Mech turns take place in 5-10s, up to 5s is spent on maneveur and essentially evading enemy fire(Solaris Rulebook) with the remainding 5s used for a combination of movement, dumping heat, aiming and firing. Using the quote generally used by techers, the Gauss rifle is Mach 2.2. That yields us a weapons travel time of approximately 1s. This is clearly an artificial(aka game) limitation to range, because LRMs clearly has a endurance longer than 1s, and is reflected in AT with its increased range, along with medium lasers and etc.

-Armour. The mech armour is also engineered such that for energy weapons at least, range becomes a crucial limiting factor, as mech armour can rapidly conduct heat away from its impact point.(Mech armour, *crystal aligned steel*) While we have no known parameters, a workable theory is that energy weapons must hit at a small, precise point and deliver all its energy to that single location. If the beam impacts over too large an area, the energy is effectively dissipated by the armour(increased area will lead to an exponential increase in dissipation). This theory is further supported by the fact that a successful large laser hit will melt a half ton of armour, even though the armour coverage is too thin at any one spot to merit half a ton. What occurs must thus be an unsuccessful attempt to absorb, conduct the energy away from the impact site and protect the mech. The energies involved was too large for it to dissipate away successfully, and the armour melted. Therefore, a successful evavise maneveur for energy weapons would not only seek to evade enemy fire, it would also seek to maneveur such that enemy beam weapons will impact as much an area of the mech armour as possible, lowering the intensity of the energy weapon involved.

KE based attacks are currently not covered in this issue, due to several problems involved with predictions.

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.

I theorise that the reason why the gauss rifle is shaped the way it is is due to the need to (slough) off the armour. But as I said, the theory doesn't mesh together yet, and I don't think it will, not unless some new technical data from Fanpro is released....... one that make sense that is.(£$%*(&£ AP rounds)

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, now, mechs has the ability to engage at 1km?

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

I wasn't aware that our RL tanks has the ability to engage in split second firefights. The Solaris Rulebook division of time tasks suggest that aiming and firing is a task of 2-4 seconds only, and Battltech is a high intensity firefight, using the full range of maneveurability and firepower measured in seconds, lasting for up to hours(Fed Com Civil war sourcebook).

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.

Heh. I told the same to Batman last time, although I didn't use the Su-57 example. Aerospace fighters have vastly different armour as from AT2, compared to Mechs and vehicles.(Ferro-aluminium as opposed to Ferro-Fibrous steel for their advanced techn for example). Official fluff also specifically state that Aerospace fighters are not as survivable as mechs or vehicles.(FM mercnaries) Furthermore, AT are vastly more vulnerable to critical hits than mechs or vehicles, suggesting that their armour is much weaker than both, therefore, explaining the difference in engagement timings for AT and BT.

However, the contention still remains that Mechs weapons has the ability to travel that far and still hit the target. Therefore, for Mech energy weapons at least, we can extrapolate that they will be effective against RL tanks for ranges up to several kilometers. LRMs and autocannons will most probably be reserved for soft targets like infantry, although heavier calibre weapons like the AC/10 and Gauss rifles shall work against soft-skinned targets.

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

Assuming that SABOT works. Ignoring the advent of AP rounds, mech armour appears to work on the principle of mass as opposed to energy. In order to defeat it, you need a heavier mass thrown against it, as opposed to the normal speeds.

IIRC 'Lethal Heritage' also puts the MGs (at least the ones on a phoenix hawk) at being .50 cals.

overruled by TR.

[SylasGaunt]

Might I ask where you canon policy quote is regarding TRs overruling novels?

[Gunhead]

Mechs hit critical locations by chance. If we assume the model is accurate depiction of mech combat, all hits are rolled randomly on 2d6. Where 12 is a critical hit. Now I don't remember fight now what sort of penalties are incurred for aiming a specific hit location, but they were pretty steep. To a degree that the enemy mech would have to be immobilized and you'd have to be next to it for an aimed shot to any chance of success.

Timing is dictated by range. At long range, time to aim increases, so yes, modern tanks can take part in split second firefights. A trained crew can squeeze a shot of in 7 seconds. This is from detection to action, while maintaining maneuver. In an up close brawl, it could be even less as there is no real need to aim. Just point and shoot. Battles of fire and maneuver are conducted so, that you advance in cover, out of enemy range, while other tanks/AFV's/AT-teams provide overwatch, if possible all of the the previous. Mechs suck at this. Mostly because they are walking targets that cannot make use of cover that will hide a tank, cannot provide a smoke screen and most of them have the pilot exposed even if most of the mech is on cover.

Engament range has nothing to do with armor penetration. It's a range where your FC gives you a real chance to hit the target. That SU-57 could engage an abrams at 2000m, but would have almost zero chance of doing any damage to it. You can also have target specific engament ranges that do tell you something about armor penetration.
That's effective range vs. x. But when speaking in general terms, engament range just tells you how far you can shoot and expect to hit.

1000m I think is the extreme range of an AC/2. It has an ingame range of 30 or so hexes, but I can be generous here and give it a nice round range of 1000m. Do I mean that mechs can consistently engage targets at that range? Hell no. Unless you provide me a canon quote of a mech hitting an aerospace fighter at these modified ranges, I say their FC is craptastic.
Here's another thing. A BMP-2 can fire at air targets. It can elevate it's cannon enough (from 0° to 80° or something in that order). This doesn't mean it's good at it. But it can do it.
This could be wrong, but I do remember few instances where a mech column was bombed to bits, because they didn't have AA-mechs or AA-tanks protecting them. I also recall that the fighters attacked with impunity, without fear from ground fire.

Oh yes. A solid APFSDSDU-T will plow through a mech, exit from the back blowing everything in between to bits. If HMG fire be it .50 Cal or 14.5mm
or even 20mm can cause an entire armor face to crack, sabots don't have any trouble going through. Hell, a blast wave from an artillery shell can strip a mech from it's armor.

As to lasers, well, that's why we have composite armors. They resist massive overpressures and heat centered on an area of 2 square cm. So give me one good reason why lasers that lack the mass to move that molten metal forward, have any chance of penetration.

-Gunhead

[Antares]

I have to agree with Gunhead about Battletech technology performance,
if in-game values are the basis for all assumptions.

However, i thought it is mainly about WWI tech vs Clantech,
because i am reading about B-tech vs todays tech all the time.

Furthermore there is one point, which i have already addresses,
where WWI tech will be absolutly inferior, namely sensory and mobility.

How is the performance of WWI combat units when it is night?
I guess their effective direct fire combat range will be even
worse than that of B-tech.
Also, even if we consider only mechs with 80km/h (clan standard for all except assault units) top-speed in average terrain, then this is still faster than almost all armored highly mobile ground units of WWI.

My point is, if your equipment generally sucks, then search for ways
to enhance it's performance, or, if this is not possible, diminish
the performance of the opponent. That is, only use mechs, when
your opponent has to suffer from disadvantages mechs can
overcome easily.
Manoeuvring at night in bad terrain is hardly possible for WWI units without making a lot of "noise", that is using headlights or flares, that can be detected easily.

Mechs have all kinds of additional sensory like pasive/active infrared,
night vision, metal detectors, motion detectors (all where mentioned in
one of the first three battletech books of the gray death legion) and
perhaps some other stuff i have forgotten, which allow them to act in
total darkness without making that much "noise".
WWI defenitly do not have these things.

Sure WWI units have flares, but i dont think that this will solve all problems.

My question is:
How will combat, comprising Clanmechs and WWI units, look like when
it is night (+rainy||foggy) in areas like light woods, rolling hills or urban terrain?

[Antares]

Ah, i forgot passive/active radar of course.
WWI have nothing to exploit active sensory, so mechs can happily use any kind of active sensory.

[PainRack]

Might I ask where you canon policy quote is regarding TRs overruling novels?

FASA former policy was that game mechanics is the lowest of canon, with novel fluff and game fluff being equivalent. However, in most cases, the novel fluff is self-contradictary, much less consistent with other novels. The novels are also badly inaccurate in terms of historical details. Therefore, as I told Batman before, I placed game fluff as being the highest canon, with game mechanics being slightly above novelisation.

Mechs hit critical locations by chance. If we assume the model is accurate depiction of mech combat, all hits are rolled randomly on 2d6. Where 12 is a critical hit. Now I don't remember fight now what sort of penalties are incurred for aiming a specific hit location, but they were pretty steep. To a degree that the enemy mech would have to be immobilized and you'd have to be next to it for an aimed shot to any chance of success.

Okay. We have a misinterpretation of terms here. First of all, yes, your critical hit is by chance. If a dice roll of 2 is rolled, then, you score a centre torso critical hit chance. However, that actually underscores my model, in which ablative damage occurs when a successful hit is scored.

Btech outer armour works in two ways, one, it physicallys stops hits and prevent it from damaging the mech innards, secondly, it ablates off and thus absorb the damage itself. The evidence for the first can be seen in several novels quotes, for example, Dawn Orion from Duncan Demons was stated to have almost "bounced off" all the attacks scored by the Knight mech, a Dark Age novel also has the quote that the protaganist thought his armour will successfully deflect the attack until he saw it wrong. Similarly, we have the Mackie trial run to show this ability.

As such, one will need to score "precise" hits in order to penetrate this defensive ability itself. This will be similar to tank guns aiming at "weak" spots in an opponent tank armour so as to damage it.

Timing is dictated by range. At long range, time to aim increases, so yes, modern tanks can take part in split second firefights. A trained crew can squeeze a shot of in 7 seconds. This is from detection to action, while maintaining maneuver. In an up close brawl, it could be even less as there is no real need to aim. Just point and shoot.

Perhaps I should had rephrased my statement. Battlemechs engage in high intensity firefights for prolonged periods. It is specifically stated that mechwarriors has an enhanced initative and situational awareness and this crosses over to vehicles due to the technology involveds.

Battles of fire and maneuver are conducted so, that you advance in cover, out of enemy range, while other tanks/AFV's/AT-teams provide overwatch, if possible all of the the previous. Mechs suck at this. Mostly because they are walking targets that cannot make use of cover that will hide a tank, cannot provide a smoke screen and most of them have the pilot exposed even if most of the mech is on cover.

And this is tank tactics. Mech combat evolve around high intensity attacks with an emphasis on speed and maneveur, using speed and firepower to overwhelm its opponent (Third edition Battletech).

Nevertheless, this is neither here and there. The contention in question was over range. I argued that Battletech game range is short because of engagement timing. Increase the timing involved and range increases,aka, AT where a turn is measured in minute.

Engament range has nothing to do with armor penetration. It's a range where your FC gives you a real chance to hit the target. That SU-57 could engage an abrams at 2000m, but would have almost zero chance of doing any damage to it. You can also have target specific engament ranges that do tell you something about armor penetration.
That's effective range vs. x. But when speaking in general terms, engament range just tells you how far you can shoot and expect to hit.

Except for one thing. We already know that mechs can hit targets at "kilometers" plus. Hell, the missing piece Batman wants can be answered, depending on canonicity. The Somerset Strikers cartoon, in aka, the third episode where they were recruiting Jackson and Clan Jade Falcon attacked the settlement Adam was recruiting and was driven off by a FedCom Battalion that arrived as reinforcement had this quote "2.1km, that's thrice our range."(with regards to Clan mechs firing LRMs at them)

My contention was that armour may also provide a difference between the range seen in AT and BT ground combat. Nevertheless, the argument that mechs can engage at that range is already proven beyond doubt.

1000m I think is the extreme range of an AC/2. It has an ingame range of 30 or so hexes, but I can be generous here and give it a nice round range of 1000m. Do I mean that mechs can consistently engage targets at that range?

Actually, that's will be the Clantech Ultra AC/2.

Hell no. Unless you provide me a canon quote of a mech hitting an aerospace fighter at these modified ranges, I say their FC is craptastic.

What canon quote do you want? The fact that mechs can engage aerospace fighters in the toposphere? Done. Battletech conversion to Battlespace? "Mechs targeting computers are optimised for kilometers only."

What else do you want?

Here's another thing. A BMP-2 can fire at air targets. It can elevate it's cannon enough (from 0° to 80° or something in that order). This doesn't mean it's good at it. But it can do it.

So, you want proof that FC can engage aerospace fighters? Done.

For example, the mechs of the other Houses could not effectively fight attacks from the air, but the HAF could, aided by the Air Agressor Fire Control Adjustor(AAFCA) attached to their mech computers.

Star League Sourcebook.

This could be wrong, but I do remember few instances where a mech column was bombed to bits, because they didn't have AA-mechs or AA-tanks protecting them. I also recall that the fighters attacked with impunity, without fear from ground fire.

From? Even artillery like the Long Tom can engage enemy aerospace fighters.

Before they left, however, an aerospace fighter wing managed to cripple both Long Tom defenders. The Long Toms destroyed more than ten fighters before succumbing to the Kurita barrage.

This, even though aerospace fighters are supposedly its greatest threat.

However, the greatest threat to the mobile Long Tom are aerospace fighters. Rifleman 'Mechs, known for air strike support, are frequently stationed with this unit.

Technical Readout 3025.

Oh yes. A solid APFSDSDU-T will plow through a mech, exit from the back blowing everything in between to bits. If HMG fire be it .50 Cal or 14.5mm
or even 20mm can cause an entire armor face to crack, sabots don't have any trouble going through. Hell, a blast wave from an artillery shell can strip a mech from it's armor.

Entire armour face? The armour on the mech is centimeter thick at BEST. Yet, infantry HMG are ineffective against it. Prior to AP rounds, there exists a single operating parameter on armour effectiveness. Its not the deforming energy that counts, its the mass of the impactor. And before we talk about physics, this is Btech. Physics ended at the doorway.

As to lasers, well, that's why we have composite armors. They resist massive overpressures and heat centered on an area of 2 square cm. So give me one good reason why lasers that lack the mass to move that molten metal forward, have any chance of penetration.

The Large Laser melt half a ton of steel as a lower limit, ignoring the fact that the armour can and does conduct energy away. Why wouldn't it has the intensity to melt the armour?

[PainRack]

Antares, with regards to night combat and terrain factors, Mech units are actually quite badly equipped for this from game mechanics........... I won't go into this as I can't really remember the mechanics involved along with supporting data, but they're probably won't be much better than WW2 era units in terms of gunnery.

Although, Btech accuracy rates is stuck at WW2 rates in general, so....... heh.

[Gunhead]

By canon quote I do mean something from the fluff/novels. You said yourself game mechanics are the lowest form of canon. I want to know what's the speed aerospace fighters can attack, and are those AT conversions, mech to aerospace to be specific, are from FASA. Even then you'd still have to explain why mechs miss each other at ranges that are something tanks consider, and I quote: "Too fucking close".

The fact that LRM's can be fired to 2.1km doesn't change anything about what we know about mech direct fire weapons. Secondly, if mechs could engage targets to even that 2km consistently, game mechanics should support this.
LRM's and SRM's are explosion based weapons so their damage is not affected by range.

Also, that whole 500kg of steel equivalent goes right under game mechanics. If it's steel equivalent you want here you go: 8pts for 500kg, frontal turret of a T-72 12000kg 16pts per 1 ton 16ptsx12= T-72 frontal armor 192pts. You don't want the numbers on say Abrams or Leo 2.

Now I give you some numbers that are not game mechanics. The waunted gauss. 20 000 000 J ... oooohhh....aaaahhh.... no wait. Spread over and area that is bout the size of a football (soccer ball to u yanks =P ), not so oooohhh... aaahhh.
Here's where evil game mechanics have to be used. Said gauss is about twice as powerful than say a large laser. Now even if I'm not drawing direct comparison in terms of firepower, what these numbers do tell me is that a large laser is weaker than a gauss. Here's one more thing, lasers go through armor by heating it, as the armor heats up, melts and starts to expand, it expands towards the hole the laser made. This flow will hamper the laser more because it doesn't have mass to push the molten metal forwards into the tank. This is why HEAT weapons are so kewl, they create pressure that blasts the metal inside the tank.

Here's another nice little bit of game mechanics. Tandem warheads. Cause 1 pt of internal damage. Well... All modern HEAT weapons are tandem warheads, so even if by some magic pixiedust SABOTs don't work, bring on the HEATs.

So if it's the game mechanics game we want to play, mechs are more fucked than usual.

By armor face weakening I meant this: If a mech is hit on the right torso, hmg rounds are sufficient to weaken the whole armor section covering the right torso.

That little bit about armor tactics is what is the basis of all armored operations. I don't particularly care what type of inane tactics mechs use.
Tell you this though, you send a company of mechs charging over flat terrain against my company of tanks, I'll pump those poor bastards so full of DU they'll be dead of cancer before they reach firing range.

-Gunhead

[SylasGaunt]

FASA former policy was that game mechanics is the lowest of canon, with novel fluff and game fluff being equivalent. However, in most cases, the novel fluff is self-contradictary, much less consistent with other novels. The novels are also badly inaccurate in terms of historical details. Therefore, as I told Batman before, I placed game fluff as being the highest canon, with game mechanics being slightly above novelisation.

And what would be your place with FASA that lets you dictate canon policy?

[Nephtys]

FASA former policy was that game mechanics is the lowest of canon, with novel fluff and game fluff being equivalent. However, in most cases, the novel fluff is self-contradictary, much less consistent with other novels. The novels are also badly inaccurate in terms of historical details. Therefore, as I told Batman before, I placed game fluff as being the highest canon, with game mechanics being slightly above novelisation.

And what would be your place with FASA that lets you dictate canon policy?

If the 'canon' contradicts itself, what do we believe? We then have to look at things differently.

[MKSheppard]

And this is tank tactics. Mech combat evolve around high intensity attacks with an emphasis on speed and maneveur, using speed and firepower to overwhelm its opponent (Third edition Battletech).

And it's totally insane, and leads to a high proportion of destroyed Mechs
if competent opponents were ever encountered; the reason tanks have
infantry tagging along with them in Combined Arms assaults is to kill
and destroy opposing enemy infantry or suppress them; while artillery
keeps the heads of infantry ATGM teams down.

[Nephtys]

And this is tank tactics. Mech combat evolve around high intensity attacks with an emphasis on speed and maneveur, using speed and firepower to overwhelm its opponent (Third edition Battletech).

And it's totally insane, and leads to a high proportion of destroyed Mechs
if competent opponents were ever encountered; the reason tanks have
infantry tagging along with them in Combined Arms assaults is to kill
and destroy opposing enemy infantry or suppress them; while artillery
keeps the heads of infantry ATGM teams down.

Only in battletech, infantry-portable weapons are almost completely ineffective against armor, and are thus mostly a non-factor in open field mech engagements. The only real threats to mechs are whole tank platoons/companies, other mechs, and the occasional Aerospace fighter.

[MKSheppard]

Only in battletech, infantry-portable weapons are almost completely ineffective against armor, and are thus mostly a non-factor in open field mech engagements.

Aren't there infantry carried LRM variants? I wonder why
noones put enough those into an infantry battalion to make
a Mech Lance's eyes water

[MKSheppard]

Lets take a look; in the BTech Books:

MechWarriors fear Inferno SRMs, which are man portable infantry weapons.

In one book, a Locust had it's head chewed up by a 20mm minigun mounted in the back of a truck.

[MKSheppard]

I wasn't aware that our RL tanks has the ability to engage in split second firefights. The Solaris Rulebook division of time tasks suggest that aiming and firing is a task of 2-4 seconds only, and Battltech is a high intensity firefight, using the full range of maneveurability and firepower measured in seconds, lasting for up to hours(Fed Com Civil war sourcebook).

There's video of a T-90 firing 3 shots in 13 seconds on Vasily Fofanov's page;
and well, the fact that firefights can last up to hours is because BTech has
energy weapons, which do not require ammunition storage; if you equipped
a T-90 with BTech powerpacks and a laser, it could fire for hours on end.

[MKSheppard]

BTW

For the sample data collected during trials of T-80UE in Greece...

"Test 7 Target detection [day time engagement]

T-80 tank fully performed this test, following results were obtained:
-number of range measurements per minute -34
-maximum range of mesurement -9100m.
-target detection -9100m.
-target classification -6500m.
-target identification -3000m.

Commission noted, that obtained results are exceeding claimed by manufacturers<...>"

This is against a tank sized target. What's B-Tech's IR performance?

[PainRack]

By canon quote I do mean something from the fluff/novels. You said yourself game mechanics are the lowest form of canon. I want to know what's the speed aerospace fighters can attack, and are those AT conversions, mech to aerospace to be specific, are from FASA. Even then you'd still have to explain why mechs miss each other at ranges that are something tanks consider, and I quote: "Too fucking close".

Except for one thing. The quotes I posted AREN"T game mechanics, they're game fluff. Its fluff direct from the rulebooks and sourcebooks that they can engage aerospace fighters in the toposphere and etc etc etc. I don't see why you are bothering me with all this additional burden when I already listed the source material.

As for speed of aerospace figthers, that's vary.

The fact that LRM's can be fired to 2.1km doesn't change anything about what we know about mech direct fire weapons. Secondly, if mechs could engage targets to even that 2km consistently, game mechanics should support this.

Ahem. Make up your mind. First, its game mechanics are lowest canon, now, its not?
I already stated why the Battletech game simulation has such a low engagement range.
Timing, plus armour effectiveness.
Furthermore, its the missing link that Batman wanted. However, the reason why I didn't say this was conclusive was because the Somerset Strikers cartoon is on my level of low canonicity(same as novels), and I'm being consistent in the use of canon material.

LRM's and SRM's are explosion based weapons so their damage is not affected by range.

So? Stop changing the topic. The topic was whether Btech can engage targets at beyond game mechanics range. That's proof you numbskull. From AT ranges, from timings, from written quotes and general incidents from TR and fluff, I conclusively proven that the Btech game range is not the ultimate limit for weapons range. I have also put down the reasons here and on other threads why the Btech simulation has such short ranges.

Also, that whole 500kg of steel equivalent goes right under game mechanics. If it's steel equivalent you want here you go: 8pts for 500kg, frontal turret of a T-72 12000kg 16pts per 1 ton 16ptsx12= T-72 frontal armor 192pts. You don't want the numbers on say Abrams or Leo 2.

Why would it be game mechanics, when I already stated that a novel also supports it? You know, Clan Wolf Warrior series and Twilight of the Clans? To be honest, I haven't display the exact quote but if you will give me some grace period, say, a month or so, I dig it up...... well, sooner or later.

Now I give you some numbers that are not game mechanics. The waunted gauss. 20 000 000 J ... oooohhh....aaaahhh.... no wait. Spread over and area that is bout the size of a football (soccer ball to u yanks =P ), not so oooohhh... aaahhh.
Here's where evil game mechanics have to be used. Said gauss is about twice as powerful than say a large laser. Now even if I'm not drawing direct comparison in terms of firepower, what these numbers do tell me is that a large laser is weaker than a gauss. Here's one more thing, lasers go through armor by heating it, as the armor heats up, melts and starts to expand, it expands towards the hole the laser made. This flow will hamper the laser more because it doesn't have mass to push the molten metal forwards into the tank. This is why HEAT weapons are so kewl, they create pressure that blasts the metal inside the tank.

And thanks for ignoring SOD and the like.

1. First of all, your initial conclusion is already screwed up because mech armour is millimeters thick. Therefore, there isn't a half ton of armour for it to melt away on the spot.

2. Secondly, that still ignores the fact that armour damage for KE impacts is based on the mass of the impactor as opposed to speed. The physical attack damage as well as falling damage, even if we ignore game mechanics totally demonstrate this amply.
I will not deny that this is a result of game mechanics for the large part, however, it WAS the most consistent parameter of mech armour performance. It isn't the deforming energy that counts, but the mass of the impactor/s.

Here's another nice little bit of game mechanics. Tandem warheads. Cause 1 pt of internal damage. Well... All modern HEAT weapons are tandem warheads, so even if by some magic pixiedust SABOTs don't work, bring on the HEATs.

And of course, its Level III rules and equipment, which is essentially out of canonicity. Why don't you just use the newly developed AP rounds from FS Field Manual? You know, the one I been gripping about that violates the previously sole working parameter of armour performance?

So if it's the game mechanics game we want to play, mechs are more fucked than usual.

Really? I been playing game fluff as highest canon all the way. I'm still yet to see you rebut any of that fluff, and frankly, I know its beyond rebuttal unless one uses the old FASA canonicity of novel= game fluff. Which is absurd because novels aren't even self-consistent, much less consistent across authors whereas game fluff IS.

By armor face weakening I meant this: If a mech is hit on the right torso, hmg rounds are sufficient to weaken the whole armor section covering the right torso.

Yes. Through abalative damage, which occurs as the SECOND phase of defence against attacks.

That little bit about armor tactics is what is the basis of all armored operations. I don't particularly care what type of inane tactics mechs use.
Tell you this though, you send a company of mechs charging over flat terrain against my company of tanks, I'll pump those poor bastards so full of DU they'll be dead of cancer before they reach firing range.

Considering that the 3rd Edition battletech explictly states that mechs never do that but use maneveur and the like to evade defences, you can keep dreaming.
The Clans do do that, however, their superior technology allows them to concentrate firepower to the extent that the IS militaries, which had evolved away from fixed lines of defences can't destroy an attack through attrition. Of course, that was during 3050, before the use of Castle Defences came back into play(Clan Wolf Sourcebook)

[PainRack]

Lets take a look; in the BTech Books:

MechWarriors fear Inferno SRMs, which are man portable infantry weapons.

In one book, a Locust had it's head chewed up by a 20mm minigun mounted in the back of a truck.

1. Mechwarriors have a personal fear of dying in their cockpits from fire. That's why the inferno is feared, as explictly stated in the GDL starting novel and other sources. So, are you going to argue that because an artillery barrage can cause PTSD, infantry and entrenched positions are useless?

2.You refer to the Gray Death Legion starting novel, which already had several platoons equipped with heavy weapons chipping away at above said locusts. Colour me unsuprised, furthermore, for mech based miniguns, they fire a sustained rate of 24 rounds per sec, with up to 4800 as cyclic. You were saying?
(AMS and MG calcs)

[PainRack]

Aren't there infantry carried LRM variants? I wonder why
noones put enough those into an infantry battalion to make
a Mech Lance's eyes water

You refer to this?
http://www.battletecharchive.net/vehand ... wheel.html
The difference isn't that infantry can't hurt mechs. Its that they require obscene amounts of heavy weaponery and take too much losses. Like how infantry nowadays can take on tanks, but they require heavy weaponery and more often than not, take too much heavy losses.

There's video of a T-90 firing 3 shots in 13 seconds on Vasily Fofanov's page;
and well, the fact that firefights can last up to hours is because BTech has
energy weapons, which do not require ammunition storage; if you equipped
a T-90 with BTech powerpacks and a laser, it could fire for hours on end.

And? The point was to demonstrate that Battletech tactics are different from RL tactics, and evolve around high intensity firefights. Therefore, expecting Battletech to play by armour rules is silly. Light infantry have their own disadvantages on the battlefield, therefore, they have their own specialised tactics to exploit their advantages and discount their disadvantages, are you thus going to argue that because light infantry don't have the same firepower as tanks, they aren't effective on the battlefield?

[Gunhead]

Well then give me a quote from game fluff/novel where mech/tank engages an aerospace fighter in the toposphere. I know speed of the aerospace fighters wary, I just want high and low range.

So you have few quotes where mech can engage to ranges beyond those described in the game. One them is from a TV series that ranks below game fluff. Well I distinctly remember from 3025 tech manual, where LRMs could reach 840m which to them was a great range. I could be wrong about which tech manual it was, I'll have to lend it from a friend so I can check.

Even if I accept that LRM quote from the TV show, and apply it to all mech weapons, they're still under 2000m for the most part. That being their extreme range. Clan weapons performing a tad better.


I really don't have give a toss about SOD as I'm evaluating mech performance against RL tanks. So mech armor works against mech weapons. Big deal. Oh, here's a little fun bit about that mackie test people so anxiously use. Mackies armor stopped a tank shell that would have penetrated 30cm of steel. Wow!. Not Wow! They obviously dug out some ancient APHE round fired it at the mech and went "OH! The armor held!" How I know this? Modern DU sabots go through over two times the said amount of steel. It also didn't say anything about how bad was the damage to the armor where the shell actually hit.
So with this amount of information, the test is worth absolutely shit.
Even more to the point is, Light anti-tank weapons penetrate 30cm of steel. Which is quite abysmal when comparing to real ATGMs.

Modern composite armor is quoted at three times more durable than steel. (That's the rough estimate)
So I really don't have to go out of my way to prove that mech lasers would have little or no chance against tank armor. Yes said armor ablates and dissipates heat very effectively.

-Gunhead

[MKSheppard]

Like how infantry nowadays can take on tanks, but they require heavy weaponery and more often than not, take too much heavy losses.

The Javelin's range of approximately 2,500 meters is more than twice that of its predecessor, the Dragon. The Javelin has secondary capabilities against helicopters and ground-fighting positions. It is equipped with an imaging infrared (I2R) system and a fire-and-forget guided missile. The Javelin's normal engagement mode is top-attack to penetrate the tank's most vulnerable armor. It also has a direct-attack capability to engage targets with overhead cover or in bunkers. Its "soft launch" allows employment from within buildings and enclosed fighting positions. The soft launch signature limits the gunner's exposure to the enemy, thus increasing survivability. JAVELIN is also much more lethal than DRAGON. It has a top attack dual warhead capability which can defeat all known enemy armor systems.








And? The point was to demonstrate that Battletech tactics are different from RL tactics, and evolve around high intensity firefights. Therefore, expecting Battletech to play by armour rules is silly. Light infantry have their own disadvantages on the battlefield, therefore, they have their own specialised tactics to exploit their advantages and discount their disadvantages, are you thus going to argue that because light infantry don't have the same firepower as tanks, they aren't effective on the battlefield?[/quote]

[MKSheppard]

Colour me unsuprised, furthermore, for mech based miniguns, they fire a sustained rate of 24 rounds per sec, with up to 4800 as cyclic. You were saying?

Funny thing is, Infantry Units today have scads of cannons whose calibre is
above 20mm~ due to IFVs.

[MKSheppard]

And? The point was to demonstrate that Battletech tactics are different from RL tactics, and evolve around high intensity firefights.

Actually, that describes US Army Amoured tactics. Go look up 73 Easting where we chewed up an Iraqi Brigade of 80~ tanks in about roughly a
half an hour.