Battletech in World War I

[MKSheppard]

Which still requires you to use mechs as they behave in Battletech, not how they would function in the real world.

Then they get killed after a brief blaze of glory sowing panic before they meet their match from massed Quickfirers.

BTech has virtually NO sense of Combined Arms tactics at all; it's all mech
do this, do that, with no supporting arms to support a Mech Lance/Star on
the Assault; only the weaker powers in BTech make a pretense at combined
arms through their tanks and infantry.

[Nephtys]

Which still requires you to use mechs as they behave in Battletech, not how they would function in the real world.

Then they get killed after a brief blaze of glory sowing panic before they meet their match from massed Quickfirers.

BTech has virtually NO sense of Combined Arms tactics at all; it's all mech
do this, do that, with no supporting arms to support a Mech Lance/Star on
the Assault; only the weaker powers in BTech make a pretense at combined
arms through their tanks and infantry.

Do you even PLAY or keep up with B-Tech? Unarmored Infantry are a non-issue for most mechs, but Battlesuited infantry are potent and capable units. Omnimechs even have mounts so suits can be carried along with em. Tracked, Wheeled and Hover vehicles have numerous roles, from combat tank, to artillery, to scout vehicle, to communications vehicle to mobile HQ. VTOL Helicopers serve as gunships against lighter threats, scouts or even anti-mech vehicles in packs (Yellow Jacket mounts a light gauss rifle). Aerospace fighters are an essential part of battle, and utterly required in any kind of offensive operation. Dropships provide fire support and command and control. You're nuts.

As for lines of trenches? A mech can clear a few miles of trenches in minutes, at rates which I'd be surprised to see any kind of horse-drawn artillery take them down. Mech weapons can destroy infantry with their sheer power, a large laser easilly sweeping through the better part of a platoon, if they're not too spread out.

In the early part of WWI, the battles were very fluid with lots of manuever; they'll be able to deal with the Mech by reorienting forces.

From the Trench Warfare part of WWI, it's not just one trench line that
you got to deal with; if it was that easy, the French would have broken
through multiple times.

FLUID MANEUVER? You're talking WW1. Back when they had /horse calvary/. In a battlefield where no unit even approaches 1/10th the mobility of a mech, you're nuts to think WW1 stuff can outmaneuver mechs by 'reorienting forces'. French broken through? Let's see. They've got unarmored doughboys with bolt-action rifles getting caught on barbed wire. I don't see that happening against 30-meter tall fighting machines.

[Antares]

I have done some accuracy calculations with in-game mechanics,
perhaps they are usefull.


The normal rule set uses 2D6 for "calculating" the hit-probability of a weapon,
that is rolling 12 is the best, while 2 is the worst.
After playing Btech Tabletop for ages i will give a small
example for this kind of calculation.

But before doing so i will state the assumptions for the calculations:
1.Clan Omnimechs are equipped with targeting
computers (which gives a bonus of 1 for hit calculations)
2.Clan Omnimechs are equipped with large pulse lasers
(which give a bonus of 2 on hit calculations)
that have an in-game range of 20 fields (=600m)
3.Pilots are no n00bs, that is they have targeting base skill of 2 or less
4.Clan Omnimechs carry 2-4 heavy pulse lasers
(2 for light like Cougar mech,
3 for medium like Ryoken,
4 for heavy like Mad Cat)
5.Direct LoS

Reference for example:
http://www.sarna.net/btech/bt-board-tables-bmr.shtml

Example:
Base targeting skill of 2:
means rolling 2+ with 2D6 in order to hit with no further modifications

Firing at maximum range:
penalty of 4 makes 6+ to hit with 2D6

Mech was walking (~15m/s):
penalty of 1 makes 7+ to hit with 2D6

Target was moving with no more than 18m/s (6 fields in 10 sec):
penalty of 2 makes 9+ to hit
Target was moving with no more than 12m/s (4 fields in 10 sec):
penalty of 1 makes 8+ to hit
Target was moving with less than 6m/s (2 fields in 10 sec):
deduction of 0 makes 7+ to hit
Target is stationary:
Bonus of 4 makes 3+ to hit

I guess the best estimations for moving ground targets of WWI is 12m/s in combat situations.

Pulse laser + Targeting computer:
Bonus of 3 makes
1+ to hit stationary target
5+ to hit moving target

Rolling 5 or more on 2D6 gives a probability p of (missing: 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 1-3, 3-1, 2-2) 30/36 or 83.3%
Firing weapons in Btech is an independent event,
since the dice are rolled for each waepon indepentently.
The event that not a single pulse laser hits is (1-p)^n
with n is the number of pulse lasers.
n=2: total miss probability is 0,027778 or 2.78%
n=3: total miss probability is 0,00463 or 0.46%
n=4: total miss probability is 0,000772 or 0.077%

This means, mechs will hit a moving target following the
above mentioned assumptions at 600m with at least 97%
Stationary targets are hit with 100% accuracy

Now you might want to add some more penalties so I am doing another example:
For rolling 8 or more gives a probability p of 15/36 or 41.6%:
n=2: total miss probability is 0,340278or 34%
n=3: total miss probability is 0,198495 or 19.8%
n=4: total miss probability is 0,115789or 11.6%

So heavy mechs with 4 pulse lasers should still hit their target with 88%

Since mechs with energy weapons need not fear ammo
depletion they should compensate their lack of accuracy with endurance.

Another thing is, that if you can hit targets with 4 pulse lasers
at 600m with 88% at least once it is highly unlikely that they
can hit targets at 700m not at all.

[Antares]

I just recongized that 4 pulse lasers +FCS wont fit into a mad cat class mech.
You need heavy mechs like a Warhawk and replace the original 4 PPC with 4 heavy pulse lasers, sorry
3 heavy pulse lasers + FCS, however, will easily fit into a mad cat.

[MKSheppard]

Do you even PLAY or keep up with B-Tech? Unarmored Infantry are a non-issue for most mechs, but Battlesuited infantry are potent and capable units.

BTech's solution to the infantry problem is to genetically engineer
huge beefcakes and put them into equally huge powered armor;
which need y'know, fuel to keep running. And the fact that they're
huge beefcakes requires a constant supply of food to keep them from
starving; no body fat on them.

Nice way to totally negate the advantages of infantry, by trying to make
them into mini-mechs.

As for lines of trenches? A mech can clear a few miles of trenches in minutes, at rates which I'd be surprised to see any kind of horse-drawn artillery take them down.

This is precisely what happened to British tanks; you know, they
ran over the first few lines of trenches, kept on going, and then ran into
German quickfiring artillery positions that had been set up to support
the trenchlines several miles back; and got blown to pieces.

Mech weapons can destroy infantry with their sheer power, a large laser easilly sweeping through the better part of a platoon, if they're not too spread out.

Problem is, WWI infantry machineguns are just as lethal and longer ranged.

FLUID MANEUVER? You're talking WW1. Back when they had /horse calvary/.

Read a book on World War I, the war was fairly fluid through 1914, up
until the Germans were finally stopped outside Paris. And don't forget the
famed "taxicab movement" where every taxicab in Paris was used to
ferry troops to the battlefield, saving Paris.

In a battlefield where no unit even approaches 1/10th the mobility of a mech, you're nuts to think WW1 stuff can outmaneuver mechs by 'reorienting forces'.

Once again you prove your lack of knowledge. Foot infantry is capable of
redeploying at the rate of fourty miles a day given the need. What would
happen is the Mechs break through the frontlines, and make a race for
Paris; but run low on fuel and ammo after their mad dash across France,
only to be stopped by French Infantry divisions that have force marched
into position.

French broken through? Let's see. They've got unarmored doughboys with bolt-action rifles getting caught on barbed wire. I don't see that happening against 30-meter tall fighting machines.

You said it yourself. 30-meter tall fighting machines, easy meat
for artillery and machineguns. And yes, the French assaulted german
trenches and actually managed to breach the FIRST line of trenches,
but the Germans always called up reinforcements from the supporting
trenchlines and threw the French back out.

[MKSheppard]

A quick comparison; want to know how fast Patton's Armoured and Mechanized Infantry moved in 1945? Roughly 30~ miles a day across
Germany.

The normal rate of march for the Roman foot soldier was 100 steps
per minute. Their usual day's march of seven hours covered 15-20
miles.

Frederick the Great warned that an army travelled effectively but
fifteen miles per day.

In route marching on roads Civil War troops averaged 15 to 20 miles
per day. In forced marching, 20 to 25 or, if roads were favorable,
perhaps 30 miles.

Linka

"As part of a large body of cavalry, a horse in good condition could
cover 20-25 miles per day carrying 250 lbs (or more) of rider and
equipment. A distance of 40-45 miles a day would constitute a forced
march.

[PainRack]

Using 30 year old RPG-7s against MBTs on the frontal arc is a good way to die.

And I was comparing the RPG-7s to soft-skinned targets like Humvees. Way brillant of you mate.

From Global Security Org.

During the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom, US troops encountered an unanticipated, and formidable, weapon in the Iraqi arsenal -- Russian-built Kornet antitank missiles. Iraqi soldiers used the wire-guided missile system against American tanks, but the US military previously did not know they possessed. It emerged as the Iraqis' most effective direct-fire weapon against U.S. armor in the desert of southern Iraq. Iraqi commandos traveling in three-man teams dressed in black civilian robes and riding in Nissan pickup trucks moved against the flanks of columns of armor from the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division and launched broadside attacks from several kilometers away using the system. Those attacks had disabled at least two Abrams tanks and one Bradley armored troop carrier in the opening week of the war.

So? A tank still has more firepower than infantry, and if infantry don't use ambush tactics, they will still suffer way more casualties than wanted.

[PainRack]

Your 6km range claim is pure shit. If this would be the case, mech to mech combat wouldn't take place at ranges under 1000m. Yet all game fluff state that it does. So mechs can shoot at aerospace fighters when they are making their bombing run. I want an exact quote that those fighters are still in the toposphere when they start shooting. I want altitudes,speeds and weapons used.

Okay. Define game mechanics now. For me, game mechanics is anything that involves the use of dice.

Anything else is game fluff.

Your timing and split second model is crap. Tank to tank engaments are alredy matter of seconds affairs, and they are conducted at ranges of 2500m+.

So? Where did I claim that RL tanks ranges are limited by timing? I said that the Battletech game range is shorter than its max range due to timing.
Have you even read what you are arguing against?

It may have validity in a mech to mech fight. But against RL tanks, they'd never reach those ranges.

Why wouldn't it reach those ranges?

Mechs miss each other at 500m, I do mean physically miss. This with light speed weapons.

And of course, how do you know they physically miss? Furthermore, be FUCKING CONSISTENT.
Accuracy for Btech can only be derivived directly from game mechanics.

This doesn't happen with tanks. When moving on relatively flat terrain, modern MBT will hit you at 2500m. Even under combat for instance in Iraq tanks spent on the average 1.1 rounds for a kill. This while on a regular basis engaging targets at 3000m+.

First of all, tanks don't squeeze off rounds in one second. They take time to aim and shoot. Secondly, if you even read my posts, I never said Mechs were more accurate than RL modern tanks. In fact, I already outright stated that mechs accuracy are stuck at WW2 levels, so, stop fucking the strawman.

Lastly, what the fuck all does this has to do with my point, that a battlemech range is equivalent, if not superior than modern day tanks? I created the model that explains why the ranges differ. I also explained why the ranges shrink in Battletech simulations, however, I cannot supply the missing link Batman demands without violating my own canonicity level.

Your mech can maneuver all it want's, it's still gonna get fragged.

That's where the armour portion comes in mate.

So your laser melts 500kg of mech armor, big fucking deal. You also claim this is backed up by fluff. So I want the see the quote/quotes.

Wilco. Like I said, give me the grace period.

Then prove it melts 500kg of mech armor at ranges tanks fight.

And pray tell, why would the intensity of the laser suddenly disappear past 600m?

Then prove mech armor is superior to modern day armor.

In terms of defensive abilities against energy weapons? Easily. A tank armour doesn't has conducting abilities against energy weapons, a mech does. We have no known limits for this ability, so unfortunately, we cannot quantify it.

While at mech armor, provide proof it can withstand modern AT rounds. This being armor that's damaged by 20mm rounds.

-Gunhead

Mackie Trial Run.

[MKSheppard]

And I was comparing the RPG-7s to soft-skinned targets like Humvees. Way brillant of you mate.

You said:

as seen in Iraq where RPG-7s can damage soft-skinned targets but can be blown to smithereens by bradleys and humvee return fire. Don't be an ass.

That's because a RPG-7 of the type the Insurgents have is only effective
against trucks and Humvees; not modern armour; hence the part about
"blown to smithereens"

So? A tank still has more firepower than infantry

Actually no. The current RPO-A thermobaric launcher's boom is roughly
equivalent to the explosion of a 155mm artillery shell.

What a tank has is armor, the capability to take hits and keep on
fighting.

and if infantry don't use ambush tactics, they will still suffer way more casualties than wanted.

Fortunately for us; Battletech is all about feudalistic knights battling each
other in giant robots, so "competent tactics" is something we can't expect
from them

[PainRack]

We know that 20mm calibre guns and .50 cal machineguns damage BTech; and lots of weapons equal to or more powerful were produced during WW1, such as the Spitzgeschoss mit Kern, a steel cored rifle
bullet designed to be fired from a standard Mauser infantry rifle. It was
the German answer to the tank in World War I.

Nope, the 20mm cannons can damage Mechs. .50cal don't.
Furthermore, let's run some calcs, shall we? Using game mechanics, we know that a single 20mm cannon that fires AP rounds squeeze off sufficient bullets to kill 24 infantrymen in 1 sec( weapons fire=0.9 sec, derived from gauss rifle=2.2 Mach quote, kills of infantrymen from BMR, infantrymen in clear terrain etc etc etc, max dice roll). Assuming one shot= 1 kill,(assuming a 30m circle, the area involved for a platoon to disperse is more than 650m^2. Insufficient for a full dispersal, true, but large enough to assume the above assumptiono is plausible), that's 24 rounds per second, on sustained fire. Since BMR and compendium both state that the AMS is a machine gun with sensors attached, we can derivive a cyclic rate for the MG. A MG ammo is 200 shots per ton, that would be 24*200=4800 rounds per ton. A AMS fires off all its round in one turn,(D6roll=6), therefore, at full cyclic rate, a Btech 20mm cannon can squeeze of 4800 rounds per second.

I really don't give a flying fuck about SOD, as this is mechs in the real world.
His whole armor theory is backed up by his say so, and not even the game mechanics from AT and Compendium support the ranges claimed by Painrack. So unless you have some meaningful info to put on the table, sit down and shut the fuck up.

-Gunhead

Really? Did you even read the AT range for the LRM? What is it?

What about for Battlespace, where *surprise*, the range increases further? Its called taking a game hex and mutiplying it by the weapons range to get a true distance. Something you do for Btech, but apparently, refuse to do for everything else.

BTech's solution to the infantry problem is to genetically engineer
huge beefcakes and put them into equally huge powered armor;
which need y'know, fuel to keep running. And the fact that they're
huge beefcakes requires a constant supply of food to keep them from
starving; no body fat on them.

Nice way to totally negate the advantages of infantry, by trying to make
them into mini-mechs.

Actually, no. Btech solution to the infantry problem was to deploy huge ass weapons that takes out obscene numbers of infantry in one shot, thus preventing their deployment in the open field. Let's see, what would happen if say the MechHunter autocannon, with its 150mm calibre squeezes off ten shots in less than 1 second at an infantry caught out in the open? Much less the Clan Ultra AC/20 deployed on some mechs, which is 200mm in calibre and squeezes off at least 20 shots in dual mode?

Note: Do not even attempt to say I'm praising Btech infantry tactics. Their solution to such firepower is stupid. They essentially chose to break infantry into security and rear area details, heavy weapons platoons and special ops. Like I said before, Btech infantry are worse off than modern day infantry.

This is precisely what happened to British tanks; you know, they
ran over the first few lines of trenches, kept on going, and then ran into
German quickfiring artillery positions that had been set up to support
the trenchlines several miles back; and got blown to pieces.

Right. Only in this case, the "tanks" are faster, have radioes and sensors. Want to know what happens if you deploy a M60 back in WW1?

Problem is, WWI infantry machineguns are just as lethal and longer ranged.

Really? Again. Mech based MGs, 24 rounds per second sustained fire.

[PainRack]

That's because a RPG-7 of the type the Insurgents have is only effective
against trucks and Humvees; not modern armour; hence the part about
"blown to smithereens"

So? How does it disprove the earlier point about tactics?

What a tank has is armor, the capability to take hits and keep on
fighting.

Fine. Now, disprove my earlier point about infantry vs mechs, or infantry vs tanks tactics.

Again, deploy infantry out in the open against modern day tanks and they will take heavy casualties.

Fortunately for us; Battletech is all about feudalistic knights battling each
other in giant robots, so "competent tactics" is something we can't expect
from them

You mean the entire "tactics" portion in battletech 3rd Edition, where they essentially served up an impossible variation of maneveur warfare isn't tactics? I'm shocked! Geez wheez.

Hey, maybe you want to explain why Battletech 4rd Edition states that the graduation ceremony for mechwarriors involves them leading a lance in battle. After all, they're mano al mano, right? Maybe you want to explain what Waco Rangers, ELH pioneered for long range penetration "tactics." Maybe you want to explain why Theodore Kurita authored a work on improving combined arms tactics prior to the war of 3039.
After all, the above doesn't exist in Battletech.

[Gunhead]

Mackie Trial Run = Crap. So their 100ton tin can is armored against light anti-tank weapons. Consider me not impressed.

I checked AT, AT2 and the compendium. AT2 says " An attacker flying at altitude 5 or less can make a precision strike on a single unit or building."

This too from AT2 "Craft flying within three altitude levels of the ground can make strafing attacks against ground targets"

At altitude level 5 the fighter would be at 251m-500m

It's the same altitude for dive bombing.

Not exactly what I would call toposphere.

AT states very clearly that fighters at high altitude/space cannot hit targets at low altitude.

Also, by your own admittion, mechs don't have the FC to compete with modern tanks. So how in the fuck do you think they'd be able to hit anything at 6km+?

While on the subject of mech armor. If I go with that nice little theory of yours, that somehow KE resistance of mech armor is affected by mass of the projectile rather than velocity. I really pity those mechs as I ram them with REAL armored vehicles.

So bring on the quotes. I could use a good laugh.

-Gunhead

[PainRack]

Mackie Trial Run = Crap. So their 100ton tin can is armored against light anti-tank weapons. Consider me not impressed.

Their 100ton tin can is armoured against the Merkava gun, which could be anything from 100mm to 120mm cannon.

Since the penetration value doesn't even make sense for tank rounds today or in the past, the obvious retcon is that the sensor and communications professor who rendered the account used the figures lifted off from contemporary armour. This isn't uncommon. There are more than enough quotes in the Btech fluff where they say the armour is steel, ignoring the treated aspects of it as well as other materials involved.

I checked AT, AT2 and the compendium. AT2 says " An attacker flying at altitude 5 or less can make a precision strike on a single unit or building."

This too from AT2 "Craft flying within three altitude levels of the ground can make strafing attacks against ground targets"

At altitude level 5 the fighter would be at 251m-500m

It's the same altitude for dive bombing.

Not exactly what I would call toposphere.

Didn't notice that part to be honest. Hang on. I got to dig out the stuff from the CD.

AT states very clearly that fighters at high altitude/space cannot hit targets at low altitude.

And that's space.

Also, by your own admittion, mechs don't have the FC to compete with modern tanks. So how in the fuck do you think they'd be able to hit anything at 6km+?

Sheer weight of fire.

While on the subject of mech armor. If I go with that nice little theory of yours, that somehow KE resistance of mech armor is affected by mass of the projectile rather than velocity. I really pity those mechs as I ram them with REAL armored vehicles.

So bring on the quotes. I could use a good laugh.

-Gunhead

1. Its not a THEORY. Its an observed FACT. Physical damage as well as weapons calibre demonstrate this very well. The problem was that it doesn't make sense with physics. Not to mention, the whole range vs damage for autocannons....... and for the nature of ablative protection and "sloughing" tactics......... and for armour damage in general due to the thin nature of armour protection........... I think I have to go ask Slacker and LC what the other problems with reality were.

2. Go ahead. Ram them with real armoured vehicles. After all, that's why LordChaos has his Savannah Masters of Doom hanging around.

[Gunhead]

EDIT: So the uber mech ranges come from HEX conversions (30m opposed to 500m). Well to me that's pretty much game mechanics. I didn't find any examples of fighters engaging ground targets from altitudes of 6km or to any range beyond those stated in BT, or any reference to that effect that mechs could fire back to such distances.

Aerotech fighters get longer ranges only because using them with 30m hexes would be kinda hard, specially when playing fighter to fighter. There are rules how to use aerospace fighters in BT scale. When doing so normal ranges apply.

-Gunhead

[Gunhead]

EDIT2: Why yes, aerospace fighters can bomb ground targets from any altitude, accurasy just drops to abysmal at higher altitudes.

Painrack, AT2 page 26.

The bit about striking is also on that page.

Strafing on page 23.

-Gunhead

[MKSheppard]

Btech armor is NOT impressive. At all.

Minimum falling damage shows this.

A 20 ton mech falling 1 level (6 meters) takes 2 points of damage TO IT'S ARMOR.

This mech is going to be moving less then 9.8m/s (it's would require a level to fall for it to accelerate to that speed), so I'll use that number.

The mech is ~ 20,000kg. At 9.8m/s, the KE of the impact from the fall is going to be ~960,400 j. (that's right, less then 1 MJ). And that is 2 points of armor. So ~500kj (1/2 a mj) is enough KE to destroy 1 point of armor. An impact with 8Mj of ke would destroy an entire ton of armor.

Now, Btech armor is also ablative. Weather they call it that or not. Why? Because ANY damage done DOES destroy some of the armor. Machine Gun or Artiliery round, both will destroy armor and eventualy go internal. (for an example of non-ablitive armor, look at an Iowa, or an M1. A round ether gets through or doesn't. If it doesn't, you could fire every single peice of ammo for that round in the world and you still aren't going to get through (a guy with a .45 and infiniate ammo will never punch a whole in the M1. That same guy would eventualy strip an atlas of all armor.)).

[consequences]

Your stance that in-game fluff is more consistent loses a great deal of weight when you actually look at the tech redouts, and realise that the writers can't be bothered to look up the numbers for the mechs inside. When you see three different weights given for the 400XL engine, and one mech that has been claimed as 80 tons with only 75 tons of weight allocated to it.

You are almost certainly going to going to claim that this is a mechanics issue. I'm going to counter with "If they can't be bothered to add up numbers pre-provided correctly and consistently, why the hell should we expect their made up garbage to be consistent either?"

[Nephtys]

Where can I begin on this huge pile of fallacy?

Do you even PLAY or keep up with B-Tech? Unarmored Infantry are a non-issue for most mechs, but Battlesuited infantry are potent and capable units.

BTech's solution to the infantry problem is to genetically engineer
huge beefcakes and put them into equally huge powered armor;
which need y'know, fuel to keep running. And the fact that they're
huge beefcakes requires a constant supply of food to keep them from
starving; no body fat on them.

Nice way to totally negate the advantages of infantry, by trying to make
them into mini-mechs.

That's because Infantry has no place in Battletech except in urban combat/ambush roles. Even then, an anti-armor company has almost no chance of even taking out the lightest of mechs. Don't whine to me about how much you hate elementals if you can't support your own arguments properly.

As for lines of trenches? A mech can clear a few miles of trenches in minutes, at rates which I'd be surprised to see any kind of horse-drawn artillery take them down.

This is precisely what happened to British tanks; you know, they
ran over the first few lines of trenches, kept on going, and then ran into
German quickfiring artillery positions that had been set up to support
the trenchlines several miles back; and got blown to pieces.

Said tanks also moved at what... six-eight miles per hour? Had teeny weeny sponson guns? Were having issues at times before clearing trenches? Had less than 20mm of steel plate armor? Note that mechs move at at least five times their rate. Because a peice of crap tank gets killed by artillery, doesn't mean a battlemech can. Stop worshipping this 'Quickfire artillery'.

Mech weapons can destroy infantry with their sheer power, a large laser easilly sweeping through the better part of a platoon, if they're not too spread out.

Problem is, WWI infantry machineguns are just as lethal and longer ranged.

Again, Mech-Scale MG is closer to a vehicle cannon.

FLUID MANEUVER? You're talking WW1. Back when they had /horse calvary/.

Read a book on World War I, the war was fairly fluid through 1914, up
until the Germans were finally stopped outside Paris. And don't forget the
famed "taxicab movement" where every taxicab in Paris was used to
ferry troops to the battlefield, saving Paris.

So you're expecting the entire WW1 war machine to ride in taxi, or walk 40 miles a day to stop a clan invasion? Let's see. The average battlemech covers that distance in less than an hour. Even an assault mech probably could. Know what crowding your troops in busses and trucks causes? That's right. A lot of troops and tangled, burning metal.

Once again you prove your lack of knowledge. Foot infantry is capable of
redeploying at the rate of fourty miles a day given the need. What would
happen is the Mechs break through the frontlines, and make a race for
Paris; but run low on fuel and ammo after their mad dash across France,
only to be stopped by French Infantry divisions that have force marched
into position.

The heaviest, nastiest clan asasult mechs can pull 64 km/s. That's the slowest type they have. Now. You're somehow thinking that anyone on foot can hold a candle to that in terms of mobility? Even if everyone had racecars, a car needs to follow a road. A mech makes it's own road through a forest. If we want to include dropship pickup and takeoff, mechs are intercontinental, but I don't remember if this situation allowed dropships.

So really, Shep. You're full fo it.

[Nephtys]

Blah. Darn edit.

[Nephtys]

Just to clarify, that blue text is me. The rest is quote, when in the quotebox, except that last part about wiping out arty positions.

[Gunhead]

A couple of things Nephtys. I'm pretty sure the generally accepted height for a battlemech is 10-15m. If they were 30m tall, you'd really be hard pressed to find terrain anywhere that would hide them to any degree.

Mech reach speeds of 10-150km/h depending on type. This without special equipment such as MASC.

BT game mechanics are pretty much skewed against infantry, and I don't have to dig that hard to find examples where RL infantry performs far better than BT infantry. In fact I can dig up a fluff quote where BT mechs are repulsed by infantry.

That is all

-Gunhead

[SirNitram]

The Mechs will be useful mostly in terms of mobility on the strategic level. When they move at speeds above 40km/hr, and infantry hit 64km/day, it's simply a matter of walking for two hours by Mech and laughing as the opposition tries to redeploy and dig in over two days to match you.

Mechs aren't super-durable, but ultimately, they don't need to be. They will do just as the tanks of WW1 did, and that's draw fire away from the troops and crush fortifications that impede the infantry.

[Gunhead]

Ultimately mech performance is hampered by their own infantry. Best mech anti-infantry weaponry rely on ammo, and even if the mechs can go on like duracell bunnies, the men/women piloting them can't. Eventually they'll have to stop and reload, which is not going to be possible if the infantry follow up hasn't consolidated the gains made by Bmechs.

With 75 mechs you need a good solid effort employing a mech spearhead that doesn't over extend itself needlesly. When mechs face "just" infantry this can be harder to achieve than it looks on paper. Protecting the pilots is of paramount importance, lose a pilot and you lose a mech.

Mechs can make the difference between capturing Paris and not doing so. Making it sound like it will happens just by snapping fingers is just plain stupid.

-Gunhead

[MKSheppard]

The Mechs will be useful mostly in terms of mobility on the strategic level. When they move at speeds above 40km/hr, and infantry hit 64km/day, it's simply a matter of walking for two hours by Mech and laughing as the opposition tries to redeploy and dig in over two days to match you.

*pats Martin on the head*

It's so lovely when I see someone trying to talk smack when they don't know
what it IS they're talking smack about. Newsflash; Patton's 3rd Army was full
of M4 Shermans that moved at 40~ km/hour, yet 3rd Army only advanced
at a rate of 30~ miles a day.

[FOG3]

The heaviest, nastiest clan asasult mechs can pull 64 km/s. That's the slowest type they have. Now. You're somehow thinking that anyone on foot can hold a candle to that in terms of mobility? Even if everyone had racecars, a car needs to follow a road. A mech makes it's own road through a forest. If we want to include dropship pickup and takeoff, mechs are intercontinental, but I don't remember if this situation allowed dropships.

No dropships, just Mecha to Germany.

Let's see (All Clan):
Kraken:54kph max
Kodiak: 65kph max
Behemoth: 54kph max
Iron Cheetah:64.8 kph
Daishi: 54 kph
Annihilator:32 kph (Wolf Dragoon's exclusive, but who equips the Dragoons? That's right the Clans)

You're quite a bit off there.