Battletech in World War I

[White Haven]

1. The moment it turns vs real world rules do apply.

Then explain why 'hypermatter' reactors keep working in the innumerable ISD versus Earth threads? How about the sublight energy weapons with ballistic recoil that can fire accurately at multiple light-second range? Give it a rest

If the Mechs use their speed adavantage, they're going to be alone. With no food, no guards, no place to sleep except the ground.

That same superior speed can, if need be, allow the battlemech contingent to fall back to a secure area if things drag on long enough to require pilot rest.

[Batman]

Let me put it this way. Gameplay wise, if you use the 1 hex = 30 meters, then common periphery infantry rifles (described as being descendants of a 20th century assault rifles) have ranges of 60 meters, when used by a platoon. That is certainly not true, right?

Irrelevant. If the game says they have, and the novels dont override, than yes they do.

I myself have NO weapons experience with anything with a muzzle velocity higher than a slingshot, and I'm damn sure I can hit an immobile mech at 90 meters with a rifle, 50 percent beyond the range of the 'in game' Rifle Infantry platoon units.

Irrelevant. If in-universe sources say that's their range, and there are no higher authority sources to say they ain't, that's it.

SNIPPY

Nephtys, I know it is game balance issues. Irrelevant. Until you find me higher canon evidence against it it stands.

[Batman]

Then explain why 'hypermatter' reactors keep working in the innumerable ISD versus Earth threads?

Because they don't violate e=mc^2.

How about the sublight energy weapons with ballistic recoil that can fire accurately at multiple light-second range? Give it a rest

Turbolasers happen to be c speed weapons, and even massless DEW have recoil.

If the Mechs use their speed adavantage, they're going to be alone. With no food, no guards, no place to sleep except the ground.

That same superior speed can, if need be, allow the battlemech contingent to fall back to a secure area if things drag on long enough to require pilot rest.

Indeed. Releasing that area back to the enemy thanks to you not having the ability to secure it.

[Thirdfain]

Turbolasers happen to be c speed weapons, and even massless DEW have recoil.

A lightspeed weapon at multiple light-second ranges would be fucking worthless if SW ships have half the speed and maneuverability commonly accepted here.

[Batman]

A lightspeed weapon at multiple light-second ranges would be fucking worthless if SW ships have half the speed and maneuverability commonly accepted here.

Thirdfain? they are.

[Nephtys]

Let me put it this way. Gameplay wise, if you use the 1 hex = 30 meters, then common periphery infantry rifles (described as being descendants of a 20th century assault rifles) have ranges of 60 meters, when used by a platoon. That is certainly not true, right?

Irrelevant. If the game says they have, and the novels dont override, than yes they do.

I myself have NO weapons experience with anything with a muzzle velocity higher than a slingshot, and I'm damn sure I can hit an immobile mech at 90 meters with a rifle, 50 percent beyond the range of the 'in game' Rifle Infantry platoon units.

Irrelevant. If in-universe sources say that's their range, and there are no higher authority sources to say they ain't, that's it.

SNIPPY

Nephtys, I know it is game balance issues. Irrelevant. Until you find me higher canon evidence against it it stands.

Huh. You're being a little hypocritical, huh? OH NO, THEY NEED FUEL. REAL LIFE RULES APPLY!!! now to 'Sure. It's perfectly OK for rifles to shoot 60 meters, and for battlemech armor to be akin to play-dough. I can't win a real argument, so I'm going to have to nitpick about canon.'

Please, there are more graceful ways of going out that simply refusing. Again, you're claiming the game balance is irrelevant only in the cases it doesn't support your point of view. Stop stonewalling and being a prissy fuss when you can't have your way.

[Batman]

I'd like an in-universe quote saying BT fusion reactors don't need, fuel, if you please.

[SirNitram]

I'd like an in-universe quote saying BT fusion reactors don't need, fuel, if you please.

They need fuel, they just fight for days before topping it off.

Could you stop strawmanning? It's becoming trite and annoying.

Jeez. Btech Mechs suck compared to modern-day vehicles, but this is WW1. Not exactly gonna take much to tip the battle.

[Sea Skimmer]

Again, with the vague 'they'll OF COURSE be destroyed!!11!' responses. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it'll work. Let's see. Static emplacements with huge naval guns that probably can't be that accurately fired, given literally iron-sights fire control. That sounds grand. Pre-plotted fields? I don't think that means every single bush, tree, patch of dirt is covered.

Actually it does. When you have a fortress you literally create a giant plotting board showing all the terrain of the surrounding area with ranges already marked out. If you know the range and you know the deflection your first round will hit. If you don't, then you do something called firing ranging shots. It works just fine. Literally tens of thousands of armored vehicles where destroyed in both world wars without the aid of any form of fire control system except a telescopic sight.

Much more likely to say that they've planned to hit bridges and chokepoints, roads and the like. Which Mechs can bypass. We've seen historically JUST how capable 'invincible' fixed emplacements are. *yawn*

Fort Douaumont at Verdun suggests they have a quite high level of invincibility. Despite months of bombardment by both the French and German armies it proved near totally immune to every available weapon. It was hit hundreds of times by 15 inch guns and 420mm howitzers, and by hundreds of thousands of lesser shells. It was not destroyed. Tens of thousands died attempting to take it. And it was just one fort, with most of its guns removed.

Meanwhile, the heavy guns mounted n French fortress have enough power to literally flip tanks and even the fragments will pierce quite heavy armor. Ask the Germans tank crews at Salrno and Normandy how much they liked even shelled by heavy guns.

[Batman]

I'd like an in-universe quote saying BT fusion reactors don't need, fuel, if you please.

They need fuel, they just fight for days before topping it off.
Could you stop strawmanning? It's becoming trite and annoying.

Nit, I know that.
What I'm getting at is that given we know the power available from fusion the firepower of BT mechs is either severely limited, or else their endurance is.

[Nephtys]

I'd like an in-universe quote saying BT fusion reactors don't need, fuel, if you please.

I don't see Hanse Davion or Marthe Pryde or Nastasha Kerensky whining about running out of gas. All accounts show fuel as a non-issue. I'll attribute it to them running on Handwavium. You're jumping about left and right.

[SirNitram]

Fort Douaumont at Verdun suggests they have a quite high level of invincibility. Despite months of bombardment by both the French and German armies it proved near totally immune to every available weapon. It was hit hundreds of times by 15 inch guns and 420mm howitzers, and by hundreds of thousands of lesser shells. It was not destroyed. Tens of thousands died attempting to take it. And it was just one fort, with most of its guns removed.

15 inch guns? Railway ones?

[SirNitram]

I'd like an in-universe quote saying BT fusion reactors don't need, fuel, if you please.

They need fuel, they just fight for days before topping it off.
Could you stop strawmanning? It's becoming trite and annoying.

Nit, I know that.
What I'm getting at is that given we know the power available from fusion the firepower of BT mechs is either severely limited, or else their endurance is.

Based on what, please.

[Graeme Dice]

It's a game system slavishly
slanted towards Mechs to make them viable on the battlefield.

Which, while true, is utterly and completely irrelevant.

[Nephtys]

Again, with the vague 'they'll OF COURSE be destroyed!!11!' responses. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it'll work. Let's see. Static emplacements with huge naval guns that probably can't be that accurately fired, given literally iron-sights fire control. That sounds grand. Pre-plotted fields? I don't think that means every single bush, tree, patch of dirt is covered.

Actually it does. When you have a fortress you literally create a giant plotting board showing all the terrain of the surrounding area with ranges already marked out. If you know the range and you know the deflection your first round will hit. If you don't, then you do something called firing ranging shots. It works just fine. Literally tens of thousands of armored vehicles where destroyed in both world wars without the aid of any form of fire control system except a telescopic sight.

Much more likely to say that they've planned to hit bridges and chokepoints, roads and the like. Which Mechs can bypass. We've seen historically JUST how capable 'invincible' fixed emplacements are. *yawn*

Fort Douaumont at Verdun suggests they have a quite high level of invincibility. Despite months of bombardment by both the French and German armies it proved near totally immune to every available weapon. It was hit hundreds of times by 15 inch guns and 420mm howitzers, and by hundreds of thousands of lesser shells. It was not destroyed. Tens of thousands died attempting to take it. And it was just one fort, with most of its guns removed.

Meanwhile, the heavy guns mounted n French fortress have enough power to literally flip tanks and even the fragments will pierce quite heavy armor. Ask the Germans tank crews at Salrno and Normandy how much they liked even shelled by heavy guns.

Because those guns exist and were resistant to damage from fire from similar guns dozens of miles away doesn't mean they can resist anything. Again, a fixed emplacement can only do so much especially against (yet again) an agile mech with firepower that can reply in kind. Tens of thousands of armored vehicles destroyed by mark one eyeball, sure. I'll give you that. Exactly how many did french forts stop now? There's plenty of downsides to these. Coordinating these to fire even with ranges known would make accurate shootign a nightmare against any kind of mobile force. Sorta why firing a salvo of arty against modern tanks isn't an auto-slaughter.

[Batman]

Based on what, please.

The fact that, at least to my knowledge (which is admittedly far from complete) there is never ever any mention of there being any hydrogen storage on Mechs, the fact that they are nevertheless able to operate, and to operate supposedly high-power DEW, despite that?

[SirNitram]

Based on what, please.

The fact that, at least to my knowledge (which is admittedly far from complete) there is never ever any mention of there being any hydrogen storage on Mechs, the fact that they are nevertheless able to operate, and to operate supposedly high-power DEW, despite that?

That would suggest they're quite efficient, Batman, and a reminder that fusion is a high-yield power source.

That and I dunno how hefty their weapons are. I generally assume on par with WW2 weaponry. If Skimmer's post about a fort resisting a 15 incher is correct, it probably means a Mech can't crack it. That being said, they may assist in starving out Paris by surrounding it.

[Batman]

That and I dunno how hefty their weapons are. I generally assume on par with WW2 weaponry.

That seems to be one of the points of contention.

If Skimmer's post about a fort resisting a 15 incher is correct, it probably means a Mech can't crack it. That being said, they may assist in starving out Paris by surrounding it.

Assuming they ever get there, of course.

[SirNitram]

That and I dunno how hefty their weapons are. I generally assume on par with WW2 weaponry.

That seems to be one of the points of contention.

If Skimmer's post about a fort resisting a 15 incher is correct, it probably means a Mech can't crack it. That being said, they may assist in starving out Paris by surrounding it.

Assuming they ever get there, of course.

Mobility defeated these forts in OTL.

[Nephtys]

That and I dunno how hefty their weapons are. I generally assume on par with WW2 weaponry.

That seems to be one of the points of contention.

If Skimmer's post about a fort resisting a 15 incher is correct, it probably means a Mech can't crack it. That being said, they may assist in starving out Paris by surrounding it.

Assuming they ever get there, of course.

Now, with an AC20 being from a 150mm-180mm high velocity cannon that fires off ten rounds in a burst... I'd say pretty powerful. Makes sense with the mackie shrugging off a single 120mm shell without damage, eh?

Said forts can be bypassed by mobility conventionally.. why not with jumping mechs? Oops. Now you're shelling paris in an attempt to get at the ones burning it down.

[Sea Skimmer]

15 inch guns? Railway ones?

For the battle they got mounted on big turntables to provide a wider arc of fire, but a railway mounting was the normal way of moving and firing them. Here's a picture of one.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_1 ... ax_pic.jpg

The fortress was also very heavily bombarded with 340mm and 400mm guns, and 370mm howitzers beside the weapons I've already mentioned. They all fired shells weighing far in excess of 1,000 pounds. These weapons never penetrated the fortress.

Forts got a bad reputation because of the ease with which the Germans crushed Liege. But the reality is that the forts at Liege where far inferior to those the French and Germans built, and had protection designed only to stop 240mm gunfire. The Belgians thought that that was the heaviest caliber weapon a field army could bring into action, but the Germans showed up with 420mm howitzers (the same weapons which failed to crack the forts of Verdun). The quality of construction of the forts, especially the quality of the concrete, was also in the Germans own estimation very poor. Throughout both world wars well built concrete forts proved immensely hard to destroy or capture by any means but close quarters infantry attack, and such attacks could normally only take place after a protracted siege. The Nazi Germans didn't build 600mm howitzers and 800mm guns in WW2 just for prestige and propaganda.

[Batman]

Now, with an AC20 being from a 150mm-180mm high velocity cannon that fires off ten rounds in a burst... I'd say pretty powerful.

Except that that gun can be 150-180mm OR high velocity. Pick one.

[consequences]

It's a game system slavishly
slanted towards Mechs to make them viable on the battlefield.

Which, while true, is utterly and completely irrelevant.

Actually it is relevant, as the only way it works with SoD and a number of novel incidents is if every side has a bunch of hidebound idiots at the top deliberately designing all of their tanks to fail in every half-way conceivable way. Which means that rote learning is the only important thing, any intelligent innovation not within the precepts of the 'Reign of the Battlemech' will be promptly lost in the bureacratic shuffle, burned, and the creator found dead in a ditch.

[SirNitram]

15 inch guns? Railway ones?

For the battle they got mounted on big turntables to provide a wider arc of fire, but a railway mounting was the normal way of moving and firing them. Here's a picture of one.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_1 ... ax_pic.jpg

The fortress was also very heavily bombarded with 340mm and 400mm guns, and 370mm howitzers beside the weapons I've already mentioned. They all fired shells weighing far in excess of 1,000 pounds. These weapons never penetrated the fortress.

Forts got a bad reputation because of the ease with which the Germans crushed Liege. But the reality is that the forts at Liege where far inferior to those the French and Germans built, and had protection designed only to stop 240mm gunfire. The Belgians thought that that was the heaviest caliber weapon a field army could bring into action, but the Germans showed up with 420mm howitzers (the same weapons which failed to crack the forts of Verdun). The quality of construction of the forts, especially the quality of the concrete, was also in the Germans own estimation very poor. Throughout both world wars well built concrete forts proved immensely hard to destroy or capture by any means but close quarters infantry attack, and such attacks could normally only take place after a protracted siege. The Nazi Germans didn't build 600mm howitzers and 800mm guns in WW2 just for prestige and propaganda.

I attributed it to Hitler's inadequecies, but it seems I stand corrected. While a Mech spearhead would tilt any trench situation into the hands of the one with the walkers, they don't carry enough to topple things like that. I was unaware the forts guarding Paris were that heavy.

[Nephtys]

Now, with an AC20 being from a 150mm-180mm high velocity cannon that fires off ten rounds in a burst... I'd say pretty powerful.

Except that that gun can be 150-180mm OR high velocity. Pick one.

Or both. AC-20s have no problem reaching out at AT2 aerial distances, and striking targets reliably. *yawwwn*