Battletech in World War I

[Nephtys]

That ECM bit was a RL example. Even so if ECM affects BT range so much, their ranges should then increase if someone would return to gunnery systems that were available during the 70's. Those are optical systems, so they are not affected by ECM. Just like I pointed out some x posts ago. 1500m is a range where a target will be hit, and the hit is achieved without any active sensor that is vulnerable to ECM. Unless ECM can somehow affect the eyeball MkI, which I doubt.

In addition, I can't remember the exact quote, but don't clanners view the use of ECM/Stealth as cowardly, and in fact don't possess either technology?
If so, you'd get increased ranges against clan mechs.

Angel ECM and Null signature system are both special equipment that do

Optics could possibly be either impractical for the fire control of multiple weapons systems, or vulnerable to damage from stuff like small arms, blasts that would not otherwise penetrate armor... but that's not much of an explaination. Yeah, optical targetting WOULD be better, probably. But you'd have to fire and range weapons individually on a mech with non-uniform loadout. *shruggle*

Clans make extensive use of ECM and ECCM. Just like the IS. It's only dishonorable for Clanners to 'gang up' on opposing mechs, assuming an equal fight, use physical attacks unless physicalled first, kill weak/fallen mechs, or so on. These rules however, don't apply to any bunch they deem too barbaric to have honor.

Angel, Stealth Armor, Null-Sig are of course non-standard gear. But the fact that they exist and have an effect on targetting accuracy even at ranges mentioned shows the viability of said types of ECM against targetting sensors.

[MKSheppard]

The PzB39 (WWII German anti-tank rifle) could only penetrate 25mm at 300 meters at a 60 degree angle, so we can probably count out an OmniMech being penetrated by a one-man AT rifle in WWI, 30 years earlier.

Battle tech Armor is ablative; meaning multiple shots get through; and
AT Rifles were used a lot on the Ostfront after they had ceased to be
effective one shot kill weapons; breaking tracks, optics, damaging guns,
etc were all uses for AT Rifles.

[Nephtys]

So wait. So you're somehow saying 25mm is signifigant, when 333mm penetration is not? Shep, I don't give a damn what the use of an antitank rifle is on a peice of crap tank of that Era. You're not even trying to make sense anymore.

[MKSheppard]

You're not even trying to make sense anymore.

Then read up on Soviet Anti Tank tactics using "obsolete" 14.5mm AT Rifles, they accounted for quite a lot of "modern" German tanks that couldn't be penetrated by the rifle.

[Nephtys]

Good for you. Stop being a moron. We're not TALKING ABOUT GERMAN TANKS. By your logic, if I shoot you with an 'obsolete' musket, and it kills you, it surely must be useable against a tank.

[MKSheppard]

Good for you. Stop being a moron. We're not TALKING ABOUT GERMAN TANKS.

Bliddy idiot. What good is your mech going to do when all the little things
on the outside, such as optics, amongst other things are shot off by AT rifle
fire? They'd immobilize the tank by shooting it's track till it broke, and then
shooting the optics of the tank, neutralizing it's main gun, and then infantry
would assault it.

[Nephtys]

You are not listening. And from how on, I will not listen to you. You clearly show that you know all of jack shit in regards to battletech. You're talking cases against tanks that are slow and pathetic compared to a battlemech, and are not machines bounding across the landscape at 80KPH. You're talking 'breaking optics and shooting tracks and neutralizing main guns' when a mech has none of these things vulnerable to shoot at. You're making up vulnerabilities in your own mind to apply completely irrelevant military trivia.

You're being nothing more than a lowly troll here, and I'm not going to waste my time, or Wong's bandwidth and server space by continually refuting your arguments that a child could see the fallacy involved. If you can't accept the fact that your arguments are pointless and have been for the entire rest of the thread, you're beyond all help.

Good day.

[MKSheppard]

You're talking 'breaking optics and shooting tracks and neutralizing main guns' when a mech has none of these things vulnerable to shoot at.

You prove your idiocy. How do you think a Mech fires at these long ranges
you're claiming? By eye?

[SirNitram]

You're talking 'breaking optics and shooting tracks and neutralizing main guns' when a mech has none of these things vulnerable to shoot at.

You prove your idiocy. How do you think a Mech fires at these long ranges
you're claiming? By eye?

Given the accuracies involved, that would probably explain it.

However, by these same arguments, tanks suck because they, as you said, were disabled by these rifles.

Note that we do not dismiss the durability of a tank because one can hit a vunerable spot.

[MKSheppard]

Given the accuracies involved, that would probably explain it.

Telescopic sights need to be outside armor and not behind bullitproof glass because
BP glass unless really well made distorts the view optically; meaning missed shots.

Also, many mech designers seem to abhor optically flat cockpit glass; meaning
glare will be a very serious problem when aiming weapons at long ranges.

However, by these same arguments, tanks suck because they, as you said, were disabled by these rifles

Note that we do not dismiss the durability of a tank because one can hit a vunerable spot.

Tanks are infinitely cheaper to build, maintain, and are more heavily
armored for their size; a 40 ton MBT has thicker armor than a 40 ton
battlemech because of the MBT's much smaller volume.

It seems to me that BTechers are like Fanatical Trekkies; they think
that since BTech is 1000 or so years more advanced than our present
civilization, that BTech would munch us; in the same way fanatical
trekkies think that an away team armed with phasers and tricorders
would munch a "primitive" US Army infantry squad.

[SirNitram]

Given the accuracies involved, that would probably explain it.

Telescopic sights need to be outside armor and not behind bullitproof glass because
BP glass unless really well made distorts the view optically; meaning missed shots.

Also, many mech designers seem to abhor optically flat cockpit glass; meaning
glare will be a very serious problem when aiming weapons at long ranges.

Which is merely one more peice onto the already canon range issues Mech have. Thank you for once again thinking yourself insightful for pointing out something known already.

However, by these same arguments, tanks suck because they, as you said, were disabled by these rifles

Note that we do not dismiss the durability of a tank because one can hit a vunerable spot.

Tanks are infinitely cheaper to build, maintain, and are more heavily
armored for their size; a 40 ton MBT has thicker armor than a 40 ton
battlemech because of the MBT's much smaller volume.

Wow, another pithy comment that has never been questioned. Hell, it's even canon in Btech: Tanks are cheap as dirt! S'why I love my Alacorns.

It seems to me that BTechers are like Fanatical Trekkies; they think
that since BTech is 1000 or so years more advanced than our present
civilization, that BTech would munch us; in the same way fanatical
trekkies think that an away team armed with phasers and tricorders
would munch a "primitive" US Army infantry squad.

It seems to me you're simply a brazen, blazing retard. This thread and the WW2 one has been based on the idea that since the canon fluff shows a Mackie(An uber-primitive mech easily schooled by modern ones) can take shots from a gun that does equal damage to a WW2 era one, the 'Mechs can find a decent fight with WW era foes.

Are there idiots who think BTech can take the modern military? Yea. None in these threads. You toddle off now. You've trolled, you've gotten your kicks, now go away.

[Stark]

Are we arguing equipment damage? Don't mechs have huge rotary 'autocannons', exposed missiles, etc? Are they armoured too? Of course, since we're apparently using game rules, YES, THEY ARE.

Won't a modern tank round to the missile bay or exposed weapon cause serious damage, regardless of the 'armour' the mech might have? When the mechs are running along at 80klicks, how stable are they? How stable CAN they be, when running involves most of a mechs gunmounts swinging around? Or do they run perfectly upright and stabilised?

I honestly don't understand mech debates in general, but BT ones are the worst.

[SirNitram]

Are we arguing equipment damage? Don't mechs have huge rotary 'autocannons', exposed missiles, etc? Are they armoured too? Of course, since we're apparently using game rules, YES, THEY ARE.

Won't a modern tank round to the missile bay or exposed weapon cause serious damage, regardless of the 'armour' the mech might have? When the mechs are running along at 80klicks, how stable are they? How stable CAN they be, when running involves most of a mechs gunmounts swinging around? Or do they run perfectly upright and stabilised?

I honestly don't understand mech debates in general, but BT ones are the worst.

A modern tank doesn't need to target so precisely. Modern tank rounds exceed the figures for resistance by Mechs by orders of magnitude. A centre torso shot will core it.

Of course, the anti-Mech side of this debate is apparently unburdened by literacy, and aren't reading that they're only being tossed up against much inferior stuff due to canon data.

[Stark]

A modern tank doesn't need to target so precisely. Modern tank rounds exceed the figures for resistance by Mechs by orders of magnitude. A centre torso shot will core it.

I just wanted to avoid the argument over equivalent armour thicknesses and relative weapons power, since it's something I'm not really following. My point was merely that mechs, regardless of armour, seem to be covered in vulnerable systems.

Of course, the anti-Mech side of this debate is apparently unburdened by literacy, and aren't reading that they're only being tossed up against much inferior stuff due to canon data.

I'm not sure what you mean. Since I've noticed in the other BT thread that these debates are almost entirely about book-BT, I'm not really interested in who wins.

[SirNitram]

A modern tank doesn't need to target so precisely. Modern tank rounds exceed the figures for resistance by Mechs by orders of magnitude. A centre torso shot will core it.

I just wanted to avoid the argument over equivalent armour thicknesses and relative weapons power, since it's something I'm not really following. My point was merely that mechs, regardless of armour, seem to be covered in vulnerable systems.

Yea, they are. Which is a good rationalization, to a point of the crit system. But often it's taken to ridiculous extremes.

Of course, the anti-Mech side of this debate is apparently unburdened by literacy, and aren't reading that they're only being tossed up against much inferior stuff due to canon data.

I'm not sure what you mean. Since I've noticed in the other BT thread that these debates are almost entirely about book-BT, I'm not really interested in who wins.

I'm just pointing out talking about modern tanks is silly; we know they pwn Btech mechs. Didn't mean to imply much more by this; as you can see, Shep thought this was an on-topic thing, to talk about Mechs vs. modern tanks.

[Stark]

Yea, they are. Which is a good rationalization, to a point of the crit system. But often it's taken to ridiculous extremes.

I wasn't specifically referring to any game mechanic, merely what I remember of the appearance and layout of mechs. It's not particularly relevant to the OP, I just thought claiming mechs had no exposed equipment was silly.

I'm just pointing out talking about modern tanks is silly; we know they pwn Btech mechs. Didn't mean to imply much more by this; as you can see, Shep thought this was an on-topic thing, to talk about Mechs vs. modern tanks.

Ah yes, since it's WWI and all. I wasn't sure if I was being thick and missing a Sir Nitram Smackdown.

On topic, I figure since the mechs don't require refueling they'd be pretty decisive on the WWI battlefield.

[SirNitram]

Yea, they are. Which is a good rationalization, to a point of the crit system. But often it's taken to ridiculous extremes.

I wasn't specifically referring to any game mechanic, merely what I remember of the appearance and layout of mechs. It's not particularly relevant to the OP, I just thought claiming mechs had no exposed equipment was silly.

I'm just pointing out talking about modern tanks is silly; we know they pwn Btech mechs. Didn't mean to imply much more by this; as you can see, Shep thought this was an on-topic thing, to talk about Mechs vs. modern tanks.

Ah yes, since it's WWI and all. I wasn't sure if I was being thick and missing a Sir Nitram Smackdown.

On topic, I figure since the mechs don't require refueling they'd be pretty decisive on the WWI battlefield.

It's something I brought up; Especially the type in the OP, the Omnimechs, which are:

1) Btech mechs. Fusion reactors that seem to go on for-ever.
2) Clan mechs, so their energy weapons don't worry about ammo. Don't ask me there.
3) Omnimechs, which are plug-n-play for spare parts, much simplifying that.
4) Clan pilots, who are like Klingons on PCP.

Of course, the biggest deciding factor of WW1 was the huge forts. Mechs alone can't handle those, since they were soaking hits from 15 inch guns.

[Nephtys]

On the topic of sticking out stuff... no doubt there is not soft vulnerabilities in the mech. But for the most part, they're not that obvious or easy to hit by any means. They represent the 'Through Armor Critical' possibility in the game mechanics. But yeah, you can damage external structures of a mech, but they are hardly critical. Oh, mech sensors btw, are IR, LightAmp, Radar, Visual/Enhanced, Seismic, EM, and whatever extra suites they may have.

But agreed, the main thing here is forts. Those were pretty impressive things. If they can be bypassed, mechs take it. But if they can't, poor Mechs.

[Gunhead]

If using rockets and missiles, the smart move is to have the ready rounds mounted on the outside. This way if they are detonated by weapon fire, the crew is still protected by the vehicles armor.

Rounds stored inside are of course a danger to the crew in case of penetration, but that's what CASE and similar RL systems are for.
To that end IS mechs are very vulnerable to ammunition hits, since they don't get CASE until SL tech is introduced.

To that whole critcal issue I say this. The probability to hit a weak spot is determined by range. At normal tank engament range, tanks do not really aim for any weak point because they're too hard to hit.
At close ranges this changes, as they can pretty much hit what they aim at almost instantly. Since tank gunnery can consistently hit a mech to it's torso, it should be more easy for it to achieve a torso critical and penetrating hit will have a good chance to cause an ammo explosion or reactor damage. Mech to mech you're spreading hit all over the target, and you get lower number of criticals. If you can improve accurasy so that more hits are scored on the torso. More torso criticals would result from that. Of all hits to the torso 25% are criticals.

-Gunhead

[PainRack]

That ECM bit was a RL example. Even so if ECM affects BT range so much, their ranges should then increase if someone would return to gunnery systems that were available during the 70's. Those are optical systems, so they are not affected by ECM. Just like I pointed out some x posts ago. 1500m is a range where a target will be hit, and the hit is achieved without any active sensor that is vulnerable to ECM. Unless ECM can somehow affect the eyeball MkI, which I doubt.

Yet, Dawn attempt to eyeball the mech was off.

Mordoc told me they cheated. She had seen the same kind of pattern on a targeting and tracking system once before, on Tukayyid when she had faced off against two platoons of Com Guard infantry. A jamming device with very limited range was being used on her mech.

Not waiting for a weapons lock she manually eyed up a shot and fired her short range missiles. Only one of them hit,burying itself in a hole her charge had already opened in the armour.

And this was at

The Griffin was only a few scant meters distant as she locked her cross hairs onto its mauled form.While the laser began to preheat, she told herself that one good volley would end this contest, leaving her the victor. She waited, hoping to cool the Shadow Hawk a bit more before opening fire again, when suddenly her targeting system began to crackle

In addition, I can't remember the exact quote, but don't clanners view the use of ECM/Stealth as cowardly, and in fact don't possess either technology?
If so, you'd get increased ranges against clan mechs.

Since when? What is the Loki/Hellbringer equipped with in its primary configuration?

Painrack those dropships can and do carry Long Toms right? They already have far greater range than normal mech weaponry.

Correct.Conceded on the specific example. However, intruders were also used in ground hop missions during the Fed Com Civil War, although the range of those missions are much harder to define. Well, give me some time again then.

To that whole critcal issue I say this. The probability to hit a weak spot is determined by range. At normal tank engament range, tanks do not really aim for any weak point because they're too hard to hit.
At close ranges this changes, as they can pretty much hit what they aim at almost instantly. Since tank gunnery can consistently hit a mech to it's torso, it should be more easy for it to achieve a torso critical and penetrating hit will have a good chance to cause an ammo explosion or reactor damage. Mech to mech you're spreading hit all over the target, and you get lower number of criticals. If you can improve accurasy so that more hits are scored on the torso. More torso criticals would result from that. Of all hits to the torso 25% are criticals.

There isn't any evidence to this other than "theory", but I believe that one of the reason why ground battles are simulated at knife-edge ranges is partially because of this factor. Like I said, its probable that one requires extremely precise hits to the armour in order to penetrate its in the first place, before the secondary protection of ablatation comes into play.

[Batman]

Like I said, its probable that one requires extremely precise hits to the armour in order to penetrate its in the first place, before the secondary protection of ablatation comes into play.

One wonders why this results in lower ranges for high-calibre AC, then, given that their firepower advantage should mean they need less precise hits, and thus should be able to do so at greater ranges.
Of course we already agreed that BT makes no real-world sense whatsoever but this is a vs.

[PainRack]

One wonders why this results in lower ranges for high-calibre AC, then, given that their firepower advantage should mean they need less precise hits, and thus should be able to do so at greater ranges.
Of course we already agreed that BT makes no real-world sense whatsoever but this is a vs.

It could be a result of the greater recoil, thus affecting the grouping neccesary to defeat the mech armour.
However, all this is conjecture and there exists serious consistency problems for autocannons KE damage using this model.

[Gunhead]

In both quotes it's targeting data that's affected.

Dawn could still see, and probably knew the targeting data she had before her TC started acting out. So she fires her SRM's scoring a hit. This is in no way inconsistent with how SRM's work as they are pretty hit and miss affair, even when TC is working properly. Unless she was firing STREAKs, but that there was no indication of this. To my knowledge STREAKs do not even fire if target lock is not achieved.

This disruption in targeting data can be caused by laser emitters, that feed false data to the TC, preventing it from getting the accurate range to target. This hampers ballistic weapon fire to longer ranges, and I'd think in case of BT lasers to degree also. This due to their "blowtorch" way of working, where the beam has to be on target for few seconds (or something like that) to have a chance at penetration. For this to happen you need speed and direction of movement. I do think mechs also employ some form of radar to achieve this, but that can be also disrupted by ECM.

Both cases state that the disruption was caused when at close range, and mech SRM range is about 300m.

Neither instance provides evidence to the effect that mech ECM is cabable of interfering with true optical systems. For that you'd need some form of optical camouflage.

I did theorize in the WWII thead that the AC/20 is actually a HEAT/HE weapon (depending on fusing). This would explain the short range, it's use on assault mechs and it's popularity on Solaris arenas.

-Gunhead

[Gunhead]

More on the AC/20. The 3026 vehicle guide says that the AC/20 mounted on the Mechbuster fires hyper velocity depleted uranium penetrators in four round bursts. So this says KE. It's also stated that a single hit can destroy most mechs up to 70 tons.

However, in battle history they "Lay down a pattern of high explosives in midst of a steiner recon lance." This could attributed to bombs carried by the busters.

Hetzer from 3026: AC/20 150mm 10 round burst.

The scorpion (3026) : AC/5 20mm (gatling quoted having a high rate of fire)

I read these descriptions and concluded that BT damage as given in the game is an average of calibre and RoF (for KE weapons). So technically an AC/20 could be a 200mm cannon firing few shells, or a 30mm one firing oodles of rounds.

Oh, and 3026 also states that AC/2 has 180m greater range than an AC/5.
Partisan AA-tank.

-Gunhead

[Batman]

I read these descriptions and concluded that BT damage as given in the game is an average of calibre and RoF (for KE weapons). So technically an AC/20 could be a 200mm cannon firing few shells, or a 30mm one firing oodles of rounds.

Well that would at least go some way to explaining the enormous disparity in calibres in the novels that represent the same game-terms AC class.
I've seen the AC/5 called 80mm and 120mm in the same trilogy, and the AC/20 varied between 100 and 200mm at least.
If the number of projectiles in a 'round' is NOT a costant that would explain the otherwise incompatible ammunition weights, too. If an AC/20 rounds is three projectiles instead of 10 the 200mm calibre might just work.