Haruspex
02/10/08 11:30 AM
203.188.239.84
|
I played MechWarrior IV:Mercenaries and MechCommander II, and in both games 'Mech armor can be repaired pretty easily at field repair facilities. I was wondering if that portrayal was faithful to the BattleTech universe. Can armor plates really be welded/fixed onto damaged parts in the field? In one novel (Tactics of Duty I think) it mentions "gray unpainted replacement armor" or something like that on a 'Mech.
In the games it was fairly quick (less than a minute IIRC) but that may have been sped up for gameplay purposes. No one wants to wait an hour at their computer while their 'Mech is getting patched up only to have it destroyed five seconds and three shots later. I suppose the techs have replacement plates ready at the repair bays or something, but are each ones specific to a particular 'Mech or is armor "one size fits all"?
The reason I ask this rather obscure question is that I am interested in maybe writing a short piece of fan fiction and would like to get my details correct. If armor can be patched on at field facilities, that could change a few things I was thinking of.
"If we were to plot the distance between where you are RIGHT NOW and the nearest good idea it would describe a line too big to fit inside the universe."
-Black Mage
|
Askhati
02/10/08 01:58 PM
168.209.97.42
|
Based on the novels, I always got the idea that the repair facilities each kept a stack of replacement armor, in roughly square-cut slabs, which they then simply slapped onto any damaged location on a 'Mech/vehicle, hammered it into a rough approximation of the needed shape, and then welded it into place.
Sortof like gift-wrapping a SUV with only A4-size pieces of paper...
Evolve or DIE!
|
Christopher_Perkins
02/10/08 04:17 PM
67.166.179.76
|
Armour Comes in plates, these plates are formed to fit by the technicians, this is why practicly any repairs require cutting and joining kits. Armour Repairs apparantly take 15 Minutes per point of Armour. The computer game took major liscence with the time required for many things.
The physical size of these plates is unknown
However details in the Star League Sourcebook suggest that 30 points of Standard Armour was able to withstand a hit that would have penetrated 300 mm of Rolled Homogenous Steel Armour despite being only 20 mm thick. ("would have penetrated a 3rd of a meter of standard steel ... no thicker than my finger" - the Comment in the journal of the Designer of the Sensors; further the Mackie in Tales of the Black Widow has a Mackie with 30 Points of Side torso Armour)
This Suggests that Tech B, Barrier 5 (Assumed to be Rolled Homogenous Steel Armour) rated armour is 10 mm thick and has a 50% chance of being penetrated by Machine Gun and Rifle Ammo designated as being AP type. (That IS the requirement for being designated as AP ammo, after all)
From that, Standard Tech D, Barrier 10 Armor (Standard / Ferro-Ceramic Armour) rated armour is about 0.67 mm thick per point and will take dents much wider than the impact area when Bar 5 would have developed holes. One of the Future Tech Shows on TV demonstrated how a Ferro-Ceramic Bullet Proof Vest responded to a Shot, this is very educational because it is possible that the Ferro-Cermic Armour (Standard Armour) in BattleTech responds the same way.
Edited by Christopher_Perkins (02/10/08 04:30 PM)
|
Tripod
02/11/08 09:24 AM
192.91.75.29
|
i've often thought about this question in reguards to internal structure...
i would think that direct replacement, ie, factory OEM armor would be available for mechs that have still functioning factories. possibly others with abundant replacemnt parts. where you could remove the remaining original armor, the patched slabs and such to replace the entire section with shiny new armor. this is simply how i see it, not a quote from anywhere speciffic. like buying a new hood for your car, provided they still make the hood, or have stores of them...
TBA
|
Haruspex
02/12/08 12:27 AM
203.188.239.84
|
Thanks for the replies. Very interesting stuff, though I had no idea FASA put so much thought into the matter. I figured they would just say, it's hi-tech space armor which modern humans cannot understand, kekeke. You know, like 90% of all science fiction.
So what about armor changes? Like switching from ferro-ceramic to ferro-fibrous, assuming you had the armor all ready in your shed. I assume that this would be simpler than changing an engine or weapon, but again thats just my guess.
Tripod: That sounds very possible, though the rigors of warfare probably means that slap on replacements would make up the vast majority. a quick dash of paint and no one can tell the difference. Paint solves everything.
"If we were to plot the distance between where you are RIGHT NOW and the nearest good idea it would describe a line too big to fit inside the universe."
-Black Mage
|
Christopher_Perkins
02/12/08 01:32 AM
67.166.179.76
|
TRO Phoenix was filled with TR3025 / TR3050 spec mechs beign refitted / reskinned to the new look.
Many of what the players call the "unseen" are units that had no factories before vicorie started making refit kits for these units, so now in universe there are even less of them than there were because they are bieng converted to the "Reseen" Look.
The OEM pre-shaped armour would probably be something that occours at the factory... most people would probably spend 15 minites a plate to reshape it into the existing dents & holes
Also consider that the PreBent Armour woudl be something that would take up more space as well as possibly be wasted if the mech that it goes to was vaporized or lost to the other side.
Reskinning is perhapse the easiest upgrade... if a mite time consuming...
at 307 points of armour... it could take up to 77 hours to reskin an atlas... and thats if removing the existing armour is either free or included in the time that replacing a point of armour costs....
note, that Reskinning an Omni-Mech is Possible... but it creates an entirely new "base Chassis" for configuration purposes, and you also do not get any time bonuses for the reskinning process... (yeah, you really get jack for making a mech an omni-mech... about the only advantage are quick swaps between battles for weapons, as well as those nifty little handholds for Innersphere infantry to clamber up and play "kick the can"
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Cray
02/15/08 08:28 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Armour Comes in plates, these plates are formed to fit by the technicians, this is why practicly any repairs require cutting and joining kits. Armour Repairs apparantly take 15 Minutes per point of Armour. The computer game took major liscence with the time required for many things.
The physical size of these plates is unknown
However details in the Star League Sourcebook suggest that 30 points of Standard Armour was able to withstand a hit that would have penetrated 300 mm of Rolled Homogenous Steel Armour despite being only 20 mm thick. ("would have penetrated a 3rd of a meter of standard steel ... no thicker than my finger" - the Comment in the journal of the Designer of the Sensors; further the Mackie in Tales of the Black Widow has a Mackie with 30 Points of Side torso Armour)
Actually, Chris, the Star League SB did not in any way, shape or form call the armor "Rolled Homogenous Armor." The armor used on the "Merkavas" was 23rd or 24th century steel. Considering that even modern steels can be up to 2-3x stronger than RHA, it's not a good assumption that the armor steel of latter-day tanks is anything like RHA.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Christopher_Perkins
02/16/08 02:19 AM
67.166.179.76
|
Quote:
it's not a good assumption that the armor steel of latter-day tanks is anything like RHA.
Its not a good assumption that the Tanks in the test run were Latter day tanks or using Latter Day Armors.
the Tanks were called Aincient Merkavas - and in 1985, the Merkava in use was the MK that weilded a 105 mm cannon, and the armour penetrating shell is rated at 300 mm, roughly a third of a meter of RHAe... 2349 - 1985 = 364 years that Qualifies as aincient to me.
No where in the article does it mention that the Mackies were tested against Tanks Contemporary to the Mackie... instead the Mackie was tested against Aincient Tanks that had long since been proven Aincient if still serviceable. The Mercenaries Supplemental II article gives the rules for using SUV rules to emulate early tanks... and while Top of the Line Armour woudl be BAR 7, Standard Steel Armour / RHAe would probably be Tech B Bar 5,
also, it was "standard steel armour" in the article Rolled Homogenous Steel Armour is the base line when you judge any type of weapon or armour against... probably because it is old enough that it woudl not be in any way secret. Thus "Standard Steel Armour" most likely stands for the type of armour that all elese is measured against
Further more; What do you assume that the intention of the article was... ?
If the intention of the article was to merely demonstrate the effectiveness of a BattleMech vs Vehicles, then they could easily have used an early version of one of the tanks that they had already created... Instead they used a (then) present-era Tank that would have been fairly well known.
Assuming that they would have used the armour contemporary to the development of the Battlemech (call it Tech C or D, BAR 7 in current game terms) then it would not have drive home how effective the BattleMech is in comparison to RW Equipment...
But Using a tank contemporary to the writing of the article drives home both the terror of facing a BattleMech (could have been any vehicle), and the effectiveness of the battlemech in comparison to current era Systems (could have been a T-72, M1/M1A1, Challenger, etc but they chose a Merkava, probably because they had compariatively recently had a trial by fire in the 1982 Lebanon war.)
I may have issues with conveying what I am trying to say...
But i put a lot of thought into what i try to say, and i have considered many angles beyond "Ohh the authors would have not put that much research into a game"...
And that is exactly what i hear each and every time that someone says "its Just a Game" why the heck are they permitted to insult the original creators of the game like that?
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Cray
02/19/08 11:54 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
But Using a tank contemporary to the writing of the article drives home both the terror of facing a BattleMech (could have been any vehicle), and the effectiveness of the battlemech in comparison to current era Systems (could have been a T-72, M1/M1A1, Challenger, etc but they chose a Merkava, probably because they had compariatively recently had a trial by fire in the 1982 Lebanon war.)
Think it through: it'd be pretty goofy for the Hegemony to reawaken 4 ancient museum pieces (of inestimable value after 450 years) for a live-fire test of a brand new war machine. It'd be like testing an Abrams against a chariot recovered from an Egyptian tomb, or taking the Confederate HL Hunley out to sea to combat-test the Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines.
Per the "Birth of the King" scenario on BattleCorps, the Merkavas fighting the Mackie are not the Israeli tank. They're tech level C tanks introduced in 2294AD (which is spelled out in the "Tech Base" block on their record sheets.)
Quote:
also, it was "standard steel armour" in the article Rolled Homogenous Steel Armour is the base line when you judge any type of weapon or armour against...
RHA was not always the standard, Chris, since it didn't always exist - it's only been around about a half century. There were other standards before it, which should show you a trend: standards change.
Did you notice that RHA has changed substantially over the years? It ain't MIL-A-12560 anymore, it's MIL-A-46100. 46100 RHA has much higher hardness requirements - the bare minimum is equal to the old standard's very high end. The point of MIL-A-46100 RHA is to capture advances in state-of-the-art steelmaking, basically duplicating AISI grade 4340 steels.
So what do you think is going to happen to the standard steel for ballistic testing over the next several centuries? Insisting that 25th Century weapons testing sticks to 1950s-grade steels when 21st Century weapons testing doesn't is a bit silly. It's like suggesting that we should've stuck to 1890s Harvey steel for modern weapons testing.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Christopher_Perkins
02/20/08 04:45 AM
67.166.179.76
|
Quote:
Quote:
But Using a tank contemporary to the writing of the article drives home both the terror of facing a BattleMech (could have been any vehicle), and the effectiveness of the battlemech in comparison to current era Systems (could have been a T-72, M1/M1A1, Challenger, etc but they chose a Merkava, probably because they had compariatively recently had a trial by fire in the 1982 Lebanon war.)
Think it through: it'd be pretty goofy for the Hegemony to reawaken 4 ancient museum pieces (of inestimable value after 450 years) for a live-fire test of a brand new war machine. It'd be like testing an Abrams against a chariot recovered from an Egyptian tomb, or taking the Confederate HL Hunley out to sea to combat-test the Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines.
perhapse... however they did quite clearly state that the vehicles were ainchent...
Quote:
Per the "Birth of the King" scenario on BattleCorps, the Merkavas fighting the Mackie are not the Israeli tank. They're tech level C tanks introduced in 2294AD (which is spelled out in the "Tech Base" block on their record sheets.)
1980 is Tech C, Tech C is from 1901 - 2100 (20th - 22nd Centuries if the Merkava MK ? was introduced in 2294 AD it was a late bloomer... )
The armour on the 1978 Model Merkava MK I could possibly be represented as BattleTech Tech C Bar 6 since it appears to be a derivitation of RHAe and CHOBHAM... at least according to the Wiki
The armour on the 1983 Model Merkava MK II would probably be represented as more of the same type of armour in all variants except for the MK IID which probably had the equivelent of Tech C Bar 7 on the Chassis & Turret
the Merkava MK III & IVs are upgraded to use the Rheinmetall 120 mm that penetrates 2 thirds of a meter of RHAe, easily... so who knows...
Quote:
also, it was "standard steel armour" in the article Rolled Homogenous Steel Armour is the base line when you judge any type of weapon or armour against...
Quote:
RHA was not always the standard, Chris, since it didn't always exist - it's only been around about a half century.
Thus the reference to "Standard Steel armour" as to what the weapon could penetrate...
Which spec was RHAe in 1985 when the artice was being written? It likely that the Author was using the standards of his era as the standard of the future eras with the Standard Ferro Cermic Armour of the BattleMech Armour totally exlipsing the "Standard Steel" of his era
Quote:
There were other standards before it, which should show you a trend: standards change.
Did you notice that RHA has changed substantially over the years? It ain't MIL-A-12560 anymore, it's MIL-A-46100. 46100 RHA has much higher hardness requirements - the bare minimum is equal to the old standard's very high end. The point of MIL-A-46100 RHA is to capture advances in state-of-the-art steelmaking, basically duplicating AISI grade 4340 steels.
Which of the two Specs for RHAe was the spec in 1985?
If you assume that that is the spec that is equivelent to the current games "Tech B Bar 5" armour at 62.5 kg per Point... What does that do for you in regards to bringing in more versimilitude...
from the outside cray, no one else is coming even close t trying to do that...
Quote:
So what do you think is going to happen to the standard steel for ballistic testing over the next several centuries?
you mean sort of like how
Tech B Bar 5 Armour is 63 kg per "point" (perhapse 10 mm per?)
Tech C Bar 5 Armour is 40 kg per "point" (unknown thickness)
Tech D Bar 5 Armour is 32 kg per "point" (unknown thickness)
Tech E Bar 5 Armour is 28 kg per "point" (unknown thickness)
Tech F Bar 5 Armour is 26 kg per "point" (unknown thickness)
But we have gotten far afield from the point that the Armour Piercing Round fired from the Merkava was stated to be able to penetrate a third of a meter of Standard Steel Armour and a specific kind of Shell that can be fired from the 105 mm gun on the Merkava's in use at the time were rated as capable of Penetrating 300 mm of RHAe.
Quote:
Insisting that 25th Century weapons testing sticks to 1950s-grade steels when 21st Century weapons testing doesn't is a bit silly. It's like suggesting that we should've stuck to 1890s Harvey steel for modern weapons testing.
Its a writers conceit similar to using Kilograms, Meters, Miles, and Pounds or thinking in terms of modern day languages (barring faux pas in japenese...) rather than developing entirely new systems... with the FASA of the time it was much easier to assume that they were referring to something commonly known and used than spending space on a dissertation on the armour itself
Does anyone have the designers notes to the House Steiner Source Book or the Star League Source Book? Not that i am holding my breath that proof pro/con would be found in such even if they were avaialble.
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
|
Cray
02/20/08 09:32 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Quote:
Think it through: it'd be pretty goofy for the Hegemony to reawaken 4 ancient museum pieces (of inestimable value after 450 years) for a live-fire test of a brand new war machine. It'd be like testing an Abrams against a chariot recovered from an Egyptian tomb, or taking the Confederate HL Hunley out to sea to combat-test the Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines.
perhapse... however they did quite clearly state that the vehicles were ainchent...
140 years old IS ancient. It's worse than using a British Mark I tank against an Abrams in the Abrams' original combat trials, which would only be a 65-year gap (if you're generous).
Quote:
1980 is Tech C, Tech C is from 1901 - 2100
Incorrect. Check page 122 Tech Manual. Tech level A is "19th to early 20th Centuries." Tech level B is defined as "Late 20th Century." Tech rating C is "21st to 22nd Centuries." Therefore, 1980 is most definitely Tech B.
Quote:
(20th - 22nd Centuries if the Merkava MK ? was introduced in 2294 AD it was a late bloomer... )
More or less correct.
Quote:
Which spec was RHAe in 1985 when the artice was being written?
Not particularly relevant, since the standard at the time of the Mackie's test would be centuries more advanced than either Tech B steel spec.
Quote:
Tech B Bar 5 Armour is 63 kg per "point" (perhapse 10 mm per?)
[snip] 10mm per point? Are you giving 1pt of armor to a 100,000-ton tech B aircraft carrier or a 10-ton tech B armored car? Both armor points have the same mass, but they have to cover much different areas, resulting in very different thicknesses.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Christopher_Perkins
02/20/08 09:12 PM
67.166.179.76
|
Quote:
Incorrect. Check page 122 Tech Manual. Tech level A is "19th to early 20th Centuries." Tech level B is defined as "Late 20th Century." Tech rating C is "21st to 22nd Centuries." Therefore, 1980 is most definitely Tech B.
Say what? what is Pre-industrial Technology now?
it used to be Tech Level A was Pre-Industrial with Tech B being from the Industrial Revolution to befre the 20th Century and Tech C being from the 20th Century to the 22nd Century....
so they sevearly retconed in TechManual?
Quote:
Not particularly relevant, since the standard at the time of the Mackie's test would be centuries more advanced than either Tech B steel spec.
The Star League Sourcebook article was written with "the future of 1985" perspective With the Standards of 1985 being carried forward to 2349... heck, you could easily explain this away by the designer of the sensors being more versed in Archaic Weapons than contemporary weapons...
If the 105 mm APFDS shell was capable of penetrating 300 mm of 1985 Spec RHAe, then what mm of the armour spec that RHAe would refer to in 2008 would the same shell be stated as being capable of penetrating?
Quote:
snip] 10mm per point? Are you giving 1pt of armor to a 100,000-ton tech B aircraft carrier or a 10-ton tech B armored car? Both armor points have the same mass, but they have to cover much different areas, resulting in very different thicknesses.
What gave you the idea that I could possibly be referring to vehicles outside the "Large" Support Vehicle / BattleMech / Combat Vehicle / AeroSpace Fighter band?
Christopher Robin Perkins
It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Edited by Christopher_Perkins (02/20/08 09:14 PM)
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 150 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 7414
|
|
|
|
|
|
|