Venom
09/04/08 03:09 AM
12.217.218.14
|
I was watching a program on the History Channel about the evolution of armor and how advances were spurned on by advances in firearms technology. It got me thinking. Since the dawn of modern battlemechs, ie after the Mackie, a ton of armor was 16 points and a 100 ton 'mech could only carry 307 points. Granted in level 3 we now have hardend armor, we still have a lapse of about 400 years where the only advancements in armor made them lighter as opposed to offering more protection.
By way of comparison we have had bullet-proof vests that would stop the majority of pistol calibers for about 50 years. Now we have vests that will stop rifle rounds up to and including 7.62x39; not to mention the fact that they are significantly lighter.
I understand that changing the rules could be difficult(ie units produced at separate times, fighting against eachother, repair, etc) but no more difficult than the transition to the rise of the Clans.
I just find it hard to swallow that the Clans could make a PPC that does 50% more damage, but no clan engineer ever found it neccesary to make standard armor that could take the same 50% more damage.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
09/04/08 07:31 PM
205.202.120.139
|
They probably kept it at the present level simply because of:
1. Game Balance
2. Physical Limits
The first one is easy- not only would it make the clans even more über-tech than they already are, but would also make armor very complicated. It would no longer be "I want to use ferro-fibrous, how many points do I get?" but more like "I am in the year 3065, which means I can choose between these types of armors...". After all, what's to say that we won't have a huge number of differing types by oh, say 3069?
The second one is a little more abstract, but easy in thought. At some point there will be a physical limit; we will not be able to make armor stronger, weapons more powerful, ect. Remember that battlemech standard-grade armor has crushed Diamonds and alternating layers of Boron nitride and magnetically-aligned woven steel plating inside (something we can make, to a smaller extent); this is some pretty serious stuff, even for CBT, and even Ferro-fibrous and Stealth armors use the standard stuff as a base. Basically, the reason why armor has not changed from the standard stuff is because CBT has reached a "pinnacle" in that area.
However, with Advanced Armor for BA's...no, wait that's just Ferro.
|
Venom
09/05/08 03:42 AM
12.217.218.14
|
Both good points, but what of the origional statement that the advancement of weapons technology brings on advancements in armor? In the nearly 40 years since the IS has begun rebuilding its technology, weapons have become more powerful and a 'mechs lifespan has decreased.
I think that ultimatly it is ease of gameplay that has limited armor development. After all, an IS ER PPC still does 10 points of damage and they have had almost 25 years to reverse-engineer ClanTech; so the weapons themselves have not gotten more powerful, simply more weapons with greater power have been introduced.
|
Dester
09/05/08 01:05 PM
216.57.96.1
|
Physical limits is a very valid point.
To quote from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_plate_armour
about Gothic plate armors
These armours were made during the 15th century and reached to their peak in 1480s, then they were considered the best in Europe.
Now consider this... from 1480s untill 1950s (at the earliest) but more like 2000.. thats a span of 500 years give or take before you had viable armor to protect the individule soldier on the battlefield. And that is with no period of lost technology or anything like that.
To top it all off, the basic building blocks of armor changed from steal plates to kevlar fibers and polly carbon ceramics.
So for the battletech universe, untill the fundumental building blocks of armor change, It is my belief that they have physicaly maxed out armor.
Dester
|
Cray
09/06/08 04:32 PM
68.205.198.74
|
Quote:
I just find it hard to swallow that the Clans could make a PPC that does 50% more damage, but no clan engineer ever found it neccesary to make standard armor that could take the same 50% more damage.
Well, that's certainly one way to look at it.
However, there is another aspect to this. At the Mackie's birth, it's armor was able to stop projectiles that could punch through 36-48 inches of armor steel with just a centimeter of thickness. Mind you, a modern 12.5kg "Silver Bullet" APFSDSDU projectile (1500m/s) from an Abrams will go through 36 inches of armor steel.
Modern battlemechs stop incredible attacks with just millimeters and centimeters of armor. They have these huge surface areas of steel and ceramic armor (all known densities) that just stretches the armor out to sheet-like thickness. And yet the center torso armor of an Atlas can stop two projectiles of 250kg mass that travel at 24,000m/s or so.
Quick comparison:
Abrams tank: 12.5kg, 1,500m/s projectile goes through 36 inches of rolled homogenous armor
Heavy Gauss Rifle: 250kg, 24,000m/s projectile needs two shots to defeat 1-2cm of assault mech armor
WarShips armor is even more impressive. The armor of a McKenna or other sizable warship can be stretched to foil thickness. Those giants are over a kilometer long and yet clad in only a few hundred tons, perhaps a bit more, of dense materials. You'd think you could poke a finger through that armor, but when hit by a 500kg NGR slug moving at 60,000m/s or better (let alone the c-fractional engagements of two fleets crossing between jump point and planet), that foil-thick armor STOPS the damage. In fact, it can often stop it over and over before serious internal damage begins, and many WarShips can survive nearby nuclear explosions.
When you've reached materials with that level of magical performance, how much room for improvement is there?
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
09/08/08 02:14 AM
24.125.201.167
|
Prototype Ferro-Ceramic armour of the Mackie is considerably less protection (10.6 pts per 1000 kg - MSK-6S or 94.34 kg per point of Prototype Ferro-Ceramic Armour) than the Standard Ferro-Ceramic Armour was derived from it (16 pts per 1000 kg or 62.5 kg per point of Ferro-Ceramic armour). The Prototype Armour debuted in 2349, and the Production Armour was first produced in 2400.
IS Ferro-Fibrus was derived from Standard Ferro-Ceramic Armour and was deployed sometime between 2570 and 2750 (Tech Manual doesn't give a clear date, TR2750 has the earliest date being 2499 For the Guilotine (but thats the GLT-3s, May not be that early if the original had Standard Ferro-Ceramic), 2572 for the Thug) (17.92 points of armour per 1000 kg or 55.80 kg per point of IS Ferro-Fibrous armour)
Clan Ferro-Fibrous Armour was developed some time during the golden century, or that is, IIRC, between 2800 and 2900. (19.2 points per 1000 kg or 52.08 kg per point of Clan Ferro-Fibrous Armour )
And in the 3054 - 3055 time period the Light and Heavy Ferro-Fibrous Types entered the Prototype Stage, and in the 3060 - 3067 time period the Light and Heavy Ferro-Fibrous types of armour enterd production (16.96 Points per 1000 kg or 58.96 kg per point of Light FerroFibrous Armour) (19.84 points per 1000 kg or 50.40 kg per point of Heavy Ferro-Fibrous Armour)
Contrasting that with WWII Steel Armour that probably weighs (16 Points per 1000 kg or 62.5 kg per point of Steel Armour) and is Half as effective as Ferro-Ceramic Armour (i.e. it takes 250 kg of Steel Armour to be as effective as 62.5 kg of Ferro-Ceramic Armour.... i figure 125, but the book says 250... go figure... the book quads to get from Bar 5 to Bar 10 for Tech B where i double like the book does for Tech D)
So, put frankly, Armour development is not as stagnant as the two of you appear to think...
What you are seeing is that, Like some Vehicles of Today are being produced with WWII Armour (mostly APCs and the like) while others are being produced with the latest Ferro-Ceramic interweave and reactive Type Armours. The BattleTech Universe is using Steel Armours, Ferro-Ceramic Armours, and Ferro-Fibrous Armours with old armours not being phased out when something better comes along, merely used mostly for economy units.
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 (09/08/08 02:48 AM)
|
Cray
09/08/08 10:42 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Contrasting that with WWII Steel Armour that probably weighs
Tech B also covers Chobham and other late 20th Century laminates, so it's not just WW2 steel armors.
Quote:
So, put frankly, Armour development is not as stagnant as the two of you appear to think...
Chris, actually, you did a very good job of demonstrating that armor performance has hardly budged in centuries in BT, contrasting with the real world's breakneck advancements in the 20th Century.
Of course, I don't mind the stagnant since the performance of BT armor is so incredible. WarShip armor shrugs of megatons of kinetic energy with just a foil thickness of armor. BattleMech armor gives the performance of more than a meter of solid steel in just a centimeter or two.
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
09/16/08 03:19 AM
24.125.201.167
|
Quote:
Quote:
Contrasting that with WWII Steel Armour that probably weighs
Tech B also covers Chobham and other late 20th Century laminates, so it's not just WW2 steel armors.
The Armour Table was developed with this timeline in Combat Equipment...
Tech A: Primitive Technology
Tech B: Low Technology - Industrial Revolution - 19th to 20th Century (1800 - 1999)
Tech C: Medium Technology - 21st to 22nd Century (2000 - 2199)
Tech D: High Technology - 23rd to 24th Century (2300 - 2499)
Tech E: Advanced Technology - 25th to 28th Century (2500 - 2799) (SLDF Royals Tech)
Tech E: Hyper-Advanced Technology - Clans Tech
Chobham I may be in the 1990s (i am thinking 1996?), but Chobham II was in the 2000's?
Tech B Bar 5 is probably Steel... Same Mass as Standard Tech D Bar 10 Armour, but Half as effective.
Tech B Bar 7 is also probably Steel... 62.5 kg (Tech B Bar 5) * Barrier Rating of 7 / Barrier Rating of 5 = 87.5 kg (Mass of Tech B Bar 7) it streaches coincidence
Tech B is scalar from Barrier 2 up until Barrier Rating 8... for approximately 20 kg more than barrier 8 of Steel would be you get a different materiel...
Tech B Barrier 9 Appears to be a third Materiel
and Tech B Barrier 10 is Twice as Effective as Tech B Barrier 5, but 4 times the Mass.
Is Chobham I supposed to be 4 times heavier than a given thickness of steel while stopping 100 % of the time shots that the Steel had a 50% chance of stopping?
Quote:
Quote:
So, put frankly, Armour development is not as stagnant as the two of you appear to think...
Chris, actually, you did a very good job of demonstrating that armor performance has hardly budged in centuries in BT, contrasting with the real world's breakneck advancements in the 20th Century.
Not really... BattleTech Completely ignores the metric of Volume... especial in regards to Armour.
we get the 30 mm for 30 Points stopping cold what would have pierced 300 mm of steel armour only through digging though Star League Sourcebook and Tales of the Black Widow. But that was the single time we have even a concrete equivelencie. The Metric is further obscured by Retcons stepping all over the sole RW - BattleTech Equivelencie in regards to armour thickness. (TOTBW Armour was standard Mass, in later retcons armour was prototype with the rest of it, and no longer was 30 points for RT of Mackie "just above Thigh")
the point is that while the Mass has slowly Decreased per Point of Armour... the Volume of the armour is an unstated Variable...
However, I will Postulate that the Difference Between the mini of the Rakshasha and the original mini for the Timberwolf demonstrate the difference between the Clans Ferro-Fibrous and the IS Ferro-Fibrous put simply...
Going from Tech D to Tech E increased the Bulk while reducing the Mass and retaining the Effectiveness vs weaponry, and going from Tech E to Tech F Reduced the Bulk while Reducing the Mass as Well and retaining the effectiveness vs weaponry
Quote:
Of course, I don't mind the stagnant since the performance of BT armor is so incredible.
mass for mass... Tech D Bar 10 is only 50% more effective than Tech B Bar 5 (Stopping 100% of the time vs what only stopped the same hits 50% of the time) while massing the Same... granted the 1 mm thickness per point is interesting... but I never have been able to really figure out how thick a plate of Tech B Bar 5 is that is Half as Effective and has the same Mass as Tech D Bar 10.
Is that so incredible?
saying "Whoo hoo, its Magic" only gets so far.
Quote:
WarShip armor shrugs of megatons of kinetic energy with just a foil thickness of armor.
I believe that I compared the length and diameter of the Transport model of the Leviathan and the length and Diameter of the Warship model of the Leviathan and came up with something rather close to 10 mm per point of Capitol Armour.
Quote:
BattleMech armor gives the performance of more than a meter of solid steel in just a centimeter or two.
Humm... what metric are you using?
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
09/17/08 08:24 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Quote:
Tech B also covers Chobham and other late 20th Century laminates, so it's not just WW2 steel armors.
Chobham I may be in the 1990s (i am thinking 1996?), but Chobham II was in the 2000's?
Are you serious? There were thousands of tanks in the field in several NATO nations with Chobham armor by the 1980s, ready to face the Red Menace and its endless armored hordes, and you think Chobham was invented after the bloody Cold War ended? That Chobham was invented half a decade after the Chobham-armored Abrams went into battle against Iraqis?
Chobham was invented in the 1960s. That puts it deep into TL B. The first Chobham-armored tanks reached operational use in 1981-1983.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour
Quote:
Tech B Bar 5 is probably Steel... Same Mass as Standard Tech D Bar 10 Armour, but Half as effective.
You're misunderstanding BAR. A lightweight layer of Chobham could just as easily be BAR 5 TL B armor as an aluminum plate.
Quote:
Tech B Bar 7 is also probably Steel... 62.5 kg (Tech B Bar 5) * Barrier Rating of 7 / Barrier Rating of 5 = 87.5 kg (Mass of Tech B Bar 7) it streaches coincidence
Coincidence...Chris, I was there when the BAR armor rules were written for support vehicles. I helped write them. There's no intentional coincidence. The numbers were rounded and selected strictly for game play purposes, ignoring my input that TL A and TL B armors were too light compared to TL D armor. There is no realism in those numbers, deliberately none. Do you really think you're going to make an argument that will rewrite my memories or somehow alter history?
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
09/19/08 09:24 PM
24.125.201.167
|
The M1A2 Abrams carries Chobham II?
I was off on the Introduction of Chobham I
and, evidently, looking at my file... I knew That... a few months ago [thwap]
------------
Quote:
You're misunderstanding BAR. A lightweight layer of Chobham could just as easily be BAR 5 TL B armor as an aluminum plate.
So Steel of Mass X has the same protection as Mass X of Chobham I?
So is it a savings in thickness?... what drove the development of Chobham I & II?
Quote:
There's no intentional coincidence. The numbers were rounded and selected strictly for game play purposes, ignoring my input that TL A and TL B armors were too light compared to TL D armor. There is no realism in those numbers, deliberately none. Do you really think you're going to make an argument that will rewrite my memories or somehow alter history?
so you are saying that the correspondance was not intentional, rather, the correspondance was coincidencidential? (coincidence = chance) (intentional.. Chance?)
Yes the Numbers were definately rounded... made it hard to determine the math beihind the tables
To see what I am talking about... Divide the Barrier Rating by the Mass of the Point the Barrier Ratings that have the same result are possibly the same materiel
Tech A, Barrier Ratings 2 through 5 progress steadily, and would cap at Bar 10 mass of 200 kg
Tech A, Barrier Rating 6 stands alone... and would cap at Bar 10 Mass of 216 kg
Tech A, Barrier Rating 7 stands alone... and would cap at Bar 10 Mass of 257 kg
Tech A, Barrier Rating 8 stands alone... and would cap at Bar 10 Mass of 287 kg
Tech B, Barrier Ratings 2 through 7 progress steadily, and would cap at Bar 10 mass of 125 kg RHAe
Tech B, Barrier Rating 8 stands alone... and would cap at Bar 10 Mass of 150 kg Chobham I?
Tech B, Barrier Rating 9 stands alone... and would cap at Bar 10 Mass of 257 kg Chobham II?
Tech B, Barrier Rating 10 stands alone... and caps at Bar 10 Mass of 250 kg
Tech C, Barrier Ratings 2 through 8 progress steadily, and would cap at Bar 10 mass of 80 kg Chobham II?
Tech C, Barrier Rating 9 stands alone... and would cap at Bar 10 Mass of 111 kg
Tech C, Barrier Rating 10 stands alone... and caps at Bar 10 Mass of 150 kg
Its almost like the Barrier Ratings that require Armoured Chassis below Tech D have three axisis where
Tech D and Above Armoured Chassis retain the 2 Axis multiples...
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
|
Christopher_Perkins
09/20/08 06:19 PM
24.125.201.167
|
Janes Tank Recognition Guide 2006
M1 enters production 1980
M1A1 later production Models getting heavy armour package
M1A2 Introduction of new Armour Type for chassis (unnamed, possibly Chobham II)
GlobalSecurity.org
XM1 Prototype Testing in 1976
M1 Enters Production with "Chobham spaced armor (ceramic blocks set in resin between layers of conventional armor)" in 1980
M1A1 "Improved Armour" 1985
M1A1 Heavy Armour Package uses Steel Encased Depleted depleted uranium - 1986/1988 (Global Security seams to be confused on this) (humm, DU would definately explain the increase in mass per point. Would it argue also for the thinning of armour required to achieve a specific amount of protection in comparison to RHAe?)
M1A2 entered production in 1996
wow, good stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour
Cray... Is there an upper limit for the Effectiveness of Just making a thicker layer of a materiel (say steel) vice interspersing it with Ceramic Layers or other things?
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
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 74 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: 7744
|
|
|
|
|
|
|