Christopher_Perkins
Sergeant Major
Reged: 01/20/08
Posts: 361
Loc: Stafford Virginia, United Stat...
|
Re: Colossal 'mechs?
[Re: Rotwang]
#159917 - 01/14/11 06:33 AM (138.162.128.54)
|
|
|
could be that the limit to 100 tons for battlemechs was a nod to the inverse square law?
or was that already covered by what is (nominally) the same length having to increase the weight/integrity of the skeleton to reach that size...
--------------------
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
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
Captain
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 917
Loc: Somewhere on the US highways
|
Re: Colossal 'mechs?
[Re: Rotwang]
#159920 - 01/14/11 08:40 AM (108.126.15.75)
|
|
|
I see no reason why anyone could not have them in there own game. I don't know if I would out law them. There big slow targets that can be easily avoided which an Atlas could out run by going at a walking speed.
All it would be good for is point defense and an attacker would just move the battle away from it or target it with artillery or an air strike before the battle really starts.
I don't see them at the bogyman that people are making them out to be.
If you don't like that just don't allow them in your game.
--------------------
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
ix
Private
Reged: 05/22/10
Posts: 43
|
|
It's just an arbitrary limit. People's attempts to justify it in fluff terms are painful. It's also a bit off given the visual size of mechs, they'd be far heavier (even with the lightweight future materials a fluff defense would appeal to).
|
Christopher_Perkins
Sergeant Major
Reged: 01/20/08
Posts: 361
Loc: Stafford Virginia, United Stat...
|
Re: Colossal 'mechs?
[Re: ix]
#159949 - 01/19/11 08:52 AM (138.162.128.55)
|
|
|
Appears that you can judge scale visually (ability i lack)
Considering:
appx 1 mm per armor point per each location for standard armor
height taken from the 1/20th scale Blueprints
The requirement for technical personnel to actually fit inside the mech to do repairs... so a significant portion of the BattleMech is empty space.
Waist of sitting mechwarrior inside the upper center torso, and the torso up of the mechwarrior inside the actual "Head" of the BattleMech
Does this change anything?
Remember, the "visual size" of the mechs is scaled to 3 map hexes being 30 meters while the "visual size" of the hexes is scaled to 1 map hex being 30 meters.
--------------------
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
|
wolfcannon
Sergeant
Reged: 08/27/01
Posts: 175
Loc: arkansas, united states
|
Re: Colossal 'mechs?
[Re: Rotwang]
#159954 - 01/20/11 10:40 AM (67.14.211.229)
|
|
|
well i will use the 200 ton mech produced in the April Fool special and modify it.
--------------------
Clan Wolf in Exile
328th Assault Cluster(the Lion Hearted)
Bravo Trinary
Alpha Star
Star Captain James Sword
|
Karagin
General
Reged: 04/21/01
Posts: 6412
Loc: Ft. Hood TX (Killeen)
|
Re: Colossal 'mechs?
[Re: wolfcannon]
#159956 - 01/20/11 12:49 PM (178.76.138.173)
|
|
|
How so?
--------------------
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
fearfactory
Newbie
Reged: 01/21/11
Posts: 7
|
Re: Colossal 'mechs?
[Re: Rotwang]
#159988 - 01/22/11 11:45 AM (76.16.22.30)
|
|
|
Colossals will probably have a lot of downfalls... but given that I rarely use Assaults I'll probably never use them at all.
--------------------
"The infection has been removed... the soul of this machine has improved!"
|
Protege
Corporal
Reged: 04/19/06
Posts: 71
Loc: Bakore Village
|
Re: Colossal 'mechs?
[Re: Rotwang]
#164682 - 03/05/12 08:50 PM (65.87.39.230)
|
|
|
Long ago, a German CBT magazine I saw put in the stats for a 200 ton mech with 4 Clan Gauss Rifles, 4 Clan ER Large Lasers, and 4 Clan ER PPC's. This thing moved 1/2 and had a pretty good picture to go with it. It was fandom, but the guy who made it went through the Construction Rules in MaximumTech and simply extrapolated the stats for weight, movement, etc. Useful as an exercise in making the nastiest AA Mech in existance, but not much else.
The 100 ton limit works well. I'd just leave it at that.
--------------------
I've stopped being nice? When the hell did I ever START being nice?
|
Hythos
Sergeant
Reged: 05/09/10
Posts: 148
Loc: USA
|
Re: Colossal 'mechs?
[Re: ix]
#164694 - 03/06/12 12:27 PM (137.78.94.42)
|
|
|
Quote:
I think some of you have a very distorted idea of what a 200 ton machine looks like, the real thing is much smaller than the Battletech art for 100 ton tanks for example. This is a 200 ton tank:
http://www.mark-1-tank.co.uk/jpgs/kubinka-71-maus-420b.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus
It's just a game and 200 ton mechs would only be an optional rule, the amount of knicker-twisting the idea seems to cause is somewhat amusing.
In relative terms, to perforate armor using conventional munitions, a shell diameter should be larger than the thickness of armor you're lobbing it at. A 75mm cannon SHOULD penetrate 75mm armor. Even a 60mm shell might just bounce off, depending on where it struck.
That Maus was purdy groovy, having over 100 TONS of armor - with the heaviest area being 18" in thickness. This means a 105mm, heck even a 255mm cannon wouldn't penetrate it. However, a BATTLESHIP using an 18" gun would knock a 200t tank into the next block due to the inertia carried by a shell that size... LOL However, that's just the most heavily armored, as most other locations were between 8 and 9" thick. Modern AP and Sabot munitions would still have a tough time, especially if it were hardened steel 50+ Rockwell, for example.
The Nazi's sure did like things big back then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte (there was also a 1500t version - but both were scrapped). With the armor it could support, nothing mobile the Allies had would have been able to damage the hull.
Could they have been possible? Yes, however, likely impractical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter
These engineering feats were possible due to advancements in design and material sciences, though I believe the Germans COULD have built those Super Heavies (much like the Russians could have built their Flying Fortress).
Now for Battlemechs:
1ton standard armor = 16pts/ton
2000lb/16 = 125lb/point
Assume an Awesome (since it's like shooting the broad-side of a barn) has ~100 sq feet of surface area on its CT. Assume the armor was cool 40pts FrontCT (2.5tons / 5,000lb).
100sqft / 40pts = .4pts / sqft
or
5000lb / 100sqft = 50lb/sqft
Density of Steel ~.28lb/sqin
Armor plating thickness: ~.35" = ~8.8mm
Battletech is nice on a board-game, but real robotic combat will be different... Heavy slugs will tear holes through 'em, but they will be difficult to be hit.
|
scheinlen
Sergeant
Reged: 05/03/12
Posts: 129
Loc: Indiana
|
Re: Colossal 'mechs?
[Re: Rotwang]
#165495 - 05/22/12 07:00 PM (204.111.103.100)
|
|
|
The main problem I see would be in the maintance, Just think of the Repiar and ordance train that would support a 200+ mech in the field. restricked to hard terrain, pilot would be afriad of mud and swamps.
--------------------
It is not my job to judge my Enemies, that is there God's job. It is only my duty to arrange the meeting!
|
scheinlen
Sergeant
Reged: 05/03/12
Posts: 129
Loc: Indiana
|
Re: Colossal 'mechs?
[Re: Rotwang]
#165544 - 05/25/12 01:12 PM (204.111.95.14)
|
|
|
What about the scare of soft terrian, IE swamp and marsh lands, try to pull that big mother out...lol
ANd the hours of maintiance would be harder than a regular lance.
--------------------
It is not my job to judge my Enemies, that is there God's job. It is only my duty to arrange the meeting!
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
