ATN082268
08/09/13 03:00 AM
69.128.58.222
|
Code:
BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Type/Model: Crusher
Tech: Clan / 3072
Config: Tracked Vehicle
Rules: Level 3, Custom design
Mass: 100 tons
Power Plant: 300 XXL Fusion
Cruise Speed: 32.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 54.0 km/h
Armor Type: Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
1 Large Pulse Laser
3 LRM 20s w/ Artemis V
1 Adv. Tact. Msl. 12
3 Light Machine Guns
3 Grenade Launchers
3 Anti-Missile Systems
1 Angel ECM Suite
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Crusher
Mass: 100 tons
Construction Options: Fractional Accounting
Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 40 pts Standard 0 10.00
Engine: 300 XXL Fusion 2 6.34
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 3.17
Cruise MP: 3
Flank MP: 5
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 5.00
Crew: 7 Members 0 .00
Sponson Turret Equipment: 0 1.55
Armor Factor: 372 pts Ferro-Fibrous 1 19.38
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 10 112
Left / Right Sides: 10 90/90
Rear: 10 80
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Large Pulse Laser Front 10 1 6.00
1 LRM 20 w/ Artemis V Front 0 20 2 9.83
1 Adv. Tact. Msl. 12 Front 0 20 2 11.00
1 Light Machine Gun Front 0 22 2 .36
1 Grenade Launcher Front 0 1 .50
1 Anti-Missile System Front 0 20 2 1.33
1 LRM 20 w/ Artemis V Lf_Spon 0 20 1 9.83
1 Light Machine Gun Lf_Spon 0 20 1 .35
1 Grenade Launcher Lf_Spon 0 1 .50
1 Anti-Missile System Lf_Spon 0 20 1 1.33
1 LRM 20 w/ Artemis V Rt_Spon 0 20 1 9.83
1 Light Machine Gun Rt_Spon 0 20 1 .35
1 Grenade Launcher Rt_Spon 0 1 .50
1 Anti-Missile System Rt_Spon 0 20 1 1.33
1 Angel ECM Suite Body 0 1 1.50
1 C.A.S.E. Equipment Body 0 .00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 10 25 100.00
Items & Tons Left: 0 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 91,037,910 C-Bills
Battle Value: 2,543
Cost per BV: 35,799.41
Weapon Value: 4,263 / 3,643 (Ratio = 1.68 / 1.43)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 68; MRDmg = 54; LRDmg = 28
BattleForce2: MP: 3, Armor/Structure: 0 / 14
Damage PB/M/L: 9/8/6, Overheat: 0
Class: GA; Point Value: 25
Specials: if, ecm
|
Maurer
08/09/13 03:37 AM
142.11.67.185
|
For 91 million c-bills, I think I would rather purchase 4-12 assault/heavy mechs, or 2 companies of medium mechs, or hell, I'd go low tech and purchase almost a whole division of wasps, stingers, and locusts.
"Captain! We're completely surrounded on all sides." - Kiff, Futurama
..."Excellent, then we may attack in any direction." - Zapp Brannigan, Futurama
"A fool fights a war on two fronts; only an idiot defends on one." - Fusilier
|
ATN082268
08/09/13 05:12 AM
69.128.58.222
|
Quote:
For 91 million c-bills, I think I would rather purchase 4-12 assault/heavy mechs, or 2 companies of medium mechs, or hell, I'd go low tech and purchase almost a whole division of wasps, stingers, and locusts.
The 100 ton Crusher costs about as much as the canon 200 ton Destrier. In the Battletech Universe, you probably don't always have the option of buying scores of smaller units instead of a single larger one even if you wanted to. Besides, there are serious issues with crews, transportation, maintenance, etc going the lot of smaller unit route. And think about it, if scores of smaller units were always the way to go in the Battletech Universe, why do we see the larger units?
|
Karagin
08/09/13 06:45 AM
72.178.85.122
|
Pretty sure you don't need the XXL engine and the crazy price tag that goes with it to build this one. WHY do you have two DIFFERENT types of Long Range Missiles systems? You are not gaining anything by having the ATM and the LRMs on here in fact you are losing out on better weapons.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
08/09/13 06:47 AM
72.178.85.122
|
Saying that is NOT a good thing ATN, the Destrier is what we would call a boondoggle it is not to be taken seriously. Nor is the 190 ton WiE super tank. They are not meant to be examples of why one should use the super tanks. They are PURE defensive platforms ONLY. And sucky ones at that.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
08/09/13 09:43 AM
72.178.85.122
|
Okay here is a rework at 95 tons:
Code:
BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Type/Model: Recrusher
Tech: Clan / 3060
Config: Tracked Vehicle
Rules: Level 3, Standard design
Mass: 95 tons
Power Plant: 380 XL Fusion
Cruise Speed: 43.2 km/h
Maximum Speed: 64.8 km/h
Armor Type: Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
1 Large Pulse Laser
3 LRM 20s w/ Artemis IV
2 Light Machine Guns
3 Grenade Launchers
1 Angel ECM Suite
1 Active Probe
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Recrusher
Mass: 95 tons
Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 40 pts Standard 0 9.50
Engine: 380 XL Fusion 1 20.50
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 10.50
Cruise MP: 4
Flank MP: 6
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 5.00
Crew: 7 Members 0 .00
Armor Factor: 317 pts Ferro-Fibrous 1 16.50
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 10 100
Left / Right Sides: 10 75/75
Rear: 10 67
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Large Pulse Laser Front 10 1 6.00
3 LRM 20s w/ Artemis IV Front 0 24 4 22.00
2 Light Machine Guns Front 0 100 3 1.00
3 Grenade Launchers Front 0 3 1.50
1 Angel ECM Suite Body 0 1 1.50
1 Active Probe Body 0 1 1.00
1 C.A.S.E. Equipment Body 0 .00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 10 15 95.00
Items & Tons Left: 9 .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 24,583,488 C-Bills
Battle Value 2: 2,462 (old BV = 1,798)
Cost per BV: 9,985.17
Weapon Value: 3,614 / 3,163 (Ratio = 1.47 / 1.28)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 53; MRDmg = 42; LRDmg = 25
BattleForce2: MP: 4T, Armor/Structure: 0 / 12
Damage PB/M/L: 5/5/5, Overheat: 0
Class: GA; Point Value: 25
Specials: if, ecm, prb
The only thing lost was the ATM, the armor is still a lot more then many tanks carry and the price while high is 67 million c-bills (Kerenskys) cheaper then your over inflated XXL powered vehicle. Also I didn't use the useless sponson turrets either.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
08/10/13 02:10 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
And sucky ones at that.
Indeed. Vehicles like this are way too vulnerable to asymmetric threats.
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.
|
Maurer
08/10/13 04:31 AM
142.11.67.185
|
Quote:
Besides, there are serious issues with crews, transportation, maintenance, etc going the lot of smaller unit route.
Aside from "serious issues with crews", I'd think a single 200-ton behemoth would have more difficulty with transporation (possibly needing some otherway to move it around a planet) and the maintence would be harder on a single 200 ton unit (would need very specific equipment to maintence the vehicle, which by themselves increas the over all costs) then several dozen smaller units. Multiply smaller vehicles only loose out over fewer heavier inregards to crew training and expense, but would still be far cheaper in the long run.
"Captain! We're completely surrounded on all sides." - Kiff, Futurama
..."Excellent, then we may attack in any direction." - Zapp Brannigan, Futurama
"A fool fights a war on two fronts; only an idiot defends on one." - Fusilier
|
ATN082268
08/10/13 05:04 AM
69.128.58.222
|
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, there are serious issues with crews, transportation, maintenance, etc going the lot of smaller unit route.
Aside from "serious issues with crews", I'd think a single 200-ton behemoth would have more difficulty with transporation (possibly needing some otherway to move it around a planet) and the maintence would be harder on a single 200 ton unit (would need very specific equipment to maintence the vehicle, which by themselves increas the over all costs) then several dozen smaller units. Multiply smaller vehicles only loose out over fewer heavier inregards to crew training and expense, but would still be far cheaper in the long run.
I'm not convinced a 200 ton tank would take up significantly more in resources regarding maintenance , personnel and transportation, etc than an equivalent tonnage worth of smaller vehicles. The mistake some people seem to make is assuming an equivalent cost worth of smaller vehicles will somehow be cheaper in maintenance, personnel, transportation, etc than a single larger vehicle...
|
ATN082268
08/10/13 06:18 AM
69.128.58.222
|
Quote:
Quote:
And sucky ones at that.
Indeed. Vehicles like this are way too vulnerable to asymmetric threats.
On a battlefield with any significant number of units on each side, it is frequently unwise or impossible to be asymmetrical to one particular unit and stay that way for the whole battle.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/10/13 08:31 AM
208.54.4.142
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And sucky ones at that.
Indeed. Vehicles like this are way too vulnerable to asymmetric threats.
On a battlefield with any significant number of units on each side, it is frequently unwise or impossible to be asymmetrical to one particular unit and stay that way for the whole battle.
You have no knowledge of military history do you.
You always concentrate on the biggest threat first leaving the secondary targets for the next go a round. Look at WW 2 and the battle for Midway. The only targets that where engaged where the aircraft carriers because both sides knew that aircraft carriers where what was going to win the war.
During the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor the Japaneses where quite upset that the two aircraft carriers that were based there were out to sea at the time of the attack. And with no aircraft carriers to attack what was the next most popular targets? Ground based aircraft and battleships.
I could go on and on with example after example of where a few targets where taking all of the fire do to it was the biggest threat on the battle field.
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!!!
|
Karagin
08/10/13 01:50 PM
72.178.85.122
|
You have no clue to military thinking or tactical thinking. Seriously you are lost. Since these vehicles you like to build are not able to keep up withe main line of movement they become a weak link, thus the side using them has to keep there forces moving slower and slower in order to keep in sight of or close enough to protect them. LOC (Line of Communication) aka the line of supply etc...becomes a bigger issue and thus another weak spot.
They also waste resources. WHY do your super tanks need the weight of a small to medium mech in armor? You have yet to answer anyones questions and you claim we are attacking you when we point out the flaws. So how about you check the ego at the door and try to answer the questions and take some of the advice given. I don't like it all the time when folks rip my stuff up, BUT at the same time I have gotten better vehicles and mechs out of it and excellent variants to go with things.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Maurer
08/11/13 06:03 AM
142.11.67.185
|
Quote:
I'm not convinced a 200 ton tank would take up significantly more in resources regarding maintenance , personnel and transportation, etc than an equivalent tonnage worth of smaller vehicles. The mistake some people seem to make is assuming an equivalent cost worth of smaller vehicles will somehow be cheaper in maintenance, personnel, transportation, etc than a single larger vehicle...
Have you ever seen on TV how they change a 60-ton tank's track in the field? Basically, it requires a few men to pull the track back over the drive sprockets. You would need several workmechs (or a 100-ton workmech) to do the same things (How heavy would the tracks alone be for a 200-ton tank?). Need to pull the engine or some part, say from the transmission - it would require specialized equipment to lift or allow access. And of course, when the 200-ton tank is undergoing maintence, its is down til finished. How many bridges would be able to support the weight of the tank? If your tank can bearly go 10 kms/h up across flat open ground, how long would it take to manuever up hill to get to its destination?
Let's say I have 4 50-ton tanks which split up the same ability as a 200-ton tank, I would have:
1. Faster speed.
2. Less expensive and specialized maintence equipment.
3. One or two units can be down for maintence, while the rest remain in service.
4. More bridges able to support the weight of military vehicles.
5. My units would actually able to reach their destination on time.
"Captain! We're completely surrounded on all sides." - Kiff, Futurama
..."Excellent, then we may attack in any direction." - Zapp Brannigan, Futurama
"A fool fights a war on two fronts; only an idiot defends on one." - Fusilier
|
Karagin
08/11/13 11:13 AM
72.178.85.122
|
Not only the above but given that the engine packs aka the engine itself would need to be pulled out for maintenance and basic services thus needing at least a large crane rated to hold and lift the engine of these 200 ton tanks.
Then you have the supply and ammo side of things. The ammo feed weapons you have chosen aren't small ones their ammo in bulk weighs a lot, thus you now have several vehicles tied down to just one single 200 ton tank. and the ones you have gone with an IC Engine on means fuel and I doubt it's going to be a quick 25 gallons. More like a slow 300 gallons to even get to the 3/4 level. Add in any electronics and you have another maintenance issues as those need fixing or updating or out right replacing when they don't work.
Then there is the basic Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS) that have to be done daily and weekly and monthly and that is normally where something broken is found and that takes time, the more complex the more time, the more chances something is missed cause the average soldier is going to not want to do the checks. Even a tank powered by a fusion engine is going to need oil and grease and other POL (Petroleum Oil Lubricants) products and that means more supply vehicles bring in that. Add in food and medical for the crews. Yes the cost is very high and given that these things might look cool in parade they would not be risked in combat since losing ONE would mean billions lost across the board and how soon do you think it would take a nation to get the hint that these range targets are not as effective as the manufacturers claim, I am willing to bet not long.
As Maurer said not many bridges out there can support your 200 ton monsters so that too is an added cost. As is transporting these things from planet to planet given their size.
In a nut shell these things are pointless and since on damn near every one all you have done is mount the same weapons (either in the same locations or moved them around) you also have picked sponson turrets which also adds to the maintenance issues, and you have a mix of weapons that means more headaches for the supply side of the house in that they have to bring up different types of ammo and parts etc...really nothing is impressive or usable about your 200 ton tanks. And when we have shown you that you can build it smaller or that four tanks can do the same job you get upset and take it as personal attack, which it has not been or you attack the persons who are telling you the cold truth about these designs. Really think you might want to reconsider things and start play testing these things before you post them and then take the comments as they are offered. All of here have different ideas, thus getting the opinions and such should help you out.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/11/13 11:33 AM
208.54.32.237
|
I am sorry Karagin on some of your points I am going to have to disagree with you.
Something that big might have craw space for maintenance of major systems where the component does not need to be removed to be worked on for major repairs.
As for fuel the bigger the diesel engine the more fuel efficient the engine becomes and also the lesser quality of diesel fuel oil has to be. A diesel car needs very pure high quality diesel fuel oil. Where a large naval ship can run on very poor quality light oils and dose not need true diesel fuel oil at all but is still classified as a diesel engine because it runs on an oil and not a gas.
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!!!
|
Karagin
08/11/13 11:42 AM
72.178.85.122
|
No one is going to stick the mechanics in a tank and send it into battle sorry not happening.
And you really haven't seen a military grade engine, NOTHING is efficient about it. I work around these things daily on both sides of the deal, I supply them and have recently be shanghaied into working on them. Nothing is easy or well thought out about them.
And diesel is considered a fuel not an oil by the military so it is treated it as such. The Military uses teh cheapest diesel out there JP8 is what they call it and it cheap and crappy fuel but it works for them cause everything runs on it in the Army.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/11/13 12:32 PM
208.54.32.237
|
I did not say that the mechanics would be in the thing wail it was in operation. I said that there could be craw spaces for the thing can be worked on with out removing major components. Out side navel ships I have never heard of anything that moves that could be in operation at the same time mechanical work was preformed. Even locomotives have to be parked and shut down to be worked on.
I have to agree that I don't know about "military" engines. I just know about diesel engines in general.
I am not surprised that the military uses the crappiest thing available because the military needs to go with the lowest common denominator aka CRAP!
I am not concerned what the US military calls their stuff. From what I understand the military comes up with the dumbest names for things anyways. Diesel is a fuel oil in comparison to gasoline that is a fuel gas.
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!!!
|
Karagin
08/11/13 12:36 PM
72.178.85.122
|
The engine is crammed into the smallest space possible and then its also connected in ways that make you wonder how it does it's job. Getting it in and out is a pain in the **** and nothing ever goes right when trying it out in the field which is another fault going against these super tanks.
The point is the maintenance issues alone are going to drive the cost of the tank up and they will also eat away at keeping them in the field fighting.
Then the lose of 3 to 6 crewmen in a smaller tank while tragic is easier to replace and deal with then losing 14 or more in one of these monsters.
If ATN wanted to build these super tanks he would be better off making them as carrier for things like space naval weapons in junction with the SDS setup stations or something like that, then a lot of the logistical issues are rendered mute since the super tank is never far away from a base that can support it.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/11/13 12:42 PM
208.54.32.237
|
Oh I am not disagreeing with you on that ATN's tanks are pointless and would never be built. I was disagreeing with you on minor points.
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!!!
|
Karagin
08/11/13 01:00 PM
72.178.85.122
|
I think it is better he learn the what and how for's about things so as to get a better idea of things.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/11/13 01:02 PM
208.54.32.237
|
If he has not gotten it by now I doubt he ever will.
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!!!
|
Karagin
08/11/13 01:19 PM
72.178.85.122
|
True.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|