Karagin
03/19/17 11:28 PM
72.176.187.91
|
So given that pulse weapons can do the same job as the machine gun, and other weapons like the magshot are another example of the same principle, will the tried and true machine gun become obsolete in the BT universe?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/20/17 01:04 AM
66.74.61.223
|
I don't think so. It is cheap, easy to use, build, maintain, and can be used in areas without power for the other weapons to be fired in, makes them better.
Granted the game does not allow personnel to move the facing of one in a turret situation like they should, we know they can be effective when used from a bunker or other hardened position.
With the damage aspect, I want to say the mg still has an advantage against infantry over the others. This is general ideas, as cost, power, and such are all thrown in there.
Now will they fade out of mainstream use on mobile units, especially mechs?
I would say they will not be used as much, but the no heat has it's appeal.
Also, in some situations, like clearing a city of enemy infantry units, the other weapons have a chance to start the city on fire. Not something you want to do in your city you are trying to defend.
It may become the poor mans way to defend themselves, but it is still an viable option.
Disclaimer: this is my opinion. I would love to hear what others think.
|
csadn
03/21/17 02:59 AM
50.53.22.4
|
<- looks at list of MG-armed VTOLs in his personal design folder
Not if *I* have any say about it.... 
CF
Oregon: The "Outworlds Alliance" of the United States of America
|
Drasnighta
03/21/17 03:59 PM
198.53.100.140
|
Nothing says "Tried and True" like 2000+ years of Bullets.
The fact that you can basically build one out of low-tech spare parts and some chemicals will *always* make it something to consider.
Of course, hardly the best choice, hardly the most powerful, hardly the easiest to use......
But probably the CHEAPEST.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
|
Cray
03/21/17 06:07 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Regarding the original post, most pulse lasers are not equal to machine guns. Per p. 217 Total Warfare, medium and large pulse lasers do (Damage / 10) + 2 damage to conventional infantry. The battle armor Magshot Gauss Rifle is not a burst fire weapon.
Competitors to machine guns (2d6 vs infantry) include:
AP Gauss Rifle (2d6)
Light Machine Gun (1d6)
Heavy Machine Gun (3d6)
Small/Micro Pulse Lasers (2d6)
Flamer (4d6)
AP Gauss Rifles are Clan weapons, so they're not normally available to the Inner Sphere. Likewise, micro pulse lasers are not available to the Inner Sphere. If you were building a Clan anti-infantry force, the small pulse laser is pretty sweet with its range advantage over the MG, but that's not true for the IS small pulse laser. Flamers are mean and the vehicle version is pretty low tech, but they're sort of indiscriminate even compared to MGs.
So, for the Inner Sphere, there's no total knock out competitor to the MG, just options that are sometimes mildly better. For the Clans, the matter is pretty clear: go small pulse.
Quote:
Nothing says "Tried and True" like 2000+ years of Bullets.
Nitpicking the "2000+ years": Defining "machine" guns as "A fully automatic firearm that loads, fires and ejects continuously when the trigger is held to the rear until the ammunition is exhausted or pressure on the trigger is released" then the first true machine gun was the 1884 Maxim. So 3150 - 1884 = 1,266 years old.
If you expand the definition of "machine gun" to "rapid firing gunpowder weapons," then you can get back to 1339. Armorers were strapping multiple musket barrels together for "volley guns" or "organ guns" as far back as 1339. That's almost 2000 years of rapid fire gunpowder weapons.
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.
|
Drasnighta
03/21/17 08:14 PM
198.53.100.140
|
Heh, I'm not going to mess with the Engineer when it comes to pedantic definitions of mechanics, and simply accept the fact I may have inadvertantly used a little hyperbole. Because my Math SUCKS when I don't drink Coffee, apparently.... 
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
|
Karagin
03/21/17 10:52 PM
72.176.187.91
|
First the pulse lasers were referring to the small version and the magshot is NOT the Battlearmor one but the one you can mount on vehicles and mechs or did things change yet again in regards to this one.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/22/17 02:17 PM
66.74.61.223
|
I will nit pick the engineer with a definition question.
Isn't the light and heavy versions of the machine gun, still machine guns? 
I know it is an assumption, but I would guess that would be part of the question, as they are mgs.
Back to the reasons.
It is the go to weapon of low tech places for any sort of defense. Even autocannons require more machinery to deal with, as making the longer barrels is much tougher then something like 6 to 12 inches. And shells are much easier to make then the ac's.
To my knowledge, the same shells that fit in a 9mm hand gun work in any mg with 9mm port. So ammo would not be an issue. Now a 50 caliber might be more problems, but then that might be a heavy mg size. Still easier to pick up then even an ac 2 shell.
And not everyone has a few heat sinks with a power source just sitting around in their garage.
Yes, this sounds like it is moving to personnel weapons, not the vehicle/mech mounted ones, but it is trying to show the point.
|
Akalabeth
03/22/17 06:47 PM
64.251.81.66
|
It's Battletech, nothing is ever obsolete
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/22/17 08:23 PM
72.143.237.204
|
Quote:
It's Battletech, nothing is ever obsolete
Autocannons were obsolete in 3025...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Akalabeth
03/23/17 02:02 AM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's Battletech, nothing is ever obsolete
Autocannons were obsolete in 3025...
Haha
In-universe mate
Edited by Akalabeth (03/23/17 02:02 AM)
|
Rotwang
03/23/17 11:08 AM
94.226.248.136
|
There is a weird gap in the BT universe vs our own.
The Mech-mounted MG that is described in the game appears to be a fairly potent weapon probably a .50 or even bigger, given that it's 500 kg, even if most of it is actuators to aid in aiming, a standard 20mm Vulcan is 120kg ...
Once you move into 30mm and higher something really weird happens. .50 and 20mm (and maybe 7.62 and thereabouts) are only effective against mechs AND infantry up to 90m, switch to a larger gun (something like the ones mounted on many modern armoured cars in the 25mm-40mm range) and suddenly you can clear targets up to a whopping 630 meters although the ability to clear infantry is lost (unless you use specialist ammo that may not be commonly available). Also the weapon now weighs 6 tons, Bushmaster and Bofors guns in the 35-40mm range average less than a ton each ... Oddly enough the AC/2 fires HEAP or HEAT rounds which in modern guns are effective both against vehicles and infantry, but does zilch against infantry. Incidentally the 120mm Rheinmetall gun weighs about 4 tons ...
The 90m range for MG's has often been explained by the imperviousness of Mech armour, but infantry are perfectly safe at 91m.
BT doesn't have any mid range dual purpose large caliber automatic cannon like the Bushmaster or Bofors. You go from extremely short ranged MG's to long ranged, low powered cannons that are not suitable for taking on infantry.
|
ghostrider
03/23/17 01:20 PM
66.74.61.223
|
The weird gap is much larger, but sticking with just the mgs.
It is interesting that there is no versions of the longer ranged mgs other then the 'new' light mgs. Which again seem to go against ballistics, like the ac's. The lighter bullets would have a worse time penetrating armor, while the concept of longer range meaning more powder, normally accompanies a heavier shot.
But I can see the developers not wanting something with almost no, if not no heat, competing with medium lasers and srms. Hell, for the weight, you might use mgs if they went to the 270 meter range instead of the ac 20. And worse, you would get more then 5 shots per ton of ammo.
And yet, I have not seen anything like an array or gun cluster to help deal with the 'shatter' of the mgs. Extend the range with a scaled damage amount from multiple guns fired in a shot gun like cluster. Lots of damage close dropping off in range, but moving past the bs 90 meter max. Or even things like using other metals besides depleted uranium, which seems to be common in alot of the fictional militaries. The same things used in acs from the descriptions of them, by the way.
What would happen if you jacketed the bullet in say titanium instead of copper or I want to say teflon for some reason.
But range has always been an issue with our world verses the game.
Would like to see an 'er' version of the mg.
|
Cray
03/23/17 06:32 PM
67.8.226.169
|
Quote:
There is a weird gap in the BT universe vs our own.
The Mech-mounted MG that is described in the game appears to be a fairly potent weapon probably a .50 or even bigger, given that it's 500 kg, even if most of it is actuators to aid in aiming, a standard 20mm Vulcan is 120kg ...
BT's standard 'Mech mounted machine guns are 20 to 30mm, not to be confused with 20-30mm autocannons. The difference between the two calibers is their aerospace performance. Machine guns have no functional range in space, but autocannons have ranges of hundreds of kilometers.
Quote:
Incidentally the 120mm Rheinmetall gun weighs about 4 tons ...
The 120mm Rheinmetall gun doesn't fire its shells at tens of kilometers per second like BattleTech's autocannons. The firmly established sizes and time scales of aerospace combat means that BT ACs fling some really, really fast shells.
Quote:
The 90m range for MG's has often been explained by the imperviousness of Mech armour, but infantry are perfectly safe at 91m.
Likewise, nude civilians and the sides of wooden barns become safe at 91 meters. (I bring those points up whenever someone tries to say that military units might have some ECM or armor to protect them. Well, the civilians don't.)
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.
|
Karagin
03/24/17 08:14 AM
72.176.187.91
|
So Cray which magshot are you talking about? The one I am referring to is the .50 ton range 1-3 4-6 7-9 50 shots/ton 1 heat 2 damage version that mechs and vehicles can use, so how does this one even rate the one that battlearmor is using unless they are the same weapon and again it's on the same level as the MG in Battletech.
And ranges in BT are screwed up, AC ranges are the biggest mistake, the range of the AC2 should be what the AC20 has if we are going to be realistic, but this is Battletech where silly stuff is fact and realism was set off to the side to keep the game on a smaller scale.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Akalabeth
03/24/17 05:15 PM
184.151.231.226
|
Quote:
And ranges in BT are screwed up, AC ranges are the biggest mistake, the range of the AC2 should be what the AC20 has if we are going to be realistic, but this is Battletech where silly stuff is fact and realism was set off to the side to keep the game on a smaller scale.
In the real world, guns are longer ranged by design not because physics deems it so. Guns have existed like carronades in the age of sail, which did huge damage for their weight but were short-ranged.
People look at the guns in Battletech and think "oh this gun is bigger, it should have double the range". Let me ask, in the real world is there a cannon which does 200% damage but only weighs 16% more?
The ac/20 in fact does 10 times the damage of the ac/2 but only weighs a little more than twice as much. I don't believe for a second that's realistic, the 17pdr weighed a lot more than the 6pdr and significantly more than the 2pdr.
So if you want better ranges for your heavy Autocannons, be prepared to pay the weight. As it stands, looking at the weights and real-world analogues like the carronade I think the ranges make sense.
-----------
Alternatively, look at the lasers.
Small Laser, weights .5 ton has 1/2/3 range and 3 damage
Medium laser, has triple the range, 66% more damage and weighs TWICE as much as a small laser
Large Laser, has 66% more range than the Medium Laser, 66% more damage and weighs FIVE TIMES as much.
So if you want an AC/20 to have the range as an AC/2 and do the same damage, it's not going to weigh 14 tons but 25-30 tons at which point you're gonna say, why bother.
|
Karagin
03/24/17 09:22 PM
72.176.187.91
|
I disagree with you on the weight, you are trying to balance things out to fit the ends vs means. The weight would not be that higher to get the results I am was referring to, and again you say you are apply real world but turn around do just that.
The Autocannons are just that automatic cannons, not tank main guns, think better versions of things like the Bushmaster and Orklion or Bofors guns.
Oh I forgot, there was an article in Battletechnology Magazine and FAR and AWAY Magazine, that covers JUST what I am talking about, I would suggest you find the articles, both can be found on the net in PDF and read them, then you will see why I say you are incorrect in you statement about the weights needing to be 3 times as much as they currently are.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Edited by Karagin (03/24/17 09:24 PM)
|
Karagin
03/24/17 09:22 PM
72.176.187.91
|
So going BACK to the main topic...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Akalabeth
03/24/17 09:50 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
I disagree with you on the weight, you are trying to balance things out to fit the ends vs means. The weight would not be that higher to get the results I am was referring to, and again you say you are apply real world but turn around do just that.
You disagree but you offer no supporting examples
Quote:
Oh I forgot, there was an article in Battletechnology Magazine and FAR and AWAY Magazine, that covers JUST what I am talking about, I would suggest you find the articles, both can be found on the net in PDF and read them, then you will see why I say you are incorrect in you statement about the weights needing to be 3 times as much as they currently are.
Ordnance QF 2-pdr Anti-Tank gun: 814 kg
Ordnance QF 6-pdr Anti-Tank gun: 1140 kg
Ordnance QF 17-pdr Anti-Tank gun: 3048 kg
These weights probably include the carriage for the gun as well, but are representative of the differences from one gun to another. Whether it's an "anti-tank gun" or an "autocannon" should make little difference
Mk 44 Bushmaster 30mm cannon - 160kg
Mk 242 Bushmaster 25mm cannon - 119kg
So a 20% increase in shell diameter equates to a 34% increase in weight.
the 20mm M61A2 Vulcan weight only 92kg without feed (A1 is 117kg), the lightened 3-barrel M197 weighs only 60kg
|
ghostrider
03/25/17 03:43 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Damn I wished I knew the weights and such for battle ships.
But with fire arms, I believe you get more power out of the same gun by getting a hot load.
And we had part of this argument before. The weight for the acs is out of balance with the rest of the game.
The idea armor can be soo much better, and engines lighter, but yet they can't apply the same concepts to the overweight cannons?
There is no new alloys or even using the diamond filament style manufacturing like the standard armor in the future?
Now seeing the info on the mag shot, I can see that replacing the mg in most units, though it looks like the mg does more damage to infantry. But having it doing the damage to armored units means you are not stuck with a mission specific weapon.
Interesting that the wiki does not say weither it is a ballistic style weapon or if vehicles need to have a heat sink to fire it.
Edited by ghostrider (03/25/17 03:46 AM)
|
Karagin
03/25/17 11:58 AM
72.176.187.91
|
Let's go this route, materials used to make weapons would advance as well correct? That means new alloys and such would be found, so things SHOULD get lighter.
NOW back to the main topic.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
03/25/17 11:58 AM
72.176.187.91
|
Also find the articles I mentioned and read them.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Akalabeth
03/25/17 08:40 PM
75.155.167.106
|
Quote:
Also find the articles I mentioned and read them.
You expect me to pirate dozens of magazine issues, scouring their pages to find an argument that you're too lazy to make yourself? Get out of here dude. No chance in hell of that happening.
|
Akalabeth
03/25/17 08:41 PM
75.155.167.106
|
Quote:
Damn I wished I knew the weights and such for battle ships.
If you want stats I got tons of books on Battleships dude. What are you interested in?
|
Cray
03/25/17 09:47 PM
67.8.226.169
|
So everyone's going to throttle down at this point, right? Maybe let this one stay quiet for a while?
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.
|
Karagin
03/26/17 09:34 AM
72.176.187.91
|
Pirate? No, I said you could find them in PDF format, if you wanted to look for them, and I made my argument already. The weights are fine as they are and it is the ranges that are messed up, now can we talk about the Machine Gun or not?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
03/26/17 09:42 AM
72.176.187.91
|
BattleTechnology Magazine 003 has the article called Crisis of Range and Accuracy, it covers my points pretty good.
Then Far and Away Magazine 001 Issue 1 has a similar article written by the same folks who brought us the Grey Death Legion books, J. Andrew Keith called Hi-Tech Battle Tech.
So there you go, the two articles, not hard to find.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Edited by Karagin (03/26/17 09:44 AM)
|
ghostrider
03/26/17 12:30 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Was looking for some stats on modern things, like the 50 caliber mb.
The M2 Browning came up in a search on the off site wiki. Interesting thing I seen was the 2000 yard (1800 meter) range on them.
From the looks of it, they are water cooled, so that might be an issue with no heat. The belt fed might also have issues, but I don't see the future not fixing some of these issues.
The use of heat sinks I don't think the small amount of heat produced would do much to raise heat by one point.
So the normally used mg in battle tech only goes 90 meters, yet this one is almost 2 kilometers.
But as I said before. I don't see the normal mg becoming obsolete. It is too easy to make, and still effective. Something you probably can make at home as well.
Though the mag shot does make it look like it might be on the way out.
|
Karagin
03/26/17 06:36 PM
72.176.187.91
|
There was a water cooled version of the M2, it was dropped in favor of the air cooled so troops could carry it around and it could be better mounted on vehicles. And yes it has 2 klick range and still do damage when it hits. The round is also used in sniper rifles.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
homerlaw
06/21/17 05:52 PM
76.188.133.66
|
The MG is cheap, ammo efficient, easy to make and easy to use. I can see in the later eras it being more or less replaced by small pulse lasers in modern mechs and vehicles, but garrison and second line forces will still use it because it's cheap and easy. I do agree it needs a bit more range, but even with that it's usable. Maybe in the far future it'd get replaced by AP Gauss and such, but that would require a few good decades of going without a dark age.
|