Should weapons have...

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
Karagin
04/11/02 08:53 AM
63.173.170.184

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
a splash like effect for damage? (Hit more then one loctaion when they hit)
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Greyslayer
04/11/02 09:53 AM
137.172.211.9

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Maybe Pulse Lasers would have a effect like this. I am not so sure on the more standard lasers but pulse lasers firing multiple shots would be more likely to 'impinge' on more than one location.

A more technical explaination of 'splash' for me would say that the ablative nature of armour would allow for less splash than what you seem to be asking.

Greyslayer
KamikazeJohnson
04/11/02 12:48 PM
209.202.47.12

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I've often thought that weapons like missiles and LB-X Autocannons should have a "centralized" damage pattern. i.e. instead of scattering randomly, damage should be to one "primary" location with some scattered to adjacent locations. For example, an LRM 20 hitting the LT would also damage LA, LL, and CT, but would leave the rest of the target untouched. Of course, the hard part is setting up a system to determine how much damage goes to each location, accomodating every possible number of hits
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
CrayModerator
04/11/02 01:53 PM
204.245.128.3

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well, to reiterate my views from CBT:

1) Splashing damage would make a nice optional rule for some weapons.
2) IMO, candidates include ACs, lasers, pulse lasers, and thunderbolt missiles.
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
04/11/02 01:59 PM
63.173.170.214

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Why Thunderbolts?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Greyslayer
04/11/02 02:27 PM
137.172.211.9

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well I would say for the same reason as solid autocannon shells would be considered into the equation.

Greyslayer
CrayModerator
04/11/02 05:54 PM
12.78.125.36

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Thunderbolt make big boom. Boom cover large area of mech.

In short, apply Thunderbolt damage in 5pt groups like LRMs or ATMs - IIRC, and I'm too lazy to reach for the books across the room, ATM damage is applied in 5pt groups even when using those 3pt short range HE loads, meaning the damage from even numbers of missiles can be split up across the target.
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.
Gangrene
04/15/02 08:43 PM
168.150.237.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Thunderbolts should not be subject to splash damage. Although they do contain a large amount of explosive, one has to assume that Battletech engineers are smart enough to figure out how to make shaped-charge warheads. Shape-charging creates a force cone, thus the area of effect would be localized and any damage inflicted by splash would be significantly smaller than that from the main blast.
Gangrene
Karagin
04/16/02 07:03 AM
63.173.170.168

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Autocannons are firing a stream of projectilles...unless the current batch of authors have changed that like they have tried to change other things...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
04/16/02 07:42 AM
204.245.128.3

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>one has to assume that Battletech engineers are smart enough to figure out how to make shaped-charge warheads.

No, one does not need to assume such, not after reading AC ammo descriptions - and Thunderbolt descriptions.
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
04/16/02 07:56 AM
63.173.170.168

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Assuming about BT's FASAyisc is a dangerous job...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Gangrene
04/17/02 12:09 AM
168.150.237.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
No, one does not need to assume such, not after reading AC ammo descriptions - and Thunderbolt descriptions.

I was under the impression that you thought all Btech technology was advanced and superior to anything we have. Why then should we say that they do not have shaped-charges in their thunderbolt warheads?
Gangrene
CrayModerator
04/17/02 07:35 AM
204.245.128.3

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The FASA descriptions of the Thunderbolts' warheads cannot easily be construed to be shaped charge warheads. It's rather pointless for me to say, "The Thunderbolts have shaped charge warheads because that would be advanced and wise 31st century technology" when the canon descriptions do not necessarily support that.

Clearly, the explanation is BT's magical armor is such that a non-shaped charge warhead is best suited for destroying it.
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
04/17/02 08:49 AM
63.173.170.47

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
With that in mind one would think a BB gun would destroy it just as easily.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
04/17/02 10:15 AM
204.245.128.3

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Naw, it just means the 31st century weapons designs have found an even BETTER explosive warhead than the shaped charge. Yeah, that's it...
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.
Gangrene
04/17/02 12:15 PM
168.150.237.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That's whacked, Cray.

Plus, the thundebolt fluff does not mention anything particular about the warheads. Only that a number of smaller missiles were replaced with a single, large missile. If you assume LRM's have shaped charges, then you can assume that Thunderbolts do to.
Gangrene
CrayModerator
04/17/02 01:48 PM
204.245.128.3

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>That's whacked, Cray.

Sticking to the fluff?

>Plus, the thundebolt fluff does not mention anything particular about the warheads.

Which book did you read about Thunderbolts in?

Unbound, pg70, original example of TBolts (AFAIK):
"This weapon is a one-shot ground-to-ground missile. This weapon delivers a chemical blast, generating a lot of heat when fired, and an even greater amount of heat and explosive damage to its target.
"Glitch:
"Thunderbolt missiles are very dangerous in an ammo explosion, doing 10 points of damage and generating 15 points of heat."

That doesn't really sound like a shaped charge, the heat part.

>If you assume LRM's have shaped charges

I don't, since that doesn't seem applicable to other BT explosive weapons like ACs. ACs and LRMs are simply described as "high explosive" missiles. Of course, HEAT and HEDP use high explosive, but the warheads are not explicitly something as logical and reasonable as HEAT.
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.


Edited by Cray (04/17/02 05:03 PM)
NathanKell
04/17/02 01:52 PM
24.44.238.62

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Optimist :P

Why assume that, after 300 years of whack'em and whack'em?

{what? You mean there's a *memory core* on Helm? Naw, not in *this* retro universe...}
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
CrayModerator
04/17/02 04:55 PM
12.91.120.106

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Making fairly good explosive warheads in an era where energy weapons are possible should be refined, not...eh...crude-ified by 300 years of screaming and bleeding.

Of course, reasonable "shoulds" and "possibles" turn out to be incorrect depressingly often in BT.
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.
Gangrene
04/17/02 09:54 PM
168.150.237.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Sticking to the fluff?

Interpreting the fluff in favor of the absurd.

That doesn't really sound like a shaped charge, the heat part.

The first mention of heat refers to the missile's launch, which wouldn't have anything to do with the warhead. The second mention is irrelevent, as by the rules Tbolts do not add heat to their target. The heat of the ammo explosion could be just as easily caused by detonation of the rocket motor as the warhead.

Simple logic would dictate that since the rules DO call for all damage to be done to the same area, that the damage is done due to a shaped charge warhead.

Assuming they don't use shaped charge technology is just ridiculous. You might as well interpret the fluff to say that AC's shots are powered by compressed air (although that would explain the crappy ranges), or that infantry units are fielding muskets.

Gangrene
NathanKell
04/17/02 09:59 PM
24.44.238.62

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
OK, on Skid Row muskets are high-tech!

And bleeding-edge on a good many periphery worlds, I should think!
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
Karagin
04/17/02 10:00 PM
63.173.170.88

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In reply to:



or that infantry units are fielding muskets.




I once ran into this in really wacky BT game...mechs and vehicles vs troops with blackpower muskets and field pieces...very interesting and bloody battle.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
04/18/02 07:19 AM
204.245.128.3

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>The second mention is irrelevent, as by the rules Tbolts do not add heat to their target.

No, it is not. PPCs and lasers also damage their targets with heat (and impact, in the case of PPCs), while not raising the heat of the target. Thunderbolts could easily fit into that same classification - inflicting damage by heat, but not raising the target's heat.

>Simple logic would dictate that since the rules DO call for all damage to be done to the same area, that the damage is done due to a shaped charge warhead.

There are other armor piercing high explosive warheads out there, you know. Like HESH.

>Assuming they don't use shaped charge technology is just ridiculous.

Really? The shaped charge, boogie man of tanks and armored vehicles for decades in the 20th century, target of billions of dollars of armor research to the extent that now a mere ton or two of ERA can protect much of a tank with protection equivalent to 700mm (28 inches) and more of RHA steel? This is the type of warhead you think will still be effective several centuries down the road?

You don't think munitions designers will think of some entirely new armor piercing architecture for high explosives, something we (without 22nd, 23rd, 24th, etc century computer modeling power and additional centuries of battlefield experience) would never even think of?

Interesting what happened to the hypervelocity, long rod KE penetrator. The gauss rifle went with a soft, low velocity nickel-iron bowling ball to do its armor busting. Perhaps other modern armor defeating munitions will likewise be abandoned in favor of entirely new warhead concepts we haven't even thought of yet.

Given the lack of explicit statements that LRM, Thunderbolt, or other explosive warheads in BT use shaped charges, just "high explosives," it is just as fair to say, "LRM warheads are shaped charges" as "LRM warheads are HESH-type warheads" (another single location damaging warhead) or "LRM warheads are super-science high explosive warheads with single location-damaging architectures we haven't conceived of in the 21st Century."
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.


Edited by Cray (04/18/02 09:17 AM)
Gangrene
04/18/02 12:58 PM
168.150.237.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There are other armor piercing high explosive warheads out there, you know. Like HESH.

The general ideas behind breaking armor have always been the same - you want to apply the maximum amount of force to the smallest amount of area. In Battletech we are trying to destroy the armor, not bypass it or send a shock wave through it. Hence the use of shaped charges, and not HESH-like charges.

cut old, tired futuristic advances argument

So, instead of arguing in favor of your original statement (that tbolt's would do splash damage), you do a reversal and try to one-up me with an argument based on speculation of futuristic phenomenon? Whatever.

First off, current missiles with their HE shaped-charge warheads can pierce the armor of any tank on the field. Second, future armed forces might come up with another form of high explosives to use against armor, but it is unlikely IMO. The shaped-charge, while it may be iteratively improved upon, is here to stay.

The gauss rifle went with a soft, low velocity nickel-iron bowling ball to do its armor busting

Before you use any other examples of wonderful FASA logic, remember that they also say a machine gun is only good to 90 meters, bigger shells have shorter ranges, and a single 1 ton bomb cannot destroy a house.

Let's not lose focus here. To reiterate: Tbolt's would apply all damage to one area because they would use a shaped-charge warhead that focuses the force of the explosion. The should NOT do splash damage, and if you feel the need to explain the localized damage by some means other than shaped-charges then go right ahead, knock yourself out, have fun, etc.
Gangrene
CrayModerator
04/18/02 01:33 PM
204.245.128.3

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>Before you use any other examples of wonderful FASA logic, remember that they also say a machine gun is only good to 90 meters, bigger shells have shorter ranges, and a single 1 ton bomb cannot destroy a house.

Alright. In turn, please note that's a two-edged statement. Putting shaped charges on missiles would be an entirely too-logical, too common-sense, too obvious idea for FASA to necessarily use.

>The general ideas behind breaking armor have always been the same - you want to apply the maximum amount of force to the smallest amount of area. In Battletech we are trying to destroy the armor, not bypass it or send a shock wave through it. Hence the use of shaped charges, and not HESH-like charges.

Shaped charges punch small diameter holes in armor. They are extremely unsuited for, "trying to destroy the armor, not bypass it or send a shock wave through it." All they do is try to bypass it. You can see that here:

members.dencity.com/fofanov/Tanks/ARM/ammo.html

Midway down shows armor test blocks and the 800mm penetration route by a shaped charge. Most of the armor is intact. Initial opening is about 65mm and the average damage path is about 30mm wide; the armor around the penetration is untouched just millimeters from the penetration, and would be across the rest of a meters-wide mech hit location. If you want to destroy armor on mech, you'll have to do a lot better than a 65mm hole that no other shot, bolt, or missile will likely hit again.

Y'know, scratch that. LRMs do 1pt of damage. They could freakin' well put small holes in armor individually because they always take swarms to blow off all the armor in a section. I'm going to stick to my nifty new artillery idea.

>So, instead of arguing in favor of your original statement (that tbolt's would do splash damage), you do a reversal and try to one-up me with an argument based on speculation of futuristic phenomenon? Whatever.

There's no reversal there. I was attempting to point out that the only answer for 31st Century warheads need not be shaped charges. From there, it would follow that TBolt's fluff indicates it is a good candidate for optional splash damage rules based on its fluff.

And, tired as it may be, that does not invalidate the point.

Alternately, you could consider that TBolts are approximately as massive as BT's artillery shells (the TBolts are actually heavier than those artillery shells that do comparable damage), which deliver enormous, wide-area damage. Since shaped charge warheads are extremely poor explanations for 90-meter diameter explosions from 50 to 200kg projectiles, obviously BT has alternative armor-defeating explosive warheads to shaped charges. Missiles bigger than artillery shells are thus great candidates for an optional splash damage rule.

>First off, current missiles with their HE shaped-charge warheads can pierce the armor of any tank on the field

Incorrect. The performance of improved armor packages on Western tanks is putting armor ahead of shaped charges again. The newest Leopard armor package demonstrates over 1000mm RHA equivalent resistance to shaped charges, which outperforms quite a few current anti-tank missiles (which seem to hover in the 600-900mm range). Likewise, Russian "heavy ERA" research is getting ahead of Western anti-tank missiles.

>The shaped-charge, while it may be iteratively improved upon, is here to stay.

I won't dispute that. I will, however, dispute that it is the only sort of warhead for missiles, particularly ones intending to blow off large chunks of ablative armor.
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.


Edited by Cray (04/18/02 01:46 PM)
CrayModerator
04/18/02 07:21 PM
12.78.124.247

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
How could I forget explosively formed projectile warheads? The warhead of choice for top-attack and anti-ERA armors, certainly a strong competitor with shaped charges, and it also utilizes high explosives.

And while you may deride HESH as being intended for bypassing armor, it is almost custom-designed for spalling off the ceramic inner layer of BT magic armor. Certainly a warhead to be considered when you want to smash up a mech's armor.
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.
Bob_Richter
04/18/02 07:26 PM
134.121.247.162

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>>>you want to apply the maximum amount of force to the smallest amount of area.<<<

Actually, you want to apply the maximum amount of energy to the same armor plate. Battletech armor is impenetrable, and the strategy you describe is for just that : penetrating.

If there's a way to apply more energy to the target than a shaped charge, that's definately the way 31st Century armies are going to go.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter

Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
CrayModerator
04/18/02 07:33 PM
12.78.124.247

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>If there's a way to apply more energy to the target than a shaped charge, that's definately the way 31st Century armies are going to go.

Yabbut nukes are all but illegal in BT.
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.
KamikazeJohnson
04/18/02 07:35 PM
209.202.47.12

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
hmmm....shaped nukes?
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Gangrene
04/18/02 08:32 PM
168.150.237.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Battletech armor isn't impenetrable, Bob.
Gangrene
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 27 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 disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 23295


Contact Admins Sarna.net