Askhati
04/30/07 07:23 PM
168.209.97.42
|
First off, - I know, alot of people here hate MWDA and everything associated with it, including UtilityMechs. However, curious as I am, I have been spending some time looking at them and trying to figure out why they would be better than existing tractor combines/ mining gear/ forestry vehicles etc.
Does anyone perhaps have a supposed weight (and perhaps speed) rating for these various designs that have featured in MWDA?
Evolve or DIE!
|
Karagin
04/30/07 09:36 PM
24.26.220.4
|
In the TRO Vehicle Annex there are stats for the Utility mechs, that would be your best bet to start with. And I believe the rules to make them are in either the Combat Equipment Guide or the Total Warfare Rule set or the upcoming Tech Manual.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Askhati
05/02/07 06:23 AM
155.232.128.10
|
Any idea where I can find a copy of this TRO Vehicle Annex? I ordered the Tech Manual, only getting it in June though... Stupid SA postal services.
Evolve or DIE!
|
Karagin
05/02/07 06:28 AM
24.26.220.4
|
You are going to have to order the same why you did the TM, there should be a copy aviable via the Battlecorps website for ordering it. I believe it's under the TRO section.
It is a decent book, interesting stuff, but I am still more of the idea that they should have a revised the vehicle rules to make one new set not having two...one for combat and one for non-combat/support.
Also if you can afford to get it, the Combat Equipment Guide is another one you will want to pick up since it gives you the rules for the Utility mechs as well as the Support Vehicle rules...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
05/03/07 03:45 PM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
First off, - I know, alot of people here hate MWDA and everything associated with it, including UtilityMechs.
It's noteworthy that UtilityMechs are not products of MWDA. They predate BattleMechs by a century, and were the inspiration for BattleMechs (much like tractors inspired tanks.)
Quote:
However, curious as I am, I have been spending some time looking at them and trying to figure out why they would be better than existing tractor combines/ mining gear/ forestry vehicles etc.
In some cases (rough field operation, like in forests), legs can be superior motive system compared to wheeled or tracked vehicles. For forestry, the ability to be able to get heavy machinery to and from a worksite without a devestating logging road would be attractive, particularly on planets with anal compulsive environmental laws. Similarly, construction and rescue mechs would have mobility advantages in rubble and wreckage. Two powerful lifting units with human-like dexterity (i.e., arms and hand actuators) would be very useful tools, potentially faster ( = more productive) than conventional cranes and hoists.
However, I think a lot of workmechs are a product of a mech-happy society. Since the 2400s, humanity has been obsessed with mechs, thanks to the "avatars of war, the BattleMech." When it's relatively affordable, they'd jump for the opportunity to use mechs in civilian life. Really, a harvestermech or mining mech doesn't make much sense from a practicality standpoint. It's a situation like modern cars: filled with inefficient frills and overpowered engines to satisfy consumers. But the demands there, so manufacturers deliver.
Quote:
Does anyone perhaps have a supposed weight (and perhaps speed) rating for these various designs that have featured in MWDA?
There's the entire Record Sheets: MWDA booklet, which stats out some workmechs. Karagin mentioned TRVA already.
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
05/03/07 04:21 PM
24.26.220.4
|
Quote:
It's noteworthy that UtilityMechs are not products of MWDA. They predate BattleMechs by a century, and were the inspiration for BattleMechs (much like tractors inspired tanks.)
While that is true, you don't see military units running around with tractors mounting MGs and missiles systems now do you?
You may see and do see, armored earthmoving tractors but they have no weapons and aren't expected to fight battles. Yet the Utility mechs we have from, let me stress that again, from MWDA, since that is where the first fully burst on the scene and stopped being a mere background color and filler, kind of like the civilian cars and trucks, are armed and have "silly" tools made into weapons that turns what was a military based game into some akin to pro-wrestling meets robots. And so the units gained a stigma for a lot of folks.
I know that some attempts were made to introduce them as work mechs more akin to vehicles and yes the first edition of MW RPG offered us mining robots and robot combine/farming units, but even those weren't tossed out as fighting vehicles. No they were more of hey here are something to use if you want etc...that was never done with the Utility mechs.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
05/03/07 07:32 PM
65.32.237.84
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's noteworthy that UtilityMechs are not products of MWDA. They predate BattleMechs by a century, and were the inspiration for BattleMechs (much like tractors inspired tanks.)
While that is true, you don't see military units running around with tractors mounting MGs and missiles systems now do you?
Actually, improvised combat vehicles are nothing new.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(fighting_vehicle)
"A technical is an improvised fighting vehicle, typically by a local irregular military force and usually being a modified civilian vehicle or other similar machine. It is usually an open-backed civilian pickup truck or 4x4 on which is mounted a recoilless rifle, a machine gun, a light anti-aircraft gun, or another relatively small weapons system. A technical is usually unarmored, and can be considered a unit of light cavalry."
And didn't the Swiss require their farm tractors to be ready for quick conversion to militia "tanks"?
It'd be a sad thing to see a Swiss tractor go into battle, but that doesn't change the fact that the attempts were made.
Quote:
Yet the Utility mechs we have from, let me stress that again, from MWDA, since that is where the first fully burst on the scene and stopped being a mere background color and filler, kind of like the civilian cars and trucks, are armed and have "silly" tools made into weapons that turns what was a military based game into some akin to pro-wrestling meets robots. And so the units gained a stigma for a lot of folks.
I understand the stigma. The attempts at conversion of WorkMechs into Battlemechs were laughable in MWDA, just as attempts to use agrimechs in the...was it the GDL trilogy or Blood of Kerensky trilogy?...were laughable. They're about as serious a military threat as Somalian technicals are to real AFVs. And the marketing of MWDA didn't help, since the WorkMechs were meant to look "kewl" rather than like plausible improvised warmachines.
But if you look at the WorkMechs as improvised combat units with all the deadly earnest (if lack of real military capability) as a Somalian or Chadian put into their technicals, it's a bit different and gives you a chance to replicate the 1980's "Great Toyota War" with in the 32nd Century with mechs. (Or you can replicate the 2007 ass whipping the Somalian technicals got at the hands of Ethiopian armor and fighter-bombers.)
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
05/04/07 01:03 AM
24.26.220.4
|
Improvised doesn't mean it last long enough to matter, it's just that improvised tell something better comes along...and having a tractor as miltia tank isn't the same as having an armored fighting vehicle. The tractor is there to move things around and provide limited stop gap tell the real stuff can get there. It's still not meant to fight against anything other then light infantry and we both know light doesn't mean helpless.
A Technical is nothing more then a civilian truck, little to no armor and it goes boom when hit by anything bigger the 5.56mm. So trying to justify the Utility mechs with the technicals you see in Somalia or Iraq or else were is comparing apples and oranges. The mechs have armor not the BRAC stuff that a similar vehicle would have using the SVee rules. So again you really can not compare them or use one to explain away the other.
Cray the Toyota War was actually Chadian rebels using the pickup trucks mounting ATGMs and recoilless rifles to beat off Liybian armor that was around 1988 or 1989 time frame.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
05/04/07 08:10 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Improvised doesn't mean it last long enough to matter, it's just that improvised tell something better comes along...and having a tractor as miltia tank isn't the same as having an armored fighting vehicle.
I think I said that, or words to that effect. I'm glad we agree.
Quote:
A Technical is nothing more then a civilian truck, little to no armor and it goes boom when hit by anything bigger the 5.56mm. So trying to justify the Utility mechs with the technicals you see in Somalia or Iraq or else were is comparing apples and oranges.
Good, God, Karagin. I'd expect a little better logic from you than a strawman argument like that. There's so many vast differences in detail between a light truck and a 'mech (e.g., legs), and all you can do to say that the absence or presence of armor makes this an "apples and oranges" comparison? Worse, the basis for that logic...
Quote:
The mechs have armor not the BRAC stuff that a similar vehicle would have using the SVee rules.
...Is incorrect. IndustrialMech armor has a BAR like SV armor. See pg72 TechManual. And technicals have mounted improvised armor ("hillbilly" or "haji" armor).
At the end of the day, CBT's and MWDA's workmechs put on the battlefield are still civilian vehicles improvised into military roles, just like technicals. The amount of armor they carry is a detail, not a key identifier of what constitutes an improvised military vehicle.
Quote:
Cray the Toyota War was actually Chadian rebels using the pickup trucks mounting ATGMs and recoilless rifles to beat off Liybian armor that was around 1988 or 1989 time frame.
Yes, I know. I read the article: civilian vehicles carrying military weapons to combat military opponents, just like so many splinter factions of the Republic of the Sphere tried to improvise industrial vehicles to fight their feuds.
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 (05/04/07 08:11 AM)
|
Tripod
05/04/07 11:53 PM
12.49.227.216
|
did anyone catch that bit in the news awhile back where the guy took a "large" bulldozer and covered it in steel plating and concrete and welded himself inside it? he destroyed a rather large portion of a small town with that thing...seems like i saw 4 high powered rifles in sponson like turrets pointing front back, left and right....but he never fired them..... only one shot....guess where?
my point is, an improvised weapon can be formidable, when it's the best, or all that is arround. im not sure what hillbilly armor is, but im sure it's not effective vs a gauss slug but quite effective vs small arms fire....
TBA
|
Cray
05/05/07 12:05 AM
72.188.105.234
|
Quote:
my point is, an improvised weapon can be formidable, when it's the best, or all that is arround. im not sure what hillbilly armor is, but im sure it's not effective vs a gauss slug but quite effective vs small arms fire....
"Hillbilly armor" is the American term for improvised vehicular armor, generally scrap metal, sandbags, and even plywood. ("Haji armor" is, of course, vehicular armor improvised by Middle Easterners.) And, yes, it helps against small arms, but doesn't work well against anti-tank weaponry. That pretty well describes WorkMechs equipped with military weapons: able to deal with infantry, but in a world of trouble when gauss rifle slugs start to fly.
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
05/05/07 12:13 AM
24.26.220.4
|
Quote:
Quote:
my point is, an improvised weapon can be formidable, when it's the best, or all that is arround. im not sure what hillbilly armor is, but im sure it's not effective vs a gauss slug but quite effective vs small arms fire....
"Hillbilly armor" is the American term for improvised vehicular armor, generally scrap metal, sandbags, and even plywood. ("Haji armor" is, of course, vehicular armor improvised by Middle Easterners.) And, yes, it helps against small arms, but doesn't work well against anti-tank weaponry. That pretty well describes WorkMechs equipped with military weapons: able to deal with infantry, but in a world of trouble when gauss rifle slugs start to fly.
Actually Cray the term Mad Max is used more often then not. Never once heard anyone in Iraq call the plate armor 'hillbilly'. Heard it call other things but I can't post that here.
You are right the armor can't stop things like gauss rifles and big damage weapons, but look at the setting, combat mechs are so rare...or so was the claim. Again the perception of the MW universe and how it was first shown is still there and it doesn't look to be going away.
And I don't even see a work mech dealing with infantry that has anything more the rifles...and even then I think the infantry has the advantage, but hey those work mechs look so cool with their shovles being used as clubs and their cutting torches being used as flammers...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
05/05/07 12:16 AM
24.26.220.4
|
Did this Mad Max reject face an kind of threat that could hurt it? No. Ramming buildings is just what a bulldozer is good for if it's not moving dirt around, and if he went through all the trouble of shooting himself then it was clear he had no plans to do anything else.
4 high powered rifles and what made you guess that? Did they have muzzle brakes on them or where they just hunting rifles?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Askhati
05/05/07 09:33 AM
168.209.97.42
|
Guys, off-topic. Please. WorkMechs are improvised, we all get that now.
I have been tinkering around with some of the UtilityMech designs, and have noticed something interesting: the only way to get most of the designs to work (on paper) is to use ALOT of Level 3 technology like composite internal structure, small cockpits and extra-light gyros. And then virtually no armour, although the UtilityMechs are suppose to use some kind of different armour from what I have heard so far - IndustrialArmor? Does anyone have some stats on those areas? (structure, gyro, cockpit, armour) And I would for once appreciate an answer that does not tell me to reference some manual that I do not have. Thanks.
Evolve or DIE!
|
Cray
05/05/07 10:02 AM
72.188.105.234
|
Quote:
GI have been tinkering around with some of the UtilityMech designs, and have noticed something interesting: the only way to get most of the designs to work (on paper) is to use ALOT of Level 3 technology like composite internal structure, small cockpits and extra-light gyros.
Did you have an example from TRVA that didn't seem to work for you? I can doublecheck the stats when I get home tomorrow. I can't speak for RS:MWDA.
Quote:
And then virtually no armour, although the UtilityMechs are suppose to use some kind of different armour from what I have heard so far - IndustrialArmor? Does anyone have some stats on those areas? (structure, gyro, cockpit, armour) And I would for once appreciate an answer that does not tell me to reference some manual that I do not have. Thanks.
I don't know what references you have. I take it you don't have TechManual, though.
I'll post an overview of workmech-specific items tomorrow. (Or I'll try to remember to do so, anyway.)
[edit]
Okay, here's the overview:
TONNAGE & LEGS WorkMechs can be 10-100 tons. Use the ultra-light mech internal structures for 10-15 ton workmechs found in MaxTech or older rule books. WorkMechs can be quads for bipeds.
INTERNAL STRUCTURE WorkMechs are defined by their "Industrial Mech Standard" internal structure. They cannot have any other type of internal structure. Industrial Mech Standard is 20% of the 'mech's mass. It has the same number of internal structure boxes as normal battlemech structures, it's just built out of cheaper, civilian-grade materials.
ENGINES WorkMechs size their engines like BattleMechs. WorkMechs can use standard fusion engines, ICE, fuel cell, and fission engines. They may not use compact, light, or XL fusion engines. All available WorkMech engine types use the 6 standard CT critical slots.
IC engines are, of course, twice as heavy as standard fusion engines. They come with no integral heat sinks and require power amps for energy weapons. ICEs, by default, have a 600km range (included in their engine weight).
Fuel Cell engines are 1.25x as heavy as standard fusion engines, rounding up to the nearest half ton. Fuel cells have a default 450km range. Fuel cells have 1 integral heat sink (placed like normal engine heat sinks.) Fuel cells need power amplifiers to fire energy weapons.
Fission engines are 1.75x as heavy as standard fusion engines, rounding up to the nearest half ton AND they may a minimum mass of 5 tons. If the engine mass works out to less than 5 tons, move it up to 5 tons. (In other words, all fission engines from rating 10 to 85 are 5 tons; at rating 90, they start following the 1.75x SFE rule.) Fission engines have 5 integral heat sinks (placed like normal engine heat sinks.) Fission engines do not use power amplifiers.
ARMOR WorkMechs cannot use Battlemech armor options. WorkMechs have 3 types of armor available: Heavy Industrial, Industrial, and Commercial.
Heavy Industrial armor is identical to standard armor. It provides protection like standard armor, with only the normal chance for crits.
Industrial armor is cheaper stuff that only gives 2/3 the normal armor protection per ton (0.67 x tons x 16, round down). However, it provides protection like standard armor, with only the normal chance for crits.
Commercial armor is lightweight materials that superficially give a lot of protection per ton, but only against non-military threats. It provides 1.5x normal armor protection (24 points per ton), BUT only has a Barrier Armor Rating of 5. (Which means if a mech takes a non-penetrating hit that does 6 or more points of damage, there's a chance for a crit. Roll for a crit normally.)
GYROSCOPES WorkMechs can only use standard gyroscopes.
COCKPITS
Standard WorkMech cockpits are 3 tons and use the normal crits. However, they have a +1 to all attacks (for lack of good targeting systems), do not have an ejection system, and any weapons cannot use L2 targeting systems (C3, C3i, Narc, Artemis, Targeting Computer, etc.)
"Advanced Fire Control" eliminates the +1 to-hit penalty on all WorkMech attacks and allows the use of "L2" targeting systems (TC, C3, Artemis, etc.) Advanced fire control uses no tons or crits, but doubles the WorkMech's cockpit's cost.
An ejection seat uses 1 crit and is a half ton, and must be located in the head.
ENVIRO-SEALING WorkMechs cannot operate underwater, in a vacuum, or pretty much anywhere but a human-safe environment *unless* they get EnviroSealing. This is 10% of the 'mech's tonnage and occupies 8 crits (1 in each body location.)
And all those penalties and handicaps represents the difference between a military-optimized BattleMech and the lower tech, civilian-grade WorkMechs.
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 (05/05/07 07:27 PM)
|
Askhati
05/05/07 07:15 PM
41.208.48.64
|
Could you perhaps post one of the WorkMechs here? I do not have TRVA (and no prospect to get it anytime soon), so I would appreciate it if I could have a look at some of the designs beforehand.
Evolve or DIE!
|
Cray
05/05/07 07:31 PM
72.188.105.234
|
Quote:
Could you perhaps post one of the WorkMechs here? I do not have TRVA (and no prospect to get it anytime soon), so I would appreciate it if I could have a look at some of the designs beforehand.
You posted while I was editing my last post. You can find construction details back there.
Code:
Type: Uni CargoMech Technology Base: Inner Sphere (IndustrialMech) Tonnage: 70 Equipment Rating: D/X-E-D/C Equipment Mass Internal Structure: IndustrialMech 14 Engine: 210 (Fuel Cell) 11 Walking MP: 3 Running MP: 5 Jumping MP: 0 Heat Sinks: 1 0 Gyro: 3 Cockpit: IndustrialMech 3 Armor Factor (BAR 5): 216 (Commercial) 9 Internal Armor Structure Value Head 3 9 Center Torso 22 31 Center Torso (rear) 10 R/L Torso 15 20 R/L Torso (rear) 9 R/L Front Leg 15 27 R/L Rear Leg 15 27 Weapons and Ammo Location Critical Mass Cargo LT 8 8 Cargo RT 8 8 Cargo CT 1 1 Lift Hoist LT (R) 3 3 Lift Hoist RT (R) 3 3 Environmentally Sealed All 1/location 7
Sorry. That didn't copy-n-paste well no matter how I tried to work it, but the information should be decipherable.
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.
|
Tripod
05/06/07 09:30 PM
66.137.225.173
|
not to bring up an old subject but here is the video of that dozer...
if linking to videos is not allowed here, my appologies... if the site i have linked does not allow it, sorry again...
http://gprime.net/video.php/armoredbulldozer
TBA
|
Karagin
05/06/07 11:24 PM
24.26.220.4
|
Okay the was a small town or so it looks, no SWAT team there...so the guy had to know this, he has boilerplate steel welded to the dozer, the will stop most small arms fire.
BUT a single .50 cal rifle will punch through, I know this because I own an Armalite AR-50 it can punch through boiler plate...
http://www.armalite.com/sales/catalog/rifles/ar50.htm
So yes the dozer in this case was a threat to unarmed civilians and under armed law enforcement officials.
And his rifles looked, given the poor quality of the video, to be nothing more then basic hunting rifles, at the most .308 to maybe .357 (rifle not pistol). High powered yes, but not the best out there nor the most powerful either.
I am surprised the reports don't have him armed with automatic weapons or assault rifles, given that most media/reporters won't do the basic homework to get the weapons right.
So again all you are reinforcing here is that against a group with no military grade small arms, anything can be useful from a armored car that delivers bank money to someone turning mom's station wagon into something out of Mad Max with some boiler plate...for a short term it's a good thing to have, but once it hits something bigger or meaner it's toast.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Askhati
05/07/07 05:22 AM
155.232.128.10
|
I have a comment on that Uni CargoMech Cray posted: 70 tons, and it can only carry 19 tons of cargo? That ratio is pathetic! I can have an 18-wheeler truck carry more than that at a fraction of the cost and more than double the top speed of the Uni! Then again, the truck cannot go off-road, so I guess there are benefits.
Note on the the terminology: 'hillbilly armour'. I very much doubt the Us troops in Iraq calling the improvised armour that, since most of them ARE hillbillies. Look at Fahreneit 9/11, and you will see where the Us military recruits most of their troops - hillbilly is the only appropriate description. Then again, Moore has a tendency towards propaganda, but you do not see anyone from Congress sending their sons and daughters to Iraq, do you?
Further questions on the UtilityMech: does the UtilityMech still need four crits worth of life support and sensors in the head, or not? Also, based on the rules posted here for the UtilityMech's cockpit/ targeting gear/ ejection seat, a Small cockpit seems much better all round: it weighs a ton less than the Industrial Cockpit, has the targeting gear built in as well as the ejection seat (which would've weighed another 0.5 tons), and reduces the number of life support crits from two to one. The only side-effect is that the pilot takes a +1 on all Piloting rolls. Are small cockpits legal on IndustrialMechs then?
Evolve or DIE!
|
Karagin
05/07/07 06:26 AM
24.26.220.4
|
Your first part, the cargo space is dependent on what is wanted or left...
Your second statement, my reserve unit had a kid who's grandfather was state rep in Washington...so some members of Congress have family in military and while the military does recruit a high percentage from rural areas, they also do try to even that out with folks who are from urban areas.
Check Cray's posting of the rules in the other thread on this topic in the Muler thread.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
05/07/07 08:33 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
I have a comment on that Uni CargoMech Cray posted: 70 tons, and it can only carry 19 tons of cargo? That ratio is pathetic! I can have an 18-wheeler truck carry more than that at a fraction of the cost and more than double the top speed of the Uni! Then again, the truck cannot go off-road, so I guess there are benefits.
Right. WorkMechs are not payload-optimized vehicles. They have a lot of basic gear (structure, gyro, cockpit, etc.) that's heavier than comparable conventional vehicles.
Quote:
Note on the the terminology: 'hillbilly armour'. I very much doubt the Us troops in Iraq calling the improvised armour that, since most of them ARE hillbillies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly_armor
"Hillbilly armor, also known as "farmer armor", is a slang term used by American troops to describe improvised vehicle armor, most notably during the occupation of Iraq."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=312959&page=1
"What we basically have is what we call hillbilly steel, hillbilly armor," said Col. John Zimmermann, a senior officer with the Tennessee National Guard. "It's real frustrating for these soldiers."
Quote:
Look at Fahreneit 9/11,
No, thank you. Moore tends to piss me off to the extent that I have to pay Blockbuster for the broken DVD I return them.
Quote:
Further questions on the UtilityMech: does the UtilityMech still need four crits worth of life support and sensors in the head, or not?
"Standard WorkMech cockpits are 3 tons and use the normal crits." So, yes.
Quote:
The only side-effect is that the pilot takes a +1 on all Piloting rolls. Are small cockpits legal on IndustrialMechs then?
No. WorkMechs can only use WorkMech cockpits at this time.
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
05/07/07 07:09 PM
24.26.220.4
|
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly_armor
"Hillbilly armor, also known as "farmer armor", is a slang term used by American troops to describe improvised vehicle armor, most notably during the occupation of Iraq."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=312959&page=1
"What we basically have is what we call hillbilly steel, hillbilly armor," said Col. John Zimmermann, a senior officer with the Tennessee National Guard. "It's real frustrating for these soldiers."
See this is why I dislike Wiki...one unit used the term NOT THE ENTIRE US ARMY. The rest of the Army called welded on armor either Mad Max or something not allowed to be posted here.
So if you believe the Wiki entry the Tennessee National Guard speaks for the entire US Army, when in fact it doesn't. And what they are talking about isn't on the local vehicles it the stuff we welded on to OUR OWN vehicles since the Army way back in the days of the 80s and 90s didn't want to buy armor kits for line haul trucks and other soft skin vehicles, cause they felt they won't need it. Boy were they wrong.
It has nothing to do with the insurgents armoring vehicles at all...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Tripod
05/08/07 12:55 AM
12.49.227.43
|
On the Uni's 19 tons of cargo being pathetic...
18 wheelers cant take fire
Yours Truly,
Mayor of the Mech Happy Scociety
TBA
|
Karagin
05/08/07 06:20 AM
24.26.220.4
|
You should see the uparmored Kentworths the military and civilian contractors are using in Iraq...they can take small arms fire and stop shrapnel...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
05/08/07 08:20 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly_armor
"Hillbilly armor, also known as "farmer armor", is a slang term used by American troops to describe improvised vehicle armor, most notably during the occupation of Iraq."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=312959&page=1
"What we basically have is what we call hillbilly steel, hillbilly armor," said Col. John Zimmermann, a senior officer with the Tennessee National Guard. "It's real frustrating for these soldiers."
See this is why I dislike Wiki...one unit used the term NOT THE ENTIRE US ARMY. The rest of the Army called welded on armor either Mad Max or something not allowed to be posted here.
So if you believe the Wiki entry the Tennessee National Guard speaks for the entire US Army, when in fact it doesn't.
First, note that it was ABC News, not wikipedia, which quoted the Tennessean officer.
Second, I was in no way, shape, or form trying to say the whole Army used the term. What I was doing was refuting Askhati's statement, "I very much doubt the Us troops in Iraq calling the improvised armour that, since most of them ARE hillbillies."
In fact, it turns out that a) yes, US troops (some, perhaps a small minority, certainly not all) in Iraq use the term "hillbilly armor," and b) users of the term "hillbilly armor" are, in fact, hillbillies.
That wikipedia stinks or that other terms for improvised armor are in use in Iraq are interesting, but not applicable to my point. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my last post.
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 (05/08/07 09:19 AM)
|
Askhati
05/09/07 02:51 AM
155.232.128.10
|
Oh... It seems I was mistaken. Sorry.
Back to the WorkMech though: if it has no targeting gear or rangefinders, why does it need two sensor crits? And if it does not have EnviroSealing built in by default, why should it have two crits worth of life support by default? I think it would have been nice if the addition of targeting gear to the cockpit added the sensors (or at least the second one then), and the EnviroSealing added the second life support crit. That way, you could mount a lifthoist in your head!
Evolve or DIE!
|
Cray
05/09/07 08:06 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Oh... It seems I was mistaken. Sorry.
Back to the WorkMech though: if it has no targeting gear or rangefinders, why does it need two sensor crits?
Because a 'mech is not a truck.
Trucks need no sensors other than the drivers' Mark I eyeballs to reliably place their wheels on the ground from second to second. Aim the steering wheel so the truck is on the road and physics generally keeps the wheels rolling and on the ground.
Mechs, on the other hand, have a very complicated job in moving. They tend to be naturally unbalanced (top heavy) and their limbs are rarely designed for natural stability - they're often multi-jointed horrors, like the chickenwalkers among Clan mechs. When walking over rough ground, 'mechs must select foot placement in a fraction of second, commanding and coordinating thousands of myomer fibers, a dozen of joint, gyroscopes, and a power plant to the input from sensors analyzing the ground for solidity and quality of footing. And the task isn't done when the foot hits the ground; the mech will be monitoring the actuators and thousands of myomers fibers in the limb for force feedback that tells it whether the footing is stable or if it's slipping, and then the mech has to decide how to shift the foot in response to treacherous footing.
All those things you take for granted when walking through grass or mud or rough ground are quite a challenge to a 60-ton machine. Two crits worth of sensors and computers seems entirely necessary.
Quote:
And if it does not have EnviroSealing built in by default, why should it have two crits worth of life support by default?
Because when you drive a manly mech, you need a manly air conditioner.
The five filled head crits are an abstraction for the entire cockpit system. The "cockpit" crit is just that small spot within the head where a critical hit will generate a splash of pink and red goo. The rest, the life support and sensors, are generic representations of the cockpit equipment: the control boards, the computer racks, the sensor processors, the air conditioning, etc. Further, WorkMech cockpits do not use cutting edge, ultra-compact military components, and thus may well use more volume to less effect than Battlemechs.
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.
|
Askhati
05/09/07 01:19 PM
41.208.48.64
|
That was probably the best explanation I have heard so far concerning 'Mech setup, and it makes alot of sense. Now if only I can get my manly espresso machine half a ton smaller...
I was working on some designs today for SecurityMechs and RiotMechs, and was wondering if you could get away with designing them as WorkMechs instead of BattleMechs. For one thing, Commercial armour will work beautifully in a mob situation, since few mobs will carry the hardware needed to get through that BAR of 5. Also, since a RiotMech will be based at a police precinct, and operating in the immediate areas only, Cell engines become perfectly viable compared to ICE or other engines. An Advanced Targeting System or an ejection seat will also not really be needed, as the 'Mech's primary armament - light MG's, grenade launchers and A-pods - will not require pinpoint accuracy.
SecurityMechs though will have to emphasis endurance, range, and pilot luxuries above all things, since those are the qualities usually most sought-after when designing a vehicle for internal security duties (look at the British military designs in use in Ireland). The cockpit should be the maxed package - targeting and ejec seat -, a fusion engine would plausible (long range compared to other WorkMech options), and enough armour and light weaponry to deal with any opposition that could be expected from the policed population: small to medium lasers, MG's, SRM's, light AC's and maybe an active probe of some kind. Commercial armour would also be preferable, since the SecurityMech would not be expected to engage in heavy fire-fights without significant support.
That said, which should they be: WorkMech or BattleMech?
Evolve or DIE!
|
Cray
05/10/07 09:24 PM
65.32.237.84
|
Quote:
I was working on some designs today for SecurityMechs and RiotMechs, and was wondering if you could get away with designing them as WorkMechs instead of BattleMechs. For one thing, Commercial armour will work beautifully in a mob situation, since few mobs will carry the hardware needed to get through that BAR of 5. Also, since a RiotMech will be based at a police precinct, and operating in the immediate areas only, Cell engines become perfectly viable compared to ICE or other engines. An Advanced Targeting System or an ejection seat will also not really be needed, as the 'Mech's primary armament - light MG's, grenade launchers and A-pods - will not require pinpoint accuracy.
Absolutely. There is a WorkMech for security roles in TR:VA. It's not all that good from a boardgame perspective and should never tangle with a BattleMech, but your logic is flawless for dealing with rioters and guerillas. And there's some great anime (Patlabor) out there illustrating the potential campaigns with CopMechs.
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.
|
Askhati
05/11/07 07:05 AM
196.11.241.41
|
CopMechs... That's bloody horrible. What about a LawMech, or even a ForceMech? Sounds much better, methinks.
Question on a RiotMech's armament: would vehicle flamers be capable of doubling as anti-riot water cannons? Was thinking of expanding their arsenal beyond MG's, grenades and A-pods. Talking of which, how about loading those A-pods with rubber pellets or beanbags? Should be a tad less messy than clouds of shrapnel working in on unprotected civilians.
Evolve or DIE!
|
Cray
05/11/07 10:12 PM
65.32.237.84
|
Quote:
CopMechs... That's bloody horrible.
It's not the term used in TR:VA; I don't remember the exact one.
Quote:
Question on a RiotMech's armament: would vehicle flamers be capable of doubling as anti-riot water cannons? Was thinking of expanding their arsenal beyond MG's, grenades and A-pods. Talking of which, how about loading those A-pods with rubber pellets or beanbags? Should be a tad less messy than clouds of shrapnel working in on unprotected civilians.
Tech Manual includes various fluid sprayers other than flamers. If you used flamers, you'd need to use vehicle flamers to spray grounds.
As for non-lethal MGs and A-Pods, they'd have to be home ruled.
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
05/12/07 12:56 PM
24.26.220.4
|
Security mech maybe?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Askhati
05/12/07 05:48 PM
168.209.97.34
|
I was thinking of using the SecurityMech moniker rather for 'Mechs that are used for internal security (like the Saracens in use in Ireland) instead of straightout police work - after all, I really cannot imagine being pulled over on the highway by a 'Mech... Besides, a civvie car would be able to outpace it ANY day, and what is the point of carrying weaponry if you cannot use it against a car trying to dodge a speeding ticket?
For heavy anti-riot work, I was thinking of something in the 30-35 ton range, several A-pods, grenade launchers (tear gas) and LMG's (rubber bullets), along with a light AC or a small SRM pack to take out barricades or obstructions. Depending on the cost constraint, an Advanced Targeting Gear upgrade should be possible, while an ejection seat would be a must - man-alone in a riot, and your 'Mech goes down, an ejection seat would be a must. Adding a heavy-duty claw for physically dealing with obstructions would also be advisable, while a nice big spotlight on the shoulder would also be useful. Talking of which, have spotlights been added as items yet, or are they still design-dependent 'extras'?
Evolve or DIE!
|
Karagin
05/12/07 11:31 PM
24.26.220.4
|
Sounds good to me...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Askhati
05/16/07 02:43 AM
155.232.128.10
|
Just for curiousity's sake, what are the different classes of IndustrialMech that are available? I have seen Agro, Forestry, Mining and Cargo sofar - what else does the TR:VA include?
Evolve or DIE!
|
JackGarrity
05/16/07 04:15 AM
71.207.203.207
|
mwhahahaha...
DreddMech
Chassis: Unknown Power Plant: Unknown 240 Cruising Speed: 43 Maximum Speed: 64.5 Jump Jets: Unknown Jump Capacity: 60 meters Armor: Unknown with CASE Armament: 2 Flamers 1 Small Laser 2 AMSs 2 Machine Guns 2 RLauncher-15s Manufacturer: Unknown Primary Factory: Unknown Communications System: Unknown Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown
Capabilities: Max damage at range 1 to 3 hexes is 41 using the following weapons: Flamer (x2) Small Laser RLauncher-15 (x2) Machine Gun (x2) Max damage at range 4 to 15 hexes is 30 using the following weapons: RLauncher-15 (x2) t:60. MH:20. HD:20 CF:18. BV 832 C:5,050,960
DreddMech
Technology Base: - Inner Sphere - Level 2 (Utility Mech) Equipment Mass Internal Structure: 12 Engine: 240 11.5 Walking MP: 4 Running MP: 6 Jumping MP: 2 Heat Sinks: 10(20) - Double 0 Gyro: 3 Cockpit: 3 Armor Factor: 153 10
Internal Armor Structure Value Head 3 9 Center Torso 20 21 Center Torso(rear) 7 R/L Torso 14 17 R/L Torso(rear) 5 R/L Arm 10 14 R/L Leg 14 22
Weapons and Ammo Location Critical Tonnage Chainsaw LA 5 5 AMS LT 1 0.5 AMS Ammo LT 1 1 Machine Gun LT 1 0.5 Machine Gun Ammo LT 1 1 RLauncher-15 LT 2 1 CASE LT 1 0.5 A-Pod LL 1 0.5 Jump Jet LL 1 1 A-Pod RL 1 0.5 Jump Jet RL 1 1 AMS RT 1 0.5 AMS Ammo RT 1 1 Machine Gun RT 1 0.5 Machine Gun Ammo RT 1 1 RLauncher-15 RT 2 1 CASE RT 1 0.5 Flamer RA 1 1 Flamer RA 1 1 Small Laser RA 1 0.5
Greetings Mechwarrior.
|
Cray
05/16/07 08:11 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Just for curiousity's sake, what are the different classes of IndustrialMech that are available? I have seen Agro, Forestry, Mining and Cargo sofar - what else does the TR:VA include?
There aren't "classes" per se. If you can find a job for an IndustrialMech, just slap the job's name in front of "Mech" and you'll have a new "class." Like a garbage collecting mech would be a GarbageMech. A (big) household's babysitting mech would be a NannyMech or HotTeenBabySitterMech. A farming mech might be a CombineMech or HarvesterMech or...you get the point. It's just a general job description, not a hard-n-fast classification.
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.
|
Askhati
05/16/07 07:25 PM
41.208.48.64
|
Thanks Garrity for that completely random post. It was dreadful...
@ Cray: Does TR:VA say who the main builders of the IndustrialMechs are after the Jihad? Have been trying to find out how commonplace they are suppose to be, and how scarce/numerous their factories would be. Given the low tech involved, along with a lack of armament, factories should not be too scare, no?
Evolve or DIE!
|
Karagin
05/16/07 09:01 PM
24.26.220.4
|
Cray you are evil...now I have to change my plans on universal domination...you have told everyone about my plans to over run the suburban areas with Hot Teen Babysitter Mechs and Hot Tan Muscular Pool boy mechs...cruses foiled again!
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
05/17/07 11:45 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Does TR:VA say who the main builders of the IndustrialMechs are after the Jihad?
No, since TRVA isn't a post-Jihad book.
You can look to MWDA sources, though. A lot of BattleMech manufacturers (supposedly) did the swords-to-plowshares thing after the Jihad due to lack of House founds for military reconstruction. So you can figure pre-Jihad battlemech manufacturers are big industrialmech manufacturers, and throw in some BT civilian firms that are into vehicles.
Quote:
Have been trying to find out how commonplace they are suppose to be, and how scarce/numerous their factories would be. Given the low tech involved, along with a lack of armament, factories should not be too scare, no?
They do seem fairly common, which is why MWDA factions tend to push them into military duties they're unfit for.
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.
|
JackGarrity
05/18/07 01:58 AM
71.207.203.207
|
It, was what was called humor, sprocket; ranting about indistrual mechs in what and whos book, lets see some configs as well just becuase.
Greetings Mechwarrior.
|
Askhati
05/19/07 11:58 AM
168.209.97.42
|
What? Go play somehwere else Garrity.
Evolve or DIE!
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 84 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: 26344
|
|
|
|
|