Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4131
Loc: North America
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: Angstrom]
#161620 - 06/14/11 09:38 PM (147.160.136.10)
|
|
|
Quote:
Again, I ask: What purpose would battlemechs serve in real life?
I'll ask: which of the arguments for Protomech-scale and battle armor-scale 'Mechs in this thread did you disagree with?
Full-sized 'Mechs were dropped after about the third 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.
|
Angstrom
Newbie
Reged: 06/14/11
Posts: 2
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: Cray]
#161621 - 06/15/11 04:52 AM (68.50.204.211)
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Again, I ask: What purpose would battlemechs serve in real life?
I'll ask: which of the arguments for Protomech-scale and battle armor-scale 'Mechs in this thread did you disagree with?
Full-sized 'Mechs were dropped after about the third post.
Protomechs will be as obsolete as battlemechs before they are possible and battle armor will be short lived. The era of manned combat vehicles is coming to an end in real life.
One thing that is missing from the Battletech universe is artificial intelligence and intelligent machines; something that we will have within 100 years. When such intelligence exists, there will be no point in humans being involved in actual combat. Our machines will be far superior to us in battle. Fighting our machines would simply be suicide at that point.
In fact, I would be highly surprised if humans as we know them still existed in the 4th millenium. I'm pretty sure we will have merged with artificial intelligence long before then.
Edited by Angstrom (06/15/11 04:53 AM)
|
Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4131
Loc: North America
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: Angstrom]
#161622 - 06/15/11 07:10 AM (147.160.136.10)
|
|
|
Quote:
In fact, I would be highly surprised if humans as we know them still existed in the 4th millenium. I'm pretty sure we will have merged with artificial intelligence long before then.
Have you ever looked into the Orion's Arm project? It's an interesting attempt to extrapolate thousands of years into the future with much harder science than 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.
|
Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4131
Loc: North America
|
|
Quote:
You are still thinking of fantasy and not the real world. Tanks don't want to get close enough to use anything that would be in the melee range. They would rather have there targets a mile or so away where effective counter fire would be a lot harder and in there own weapon class. If you get close to your target then you will have to be dealing with PBI with RPGs and other can openers.
Tanks would rather keep their targets a mile away, but then the bad guys get rude and hide in places like cities and jungles where tanks get down to melee range. They generally address these melees with an add-on capability-expanding system known as "infantry." 
It's not a bad idea to consider such "melee" situations when the protomechs in question have been proposed as units for difficult, closed terrain. The solution isn't likely to be an actual melee weapon, though. As you said, I think an "RPG and other can openers" would be more likely.
--------------------
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.
|
mechamaniac12
Corporal
Reged: 02/02/11
Posts: 69
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: Angstrom]
#161624 - 06/15/11 10:14 AM (89.168.142.50)
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, I ask: What purpose would battlemechs serve in real life?
I'll ask: which of the arguments for Protomech-scale and battle armor-scale 'Mechs in this thread did you disagree with?
Full-sized 'Mechs were dropped after about the third post.
Protomechs will be as obsolete as battlemechs before they are possible and battle armor will be short lived. The era of manned combat vehicles is coming to an end in real life.
One thing that is missing from the Battletech universe is artificial intelligence and intelligent machines; something that we will have within 100 years. When such intelligence exists, there will be no point in humans being involved in actual combat. Our machines will be far superior to us in battle. Fighting our machines would simply be suicide at that point.
In fact, I would be highly surprised if humans as we know them still existed in the 4th millenium. I'm pretty sure we will have merged with artificial intelligence long before then.
Well at the moment they are taking persuasions to make sure that something like that deosent happen and I highly doubt we currently got the foolishness to make robot infantry to put humans out of work but the one thing that AI's don't have that humans have got is the will to live or survival instinct. And that a single EMP attack can put them out of commission that is why they are not as many unmanned vehicles than manned at the moment. with anything electronically operated there is very few things protected from class 3+ EMPs heck the Russians and Chinese are working on super EMP that would beat virtually any form of anti emp shielding. so it is highly unlikely the AI will take over within 100 years 10 million years maybe but not in the near future because no matter how intelligent an AI is they also have weaknesses just as humans do AI is not perfect and most programmers will refuse to make them better than a human to make sure that things like the terminator don't come around. most people are afraid of such things hence I have a strong objection to AI weapons. there was an experiment and they found out that AI's can only operate within a restricted range though a humans creativity allows them to be more unpredictable than an AI. an example of a unmanned weapon being beaten by a manned vehicle can be seen on several Wikipedia articles. There is also a questionable legality of such weapons since several U.N officials are also question on weather they should allow lethal robots to be fully autonomous. And those are the facts of the risks of lethal military robots.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
Captain
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 915
Loc: Somewhere on the US highways
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: mechamaniac12]
#161625 - 06/15/11 12:23 PM (173.145.162.174)
|
|
|
I would have to agree mostly with mechamaniac12 on the AI topic. No matter how smart AI become they cant out think a human because humans are not that predictable and machines are.
-----------------------
There is not all that much need to take heavy tanks into a city.
First MBT not all that useful in urban fighting there more a target for some PBI with some can opener than all that useful to there own side. You would better off sending in your own BPI with their carriers into the city and if they need the firepower of a tank they can use short range weapons like Bazookas, RPGs, Rifle fired grenades, and so on and so forth.
You can park your tanks on the edge of the city where there safer from attack from the other sides PBI and fire into the city when needed.
If there is some heavily defended target that for some reason cant be hit by long range fire there are armored wheeled vehicles that can mount heavy weapons like tank killers that can be sent in. AWVs are far cheaper to build than MBTs are and in such fighting in cities can be just as affective as there more expensive brothers MBTs.
-------------------------
Going back to Protomechs. Lets look at two wars where the higher tech country had there butts handed to them. The US in Vietnam and the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
Protomechs would been just as useless in the jungles of Vietnam as tanks where because they would have just got stuck in the muck that covers the ground under the trees just like the tanks did. The only way the US could have won that war was to invade the north and to destroy there ability to supply weapons to the south. Trying to fight the war in the jungles for the US was quite useless as they found out.
In Afghanistan first off there was no one friendly to the Russians. For the most part everyone wanted them gone. The Russians only controlled the major cities the rest of the country was military hostel to them. When ever they sent out units to hold some place they would be ambushed to some degree of success. Protomechs might be able to go where some tanks could not but they would still be ambushed and with out any tanks to help defend them they would be destroyed all that more easily.
I just see that protomechs are way to costly for way to little advantage. They me be marginally better in very limited places and rolls but not enough to make them worth wiled to pursue. It would be just better to use current weapon systems.
-------------------------
I can see Battle Armor being worth pursuing. There just bigger than human size, can carry heaver things than a non armored trooper and the armor could deflect or stop small caliber rounds and protect the trooper from non directional explosions in the general area. The trooper would still be quite vulnerable to explosions directed at the trooper and higher caliber rounds. At first Battle Armor would be quite expensive but as the decades pass would become quite reasonable to where small countries could afford them.
--------------------
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!!!
|
mechamaniac12
Corporal
Reged: 02/02/11
Posts: 69
|
|
Quote:
I would have to agree mostly with mechamaniac12 on the AI topic. No matter how smart AI become they cant out think a human because humans are not that predictable and machines are.
-----------------------
There is not all that much need to take heavy tanks into a city.
First MBT not all that useful in urban fighting there more a target for some PBI with some can opener than all that useful to there own side. You would better off sending in your own BPI with their carriers into the city and if they need the firepower of a tank they can use short range weapons like Bazookas, RPGs, Rifle fired grenades, and so on and so forth.
You can park your tanks on the edge of the city where there safer from attack from the other sides PBI and fire into the city when needed.
If there is some heavily defended target that for some reason cant be hit by long range fire there are armored wheeled vehicles that can mount heavy weapons like tank killers that can be sent in. AWVs are far cheaper to build than MBTs are and in such fighting in cities can be just as affective as there more expensive brothers MBTs.
-------------------------
Going back to Protomechs. Lets look at two wars where the higher tech country had there butts handed to them. The US in Vietnam and the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
Protomechs would been just as useless in the jungles of Vietnam as tanks where because they would have just got stuck in the muck that covers the ground under the trees just like the tanks did. The only way the US could have won that war was to invade the north and to destroy there ability to supply weapons to the south. Trying to fight the war in the jungles for the US was quite useless as they found out.
In Afghanistan first off there was no one friendly to the Russians. For the most part everyone wanted them gone. The Russians only controlled the major cities the rest of the country was military hostel to them. When ever they sent out units to hold some place they would be ambushed to some degree of success. Protomechs might be able to go where some tanks could not but they would still be ambushed and with out any tanks to help defend them they would be destroyed all that more easily.
I just see that protomechs are way to costly for way to little advantage. They me be marginally better in very limited places and rolls but not enough to make them worth wiled to pursue. It would be just better to use current weapon systems.
-------------------------
I can see Battle Armor being worth pursuing. There just bigger than human size, can carry heaver things than a non armored trooper and the armor could deflect or stop small caliber rounds and protect the trooper from non directional explosions in the general area. The trooper would still be quite vulnerable to explosions directed at the trooper and higher caliber rounds. At first Battle Armor would be quite expensive but as the decades pass would become quite reasonable to where small countries could afford them.
I would have to say disagree. Not matter what kind of vehicles you have what matter is how you use them same goes for battle Armour they could be sent into the mountains to help protect the protmechs in case of an ambush. and it also depends on how they were designed as well. if they have large cluttered designs than yes they would get stuck like an MBT however by distributing the weight over a reasonable surface area the only way to prove such things is to get actual test data. nothing can be proven without present day evidence as in no historical facts but real experiments heck big dog was officially classed as a mecha. The only two types of support a protomech can have in areas where tanks can't go are helicopters and PBI's themselves. the only reason the both the US and soviets lost those two wars because one they weren't aware about what kind of terrain they were going into and two they weren't actually prepared of trained to counter the tactics used then. and wasn't it the US that provided the training to the afgahns to counter the soviets? there are several factors you need to take into account as well. you only based your opinions off history and to some extent simulated scenarios. I would need to collect actual test data to prove that theory of protomechs being inferior in those two terrains true or false from actual testing and results. in the field anything can happen.
PS:I can see that you saw most of my points about AI's weaknesses to be true.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
Captain
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 915
Loc: Somewhere on the US highways
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: mechamaniac12]
#161628 - 06/15/11 02:29 PM (173.145.162.174)
|
|
|
Protomechs would be useless at any distance from there base of operation do to being so slow biped or quadrupedal.
The only way to be able for one to go faster than say 10 miles per hour is for one to be quadrupedal and to use a gate like a horse or cat/dog. Do you have any idea how much the pilot would be knocked around? After no time the pilot would be so exhausted from the beating that he would be completely useless.
To be quadrupedal the protomech would have to be almost as big as a tank. That is just a slow easily hit expensive target.
Quote:
PS:I can see that you saw most of my points about AI's weaknesses to be true.
I will agree with anyone that I think that is or am convinced that they are right.
--------------------
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!!!
|
mechamaniac12
Corporal
Reged: 02/02/11
Posts: 69
|
|
Quote:
Protomechs would be useless at any distance from there base of operation do to being so slow biped or quadrupedal.
The only way to be able for one to go faster than say 10 miles per hour is for one to be quadrupedal and to use a gate like a horse or cat/dog. Do you have any idea how much the pilot would be knocked around? After no time the pilot would be so exhausted from the beating that he would be completely useless.
To be quadrupedal the protomech would have to be almost as big as a tank. That is just a slow easily hit expensive target.
Quote:
PS:I can see that you saw most of my points about AI's weaknesses to be true.
I will agree with anyone that I think that is or am convinced that they are right.
I can think of some ways of reducing or even nullifying the knocking about all together one way is to use a fairly tight primary and secondary harness-like system within the cockpit seat similar to what metal gear RAY used tight enough to reduce the chances of the pilot being knocked about but loose enough to allow the pilot to breath, Another way would be to use buffer materials like the VT's in steel battalion use.
Also an alternate way to help it move faster when engaging in flat terrain would be to use a secondary propulsion system. such wheels or treads, they would not be as large as seen on IFV's,MBTs or APC's but they would provide an enhancement in speed performance on flatter more open terrain where tracked or wheeled combat vehicles have and advantage against it when it's walking. In other word it would ONLY use it's legs in terrain where it's secondary propulsion systems wouldn't be of use.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
Lieutenant
Reged: 08/03/08
Posts: 508
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: mechamaniac12]
#161704 - 06/23/11 11:03 AM (75.163.101.82)
|
|
|
The description is simple.
Are "Mech-like" bipedal machines possible? Yes, you can (and we have) build a large, two (or four) legged machine that a person "rides" that could be used for construction.
Is it feasible? Hell no.
Like Cray said earlier, we lack Battletech's "wonder materials" for armor and movement, not to mention the fusion reactor that powers the machine. Armor protection would always be sub-par since you would also have to work with factors of ricochet and penetration (instead of BT, where even a machine gun damages armor plating that can withstand a hit from a 120mm cannon) and present day-moymers aren't nearly to the point CBT's are for efficiency. Power could be solved using smaller Fission reactors (Pebble Bed spring to mind, with their size and safety) but that would also limit the size of the machine.
I don't know why this conversation took a turn for Protomechs- they use the same construction methods of Battlemechs, but on much smaller scales and with far more advanced piloting needs (with the whole "Advanced Neurological implants" thing). I don't know why Donkey said that they "will fall over with any recoil what so ever." but I'm just going to chalk that up to normal ignorance on the subject- which in his case, seems to be a lot of military technology. But since you wouldn't arm a 6 ton walker with a cannon that goes on a 62 ton Challenger 2 tank, the point is moot either way.
However, Battle armor are more than feasible as Cray pointed out, and minor, "power-assist" suits can be built with little effort on the civilian side. There have actually been competitions for homebrewed powered suits, with most contestants spending a little over $1,000 to make a pneumatic system to help lift, metal supports to keep weight off the legs, and a small power supply.
Armaments (in which my earlier point of Donkey's lack of knowledge shows) would be almost anything that can be carried or fired by tripod mount by infantry today. Recoilless Rifles, small anti-armor or Frag warheads, mortar launchers, heavy rifles, browning .50 caliber... If the suit built can carry a, say 180 pound marine and over say a 1/2 ton of metal and electronics while still being able to run, there is no reason why recoil from these weapons would be a factor, especially when most of these listed are man-portable.
--------------------
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
Captain
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 915
Loc: Somewhere on the US highways
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: Prince_of_Darkness]
#161705 - 06/23/11 11:46 AM (173.105.15.200)
|
|
|
Quote:
I don't know why Donkey said that they "will fall over with any recoil what so ever."
Oh I would say something like this,
Newton's laws of motion
Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
That is of course that the laws of nature have changed radically in the last couple of minutes
--------------------
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!!!
|
Prince_of_Darkness
Lieutenant
Reged: 08/03/08
Posts: 508
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't know why Donkey said that they "will fall over with any recoil what so ever."
Oh I would say something like this,
Newton's laws of motion
Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
That is of course that the laws of nature have changed radically in the last couple of minutes
So let me get this straight- you say that we ignored the laws of force, however you state that they will, and I quote, "will fall over with any recoil what so ever." So if he fires a .22 revolver, he's toppled over?
You forget that a soldier in some form of power armor would have to weigh over 400 lbs. at the least, which by itself would help counteract the force of weapon firing. That not even mentioning the power-assist/strength enhancing system (in CBT, being moymer fibers) and wether or not he's bracing for the shot anyway- our soldiers don't exactly fire assault rifles one-handed, you know.
--------------------
|
Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4131
Loc: North America
|
|
Quote:
Oh I would say something like this,
Newton's laws of motion
Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
That is of course that the laws of nature have changed radically in the last couple of minutes
Well, yes, there's such a thing as action-reaction, but that's doesn't automatically mean people and 'Mechs topple over when presented with recoil.
The problem is pretty complicated with humanoid forms because there are so many axes of motion and various counter-forces from muscles/actuators in addition to simple inertia. You know, hydraulic dampers and the like.
But to start with, you need to put some numbers to the problem. What is the mass of 'Mech, and what is the mass and velocity of the projectile? The basic law of inertia is very simple before you introduce the complications noted in the prior paragraph.
Tell me the mass and velocity of the projectile fired, and I can tell you what sort of recoil the "real" 'Mech is facing.
--------------------
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.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
Captain
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 915
Loc: Somewhere on the US highways
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: Prince_of_Darkness]
#161717 - 06/24/11 06:19 AM (108.119.234.171)
|
|
|
Quote:
So let me get this straight- you say that we ignored the laws of force, however you state that they will, and I quote, "will fall over with any recoil what so ever." So if he fires a .22 revolver, he's toppled over?
That is not what I meant, but since you are looking for any hairs to split yes it can be read that way. The subject was arming mechs, protomechs and battle armor with heavy weapons not small arms.
--------------------
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!!!
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
Captain
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 915
Loc: Somewhere on the US highways
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: Cray]
#161718 - 06/24/11 07:18 AM (108.119.234.171)
|
|
|
There are even more factors that have to be considered.
The distance off the ground that the weapon is.
How stable is the weapon platform.
Is the weapon platform be in motion or does it have to be in a fixed position.
How stable the ground is that the weapon platform is on.
A 50cal machine gun that is on a tripod that is on solid ground is quite stable. Its less than a foot off the ground and the pivot point is behind the weapon with it being spread out in a relatively large area and the weapon is in a fixed position and not meant to be that easily moved. The same machine gun on a protomech is no where near as stable because it is what eight feet off the ground, the pivot point straight down which is concentrated in a relatively small area and the protomech is meant to be in consent movement.
I am sure there are even more factors involved which Cray would know better than I would do to his greatly superior knowledge of physics.
I am not as uneducated as Prince Of Darkness wants to believe.
--------------------
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!!!
|
Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4131
Loc: North America
|
|
Quote:
There are even more factors that have to be considered.
The distance off the ground that the weapon is.
Oh, sure, rotational inertia, torque, etc.
So, what sort of shell do you want to fire to see if a 'Mech topples over? Name the caliber and I'll crunch some numbers for you.
--------------------
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.
|
mechamaniac12
Corporal
Reged: 02/02/11
Posts: 69
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: Cray]
#161720 - 06/24/11 01:37 PM (89.168.128.93)
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
There are even more factors that have to be considered.
The distance off the ground that the weapon is.
Oh, sure, rotational inertia, torque, etc.
So, what sort of shell do you want to fire to see if a 'Mech topples over? Name the caliber and I'll crunch some numbers for you.
OK cray how about this a 40mm ATG. I'll let you make up the rest.
|
Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4131
Loc: North America
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: mechamaniac12]
#161722 - 06/24/11 09:44 PM (97.100.135.197)
|
|
|
Quote:
OK cray how about this a 40mm ATG. I'll let you make up the rest.
40mm ATG...that took some searching. The closest fit seems to be the British "2 pounder" anti-tank gun, also listed as 40mm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_2_pounder
With a 1kg projectile flung at 800m/s: 800kg*m/s
For a 5000kg "protomech," the resulting overall recoil would be 800 kgm/s / 5000kg = 0.16m/s or 0.358mph.
For comparison, a .30-06 bullet is 12 grams and 820m/s. Rounding down a bit to 800m/s, that's 9.6kg*m/s. A 60kg human would experience the same recoil with the rifle as the 5-ton protomech with the 40mm ATG; a 75kg (average) human would experience less recoil at 0.128m/s.
In other words, the ATG kicks a 5-ton 'Mech a bit harder than the average adult human (75kg) experiences from a .30-06, but just a bit.
This, of course, ignores any advantage from recoil systems on big guns. The 40mm ATG of WW2 had hydrospring recoil system that allowed it to be deployed in an 814kg mount and fire over 20 rounds a minute.
--------------------
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 (06/24/11 09:52 PM)
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
Captain
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 915
Loc: Somewhere on the US highways
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: Cray]
#161724 - 06/24/11 10:10 PM (173.157.230.85)
|
|
|
Well mechamaniac12 wanted to put a 88mm on a protomech. So what numbers does that have?
lets ignore that the 88mm WW2 gun weighs its self as much as a heavy protomech.
--------------------
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!!!
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
Captain
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 915
Loc: Somewhere on the US highways
|
|
How about a 185mm AC/20 on a 50,000kg hunchback?
--------------------
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!!!
|
Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4131
Loc: North America
|
|
Quote:
Well mechamaniac12 wanted to put a 88mm on a protomech. So what numbers does that have?
An 88mm won't work as a conventional cannon; it'd be like trying to shoulder-fire a 14.5mm sniper rifle. 88m would be easy as a recoilless rifle, though.
--------------------
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.
|
mechamaniac12
Corporal
Reged: 02/02/11
Posts: 69
|
|
Quote:
How about a 185mm AC/20 on a 50,000kg hunchback?
AC's with a diameter over 155mm are not used on today's battlefield because one they weigh too much and two they are very slow firing on-top of the impractical amount of recoil however it could work as a recoiless rifle. In other words in most parts of the world cat 20 AC's are impractical and only go up-to 57mm. the mount for a AC 20 would have to be A scaled down version of the dora cannon for some of the bigger ones that are 200mm and up a 185mm AC would need a kind tiger tank base to mount them due to the immense recoil what you is therefore null and void to a certain degree. if you want something that has the power of a AC/20 with minimal recoil go with things like RPGs,Missiles,Rockets or recoil-less rifles.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
Captain
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 915
Loc: Somewhere on the US highways
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: mechamaniac12]
#161728 - 06/25/11 05:14 AM (173.143.162.178)
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
How about a 185mm AC/20 on a 50,000kg hunchback?
AC's with a diameter over 155mm are not used on today's battlefield because one they weigh too much and two they are very slow firing on-top of the impractical amount of recoil however it could work as a recoiless rifle. In other words in most parts of the world cat 20 AC's are impractical and only go up-to 57mm. the mount for a AC 20 would have to be A scaled down version of the dora cannon for some of the bigger ones that are 200mm and up a 185mm AC would need a kind tiger tank base to mount them due to the immense recoil what you is therefore null and void to a certain degree. if you want something that has the power of a AC/20 with minimal recoil go with things like RPGs,Missiles,Rockets or recoil-less rifles.
In BattleTech any cannon is an auto cannon unlike in the real world. I believe the biggest true auto cannon that is used in the real world is the 30mm gun that the A-10 Thunderbolt, Warthog, uses. I could be wrong; there might be something out there that is bigger, I just don't know about it.
Using BattleTech's definition of an auto cannon of "any cannon is an auto cannon" then the biggest AC is the 800mm gun that the Germans had in WW2. The biggest practical well used gun was the 16" gun that the US used on battleships.
--------------------
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!!!
|
mechamaniac12
Corporal
Reged: 02/02/11
Posts: 69
|
|
Ho-401 cannon was a WWI/WWII(?) that was 57mm in diameter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho-401_cannon
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
Captain
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 915
Loc: Somewhere on the US highways
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: mechamaniac12]
#161730 - 06/25/11 06:04 AM (173.143.162.178)
|
|
|
Quote:
Ho-401 cannon was a WWI/WWII(?) that was 57mm in diameter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho-401_cannon
I will assume that it had passed all tests and was usable.
From following link to link I found that autocannons that have knowingly been used in combat have gotten up to 40mm in WW2 for AA work.
--------------------
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!!!
|
Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4131
Loc: North America
|
|
Mechmaniac said:
Quote:
AC's with a diameter over 155mm are not used on today's battlefield because one they weigh too much and two they are very slow firing on-top of the impractical amount of recoil however it could work as a recoiless rifle.
Cannons larger than 155mm, some with quite rapid fire, are used on the battlefield. The Mark-16 8"/55 caliber of US late WW2 service could sustain 10 rounds per minute per gun, making the Baltimore-class heavy cruisers highly favored fire support ships. The Mark-16 was later up-rated in the 1970s to 12 rounds per minute as the Mark 71, but not put into service. Those are more artillery than autocannon, though. Autocannons tend to have, well, automatic loading mechanisms akin to machine guns.
The Swedish Bandkanon really gets the "holy ****" award. Not only mounted on a ground unit, this 155mm howitzer had a firing rate of almost 20 rounds per minute (2 per BT turn, using a true "automatic" reloading mechanism) and the Swedes wanted it fire **nuclear artillery shells.** That's right: the Swedes had a nuclear autocannon. They dropped their nuclear weapons program, but they had a gun ready to spray-and-pray with nukes.
His_Most_Royal wrote:
Quote:
In BattleTech any cannon is an auto cannon unlike in the real world.
Nope. BattleTech also single-shot cannons: Long Tom, Thumper, Sniper, and the light/medium/heavy Rifle (Cannons) of Tactical Operations.
Anyway...
The problem with BT autocannons is not so much their caliber as their muzzle velocity. These aren't your 20th Century GAU-8s and Bofors on a large scale. BT autocannons really are products of the 24th century: they fire projectiles at very, very high velocities. An AC/20 fires its projects fast enough to cross 6 space hexes (72km) in no more than 1 space turn (60 seconds), which calls for a minimum velocity of 1.8km/s, though it's high accuracy at 72km indicates the AC/20 must fire a lot faster because 60 seconds is enough for a ship, even a lumbering Aegis WarShip or Behemoth DropShip, to dodge out of the way by tens of kilometers, so the velocity might be 4 to 6 times higher than 1.8km/s. (For comparison, ultra-high velocity tank rounds today at 1.7km/s.)
Autocannons with medium and long aerospace ranges have muzzle velocities of 3.6 and 6km/s, minimum, but again are probably much faster. That's beyond the level of real world railguns.
Now, when you mount something that fires 200kg of shells at 5 or 10km/s on top of its shoulder...yeah, it's going to get knocked on its ****.
--------------------
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.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
Captain
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 915
Loc: Somewhere on the US highways
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: Cray]
#161736 - 06/25/11 05:36 PM (184.238.173.0)
|
|
|
Quote:
Now, when you mount something that fires 200kg of shells at 5 or 10km/s on top of its shoulder...yeah, it's going to get knocked on its ****.
On its donkey?
--------------------
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!!!
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
Captain
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 915
Loc: Somewhere on the US highways
|
Re: Possibility of primitive battelmechs in Real life
[Re: Cray]
#161737 - 06/25/11 05:51 PM (184.238.173.0)
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
His_Most_Royal wrote:
In BattleTech any cannon is an auto cannon unlike in the real world.
Nope. BattleTech also single-shot cannons: Long Tom, Thumper, Sniper, and the light/medium/heavy Rifle (Cannons) of Tactical Operations.
I have always heard of artillery being called pieces not cannons. That is why I did not think of them when I made that comment feeling that it was correct. As for Tactical Operations I have never had that book to read so I have no clue what is in it.
--------------------
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!!!
|
Cray
General
Reged: 07/27/01
Posts: 4131
Loc: North America
|
|
Quote:
I have always heard of artillery being called pieces not cannons.
Artillery is very often called cannons.
"A cannon is any piece of artillery that uses gunpowder or other usually explosive-based propellants to launch a projectile."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon
And, yes, the bleeped word was donkey.
--------------------
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.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
Lieutenant
Reged: 08/03/08
Posts: 508
|
|
I'm back.
Quote:
Quote:
So let me get this straight- you say that we ignored the laws of force, however you state that they will, and I quote, "will fall over with any recoil what so ever." So if he fires a .22 revolver, he's toppled over?
That is not what I meant, but since you are looking for any hairs to split yes it can be read that way. The subject was arming mechs, protomechs and battle armor with heavy weapons not small arms.
Splittin' hairs? Nope, I was just taking your argument to it's logical conclusion, as per debate team ruling. Now, if you had said something along the lines of "Would suffer from recoil, and would fall over easily" then I could agree with you, at least on some level. This is the internet, Donkey- if you aren't picking apart an argument bit by bit, you aren't arguing well  .
Quote:
His_Most_Royal said:
There are even more factors that have to be considered.
The distance off the ground that the weapon is.
How stable is the weapon platform.
Is the weapon platform be in motion or does it have to be in a fixed position.
How stable the ground is that the weapon platform is on.
On the aspects of ground stability and motion, I (or really, anyone) would agree, as well as the stability of the platform itself and how it disperses force. However, I don't understand what you mean by "distance"- if the weapon is question is solidly fastened to it's attached/held/whatever, than why would height matter?
Quote:
A 50cal machine gun that is on a tripod that is on solid ground is quite stable. Its less than a foot off the ground and the pivot point is behind the weapon with it being spread out in a relatively large area and the weapon is in a fixed position and not meant to be that easily moved. The same machine gun on a protomech is no where near as stable because it is what eight feet off the ground, the pivot point straight down which is concentrated in a relatively small area and the protomech is meant to be in consent movement.
This is where my question of height really comes into play. The question of it's "Pivot point" is moot, as it's entirely possible that the machine gun would be internally mounted and not in some external, "Main gun" mount like some proto weaponry- hell, it could be like some battlemechs and have a barrel instead of a hand. The statement of being "eight feet of the ground" doesn't really even matter- if the protomech is able to lift and fire the weapon while maintaining good accuracy, why would it's height off the ground matter?
Quote:
I am not as uneducated as Prince Of Darkness wants to believe.
heh
--------------------
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
