Auto-cannon Measurements

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | >> (show all)
Grizzly
03/22/02 11:01 AM
12.108.119.227

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If you really want to know Karagin, the secret source is me! I got tired of hearing you two bickering back and forth about a point that is moot. Both measurements are the same thing! 10cm=100mm, that's not an opinion but a statement of fact.

And as I stated in my earlier post about "does size really matter?!?" The writers are using the analoguous measuring system to enhance their fiction. It wouldn't matter which one is used, they are the same. The only reason I went on a hunt for information was to give you your request to cite page and source. Which I did for both qoutes.

You always ask for the exact source whenever you question someones validity, well now you have it. Maybe you can take some one at their word and just agree to disagree with each other, instead of getting a flame fest started.

It is now proven that centimeters have been used in the fiction to describe autocannon size, can we please now get back to discussing Battletech and not "yelling" at each other.
"I am but mad north-northwest, when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw" Hamlet
Karagin
03/22/02 11:20 AM
63.173.170.172

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Where did ever say they differed? I said the game sticks to milimeters for the most part, the rule books give them in that format and most of the authors do as well, thus up until now it has always been that way, and two times doesn't change the fact that for all purposes they are in milimeters.

Now it's not my fault Cray couldn't live with that and had to go off...the whole thread went down hill when got mad over my asking for a source...so how about jumping on his case not mine...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/22/02 11:21 AM
63.173.170.172

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It shows that if you can't win here or at least get the upper hand you are willing to take it else where to get your points across and thus fan more flames...but hey that's my opinion...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
03/22/02 11:34 AM
204.245.128.3

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>It shows that if you can't win here or at least get the upper hand you are willing to take it else where

"Win" here? That wasn't about "winning" it was about looking up a point I disagreed with you on.

Offhand, I could not think of the page reference you wanted, so I broadened the search. That isn't "fanning the flames," that's answering the question.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Karagin
03/22/02 11:39 AM
63.173.170.172

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
But you see I wasn't...I was point out that 99% of the game mechcanics and authors used the MM as given in the rules...Cray is the one that turn this into posting to win...not me...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
03/22/02 11:39 AM
204.245.128.3

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>If you're posting to "win," you've already lost.

Here, here.

>What about Charrette's 5cm lasers? That always struck me as an odd way to measure lasers...

I would've gone by energy output, personally. A laser point reflected off a 1m focusing mirror is a 1m laser, but doesn't say much about its firepower.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Karagin
03/22/02 11:40 AM
63.173.170.172

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Sorry I disagree, but again you have to be right so I guess you win and next time all will simplly ask you so as not to have you after them like a vigilant...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/22/02 11:45 AM
63.173.170.172

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Why don't you go back and read the WHOLE thread again...once more let me point out something, the rule book, the supposed finial word on things, list the size of the guns in milimeters, now 2 points come up to where poor proofreading misses that and fails to change...again the rule book is fact and doesn't change as does the writing of an author from book to book.

As to your last comment guess you are more into that part about posting to bait...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
03/22/02 11:59 AM
63.173.170.172

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Thanks for personal attack...

And I was trying to be helpful...but hey I guess you can see any way you want...so have fun...

And don't bother replying to this since I could careless about your opinions.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Grizzly
03/22/02 12:07 PM
12.108.119.227

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I thought that I was fair and even handed in my criticism of the whole situation. I requested that "please now get back to discussing Battletech and not "yelling" at each other." If that statement isn't inclusive of everyone involved I don't know what is. I'm sorry if you feel persecuted, mayhaps you have issues of your own to deal with. It just seemed that you were persecuting everyone who did not feel the same way that you did.

I agree that for the most part the game does use millimeters, but you were inferring that Cray was wrong for wanting to use centimeters. If I want to call a 12cm or 120mm gun something else in my "battletech Universe" I can. If you want to call it something else in you version of Battletech, you can do that as well.

All I was doing was giving you the material that you requested with a page reference so that you could confirm the facts for yourself.
"I am but mad north-northwest, when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw" Hamlet
Spartan
03/22/02 11:21 PM
172.133.109.46

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
"for the most part"

I don't know but for some reason that particular sentence fragment just really sticks out at me. Something about the non-absoluteness of it. I.E. IT'S OKAY TO USE THE CM MEASUREMENTS IF SOMEONE WANTS TO AND IT DOESN'T MAKE A LICK OF DIFFERENCE IF THEY DO! It's no different than an engineer using ft/s instead of mph (or m/s instead of kph). Most people use the latter, engineers will use either. It's not breaking any rules, it's just using a different standard! *Different* not wrong.
Spartan

We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

(I refer you to what Nightward said)
KG_Brandenburg
03/24/02 12:14 PM
24.162.144.193

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Im new to this forum but i shall try to give my input on the size of the AC.1st and formost. Ya take things to litteral. As with alot of things in the BattleTech universe, Things are more or less abstract.The size of the # on the Auto cannon represents hitting power and "might"give you a clue to its actual size.a AC 20 could be as little as 10cm\100mm or as much as 30cm\300mm. It doesnt matter really

Ya are trying to say that a AC2 is a little bitty 20 or 25 mm. That is obsurd. Not on a big battlemech. I play millitrary style games abunch and am a Moder in the Close combat community so i have a inclination to know the real values of such of weapons.

Im in my game room now,1 of my modder\mapper buddies says he also takes it to mean litterally in mm AC10=100mm. His oppinion on alot of things hold concinderable weight with me but not in this case. He pointed out that the ammo load out is smaller as the class goes up. True. But what about the AC2. It has a load out of 45. uuhh ppl the German armored car in WW II had a 2cm L\55 had a load out of roughly 250+. In saying that the Ammo load outs that battle tech use cant really give u a indecation to size if your are trying to say it represents a real life calibre of weapon

I am planning to Mod this game i play "Close Combat III" and make it Battle Tech infantry.In saying that i have give considerable thought to the actuall size of a AC w/ its related reload speed,ammo load out, range,weight,chamber rate,explosion radius, ect.Still havent figured out how to represent lasers though. I dont wanna redo the weapon fire sprites across the board. Wont be able to have regular riflees\machinguns then and in the BT universe i believe that ordinary weapons arre more prevelant that infantry laser rifles:)

Dunno if i will get to it.Kinda got another mod project and if i dont finish up my data tables , certain ppl might get a little upset.heheheh.

Just my thoughts on this topic. If you wish to discuse this matter or any other matter for that fact. You can catch me at my hang out @ Microsoft gamming zone"close Combat III". Sorry,dont have the ling handy so that will have to do.

BTW. It doesnt matter if it says cm\mm. Its all the same. its a measurment of a item.2cm =20 mm. Doesnt matter if the BT books use cm\mm. its all the same
CrayModerator
03/24/02 12:53 PM
12.91.128.209

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>Ya are trying to say that a AC2 is a little bitty 20 or 25 mm. That is obsurd. Not on a big battlemech.

pg74, Invading Clans: "Alternate Configuration CF boasts a pair of LRM-15 launchers, with two tons of ammo provided for each. A pair of ***25mm*** high-speed chain guns allows the Cauldron-Born-C to place more accurate, if less effective, fire on an enemy's position."

pg75, Alternate Configuration C of the Cauldron born has 2 Ultra AC/2s.

pg124, BMR (unrevised): AUTOCANNON
An autocannon is a rapid-firing, auto-loading weapon that fires high-speed streams of high-explosive, armor-piercing shells. Light autocannon range in caliber from **30** to 90mm..."

So 20-25mm is not out of line.

>It has a load out of 45. uuhh ppl the German armored car in WW II had a 2cm L\55 had a load out of roughly 250+.

Open your copy of Technical Readout 3026 and read up on the Hetzer and Mechbuster. Both mount AC/20s that fire multiple shells per "shot". Logically, AC/2s also fire multiple shells. A 20mm AC/2 may also fire 5-6 shells per "shot," therefore actually have 250 shells (or more) per ton, though it only has 45 "shots" per ton.
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.
KG_Brandenburg
03/24/02 01:57 PM
24.162.144.193

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Dude, dont get technical w\me about the Game stats ok.45 per ton. So u are trying NOW tellin me that 45 20\25 mm weighs a TON.That is roughly 2000 lbs. That comes out to like 44 lbs per shell.20 mm shells weigh like maby 5 lbs tops. As i said it is a Abtract representation of real life weapons.

God ppl, use allittle common sence here.All of you are taking things to litteral in this matter.As i said, as w\most sci-fi stuff, things are absractl in there depiction of various aspects of what ever it is they are talking about

Your quoting from a scorce book. You are tellin me that some book worm knows more bout weapons and there effect than I.Thats kinda dillussional thinkin i would say

I will loosely base the mod im workin on on some data that they give.Very loosely as things must be in mm of penetration value and range of said weapon. It will have infantry and armor only.

I will cut this short and look forward to a reply.Got kids to tend too so L8ta:)

BTW. if u must get technical ,pls do. I got a huge collection of battletech books.
novakitty
03/24/02 02:02 PM
209.242.100.230

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
His point was that in battletech, autocannons of the same rating do not neccessarily have the same bullet radius. Rate of fire is a factor in the definition also, yet for game simplicity, there are only 4 damage scales for small (not naval class) autocannons. I would recommend re-reading Cray's last paragraph.
meow
KamikazeJohnson
03/24/02 02:08 PM
209.202.47.12

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Actually, the "realism" of the weapons has very little to do with the question at hand, which was an attempt to remain consistent with existing source material. So even though, realistically, such a weapon would be an order of magnitude larger, describing it as such within the bounds of the game universe would be inconsistent, same as bringing in hand-held energy weapons that fire over a mile.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
CrayModerator
03/24/02 02:59 PM
12.91.121.246

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>So u are trying NOW tellin me that 45 20\25 mm weighs a TON

No, I'm not. I'd appreciate it if you at least read my posts before replying.

>20 mm shells weigh like maby 5 lbs tops

More like 1lb, tops. I have a dummy 20mm shell sitting on my shelf.

Wait, wait. Question for you: You DO know each "shot" an MG or AC fires in BT consists of more than one shell, right?

So the 45 "shots" in a ton of AC/2 ammo can consist of hundreds of shells?
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.
KG_Brandenburg
03/24/02 03:05 PM
24.162.144.193

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
i did read his post and come to think of it he actually helped make my point:)He is speaking in abstract terms is he not.AC2=30 mm to 90 mm. Thats itself is abstract way of dealing with the auto cannons so thx for help makin my point.Dude, i was just tryin to make a simple point and you had to be quoting out a scorce manual.Well,i was takin my info out of a book published by the state department in '55 LOL.

Havent descided how i will code the weapon types for the auto cannons. Probally will have the 3 basic types of ammo. AP,HE,and HEAT

All i was trying to do was answer the question at hand. I was baffled how so many post could come from a relatively simple question.i have done so in my oppinion.

As for the scale of damage that a AC2 will produce is 2 points of damage and produce 1 heat point.

When i do the data for such weapons. I will find a base weapon data. Start with the AC 10. Make the AC20 trice as powerful but half the range. Make the AC5 and 2 the same way. Thats what the author of the books did. Did they not.That is what u call "abstract"

BTW. The battletech novels rock. I enjoy reading them more than playing the game. For the most part they are very entertaining to read

Branden
NathanKell
03/24/02 03:44 PM
24.44.238.62

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
And what does a manual from the State Department, dated 1955, have to do with a fictional universe dated *30* 55?
Also, if you're looking for base weapon data, why not try the Battletech rules? They're rather explicit on range, you see.
-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
03/24/02 04:21 PM
12.91.121.246

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>He is speaking in abstract terms is he not

When I give hard caliber numbers like 25mm or 203mm, no. I'm quoting a BT sourcebook. When I speak of AC/2 or AC/10, I'm speaking in the abstracted terms of the rules.

>AC2=30 mm to 90 mm.

I never said that. I quoted the Battletech Master Rules, which says, "An autocannon is a rapid-firing, auto-loading weapon that fires high-speed streams of high-explosive, armor-piercing shells. Light autocannon range in caliber from 30 to 90mm..."

"Light autocannons" do not begin and end with class-2 autocannons.

>I was baffled how so many post could come from a relatively simple question.

Because it turned into a flame war.

I would still like to know: do you think autocannons fire a single projectile per attack they make?
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.
KG_Brandenburg
03/24/02 04:56 PM
24.162.144.193

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Autocannons fire several projectals per attack do the not.Correction there. They fire several, yes and no. Actualy its easyer on the book keeping to do it that way

Flame war? Bout what may i ask.I must confess that i had my kids w\me so only glanced through it all.To hard to concentrate on the post and them.

I was just sayijng that the weapons are done very abstractly. There is a reason for that. to preserve consistancy w\the data on the weapons.Thats all. If all of ya are goin on w/me about small minute details. I can very well see how this got turned into a flame war.I have no need to flame another.

Think this is something. You all should read my post on a game im modding. Was most hard on the programers. Just ran across several irregularities in the data i was workin on and expressed my ammasement and was dumbfounded at there lack of historical knowledge

Getting back to the types of attacks autocannons fire. Im not sure. I know that LRM ,MRM,SRM must roll to c how many hit. not sure on AC. I dought it though.

Dude, only reason i even found this sight is i was collecting pics for a certain fille i would have to edit.Just needed the house icons.I think it will be loosely based in the 4th succession war period. Prefere that period in the BT history compared to all others

branden

KG_Brandenburg
03/24/02 05:11 PM
24.162.144.193

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
OK dude i was gunna let that comment slide.NAAA dont think so.
"And what does a manual from the State Department, dated 1955, have to do with a fictional universe dated *30* 55? "

HMM it has actually a awfull lot to do with it.Damn, this it far to easy. Ya are makin my point for me here. Well sence someone wanted to make a comment about the dimmensions of the AC shells. I thought i would dig allittle and give data on the real life counterparts.That book and its weapons have nothing to do w/the fictional unerverse that is Battletech. 1st of all dude.

The weapons data in the BT books are most irrelevent to my needs.Lets see,1st of all. I need actual penetration values in mm not 1\2 ton\full ton lots. Second of all i need the range in meeters not hex's. Just checked. each hex is = to roughly 100 meeters. that will not help me much sence the playin field that i have to work with is rarely larger that 500 meeters.Alot of the weapons i knowticed had a short range of 1-7.Wont work. Wont make a very good mod.Playability would really blow if the short range was set to such.

As i said, it will be a infantry mod w\tanks and hovercrafts and field guns. Started it awhile back. Guess i might start work on it again

One more thing. Do not let the date of that book fool you. It wasnt "Clasified "for 10 years for nothing. Actually written in march of 45.(just F Y I)

Branden
CrayModerator
03/24/02 05:59 PM
12.91.121.246

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>Autocannons fire several projectals per attack do the not.Correction there. They fire several, yes and no. Actualy its easyer on the book keeping to do it that way

Firing what way? I'm having trouble parsing through your statement.

Autocannons fire bursts with each "shot." Just read up on the Hetzer and Mechbuster. The 45 shots of an AC/2 may represent hundreds of individual projectiles. A 20mm AC/2 is thus well within the realm of possibility - it would fire more shells per "shot" than a 30 or 40mm AC/2.

>I was just sayijng that the weapons are done very abstractly

Yes, their combat statistics are abstract. The fluff text in Technical Readouts and novels are less abstract, sometimes quite specific.

>If all of ya are goin on w/me about small minute details.

It's not the small details of the weapons, it's the small details of saying things like, "So u are trying NOW tellin me that 45 20\25 mm weighs a TON" when I did not, and "Ya are trying to say that a AC2 is a little bitty 20 or 25 mm" when there is a rock hard statement in the books that AC/2s do include 25mm weapons.

>Getting back to the types of attacks autocannons fire. Im not sure

ACs do not apply damage like missile weapons. They fire multiple shells (typically), as described in the Mechbuster and Hetzer fluff text, but apply the damage to a single hit location with unvarying damage value.

>Dude, only reason i even found this sight is i was collecting pics for a certain fille i would have to edit.Just needed the house icons.

www.classicbattletech.com has excellent picture archives of all House and Clan symbols. It's now the official BT website since Fanpro picked up the license for the game.
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.
novakitty
03/24/02 06:21 PM
209.242.100.230

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If you can get your hands on the Solaris 7 boxed set, it has rules for smaller area, shorter round mech combat.
meow
NathanKell
03/24/02 06:22 PM
24.44.238.62

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Here, this is the best section of any BT rulebook / sourcebook I know of describing ACs...

In reply to:

BattleSpace Sourcebook, pp25-26
Autocannons:
The direct descendants of the gunpowder weapons first used on ancient Terra, autocannons use a chemical charge to propel an explosive-tipped, unguided projectile at the target. There are four types of autocannon, three of which are standard weapons used in war machines from fighters to BattleMechs. The fourth is solely a naval weapon.
The standard autocannon is a rapid-firing auto-loading weapon, with a caliber ranging from 30 to 200 millimeters. Modern-day military experts grade these weapons not by caliber, but by damage potential. For example, the damage potential of a rapid-fire, 50mm cannon may place it in a higher damage category, whereas a 200mm cannon with a slow rate of fire might be classified as a medium damage weapon.
The so-called "ultra" group autocannon fire at faster than normal rates, increasing potential damage. However, this extremely rapid rate of fire makes the ammunition feed more likely to jam and reduces accuracy. The ultra-rapid fire mode means that in many cases, fewer than half the shells fired actually hit the target. To compensate for this problem, many ultra cannons are designed to fire at the standard rate as well, allowing the operator to switch to ultra mode when presented easier targets.
The LB-X series of autocannon are similar to standard cannon, but may also fire a "shotgun" shell. The larger, lighter shell increases the likelihood of hitting the target, but does less damage than the heavier standard projectile.
The fourth class of autocannon, found only on WarShips and space stations, weighs between two and five thousand tons. Though the chemical propellants they use limit their range to that of conventional autocannons, naval autocannon (NAC) can do tremendous damage by virtue of their colossal size. One or two shells alone may destroy a DropShip. However, like most naval weapons, their size also prevents them from accurately tracking small, swift targets.


-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
03/25/02 08:24 AM
63.173.170.46

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
My God man, do you have keep at this? Once again you have to be right!

The authors have written that the AC are akin to the Vulcan weapons is spitting out a stream of shells, and on some armored cars in WW2 they had autocannons that fired of clips...why don't you step out side of the game and READ a book on weapons.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Bob_Richter
03/25/02 08:33 AM
4.35.174.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>>>Second of all i need
the range in meeters not hex's.<<

Each Battletech hex has a 30m diameter circle transcribed in it.

Battletech's weapons ranges are notoriously and insanely short.

This makes for better "playability"
-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
03/25/02 10:04 AM
204.245.128.3

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>My God man, do you have keep at this?

KG Brandenburg brought up an almost entirely new subject unrelated to our discussion elsewhere in our thread. I wanted to respond. It's not a flame war or anything - it's an interesting discussion. If you feel like contributing, go for it. If you just want to re-start the flame war, please stay away.

>The authors have written that the AC are akin to the Vulcan weapons is spitting out a stream of shells, and on some armored cars in WW2 they had autocannons that fired of clips...

Karagin, a question: Do you think that statement in someway contradicts something I said? If yes, what statement of mine does it contradict or disagree with?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Karagin
03/25/02 10:06 AM
63.173.170.46

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yes, your whole answer back to KG.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
03/25/02 10:18 AM
204.245.128.3

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I want specific quotes that show where my errors were, with detailed dissertation on how I showed ignorance of WWII weaponry. Come now, Karagin, you have the perfect opportunity to display my utter ignorance of this topic.

For example, you say this is completely wrong:

"Logically, AC/2s also fire multiple shells. A 20mm AC/2 may also fire 5-6 shells per "shot," therefore actually have 250 shells (or more) per ton, though it only has 45 "shots" per ton."

Then you said:

"The authors have written that the AC are akin to the Vulcan weapons is spitting out a stream of shells, and on some armored cars in WW2 they had autocannons that fired of clips"

This in no way, shape, or form contradicts my prior statement that AC/2s fire multiple bullets per "shot" or that a ton of AC/2 ammo may hold hundreds of bullets. I rather agree with your statement by itself actually, I just don't see how it proves me wrong on any point.
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 (03/25/02 10:43 AM)
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | >> (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 33 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 enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 36099


Contact Admins Sarna.net