What is the "Official" word on Autocannons?

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
SkorpionDrache
06/09/03 03:17 AM
68.159.145.109

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ive been playing Battletech for around nine years or so and this nagging question has bugged me for some time.
Basically,Ive read the various rule copendiums and novels over the years and noticed that depending on the publication,it either implies that an autocannon is either a multi-barreled chain gun type of system,or a single shot large caliber round.
When I think "Autocannon" Im thinking along the lines of the GAU-8A Avenger that the A-10 Warthog is armed with.Something that fires multiple depleated uranium rounds through a rotating barrel assembly.
This has been the stupid debate of choice with some of the folks Ive played with and I was just wondering if there is anything official on it.Not that it ultimately matters.Twin RAC-5s are equally leathal either way,and if your raeding this post,Jonathan,you know what Im talking about.
"Listen up privates,if you ain't cheatin',you ain't tryin',and if you get caught,you didn't try hard enough!"
Drill Sergeant Steinbacher
CrayModerator
06/09/03 06:38 AM
65.32.253.120

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In reply to:

Basically,Ive read the various rule copendiums and novels over the years and noticed that depending on the publication,it either implies that an autocannon is either a multi-barreled chain gun type of system,or a single shot large caliber round.
When I think "Autocannon" Im thinking along the lines of the GAU-8A Avenger that the A-10 Warthog is armed with.Something that fires multiple depleated uranium rounds through a rotating barrel assembly.




The answer is: both.

The artwork in TR:3060 definitely shows some LBX autocannons and UACs with multiple barrels. On the other hand, TR:3050 has shown normal ACs, LBXs, and UACs with single barrels. Only RACs ALWAYS have multiple barrels; other ACs may be single or multi-barrel.

However, all ACs are multi-shot. I suggest opening TR:3026 and reading the text on the Hetzer and Mechbuster, which definitely mention their AC/20s firing 4-10 shells in a burst.

AC sizes range from 25mm to 203mm, with variations in each AC class. For example, I've seen 150mm, 185mm, and 203mm AC/20s.

Plus, you should read your BMR. "An autocannon is a rapid-firing, auto-loading weapon that fires high speed streams of high-explosive, armor-piercing shells."

You don't fire "streams" of single large 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.
Dog
06/10/03 07:08 AM
68.8.235.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yeah i've noticed stuff like that too. Even with lasers the background on the mech design goes into how they used this manufacturer for this reason but the end result is the same.

So it seems that the damage and tonnage ratings are there as a guideline to how the weapon systems are mounted on the chassis but actual implementation of getting the rating/numbers varies by manufacturer.

Dog
Also got to remember that Battletech is simplified to make it playable, otherwise they're would be a hell of a lot more details thrown in for accuracy.
NathanKell
06/11/03 06:59 PM
67.86.63.119

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
BattleSpace Sourcebook, pp25-26
In reply to:

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.




Applies equally well to mech-scale weaponry.
-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
Watcher
06/22/03 05:44 AM
203.221.119.75

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I've always thought they fired a "stream" of rounds, the external view of the weapon depended on the manufacture and their way of making them.
Arzakon
07/07/03 05:38 PM
65.178.240.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In reply to:

Also got to remember that Battletech is simplified to make it playable, otherwise they're would be a hell of a lot more details thrown in for accuracy.




You mean like the fact that an average AC/5, with a barrel of about 120mm, can only throw a shell at most 540 meters, while an M1 Abrams today can fling that same shell almost three miles? If so, keep me away from the chemical propellants, they suck.
tgsofgc
08/08/03 07:42 PM
67.4.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
-You don't fire "streams" of single large shells. -
Let us not forget the time scale of Battletech games, each turn only represents 10 seconds. So I'd argue it is certainly with in the realm of belief to say they fire large shells. Namely a unit firing an autocannon every 10 seconds would create a stream of large shells.
About the real world equivalents and game reality I know very little except when considering barrel size and distances fired it is probally pretty essential to consider 2 more things, one reload time. Most modern cannons require some kind of cool down time or at minimium a small reload time. Two gamebalance vs reality. Generally as I can tell from my limited perspective of real weapondry the bigger the gun the further it can fire, this is exactly opposite to battletech, mainly cause it would destroy game balance, just imagine how good King Crabs could be?
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
CrayModerator
08/08/03 08:05 PM
24.165.242.1

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In reply to:

So I'd argue it is certainly with in the realm of belief to say they fire large shells. Namely a unit firing an autocannon every 10 seconds would create a stream of large shells.



You're not addressing part of my statement: I said "You don't fire "streams" of single large shells."

The original poster wondered if autocannons fired one shell every ten seconds or if they were like MGs and fired streams of shells. I was pointing out that the "single large shot" autocannon was incompatible with fluff descriptions of "streams" 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.
tgsofgc
08/08/03 09:53 PM
67.4.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Im not saying autocannons must be chain like or cannon like, to be honest I do't rightly care myself. I was just pointing out that when writing the fluff text that you sited about firing streams of shells FASA could have been referring to a larger time scale. Over three minutes, a cannon is capable of firing 18 shells. Yes I know this is nowhere near as fast as a machine gun, but it still seems relatively fast to me especially for a cannon. for instance yes I might be more hesiitant to use the word stream in comparision to a mahine gun but what if we compared the cannons to artillery?
As stated above I personally don't care, it seems in pictures LB-X are more often chain style, and regular and ultra are more often single barrel. This though is by no means standard. Personally I favor the idea of large caliber shells when I think of autocannons because of the type of damage districution. LRMs spread, LB-X cluster shots spread, but autocannon and ultra shots are single blasts like gauss rifles.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
NathanKell
08/08/03 11:44 PM
67.86.63.119

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Mike Stackpole in his novels uses the AC rating as the number of shells fired.
Numerous fluff sources point to many, many shells fired in a /burst/.

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
tgsofgc
08/09/03 01:42 AM
67.4.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ok, fair enough. Either way this link might intrest the original poster, it is one of those sites where someone is examining these same questions about autocannons.
http://rt000pui.eresmas.net/Battletech/Halstead_Station/Technology/autocannons.html
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058


Edited by tgsofgc (08/09/03 01:53 AM)
CrayModerator
08/09/03 01:55 PM
24.165.242.1

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In reply to:

Im not saying autocannons must be chain like or cannon like, to be honest I do't rightly care myself.



We're talking past each other. But since we're coming to the same conclusions about ACs, it doesn't matter.
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.
Diablo
08/12/03 12:24 PM
66.207.113.41

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Autocannon: a cannon that reloads itself automaticly.

AC/2,5,10,20: a referance to the damage potential in 10 seconds

single or multi barrel: heat dissipation preferance. depending on make and model.

Thus, an autocannon is a single or multibarrled cannon that automaticly reloads itself and depending on the make or model, fires varying sizes of shells at varying rates to give a damage potential in 10 seconds which is represented by the AC2,5,10,20 classifications. As for range, who knows. this game isnt realistic as it is and it's probably a game balancing thing.
"whats that bluish fuzzy thing on your head?"
-Luciphear to Talis, just before he exploded.

www.geocitis.com/luciph34r
davion76
08/19/03 10:28 PM
138.163.0.43

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
What matters for long range (meaning long range accuracy, as longrange means nothing if you can't hit your target) is a ratio of length to diameter. Added to this is rifeling. A rifled bullet is ouch more accurate and thus has a longer effective range. The longer barell does two things to increase the accuracy. 1st it increases the velocity (for a given pressure behind it) and 2nd it has a smaller angular variance and allows the user to more aptly point it at the target.
davion76
08/19/03 10:29 PM
138.163.0.43

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Not to mention that the DDX (US Navy Destroyer under development) will be using a 120mm gun as its main gun. It'll have a range of ~10 miles.
Vicen_Korel
10/11/03 10:08 PM
66.38.4.229

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
*goes to read his books*

Not that it matters but i always thought of the AC's as tank cannons that fired once around and reloaded. It's how they present it on Victor's Victor and in the video games. That makes sense to me considering that one shot only uses one shot of the ammo, if it was multi shots it seems to me that it should use more ammo.

Something that always bugged me is that the machine gun fires one point of ammo a round and does a set damage for this one shot. It seems to me that the machine gun should fire, oh 2d6 shots and then roll for every group of say, 3 to see if that group hits and were. It annoys me that an AC will go through it's ammo faster that a machine gun, that just seems wrong to me considering rate of fire deferences today.
"Nothing sends your love like an ER PPC"
--Vicen Korel
CrayModerator
10/12/03 08:40 AM
67.8.169.86

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In reply to:

Not that it matters but i always thought of the AC's as tank cannons that fired once around and reloaded.



Autocannons have never been described that way in BT novels. As far back as "Sword and the Dagger", autocannons were spewing huge numbers of rounds per salvo. "Sword and the Dagger," the first BT novel, went so far as to indicate each "shot" represented a cassette of ammo that the AC chewed through.

Further, there are actual rule descriptions of autocannons as firing multiple rounds per turn:

In reply to:

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.




You can look in TR:3026 and see how many rounds the Hetzer's and MechBuster's autocannons fire: they fire multiple rounds per burst. The MechBuster's AC/20 fires 4 shells, while the Hetzer's 150mm fires 10.

And Victor's Victor had a gauss rifle, which is a completely different weapon from an autocannon.

In reply to:

Something that always bugged me is that the machine gun fires one point of ammo a round and does a set damage for this one shot.



It's the lack of resolution in the BT armor and damage system. Each point of armor represents a lot of armor - 62.5kg/137lbs. Each point of damage done represents damage that totals up to the ablation of about 62.5kg of armor. Maybe it falls off from one spot, maybe it's nicked off in many spots.

And note under Level 3 rules, there is an option for variable MG damage. Look up MG optional rules in MaxTech.
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.
tgsofgc
10/13/03 05:18 PM
67.4.203.189

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The biggest problems with machine guns in my mind is the ammo explosion and the subsequent damage. Should a ton of mg ammo really be able to destroy nearly every mech?
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
Deathshadow
10/13/03 06:04 PM
24.128.172.206

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Curious thing about most weapon fuels... in any form. You leave them exposed, out in the open, most simply burn really fast, but you put them in a container, you get an explosion.

Case in point, take some black powder and pour it on the ground in a little pile (about 2" diameter). Now, light a match and drop it on it. When the powder goes off, it just goes poof with a flash of light and smoke. No explosion, hardly any noise.

Now take that same amount of powder and put it in a small capped jar, and put a cherry bomb fuse in the top. Light that sucker off and Wha-boom!

Containing the reaction is what makes the explosion. Now think about an ammo bay. It's intentionally designed to prevent damage from getting in. Guess what: it's likely equally effective at keeping the forces in... to a point. The pressure builds not able to escape fast enough through the feed mechanism or the hole poked in it that initiated the blast, until the whole thing explodes in a most spectacular fashion.

Hence the liability of any ammo based weapon.

On a curious note, in that little 'drop the match on the powder' I say above, you can observe another unusual phenominon. When you put the match on the powder, it doesn't go off right away, and in fact usually doesn't ignite until the match goes out. The reason for this is the gasses exiting the match (aka flame) are actually below the ignition point of black powder. Because the gasses are exiting on all sides, they act as an insulator. When the flame goes out, the still hot match-head makes contact igniting the powder. You can actually use this effect as a makeshift 1 second fuse.

Ok, I wasn't the safest child on the block to spend time with.
Kept my cool under lock and key,
and I never shed a tear,
another sign of my condidtion.
widowmaker
10/14/03 05:39 AM
24.171.110.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In reply to:

Ok, I wasn't the safest child on the block to spend time with.



Maybe not, but it sounds like you had the most fun.

Oh, the things you learn when you earn your chemistry merit badge...
widowmaker

What's your dice fetish?
tgsofgc
10/14/03 02:00 PM
67.4.202.37

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Lol believe it or not I knew that, and I assumed most others did too. There are reasons why mill explosions happen, got to love particle density.
Well heres some more great research done by vampire addressing this issue. Gosh his site is awesome.
Well heres the link:
http://rt000pui.eresmas.net/Battletech/Rules_revision/machineguns.html
And heres some quotes:
(all of the following is take from Vamp's article)
Present day equivalent: GE M61Vulcan
Number of barrels: 6
Caliber: 20x102mm
Weight of Round ( projectile+cartridge): 250g
Muzzle velocity: 1030 m/s ( roughly 3200 fps )
Cyclic Rate of Fire: 6000 rpm ( 100/sec )
Weight of gun: 125 kg
...
Weapon weight: Though the 0.5 tons figure was convenient for construction purposes, the weapon is far lighter than that, therefore, assign the extra weight to magazine plating and assume MG ammunition is protected by CASE at no additional cost, like Clan ammo bays. This is a convenient way of resolving MG ammo explosions, wich due to the flawed rules always resulted in unrealistic huge fireballs. Actually even CASE lacks short of the performance of similar system employed in the M1 Abrams tank.
...
And here is some ammo damage comparisions for ref:
Autocannons-
Ac2 (50/ton) = 100 damage
Ac5 (20/ton) = 100 damage
Ac10 (10/ton) = 100 damage
Ac20 (5/ton) = 100 damage
Missiles (and these are explosive weapons)-
LRM5 (24/ton) = 120 damage
LRM10 (12/ton) = 120 damage
LRM15 (8/ton) = 120 damage
LRM20 (6/ton) = 120 damage
*note SRMs are described in lore as High Explosive missiles
SRM2 (50/ton) = 200 damage
SRM4 (25/ton) = 200 damage
SRM6 (15/ton) = 180 damage
Now Machine Gun (note this is an armor peircing round or at best a mix of high explosive rounds, as apposed to entirely high explosive like SRMs)
MG (200/ton) = 400 damage
MG (100/.5 ton) = 200 damage
Come on thats just absurd. Which would cause a bigger explosions a ton of explosive missiles or a ton of ammunition that is probally at best less than 30% flammable materials.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
widowmaker
10/14/03 11:50 PM
24.171.110.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think the key point to answering that question is in your note:
In reply to:

(note this is an armor peircing round or at best a mix of high explosive rounds, as apposed to entirely high explosive like SRMs)



Armor piercing. Thus, despite the fact that it is, in fact, a smaller explosion, the ammunition rips through anything in it's way. See?

Sounds good, at any rate.
widowmaker

What's your dice fetish?
tgsofgc
10/15/03 03:12 AM
67.4.203.111

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Technically though Autocannon rounds would be armor peircing as well, and much larger. Though the ammunition causes less damage during explosion.
Plus if you look at the weapon weight of the modern equivalent its only like 125 kg.
Thats .125 tons, meaning battletech's rotary autocannons that pass for machine guns weigh .375 tons more. Personally I would imagine this extra weight is going somewhere, why not armored ammo bins. Another point to emphasize is no mater how backwards technology is in Battletech it is almost always more advanced than current, real technology. As Vamps points out The M1 abrams has a somewhat comparable gun and its ammo bays are protected more so than that offered by case while the gun and ammo weighs less than in battletech. Currently with the risk of ammo explosion there are only two reasons to ever risk carrying mgs. Technically the only time I see mgs used anymore is as a munchkin weapon shoved in mass into fast mechs. Any decent GM won't allow this and I dont think it offers a huge edge to the average mech with the mg. Note I'm not approaching the issue of ams, because I can accept that the automated components for tracking incoming missiles takes up all this extra weight.
sigh... or mabe I'm a grumpy, bitter, old man.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
CrayModerator
10/15/03 07:39 AM
147.160.1.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In reply to:

As Vamps points out The M1 abrams has a somewhat comparable gun and its ammo bays are protected more so than that offered by case while the gun and ammo weighs less than in battletech



Vampire has some unusual, non-canon opinions on how BT weaponry works.

For example, comparing the Abrams' main gun to BT autocannons only goes so far. The Abrams fires one shell every 6 to 12 seconds. A BT 120mm autocannon may fire 5 or more shells per turn. The Hetzer's 150mm AC fires 10 shells per 10-second turn, which indicates that on a shell-per-shell basis, BT ammo is lighter than RL ammo. (20kg per 150mm shell vs 25-30kg per 120mm shell).

Also, vehicles gain superior protection from CASE comparable to the Abrams' system in MaxTech's L3 rules.
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.
Vicen_Korel
10/15/03 09:44 AM
216.69.5.22

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
not to be disrespectful to my elders, but the victor comes with an AC/20
"Nothing sends your love like an ER PPC"
--Vicen Korel
CrayModerator
10/15/03 12:05 PM
68.200.106.99

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
No, the original Victor comes with an AC/20. The TR:3050 model that Victor Steiner-Davion promoted was equipped with a Gauss Rifle.

http://www.mechground.com/Readout/3050/Readout/Battlemechs/InnerSphere/VTR-9K%20Victor.html

http://www.battletecharchive.net/isassualt/victora.html

In reply to:

Technical Readout: 3050
....This BattleMech, a Federated Commonwealth design with the same name as that realm's heir to the throne, was one of the first to get special priority for increased production and widespread deployment throughout the Federated Commonwealth. It was also an early candidate for recovered Star League-era technology.
....It is ironic that the Victor is no longer produced in the Federated Commonwealth. Despite all the advance planning, the Draconis Combine captured the world of Quentin in the War of 3039-and with it, Independence Weaponry, the Federated Commonwealth's only producer of the Victor. House Kurita now produces the upgraded design for its own regiments, and the Federated Commonwealth has been reduced to purchasing the entire output of the HildCo Interplanetary factory in the St. Ives Compact.
....The new model VTR-9K employs endo steel in its internal structure, which lightens the weight enough to accommodate upgraded weapons. The original Victor's two medium lasers have been replaced with pulse technology, and the 'Mech sports a mammoth Gauss rifle in place of an AC/20. Cellular Ammunition Storage Equipment protects the pilot in case the gauss rifle explodes.



Can you quote a part of a novel where Victor's Victor fired an autocannon instead of a gauss rifle?



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 (10/15/03 12:07 PM)
Deathshadow
10/15/03 07:40 PM
24.128.172.206

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Lethal Heritage, Page 130

"Victor dropped his Autocannon's gold crosshairs"

"The storm of depleted uranium shells again burrowed into the Raider's left shoulder"

Page 131
"The Autocannon slugs ripped a scar down the Thor's left side"

It was the start of the invasion, and contrary to how people keep misplaying it, the defenders had no level 2 equipment. Lostech and newtech didn't make it onto the field until after the meeting on Outreach.

Almost all the 'mechs for TRO 3050, especially the revised one, are completely innapropriate for 3050, as other than the clan 'mechs none of them saw field duty until late '51 to mid '52. Dragoon 'mechs make no sense as they stayed off the field until '52, and were still hiding their newtech prior to the outreach gathering; Comstar didn't drag their improved stuff out until organizing for Tukkayid in late '52, and the field upgrades and newtech weren't being delivered until after/during the outreach meeting either. (Teddy the K even mentions that)

If anything, TRO 3050 is really just a mislablelled 3052.
Kept my cool under lock and key,
and I never shed a tear,
another sign of my condidtion.
CrayModerator
10/15/03 08:00 PM
68.200.106.99

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Fair enough on the Victor, though it shows it fired a helluva lot of shells with each trigger pull.

And the canon Tales of the Black Widow introduced L2 equipment long before the invasion. The Star League Memory Core (Gray Death Trilogy, 20 Year Update) was discovered in the late 3020s, and the 20 Year Update definitely indicates Comstar was giving the DCMS Star League-era equipment in the 3030s for the War of 3039.

So, yes, the equipment in TR:3050 was entirely appropriate. It was first- and second-generation attempts by the Houses to field L2 gear.
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.
Vicen_Korel
10/15/03 10:42 PM
66.38.6.201

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yeah, now that i read it again i realize it is a lot of shells, the part that had gotten me backwards was when victor was talking about the gun jamming. I'm not use to thinking of a mech size gun being able to shoot that fast, i guess i'm too use to the video game versions.
"Nothing sends your love like an ER PPC"
--Vicen Korel
widowmaker
10/16/03 12:37 AM
24.171.110.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You know guys, if you would read the very beginning of TR:3050, the fluff introduction actually says:

The rapid pace of events and even more rapid proliferation of sophisticated weaponry have delayed the issue of this book. Intended for release in 3050, as stated in the title, the book would have been out of date before it reached the hands of its intended readers. Precentor XX-eta Lilith Sebastian wisely ordered wholesale revisions before the volume reached the printer. The cover, unfortunately, could not be called back.
So it is in 3052 that this volume...

...--Merle Jimmus
Adept XXI-sigma
ComStar Archives, Terra
8 February, 3052


So you see, they openly admit that the title is misleading. As the badly overused cliche says, "Read the book."
widowmaker

What's your dice fetish?
widowmaker
10/16/03 12:50 AM
24.171.110.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In reply to:

Can you quote a part of a novel where Victor's Victor fired an autocannon instead of a gauss rifle?



I'm not going to insist that I'm correct here, but I can't think of an instance where Victor's Victor fired a gauss rifle. The way I remember, Victor went from piloting the Victor (with the AC20), to piloting Prometheus (his Dire Wolf). I don't remember him ever piloting a Victor with a gauss rifle.

If I'm wrong, point me to the book. I need to read more.
widowmaker

What's your dice fetish?
CrayModerator
10/16/03 05:37 AM
68.200.106.99

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Fair 'nuff.
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.
Diablo
10/20/03 07:22 AM
24.114.50.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
May I point out that it's probably not the Propellent explosion that causes the damage, it's the subsiquest shooting off of the prjectile heads into the internal structure that does the damage. so ya, I can see about 12000 (assuming a MG fires 60 rounds in 6 seconds) machine gun bullets ripping through internal structure doing that much damage. although you must account for the fact that the ammuniton will not be reaching it's intended damage potential due to the lack of space and accuricy. but that may be offset by the explosion itself.
"whats that bluish fuzzy thing on your head?"
-Luciphear to Talis, just before he exploded.

www.geocitis.com/luciph34r
tgsofgc
10/20/03 12:35 PM
67.4.200.133

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yes but would 1200 small bullets cause more damage than huge explosions (ie missile ammo) or even the blowing through of giant armor peircing rounds (ie auto cannons). If you look at the damage charts an autocannon which we decided earlier fires bursts of shells, each much much larger, faster, and more damaging to armor would do far less damage to the is.? Think of it this way, just for illustrating my point of view. You have a concrete room and in the middle of this reinforced concrete room is one case of ammunition. This case could either be small arms rounds or explosives (possibly grenades). Either way this case weighs the same. If each were to explode Despite the ammunition being shot into every corner of the room I would expect the case of grenades to do far more damage. Similarly I expect that in battletech the explosion of the ammunition of anti armor weapons inside a mech would cause much more damage than the explosion of anti infantry weapons with in a mech.
Also from a new stand point:
Dismissing reality and considering Battletech simply as a game. It is illogical to put in components towards a game that are useless. As currently modelled Machine guns are generally useless because they have three uses as I can percieve.
1. Munchkin designs, ie 50 machine guns
2. Anti Infantry
3. Low weight secondary weapon.
Assuming no GM allows a player to use option #1. In option #2 the unit gets a good infantry fighting weapon at the cost of space to mount an anti armor weapon. Unfortunately the risk of huge ammo explosions means in early tech at least this pointless. Do I risk any unit getting a single lucky hit and killing my 100 ton mech just so i can kill infantry somewhat faster? Option 3 is a similar arguement. For instance if I have limited extra weight small lasers are almost always a safer better choice. And if I had sufficient tonnage to mount multiple mgs to decrease the extra weight cost of ammunition I can usually use the tonnage to mount light weapon systems with better range like small missile racks or lasers. If mg ammo wasn't so over the top destructive it would bring at least uses 2 and 3 back in line with the game.
So why did battletech make it like this?
1. It limits option 1, a mech loaded down with machine guns. Or one that abuses them as a low heat anti armor weapon can find it self exploding.
2. To encourage a choice between it and small lasers. A small laser does 3 damage and with 1 heat sink does 0 heat. If machine gun ammo didnt come in such large packs that you can save tonnage when mounting multiple there would never be a reason to use it over a small laser.
3. Because they couldn't think of a better system with out making the game more complex, such as the extra complexity of giving mg ammo free localized case. This in any boad game can quickly become unweildy. As battletech was initially percieved as a board game and I am sure designers already questioned its complexity (which is minimal in comparision to some other modern war games) they may have wanted to avoid changes.
4. Didnt plan on adding CASE. Well the clan stuff wasn't planned and added with the new tech till players excepted huge ammo explosions as cannon. At that point changing the older base rules on a weapons very function would have been unpopular.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
widowmaker
10/21/03 03:03 AM
24.171.110.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You're leaving out the most obvious reason why the initial designers modeled MG ammo that way: they liked making 'Mechs go BOOM!!! Why do you think so many original 'Mechs had MGs?
widowmaker

What's your dice fetish?
Deathshadow
10/21/03 04:20 PM
24.128.172.206

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Actually, without the barrel to hold the shell casing intact and contain the expanding gasses, the bullets aren't going to do anything! The reason bullets go fast is the gasses of the fast burning propellant are contained inside the barrel. If they are allowed to expand outward the moment the seal on the casing goes, they really aren't going to accellerate up to speed at all. It's the sudden release of gasses in an armored enclosed space (like an ammo bin) that's going to do the real damage; not the bullets themselves.

You ever set off a gun-round outside a gun? The sides of the shell casing explode out in all directions, and the round just kind of 'pops' up into the air a foot or two. In truth, it doesn't come out as that big an explosion, but that stands to reason as the force is allowed to expand in all directions since it's no longer contained in the narrow pipe of a barrel. As such, it would take a lot of rounds to add up to enough force; like that in an ammo bin.

Again, I wasn't the safest kid to be around.

Too much hollywood. I always laugh myself silly when they have something like a ammo belt tossed into a fire, and they have bullets firing off and richocheting everywhere. 100% fiction, doesn't work that way. Kind of like the uber-fireballs that directors insist on when they have explosiongs. Rarely, if ever, do you get fireballs like those from ANY high-order explosive. Remember OK City? No fireballs there!

Explosions are caused by rapidly expanding gasses. While this is often from combustion, that type of burn is usually so fast it consumes all the oxygen long before you get anything resembling a flame.
Kept my cool under lock and key,
and I never shed a tear,
another sign of my condidtion.
Vicen_Korel
10/24/03 03:09 PM
216.69.5.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
what about ultra auto's?
"Nothing sends your love like an ER PPC"
--Vicen Korel
Diablo
11/02/03 01:45 AM
24.114.50.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ultra Autocannons are autocannons designed to spit out more shells per round. normal autocannons and wern't designed with this in mind and were upgraded by the Ultra varient and LBX AC's were designed with the shotgun aspect. it's becuase of the Ultra AC's that regular AC's phased out.
"whats that bluish fuzzy thing on your head?"
-Luciphear to Talis, just before he exploded.

www.geocitis.com/luciph34r
sinsear
11/03/03 12:49 AM
211.26.118.52

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In the absence of anything solid, I've decided to use the technique that FASA have used for so long in resolving these matters.

I'll make something up.

Autocannons use a rotating barrel assembly, which allows a quick loading procedure. The barrel is fired much like a revolver is, except that when the barrel is out of line of the firing pin (at between 7 and 4 o'clock, if viewed from front on) the next shell is injected.
Ammo is stored in clips, with one for each barrel. AC-2's have two rotating barrels, AC-20's have twenty. The ammunition is stored in clips of between 2 and 20 respectively.
Whena clip is depleted, it is ejected from the breach, and a new clip is moved up to replace it. This causes a small delay in firing.

Some autocannons have the rotating barrels housed in a cowl or external cover, but keep a single longer fixed barrel as the main firing barrel. This allows less moving parts to be exposed, hence, less maintence or possibliity or the weapon being knocked out, whereas a whole rotating barrel assembly is superflous, as one barell being knocked out renders the weapon useless (firing into a blocked barell), just as having the main fixed barrel does.

Ultra autocannons have a selector that allows two clips to be loaded simultaneously.
One clip loads every even barrel, at 7 o'clock, whilst the other clip loads the odd barrels at 4 o'clock. Thus the load time is faster, and the delay between clip reloads is doubled, allowing for "Ultra bursts".
The increase in moving parts however increases the likelyhood of an ammo jam.

Whaddya think?
CrayModerator
11/03/03 06:11 AM
68.200.106.99

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

In the absence of anything solid,




FASA and FanPro have provided a lot of solid descriptions of autocannons. In fact, the post you responded to (by NathanKell) contained one of those descriptions. The artwork for mechs often includes clear pictures of single-barreled weapons. Multi-barrel weapons are generally rare and tend to appear on mechs with UACs or RACs.
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.
tgsofgc
11/03/03 10:43 PM
67.4.193.233

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
oh no not this thread again...
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
CrayModerator
11/04/03 05:39 AM
68.200.106.99

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yup, five months and counting. But it's staying near the top of the stack in this forum, so it's getting a lot of readers.
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.
Vicen_Korel
04/15/04 11:29 AM
66.38.4.205

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
um...so what about RAC's, shouldn't they be just a different AC if the numbers simply the damage potenial for ten seconds...see where i'm getting?
"Nothing sends your love like an ER PPC"
--Vicen Korel
CrayModerator
04/15/04 12:12 PM
68.200.105.33

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

um...so what about RAC's, shouldn't they be just a different AC if the numbers simply the damage potenial for ten seconds...see where i'm getting?



...RACs are specifically different than standard ACs in that RACs can fire up to 6x as much ammo as standard ACs of the same class. Even if an AC/5 has the same number of barrels as a RAC/5, the RAC/5 is distinctly heavier and can use 6x as much ammo as the standard AC/5. So, no, RACs shouldn't be just different ACs...they're entirely distinct weapons with unique abilities not found in standard ACs.

In other words, don't mistake similar form for similar function. RACs are different weapons.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
Extra information
1 registered and 52 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: 19218


Contact Admins Sarna.net