This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of BattleTech technology and equipment. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been flagged for review by the Project: Technology team. If you have reviewed this article, please remove the tr parameter from this template.

Regarding the in-game function of standard 2, 5, 10, and 20 ACs: compared to the alternatives, ACs are a poor alternative to missiles and lasers, even taking heat into account. Consider the Large Laser versus the AC/10. The AC/10 gives you a better heat to damage ratio, but at what cost? 12 tons plus at least one more ton of ammunition. If you invested a total of 12 tons into a Large Laser, you spend 5 for the laser, and 7 for heat sinks. That amounts to 8 damage and 1 heat at the same range, with fewer critical slots taken up. On top of that, the Large Laser costs half the C-Bills of an AC/10. Apply this same critique to all ACs and you will quickly find that you are much better off going with the alternative weapons. PLEASE NOTE: this may or may not apply to more up-to-date ACs. — The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Kendrick (talkcontribs) on 29 August 2008.

There are a few things I can think of. They do seem inefficient, but...

The AC/2 and AC/5 I see as super long range machine guns and medium lasers. Maybe useful for slow 'Mechs? I don't like them very much though.

The AC/10 has the damage of a PPC for a shorter range and no minimum range and less heat.

The AC/20 is the only 20 damage weapon that does 20 damage in every hit to a single location, without any minimum range (such as the heavy gauss rifle). The LRM 20 can potentially do 20 damage, but it is spread out.

That's my opinion on it. Haruspex 10:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Autocannon are in the game because they are throwbacks to the 20th Century weapons that we are familiar with today... the only differences being that the armour is much stronger (cross reference with Tech B Bar 5 armour as RHAe .... IOW Chobham II on M1A1 is equivelent to 700 mm RHAe... A Cannon (probably Light or Heavy Rifled Gun in the new weapons) that is stated to penetrate 300 mm to 333 mm (1/3rd of a Meter) of RHAe was stated to do no damage to the Mackie that it was fired against... Possibly 2-5 Damage points against the Standard Tech D Bar 10 armour with no penetration.) than that of today, requireing more shots to penetrate --Cameron 14:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)