Karagin
04/26/21 03:15 PM
70.118.172.64
|
https://www.sarna.net/news/
I am calling this article out as pure silliness. First off, the author takes the Battletech AutoCannons (ACs) and compares them to the range and damage of real-world artillery.
Okay bad call, mainly because the ACs are supposed to be the next step of the main tank guns and chain guns we see in real-world tanks and other Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs). This means that the entire article is trying to make the claim that the ACs are in fact artillery weapons.
Second, real-world weapons things working differently than BT. Smaller calibers DO NOT travel as far as larger ones. If it was Battletech claims, then the M4 Carbine with the effective range of 500 meters (roughly 540 yards) would be out ranging 120mm main guns found on most Western AFVs. Sorry pal, not how it works.
Third, did you even look at the actual information given over the years in the game about AutoCannons? I am really starting to doubt you did. Nowhere are they even remotely described as analogs for real-world artillery.
And finally, so as to keep this civil and not go off on a rant that would get me banned, Trying to pass off the StrumTiger's 380 mm RW 61 rocket launcher L/5.4 as the equivalent of an AC20...shows CLEARLY that you didn't do any real research and should just stop offering up your ideas.
The AutoCannons ARE NOT artillery, they are main gun equivalents and should be compared to those. Just the Ultra and LB-X and RACs should be compared to Chain Guns and Automatic Cannons.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
04/26/21 04:41 PM
66.74.60.165
|
One of the first game books for Battletech, not sure of battle droids, compared the acs to real life tank cannons. The went thru and gave the size of bore grouping to what size the ac would be. 185mm to 200 mm was equal to the ac 20. So no. They are NOT artillery style weapons.
So part of the article suggests that if you had say a longer barrel on the ac 20, it would shoot further. As the AC 20 is soo much heavier then an AC2, the pictures of them should be reversed. And by this, it should reverse the ranges of the units as well, so the 20, then 10, 5 and last the 2, should decrease by range.
For some reason, this sounds off some. Yes the higher power rounds should go further, but the length of barrel should affect accuracy more then range. And yes, the shot will tumble sooner with a shorter barrel, which might be used to support the longer barrel for range.
But given his own research, he should have seen, some of the artillery rounds of BT are backwards. The Thumper should not have a greater range then the Sniper.
Different styles of bullets change their ranges, as a hollow point should not go as far as an armor piercing shot does. And a normal load should not go as far as a hot load.
A .38 pistol will not fire a shot as far as a .38 rifle will.
I agree with the statement that AC rounds are NOT artillery in nature.
Easy way to show that is you can NOT load normal ac 20 rounds into a long tom and think it will reach 20 maps.
|
Karagin
04/26/21 04:49 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Yet here were are talking about it and it's out there adding to the chaos that is the Battletech weapons and range issues. Shocked that this article passed the sniff test around Sarna to start with.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Wick
04/26/21 05:00 PM
173.247.25.195
|
As far as Battletech-equivalent weaponry goes, USS Missouri (and other large naval ships since the 1880s or so) would all have Snipers, Thumpers, and Long Toms, not autocannons for main guns. What autocannons they may possess would not be ship-to-ship guns, but anti-aircraft guns.
Autocannons are direct fire - aim at target and shoot. These are more akin to the cannons aboard USS Constitution than USS Missouri, and were pretty much phased out of naval warfare in the late 1800s. Artillery shoots in an arc. This is important for naval warfare because the sides of ships started being armored, but you can only add so much armor to the deck. If you want to punch a hole in a battleship, you don't hit it from the side, you hit it from above.
The howitzer falls into the same category of mortar type artillery weaponry, and for similar reason: to bust bunkers from above (as you can't exactly shoot through the Earth to attack an underground bunker from the sides.)
Comparing pistols, rifles, and tank cannons - okay. But the USS Missouri main cannon and howitzer comparisons aren't even the same direct fire concept. Autocannons just don't operate on this "lob it over the head" approach so any range comparison to such weaponry is moot.
|
Karagin
04/26/21 05:58 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Whoever the author clearly does not do any real research beyond folks crying about the ranges and thought they had an idea of what things were going for and failed very badly.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
04/26/21 06:09 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Ship weapons would still be ACs but the naval versions of them. They do have an arc to them while firing at a long distance, which might have them considered artillery weapons. They would still be considered direct fire.
The BT ACs can be fired like idf, but would be very restricted, such as the mech laying on it's back. They do have limited up/down movement so the shot would not be limited to straight up. But the ability to target anything would be almost impossible.
Maybe they think explosive rounds means artillery rounds.
Alls I can say is that the ranges in the game are off. The pictures show they barrels of AC 20s being far to short, as even the AC 10 has a lot more length to them on say the Orion then even the ac 20 barrels on the Demolisher. I am sure they did this to try and make sure you couldn't fire a 20 point round further then LRMs like the AC 2 can reach.
The article looks like an opinion piece, as it doesn't seem to follow the actual outline of the games rules.
And for passing the censors, the part where Tex says something, the cursing isn't bleeped out.
|
Karagin
04/26/21 06:13 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Just because it's Tex saying something doesn't mean it's factual even for this game. We have seen the rules change from simple to complex over the years.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
04/26/21 07:30 PM
66.74.60.165
|
I wasn't saying Tex is right, I was saying the profanity used should have been bleeped out. I have seen some of his videos for the HBS game and he was the one running into physical contact range, and getting upset his LRM mech wasn't doing anything but missing.
|
Cray
04/26/21 07:33 PM
71.47.151.234
|
Quote:
The AutoCannons ARE NOT artillery, they are main gun equivalents and should be compared to those. Just the Ultra and LB-X and RACs should be compared to Chain Guns and Automatic Cannons.
Agreed on all points. One of the clearest indications that autocannons have nothing to do modern artillery is in the rules: autocannons on the aerospace map cover ranges of up to 450 kilometers in a 60-second turn.
That calls for no less than 7.5km/s muzzle velocity, but having a chance to hit something when even "lumbering" WarShips like an Aegis can out-accelerate an F-15 requires much shorter flight times, preferably under 10-15 seconds, to have a chance of hitting something.
In short, BattleTech's ACs not only fling projectiles faster than real world railguns, but the lighter ACs could be firing projectiles above escape velocity. They're not grandkids of a howitzer using nitrocellulose-derived gunpowder, they're some very different technology.
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
04/26/21 07:34 PM
70.118.172.64
|
I wasn't talking about the profanity when I said sniff test, I was talking about the facts of the game vs the opinion of the article. As you pointed out the weapons on the mechs have been always linked to comparing them to main guns on real-world tanks and the idea that this got posted without any real checking well that saying someone didn't do their homework.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
csadn
04/28/21 11:11 PM
50.53.22.4
|
Let's not kid ourselves: AC ranges were designed to prevent everyone loading up on AC/20s, and decapitating each other from across a mapsheet. (See also "Gauss Rifle".) The End.
CF
Oregon: The "Outworlds Alliance" of the United States of America
|
Karagin
04/29/21 12:49 AM
70.118.172.64
|
Quote:
Let's not kid ourselves: AC ranges were designed to prevent everyone loading up on AC/20s, and decapitating each other from across a mapsheet. (See also "Gauss Rifle".) The End.
They were set so we could play the game without needing the entire backyard and front yard for the board. It is a tabletop game after all.
And yes the AC20 would and should have the same range of the Gauss Rifle IF we were going off of real-life and the Gauss should cover part of another map board to honest if we were using real world weapon systems.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
04/29/21 01:44 AM
66.74.60.165
|
There is a very easy fix for the back yard tabletop game play. Simply increase the size of each hex. Instead of 30 meters, increase it to 120 or more. It would make units faster verses real life, or cause them to move much slower in the game. I really don't see why something moving 2 hexes should be so slow, you have to spend all day going 100 miles. It would also make the game a little more realistic with artillery ranges.
The gauss rifle example is more like what the game should be. The idea of having to touch another mech that isn't friendly is a bit much.
Then again, flamers wouldn't be worth much outside of point blank infantry barbeque.
We already know the real world equivalents of the ACs can hit beyond a kilometer. I don't see why the BT battle computer can't do the same thing as the real life systems do even in the 80/90s. WWII showed that ac's didn't even really need computers to hit the enemy. Yes, most had issues firing while both units were moving full out, but at least it wasn't 30 to 90 meters from each other.
It isn't even like the game is consistent with artillery anyways. 20 maps for a long tom. It doesn't really say if that is the long ways, or short ways. Which the maps being rectangular, not square, changes the range dramatically.
Much like the issue with the old strafes doing a full map row. Long ways hit a lot more then short sides.
|
Karagin
04/29/21 09:19 AM
70.118.172.64
|
The game got one thing right, the range of flamers, you know with their 3 hexes, is 90 meters give or take in real life, you can check that by looking at the flamethrowers used at different points.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|