Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Everything Identical to Original Game

2 (2.7%)

ERA: 2020

11 (15.1%)

ERA: 1945

4 (5.5%)

ERA: 1920

4 (5.5%)

ERA: 1890

2 (2.7%)

Alt-History : Scarce Resources

9 (12.3%)

Alt-History : No Modern Chemistry

1 (1.4%)

Alt-History : Lower Gravity

5 (6.8%)

Alt-History : Higher Gravity

1 (1.4%)

Alt-History : Lower Athmospheric Density

1 (1.4%)

Alt-History : Higher Athmospheric Density

4 (5.5%)

Alt-History : Low Fantasy (You know, I'm not going to do this anyway)

3 (4.1%)

Alt-History : Different Races (You know, I'm not going to do this anyway)

3 (4.1%)

Moh's Scale: Hard Science (Real Life)

6 (8.2%)

Moh's Scale: Flexible Science (Marginal technologies become viable, though not commonplace)

9 (12.3%)

Moh's Scale: Brave New World (Marginal and some Speculative technologies viable)

7 (9.6%)

Moh's Scale: Physics Plus (The rules of physics are not what they used to be) [CAUTION: GM-VETO ]

1 (1.4%)

Total Members Voted: 17

[Aseaheru]

in almost any situation wheels or tracks are better.
Really, the main areas they might be better in is for underwater things and small, light, low to the ground exploration things.

High center of mass kills. So does the fact that you jsut have to blow out a joint and... whoops, was that a giant battle mech crashing to earth and blowing up because someone shoved a rock in its leg?

[Hawk132]

Shhhh.

Rule of Cool.

[Aseaheru]

What rule?

I mean, the whole thing about mechs is that while they are awesome, and I, for one, wish they would be viable, they really arent that good, not without massive amounts of work.

For instance, dealing with the center of mass is semi-simple, just dump tons of uranium in the "feet". The joints would be harder... Or we could always make them smaller by making the mech a bunch of prosthesis that get bolted onto someone without any limbs...

We could do power suits easily enough. Would be rather weak tho...

[Prudent Viper]

Isn't a mech's greatest strength it's maneuverability? They're not as tough as tanks, but they have the same amount of firepower and have a great deal more evasiveness?
Ergo, the point is not to get hit.

[Aseaheru]

Look at it this way, unless they are remote controlled or you lot pff limbs you have to have a center section big enough to hold a dude. Arms and legs are normally atleast the same size as that, atleast in height. Tanks can have BIG guns for the same reason as battleships, low (Comparatively) center of mass. You cant really do that on a mech, not unless you have it with atleast three legs. Anything with a highish center of mass MUST go slow and not shift its mass much, its why humvees are low and wide, and even then they can roll. Tanks are REALLY wide. And remember, mechs are normally depicted as being TALL, with HIGH center of mass. You cant shove a big gun on that unless you make it frickn recoil-less, and good luck doing THAT with a tank gun.

[Prudent Viper]

Depends if we have lasers. If we have mechs, then we probably have laser technology. Lasers probably don't generate any recoil, right?

Humans have a high centre of mass. We don't fall over (that much).  I think the key is big, wide "feet".

[~Neri]

Railguns don't generate recoil either if I recall.

[Aseaheru]

Railguns dont, true, but there there is the issue of materials. Most proposed railguns use cobalt and all. Plus theres power requirements. They are nothing for ships powered via a nuke, but getting a walking power souce that wont destroy the region when popped is an issue.

Lasers arent worth it unless you are in vacuum. Period. Atmospheric blooming, weight, power requirements that make railguns look like florescent bulbs, being fragile as fuck and dust/moisture weakening them already makes them just not worth it. And then theres the cooling issue. The only lasers used in combat ANYWHERE would perhaps make you itch a bit, and that includes the tank ones. Not the laser guidance systems on tanks, the tanks that shoot lasers to blind sensors. In space its a tad easier, tho just throwing rocks takes less effort. The Russians did come up with a laser handgun, but that was to burn sensitive things on other ships and, again, to blind sensors. Although, the biggest issue is throughput.

[~Neri]

My idea for railguns are preloaded barrels, shot power increases as it's fired multiple times since the round gets to be in the barrel longer to build momentum. Have the barrel have a built in power source, discard barrel when used up, attach next barrel to gun.

Exosuits clould make that viae since the barrels would weigh a bit,

[Stirk]

Railguns don't generate recoil either if I recall.

What? Of course they do. It simple phisics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Here is an academic paper on it. It is impossible to fling something forward without something being flung back.

It would be more logical to use rocket powered weapons, often considered "recoiless", since the force all comes from the rocket pushing the projectile forward.

[Aseaheru]

"Recoilless" rifles are good.

My idea for railguns are preloaded barrels, shot power increases as it's fired multiple times since the round gets to be in the barrel longer to build momentum. Have the barrel have a built in power source, discard barrel when used up, attach next barrel to gun.

What? Why? Discarding the thing? If your gonna have it powered via batteries you are better off with a laser!

Besides, we can make recoilless auto cannons. 30mm ones.
Dont ask me how, the Germans did it.
They have them on masts on some subs.

[Stirk]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Besides, we can make recoilless auto cannons. 30mm ones.
Dont ask me how, the Germans did it.
They have them on masts on some subs.

Probably the same way we made 105mm ones in Korea, or WWII, or all the other engagements. They shoot hot air out their back, negating some (but not all. Very important to remember) of the recoil. Here is an article about the gun you where talking about, but it is is German.

"Recoilless rifles -- aren't." -Murphy's law of combat.

[Aseaheru]

Well, they got it good enough to the point where they can dump it on top of a stick poking out of the water attached to a sub 40-odd feet below it and not fuck up the sub when it fires. And it even rotates and elevates on its own, without needing the sub to move.
I call that pretty darn close to recoilless.

Did I mention its an auto cannon, and not the single shot weapons that we used starting before WW2?

Also, Im gonna run the page you linked thru german google translate and shove it here in a spoiler... Because I think I can.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Code: [Select]

The development of a recoilless fully automatic gun was initiated by the Federal Ministry of Defence and the BWB. It was formed in 1993, the project RMK 30 of the Mauser-Werke, which was designed for use in helicopters and light weapons carriers (weasels).
The principle of a recoilless weapon is largely familiar to anyone, after all, it is used in any rocket launchers, including but also in the American 106 mm recoilless weapon M40RR. However, all previous approaches were only capable to deliver single shots (multiple rocket launcher as Katjusha or LARS / MARS shoot only single shots). Mauser has developed with the RMK 30 a currently unique weapon that can both fully automatic and in the burst feature largely recoilless shoot. The first fully functional prototype was tested on 4 November 1996 on the training area Heuberg (Baden-Württemberg). For this purpose, the RMK 30 has been mounted on the light armored weapons carrier "weasel". Upon successful completion a start of series production for 2001 is expected.
The basic idea of this new development is that the combustion gases are exhausted at the rear end of the gun and thus the recoil arising from the acceleration of the projectile compensate. So they use a mixture of rocket launchers and normal automatic cannon and combines their advantages.

The resulting muzzle energy is, contrary to what one might expect, above the level of previously used conventional and comparable machine guns:

[Table there]

This effect arose during development by the use of better and better propulsion and fuels. The cartridge itself is sealless and burns largely without residues. You will be able introduced in front of the proven Mauser revolver chamber around the RMK 30 more compact.

[side image of diagram thing]

A recoilless weapon can of course be used for the same tasks as their "normal" counterparts. However, it has the same limitations as all mounting rocket launchers: The gas output at the rear of a large safety zone is needed behind the weapon, so it is not in the interior of vehicles mountable. Man, however, been concerned with the question of how to siphon off the gas and could divert dangerous for people. Until then, the ideal field of application is limited to external loads, eg in the turret of the "weasel" or as rear gun for the Tiger combat helicopter. The great advantage of the design lies in the accuracy, which is not affected by a low recoiling. So the ammunition consumption can be minimized and additional storage space is free, the weight is reduced.
The effectiveness of the RMK 30 would be severely limited if it were not integrated into an autonomous fire control system that operates independently of the equipment of weapons platform (helicopters, tanks, ..). The goal is hindered by a fire control computer and various subsystems (thermal camera, laser range finder, target tracking / detection, ...) from escaping. One speaks of a "Assign and Forget" weapon system: The goal is assigned only by the pilot / weapon guides and automatically destroyed. (similar to the "fire and forget" system). The excellent precision in combination with the weapon system, the weapon must not have high fire rates (quality over quantity). This control system was therefore attached great importance to the development: Is the accuracy of the weapon much better than the system, so the target is lost when firing. The other way round of ammunition consumption disproportionate increases sharply. This means the weapon is only effective in combination with the electronics.
On the German side of the installation in the new combat helicopter UH-Tiger is considered highly probable. The RMK 30 is to combat sudden air targets within 1,500 m (too close for missiles). She has to have the accuracy of a guided missile and at the same time be as small and light.
In developing bonds were made ​​of existing technologies. The weapon itself was derived from a rocket launcher, ammunition and rocket motors, the targeting system has been adopted and improved by guided missiles. The entire fire control system reaches to 1,000 m, a precision of 0.7 mrad, the system incl. Weapons reached 1.5 mrad (= circle with radius of 1.5 m). This revolutionary precision air target can be intercepted with only three cartridges effectively. The application range is very wide, as the weapon combines characteristics of automatic cannon (rate of fire) and guided missile (accuracy) in itself.

[Diagram of revolving chamber]
[Another table]


[Funk]

"Recoilless rifles -- aren't." -Murphy's law of combat.

Davis gun are a lot closer to being truly Recoilless than most Recoilless rifles, it's just that you have a second projectile flying away from the target. 

Mechs only realing make sense in limited roles

[Aseaheru]

If only there was some way of dispersing the gas equally while also retaining the power caused by its expansion...