Print

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

[Erkki]

Glass cockpit usually refers to high number, area and customizability of (touch) flat screens in a cockpit. Mk. I Eyeball remains important in modern aerial warfare, but the only fighter with one-piece canopy that I can recall is the F-16, probably because IIRC its the canopy that is usually the first thing to limit top speed.

In BattleTech, 'mechs are fluffed to have all kinds of sensors and cameras covering every direction and vast range of spectrum, providing the pilot great deal of information in his/her helmet screen. I dont know what the windows are for then, but there are some (BT) mechs that dont have windows at all.

[Sheb]

We still have backup vision ports in modern times, and glass cockpits in flying vehicles, for the record. Cameras break.

A viewport or periscope makes more sense than a glass cockpit on a ground vehicle. I didn't say the mechs didn't have those in addition to the cameras, I was objecting to glass cockpits. There are glass cockpits on military aircraft because not having a glass cockpit wouldn't increase the survivability of the aircraft more than having the visibility would. Jets have the advantage of speed and height and use that to avoid most damage. So no, the mechs don't have a big glass cockpit that is vulnerable to small arms fire, they have viewports like an armored ground vehicle that kills other armored ground vehicles should have.

Wait, if they're supposed to be fighting other mechs when designed, why are they cannon-proof now?

[Parsely]

We still have backup vision ports in modern times, and glass cockpits in flying vehicles, for the record. Cameras break.

A viewport or periscope makes more sense than a glass cockpit on a ground vehicle. I didn't say the mechs didn't have those in addition to the cameras, I was objecting to glass cockpits. There are glass cockpits on military aircraft because not having a glass cockpit wouldn't increase the survivability of the aircraft more than having the visibility would. Jets have the advantage of speed and height and use that to avoid most damage. So no, the mechs don't have a big glass cockpit that is vulnerable to small arms fire, they have viewports like an armored ground vehicle that kills other armored ground vehicles should have.

Wait, if they're supposed to be fighting other mechs when designed, why are they cannon-proof now?

Like I said, the medievals' cannons don't have the velocity to damage the thick, "modern" armor, and the mechs' own cannons are too light to do so, for their high velocity railguns and ATGMs were meant to be used in an anti-mech role, not their cannons.

I'm not saying if there were bigger cannons equipped with the right ammunition that they wouldn't be able to penetrate a mech, I'm saying that there is no cannon available to the medievals that can penetrate a mech's armor.

[iceball3]

Wouldn't a direct hit from a cannon be able to at least dent armor significantly?
Not completely penetrate, sure, but when you're a giant robot consisting of many moving parts both practically waving out in the wind and requiring actuation to be working in complete coordination just to remain upright, you'd think any sort of structural damage like that would mess stuff up.
For comparison, I'd figure that tank tracks would be much more robust, and I wouldn't put it beyond a few well placed cannon shots to track most conventional tanks.

[Amperzand]

Basically, think of armor penetrators as needles, then heavy cannon shells as hammers.

[Sheb]

Why do they have cannons if they had high-velocity railguns? Or did I misunderstoof and the cannons are basically just medieval bombard lashed in because the railguns don't work? (Speaking of which, it'd be nice if some of the artilley is basically bombards made using the high-quality barrels of modern gun, but mouth-loaded and shooting round shot (no one can make the autoloader work without shells).

[Erkki]

Medieval guns and cannons are all but useless against modern day armor already. They'd just chip the paint. Steel alone can have many varying qualities... I believe its hardness and density that make the most difference. Those (fairly thin) steel targets at ranges that can hold thousands and thousands of high velocity, high energy hits I believe are often made out of the same high hardness steel as many drills and excavator buckets. Slowly moving, balls of rock out of a medieval gun would fare even worse, lead balls only slightly better.

[Sheb]

I think the discussion was wether medieval/renaissance cannonball would have enough momentum to topple a mech.

[Erkki]

I see... I doubt it would.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_obusier_de_12

That is a typical 19th century(and thus fairly modern) cannon. The projectile mass is 4,1 kg and the rated muzzle velocity is about 440 m/s.

That'd be enough to accelerate a 50-ton mech to a speed of less than 4 cm/s, if the mech absorbed the hit perfectly and if there would be no air resistance at all. Scaled down to 80 kg man, the momentum gained would less than what that man absorbs as recoil when firing a single .223 cartridge out of a 4 kg rifle. As we know, one can use the nose as a recoil pad for that caliber without it hurting too much. 

[Rolepgeek]

Except that with the inefficiencies of cannon design in the 19th century compared to today, the recoil from such a shot would be much more significant.

[Parsely]

I think the discussion was wether medieval/renaissance cannonball would have enough momentum to topple a mech.

There seemed to be a simultaneous debate over whether a medieval cannonball could dent modern armor.

Why do they have cannons if they had high-velocity railguns?

Or did I misunderstoof and the cannons are basically just medieval bombard lashed in because the railguns don't work? (Speaking of which, it'd be nice if some of the artilley is basically bombards made using the high-quality barrels of modern gun, but mouth-loaded and shooting round shot (no one can make the autoloader work without shells).

Again: the mechs have autocannons of varying size and railguns (among other weapons), and the medievals have black powder cannons at they time they discover the mechs. The mechs have cannons because they have a different role to the railgun, whose only purpose is to kill other heavily armored vehicles.

I did want there to be some kitbashing shenanigans here and there.

[Erkki]

Except that with the inefficiencies of cannon design in the 19th century compared to today, the recoil from such a shot would be much more significant.

I was comparing change of momentum from the cannon ball hit to shooting a modern rifle at the target. The recoil to the firing cannon itself yes is higher than just the momentum of the ball, because as the ball is slightly smaller than the bore a lot of the gas leaks past it instead of accelerating the projectile.

[Amperzand]

So basically the mechs have spaceguns, (HV impactors and I guess either lasers, or not lasers because the hardware only worked for vacuum frequencies and was removed), and then normal guns for purposes of normal targets.

I would contest that unless the railguns are straight broken, it'd actually be easier to manufacture ammunition for them than for the autocannon. Ferrous rods hardened as far as the locals can get them would still do work, although if the guns are specifically railguns their barrel life is going to be pathetic, and the locals probably can't make those very well.

[Rolepgeek]

I'm guessing he does mean railguns, and the capacitors and complex circuitry in a coilgun or a railgun are unlikely to survive excavation or typical combat use without regular maintenance by people who know what they're doing.

Actually, speaking of which, how are the ammo feed systems for the myriad weapon systems doing?

Finally, even if the railguns do work, if they're not armed with Tungsten sabots precision engineered, odds are they aren't penetrating other mechs. Maybe castle walls; if fired at the appropriate angles they could probably wreck shit, even if they're just ferrous rods fired from half-broken coilguns.

[i2amroy]

I'm still not under the impression they're bipedal, and if they're to function at all, they have to have decent amount of surface area for their feet anyway, or some sort of handwavy science magicks.

They are bipedal. I am perfectly happy handwaving ground pressure if that's the only offense it takes to get mechs and medieval people fighting side by side. So let's just gently skirt that issue rather than try to be original or solve it.

Little late here, but assuming a 50 short ton mec (which is slightly less heavy than a modern tank is), you only need a combined ground area for both feet together of like 12 m^2 (about the size of an average parking space) to be able to run and jump over even more sandy ground. I mean it would have to look a bit more like a stomper than the ones you see in shows that look like a normal person wearing armor, but it's still totally feasible (the ground is a lot stronger than you think it is in many cases).

I would contest that unless the railguns are straight broken, it'd actually be easier to manufacture ammunition for them than for the autocannon. Ferrous rods hardened as far as the locals can get them would still do work, although if the guns are specifically railguns their barrel life is going to be pathetic, and the locals probably can't make those very well.

Without modern smokeless powder any sort of auto cannon is going to foul up and jam in a very tiny handful of rounds (not even considering that it very likely won't generate the pressure gradient needed to operate an automatic), so yeah, railgun ammo would be way easier to make in that sense, though without the precision needed it's very likely it would just explode anyways.