|
Post by koganusan on Jan 25, 2018 10:02:34 GMT
The 50kg thing comes from not being able to imagine enough mass going into ammo handling and structure and such to justify only 8 per ton for anything much smaller than that. The 2km/s comes from a piece of fluff saying it launches shells at mach 6, which is just a hair over 2km/s. The rest is physics. If you think that's high, remember that it is after all a very bullshit soft-scifi/space-fantasy setting with poorly thought out technology and inconsistent lore. If you think that's low, you're probably right in-universe given the ammo storage mass issue and the speeds needed to account for its supposed space performance, but I wanted the lower end of plausible so that there was even a chance. You should model projectile mass after it's performance, take a APFDS for example or the Navy railgun. Presumably, they wrap the shells in a thin layer of their magical armor.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jan 25, 2018 10:09:18 GMT
You should model projectile mass after it's performance, take a APFDS for example or the Navy railgun. Presumably, they wrap the shells in a thin layer of their magical armor. Their armor wouldn't be that magical if you wouldn't use 50kg 2km/s projectiles against them.
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Jan 25, 2018 11:37:04 GMT
The 50kg thing comes from not being able to imagine enough mass going into ammo handling and structure and such to justify only 8 per ton for anything much smaller than that. The 2km/s comes from a piece of fluff saying it launches shells at mach 6, which is just a hair over 2km/s. The rest is physics. If you think that's high, remember that it is after all a very bullshit soft-scifi/space-fantasy setting with poorly thought out technology and inconsistent lore. If you think that's low, you're probably right in-universe given the ammo storage mass issue and the speeds needed to account for its supposed space performance, but I wanted the lower end of plausible so that there was even a chance. You should model projectile mass after it's performance, take a APFDS for example or the Navy railgun. ...I don't think you are going to get any matching performance considering armor piercing rounds are barely a thing in BT due to the sheer ridiculous toughness of the ablative armor. There's real armor piercing rounds in Battletech alright, just that they are twice as dense normal ammunition and still have a high chance of failing to penetrate mech armor even when using rapid firing large bore autocannon. EDIT: Thought it seems like that armor piercing round just plain works better when the target has large flat area to be armored even when sloped. (Like tank or aircraft) It just...somehow magically doesn't penetrate well against the 'rounder' and 'curvier' armor shape on Battlemech due to magical reason.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jan 25, 2018 12:08:48 GMT
You should model projectile mass after it's performance, take a APFDS for example or the Navy railgun. ...I don't think you are going to get any matching performance considering armor piercing rounds are barely a thing in BT due to the sheer ridiculous toughness of the ablative armor. There's real armor piercing rounds in Battletech alright, just that they are twice as dense normal ammunition and still have a high chance of failing to penetrate mech armor even when using rapid firing large bore autocannon. EDIT: Thought it seems like that armor piercing round just plain works better when the target has large flat area to be armored even when sloped. (Like tank or aircraft) It just...somehow magically doesn't penetrate well against the 'rounder' and 'curvier' armor shape on Battlemech due to magical reason. Or it does and just doesn't hit anything important.
|
|