Author Topic: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade  (Read 15447 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AtomicClucker

  • 28
  • Runnin' from Trebs
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
This is horribly off-topic, but the GAU-8 doesn't rip tanks apart.  The PGU-14/B API DU round can only penetrate about 45-50mm of RHA at 1000m, which isn't even enough to penetrate a T-72B's roof armor at common engagement angles, let alone its front or side.  It can't penetrate a T-62's front or turret side armor either.  The GAU-8 is for killing light armor like IFVs, and soft targets.  It is in no way a dependable tank-killing weapon.  The A-10 carries the AGM-65 Maverick missile to deal with tanks, and it's with these that the overwhelming majority of A-10 tank kills have been scored.

That's 45-50mm RHA.  Most 120mm APFSDS rounds can penetrate around 600-700mm RHA at 1000m, depending on the round.  The TOW-2A is about 700mm.  The 9M119M1 Invar-M is around 950mm.  The GAU-8 isn't as special as popular culture would have you believe.

To my understanding, the A-10 was built as a much more competent and jet-powered successor to the rugged A-1 Skyraider, due to major problems with the F-100 Super Sabre and the F-105 Thunderchief delivering fire support at lower speeds (where the A-1 kicked ass). The gun is supplemental, but the ability to carry ordinance and douse tanks with missiles, rockets, and bullets is the primary platform. Although the gun is touted to have made the plane, the plane made itself by carrying a mother load of ordinance to crack armor, pepper infantry, and bring an overwhelming amount of death to the table. But the psychological effects of said gun cannot be understated, as these things did play heavily into engagements in Aghanistian where Taliban fighters suffered morale crisis and Coalition troops were emboldened by the zip of the GAU-8.
Blame Blue Planet for my Freespace2 addiction.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
It is in no way a dependable tank-killing weapon.

This is actually debatable as it will in the majority of cases result in a mobility kill via engine or track destruction when fired from a side or rear angle.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • Moderator
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
It is in no way a dependable tank-killing weapon.

This is actually debatable as it will in the majority of cases result in a mobility kill via engine or track destruction when fired from a side or rear angle.

This varies greatly on range and angle of attack.  The band of armor easily penetrable beyond 1000 feet is extremely thin on most MBTs, and from the side you're less likely to hit a track than you are to dent a bogey wheel which will only make driving a bit more difficult and not impossible.

The GAU-8 kills IFVs and non-MBT AFVs, but it's not a dependable MBT killer, which is the popular myth of the weapon.

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
In a way, this myth is actually perpetrating all the way from World War 2.

Destroying tanks with aircraft was far less effective in reality than the pilots thought.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline niffiwan

  • 211
  • Eluder Class
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
I recall reading that WW2 aircraft fired rockets were far less effective than thought at the time, but there was a fair bit more success with "large" calibre aircraft mounted guns, especially on the German Stukas vs Soviet armour?
Creating a fs2_open.log | Red Alert Bug = Hex Edit | MediaVPs 2014: Bigger HUD gauges | 32bit libs for 64bit Ubuntu
----
Debian Packages (testing/unstable): Freespace2 | wxLauncher
----
m|m: I think I'm suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Bmpman is starting to make sense and it's actually written reasonably well...

 

Offline IronBeer

  • 29
  • (Witty catchphrase)
    • Minecraft
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
I'm either impressed or disappointed that somebody hasn't mentioned the A-10 Pilot's Coloring Book yet, if we're determined to get twisted off from stompy robots.
"I have approximate knowledge of many things."

Ridiculous, the Director's Cut

Starlancer Head Animations - Converted

 

Offline niffiwan

  • 211
  • Eluder Class
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
I thought of it once the GAU-8's armour penetration came up, but I didn't have the link so thanks! (and yeah, the A-10 etc conversation probably needs a split...)
Creating a fs2_open.log | Red Alert Bug = Hex Edit | MediaVPs 2014: Bigger HUD gauges | 32bit libs for 64bit Ubuntu
----
Debian Packages (testing/unstable): Freespace2 | wxLauncher
----
m|m: I think I'm suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Bmpman is starting to make sense and it's actually written reasonably well...

 

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • Minecraft
    • FLAMES OF WAR
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
But the psychological effects of said gun cannot be understated, as these things did play heavily into engagements in Aghanistian where Taliban fighters suffered morale crisis and Coalition troops were emboldened by the zip of the GAU-8.

Yus. The Gattling gun is a both a psychological weapon and a physical one. There's something about the hail of bullets and that whining sound. People tell me that video records cannot reproduce it accurately.
I have a very special place in my heart for this weapon:


Which reminds me of this:
https://what-if.xkcd.com/21/


I've seen videos of A-10's shooting TANKS (not AFVs). Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk1HU5WShpU
How does it manage to do it with 30mm bullets against 100+ mm armor? I dunno. Probably because it's shoot a crapload of them.


****

Either way..

STOMPY MECHS!

How long till you have cash to hire me?
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 02:42:38 am by TrashMan »
Nobody dies as a virgin - the life ****s us all!

You're a wrongularity from which no right can escape!

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
That video proves what, exactly?  That antiquated and not very well armored M60 tanks are used for target practice by A-10 pilots?  It doesn't show you anything except the rounds hitting the tank. If that tank had been a T-72B, at that angle, those shots would have done no meaningful damage except for the lucky shot that hit the gun.

A crapload of bullets that can't penetrate isn't much better than one bullet that can't penetrate.  Tanks in real life don't have health bars.

To my understanding, the A-10 was built as a much more competent and jet-powered successor to the rugged A-1 Skyraider, due to major problems with the F-100 Super Sabre and the F-105 Thunderchief delivering fire support at lower speeds (where the A-1 kicked ass). The gun is supplemental, but the ability to carry ordinance and douse tanks with missiles, rockets, and bullets is the primary platform. Although the gun is touted to have made the plane, the plane made itself by carrying a mother load of ordinance to crack armor, pepper infantry, and bring an overwhelming amount of death to the table. But the psychological effects of said gun cannot be understated, as these things did play heavily into engagements in Aghanistian where Taliban fighters suffered morale crisis and Coalition troops were emboldened by the zip of the GAU-8.
Yes, the A-10 is a fantastic CAS aircraft and the gun is deadly against a lot of things.  My point is that tanks, especially tanks from the 80s onwards, aren't really one of those things.

I recall reading that WW2 aircraft fired rockets were far less effective than thought at the time, but there was a fair bit more success with "large" calibre aircraft mounted guns, especially on the German Stukas vs Soviet armour?
37mm was adequate against the top and rear armor of WW2 tanks.  Hell, against lighter tanks, 20mm could do damage.  Tanks have gotten a lot heavier since then.

Anyway, someone split this tangent.  I don't mind continuing the discussion, but not at the expense of the thread.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 03:54:01 am by Aesaar »

 
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
Kudos to Ironbeer for pointing out that colouring handbook again - Even an old tank is a tough nut to crack with the GAU-8

It should also be pointed out that, once you do hit the right altitudes and angle for perforating a T-62, you have also hit the right altitudes and angle for the AAA batteries to perforate you. Although that won't immeaditily end in your death or anything, it will render your aircraft combat ineffective - or set fire to your engines.

I found that out the hard way in DCS.

 
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
Pretty much, Joshua, pretty much.

Which is why we love it so much <3

Heh, I always knew that tech in B-Tech was a bit backwards considering that everyone cheers whenever they find a Star League weapon's cache - 300 year old technology. Also, the sudden boost of tech when the clans arrived (due ot them actually developing their tech beyond SL spec whilst the Inner Sphere nuked themselves into a new stone age) - and when the clans actually started mingling with the IS and forming dominions and all that - the Jihad happened and the best technology was destroyed again. yeeh.

But I never considered tech from the 1950s to still be so popular a thousand years later.

 

Offline Patriot

  • 28
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
The 1950s tech referring to Scotty's choice of M113s i presume? Yeah, anything built as rugged as those things is a good addition to any Merc Force really.
Rugged being a relative term :P

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
I recall reading that WW2 aircraft fired rockets were far less effective than thought at the time, but there was a fair bit more success with "large" calibre aircraft mounted guns, especially on the German Stukas vs Soviet armour?
37mm was adequate against the top and rear armor of WW2 tanks.  Hell, against lighter tanks, 20mm could do damage.  Tanks have gotten a lot heavier since then.

Even they were vastly over-reported in effectiveness. True, on a good angle you would get a penetration - but it's sort of iffy on most safe attack angles. You'd have to come down at quite a steep angle to guarantee a penetration.

And after you had that... then what? 37mm is not going to necessarily destroy a tank. You can injure/incapacitate/kill crew members if you hit them, and cause damage to some components if you hit them, but that really doesn't mean the tank was "destroyed".

If you go by the after-action reports of any air force, and sum up the number of tanks destroyed you end up with a number that is higher than the number of tanks in service at the area, at that time... by some significant margin. A lot of the time, pilots would fire their guns at a tank, see some effect of the fire (tank stops, smoke comes out, crew abandons tank, etc.) and report it as "tank destroyed".

In reality, what often happened was the tank was hit by aircraft fire, the pilot saw some effect of the fire, and reported the tank destroyed. In many cases the tanks deployed smoke and stopped after being hit by air attacks, waited until the attack was over, fixed the damage (if any) and continued on their way.

In some cases the tank was truly immobilized by air-to-ground damage, or crewmembers were injured. In such a case they might choose to dismount the tank if the threat level outside was acceptable compared to waiting to be hit more in a steel box filled with fuel and ammunition.

Regardless in most cases the repair crew would fix up the tank and it would be back in action fairly soon.


This "stat buffing" is present in the after-action reports of all air forces, mind you. The reports of the armoured units themselves tell a different story entirely.


Also, I don't know if the tangent needs to be split. It's still peripherally related to the topic at hand, I would say. In MekTek, it seems like this won't apply in the same way due to the way how salvage works - forcing a crew into abandoning a tank would definitely count as a kill.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline esarai

  • 29
  • Steathy boi
    • Minecraft
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
But I never considered tech from the 1950s to still be so popular a thousand years later.

The Hetzer survived that millennium with only a few modifications.
<Nuclear>   truth: the good samaritan actually checked for proof of citizenship and health insurance
<Axem>   did anyone catch jesus' birth certificate?
<Nuclear>   and jesus didnt actually give the 5000 their fish...he gave it to the romans and let it trickle down
<Axem>and he was totally pro tax breaks
<Axem>he threw out all those tax collectors at the temple
<Nuclear>   he drove a V8 camel too
<Nuclear>   with a sword rack for his fully-automatic daggers

Esarai: hey gaiz, what's a good improvised, final attack for a ship fighting to buy others time to escape to use?
RangerKarl|AtWork: stick your penis in the warp core
DarthGeek: no don't do that
amki: don't EVER do that

 

Offline Mongoose

  • Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
  • This brain for rent.
    • Minecraft
    • Steam
    • Something
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
I think the lesson to take away is that, even in the Space Future, bullets are still great at blowing big messy holes in people.

 

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • Minecraft
    • FLAMES OF WAR
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a big enough gun.

If you can't solve problem with firepower, you're not using enough of it!
Nobody dies as a virgin - the life ****s us all!

You're a wrongularity from which no right can escape!

 

Offline Hobbie

  • 28
  • It's Hot Drop O'Clock!
    • Minecraft
    • Steam
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
Just got back to the forums after gallivanting across Seattle for however long.

What a rout that was.
In the arena of logic, I fight unarmed.

 

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • Minecraft
    • FLAMES OF WAR
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
bump... this still alive?
Nobody dies as a virgin - the life ****s us all!

You're a wrongularity from which no right can escape!

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • Moderator
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
Yes.   Real Life is a ***** sometimes, especially this time of year in a retail job.

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • Moderator
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: BattleTech: Iron Knights' Crusade
Hey sup.

So I was actually getting ready to do more of this stuff (and probably switch to video, because goddamn if that's not a lot of to type up every time, and even more pictures. ), and I ran into a bug with my install of MekHQ.

You see, when I went to play the next battle, it populated every vehicle four times.  Yes, four.  This meant that when I was supposed to be playing against a reinforced company, I was actually facing a battalion and then some.

That's not gonna fly.  I reinstalled, but converting the old save to the new version is being a pain.  The old save wouldn't let me save, so I have to import the personnel one person at a time, and that's slowing things down.

But hey!  It's still alive.