Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It isn't so much a matter of time, but one of need.

But there is a need. Otherwise Otomelara (a very successful big gun manufacturer) would not be working on it. The problem (or a problem at least) is that fast moving incomings are difficult to hit so throwing lots of projectiles at them very quicklyis necessary to hit (high rate of fire) but large incomings are difficult to destroy or knock off course with small calibre weapons (hence OM 67mm and USN going 57mm for their last ditch defence).

Plus bigger shells with proximity fuses put more stuff in the target volume than smaller shells.

Larger weapons also have longer range which is important when trying to destroy incoming threats a) coz further away they explode or ditch the better and B) it gives a larger window in which to hit the darned thing (I can start firing further away so it flies through a longer path of debris before getting to me)

Back during WWII the trend was for heavier artillery. But, afterwards it was discovered that lighter, rapidfiring guns are better than bigger, slower, less portable guns.

To an extent (Big Bertha seems a thing of the past for sure) but Tank guns have increased relentlessly since WWII. And the US research into Railguns suggests that big kinetic weapons may be making a comeback.

Even if somebody make a rapid firing 120mm gun, it would be of limited usefulness if there wasn't a way to carry and load enough ammo to make the gun useful.

Can't argue with that. Although the metric may be 'how many rounds fired very rapidly are required for one successful engagement?' rather than 'how many engagements will this many rounds let me fight?

Lots of aircraft have cannon that can toss off thousands of rounds per minute, but only carry a few seconds worth of ammo.

They do. Again so that a burst has a chance of hitting a fast-moving erratic target. Or even hitting a fairly slow target whilst the aircraft is moving fast and erratically to avoid getting hit. (USAF A16s in the 'first' (or second) Gulf War used their 30mm cannon pods like shotguns to spray a general area to hit ground targets in part coz the mounting just couldn't withstand forces imparted and stay zeroed and accurate.

Keep in mind that in the real world, it ususally inst a case of more damage = better. In many cases a 120mm cannon would be overkill.

Spot on again. Sledgehammer to smash duck eggs. But we all decided that full cartridge 7.62 (never mind anything bigger) was overkill and retooled to 5.56 (sometimes via intermediate 7.62) and then found out that the damned targets just would not fall over (or they were too far away and the lighter round couldn't reach out).

The USMC (and possibly other branches) wanted 27mm mauser instead of 20mm and settled on 25mm for its better energy.

Of coruse, most mecha settings are the exception.

Hell yeah. Hit the other scary robot as far away and as hard as possible.

Not surprising. High ROF 40mm guns make great anti-aircraft weaponry.

OtoM' have been even cleverer they've been using shrapnel in the fast forty for decades so they get range and swamp the target volume with stuff and increase the chance of a hit.

For the record: I've always favoured softkill against AShMs anyway as I'm less likely to run out of volts than I am shells and a missile which ditches is less dangerous than one in bits tumbling towards me with lots of remaining energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't so much a matter of time, but one of need. Back during WWII the trend was for heavier artillery. But, afterwards it was discovered that lighter, rapidfiring guns are better than bigger, slower, less portable guns.

.

I meant a matter of time in terms of the technology being equal to the challenge, certainly whether there's a need for it remains to be seen. I'd certainly agree that ammo supply would be a major problem. That's one of the things that has struck me about the ( admittedly very small ) amount of anime/manga Mecha I've seen - an endless supply of bullets ( shells ! ) and rockets or missiles, where are they carrying all those munitions ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant a matter of time in terms of the technology being equal to the challenge, certainly whether there's a need for it remains to be seen. I'd certainly agree that ammo supply would be a major problem. That's one of the things that has struck me about the ( admittedly very small ) amount of anime/manga Mecha I've seen - an endless supply of bullets ( shells ! ) and rockets or missiles, where are they carrying all those munitions ?

It depends on the series. Many shows use hollywood clips and don7t worry about ammo loads. Others are more realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant a matter of time in terms of the technology being equal to the challenge, certainly whether there's a need for it remains to be seen. I'd certainly agree that ammo supply would be a major problem. That's one of the things that has struck me about the ( admittedly very small ) amount of anime/manga Mecha I've seen - an endless supply of bullets ( shells ! ) and rockets or missiles, where are they carrying all those munitions ?

Er, what series did you watch?

mazinger has an unlimited supply of rockets. And that's all. The "realistic" robots have ammunition problems in all series I can think of. Admittedly, some Valkyries in Robotech can fire too many shells from their main rifle, but they DO run out of ammunition in many episodes. See Macross Frontier episode 1, for instance. The valkyrie runs out of ammunition at the most inconvenient time. Gundam runs out of ammunition (two different kinds of ammunition, 60mm shells and energy for the beam rifle) in both episode 1 and 2 of the original series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, big long quote time!

But there is a need. Otherwise Otomelara (a very successful big gun manufacturer) would not be working on it. [/quopte]

Nah. If that were true there would be a host of projects that never would have been canceled. Manufacturers try to make money by creating a demand, even if there is no need.

Something to consider here is that the comany in questionis hardly a major arms supplier. This suggests that they are trying to find a niche by providing something the major companies do not. Technology-wise, I fully believe that the major industrial nations could build rapid fire heavy guns, but as yet haven't had a need to.

Sorry, but I disagree. History has shown that better fire control and higher ROF weapons work better than bigger guns. That is why you dont see 16 inch AA. BTW, the 16 guns on old US battleships could be used as AA. While they were certainly effective against anything in the blast radius, they were poor AA>

Larger weapons do no necessarily have a longer range. The actual range depends on several factors. Heavier weapons do tend to have a higher inertia, but that cuts both ways. And frankly, if you want greater range and destructive power, you should be using AtA missiles rather than slug throwers.

No, no, no. First off, look at field artillery. Prioer to WWII it was thought that bigger was better. Since then, it has been proven that several smaller guns that are coodinated are more effective than one big gun.

Secondly, Tank guns have hardly increased relentlessly since WWII. Far from it. WWII ended with the the Allies using 75-7mm guns, and the Germans using guns up to 88mm on tanks.In the 66 years since then, Tank Gun sizes have changed from 75mm to 90mm, then to 105mm and then to 120mm, with most of the changes occuring in the last 30 years due to improvments in armor.

Reasearch into railguns, as well as in binary propellants is to overcome the velocity limitation imposed by the use of gunpowder as a propellant. As KE iincreases in porpotion to the sqaure of the velocity, speed plays a bigger factor in penetrating power than mass. In fact, thinner rounds penetrate better than thick rounds.

Yup, and upping the size of the ammo wont help. The area affected would still be small compared to the movement of the aircraft. And the forces on the firing craft would be that much worse. Imagine what sort of modfications would be required to allow a firghter jet to fire a 120mm gun.

Ground defense has better options.

Targets fall over just fine with 5.56, and the range is fine. The whole idea behind the assault rifle was that most people cant hit man sized targets at 1000 metersanyway, so why design a weapon that can.

The big ".2 fanclub" push is really based on things that don't matter. Sure 7.2 hits harder and does more damage than 5.56. But 5.5 is certainly deadly enough. And on a battlefield 5.6 means soldiers can carry more ammo.

The USMC (and possibly other branches) wanted 27mm mauser instead of 20mm and settled on 25mm for its better energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning: youmay wish to skip this if a series of agreements and disagreements to one tangential line of conversation is not your thing

Oh, big long quote time!

Yes! woo hoo! Someone else makes a boo boo with where to put quote and /quote! I swear I mess that up 5 posts out of every 6. :)

Nah. If that were true there would be a host of projects that never would have been canceled. Manufacturers try to make money by creating a demand, even if there is no need.

True the capitalist military industrial complex does need to generate new markets for its weapons to generate sales and profits. Companies which stay in business though either have a protected state monopoly, underhand sales techniques or solutions which look sensible (or a mix of the three)

Something to consider here is that the comany in questionis hardly a major arms supplier.

Really? We may have different internalised definitions (which doesn't mean that yours is wrong of course)

This suggests that they are trying to find a niche by providing something the major companies do not. Technology-wise, I fully believe that the major industrial nations could build rapid fire heavy guns, but as yet haven't had a need to.

Which major industrialised nations? Italy is in the G8 you know. And France never went for small calibre CIWS. Preferring 100mm and now moving to fast-firing 76mm. Not to mention US hasn't fitted Phalanx (20mm) to its latest skimmers and is licensing a Bofors fast-firing 57mm for its two big new classes of surface combatants.

Sorry, but I disagree. History has shown that better fire control and higher ROF weapons work better than bigger guns. That is why you dont see 16 inch AA. BTW, the 16 guns on old US battleships could be used as AA. While they were certainly effective against anything in the blast radius, they were poor AA>

Yes slow-firing larger calibres are pants at modern AA. Possibly me being dense again but I don't see how that means that fast-firing larger weapons will be no good.

Larger weapons do no necessarily have a longer range. The actual range depends on several factors. Heavier weapons do tend to have a higher inertia, but that cuts both ways. And frankly, if you want greater range and destructive power, you should be using AtA missiles rather than slug throwers.

No they don't that's very true. But assuming that I don't make a larger calibre weapon with less propellant, a shorter barrel and poor aerodynamics for the bullet I'd expect to outrange a smaller calibre weapon. I'd also, as you allude, have to cope with recoil and issues caused by muzzle-velocity.

We tried doing away with cannons on aircraft and it didn't work out spectacularly well. Certainly GWS have their place though.

No, no, no. First off, look at field artillery. Prioer to WWII it was thought that bigger was better. Since then, it has been proven that several smaller guns that are coodinated are more effective than one big gun.

I thought I'd conceded that one. Obviously needed to be clearer than one sentence (in paranthesis at that)

Secondly, Tank guns have hardly increased relentlessly since WWII. Far from it. WWII ended with the the Allies using 75-7mm guns, and the Germans using guns up to 88mm on tanks.In the 66 years since then, Tank Gun sizes have changed from 75mm to 90mm, then to 105mm and then to 120mm, with most of the changes occuring in the last 30 years due to improvments in armor.

I wonder if we are at cross-purposes semantically here? I'm not aware that tank guns have reduced in calibre; that we've gone back to smaller, high velocity AP and big fat HE? You have a point that the move from 20 or 40mm to 75mm or 88mm happened much faster than the move from 75 or 88mm to (common use of) 120mm. The Soviets even had 122mm in The Great Patriotic War but it wasn't common.

Reasearch into railguns, as well as in binary propellants is to overcome the velocity limitation imposed by the use of gunpowder as a propellant. As KE iincreases in porpotion to the sqaure of the velocity, speed plays a bigger factor in penetrating power than mass. In fact, thinner rounds penetrate better than thick rounds.

Again if we are arguing semantics or even two different arguments (one for each side) here? I will say though that smaller rounds are more affected by wind (pardon me). It may be at hyper velocity railgun speeds that this is no longer an issue. (Plus then I can have a Gauss Shotgun which does 4d6 at all ranges and doesn't get range penalties coz its hivap needles spread out and still have loads of energy)

Yup, and upping the size of the ammo wont help. The area affected would still be small compared to the movement of the aircraft.

In isolation. Or even worse if I did it and dropped RoF. Of course you are right.

And the forces on the firing craft would be that much worse. Imagine what sort of modfications would be required to allow a firghter jet to fire a 120mm gun.

Can't argue with that. Not sure that I was in the first place!

Targets fall over just fine with 5.56, and the range is fine. The whole idea behind the assault rifle was that most people cant hit man sized targets at 1000 metersanyway, so why design a weapon that can.

Targets fall over fine when close enough and if enough rounds hit and range is fine when close enough. Hitting man-sized targets is fncking hard at most ranges (I'm told) hence talk of beaten zones. It is quite possible that not every soldier with a Battle Rifle is able to make use of its advantages over an Assault Rifle (or whatever they are called now).

The big ".2 fanclub" push is really based on things that don't matter. Sure 7.2 hits harder and does more damage than 5.56.

And goes through cover differently and has different ballistics and has enough energy to hurt at longer range. And has more recoil. And is harder to use in full auto. And tends to need a longer barrel which makes it less handy in FISH and CHIPS or when crammed into a helo or APC.

I think though that you are taking a step into the unknown claiming that the differences don't matter.

And on a battlefield 5.6 means soldiers can carry more ammo.

Yup and strange 4.xmm designs even more

Yup, but they always want bigger, wheather they need it or not.

True dat. But as with every engineering decision there are sweet spots with specifications and trade off. (Hence Saab going 27mm mauser on Gripen rather than sticking with Viggen's 30mm monster of going 20mm like the US).

There isn't a plane out there than a 20mm can7t take down.

Tricky. Very tricky. Yes aircraft are jampacked full of volatiles, explosives and essential systems but (combat aircraft in particular) are stupendously strong to withstand the flight stresses. Check the stories of F15s landing with most or part of one wingshot off. AA rounds are also prox fused rather than impactand bigger calibre = more shrapnel, increases chance of any hit and increases chance of enough hits to do damage

It is more a question of being able to get the most out of the weight allowed. If it were possible to store a few thousand rounds on a fighter jet, everybody would be using 0000 rpm+ weapons.

Seems a perfectly sensible analysis to me. Being dense though I cannot see which argument you were responding to. As a general comment, I can't argue with it.

Not so. In most Mecha settings the fighting is up close and personal, partly becuase it is more exciting this way, and partly becuase they want to keep both mecha "on camera

I've only ever been a casual anime watcher so that might very well be an accurate summation. Perhaps I should have written 'Hell yeah, I want my PC to be able to hit the big scary robot as far away and as hard as possible'?

Yeah, shrapnel is much more useful (and deadly) in the real world than in most RPGs (BRP included). Double so for aircraft, since the stresses from maneuvering can turn minor hits into delayed "kills".

Bingo on all.

But past a certain size it isn't practical.

That certain size isn't static though is it? Lots of factors feed into how big you want to go, or how big outweighs the advantages.

All that lead has to come down somewhere, too.

That's okay my Mecha will stand on a barge in the river and have the Kelly's directory on its head. Slightly more constructively I've heard apocryphal (sp) tales of horrible accidents befalling infantry near to tanks firing sabot rounds and being hit by discarding bit.

Edited by Al.
damn you quote and /quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning: youmay wish to skip this if a series of agreements and disagreements to one tangential line of conversation is not your thing

I'll try to trim this down to the central points. For everything else there's PMing.

Which major industrialised nations? Italy is in the G8 you know.

The ones that actuallymanage to sell military equipment to other major nations. The US, the UK, France, Russia, Germany, and a few others. Italy hasn't been a major miltiry power since the 1920s, nor a major weapons maufacturer. So it is highly doubtful that any majoradvances in weapons technology is going to come out of Italy.

I dont see this idea as a step forward, more like a low cost alterative to more sophsicated methods of AA.

Yes slow-firing larger calibres are pants at modern AA. Possibly me being dense again but I don't see how that means that fast-firing larger weapons will be no good.

It not that they will be NO good. Just that a ligther weapon can do a better job for less. To make a rapid fire heavy weapon, one would need to come up with a way to store and transport lots of heavy ammpo, away to load it at high speed, a way to deal with the recoil and heat generated, a way to keep the barrel functional and accruate, and to deal with barrel wear. All for a slight increase in killing potential.

Not worth the trouble when all aircraft are "soft" targets. And useless for tanks, since the weight limitations would require that the tank sacrifice its armor in order to carry enough ammo for rapid fire- which negates the need to use a bigger round.

But assuming that I don't make a larger calibre weapon with less propellant, a shorter barrel and poor aerodynamics for the bullet I'd expect to outrange a smaller calibre weapon. I'd also, as you allude, have to cope with recoil and issues caused by muzzle-velocity.

Then you would be in for a surprise. You are putting to much emphasis on the size of the shell. Funny since heavy tank guns today are not designed as long range weapons, ut instead are used at point blank ranges. And BTW, I mean point blank in its actual meaning (so close that the round will have negligible drop), not the one people tend to give to it (i.e. really close)

We tried doing away with cannons on aircraft and it didn't work out spectacularly well. /quote]

Yes, on fighter jets, because rocket and missile technology was not as advanced as people thought in the 50s and 60s. But that has nothing to do with large caliber high ROF guns.

ADFSDS rounds, the current "best" tank-killer ammo fir a small diamter fins stabilized "dart" . The only weapons where larger bore size is always better is with HEAT rounds.

As far as artillery goes, the trend has been fo use more, lighter, faster firing guns rather than largaer, slower firing, less mobile guns. There are few targets that need a 150mm gun to take out.

Yes, there were bigger guns out there, but they were used on Anti-Tank Guns. It is standard practice for tank killers to be fitted with a bigger gun than that used on the tanks. But AtGs are more static than tanks. And that is the big trade off.

It not that much of a factor at combat ranges. Sure, a 1 gun can lob a 2 ton shell 40 km, but its not very accruate at that range.

Wind would be an issue, but not in the same way. But railgun speeds would not be very fast without lots of power. And to get enough energy to shoot a shell faster than gunpowder, and do so at a high rate, would require a pretty big generator. Which, again makes the idea unfeasible.

Yeah. In fact, that was the story behind the assault rifle. The Germans figured it out in WWII, but had a hard time convincing the upper ecechlon, who had been taught that a good rifle should shoot out to a certaind istance. That is why the first assault rifle was classified as a SMG/pistol.

Nothing unknown at all. The Western powers have made the move from 7.62 to 5.56 and haven't lost any wars because of it. The US might have lost some smaller enagements becuase of problems with the AR-15/M16, but that isnt becuase of the size of the caliber, but becuase of problems with a specfic weapon design fouling.

[qupte]

But as with every engineering decision there are sweet spots with specifications and trade off. (Hence Saab going 27mm mauser on Gripen rather than sticking with Viggen's 30mm monster of going 20mm like the US).

All engineering revolves around trade offs. To get X, you have to give up Y and put up with Z. Its not so much "sweet spots but a matter of choosing what characterstics you want, and what you can live with.

Tricky. Very tricky. Yes aircraft are jampacked full of volatiles, explosives and essential systems but (combat aircraft in particular) are stupendously strong to withstand the flight stresses. Check the stories of F15s landing with most or part of one wingshot off.

And that is why they are stories. If it were the norm, people wouldn't be talking about it. Once you damage an aircraft you compromise its structure and its ability to withstand G forces and frction forces. Aircraft that limp back home with extensive damage usually are nursed on the way back and dont do and fancy maneuvers.

AA rounds are also prox fused rather than impactand bigger calibre = more shrapnel, increases chance of any hit and increases chance of enough hits to do damage

The increase isn't very significant though, as the energy of an explosion does not increase linerarly. Since fighter aircaft can move as much as 300m/s in a dogfight, the increase in area of effect isnt that significant.

I've only ever been a casual anime watcher so that might very well be an accurate summation. Perhaps I should have written 'Hell yeah, I want my PC to be able to hit the big scary robot as far away and as hard as possible'?

Then load missiles, and hope the setting doesnt have some spcial reason prohibiting them from working at long range (Mobile Suit Gundam). Most mecha shows tend to treat the mecha like gladiators, and fights are conducted in fairly close range.

Nobody seems to pack a big bertha type of weapon and start shooting at targets hundred of km away.

That certain size isn't static though is it? Lots of factors feed into how big you want to go, or how big outweighs the advantages.

No, but to change significantly requires a singificant advanced in technology. There are good reasons why battleships are obsolete, and why no one uses 10-0 inch guns anymore. Its not that those guns arent powerful, but that there are better ways to do more damage with less.

That's okay my Mecha will stand on a barge in the river and have the Kelly's directory on its head. Slightly more constructively I've heard apocryphal (sp) tales of horrible accidents befalling infantry near to tanks firing sabot rounds and being hit by discarding bit.

What you mecha can do and where it can stand will depend a lot on the setting. Most mecha settings have some technolgical advances that make mecha viable combat weapons, which in turns dictates how they can be used.

Yeah, being near a tank in combat is a dangerous thing. sabot rounds notwishtanding, the shockwave can be pretty nasty at that scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, what series did you watch?

mazinger has an unlimited supply of rockets. And that's all. The "realistic" robots have ammunition problems in all series I can think of. Admittedly, some Valkyries in Robotech can fire too many shells from their main rifle, but they DO run out of ammunition in many episodes. See Macross Frontier episode 1, for instance. The valkyrie runs out of ammunition at the most inconvenient time. Gundam runs out of ammunition (two different kinds of ammunition, 60mm shells and energy for the beam rifle) in both episode 1 and 2 of the original series.

Ummm... I don't know what series it was :o It was very late ( or early depending on how you look at it ) there was herbiage involved, it's all a bit hazy. I remember there being a very large black Mecha with shoulder mounted rockets and a smaller one with a sort of hand held SMG/Assault rifle and some sort of integral chainsword like weapon. Small people ran around screaming and dying, it was about 6 years ago and I seem to recall the whole video was about 2 hours long ? In all fairness this may not qualify as a statistically valid sample ;-D

However you've addressed the point I was interested in, that of ammo supply I'm assuming that'll be reflected in BRP Mecha ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ones that actuallymanage to sell military equipment to other major nations. The US, the UK, France, Russia, Germany, and a few others. Italy hasn't been a major miltiry power since the 1920s, nor a major weapons maufacturer. So it is highly doubtful that any majoradvances in weapons technology is going to come out of Italy.

Whilst fully intending to stay out the rest of the conversation ;-D I would point out that OTO Melara are actually pretty successful at what they do which is gun based weapons systems. There's an awful lot of ships round the world mounting their guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst fully intending to stay out the rest of the conversation ;-D I would point out that OTO Melara are actually pretty successful at what they do which is gun based weapons systems. There's an awful lot of ships round the world mounting their guns.

But none of them can run over land, climb up buildings and fly, can they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst fully intending to stay out the rest of the conversation ;-D I would point out that OTO Melara are actually pretty successful at what they do which is gun based weapons systems. There's an awful lot of ships round the world mounting their guns.

One of my ex-bosses told me that he was once involved in the design of the software that was supposed to handle the mechanism that counters the recoil of one of those turrets. Not an easy task.

They also make the OTOMAT anti ship missile. It is not as powerful as the Tomahawk, but a good match for the Harpoon.

Plus we could mention that one third of the design of the Tornado and Typhoon aircraft is Italian. The other 2/3 are British and German.

You have probably no news about major Italian military exports abroad. The main reason is that the main customer in the 80s was... well, Iraq. There was an entire fleet of ships ready for delivery (think I have actually seen them in 1991 in La Spezia) when Saddam had the unfortunate idea of invading Kuwait. They were never delivered, of course. They are currently part of the fleet that patrols the Lybian coast.

Plus Italy produces the only wheeled tank destroyer in the world with a 120mm gun. Not an APC, a Tank Destroyer.

Going back to mechas: ammunition will be handled as normal in BRP - you know how many rounds you have, and you mark them off when you fire. Many mechas can carry extra clips, and some energy weapons are linked to the core reactor, so they use up PP, not ammunition. But most mass-produced mechas will use autocannons with normal ammo (40mm to 120mm caliber) or beam weapons with an internal power cell.

Edited by RosenMcStern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have probably no news about major Italian military exports abroad. The main reason is that the main customer in the 80s was... well, Iraq.

Not exactly a strong case for first rate military hardware. Hadly cuttin edge stuff.

...when Saddam had the unfortunate idea of invading Kuwait....

Out of all the things Saddam did, the invasion of Kuwait was probably the best justified. They Kuaitis were stealing millions in oil and Saddam actually did (for one) try to come up with a non-military solution.

Plus Italy produces the only wheeled tank destroyer in the world with a 120mm gun. Not an APC, a Tank Destroyer.

Is that a good thing? I don7t think that they are leading the world in TD design, just that everybody else went with a tracked TD.

Sorry, but I just don't buy the idea that a 10mm rapid fire cannon is goin to turn out to be a signficant improvment over the current technolgies or that it will revolutionize the military forces of the world.

Im not sayingthat Italy can't produce some new and game changing military tech, just that heavy caliber high ROF cannon isn't it, and that the seck is stacked against Italy. It doesn't have as much money to spend on R&D.

Going back to mechas: ammunition will be handled as normal in BRP

How about belt-fed weapons? Not everything uses an easily changed "clip". (I'm thinking of something like a GU-11 gunpod)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about belt-fed weapons?

If you can find a way to producw a pliable, resistant "belt" of the adequate (10-20 metres) length. Perhaps bronto leather?

For the rest, I think 100-rounds clips or drums are ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can find a way to producw a pliable, resistant "belt" of the adequate (10-20 metres) length. Perhaps bronto leather?

Disintergrating metal limks are the preferred method for most machine guns and autocannon. Clips aren't practical for such weapons due to the size and weight involoved. But then. most folks don't have giant sized, fully artiuclated robatic hands and arms to do the reloading.

Hmm, just a thought, but a mecha scale crossbow could be a nasty weapon.

For the rest, I think 100-rounds clips or drums are ok.

Yeah, especially if you got giant sized robotic arms to swap them out when empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, not familar with that series. Hmm, I wonder how damage and Db, scales up? At some point, the db would make melee weapons more effective than ranged weapons.

That would explain why most of the really big mecha tend to carry melee weapons. A 5 ton sword must be appealing if you got a 12D6 damage bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And finally, as BRP Mecha approaches final playtest stage, it is TEASER TIME!

The BRP Mecha character sheet for... KOOTETSU JEEG!

The final character sheet will be more polished and probably you will have a different one for real robots, which tend to have fewer configurations, but the final amount of information on the sheet is going to be this one. Alas, we cannot include the stats for these iconic mechas in the book for copyright reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting sheet. What is Size Class 3? And what is the scale for STR and SIZ? Is it SIZ 80 character scale, or SIZ 80 *mecha scale*?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I cannot qualify to say anything here ... it looks just strange to me. ;) Are these Mecha compatible with cars and stuff from other BRP products? Is there a design rule for other vehicles? These are the questions I have in mind ... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I cannot qualify to say anything here ... it looks just strange to me. ;) Are these Mecha compatible with cars and stuff from other BRP products? Is there a design rule for other vehicles? These are the questions I have in mind ... :)

To date there isn't one method of stating out things that is used by everyone for all BRP products (I'm working on it). Rosen has some sort of scaling factor for the mech rules i.e.-1d4 damage on mecha scale is a lot more than 1D4 character scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...