Author Topic: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank  (Read 12646 times)

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16594
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« on: 31 October 2011, 17:43:56 »
Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank

Reputedly named for the M50 Ontos used by the United States Marine Corps and with a design inspired by the original, the Ontos (“the thing” in Greek) is definitely the “made for TV movie” version of based on.  In Grumman Amalgamated's internal testing, the final decision to produce it was based more on the ammo independence of the tank's primary weapons than its firepower or armor.  Early problems with heat buildup were countered by measures that fired the energy weapons in sequence rather than all together; whether that's still a problem and is still addressed the same way in modern variants is unknown.  Originally a Capellan design, the fortunes of war saw Grumman's manufacturing lines on Shiro III captured by the Free Worlds League, then Kallon's Nanking factories fell into the hands of the Federated Suns during the Fourth Succession War.  TRO3039 notes that the vehicle is the backbone of FWL heavy tank regiments.  There's a reason for that: They didn't really build anything else that even vaguely fits into the role.  They certainly had some of the usual mix of Manticores, Bulldogs, and Demolishers, but they didn't build any of them domestically.  Upgraded models came online after the Clan Invasion, culminating in the newest variant to date featured in TRO: Prototypes.

They all go back to the original in TRO3026, though, republished in TRO3026R and TRO3039.  At 95 tons, it's equal in size to an Alacorn or Banshee and pretty much obliged to be tracked under tournament rules.  A 285-rated ICE provides enough power to keep moving at 54 kph for a flank speed.  It isn't fast but at this size, you're not going to get a fast tank anyway.  The armor is one of the two great weak points of this tank, although whether you really should expect simple things out of a brand called “SimplePlate” is a good question.  Snark about the suppliers aside, at only 8 tons, we're below the 10% level on armor with 128 points arranged about as well as it can be: 28/24/24/28.  It'll stop any of the big guns around at the time it was designed, certainly, and even some SRMs after that, but in a heavy fire fight, an Ontos's armor is going to come up lacking.  Considering the firepower and its consequential place just below the SRM carrier and the Demolisher on the classic ranged targeting priority list, that's probably not something the crews like to think about very much.  Okay, if speed and armor are both clearly not the point of this thing, it's got to be the guns, right?  Where the original M50 Ontos mounted six 106mm M40 recoilless rifles, its BattleTech progeny spouts eight medium lasers.  Those of you who are wondering if I misspelled fusion engine up there, I didn't.  There's no less than 24 heat sinks on an ICE tank, plus the one ton power amplifier.  (Yes, TRO3039 says it's 0.8 tons.  Yes, TRO3039 is wrong.)  Supplementing the turret-mounted lasers are a pair of LRM 5s, also carried in the turret, sharing a single ton of ammunition.

Some units, regarding the use of the heat sinks and power amplifiers as inefficient, attempted to either replace the lasers with LRMs or to add a fusion engine.  As a reminder, both the LRM and fusion variants from the Succession Wars have current record sheets that occasionally dubious due to production problems with RS3039U's vehicle section, but in this case, all the math looks to be right.  The LRM variant replaces all the lasers and their associated hardware with two LRM 20s fed by five tons of ammunition total, then upgrades the LRM 5s to LRM 10s sharing a single ton of ammo.  Exactly why someone didn't just make it an LRM 20 and link the ammo feeds I don't know but it's a worthy endeavor for gamers who don't insist on absolute canon adherence.  Personally, since the description goes back to TRO3026R at least, I'm not sure the answer isn't “blame FASA” as it often is at times like this.  Of course, others may feel that they might as well just use an LRM carrier but the half-ton of additional armor arranged 30/26/24/30 is nice to have.

The fusion model is a predecessor to later developments and a major improvement on the original, trading the engine in for a similarly-rated standard fusion power plant.  The tonnage freed up is shifted to a pair of LRM 10s (this time sharing two tons of ammunition instead of just one) while the number of lasers actually increased by 25%.  Better yet, the armor is a sinful-seeming 11.5 tons arranged 40/35/34/40.  It's things like that that say to me that if fusion-powered tanks are wrong, I don't want to be right!  Unfortunately, the conversions were difficult and expensive, rarely working out the way they should.

After the Clans decided to come back and say hello, a round of military upgrades occurred even in the combat vehicles that had been skipped over during the race to improve 'Mechs with the fruits of the Helm Core.  One of the beneficiaries of this process was the Ontos whose 3053 model (originally from TRO3058, reprised in TRO3058U) shows certain similarities to the fusion experiments from the Succession Wars.  The main one is, of course, the use of a fusion power plant, a change that was much less temperamental when done by designers instead of tinkerers without the full support resources to do it right.  9.5 tons of Durallex ferro-fibrous armor provides a 40/32/30/36 armor layout that isn't quite as good as the somewhat heavier protection from before but it works well enough.  The armament is where things really diverge.  The lasers are down to a quartet of standard medium lasers and three medium pulse lasers, providing more accuracy at point-blank ranges in exchange for some of your reach.  The fact that it also comes to twenty four heat sinks just like the original may not be a coincidence.  Supplementing these are an LRM 15, SRM 6, and SRM 4, all of them provided with Artemis IV fire control suites.  I might have dropped Artemis and gone for a pair of SRM 4s for more LRM ammo to do things like lay mines or burn ammo throwing indirect fire around until you're ready to rock as well as carry Infernos, but overall, it's not a bad design.

With the coming of RS: Upgrades, the Ontos got a variant featuring the League's newest favorite toy, the light Gauss rifle.  Unlike a lot of LGR refits, this one makes a lot of sense in practice although I'll also note it's kind of like a cut-down Alacorn in a lot of ways.  The main one is the triple Gauss turret armament but all three are LGRs this time.  Four tons of ammunition give them a quite adequate 64 shots to share while the turret also hosts a pair of ERMLs to assist in close-in fighting.  It lacks the staggering close-in punch but as a supporting sniper, the LGR Ontos is something an enemy won't enjoy seeing parked on a hilltop.  The fact that it can be used to support its close-in brethren is just gravy, as is the fact that everything but the weapons load is identical, allowing a lot of parts commonality.  By the end of the Jihad, this variant available to most of the Inner Sphere, so while it's very much a League design in origins and armament, it's not really out of character for an LGR Ontos to turn up in anyone's hands.

Not one but two different variants surfaced in TRO3085: Old is the New New.  The first is a riff on the LGR model that trades one light Gauss rifle (but not its ammo) for a pair of MML 7s fed by three tons of ammunition along with CASE.  The close-in firepower jumps up a fair bit and the LRMs will do more damage once someone gets a bit closer than the fringes of LGR range so, overall, this one is definitely a respectable addition to the Ontos family.  The other one, featuring environmental sealing, is more of a return to type.  Twin extended-range and four standard medium lasers finally bring the Ontos's gun count into line with the old Marine Corps M50 while a pair of MML 7s mated to Artemis modules either shoot the tank in or provide a crit-seeking aftertaste for the lasers.  Five tons of ammunition are, by default, weighted toward SRMs; personally, I'd shift a ton to Infernos, fragmentation, or tear gas to deal with infantry (including battle armor).

The latter shares a feature with two of the newer variants.  The original is the Ontos-X All Aspect Assault Tank from XTRO: Pirates, intended to operate in extremely hostile conditions with relative safety.  Environmental sealing was added to enable dealing with vacuum, hostile atmospheres, or even going underwater.  The loss in armor is where the Ontos-X really got hurt, 7 tons of ferro-fibrous arranged 30/25/25/20.  In terms of firepower, it's somewhat superior to the original 3025 model, using eight medium lasers and an enhanced LRM 15 fed by two tons of ammunition.  (Enhanced LRM 15s are basically just IS LRM launchers with a 3 hex minimum range rather than the 6 hexes of the original; they're fully compatible with all special munitions and Artemis.)  The kicker is the combat vehicle escape pod which lets crews have a survivable shelter, something that would be handy on places like the design's proving grounds on the bleak world of Despair in Ender's Cluster.  Everything went well until Captain Theobald West and his crew decided to steal the vehicle, blow up the other prototypes, and ransom some of the scientists before disappearing into the wastelands.

Exactly where and how Quikscell got their hands on the Ontos-X specifications is unknown.  What is known is that Grumman Amalgamated claims the whole thing is a theft of intellectual property and has thrown down a gauntlet in the courts but not just over the Ontos.  No, they're also rather upset about Quikscell acquiring a lot of hardware on the cheap from Irian before the wounded giant was stabilized by the Republic after the Jihad, then using those components to built the Ontos Hostile Environment Assault Tank (or Ontos HEAT as it's generally called).  The laser armament was largely reduced to a single Diverse Optics Sunbeam ERLL with three standard medium lasers due to supply shortages on Quikscell's part, giving you a bit more range flexibility at the price of some of the killing power the Ontos is known for.  The enhanced LRMs were left alone.  Helpfully, the laser switch did free up three tons, all of it invested in boosting the armor to 40/37/35/30.  I'd also like to say that the artwork looks great, perserving the feel of the older art but significantly better than the TRO3058U artwork.

Operating an Ontos is a bit tricky in the same way that the Demolisher requires some subtlety that's entirely lacking in the tank's armament.  The classical idea is to get one to short range somehow and flay someone with the lasers, be it by stealth, treachery, or distraction.  (The Demolisher option, driving on through the fire with a bit of assistance, doesn't work as well unless you're using the fusion-powered variant.  Even then, you'll probably want someone to draw some fire.)  The LGR models want to stay at range, preferably with a clear LOS, and hammer someone with repeated shots until they drop.  They definitely need friends - LGRs don't have quite enough reach to have a commanding edge in range modifiers against a lot of modern weapons on something this slow.  Having a Hunchback or a Berserker charging into range is going to force the enemy to deal with an immediate threat, giving the LGRs time to work them over properly.  Ultimately, like a lot of the Free Worlds League's more prominent designs, the Ontos is a vehicle that works best as a member of a team, struggling together to create a greater whole from lesser parts.

The Ontos isn't the scariest assault tank in BattleTech in terms of firepower but that doesn't make it a good idea to stand in front of one, either.  Even the (light) Gauss model may not be noted for tearing cockpits off in a single shot (unless you're driving, say, an HSR-200-D Hussar, in which case you shouldn't be standing in front of anything including a stiff breeze) but all of them work to some degree or another on the RAC principle: score enough small hits on a target and the fact that they're not that big won't really matter.  None of them are that heavily armored, either.  You need to bring the laser models down at range if you can.  If they manage to get close, try to stay out of the short-range bracket to minimize the laser fusillade.  Against the long-range models (the LGR and LRM variants), try to take cover and surge into short range to tackle them under their range minimums but be aware that at medium range, they can rain a lot of fire on you quite accurately.  And whatever you do, bring decent amounts of firepower.  You want these things killed reasonably expeditiously, not next week, and you're going to have to deal with whatever the League dragged out of the arsenals to operate alongside them, too.

References: The Ontos is on the MUL, but you'll need to look here for the Ontos-X.  The BattleTech Wiki has some additional artwork.  CamoSpecs has both one of the out-of-production original minis in the colors of the 3rd McCarron's Armored Cavalry and several different versions of the 3058 model.

Neufeld

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2539
  • Raven, Lyran, Horse, Capellan, Canopian, Bear
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #1 on: 01 November 2011, 04:33:58 »
I do not like the original, due to it being overweight and under-armored. 95 tons is too much to handle heavy bridges, so I rather take a Demolisher. Still, some of the newer variants shows more promise.


"Real men and women do not need Terra"
-- Grendel Roberts
"
We will be used to subdue the Capellan Confederation. We will be used to bring the Free Worlds League to heel. We will be used to
hunt bandits and support corrupt rulers and to reinforce the evils of the Inner Sphere that drove our ancestors from it so long ago."
-- Elias Crichell

gyedid

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2582
  • Always brighter on the other side of the mirror.
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #2 on: 02 November 2011, 06:06:14 »
Is it possible to cram 6 plasma rifles into the turret, to get something that looks and works a little more like the real-world original?

cheers,

Gabe
So, now I'm imagining people boxing up Overlords for loading as cargo.  "Nope, totally not a DropShip.  Everyone knows you can't fit a DropShip in a WarShip!  It's...a ten thousand ton box of marshmallows!  Yeah.  For the Heavy Guards big annual smores party."
--Arkansas Warrior, on the possibility of carrying Dropships as cargo in Warship cargo bays.

TERRAN SUPREMACY DEFENSE FORCE.  For when you want to send the SLDF, but couldn't afford the whole kit and kaboodle.

Grantwhy

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 152
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #3 on: 02 November 2011, 07:07:37 »
Is it possible to cram 6 plasma rifles into the turret, to get something that looks and works a little more like the real-world original?

cheers,

Gabe

6 plasma rifles would require 60 heat sinks (or only 50 on a Fusion engine model) so that's out.

hmmm .... we should be able to replace the original Ontos' Medium Lasers with 6 Light AC5's, with a ton of ammo for each (enough to put in a ton or two of speciality ammo?) and have 3(?) tons left over for more armor/CASE/other stuff.  Still not a great design, but the main guns have more range and with speciality ammo can be tailored to your opponents (and matches the M50 Ontos in the use of 6 ballistic guns?).
As a CareBearAnarchist I believe in the destruction and overthrow of the perils of society through random and senseless acts of consideration and kindness.

Don't fight rabbits if you taste like lettuce.

Ratwedge

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #4 on: 02 November 2011, 08:34:19 »
Chemical Lasers. Just praise jesus and pass the ammunition.

gyedid

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2582
  • Always brighter on the other side of the mirror.
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #5 on: 02 November 2011, 08:53:56 »
6 plasma rifles would require 60 heat sinks (or only 50 on a Fusion engine model) so that's out.

hmmm .... we should be able to replace the original Ontos' Medium Lasers with 6 Light AC5's, with a ton of ammo for each (enough to put in a ton or two of speciality ammo?) and have 3(?) tons left over for more armor/CASE/other stuff.  Still not a great design, but the main guns have more range and with speciality ammo can be tailored to your opponents (and matches the M50 Ontos in the use of 6 ballistic guns?).

I didn't know that plasma rifles counted as energy weapons for purposes of heat sink allocation.  My bad.

I had been thinking about 6 LAC/2s, but that's nearly like getting two Pikes in one...

cheers,

Gabe
So, now I'm imagining people boxing up Overlords for loading as cargo.  "Nope, totally not a DropShip.  Everyone knows you can't fit a DropShip in a WarShip!  It's...a ten thousand ton box of marshmallows!  Yeah.  For the Heavy Guards big annual smores party."
--Arkansas Warrior, on the possibility of carrying Dropships as cargo in Warship cargo bays.

TERRAN SUPREMACY DEFENSE FORCE.  For when you want to send the SLDF, but couldn't afford the whole kit and kaboodle.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13700
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #6 on: 02 November 2011, 13:30:01 »
You have to cover all heat generated by the vehicle on a hypothethical alpha strike.  Ballistic weapons still generate heat; you must allocate heat sinks for them.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Kiesel

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 151
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #7 on: 02 November 2011, 14:14:40 »
ballistic and missile weapon heat is not tracked by vehicles... they only have to account for energy weapon heat sinks.

3rdCrucisLancers

  • SAVAGE
  • Freelance Writer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
  • Smallest star in the firmament
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #8 on: 02 November 2011, 14:15:54 »
You have to cover all heat generated by the vehicle on a hypothethical alpha strike.  Ballistic weapons still generate heat; you must allocate heat sinks for them.

Wait, what?
Fighter of the Nightman (ah-ah-ah)
Champion of the Sun (ah-ah-ah)

misterpants

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 717
  • Bringing you the beats and grooves of Xin Sheng
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #9 on: 02 November 2011, 14:50:08 »
You have to cover all heat generated by the vehicle on a hypothethical alpha strike.  Ballistic weapons still generate heat; you must allocate heat sinks for them.

You do realize if that was true then pretty much EVERY single canon combat vehicle mounting anything more than MGs is illegal.
Avatar by Blackjack Jones

ItsTehPope

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1565
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #10 on: 02 November 2011, 14:54:14 »
You have to cover all heat generated by the vehicle on a hypothethical alpha strike.  Ballistic weapons still generate heat; you must allocate heat sinks for them.

Not quite homeslice.  Vee's do not count heat for missile/ballistic weapons, but for energy that's correct.
If you actually care to listen to my thoughts outside of Battletech, find me at www.uselessblot.com

(4:37:55 PM) moonsword134: You're a bastard.
(4:38:11 PM) moonsword134: And so's the talking whiskey monkey who lives in bottles of tequila to give you ideas.

(4:52:52 PM) ShinjoJinturi: simply by having tag on the field, even in a game that appears to not have any lrms or arrows on the board, you can inspire fear

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #11 on: 02 November 2011, 15:11:58 »
Vehicles need to account for the full heat buildup possible from firing all their energy weapons (and that with only single heat sinks since they can't mount doubles), while movement and ballistic/missile weapons are effectively free. It's just that plasma weapons are treated as energy weapons for this purpose (Tech Manual p. 235).

This isn't automatically true for all direct-fire energy weapons that use ammo (consider vehicle flamers for a counterexample), so it's one of those things one needs to check on a case-by-case basis.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13700
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #12 on: 02 November 2011, 15:58:52 »
That.... changes the way I build vehicles rather substantially.  Hrm.  Good to know (and how I had not figured that out sooner, I'll probably never know).
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

SurfRockSteven

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 50
  • Glowin' like the metal on the edge of a knife...
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #13 on: 02 November 2011, 19:06:04 »
The Ontos with the 8 ML is just a beast in 3025.  I know there are a bunch of other units with AC/20s and PPCs and whatnot, but throw in a good gunner and get up close and personal and watch 5 tons of 'Mech armor disappear each turn.  In a city, or something like a canyon, Ontos tanks are just mean, and with no ammo for the 8ML to worry about, they can just fire all day.  I've lost many 'Mechs to that bugger in the day, especially when playing with double blind rules when you stumble on one. 

It's like the tracked version of the Swayback.
"The story of civilization is, in a sense, the story of engineering - that long and arduous struggle to make the forces of nature work for man's good."
~L. Sprague de Camp

"Arrr! The laws of science be a harsh mistress."
~Bender Bending Rodriguez

Isanova

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1339
  • There you are!
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #14 on: 03 November 2011, 00:40:28 »
The original version just seems like such a waste to me. If you want or need to build a heavy tank on a budget, ICE is great but you could build a light fusion tank with four medium lasers and comparable armor for less.

I would consider converting the Ontos to a SRM carrier with a AC/5 and the LRMs for popgun fire support. It remains a short-ranged beast then a trio of SRM-6 launchers are plenty nasty. Any slow, heavy tank really need not worry about ammunition issues because it lacks the speed to move far from supply lanes.

OTOH, if you want a cheap and mean MBT consider a trio of AC/5s, heavier armor, and a quartet of small lasers to be mean in close range. Sure it's not the best firepower, but with an ICE you are limited and you dont want it to be just another LRM carrier.

For a modern-era heavy cheap tank, Vehicle flamers all round with enough fuel to carry regular and inferno fuel. either AC-5s or an MRM-40 for firepower. Heavy on the armor, heavy on the armor. Case. You can keep it under the 2 million mark, and it becomes a sturdy tactical monster.
Freeborn and proud~

gyedid

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2582
  • Always brighter on the other side of the mirror.
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #15 on: 03 November 2011, 10:19:04 »
So, now I'm imagining people boxing up Overlords for loading as cargo.  "Nope, totally not a DropShip.  Everyone knows you can't fit a DropShip in a WarShip!  It's...a ten thousand ton box of marshmallows!  Yeah.  For the Heavy Guards big annual smores party."
--Arkansas Warrior, on the possibility of carrying Dropships as cargo in Warship cargo bays.

TERRAN SUPREMACY DEFENSE FORCE.  For when you want to send the SLDF, but couldn't afford the whole kit and kaboodle.

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13086
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #16 on: 03 November 2011, 11:22:00 »
Maybe its because I happen to own 4 of them as mini's, but the Ontos is definetly a favorite of mine.

I've yet to find a single version that I can't get loads of usage out of.

The 3026 versions are both BEASTs.  (8ML v/s LRM40..either one is brutal)
I had a pair of them hidden in trees as a Jade Falcon WarHawk came over a hill shooting at my mechs.  2 Turns later both Ontos's were still going w/ thrashed armor while that WarHawk was pulling back and no longer interested in shooting up my mechs.  16 ML's at short range will do that to anyone.

The "retcon" versions from 3058U w/ SFE, 10ML, & LRM10's instead of 5's for the ML & LRM versions are even beefier.

True upgrades have all been good IMHO.
3058 version is just plain the same as the original only better.
And the Lt Gauss is just a major PITA as it snipes you for 24 damage each turn at ranges that you have minimal return fire at.  (25 Long, 17 Medium..ouch)

I'm unsure about the new ones still, having not used them, BUT, both of them look solid on paper.
The MML's are IMHO one of the finest weapon systems ever created for Tanks.
I am currently using one in an ongoing campaign that I have refitted w/ batteries of MML3's, a MechMortar-8, MPL's, AMS, & Heavy Ferro.. it is a beast!
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #17 on: 20 December 2011, 03:08:44 »
Is it wrong that I've realized that this design makes some sense? I figure that on out of the way worlds ICE Light Blubs work.
The lasers are sold state and don't need servicing, compared to AC's which need both ammo and parts shipped in from off world (I've never seen anything saying where the ammo comes from) and if you don need a replacement gun, it eats up a lot less tonnage (you could actually ship 5 with the tank in a standard 100-ton bay)
Engine, IS and power amps could easily be made on world if/when needed.
armor is the tricky bit, yes most worlds don't make 'Mech armor, but most worlds would have some sort of commercial armor factory that could do a run of heavy industrial armor to re-skin the tanks

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16594
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #18 on: 20 December 2011, 18:23:30 »
It makes plenty of sense.  Maintenance is simpler.

But you've got the manufacturing analysis exactly backwards.  Autocannon ammo is a smaller problem to manufacture from a battered industrial base than a combat vehicle's engine, armor, internal structure, or electronics.  All of those but the engine are, historically, the products of a mid to late 25th century industrial base (TR D) and are significantly lighter than an equivalent TR C support vehicle's.  The engine is a smaller issue but is still more powerful and lighter than TR C support vehicle engines; how widespread early IndustrialMech manufacturing was, as well as the manufacture of their particular ICE power plants, isn't something I know enough to speculate on.  Meanwhile, functionally modern autocannons are a product of the early to mid-24th in full production, with prototypes appearing significantly earlier, and are TR C, as is their basic ammo.
« Last Edit: 20 December 2011, 18:26:27 by Moonsword »

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #19 on: 22 December 2011, 00:01:30 »
Is it wrong or rude to correct a mod? If so I apologize in advance. Whilst I was ab libbing before this time I have managed to run down the tech rating and availability codes
IS and Control Components are both B/A-A-A and ICE engines are C/A-A-A, so chances are they are manufactured on world, or if not something that can substitute for them in a pinch, failing that the next dropship to stop by will conveniently have some in stock
Heat Sinks are D/B-B-B but Sarna doesn't list manufacturers at all, nothing on the item page and no company on HII makes them AT ALL, so worst case scenario unless the world you are on is really backward is that they are a special order from a local company
Armor is interesting D/C-C-C, but given the rates it would be used up official supply seems to be low, recently I found out Tikonov had 24 regiments of armor belonging to the Militia in 3025, this in addition to the 3 regiments and 5 battalions listed as garrisoning it, the amount of armor they would need in case of an attack would be more then the single plant on world at the time would be able to supply (low confidence on this statement for numbers but there would seem to be a lot of metal on world and little to re-armor it) so there should be more then that single supplier of armor in the event of an attack

For AC's even standard models aren't always made on the same world as the vehicle they are used in so there are some limits on making them in location X and given that the design of parts would be protected by copyright or something, legally I doubt a world would be allowed to make replacement parts if they could and ammunition is "uncommon" meaning most worlds don't seem to have the ability to make it
« Last Edit: 22 December 2011, 00:39:13 by SCC »

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16594
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #20 on: 22 December 2011, 21:00:25 »
Next time provide a page number for references like that, please.  (It's on TM page 279.)  Exactly why those ratings are what they are is going to be an interesting answer.  That's more common and easier to make than heavier, less durable support vehicle structure.  Ditto the electronics, which are also lighter than their support vehicle equivalents.
« Last Edit: 22 December 2011, 21:18:38 by Moonsword »

JerichoRehling

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #21 on: 10 December 2023, 14:02:29 »
The new Chemical Laser variant is absolutely nasty.

acksed

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 362
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #22 on: 11 December 2023, 12:06:02 »
The new Chemical Laser variant is absolutely nasty.
I know. 8 Large Lasers on a single tank is disgusting. It's the kind of laser-boat that I'd make if I wanted to give the other side the kind of sunburn that melts through armour. :grin:
« Last Edit: 11 December 2023, 12:26:36 by acksed »
My Fic: [BattleTech] Not Invented Here - Technological progress is hard when you're all alone in the night... so why not send for help?

17thRecon

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 303
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #23 on: 12 December 2023, 23:10:00 »
Nice article. Always loved the look of the original real world M50 Ontos, my only gripe with the BT one is it doesn’t carry over the same feel/look. But this 8 Chemical Laser one sounds like it would fit the bill (granted it’s go two more “guns”, but that’s just minor nitpicking on my part). It does make me wonder if BT has a tank inspired by the M551 Sheridan, another of those real world vehicles I always thought had that “unique/awesome” vibe going for it. It could somehow mount an AC 20 that was also able to fire a Thunderbolt 20 for range or something like that.
« Last Edit: 12 December 2023, 23:15:01 by 17thRecon »

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25829
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #24 on: 13 December 2023, 02:38:17 »
The new Chemical Laser variant is absolutely nasty.

It's horrific in exactly the way that it should be.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Gorgon

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 794
  • The little duchy that could
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #25 on: 13 December 2023, 03:06:29 »
I know that mechanically it's pretty much the same as firing 8 Clan ER mediums, but there's something about saying "And I fire my 8 large lasers at this unit" that is so much more satisfying.
Jude Melancon lives!

gyedid

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2582
  • Always brighter on the other side of the mirror.
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #26 on: 13 December 2023, 11:08:42 »
I know that mechanically it's pretty much the same as firing 8 Clan ER mediums, but there's something about saying "And I fire my 8 large lasers at this unit" that is so much more satisfying.

How does it dissipate the heat from all that?  That's 64 heat, and even with a fusion engine, that's still 54 tons of heat sinks.  And chemical lasers need ammo. Even on a 95 ton tank, where does the mass come from?

cheers,

Gabe
So, now I'm imagining people boxing up Overlords for loading as cargo.  "Nope, totally not a DropShip.  Everyone knows you can't fit a DropShip in a WarShip!  It's...a ten thousand ton box of marshmallows!  Yeah.  For the Heavy Guards big annual smores party."
--Arkansas Warrior, on the possibility of carrying Dropships as cargo in Warship cargo bays.

TERRAN SUPREMACY DEFENSE FORCE.  For when you want to send the SLDF, but couldn't afford the whole kit and kaboodle.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25829
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #27 on: 13 December 2023, 11:12:28 »
Chem lasers are considered ballistic weapons for the purposes of heat when used by vehicles and protomechs.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40835
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #28 on: 13 December 2023, 11:24:09 »
I know that mechanically it's pretty much the same as firing 8 Clan ER mediums, but there's something about saying "And I fire my 8 large lasers at this unit" that is so much more satisfying.

I remember getting the same feeling when the Phoenix mechs were still new, and I could see the looks on people's faces when I said "My Stinger will fire its PPC at...".

It was a Light PPC, but still... :cheesy:
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Rince Wind

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 170
Re: Vehicle of the Week: Ontos Heavy Tank
« Reply #29 on: 13 December 2023, 12:39:34 »
How does it dissipate the heat from all that?  That's 64 heat, and even with a fusion engine, that's still 54 tons of heat sinks.  And chemical lasers need ammo. Even on a 95 ton tank, where does the mass come from?

cheers,

Gabe

Even on mechs it would "only" be 48 heat. They are a bit cooler than regular ones.

Now how many medium chem lasers + ammo could you put on the Ontos?