Why Build Artillery 'Mechs?

[SCC]

No.  You weren't.  Or at the very least you were arguing against 'mechs in general.  It's not like an Artillery 'Mech magically requires supplies while an ARC-2R doesn't.

No, from the outset that's what spurned this question, if the terrain blockage is big enough that artillery can't shoot over it, how are you getting supplies to the 'Mechs on the other side?

Armed Buildings and Infantry Field Guns say you're wrong.

I'm surprised you didn't mention trailer as well. Armed buildings aren't really mobile, and I don't know if infantry field guns count as towed guns.

You know what's better than taking hits on your armor?  Not getting hit at all.  You're trying to strawman this into a discussion about toughness when I'm arguing mobility.

Well you (or someone else) seemed to suggest that. And if your using off-map artillery mobility doesn't matter at all, can't move the unit.

A really heavily armored artillery tank is going to have to compromise on speed and probably armament, too.  And it depends on having optimized choices of positioning and setting up before the fight.

You don't need much, 4/6 should be enough. Artillery in BT (and a lesser extent RL) is a bit weird that way, you only want to move far enough to not be hit by splash from your previous location, interestingly this assumes that they hit your last location.

And remember that TMM doesn't apply to artillery, you don't need to move far between each shot, just enough to not get hit!

In the end, mechs go places & do things that tanks can't. 

Like walk across the bottom of a river,  or out of a dropship on an airless moon, etc etc.

Having a single Catapult in the Command Lance of a Battalion might be just the tiny edge they need to open up a hole in defenses that are otherwise restricted to standard range guns.

Just to make sure you understand we're talking Arrow 4, Thumper, Sniper and Long Tom here, not LRMs.

So we're talking about a river at least 5 kilometers wide, such that tanks with LT's on the far bank can't really help support your advance. How are you getting supplies to these 'Mechs? If those tanks can't get across, how are supply trucks going to get across?

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I kind of scratching my head SCC, what's your thesis here.. that artillery on mech platforms are of no appreciable gain in value compared to artillery on conventional platforms, and by extension artillery mechs are a waste of resources as rare mechs should focus on other roles?  Is it a meta complaint that mechs with artillery should never have been published?

I think it's universally agreed that artillery is a good thing to have.  I'm curious what you're arguing against.

[Crimson Dawn]

Also I am confused on how this is really different from standard mech supply.  A ton of artillery shells weighs the same as a ton of LRMs so I would imagine that supplying the artillery mech would be like supplying any ammo based weapon system on a mech. 

Also if nothing can follow a mech but another mech they would just make a resupply mech with a bunch of space devoted to cargo space I would think.  It would follow the artillery mechs and resupply them as they go.

[Alexander Knight]

Yes, terrain features large enough to be longer than artillery ranges are very rare.  That would be convenient if you never had to advance outside of your artillery's range, but that isn't the case in most warfare.

The battlefield is not static and you cannot automatically assume there will always be a clear unobstructed path for your ground vehicles to follow an advance or retreat.

[SCC]

I kind of scratching my head SCC, what's your thesis here.. that artillery on mech platforms are of no appreciable gain in value compared to artillery on conventional platforms, and by extension artillery mechs are a waste of resources as rare mechs should focus on other roles?  Is it a meta complaint that mechs with artillery should never have been published?

I think it's universally agreed that artillery is a good thing to have.  I'm curious what you're arguing against.

Maybe, now that you state things like that I'm a bit unsure. Maybe the best way to put it would be encouraging advancing across obstacles that you know your logistics won't be able to cross?

Also I am confused on how this is really different from standard mech supply.  A ton of artillery shells weighs the same as a ton of LRMs so I would imagine that supplying the artillery mech would be like supplying any ammo based weapon system on a mech. 

Also if nothing can follow a mech but another mech they would just make a resupply mech with a bunch of space devoted to cargo space I would think.  It would follow the artillery mechs and resupply them as they go.

Stuff moves on trucks, as tanks can't go though woods so too can't trucks, so why encourage people to advance across woods too big for artillery to fire across?

Yes, terrain features large enough to be longer than artillery ranges are very rare.  That would be convenient if you never had to advance outside of your artillery's range, but that isn't the case in most warfare.

The battlefield is not static and you cannot automatically assume there will always be a clear unobstructed path for your ground vehicles to follow an advance or retreat.

What about advancing outside of your ability to keep your units supplied?

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Well you (or someone else) seemed to suggest that. And if your using off-map artillery mobility doesn't matter at all, can't move the unit.
You don't need much, 4/6 should be enough. Artillery in BT (and a lesser extent RL) is a bit weird that way, you only want to move far enough to not be hit by splash from your previous location, interestingly this assumes that they hit your last location.

And remember that TMM doesn't apply to artillery, you don't need to move far between each shot, just enough to not get hit!
Just to make sure you understand we're talking Arrow 4, Thumper, Sniper and Long Tom here, not LRMs.

There's 2 artillery ground vehicles that I can think of that actually manage to get up to 4/6 movement, the Chaparral and the Thor.  If you want to build a hypothetical artillery vehicle that can still hit 4/6 and mounts a lot of armor, you're going to need expensive weight-saving equipment and are likely to still be forced to skimp on ammo and secondary weaponry.  At that point, you might as well be using an artillery mech because you're not saving on anything.

Also, moving to avoid counter-battery fire defeats the purpose of digging your artillery units in, which is what you'd previously suggested.

[Sartris]

The Danai goes 5/8 I think

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Maybe, now that you state things like that I'm a bit unsure. Maybe the best way to put it would be encouraging advancing across obstacles that you know your logistics won't be able to cross?
Stuff moves on trucks, as tanks can't go though woods so too can't trucks, so why encourage people to advance across woods too big for artillery to fire across?
What about advancing outside of your ability to keep your units supplied?

Well if baggage trains not being able to keep up with the Mechs is supposedly an issue, why use mechs at all? Artillery mechs aren't in a different logistical position from other ammo-using mechs.

As previously stated, a ton of Artillery shells is no harder or easier to get to the mechs on the front lines than a ton of LRM ammo.  And the value in putting artillery on mechs isn't that you have a cool standing artillery platform back behind the lines... it's that you have a survivable platform right there mixing it up alongside the forces your artillery is supporting.  You bother with Mech artillery so that you can have artillery actually on the board, doing 0 flight time attacks that high TMM and AoE vulnerable targets don't have time to avoid.  Also mentioned upthread but I feel bears mentioning again... artillery on a Mech can see over LvL 1 hills for direct fire shots that tracked/wheeled artillery vehicles couldn't even make in the first place under the same circumstances.

[SteelRaven]

SCC, sounds like you already made up your mind on the subject.


Artillery mechs are limited so if you don't want to use them, cool. I personally don't find LAMs all that useful but the unit exist for those who want to use them.   

[Kidd]

Artillery Mechs are a niche. You don't need them to provide ALL the artillery support to your RCT, the main shelling power should remain self-propelled Long Toms etc. However, having a lance or two of Arrow IV Catapults expands your options tremendously, and unless I'm much mistaken most arty Mechs carry Arrow IV. (As a matter of fact I don't think there is a single Artillery Mech in the game that mounts a Long Tom.)

Arrow IV being only 4km in range at best makes it a very tactical piece. Play on a big enough map and you'll realise that it is quite vulnerable to headhunter flankers. Play a mobile enough battle and you'll realise the need to keep up with your Mech forces over bad terrain. And anyone who knows the OP-ness of indirect LRM fire should experiment with Arrow IV Homing rounds.

Without digging in, vehicles are loads more vulnerable to mobility damage compared to Mechs; I don't think this is a debatable issue. Digging in is a poor 2nd-best to innate survivability because you need time and digger units and you still don't solve the problem of enemy headhunters. Plus, if you use artillery vehicles all the enemy needs to do is peel off a handful of hovertanks to run you over. When you use artillery Mechs and put them in heavy woods, the enemy has no choice but to assign Mechs to take them out.

Supply is not an issue in most games. But if you are playing on that scale, again - play on a map with lots of heavy woods, and use more Karnovs and CargoMechs.

I think Classic Battletech tabletop won't show off the abilities of Arrow IV Mechs that much. Probably Strategic Battleforce on a big map with lots of heavy woods will. And if you wonder "why fight in the woods", look up the Schlieffen Plan and Wacht Am Rhein...

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Artillery Mechs are a niche. You don't need them to provide ALL the artillery support to your RCT, the main shelling power should remain self-propelled Long Toms etc. However, having a lance or two of Arrow IV Catapults expands your options tremendously, and unless I'm much mistaken most arty Mechs carry Arrow IV. (As a matter of fact I don't think there is a single Artillery Mech in the game that mounts a Long Tom.)

It's physically impossible to mount a Long Tom (not a Long Tom Cannon) on any mech smaller than a super-heavy, since you can't split a single item's critical slots between more than two locations and a Long Tom would take 30.

[Kidd]

It's physically impossible to mount a Long Tom (not a Long Tom Cannon) on any mech smaller than a super-heavy, since you can't split a single item's critical slots between more than two locations and a Long Tom would take 30.

Sounds like a Superheavy Mech waiting to happen then  ;)

[guardiandashi]

its not totally rules legal, but the original huntress as published in battletechnology magazine, actually mounted the thumpers fully in the side torso's by sacrificing internal structure for the additional crits needed.  if there was a rule to allow for doing that, then I think you could fit a long tom into a mech, but it would make it rather fragile.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

its not totally totally not rules legal, but the original huntress as published in battletechnology magazine, actually mounted the thumpers fully in the side torso's by sacrificing internal structure for the additional crits needed.  if there was a rule to allow for doing that, then I think you could fit a long tom into a mech, but it would make it rather fragile.

Fixed

[Kitsune413]

I think the real question is why build artillery mechs without jump jets.  :o

Who doesn't want some artillery you can park on the side of a mountain and then move.

[Kitsune413]

Also the talk about the artillery mechs moving out of range of its supply just makes me wonder why we don't have artillery loader mechs. That's the real oversight...

Though I don't know who they would get to pilot such a death trap.

[RunandFindOut]

Also the talk about the artillery mechs moving out of range of its supply just makes me wonder why we don't have artillery loader mechs. That's the real oversight...

Though I don't know who they would get to pilot such a death trap.

Whichever pilot the CO's teenage daughter has a highly inappropriate crush on. 

[pheonixstorm]

Whichever pilot the CO's teenage daughter has a highly inappropriate crush on.

Best answer EVER. This coming from a father of a (almost) teenage daughter.

[SCC]

There's 2 artillery ground vehicles that I can think of that actually manage to get up to 4/6 movement, the Chaparral and the Thor.  If you want to build a hypothetical artillery vehicle that can still hit 4/6 and mounts a lot of armor, you're going to need expensive weight-saving equipment and are likely to still be forced to skimp on ammo and secondary weaponry.  At that point, you might as well be using an artillery mech because you're not saving on anything.

Also, moving to avoid counter-battery fire defeats the purpose of digging your artillery units in, which is what you'd previously suggested.

I can give a Vedette a FCE and a Sniper piece and 10 tons of armor. And you should probably have several firing positions set up in advance

Well if baggage trains not being able to keep up with the Mechs is supposedly an issue, why use mechs at all? Artillery mechs aren't in a different logistical position from other ammo-using mechs.

As previously stated, a ton of Artillery shells is no harder or easier to get to the mechs on the front lines than a ton of LRM ammo.  And the value in putting artillery on mechs isn't that you have a cool standing artillery platform back behind the lines... it's that you have a survivable platform right there mixing it up alongside the forces your artillery is supporting.  You bother with Mech artillery so that you can have artillery actually on the board, doing 0 flight time attacks that high TMM and AoE vulnerable targets don't have time to avoid.  Also mentioned upthread but I feel bears mentioning again... artillery on a Mech can see over LvL 1 hills for direct fire shots that tracked/wheeled artillery vehicles couldn't even make in the first place under the same circumstances.

There's a difference between a tactical obstacle you can't move supplies over and a strategic one. Imagine planing a road trip and being told you can't go through a certain county that's directly in you path, that's not a big problem, now replace county with state, major problem.

Artillery Mechs are a niche. You don't need them to provide ALL the artillery support to your RCT, the main shelling power should remain self-propelled Long Toms etc. However, having a lance or two of Arrow IV Catapults expands your options tremendously, and unless I'm much mistaken most arty Mechs carry Arrow IV. (As a matter of fact I don't think there is a single Artillery Mech in the game that mounts a Long Tom.)

Helepolis mounts a sniper, which weighs the same but has much greater range.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I can give a Vedette a FCE and a Sniper piece and 10 tons of armor. And you should probably have several firing positions set up in advance

How much ammo does that Vedette have for that gun, and what's it packing for secondary armament?

And sure, you can set up multiple firing positions (if you're able to set up your forces in advance), but with an artillery mech you wouldn't need to do so.  Remember, it takes an extra two movement points to go Hull-Down with a vehicle, so unless your artillery vehicles are really fast or your firing locations are really close together, that's also going to cost you on your rate of fire.

[Liam's Ghost]

Sounds like a Superheavy Mech waiting to happen then  ;)

not to toot my own horn or anything...

[Charlie 6]

As a former artilleryman, 'Mech based artillery always interested me.  Logistics wasn't going to be a problem simply because if the 'Mech was mobile enough to get to the firing position then it was mobile enough to get back out to the resupply point where my less "mobile" trucks are.  Although I can't image spending the effort to dislocate firing positions from my resupply that it would make a difference...maybe if I were in the Himalayas.

The true advantage of RL self-propelled is the ability to emplace and displace without separating the gun from the prime mover.  It is a matter of quickness.  A 'Mech would replicate that but the rules don't necessitate it.

[Weirdo]

Also the talk about the artillery mechs moving out of range of its supply just makes me wonder why we don't have artillery loader mechs. That's the real oversight...

They exist. I forget the name, but we got a really nice one in Klondike. Quad too, so you can put a less-skilled pilot in it and still reasonably expect it to cross the same terrain as the combat mechs.

There's a difference between a tactical obstacle you can't move supplies over and a strategic one. Imagine planing a road trip and being told you can't go through a certain county that's directly in you path, that's not a big problem, now replace county with state, major problem.

You still haven't explained how anybody can justify using any ammo mechs at all, given this limitation. So that you can't be accused of moving the goal posts if this conversation(which is tantamount to trolling), please address this.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

They exist. I forget the name, but we got a really nice one in Klondike. Quad too, so you can put a less-skilled pilot in it and still reasonably expect it to cross the same terrain as the combat mechs.

The Daedalus "Stevedore"

[JadedFalcon]

Everyone's talking about RCTs and large formations, but what about the benefits of artillery mechs from a small unit point of view? Having one artillery mech as fire-support in a company-sized raiding force could come in handy, using their range to soften up defending units as they are moving to intercept the raiders. Another example is Camacho's Caballeros using an Arrow-IV to ambush pirates that they were hunting, and later against the 9th Ghost that was moving to attack.

If you don't use homing rounds, sure. (But if you're using Arrow IV and not using homing rounds you're doing it wrong...)

If FASCAM is wrong, I don't want to be right.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

If FASCAM is wrong, I don't want to be right.

That and Inferno IVs.

[monbvol]

How much ammo does that Vedette have for that gun, and what's it packing for secondary armament?

And sure, you can set up multiple firing positions (if you're able to set up your forces in advance), but with an artillery mech you wouldn't need to do so.  Remember, it takes an extra two movement points to go Hull-Down with a vehicle, so unless your artillery vehicles are really fast or your firing locations are really close together, that's also going to cost you on your rate of fire.

Considering I can't fit a Sniper without slowing the Vedette down I have to speculate he meant Thumper.  If I keep the turret a Vedette with a Fuel Cell without slowing down can mount a Thumper and one ton of ammo with no secondary weapons and 10 tons of armor(total).  Personally I wouldn't add that much armor to have more ready ammunition and even some secondary weaponry.

Plus an added note of your plans hinging on your opponent obliging you by going within range of your prepared defenses, well it strikes me something I wouldn't want to count on, and if they did they probably have their own plan that still may not cooperate the way you want.

That also assumes you have the time to set up said prepared positions too.  Something that isn't a given.  Especially if you are on the attack and it is going well.

Which should be all the answer you need for why you have Artillery Mechs.  They keep up with your Mechs by being able to cross the same terrain they can and you don't have to count on having the time to set up prepared positions or your enemy following your plan.

[SCC]

OK, some replies.

On the subject of loader 'Mechs I hadn't quite realized what you where saying, but a few problems:
0) 'Mechs are rare, OK?
1) 'Mech do not make good cargo haulers, the Uni ATAE-70T CargoMech, a 70-ton dedicated cargo 'Mech, can haul 17 tons at 3/5. A disarmed Dragon is a bit better, it's 5/8 and 60 tons
2) So you've  built some loader 'Mechs, how are you getting it from one 'Mech to another? That's the kind of LostTech that was never recovered.

My Veddette design used a Thumper (Yeah, missed up there), two tons ammo and no secondaries. If I switch to using an XL engine can mount a LL secondary in turret at .5 ton armor, this is comparable to a Dragon II, but don't have design program to double check on this computer.

And artillery is all about the prepared sites, there should be scouts out all the time looking for new places for me to shoot from because before I shoot I better know where I'm scooting to next

[Chas]

OK, some replies.

On the subject of loader 'Mechs I hadn't quite realized what you where saying, but a few problems:
0) 'Mechs are rare, OK?  (But What does "rare" quantify out as?)  Sure, it's not 1/1 mech/human.  But the mech forces of the Clans and Inner Sphere are also NOT million-to-one either.
1) 'Mech do not make good cargo haulers, the Uni ATAE-70T CargoMech, a 70-ton dedicated cargo 'Mech, can haul 17 tons at 3/5. A disarmed Dragon is a bit better, it's 5/8 and 60 tons.  (Irrelevant.  In a combat situation, even if it's dumb, but it works, it ain't dumb.  In short, sometimes sub-optimal execution is still your best strategy.)
2) So you've  built some loader 'Mechs, how are you getting it from one 'Mech to another? That's the kind of LostTech that was never recovered.  (If the ammo mech is properly configured, and has access to the firing mech's ammo bin load points...  Yes.  Maybe at certain VERY low points, early in mech history and during the succession wars, hand-loading mechs was probably necessary.  However, automated and semi-automated loading equipment isn't exactly rocket science.)

And artillery is all about the prepared sites, there should be scouts out all the time looking for new places for me to shoot from because before I shoot I better know where I'm scooting to next

On the last point, I think you're making an unwarranted assumption.  That scouting missions aren't happening and that, once emplaced, artillery mechs are more or less permanent fixtures.

They aren't.  Additionally, even if moving between planned launch points, these mechs can STILL provide artillery support on minimal notice.

[Von Jankmon]

I dont like artillery cannon, they are gimic weapons.

However IndustrialMechs with artillery pieces on them make sense.  Yes they are vulnerable, but artillery always is, that hasn't stopped us until now and likely wouldn't in the 31st century.