Rifle Cannons: What have you done?

[RifleMech]

This is not true--ammo often weighs different amounts in different bins.  A real world reason might be wet storage needs for primitive explosives.  The in universe reason is to punish the rifle and other primitive guns like the early autocannons, which had reduced ammo capacities.  The primitive AC line has a 75% punishment, to 68-75 damage/ton.  The even more primitive Rifle line has a further 75% punshiment from the Primitive AC line, as 75% of 68-75 is 51-56, and Rifles do 54 damage/ton.

Not really. A ton of ammo is still a ton of ammo. What you're looking at is the storage capacity of the ammo magazine. The amounts of ammo will differ there. In real life. The closest BT comes to this is CASE, Clan CASE, or no CASE.

Another thing to consider, having wet ammo storage on anything that isn't heat neutral is dangerous. When the mech heats up that water is going to turn to steam turning the ammo bin into a pressure vessel. At best, I would think that'd cause a misfire it not causing the round to explode when it's launched through the feed system faster than designed. At worst, the bin blows up when it can't hold the steam any more.

No its not; the MRC get you by stats in 1945 are not the descriptors for the MRC in battletech--the 1945 stats are used in 1945 units, and often used tech C components not available in 1945 to fudge the unit construction to work.  TR1945 is a blast and a great product, but the numbers used when converting are 'get you by fudges'.  As you go on to say, there are multiple kinds of 8.8cm guns, and they have different characteristics, so the flat statement that 88mm is MRC simply can not be true, though a 5 ton 8.8 with 35 RPM, if that version exists, could be a MRCAs you go on to say, other cannons are different. 

Actually, the 8.8cm is equivalent to a MRC. That there are different 8.8cm cannons in RL and only one in the game is an issue with the game. Like how Autocannon sizes are fluff only. That XTRO:1945 uses fudges kind of shows how much better it is than the actual rules. TM only gets so close to real life vehicles. After that, you have to fudge things. I would have to look to see what components were Tech C but I think I'd be okay with it. That is when Tech C was in it's infancy. Not that equivalent means it uses advanced parts. It just means that it's capable of doing the same job. I don't know where you're getting the 35 rounds per minute.

The 75mm/76.2mm field piece/tank cannon in the 3 ton range you first mentioned had sustained ROF in the 5-10 range, as you could manually load them quicker for a few shots.  Thus they fired ~6.5kg sustained per btech turn.  A Clan LBx 2, if chambered in 75mm, puts out 22kg sustained--3.4 times as much.  The Clan ultra2 puts out 44kg sustained, 7x as much.  You cant just look at a mm rating and pretend they are all the same, as the smallest ac2 puts out 3.4 times the power of the 76.2mm ww2 piece IF the ammo was modernized.  3-7 shells fired in 1-2 seconds hitting the same 1 meter circle is crazy stronger than a single shell hitting, and thats only a stock AC/2.

Of course you can't just look at mm. The AC/2 is firing a smaller round and it is the group of rounds hitting that does the damage. That doesn't mean that the 75mm or LRC should do zero damage. It does more damage against BAR2-7 armors than the AC/2. That is doesn't against BAR8-10 armors is a total nerf. Against some advanced armors the damage reduction makes sense. But not against standard armor. The loss in penetration should come from the HRC not getting an extra penetrating crit roll against BAR8 armor. Not from having it's damage reduced since standard armor is ablative.  Also a single Infantry Auto-Rifle will do 1 point of damage. The 75mm/LRC should do more damage.

This FLAK gun is 8 tons, while the pak88 i mentioned as a potential light rifle cannons was the pak43 direct fire gun found as a 3.6 ton field gun or 2.5 ton tiger2/jagd panther gun.  Very different guns.  The FLAK 41, at 8 tons, firing about 35kg/turn, is closer to the HRC or AC/5 in tonnage, but it only does 3.5 damage IF the ammo was moderized to AC5 standards--about 1 damage per 9.4kg shot you hit with on your cluster roll.  The AC/5 puts out more shells/turn (50kg for 5 damage), in very fast bursts (all in 1 location), so the FLAK41 doesnt shoot nearly fast enough to hit AC/5 damage.  Ruleswise, the 8 ton Flak41 would be an LB3.5x firing cluster--its the same weight as the LB5x, but the primitive components mean it's rate of fire for flak shooting is lower.

Yes, they are different guns. Just like BT has different sized guns in the same AC class as well as the same sized gun in different classes. It's hard to say what equivalency the 8.8cm Flak should have since ACs operate differently from RCs. (The range increases as they size gets smaller.)
I'd be okay with an AC/5 or maybe a LB-X5. That's damage than the MRC but it makes up for that 1 point in added range. Of course since I believe the MRC is supposed to be the size of a AC/10 that's a lot less damage along with fewer rounds.

EDIT: As for rifle cannons being multishot weapons; while its possible since the fluff is so bad on them, the rifle/cannons cant split damage to two targets like the bursts from an autocannon can, nor do they roll cluster to see where their spread out shots go.  So could they shoot more than 1 time per btech turn?  Maybe, but all the rules descriptors we have point to that not being the case.

So RCs can't split damage between two targets? Missiles can't split fire either. Also, AC/s don't roll on the cluster chart to find where all their rounds are going, unless rapid firing or using cluster rounds. Unless, RCs are allowed to Rapid Fire, or use alternative munitions, then rolling on the cluster chart isn't appropriate. There also isn't anything in the limited rules description that says what Rifle Cannons rate of fire is. Just the fluff that they have a slower rate of fire. And when I consider the weight of the ammo fired per turn, either the Rifle Cannons are light artillery weapons or they're firing bursts.

EDIT2: If the ammo was modernized to 90 damage/ton (AC2), then the LRC would have 30 shots, the MRC 15, and the HRC 10.  Further, if the cannon was single shot per btech turn, the HRC would be a 180mm gun, the MRC a 150mm, the LRC a 100mm naval gun.  Since the gun weights of real 4 inch, 6 inch, and 7 inch guns have 3/5/8 ton varieties that line up with the ammo weights, and are shooting the right amount of kg/turn if you remove the ammo punishment, these are pretty good real life gun estimates for the heavy HE shells of rifle/cannons.

That kind of proves my point. The weights for Rifle Cannons and the weight of their ammo is more consistent with artillery than they are with a tank cannon. If they're not artillery, or burst fire weapons, they're something in between like a mech sized shotgun. Either way reducing damage doesn't make sense, except as area effect damage.  As an area effect round the Light would just do 1 point to everything in the hex. The Medium 3 points in the hex, 1 to the surrounding hexes. The Heavy would do 6/3 damage to the hex/surrounding hexes. As a burst weapon or shotgun then full damage should be applied to the target. Like I said before, I think Rifles should be contemporaries not precursors.

Think of it this way. AC/s are like machine guns while Rifles are like Magshot and Gauss Rifles. Both do 2 points of damage but MGs are murder against infantry, have more ammo, and can rapid fire, while the Magshot has greater range. One will turn a target into swiss cheese. The other will blow a big hole in it. Either way, the target is going to have holes in it.

[DevianID]

So riflemech you arnt really refuting my points, so much as saying you dont like it?

Not really. A ton of ammo is still a ton of ammo

When I show that the ton of ammo storage capacity is reduced by 75% on top of 75%, that is just math.  I choose to believe that if an AC5 ammo bin stores 60 rounds (120mm), the primitive bin stores 45, because the bin/feed/links weighs more.  The opposite is that the primitive bin holds 45 round because each round weighs more--that doesn't make sense that the same mm round is somehow THAT much heavier because real world values show that isnt the case.  The real world DOES have heavier bins though, so I chose the real world explanation.  If you think its not the bins that weigh more, but the rounds, then thats your opinion but real guns and numbers dont support it.
In the end both bins weigh 1 ton, but how you get there influences the descriptors in very different ways.

Actually, the 8.8cm is equivalent to a MRC

.
As for the 8.8 being a MRC, again this just isnt true.  Some 8.8s, like the 8 ton flak 8.8, are like LB3.5x.  Some autocannons are 8.8cm.  When determining what a gun is, characteristics besides it's diameter must be accounted for.  You go on to say the flak8.8 is a different gun, so you agreed with me later on that not all 8.8s are MRC.

That doesn't mean that the 75mm... should do zero damage

A 75mm, when looking at all its performance, can do 0 or 20 damage.  Just because it is 75mm doesnt mean it gets a free point of damage.  A 75mm that shoots very slow very light rounds just doesnt do damage--it bounced back then too, and was replaced with bigger heavier guns cause it wasn't hurting armor after better armored vehicles came out.  A modern 75 probably would do damage/shoot a heck of a lot faster, but the old gun already does 0 damage to armor in the real world.

So RCs can't split damage between two targets?

Can they?  If they can I'm sorry, I might have messed that up.  If they can split fire they must be shooting at least 2x a turn.

And when I consider the weight of the ammo fired per turn, either the Rifle Cannons are light artillery weapons or they're firing bursts

  This goes back to the first point.  If the shells are stupidly heavy shells/lots and lots of shells, then the RC could be a rapid fire gun or artillery piece.  If its the ammo bins and loaders on the old machines that are heavy, then the ammo is perfectly fine.  Since the rules dont show any rapid fire or artillery like properties of the RC, I personally dismissed your explanation that its lots of shots or super heavy shots.  That doesnt mean the ammo storage theory is correct, but it does mean the rapid fire and artillery theories are incorrect.

The 100 150 and 180 guns I put forth as real world cannon analogs are not artillery nor are they rapid fire.  They meet all the criteria from shell weight, gun weight, to rate of fire, and are Tech B timeframe appropriate.
If you want a LRC to do damage, just make it 2/4/6 damage for the cannons thanks to Sabot round packages.  If that is the main issue, problem solved.

Edit:As an aside, when the RC first came out, i misread that they did 3/6/9 damage to infantry (full damage), which I really liked.  Since then, errata/subsequent readings changed that to ballistic damage/10 like any DB weapon, which I hate.  But whatever, the rifle has issues.

Edit2: the soviet 100mm anti tank cannon from 1961 they found couldn't pen modern armor (sounds like a LRC problem).  So they have variant ammo, a tube launched missile and an he-frag shell for infantry, and they don't really use it for antitank work.

[RifleMech]

So riflemech you arnt really refuting my points, so much as saying you dont like it?

When I show that the ton of ammo storage capacity is reduced by 75% on top of 75%, that is just math.  I choose to believe that if an AC5 ammo bin stores 60 rounds (120mm), the primitive bin stores 45, because the bin/feed/links weighs more.  The opposite is that the primitive bin holds 45 round because each round weighs more--that doesn't make sense that the same mm round is somehow THAT much heavier because real world values show that isnt the case.  The real world DOES have heavier bins though, so I chose the real world explanation.  If you think its not the bins that weigh more, but the rounds, then thats your opinion but real guns and numbers dont support it.

In the end both bins weigh 1 ton, but how you get there influences the descriptors in very different ways..

Yeah. I am.

No. A ton of ammo is still a ton of ammo regardless of whether or not it is in an ammo bin or a cargo bin. It's still a ton of ammo. 60 rounds of ammo in an ammo bin doesn't turn into 80 rounds in a cargo bin. It's still going to be 80 rounds. Whether or not your tank can carry a ton of ammo is a different matter. Heavier ammo will reduce the number of shots per ton. Which was outright ignored when looking at some alternative ammo types. We could be looking at the same thing with "older" ammo. It's twice as heavy.

Considering the ammo feed system is part of the weapon. At least on Missiles, I don't see how you've shown the math that proves proves the amount of ammo has been reduced 75%. All we know is the number of "shots" a given cannon has per ton. Fluff is all over the place for size and rate of fire. The only solid number for rate of fire we have, by the rules, is a burst of 2 with bursts of 4 for rapid fire and ultra fire and bursts up to 6 for RACs. Does this match the fluff? No, but we can't go by the fluff without have each fluffed weapons having it's own stats. Going back to ammo being twice as heavy, that does go along with the rules. Presuming of course that Rifle Cannons are single shot. HRC - 6 rounds to the AC/20's 10 rounds. MRC - 9 rounds to the AC/10's 20. 18 rounds for the LCR to 40 for the AC/5. 

And again, the guess about water filled magazines might make sense on a tank, but not on a mech or a fighter. As soon as they get hot, that water will turn into steam and the ammo bin becomes an even bigger bomb. The question is which blows first, the steam or the ammo.

As for the 8.8 being a MRC, again this just isnt true.  Some 8.8s, like the 8 ton flak 8.8, are like LB3.5x.  Some autocannons are 8.8cm.  When determining what a gun is, characteristics besides it's diameter must be accounted for.  You go on to say the flak8.8 is a different gun, so you agreed with me later on that not all 8.8s are MRC.

A 75mm, when looking at all its performance, can do 0 or 20 damage.  Just because it is 75mm doesnt mean it gets a free point of damage.  A 75mm that shoots very slow very light rounds just doesnt do damage--it bounced back then too, and was replaced with bigger heavier guns cause it wasn't hurting armor after better armored vehicles came out.  A modern 75 probably would do damage/shoot a heck of a lot faster, but the old gun already does 0 damage to armor in the real world.

Going by real life?  No not all 8.8cm are the same. Neither are all 75mm cannons. As you said there's low velocity and high velocity and even medium velocity and so on. Also like you said, a 75mm may be an AC/5 or an AC/20. So which rules do you want to go by? BT weapons are classed by how much ammo is fired per turn. XTRO:1945's weapons are classed by mm size. Herb's formula takes various factors into account and would give us different stats for each of the 8.8cm cannons. XTRO:1945, just the 1. Or should we use the chaos that is ATOW? Which way you choose, how many cannons will change while the ammo stays the same?

Regardless, when an infantry auto-rifle will do 1 point of damage, I'm not going to believe that a 75mm Tank Cannon, even a low velocity one, will do 0 damage. In real life against an Abrams? It might knock out a sensor or machine gun or a track. Breach the armor? I don't see it happening. Against a Bradley? I think it'd do some damage. Not that BT varies their armor that much. Not once standard (BAR10) armor becomes common.

Can they?  If they can I'm sorry, I might have messed that up.  If they can split fire they must be shooting at least 2x a turn.

Sorry. That was a rhetorical question. Rifle's can' split their fire and so what? That simply means that they're not firing fast enough to put rounds on both targets.

  This goes back to the first point.  If the shells are stupidly heavy shells/lots and lots of shells, then the RC could be a rapid fire gun or artillery piece.  If its the ammo bins and loaders on the old machines that are heavy, then the ammo is perfectly fine.  Since the rules dont show any rapid fire or artillery like properties of the RC, I personally dismissed your explanation that its lots of shots or super heavy shots.  That doesnt mean the ammo storage theory is correct, but it does mean the rapid fire and artillery theories are incorrect.

I didn't say rapid fire. I said burst fire. We know as single shots the rounds are artillery heavy yet they don't do artillery damage. That leaves burst fire. That or Rifle Cannons are so old that they were introduced centuries before 1900 and use unrefined black powder.

The 100 150 and 180 guns I put forth as real world cannon analogs are not artillery nor are they rapid fire.  They meet all the criteria from shell weight, gun weight, to rate of fire, and are Tech B timeframe appropriate.
If you want a LRC to do damage, just make it 2/4/6 damage for the cannons thanks to Sabot round packages.  If that is the main issue, problem solved.

Are you referring to weapons such as the French 100mm naval gun? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_100_mm_naval_gun
That gun started being designed in 1953 and didn't enter service until 1958-61. That puts it's introduction as Early Spaceflight. Rifles are pre-spaceflight weapons. It also has a rate of fire of 78 rounds per minute. That's 13 rounds per turn and is better than some autocannons. The Fench 100mm also has an effective range 12,000 m. The 105mm Royal Ordnance L7 used on the M1 Abrams has a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minuet max and a range of 4000 m. It was also produced about the same time as the  French 100. If the 105mm is a Medium Rifle Cannon, what would the 100mm be? AC/5? Clan LB-x5 firing slugs? HVAC/10? Artillery?

Edit:As an aside, when the RC first came out, i misread that they did 3/6/9 damage to infantry (full damage), which I really liked.  Since then, errata/subsequent readings changed that to ballistic damage/10 like any DB weapon, which I hate.  But whatever, the rifle has issues.

Agreed. 

Edit2: the soviet 100mm anti tank cannon from 1961 they found couldn't pen modern armor (sounds like a LRC problem).  So they have variant ammo, a tube launched missile and an he-frag shell for infantry, and they don't really use it for antitank work.

Are you referring to this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_mm_anti-tank_gun_T-12 It is used more for artillery than anti-tank work. It is also light enough it could be considered a LRC. If LRCs could conduct artillery attacks. I think amount of ammo would still be twice that of a LRC at least.

Fun fact. I think I'd posted this before but FASA did create stats for the M1 and M1A1 Abrams MBT. They used an AC/5 for the 105mm and a AC/10 for the 120mm.

I think that kind of goes with the AC/5 replacing the LRC  the AC/10 replacing the MRC and the AC/20 replacing the HRC. The damage for half an AC burst is close to what a RC shot/burst would do. 2-3, 5-6, and 10-9. Since ACs fire twice as fast they do twice as much damage, and can split their fire if they wanted to. As they're more advanced they can rapid fire. They also have close to twice as much ammo per ton. Presuming singe shots to 2 round bursts, it's 18-40, 9-20, and 6-10. But it still works out with both weapons firing bursts. Just multiply by 2 or more. Still, something's got to give so while the AC/s are using a lighter more advanced powder, they're using less of it in order to increase the number of rounds carried. At least that's how I can see an AC/20 with a burst rate of 10 can carry 50 rounds in it's ammo bin. Which is a lot more than even a 3 round burst firing HRC could carry, which would be 18 rounds.

So I'm liking the Rifle Cannons to be slower burst rate fire weapons (Could give them rapid fire but jam on 2 and blow up of 4.) or as lighter artillery tubes.  (Listed damage being area effect and the 2/4/6 being direct fire AP rounds.) I'd actually prefer the artillery as it makes Rifles more distinct from Autocannons.

[DevianID]

60 rounds of ammo in an ammo bin doesn't turn into 80 rounds in a cargo bin

  Cargo storage is often higher weight wise than ammo bin storage (many ammo bins are completely unprotected on older designs, but in cargo they packed them in crates with shock absorbers), as you REALLY dont want the ammo in a cargo bay cooking off.  So whatever care you put into storing the rounds for ammo bins you at least put into cargo.  But yes, if you take ammo out of a bin and lie it on the ground unsecured, you get more shells per weight than that when properly stored in cases and crates, as cases and crates have some nominal weight.  This is true in real life and should probably be in battletech.  Is there a reason you DONT want this to be true?  Do you not want this to be true because you really REALLY want the heavy rifle shell to be 166kg per shot?  At this point, latching onto cargo weight (which isnt a thing) is just derailing the conversation for both of us.

I don't see how you've shown the math that proves proves the amount of ammo has been reduced 75%

The 75% ammo capacity reduction comes right from the book, NOT a 33% weight increase.  The book says ammo capacity is reduced, not heavier.  There is no need to claim otherwise.  My OBSERVATION is that the damage/ton of a rifle (54), is 75% the damage/ton of primitive ACs (51-56), which is by the book 75% of the non-primitive ACs (66-75 vs 90-100).  The observation is just me pointing out the math.  If that wasnt clear, I'm sorry, I tend to ramble. 
But yes to reiterate, RCs, through JUST observation, have 75% the damage/ton of primitive tech C autocannons, which themselves have a 75% ammo capacity reduction from standard.  That observation is where 75% comes from.

It is used more for artillery than anti-tank work

Im glad you read the article.  But the point is the anti-tank gun (its in the name) isnt effective as an anti-tank weapon, SO they started using an HE-frag shell as a makeshift anti-infantry piece.  It is not artillery in the normal sense (20 degree elevation max), just them finding a use for an anti-tank gun that cant penetrate armor (the light rifle cannon is an anti-tank gun that can no longer penetrate armor), by putting the anti-tank gun in the role of ordinary artillery as an anti-infantry weapon.  I Observed that the weight and mission profile of this 100mm anti tank gun is very similar to a light rifle cannon when both are found to be ineffective versus armor.

Regardless, when an infantry auto-rifle will do 1 point of damage, I'm not going to believe that a 75mm Tank Cannon, even a low velocity one, will do 0 damage

  A burst of 15 rounds of tech C at 240 grams will do .52 damage because hand of god made it so.  A 75mm early WW2 piece with a sustained RPM of 3 (so .5 shots per turn) firing a 7kg cartridge (3.5kg/turn) at a slow 500m/s could do less than .52 damage, yes, because of technology.  An 8kg tech C LRM missile does 1 damage, flies faster, shoots 2x faster, and has a more modern explosive than the tech B gun, AND it weighs more.  If an LRM does 1 damage, and is heavier, faster, and has 2x the firing rate, then yeah a 75mm shot does less than .52 damage.  I observe that if 8kg of LRM does 1 damage, then 7kg would be .875, with half the firing rate (.4375), and with less velocity (I dont know the fluff velocity of an LRM so ill leave the value at .4375).

At this point, I feel you are invested in your beliefs and are ignoring your contradictions.  On one hand you really want the 8.8 to be a MRC, but then want the MRC to put out 111kg of ammo/turn.  The 8.8 just doesnt do that as it fires less than 10kg shells 1/turn.

Of course the opinions I hold about what a rifle cannon looks like are just opinions.  But my opinions are backed with real world guns in the real world weights that match up nicely.  So because I base my opinions on real world things I say the 8.8 isnt a MRC, and Herb's slapdash conversion made on a lark isn't accurate.  Because the other option is to think the 8.8 is a MRC, but ALSO increases it's rate of fire from 6-10 RPM to 100+ to actually throw 100+kg of shots/turn.  You cant say the 8.8 is a MRC, and also say the ammo tossed out is 111kg.  That is literally irreconcilable. 
Now, a 100mm, firing he-frag shells (because the anti armor shells were pointless), applying the damage/ton from RC to autocannons of 54 to 100, puts out 30kg if my observations hold.  The actual he-shell is 28.9kg, and only does damage to structures and infantry.  So I observe that the 3 ton LRC looks a lot like a 100mm antitank gun (which also weighs 2750 kg).
If you take nothing else from this back and forth, examine your contradiction in the 8.8 MRC and ammo weight.

As a final note, if you want to develop a variant ammo, as you feel the baseline ammo the RCs are shooting is too limiting, then I'm all for that--that's also my recommendation for fixing the rifles overall.  A sabot variant doing 2/4/6 damage with more shots/ton, and a purely flechette ammo for better dealing with infantry, same as autocannon rounds, makes a lot of sense.  Area effect to me does not make sense, as that is the point of frag/flechette rounds, and there is not a good way to balance AE damage coming out of anything lighter than the thumper cannon.

[RifleMech]

  Cargo storage is often higher weight wise than ammo bin storage (many ammo bins are completely unprotected on older designs, but in cargo they packed them in crates with shock absorbers), as you REALLY dont want the ammo in a cargo bay cooking off.  So whatever care you put into storing the rounds for ammo bins you at least put into cargo.  But yes, if you take ammo out of a bin and lie it on the ground unsecured, you get more shells per weight than that when properly stored in cases and crates, as cases and crates have some nominal weight.  This is true in real life and should probably be in battletech.  Is there a reason you DONT want this to be true?  Do you not want this to be true because you really REALLY want the heavy rifle shell to be 166kg per shot? 

I am aware that in real life a cargo pallet full of shells is not going to be the same as a tank magazine full of shells. Battletech doesn't make that distinction though and it's Battletech that I'm discussing.

Do I want a heavy rifle shell to be 166kg per shot? Only if it does artillery damage. Other wise that 166kg shot represents a burst of rounds. If you want Rifle Cannons to be single shot weapons, increase the amount of ammo by at least 3 times if not more.

At this point, latching onto cargo weight (which isnt a thing) is just derailing the conversation for both of us.The 75% ammo capacity reduction comes right from the book, NOT a 33% weight increase.  The book says ammo capacity is reduced, not heavier.  There is no need to claim otherwise.  My OBSERVATION is that the damage/ton of a rifle (54), is 75% the damage/ton of primitive ACs (51-56), which is by the book 75% of the non-primitive ACs (66-75 vs 90-100).  The observation is just me pointing out the math.  If that wasnt clear, I'm sorry, I tend to ramble. 
But yes to reiterate, RCs, through JUST observation, have 75% the damage/ton of primitive tech C autocannons, which themselves have a 75% ammo capacity reduction from standard.  That observation is where 75% comes from.

No it isn't derailing the conversation since the number of shots does not change whether carried as ammo or as cargo. And where does it say that the number of shots has been reduced? What the book says is

Relying more on larger-caliber rounds and greater
concentrations of propellant to deliver their damage,

The only inferences to reduced number of shots are that larger rounds have few shots per ton - Look at Autocannons for an example. - and greater concentrations of propellant. More propellant is going to add to the weight of the round reducing how many can be carried per ton.

As to the percentages, maybe it's how you phased the sentences? It sounded as if you were saying 75% less when 75% of X =25% less than X. The problem is that the number of Rifle Cannons rounds is not .75x #RC shots.

AC/20 5 rounds
PPAC/20 4 rounds
HRC 6 rounds

AC/10 10 rounds
PPAC/10 8 rounds
MRC 9 rounds

AC/5 20 rounds
PPAC/5 15 rounds.
LRC 18 rounds.

AC/2 45 rounds
PPAC/2 34 rounds
? 26 rounds

So the number of shots doesn't work out as you suggest.

The amount of damage per ton? 75% doesn't work there either.
Rifle Cannons 54 points
Autocannons for the most part 100 (AC2=90)
PP Autocannons 80/80/75/68.
PP Autocannons doing 75% damage of AC/s only works with the AC/5 and RCs do 54% the damage of Autocannons. If they were to do 75% of PPACs then they'd do at least 60 points per ton.

So as far as I can tell, the 75% of 75% doesn't add up.

Im glad you read the article.  But the point is the anti-tank gun (its in the name) isnt effective as an anti-tank weapon, SO they started using an HE-frag shell as a makeshift anti-infantry piece.  It is not artillery in the normal sense (20 degree elevation max), just them finding a use for an anti-tank gun that cant penetrate armor (the light rifle cannon is an anti-tank gun that can no longer penetrate armor), by putting the anti-tank gun in the role of ordinary artillery as an anti-infantry weapon.  I Observed that the weight and mission profile of this 100mm anti tank gun is very similar to a light rifle cannon when both are found to be ineffective versus armor. 

And I'd totally agree if we were talking real life. Battletech isn't real life. How many tanks built since WWII can be taken out with an auto-rifle? Plus while that 100mm Soviet cannon started off as an anti-tank gun it is capable of artillery attacks. Something Battletech's Rifle Cannons cannot do. Something I suggested that they be allowed to do when I said, that if 2/4/6 were going to be anti-armor rounds, then 3/6/9 should be area effect rounds.

A burst of 15 rounds of tech C at 240 grams will do .52 damage because hand of god made it so.  A 75mm early WW2 piece with a sustained RPM of 3 (so .5 shots per turn) firing a 7kg cartridge (3.5kg/turn) at a slow 500m/s could do less than .52 damage, yes, because of technology.  An 8kg tech C LRM missile does 1 damage, flies faster, shoots 2x faster, and has a more modern explosive than the tech B gun, AND it weighs more.  If an LRM does 1 damage, and is heavier, faster, and has 2x the firing rate, then yeah a 75mm shot does less than .52 damage.  I observe that if 8kg of LRM does 1 damage, then 7kg would be .875, with half the firing rate (.4375), and with less velocity (I dont know the fluff velocity of an LRM so ill leave the value at .4375).

A Tech B Machine Gun (20mm-30mm) firing 5kg bursts does 2 points of damage. It's also a pre-spaceflight weapon (1950 or earlier.) So why should a 75mm Rifle Cannon round weighing 7kg do 0 damage? If 2.5 kg = 1 point of damage, 7kg, rounded up, comes out to 3 points of damage. So 3 points for the LRC is right on. Yet only one of these weapons suffers a -3 damage penalty against BAR8-10 armor. What's worse is that a ton of LRC does more damage when thrown than when fired. So why can't I have medieval siege weapons?  Infantry and buildings would be better off with them than LRCs. 

Also which 75mm are you referring to? The 75mm gun M2–M6 had a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute. That's 3.3 rounds per turn.
The 7.5 cm KwK 40 has a rate of fire of 10-15 rounds per minute. That's 2.5 rounds per turn.

At this point, I feel you are invested in your beliefs and are ignoring your contradictions.  On one hand you really want the 8.8 to be a MRC, but then want the MRC to put out 111kg of ammo/turn.  The 8.8 just doesnt do that as it fires less than 10kg shells 1/turn.

XTRO:1945 puts the 8.8cm Tank Cannon as equivanlent to a Medium Rifle Cannon. If we go by Herb's formula, it depends on the 8.8cm. I'm sure 8.8cm cannons would fit in multiple classes the same way they do autocannons.  The Marauder's AC/5 is 120mm. There's AC/10s that are 75mm. Some 8.8cms will be equivalent to an MRC. So some won't.

Of course the opinions I hold about what a rifle cannon looks like are just opinions.  But my opinions are backed with real world guns in the real world weights that match up nicely.  So because I base my opinions on real world things I say the 8.8 isnt a MRC, and Herb's slapdash conversion made on a lark isn't accurate.  Because the other option is to think the 8.8 is a MRC, but ALSO increases it's rate of fire from 6-10 RPM to 100+ to actually throw 100+kg of shots/turn.  You cant say the 8.8 is a MRC, and also say the ammo tossed out is 111kg.  That is literally irreconcilable. 
Now, a 100mm, firing he-frag shells (because the anti armor shells were pointless), applying the damage/ton from RC to autocannons of 54 to 100, puts out 30kg if my observations hold.  The actual he-shell is 28.9kg, and only does damage to structures and infantry.  So I observe that the 3 ton LRC looks a lot like a 100mm antitank gun (which also weighs 2750 kg).
If you take nothing else from this back and forth, examine your contradiction in the 8.8 MRC and ammo weight.

All you've done is prove that that 100mm Soviet cannon would be equivalent to a LRC, with some added flavoring. It doesn't match up 100% but that's closer enough.

Going with Herb's formula the 8.8 cm Pak 43 would do 9 points of damage against BAR-6 armor (6 against BAR7+) with a direct range of 11/43/88/129/343 (min/sht/med/long/ex). That would make it equivalent to a HRC. At least in terms or damage and range.

The Flak36 would do 9 points of damage against BAR-6 armor (6 against BAR7+) with a direct range of  9/35/70/105/280 (mni/sht/med/long/ex). It would also be equivalent to a HRC in terms of damage and range.

The Sherman's 75mm gun would do 8 points of damage against BAR6 armor. It would do 5 points against BAR7+.
Considering range I'd put it at an AC/5.

As has been pointed out, the weight of the weapon and ammo don't match the HRC. Nor should they. We're looking at damage and range. Some weapons will be equivalent to Rifles, some will be equivalent to Autocannons, some will be equivalent to BA or even Infantry Weapons. It all depends on the weapon. And vehicle mounted weapons round up .5 to 1 point of damage. So if a 37mm Tank Cannon (XTRO:1945) does 1 point of damage, why shouldn't the 75mm Tank Cannon do at least 1 point of damage if not 2?

Also remember these weapons are doing with big rounds and lots of propellant what Autocannons are doing with lots of smaller rounds and less propellant. A 150mm AC/20 firing a 10 round burst is firing bursts of 20kg rounds. The 15 cm sFH 36 would do 15 damage against BAR6 armor and, by Herb, 9 points of damage to BAR7+ Armors. The weight per shot is 43.52 kg and it'd fire once every other turn. Considering it's range I'd put it at an equivalent to an AC/10 or a PAC/8 firing once every other turn.

If going by weight of shot alone, the HRC is 24 cm Haubitze 39  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_cm_Haubitze_39
They both fire rounds weighing 166kg. Can you blame me for thinking that Rifles could be artillery weapons?

As a final note, if you want to develop a variant ammo, as you feel the baseline ammo the RCs are shooting is too limiting, then I'm all for that--that's also my recommendation for fixing the rifles overall.  A sabot variant doing 2/4/6 damage with more shots/ton, and a purely flechette ammo for better dealing with infantry, same as autocannon rounds, makes a lot of sense.  Area effect to me does not make sense, as that is the point of frag/flechette rounds, and there is not a good way to balance AE damage coming out of anything lighter than the thumper cannon.

I'm all for giving Rifle Cannons alternative ammos. We need to find out what Rifle Cannons really are though. Are they burst weapons or single shot? If they're single shot are the seriously outdated and outclassed pre-1900 weapons or are they artillery? Or, can they do both like real life cannons such as howitzers? 

For artillery (again) full damage to everything in the target hex. Alternative munitions, 2/4/6 for armor piercing works for me.

For burst weapons, why not full damage? They're big slower firing AC/5/10/and 20s. If they were faster firing, they'd be autocannons doing more damage. Also how about spiting fire is allowed but damage to targets is 1/3 of normal instead of half? So it'd be 1/2/3 depending on the Rifle. Rapid Fire is also allowed but jams on a 4 and blows up on a 2. Or worse. Jam on 6-4 and blow on a 3 or 2?

Area effect weapons effect everything in the target hex, not just the one platoon aimed at. The Airburst round from a Mech Mortar 1 does 1 point of damage to everything in the target hex. If 41.67kg round can do 1 point of damage to everything in the hex why can't a 55.56 round do a couple points of damage? Why can't a 166.67kg round do 4 points of damage to everything in the hex?

Fun Fact: Mech Mortars also used to be pre-spaceflight weapons but were changed because of reasons.

[DevianID]

So as far as I can tell, the 75% of 75% doesn't add up

AC ammo bin=90-100 damage
PAC ammo bin=AC bin x.75=68-75 damage
PAC bin x.75 = 51-56 damage
Rifle ammo bin=54 damage

Rifle ammo 3 damage shot = 18
PAC hypothetical AC3 damage shot = 23-25 shots
AC hypothetical AC3 damage shot = 30-33 shots

Plus while that 100mm Soviet cannon started off as an anti-tank gun it is capable of artillery attacks

No its not, not in the way you are thinking.  The article says it uses an HE-frag round in a role of ordinary artillery, it is not an artillery attack nor is it an artillery cannon all of a sudden.  A 120mm on an abrams also fires an HE frag shell; literally every gun ever has an HE frag shell option if they want it, that doesn't make every gun ever artillery.  You need more than a 20 degree elevation for starters.  In addition, artillery shells have variable propellent charges to mate with different high elevation shots, as well as variable fuze settings for impact, timed, or altitude based detonations.  You are putting your desire for rifle cannons to be artillery/area effect before your understanding of the material, and misquoting something as support for area effect damage.  All guns can have HE shells, all guns have the ability to fire in a ballistic trajectory, not all guns are artillery.

The 7.5 cm KwK 40 has a rate of fire of 10-15 rounds per minute.

Yes, this is yet another different 75mm gun with different characteristics.  The german gun has a sustained 14 RPM, and fires shells from 11.5kg to 7.5kg.  At 14 RPM, you get 2 shells/turn, so the 7.5 with a proper team or a heavy autoloader attachment can put 15-23kg out per turn.  Their best anti armor shot was about 8.61kg, and .775 damage/shot with 2 shots/turn in ac/2 90 damage/ton, or .582 damage in PAC/2 damage/ton, or .465 in 54 damage/ton rifle damage/ton.  So both shots together would still be less than 1 damage in tech B rifle cannon damage/ton but would round up, when you rolled 2 hits on the cluster table and both shots spaced 5 seconds apart hit the same location.  Otherwise the 7.5 german gun would round down to 0 damage.

To try an be more precise: an 8.61kg shot from a 75mm german gun you chose, using 54 damage/ton which is the rifle damage/ton, does 0 damage when .465 rounds down.  If both very spaced out shots hit, and then hit the same area though, I will grant that you round up to 1 damage.  In what way does this support your idea that a 75mm is a light rifle cannon?

[RifleMech]

AC ammo bin=90-100 damage
PAC ammo bin=AC bin x.75=68-75 damage
PAC bin x.75 = 51-56 damage
Rifle ammo bin=54 damage

Rifle ammo 3 damage shot = 18
PAC hypothetical AC3 damage shot = 23-25 shots
AC hypothetical AC3 damage shot = 30-33 shots

I'm going to presume PAC means Primitive Prototype Autocannon.  PAC usually means Protomech Autocannon.

And I did the math it doesn't add up. shots.


AC/20 5 shots = 100 damage.
(5 shots x .75 = 4)
PPAC/20 4 shots =  80 damage.
(4 shots .75 = 3)
HRC 6 shots = 54 damage.
(doesn't work)

HRC cannot be .75 shots less than the PPAC as it has 25% more ammo than the AC/20. (6 x .75 = 4.5 rounded to 5). The math does not work.

The math is more consistent with Rifle Cannons having a rate of fire half that of Autocannons.

No its not, not in the way you are thinking.  The article says it uses an HE-frag round in a role of ordinary artillery, it is not an artillery attack nor is it an artillery cannon all of a sudden.  A 120mm on an abrams also fires an HE frag shell; literally every gun ever has an HE frag shell option if they want it, that doesn't make every gun ever artillery.  You need more than a 20 degree elevation for starters.  In addition, artillery shells have variable propellent charges to mate with different high elevation shots, as well as variable fuze settings for impact, timed, or altitude based detonations.  You are putting your desire for rifle cannons to be artillery/area effect before your understanding of the material, and misquoting something as support for area effect damage.  All guns can have HE shells, all guns have the ability to fire in a ballistic trajectory, not all guns are artillery.

True not all guns are artillery. Some are direct fire. Some are artillery. Some can do both. The Soviet 100mm does both. It's firing the HE round in an artillery role. That is an artillery attack.

Yes, this is yet another different 75mm gun with different characteristics.  The german gun has a sustained 14 RPM, and fires shells from 11.5kg to 7.5kg.  At 14 RPM, you get 2 shells/turn, so the 7.5 with a proper team or a heavy autoloader attachment can put 15-23kg out per turn.  Their best anti armor shot was about 8.61kg, and .775 damage/shot with 2 shots/turn in ac/2 90 damage/ton, or .582 damage in PAC/2 damage/ton, or .465 in 54 damage/ton rifle damage/ton.  So both shots together would still be less than 1 damage in tech B rifle cannon damage/ton but would round up, when you rolled 2 hits on the cluster table and both shots spaced 5 seconds apart hit the same location.  Otherwise the 7.5 german gun would round down to 0 damage.

To try an be more precise: an 8.61kg shot from a 75mm german gun you chose, using 54 damage/ton which is the rifle damage/ton, does 0 damage when .465 rounds down.  If both very spaced out shots hit, and then hit the same area though, I will grant that you round up to 1 damage.  In what way does this support your idea that a 75mm is a light rifle cannon?

I have no idea where you're getting your numbers. Where's the .xxx numbers coming from? Number of rounds per burst divided by damage?

A 30mm AC 2 firing a 10 round burst, is firing rounds that weigh 2.222 kg each. Each of those rounds does .2 points of damage. The 75mm cannon's round weighs 8.61 kg. That's just over 4 times that of the AC/2 round. .2 damage x 4 = .8 damage. .8 rounds up to 1 point of damage. The LRC is firing 55.55kg per turn. That's an 11 round burst of 8.61 kg rounds per turn. .8 damage times 11 = 8.8 damage, rounding up to 9. See how I'm having a problem with the -3 damage and the LRC doing 0 damage? If it's a burst weapon, it's firing just as fast as an autocannon. If it's a single shot weapon, it's firing an artillery shell. And that's comparing the LRC against a weapon that's not only a tech level higher but replaced it.

How about comparing the LRC against contemporary pre-spaceflight (1950 or earlier) weapons? Again, Machine Guns with calibers ranging from 20mm to 30 mm do 2 points of damage with 5 kg worth of ammo. The 75mm fires 8.61kg rounds. The amount of ammo fired by the 75mm is 1.722 times that of the MG. Shouldn't the damage of the 75mm also be 1.722 times that of the MG? That comes out to 3.444, rounded down to 3. Also the LRC fires 55.55kg worth of ammo per shot. That's about 6.45 times the weight of that fired by the 75mm and 11.11 times that fired by the machine gun. Wouldn't that mean that a 75mm Light Rifle Cannon is firing 11 round bursts per turn? And if each round does 3 points of damage...

If the LRC isn't a burst fire weapon, wouldn't it be firing a single 55.55kg round? That's only 5.55kg less than the Thumper Artillery. Which is also a contemporary of the LRC. It's 50kg round does 15 points of damage to everything in the hex and half that in the surrounding hexes but the LRC does 0 damage?

How about another Autocannon? I believe it's the Crusher SH 150mm AC/20 that fires 10 round bursts. Each of those 10 rounds weigh 20kg and does 2 points of damage each. Each 8.61 75mm round is 2.32 times lighter than the AC/20 round. 2 points of damage divided by 2.32 = .86, which would round up to 1 point of damage. Of course the LRC is firing 55.55 kg per turn.

An Auto-Rifle does 1 point of damage. I'm going to presume it fired 15 rounds weighing  .24g to do that 1 point of damage. And again the LRC's  55.55kg round does 0 damage. Yeah...

Sorry but the LRC and the 75mm cannon doing 0 damage just breaks my suspension of disbelief. Now if I was told that the LRC/75mm Cannon has 116 rounds of ammo per ton, that it normally fires 1 round per turn but could rapid fire (no penalties) at 2 rounds per turn, and each round does 3 points of damage, reduced to 1 point against BAR8+ armor because single rounds don't ablate as much as a burst of rounds can, I'd believe it. It makes a kind of sense, the math works, the LRC/75mm still does damage but it isn't as effective as it used to be, and it isn't completely outclassed by an infantry weapon while firing an artillery sized round. Unfortunately, that isn't what we've got. The biggest problem is Rifle's ammo. There's just too few shots per ton for burst weapon and their too heavy for a single shot weapon.

[DevianID]

And I did the math it doesn't add up. shots.
(4 shots .75 = 3)

3x20=60.  60~=54

AC9=100/9 = 11 shots per ton.  90/9 = 10 shots per ton if using ac/2 90 damage/ton.
PAC9=11*.75=8.25 shots per primitive ton (7.5 with ac/2 90 damage/ton)
Rifle9=8.25 *.75 = 6.1875 (5.625 with ac/2 90 damage/ton)
6.1875 or 5.625 ~= 6, and 6 shots is what a Rifle9 has.

I have no idea where you're getting your numbers.

I see that.
The 75mm APCR round is 8.61kg.  Rifles have 54 damage in 1000kg of ammo.  You get 2 APCR rounds, spaced 5 seconds apart, with the KwK 75.  Solve for 1 round of 8.61kg of damage please.

[CVB]

In addition, artillery shells have variable propellent charges to mate with different high elevation shots

While this is true of the vast majority of artillery shells, there are some exceptions for weapons designed for a high RoF. The Swedish Bandkanon 1 comes to mind, a 155mm L/50 SP gun with a RoF of 14 (fourteen!) shots in 45 seconds and a range of 26-27km. It utilized a magazine with 14 fixed-charge unitary shells and remotely programmed fuzes. (All with 1950s technology; it remained in service from the 1960s until 2003)

[Col Toda]

Almost  no point . You are better off with primitive Chemical Lasers.  For 8 tons you get a large laser that does 5 points (  8 - 3 ) at 5 / 10 / 15 with 3 tons of ammo . Mediums lasers only do 2 points . Both are a little better options than rifles against  most targets . They are not bad to revist for combat vehicles in a 3025 game . Retro tech is good .

Still 3  Heavy Rifle field gun platoon might be very  nice and cheap in the BV . Particularly on prepared ground .

[HobbesHurlbut]

Nothing no point . You are better off with old Chemical Lasers.  For 8 tons you get a large laser that does 5 points (  8 - 3 ) at 5 / 10 / 15 with 3 tons of ammo . Mediums lasers only do 2 points . Both are a little better options than rifles against  most targets . They are not bad to revist for combat vehicles in a 3025 game . Retro tech is good .

that is not being constructive to the topic.

[RifleMech]

3x20=60.  60~=54

Sorry that doesn't work. The HRC has 6 shots per ton. That's 1 more than the AC/20 and 2 more than the PPAC/20. You can't say that the HRC has .75x the number of shots of the PPAC/20 has, when the HRC has 50% more shots.

AC9=100/9 = 11 shots per ton.  90/9 = 10 shots per ton if using ac/2 90 damage/ton.
PAC9=11*.75=8.25 shots per primitive ton (7.5 with ac/2 90 damage/ton)
Rifle9=8.25 *.75 = 6.1875 (5.625 with ac/2 90 damage/ton)
6.1875 or 5.625 ~= 6, and 6 shots is what a Rifle9 has.

There is no AC/9 or PAC/9 so I don't know what you're trying to prove there. Also, I don't know why the AC/2's ammo isn't 100 like the other AC/s but if you're trying to prove the HRC is a primitive AC/2, it doesn't work. Going by 90 points of damage, the AC/20 would still have 5 shots thanks to rounding. The AC/10 though would loose a round to have 9 shots and the AC/5 would loose 2 shots to have 18. That more closely matches the  HRC's 6 shots, the MRC's 9 and the LRC's 18. Since AC/s have a greater rate of fire than RCs the damage AC/s do is greater. We can see that in the damage 3-5, 6-10, 9-20. In fact going by this the HRC is nerfed on damage and should do 12 damage. The MRC does twice the damage of the LRC but the HRC only does 50% more damage than the MRC. The AC's though double each time.

I see that.
The 75mm APCR round is 8.61kg.  Rifles have 54 damage in 1000kg of ammo.  You get 2 APCR rounds, spaced 5 seconds apart, with the KwK 75.  Solve for 1 round of 8.61kg of damage please.

With each round weighing 8.61kg the KwK 75 would have 116 rounds per 1000kg. That's 58 shots (2 round bursts) weighing 17.22kg each. The LRC fires 55.55kg per shot. That's 3.22 times as much weight as a KwK 75 2 round burst. That would put the KwK 75's damage per ton at 16.77, rounding to 17 damage, each burst of damage doing .29 damage. 1 round would be .145. On a vehicle that'd round to 0. As a field gun, damages would be added together.

However, you are ignoring that not only the weight of ammo the LRC fires but the weight of other period weapons that I have pointed out before.

We do know that 5kg does 2 points of damage thanks to the Machine Gun. The KwK 75 fires 3.44 more ammo than a Machine Gun. So if the MG does 2 points of damage the KwK 75 would do 6.88, rounding up to 7 points damage per shot. With 58 shots, the Kwk 75 can do 399 points of damage per ton.

If you don't like the MG comparison how about the Infantry's Heavy Recoilless Rifle. Each round weighs 4 kg and does .57 damage, rounding to 1 point of damage.
A 2 round burst from the KwK 75 weighs 17.22 kg. That's 4.3 times more than the HRR round. Going with the unrounded .57 damage the Kwk75 should do 2.45. If one felt charitable that could round up to 3 points. With the rounded damage the Kwk75 would do 4 points of damage. I prefer the 3 points but even 2 points is better than 0.

We also know that the LRC fires 55.55 kg per shot while the Thumper fires 50kg per shot. If the LRC isn't firing a single artillery round then it must be firing a burst of rounds. That's 6.45 rounds of 8.61kg rounds. If a 2 round burst of 17.22kg does .29 damage than a 6 round burst of
51.66kg would do 0.87 damage, rounded to 1 point. There are the other comparisons of course. If 17.22kg does 2.45 damage than 51.66kg would do 6 damage. And if 17.22kg does 6.88 damage than 51.66kg should do 20.64, rounded to 21 damage.

I'll admit that 21 points of damage seems silly from a pre-1950's cannon. Not impossible but it'd really depend on the rate of fire.  I think most 75mm cannons would do between 1-3 damage with 4-6 damage being less common but not impossible. Of course this means that they'd all have different modern equivalents. The Sherman's 75mm may be equivalent to the Heavy Recoilless Rifle while the Kwk75 may be equivalent to a LAC/2 or a PAC/4.   


Edit 1
I forgot to mention that the KwK75's 2 round burst doing .29 damage would be not only against all armors in TW (BAR2-10), but also against internal structures and against all other targets. Infantry? .29 damage. Bunker? .29 damage. Minivan with no armor? .29 damage. That wouldn't work for me. I'm sure it'd be different in ATOW but I lack the skill to figure out what the damages would be there.

Edit 2
I was using the Infantry's Heavy Recoilless Rifle's TW damage. ATOW has it doing the same damage as the BA version. The ATOW BA RR doesn't do as much damage as the TW BA version does. Older BT rules also put the Infantry HRR equal to the BA version, or what would be the medium is today. 2-3 points of damage is a lot more than .57.