Rifle Cannons: What have you done?

[Grand_dm]

Unlike the Medium Rifle and Heavy Rifle, the lack of armor penetration means that units equipped with a Light Rifle are effectively at the mercy of BattleMechs.

BUT...my 'Rifle' Infantry platoon, with small arms fire are not? SMH

What have folks done to implement Rifle Cannons better in their campaigns?

I was thinking the following damage bracket changes vs BAR10:

Heavy: -3
Medium: -2
Light: -1

[Grand_dm]

Alternatively, just upping the damage of the Light Rifle to 2 I think solves the issue.

Heavy: 6 vs BAR10
Medium: 4 vs BAR10
Light: 2 vs BAR10

I mean come on, no one is spending 3-tons on a 2-damage Light Rifle when they could have three medium lasers instead 

[Daryk]

This is a sadly well-worn topic on the board.  I can only recommend not delving too deep.  Here was my take on the issue: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/fan-designs-rules/rifle-cannon-math/

[Grand_dm]

This is a sadly well-worn topic on the board.  I can only recommend not delving too deep.  Here was my take on the issue: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/fan-designs-rules/rifle-cannon-math/

Thanks for the thread to review.

I think it's neat that there is an early version of the autocannon for us to use. Honestly cheap ICE tanks with rifle cannons should be all over the place - especially in the Periphery.

The game designers are not flawless. There should not be a 0 damage tactical scale weapon in the game. No amount of Battletech grognards rattling their sabers will convince me otherwise.

[RifleMech]

Thanks for the thread to review.

I think it's neat that there is an early version of the autocannon for us to use. Honestly cheap ICE tanks with rifle cannons should be all over the place - especially in the Periphery.

The game designers are not flawless. There should not be a 0 damage tactical scale weapon in the game. No amount of Battletech grognards rattling their sabers will convince me otherwise.

Total agreement. Like Daryk said, this is an often discussed topic. He's also good at AToW math so his thread is a good way to go.

Generally, I ignore the -3 damage for Rifles completely. Otherwise, I only reduce the Light to 1 damage point.
Here's one of my threads on it.
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/fan-designs-rules/rifle-cannons-equal-mech-shotguns/

[Daryk]

You're quite welcome Grand_dm, and thanks for the props RifleMech! 

[Grand_dm]

Total agreement. Like Daryk said, this is an often discussed topic. He's also good at AToW math so his thread is a good way to go.

Generally, I ignore the -3 damage for Rifles completely. Otherwise, I only reduce the Light to 1 damage point.
Here's one of my threads on it.
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/fan-designs-rules/rifle-cannons-equal-mech-shotguns/

It's worth considering just leaving off the -3 completely. I find it very hard to make low tonnage vehicles with an autocannon, as even an AC2 is prohibitively heavy.

There should be a viable, lower weight cannon available for tanks (and Mechs) and the Light Rifle really fits the bill.

[Grand_dm]

You're quite welcome Grand_dm, and thanks for the props RifleMech! 

I appreciate the feedback, being the new guy around here. After returning to Battletech after 20 years I'm looking at all this stuff with fresh eyes.

[RifleMech]

You're quite welcome Grand_dm, and thanks for the props RifleMech! 

You're very welcome.

It's worth considering just leaving off the -3 completely. I find it very hard to make low tonnage vehicles with an autocannon, as even an AC2 is prohibitively heavy.

There should be a viable, lower weight cannon available for tanks (and Mechs) and the Light Rifle really fits the bill.

Leaving off the -3 would be the easiest way. The LRC is nice to use on lighter units. If you want really light though, download XTRO:1945. It's a free product put out a few years ago. It bends the rules a little to make WWII vehicles, so it isn't canon but it's a lot of fun. It also includes period weapons and what they would be equivalent to against more modern BT units. For example, Tank Cannons range from the .550 ton 37mm to the 4 ton 8.8cm. The 8.8cm is equivalent to a Medium Rifle Cannon.
The .37mm is equivalent to am infantry Medium Recoiless Rifle.

Herb also posted more Tank Cannons and other weapons and vehicles, as well as a formula to make your own in this thread. It's a great formula. It's totally worth checking out.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/fan-designs-rules/herb-need-help-with-the-m1a1-abrams-and-the-120mm-tank-cannon/

Personally, I think the XTRO:1945 weapons and those made using Herb's formula are way cooler than Rifle Cannons. I wish they were canon. (Sorry, for the pun.  ) Using them depends on your group though.

And welcome back.

[Grand_dm]

You're very welcome.


Leaving off the -3 would be the easiest way. The LRC is nice to use on lighter units. If you want really light though, download XTRO:1945. It's a free product put out a few years ago. It bends the rules a little to make WWII vehicles, so it isn't canon but it's a lot of fun. It also includes period weapons and what they would be equivalent to against more modern BT units. For example, Tank Cannons range from the .550 ton 37mm to the 4 ton 8.8cm. The 8.8cm is equivalent to a Medium Rifle Cannon.
The .37mm is equivalent to am infantry Medium Recoiless Rifle.

Herb also posted more Tank Cannons and other weapons and vehicles, as well as a formula to make your own in this thread. It's a great formula. It's totally worth checking out.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/fan-designs-rules/herb-need-help-with-the-m1a1-abrams-and-the-120mm-tank-cannon/

Personally, I think the XTRO:1945 weapons and those made using Herb's formula are way cooler than Rifle Cannons. I wish they were canon. (Sorry, for the pun.  ) Using them depends on your group though.

And welcome back.

Great stuff! I think the easiest explanation for a home game ditching the -3 damage is technology. I understand WW2 era Rifle Cannons bouncing off the future's BAR10 armor. But it's easy to just say they were improved upon so they could stay relevant. And once you toss in the Infantry small arms damage argument, it just makes more sense. But hey to each their own, YMMV.

[RifleMech]

Great stuff! I think the easiest explanation for a home game ditching the -3 damage is technology. I understand WW2 era Rifle Cannons bouncing off the future's BAR10 armor. But it's easy to just say they were improved upon so they could stay relevant. And once you toss in the Infantry small arms damage argument, it just makes more sense. But hey to each their own, YMMV.

Yeah. I can see it too. That's why the minus didn't bother me too much except for the Light Rifle. That 0 just bugs me.  Then there's infantry weapons and other pre-spaceflight weapons and it does make more sense to minus the -3.

If you want to give Rifles a bit of variety you could say that the -3 are high explosive or anti-personnel rounds and the full damage are armor-piercing or something.

[Daemion]

The game designers are not flawless. There should not be a 0 damage tactical scale weapon in the game. No amount of Battletech grognards rattling their sabers will convince me otherwise.

Maybe not zero, but maybe something that rounds to zero.  I've always looked at single shot tube cannons as being a fractionalized version of the rapid-fire AC.  While they may not do honest damage that registers as a full damage point, you get enough grouped together, they could. 

Honestly, I've toyed around with them still being able to force a crit if the round lands on an 'exposed' location or via a tac.  I would give them this bonus over infantry small arms fire simply because it's meant to effect armor.  And, this would be round-based.  The cannon should have access to other types of rounds which it can fire on the fly.  It's a smaller form of artillery, after all.

For me, the biggest failure is the BAR system, especially when applied to combat-ish vehicles, and all the exceptions they added for standard BattleTech Armors.

But, I grew up in the BMR era, and have found a lot of changes toward Total Warfare to be 'counter intuitive' in the least.

[Daryk]

I think the BAR system works just fine, and that the Rifle Cannons ignored it when they were published (that flat -3 at TW scale).  I get no love from TPTB on that point, so you can probably safely ignore me.

On the other hand, the BAR system works great with just about everything else in BattleTech, leaving Rifle Cannons as the glaring exception.

But that's just my opinion, of course... 

[Daemion]

I have mixed feelings on BAR.  I already stated my case in the locked Rifle Cannon discussion thread. 

The support vehicle rules and BAR application to them actually pre-dates Total Warfare.  I have the Combat Equipment volume where they pulled it from.

But, I'll reiterate for those who don't know.  Feel free to skip it if you're familiar.

One of the biggest things, in my opinion, is that I properly can't use it, as written, to emulate historical combat.  The TRo: 1945, along with the nuts-and-bolts discussion in the Abrams 120mm thread shows that. 

There's this strange aspect that modern BT weapons that do light damage in BT (SRMs and LRMs being the most glaring, but the bog standard AC/5 coming in a close second) were, at one point, fully anti-armor capable. There's a reason the AC/5 became a bog-standard weapon on soooo many war-vehicles, including, and especially BattleMechs.

Even with Herb's nuts and bolts formulas BAR 5 is the standard back as early as 1960.  It was the standard he worked from.  That leaves AC/5, the Medium Laser, The LRM (Cluster) and the SRM all having to rely on TACs to get true armor penetration.  I have yet to finish reading the Abrams 120mm Cannon thread, but we don't get the strength boost that is applied to the weapons of the era, while the BAR remains the same.

That doesn't work for me.

5 point damage clusters is one of the standard damage profiles in Standard BattleTech.  At one point in history, the Medium Laser was one of the most powerful weapons known to man before the introduction of the Large Laser.  And, last I recall, you had to exceed the BAR value, much like the Damage Threshold value on Fighters and Star Ships.

So, unless there has been some misconception by Herb and other designers, (...like had been done with Mechanized Infantry design rules versus the units designed in later TRos...) having BAR 5 be the next standard down from Standard (BAR 10) puts a lot of what should be cutting edge weapons out of the anti-armor roll which they should inhabit at some point in history.  It removes any justification for their proliferation.

Limiting things to BAR 10 also means there's no room for growth, either.

It also isn't what I was expecting or wanting when first conceptualizing a means to emulate Deflective Armors.  I was expecting something that would literally absorb damage until the threshold was reached and then anything left over would do internal damage, not just force a crit.

The fact that a unit gets one BAR rating for all its armor locations does not emulate armor thickness and resistance against penetration.

And, there was one product that had a glut of modern BattleTech units designed with the system: TRo Vehicle Annex, and we haven't seen any more since.  Only the joke TRo 1945 took it and ran.

The flat -3 damage rule in Tac Ops was just one more straw that nailed the coffin on that system for me, since I had believed in the fractional nature of single AC rounds culminating into a fixed damage value when grouped.

That is why I'm not bothering with it, and looking for other means of representing what I want. 

The whole thing points to the schizophrenic nature of rules design versus in-universe representation in the minds of so many minds contributing without a singular vision to rope them in.

I apologize for bringing that back up here. 


But, you're right.  The PsTB have only used something like it in renamed armors: Primitive and Commercial, which have a flat BAR 5, regardless of era.  The rest of the support vehicle range of BARs only have some final application in the historical section of TR 3075, if I recall.

No support.  Doesn't really do what I want it to do. So, I go back to the rules that kept me playing without too many mental missteps - The BMR and earlier.  And, I go from there. 

Total Warfare, overall, for me, is what modern 40k or DnD has become for a lot of those players.  I'll paraphrase one Tex of the Black Pants legion: 'If you have come to hate something that once brought you joy, then maybe it's time to move on.' 

Or!  To quote some game apps, 'if you can't play the current version, go back to an older version!'  I don't like certain details of TW!  But I do like BattleTech as a game, and what I want to see to improve it.  So, that's what I've done. 

I simply come to these boards to share what my player-group has found and implemented, as well as to brainstorm.

Therefore!  What have I done with my Rifle Cannons?  I took the concept, maybe some of the basic construction stats, and I've scrapped the system they're tied to to come up with something else.  Haven't finalized it, yet.  But, I have something in mind, coming soon.

[RifleMech]

The problem with reducing the damage to 0 is that .5 damage rounds up to 1. So you get a LRC doing 0 damage while an Auto-Rifle does 1 point of damage.

I also don't have a problem with BAR. I'm not sure what you mean by BAR5 being the next step down from BAR10. Unless you're talking about Mechs. Back then though Mechs could get away with Support BAR armors. Even with just the 2 BAR levels for Mechs, I don't see why AC/5s wouldn't be cutting edge for their time.

When AC/5s, and Medium Lasers, were first introduced, the only Mechs were the occasional prototype WorkMech. Most of the AC/5's targets were ground vehicles. The AC/5 is still going to get penetrating critical hit roles against BAR2-4 armors. By the time the AC/5 was introduced armor was up to BAR7, it doesn't get that extra roll, which is okay.  So the MRC gets better penetration at BAR5. The AC/5 has better range and more than twice the ammo. The AC/5 can also rapid fire and split it's fire between multiple targets. That's a lot of advancement even if it doesn't quite have the penetrating power of the MRC.

I do agree that just using TM alone, you can't get too close to WWII vehicles. You have to have TOs Rifle Cannons and even then you can only get close. You need XTRO:1945 or Herb's formula to be more accurate. I also agree that Rifles should have other types of ammunition.

I also don't mind the single BAR rating on units. There's Patchwork Armor if I want a more real life feel.

[Daemion]

I'm not sure what you mean by BAR5 being the next step down from BAR10.

Were you not paying attention to Herb's formula for the M1's 120mm?  He stated he started the TRo 1945 with BAR 5 as the base point and working backward, and forward, from there.

As for your other suggestions, don't steer those at me.  They're not gonna work for my palette.

Trying to shoe-horn in BT construction rules into something which naturally doesn't follow them is not what I consider an ideal use of my time.  I already tried it and wasn't satisfied with the results.

[RifleMech]

Were you not paying attention to Herb's formula for the M1's 120mm?  He stated he started the TRo 1945 with BAR 5 as the base point and working backward, and forward, from there.

As for your other suggestions, don't steer those at me.  They're not gonna work for my palette.

Trying to shoe-horn in BT construction rules into something which naturally doesn't follow them is not what I consider an ideal use of my time.  I already tried it and wasn't satisfied with the results.

Yes. I remember. He also that 1900-1960 would be BAR-5-6, that armor from the 1960 to 2020 would be BAR-6 and that BAR-3 armor would what was used on the first Ironclads. After 2020 comes BAR-7 and then BAR-8 and so on.  So I'm still not seeing where you're going with this. 

Are you complaining about Mechs only having 2 choices, BAR-5 and BAR-10? I agree with you. Other BAR armors should be allowed to be mounted on mechs.

Or are you complaining about the AC/5 not being able to get a penetrating critical hit roll against BAR/5 armor? Even though Autocannons are "superior" to Rifle Cannons? I agree that ACs are more advanced than RCs. Advanced doesn't automatically mean better penetration though. A weapon can be more advanced and still not have better penetration as I've pointed out in the previous post. 

As for my suggestions, if you don't think XTRO:1945 works for you, don't use it. I don't know what you'd use but whatever works for you.   

About the complaint of units only have a single BAR and the suggestion of Patchwork armor. That sure seems to be what you were wanting but whatever. Again, whatever works for you. 

[Grand_dm]

I would just like to remind everyone that I created this thread to see what others have done. Including some argument to explain your methodology is fine, but let's make sure it does not get past that. Just a friendly reminder.

[Grand_dm]

New question for the group: what balance issues if any are presented by just ditching the -3 damage penalty?

When answering set aside this idea that Rifle Cannons are using hundreds of years old technology. Forget about TRO 1945.

Instead let's just examine their game stats: weight/range/damage/ammo per ton.

Looking purely at that - are they balanced as an alternative to the Autocannon?

[Daryk]

Without any penalty, I think they're a mixed bag  The Heavy does almost twice the damage of an AC/5 at the same weight (granted, with more heat and less ammo).  The Medium is essentially one more point of damage for one more point of heat (and less ammo) than a LAC/5.  And the Light is again one more point of damage at 2/3 the range of a LAC/2, for one ton less.

I think my math thread preserved the BAR system and game balance better.

As far as simply loading "modern" ammo in Rifle Cannons, I would say they have to get heavier to cope with the improved propellants.  They're cutting edge TL B weapons, and that can only get you so far.  Autocannons were the TL C solution to improve performance.  TL D brings in HVACs (ugh) and the aforementioned LACs.  LB-X, Ultras and RACs come in at TL E, and F of course is all the clan nonsense.

[Charistoph]

As far as simply loading "modern" ammo in Rifle Cannons, I would say they have to get heavier to cope with the improved propellants.

There is some truth to that.  Loading Civil War cannons with the same propellant used in WW2 artillery would be disastrous, to say nothing about our current propellants (assuming one could get them to fire, that is).  The metallurgical processes and barrel construction have come a long way in those 160 years.

That being said, some improvements should be possible, such as explosive filler.  Our cannons haven't been stuck to just kinetic energy applicators for quite some time.

[RifleMech]

I would just like to remind everyone that I created this thread to see what others have done. Including some argument to explain your methodology is fine, but let's make sure it does not get past that. Just a friendly reminder.

 

New question for the group: what balance issues if any are presented by just ditching the -3 damage penalty?

When answering set aside this idea that Rifle Cannons are using hundreds of years old technology. Forget about TRO 1945.

Instead let's just examine their game stats: weight/range/damage/ammo per ton.

Looking purely at that - are they balanced as an alternative to the Autocannon?

I think they're balanced. To me it's like trying to determine which is better, a rifle or a shotgun. Both can fire slugs but the rifle has a better range. The shotgun though has a bigger punch. It's a trade off.

The biggest complaint I've seen about not including the -3 damage is that the HRC does better than the AC/10 because it's 4 tons lighter. The Thumper Artillery Cannon is 2 tons lighter, has twice the ammo of the AC/10 and is an area effect weapon. I don't see anyone rushing to replace their AC/10s with Thumpers.

Also, I see comparing the AC/10 to the HRC as a wrong comparison. I think Rifles should be compared to the next size AC up. That would be the HRC being equal in barrel size to an AC/20, the MRC and AC/10, and a LRC an AC/5. The fluff for the Arbiter would seem to back this up. Especially, if you ignore all the various odd fluff sizes.

It also works out with the damage ACs do when splitting their fire. Presuming a 2 round burst from Autocannons, the damages from AC/20, AC/10, and AC/5 would be 10/5//2. The damages for Rifles are 9/6/3 going down. (You can have greater rates of fire if you want but the damage per round gets less.) So with the Autocannon you're getting roughly twice the firepower of a Rifle Cannon. Unless of course you're using the Autocannon as a field gun. Then you're getting 4 times the firepower.

Yes, you could mount two LRC or two MRC instead of a single AC/5 or AC/10 but Autocannon also gives you concentrated fire. One to hit roll. One location hit. That's twice as many rounds hitting the same spot. Unless you get lucky. You'll also note that using two HRCs instead of a single AC/20 doesn't work as they're actually heavier. And the AC/s have been improved over the years to make them lighter. Rifles haven't changed in a millennia.

So I see Rifles as still being effective weapons. They're not as good as Autocannons but they still have their uses. Most of the time they'd be second choice but depending on the unit's weight and their intended purpose Rifles could be a better choice. Especially, when used by lighter units in close quarters.

[Daemion]

Or are you complaining about the AC/5 not being able to get a penetrating critical hit roll against BAR/5 armor? Even though Autocannons are "superior" to Rifle Cannons?

Bingo!  That's the main gripe. Remember, it's not just the AC/5 at stake, though.  This also includes the Medium Laser, and the LRM's 5-point clusters, as well.  All that jazz you cite about being more superior but not good at Penetration fails as a logical argument when it comes to historical justification for the weapon's large proliferation. 

About the complaint of units only have a single BAR and the suggestion of Patchwork armor. That sure seems to be what you were wanting but whatever. Again, whatever works for you. 

When combat equipment came out with the BAR system and Support Vehicle Construction Rules under FanPro, (what went into the first few errata-free versions of Total Warfare) I did play around with Patchwork armor to get different crit thresholds.  It was okay, at first.  I still had issues with the short ranges, and I knew what that meant.  So, it would require some house-rules or loose interpretations of AeroTech Low-Altitude ranges to work to begin to emulate different levels of tech. 

But, then some people pointed out that BAR has more to do with the failures of the materials involved in the armor, and not anything to do with armor thickness.  (That happened to be Cray.)  And, other people pointed out that BT damage does not reflect penetration, considering what it does to armor.  (CannonShop, I think.)  And, having rudimentarily studied 20th and 21st armored combat, the munitions involved and the final effect, I get why.

I honestly enjoyed TRo 1945.  But, when it comes to emulating true modern armored combat, it has some good things, but it has some bad things, too.  So, it turns out to be 'okay' in my book.  I'm more okay with the BAR system in it and at the RPG level.  But, both are at a completely different damage scale, and that's why it's okay in using each one. 

Edit: And, I'll leave it there, as per the OP's request.

New question for the group: what balance issues if any are presented by just ditching the -3 damage penalty?

When answering set aside this idea that Rifle Cannons are using hundreds of years old technology. Forget about TRO 1945.

Instead let's just examine their game stats: weight/range/damage/ammo per ton.

Looking purely at that - are they balanced as an alternative to the Autocannon?

Well, I have a counter-question to you.  Do you see AutoCannons as single-shot?  Or certain brands as single-shot?

Because it has been argued that ACs are a simple change of metallurgy and propellant.  I disagree in that I see all ACs as firing multiple shells.  There may be some exceptions in a TRo entry, somewhere.  But, for the most part, a lot of the weight gains have more to do with 'recoil compensation'.  That's not something required for a single-shot gun.

Rifle Cannons are single shot tubes.  You can point to any tank the fields a single-shot tube, and the fact that each round is generally selected and fed into the barrel.  It's not fed directly from a magazine or belt.  Most tanks have a variety of munitions to choose from, loaded for expected encounters on the mission.

HESH rounds are used for Building demolition and scrapping lightly armored vehicles, like cars and trucks. 
Heavy Metal Darts are used for penetrating heavy armor.  You'll see different variations for different armors.
Cannister Rounds with flechettes or grape shot bearings are great for peppering infantry, and maybe Air targets.
 
So, why are the cannons having their stats limited to one range band and damage profile for the barrel?

APFSDS darts are going to have a different range and damage profile than Self-Propelled Squash Head rounds versus the 'Grape Shot' round.

Being able to have access to different rounds per shot, instead of a single hopper dedicated all to one kind, is one of the things I know I plan to implement for my use of Tank Rounds.

And, for those concerned about the powder in a casing, there are ways around it.  The idea of a self-propelled round kicked out of a casing using said updated powders would be one way to keep the barrel structurally sound and use the new hotness.  It may seem a step backwards, since a two-stage propellent, one being a rocket block at the end of a dart, had been discarded, but tried, historically.  It was usually used in conjunction with a HE tipped round which was kinda slow and heavy and not very aerodynamic.

If you look at the ammo options as the source of the stats, then you don't need to have the stats applied strictly to the gun.

Honestly, I look at the -3 is representing the old-fashioned long rod penetrator, which is an ammo type.  It's a tiny dart whose sole purpose is to poke a big hole through a plate of armor.  The donut-hole sized piece that gets dislodged is then supposed to bound around in any number of small pieces, wreaking havoc on senstive motors and motor-controls and whatever might be nearby. 

Standard BattleTech Armor has a second layer with a ferrous carbon weave that stops that spalling effect.  So, not only is the round too small to properly represent a full point of damage.  Then, you take away it's crit-making potential simply due to the nature of the armor, and yeah. 

But, I imagine that you might get the long-rod penetrator up to doing full damage points if it is flung faster.  If you use the space range bands, BattleTech Weapons can be very fast.  Like 'dozens of -' to 'a couple hundred-' kilometers a second fast. 

I'm not exactly sure that the long-rod can be saved as a single shot munition.  But, the single-shot tube doesn't have to be limited to that style of munition.

That's my food for thought.

[Daemion]

Just for comparison, the current stats for the Rifle Cannon have the light rifle, medium rifle, and heavy rifle range bands going up, compared to the AutoCannons range bands going down with heavier versions and/or higher caliber.

Max range of 12, 15, and 18 respectively for the light, medium and heavy rifle cannon.
Max range of 27, 18, 15, and 9 for the AC/2, /5, /10 and /20 respectively.

(Aside: It really looks like there should have been an AC/15 with a max long range of 12.  )

Now, before we get into the short barrel lengths of the heavier autocannons as a potential explanation in lieu of rapid fire recoil compensation, I want to point people to the Vulcan with its torso mounted AC/2, and the Hermes II with its torso mounted AC/5 which are ridiculously short.  Heck, even the old BJ-1 Blackjack art has short barrels for its AC/2s that put them on par with the Hunchback's and Atlas's AC/20's.

(I have a metal vintage mini, and would you believe I thought it looked like it had lower arm actuators?)

So, looking at the ranges involved, I take this to mean that Recoil isn't an issue for the single shot tubes.  With that in mind, I'm definitely inclined to divorce the actual range from the gun, and apply it to the munitions it fires. 

By the way, the Rheinmetal, according to Wikipedia, the famous Rheinmetal 120mm cannon has this mass figure:
1,190 kg (2,620 lb) Gun barrel; 3,317 kg (7,313 lb) Gun mount

That comes to about 4.5 metric tons.  That's well above the Light Rifle's 3 tons but just shy of the Medium's 5 tons. Definitely well below the Heavy Rifle's 8 tons.

I find that kinda neat.  But, I point that out because it isn't tied to a specific munition, which, again, can be selected from a storage rack manually.  The loader can pick out the next shot, per gunner's request.  This is not the same as cassette magazines that AC's are generally believed to use.  That system does not have to change with improvements in automation through the space ages.

[RifleMech]

Bingo!  That's the main gripe. Remember, it's not just the AC/5 at stake, though.  This also includes the Medium Laser, and the LRM's 5-point clusters, as well.  All that jazz you cite about being more superior but not good at Penetration fails as a logical argument when it comes to historical justification for the weapon's large proliferation. 

LRMs are five separate hits, so I've got no problem with them not getting a penetrating critical hit against BAR-5 armor. Medium Lasers...they advanced over Chemical Lasers because they don't require ammo. AC/5s, I've pointed out. Better penetration isn't a requirement for advancement. Besides, if AC/5s had the penetration of HRCs, we wouldn't need AC/10s.

When combat equipment came out with the BAR system and Support Vehicle Construction Rules under FanPro, (what went into the first few errata-free versions of Total Warfare) I did play around with Patchwork armor to get different crit thresholds.  It was okay, at first.  I still had issues with the short ranges, and I knew what that meant.  So, it would require some house-rules or loose interpretations of AeroTech Low-Altitude ranges to work to begin to emulate different levels of tech. 

I don't know why Patchwork Armor still wouldn't work now. As for weapon ranges, eh, not much we can do about that. We can't have accurate ranges with the mapsheets we have. I read someplace that the opponent wouldn't be off the map at the other end of the table. They'd be at the other end of the parking lot.
Not sure how you use Aerospace ranges to emulate tech levels.

But, then some people pointed out that BAR has more to do with the failures of the materials involved in the armor, and not anything to do with armor thickness.  (That happened to be Cray.)  And, other people pointed out that BT damage does not reflect penetration, considering what it does to armor.  (CannonShop, I think.)  And, having rudimentarily studied 20th and 21st armored combat, the munitions involved and the final effect, I get why.

I honestly enjoyed TRo 1945.  But, when it comes to emulating true modern armored combat, it has some good things, but it has some bad things, too.  So, it turns out to be 'okay' in my book.  I'm more okay with the BAR system in it and at the RPG level.  But, both are at a completely different damage scale, and that's why it's okay in using each one. 

Edit: And, I'll leave it there, as per the OP's request.

Well, BT armor, of all BARs and types, does seem to be more ablative protection than penetrative. The RPG though...is a headache. I do think XTRO:1945 did a good job with penetrating damage though. But then things don't work the same against BT units...My head canon chalks it up to lostech. The best armor units colonists had were their dropshuttles so based "armor" off of them. The TA didn't want to lose control of their tech so kept it restricted behind their lines and sent out equipment emulating what the colonists were using. After a while that tech just took over and the better stuff got forgotten.

Well, I have a counter-question to you.  Do you see AutoCannons as single-shot?  Or certain brands as single-shot?

In general, I see Autocannons as burst weapons. Only certain brands fire single shots.

Because it has been argued that ACs are a simple change of metallurgy and propellant.  I disagree in that I see all ACs as firing multiple shells.  There may be some exceptions in a TRo entry, somewhere.  But, for the most part, a lot of the weight gains have more to do with 'recoil compensation'.  That's not something required for a single-shot gun.

I have mixed feelings about advanced metallurgy and propellant. There obviously has been some improvement but I don't think things have advanced that much. I do agree that a lot of the weight gained is to handle the recoil. AC/s would also need stronger feed systems than RCs though, so there's some more added weight. The thing is all those advancements could also be put into Rifle Cannons.

Rifle Cannons are single shot tubes.  You can point to any tank the fields a single-shot tube, and the fact that each round is generally selected and fed into the barrel.  It's not fed directly from a magazine or belt.  Most tanks have a variety of munitions to choose from, loaded for expected encounters on the mission.
(snip)
So, why are the cannons having their stats limited to one range band and damage profile for the barrel?
(snip)

I totally agree that Rifles should have more ammo types.   

To simplify things. Otherwise we'd have a book of guns just for ACs, another for RCs, and so on. I don't think it'd be too hard to have some weapons only effective in certain range bands though. Like Grapeshot only doing full damage at short range and being reduced as it ranges increase.

Being able to have access to different rounds per shot, instead of a single hopper dedicated all to one kind, is one of the things I know I plan to implement for my use of Tank Rounds.

We have that for mechs, now. I think it might have changed for vehicles too. I think they still count as 1 slot but each type is a different explosion. I'd have to hunt around in the rule questions for it.

And, for those concerned about the powder in a casing, there are ways around it.  The idea of a self-propelled round kicked out of a casing using said updated powders would be one way to keep the barrel structurally sound and use the new hotness.  It may seem a step backwards, since a two-stage propellent, one being a rocket block at the end of a dart, had been discarded, but tried, historically.  It was usually used in conjunction with a HE tipped round which was kinda slow and heavy and not very aerodynamic.

If you look at the ammo options as the source of the stats, then you don't need to have the stats applied strictly to the gun.

Thing is you could just adjust the amount of propellant used.

Not all guns are the same though. A low velocity 75mm isn't going to have the range of a high velocity 75mm.

Honestly, I look at the -3 is representing the old-fashioned long rod penetrator, which is an ammo type.  It's a tiny dart whose sole purpose is to poke a big hole through a plate of armor.  The donut-hole sized piece that gets dislodged is then supposed to bound around in any number of small pieces, wreaking havoc on senstive motors and motor-controls and whatever might be nearby. 
(snip)

How's all that different from Armor-Piercing Ammo now?


From what I've seen Rifle Cannons, are like tank cannons with auto-loaders. They generally have a rate of fire of about 12 rounds a minute. That's 2 rounds a turn. Which would work with Solaris VII's rapid-fire rules. 1 per round normally, 2 when rapid-firing.

Autocannons are more like post WWII naval guns made to fit on tanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_76_mm
This one starts off at 80 rounds a minute. That's 13 rounds per turn. Improved versions have higher rates of fire (Rapid fire or UACs?) This gun could replace the tank  turret but I'm not sure about larger guns. And where would the gunner and commander be?

[RifleMech]

Just for comparison, the current stats for the Rifle Cannon have the light rifle, medium rifle, and heavy rifle range bands going up, compared to the AutoCannons range bands going down with heavier versions and/or higher caliber.

Max range of 12, 15, and 18 respectively for the light, medium and heavy rifle cannon.
Max range of 27, 18, 15, and 9 for the AC/2, /5, /10 and /20 respectively.

(Aside: It really looks like there should have been an AC/15 with a max long range of 12.  )

Did something change? I have a range of 24 for the AC/2.
The range going down as the size goes up is odd. I figure a part of is is that the same amount of propellant is firing larger rounds. That's going to cause shorter range. Add in multiple rounds and somethings got to give, so the rounds end up with even less propellant.

I wouldn't mind an AC/15.

(snip)

So, looking at the ranges involved, I take this to mean that Recoil isn't an issue for the single shot tubes.  With that in mind, I'm definitely inclined to divorce the actual range from the gun, and apply it to the munitions it fires. 

Like I said above there's more than one type of gun so ranges aren't going to be the same. I do think the effective range for some ammos could be different though.

By the way, the Rheinmetal, according to Wikipedia, the famous Rheinmetal 120mm cannon has this mass figure:
1,190 kg (2,620 lb) Gun barrel; 3,317 kg (7,313 lb) Gun mount

That comes to about 4.5 metric tons.  That's well above the Light Rifle's 3 tons but just shy of the Medium's 5 tons. Definitely well below the Heavy Rifle's 8 tons.

I find that kinda neat.  But, I point that out because it isn't tied to a specific munition, which, again, can be selected from a storage rack manually.  The loader can pick out the next shot, per gunner's request.  This is not the same as cassette magazines that AC's are generally believed to use.  That system does not have to change with improvements in automation through the space ages.

It is pretty neat but we can pick out what ammo type to fire as long as we have multiple ammo types.

Fun fact, a long time ago, FASA made stats for the Abrams and used an AC/10 for the Rheinmetal 120mm. The 105mm was a AC/5.  It's not canon any more but I think it's still pretty neat.

[Daemion]

Looks like the AC/2 does only reach 24.  I recall some weapon reaching out to 27 hexes, but did really light damage. (ER ATM Ammo.) Don't know why I got the two mixed. 24 is only one step beyond the ER PPC's 23.  Thought the AC/2 had more of a gain on that weapon.

[Daryk]

The IS LB-2X goes 9/18/27.

RifleMech: I've done a few conversions with Thumper Artillery Cannons, but your point stands.

[DevianID]

So amongst the other threads I posted that the cannon series, to keep battlevalue balance, can have a damage value of 2/4/6 for light, medium, heavy cannons, to match the current battlevalue of the guns.

Thus the most 'fair' in my opinion way to play rifles, if you hate the -3, is to use the equivalent battle value damage.  This way a mech with a heavy rifle doesnt suddenly do 9 damage while paying the BV for what is effectively a 6 damage gun.

[RifleMech]

Looks like the AC/2 does only reach 24.  I recall some weapon reaching out to 27 hexes, but did really light damage. (ER ATM Ammo.) Don't know why I got the two mixed. 24 is only one step beyond the ER PPC's 23.  Thought the AC/2 had more of a gain on that weapon.

Maybe you were thinking the LB-2X like Daryk said?

The IS LB-2X goes 9/18/27.

RifleMech: I've done a few conversions with Thumper Artillery Cannons, but your point stands.

I was just thinking the LB-2X. 

Thanks.  It is a fun conversion but I wouldn't replace all my AC/10s though. I think each weapon type has it's function and place on the battlefield.

So amongst the other threads I posted that the cannon series, to keep battlevalue balance, can have a damage value of 2/4/6 for light, medium, heavy cannons, to match the current battlevalue of the guns.

Thus the most 'fair' in my opinion way to play rifles, if you hate the -3, is to use the equivalent battle value damage.  This way a mech with a heavy rifle doesnt suddenly do 9 damage while paying the BV for what is effectively a 6 damage gun.

You mentioned that to me in one of the threads I started about Rifles. I would help the MRC some and the LRC a lot. 

[Grand_dm]

So amongst the other threads I posted that the cannon series, to keep battlevalue balance, can have a damage value of 2/4/6 for light, medium, heavy cannons, to match the current battlevalue of the guns.

Thus the most 'fair' in my opinion way to play rifles, if you hate the -3, is to use the equivalent battle value damage.  This way a mech with a heavy rifle doesnt suddenly do 9 damage while paying the BV for what is effectively a 6 damage gun.

That makes sense to me. I'm leaning toward 2/4/6 myself. They cannot rapid fire (single loaded tubes) but can use special munitions.

The idea being that these are an alternative to Autocannons rather then ancient artifacts that Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lostech found.

[DevianID]

If we add a 2/4/6 damage ammo, then the 3/6/9 damage 'baseline' rifle shot with -3 to high BAR compares well to the advanced multipurpose round most real world guns are adopting, specifically for anti structure and anti infantry duty, which replaced HEAT, multipurpose AT, Cannister, and anti-structure rounds but not the dedicated anti-tank penetrator.  So we have a real world comparison to what a baseline rifle shot would be and why it would be popular, as it combines 4 different tank rounds into 1 package.  The 2/4/6 damage alternate ammo would fix the -3 damage part people hate, while not removing the anti-structure part of the baseline Rifle that makes it unique.

[Daryk]

As long as the flat -3 at TW scale exists, it's a problem, alternate ammo or no.

[RifleMech]

The idea being that these are an alternative to Autocannons rather then ancient artifacts that Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lostech found.

That's how I see them. A little older but not ancient.

If we add a 2/4/6 damage ammo, then the 3/6/9 damage 'baseline' rifle shot with -3 to high BAR compares well to the advanced multipurpose round most real world guns are adopting, specifically for anti structure and anti infantry duty, which replaced HEAT, multipurpose AT, Cannister, and anti-structure rounds but not the dedicated anti-tank penetrator.  So we have a real world comparison to what a baseline rifle shot would be and why it would be popular, as it combines 4 different tank rounds into 1 package.  The 2/4/6 damage alternate ammo would fix the -3 damage part people hate, while not removing the anti-structure part of the baseline Rifle that makes it unique.

So the -3 rounds would be multipurpose rounds and the 2/4/6 rounds would be armor piercing?

As long as the flat -3 at TW scale exists, it's a problem, alternate ammo or no.

I'd be okay with -3 to 0 at long range. I don't remember which thread it was in but I did suggest that there be a -1 for each increased range band. -1 short, -2 medium, -3 long. It'd fit in with other weapons like the snub PPC and heavy gauss rifle, and Rifles would have to get closer to do damage, like in real life.

[DevianID]

So the -3 rounds would be multipurpose rounds and the 2/4/6 rounds would be armor piercing?

Yeah, the -3 rounds do more damage to structures then heavy armor, and the advanced multipurpose round does more damage to structures than heavy armor in real life, thus the shoe fits.

As long as the flat -3 at TW scale exists, it's a problem, alternate ammo or no

I mean, thats patently not true.  The weapon is literally fine with the -3 damage per battle value math, it just doesnt fit your mental image of what it should be... but by BV it is balanced--a weapon that isnt good versus some things and good versus others is OK when the averaged effect is accounted for in BV.  The rifles BV is calculated at less than their full damage, unlike MASC for example that gets counted as always full movement use despite that not being possible.  I mean, water cannons do zero damage to some things and bonus damage to others, infernos do zero damage to some things and bonus damage to others, so why cant rifle cannons?  Also, heavy rifle cannons at 6 damage are already balanced for the BV you pay, so doing 9 damage in some situations makes the heavy rifle cannon quite a good weapon for it's battle value, and the medium is slightly undervalued against mechs but great against buildings and internal structure for it's value.  Its only the light rifle cannon most people take umbrage with, and the light rifle cannon still does 3 damage to a mech's internal structure, meaning EVEN AGAINST MECHS it can be worth more than it's bv when you hit unarmored areas, as the weapon is paying BV for 2 damage yet you can do 3 damage to a mech with it if you hit structure.

The fact that a light rifle cannon still does 3 damage against mechs with armor breaches means that it still has a place in mech on mech combat as a finisher for mechs with battle damage--whether a weapon that is great versus internal structure for it's battle value is enough to justify its BV cost is up to you to decide, just like if you think flamers are good or not in mech on mech combat, but by calculation and math it is a balanced weapon across the kinds of targets you find when playing with experimental level rules.

[Grand_dm]

That's how I see them. A little older but not ancient.



So the -3 rounds would be multipurpose rounds and the 2/4/6 rounds would be armor piercing?



I'd be okay with -3 to 0 at long range. I don't remember which thread it was in but I did suggest that there be a -1 for each increased range band. -1 short, -2 medium, -3 long. It'd fit in with other weapons like the snub PPC and heavy gauss rifle, and Rifles would have to get closer to do damage, like in real life.

I think that would be a fair way to change them. I mean it adds more Account-tech, tracking ammo types - but also adds another way to justify the change.

So what we are left with for home games is:

Rifle Cannons being modernized (they are not from WW2 tanks  )
Ammo types: 3/6/9 vs softer targets and 2/4/6 vs harder targets.

[Charistoph]

I think that would be a fair way to change them. I mean it adds more Account-tech, tracking ammo types - but also adds another way to justify the change.

Not like that is something that different from Infernos*, LB-X, MML, ATM, Alternate AC Ammo, Alternate SRM and LRM ammo*.  All but the MML being around for decades.  So it's not like this is anything that new or even difficult to consider adding in.

* Yes, Infernos are alternate SRM ammo, but are available at lower tech levels than most of the other alternate SRM ammo.

[Daryk]

*snip*
I mean, thats patently not true.  The weapon is literally fine with the -3 damage per battle value math, it just doesnt fit your mental image of what it should be...
*snip*

My "mental image" has nothing to do with my objection.  It has everything to do with inconsistent rules, as I have long said on this board.  And that's where I'll leave this thread, as I don't want another warning.

[RifleMech]

Yeah, the -3 rounds do more damage to structures then heavy armor, and the advanced multipurpose round does more damage to structures than heavy armor in real life, thus the shoe fits.
(snip)

Cool. 

If the BV for the LRC is for 2 points of damage, why does it do 0?

I think that would be a fair way to change them. I mean it adds more Account-tech, tracking ammo types - but also adds another way to justify the change.

So what we are left with for home games is:

Rifle Cannons being modernized (they are not from WW2 tanks  )
Ammo types: 3/6/9 vs softer targets and 2/4/6 vs harder targets.

That works for me. 

What counts as a soft target though? Legally, a LRC will do 3 points of damage to BA with BAR10 armor but against a Motorcycle with BAR8 armor the LRC does 0.

My "mental image" has nothing to do with my objection.  It has everything to do with inconsistent rules, as I have long said on this board.  And that's where I'll leave this thread, as I don't want another warning.

None of us do. Hope you don't get one. 

[Grand_dm]

Cool. 

If the BV for the LRC is for 2 points of damage, why does it do 0?



That works for me. 

What counts as a soft target though? Legally, a LRC will do 3 points of damage to BA with BAR10 armor but against a Motorcycle with BAR8 armor the LRC does 0.

None of us do. Hope you don't get one. 

The BA & Bike example made me laugh this morning. It shows how silly the 'official' conversion is.

"Alright gang they have LRC tanks. Let's field the Harley Lance, they won't even be able to hurt those armored hogs!"

[DevianID]

If the BV for the LRC is for 2 points of damage, why does it do 0?

Because it does 3 damage to structure, so TPTB, when deciding what average damage to calculate the LRC, by way of observation of the end BV result, decided that the average of 0 armor damage and 3 structure damage was a 33% peak damage reduction.  When shooting at mech structure the LRC is a battle value bargain.

What counts as a soft target though? Legally, a LRC will do 3 points of damage to BA with BAR10 armor but against a Motorcycle with BAR8 armor the LRC does 0.

This has everything to do with how small vehicle and infantry rules are off.  Motorcycles should use the battlearmor rules or infantry rules, not the 'vehicle rules but with infantry weapons' we have now thanks to small support vee construction rules.  Hence the 'dont know how to handle infantry' thread.  3 Infernos also kill a battle armor but cause almost no effect to the same motorcycle vehicle, or kill 9 motorized infantry on 'motorcycles'.  So the same weapon has wildly different results on units that are basically the same thing--all due to how the unit breakdowns are odd.

In any event, despite the edge cases, weapons that do 0 armor damage exist, and are not limited to the LRC.  All the weapons that do 0 armor damage have some other special effect, such as heat damage, infantry burst damage, or internal structure damage in the case of the LRC.  1 damage attacks versus some advanced armor types and SI also do 0 damage, which is super annoying when firing an LB20x in cluster. 

If a Tech E LB20x ammo type does 0 damage to Tech F armor, then a Tech B Rifle in the smallest cluster size doing 0 damage to Tech C BAR armor is totally a believable thing.  Use the 2/4/6 damage fan-made ammo as the LBX slug analog to the 'AMP' type ammo the LRC is shooting if you have an issue with the LRC being an anti-structure only weapon.

[Nebfer]

Well we are told that their more or less old weapons predating humans going to the stars, the text stats that they have slower rates of fire than Autocannons, and use larger rounds as well as heavier propellant charges. To do their damage output, the rules also state that they can not be used in space as they do not have the "power" (likely in terms of velocity), and that they lack the Armor penetration of modern autocannons.
Also via the rules is the -3 damage unless... BAR 8 or battle armor infantry...

Interesting to note that among the only known caliber for a heavy rifle is 150mm (Era Digest age of war intro, it also mentions it firing a 68kg projectile, which historically is around 45kg for this size). Interstellar ops intro also shows us a 150mm based weapon but it's an unknown unit with an unknown cannon, as the intro story is dated to 2445 it's likely not an AC-10 or 20 (the 10 was introduced as a prototype just two years earlier and the 20 is not even in prototype stage for a few decades) Leaving it most likely as a Heavy Rifle.
The interesting thing about this one is that it has a 3 round burst, well it's described as having a three round "revolver" action "cassette" in which it fires in three seconds and can reload in four.

Basically Rifle Cannons where for the most part supplanted and eventually replaced by the Autocannon, primarily the Class 5 as it's the oldest at circa 2250 (though it seems it lingered on in backwater areas for quite some time).


it is common to see the Heavy as the equivalent of the modern tank guns of today with lights being WW2 and Mediums post war, But I do do not see a Heavy to be equivalent to modern tank guns (which would beg the question why they switched if a "obsolete" 120mm could do 6+ dmg arguably with a single shell when a "modern" (to B-tech) 120mm deals 5 dmg with a burst of shells (This being the 120mm AC-5 on the Marauder, though Many Class 20s are fluffed as being 120mm)).

========================
That said
For the most part I do like the rules of giving them a flat 1/3/5 or 2/4/6 damage with the ability to use special rounds, perhaps even able to have some of their own that give them some bonus damage against some armor types (like say vs BAR 5 armors).

As such a Heavy rifle would be largely
Damage 5 or 6
Weight 8 tons
Slots 3
Ammo 6
Range 6/12/18/24 (with extreme range)
Min Range 2
Heat 4
BV 91/11

Compared to an AC-5
Damage 5
Weight 8 tons
Slots 4
Ammo 20
Range 6/12/18/24 (with extreme range)
Min range 3
Heat 1
BV 70/9

To me they should be notably lacking when compared to an AC-5, and this is closer, personally not quite inferior enough but close enough I suppose. Though perhaps one could revalue and rebrand the Medium to be closer to the AC-5... making the heavy closer to a "AC-20" equivalent...

For references from what I have found in the Novels indicate in General Class 2 Autocannons fall in between 20 and 50mm, with 30mm being fairly common. Class 5s the most varied  ranging from 40 to 120mm, though 50 to 80mm is the most common range, though it seems older ones tended to be larger (the Mackie and it's famous foe both had AC-5s in that test that where 105 and 110mm), and theirs the Marauders 120mm (interestingly one of the units with a few cases of size inconsistency's as in some novels it's a 50mm). Class 10s are largely confined to 75 to 100mm range (80mm is fairly common -the 75s are largely clan IIRC) and Class 20s range from 100 to over 200mm but the most common being 120mm by far.

As for MGs 12ish to 30mm are referenced though it seems that theirs a loose association with battlemechs being more common with 12.5ish mm weapons and vehicles with 20mm (that sole 30mm that im aware of is referenced in the Scorpion tanks fluff, which has a 20mm based MG by the way). Though this distinction is not hard (a few vehicles have "50 cals" in the novels). Also IIRC rotary based MGs seems to be some what common.

Gauss Rifles have few size references the only one I can recall see is 100mm which is to small for the often stated "cannon ball" projectile. However they are often stated to fire 125kg projectiles at hyper sonic speeds, the Heavy is also stated to fling a 250kg round at hypersonic velocitys. Autocannons often do not mention a velocity or are more vague at it, though they often mention that the shells are HEAP with a DU tip.

[RifleMech]

The BA & Bike example made me laugh this morning. It shows how silly the 'official' conversion is.

"Alright gang they have LRC tanks. Let's field the Harley Lance, they won't even be able to hurt those armored hogs!"

 

Yeah, that's one reason I tend to ignore the -3 damage.

Well we are told that their more or less old weapons predating humans going to the stars, the text stats that they have slower rates of fire than Autocannons, and use larger rounds as well as heavier propellant charges. To do their damage output, the rules also state that they can not be used in space as they do not have the "power" (likely in terms of velocity), and that they lack the Armor penetration of modern autocannons.
Also via the rules is the -3 damage unless... BAR 8 or battle armor infantry...

We're told a lot of weapons predate mankind's journey into space. We're also told that Tube Artillery can't be used in space. And we're told that smaller caliber weapons fire more often so the damage remains the same. At least for machine guns.  Yet, it just the Rifles that get nerfed.

Basically Rifle Cannons where for the most part supplanted and eventually replaced by the Autocannon, primarily the Class 5 as it's the oldest at circa 2250 (though it seems it lingered on in backwater areas for quite some time).

(snip)

The cannon in IO sounds like an Autocannon. Probably a class 5 or maybe an early prototype class 10.

I do agree that Autocannons largely replaced Rifle Cannons and that Rifle Cannons lingered on in some place. However, I do think that Rifle Cannons damage capability, at least for the MRC and HRC, kept them on the battlefields until they were largely replaced by the heavier Autocannons. If the -3 damage isn't there I think the LRC would also still be used. There's got to be a reason they don't go "extinct" until after the First Succession War. My theory is that Rifle's greater damage was felt to be worth keeping. It's like a shotgun to at semi-automatic rifle. Or maybe a musket or something. The point is it's firing a bigger round and it's target is going to feel the hit.

I can see the HRC as a modern tank cannon. I also don't think that the HRC should be lacking compared to the AC/5. As you said, the HRC is more equivalent to an AC/20

While there are AC/5s 120mm-150mm size, that size is more in common with AC/20s. The Marauder's AC/5 is a perfect example why comparing the HRC and the AC/5 is wrong. The AC/5 only does 5 points of damage compared to 20 points from an AC/20. There are AC/20's firing 4 round bursts where each round does as much damage as the entire 3 round burst from the Marauder's AC/5. The Marauder's AC/5 is like a low velocity gun compared to a medium velocity AC/10 and a high velocity AC/20.

And yes, that 4 burst AC/20 does 4 points less per round compared to a single 9 point HRC round. However, the entire burst, unless splitting targets, hits the same location for more than twice the damage. Even when splitting targets the AC/20 does more damage than a HRC. There's also the extra penetrating critical hit against BAR-8+9 armors and the ability to rapid fire. (I love field guns.)  So I believe that the HRC was the AC/20 of it's day. The AC/5 largely replaced it because it could carry more ammo per ton but it you wanted knockdown power you used the HRC.

And no I don't think that HRCs doing full damage would mean that AC/10's wouldn't be used. AC/10s have more ammo and better penetration than the HRC and can rapid fire.  Outside of munchkinism the units using HRC over AC/10s are the ones they couldn't mount AC/10s in the first place. Not without advanced tech and even then might not be the best choice. It's like the AC/2 on the Jackrabbit. It could have mounted an ERPPC.

[DevianID]

Yeah, that's one reason I tend to ignore the -3 damage.

If the bike example is the one that breaks it, it says more about bikes.  Bikes, indeed the entire small vee rules, are terrible as btech has 5 unit types operating at the same tonnage range, instead of a single unified 'small' unit rule.  Battle armor, protomechs, small support vehicles, motorized infantry, and mechanized infantry all operate at the 2 ton range, and each one works different despite the fact that at 2 tons they are all mostly identical in what 2 tons can do.

-3 damage to armor is compensated for in BV, so ignoring it is bad if you are trying to have a balanced game.

For cannons in space, I go with the assumption that the breach, like a modern tank breach, is open to the inside of the vehicle and thus would depressurize the compartment.  If a mech loses pressure in a location in space, the entire section is rendered inoperable--hence no rifles in space.  Autocannons developed in 2250 must of had space in mind, as they can be used in a vacuum.

For damage, a 155mm is a single shot AC5 or thumper shot by throw weight.  Thus the heavier 150mm heavy cannon round does 6 armor damage instead of 5--this tracks with the real world, as HE single shot rounds are heavier than artillery or rapid fire rounds, but do more concentrated damage overall.

The ammo part of cannons in general is the bad part.  Per math they seem to take ~ 50% penalty from real world values.  Perhaps due to not having good autoloaders, perhaps because the HRC has a built in ammo penalty (as primitive ACs had less shots/ton, and AP or precision ammo has a 50% modifier as well despite clearly not weighing 2x).

The medium rifle at 3 damage for a tech B weapon is still pretty good.  The much more advanced LAC/5 has the same long range but does 5 damage instead of 3.  Obviously the HRC at 6 damage for range 18 is pretty good.  2 of them will knock off a head, so 6 damage is a great damage break point.

Mostly people dont like the LRC; 0 armor and 3 structure damage is too much asymmetry for peoples sensibilities (despite math showing that it is fine for such a weapon to exist--its the real world GAU/avenger analog.  It penetrated the old bad cheap Russian tanks, but cant hurt modern heavy armor--yet we still have lots and lots of avengers, so now we use them for antimissile and anti infantry support where it doesn't need to penetrate heavy armor.  A light cannon works just fine on aircraft)

[Charistoph]

I wonder if it would be worth considering to have TACs be affected by 0 damage?

Say the LRC hit rolls a 2 on a Mech's location.  The armor wouldn't be touched, but something still gets broken.

This would also apply to Infernos, Flamers in Heat mode, Plasma Cannons, and LB-X hitting Ferro-Lamellor Armor.

[Daryk]

AToW page 186 states the internal structure is considered to have the same BAR value as the armor covering it, so I'm not sure that would work.

[RifleMech]

If the bike example is the one that breaks it, it says more about bikes.  Bikes, indeed the entire small vee rules, are terrible as btech has 5 unit types operating at the same tonnage range, instead of a single unified 'small' unit rule.  Battle armor, protomechs, small support vehicles, motorized infantry, and mechanized infantry all operate at the 2 ton range, and each one works different despite the fact that at 2 tons they are all mostly identical in what 2 tons can do.

It's one of the things. The other is that BA use BAR10 armor yet Rifles do full damage against them. But like you said, there's other 2 ton units with BAR10 armor that Rifles suffer reduced damage again. Now if Rifles did full damage against all units that weighed 2 tons or less, regardless of armor BAR, that'd be okay. Instead we have this weird anomaly.

-3 damage to armor is compensated for in BV, so ignoring it is bad if you are trying to have a balanced game.

For cannons in space, I go with the assumption that the breach, like a modern tank breach, is open to the inside of the vehicle and thus would depressurize the compartment.  If a mech loses pressure in a location in space, the entire section is rendered inoperable--hence no rifles in space.  Autocannons developed in 2250 must of had space in mind, as they can be used in a vacuum.

BV isn't really my thing, so I'll take your word on that.

That would make sense but why couldn't that be retroactively applied to Rifles?

For damage, a 155mm is a single shot AC5 or thumper shot by throw weight.  Thus the heavier 150mm heavy cannon round does 6 armor damage instead of 5--this tracks with the real world, as HE single shot rounds are heavier than artillery or rapid fire rounds, but do more concentrated damage overall.

I don't know. A single shot/burst from an AC/5 or Thumper weighs 50kg. A HRC round weighs 166.66kg.  That isn't just heavier that's a lot heavier. More than 3 times as much. Just 1 more point of damage doesn't seem enough for the AP round. Which are what Rifles are supposed to be firing. The weight for the HRC round puts it in between the AC/10/Sniper and the AC/20/Long Tom. It also weighs more than 50% more than the AC/10/Sniper round yet the damage is less, before the -3 is included. If we go by the weight of the rounds, shouldn't the HRC do 15-16 points of damage before the -3 is applied?  The size of the round is also one reason I wondered about having some Rifle rounds do area effect damage.   

The ammo part of cannons in general is the bad part.  Per math they seem to take ~ 50% penalty from real world values.  Perhaps due to not having good autoloaders, perhaps because the HRC has a built in ammo penalty (as primitive ACs had less shots/ton, and AP or precision ammo has a 50% modifier as well despite clearly not weighing 2x).

I'll take your word for the real world  values. Autoloaders could be part of it but after so many hundreds of years, I would have thought they'd improve them. Doesn't AC ammo with 1/2 as many shots weigh twice as much as normal rounds?

The medium rifle at 3 damage for a tech B weapon is still pretty good.  The much more advanced LAC/5 has the same long range but does 5 damage instead of 3.  Obviously the HRC at 6 damage for range 18 is pretty good.  2 of them will knock off a head, so 6 damage is a great damage break point.

3 points of damage isn't bad. I still think the comparison is wrong though. I think the MRC should be compared to a AC/10. Still, 3 points isn't that bad for the range. 6 would be better though. 

Mostly people dont like the LRC; 0 armor and 3 structure damage is too much asymmetry for peoples sensibilities (despite math showing that it is fine for such a weapon to exist--its the real world GAU/avenger analog.  It penetrated the old bad cheap Russian tanks, but cant hurt modern heavy armor--yet we still have lots and lots of avengers, so now we use them for antimissile and anti infantry support where it doesn't need to penetrate heavy armor.  A light cannon works just fine on aircraft)

The problem with that is we get the Machine Gun still doing 2 points of damage even though it's just as old as the Rifle Cannon. Even the Sniper and Thumpers are as old but their damage doesn't go down. Rifle's damage go down and loose the extra penetrating critical hit roll. Well HRC do.

AToW page 186 states the internal structure is considered to have the same BAR value as the armor covering it, so I'm not sure that would work.

I believe there was a ruling on that in the rules section. I don't remember which question but they said it doesn't effect the IS. Otherwise, the structure would be changing with the armor. And Patchwork Armor would result in a Patchwork Internal Structure. Well, we can do that but the BAR levels would be changing with the armor type.

[DevianID]

The problem with that is we get the Machine Gun still doing 2 points of damage even though it's just as old as the Rifle Cannon.

If I could rewrite things, I would define the LRC better.  As of now, the LRC covers 3 very different types of guns due to being poorly defined--picking the worst traits of all 3.

Light rifled cannons with single shots dont really exist in the real world; there are 30mm guns firing 3 round bursts (10 versus air), with hundreds of shots/ton.  A light rifle cannon with 18 shots/ton is the 30mm gau avenger throw weight--a totally fine weapon but the LRC isnt described as either.  A low quality 3 ton 120-125mm HE/AMP cannon approaches the performance and description of the LRC, but has alternate armor piercing ammo, and isnt 'light' by most definitions.  This is the 3rd way to make a light rifle cannon, but there should be an anti-armor round that does 2 damage to combine with the AMP for structure and infantry.

To fix all these issues, if the LRC was a cheap 120 with a second, 2 damage, anti armor round to compliment the 3 damage (0 to armor) anti structure round, and a 60% ammo penalty that reduces the shot count from 45 to 18, I would be happy.

A HRC round weighs 166.66kg

  A 6 inch battleship gun fires a 60kg projectile.  So the HRC can either be bigger than 150mm (but its not bigger than 6 inches per description), firing multiple shots like an autocannon (but its not an autocannon) OR the ammo weight of the HRC covers more than the shell weight of 60kg.  The 3rd option is the most supported, as primitive autocannons also took an ammo penalty.  Thus if the HRC takes a 60% ammo penalty, then it can be a 150 firing battleship style 6 inch rounds.  This 60% ammo penalty is also consistent with the LRC proposed above.

[RifleMech]

If I could rewrite things, I would define the LRC better.  As of now, the LRC covers 3 very different types of guns due to being poorly defined--picking the worst traits of all 3.

Light rifled cannons with single shots dont really exist in the real world; there are 30mm guns firing 3 round bursts (10 versus air), with hundreds of shots/ton.  A light rifle cannon with 18 shots/ton is the 30mm gau avenger throw weight--a totally fine weapon but the LRC isnt described as either.  A low quality 3 ton 120-125mm HE/AMP cannon approaches the performance and description of the LRC, but has alternate armor piercing ammo, and isnt 'light' by most definitions.  This is the 3rd way to make a light rifle cannon, but there should be an anti-armor round that does 2 damage to combine with the AMP for structure and infantry.

To fix all these issues, if the LRC was a cheap 120 with a second, 2 damage, anti armor round to compliment the 3 damage (0 to armor) anti structure round, and a 60% ammo penalty that reduces the shot count from 45 to 18, I would be happy.
  A 6 inch battleship gun fires a 60kg projectile.  So the HRC can either be bigger than 150mm (but its not bigger than 6 inches per description), firing multiple shots like an autocannon (but its not an autocannon) OR the ammo weight of the HRC covers more than the shell weight of 60kg.  The 3rd option is the most supported, as primitive autocannons also took an ammo penalty.  Thus if the HRC takes a 60% ammo penalty, then it can be a 150 firing battleship style 6 inch rounds.  This 60% ammo penalty is also consistent with the LRC proposed above.

I don't see the LRC being 30mm. It just feels too big to me. 30mm is more like a machine gun or an AC/2. To me, LRCs range from 60mm-90mm. MRC from 90mm-120mm and HRC 120mm-150+mm.

Lost me on the 60% shot count from 45 rounds but then you're comparing the LRC to the AC/2. I think. If you go with an AC/5, then the ammo is pretty much that when you figure a burst is at least 2 rounds. Then a generic AC/5 would have 40 rounds of ammo to the LRC's 18 rounds. I believe the LRC has 45% fewer rounds that way.
It works out the same for he MRC and the AC/10 and 40% for the HRC compared to the AC/20. If my math is right.

The other problem is the weight per rounds. The AC/20 does work out to be about a 4 round burst if it were the size of a 152mm (6in) deck gun. And yes there are 6in deck guns with a rate of fire around 6 per minute the weight of the rounds isn't all that different from the faster firing guns. The weight of the HRC round puts it at a 8 or 9 inch naval gun. It also puts it at just under a Long Tom Artillery round but it doesn't do anywhere near the damage.

[DevianID]

Lost me on the 60% shot count
The weight of the HRC round puts it at a 8 or 9 inch naval gun

My point is that the shots per ton of the rifle series is off, and only 40% of the ammo weight is in cartridges.  Thus the 166 KG ammo weight for 1 shot represents only a 60kg cartridge, and 100kg of loading and storage equipment.  A 166kg round cant be fired out of the 150mm HRC, and we know the HRC is about 150 in the fluff.  A 150/6 inch naval gun, which is what the fluff describes the HRC as, fires 60kg shells--though lighter shells exist.  The 6 inch naval gun also weighs 8 tons (same as the HRC) but is loaded externally (hence why the ammo is not very efficient IMHO).

Meanwhile, the 57mm more modern autoloading rapid fire deck gun is also 8 tons, and fires 220 rnds/min (though the clip size limits this, thus the actual shots/min is much lower).  The AC5 is an upgrade of this 8 ton naval gun (firing more, but otherwise pretty identical, 57mm rounds, but doing it in a vacuum which is quite the feat).

[RifleMech]

My point is that the shots per ton of the rifle series is off, and only 40% of the ammo weight is in cartridges.  Thus the 166 KG ammo weight for 1 shot represents only a 60kg cartridge, and 100kg of loading and storage equipment.  A 166kg round cant be fired out of the 150mm HRC, and we know the HRC is about 150 in the fluff.  A 150/6 inch naval gun, which is what the fluff describes the HRC as, fires 60kg shells--though lighter shells exist.  The 6 inch naval gun also weighs 8 tons (same as the HRC) but is loaded externally (hence why the ammo is not very efficient IMHO).

Meanwhile, the 57mm more modern autoloading rapid fire deck gun is also 8 tons, and fires 220 rnds/min (though the clip size limits this, thus the actual shots/min is much lower).  The AC5 is an upgrade of this 8 ton naval gun (firing more, but otherwise pretty identical, 57mm rounds, but doing it in a vacuum which is quite the feat).

I agree the shots per ton is off but so is the weight of the shots. Each round of the HRC is 166kg. Casing, propellent and shell. That's way too big for a 150mm gun. I think that TPTB were so concerned about making Rifle Cannons inferior to Autocannons that they missed the number of rounds per ton for ACs isn't individual shots but bursts. An AC/20 may fire 200kg per shot but each shot represents 2-10 or more rounds being fired. That leaves us with the HRC firing an artillery sized round but doing less than AC sized damage. The only way the weight for RCs rounds make sense is if RCs also firing bursts. They're just firing bursts with older propellant, and maybe at a slower rate of fire. Then each round for a HRC would weigh 83kg or less.

[DevianID]

Each round of the HRC is 166kg

I'm saying each round of a HRC is 60kg.  The other 100kg are lost to not having an integrated autoloader like an autocannon or missile launcher--no burst/multiple shots on the HRC, just an inefficient system bringing ammo from the ammo bay to the gun and loading it
Older autocannons also have reduced ammo, aka each shot takes up more weight to store.  But the rounds arnt heavier, it's just there are additional weights the ammo bin is being penalized for.

[RifleMech]

I'm saying each round of a HRC is 60kg.  The other 100kg are lost to not having an integrated autoloader like an autocannon or missile launcher--no burst/multiple shots on the HRC, just an inefficient system bringing ammo from the ammo bay to the gun and loading it
Older autocannons also have reduced ammo, aka each shot takes up more weight to store.  But the rounds arnt heavier, it's just there are additional weights the ammo bin is being penalized for.

But there is an integrated autoloader. It just doesn't load as fast as the autocannon's. Otherwise why aren't the Sniper or Thumper's rounds lighter? As in more shots per ton? They date from the same time period.

[CVB]

I'm saying each round of a HRC is 60kg.  The other 100kg are lost to not having an integrated autoloader like an autocannon or missile launcher--no burst/multiple shots on the HRC, just an inefficient system bringing ammo from the ammo bay to the gun and loading it
Older autocannons also have reduced ammo, aka each shot takes up more weight to store.  But the rounds arnt heavier, it's just there are additional weights the ammo bin is being penalized for.

How would you handle logistic ammo transport? How many shots will a ton of RC ammo carried in a dropship cargo hold provide?

[DevianID]

So on the autoloader/logistic weight--the rifle series is penalized for reasons, and the thumper is not.  I dont know the reasons, but I do know that there are a few explanations that will likely fail under scrutiny; one such explanation might be the wet storage required to keep the rifle ordinance stable, as older ammo types were less safe than more modern projectiles.  We did a major upgrade on bombs for example in real life so they wouldn't explode immediately in a fire--i think they can be in a fire for 8 minutes now before exploding.  So PERHAPS rifle ammo has to be stored in heavy temperature stabilized wet storage to equal the shelf stability of all the normal btech ordinance, which only explodes at a very VERY toasty heat level, unless it is inferno ammo which is less shelf stable.

As for thumpers, artillery is grossly overpowered on a shot by shot ratio as they increased the damage to make a single artillery piece equal to a battery+ of artillery firing.  I assume it was because the designers wanted artillery to be useful on a 2x2 map, but didnt want people to have 4-16 guns firing to provided the real life effect.  If all the btech weapons existed in real life, artillery would be the weapon we built in massive numbers--15/30 area damage from a thumper/longtom with that kind of ammo efficiency and rate of fire, plus flak ability, on a field gun battalion would stop infinite tanks crossing the fulda gap.  Point is, you cant compare the HRC to a thumper as the thumper is magic.

[RifleMech]

So on the autoloader/logistic weight--the rifle series is penalized for reasons, and the thumper is not.  I dont know the reasons, but I do know that there are a few explanations that will likely fail under scrutiny; one such explanation might be the wet storage required to keep the rifle ordinance stable, as older ammo types were less safe than more modern projectiles.  We did a major upgrade on bombs for example in real life so they wouldn't explode immediately in a fire--i think they can be in a fire for 8 minutes now before exploding.  So PERHAPS rifle ammo has to be stored in heavy temperature stabilized wet storage to equal the shelf stability of all the normal btech ordinance, which only explodes at a very VERY toasty heat level, unless it is inferno ammo which is less shelf stable.

As for thumpers, artillery is grossly overpowered on a shot by shot ratio as they increased the damage to make a single artillery piece equal to a battery+ of artillery firing.  I assume it was because the designers wanted artillery to be useful on a 2x2 map, but didnt want people to have 4-16 guns firing to provided the real life effect.  If all the btech weapons existed in real life, artillery would be the weapon we built in massive numbers--15/30 area damage from a thumper/longtom with that kind of ammo efficiency and rate of fire, plus flak ability, on a field gun battalion would stop infinite tanks crossing the fulda gap.  Point is, you cant compare the HRC to a thumper as the thumper is magic.

I agree the amount of ammo is Reasons and that none of the Reasons hold up under scrutiny. That's why I prefer Tank Cannons. I believe more thought was put into them. I still disagree that the 75mm and 76.2mm do 0 damage as being equivalent to a LRC. It's also why I want to lean towards treating Rifle Cannons as being artillery. The tube artillery we have are more like rail artillery or warship guns and Artillery Cannons are snubbed nose versions of them. There isn't really any lighter tube artillery beyond the BA version.

I missed something. Thumpers did go from 5 to 6 points but where's the 15/30 come from? Even though Thumpers are magic, I can still compare the HRC to them because of when these weapons were introduced. They're both pre-spaceflight weapons. They should both be using the same propellant and explosives, shouldn't they? So, why are Rifles damage reduced against BAR8+ armors but not artillery? How about the Long Tom? It didn't use new technology. It was just made to a bigger size than the Thumper or Sniper. It's size was the new tech. And that's going with the retcon introduced in IO. TO has the Long Tom being introduced pre-spaceflight. Same as the Sniper and Thumper.

Or how about comparing Rifles to Machine Guns? They're contemporaries as well. That's why I posted as I did about Tank Cannons being equivalent to single shot rifles, Autocannons burst fire rifles, and Rifle Cannons being shotguns. To me that makes more sense than Rifle Cannons being the single shot rifles with rounds the size of artillery yet doing damage of civil war cannons.

Really, Rifle Cannons shouldn't be nerfed but should be revised some how so they're not nerfed and make more sense.

[DevianID]

Thumper artillery do 15 damage, though at least the thumper cannon version does 5 like the good old days.  15 damage, and 25 damage on the long tom artillery before alternate ammo increases, is so much damage (and in an area to boot) that any realistic non-scouting ground force would be 90% artillery, leaving the 10% for urban precision weapon systems like mechs.  But open field?  longtom the map until the enemy are in a depth 10 crater a mapsheet across (requires 544,000 damage, each long tom does 50 + 30*6 + 10*12 to the hexes, so 1554 shells required.  A 4 battery long tom team with 1 hour pretty much comes close to that at 1440, and as I understand it 1 hour bombardments is the BASELINE tactic many countries use)

I digress, artillery was buffed to the stratosphere in a separate issue to rifle cannons.  Back on topic, rifle's ammo count being heavily penalized is more a feature of making ballistic weapons look better by comparison.  While wet storage tonnage needs ARE a real thing, the fact that only rifle cannons (and maybe primitive autocannons) pay this penalty is a punishment post 2300.

As for a 75mm single shot cannon, that weapon does 0 damage because it is a spec of dust compared to the throw weights of 'real' btech guns.  It isnt even good enough to be called a light rifle cannon.  The pak88, an even bigger gun with a decent history often called the best gun of WW2, was 3.5 tons but fired 7.3kg per shot at 6-10 RPM, so 7.3 kg in a btech turn.  7.3kg is 136 shots/ton (assuming 100% efficient storage like normal btech guns), so the Pak88 is looking at .667 points of btech damage IF the ammo was as good as 2250 autocannon ammo.  So you need the direct fire rules to deal 1 point of damage, which is pretty accurate to the light rifle cannon except for 136 shots/ton if 100% efficient versus 18 at whatever the LRC is rated at.

[Daemion]

Playing catch-up:

Yup, it was the LB-2x, although I also found that ER ATM Ammo goes that far, too.

And, I remember someone commenting about having issues tracking different ammo types?  If you can do all three ATM Ammo types, I don't see the problem with a few extra types, allocated by round instead of ton-rated bins.

[RifleMech]

Thumper artillery do 15 damage, though at least the thumper cannon version does 5 like the good old days.  15 damage, and 25 damage on the long tom artillery before alternate ammo increases, is so much damage (and in an area to boot) that any realistic non-scouting ground force would be 90% artillery, leaving the 10% for urban precision weapon systems like mechs.  But open field?  longtom the map until the enemy are in a depth 10 crater a mapsheet across (requires 544,000 damage, each long tom does 50 + 30*6 + 10*12 to the hexes, so 1554 shells required.  A 4 battery long tom team with 1 hour pretty much comes close to that at 1440, and as I understand it 1 hour bombardments is the BASELINE tactic many countries use)

Ah okay found it. Kept looking in the wrong spot.    Still, it should help show how screwed up Rifle Cannons are.

I digress, artillery was buffed to the stratosphere in a separate issue to rifle cannons.  Back on topic, rifle's ammo count being heavily penalized is more a feature of making ballistic weapons look better by comparison.  While wet storage tonnage needs ARE a real thing, the fact that only rifle cannons (and maybe primitive autocannons) pay this penalty is a punishment post 2300.

The problem with that theory is that a ton of ammo is going to be a ton of ammo whether it's in an ammo bin or a cargo bin.

As for a 75mm single shot cannon, that weapon does 0 damage because it is a spec of dust compared to the throw weights of 'real' btech guns.  It isnt even good enough to be called a light rifle cannon.  The pak88, an even bigger gun with a decent history often called the best gun of WW2, was 3.5 tons but fired 7.3kg per shot at 6-10 RPM, so 7.3 kg in a btech turn.  7.3kg is 136 shots/ton (assuming 100% efficient storage like normal btech guns), so the Pak88 is looking at .667 points of btech damage IF the ammo was as good as 2250 autocannon ammo.  So you need the direct fire rules to deal 1 point of damage, which is pretty accurate to the light rifle cannon except for 136 shots/ton if 100% efficient versus 18 at whatever the LRC is rated at.

There's several problems there. One problem is that there are Clan UACs and LBX that are 75mm and do damage. I don't know where you get .667 damage but the second problem is that .5 damage rounds up to 1 point. Direct hit rules aren't needed. The third problem is that all other pre-spaceflight ammo is just as good in 2250 as it was before 1950. A fourth problem is that there is more than on type of 8.8cm cannon.

The 8.8 cm Flak 41 fired a 9.4-kilogram (20 lb) shell at a rate of 20-25 rounds per minute. That's 106 rounds per ton firing 4 rounds per turn. That's 26 shots (4 round bursts) per ton.  That's more ammo per ton than the AC/5. The Flak 36 weighs 7,407 kg. I'm going to guess that the Flak 41 is a bit heavier so close to the AC/5. The 8.8cm is supposed to be equivalent to a MRC, so that's 6 points of damage per burst 4 round burst. That's 1 more point than the AC/5. The AC/5 is firing 5kg rounds though. The Autocannon is supposed to be more powerful than the Rifle Cannon. It seems like the MRC is more powerful than the AC/5 though. I think the MRC grew into the AC/10. That would mean that the AC/10 does 4 points more damage than the older MRC. The problem here though is that the AC/10 only has 10 shots per ton. The Flak 41 has 2.6 times the shots the AC/10 does while the MRC has 1 shot less. 

There is something interesting to note. TO:AUE doesn't say that Rifle Cannons are single shot. It says

they're designed with lower reloading and firing rates compared to even the smallest standard autocannons of today,

. It also says

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

Of course AC firing rates are all over the place. But if we go with Rifles firing bursts, then the weight per shot isn't so high as to want to be artillery. Going with a 4 round burst for the MRC each round would be 27.77kg each. With a 4 round burst, each round would weigh 25 kg for an AC/10. An 8 round burst would weigh 12.5kg each. There is the more propellant part of the quote. The larger-caliber rounds part is harder to figure since AC sizes are all over the place. I'm still wanting to have the MRC evolve into the AC/10 but if we say the MRC is larger than the AC/5 then the weight difference between rounds starts to get odd again. Each round from an 8 round burst would weigh 6.5kg. That's back to each MRC round weighing 111.11kg to 25 kg for a 2 round AC/5 burst.

Right now, I'm thinking of Rifles just being a slower firing burst weapon makes a lot more sense when considering the weight of the ammo. If Rifle Cannons are single shot weapons, they should be treated as light tube artillery. Their ammo is just too heavy not to be.

So if RCs are just slower burst weapons that would change my thinking of Rifles being like shotguns. Instead
Tank Cannons would be bolt action rifles. Rifle Cannons would be semi-automatic Rifles. Autocannons (of various types) would be fully automatic Rifles. UACs would be machine guns. RACs would be Gatling Guns.

[DevianID]

The problem with that theory is that a ton of ammo is going to be a ton of ammo whether it's in an ammo bin or a cargo bin.

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.

The 8.8cm is supposed to be equivalent to a MRC

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 MRC

There's several problems there. One problem is that there are Clan UACs and LBX that are 75mm and do damage

As you go on to say, other cannons are different.  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.

The 8.8 cm Flak 41 fired a 9.4-kilogram (20 lb) shell at a rate of 20-25 rounds per minute

  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.

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.

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.

[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.