Mech design decisions that make no sense

[grimlock1]

The M-16 is "easy to maintain" vice "rugged"?  I mean, I buy that AK's don't need maintenance as often, but I'm not so sure maintenance is actually any easier on the M-16 (having disassembled and cleaned a few).  Parts that small are that small...

Doesn't all the heat  from the direct impingement system cause wear issues?  Slowly undoing the heat treat or something?  For those of you with  grain of salt, I saw this in a video about the HK 416 and the person who said it had "HK" written on their shirt.  So we KNOW he has every reason to give the M-16 a fair shake.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Guys, Battletech.

[Sartris]

as long as it's not another 10000 post discussion about real world tanks

[brother elf]

I always took the "small cockpit" to mean that it had bad ergonomics, not necessarily that it was actually smaller.  Stuff just wasn't quite in the right place -- you bang your head when getting in, whack your knee against a hard corner, the ejection lever is in a weird spot, etc.

Things like that are routinely ignored by the people who make the purchasing decisions.  The actual interior volume of the cockpit might be the same as the Wasp, but somehow things just aren't quite right.

I have a vague recollection that the fluff said it's so cramped the pilot can't actually leave the cockpit without help (which admittedly could just be a badly-placed entry). Let me find my copy … yup, the pilot "literally has to squeeze into the pilot seat and often cannot leave without help from their tech". (Translation approximate.)

ETA: Found the direct quote in HMP data files' copy of the TRO3025 description: "On (sic?) of the biggest complaints of Stinger pilots is the cramped cockpit space.  Many times, a pilot must literally squeeze himself into the control seat, and then often cannot get out again without help from his Tech.  Stinger pilots are the reverse of the knights of feudal Earth who could not mount their steeds without help from their squires because of the weight of their armor."

[Orin J.]

"Why is there a bank of targeting relays where the pilot's legs go?"
"We figure they can just wedge them in there and this makes them easier to maintain than having to disassemble half the cockpit"
"How does he get out like that, i don't think he's got any way to pull his legs out!"
"We're designing a cockpit for piloting a battlemech sir, extraction is another team."

[Sartris]

having several friends in college who are engineers of various stripes, i do not doubt the legitimacy of this conversation.

[Kargush]

"Why is there a bank of targeting relays where the pilot's legs go?"
"We figure they can just wedge them in there and this makes them easier to maintain than having to disassemble half the cockpit"
"How does he get out like that, i don't think he's got any way to pull his legs out!"
"We're designing a cockpit for piloting a battlemech sir, extraction is another team."

So basically UK tank designers between the Wars.

[RifleMech]

Reminds me of something that was said about the F-35 and its large helmet, that the helmet gets in way when trying to look behind or so.
I would assume bad ergonomics might mean outdated controls. Like, a big difference between late Soviet and Western fighters was that the West focused a lot on ergonomics, making it easier to focus on flying. Soviet fighters may have been as good, but old-style controls (good for conversion training from older models) didn't allow true capabilities to be be exploited.

Here's the funny thing. The original WSP-1 has "hard to pilot", the later Wasps don't. Suppose one reason was that upgraded Wasps upgraded the controls... while the Stinger more or less copied the old layout while making things just a bit more cramped. OK, "hard to pilot" and "cramped cockpit" aren't strictly identical quirks, but the effect is more or less the same.

The original Wasp's gyro couldn't maintain stability while jump resulting in wrecked mechs and injured warriors. That's why the hard to pilot quirk. Once they stopped using prototype jump jets that quirk went away.

I have a vague recollection that the fluff said it's so cramped the pilot can't actually leave the cockpit without help (which admittedly could just be a badly-placed entry). Let me find my copy … yup, the pilot "literally has to squeeze into the pilot seat and often cannot leave without help from their tech". (Translation approximate.)

Where does it say that?

I know the fluff entry in TRO3025 for the Assassin says that its one of the most cramped cockpits in the IS and can be uncomfortable and even deadly to be in for any length of time.

There's also the entry for Emory's Grand Dragon in SB:Sword and Dragon. It says that the modifications included a lot of displays on the cockpit floor. Because of that Emory had to contort himself to get in and out and that it was unbarable to be in for any length of time and caused him back problems

[Empyrus]

The original Wasp's gyro couldn't maintain stability while jump resulting in wrecked mechs and injured warriors. That's why the hard to pilot quirk. Once they stopped using prototype jump jets that quirk went away.

Don't ruin my theory  :D

[BloodRose]

Doesn't all the heat  from the direct impingement system cause wear issues?  Slowly undoing the heat treat or something?  For those of you with  grain of salt, I saw this in a video about the HK 416 and the person who said it had "HK" written on their shirt.  So we KNOW he has every reason to give the M-16 a fair shake.

Okay, so, the M16 suffered from a lot of problems. The one you are referring to here is the gas system that puts hot gasses into direct contact with the head, said gasses being corrosive which caused a breakdown of the mechanism over time.
There is also the issues with jamming, double feeding, unreliable mechanism, magazines not being able to take a full load, poor handling, etc, but those are other problems.

[Sartris]

Where does it say that?

tro 3025 pg 12

[RifleMech]

Thanks :)

[Corky]

Doesn't all the heat  from the direct impingement system cause wear issues?  Slowly undoing the heat treat or something?  For those of you with  grain of salt, I saw this in a video about the HK 416 and the person who said it had "HK" written on their shirt.  So we KNOW he has every reason to give the M-16 a fair shake.

No direct impingment system does not cause "wear issues".

[Corky]

Okay, so, the M16 suffered from a lot of problems. The one you are referring to here is the gas system that puts hot gasses into direct contact with the head, said gasses being corrosive which caused a breakdown of the mechanism over time.
There is also the issues with jamming, double feeding, unreliable mechanism, magazines not being able to take a full load, poor handling, etc, but those are other problems.

The gasses were not hot and corrosive and they did not cause the breakdown of mechanism over time.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

This is not the place to be discussing issues with the M-16.  If you want to have that discussion, please take it to Off Topic.

[Charistoph]

Well, CASE for Gauss ammo may be for the gun if it is in the corresponding arm. The Gauss explosion damage might transfer to center torso, so minimizing engine damage is good idea (even worse, head damage if torsos are badly damaged).
It is also possible that the CASE exists in case the Gauss rifle needs to be replaced with conventional ballistic weapon in the field. Might be overplanning, but then again salvage and field customization are time honored traditions within BattleTech.

Most Mechs armed with Gauss Rifles would have a hard time transferring explosion damage from the arm to the center torso.

As for plasma ammo, the only plasma designs with CASE that i remember are field-refits. Eg CPLT-C6, which is a field refit made from C5s, by pulling the Arrow IV and slapping a couple of Plasma rifles there. Do remember that CASE requires factory-level refit, but Arrow IV to PRs isn't.
So, it is there for sake of fluff. I approve such things, even if it leads "nonsense".

Retrofitting does make some sense, but keeping it would only make sense in a field refit, not a new line.

No, in most cases, they were, "there's ammo here, let's put CASE here for safety."

[dgorsman]

I dunno... as an internal explosion, it goes right from IS to IS.  With heavy Mechs having ~15 points, if the arm was already heavily damaged it's possible.  Not to mention ammo bins or other explosive components in the torso.

I think it would be a good house rule to make XL/light/etc. engines easier to repair from explosions in a CASE'd location.

[CrossfirePilot]

Most Mechs armed with Gauss Rifles would have a hard time transferring explosion damage from the arm to the center torso.

Retrofitting does make some sense, but keeping it would only make sense in a field refit, not a new line.

No, in most cases, they were, "there's ammo here, let's put CASE here for safety."

we've all been around enough engineers, designers, etc to realize that the CASE was actually put there for when exploding Gauss ammo was developed.  It was just never developed.

[Greatclub]

Alternate Gauss ammo? Is the gun not deadly enough for you?

Maybe a narc-gauss round?

[CrossfirePilot]

I wasn't saying I was the one going to design the alternate ammo.  I just know how designers work "we'll leave this port available for when the software can support it"

Or like the AC vents on my old Plymouth.  It had the vents, even though an AC was never installed.

[dgorsman]

(raises hand) guilty

[The_Caveman]

You need the CASE for when the angry wasps get out, duh.

[Firesprocket]

we've all been around enough engineers, designers, etc to realize that the CASE was actually put there for when exploding Gauss ammo was developed.  It was just never developed.

Alternate Gauss ammo? Is the gun not deadly enough for you?

Maybe a narc-gauss round?

Funny thing about the original SB Gauss is that the weapon ammo used to explode when hit, which never made any sense to begin with, but there is your rationale for CASE (no a great one though).

[Kit deSummersville]

You need the CASE for when the angry wasps get out, duh.

 ;D

[Orin J.]

they might have put it in for simpler logisitcs for a non-gauss model that was in the works and then....oh look the demand is WAY lower than we thought, scrap it.  xp

there's been plenty of examples of 'mechs hitting the market with more than one weapons package from the get go and some people might not want to work gauss rifles into their inventory chain.

[Intermittent_Coherence]

Alternate Gauss ammo? Is the gun not deadly enough for you?

Maybe a narc-gauss round?

Two words: Cluster munitions

[Firesprocket]

Two words: Cluster munitions

The reason they don't exist as an alternate munition is that would entirely eliminate the use of an LB 20 and make the Lb 5 extremely inefficient.

[The_Caveman]

The reason they don't exist as an alternate munition is that would entirely eliminate the use of an LB 20 and make the Lb 5 extremely inefficient.

It'd make the regular Gauss ammo obsolete as well. Two percent chance of a headcap is lovely, but a combined 40+% chance of a head hit or TAC every round with the range to put it anywhere on the map is a nightmare.

[Colt Ward]

The reason they don't exist as an alternate munition is that would entirely eliminate the use of an LB 20 and make the Lb 5 extremely inefficient.

Um . . . Silver Bullet Gauss?

[Charistoph]

The reason they don't exist as an alternate munition is that would entirely eliminate the use of an LB 20 and make the Lb 5 extremely inefficient.

Not quite.  Range and damage are considerably different between the Gauss and the 20, and weight is a HUGE difference between the 5 and the Gauss.

That being said, Gauss cluster would be a... quick counter to the HAG, conceptually.  The hard part is determining the point to begin spreading from the barrel, in universe-wise.