That's fluff not rules. The rules don't say a group of shots hit. It says single shot.
There's two Battletechs. There's Game Rules Battletech and Fluff Battletech. The two do not often meet. In the case of number of "bullets" fired, the two do not meet.
I agree but the rules don't. The rules have standard autocannons firing at a max rate of 24 rounds per minute and Rifle Cannons firing 6 rounds per minute.
As said before the game it self dose not agree with your statement.
The game defines a shot as a single use of the weapons system not as a single round or missile fired (TW pg 103).
It then says Autocannons are large machineguns, and the novels and fluff agrees with that statement.
I don't because the weights don't match up.
How do they not match up?
An autocannon clearly includes items like autoloaders, ammo feeds, Counter recoil systems, aiming systems and other items that you think is not their but can easily be their. Their also built with considerable amounts of durability, they can be fired with no issues in a dessert, 40m underwater, in space and at 30 below zero with no issues, real guns can not do that. Yes their heavy, however their not just a gun barrel and it's mounting bracket. Look at Naval guns compared to tank guns. Huge weight difference, also look at anti-aircraft guns again a huge weight difference compared to tank guns.
I am aware of that. They have a rate of 6 per minute. However, you constantly refuse to acknowledge that Real Life Rifle Cannons have a hand loading firing rate that is at least twice that if not greater. You also constantly refuse to acknowledge that there are automatic loading guns that have a firing rates that match the fluffed rates for Battletech Autocannons. Which is why I keep saying the two universe shouldn't be compared.
Because your completely wrong on your assessment that B-tech autocanons only fire one round at a time. You acknowledge the fact that they fire faster in the fluff but refuse to believe so in game even though the game clearly says your wrong.
Sure at 6 rounds a minute is roughly half as fast as many tank guns but while many tank guns can fire at rates of 10 to 20 RPM or even faster, it dose not factor into account; crew skill, the lay out of the ammo racks, vehicle ergonomics and the size and configuration of the rounds. As such they can only fire at these rates for only a short amount of time.
Often the fastest rates could only be done by using the ready round rack, of which theirs only a limited number available (for the Sherman it was just 6 rounds). Once they are expended, the fire rate lowers dramatically, for instance the Shermans with the "wet ammo" racks, ammo storage was located under the turret basket, and as a result half the basket floor was removed. So if the gun was aimed forward ammo access was ok, if to the sides you only had a few rounds available out side of the ready rack, and heaven help you if the turret moved while your getting a round out... The only other available rounds relied on the hull MG gunner to be a contortionist. And never mind the fact the loader had to dodge hot shell casings on the floor.
The T-34 is another more well known contender for this, once it's ready rack was used, it's ammo was stored under the turret under a floor mat (IIRC it also had no basket). As such it was doing well to get 5 RPM at that point, the T-34/85 was not any better. The IS-2 only had a ROF of about 3 RPM at best (two piece ammo will do that).
Jagpanzer IVs could take as long as 17 seconds to load a single round, or 3 seconds at the fastest.
The Tiger II could take as long as 18 seconds to load from the ammo rack to the right of the radio operator.
The M60 Patton and Leo 1s could take a while to reload as well (the Leo 1 required you to manually extract the round from the gun, as it only did it part way).
So 6 RPM while not as fast as their maximum rates is a fairly reasonable approximation for a sustained rate of fire.
I don't need to come up with some fluffed up reason for you. The facts are that they are separate pieces of equipment. If heat sinks were part of the weapons they wouldn't generate heat!
sigh, Im not arguing for weapons to be heat neutral, Im just saying they have some basic heat sinks to help dissipate heat, even if it's more along the lines of transferring it to the unit wide system. Look at it this way a computers CPU has a heat sink right on top of the die, that element is what Im saying is the weapons heat sink. On top of that heat sink is a layer of thermal compound and a much larger heat sink (and often a fan), this larger unit is part of the system wide heat sink of the unit. Even though the CPU/weapons system has it's own heat sink it needs the larger unit or it will quickly over heat and fail, it's main job is to facilitate that heat is transferred from the weapons components to the larger unit faster and more evenly.
Yes and they are the exceptions not the average. They also don't do any more damage because they're twice as large as other AC/20s.
While 100 and 120mm AC-20s are common their are a number of larger AC-20s.
The AC-20 on the Hunchback is said to be 180mm (era report 3052 -intro), The Demolisher tank uses 185mm guns, as dose the Monitor (same gun in fact), The Hetzer is 150mm, The Fire Scorpion 3 uses a 200mm AC-20 (unit fluff from battlecorps), the Ultra AC-20 on the Cauldron born is 203mm (invading clans). A battlemech was hit by a 200mm round in one of the B-tech novels (no mention what fired it though), Regardless of caliber and rate of fire, they all average out to 20 damage. Caliber has less meaning for an Autocannon, their are 105, 110 and 120mm Autocannon 5s even though thoughs calibers are more common for AC-20s, It's rate of fire plays a vital role in it's damage rating. And AC-5 that fires 2 or 3 120mm rounds in a shot only dose 5 damage, an AC-20 thats 120mm would be firing 8 to 12 or so rounds for it's 20 damage.
Except large AC/20 sizes are outside the norm. The Iowa would be armed with Long Tom Artillery Cannons. Which will toast any tank.
Why would any one equate a 16 inch naval gun with a 30 ton weapon that consumes 200kg of ordnance per shot. B-tech has no real equivalent to a 16 inch naval cannon, or even 11 inch naval cannons for that matter.
A 16 inch barrel by it self is 120 metric tons (this dose not include the mount, a three gun mount is 1,700 tons, more than some dropships), a single shot would weigh in at over 1,500kgs (including propellant charge). Thats quite a stretch, A long tom is at lest 1/4th the weight, and has 1/8th the weight of shot.
The largest naval gun you can get away with for a long tom would be a 10 inch gun, but thats pushing it. But 9.4 inch guns do in fact weigh in at 30 metric tons (US M1 240mm) and have a ~200kg weight of shot.
And yes a 16 inch would shred any tank, however a B-tech Gauss rifle has the same Ke as one of thoughs rounds...
Except the introduction dates say they were available then. That's why the tech ratings are broken. To build something you must have the technology to do so. Tech B cannot be post 1950 when engines and vehicles that are Tech B are introduced before then. To say there must be a third, yet unknown, set of construction rules for low tech vehicles when that's what the support vehicle construction rules are for is silly. Tanks are Pre-spaceflight vehicles. Pre-spaceflight is 1950 or earlier. Either Tech B must be pushed back to 1900 or so or every Tech B item was introduced in 1950. Which seems more likely to you?
neither, Tech B is post 1950 and thats that, any technology that existed before then can easily be safe to say out side of B-tech scope. We do not have rules for primitive case even though it's entry says that it dates back hundreds of years before it was "introduced", AMS was installed on Crippen and played a valuable role in the second russian civil war even though it will not be introduced for hundreds of years. So these weapons and equipment have predecessors that are not in the game, nor are the factored into the game, yet exist in B-tech. Why would not be the same for items we know existed before the game allows them to. After all the game developers even say the game is not a perfect model of reality, and that it's a low resolution look as well.
As for items such as antique CASE. We don't have rules for it. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Stealth Armor however obviously wasn't developed in the battletech universe until much later. Our universes share a history to a point. Then it diverges. Stealth technology is one of those diverges.
Provide evidence that stealth tech was not introduced in the B-tech time line until the starleague? SAMs where introduced but fell out of favor for a time in B-tech only to get reintroduced latter on. Their is talk even now that Stealth technology may become largely obsolete in the next few decades (or at the lest less effective, due to better sensors).
I'm not being strict. I'm trying to include 100 years worth of cannons into 3 classes. There probably should have been 4. Also did you miss the and up part of what I said? A heavy rifle being XYZmm and up covers 140mm, 150mm and larger sizes. Which is exactly how it is done for AC/20s. Autocannon sizes can also overlap classes so Bob's 50mm AC may be a AC/2 but Jane's 50mm would be an AC/5. I see no reason why Rifle Cannons can operate the exact same way. In fact we know that low velocity guns are inferior to high velocity guns of the same size so that works out.
I do not think we should be attempting to include 100 years of history at the cost of the "next 250 years".
You have to keep in mind an AC has substantially faster velocity than a Cannon, it's also got a vastly higher rate of fire than the cannon, this ROF is also a considerable part of their damage rating.
Except we've already seen a progression in common main gun sizes. I really don't think a 37mm gun should equal a 105mm gun. I don't think you do either but if we make them both light rifles then they will. 120mm is a common modern day main tank gun. Yes there's some larger and some smaller but it's what's common now. Making them heavy with other groups fitting in with the lighter classes fits with established groupings already. We also know that weapons haven't improved all that much as time moves on. Later tank gun development is the autocannon. At the time it's introduction the Rifle cannon was still a better choice for a quick kill against other opponents.
Sure but your ignoring one element of the Rifle canons own fluff, that it was developed for centuries prior to the introduction of the Autocannon.
I do not think tanks prior to the 1950s would be even relevant to the game, so why would B-tech really support them, or their guns? Why would a 37mm "Door knocker" of a gun even be relevant in the game, or even to a battlemech, why should a 88mm KwK 43 even be relevant to the game? Why? These weapons should be irrelevant.
This is how I'm factoring in my calculations
0: I'm looking at this with both the Rules and Fluff, I view the B-tech Rules as the quick and dirty way to see what works in B-tech, but it's not very accurate for a bit more accuracy, I look to the fluff, other rules and compare.
1: A Gauss Rifle slug produces smiler Ke as a 16 inch battleships shell, hypersonic 125kg shells would do that.
2: Battlemech can take a number of these rounds and not be destroyed, the same can not be said for real vehicles.
3: Modern tank guns only produce a Ke that's at best 1/40th of the Gauss Slug making it a bit hard for a single 120mm slug thats said to be slower than Gauss Rifles and even Autocannons to do 6 damage when the real ones have 1/4th the Ke of a single B-tech 120mm shell that would do at best 2 damage. Of which upwards of 10 or so are fired in a single burst from an Autocannon (20).
4: Rifle canons where used and continuously developed for a period of over 250 years. And not ~100 like your using.
5: light rifles are much closer to the performance of what real world 120mm guns would be based off their Ke. And are closer in terms of weight of the gun and ammo count.
6: I see no need to represent tank guns earlier than 1950 at all in B-tech. It's not like their going to explore WW2 using B-tech rules and equipment. The Range of guns from thoughs years are just too diverse to be represented by a single weapons system or even two.
Though I'm getting tired of this, so this is likely to be the last one for me. We could do this all week and get no where.