Vehicle of the Week: Patton Tank

[Colt Ward]

It would have made more sense if at the time they set up the the Rommel/Patton 3050 updates they had given us a Po Heavy Tank with LBX instead of waiting nearly 15? 20? game years to get a AC/10 replacement on a tank with LBX.  Seriously, a Po with LB-10X and FF armor is a 'duh' early 3050s update.  It would have left you with the Rommel/Patton being anti-armor (damage) and the Po would have been utility with the LBX.

[Cannonshop]

It would have made more sense if at the time they set up the the Rommel/Patton 3050 updates they had given us a Po Heavy Tank with LBX instead of waiting nearly 15? 20? game years to get a AC/10 replacement on a tank with LBX.  Seriously, a Po with LB-10X and FF armor is a 'duh' early 3050s update.  It would have left you with the Rommel/Patton being anti-armor (damage) and the Po would have been utility with the LBX.

meh, I would say LBX ought to have been the choice on pretty much EVERY tank with a class-10 gun.

They're just too darned useful that way, which I guess is the point-they gave the Rommel a gauss rifle, and that's fine in the anti-'mech role, but the Ultra? is really better suited to 'mech duels than it is to any sort of general use, and tanks SHOULD be general purpose 'cleaners' for supporting their 'mech units, which the Ultra doesn't really work as.

especially on a design tht is otherwise built to 'endure it out' the way the Patton variants are...but maybe that was the point of giving the Patton a version that relies on the unreliable-otherwise maybe it's too good?

[Colt Ward]

*shrug* In universe a armor formation is more likely to end up fighting armor or mechanized infantry.  When 3050 rolls around, again In Universe- we know otherwise (sort of), the UAC/10 would be viewed like a sometimes AC/20 with a lot better range.  Yeah, LBX is going to degrade enemy armor but as you point out that turns it into pillbox wars . . . if I am going to run out a design that is supposed to be a superior tank and even stand a chance going against mechs, I will want the raw damage output.  The LBX is not going to degrade a tank the same way and against another peer tank the UAC/10 is more likely to punch through the armor and end the enemy tank than pillbox it.  Pillbox'ing a enemy tank with your own tank means it can still give your tank a mortal wound.

Considering I have used AC Rapid Fire rules with the original Patton, I am not really going to complain for more range and ammo.

[Hellraiser]

agreed.  It's not just the 'not jamming', it's the extra utility against jumpers/flyers and infantry or other vehicles.  The Ultra just felt like "we have to put it on something" plus the fascination with "Moar DAMAJ!!" at the expense of things like reliability and weight.

I think it came down to the era when the upgrades came out honestly, the Ultra-10 was new in 3060 & the designers were pushing "new" stuff.

Honestly, I think most units should have gotten 2 upgrades over 15 years or so, a 3048-ish "refit" and a 3061-ish new production model.

The 3048 Patton (and Po) would have been simple LB10X swaps.   (Or a Gauss Patton for the AC10+LRM5)
The 3061 models could have had Ultra-10's & ERMLs.

The Rommel on the other hand could have swapped the AC20+LRM5 for a Gauss in 3048 & then in 3061 had some new version that sported an XL (or LFE) that used an Ultra-20 w/ deep ammo bins w/ CASE on them.

[BrianDavion]

kinda suprising, given the Davions produce it, we've not seen a RAC Patton

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Actually, the Lyrans produce it.  It's a Defiance Industries machine.

[Cannonshop]

kinda suprising, given the Davions produce it, we've not seen a RAC Patton

  The phrase that comes to mind is "ammo eating toy".

*shrug* In universe a armor formation is more likely to end up fighting armor or mechanized infantry.  When 3050 rolls around, again In Universe- we know otherwise (sort of), the UAC/10 would be viewed like a sometimes AC/20 with a lot better range.  Yeah, LBX is going to degrade enemy armor but as you point out that turns it into pillbox wars . . . if I am going to run out a design that is supposed to be a superior tank and even stand a chance going against mechs, I will want the raw damage output.  The LBX is not going to degrade a tank the same way and against another peer tank the UAC/10 is more likely to punch through the armor and end the enemy tank than pillbox it.  Pillbox'ing a enemy tank with your own tank means it can still give your tank a mortal wound.

Considering I have used AC Rapid Fire rules with the original Patton, I am not really going to complain for more range and ammo.

check your weights again.  The LBX has (in a straight across swap) more ammo capacity, the Ultra runs out faster, and you LOSE a ton of payload capacity on the chassis.

why? IS Ultra weighs more than the standard.  So where did that capacity go?  did it lose armor protection, secondary weapons...what for a tank-scale machine-gun that will run out of shot in half the time if nothing goes wrong?

which is a 1 in 36 chance it WILL go wrong in that specific way that requires pulling the turret to clear the jam.

Which would actually be just fine installed on the cheapest platform you can shoehorn it into (such as a Po).

It's a bit LESS FINE when you're already spending for a fusion engine and the best-armored chassis for the speed you can get without otherwise breaking the bank.  Any time you have a guaranteed random failure, the price goes up for the guys it's assigned to (though maybe not for the contractor who sold it).

Here's the deal: If I can mission-kill a lot of enemy armor and have lots of good salvage left, that's what I'm going to do.  The salvage can be resold, or scavenged for useful parts and the remainder resold, or the equipment repaired and repurposed.

LBX has a significant 'impact' on enemy supporting forces, an LBX equipped tank can feasibly deal with enemy VTOL assets, it's an advantage more often than a disadvantage, and it doesn't come with a built in guarantee of failure in the field.

That means less money spent on repairs, and more of my budget can be spent on the rest of my forces' needs.

It also means I don't have to ship as much ammo to keep it stocked, which lets me ship more actuators for my 'mech complement or other hardware, making my supply officer's life a little less miserable (in trade, admittedly, for tracking two ammo types instead of one).

that still frees up cubic volume and tonnage for my spacelift.

what am I sacrificing?  MAYBE getting a longer-range AC/20 hit once in a while and a guarantee of needing heavy tooling near the sharp end to keep the guns running..because theyr'e unreliable?

You put the unreliable guns on the cheap platforms you don't mind losing.  Ultra-5 on a Vedette? sure! it's cheap, it's not MEANT to sustain a fight, it's not a generalist, the better option would be a Scorpion, but the Scorp doesn't have the mass to haul it.

but this is a 65 ton main-line tank meant to be there to get your 'mech forces through the breech, it's fast enough (barely) to play offense, and armored enough to be a pain in the ass to kill.  on THAT one, you do NOT want a gun that randomly refuses to go 'bang' and then requires a trip to Depot level to unjam it.  especially what amounts to a Boutique gun that is really only optimized for a single sort of opponent, versus a reliable weapon that can, among other things, dust helicopters, low-flying aircraft, or enemy infantry concentrations without needing special targeting equipment or spectacularly good luck.

I think we're just approaching this from very different perspectives.  You're extolling the potential damage, I'm focusing on "If it doesn't hit, it doesn't do damage" combined with "If it can't fire, it can't hit."

AND an appreciation for Murphy's treatise on land warfare and machinery in general.  The fewer points of failure tend to be more reliable winners, than the greater potential.

To ME, the choice of Ultra-10 on a Patton chassis is someone's second cousin getting a phat bonus and a few general officers in procurement who should be investigated for corruption. (otoh, putting an Ultra-5 on a light tank is a GREAT idea-they're not SUPPOSED to stick it out!) and maybe some engineers who need to be exposed to field conditions personally to get across that "if the gun doesn't go bang, you're not going to have a good day".

RAC on a Vedette's a good choice too-because it's a useful transplant.  I have far less confidence on putting your main gun on a main line main tank in a position where simple malfunction can deadline most of your firepower until you get to the rear, and it's a predictable malfunction that still happens randomly-the 'predictable' part being it's likely to happen in combat-you know, that place where Malfunctions get you (or your buddies) killed even if you did everything else right.

[SteelRaven]

Not going to write a whole essay on it but we can find the Ultra-10 on more than a few units from this time frame so someone at Fasa thought higher of that weapon system than most players, the later would agree the LB-10X is the better weapon of the two. After that, it become a write up for Fan Designs.

[Sabelkatten]

The UAC/10 is a terrible weapon on a mech or ASF, but it's not that bad on a vehicle:

1) Heat doesn't matter (this is the real dealbreaker on a mech - including DHS an UAC/10 is heavier than a GR!).

2) Your life expectancy is lower, so the likelihood of jamming before you die is lower.

Basically you're looking at 14 damage / 18 range for 15 tons compared to 15 damage / 22 range for 17 tons. It's worse but not UAC/5 worse. But of course the LB10 is still a far better option!

[Robroy]

Or TPTB were thinking along the lines of lance composition. 2 tanks with ultras for punching holes and 2 with LBX for finding those holes.

[GreekFire]

Well, we do now have an LB-X Patton, along with another Ultra one.

Thoughts about the new tanks?

[Cannonshop]

The UAC/10 is a terrible weapon on a mech or ASF, but it's not that bad on a vehicle:

1) Heat doesn't matter (this is the real dealbreaker on a mech - including DHS an UAC/10 is heavier than a GR!).

2) Your life expectancy is lower, so the likelihood of jamming before you die is lower.

Basically you're looking at 14 damage / 18 range for 15 tons compared to 15 damage / 22 range for 17 tons. It's worse but not UAC/5 worse. But of course the LB10 is still a far better option!

Not all vees play the same, or fill the same role, or even HAVE a role to fill, or fill the roles they're fluffed as having.

Ultras are fine on two kinds of vehicle:

1. Blazingly fast, thin-skinned vehicles that may get one or two passes before tehy have ot retire anyway.    Clanner style combatants. Hovercrat, maybe Condor variants or something.

2. the cheapest chassis you can tack it onto, because you're intentionally sending them out to attrition units you don't necessarily want coming home.  The Po would be perfect for an ultra autocannon, because the Chassis is CHEAP....

The Patton really isn't.  In the case of the Patton, you're paying to duplicate the capability of a contemporary design from the same company that doesn't have a random malfunction problem (the Rommel-Gauss) in the 'mech destroyer role.

Thus, adding unnecessary complexity to your supply line for a vehicle that self-deadlines randomly...and is known to do so.

There's probably an exotic dancer or two near the teh Defiance Corporate Offices whose college has been paid for by this contract, and certainly some investment banks are happy to have the extra bribe money being deposited on New Avalon...but that doesn't make it a good design, or even a reasonable one, and it works 'well enough' that indictment and charges aren't likely to follow the realization that AFFC bought a redundant lemon.

why? because it sometimes works, and there's a habit in Great House procurement for "Well, it worked on the second tuesday of testing under strict lab conditions, so it's approved!"

even when combat experience shows that unreliable equipment kills its operators more often than direct enemy action, because malfunctions that require depot level intervention to fix tend to happen at the worst time in live combat.

Thus, why the AFFC invested heavily in trying to solve the jamming problem and wound up with the RAC, which still jams, but can be UN-Jammed in the field by panicked 19 year olds under fire because the vehicle they're on can't go fast enough to retreat to the rear for repair.

An ASF with an ultra can still drop bombs, so it's not so terrible there.  It also usually has secondary weapons that are still useful in ground attack (unless some idiot loaded the rest of the airframe with SRM racks and called it good).  so the loss is painful, but not debilitating, and generally speaking an ASF can pull back to the landing field or carrier because those engagements tend to be short duration anyway.

you're not paying turret tonnage on a fighter for a gun that will fail you randomly.

I'll say this, at least the Ultra doesn't explode when it malfunctions.

But the Ultra's the wrong install for the Patton. 

Here's the why of it: the Rommel/Patton pairing was "Hard/short plus Utility".  The Rommel Gauss is derived from the same base chassis, but is even MORE a 'mech destroyer/hard blow.  the Patton's armor and profile is an offensive tank in close support-a generalist meant to sustain an offensive.  (Hence the remarkably heavy armor for the type) that still has a reasonable amount of main gun for a line tank, with reasonable range.

it's meant to provide sustained multirole support for heavier units, or be a real bitch to overcome in a defense due to longevity.

but then, someone at Defiance put a gun that only works for short, quick engagements in it because "It has more potential damage".

in the process, they lost the flexibility and gained unreliable operation.

This isn't good for the soldiers who have to crew them.  as someone pointed out, "If you don't double-tap...."

but if you don't, then you're paying for the ability without being able to actually make use of it, and if, like Colt Ward, you already use rapid fire rules?

then you're not only paying in BV, you're also paying in weight payload and armor, and losing the other options from the same era that you could have had, with the old main gun that, frankly, was just fine for the role (or put bluntly, better for the role).

IOW not really an upgrade-except for the expense accounts at Defiance or whomever else you're contracting to install Ultras into Pattons when they would be better used on Condors or Po.

Hilariously, the Po got the gun that would've been a functional UPGRADE FOR REAL on the Patton, both becasue of where the AFFC was doing their fighting at the time, and the over-all doctrine with tanks.

Thus, Patton-Ultra is a mediocre weak sister to stablemate Rommel-Gauss in the same role, leaving a gaping hole in doctrine for something more flexible that isn't being produced in their home nation, where the parent designs filled distinctly different niches originally and complemented one another quite well.

Personally I'm inclined to just toss my hands up and blame it on Nondi Steiner and Simon Gallagher being idiots.

[BrianDavion]

except Canonshop you're missing something, something important.

You don't HAVE to fire an UAC in ultra mode. And you can fire all day long in single shot mode. the Ultra mode just gives you the ability to, in a pinch, double the firepower of your main gun. you seem to be thinking that every mech, vehicle etc with a UAC or RAC should be firing the gun at double rate every round, and frankly if you think that I'm guessing you don't win many table top games. With a UAC you use the mode selectively situation dependant, because sometimes yes even in a Main Battle tank, you just wanna throw as much lead down range as fast as possiable. because at the end of the day a MBT is still a TANK, and they tend to have short live spans when the heavy mechs tank the field. Even if the tank survives it could swiftly lose mobility via tred damage and if it loses a tred being able to put out increased damage when a mech blunders into it's view?  THAT is worth while. because if your treds have been shredded your going to need to put as much power into a target in as short a period of time.

[Cannonshop]

except Canonshop you're missing something, something important.

You don't HAVE to fire an UAC in ultra mode. And you can fire all day long in single shot mode. the Ultra mode just gives you the ability to, in a pinch, double the firepower of your main gun. you seem to be thinking that every mech, vehicle etc with a UAC or RAC should be firing the gun at double rate every round, and frankly if you think that I'm guessing you don't win many table top games. With a UAC you use the mode selectively situation dependant, because sometimes yes even in a Main Battle tank, you just wanna throw as much lead down range as fast as possiable. because at the end of the day a MBT is still a TANK, and they tend to have short live spans when the heavy mechs tank the field. Even if the tank survives it could swiftly lose mobility via tred damage and if it loses a tred being able to put out increased damage when a mech blunders into it's view?  THAT is worth while. because if your treds have been shredded your going to need to put as much power into a target in as short a period of time.

l
flip side, Brian-you lose mobility AND you lose the ability to bunker all at the same time,or in the same turn.  yes, you 'don't have to' fire in double mode.  but you're paying the extra mass, and reducing SOMETHING for that ability you're hoping, in a pinch, will save you instead of screwing you over.

This is the MASC argument all over again, in a way.  BUT, what you're ignoring, is that I'm not LOOKING at individual duel performance.  If I want a duellist, I'll take a heavy or assault 'mech armed with CERPPC's or Gauss rifles.

This has to do with teaming.  The guy on your left has an unreliable weapon that MIGHT do extra damage while running him out of ammo faster, or it might jam so badly it can't be fixed in the field, and you don't know which it is, except that his ability to lay down fire is what's keeping you alive.

NOW make your choice.

shots you can't take, don't do damage.

Shots you fire on burst where the dice go low instead of high, don't do any MORE damage than firing single.

I look at tanks maybe a little differntly than you do, Brian.  I look at them first in terms of "How does this work with the rest of my force and my tactical and strategic objectives?"

Typically, when runnign combined arms, you EITHER run disposables that, as long as they do SOME damage, can be tossed away, OR you're using something that is intended to sustain.

the disposable only needs to weather a couple hits, it's INTENDED not to endure for long.  Think "Hetzer".

Ultras work GREAT on disposables, because the potential damage outweighs the need for endurance-they're not tough enough to bunker in the first place so losing that capacity is not an issue.  Other disposables fit the same way-Scorpion, Vedette.

Then you have your nasty support units.  Thse are meant to be damaging AND a threat.  To do that, they have to still be useful when their tracks are shot off, because they're a fire-sink with a turret.

THAT role requires endurance, and if it's a lump of armor that can't shoot, then it's not worth bringing.

If it can't sustain until the ammo's gone, or if it runs out too soon, it's also not worth bringing.

fitting into that second grouping, is units that are there to suppress, degrade or destroy the enemy's supporting arms. 

ADA capacity is GOOD, anti-infantry dusting or the ability to crit out enemy vehicles at range? also good.  That's stuff the 'mechwarriors don't have to worry about, it's stuff that the owner on the other side DOES have to worry about.

The fact the gun that has the broader application (means "can fill more jobs for my limited spacelift for longer") is combined with "Doesn't jam itself so badly at random that you have to pull the turret to fix the jam"?

One of these two is a significantly better tool of war than the other, because it provides more strategic and tactical options, and thus, advantages, and does so more reliably.

hence why I tend, despite the larger POTENTIAL damage, to put the Ultra at the BOTTOM of the list, just above the HVAC or Heavy Machine Gun-because it only offers an unreliable higher damage potential, but carries the drawback of being grossly unreliable and burning through munitions faster for that (Unreliable) higher average damage.

The Standard can use ammunition types that give it an advantage, and does so reliably.  The LBX uses two types, but does so reliably and weighs less in the class 10 configuration we're talking about, while having a better curve against MORE TYPES OF UNITS than the Ultra, which is important if you're up against someone who knows how to use VTOLs, other tanks, infantry, or suits to multiply the power of their 'mechs.

Stick an Ultra-5 on a 25 ton track you don't really care if you lose? yeah, do that, stick an Ultra on a hovertank or light/medium design intended as chaff and popcorn?? sure.

but don't waste the armor plate if you're going to stick it on an MBT unless that MBT is just as cheap as you can make it with an ICE engine and barely enough armor to count as armor.

it's the CHEAP STUFF that needs that 'run away gun'.  if you're going to use as much plating on a track as the Patton uses, and a fusion engine? you want the gun that goes 'bang' every time until it runs out, and has some endurance, because there's a TACTICAL DOCTRINE behind and underlying the rest of the design, and it's not winning duels on Solaris.

I look at  this and ask 'what's the role?'  The Rommel and Rommel/Gauss is a headcapping 'mech and tank destroyer meant to be reactive.  The original Patton was a multirole support machine for 'mechs and as a secondary in the defensive line as a mobile bunker-enough punch to present a threat that can't be ignored, enough plating that it can preserve that threat posture for quite a while before it ceases being useful (Whether moving or not).

what's the role of the Ultra version?  Filling Mai Tais at the sales officer's retirement party and putting hookers through massage school, because it's already outmatched by a stablemate in the role the main gun forces on it, of being an UNRELIABLE 'mech and tank destroyer without that headcapper capacity, that by definition doesn't have endurance you can actually rely ON to cover your other units.

the Patton Ultra doesn't provide a significant, reliable advantage over the base 3025 model, but it costs more to use, maintain, feed, and care for. 

A Patton with an LBX, on the other hand, CAN do more jobs than the base 3025 model, while still doing the same job, and does both in a superior fashion reliably, meaning the 'mechwarrior planners can actually say "okay tankers, I'm goig to watch the enemy instead of monitoring your status because you got this..and I can actually make a reliable plan around it, with reasonable contingencies if you do your own jobs right."

This is the same reason we didn't see the allies stuffing 90mm guns into Shermans, and why the 76 wasn't used on D-Day...and why germanophiles get really upset when you trot out the maintenance and downtime stats on Tiger 1, Tiger 2, and Panther.

Straight up comparison outside the duelling fields of Solaris, the LBX is a real upgrade for a tank's main gun on too many levels compared to the Ultra.

[Cannonshop]

IS LBX 10:

11 tons
Short range: 1-6
Medium : 7-12
Long: 13-18

IS Ultra AC 10:

13 tons

Short: 1-6
Medium: 7-12
Long: 13-18

3025 Standard AC/10:

12 tons
Short: 1-5
Medium: 6-10
Long: 11-15

The ultra has a range advantage over the standard, but you lose a ton of something else, and ammo/ton for all of these is 10 shots

For the same mass, then, an LBX equipped Patton can carry two tons more ammunition than an Ultra equipped, or one ton more than a standard equipped.

Thus, it's important to note what the Patton-Ultra carries for secondary weapons.

Two medium lasers and three machineguns.

Thus, losing the ability to deploy smoke (no LRM launcher or similar equipment), so it can't screen friendly units, but it can shoot the hell out of unarmored infantry and it has two medium lasers.

this puts it firmly in the duellist role-it can't support neighboring friendly units or engage in battlefield manipulation as part of an attack...and mind you, that ALSO puts it firmly in the "competing with the Rommel for a role" situation-a product competing for the same role and position as another product from the same manufacturer.

that other product also uses the same base chassis.

even down to having an incredibly similar weapons fit with the Rommel Gauss on the secondary armaments.

like I said, Nondi and Simon were having a pissing contest under Katherine, right down to procuring redundancy-only the Patton Ultra is inferior in the same role it's trying to rook from Rommel Gauss, due to unreliability.

Someone's grandkids got a gold plated Gieneh Roadster for their graduation present off this.

[JadeHellbringer]

kinda suprising, given the Davions produce it, we've not seen a RAC Patton

I demand this hypothetical be named the Pattattattattattattatton.

[BrianDavion]

I demand this hypothetical be named the Pattattattattattattatton.

Or maybe the Monty

[Cannonshop]

I demand this hypothetical be named the Pattattattattattattatton.

Disagree.  Give it the truest name: "Patton DAKKA!!!"

with the exclamation points.  as for whether it would be any good? that's up to yr humble tabletop, and how in-depth you want to be in terms of campaign playing and fluff.

but it's also a task for the fan designs forum, I suspect.  your weight savings would give it LOTS of potential for ammo while still hauling a heavier assortment of other goodies...but that's a fan designs thing, as is just about all my ranting about LBX's, so my apologies to everyone for that.

not that it matters.  We have our Canon deisgns, the 'upgrades' are basically redundant, with less flexibility as a battlefield tool, but that IS the canon design.

[Sabelkatten]

I've run a sort-of-Patton armed with a RAC/5 and 2xERML tied to a TC for decent effect. Penetration sucks, but damage output and accuracy is pretty good.

[GreekFire]

How about the Brrratton?

So yeah, two new Pattons with the RecGuides.

The first, the Patton (XL), doubles down on the tank being a cutting-edge platform using technologies often reserved for 'Mechs. Eschewing the Fuel Cell common for many RecGuide designs, it instead uses its weight savings to mate a targeting computer to its UAC. The use of an MML allows it to plink just as well as the OG model, while use of frag/inferno SRMs could make up for the loss of the (Ultra)'s two forward-mounted machine guns.

The (Taurian), for its part, moves away from the hyper-specialized concept of the -SB to finally give the nation domestic manufacturing of the tank. Cheaper and simpler than the XTRO version, its LB-10-X is a nod towards the difficulty the Taurians were said to have in sourcing Silver Gauss Rifles. It's not flashy, but it's a simple, straight-forward line MBT for the Periphery nation.

[Colt Ward]

  The phrase that comes to mind is "ammo eating toy".

check your weights again.  The LBX has (in a straight across swap) more ammo capacity, the Ultra runs out faster, and you LOSE a ton of payload capacity on the chassis.

why? IS Ultra weighs more than the standard.  So where did that capacity go?  did it lose armor protection, secondary weapons...what for a tank-scale machine-gun that will run out of shot in half the time if nothing goes wrong?

which is a 1 in 36 chance it WILL go wrong in that specific way that requires pulling the turret to clear the jam.

Which would actually be just fine installed on the cheapest platform you can shoehorn it into (such as a Po).
*snip*

I think you are misconstruing some of what I wrote, which is that in universe some of the design philosophy makes sense.  The Rommel/Patton are high end tanks expected to be armor 'superiority' designs and at least have a decent chance of going up against equal or lighter mechs under basic conditions.  For that sort of design, the higher damage capacity of Gauss Rifles and Ultras make sense because you want to punch holes in mech armor (and with the UAC, potentially two big holes) or against tanks you want to get a kill rather than degrading capabilities because a LBX's death by plinking still gives an enemy time to degrade YOUR armor formation.  It is effectively the one big gun or lots of small guns warship design debated early in the last century.

A interesting test would be for a lance of UAC Pattons vs a lance of LBX Po (restricted to using just cluster) where each lance focuses fire on one target on a map with decent tank ground.

Further why I was placing the discussion in universe/character is that while we talk about the chance of failure, it is a 2.7% chance to jam . . . we are not talking about HVACs, where it blows up.  The main gun goes inop, and it is time for that tank to retreat off the field of battle.  But the theoretical designers seeking to meet the demand for a higher damage output against Clan mechs are going to go with a weapon that blows holes in the armor vs just sanding away the Clan mech's armor for very little result.  Yeah, we still make cracks about tanks dying easily but the Patton is not a Clan eggshell tank and while I would not want to take a lance of UAC Pattons against a Clan star, if I was a IS lance leader going against a Clan star I would like those Pattons from a RCT's armor regiment backing me up.


But the other point is we SHOULD have gotten a LB-10X Po back in the early 50s instead of having to wait nearly 20 years . . . which is why my head-canon has no problem with mercs after the mid 3050s having the simplest LB-10X Po as a 'unofficial' refit, just using a canon sheet.



Now OUT of universe . . . is a different story, rules at the time of creation have to be taken into account- like sneeze at a tank and it does . . . so getting as much damage as far down range as possible would matter.  Someone else mentioned the heat impact of Ultra mode is negated by vehicle rules, so it is a good place to put Ultras- which I agree with . . . though like you mention, having it on a Saladin or Bellona works too.  The chance to get two 10pt or 20pt hits behind a heavy or assault mech is nothing to sneeze at BUT having that higher damage potential in a tank you already spent more resources on also makes sense.

The weight difference you mention was already accounted for in the IC designers so it did not really matter for the conversion from 3025 to UAC Patton . . . but yeah, for campaign game conversions?  It is a great point, and I use it often.


As for the Patton (XL) . . . yeah, I think it is extending what the idea was in 3050- a tank designed to give near mech combat capabilities.  The TC lets a crew get that 10pt hit more often and MMLs let them adapt to environmental conditions to some degree w/o going the full Omni route, same reason I like MML and ATMs on mechs that are not LRM boats.

[Cannonshop]

I think you are misconstruing some of what I wrote, which is that in universe some of the design philosophy makes sense.  The Rommel/Patton are high end tanks expected to be armor 'superiority' designs and at least have a decent chance of going up against equal or lighter mechs under basic conditions.  For that sort of design, the higher damage capacity of Gauss Rifles and Ultras make sense because you want to punch holes in mech armor (and with the UAC, potentially two big holes) or against tanks you want to get a kill rather than degrading capabilities because a LBX's death by plinking still gives an enemy time to degrade YOUR armor formation.  It is effectively the one big gun or lots of small guns warship design debated early in the last century.

A interesting test would be for a lance of UAC Pattons vs a lance of LBX Po (restricted to using just cluster) where each lance focuses fire on one target on a map with decent tank ground.

Further why I was placing the discussion in universe/character is that while we talk about the chance of failure, it is a 2.7% chance to jam . . . we are not talking about HVACs, where it blows up.  The main gun goes inop, and it is time for that tank to retreat off the field of battle.  But the theoretical designers seeking to meet the demand for a higher damage output against Clan mechs are going to go with a weapon that blows holes in the armor vs just sanding away the Clan mech's armor for very little result.  Yeah, we still make cracks about tanks dying easily but the Patton is not a Clan eggshell tank and while I would not want to take a lance of UAC Pattons against a Clan star, if I was a IS lance leader going against a Clan star I would like those Pattons from a RCT's armor regiment backing me up.


But the other point is we SHOULD have gotten a LB-10X Po back in the early 50s instead of having to wait nearly 20 years . . . which is why my head-canon has no problem with mercs after the mid 3050s having the simplest LB-10X Po as a 'unofficial' refit, just using a canon sheet.



Now OUT of universe . . . is a different story, rules at the time of creation have to be taken into account- like sneeze at a tank and it does . . . so getting as much damage as far down range as possible would matter.  Someone else mentioned the heat impact of Ultra mode is negated by vehicle rules, so it is a good place to put Ultras- which I agree with . . . though like you mention, having it on a Saladin or Bellona works too.  The chance to get two 10pt or 20pt hits behind a heavy or assault mech is nothing to sneeze at BUT having that higher damage potential in a tank you already spent more resources on also makes sense.

The weight difference you mention was already accounted for in the IC designers so it did not really matter for the conversion from 3025 to UAC Patton . . . but yeah, for campaign game conversions?  It is a great point, and I use it often.


As for the Patton (XL) . . . yeah, I think it is extending what the idea was in 3050- a tank designed to give near mech combat capabilities.  The TC lets a crew get that 10pt hit more often and MMLs let them adapt to environmental conditions to some degree w/o going the full Omni route, same reason I like MML and ATMs on mechs that are not LRM boats.

YOur proposed test has a couple of flaws:

 1. it's a duel.  Duels are pretty easy to slant, in this case slanting so that you're restricting one side to cluster ammo without also restricting the other side to full auto.
  Why this is a problem: because it's solely a test of straight across armor protection vs. specific weapons without battlefield context.  That is, none of the other things (VTOLs, infantry) are included when you're weighing the capabilities here.  It's not even a TACTICAL test, it's just a shooting contest slanted toward giving the ultra a win.  In my experience as a player, Ultras work best, in duels with less well protected or mobile opponents.

2. The Po lance would likely win if there were an objective beyond "Kill everybody" because they're more likely to get early mission kills.  (turret locked, tracks immobilized, potential for crew stunned). Even with TW locations, the mission-kill potential is high-if there's a mission beyond 'Kill everybody-last man standing'.

aka an actual MISSION.  This is one of those distortions that happens because of the game format-in real military operations if I can neutralize your tank force and render it immobilized or unable to achieve an objective, I win, even if I don't annhilate them.  I don't have to kill ALL of your soldiers, I just have to keep them from being able to shoot (things I don't want shot), or,  Move (Places I don't want them to go).

which usually denies them the ability to shoot the things I don't want getting shot.

on the flip side, I aLSO can improve the chances of my side winning, if I can deny easy access to airborne gunships (VTOL support) or suppress infantry at range/prevent them from positioning.

One of these guns works better for this, than the other.

IOW the Taurians got the better Patton.  Whether they realize it or not, they got an actual upgrade and a an actual BATTLE TANK, while others bought what amounts to an expensive dueling platform for Solaris.

Keep in mind, I was winning with conventional forces and the much nastier hit locations long before Total Warfare incorporated the munchtek hit locations-because I treated them like one part of a larger force instead of as Hero units for duelling.

Generally speaking, regardless of rules level, some guns work better in that context, than others.  With the Ultra model, you run out of ammunition in half the time, meaning your supply wagons have to move more of the stuff if everything works, but everything doesn't work reliably with Ultras, and the 'fix' for an Ultra that jams, is pulling the turret at Depot, so to support a force of them, you need your depot closer to the front.

LOTS closer.  The equivalent would be comparing Sherman or T-34 to Panther.  One of these is superior-until it breaks down, and it breaks down a LOT, without needing enemy action to malfunction, and the malfunctions take hours to days to repair. (During which, it is helpless and not contributing to the battle.)

The other has to be actively taken out by the enemy to make it stop working assuming the crew are doing their jobs.

Ultras work FINE on truly disposeable units, because those units are either for mass combats where you don't care about your casualties, your goal is to swamp the enemy in fire, or for suppressing lesser forces with the danger of occasionally bumping into something tougher that you need to get away from as soon as possible.

Vedettes, for example, or Scorpions, or any of your hover tanks-they need that firepower on tap right now and if it fails they're dead anyway unless they can flee.

LBX is for supporting a more formal battle line of troopers that may need to deal with enemy air or enemy conventionals, or enemies who have a lot of disposable forces that can still do damage to your 'mechs.

aka it's generally a better General Purposes gun.  It goes 'bang' when you fire it (assuming you have ammunition that fits) and does so reliably, meaning it can be a threat that degrades an enemy force even immobilized out to 18 hexes, and as the man says, "Some damage, that you can apply, is better than higher damage you can't even fire."

after all, only shots you can fire, that hit, can do damage.

[Colt Ward]

The test was not for proving which gun/platform was better, just the armor removing vs LBX papercut death, reason I did not specify always going Ultra.  As far as last man standing, the whole point was my contention the Patton UAC was actually designed IC for armor superiority- IE, tank/mech killer rather than multipurpose . . . it is like the folks who think the Thunderhawk is the bestest mech evar!  And then snivel when they run up against light vehicles, speedster mechs, and masses of BA (maybe some artillery support) that then slaughter their Gauss/ERPPC only lance.

I agree the LBX is a better gun than the UAC, I have long claimed it was the best 'gun' in the game . . . the Plasma Rifle comes close, it just loses out in range for the modern battlefield.  Heck, I agree the LBX Patton is superior b/c I do want the utility and prefer objective based games where 'mission-kills' is good enough.

[Cannonshop]

The test was not for proving which gun/platform was better, just the armor removing vs LBX papercut death, reason I did not specify always going Ultra.  As far as last man standing, the whole point was my contention the Patton UAC was actually designed IC for armor superiority- IE, tank/mech killer rather than multipurpose . . . it is like the folks who think the Thunderhawk is the bestest mech evar!  And then snivel when they run up against light vehicles, speedster mechs, and masses of BA (maybe some artillery support) that then slaughter their Gauss/ERPPC only lance.

I agree the LBX is a better gun than the UAC, I have long claimed it was the best 'gun' in the game . . . the Plasma Rifle comes close, it just loses out in range for the modern battlefield.  Heck, I agree the LBX Patton is superior b/c I do want the utility and prefer objective based games where 'mission-kills' is good enough.

The problem I see, is that the same manufacturer had a BETTER armor superiority tank on the same chassis, coming off the same production lines.  The Rommel-Gauss fills the exact same role, but more reliably.  The failure of the whole "you retire when it jams' is that your tank is not contributing, and not contributing randomly.  It would be like having one of your soldiers having to go back to base because his rifle jammed, because he literally has no way to clear the jam without the help of the armorer, and you KNOW his rifle is going to jam that badly in combat-but not when...only that it's probably GOING to happen right about the time you need him providing overwatch fire because you're already in heavy contact.

This IS a major defect, and why I made the joke about corrupt procurement-the AFFC already had a better platform for the same job, and did so without sacrificing previously held secondary roles that work as force multipliers for your tank platoon, and without the random major malfunction that requires your men to cover the retreat of an otherwise functional vehicle (to be fair, at 4/6 in heavy contact, it's probably not going to STAY functional while trying to withdraw.)

as a TANK driver, in the Battletech universe, you're there to keep the Mechwarriors alive.  That is your job, it's why you're there and not in the infantry or supply department driving a truck.  If your gun malfunctions, and you have to fall back to base to get it un-stuck, you've gone from being a combat asset, to a combat deficit.

EVEN during the height of the Clan invasion. (Perhaps especially during that period.)

Because the malfunction is KNOWN, the time it's going to happen is going to be when you desperately need that gun to keep running, because the lives of your buddies or your assignment are on the line, and the enemy is in range to make you dead, and probably faster than you.

Figure the nasty rep the M-16 got in vietnam with a much lower failure rate, that nasty rep lasted decades.

Why? because the malfunction didn't happen when the troops were safely in garrison, or within a couple steps of the armorer's shop.  It happened where such malfunctions TEND to happen-in combat, with people on the other side trying to kill them.

The major difference, is that the m-16's malfunctions were because someone really didn't do their job, and it was correctible.

The malfunction problem on the Ultra Autocannon isn't because someone in the supply department screwed the poocka.  It's a known defect in the execution of the design and the engineers never fixed it.

So...with a better option already in production, why would you redesign a second unit to fill the same role, using the same chassis, armor plate, seating, most of the same secondary weapons, and a main gun that is guaranteed to malfunction under stress?

and malfunction so badly you have to retreat the unit out of the line, under fire, abandoning the mission, to un-jam the main gun.  What kind of army would consciously choose this?

Particularly when they're already under pressure from a superior foe?

it doesn't make sense...but what DOES make sense, is an executive giving a kickback to a guy in procurement to sell crap goods to an army under pressure, because it's a national emergency and they can make a really good excuse (*and the general in procurement is safely away from the front lines and likely to remain so!)

If Rommel-Gauss didn't exist off the same production line in the same timeframe with a collection of less useful units ALSO getting gauss rifles, arguments for shortage might hold water...but that's not what happened.  what happened, was that somebody got sold a bill of crap goods, and enough of them to spur their successors to double down on accepting crap goods in a role that was already filled by a demonstrably superior unit from the same manufacturer.

[SteelRaven]

Cannonshop, it's a game and Fasa didn't always make the most optimize units. Half the time, sometimes it's like they just started putting weapons on a record sheet to see what would fit. In universe, the Ultra doesn't have the bad rep as it does with player on the TT.

[Cannonshop]

Cannonshop, it's a game and Fasa didn't always make the most optimize units. Half the time, sometimes it's like they just started putting weapons on a record sheet to see what would fit. In universe, the Ultra doesn't have the bad rep as it does with player on the TT.

"Optimized?" you literally can't optimize.  You can get 'pretty good' or 'better than most' but there's literally no way to make a tank that is immune to damage and one-shot-kills all targets.  That's the generation system.

This is the same universe that thinks a one ton machine gun with a sixty meter effective range is a good idea, right?

I get the slack argument there.  I really do.  I think I even addressed it in an earlier post.  What's funny to me, is that the right swap wsa finally done-for the Taurians, and it was excused as something even LESS useful being unavailable.

sort of "by accident we got a better design than we would have if we got what we intended".  And that's some character-development humour right there.  makes me smile.

why? because it's the best of the lot, and it's from the otherwise-poor-as-church-mouse, often-incompetent Periphery.

I just wish they'd fluffed that as 'someone in the Taurian Concordat actually thought this through for more than thirty seconds and wasn't taking backhanders from Defiance long enough to design something intelligent...which their perpetual headache the Davions didn't."

because that would've been awesome, but not as funny.

[Colt Ward]

*silently moves the Cannonshop's UAC token to the same basket as Yellow Jacket*

[Cannonshop]

*silently moves the Cannonshop's UAC token to the same basket as Yellow Jacket*

aw come on, Colt.  I actually DO see a use for Ultra Autocannons, (Unlike the Yellowjacket) that isn't a waste, it's just not THIS application.  (There IS no application for the YJ.  None.  It serves NO purpose except to redistribute Gauss Rifles to the enemy as salvage).

Stuffing an Ultra onto the cheapest platform you can? Yes, this is a good use of it that accounts for the reliability issue, and it has teh benefit of actually being a move that might work if you have enough of them in the same place, or stuffing it into a solaris duellist? sure, the drama fills spectator seats and sells sponsorships.

I just don't agree with the application being on one of the most expensive chassis out there for the era, especially when the same manufacturer makes a better option in the same role-one that outright works better...but the Patton-ultra at least Has a Role, even if it's somewhat inefficient and more a result of in-character corporate greed and official corruption.

The Yellowjacket has no such excuse.  My opinion of THAT airframe is MUCH LOWER.  (any time you have to build the entire scenario around a single unit from one side of it to make that unit useful-and by 'entire scenario' I mean 'both sides must be set up to make the yellowjacket on one side look good'...or where the 'team' to make it functional is actually more functional WITHOUT IT?  That's the stock Yellowjacket right there.)

Patton Ultra is a disappointing design, it's not a design they had to revamp the entire class of vehicles hit-tables and add a magic 50 point shield to the motive system to make semi-viable.  It's not an outright BAD design, it's just Lesser while being expensive.

which a successful expression of government corruption and corporate greed would be-it's not truly ineffective, it's just not as good as a similar product from the same manufacturer, for the same client, at the same time in the same role.

Fixing that one organizationally requires an auditor and a prosecutor.  at most, a few fines and maybe a general officer being cashiered and stripped of rank.  Followed by classes on "Why we keep this function pinned and locked out."  IOW there are ways to USE the design, even if it's outperformed by something better in the same role.

Fixing the organizational defects that resulted in the Yellowjacket being approved for production suggests a need for rope, a gallows, and a regimental assembly to watch the perpetrators of the fraud hang on live holovid.  Because there's no way to actually USE IT and still bring home your pilot without a VERY cooperative opposition.

They don't fit in the same 'box'.

[BrianDavion]

the yellow jacket hardly requires "orginizational defects" it was a time of experimentation. and the over all idea of "mount big gun on helicopter" has some appeal. we need to remember that in battletech mech and vehicle design is going to be a LOOOT harder then just opening up Megamek Lab and punching in optimized numbers

[JadeHellbringer]

Well, with the Ultra-10 discussion wrapped up and the Yellow Jacket having its own thread elsewhere, I guess that means getting back to discussing the Patton.  :)