Vehicle of the Week: Patton Tank

[Jimmyray73]

I loved both the Rommel and Patton back in the days when TRO:3025 was the new hotness. I used the Patton's range advantage to great effect several times over the years, including a scenario not too long ago where I put a serious hurt on an opponent who underestimated the suck of facing a Patton with AP ammo that was pillboxed right in the middle of a pass he needed to get through.

[Diablo48]

What are you talking about, RACs have always had the ability to unjam.  You have to declare it during the End Phase (like dumping ammo), and the following round you can only expend walking/cruising movement and can't attack, but you can attempt to unjam as many RACs as you'd like.

I meant without the limitations.  It sounds like vehicles get to use other people to unjam weapons without penalty, so they should be able to apply that to RACs as well.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

No, Cray was remembering the expanded weapon crits rule that could cause weapons and equipment to take penalties when critted rather than being destroyed outright.  One of the potential issues for a ballistic weapon was to give it a slight chance of jamming with every shot that could be cleared with a successful check.  It has nothing to do with whether the unit was a vehicle or not.

[rlbell]

I've never seen that rule.  I thought the fluff of Ultra ACs was that the loading mechanism burned out.

I have ignored the fluff in favor of the problem being that the rammer/extractor breaks.  It is not that unreasonable, as doubling the rate of fire requires four times the force on the mechanicals, and the Bofors 40mm anti-aircraft gun needed to be redisigned after it was found to have precisely that problem.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Same basic thing, in the end.  As an autocannon it's going to be a very rapid-fire thing; if it's electically powered (the only way to get it fast enough?) then putting enough wattage through it to double up the ROF is going to eventually fry the wiring and the motor that handles it.  Which, in the end, is a broken rammer/burned out circuits/can't-fix-it result.

[Diablo48]

Same basic thing, in the end.  As an autocannon it's going to be a very rapid-fire thing; if it's electically powered (the only way to get it fast enough?) then putting enough wattage through it to double up the ROF is going to eventually fry the wiring and the motor that handles it.  Which, in the end, is a broken rammer/burned out circuits/can't-fix-it result.

There is really no good reason for the components to not be durable enough to handle the load.  You can always make things tougher, and the electrical power required would be nothing next to the requirements of large energy weapons, Gauss Rifles, or the total output of the reactor.

[rlbell]

There is really no good reason for the components to not be durable enough to handle the load.  You can always make things tougher, and the electrical power required would be nothing next to the requirements of large energy weapons, Gauss Rifles, or the total output of the reactor.

The problem is the difference between component life on a lab bench and component life in the field.  Generally speaking, the lifetime of a bearing in ideal conditions is about a hundred years of continuous use at rated loads.  In the field, that same bearing might not last five years.  UAC's fire off several hundred tons of ammo between failures in the lab, but some bozo will be doing maintenance on the thing and return from his break and forget that some fasteners are improperly torqued (I heard of a Ottawa transit bus that left the garage with the wheels on one side held on by finger-tight lug nuts [it did not get far]).  There is also the wear and tear of being installed in a battlemech.

If/when I ever run a BT campaign, I will secretly roll for each UAC a number of doubletaps  before a crack forms in the rammer/extractor.  Until a crack actually forms, a '2' does not disable the weapon, but the piece will pass all inspections right up until the crack actually appears.  Once cracked, the next '2' will break it.  The players will be told the average and standard deviation of the time between failures.  Substandard parts will have a lower average and wider variation.  Paying for the parts is not an issue, but availability could be a problem.

[SCC]

With regards to what Cray brought up on the Jam thing, one of the mods(?) was asked basically, If I am carrying around all these extras guys, why can't I un-jam the gun? Which is a fair question as a Vee there will be someone who will be free to look at it and you probably can get at the gun in the field, unlike in a 'Mech

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Only if they can open up the port and crawl in to take a look.

While the tank is moving.

And shooting its other weapons.

And other people are shooting it.

[Cannonshop]

LB-10-X's only have the cluster effects over UAC-10's (and the weight) and this is an MBT so the ability to double tab is probably more useful (or viewed as such by the designers, remember this is a Lyarn design)

LBX fire's a bit more effective than ultras against other vees, and there's the TH bonus against flyers to consider (specifically VTOLs), then, there's the superior effectiveness against grunts and suits as well-not MUCH superior, but still, the difference between popping ONE or TWO infantrymen in a hostile platoon, and dashing out up to ten of them?  And there's the crit-seeking at, say, other tanks to consider as well-most vees still crit-out before you can hammer through the armor, an ultra gives you a single "2" cluster roll, whereas an LBX can spread the luuurve and disable enemy vees at superior ranges.

Then again, I'm a guy who, when he pulls the trigger, wants the gun to fire-even if it misses or does a reduced total quantity of damage.  Ultras lay down a lot of hurt-assuming that they actually DO fire-but having a gun you can't use even when you're close-to-full on the magazine?  Worth less to me than the other option.

for Canon designs, I tend to favour the base-model Patton (3025) simply on account of knowing that the gun will, when I need it, work... and the ability to go 5P/10S for ammo loadout isn't that bad, imho.

As for the LRM rack.... best loadouts are, unfortunately, optional rounds- Smoke, Incendiary, Thunder or T-Aug.  Dropping smoke covers your approach, or retreat (or just manuever), if you're using fires rules, incendiary works as terrain-denial for certain units, and generates smoke, and the "Mine" rounds can stall or chew up an enemy thrust at your flank if you do it right.

In general, the Patton is probably the most "Conventionally formulated" tank in the game-that is, it balances on the three axes of Armor, firepower, and speed.  Most heavies sacrifice on speed, which is a mistake unless you're fixated on pillboxing early with your tank units.  4/6 is the "floor" for a good tank-you can move and turn and climb hills without going flank, at a reasonable pace, your TMM ends up being equal to or better than your penalty for movement.

Tanks are "Team Player" units.  If you're trying to "Duel" with them, you're doing it wrong and deserve what happens to you, a lance of Pattons works to support each other, and it works as a "Point man" tank for a mixed lance of similar vehicles in the 4/6 bracket, (based on ammo choices, of course).

The 3025 variant, with the right ammo selections, is suitable for use against 3085 and better opposition (when used correctly).  The "Upgrade" is more specialized, it's not as good an MBT, but does include more MG goodness to keep close-in enemy grunts off your decks (or to sweep the decks of a swarmed comrade.)

The nice thing about a Patton chassis, is that if you want to run it in formations with Rommels, Rommel Gauss, and Manticores, it fills a good niche, if you're using it as the bruiser for a "Medium" lance (say, Myrmidons and Bulldogs) it fills a niche wihtout falling out of formation due to being too slow to get out of its' way (like the Axel, the "Utter FAIL" member of the family, unable to climb a hill without being damn-near immobile to an enemy gunner).

Aesthetically, the Patton (and cousin Rommel) has something else going for it...

It actually LOOKS like a Tank, not a bit of skateboard art puked out in Kalifornia.

[Kit deSummersville]

but still, the difference between popping ONE or TWO infantrymen in a hostile platoon, and dashing out up to ten of them?

Well, three instead of two with cluster ammo.

[Slicer3025]

Ya know this vee i think would be better served if they ripped out their SFE and plugged in a FCE.  Since it doesnt have many energy weps it wont require too much more waste tonnage on sinks (i think FCE have 1 or 2 free right?).  It would be ironic if this vee can be "better" while having a lower tech engine  :P

[SCC]

Ya know this vee i think would be better served if they ripped out their SFE and plugged in a FCE.  Since it doesnt have many energy weps it wont require too much more waste tonnage on sinks (i think FCE have 1 or 2 free right?).  It would be ironic if this vee can be "better" while having a lower tech engine  :P

Straight up that only saves you a ton, however if you switch to a V. Flamer with 1 ton ammo you get 3.5, ditching the SL gets you another ton

[A. Lurker]

One thing worth considering in any discussion of fuel cell vs. fusion is the existence of the "fuel tank" critical hit. On a fusion-powered vehicle, that "merely" translates into a destroyed engine -- bad and probably a reason to strike the colors if there's any chance the enemy will respect that, but not an instant death sentence and the tank may remain salvageable (and even a potential threat to anything crossing into its now-fixed firing arcs). Vees powered by fuel cells, on the other hand, brew up just as easily as ICE-powered ones do.

[Scotty]

Not to mention that there's this funny quirk about FCEs on vehicles compared to SFEs that means it always frees up more tonnage unless you're a hovertank (and even then sometimes).

In exchange for no heatsinks, an operation range, and the chance to explode violently when struck.

[Nikas_Zekeval]

Same basic thing, in the end.  As an autocannon it's going to be a very rapid-fire thing; if it's electically powered (the only way to get it fast enough?) then putting enough wattage through it to double up the ROF is going to eventually fry the wiring and the motor that handles it.  Which, in the end, is a broken rammer/burned out circuits/can't-fix-it result.

Sacrificial circuit, if the components heat up enough to jam an electric motor will fry itself trying to move against the extra force.  If you design it so something else pops first you can save the motor.  If this is done after the battle you could possibly have the everything cool down enough to cycle normally, or at least send in a tech with a crow bar to pop things loose then back into place.

[oldfart3025]

The Patton ranks alongside luminaries, such as the Manticore and Manteuffel, on the short-list of the finest MBTs in the game. A good balance of armor, firepower, and mobility, the Patton was done right from the get-go. Even in the modern era, this tank is still exceptionally dangerous in stock form.

The only really needed update is an improvement in crew survival. We swapped out the AC/10 for a LB 10X autocannon, mostly for the weight savings for CASE installation. But the extra range and anti-armor killing power never hurts, especially with the proliferation of deadly combat vehicles in the modern era. An aft firing ERSL was added as an afterthought, but one that has come in handy from time to time.

My group doesn't run the Ultra variant very often. The base model and our in-house LB-X swap are the most commonly played. But a more recent variant has caught on with my playgroup.

In XTRO: Periphery, a Taurian prototype has come to light: The Patton-SB. Designed to operate in extreme hostile environments, such as a vacuum, it still maintains many of the features that made the original great while throwing some in improvements to the mix.

Powered by a modern 260XL, it loses three tons of armor. But upgrading to HFF, it only loses four points in protection, with the aft actually gaining a two point beef-up. Other features include the environmental sealing, supercharger, and improved close-in secondary weapons (two turret mounted ERMLs). It retains the old LRM-5 rack.

The star of this show is the Silver Bullet gauss rifle with three tons of ammo in the magazine. I'm a big fan of this weapon. And in certain situations, prefer it over the LB-X autocannon.

The only real flaw with the Patton-SB is the lack of CASE. But this can be overlooked to a small extent, since we run it as a specialist design (i.e. naval infantry regiments and marine brigades operating in airless environments). It's been useful and effective in hostile environment combat operations.

Just my two cents worth.

[SCC]

With the Sacrificial circuit why does it take so long to change? It's basically a fuses, it should be in the crew compartment and designed to be changed easily

[A. Lurker]

With the Sacrificial circuit why does it take so long to change? It's basically a fuses, it should be in the crew compartment and designed to be changed easily

I believe it's come up on these forums (haven't seen the document in question myself, nor remember its title offhand) that the fluff is now notionally that if an UAC "jams", what actually happens is that the shell or at least its casing basically welds itself to the chamber. I get the feeling TPTB may be getting a bit tired of all these "UACs should unjam because obviously X!" arguments after all these years... :)

[Moonsword]

The fluff in question is in ER2750.  Why it was written that way I couldn't tell you.

[A. Lurker]

The fluff in question is in ER2750.  Why it was written that way I couldn't tell you.

Fair enough, and thanks.

Myself I don't have any issues with UACs (not even the poor maligned 5). Choosing between single-fire mode or double-tapping is just another one of those risk vs. reward decisions BattleTech has always kind of come with right out of the box.

[SCC]

So question about both the Rommel and the Patton, both have that small laser up front and the Patton has the Flamer, how often are they used? Or maybe how useful are they? I'm asking because I've got a fanfic idea that would likely affect their creation and I want to have things make some more sense.

[SteelRaven]

I would look up Flamethrowers on tanks, more popular in WWII (where Fasa got allot of it's ideas, obviously) but also used lesser so into the cold war. The flamethrower would be used on entrenched positions as the flames and heat would go places bullets would not reach and more importantly/horrifically, suck up the oxygen in a enclosed spaces such as a inside bunker. There is also the psychological effect as well, no one wants to get shot but the idea of being lighted on fire is horrifying on a more primeval level.

It wouldn't be used just on bunkers in practice of course. While arguable more horrific than than a heavy machine gun, the Flamer is a anti-infantry weapon that would be more practical for the tank crew to use than the main gun on a few poor bloody infantry. BTU's Flamers being more powerful than real world flame throwers, it would also be effective on vehicles, cooking anyone inside.

[Alan Grant]

So question about both the Rommel and the Patton, both have that small laser up front and the Patton has the Flamer, how often are they used? Or maybe how useful are they? I'm asking because I've got a fanfic idea that would likely affect their creation and I want to have things make some more sense.

What Steel Raven said, but also more generally, we are talking about the two weapons on the tank that can actually deal with infantry at close range. The LRM can't. The Autocannon you have better uses for, engaging vehicles and 'mechs. The small laser and flamer are the two weapons designed to fight infantry at close range.

If the tank is doing that as part of a team of vehicles/mechs with more anti-infantry weapons, or direct infantry support. It could make a lot of sense. Under those conditions it could be done intentionally and with good results. If it's assaulting some enemy infantry positions with lots of support (direct and indirect fire support while closing the distance with multiple vees/mechs/and infantry then getting in close to overrun the enemy position and finish the job), that could be pretty textbook and common. If it is doing it alone, odds are something has gone horribly wrong. As in the tank is alone (1-4 Pattons), has little or no support. That one flamer, that one small laser, may not be enough to stop a platoon or company of infantry from hammering the tank to death with support weapons or otherwise overrunning it, disabling it or killing it.

In that situation, odds are the Patton is on the defensive. The enemy is trying to kill it and it is trying to drive away from them and keep them at arm's length. Or it is just trying to escape and get back to friendly forces. That is not a scenario a Patton crew would intentionally drive into. To be in that situation means something has gone horribly wrong. An ambush, an enemy assault, a last stand. The rest of the friendlies have been wiped out and this Patton or three are like the survivors (so far) of this tragedy. Etc.

That's more of a tank tactics 101 (real life and Battletech). Tanks like the Patton, designed to engage and fighter other machines (tanks, 'mechs) with more of a token anti-infantry weapon or two, need support to deal with lots of infantry effectively. Whether that's infantry of their own or vees/mechs that have a greater abundance of anti-infantry weapons. Or maybe even just a lot more vehicles in general in the same place, where their combined weight of anti-infantry weapons adds up to something more respectable and they can support each other and destroy the enemy. One Patton by itself or even a platoon (4) of them but no other support, risk being very vulnerable to an infantry assault (if the enemy is willing to throw many platoons at you, especially in thick terrain like forests/jungles or urban where they can get in close).

Final note, the fear of vehicle crews is always being immobilized. Disabled somehow, or lose a track, can't move. That is when enemies can swarm you and avoid your weapons by attacking from your most vulnerable angles. The Patton has to worry about that too. If it can turn the turret it can continue to use most of its weapons. But if it is immobilized, then it can't turn that hull mounted flamer to face the enemy and the enemy can come in at the other angles and avoid the flamer. The way for infantry to kill a Patton is to disable it, so it can't turn the hull. Then to come in at an angle where the flamer is useless. That is one less very terrifying weapon to worry about.

[Fallen_Raven]

So question about both the Rommel and the Patton, both have that small laser up front and the Patton has the Flamer, how often are they used? Or maybe how useful are they? I'm asking because I've got a fanfic idea that would likely affect their creation and I want to have things make some more sense.

The Small Laser is debatable in its utility, mostly for shooting at infantry that weren't nearly as dangerous or durable when these tanks were introduced. There's also something to be said for the ability to hit Light 'mechs that want to run up for a kick, but I can't imagine a scenario where you'd save main gun ammo over the chance for a 'mech kill.

The Flamer is a significantly more useful. Not only does it handle infantry in a way best described as "horrifying", but it also raises the heat of anything hit with it for extra self-defense goodness. The Patton also rear mounts the Flamer so it doesn't have to divert the real firepower to cover its back. Combine the ability to start fires behind you with the armor and (relative to the era) solid firepower makes the Patton a challenging opponent that conventional forces of the era would struggle to face.

[Weirdo]

Ironically, the laser probably helped a lot of Pattons get Elemental kills during the Invasion, providing that last bit of damage to finish off a trooper that was tagged by the main gun.

Not that this brought much comfort, given the four angry Elementals that would now be in pointblank range and wanting to avenge their pointmate...

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

If the Patton wasn't in full reverse already, it done goofed.

[Colt Ward]

The 3025 Patton is one of those tanks I do not mind in 3060s forces for the simple reason that Prec AC/10 ammo makes them excellent to help screen your mechs or fire support armor- you know like Rommel (Gauss).  Send that pair of Wasp, Stingers, or other 6/9 lights from the lance after the armor . . . a 10 point hit would be enough to knock them around and deter them trying to get in for the kicks and their shorter ranged weapons.

Not saying I would turn down the UAC/10 one, but the old 3025 design still utility.

[Weirdo]

Pack a ton of flechette if you're attacking a city. Between the big-yet-conventional gun, heavy armor, and the speed to soak a motive hit or two, one of these would make a DISGUSTING breacher for clearing out the first floor of an infantry-held building. >:D

[Cannonshop]

I like the 3025 Patton more than the Upgrade.
Just not an Ultra-10 fan, and think an LBX would have made for a better option IMHO.

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.