Your first design group wanted a harsh, angular forward array. With Yves backing them, the plan was to use a sharp, 45-degree leading edge to create four mirrored slopes of perfectly homogeneous rolled armor plate of 35mm. The pilot would have an armored 'conning box' to place his head in with vision slits, and a top hatch. The sides would be flat 7mm sheet steel, with the hips protected by a set of stamped covers of the same hiding them. Internal protection would consist of placing the drive train in an armored alleyway of the same 35mm steel, the driver in a box of 10mm rolled steel, and the loader being issued a rosary in case of a penetrating hit. The largest issue with the design would be getting all that forward armor plate to stay welded to the frame, followed shortly by all the added nose weight.
The second team, by contrast, wanted a smooth, single-piece cast and gently sloping dome piece, of approximately 50mm, with an upper panel of 35mm. The pilot would sit, protected by the lower glacis, with his head and shoulders protected by the 35mm panels, with vision blocks and a topside hatch. The sides would have a tumblehome slope, composed of 15mm rolled steel, with no internal armor divisions. The hips would be shadowed by the tumblehome, and the rear would be protected with a downward-facing pair of skid plates in 35mm steel.
The last team, meanwhile, was simplest. Their plan was a single rolled and cemented 55mm plate, at 25-degree back slant, with a series of six bulletproof, tempered glass panels in a near-115mm thick array that was two panels wide and three deep (with the center at steep angle) to stop any incoming fire. There was also a conning box above, but it was marked 'secondary' on the armor proposal. The rest of the mecha would be covered in near-flat 15mm armor, with the sides protected by a thin, 4mm corrugated sheet steel layer of ablative armor to promote rifle fire ricochets. This skirt would also extend to completely enclose the hips.
Pros
- heavy frontal armour, effective ~70mm thickness depending on angle of attack; greatest protection for the front angle, which is most important.
- internal divisions of armour - may improve kill-resistance
- thickest hip armour
Pros
- fewer individual armour plates means fewer points of potential failure/less chance of manufacturing flaws
- more protection for rear section noted; good for the loader and the engine
- more balanced outer armour distribution, with crew behind thicker sections
Pros
- cheapest design
- best visibility for the pilot?
- armour skirt arguably best for protecting hip against enemy fire
- ablative armour may be spaced(?) and foul shots that punch through
Cons
- thinnest side armour, no notable rear armour (so assume same as sides?); weakest against side and rear attack
- leg armour may have more chance to let shots through to hip mechanisms
- expensive, due to complexity of construction
- may have pitch issues in the field
Cons
- no sectioning
- possible expense
Cons
- no sectioning
- less angled armour means less effective armour thickness
Someone let me know if I'm completely off-base here, or feel free to offer additional suggestions.
@7734 are all these armour patterns projected to weigh about the same? Or how does the gross weight of each compare?
You're not quite sure. The problem is that the armor designs have known weight of plate, but they don't have known weight of everything else: balance items, bracing, framework, et cettera. Current math (tm) says each armor scheme should come in at or under two tons, but the Demon Leverage is going to play a big part in how much strain they put on the mecha. None of these armor schemes are final either: you're basically taking the Araignée- which tops out at 25mm rolled plates- and telling it to GTFO, you're bringing in real armor now. Conversely, all these armor schemes are designed around defeating the 11mm Antichar rifle and the 13.2mm Hotchkiss rounds out of their respective guns at 100m engagements- ranges that both rounds will penetrate approximately 25mm armor (at 75% certainty for the Antichar and 65% certainty for the 13.2mm Balle D Hotchkiss) and is the expected engagment range of antimecha troops as proven by the Great War.
This is a really good chart, and the only error is leg armor. I'm never going to ask "how to armor a leg" because, frankly, that's a technical bitch. Assume, for discussion's sake, that a well-armored leg has between 1/3 and 1/2 the armor of the side panels of the mecha, not to excede 15mm unless otherwise noted. The real leg protection is systems redundancy: if we ever get to Atompunk, then there will absolutely be an option to buy locking actuators that, in case of partial failure, will lock a joint solid and thereby allow a skilled pilot to limp the mecha.
Other than that, fucking fantastic. I never could get the hang of the chart tool.
This is a really good chart, and the only error is leg armor. I'm never going to ask "how to armor a leg" because, frankly, that's a technical bitch. Assume, for discussion's sake, that a well-armored leg has between 1/3 and 1/2 the armor of the side panels of the mecha, not to excede 15mm unless otherwise noted. The real leg protection is systems redundancy: if we ever get to Atompunk, then there will absolutely be an option to buy locking actuators that, in case of partial failure, will lock a joint solid and thereby allow a skilled pilot to limp the mecha.
Other than that, fucking fantastic. I never could get the hang of the chart tool.
So then, leg armour as follows?
1: 7mm, no extra shielding but (possibly) best potential articulation
2: 5-7mm, partially shadowed by body
3: 5-7mm, plus 4mm skirt
And is the upgraded gyro likely to help in balancing Pattern 1?
So then, leg armour as follows?
1: 7mm, no extra shielding but (possibly) best potential articulation
2: 5-7mm, partially shadowed by body
3: 5-7mm, plus 4mm skirt
And is the upgraded gyro likely to help in balancing Pattern 1?
There's no differences in articulation from armor schemes, but otherwise correct. As for the gyro, the upgrade doesn't quite work like that. I'll explain, since we don't have an Engineering Person to do it for us yet.
The problem is pretty fundamental: if you want a gyroscope to provide a stabilizing force, it has to be both moving fast, and have high rotational momentum (mass times velocity). Or in other words, RPM times Weight. Once your gyro is up to speed, it automatically takes input changes and normalizes them against its own momentum, thereby loosing effective momentum in the form of speed loss.
What this means for your- and everyone else's- mecha right now is that one gyro stabilizes a mecha on one axis. Since all your mecha are one-gyro designs, that axis is roll. A mecha will pitch forward and backward like a drunkard, but with a halfway competent operator it won't fall on its side- and a competent pilot with a winch can get himself back upright if he's willing and able to get an anchor point.
Now, going back to rotational momentum. Whenever the gyroscope has to do work, it eats speed, which the engine has to replace. When you're turning, the gyroscope actually has to spin down, to destabilize the mecha enough to naturally 'bob' through the turn to make up for the fact hips can't really articulate yet. It then has to speed back up to keep everything upright instead of the bob turning into a roll turning into a turf'd mecha. This means adjusting rotational momentum, again, through adjusting speed of the gyro. Brakes to reduce speed, engine thrust to increase speed.
What your upgrade does is it takes all that, and hucks it out a fucking window, because rotational momentum has the caveat of Demon Leverage in there. The further a point on a circle is, the faster that point is when a constant rotation is applied. One kilogram of mass at one meter from the axis spinning at 1 RPS is making 6.28m/s, and thereby providing 3.14 newton-seconds of momentum. Yes, the unit is silly, welcome to SI. It's accurate at least. Now, we take that same kilogram of mass at two meters from the axis spinning at the same speed, and suddenly shit gets spicy. That kilogram is now making 12.56 m/s, and thereby making 12.56 newton-seconds of momentum.
For the low, low price of doubling the size of our gyro, we have doubled the output for a given RPM. Much wao, many happy. We can also double the RPMs to get the same effect too, but shhh. Big gyro go brr. However, Real Life would like to step in: we're limited on gyro mass for both minimum mass (or else the mecha tips over), the maximum mass (the legs can't move it) and the maximum RPMs (or the bearings/driveshaft go kerput).
What this upgrade allows us to do is, in short, change the size of the gyro disc on the fly. When you want a low-momentum disk, say, for turns or starup, then the gyro can be set to minimum distance from axle for the weighs. When you want a high-momentum disk, say, for running a straight sprint, you can set them to maximum distance to maximize momentum. Most importantly, however, when you want to suddenly increase or decrease RPM for other reasons, you can adjust weight position to increase effective mass (through leverage) and thereby control speed that way. This saves horsepower, this saves brake power, this saves work in general. And every little bit of work you can save, you can then put to work somewhere else.
So yeah. This isn't 'oh an upgrade', this is me telling you that the rules for a major subsystem have fundamentally changed. That's how important this is.
[X] [ACTUATORS] Buy the knee assembly and actuators from the Societie du Frachamps. Better safe than sorry for your legs.
[X] [STEEL] Develop this from French manufacturers
[X] [COCKPIT] Subcontract out cockpit design and equipment to Guilimont & Sons. Sure, it'll cost more, but the features they can work in will be worth it.
[X] [ARMOR] Go with scheme 2: Large cast glacis, protected piloting position, well-sloped sides, dedicated rear armor.
[X] [ACTUATORS] Buy the knee assembly and actuators from the Societie du Frachamps. Better safe than sorry for your legs.
[X] [STEEL] Develop this from French manufacturers
[X] [COCKPIT] Subcontract out cockpit design and equipment to Guilimont & Sons. Sure, it'll cost more, but the features they can work in will be worth it.
[X] [ARMOR] Go with scheme 2: Large cast glacis, protected piloting position, well-sloped sides, dedicated rear armor.
Hmm, so our gyro basically consists of point masses at the end of variable length rods. I thought we were using solid discs.
[X] [ACTUATORS] Buy the knee assembly and actuators from the Societie du Frachamps. Better safe than sorry for your legs.
[X] [STEEL] Develop this from French manufacturers
[X] [COCKPIT] Subcontract out cockpit design and equipment to Guilimont & Sons. Sure, it'll cost more, but the features they can work in will be worth it.
[X] [ARMOR] Go with scheme 2: Large cast glacis, protected piloting position, well-sloped sides, dedicated rear armor.
[X] [ACTUATORS] Buy the knee assembly and actuators from the Societie du Frachamps. Better safe than sorry for your legs.
[X] [STEEL] Develop this from French manufacturers
[X] [COCKPIT] Subcontract out cockpit design and equipment to Guilimont & Sons. Sure, it'll cost more, but the features they can work in will be worth it.
these im happy about
[X] [ARMOR] Go with scheme 2: Large cast glacis, protected piloting position, well-sloped sides, dedicated rear armor.
this im not as certain about due to its weight but i like rear armor.
[X] [ACTUATORS] Buy the knee assembly and actuators from the Societie du Frachamps. Better safe than sorry for your legs.
[X] [STEEL] Develop this from French manufacturers
[X] [COCKPIT] Subcontract out cockpit design and equipment to Guilimont & Sons. Sure, it'll cost more, but the features they can work in will be worth it.
[X] [ARMOR] Go with scheme 2: Large cast glacis, protected piloting position, well-sloped sides, dedicated rear armor.
[X] [ACTUATORS] Buy the knee assembly and actuators from the Societie du Frachamps. Better safe than sorry for your legs.
[X] [STEEL] Develop this from French manufacturers
[X] [COCKPIT] Subcontract out cockpit design and equipment to Guilimont & Sons. Sure, it'll cost more, but the features they can work in will be worth it.
[X] [ARMOR] Go with scheme 2: Large cast glacis, protected piloting position, well-sloped sides, dedicated rear armor.
[X] [ACTUATORS] Buy the knee assembly and actuators from the Societie du Frachamps. Better safe than sorry for your legs.
[X] [STEEL] License the Bethlehem Steel face-hardening technique.
[X] [COCKPIT] Subcontract out cockpit design and equipment to Guilimont & Sons. Sure, it'll cost more, but the features they can work in will be worth it.
[X] [ARMOR] Go with scheme 2: Large cast glacis, protected piloting position, well-sloped sides, dedicated rear armor.
Well yes, you were. And now you're not. Structurally speaking, the point masses on rods are still baked into a flywheel, but the weight of the system is about 50/50 between the wheel and the point masses.
The physics and engineering are a bit beyond me, but from what I understand, it means there's less stress on the whole system when the mech turns or adjusts it's speed, because we can adjust the gyro instead of using the engine to spin it faster? That sounds useful, though I'm unclear whether this results in better maneuverability or if, as the Informational post says, the main benefit is in decreasing strain to engines or other systems. Either way, sounds great. With a heavier mech that needs to cart around armor and a fuck-off cannon, the less stress on the engine the better.
[X] [ACTUATORS] Buy the knee assembly and actuators from the Societie du Frachamps. Better safe than sorry for your legs.
[X] [STEEL] Develop this from French manufacturers
[X] [COCKPIT] Subcontract out cockpit design and equipment to Guilimont & Sons. Sure, it'll cost more, but the features they can work in will be worth it.
[X] [ARMOR] Go with scheme 1: proud, very faceted glacis; and little else for armor.
Given this design is suppossed to be working with infantry the front is the big issue imo.
[X] [ACTUATORS] Buy the knee assembly and actuators from the Societie du Frachamps. Better safe than sorry for your legs.
[X] [STEEL] Develop this from French manufacturers
[X] [COCKPIT] Subcontract out cockpit design and equipment to Guilimont & Sons. Sure, it'll cost more, but the features they can work in will be worth it.
[X] [ARMOR] Go with scheme 2: Large cast glacis, protected piloting position, well-sloped sides, dedicated rear armor.
here's why, IMO, scheme 2 is best: while front armor is very important, it's very hard to only show front armor to the people shooting at you even if you do everything right, and any self respecting cannon's HE bursting charge or a decently located AT rifle would blow through a 7mm plate no problem. now, 15mm is not much better, but given most guns at this time are pretty small - 12mm antitank rifles and 37mm guns, mainly - it should still be beneficial. Additionally, while it's not as front-heavy as armor-scheme 1, it's still pretty well armored in front IMO.
I agree that scheme 2 is the best, which makes me feel extremely cautious about it. In this quest so far, choosing the highest quality stuff has almost always come with nasty tradeoffs. That's why I was asking about weight, but apparently that wasn't it, so I suspect something not obvious. Might turn out to cost the most, idk.
I agree that scheme 2 is the best, which makes me feel extremely cautious about it. In this quest so far, choosing the highest quality stuff has almost always come with nasty tradeoffs. That's why I was asking about weight, but apparently that wasn't it, so I suspect something not obvious. Might turn out to cost the most, idk.
Entirely possible. The description of a large cast armour panel suggests it might require some retooling/extra expense in construction.
That said, I'm leery of choosing to skimp on the armour scheme. This isn't a sniper or artillery design that sits in the back line - it's no use if it can't take a hit.
[X] [ACTUATORS] Buy the knee assembly and actuators from the Societie du Frachamps. Better safe than sorry for your legs.
[X] [STEEL] Develop this from French manufacturers
[X] [COCKPIT] Subcontract out cockpit design and equipment to Guilimont & Sons. Sure, it'll cost more, but the features they can work in will be worth it.
[X] [ARMOR] Go with scheme 2: Large cast glacis, protected piloting position, well-sloped sides, dedicated rear armor.
[X] [ACTUATORS] Buy the knee assembly and actuators from the Societie du Frachamps. Better safe than sorry for your legs.
[X] [STEEL] Develop this from French manufacturers
[X] [COCKPIT] Subcontract out cockpit design and equipment to Guilimont & Sons. Sure, it'll cost more, but the features they can work in will be worth it.
[X] [ARMOR] Go with scheme 2: Large cast glacis, protected piloting position, well-sloped sides, dedicated rear armor.
Entirely possible. The description of a large cast armour panel suggests it might require some retooling/extra expense in construction.
That said, I'm leery of choosing to skimp on the armour scheme. This isn't a sniper or artillery design that sits in the back line - it's no use if it can't take a hit.
One thing that catches my eye about the large cast panel is repairs. Any damage would have to be patched, since you can't swap out an individual panel, or you'd have to replace the whole thing. It might be harder to modify too, since it's a whole curved cast piece instead of a set of sheets of steel that any shop could probably produce.
Then again this might just be a case where there is a right answer, and it doesn't do to overthink it. 🤷♀️
[X] [ACTUATORS] Buy the knee assembly and actuators from the Societie du Frachamps. Better safe than sorry for your legs.
[X] [STEEL] Develop this from French manufacturers
[X] [COCKPIT] Subcontract out cockpit design and equipment to Guilimont & Sons. Sure, it'll cost more, but the features they can work in will be worth it.
[X] [ARMOR] Go with scheme 2: Large cast glacis, protected piloting position, well-sloped sides, dedicated rear armor.
