|
I think a lot of this question would come down to logistics, supply, and the predilection a LOT of people have for "I want it cheaper up front, I don't care how much it costs long term". There's also the known quantity factor -- after all there's a reason the Ma Deuce is still in front-line service nearly a century after it was designed, and barring any major breakthrough looks to remain so for another century.
I mean, against infantry what does the AP Gauss get you over a standard MG? It's twice the cost for the weapon, three times the cost on ammo, twice the weight over standards since it's clamtech... and whilst it does a bit more damage mech/aero scale and has a nice range, being a magnetic propulsion weapon you have to ask what the maintenance on that is like compared to chemical propulsion. It stops being "fill with powder, point, go boom" that you could build at a light industrial shop using late 19th/early 20th century tools, and becomes the province of needing an electrician, time consuming labor for windings, winding alignments and adjustments, etc, etc... You have to remember in that case the weapon is volitile, not the ammo so one would expect it to be more labor intensive.
Pulse lasers? First off we have to divide this into clam or spheroid.
We all know the Inner Sphere ones larger than the small are a complete waste of mass matched or even outperformed at the same ranges by their non-pulse standard equivalents, that only mouth-breathing halfwits would be dumb enough to put on a design unless they are THAT strapped for criticals with a slew of tonnage left over -- BUT...
If we're talking anti-infantry it's a bit of a change since a half ton MG + half ton Ammo == 1 ton of a Small Pulse. The 1/2/3 range has the +2 bonus so that's grand, and no "ammo go boom" concerns for the same kill rate against infantry. It's actually funny that what in anti-'mech terms feels like the most useless of them is one of the better anti-infantry weapons available from strictly a battlefield perspective.
Yet again though, how much more does it cost to maintain a laser weapon that's going to be electronics and a assload of heat? Heat and electronics do NOT get along well so under prolonged use and/or over time, it would probably need more parts replacement, and unlike the overglorified steel tube that a barrel is, I would think it likely the parts to keep it fielded would be a significant concern. You also have cost of entry to consider and at over three times the cost for the weapon, you're looking at burning through 2,200 "turns" worth of ammo before you break even on up-front cost.
The clan picture is similar, just the weights are halved -- but the clan SPL does gain a significant range advantage. THAT could be the deciding factor but again that up-front manufacturing cost and higher tech requiring more expensive maintenance and parts stockpile? The Micro Pulse though doing the same damage as a small? THAT's the game changer that could make it worth it.
I think what would happen is you'd see it in premier frontline units, but again not with regulars or garrison forces. This would also depend on another aspect of logistics, commonality of parts.
Whilst a front-line clan star might be running around with top-end gear of nothing but BattleMechs, spheroid regulars and garrison troops on both sides are often backed up by vehicles, and despite the disdain for them that includes conventional engined ones. That cost in weight for heat sinks using energy weapons means if you're talking about combined arms, you're likely NOT going to see a lot of lasers on those tanks, hovers, and vtols. To that end, I would expect second line units to see far more retention of conventional weapons -- if for no other reason than to share parts stockpiles between their 'mechs and their 'vee's.
Just because something is better on the frontline, doesn't mean it is logistically sound for an entire army. See the M1 vs. the M3. It didn't matter that it was less accurate -- the grease gun was dirt cheap and easy to make in large numbers compared to the complex and expensive to manufacture Thompson.
I could easily see pulse lasers and AP Gauss sharing that same relationship... even if they are better in the field, if you can manufacture standard MG's for less than the cost of one of the more advanced weapons... well, quantity has a quality all its own.
ALSO why I laugh when I see big fat expensive XL engined assault 'Mechs with a nasty case of "continue on next design" where if you chopped them in half you'd pay a quarter the cost, have easier maintenance, and be able to field greater numbers. Despite the wild claims about the cost of 'MechWarrior training, meat is always cheaper than hardware.
What's the old Gerry tanker joke? "One of our Tigers is worth nine Sherman's, but the Americans always seem to have that tenth Sherman..."
Though to be fair, ammo has a shelf life... so that could swing it back the other direction.
_________________
[size=80][color=#114488][i]
It seems very queer that we invariably entrust the writing of our regulations for the next war to men totally devoid of anything but theoretical knowledge.[/i][/color][/size]
|
Login
FAQ
Search
