[4Tran]

Originally Posted by hyperlion

I just realize something how will they control mobile suits? To mimic human movement just using the cockpit form the show I don't think that is possible.

It's not feasible with our current technology, but it's not an inconceivable given future advancements. The way I see it working is that much of it has to be preprogrammed as autonomic responses, much like in a living organism. Thus every adjustment made with joysticks and the like would translate into much more complicated moves by the mobile suit. This does add a huge layer of complexity in terms of both hardware and software, but that's sort of the price you have to pay for mobile suits.

Originally Posted by Dan the Man

Mobile suits themselves would probably have a better advantage in a space battle as opposed to on ground. MS were originally designed in their humanoid shape because it aids in maneuverability, giving it a moility edge to other space combat vehicles.

That's the reason given in the One Year War, but it's not one that flies in the real world. Logically, a humanoid shape can give you no advantage in space, while producing tons of disadvantages in terms of inefficiencies. Interestingly, Char himself alluded to this when he claimed that the Zeong's legs were only for cosmetics purposes. If that's the case, then why would any other space-design mobile suit need legs either?


Mostly off-topic:

Originally Posted by wavehawk

4Tran, no offence meant, but you DO know that the AIM-5 Falcon missiles used in the early days of the Vietnam War were all SEMI-ACTIVE guided, don't you? Meaning that an airplane STILL had to point it's radar in the general direction of the enemy until the missile hit. Missiles in use from Korea to Vietnam are primitive by modern standards. Hell, early AIM-9A/B Sidewinder Infrared-guided missiles had a nasty habit of locking on to the SUN. Post-Vietnam missiles such as the AIM-54 Phoenix, and now the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, have Active radar guidance. These weapons exist today, not the far-flung future.

I am aware of this. I just threw out the F-4 tidbit because it's a good example of the consequences of accepting USAF theories without evidence. In Iranian hands, the AIM-54 seems to have been fairly effective, responsible for a couple of dozen kills, but it's hard to tell what their actual success rate is. The AMRAAM is an extremely promising weapon, but I'm not even aware of any confirmed kills with it, so it's hard to say more than speculate on its theoretical capabilities. Instead, I was thinking more of the Ethiopia-Eritea War, where the R-27 missile had nowhere near the success it was expected to have. In that conflict, most of the aircraft were shot down while in dogfights. I just used the F-4 as an example because it's better known.

Originally Posted by wavehawk

Visual-Range combat is still valid in fighter combat. Yes, it is possible to throw some missiles off using chaff and electronic countermeasures. The reason it doesn't quite apply to Mobile Suits is simply because the MS just can't go Mach 2+ to dodge a missile launched at distant range--countermeasures only work if it can fool a missile just long enough for you to get away. And needless to say, I don't think an MS, whether on land or space, can jink and pull out faster than a fighter plane.

I'd say that Visual-Range combat is more than valid; it remains the way most aircraft are shot down. Moreover, many militaries train for dogfighting more than other aspects of air-to-air combat, and the number of actual BVR kills is very limited.

As far as mobile suits go, there's no way for one to perform as well in flight as a jet fighter can. It's impossible to match aerodynamics, wingloading, and control surfaces when you're using an ungainly humanoid shape with lots of useless stuff (arms, legs, heads, etc.) sticking out of it. The only way that a mobile suit can even fly is to have absurdly powerful engines, and if the same engines were put on an plane, then it would vastly outperform its mobile suit counterpart. In space, shape isn't as much of a factor, but a humanoid machine is quite obviously going to be less efficient than a dedicated space-fighter.

Originally Posted by wavehawk

But the problem is that the theory of combat that MS were designed for (close-in) is generally incompatible with modern real-world combat theory (ranged). MS were basically heavily armored exoskeletons, given a humanoid appearance because it was meant (in almost all Gundam universes) as an all-round weapon, all-environment jack-of-all trades that could fight inside and outside of space colonies. As I mentioned previously, each Gundam universe has some reason or other that forces people into visual combat. And in visual-range combat, an MS may have more of an advantage than a helicopter or plane in the sense that it'll be able to take more punishment up close (as opposed to 'softening them up' from range).

This is exactly why Gundam isn't realistic. In real combat, everything is decided by ranged combat because it's easily the most efficient and effective way of defeating one's enemies. Gundam, on the other hand, tries to find a way to make melee combat look feasible. If a mobile suit can be given flight capabilities and armor, I don't see why the same can't be done with a fighter or helicopter.



Really Off-topic: as a side note, for a rather silly fanservice show, Tactical Roar has some interesting ideas, and it seems as if they did a lot of research on how real weapons work. It's rather ironic, but it probably features more realistic combat than any Gundam show does.