AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Macross

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-10-21, 21:47   Link #1181
squaresphere
Macross Lifer!
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Oh another reason for legs on the monster, in my mind I imagine while on a planet they're mainly for destriod mode. If you consider the shuttle form as transportation, the Gerwalk mode for artillery, the destriod mode probably be best used as when enemies get close and it can't run away.

Compared to the Valks, it has a really slow transformation time. This makes me wonder how much heavier it really is.
squaresphere is offline  
Old 2008-10-21, 21:47   Link #1182
Daigo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by monir View Post
Question to Daigo: Are you discussing Macross technology as this thread intended to do?

I also have an observation to make to the general. If a post isn't partaking to the intended discussion of a thread-topic, then instead of making it an issue, one can always go around such post. If one is going to entertain a post that is considered off-topic by replying to it, then there shouldn't be any complaints later on, now should there? Discussing a topic shouldn't be that difficult to do just because one poster is going off-topic. If I have something to contribute to the topic at hand, then I can always do so. An off-topic isn't going to hinder my intention. Hopefully, I'm making sense!
Yes, last I checked the Koneig Monster has to do with Macross. And I agree, a person can just ignore any posts they don't want to discuss, or start a new topic of discussion.

Quote:
Treads and wheels have their advantages in terrestrial theaters. In space they would serve little purpose in combat. In the VB-6's case, the feet had a means to impale sections into a surface to keep itself grounded while it fired and absorb the massive recoil.
You completely ignored the entire discussion. Please re-read my posts in their entirety, your points have already been addressed.


Quote:
Well, since we still have not a rail gun deployed that is still up for grabs.
Actually it's not up for grabs. The Navy is making one, and it works. There's no EMP issue there.

Quote:
One more thing warship that will be equiped with rail guns will have a larger frame, mass made from highly conductive material(steel) not some kind of titanium alloy
What's your point?

Quote:
floating on sea(which acts as an Earthing system) not in mid air.
I never said anything about the railguns being able to shoot while the machine is flying.

Quote:
Frankly speaking you are trying to mix apples with oranges.
No, not really. You tried to argue that shooting a railgun will induce an EMP, and I showed you an example, where EMP wasn't a problem, so your concern is unfounded (and irrelevant, what does EMP have to do with a machine having legs?)

Quote:
When you have a working rail gun deployed on a B1 bomber call me.
And when you have a B1 bomber that can transform into a mech, call me.

Of course, I never argued a that it should deploy railguns and fire them in midflight to begin with.

Quote:
Oh another reason for legs on the monster, in my mind I imagine while on a planet they're mainly for destriod mode.
You aren't addressing the point of the legs though. Why not treads instead of legs?
Daigo is offline  
Old 2008-10-21, 21:54   Link #1183
squaresphere
Macross Lifer!
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
You aren't addressing the point of the legs though. Why not treads instead of legs?
Goes all the way back to they wanted giant robots to fight the Giant Zentradi.

If they're on planet and the Monster is doing it's artillery thing and it's gets snuck up on by Zentradi commands, the Gerwalk mode would make it good as dead in close combat.

Treads could probably help is turn faster while in artillery mode though.
squaresphere is offline  
Old 2008-10-21, 22:16   Link #1184
Wild Goose
Truth Martyr
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
So what's stopping it from deploying its railguns later? It can transform into a mech, so I don't see why not.
Because as SethEng has pointed out, which you seem to have missed, by the time you've unfolded the railguns you're almost totally transformed into GERWALK mode. Might as well go all the way.

I note that you seem to have ignored everything else that I said after that sentence, where I offer a possible reason.

Quote:
Like I said, in space it could be used as an auxiliary propullsion system, or its thrusters would counteract the recoil force. It can't stall in space. Honestly, if it needs to be braced against a more massive ship to fire in space, then wouldn't it make more sense to just build a railgun turrent on the ship in the first place? It seems illogical to make a machine that needs to brace against another ship in order to fire every time. But if we are discussing within a planet, then this stuff is mostly moot.
...I'm guessing you never actually saw SDF Macross, correct? Otherwise you'd have seen how the original Destroid monsters operated: as slow, somewhat mobile land battleship artillery mecha that could use their legs to clamp onto the hull.

I'm not saying that it can stall in space, I'm saying that the possibility of stationkeeping thrusters not being able to counteract the force of the railguns is somthing that's plausible, because similar concerns have happened before with past weapon systems. Note also that the idea of the Koenig Monster is battlefield artillery support; it's designed primarily to operate in terrestrial theaters but is also space-operable, like everything in the UN Spacey arsenal. As for why you don't make a railgun turret into the ship and task that to gunfire support, it's because naval gunfire is no substitute for an organic artillery ability. The US Marines always deployed with their own organic artillery, despite having naval gunfire support from the US Navy, because there will be times when you want gunfire support and your supporting ship can't give it - like, say, when it's engaged in combat with someone else.

It's especially relevant to SMS, which started as an armed escort service for Richard Bilrer's shipping company (and then grew up into it's current form). Freighters don't carry weapons; they're optimised for cargo hauling. Having a couple of Koenig Monsters allows for additional heavy firepower without expensive modifications to the ships.

Remember, the point of the Koenig Monster is to provide UN Spacey forces with a mobile, organic artillery ability that can keep up with the rest of the Variable Fighters, that may be operating far from where a ship can support them.

Quote:
Yea, but I'm asking what's the point of the legs then? Ok if mobility isn't important at all, why not just use fixed mounts to hold the machine in place like traditional artillery? Why use legs at all? They are just more complex, harder to repair, and prone to failure. I just assumed that you would argue they provide some mobility on the ground, in which case, tracks would be preferred. In other words, it could transform from a shuttle/bomber into an artillery machine with tracks (similar to self propelled artillery).
I'm not saying that mobility isn't important, Daigo. Read it again. I was saying that at the long ranges that tracks have an advantage, the Koenig Monster flies. At the short distances that it moves on the ground, there is little practical difference between wheeled, tracked or leg. And since tracks can't grip ship hulls in zero-g, but legs can...

While legs are impractical in our current existence, they have been in use for over fifty years in the Macross universe. This also doesn't take into account the Zentraedi, who've been using legs for their mecha for thousands of years. If legs weren't practical, the humans would have gone for something different within those 50 years.

Also, in urban environments, legs do less damage to roadways, compared to tracks which can chew up the roadways pretty badly, especially at high speed.

Quote:
See above. Basically I'm asking why it has legs at all then.
See above.

Quote:
I don't really see how. It just needs either lateral/ventral thrusters or a flywheel device of some kind.
Well, in bomber mode the main verniers and thrusters are facing aft. After it's transformed they're now spread out more around the body, so it's easier to make those spins.

Quote:
In an atomosphere? Sure. In space? No. And for atmosphere, there's nothing stopping it from merely deploying tracks and the railguns when it lands. No need for legs.

But what is the point of those legs? You gotta somehow argue why they are better over either stationary mounts, or tracks.
I'll just quote what Eva said, since you seem to have missed it, and because he pretty much answered this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelion Xgouki View Post
The original Monsters were designed to be "land battleships" to provide long-range heavy fire support. The one we see in Macross Frontier, the VB-6, takes the basic concept and applies it to space combat. Remember, the SMS is a space escort service. Their main area of operation is space, not terrestrial. They can operate in atmosphere but the bulk of their work is in space. Treads and wheels would not be very effective in space other than used for landing (which Valkyries and the VB-6 do have). The feet of the VB-6 in GERWALK mode also double as a clamping apparatus so it can mount itself before firing to absorb the recoil and not get thrown back into a possible uncontrolled spin (which would make it vulnerable to enemy as well as friendly fire).
Not to mention that while you could recover from the spin, that would take up time and focus; you temporarily lose your situational awareness, which is a big no-no in combat.

As well as the risk of accidentally careening into the path of a friendly unit, thus scoring a manuvering teamkill. Along with shouts of "DAMNIT BEANBANG!" (This is a small in-joke between my and EvaX regarding a Macross fic I'm writing.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelion Xgouki View Post
Treads and wheels have their advantages in terrestrial theaters. In space they would serve little purpose in combat. In the VB-6's case, the feet had a means to impale sections into a surface to keep itself grounded while it fired and absorb the massive recoil.
Eva's said it well enough, so I don't need to reinvent the wheel. I'd also like to add that those legs double up as huge shock absorbers; part of the reason why tank guns have only gone up to a certain caliber has been adequate shock absorption issues (which partly spurred the current trend of subcaliber ammunition, along with the fact that Sabot is God for direct fire). The Koenig Monster's huge legs, being huge shock absorbers, give it one advantage there over a tracked design; bigger shock absorbers means you can take bigger recoil, which means that you can fire bigger guns.

Also, note that while standard towed artillery are stationary mounts, they're moved to face new headings by the gun crew - a 6-man team moving it by hand. The Koenig Monster weighs much, much more than 6 guys are gouing to be able to move by hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
I never said anything about the railguns being able to shoot while the machine is flying...

...

Of course, I never argued a that it should deploy railguns and fire them in midflight to begin with.
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Why not? What's stopping it from deploying its railguns while in bomber mode? That's like saying a tank can't deploy its cannon unless it transforms into a mech.
The above would indicate otherwise. And we've already addressed this point.

Quote:
You aren't addressing the point of the legs though. Why not treads instead of legs?
Eva and I have addressed that already, Daigo.

Slight OT: And the influence of the Cadians continues... good thing we've had experience with breakers, eh Eva?
__________________
~Speaking my mind, even when it costs me~
One must forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged.Heinrich Heine.

I believe in miracles.


Last edited by Wild Goose; 2008-10-21 at 22:34.
Wild Goose is offline  
Old 2008-10-21, 22:16   Link #1185
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Legs equal feet. The feet have clamps and claw like extentions on them for gripping in zero-g enviroments (such as ships, or moons, or asteroids) or low gravity planets. You can't do that with treads. Also the legs would provide a stable platform for firing while the tread's breaks might not be able to handle four huge cannons.

If you aren't going to be travelling for long distances with this machine (while not flying), then having your stable firing platform move with you is a good thing. Being able to move enough to adjust your firing position doesn't require treads, but legs lets you use your stable firing platform to your advantage

Legs are also useful in mountainous areas or areas with unstable terrain.

They aren't fool proof, but they get the job done.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2008-10-21, 23:22   Link #1186
justavisitor
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Earth
lol, almost everything in macross can transform...to question why a certain mech in macross needs transformation is a bit over-analyazing

Well, I will try to reason out why VB-6 has legs..

1) the over-technology (did I name that right?) allows the armour to be tougher..so they can design the mech to have legs in order to have higher mobility

2)Treads and wheels can't climb high wall...naturally if you are fighting in a city, you need some cover...if you are able to proceed but that's a high wall in front of you, you can use the legs to "climb" through it, so you don't need to waste thruster....(if you over-spend your thruster, you can't make it back to base!!)

3)if you run out of ammo, and those aliens are in front of you, then at least you can kick them XD...if you only have treads and wheels then it's all over

In summary, it's over-technology that legs in mechs are possible....with that technology, it's ok to be allowed to design for extra flexibility (legs)

I believe you guys are much more professional than me in this subject...I have been reading this post and you guys really make so many in-depth discussion that I could never think of...so I just contribute back a little and hope it's a little bit useful to you guys
justavisitor is offline  
Old 2008-10-21, 23:48   Link #1187
Haesslich
Go to DMC! Go to DMC!
 
 
Join Date: May 2008
Also, to continue the trend of pointing out the blatantly obvious, I will add this:

As others HAVE pointed out before, the legs basically become tripod-based shock absorbing mounts when the Koenig Monster is deployed to fire its artillery in GERWALK mode. We saw this close-up during Episode 7, where its feet deployed those extra shock-pads and it locked itself down into a firing position which made it completely immobile but able to avoid punching itself off the ship due to the force of the blast. Treads in that situation would've been pointless - they wouldn't have afforded extra stability, nor would they have really been necessary in a platform that flies itself (negating the need for the extra mobility over rough terrain). Also, if I remember it right,

Beyond which, the legs are important for the Battroid mode due to the (probable) function it has in close-quarter combat; there was an on-screen incident where Quamzin in the original series ran his Glaug up to a Monster and kicked it, IIRC, as he and his squad were too close for the cannons or lasers to line up and fire at him, sometime after the raid for the Maclonization chamber. I suspect incidents like this are what provoked the team that worked up the VB-6 to build in a humanoid mode due to the whole 'fight giant Zentradi' role that all Variable Fighters have... and having a humanoid mode would preclude being swarmed by Zentradi fighters who were too close to be hit by artillery or missile. Not that you'd want the Koenig Monster ever to be that close to the enemy in the first place, but it's there for emergencies.

Oh, and while we don't know how much equipment is necessary to make legs that move (and lock in place) or how massive it is... but we DO know how much equipment is involved in making treads move and lock in place, and they're bloody massive. A good proportion of the 70-ton M1A2's mass is, IIRC, due to the treads rather than the armor or main gun. You have the treads themselves (heavy metal chunks), the gear wheels, and everything else that turns the output of the gas turbine engine into motive power for the seven-wheel-plus-two-return-roller tread system versus the comparitively simpler camshaft system that propels two or four wheels in a car. The VB-6 is already 102 metric tons (or 112 short tons) empty (not counting missiles or other munitions like reaction warheads - just its guns, armor, and Overtechnology) - with treads, it'd be bloody worse as the technology that VF's use for the legs don't seem to translate well into propelling wheeled vehicles at all... much less tanks. And this for a system which may not 'grip' very well at all unless you drive shock pads into the ground to brace the Destroid.

And as for using railguns in flight, may I point out the obvious problem? F=ma is still alive and well in the Macrossverse, and with those things deployed in flight the change in position that would come as they were fired could very well send them off target... if not send the VB-6 into the line of fire for someone else. Even though you could compensate for this with aiming computers, a stable firing surface seems to be preferred with deployment of the Koenig's main guns. As for you saying "Of course, I never argued a that it should deploy railguns and fire them in midflight to begin with", may I quote a previous post you made?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Why not? What's stopping it from deploying its railguns while in bomber mode? That's like saying a tank can't deploy its cannon unless it transforms into a mech.

Are we discussing this in context to the monster firing in space or on a planet? In space, it doesn't need to be braced. Actually the railguns would serve as an auxiliary propullsion device if necessary.

On land, legs don't provide a stable platform. Actually, they would just be more likely to break, or cause the mech to fall flat on its back. Tracks would be more logical if you wanted it to remain mobile.

I don't have a major problem with it being able to transform into a shuttle/bomber whatever. More mobility is good, I mentioned this already.

Again, tracks can provide MORE stability, and MORE mobility than those goofy legs can. No leg configuration has superior stability compared to just tracks. Tracks are also a simpler design, and easier to repair.

Ack no. You don't need to transform into gerwalk mode to spin in space. Macross gets this part horribly wrong. In space, you don't have to face the direction you are moving in. You can spin all day while moving in one direction if you wanted to. In fact, that's what planets do. Well they spin while moving in circles.

Yea, but why not? Why not have those weapons mounted while in shuttle/bomber mode? What's stopping it from happening other than a really bad design on the part of the engineers?
Please... remember the points you make before you post a reply? It's a lot more fun to debate when I can't use your own posts against you. Besides, I don't think I'd want to run the risk of hitting a teammate or a friendly (or the people I'm trying to defend) just to turn around in combat... which is one more argument against using the damned railguns as 'auxillary propulsion units'.
Haesslich is offline  
Old 2008-10-22, 01:13   Link #1188
Daigo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Because as SethEng has pointed out, which you seem to have missed, by the time you've unfolded the railguns you're almost totally transformed into GERWALK mode. Might as well go all the way.
No, I didn't miss it, it just didn't make any sense. Why do you need legs? Why? Why not treads instead? Your argument doesn't make sense. Might as well go all the way? Why not just use treads?

Quote:
...I'm guessing you never actually saw SDF Macross, correct? Otherwise you'd have seen how the original Destroid monsters operated: as slow, somewhat mobile land battleship artillery mecha that could use their legs to clamp onto the hull.
Saw about half of it so far. But none of your arguments are really saying why the legs are useful.

Quote:
I'm not saying that mobility isn't important, Daigo. Read it again. I was saying that at the long ranges that tracks have an advantage, the Koenig Monster flies. At the short distances that it moves on the ground, there is little practical difference between wheeled, tracked or leg. And since tracks can't grip ship hulls in zero-g, but legs can...
You aren't saying what advantages the legs have over treads though. Yes, there is a huge difference between wheels, tracks, and legs on short distances. I already said this many times, they are complex, easy to shoot off, unstable, vulnerable, harder to repair, etc.

The last point is laughable. We already been through this. You don't need to grip on to something in zero-g. And even if you did, legs can't grip on to a hull any better than treads can. It's a ridiculous argument.

Quote:
Well, in bomber mode the main verniers and thrusters are facing aft. After it's transformed they're now spread out more around the body, so it's easier to make those spins.
It's easier to add manuevering thrusters or a flywheel to make it spin, than it is to transform into gerwalk.


Quote:
While legs are impractical in our current existence, they have been in use for over fifty years in the Macross universe. This also doesn't take into account the Zentraedi, who've been using legs for their mecha for thousands of years. If legs weren't practical, the humans would have gone for something different within those 50 years.

Also, in urban environments, legs do less damage to roadways, compared to tracks which can chew up the roadways pretty badly, especially at high speed.
It doesn't matter how long they've been using them. They have to have some useful function over treads, otherwise they are just an overly complex way of accomplishing the same task that treads can.

HELL NO. Legs have more PSI than treads ever will. You are concentrating an enormous amount of force on just two small points. Treads distribute weight evenly over a much larger area. Legs will not only devastate a road, they will sink into soft ground and get stuck.

Quote:
I'll just quote what Eva said, since you seem to have missed it, and because he pretty much answered this:
Nope. He didn't. Tell me how legs are better than treads on a planet.

Quote:
Really?
Yep. Really. That statement I made was in context to the machine functioning in space, not an atmosphere.

Quote:
Eva and I have addressed that already, Daigo.
No, you haven't.

Quote:
Legs equal feet. The feet have clamps and claw like extentions on them for gripping in zero-g enviroments (such as ships, or moons, or asteroids) or low gravity planets. You can't do that with treads. Also the legs would provide a stable platform for firing while the tread's breaks might not be able to handle four huge cannons.
Why do you need to clamp on to anything in space? It has propullsion systems. It can counteract the recoil with its reaction mass. It's a simpler solution, that is less complicated and less prone to failure. And even if you did have to clamp on to something, why are legs better at it? Why do you need legs to clamp on to an object, can't the same task be accomplished by a much simpler mechanism?

Quote:
If you aren't going to be travelling for long distances with this machine (while not flying), then having your stable firing platform move with you is a good thing. Being able to move enough to adjust your firing position doesn't require treads, but legs lets you use your stable firing platform to your advantage
Just use treads then. Why are legs better at this?

Quote:
Legs are also useful in mountainous areas or areas with unstable terrain.
Not the Monster's legs. Those can barely move.

Quote:
As others HAVE pointed out before, the legs basically become tripod-based shock absorbing mounts when the Koenig Monster is deployed to fire its artillery in GERWALK mode. We saw this close-up during Episode 7, where its feet deployed those extra shock-pads and it locked itself down into a firing position which made it completely immobile but able to avoid punching itself off the ship due to the force of the blast. Treads in that situation would've been pointless - they wouldn't have afforded extra stability, nor would they have really been necessary in a platform that flies itself (negating the need for the extra mobility over rough terrain). Also, if I remember it right,
You don't need legs in space to clamp yourself to something in order to brace for recoil. Either the big ship should just use a turrent instead of konieg monster, or the monster can just shoot the railguns unbraced, and expend reaction mass to counteract the recoil, OR it can shoot in the opposite direction of where it wants to move, making the railguns a propullsion device like I said before.

Finally, if it really does need to be clamped (which doesn't make sense), then use a more simple mechanism. You don't need complex, malfunction prone legs which are begging to be shot off in order to clamp yourself on to something.

Quote:
As for you saying "Of course, I never argued a that it should deploy railguns and fire them in midflight to begin with", may I quote a previous post you made?
You are taking my statements out of context. The first quote I made was in context with a space setting. A bomber deploying railguns in space. The second quote I made was in context with an atmospheric setting. A bomber deploying railguns while flying in an atmosphere. Please re-read the statements in context please.

Last edited by Daigo; 2008-10-22 at 01:35.
Daigo is offline  
Old 2008-10-22, 01:33   Link #1189
Wild Goose
Truth Martyr
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 28
I would suggest that you attribute quoting a lot better, Daigo. It helps to focus - you're replying to multiple people, afterall, and it makes things easier to clickback and recheck their statements, like what I and Eva do.

Reply after I get back from work, which is like 12 hours from now. Decisions decisions... nap now and be able to handle to work the gruelling night shift, or reply now and strike while the iron is hot...sleep.

Out of curiousity, Daigo, what's your timezone? I'm GMT +8.
__________________
~Speaking my mind, even when it costs me~
One must forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged.Heinrich Heine.

I believe in miracles.

Wild Goose is offline  
Old 2008-10-22, 01:35   Link #1190
Daigo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Goose View Post
I would suggest that you attribute quoting a lot better, Daigo. It helps to focus.

Reply after I get back from work, which is like 12 hours from now.
When you have several people replying to my comments, it's hard to organize them properly. In any case, you should be able to remember what you wrote.
Daigo is offline  
Old 2008-10-22, 01:41   Link #1191
Wild Goose
Truth Martyr
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
When you have several people replying to my comments, it's hard to organize them properly. In any case, you should be able to remember what you wrote.
You haven't seen a Cadia Backlog Breaker then, lol. It's not about me remembering what I wrote, it's about linking back for easy of quick searching because not everyone has lots of time to bust. (Actually i think it's only me and Eva doing minibreakers here...)

I note also you seem to have missed what Haess was saying too.

Napping now because my shift is 3.30 to 2.30am and I only had 5 hours of sleep last night.
__________________
~Speaking my mind, even when it costs me~
One must forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged.Heinrich Heine.

I believe in miracles.

Wild Goose is offline  
Old 2008-10-22, 01:42   Link #1192
Urei
Star Designer
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 29
This is fun to watch. It turned out to be a post survival battle. Player Daigo against the Shadow Posters. Who will be the first one to give in. Who's motivation and typing abilities are superior? I'm sticking around to see the end of this gameplay.
__________________

AD 2314 Mobile Suit Gundam 00
~A wakening of the Trailblazer~

Urei is offline  
Old 2008-10-22, 01:53   Link #1193
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Quote:
You don't need legs in space to clamp yourself to something in order to brace for recoil. Either the big ship should just use a turrent instead of konieg monster, or the monster can just shoot the railguns unbraced, and expend reaction mass to counteract the recoil, OR it can shoot in the opposite direction of where it wants to move, making the railguns a propullsion device like I said before.

Finally, if it really does need to be clamped (which doesn't make sense), then use a more simple mechanism. You don't need complex, malfunction prone legs which are begging to be shot off in order to clamp yourself on to something.
You are in a crowded fleet of civilian ships. They are not armed. Therefore to give them a mobile heavy defense when they need it, you send Monsters to land on it to provide fire support. It will need to hold on to something as they made it have more bang than it has propultion mass to give. The space was dedicated to weaponry and armor, not speed and reaction mass.

And shooting to move while in a fleet enviroment is really, really stupid. You need to move away from the fleet, "shoot for thrust....oh wait I just put a hole in the agro ship...my bad."

As for being less prone to failure...I don't think they care because it works. If it works, it works. It also give lots of jobs to those people you are moving from one star system to some unknown destination that might take generations.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2008-10-22, 02:35   Link #1194
Urei
Star Designer
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
You don't need legs in space to clamp yourself to something in order to brace for recoil. Either the big ship should just use a turrent instead of konieg monster, or the monster can just shoot the railguns unbraced, and expend reaction mass to counteract the recoil, OR it can shoot in the opposite direction of where it wants to move, making the railguns a propullsion device like I said before.

Finally, if it really does need to be clamped (which doesn't make sense), then use a more simple mechanism. You don't need complex, malfunction prone legs which are begging to be shot off in order to clamp yourself on to something.
Let me in on this battle as I have something to say on this matter.

What Ithekro said about legs is correct. Mobility of your armaments is the priority in battle. Units that boast serious firepower that have an ability to freely move around the fleet, provide support, fight in formations independently, carry out missions and finally, act as decoy to draw the attention away from civilian ship is and I'll say it again IS what you need on battlefield. It's not something debatable, it's an argument that you can't possibly deny.

Ok, now that we know our Macross technology can provide us with mobile heavy weaponry we need to figure out a way for them to actually make use of it. So they need a stable support to fire once they land. Why not legs then? It's simple, provides mobility, does not weight as much as many other options, can host additional stabilizing equipment like verniers and thrusters and heck, we have the TECHNOLOGY not to make it as fragile as a soldier from 6 decades ago would think.

There is no meaning to this discussion. Macross has the technology to create those amazing machines. They have designers who develop the Fighters or other crafts for militaristic purpose, to fight a battle not to damn break apart. It all follows the basics of Military strategy, the unit types I mean. Why do people insist on integrating an 2008 A.D. way of thinking into a universe where our current technology / ideas is so obsolete that it's laughable...
__________________

AD 2314 Mobile Suit Gundam 00
~A wakening of the Trailblazer~

Urei is offline  
Old 2008-10-22, 03:50   Link #1195
Tri-ring
The Censor Bat
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Actually it's not up for grabs. The Navy is making one, and it works. There's no EMP issue there.
No they are still at research stage in making a rail gun not up to the stage of fitting the rail gun into a ship.
Here read this;
Navy Railgun Test Sets Record

Quote:
Elizabeth D'Andrea, the railgun's project manager, stood by the gun Thursday and spoke of the challenges still ahead.
These include the extreme wear on the launcher and the projectile, which experiences a force of 40,000 G's as it leaves the gun, as well as the materials needed for a projectile to handle four minutes in outer space at the apex of its arc.
Another problem comes in shrinking the capacitors to fit aboard a ship, as well as powering and cooling the weapon once it's aboard, controlling electromagnetic interference and making the entire weapon maneuverable.
The goal, D'Andrea said, is to mount the weapon on a future generation all-electric ship by the year 2025.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
What's your point?
Further more a large ship can handle more load for EM shielding.Which is actually just copper messed lining which absorbs the EM field then bleeds it off into earthing systems.
Steel also gives EM shielding since it is highly conductive.
Flying in mid-space you can't do that and considering the limitation inside I don't think the engineers will fully shield navigations and other systems if they don't need to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
No, not really. You tried to argue that shooting a railgun will induce an EMP, and I showed you an example, where EMP wasn't a problem, so your concern is unfounded
What example?
As I said before the navy doesn't have a working railgun deployed on ships and won't have one for a while.
There still doing research on how to make the gun work properly.
Tri-ring is offline  
Old 2008-10-22, 04:11   Link #1196
Haesslich
Go to DMC! Go to DMC!
 
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
No, I didn't miss it, it just didn't make any sense. Why do you need legs? Why? Why not treads instead? Your argument doesn't make sense. Might as well go all the way? Why not just use treads?
Treads are mostly used to provide more surface for ground contact -and- because they provide better mobility for vehicles on rough terrain. However, when you've got the platform flying the mobility excuse goes out the window... and as for 'more contact with terrain', I will point out again that the 'feet' of the Konig Monster are almost as long as the main body... in other words, the exact same size the treads would've been. Plus, with the reverse-articulated (as compared to human) leg joints and the bracing/locking systems it becomes as stable as it would've been on treads - but without the possibility of the treads rolling backwards, which is likely a bad idea when you have the possibility of rolling off into a fall somewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Saw about half of it so far. But none of your arguments are really saying why the legs are useful.
This is Macross - the whole point of VF's was to fight Zentradi, as they stated in the preamble that introduced the first six or so episodes of the show. The initial series of mecha were built with legs because of the Overtechnology discovered on the Super Dimension Fortress apparently included examples of motive technologies which worked that way... and as seen with the Zentradi later on, the Protoculture's vehicle and mecha technology (on the ground) was built on the principle of legged vehicles and power armor.

On top of which, there's no point in adding treads to a FLYING mecha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
You aren't saying what advantages the legs have over treads though. Yes, there is a huge difference between wheels, tracks, and legs on short distances. I already said this many times, they are complex, easy to shoot off, unstable, vulnerable, harder to repair, etc.

The last point is laughable. We already been through this. You don't need to grip on to something in zero-g. And even if you did, legs can't grip on to a hull any better than treads can. It's a ridiculous argument.
See above. Overtechnology apparently designed to use legged vehicles, versus wheeled ones. Also handwaves the stability issue, and has advantages as a manned infantry platform for fighting humanoid invaders.

As for gripping something in zero-g, you don't need to grip onto it except with magnetic clamps or whatever other technology you're using to fix yourself on the surface. However, with the amount of sheer force that firing those railguns apparently generates, it'd be NICE to not be pushed backwards or down... or off the surface of the ship. Or into the line of fire of that destroyer shooting beneath your platform. Y'know, because getting shot hurts and tends to kill you if you take enough damage or hulls your cockpit or rips through your vital organs.

I'd be glad to help you discover this, if needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
It's easier to add manuevering thrusters or a flywheel to make it spin, than it is to transform into gerwalk.
When it's flying in bomber mode? Yup - and we see VF's use thrusters to spin. When it's already deployed in GERWALK and ready to fire? No. Plus, I'd hate to use a flywheel in that situation - the amount of force necessary to move a hundred-ton (when empty - god knows how many tons of munitions it carries to feed the missile launchers, especially when they're loaded with reaction warheads) mecha (not counting the inertia that may be attributed to it not moving perfectly along one vector) would be... anyone got the maths to figure this out offhand? I'm not sure Daigo or I have the physics background for this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
It doesn't matter how long they've been using them. They have to have some useful function over treads, otherwise they are just an overly complex way of accomplishing the same task that treads can.
Useful function, as defined earlier by others including Eva = Fighting Zentradi in Battroid mode. On top of which, the effective area that the feet cover (especially with the bracing units deployed) is about equal to a tread anyhow, minus the annoying problem of wheels inside the treads allowing it to roll backwards. And again, it seems that humans are using Overtechnology which has neglected the development of better wheeled vehicles, an oversight left over from the days of the Protoculture. Take your arguments up with the Protoculture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
HELL NO. Legs have more PSI than treads ever will. You are concentrating an enormous amount of force on just two small points. Treads distribute weight evenly over a much larger area. Legs will not only devastate a road, they will sink into soft ground and get stuck.
Look at the feet - they're bloody huge. There's a difference between the feet of the 8450kg Messiah and the 101900kg Konig Monster. In particular I will point out that those feet, put together, look like they cover more ground than the main body of the Destroid would... making them at least 15 meters long and half that wide. Actually, looking at Ep 7 and the diagrams again when its braces are deployed suggests the feet are longer than the main body (which appears to be around 20m) and a bit more than 11-12m wide. That would give us about 480 square meters of area to rest 100 tons of mecha on... and to brace it against during firing.

Oh, and at 07:42 of Ep 7 on the Gattai sub I saw a detail I forgot - it has a THIRD 'leg' that drops from the back of the Konig Monster that further braces the cannons... which gives it all the theoretical advantages of treads (a murthering large area of surface to use to spread the force of the firing through and to make it effectively part of a larger body for the purposes of the force

Here's a picture:



See what I mean? It's similar in concept to the stabilizing legs of a modern howitzer - those legs on the back and the bracing mounts around the leg serve the same purpose here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Nope. He didn't. Tell me how legs are better than treads on a planet.
And legs which act as bracing mounts are better than treads in a situation where the force is enough to either force the treads to roll backwards despite brakes (which I will note some artillery systems are designed to do) if not break the treads themselves since... well, the weak point is the links between treads in that case, or the way the treads are mounted onto the wheels; they're designed to be flexibile, which introduces points of failure at those linkages which are suddenly forced to bear the load of the vehicle as it gets pushed back by the shot in question. In this case, the force goes straight to the brace in the back of the Monster and the braces around the legs... rather than being spread through the treads and all those little failure points which include the brake pads/discs or linkages between tread sections, or the torsion bar or the wheels themselves.

Really, the main reason treads are useful in tanks is because they're better than wheels in rough terrain; it's a mobility thing. And again, to repeat the blatantly obvious, the thing FLIES.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Yep. Really. That statement I made was in context to the machine functioning in space, not an atmosphere.
Which? The 'flying in space' and using the firing of the gun as a method of propulsion? Or of turning the mecha around? Do I really need to point out why it's a BAD IDEA to shoot a gun in order to turn around, especially when said gun can fire nuclear or reaction warhead rounds? Or, even if you're firing slugs, that those slugs are designed to hull ships and you may end up hitting a friendly?

As for the turning around part, it's already been addressed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
No, you haven't.
Which again? The fact the Konig Monster has legs, or the need to spread the force of firing into a larger body versus having to have the Konig bear all of it while moving along a certain vector? This is where quoting what the previous guy says helps... the way I just did, including the post # and the name of the person I'm quoting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Why do you need to clamp on to anything in space? It has propullsion systems. It can counteract the recoil with its reaction mass. It's a simpler solution, that is less complicated and less prone to failure. And even if you did have to clamp on to something, why are legs better at it? Why do you need legs to clamp on to an object, can't the same task be accomplished by a much simpler mechanism?
Let's put it this way - the hull of the Dulfim was crumpling under the force of 100 tons of mecha plus whatever the force was of the shot. The Monster was using the Dulfim so that the force of a shot was acting on a ship which masses thousands of tons plus the 100-ton Konig Monster, instead of acting just on the Monster alone. By bracing itself against the larger ship, the Monster had effectively become part of the ship itself as far as the recoil acting on it was concerned; F=ma has been quoted before in this thread, and I will quote it again.

F= Unknown. We don't know how much force the firing of four railguns with reaction warheads loaded is.

m=100 tons + mass of Dulfim, due to the bracing that effectively made them one body as far as the calculations are concerned.

a=the m/s2 resulting from figuring out the first two.

The reason I bring this up is because firing the railguns means you're going to be pushing yourself backwards a certain distance. d=v0 * a * t + 0.5 * a * t^2. This doesn't take into account the direction of travel initially and what it'll end up being due to the gun's firing, but we're trying to keep things RELATIVELY simple here. But that's why I wanted to figure out the acceleration, since all the other factors we'll know based on the firing of the gun (and presumably, the designers of the Konig know the force involved).

Now, the thing is this - if you're braced against something, you don't need to figure out the vectors involved and thus have to compensate for them. Furthermore, given that they're using thrusters that have reaction mass to move, you're not burning fuel holding yourself still to fire the gun... and with how they showed the Dulfim's hull crumpling a bit when the braces pushed into it, there's a whole lotta force there. With a several thousand-ton warship serving as the effective mass the force is acting on, acceleration (and thrust backwards) is negligible; certainly simpler than figuring out the vectors and how much fuel you have to burn to hold yourself in place... and less firing of the thrusters, which means you're not going to be wearing those out as fast either.

Firing thrusters versus holding yourself still - which is the simpler mechanism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Just use treads then. Why are legs better at this?
Apparently in this case, fewer points of articulation and points of failure. Plus, presumably with overtechnology, less weight than an equivalent tread set. All the force is going into the braced legs, the braces around the legs, and on the back of the Monster... rather than into the individual linkages in the track sections, the wheels, torsion bar, etc. And they cover more area, to boot, for extra bracing.

And, as others have pointed out, part of the reason we use sabot rounds and have reached a plateau in gun technology on vehicles is because we can't really get much more force out the tube without overwhelming the treads or brake systems involved. Here, we really don't need the mobility advantage of the tread system, and the feet provide more area of contact than treads the same size of the vehicle would've. Plus a flying tank with treads looks fucking silly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Not the Monster's legs. Those can barely move.
Treaded vehicles don't do too good in those terrain obstacles either. Again, we're talking about humans using technology developed from alien technology which focused on legged vehicles. On top of the fact that a flying vehicle with treads is a fucking stupid idea for the amount of mass involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
You don't need legs in space to clamp yourself to something in order to brace for recoil. Either the big ship should just use a turrent instead of konieg monster, or the monster can just shoot the railguns unbraced, and expend reaction mass to counteract the recoil, OR it can shoot in the opposite direction of where it wants to move, making the railguns a propullsion device like I said before.

Finally, if it really does need to be clamped (which doesn't make sense), then use a more simple mechanism. You don't need complex, malfunction prone legs which are begging to be shot off in order to clamp yourself on to something.

See above. Also see WildGoose and Eva's posts on why they don't just use battleships for fire support. But to sum their arguments up, it comes down to this:

1) Battleships don't get too close to ground forces, unless they're Macross-class ships. Most UN Spacy craft are designed to be space-only, just as most Zentradi and other races' craft are. To put it bluntly, you have to be mentally retarded to want flying battleships that are atmosphere AND space capable, unless they're colonization platforms or you want to spend a shitload of money for something that likely won't perform as well as a dedicated spaceborne battleship or a wet-navy one. Close air support is provided by planes for a REASON - and fire missions are provided as often by mobile artillery as anything else, because the artillery can GET to the theatre of operations whereas your battleship may have problems steaming up into Idaho to fire a shot at the enemy.

2) Railguns do appear on capital ships - the original SDF-1 had them, the New Macross series of ships MAY have them, and other capital ships as well. However, space-based artillery is usually a losing proposition unless your objective is to blow a lot of things up without regard for the environment you're dropping KEWs on. Or, if your aim's a tad off (which can happen, despite what the strategists and weapons vendors say about foolproof systems... or if you get bad intel, or someone screws up the coordinates), you just blew your own army away. Congrats.

3) Mobile artillery is nice, since you don't have to have huge fucking guns which fire thousands of miles and take minutes to get there. Mobile artillery also means it's mobile enough to avoid getting taken out by COUNTER-artillery batteries, who are waiting to calculate the positions of the guns who shot those big explosive rounds at the army who has them. You know... by moving. So, you've got those big, ugly pieces of Destroid which, as you pointed out, barely move. How do you fix this?

Well, you can fly them out if you've got enough power in the airframe and technology you trust to propel them along and make them change shape... you can wheel them out on treads, or you can teleport them from place to place. Obviously, #3 is not an option. #2 is out because the treads aren't going to take the shock of firing unless the rest of the frame's braced with bracing struts or legs that push into the ground and spread the force of the rail cannon's firing through them... or unless you make the platform massive enough that the shot doesn't matter, in which case you've got a bigger target to shoot and more headaches as you need bigger treads to move the bigger mass. #1 is the option that the UN Spacy, via Northrom Grumman took; it's a heavy mother, but it's fairly mobile as far as an artillery platform goes as it can fly to keep up with the rest of the UN Spacy forces, which are also aerospace mobile.

So, it flies - great. Now, how do you make this all work out? A flying destroid/artillery platform with treads? Mmm.... maybe it's not a good idea. The treads are going to be heavy, or the plane has to be really heavy, due to the need to brace it against the force of the four rail cannons. Too heavy a mass, and you don't fly at all without some major Overtechnology. Plus, the treads themselves are going to add a lot of weight to the platform.

Now, option #2 is to go with proven Overtechnology (the VF system), which happens to be leg-based. You understand the technology, it's proven through time and trial, and you understand the physics of firing the gun pretty well. Great. Oh, one problem - Overtechnology-based legged vehicles all seem to include a Battroid mode. Damn those crazy Protoculture guys, so enamored of humanoid mecha which look like the Vajra.

I guess it can't be helped; we'll put a Battroid mode in there. On the upside, given reports of how Quamzin kicked a Monster down during one of the battles after the SDF-1 landed and then proceeded to rip it apart, maybe a Battroid mode wouldn't be a bad idea; at least that way I have hands and a way to direct those damned vulcan cannons at a Zentradi if he somehow gets near the Konig Monster. We'll toss it in anyways - it's not like it'll add to the mass of the mecha, not significantly, given how Overtechnology works... and it's built into the system. Plus, this'll be easier for pilots who are trained on 'regular' VF's to adapt to, since they're all used to Battroid mode anyways.

So, our theoretical engineering team goes to design the flying artillery platform, which we'll call VBX-6. Now, another issue is 'do we want this thing to be able to fire the railcannons in all three modes'? Presumably, they look at this and run simulations and do all sorts of calculations to figure out the force of the cannons firing, the amount of thrust they can pack into the platform, and the amount of reaction mass it carries. Plus the design issues with trying to put railguns in, and whether you want to have them interfering with the aerodynamics of an already massive and likely-to-be ungainly platform.

After much consideration, the engineering team reluctantly concludes that it is not possible to fire them while in flight. The calculations show that the force generated is likely to be great enough that it will make flying a bitch; either they conclude there's not enough reaction mass onboard to counter even one firing, that there's not enough reaction mass onboard to fire and then fly home safely afterwards, or that the idea of firing in the direction you want to go is impractical and/or stupid. Or it creates too much drag in atmosphere, since these things are expensive enough (and the UN Spacy goes into atmospheres enough) that you don't want to have an artillery platform that can't land on a fucking planet or fly through its atmosphere without using an inordinate amount of fuel or reaction mass/power. It's stupid! And, another designer points out, the original Monster design was pretty good as a mobile artillery platform outside of its major mobility issue which the flight-form fixes. Satisfied, they then turn their attention to the specifics of the other modes; GERWALK and Battroid. Gerwalk should be relatively easy, due to the insight of an unknown engineer who said it was simpler to reuse the existing (and proven) design for this mode.

Perhaps the head designer's eyes unfocus for a second as he or she remembers his or her grandfather who piloted one of those ugly green Destroids which turned the tide the afternoon Quamzin drove home an attack which scattered and destroyed several Valkyrie teams while disabling the close-in turreted defenses. The outmatched Defender and Phalanx crews tried to hold back the Zentradi, burning as they were dragged down one by one, but managing to resist long enough for the three-man Monster teams to be lifted to the deck, employing their railguns and missile launchers to sweep the deck of enemy mecha in an afternoon of scorched air and roaring explosions with Death clapping in delight.

Or maybe this was merely a fantasy of the chronicler - history only records that the dogged defense followed up by the employment of that mobile artillery platform turned the tide in that battle, as well as the final battle in Boddole Zer's Fulbtzs-Berrentzs class mothership. It was a time-proven platform, with but one major weakness which was being remedied with this variable bomber. A proven gun platform which could carry the prerequisite number of rail cannons and munitions required, which mostly needed redesign to accomodate the Overtechnology necessary to make it a Variable craft. The frame would have to be lightened as much as possible in key areas to make room for the transformation gear, and to make sure the mecha wasn't too overweight - the original was about 300 metric tons after all.

Eventually, after much consultation, redesigning, and computer modelling we see the prototype show up... and then, by 2051 the VB-6 has entered deployment with the UN Spacy. What a long, difficult birth that was. But... apparently the UN Spacy, and other forces, are quite happy with the results. Sure, it can't fire its guns in flight and it needs to transform to GERWALK to fire its gun... but boy, it sure kicked a lot of ass when it was used, and it could fly places. Both Aegis Focker and Canaria Berstein are more than willing to show you how well the platform works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
You are taking my statements out of context. The first quote I made was in context with a space setting. A bomber deploying railguns in space. The second quote I made was in context with an atmospheric setting. A bomber deploying railguns while flying in an atmosphere. Please re-read the statements in context please.
Ah, good - context. May I suggest you do the same? Notice how I quoted all your text as is, attributed it to you, and then responded. May I point out that it's now YOUR turn to refute me, based on points from in the series? Breaking out the 'well, in real life this doesn't work because it's too massively complex with current technology' saw isn't going to help you.

We've all pointed out that this is based on a technology which is fifty years old by the time of the series, pointed out that the technology they're using for the legs is based on older technology from a civilization with a fetish for walking mecha (else we'd see treaded Glaugs... which in hindsight is a rather silly picture), and therefore technological progress has continued along those lines because nobody in the Protoculture bothered to make Overtechnology for making treads work better, and humans were happy to continue that trend because it made fighting fifty-foot tall giants easier.

Space artillery doesn't work too well unless it's used as a strategic or theater weapon, which is why they've got flying Destroid artillery platforms and tracked mobile artillery/direct gun platforms - we've seen those used in episode 1 and 2. However, those are useful only in certain situations - like when you've got roads to work with, and the enemy comes to you. They fire missiles because they don't have to worry so much about the recoil as you can 'cold launch' a missile or let it build up speed after the initial booster gets it off your vehicle. Also, the VB-6 Konig Monster is useful as an artillery platform because it can keep up with the rest of its support and the units it's supporting as good mobile artillery is supposed to be able to do.

The reason variable fighters exist is because they're primarily designed to be manned missile platforms which also serve as infantry against fifty-foot tall giants who roam the galaxy in packs numbering in the millions, and not all of whom are friendly. The reason to use legs instead of treads for the VB-6 is becaue the treads are likelier heavier than the legs in question are, because it let them reuse a proven platform which worked well, and because the feet on those things already cover more area than the treads would've as far as providing bracing goes... especially once you put down all those other supports.

Why do you want to brace yourself in space? Because that way the force of the firing works on a larger effective mass, which means your artillery platform stays put better. The reason you don't want to use thrusters to 'counter' the force of it is because that means you're burning fuel to stay in place, and you're not carrying an unlimited amount - I'm sorry, but Macross is NOT Wing Commander where the thrusters scoop an unlimited amount of fuel out of space to use for propulsion, nor is this Star Trek where impulse engines and inertial compensators apparently allow for near-inertialess movement. Plus it's less of a headache to brace than to compute vectors to fire your thrusters against to compensate for the force of the firing, if you can.

Why not fire in the direction you want to go? Because the target's fucking moving, and you either have to move with it, or else be braced well enough so you know YOU'RE not moving and thus have only one vector to calculate instead of multiple ones (you before firing, the target's movement, how you have to change vectors to fire at the target, your vector after firing, etc). Plus, gun rounds aren't necessarily cheap AND they do damage when they hit something. If you're escorting a fleet, or if you're attacking an enemy force, I'd want to make sure I wasn't killing teammates every time I needed to change directions or move a certain way.

Treads in space don't make sense, treads on the surface of a planet make damned little sense when you're flying to where you want to go, and the big goddamned feet plus bracing struts cover more surface area than your treads did, and are probably less likely to fail under the force of the shooting. Your treads have multiple points of failure - just as the legs do, but at least the legs act as one bloody units when locked down, whereas those wheels in the treads move unless you've got an impressively good braking system which may very well FAIL during the firing, or be so worn out (or the treads themselves get worn out) that you have to shell out for replacements fairly bloody quickly compared to the well-understood legs that served the Konig Monster's father for years.

Rule of thumb for an engineer: you don't break what works. You don't redesign something that doesn't need to be rengineered because you want to, unless there's an overriding concern to be addressed, or else because it's more elegant or cheaper to build, or sturdier. Treads were not used during the first War on the Monster; treads aren't used here because the HWR-00 Monster didn't use them, and it worked well, and the feet were fucking fantastic for bracing its 300-ton mass due to the way it was initially designed. On top of this, it's all built using Overtechnology developed by a culture which was fascinated with the bipedal form, to the point that many of their vehicles apparently incorporated legs and thus the technology that Earth's miclones used in the first war, which was based on this Overtechnology, used the same design principles. And they worked bloody well good enough to save thousands of lives on the SDF-1.

If you want to blame anyone, start with the Protoculture. Beyond that, you've yet to prove anything; that firing thrusters is better for the VB-6, that it doesn't need to be braced and can use the force of its firing, that treads are better than legs which worked for a mecha three times as heavy as a VB-6, and that orbital weapons are better for tactical employment than a mobile artillery platform which happens to be mounted on a Destroid.

Last edited by Haesslich; 2008-10-22 at 05:02. Reason: Corrected ze grammar
Haesslich is offline  
Old 2008-10-22, 12:15   Link #1197
Daigo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
I can not possibly respond to so much all in one post, so for now I'll just address Ithekro's

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
You are in a crowded fleet of civilian ships. They are not armed. Therefore to give them a mobile heavy defense when they need it, you send Monsters to land on it to provide fire support. It will need to hold on to something as they made it have more bang than it has propultion mass to give. The space was dedicated to weaponry and armor, not speed and reaction mass.

And shooting to move while in a fleet enviroment is really, really stupid. You need to move away from the fleet, "shoot for thrust....oh wait I just put a hole in the agro ship...my bad."

As for being less prone to failure...I don't think they care because it works. If it works, it works. It also give lots of jobs to those people you are moving from one star system to some unknown destination that might take generations.
Ith, you aren't telling me why legs are useful considering their disadvantages. I already refuted your previous points about how they can "clamp" on to stuff, so you need to tell me why they are useful in both a space setting and a planetary setting, without repeating the same arguments that you've already used. Keep that in mind, now I'll address the points you raised.

If you want to protect civilian ships, you use military ships. Not a mobile turrent that needs to clamp on to something in order to shoot. That's a terrible idea.

Ith, you have already demonstrated that you don't really understand how combat works in space. It's not the same as flying in the air, it's more similar to a Mac truck trying to drive on ice. Taking advantage of recoil in weapons is part of combat tactics. In any case, the idea of a mobile turrent that needs to clamp on to a bigger ship in order to fire is really really stupid on its own.

Well guess what? It's an issue whether you want to admit it or not. Legs are complicated and prone to malfunction. They are also very vulnerable. If you shoot one off, then its screwed. Legs are unstable. You can knock a walker on its ass from the recoil generated by its railguns alone. That's ignoring any impacts it recieves from enemy fire. So if they are so vulnerable, you need a DAMN good reason to use them, when there are no simpler alternatives out there, that can do the same job as good or even better. Well, there ARE simpler alternatives to bracing for recoil.

So far the argument for legs has been, they can brace for recoil (yea right, it'll be knocked on its back), they allow the machine to move on the ground, and they can clamp on to bigger ships in space (which is pointless). In my opinion, only the first two are actually useful tasks, but lets assume all three are useful. So is there a simpler mechanism that can brace for recoil, allow the machine to move on the ground, and clamp on to bigger ships?

Sure. You can brace for recoil better if it was shaped more like a tank. Low profile, wide base, and has supporting struts that extend outward.

Move on the ground? Just use treads. They are simpler, weigh MUCH less than legs, easier to repair, spread the weight of the machine over a much larger area than legs, and can move a massive machine better than legs can.

Clamping on to a bigger ship? Someone said the legs have claws on them that allow them to dig into another ship's armor (destroying it in the process), which allows for a impromptu clamp (and a stupid one at that). Well if it's useful, then the claw-like devices are what clamps the machine in, not the legs. Just incorporate that into the struts and body of the machine. No need for legs at all.

Last edited by Daigo; 2008-10-22 at 12:31.
Daigo is offline  
Old 2008-10-22, 12:57   Link #1198
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Haesslich answers your points far better than I do. If you want to keep up the debate on this particular mech, take it up with him.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2008-10-22, 13:11   Link #1199
Evangelion Xgouki
NERV Personnel
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tokyo 3, Japan
Age: 29
Send a message via AIM to Evangelion Xgouki Send a message via MSN to Evangelion Xgouki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
I can not possibly respond to so much all in one post, so for now I'll just address Ithekro's
Then chain them into multiple posts. Double-posting (or triple or whatever) is allowed should replies span beyond the allocated length of a single post. We have had Backlog Breakers in Outer Cadia (or even fic posts) that spanned 4 or more post in a row.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
If you want to protect civilian ships, you use military ships. Not a mobile turrent that needs to clamp on to something in order to shoot. That's a terrible idea.
Yes, military-class vessels are large and can provide a lot more firepower. However, they also make for a much larger target and can be slower to deploy. As we've seen in several battles in Macross Frontier the larger vessels make for easier targets by the Vajra where as the VB-6 is smaller and much more agile, able to penetrate enemy lines and attack from inside their forces. The smaller profile (compared to a ship) makes it harder to hit by anti-ship weapons.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Ith, you have already demonstrated that you don't really understand how combat works in space. It's not the same as flying in the air, it's more similar to a Mac truck trying to drive on ice. Taking advantage of recoil in weapons is part of combat tactics. In any case, the idea of a mobile turrent that needs to clamp on to a bigger ship in order to fire is really really stupid on its own.
If you are considering a single turret compensating for the recoil by a built-in computer would not be too bad. However, the VB-6 has FOUR barrels that can be positioned to fire at different vectors. Now you're asking a system to use a limited number of thrusters to try and compensate for four times the number of force vectors to prevent the VB-6 from going into an uncontrolled (and possibly high-accelerated due to the recoil) spin.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Well guess what? It's an issue whether you want to admit it or not. Legs are complicated and prone to malfunction. They are also very vulnerable. If you shoot one off, then its screwed. Legs are unstable.
While this is true in our world, that is not the case for the Macross-universe. Their bi-pedal weapon platforms function fine in terrestrial and space theaters. There have been cases where legs have been lost, arms have been lost. But they still worked and were able to return fire or limp back to safety. Hell, the VB-6 took a direct hit to its left leg in the final battle and it was still able to attack and then used its battlroid mode with a missing leg to continue in combat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
You can knock a walker on its ass from the recoil generated by its railguns alone. That's ignoring any impacts it recieves from enemy fire.
Yes, it has massive recoil. That is why the VB-6 clamps down onto a surface before firing. And as mentioned previously it also deploys a third stabilizing leg to provide even more support which a lot of modern artillery use today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
So far the argument for legs has been, they can brace for recoil (yea right, it'll be knocked on its back),
See above for the third leg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
they allow the machine to move on the ground, and they can clamp on to bigger ships in space (which is pointless).
The VB-6 can clamp to a larger surface. It doesn't have to be a ship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Move on the ground? Just use treads. They are simpler, weigh MUCH less than legs, easier to repair, spread the weight of the machine over a much larger area than legs, and can move a massive machine better than legs can.
As stated before, the Overtechnology used in the design of Valkyries and their cousins weighs less than treads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Clamping on to a bigger ship? Someone said the legs have claws on them that allow them to dig into another ship's armor (destroying it in the process), which allows for a impromptu clamp (and a stupid one at that).


If a fleet was under heavy enemy fire and needed to deploy VB-6's, would the person charge worry about some repairable hull damage as opposed to being completely wiped out? The engineers who designed the VB-6 most likely had to make some compensations in creating an artillery platform that could perform in space as well as on the ground. With no gravity in space they had to develop some means to keep the VB-6 stable and they decide don the clamping method as opposed to adding even more and stronger thrusters (the QCX-76A Jormungand from MS Igloo alone had over 8 massive thrusters to compensate for the recoil).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Well if it's useful, then the claw-like devices are what clamps the machine in, not the legs. Just incorporate that into the struts and body of the machine. No need for legs at all.
The bulk of the recoil force is still going to be applied to the rear of the firing platform. If you look at tanks when they fire, the front (where ever the turret is facing) lifts off the ground due to the recoil. They have developed stabilizers to compensate enough to fire on the move but not enough to where they can make the barrel larger to fire larger rounds. Hence why many artillery deploy one or more additional legs to help keep absorb the recoil, which the VB-6 also has, plus the artillery has to be immobile due to that recoil.

If you look at the position of the legs of the VB-6 relative to the base of its main guns, they are almost aligned. This results in the bulk of the recoil being taken in by the legs (and the third stabilizer then deployed). Hence it maximizes the effectiveness of the stabilizers as well as distributes the force over the surfaces of all three limbs (and their large 'feet' which have a total area close to that of if not greater than if if it had treads) rather than just the rear half like a tank.
__________________
Evangelion Xgouki is offline  
Old 2008-10-22, 18:16   Link #1200
Haesslich
Go to DMC! Go to DMC!
 
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
I can not possibly respond to so much all in one post, so for now I'll just address Ithekro's
Translation: He needs time to read long wall of text and then look for individual points to take out of context in order to justify his own statements. But we'll deal with the response to Ithekro for now instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
You are in a crowded fleet of civilian ships. They are not armed. Therefore to give them a mobile heavy defense when they need it, you send Monsters to land on it to provide fire support. It will need to hold on to something as they made it have more bang than it has propultion mass to give. The space was dedicated to weaponry and armor, not speed and reaction mass.

And shooting to move while in a fleet enviroment is really, really stupid. You need to move away from the fleet, "shoot for thrust....oh wait I just put a hole in the agro ship...my bad."

As for being less prone to failure...I don't think they care because it works. If it works, it works. It also give lots of jobs to those people you are moving from one star system to some unknown destination that might take generations.
Ith, you aren't telling me why legs are useful considering their disadvantages. I already refuted your previous points about how they can "clamp" on to stuff, so you need to tell me why they are useful in both a space setting and a planetary setting, without repeating the same arguments that you've already used. Keep that in mind, now I'll address the points you raised.

If you want to protect civilian ships, you use military ships. Not a mobile turrent that needs to clamp on to something in order to shoot. That's a terrible idea.
That's right - they use military ships like the Guatanimo-class carrier, Uraga-class escort carrier, and the Northampton-class frigates along with converted or unconverted Zentradi destroyers and cruisers. However, at the same time, there are reasons to deploy fighters or Destroids as mobile gunnery platforms.

Let's look at those reasons.

1) The escorts should, if things go well, keep enemy ships and fighters off the convoy they're escorting. This means being able to shoot them down or to drive them off before they get into the middle of the convoy, and shooting down missiles or drones as necessary. However, this being a universe in which anything that can theoretically happen will eventually happen, escort craft may not be able to keep the enemy out of the convoy.

2) At this point, the convoy has to defend itself from incoming missiles, mecha, and raider ships. With the amount of infrastucture required to support a Macross cannon, to the point where New Macross ships and similar craft have the Macross Cannon in its own seperate component/ship, it means that the room for the weapons and their support components (spare parts, generators to support the energy requirements for the weapons, storage for munitions) will have to come out of the carrying capacity of these transports; this means losing cargo space, crew space, or equipment space. Or increasing the hull size to allow for this extra room. Plus extra personnel to handle the weapons, which means extra crew accomodations are necessary.

3) The UN Spacy doesn't seem to be big believers in making sure every civilian ship is heavily armed, or the corporations which build these don't believe in it... or they can't sell these ships to Macross fleets at a reasonable price. Or, just as reasonably, they don't want to be equipping the raiders with premade privateering vessels (transports and small multipurpose craft with a lot of guns and turrets). So, they send UN Spacy detachments along with each fleet, or with private fleets... or the private fleets buy armed frigates at great expense and under whatever end-user certificates the Macross universe and the UN Spacy requires them to buy them under.

4) Thus, when the enemy breaks through, you have fighters to intercept other fighters... and it turns out those VB-6 Konig Monsters already have anti-aircraft guns and their immediate ancestors were used as walking gun turrets in the first war as well, albeit in pre-prepared positions and under pre-planned deployments for the most part. They're self-contained turrets, don't need to be refueled or rearmed by the transports, and can move themselves back to their home carrier when done. Plus, unlike the escort craft, they can fire FROM the ship they're defending and not worry so much about hitting the people they're defending, unlike the escorts who have to worry about what a missed shot will do to the transport which may move into the line of fire.

For the most part, the escorts keep the raiders off the convoy. The gun-turret use is a secondary function, but it's one with historical precedents in the Macross universe and undoubtedly a function considered by the designers of the VB-6.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Ith, you have already demonstrated that you don't really understand how combat works in space. It's not the same as flying in the air, it's more similar to a Mac truck trying to drive on ice. Taking advantage of recoil in weapons is part of combat tactics. In any case, the idea of a mobile turrent that needs to clamp on to a bigger ship in order to fire is really really stupid on its own.
Excellent - we were well aware of your Doctorate of Science in SCIENCE!, but I didn't know you also had a minor in space warfare. Well, Doctor, if you could present us with the name of your thesis or the university you got it in, I'm sure we'll be more than glad to take your words at face value due to your obvious (and recognized by your peers) expertise in space warfare and the design of space combat vehicles.

... no thesis? Alright, then we'll continue to challenge your claims. Here's mine.

"Taking advantage of recoil in weapons is part of combat tactics" - uh.... yeah, whatever. On Earth, we try to AVOID the recoil, or otherwise dissipate it, unless you're talking about automatic weapons which use the recoil to load the next round into the gun. Notice that this is only used to load the gun, not to create an advantage in combat.

As for using it 'to advantage in combat'... minor shots aren't going to change your vector too much. Major ones.. yes. And somehow I don't see rotating to fire your guns RIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF YOUR FUCKING FORMATION to be all that useful in terms of defense, nor do you want to shove yourself backwards every time you're shooting at someone if the guns use that much force to drive the damned projectiles down-theatre. That's probably -the- big reason that no other fighters carry heavy guns like railcannons - instead they stick with micro-missiles or energy weapons which don't apply that much force to the firing platform. Even the missiles shoot out, then after orienting on the target, kick in their boosters to move at ludicrous speeds. They don't use their guns to 'turn' them in combat.. and neither do the big capital ships, since their mass, relative to the size of the projectile and the force applied to it, is enough that any effect from the 'recoil' is negligible.

Ergo, "Why the fucking Monster locks itself down to take a fucking shot, so it doesn't blow itself off the fucking hell and into someone's line of fire, or have its own shot go astray".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Well guess what? It's an issue whether you want to admit it or not. Legs are complicated and prone to malfunction. They are also very vulnerable. If you shoot one off, then its screwed. Legs are unstable. You can knock a walker on its ass from the recoil generated by its railguns alone. That's ignoring any impacts it recieves from enemy fire. So if they are so vulnerable, you need a DAMN good reason to use them, when there are no simpler alternatives out there, that can do the same job as good or even better. Well, there ARE simpler alternatives to bracing for recoil.

So far the argument for legs has been, they can brace for recoil (yea right, it'll be knocked on its back), they allow the machine to move on the ground, and they can clamp on to bigger ships in space (which is pointless). In my opinion, only the first two are actually useful tasks, but lets assume all three are useful. So is there a simpler mechanism that can brace for recoil, allow the machine to move on the ground, and clamp on to bigger ships?

Sure. You can brace for recoil better if it was shaped more like a tank. Low profile, wide base, and has supporting struts that extend outward.
Shooting a leg off is a problem, yes - we've seen that. At the same time, if the thing can still fly, it's less of one. Shooting a tread off a tank is also a major problem as it suddenly can't move... and may or may not be able to lock itself against the force of its gun firing. This seems to matter somewhat LESS to the VB-6 due to the other bracing systems it has.. and as we saw in episode 25, when it DID lose a leg... it braced its ass on the top of the Macross Cannon, y'know.. sorta like a tank. It had a low profile, it had a wide base, and it had supporting struts which extended outwards. The foot that got shot off also had a wide base (wider than the body of the mecha, from what we could see in that episode and earlier ones).

Also, I should note that the way the guns fired suggested the recoil of the cannons was being driven down perpendicularly into the hull... and right along the lines of the braces deployed. The barrels moved in the assembly, and the line of movement seemed to drive along a line which 'coincidentally' moved into the braces. The legs aren't taking the brunt of the shock there, but the braces - and from what we saw, they spread it along a VERY wide base and those three backside components. Y'know... sorta like a tank with its wide base, but with more coverage.

Notice that tanks aren't using a wide base that COMPLETELY covers the ground either - the weight is usually spread across the treads which total about maybe a third of the width of the tank's base... and the shock is spread mostly along the back half of the tank, with the front half just trying to hold still so the treads don't roll back too much. It's low to the ground, but at the same time it covers around as much, if not less, area than the feet of the VB-6 Konig Monster does relative to its own main body... and without the extra bracing struts.

Of course, modern MBTs only really fire sabot rounds... and yet most treaded vehicles of the type you claim to be more practical in Macross for this purpose don't really have all that much contact with the ground relative to their body area. What they do have is good brakes and shock-absorber systems built into the gun to handle the recoil... which we also see in action on the VB-6. Remember seeing those barrels recoil into the hood just around them, at the base of the mecha?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
Move on the ground? Just use treads. They are simpler, weigh MUCH less than legs, easier to repair, spread the weight of the machine over a much larger area than legs, and can move a massive machine better than legs can.

Clamping on to a bigger ship? Someone said the legs have claws on them that allow them to dig into another ship's armor (destroying it in the process), which allows for a impromptu clamp (and a stupid one at that). Well if it's useful, then the claw-like devices are what clamps the machine in, not the legs. Just incorporate that into the struts and body of the machine. No need for legs at all.
Um... where'd you get the figure for the leg weights from and ease of maintenance, as compared to the treads? I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't have direct access to the Macross Frontier's databases from here and have to rely on other sources. If you have information on how Overtechnology-derived transformation equipment handles leg movement, I'd love to have access to those databases and specifications. Again, I will point to 'real world' figures (since you so love those) that indicate that the treads on an M1A2 Abrams - just the treads, not counting the wheels or the other mechanisms required to move the treads) about eight tons for one tank, out of 70 tons total weight.

Twenty feet of tank treads, according to some reports I've seen based on the feasability of recycling them, weighs one ton. The M1A2 Abrams is approximately 33 feet long, and you've got two tracks. The way the track system is designed along with the roller wheel at the top of each tread (IIRC), means you'd need about 76-77 feet (thereabouts, given the shape of the tread system), and you've got two of them. Now you've got 7 wheels per side (6 road wheels, one roller wheel). Then we add the torsion bar, the power train, and everything else required to turn gas turbine output into rotational motion.

The fucking treads alone are a tenth of the weight of the M1A2 Abrams tank - just the treads, not even the drive system. Add the rest of the components together to make those treads move on wheels to drive the tank along the ground, and it adds up to an awful lot of weight. Just to 'brace' or 'move' a flying artillery piece along the ground. We KNOW what treads weigh for a 70-ton tank, and those treads and brakes are required to hold it still to fire its main cannon. Which fires a sabot round out of a 120mm cannon.

Now compare this to a VB-6 Konig Monster which flies, and which has four main cannons. If those main cannons are direct descendants of the original HWR-00 Mark II Monster, they're each 40cm-bored railcannons. Pictures of the Konig Monster in action suggest, based on its specified size, that the bores are indeed 40cm wide, if not a tad bigger. Firing missiles isn't a big deal, nor are firing the Vulcan cannons - with space, if you're travelling along a certain vector it takes an equal amount of force directed in another direction to change the vector. Firing those guns doesn't create that amount of force, which is why VF's can turn on a dime, fire at a foe while in flight, and not get shoved back several meters.

Alas, this is not the case with the railcannons, which compared to the rest of the VB-6 are fucking massive in terms of the size of the projectile and the force used to send it to its target relative to a several thousand-ton capital ship using a similar railcannon to shoot at a target. On top of which, you forgot about the Battroid/Destroid mode which is, as I said before, an apparent part of Overtechnology... perhaps because the Protoculture got their hands on some Gundam DVDs that somehow fell out of a time warp and became such big mecha otaku that they focused on such things... and had the engineering know-how to make them work. Or maybe it's because they were so focused on the Vajra Queen worship and emulating its form in their own creations (Bird-Man, etc).

Besides which, the VB-6 still uses the fucking struts. It's just those struts appear to be built up to have Overtechnology-driven leg tech as well. It's certainly a more practical design than treads which weigh, without any mechanisms to move them, a full tenth of the vehicle's mass. Oh, and they're recycling an older, proven design from the first war whose leg was designed the exact same way... and which worked.

EDIT: I just reread the post and noticed a typo - those should be 40 CM cannons, based on their relative size to the Destroid. Basically 400mm in bore, or about 15.75 inches in diameter.

Last edited by Haesslich; 2008-10-22 at 21:18. Reason: Corrected units. 40mm = 40cm. Mistyped.
Haesslich is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.