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 > Gundam

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-02-12, 05:34   Link #41
Question
Crossdresser
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
The answer to this thread could be seen a mile away. Its like asking whether its possible we will have kira and athrun as chinese air force pilots that single handedly wipe out the entire US air force with their co-ordinator abilities(and plot armor) in 5 years time.

Mobile suits are a fictional weapon of war in a universe with very very convenient technology to make them superior to conventional forms of weapons. Anyone read the dune series? Personal shields made ranged weapons obsolete, so all soldiers train for is melee combat as only slow moving objects(a knife for example) can pass through the shield. That does not mean that training the US army for melee combat only suddenly becomes viable, unless the exact circumstances occur in real life.

Even mechwarrior deliberately made tanks inferior to mechs, because otherwise no one would use mechs. The earliest mechs somehow had armor that could stop armor piercing tank rounds, and tank rules make them incredibly fragile...a few boys throwing stones at a 100 ton super heavy tank has the potential to completely disable its movements, i kid you not.

In short gundam style mecha is only viable IF :

-For some reason things like guided missles either do not function or are easily bypassed with some form of technology

-Some BS form of technology is invented to make a huge mecha suit more agile than a airplane, and for some reason it cant be applied to airplanes

-All defense contractors in the world suddenly become incapable of producing decently designed and equipped armored vehicles, but are perfectly capable of doing so for a much more complex mecha design

-God himself forbids any form of warfare to take place except via mechs.
__________________
Question is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-12, 05:34   Link #42
Phantom-Takaya
INTJ
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 31
Send a message via AIM to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via MSN to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via Yahoo to Phantom-Takaya
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyfall View Post
Correct - this is a discussion, and he was not nitpicking. He was pointing out parts of your pots that were not true at all. (Like the mentioning of Gundam Wing for example). I fail to see how pointing out the false facts in one's arguments is nitpicking. His stance is fairly neutral and matter-of-factish... from the way he is phrasing his arguments i wouldn't be surprised if he has been/is taking debate classes ...
Alright, then please tell me where I pointed out false facts when the things I referred to regarding Gundam Wing was from the technical manual. Albeit that it may not be from the director's mouth itself, but it's still a concept. On top of that, I did repeatedly say that the things I was talking about were theories and concepts. I offered possible solutions if creating mobile suits ever came to be. I didn't say they were going to be correct, but mere possibilities.

Excuse me if my explanations were difficult to concieve. It seems I'm still suffering from issues regarding explaining things properly, but the validity is there. I didn't take all kinds of college courses (as well as pass them) and read tons of books associated with these concepts and theories for nothing. As far as I know, I didn't lie, nor did I deviate from facts.

I repeat again, mobile suits are possible once certain technological issues that have not yet existed are resolved. But, the needs for such things are not a necessity, so there's no need to pursue such a thing. So, yes, I agree that there's cheaper ways to create weapons as well as improving them. But, that doesn't mean the creation of mobile suits are not possible. I repeat again; They're simply not needed unless something drastic occurs.
Phantom-Takaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-12, 06:42   Link #43
Skyfall
Lost in my dreams...
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 28
^ i have no doubts that It is going to be possible to build an operational mecha some day(I think every one agrees on this). But the question is, as the thread topic indicates, whether this contraption is going to be useful in battle. And as it stands, i can not imagine it being anywhere near as effective as tanks/planes, if the later are equipped with similar level of technology. (It seems we agree on this part, so i don't know what the heck we are arguing about )

Quote:
Alright, then please tell me where I pointed out false facts when the things I referred to regarding Gundam Wing
I was mostly referring to the statement that you sense a hatred towards Wing here ... while there has been no mentioning of Wing here... or any specific universe for that matter ... or the power supply issue. When i said "false facts" it was not meant to have any additional negative meaning to it... perhaps my statement came across a bit too strongly.

At any rate - don't take things too personally (you seem to do that ). No one is trying to attack you by disagreeing with your post(s) and "nitpicking" on them... some one breaking down your paragraph in a number of quotes should not be viewed as any form of a personal attack or some one looking down on you... should that be the case this would be one big warzone with dead bodies all over the place
__________________
Skyfall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-12, 07:45   Link #44
duotiga
Zander Yuusha Kyorugold
 
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Singapore
Age: 31
Send a message via ICQ to duotiga Send a message via MSN to duotiga
is 08th MS team a good example of realism?
duotiga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-12, 13:11   Link #45
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Haven't watched it, but... does it use giant mechs to fight wars? If so, then no.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-12, 13:19   Link #46
silencer.001
In a mobile suit behind u
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Age: 26
I think in the future there will be mechs, but just not as big as the mobile suits from gundam, probably think that they would either be about the size of the armor slaves to Full Metal Panic, or probably smaller
__________________
silencer.001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-12, 14:04   Link #47
wingdarkness
Retweet Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ニュー・オーリンズ、LA
Quote:
Originally Posted by duotiga View Post
is 08th MS team a good example of realism?
A great example...
__________________
Fly since ...
wingdarkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-12, 14:32   Link #48
kiramuro
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
No. But then again, Strike Freedom is much more advanced than the F-22 is. Also, anti-aircraft missiles are not designed to defeat armor.
Yeah I was just reponding to Skyfall who said that he would bet money on the F/A-22 in a heart beat.

The thread topic:

The short answer is no! The longer answer is no way in hell! There is simply no inherent combat advantage to the human form in air, ground, space or whatever. Take the Freedom for example it has one damn powerful engine. Despite its horrendous drag profile it can accelerate and catch up with a ZAFT space shuttle (see episode 26? in GSD) at an altitude greater than 100,000 ft in no time. Its climate rate must be ridiculous . Now take Freedom's engine and put it on a more aerodynamic efficient form. Just imagine the performance gain.

As far as Minovsky particle or the N-jammer goes giant bobile suit would still be lesser peforming machines if radar is eliminated from this equation.

Offtopic:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran
Offtopic

Currently, that's the way American fighter theory posits. However, this is hardly a universally agreed upon idea, and plenty of militaries train their pilots on more dogfighting than the Americans do (the Indian Air Force springs to mind). Historically, BVR combat hasn't been that decisive, and the vast majority of aerial combat encounters either resulted in one side breaking off combat, or in dogfighting. Partially, this is due to the inaccuracy of BVR missiles, and partially due to restrictive RoEs, but the effect is the same.

Sure, the F-22 isn't expected to ever engage in dogfighting (even though it's equipped for it), but it's going to be combat that'll tell us if it plays out the way USAF theorists think it will. The last times that they designed fighters with such sweeping theories in mind, they didn't put a gun on the F-4, and they thought that the F-14 would engage most of its targets with the AIM-54. The end result was that they ended up having to install gunpods on their F-4s, and AIM-54s ended up almost never getting used (except for the Iranians, but that's a different topic).

As a side note, you don't have call it the F/A-22 any more. Even the USAF has given up on trying to claim that a pure fighter with no ground attack capabilities as a fighter-bomber.
Good points however the Vietnam war was one data point on the history of aerial warfare. If you look at more recent wars like the Persian Gulf war BVR engagments have been used quite decisively on the ground and in the air. The trend is clearly pointing this way. Missile and avionic technology were relatively primitive back in the 1960s. It's one of the main reasons why such form of aerial combat failed back then. Since the 60s the rise of fast computers along with newer control theories and GPS technology have improved targeting and guidance drastically. The restricitve ROE is just crappy politic decisions interfering with the military.

Oh I just like the old name F/A-22 which the USAF used in their PR campaign better.

Last edited by kiramuro; 2007-02-12 at 14:33. Reason: fixing the damn quotes
kiramuro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-12, 23:14   Link #49
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by duotiga
is 08th MS team a good example of realism?
If you're talking in terms of combat, then 08th MS Team is more realistic than most Gundam shows. However, on an absolute scale, this doesn't count for much as Gundam shows aren't very realistic.

Most of the combat captures the right kind of "feel" but there's little niggling details that detract from the merits. In general, anytime we see the Apasalus or anytime there's any melee combat is intrinsically unrealistic. Also, most of the strategies and tactics portrayed aren't representative of their real-life counterparts. On the other hand, I think that it had some nice touches, especially the support communications vehicle with its seismograph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiramuro
As far as Minovsky particle or the N-jammer goes giant bobile suit would still be lesser peforming machines if radar is eliminated from this equation.
It wouldn't make a difference with ground mobile suits since ground vehicles don't have much use for radar in the first place (with the obvious exception of anti-aircraft units). It would hamper aerial units, but it should be presumed that any military that couldn't use radar would simply switch to LADAR, which may well be superior in military applications to begin with.



Off-topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiramuro
Good points however the Vietnam war was one data point on the history of aerial warfare. If you look at more recent wars like the Persian Gulf war BVR engagments have been used quite decisively on the ground and in the air. The trend is clearly pointing this way. Missile and avionic technology were relatively primitive back in the 1960s. It's one of the main reasons why such form of aerial combat failed back then. Since the 60s the rise of fast computers along with newer control theories and GPS technology have improved targeting and guidance drastically. The restricitve ROE is just crappy politic decisions interfering with the military.
You bring up some good points. It's quite possible for a historical trend to be overturned by new technologies. However, even in Desert Storm, to my recollection, the majority of shoot-downs were actually done within visual range, and most of the ground attacks were executed using iron bombs.

Still, new technologies in precision may well make guided weapons much more effective than they were in the past. The opposite is also true as new technologies can also render offensive technologies less effective. Time will tell which is the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiramuro
Oh I just like the old name F/A-22 which the USAF used in their PR campaign better.
Heh.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-14, 02:17   Link #50
wavehawk
O GALILEO LET ME GO
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
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.

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.

And I'm not even going to start with guided artillery or cluster bombs (wherein the accuracy of 'somehwere thattaway' is good enoug).

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).

Why do you think that in the UC Gundam universe, Sniper MS were so damn deadly? Even if an MS doesn't go down in the first hit, it will have taken damage. It's like confronting an M1 Abrams--you DON'T. You hit them at long range, and you only risk going into their range of fire if you're certain they can't take anymore.
__________________
"This is the worst webpage ever. Of all time."
wavehawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-14, 18:09   Link #51
Terrestrial Dream
勇者
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tesla Leicht Institute
Age: 24
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.
__________________
Terrestrial Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-14, 18:19   Link #52
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Anything's possible. For all we know, the suits pilot themselves while the pilots pretend the commands are linked to something when they're just props.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-14, 18:33   Link #53
Phantom-Takaya
INTJ
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 31
Send a message via AIM to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via MSN to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via Yahoo to Phantom-Takaya
Agreed. It's possible. One other possible way to do it is to make things automatic enough that the pilots don't have to push so much buttons or pull some much levers just to get the suit to make a simple movement. For example, if the controls were much like joysticks and the joysticks were on a movable platform that can go forward or backward, then the joysticks can be used for arm movement while the platforms can be like levers which controls the suits to move forward or backwards. Amongst all that, the rest can be automatic in which the suit automatically balances itself on its own while following the controls of the pilot. Then there's the fingers. Just like in video game controllers now-a-days, the amount of pressure you have on the buttons will determine the amount of pressure the fingers will have when the suit closes its hands into a fist. The buttons for each finger of those controls can be on the joysticks for easier access. The pedals at the feet can be used for boosting, jumping, etc. But, this is just an example.
Phantom-Takaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-14, 21:44   Link #54
Dan the Man
Defeater of Robot Masters
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wherever YOU aren't. Thanks for not visiting... *Sniff*
Age: 27
Send a message via AIM to Dan the Man Send a message via MSN to 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. Tie that it with their versatility with weapons, and they become a pretty advantageous weapon. However, as the entire discussion had proven, MS on ground would be slow, hard to maintain, and would be extremely easy to spot, making them giant sitting sucks to tanks with the firepower to knock one over, which probably wouldn't be hard. Overall, MS are extremely expensive to manufacture, which is pretty much a given. The only way I can see to make MS a worthwile weapon is if you reduce the size dramatically, and make it something like a powered exoskeleton. Even then, a large mech would still be a really impractical, and would probably only be used in specific situations. I'd put money on the idea that we'd see something like a Metal Gear before a Mobile Suit.
Dan the Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-14, 23:29   Link #55
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-15, 04:39   Link #56
Dan the Man
Defeater of Robot Masters
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wherever YOU aren't. Thanks for not visiting... *Sniff*
Age: 27
Send a message via AIM to Dan the Man Send a message via MSN to Dan the Man
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?


What I meant by the humanoid shape is it's ability to use the AMBAC (Active Mass Balance Auto Control) system. It fundamentally works by shifting weight by the use of extremeties to control speed and direction. Such examples can be seen in spinning ice skaters slowing down when their arms are out, and speeding up when they bring their arms in. Another example would be stopping your movement while swimming undrwater by throwing your limbs forward. The same principle can be used in space, and therefore would give MS their advantageous mobility. The use of AMBAC saves fuel and maneuvering time while operating in space, where by simply throwing their limbs forward, along with sheilds or other large objects, their momentum can be slowed down or stopped outright, as well as shifting their weight to turn in another direction, as opposed to other space vehicles which must use up a larger amount of propellent to turn around or stop.
As far as the Zeong goes, I don't know exactly why they were just cosmetic. My guess is that the AMBAC system wasn't made clear until after the original Gundam series was produced, and was thus not an issue with Zeong's legs. The only logical guess as far as actual operation might've been that due to the larger amount of independant thrusters along its body, the Zeong probably had multiple power plants to draw energy from, and the AMBAC system wasn't necessary. Had the legs been installed on the Zeong, it probably could've used AMBAC, and saved some fuel, but it probably wouldn't have been enough to make any significant difference.
Dan the Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-15, 07:17   Link #57
M_Flores
Count of Monte Dorifto
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Isla De Monte Dorifto
Send a message via MSN to M_Flores
The only advantage I see in the humanoid vehicle structure is probably a better 180-360 degree turn time. A tank, helicopter, or plane, as fast or more agile as they may be, you'd think they'd still have to circle around to avoid attacks. Scale down everything and imagine your own body as a mobile suit frame. You will be able to dodge attacks better than a guy on a wheelchair (tank) no matter how heavily armed he is.
Of course tanks have rotating turrets, but I still believe a mobile suit can run (or boost) fast than the turret can get a clear shot at them while the MS is behind ready to use a weapon.
Against multiple tanks or helicopters? I'd say an MS could use the terrain to it's advantage. I doubt tanks can outmaneuver an MS throughout canyon-like areas or forests. Of course, I'm talking only within visual combat range. Planes and helicopters can't carry shields like MS's can either. However one might raise the arguement that, it would be cheaper to make a plane with its armor as strong as an MS shield? I guess at first that would seem more feasible. But armor that strong on a plane would kinda defeat the advantage it had in the first place, assuming such strong armor would also slow it down?
I'm very limited in military knowledge, but I assume that planes usually have to fly in for an attack, but have to circle around again for the next strike?
Maybe an MS can block the first wave with a shield, then quickly counterattack as the fighters have to circle around and prepare for the next strike?
There are also only certain places you could install thrusters on helicopters and planes, while on a humanoid frame, there are many different positions and different angles that one could put certain motors or thrusters on to provide are more mobile 360 movement, couldnt it?

I also remember something said in MGS Snake Eater... some character was explaining that the Shagohod was flawed because it didn't have the advantage of a bipedal, walking robot. What were these factors again?

Anyways, other than that, I'm pretty much talking only combat at visual range... but still, wouldn't an MS be able to detect a missle from a far or shoot it down?
M_Flores is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-15, 07:43   Link #58
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
If you have the tech to make flying, giant, armored humanoids, you have the technology to make planes that'll be faster, more agile, and better armored that the humanoid. (Because you won't have to use power to compensate for the fact that a human shape is rotten when it comes to flying.)

And MS dodging tank shells? About as likely as a human dodging gunfire. Sure, if you're already close, and the canon isn't pointed at you, it's possible, but how are you going to get into such a favorable situation in the first place?

And as for using the terrain... there isn't a lot of terrain that'll favor a twenty meter tall target. Maybe if the ground is really, really broken, the tanks won't be able to follow, but that's about it. (I also have very little confidence in the ground's ability to hold such heavy machines as MS on a surface as small as their feets. I think it'd make more bridges and mountain paths impassable than for tanks.)
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-15, 09:10   Link #59
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
What I meant by the humanoid shape is it's ability to use the AMBAC (Active Mass Balance Auto Control) system. It fundamentally works by shifting weight by the use of extremeties to control speed and direction. Such examples can be seen in spinning ice skaters slowing down when their arms are out, and speeding up when they bring their arms in. Another example would be stopping your movement while swimming undrwater by throwing your limbs forward. The same principle can be used in space, and therefore would give MS their advantageous mobility. The use of AMBAC saves fuel and maneuvering time while operating in space, where by simply throwing their limbs forward, along with sheilds or other large objects, their momentum can be slowed down or stopped outright, as well as shifting their weight to turn in another direction, as opposed to other space vehicles which must use up a larger amount of propellent to turn around or stop.
This is a nifty piece of deflection by the Gundam creators, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. AMBAC as described is similar to the use of flywheels on a satellite, so we're actually fairly familiar with the advantages and disadvantages of such a system. The problem is that it's less effective than turning by thrusters in just about every aspect. AMBAC's turn rates would be very slow, it would be very difficult to make useful (every movement would be translated to rotation), and even the fuel savings is moot (just replace the arms and legs for more fuel, and you'd be much better off).

Quote:
Originally Posted by M_Flores
The only advantage I see in the humanoid vehicle structure is probably a better 180-360 degree turn time. A tank, helicopter, or plane, as fast or more agile as they may be, you'd think they'd still have to circle around to avoid attacks. Scale down everything and imagine your own body as a mobile suit frame. You will be able to dodge attacks better than a guy on a wheelchair (tank) no matter how heavily armed he is.
Your example assumes that the mobile suit has much more advanced technology. If all things were equal, the tank, due to its much simpler drivetrain, would be much more maneuverable than the mobile suit. Besides, you're not going to be dodging squat until you get to point-blank range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M_Flores
Of course tanks have rotating turrets, but I still believe a mobile suit can run (or boost) fast than the turret can get a clear shot at them while the MS is behind ready to use a weapon.
An equally advanced turret can rotate much faster than an entire mobile suit. The turret masses far less and has less need to traverse. And shooting-wise, from a kilometre away, a single degree of difference in aim would translate to moving the target a bit over 30m.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh
(I also have very little confidence in the ground's ability to hold such heavy machines as MS on a surface as small as their feets. I think it'd make more bridges and mountain paths impassable than for tanks.)
For some curious reason, mobile suits have ridiculously huge feet which actually translate to a lower mass-surface area compared to tanks. However, this isn't really an advantage for the mobile suits since walking doesn't distribute weight evenly the way a tread does, hence any ground that can't support a tank wouldn't be able to support a mobile suit either.

I forgot to address this earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by M_Flores
Anyways, other than that, I'm pretty much talking only combat at visual range... but still, wouldn't an MS be able to detect a missle from a far or shoot it down?
Sure, it's possible for a mobile suit to shoot down a missile, but there's a reason we don't do it much in real life: missiles are extremely hard to destroy. In fact, after gun rounds like bullets or artillery shells, missiles would be the second most difficult categories it's possible to shoot at. In the real world, a fighter-launched missile will generally start with a velocity of ~100m/s and boost to a terminal velocity of 1000m/s or more. In contrast, a One Year War Dom would have a top speed of about 65m/s. Moreover, a missile is a tiny target compared to a mobile suit, so if you can hit the former, then hitting the latter would be ridiculously easy to do. It's a much better idea to simply evade the missile, and shoot down whatever fired it.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...

Last edited by 4Tran; 2007-02-15 at 12:03. Reason: Added stuff.
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-15, 13:35   Link #60
Phantom-Takaya
INTJ
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Alaska
Age: 31
Send a message via AIM to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via MSN to Phantom-Takaya Send a message via Yahoo to Phantom-Takaya
The only crutch I see is that tanks and planes exist while mobile suits do not. If the construction of a mobile suit was to be done and improved upon just like tanks and planes, then it would seem the mobile suits would have the advantage, considering that the aim of the creation of the mobile suits would be its human-like agility. I'll keep repeating that the possibilities of creating such a thing is possible. We have the necessary tools to do so.

And then there's the repetative 20 meter talk about the height of the suit. Why does it have to be 20 meters? Why not 15? That size difference does have an impact in regards to its weight and ability to hide or what-not. It doesn't mean that there's not enough room to house the mechanics.

But in the end, it seems this debate seems to fall upon the fact that mobile suits don't exist and therefore cannot be backed up by solid proof like the latter (tanks and planes), but theories and concepts. Or to some who percieve it, "assumptions."
Phantom-Takaya is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:51.


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