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 2007-02-16, 22:10   Link #81
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
...I know Im probably stating an obvious fact here, but MS in this world would be comepletely useless due to the lack of Minovsky Particles. It was because of these that long range weaponry such as guided missiles and other remote control weaponry that made the MS technology fairly feasable. Their weaponry is generally stronger than a tank or other conventional cannon, and their ability to move in faster than many other vehicles made them a choice weapon. But since we lack the interference caused by Minovsky particles, MS are, as damn near everyone has said before, are basically giant bullseyes on the battlefield. These particles were also the energy source used for beam weaponry, which makes even battleship particle cannons an impossibility. Another problem is their fuel consumption. The MS, one again, using Minovsky technology, used a rare type of Helium brought to the Earth territories from Jupiter. The Helium is far too scarce to make it a useable fuel source, and since we lack the ability to make the same ultra-compact fusion reactors, the idea of making conventional MS isn't even a possibility. Batteries are another option, such as those used by SEED MS, but technology would have to make a huge leap in order to make batteries powerful enough to power a 50 foot tall
Dan the Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 23:17   Link #82
Guppy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya View Post
Unfortunately, that's the kind of thinking that has limited my peers from reaching their goals. If that's the case, then create, upgrade or rebuild the drivetrain.
What, the kind of thinking that says you can't just handwave away any problem you encounter?

Sure, just upgrade the drivetrain. Of course there's a better design we can simply drop in that'll work great, we were just using a crappy one in the beginning for laughs. And while we're at it, we'll upgrade the tanks with the same new technology - oops, now they're still more heavily armoured frontally than the mobile suit, because they get to stack more armour on, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya View Post
I never said that the suit has to be that thickly armored "all over." Simply on the areas that are most vital, such as the torso. And yes, I moving joints tend to cause difficulty when it comes to armor placement. One solution to that is there be a few layers of plating. No, not all of them have to be thick. Only the outer layer will be thick plating in which they would be placed at the vital points. The other plating is to provide adequate covering for the mechanisms underneath, while allowing the suit to move and bend properly. What was it that a peer called it when I was discussing it with him? "Movable armor?" I'm not too sure. It practically means that the armor platings are not one solid plating, but in pieces. Of course, one would think that since the plates are separate pieces, the areas where they meet would be their weak point. True, thus the solution of armor layering so that the layer underneath would be covering the openings between platings.
You're handwaving again. You're concentrating the armour on the torso - so the legs aren't "vital" now? The arms (which, since you're talking about rifles, are carrying the main armament)?

A tank carries most of its armour on the forward hull and the front of the turret. I still can't see how an MS is going to not be inferior in protection, unless it also puts most of its armour up front - or does the MS plan to spend most of its time facing away from the enemy?

And okay, so you layer the armour so there's always a thin plate over the joints. Great. It's still going to be less protective than a thick plate, and a decent hit is still going to ruin your day. How well does the joint bend once that thin plate gets warped by the shock of the first hit, or spalling debris gets stuck in it? Tanks mount things like spall liners on the inside hull to deal with that sort of problem - how much room is there for such niceties inside an armoured joint?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya View Post
It didn't fare against fortified infantry? Well, I can understand. That's where the suit's rifle comes in. That's what they did, didn't they? They called in for bigger guns because the ones they had weren't cutting it.
Actually, they called in bombs and missiles to do the job. "If brute force doesn't solve your problem, you weren't using enough..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya View Post
Is that so? Well, as I see it, a tank's long range ability, yet slow movement would put it in a position where it would attack from a distance if coupled with a suit and a few soldiers on foot. While the tank provides the cover from a distance, the suit, which should be able to cover the distance faster than a tank, can proceed to the target building while transporting the soldiers. Upon the arrival at the target building, the transported soldiers will enter the building while the suits get on one knee and provide cover and any possible melee combat while the tank makes its way to the target building and take the suit's place as cover. Well, that's one strategy I was thinking of. For some reason, I was thinking of Iraq. I'm not 100% sure why, but I think I formulated that strategy from the description one of my military friends had told me about a mission he had to do.
I'd like to hear your military friend's opinion of this idea, if you ever ask him. How does the mobile suit carry the troops? And if you want to transport a squad in quickly to assault a fortified building, why not just use an APC or IFV? It's what they're designed for.

Besides, what "melee combat" are we talking about? Presumably any hand-to-hand fighting will be taking place inside the building, where the mobile suit can't go. If the mobile suit is simply going to walk up and demolish the building outright, why not just do it from a distance, or call in artillery or air support?
Guppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-16, 23:45   Link #83
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
I agree. A suit's limitation isn't simply because of it's form, but by its design.
Actually, you're missing kiramuro's point. The form itself is the greatest limitation. kiramuro's proposed solution is to use a different form altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
A tank may be able to "handle" rougher terrain thanks to its type of wheels, but a mobile suit may be able to outrun it
Why would a mobile suit be able to outrun an equivalently advanced tank? After all, the legged form of locomotion is decidedly inferior to a wheeled one, and treads tend to outperform even wheels in cross-country terrain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
In fact, I'm not even sure how planes fit into this properly other than they can annihilate a tank and possibly a suit. Of course, the turrets on a tank and possibly vulcans on a suit can be used against the plane to cause quite a disruption to its attacks.
Aircraft should generally be considered seperately from ground vehicles because they have a vastly different battlefield role, and thus have a very different hierarchy of attributes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
It has been established? Is this taken from a book regarding warfare?
No. It's rather obvious once one takes a close look at battlefield considerations. In just every way that mecha differ from tanks, the difference is in the tank's favor. And just about all the advantages that are generally associated with mecha aren't actually exclusive to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
The humanoid form is still needed in modern combat. That's why we still have soldiers.
That's actually untrue. We employ infantry because they are the smallest maneuver element that's practical to use. Infantry's main advantage is their resilence; they are generally the smallest and hardest to hit of all battlefield targets. There's nothing intrinsically useful about the human form (in fact, many animal forms can be considered superior).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
But yet, there are quite a number of us (no, I'm not referring to just the people in this forum) who yet continue to disagree with that line of thought.
Perhaps, but not all lines of argumentation are equally valid.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Right, thus a suit wouldn't just have the better set of armor at just the front. Just like a soldier wear armoring for the front and back torso, possibly would a suit since the more vital points would be in those area. (ie: pilot)
What you don't seem to understand is that infantry armor's configuration is only designed to protect against low levels of firepower. Since a mobile suit is in a tank-equivalent role on the battlefield, a tank-configuration of armor makes a lot of sense. Using an infantry-configuration of armor is just a recipe for disaster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Uh... 10 times? I'm not sure how it's 10 times if it's approximately 2.4 meters, thus it being only 4 times when the suit is crouching and 6 times when it's standing, height-wise. Length-wise, the tank would be approximately 1.5-2 times bigger. Now width-wise, the suit would be approximately 1.5-2 times wider. As for cover, I did state earlier that the suits would have to be strategically deployed carefully as well as the environments it's being deployed chosen carefully.
That's right, ten times. A tank's main armor is projected to the front because the vast majority of threats will come from that direction. It's a red herring to refer to a tank's flank when it comes to a comparison of target profile. Another thing that you don't seem to understand is that height is much more of a disadvantage than width or length. The reason is that a high silhouette is much vulnerable target than one that's close to the ground. This reason is also why soldiers drop to the ground in the event of artillery or sniper attack. Even when there's no cover, being close to the ground mitigates this level of vulnerability. No amount of fantasizing about always having cover to hand is going to make it happen though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
As for the inferior armor... Inferior armor? What? I did state previous theories and concepts in which can be applied to tanks and planes as well. One was armor, so it can't be inferior if that was created. Even then, the armor wouldn't be any weaker than a tank's, if not by much.
A 15m mobile suit necessarily has to have inferior armor to a tank. It's not a question of theories, it's a simple matter of math. The mobile suit has about a 10-15 (or greater) times as large a target profile as a tank. Given the same amount of armor, the mobile suit can only be protected with 1/10th to 1/15th the amount of armor thickness as the tank. Add in the effects of sloped armor that a mobile suit would be hard pressed to employ, and the disparity grows even larger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
If you read the paragraph underneath what you quoted from me, I said that the tanks can also be fitted with the same type of weaponry, but that would mean the tank would have to be altered to fit this "upgrade." Increased size, as I had said.
I thought that you said that the mobile suit would have "the same diameter (or bigger) in comparison to a tank's". This argues that the mobile suit would have the larger (or equal) weapon. My argument represents the reality that the tank would have the more powerful weapon by default, without any need for an "upgrade". Why do you think that the mecha would have a larger weapon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Weight. It's not that the jets have to be huge, but it would have to be able to handle the weight of the tank as well as balance the horizontal surface of the tank. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I actually think it's an interesting idea for a tank. The tank would have to be lifted off the ground a little so there would be space for the "boosters," but then it has to be spread out evenly so the tank wouldn't tip forward or backward and ruin the drivetrain in the process. On top of that, the hydraulics would need compensators for the shock from the impact of landing. I'm not sure if the military's tested what it's like to throw a tank off a one story building, but I can't even guarantee the wheels will survive.
If a jumpjet can lift a 70 ton mecha, then why would it have any difficulty supporting a 70 ton tank? Likewise if a legged drivetrain can handle the stress of a jump, then why wouldn't the tank's be able to do the same thing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
I'd pity the infantry getting wiped out from such a powerful weapon...but I was actually thinking more along the lines of firing at planes as well. I'm aware some jets have vulcans as a house armament.
Guns fired from the ground tend to be rather ineffective against all but low-flying planes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
It was an example. I've repeated it several times and I'm getting tired of repeating it, so I'll simply state that I stand by what I've said. Now, I don't quite see how a tank and a suit have the same exact role, when I consider the tanks for long range and the suits for infantry-type. Instead of throwing soldiers out there with as much protecting we can give them and that they can carry, mobile suits can provide the adequate cover while the "foot-soldiers" deal with entering buildings.
You'd be incorrect, as tanks have shown that with proper infantry support, they can be devastating in urban warfare (as Guppy said, doing exactly what you described). As far as I can tell, there's no role that a mobile suit can fulfill that other vehicles could not do better. The tank role (either main battle, light or recon) is the only one where a mecha has a shred of a chance. If you can think of a better niche for mecha, please bring it up.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...

Last edited by 4Tran; 2007-02-17 at 00:11.
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 00:16   Link #84
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
I never said that the suit has to be that thickly armored "all over." Simply on the areas that are most vital, such as the torso. And yes, I moving joints tend to cause difficulty when it comes to armor placement. One solution to that is there be a few layers of plating. No, not all of them have to be thick. Only the outer layer will be thick plating in which they would be placed at the vital points. The other plating is to provide adequate covering for the mechanisms underneath, while allowing the suit to move and bend properly. What was it that a peer called it when I was discussing it with him? "Movable armor?" I'm not too sure. It practically means that the armor platings are not one solid plating, but in pieces. Of course, one would think that since the plates are separate pieces, the areas where they meet would be their weak point. True, thus the solution of armor layering so that the layer underneath would be covering the openings between platings.
This concept sort of works in anime, but it would utterly fail in real life. Main battle tanks have the thickest armor possible on the frontal arc so that it can be relatively proof against an enemy's strongest anti-tank weapons. This has the added advantage of being effectively immune to attack from an enemy's lesser weapons. If that were to be reduced so that only parts of the front arc were so protected, then the more vulnerable points would no longer give sufficient protection against those lesser attacks. This is a terrible trade-off, especially since the rear and side arcs are far less exposed to enemy attack, and are thus far less important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
It didn't fare against fortified infantry? Well, I can understand. That's where the suit's rifle comes in. That's what they did, didn't they? They called in for bigger guns because the ones they had weren't cutting it.
Not quite. The key is attacking from the proper direction. Proper fieldcraft can render infantry good protection from either high explosive or automatic fire from the same elevation, but it can be quite vulnerable to accurately dropped bombs from a much higher angle of attack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya
Is that so? Well, as I see it, a tank's long range ability, yet slow movement would put it in a position where it would attack from a distance if coupled with a suit and a few soldiers on foot. While the tank provides the cover from a distance, the suit, which should be able to cover the distance faster than a tank, can proceed to the target building while transporting the soldiers.
Your scenario doesn't need the mobile suit since there's no need for a tank to be slow. Or, as Guppy brought up, an IFV could do the exact same job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
...I know Im probably stating an obvious fact here, but MS in this world would be comepletely useless due to the lack of Minovsky Particles.]
It's actually not as much of a problem as you may think. Mobile suits are going to be useless in space and in flight no matter the circumstance, and gound warfare just doesn't use radar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
Batteries are another option, such as those used by SEED MS, but technology would have to make a huge leap in order to make batteries powerful enough to power a 50 foot tall
While battery technology has to advance a great deal to move something that big, our fossil fuel engines are quite up to the task of power generation. The legged drivetrain and control system would be the biggest challenges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guppy
And okay, so you layer the armour so there's always a thin plate over the joints. Great. It's still going to be less protective than a thick plate, and a decent hit is still going to ruin your day. How well does the joint bend once that thin plate gets warped by the shock of the first hit, or spalling debris gets stuck in it? Tanks mount things like spall liners on the inside hull to deal with that sort of problem - how much room is there for such niceties inside an armoured joint?
Worse, the "thin plate" is going to be awfully vulnerable to everything from autocannon fire on up. There's not much worse than a main battle suit equivalent that gets chewed up by ZSU-23s and the like. Heck, snipers often carry anti-materiel rifles which may manage to do the same thing. And that's not to even mention the kind of shot trap such a design would represent.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 01:15   Link #85
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
It's actually not as much of a problem as you may think. Mobile suits are going to be useless in space and in flight no matter the circumstance, and gound warfare just doesn't use radar.


While battery technology has to advance a great deal to move something that big, our fossil fuel engines are quite up to the task of power generation. The legged drivetrain and control system would be the biggest challenges.

Minovsky particles are basically EMP powerhouses, any computer not specifically shielded against them is pretty much useless, not just radar. This computer interference basically led to battle range being limited to basically eyesight and whatever slight results the on board computers can make, which is what gave the MS their advantage, and was their main key to being effective in battle. So what I actually meant is that since M. particles don't exist, MS have no cover from detection whatsoever, and could be detected and picked off easily by a long range weapon before the MS even has a chance to enter combat.

And as far as fossil fuels, in order for a fossil fuel engine to power the demands of MS in it's ideal combat activities (jumping, running, extended combat) you would need an very large amount of fuel, which when included with the engine itself, would make the suit unbelieveably bulky and add on to it's instability. Batteries and nuclear reactors, at least in my opinion, seem to be the only feasable power source. Though I do agree that the biggest challenge on making a true MS would be the actual control and programming in order to enable it to be controlled by one person with minimal training.
Dan the Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 02:17   Link #86
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
Minovsky particles are basically EMP powerhouses, any computer not specifically shielded against them is pretty much useless, not just radar. This computer interference basically led to battle range being limited to basically eyesight and whatever slight results the on board computers can make, which is what gave the MS their advantage, and was their main key to being effective in battle. So what I actually meant is that since M. particles don't exist, MS have no cover from detection whatsoever, and could be detected and picked off easily by a long range weapon before the MS even has a chance to enter combat.
This is little more than a flimsy excuse that Gundam's creators came up with. Computer interference isn't an issue because the majority of military equipment is designed to function in NBC environments, and would hence be already specifically shielded. Next, modern battlefields were projected to be extremely rich in ECM, so military communications were similarly enhanced - the only things which tend to be vulnerable would be things like the Americans' fancy C4I networks. Finally, if combat is restricted to visual range only (Which doesn't make any sense when LADAR is available, but meh ), then it stands to reason that mobile suits would be worse off rather than better. After all, one of the main drawbacks of mecha is that they're ridiculously easy to spot (and get taken out by long range fire, etc.).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
And as far as fossil fuels, in order for a fossil fuel engine to power the demands of MS in it's ideal combat activities (jumping, running, extended combat) you would need an very large amount of fuel, which when included with the engine itself, would make the suit unbelieveably bulky and add on to it's instability. Batteries and nuclear reactors, at least in my opinion, seem to be the only feasable power source.
Why? Large powerplants that exist today can fit into much less volume than mobile suits can accommodate. After all, a monster truck's engine can easily generate the 1000kW, or so, that's required to power a modest mecha. Tanks are notorious for being gas-guzzlers, but even new ones like T-90s typically have ranges of 350+km (500+km with external tanks), so it should hardly be a problem for the much bigger mecha. Besides, 15+m mobile suits are already "unbelievably bulky", so why would putting in a petrol engine make any difference?
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 02:29   Link #87
Guppy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
Tanks are notorious for being gas-guzzlers, but even new ones like T-90s typically have ranges of 350+km (500+km with external tanks), so it should hardly be a problem for the much bigger mecha.
Didn't the T-80M and T-90 go back to a diesel engine, after the T-80's brief flirtation with turbines? I've heard that the main problem with the M1's notorious thirst is that its turbine engine doesn't understand the concept of "idle."

As I understand it, the problem has been more or less solved with an auxiliary power unit, a small diesel engine that allows the main turbine to be switched off when not needed. (But, as usual, there's a tradeoff - apparently the diesel unit is not under armour, being externally mounted, and M1s have been written off in Iraq when their APUs caught fire after being hit.)
Guppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 03:01   Link #88
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
This is little more than a flimsy excuse that Gundam's creators came up with. Computer interference isn't an issue because the majority of military equipment is designed to function in NBC environments, and would hence be already specifically shielded. Next, modern battlefields were projected to be extremely rich in ECM, so military communications were similarly enhanced - the only things which tend to be vulnerable would be things like the Americans' fancy C4I networks. Finally, if combat is restricted to visual range only (Which doesn't make any sense when LADAR is available, but meh ), then it stands to reason that mobile suits would be worse off rather than better. After all, one of the main drawbacks of mecha is that they're ridiculously easy to spot (and get taken out by long range fire, etc.).


Why? Large powerplants that exist today can fit into much less volume than mobile suits can accommodate. After all, a monster truck's engine can easily generate the 1000kW, or so, that's required to power a modest mecha. Tanks are notorious for being gas-guzzlers, but even new ones like T-90s typically have ranges of 350+km (500+km with external tanks), so it should hardly be a problem for the much bigger mecha. Besides, 15+m mobile suits are already "unbelievably bulky", so why would putting in a petrol engine make any difference?
...I have a feeling you're not really reading what I'm saying. I'm supporting the fact that MS are basically useless. In the Gundam story, Minovsky particles were the reason MS were USEFUL, and if you were to take a MS from Gundam, and put it in a real combat situation, the lack of said particles would make the suit virtually USELESS because it can be seen from a long distance and picked off before the MS reaches it's combat range.

And though fossil fuel engines could very well power a MS, I wasn't arguing that it couldn't. The point I was trying to make, and never actually pointed out, is that in order to accomodate the space for the fuel, you need to add fuel tanks, and in order to ensure the safety of the suit itself, you'd have to protect the tanks with more armor, which was what I meant by adding to it's bulk. Also, with fossil fuels, you would have to burn up a lot of it in order to enable a MS to do so much as jump. The thrusters, through jumping, maneuvering, or other actions would end up eating up a large amount of fuel.

Furthermore, you don't have to say when I'm using fake science from Gundam. When I state AMBAC or Minovsky particles in my arguents, I am aware that these are not real. The reason why the MS are useful in the context of their worlds is due to these made up sciences and technologies. AMBAC aids space maneuvering, and Minovsky particles, which don't exist, allow for close combat without being picked off by long range weaponry, as well as being the fuel for beam weapons. In the context of the UC Gundam universe, that is why these weapons are advantageous. While a few of these sciences and theories are highly based on real sciences, I am not trying to pawn them off as real. Hell, look at how many fake scientific theories and ideas there are in Star Wars. It's all fiction, and the point I've been trying to make, though upon reflection in a very vague sense, that taking a weapon from said fiction is worthless when put in a real life scenario.
Dan the Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 03:15   Link #89
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
So alright, here we go...
"Is a Mobile Suit useful in a real battle"
Answer - Not at all

Why...
*Too big, can be easily spotted
* Unstable, can be knocked over fairly easily if attacked correctly
* Too damn expensive
* Too slow, would be unable to keep up with faster, smaller weaponry
* Without Minovsky Particles, beam weaponry is impossible, and all other MS weaponry could be easily attached to a tank, or other weapon.
* Coordinating all of the motor functions, balance, and combat motions through relatively simple controls would be extremely difficult
* Complex maneuvers, such as sidestepping, running, or close range attacks, as well as acceptable reflexes would be impossible with a MS.

Now, space combat may be the only feasible environment for a MS, though even that's a pretty big stretch. Space environments and colony construction led to mobile pods, and those may be the closest we may ever get to a MS. Other than that, the cons completely outweigh the pros in using MS in real life, and they would probably be the biggest waste of money anyone could put on a battlefield.

There, I just answered the threads question. Feel free to add to the cons, because I know there are more. Otherwise, take a break, get away from the computer for a while, and go have some pie.
Dan the Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 03:27   Link #90
Nvis
Grumpy Senior
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
MS's would be great in space though. I can't imagine what kind of thrusters are needed on Earth to maintain a MS in the air while maneuvering any direction quickly(which aircrafts can't do).

Though MS's can carry shields and can easily approach any ground force.
Nvis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 03:49   Link #91
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan the Man View Post
...I have a feeling you're not really reading what I'm saying. I'm supporting the fact that MS are basically useless. In the Gundam story, Minovsky particles were the reason MS were USEFUL, and if you were to take a MS from Gundam, and put it in a real combat situation, the lack of said particles would make the suit virtually USELESS because it can be seen from a long distance and picked off before the MS reaches it's combat range.
And he's saying that even if Minovsky Particle existed, giant mechs would still lose to tanks.

About the only thing that'd work to make giant mechs interesting if the existence of unstoppable pixies who dismantle tanks but leave giant mechs alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nvis View Post
MS's would be great in space though. I can't imagine what kind of thrusters are needed on Earth to maintain a MS in the air while maneuvering any direction quickly(which aircrafts can't do).

Though MS's can carry shields and can easily approach any ground force.
I can't imagine either, but put those same thrusters on a plane, and not only will that plane be faster and more maneuverable than any suit, it'll also have better armor. Its armor will be better than the suit's shield.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 03:58   Link #92
Nvis
Grumpy Senior
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
I can't imagine either, but put those same thrusters on a plane, and not only will that plane be faster and more maneuverable than any suit, it'll also have better armor. Its armor will be better than the suit's shield.
I'm thinking more of sudden thrust movements (like zig-zagging). I don't think aircrafts can do those kind of maneuvers. I always think of them as in moving in a curved line when turning(as in they can't do 90-180 degree turns) and with that makes their movements more predictable.

And MS's can aim their weapon almost in any direction(except behind them?), while aircrafts can only fire their weapons forward unless they have someone manning a turret(even then there are still limitations).
Nvis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 04:03   Link #93
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
If a MS can disregard those limitations, so can a plane. And it can do it better to boot.

Sure, present-day planes can't. But present-day MS can't exist at all, let alone fly. If you've got the future tech to build a flying MS, put it into a plane and get better results.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 04:07   Link #94
Nvis
Grumpy Senior
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
If a MS can disregard those limitations, so can a plane. And it can do it better to boot.

Sure, present-day planes can't. But present-day MS can't exist at all, let alone fly. If you've got the future tech to build a flying MS, put it into a plane and get better results.
But, say in the GS universe, the Sky Grasper still moves like a present-day aircraft with some better thrusters.
Nvis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 04:07   Link #95
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
If a MS can disregard those limitations, so can a plane. And it can do it better to boot.

Sure, present-day planes can't. But present-day MS can't exist at all, let alone fly. If you've got the future tech to build a flying MS, put it into a plane and get better results.
Say, isn't that the entire basis of the Mobile Armour in the Gundam univese?
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 04:12   Link #96
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nvis View Post
But, say in the GS universe, the Sky Grasper still moves like a present-day aircraft with some better thrusters.
Yeah. That's because GS is a work of fiction based on the premisce that giant mechs are superior weapons.

Apparently, the only guys who design planes and tanks in gundamverse are grade school kids on school projects, while all the real engineers are forced at gunpoint to make only giant mechs.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 04:40   Link #97
M_Flores
Count of Monte Dorifto
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Isla De Monte Dorifto
Send a message via MSN to M_Flores
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
Say, isn't that the entire basis of the Mobile Armour in the Gundam univese?
If you're not talking about CE, then yes, lol.
M_Flores is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 04:50   Link #98
kalbron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
While I completely agree that MS are particularly useless in comparison with tanks and the like I think they would actually have a good point when fighting tanks, namely their height. Yes it does make them a target which has "Shoot Me!" written all over them but i can only feel that the angle of fire they can produce against a tank (coupled with a burst-fire anti-armour weapon of some sort) would enable them to spray some of the slightly more vunrable points of a tank, ie: the hatches, base of the barrel, turret joint and the top of the engine armour (last two depending upon the tank of course).

Of course this role would be better filled with gunships and or infantry with anti-tank weapons, and they'd have next to no chance of surviving to get within range but they don't only have bad points you know!

Not to mention of course that even if it became effective tank designs would alter to make them completely useless again...
kalbron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 07:02   Link #99
Last_Hope
System/Web developer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
I can´t even imagine how complex it would be to steer a mobile suit and how expensive it would be. Perhaps it can be a field of use for them like in that old game Earth Siege (on the ground) but not as they´re used in the Gundam universe. There´s also their silhouette and hit-area, if you want them to house a pilot they would have to be awfully big.

The feeling I get is that it would be like Destiny vs Destroy, with realworld Gundams taking on the part of Destroy. Slow and easy to hit and with more things to keep track on than a regular human can handle.
__________________

Want to know who did this kickass sig? Just click it!
Last_Hope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-17, 08:04   Link #100
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
maybe offtopic.....but Patlabor Alphones Ingram is another example of what is to come in near future?
duotiga 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 22:43.


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