2007-12-03, 19:53 | Link #121 |
Professional Genius
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: you don't want to know
|
well on the page I'm using for the leo it says it weighs approximately 7 tons unloaded and is powered by nuclear fusion (the type is unspecified) and the weapon probably weighs approximately three tons, and the thruster is probably around the same at lightest. really we're coming to a situation where the leo is a about 13 tons. The maximum weight is "unknown" so we can only infer that going from 7 to 50 tons is kinda odd. that's an increase by an exponent of 2, I don't think there is enough evidence to show that a machine cannon and thruster system could raise the weight by that much. http://mahq.net/mecha/gundam/index.htm wikipedia has the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_%28mobile_suit%29 .
Perhaps the first model on wikipedia is what your thinking of, the model with the larger dober gun instead of the smaller machine cannon or beam cannon. It would be a better idea to use ATGM's but moving to another rooftop would be a little harder and take more time, depending on the amount of time it took the target could have moved, the ms could (while moving via thrusters) could shoot at another target, even though making a better target of itself. it's a catch 22 for my position, despite the mobility of the suit its size makes it a bigger target and moving only makes it worse despite the fact it can shoot while moving. I'd say even before Nuremburg they found out the Nazi high command's mistakes (the late response to D day, the failed Atom bomb project and failing to take England out of the war before adding another front). As well as the role another question is Cost for Research and Development, production, maintenance, upgrades, and logistics. |
2007-12-04, 02:35 | Link #122 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Fact 1: An object denser than water will sink while an object less dense than water will float. Fact 2: Based on its dimensions, the Leo has a volume of at least 50m^3. Fact 3: Water has a density of 1000kg/m^3. Fact 4: In episode 1 of Wing, we see a Leo grapple Wing Gundam, and they both sink like rocks. Observation: In order for Fact 4 to occur, it's probable that both machines would have to be denser than water - while it's possible that one is much denser than the other, this is very unlikely given that their empty masses and dimensions are very similar. Conclusion: Since the Leo should be denser than water, it would have to mass at least 50m^3 * 1000kg/m^3, or 50000kg. This conclusion is sort of inescapable unless you want to totally discount episode 1 of Gundam Wing (and any other scene where we see Leos under water). Quote:
Quote:
Off-topic WWII stuff: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||||
2007-12-04, 08:44 | Link #123 |
I-Doll
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: I-DOLL System
|
well... IMHO, Labors and Wanzers are having more chance to realization than mobile suit
many labors in Patlabor are nothing more than a legged-tractors, like Hercules for example and wanzers ? well... i think wanzer would be a good machine in jungle/swamps, where tanks can never be use |
2007-12-04, 22:10 | Link #125 | ||
Professional Genius
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: you don't want to know
|
It's hard to argue that 50 english tonnes can be supported by a a high rise but weight and mass aside, they would make a big target but an ms that high up could take out targets which are quite far off and anything directly under it is dead. and they would attract fire anywhere like any vehicle which your opponent wants to destroy. it's just they make bigger targets, meaning they'd have to fire back at an equal (if not greater rate than what's firing at it).
Mecha need to be tested beforehand like any other equipment to prove effectiveness not battle tested, that comes later, but they need to be tested to prove other forms of efficiency and effectiveness. Quote:
Quote:
And had the Germans held out and Choked Britain with submarines and battleships as well as spread them out in Africa with Italy and not dragged the US into the war (Japan) they could have pulled off a win. |
||
2007-12-04, 22:38 | Link #126 | |||||
Has a life IRL
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Anglo-Saxon Sphere
|
Quote:
And were something like a tank to be "right below it," that MS would be doomed as soon as the tank started releasing HE into the base of the building, or long range artillery starts knocking that building down. Quote:
Quote:
Not really, because they were all working off the same erroneous foundation layed out by Heisenberg. Saying that combining all three (when only one got serious effort) would have succeeded is like saying that a tree with a rotten base would grow taller if all the limbs combined; it doesn't change the fact that the base alone will topple the tree. Quote:
If you want to point errors in the German attack on the Soviet Union, it would be better to point out Hitler's time-wasting sidetrips rather than focusing on Moscow, or how Nazi policy turned being greeted as liberators from Russia into one of histories most successful insurgencies, or even how German infantry was woefully under-mechanized and how the Panzers took unneeded losses because infantry wasn't there to take care of Russian infantry when needed. But timing isn't one of the German flaws in the invasion of the USSR. Quote:
Africa was a losing game from the get-go for Germany, a back-theater in which Rommel became famous for victories despite his handicaps, not because of German interest. Outright German victory in Africa was more a pipedream than most anything else, and took more German resources than it did British (or American). The Allies could afford the sideshow, and it let them blood their men. Germany just was using resources better spent against the Russians. And Japan's reasons for dragging the US into war were as much to not be forced under American economic dominance as much as anything else. After the American embargo, the only way for Japan to maintain it's military and empire was to get the resources it needed from the DEI (which required the Philippines as well, which meant war with the US), or to back out of China, leaving the very angry nationalists at their back door and basically signalling that the halls of Washington would decide the policy of Tokyo. IE, it was as much a war for japan's sovereignty as for resources. |
|||||
2007-12-05, 09:24 | Link #127 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Dean_the_Young already covered all the WWII points, so I won't go into any detail there. Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2007-12-05, 12:14 | Link #128 | |
Has a life IRL
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Anglo-Saxon Sphere
|
Quote:
Now, whether that would have translated into a victory for Hitler in the East with Stalin so vulnerable and prone to losing power, I don't know. But it came much closer than most likely want to admit, and if Stalin basically abandons European Russia then that would cause major changes there, even if Russia bounced back from its industry that was bloodily moved from the far east. However, that doesn't really change your point that the Nazi plan was largely reliant on a Soviet collapse, and that that is a horrible thing to bank on, but it did come dangerously close. |
|
2007-12-06, 17:17 | Link #129 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
I forgot to address this earlier:
Quote:
Quote:
WWII Off-topic: Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2007-12-10, 19:11 | Link #134 | |
Has a life IRL
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Anglo-Saxon Sphere
|
Quote:
For example, why is it that bipedals are the slowest creatures in nature? And why wouldn't that hold true in mechanics, not least because it is a measure of mechanics? |
|
2007-12-11, 01:08 | Link #135 | |
Defeater of Robot Masters
Artist
|
Quote:
I suppose the greatest argument for humanoid mechs is their supposed adaptability. I suppose the human form allows a certain degree of versatility in traversing unusual terrain, perhaps if there were a need to climb up a steep rock face or something else rediculous like that. I guess the human figure would also allow a limitless amount of firing angles, with no vertical limitations like turrets. For those two high points in humanoid mechs, both aren't really worth much. Tough terrain can be overcome by aircraft and infantry, and mech maneuverability would require untold amounts of computer programming for maintaining balance and keeping controls easy enough to be used effectively in combat. If there are any advantages to human mechs, it's beyond our current capabilities at least.
__________________
|
|
2007-12-12, 19:14 | Link #137 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
Complexity, albeit true, is not the low point of a Gundam-like humanoid mech. It has been pointed out endlessly that the humanoid form is inherently flawed as a weapons platform compared to the MBT - mobility, silhouette, stability, protection. The so-called versatility of the humanoid mech in combat, i.e., traversing extreme terrain, omnidirectional firing, *gulps* dodging direct fire are just myths.
__________________
|
|
|
|