Fun with numbers, Gundam style

[Sides]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Nonsense. It doesn't take an engineer to see that there's something seriously wrong with the numbers they put up. All it takes is someone to take a little time to make sure that they're not too silly.

You have to think differently, the animation was done in the 80's.
And i think at that time there weren't any numbers and specification of the MS.
The numbers were probably made up later.

I reckon they received hundreds of letters each day asking,
how a MS works and what their specification is,
eventually you give a office trainee the job to made up some numbers
and end up with this mess.

As i said there is nothing really wrong with the numbers,
if you declare it as a demand list form a client.
however to state these numbers as a technnical specification
and that it will work is a different thing.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

A "G" is the acceleration of an object in earth's gravity at sea level. This is equivalent to ~9.81m/s^2; therefore, a Zaku II's acceleration is stated as 5.79m/s^2.

Big G is the graviational constant.
Small g (or Gee) is, what you have stated, the acceleration due to gravity.
Don't mix them up, two differnet things, really.

[NeonZ]

The AMBAC system would be extremely inefficient compared to simply using vectored thrust. Even complicated maneuvers and facing changes can be done with less than a g of thrust (equal to just 2s of thrust from a Zaku II). This is corroborated in the shows since the mobile suits never (to my recollection) change orientation without employing their thrusters - we sure as heck never see mobile suits flailing their as the system would require.

Of course, this is on the assumption that the AMBAC system even works in the first place. If an object isn't ejecting mass or pushing off something, there's not much it can do to alter it's angular momentum. This system seems a lot more trouble than it's worth. In addition, if it works like it's cracked out to, then why do mobile suits have to have all those verniers?

Because it obviously can't to everything by itself. However, as much as you want to dismiss it, it is the official answer to your question. Turning isn't directly related to acceleration because it also depends upon the structure of the Mobile Suit's AMBAC system.

Also, you obviously didn't read the text. Nowhere they speak about "flailing arms".

NeonZ, what evidence do you have that Zaku IIs can turn and aim faster than a Magella's turret?

Huh... the animation? Several times we see Zakus turning faster than any tanks.

As I've shown earlier in this thread, the 120mm machine gun is an extremely low muzzle-velocity weapon.

You've claimed it. That's completely different.

You're assuming they have no way of actually spreading the energy necessary to shoot, to lessen the damage on the unit's structure, and you're basing that assumption on... nothing.

Also, it is officially stated that in the One Year War solid weapons used by Mobile Suits had better range than most Beam Weapons. Considering we see that those beams themselves have quite good range, solid weaponry must be even better ones. Yet again, contradicting your arbitrary statement.

There isn't a detailed description of all electric parts of the Zaku. What's next? Will you say that it's worse than a modern car because there isn't a detailed description of its electrical circuits, so it can't possibly move?

Minovsky Particles will have almost no bearing on ground combat - modern ground troops use very little radar to find things. Instead, they rely on thermal sights and the like.

Those visual aids are employed by both sides. In that situation, the Zakus have a clear advantage because of their height, which gives them extra range.

Edit: Besides, the Minovisky Particles mess with all kinds of stuff, even infra-red and electrical circuits have problems. It'll be hard to find something that isn't disturbed by those particles.

Crouching and crawling are very inefficient forms of movement.

The tank's means of movement are extremely inneficient in the first place compared to the Zaku's legs. Crawling/Crouching is problem for the Zaku, but everything it does is cancel one of its advantages.

The reason that the armies used aircraft is that they had no mobile suits capable of flight in the One-Year War.

Yet another false assumption. There were flying mobile Suits during the OYW, like a Gouf variation, and there was even a Gundam with a MA mode, they just didn't have widespread use.

I'm not saying these numbers are perfect or anything (just look at the acceleration of Zeta's Mobile Armors, most of them would be considered slower than some modern aircraft), but you're really trying to underrate the Zaku's numbers.

Besides, most of those numbers are very old. Stats like those aren't published anymore, that's why they're only avaliable for old series.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Sides

You have to think differently, the animation was done in the 80's.
And i think at that time there weren't any numbers and specification of the MS.
The numbers were probably made up later.

Which would make the original creators look a little better, and the specification writers look more like idiots.

Originally Posted by Sides

I reckon they received hundreds of letters each day asking,
how a MS works and what their specification is,
eventually you give a office trainee the job to made up some numbers
and end up with this mess.

My question is, how is this supposed to be an excuse?

Originally Posted by Sides

Big G is the graviational constant.
Small g (or Gee) is, what you have stated, the acceleration due to gravity.
Don't mix them up, two differnet things, really.

Yes, technically, everyone not using an italicized lower-case "g" has been misusing the unit. However, this isn't really a physics class (despite all appearances), and it's rather obvious that nobody's referring to the gravitaional constant, so I didn't think that this nitpick was worth pointing out.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Because it obviously can't to everything by itself. However, as much as you want to dismiss it, it is the official answer to your question. Turning isn't directly related to acceleration because it also depends upon the structure of the Mobile Suit's AMBAC system.

Also, you obviously didn't read the text. Nowhere they speak about "flailing arms".

While the text may not say anything about flailing arms, that's what they would have to do in order to perform as the text describes. Oh I know that AMBAC is the official answer, but it's still a silly explanation (which creates as many questions as it answers).

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Huh... the animation? Several times we see Zakus turning faster than any tanks.

NeonZ, what evidence do you have that Zaku IIs can turn and aim faster than a Magella's turret?
Perhaps you didn't catch my use of the word turret.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

You've claimed it. That's completely different.

Incorrect. I claimed that the 120mm machine gun is a low muzzle-velocity weapon, and provided a lot of reasons why, and even calculated it's upper limit. Since no one has yet successfully refuted it, it qualifies as as showing it.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

You're assuming they have no way of actually spreading the energy necessary to shoot, to lessen the damage on the unit's structure, and you're basing that assumption on... nothing.

This is a burden of proof situation. If you think that they have a magical doo-hickey, you'll have to provide some evidence for it.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Also, it is officially stated that in the One Year War solid weapons used by Mobile Suits had better range than most Beam Weapons. Considering we see that those beams themselves have quite good range, solid weaponry must be even better ones. Yet again, contradicting your arbitrary statement.

Really, I'm interested in the link to that quote.

It doesn't really matter anyways. A "solid weapon" doesn't specifically mean the 120mm. It could quite easily be talking about long-range artillery, which can have dozens of kilometers of range.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

There isn't a detailed description of all electric parts of the Zaku. What's next? Will you say that it's worse than a modern car because there isn't a detailed description of its electrical circuits, so it can't possibly move?

Nice strawman.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Those visual aids are employed by both sides. In that situation, the Zakus have a clear advantage because of their height, which gives them extra range.

Greater height will mean that it will be seen from a greater distance. What's going to be easier, a small object seeing a large object at a great distance, or vice versa?

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Edit: Besides, the Minovisky Particles mess with all kinds of stuff, even infra-red and electrical circuits have problems. It'll be hard to find something that isn't disturbed by those particles.

One would hope that all military electrical systems are already shielded from interference of all types. Even if the creators say that Minovsky Particles interfere with the infrared spectrum, this is directly contradicted by the shows themselves. Think about it for a second - heat is part of the infrared spectrum. Do we ever hear about heat being jammed? Also, most enemy craft are detected as "heat sources".

Originally Posted by NeonZ

The tank's means of movement are extremely inneficient in the first place compared to the Zaku's legs. Crawling/Crouching is problem for the Zaku, but everything it does is cancel one of its advantages.

Have you ever calculated how much power is required to move a tank? How about the amount for moving a legged drivetrain? Have you considered the questions of ground pressure, stress and fatigue? If you haven't, how can you say that a tracked drivetrain is relatively inefficient?

Besides, even while crouched, a Zaku II is still a bigger target than a Magella.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Yet another false assumption. There were flying mobile Suits during the OYW, like a Gouf variation, and there was even a Gundam with a MA mode, they just didn't have widespread use.

There, you said it for me. They didn't see "widespread use", which means that for the most part they were unavailable for fulfilling the aircraft roles. I'll modify my statement to "they didn't have any significant mobile suits capable of flight in the One-Year War".

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Besides, most of those numbers are very old. Stats like those aren't published anymore, that's why they're only avaliable for old series.

And there's a reason for that. I would imagine that the writers figured out that their numbers sucked, so they stopped trying to use them.

[Commander 598]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Have you considered the questions of ground pressure

In a discussion on the GOUF forums, the ground pressure of an MS-06J was calculated to be a fair bit less than a modern day Abrams. I can't recall exact figures though. Anyway, it seems fairly obvious anyway considering that a Zaku's foot seems to have more surface area than both tracks of an Abrams combined.

Regarding AMBAC:

Originally Posted by http://www.ultimatemark.com/gundam/archive/gundamcentury.html

The AMBAC System

Many of the reasons for the high performance exhibited by the MS-01 (formerly the ZI-XA3) were a result of its unique form. Its two magic hands could move more freely than human arms, enabling them to carry various weapons, and they could also be used for various working tasks or to open airlocks while entering colonies. Meanwhile, its two legs could be used to move across various terrains, and enabled it to carry a larger weapons payload and heavier armor than the hovercraft system used by the MIP-X1. For its power source, it used a traditional atomic reactor (a fission type) with an output of 2,200 horsepower.

Its joints were driven by a fluid pulse system, which used a pulse converter to turn the energy produced by the atomic reactor into pulses of pressure within a fluid. Thousands of fluid pipes, finer than human hairs, transmitted these pulses at supersonic speed to the rotary cylinders which drove the joints. This system yielded a higher operating speed than hydraulics, and lower weight and greater structural simplicity than electric motors.

While these arms and legs obviously contributed to the mobile suit's versatility, one might suppose they would become dead weight when it was used in space. However, Zeonic's engineers confounded this expectation by developing the AMBAC system (Active Mass Balance AutoControl system). Unlike previous space fighters, which used vernier rockets to change their attitude, this method allowed the mobile suit to change its attitude by moving its arms and legs.

At first glance, the fact that outer space lacks hindrances such as air resistance might seem like an advantage during combat operations, but this lack of resistance becomes a serious drawback when it comes to changing direction. When an aircraft makes a 180-degree turn in the atmosphere, it transfers its own kinetic energy to the air molecules via its wings and then uses the counter-reaction to change its direction, allowing it to turn with virtually no reduction in speed (1).

A spacecraft, however, must eject propellant and use the counter-reaction to turn itself. The propellant consumption is extremely high, and previous space fighters required 2.5 seconds for a 180-degree attitude change and exhausted their propellant after making 30 turns.

In the AMBAC system, however, the arms and legs are moved rapidly and the counter-reaction is used to change the attitude of the machine itself. Even space worker craft used a similar kind of mass movement for passive functions like balance correction. But the AMBAC system, thanks to the powerful atomic reactor and the fluid pulse system, could move the mobile suit's arms so rapidly that acceleration reached more than 100 G at its fingertips, enabling this huge machine to perform a 180-degree attitude change in less than three seconds.

This technique, which prevented the mobile suit from having to expend any propellant, meant that its arms and legs were not dead weight but rather an effective attitude control system.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

NeonZ, what evidence do you have that Zaku IIs can turn and aim faster than a Magella's turret?
Perhaps you didn't catch my use of the word turret.

The turret probably weighs alot considering it is carrying many 175mm rounds(Could be upwards of 30), an autoloader, armor, a fairly long-barreled gun. and it's own propulsion system(Plus Prollant). It likely is turned by a hydraulic system like today's armor. It's bound to move pretty slow. Today's 155mm M109A6 Paladin takes nearly a minute to set up and fire a round.

[Sides]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Yes, technically, everyone not using an italicized lower-case "g" has been misusing the unit. However, this isn't really a physics class (despite all appearances), and it's rather obvious that nobody's referring to the gravitaional constant, so I didn't think that this nitpick was worth pointing out.

If any other person did it, i wouldn't care.
However, untill your previous post you keep eveything neat and tidy,
that's why i picked on you ^_- just a part of my nature

Originally Posted by NeonZ

The tank's means of movement are extremely inneficient in the first place compared to the Zaku's legs. Crawling/Crouching is problem for the Zaku, but everything it does is cancel one of its advantages.

If the tracks are connected onto the sureface at all time,
how can it be less efficient that pedal movement ?
(don't even bother to answer this question ^_- ,
i reckon you're talking about the advantage of the whole package)

[SWPIGWANG]

I don't know if I'm going to get into a mech vs tank discussion in a Gundam forum. (which tend to drag out extremely long and end up in stupidity) I'll just make a post on the unaddressed points and leave it I guess.

Even if the creators say that Minovsky Particles interfere with the infrared spectrum, this is directly contradicted by the shows themselves. Think about it for a second - heat is part of the infrared spectrum. Do we ever hear about heat being jammed?

Heat generates Infrared, but it doesn't say much about what happens afterwards. Minovsky Particles as far as I know works similar to a smoke grenade in that is scatters and diffuses IR light, making scattering it out making it less useful in targeting.

The turret probably weighs alot considering it is carrying many 175mm rounds(Could be upwards of 30), an autoloader, armor, a fairly long-barreled gun. and it's own propulsion system(Plus Prollant). It likely is turned by a hydraulic system like today's armor. It's bound to move pretty slow. Today's 155mm M109A6 Paladin takes nearly a minute to set up and fire a round.

Compared to the upper torso of a Zaku and a 120mm MG with a 50+ round drum, it is probably lighter still. Zaku move at unresonable speeds for a 60ton vehicle however, so......

They could also mount 90mm MG on tanks and have far faster rerotation time than a 175mm.

Today's 155mm M109A6 Paladin takes nearly a minute to set up and fire a round.

The Paladin don't have a turret.

[NeonZ]

While the text may not say anything about flailing arms, that's what they would have to do in order to perform as the text describes. Oh I know that AMBAC is the official answer, but it's still a silly explanation (which creates as many questions as it answers).

But that's wrong. If I understood it correctly, they'd only need to move their arms in one extremely quick movement. Moving it back and forth wouldn't make any useful counter-reaction for movement. And, of course, the counter reaction, without any kind of separate thrust to move the suit, probably would have no effect at all.

Perhaps you didn't catch my use of the word turret.

I point back to the animation.

Zaku's are clearly shown turning around much faster than any tank turret. I don't know how you can even logically think otherwise.

This is a burden of proof situation. If you think that they have a magical doo-hickey, you'll have to provide some evidence for it.

I don't need to provide an argument for it. The animation proves. Those rounds are clearly very effective and show no problems.

We see that Zakus are better than tanks. The Zeon saw that. The Federation saw that.

That's why your whole argument makes no sense, this isn't a "vs topic" about two different series. We already saw this battle. We already know the winner. Zakus are clearly superior. Any other answer obviously is wrong.

It doesn't really matter anyways. A "solid weapon" doesn't specifically mean the 120mm. It could quite easily be talking about long-range artillery, which can have dozens of kilometers of range.

No, it doesn't. In that case, "solid" weapons are specifically the handweapons of mobile suits like Zakus. So, obviously, it isn't any random unrelated heavy artillety.

I'll look for the quote later.

In any case... Another quote from Gundam Century:

The Zaku's main weapons were a 105mm rifle, and a 280mm bazooka loaded with nuclear warheads. The 105mm rifle, a product of single-crystal metal technology, was essentially a scaled-up version of the low-recoil machine guns carried by human beings. As a result, the Zaku could dismantle, assemble, and reload its rifle using its own hands. Once loaded with a 100-round drum magazine, this rifle weighed about five tons.

So, the Zaku I's machinegun is basically an oversized version of a human machinegun, though that doesn't say much about the Zaku-II's 120mm Machinegun.

BTW, in spite of being "Steel" armored, Gundam Century states that its armor is strong enough to be hit by anti-air gunfire without suffering any significant damage.

Greater height will mean that it will be seen from a greater distance. What's going to be easier, a small object seeing a large object at a great distance, or vice versa?

Not really. The tank is limited by the lower height of its own weapon.

Do we ever hear about heat being jammed? Also, most enemy craft are detected as "heat sources".

However, that detection usually happens when they're extremely close to viewing range already. So, yes, even heat detection is clearly jammed. Besides, isn't most heat detection used in space battles? I don't see this actually having a big importance in ground combat.

Have you ever calculated how much power is required to move a tank? How about the amount for moving a legged drivetrain? Have you considered the questions of ground pressure, stress and fatigue? If you haven't, how can you say that a tracked drivetrain is relatively inefficient?

Meh. Efficiency was the wrong word. However, somehow, I don't believe you missed that...

What I mean is that Zakus, thanks to their legs, have more agility, speed and adaptability than any tank, simply because the tank's movement format is limited compared to those legs. That's a huge advantage.

There, you said it for me. They didn't see "widespread use", which means that for the most part they were unavailable for fulfilling the aircraft roles. I'll modify my statement to "they didn't have any significant mobile suits capable of flight in the One-Year War".

Not really. They weren't used because they just couldn't outperform crafts at that point. The Gouf needed big propellant tanks (though I don't know much about that one Gundam) and wasn't fast at all compared to an actual airplane.

And there's a reason for that. I would imagine that the writers figured out that their numbers sucked, so they stopped trying to use them.

I like how you created this collective entity which seems to be responsible for everything in Gundam. Bah. The first stats and technology descriptions actually were fan made. A few years later, an official book used modified versions of them.

In any case, I'd say they stopped using the stats only because they couldn't foresee how technology would actually develop through the next years. The low acceleration stats for Zeta's MAs are the biggest offenders, considering how quickly they became outdated. However, some mangas, like G-Unit, still created stats based on those models, even after they officially disappeared.

If the tracks are connected onto the sureface at all time,
how can it be less efficient that pedal movement ?

Hm... Ok, that was really wrong...

However, wouldn't that extra contact require more energy to move the whole structure? Wouldn't there be more friction? (or attrition, I'm not sure what's the right word because English isn't my main language)

The internal parts of a structure can become more efficient, but a random surface can't.

[Commander 598]

Originally Posted by SWPIGWANG

Compared to the upper torso of a Zaku and a 120mm MG with a 50+ round drum, it is probably lighter still. Zaku move at unresonable speeds for a 60ton vehicle however, so......

They could also mount 90mm MG on tanks and have far faster rerotation time than a 175mm.

The Paladin don't have a turret.

1. The upper torso of a Zaku doesn't turn nearly as often as the whole machine does, which is faster for both MS and tanks to do than rotate a turret. I'd imagine that a Zaku can turn it's whole body, acquire, and engage a target faster than any tank.

2. Yes. But the amount of ammunition it could carry would be limited.(Another plus for the MS: Quick Reload)

3. *Ahem*

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Commander 598

In a discussion on the GOUF forums, the ground pressure of an MS-06J was calculated to be a fair bit less than a modern day Abrams. I can't recall exact figures though. Anyway, it seems fairly obvious anyway considering that a Zaku's foot seems to have more surface area than both tracks of an Abrams combined.

When you're talking about legged drivetrains, pressure is not completely dependent upon the surface area of the feet. You also have to look at how the feet contact the ground and the motion of walking (this is even more true of bipedals ones).

AMBAC Quote:
Its joints were driven by a fluid pulse system, which used a pulse converter to turn the energy produced by the atomic reactor into pulses of pressure within a fluid. Thousands of fluid pipes, finer than human hairs, transmitted these pulses at supersonic speed to the rotary cylinders which drove the joints. This system yielded a higher operating speed than hydraulics, and lower weight and greater structural simplicity than electric motors.
Ouch.

A spacecraft, however, must eject propellant and use the counter-reaction to turn itself. The propellant consumption is extremely high, and previous space fighters required 2.5 seconds for a 180-degree attitude change and exhausted their propellant after making 30 turns.
And double ouch. That's quite amazing. The more they talk about this technology, the more ludicrous it sounds.

Originally Posted by Commander 598

Today's 155mm M109A6 Paladin takes nearly a minute to set up and fire a round.

You're right. A Paladin might find it difficult to hit a moving target. Hmm... maybe tanks like it would have more trouble than I thought... Wait a minute, there aren't any tanks like it! A Paladin is a piece of mobile artillery, so it isn't designed to engage enemy targets using direct fire! Maybe you should have picked a relevant example.

Originally Posted by Sides

If any other person did it, i wouldn't care.
However, untill your previous post you keep eveything neat and tidy,
that's why i picked on you ^_- just a part of my nature

I admit it; I laughed.

Originally Posted by SWPIGWANG

Heat generates Infrared, but it doesn't say much about what happens afterwards. Minovsky Particles as far as I know works similar to a smoke grenade in that is scatters and diffuses IR light, making scattering it out making it less useful in targeting.

Smoke also blocks visible light; it's actually nowhere nearly as effective at blocking thermal sensors. The case with Minovsky Particles is quite a bit different.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

But that's wrong. If I understood it correctly, they'd only need to move their arms in one extremely quick movement. Moving it back and forth wouldn't make any useful counter-reaction for movement. And, of course, the counter reaction, without any kind of separate thrust to move the suit, probably would have no effect at all.

Nope, you still need at least one correction to arrest your rotation. More likely, you'll have to constantly make these corrections, giving it the flailing effect. Thrusters would be far more efficient at achieving the same effect (Unless the thrusters are designed by morons, of course).

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Zaku's are clearly shown turning around much faster than any tank turret. I don't know how you can even logically think otherwise.

Examples please.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

I don't need to provide an argument for it. The animation proves. Those rounds are clearly very effective and show no problems.

What the animation shows is that firing the 120mm produces very little recoil. This indicates one of two things: that the gun has a very low muzzle-velocity, or that the Zaku II has a magical doo-hickey that allows it to violate the conservation of momentum. Which do you think is more believable?

Originally Posted by NeonZ

I'll look for the quote later.

I will await this quote.

Gun Quote: The Zaku's main weapons were a 105mm rifle, and a 280mm bazooka loaded with nuclear warheads. The 105mm rifle, a product of single-crystal metal technology, was essentially a scaled-up version of the low-recoil machine guns carried by human beings. As a result, the Zaku could dismantle, assemble, and reload its rifle using its own hands. Once loaded with a 100-round drum magazine, this rifle weighed about five tons.
Notice how this quote doesn't say anything about how powerful the gun is, nor does it say anything about range or anything like that.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

BTW, in spite of being "Steel" armored, Gundam Century states that its armor is strong enough to be hit by anti-air gunfire without suffering any significant damage.

It could also mean that UC anti-air gunfire is also anemic.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Not really. The tank is limited by the lower height of its own weapon.

Please answer the question: what's going to be easier, a small object seeing a large object at a great distance, or vice versa?

Originally Posted by NeonZ

However, that detection usually happens when they're extremely close to viewing range already. So, yes, even heat detection is clearly jammed. Besides, isn't most heat detection used in space battles? I don't see this actually having a big importance in ground combat.

Modern thermal sights are restricted to LOS to begin with, so I don't see how this changes anything.
The significance is that effectively none of modern ground combat technologies will be affected by Minovsky Particles.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

What I mean is that Zakus, thanks to their legs, have more agility, speed and adaptability than any tank, simply because the tank's movement format is limited compared to those legs. That's a huge advantage.

I don't want to get into the tank vs. mech debate too much. Here, I'll direct you to one of the more through ones.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

I like how you created this collective entity which seems to be responsible for everything in Gundam. Bah. The first stats and technology descriptions actually were fan made. A few years later, an official book used modified versions of them.

Really? So it's basically fanfiction that got published? Wow, I thought that it was a little more professional than that.

With regards to the newer specifications, I was hoping that they had come to their senses.

Originally Posted by Commander 598

1. The upper torso of a Zaku doesn't turn nearly as often as the whole machine does, which is faster for both MS and tanks to do than rotate a turret. I'd imagine that a Zaku can turn it's whole body, acquire, and engage a target faster than any tank.

That's sort of a backwards design concept to me.

Originally Posted by Commander 598

2. Yes. But the amount of ammunition it could carry would be limited.(Another plus for the MS: Quick Reload)

You don't seriously believe that, do you?

[WarpObscura]

Question, just for the heck of it: If tanks really are better physics-wise than mechs, why then do the Federation and Zeon (or, really, any of the combatant factions) not use Gundarium-plated tanks? Is it because of having insufficient space to mount a Minovsky ultracompact reactor and a beam "pistol"?

[NeonZ]

Nope, you still need at least one correction to arrest your rotation. More likely, you'll have to constantly make these corrections, giving it the flailing effect. Thrusters would be far more efficient at achieving the same effect (Unless the thrusters are designed by morons, of course).

You seem to have missed the entire point.

The Ambac system doesn't move the suit by itself, it only helps the thrusters with the counter reaction, so they need less fuel than a conventional spacecraft to make faster movements.

Basically, there's one main movement, thrust, and then a correction, if necessary. That's it.

Examples please.

Huh... Any Zaku shown in a battle against a moving target that isn't a main character suit?

Notice how this quote doesn't say anything about how powerful the gun is, nor does it say anything about range or anything like that.

Actually, it does say. The 105mm (and, looking at another translation of that site, the 120mm one too) is basically a giant sized version of conventional low-recoil machineguns. Based on that, one could get the data about those weapons, and calculate, considering its bigger proportions the range, speed, recoil, etc of the MS weapons.

Besides, we do see those Machineguns damaging battleship armor (In MS IGLOO). They seem to be fairly powerful. They're powerful and have great range, considering how it's stated that those machineguns were also used for sniping, according to a translation of "Roman Album Extra 42", from that same site.

http://www.ultimatemark.com/gundam/a...lbumextra.html

The quote about solid vs beam that I mentioned came from one of Tomino's original MSG novels. However, it's just second hand information, because I don't have any of them, and it probably doesn't have much to do with this discussion (because, from what I've heard, in the novel, the war is almost entirely fought in space).

Please answer the question: what's going to be easier, a small object seeing a large object at a great distance, or vice versa?

Usually, it's the smaller object, but terrain might change that. However, wars aren't fought only with surprise attacks.

Large troops, which will be necessary, especially considering how tanks are used (to protect locations which have already been taken, or to move land forces to attack a new place which already has been damaged by aircraft) won't have that advantage, and will just be limited because of their height.

Of course, a Mobile Suit is even worse at keeping positions, because they'll be sacrificing their speed and agility advantage, and will be only large targets. However, against tanks, and with decent strategy, Zakus shouldn't need to do that.

I don't want to get into the tank vs. mech debate too much. Here, I'll direct you to one of the more through ones.

And I'll direct you to another one...

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...r&ct=clnk&cd=1

Really? So it's basically fanfiction that got published? Wow, I thought that it was a little more professional than that.

That's only for stats of the first Gundam (and the fanzine Gunsight wasn't the only source, it also was based on Tomino's novels).

Of course, the other series needed to base their stats on the first Gundam, so...

If tanks really are better physics-wise than mechs, why then do the Federation and Zeon (or, really, any of the combatant factions) not use Gundarium-plated tanks? Is it because of having insufficient space to mount a Minovsky ultracompact reactor and a beam "pistol"?

But, they aren't better!

Ok, even assuming that they're better in their own field, there is an explanation.

The Zeon used Mobile Suits because they're space based. Accepting the AMBAC system, conventional spacecraft just can't compare to Mobile Suits. In the first moment, they only needed an effective space weapon, and the MS was the best weapon for those battles.

The Federation didn't develop a Lunar Titanium tank because it'd be useless for space battles, where the Zeon had their biggest advantage.

In later years, the Federation seemed to want to use a single kind of unit. Note that after a few years of using mobile suits, they dropped the support unit Balls (and even support-only MS), using conventional MS with bazookas in their place and also dropped aircraft, starting to develop Mobile Suits that could perform a similar function, the transforming MS seem in Z and ZZ.

So, the Federation dropped all other developments to focus on a single type of vehicle which could operate anywhere with minor modifications, the mobile suit.

Most Federation's enemies came from space, so, their use of Mobile Suits is basically for the same reason as the Zeon's.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by NeonZ

You seem to have missed the entire point.
The Ambac system doesn't move the suit by itself, it only helps the thrusters with the counter reaction, so they need less fuel than a conventional spacecraft to make faster movements.
Basically, there's one main movement, thrust, and then a correction, if necessary. That's it.

Where in the AMBAC descriptions does it actually say that? And, if that's the way it works, why do they even bother with it?

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Actually, it does say. The 105mm (and, looking at another translation of that site, the 120mm one too) is basically a giant sized version of conventional low-recoil machineguns. Based on that, one could get the data about those weapons, and calculate, considering its bigger proportions the range, speed, recoil, etc of the MS weapons.

Nope, that doesn't work. First off, you can't simply upsize a weapon and expect it to work. Secondly, there's nothing to indicate that the performance is upsized porportionally. For anyone with an understanding of structural engineering or ballistics, this would be an obvious sign of poor design.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Besides, we do see those Machineguns damaging battleship armor (In MS IGLOO). They seem to be fairly powerful. They're powerful and have great range, considering how it's stated that those machineguns were also used for sniping, according to a translation of "Roman Album Extra 42", from that same site.
http://www.ultimatemark.com/gundam/a...lbumextra.html

Again, it may just mean that battleship armor is extremely weak as well. Wait, actually it automatically means that - there's no reason for a battleship to have inferior armor to a mobile suit. I think that this situation was much better portrayed in MSG. By the way, the link you posted seems to contradict the other quote (low-recoil machinegun vs. rifle).

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Usually, it's the smaller object, but terrain might change that. However, wars aren't fought only with surprise attacks.

There's no usual about it. I have the feeling that you don't really understand the size disparity. Here's a scaled image I whipped up (I assumed that the Magella was 5m in height. The scaling is 20 pixels to 1 meter.

Simply put, in armored combat, the key is to remain unseen. That's why tank builders have been making them as small as possible.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

And I'll direct you to another one... http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...r&ct=clnk&cd=1

Interesting - nobody in that link seems to understand much about modern warfare.

Originally Posted by WarpObscura

Question, just for the heck of it: If tanks really are better physics-wise than mechs, why then do the Federation and Zeon (or, really, any of the combatant factions) not use Gundarium-plated tanks? Is it because of having insufficient space to mount a Minovsky ultracompact reactor and a beam "pistol"?

If the Minovsky reactor really is very big, then it may not fit a normal tank chassis. However, there's nothing stopping them from building a larger tank if need be, or simply using a standard combustion engine.

However, after the battle of Odessa, there really wasn't much need for an advanced tank on either side, so I give the creators the benefit of the doubt in this case. In the rest of the UC universe, I believe the only really dedicated terrestrial war machines are seen in Victory. And they had very different design philosophies in that show.

[NeonZ]

Where in the AMBAC descriptions does it actually say that? And, if that's the way it works, why do they even bother with it?

Huh... To save fuel and move faster?

This technique, which prevented the mobile suit from having to expend any propellant, meant that its arms and legs were not dead weight but rather an effective attitude control system.

It's just a system for turns and such things, it doesn't actually propel the MS entirely by itself.

Nope, that doesn't work. First off, you can't simply upsize a weapon and expect it to work.

Obviously, that's why I said "basically".

Secondly, there's nothing to indicate that the performance is upsized porportionally. For anyone with an understanding of structural engineering or ballistics, this would be an obvious sign of poor design.

Huh... why would it be poor design?

It would be hard to make the performance proportional to the smaller model, however, if they actually can do that, isn't that actually good design?

The name difference seems fairly minor. It's stated that the "rifle" has a rapid fire mode, so, it's clearly the same thing as the machine gun from the other document, even though there's a naming difference.

There's no usual about it. I have the feeling that you don't really understand the size disparity. Here's a scaled image I whipped up (I assumed that the Magella was 5m in height. The scaling is 20 pixels to 1 meter.

Simply put, in armored combat, the key is to remain unseen. That's why tank builders have been making them as small as possible.

Mobile Suits aren't just large tanks.

Even a Zaku is faster and has much more agility than one. Of course, if a Zaku stupidly was placed trying to guard a building or something like that it'd get easily destroyed, but in an actual attack duty, it will be much more effective than a Magella.

And, though bigger, Zakus also would easily be able to take cover, crouch, crawl, etc... The size problem isn't nearly as big as you think. A Zaku could even use something like a river for cover, it's a much more adaptable machine than a tank.

Besides, the Zaku's sensor have better range than the tanks, so, in a battlefield, it would most likely not only be able to see the enemy before them, it'd be able to attack from a very long range, an option that isn't avaliable to the tank, which stays so close to the ground.

Now that I think about it, the height wouldn't be only reason for the better range of a Zaku. Zaku's have an entire structure specially used for detection, the main camera/sensors of a Zaku are logically much better than the one of a tank, if both are made using similar technology.

I think you're considering only medium range combat, the only situation which would give some kind of advantage to the tank. Close range, you can have a Zaku dancing around a tank, stomping it, or destroying it easily with a single shot. Long range, the tank would be sniped before actually doing anything.

Also, as shown and stated, the Zaku's weapons, in spite of your arguments, are clearly effective in the Universal Century. the Magella also lacks a rapid fire weapon. So, the Magella really has no advantage besides size and lower cost.

[Commander 598]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

You're right. A Paladin might find it difficult to hit a moving target. Hmm... maybe tanks like it would have more trouble than I thought... Wait a minute, there aren't any tanks like it! A Paladin is a piece of mobile artillery, so it isn't designed to engage enemy targets using direct fire! Maybe you should have picked a relevant example.

The Paladin can engage targets in direct fire if need be, but what I was reading was talking about it's "Shoot and Scoot" ability meaning that it was referencing it's long-range artillery abilities.

the Magella also lacks a rapid fire weapon.

The Magella does have a 3-barrel 35mm MG, but it appears to be hard mounted on the body.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

You don't seriously believe that, do you?

Considering that an M1A2 Abrams carrys some 30ish rounds for it's main gun, it's M240B Coaxial and roof mounted, and the M2 mounted on the roof. An MS-06J can carry several 50rd mags, heat hawk, grenades, and sturm fausts/bazooka. While the Abrams probably carries more ammunition overall, most of it is anti-infantry while most of the Zaku's armament and ammuntion is anti-armor or multipurpose, i'm sure most of it's armament is quite effective against infantry.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Huh... To save fuel and move faster?

NeonZ, if AMBAC behaves as you described, then it would only be used to halt a rotation initiated by the thrusters. As such, it would neither cause the machine to move faster, nor would it save much fuel. This motion is rather trivial compared to the force that can be generated by the thrusters and verniers, therefore, it is effectively useless.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Huh... why would it be poor design?

It would be hard to make the performance proportional to the smaller model, however, if they actually can do that, isn't that actually good design?

The reason is that the strength of a material (the gun in this case) grows as a factor of the square of it's cross-section, while the stresses grow as a cube. This means that as a gun is scaled up, it must devote mass to its structure at a much higher proportion, or else the weapon will fall apart upon firing. This explains why a modern tank gun is only about 10x the calibre of a modern sniper rifle, but have several orders of magnitude the kinetic energy. It should also be obvious why simply upscaling a gun is a very bad idea.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

The name difference seems fairly minor. It's stated that the "rifle" has a rapid fire mode, so, it's clearly the same thing as the machine gun from the other document, even though there's a naming difference.

The contradiction is in the "low recoil" part. If an automatic weapon has a "low-recoil" then, it must perforce have a very low muzzle-velocity as well. Upscaling such a weapon will therefore produce a low muzzle-velocity weapon similar to what we see in the 120mm. On the other hand, a rifle built for sniping purposes must have a high recoil. This is after all one of the laws of motion - equal and opposite reaction and all.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Even a Zaku is faster and has much more agility than one. Of course, if a Zaku stupidly was placed trying to guard a building or something like that it'd get easily destroyed, but in an actual attack duty, it will be much more effective than a Magella.

Agility and the such don't really contribute much to survival on the battlefield. Modern tanks have special ammunition to shoot down helicopters.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

And, though bigger, Zakus also would easily be able to take cover, crouch, crawl, etc... The size problem isn't nearly as big as you think. A Zaku could even use something like a river for cover, it's a much more adaptable machine than a tank.

There's nothing "though bigger" about a Zaku II. It is, frankly enormous compared to a tank. Even crouching or prone, it's still a much larger (and more vulnerable) target.

If Zaku II's were only fielded as river assault/defense vehicles, then you may have a point about cover. As is, a tank can quite easily assume a hull-down position and present a target profile smaller than the Zaku II's head!

Originally Posted by NeonZ

I think you're considering only medium range combat, the only situation which would give some kind of advantage to the tank. Close range, you can have a Zaku dancing around a tank, stomping it, or destroying it easily with a single shot. Long range, the tank would be sniped before actually doing anything.

This would be sort of hard given the weakness of the 120mm.

Originally Posted by NeonZ

Now that I think about it, the height wouldn't be only reason for the better range of a Zaku. Zaku's have an entire structure specially used for detection, the main camera/sensors of a Zaku are logically much better than the one of a tank, if both are made using similar technology.

Height is generally more of a disadvantage than advantage in modern warfare. It simply makes you more of a target in an environment where your enemies have LOS-kill weapons. This is why modern designers make their tanks as small as possible.

Reconaissance is generally left to specialty vehicles - this is one of the reasons for the strength of combined-arms tactics.

Originally Posted by Commander 598

The Paladin can engage targets in direct fire if need be, but what I was reading was talking about it's "Shoot and Scoot" ability meaning that it was referencing it's long-range artillery abilities.

Still, it's sort of silly to bring in a mobile artillery piece when we're talking about tanks.

Originally Posted by Commander 598

Considering that an M1A2 Abrams carrys some 30ish rounds for it's main gun, it's M240B Coaxial and roof mounted, and the M2 mounted on the roof. An MS-06J can carry several 50rd mags, heat hawk, grenades, and sturm fausts/bazooka. While the Abrams probably carries more ammunition overall, most of it is anti-infantry while most of the Zaku's armament and ammuntion is anti-armor or multipurpose, i'm sure most of it's armament is quite effective against infantry.

Think carefully about this one. Why do you think it is that the M1 carries less ammunition, and what is the cost/benefit of both approaches?

[fizzmaister]

I just want to add a quick thing. For most of these parts I agree with 4tran. However, most of you have not had a resonable physics education and are mixing up units. HP is not force it is power or the rate at which energy is transfered. pounds force is a redundant phrase and pounds mass is an oxymoron. mass still matters in space because F=MA so more force (therefoe more propelant) is required to change an objects velocity (speed and direction)

[SWPIGWANG]

Conceded about M109 turret....
-------------------
Anyways, the reason why Mobile Suit is better in Gundam is because Gundam follows anime physics not "real physics." They can basically Bullshit anything the plot required and let the fandom spend hours making up justification for them. One of the worst offenders would be Macross with its missiles that exceed the internal volume of the VF in question. In Gundam, equal phyics rape occur with space combat physics (light saber fights in space DO NOT look like in Gundam, which regularily ignores rotational momentum) and obvious things like God, Wing Zero and Atakasuki-type uber MS (the angle of reflection for the antibeam coating makes no sense). And I'm only talking about ones that offend me while viewing, not when I start doing calculations....

Using anime physics as a basis for debate would result in many, many absurd results. (like anime school girls pwning many skilled martial artists...lets not go there ) Using anime physics, things like Nono (a.k.a. Gunbuster #7) is vastly superior to most battleships in Sci-fi (and would pwn the Death Star 1v1) but that says very little about its validity in design. (a cute girl being the ulitmate combat weapon...hmmm sounds familiar)

Forget giant robots, the future army should be populated by mahou shoujo (magical girls) like nanoha and powered natsumi ( http://anime.miao.us/archives/2005/12/04/517/ ) rather than mecha and tanks (actually, I would very much love that...keroro gunso have been better than the last few Gundam offerings)

That said, I ask the posters here to stop comparing modern tech to Gundam 0079, a good 100 bloody years after the current day using the offical time line.
---------------------------------

Using anime physics shown in Gundam, I'd say MA should rightfully rape MS silly. A MA (Apsalus III) powered by a mere 3 DOM reactors (under 4k BHP output) can dish out low nuclear firepower and have aimbot accuracy while being flight capable (too bad not really shown). Of course, that rapes physics good......

-------------------------
Using real physics however, and realistic scales for everything, a Tank would defeat an mech using equal tech with ease in vast majority of cases. The Tank would be able to mount far larger weapons (as in real sized weapons, not a gun that looks tiny but fires shells 10x larger than it should...60mm vulcan comes to mind) for the same given size and superior armor. If mobility is required and beam weapons perferable, a hover tank would pwn while being vastly cheaper than a mech. (when was the last time a Dom walked? Waste of weight)

[SWPIGWANG]

4tran, are you a spacebattles.com forumer? If so whats your login over there?

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by fizzmaister

HP is not force it is power or the rate at which energy is transfered. pounds force is a redundant phrase and pounds mass is an oxymoron.

I'm afraid it's been a long time since I was last in a physics class (I also never paid enough attention while I was there). If I ever referred to horsepower as a unit of force, then I apologize. However, pound-force (lbf) is a commonly used non-SI unit as is pound-mass (lbm).

From http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictP.html:
pound (lb, lbm, or #) [1]
a traditional unit of mass or weight. <SNIP for length> By international agreement, one avoirdupois pound is equal to exactly 453.592 37 grams; this is exactly 175/144 = 1.215 28 troy pounds. See avoirdupois weights for additional information. The traditional symbol lb stands for libra, the Latin word for the unit. The avoirdupois pound is sometimes abbreviated lb av or lb ap to distinguish it from the less common troy pound.The symbol lbm is used in science to distinguish the pound of mass from the pound of force (lbf): see pound force, below.

pound force (lbf or lb)
a traditional unit of force. Traditional measuring systems did not distinguish between force and mass units. A force of one pound is simply the gravitational force experienced at the Earth's surface by a mass of one pound. To compute this force, we multiply the mass by the acceleration of gravity, following Newton's law F = ma. Since one pound of mass is 0.453 592 kilograms and the acceleration of gravity averages 9.806 65 meters per second per second at the surface of the Earth, one pound force equals the product of these two numbers, 4.448 221 615 newtons. The symbol lbf should be used for the pound force to distinguish it from the pound of mass.

Originally Posted by SWPIGWANG

4tran, are you a spacebattles.com forumer? If so whats your login over there?

Nope, but I've lurked long enough to know how gory tank vs. mech threads can get. That's sort of why I'm trying to avoid that here. However, I do hang out at SD.net, where they tend to be even nastier at this sort of thing. My handle is 4Tran in every single forum I'm active in.

[flamingtroll]

Hmm, 4Tran, just gleaming over the posts, i Think this discussion is getting to the point of being silly. Although we are to blame for encouraging.

Here are just a few notes:

Gundam tech in general: It is SF, and a SF based on a even less scientifc genre of super robots. If you want to pick it apart and say it doesnt make sense it is extremely easy. Even the official gundam materials contradicts themselves and not all issues are addressed either. The attempt to do that is in itself silly. Although I can almost say that almost all of what see consider Sci-Fi can be take a part pretty easily too, as most of the creators arn't exactly engineers and scientist. And the fact that they still need a lot of the Fiction element.

AMBAC: That is the concocted rationalization of having giant robots in the show. The motivation at the start was to have giant robots, then come up with pseudoscientifc reasons to justify it. A human shaped object isnt the most efficient design of a gyro-like movement system. So don't watch gundam if this bothers you . Or in fact any mecha anime. There are no mecha anime that is realistic enough to jsutify it, maybe only in the few cases of Patlabour and Votom or GiTS if you count it as mechas. And even then they are not the most practical designs.

NeonZ, if AMBAC behaves as you described, then it would only be used to halt a rotation initiated by the thrusters. As such, it would neither cause the machine to move faster, nor would it save much fuel. This motion is rather trivial compared to the force that can be generated by the thrusters and verniers, therefore, it is effectively useless.

AMBAC is both used to initiate a turn and to stop a turn in coordination with the veriners systems and sub thrusters. And since there is no stats on them, we can only believe in whatever the stats they made up .
here are some nice pictures of it in offical MS Encyclopedia 2003


http://www.bad-words.com/images/msenc.html

Particular this

http://www.planetquake.com/gundamuni...aneuvering.jpg