(Any gundam) Bipeds VS conventional weaponry

[JohnSilver]

What is your opinion on Mobile Suit vs Conventional weapons (tanks, fighter planes...)?

Bipeds have a huge edge over most land-based weapons due to their polyvalence and increased mobility (and armour, in a way), and the fact they require only 1 operator makes them far superior to tanks (who require 3 to 4 operators) on a human ressources point of view.

Against aerial units, MS have the advantage of heigth and flexible hardpoints (arms), but are about as vulnerable to air strike as any other ground units (most Gundam shows forget about that point in ground combat... A cluster bomb would work wonders on a MS division.)

As for space combat... MS are just as good as any other starfighter-type unit, since the lack of gravity and pressure allows them to use their humanoid form to their best...

Now for your opinions...

[Inuzuka]

If a tank were to go up one-on-one with a GUNDAM, the result would be pretty obvious wouldn't it? But as Mwu has demonstrated on numerous occasions, it all depends on the pilot/ crew's skills. And yeah, human resources wise, a GUNDAM is superiour to an average tank, but would the cost saved from hiring human resources be enough to cover up the costs for building an intricate warmachine like the GUNDAM?

- I always wondered why they made GUNDAMs humanoid though, just curious

[srb]

Well, I'm a believer in combined arms.

Mobile suits have the height advantage which would allow them greater range as well as the ability to strike at the weak points of tanks like the top, but in return they are much easier to spot and are greater targets. Remember that in the 8th MS Team a Magella crippled a RX-79 by firing at its leg (the weak point of a bipedal terrestrial combat vehicle). Sure, that was a 175mm cannon but the RX-79 is supposed to be armored with luna-titanium, and something like that just doesn't exist. The armor is a problem, but let's keep it a fictional debate and not pulling in real-world technology into it.

I would actually think it would be more efficient to have two operators in a terrestrial-combat MS like in attack helicopters - one a pilot, one a gunner. This would let the pilot concentrate on one task and the gunner another. Give the pilot control of the hand-carried weapons (can be switched over to the gunner) and give the gunner control of the head CIWS and body-mounted weaponry like shoulder-mounted cannons. This would probably be more efficient, and you see Andy and Aisha in the LaGOWE doing this - Andy is the pilot and Aisha controls the weaponry. MS units should also always work with attack helicopters that can guard them.

As you said, against aerial units a MS has certain advantages - in SEED you can see how a DINN merely turns and rotates its arm to fire at a fighter who is coming around for another attack run, but again, a bigger target. With higher maneuverability this is not such a big deal. Stealth is a big deal here though unless some sort of excellent jamming technology is implemented, but all-in-all I would say that aerial MS would be excellent raiders and assault machines and could hopefully take the attention away from more conventional fighter-bombers that act as their support.

[F!reStr!fe]

If were talking about any Gundam and stealth wut about Deathscythe from Gundam Wing that thing had uber stealth.

[srb]

Originally Posted by F!reStr!fe

If were talking about any Gundam and stealth wut about Deathscythe from Gundam Wing that thing had uber stealth.

It also had a scythe and at 7 tons it could take beatings that would sink a battleship of several hundred thousand tons.

With "stealth" I don't mean some sort of magical system like the Deathscythe has (which has never been explained) but more like the way of reflecting radar and sensors or jamming radar and sensors.


We should rename this thread to "Any Gundam - Except G and Wing" considering that those two aren't war shows although good at what they do (G as a super robot series, Wing as a tragic comedy).

[Flying Dagger]

It takes a long time for someone to be trained as a skillful Gundam pilot relative to a tank driver/fighter plane pilot.

Gundam is also more expensive to create in terms of cost. Of cause something which costed billions of dollars to develop will be superior over something thats much cheaper at maybe the 1kk range.

I always wondered why they wouldn't make phase shift tanks with better armor and weapons... its stupid how one MS can take out an array of tank in 1 hit...

[Hanbok]

Like stated before Gundams are far stronger than any conventional weaponry. Of course other people will try to obtain this technology and TRY to assemble it. The problem with upgrading conventional weaponry is that you have to find ways to make it cheap and able to mass produce it quickly.

[srb]

Originally Posted by Flying Dagger

It takes a long time for someone to be trained as a skillful Gundam pilot relative to a tank driver/fighter plane pilot.

Gundam is also more expensive to create in terms of cost. Of cause something which costed billions of dollars to develop will be superior over something thats much cheaper at maybe the 1kk range.

I always wondered why they wouldn't make phase shift tanks with better armor and weapons... its stupid how one MS can take out an array of tank in 1 hit...

Tanks with phase-shift would be the true masters of the battlefield when faced with enemies using ballistic weapons. However, how would you provide the power? Phase-Shift uses quite a lot of power, and the more it gets battered the more power it uses (I don't know if this is a fact, but from what I've seen in the show and based on Andrew Waltfeld's comment that it would power-down after a certain amount of hits, that is what I assume).

A tank armed with a beam cannon would be a better choice - much smaller and easier to hide than a MS and could form nasty ambushes and pose a great defence versus MS units. The best defence is a good offence, and even if it had Phase-Shift it would still be almost entirely useless versus beam weapons, the same reasons that mobile suits in the UC timeline were stripped of armor and got added thrusters and were even cut around 3 meters in average height (comparing the RX-78 at 18,5 and the Victory at around 15), just to increase maneuverability and decrease the target profile because if you take a beam rifle hit in a critical location no amount of armor is going to defend you.

[katon]

For now Gundam is probably the dominate one (duh) but who knows what will happen when, well, what everybody said before my post, haha, too lazy to quote.

[JohnSilver]

Originally Posted by srb

A tank armed with a beam cannon would be a better choice - much smaller and easier to hide than a MS and could form nasty ambushes and pose a great defence versus MS units.

You can't place a tank on top of a hill, covered in camo with a sniper beam rifle and supplies to last for a week. And if spotted, the MS would have a better chance of survival (except against a air strike or artillery strike, of course).

The two biggest problems with a tank (as pointed out in Battletech, actually): deploiment flexibility (you can't deploy tanks just about anywhere while bipedal mobile units can pretty much be deploied anywhere) and crippling problems (you only need ONE shot to cripple a tank offensive capacity while you need a few to eliminate the humanoid completely...)

[Flying Dagger]

Well, nevertheless, a PS tank with beam cannon will make an excellent defence unit due to remote recharging. Offence wise, there can be a super defended remote power generater. Also, a MS, even without PS armor, is already consuming a LOT of energy (E = mgh <- MS are heavy and the action done by MS are rather inefficient compared to wheels). Tanks are much more energy efficient.

Movement wise, to disable a MS, all you need to do is to focus fire on of of its legs. Of cause the MS can fly, but flying will chew up the energy remaining in the MS in seconds on planets.

[F!reStr!fe]

If u want to know about Gundam capabilities on ground combat watch The 08th MS Team all the mobile suits were ground capable and had a damn powerful edge.

[JohnSilver]

But what if you use a nuclear fusion plant, like the original MS and not the Appliance type (plug your Gundam in the wall to recharge it... rofl)... You have an almost limitless amount of power there, so the power argument doesn't really change anything there (and let's face it, other than nuclear fusion, there's no energy source that could power a MS...)

And you have to remember that a MS pack a lot more firepower than any tank... You can load a 105mm canon on a tank (most modern tank do, anyways), but it won't be a autofire rifle... And to have a beam weapon equipped tanks still have the mobility problem of any other tank... You can't cross a lake with a tank, or climb mountains (08th MS team proves a lot of those things, using MS where conventional weapons would have been impractical).

[F!reStr!fe]

The Beam weaponery of the 08th MS team was fairly limited they had those beam rifles and then the beam sniper rifles. they used "actual" heat laws and all that required that the weaponery needs cooling. firing a Beam of energy from a tank would like he said limit its mobility comparing the size of the beam rifle to a tank look at it the beam rifle is or is bigger than any tank. And a tank you would need to keep a crew on it while firing which would make the tank really really hot and space would be highly limited.

[xLightSlayerx]

Now Now, aren't we forgetting gundams have BIG GUNS, FLY, FAST, LOOKS BETTER O_o

Step on a tank and they dead. Run into a airplane, they dead. Just do a Body Slam, then earthquake. They got fannels too =)

[Newprimus]

Okay, you're probably all going to disagree with me at first, but bear with me. I used to be a pro-mecha (bipeds, gundams, mechs, etc) and still am to some extent, but after hearing what a few people, consisting of at least one engineer, one physicist, and more equally educated, have had to say about the matter, I'm a bit more knowledged in the subject too now. Anyway, here goes

Bipeds have a huge edge over most land-based weapons due to their polyvalence and increased mobility (and armour, in a way), and the fact they require only 1 operator makes them far superior to tanks (who require 3 to 4 operators) on a human ressources point of view.

First, mobility:


Let's compare a generic tank and a generic mech. How does the tank move? A set of motors spin to drive the tank across on a set of treads. There's a bit more to it, but the basic mechanism is akin to that of a car driving across a road, more or less. A simple motor turns a simple wheel, said wheel finds traction against the ground and the vehicle moves.

A mecha on the other hand has a pair of legs. It must not only lift and set back down each leg, it must do so while maintaining perfect balance so that the entire machine, weighing at least several tons, for sure, does not immediately lose balance and topple. You'd need gyroscopes, intricate sets of motors and such to control each leg.

Third, let's assume both mecha and tank can move laterally across the ground at the same speed, for the sake of simplicity. Though both move across the ground at the same speed, which vehicle uses the simpler mechanism to achieve the same work? Most likely than not, I'm sure you'll agree with me that the tank, with its simple basically wheel-driven motor-based locomotion is far simpler than the mecha's legs, which have to worry constantly about balance.

And more about balance: A tank's weight is evenly distributed across it's area while a mecha is distributed across two relatively small surfaces. Try to push one over somehow, which do you think will fall over first eventually? The mecha may, yes, move its legs to brace itself, but I'm sure you've put yourself in such a braced position before and have a friend still push you over. Now imagine instead, you were lying flat against the ground like how a tank might. Now dare your friend to try to tip you over onto your side. Much more difficult, I'd presume.


And more on this equal weight distribution: Ever tried walking through deep snow in your bare shoes or boots? Kinda hard, I'd imagine? You feet keep sinking deep into the snow with each step and it's hard to pull your feet back out. So imagine the mecha were in your position---more or less same situation there.

Now how do we cross this deep snow? Ever seen one of those snow shoes things? Like this one:

http://www.majorsurplusnsurvival.com...01/0807821.jpg


And a fellow wading across the snow with a pair:

http://www.pinetreeline.org/photos/cartwr/cartw254.jpg


Those shoes serve to distribute your total weight over a larger surface area. Spreading the load more evenly out, in other words. Makes trekking across thick snow much easier. Same with the tank. If a tank and a mecha both weighed fifty tons, the tank would obviously have an easier time trekking across such a field of snow than a mecha; the same way you'd have an easier time crossing such ground with a pair of snow shoes than without.


There is one area where tanks and other such wheeled or tracked vehicles will fail and that is in areas like woodlands or urban areas with much debris and ruin. Tanks obviously can't pass through or over such things, so mecha may have an easier time navigating such terrain. But then again, we have infantry, and infantry are perfectly suited for navigating such terrain anyway. Arm the infantrymen with enough firepower and I think they can do a fine job fighting in such terrain as a mecha might.



Now, onto the idea of 1 mecha operator vs. 3 or 4 in tanks:


Misconception. Exactly what dictates that a tank must have 3 or 4 operators compared to just one in a mecha? Modern day tanks usually have four crewmembers: the commander, the driver, the gunner, and the loader.


Let's imagine the functions of a mecha could be divided into such categories. You have the commander, the driver, the gunner, and the loader. However, driving a mecha requires much more precision and effort than driving a tank, due to the balance issues involved. One person may not be enough to handle the task, so you might need one main driver and a secondary to handle the whole job.

Gunnery? You assumedly have weapons on the arms and perhaps on the shoulders as well. The gunner has to put more effort in coordinating the weapons with the driver. The arms have to move indepedently, and they also help with balance. Already the main driver, balance, gunnery love triangle is getting pretty complicated.

And let's not forget the commander who has to manage all these different factors just to operate the mecha with any sufficiency. Or the loader, unless the weapons are self-loading or energy-based, in which case there probably won't be a need for a loader.

However, even discarding the idea of a secondary driver, a mecha would still have the same number of operators as a tank. Both will have a commander, a driver, and a gunner.


Now, let's assume computer systems have become advanced enough that all such functions can be simplified and integrated enough for one pilot. If such systems are advanced enough for a single operator to handle all the complex operations of a mecha, then why not the same for a tank, which by technical definitions is a much simpler machine to operate? (otherwise we would've invented mechs first before tanks) There are no scientific or rational reasons behind why such a thing would be impossible for a tank as well, aside from sheer plot device.


So in that regards, both tank and mecha can conceivably require only one operator each to pilot. Any more for one or the other and it can only be reasonably attributed to simple plot device.

As for space combat... MS are just as good as any other starfighter-type unit, since the lack of gravity and pressure allows them to use their humanoid form to their best...

I assume you mean using their arms to aim at different targets at once? If so, then why not simple mount a starfighter's weapons on turrets instead, allowing them the same multiple-targeting ability with only a fraction of space or engineering required, since a simply turret is obviously far easier to operate, design, or maintain than an entire mechanical arm.

Secondly, why would you need legs in space combat? Would a mecha need them to rapidly maneuver, if their thrusters are located on the bottom of their feet? If so, then why can't starfighter's simply have adjustable thrusters as well, achieving the same effect at less cost and stress to the machine (think about it. A starfighter's thrusters are more closely located to its central body, allowing for more secure placement, while a mecha's legs must endure the stress on themselves which in the starfighter's case will simply be distributed more equally over its entire frame)

And lastly, the concept of combined arms warfare. If you're going to make an infantry unit, then make an infantry unit, pure and simple. Don't add extra junk like jetpacks to let them fight in the air. You want air? Why not have things dedicated to combat in the air such as planes and choppers? Or want those planes to be able to land in water and traverse the water and fight on water as well? Why go through the wasteful effort trying to make the airplane into something it's not, instead of simply building a boat or a ship?

A jack-of-all-trades is a master of none, the saying goes. Same here. If you want a mecha, then keep the mecha designed for and situated for where it originally was meant for: the ground. You want to fight in space? Build fighters instead.

Mobile suits have the height advantage which would allow them greater range as well as the ability to strike at the weak points of tanks like the top, but in return they are much easier to spot and are greater targets.

True on all counts except for the range bit.

You need greater range? Then instead of turning yourself into a mecha and giving yourself a much larger target profile, why not just build yourself a better, more longer-range gun instead?

And speaking of guns, unless these are some magical, energy some-thing guns, there will be recoil. Which do you think can handle recoil better: a human-shaped mecha standing on two flimsy legs or a tank that lies low to the ground with a wide surface area to brace with? I don't think I need to explain this bit.

Remember that in the 8th MS Team a Magella crippled a RX-79 by firing at its leg (the weak point of a bipedal terrestrial combat vehicle). Sure, that was a 175mm cannon but the RX-79 is supposed to be armored with luna-titanium, and something like that just doesn't exist.

If a gundam can be armored with luna-titanium, then why not a tank? Is there a logical reason why a tank can't have equal armor as a mecha?

The armor is a problem, but let's keep it a fictional debate and not pulling in real-world technology into it.

If you're willing to accept mecha superiority purely as a result of plot device, then that's fine with me.

As you said, against aerial units a MS has certain advantages - in SEED you can see how a DINN merely turns and rotates its arm to fire at a fighter who is coming around for another attack run, but again, a bigger target. With higher maneuverability this is not such a big deal.

Again, why not have the weapons of a fighter on turrets so that it can keep firing at a target even when not facing it? Also the fighter has the advantage in that it's ALWAYS moving. Harder to hit a moving target than a hovering one, no? If the mecha is moving too, then that just goes back to what I said earlier above. Same for the maneuverability bit.

Like stated before Gundams are far stronger than any conventional weaponry. Of course other people will try to obtain this technology and TRY to assemble it. The problem with upgrading conventional weaponry is that you have to find ways to make it cheap and able to mass produce it quickly.

Of course, the show's creators neglected to take into account that the people could simply take what technology Gundams have that makes them so unique and simply apply them to things like tanks and fighters instead.

You can't place a tank on top of a hill, covered in camo with a sniper beam rifle and supplies to last for a week. And if spotted, the MS would have a better chance of survival (except against a air strike or artillery strike, of course).

You could of course just drive the tank to the top of said hill, park it there, cover it with camo, and have its main gun ready to blow away its assigned target. Unless it's some hilly, woodland area. In which case a better idea would be to simply set up a dedicated fixed sniper cannon that will devote its entire power to its gun and its gun only without any concern for maintaining any of the other functions a gundam may have to worry about.

Or even better, just land a fighter or bomber, cover it with camo. Target appears, fire, then fly away as fast as hell. Worried about AA fire? Fly low or discretely then.

The two biggest problems with a tank (as pointed out in Battletech, actually): deploiment flexibility (you can't deploy tanks just about anywhere while bipedal mobile units can pretty much be deploied anywhere) and crippling problems (you only need ONE shot to cripple a tank offensive capacity while you need a few to eliminate the humanoid completely...)

Where a tank can't go, a mecha can go. But where neither can go, no matter what, dedicated infantrymen can. And again, if firepower's the problem, just outfit the infantrymen sufficiently to do the job. Give them like portable nuke launchers or something of that nature.


Also why does a tank need one shot to cripple while a mecha needs several? Shoot out the treads on a tank and it can still turn its turret around and blast you to oblivion. Turret jammed? It can still fire and hope it hits one of your comrades.

For a mecha on the other hand: blow off a leg? The mecha soon loses balance and falls flat on its face. It has to use at least one of its arms to support itself marginally upright enough for it to try to get off a shot.

And a mecha can be crippled in one shot too: destroy the head or wherever the pilot is housed. End of mecha.


Another thing: Consider that the tank and mecha both have the same power generation module. A mecha must divert its power amongst various weapons on its limbs and perhaps on its shoulder as well, while a tank simply has one main gun to power. Guess which individual weapon has greater firepower, and which will be turning faster on its turret to blow you away once you destroy its treads? And while a mecha can support itself on one arm and shoot at you with the other, that's only anywhere between 1/4 or 1/2 of the total weapons power available to the mecha being directed at you, while the tank can direct its entire firepower via a single gun into you.


You will say that the tank is disadvantageous because it has only one gun. The philosophy is, if the enemy has enough power to destroy one of your weapons with a single shot, chances are you're pretty much screwed anyway with the following shots anyway, so why not make your last shot worth the effort?

And you have to remember that a MS pack a lot more firepower than any tank... You can load a 105mm canon on a tank (most modern tank do, anyways), but it won't be a autofire rifle... And to have a beam weapon equipped tanks still have the mobility problem of any other tank... You can't cross a lake with a tank, or climb mountains (08th MS team proves a lot of those things, using MS where conventional weapons would have been impractical).

A tank can't cross a lake or climb mountains, but why bother crossing a lake or climbing a mountain when you can just outfit a fighter or bomber with the same weapons and travel across the distance at a much faster pace anyway?



And for a last word,

Now Now, aren't we forgetting gundams have BIG GUNS, FLY, FAST, LOOKS BETTER O_o

Step on a tank and they dead. Run into a airplane, they dead. Just do a Body Slam, then earthquake. They got fannels too =)

Pffft!!





A Bolo runs over a Gundam, or simply blows it out of existence with its nuclear railguns.



Anyway, it's been a pleasure (if not, a pain to my wrists) discussing with you. Just trying to apply a bit of real-world sense and reasoning to a fictional work. I know it's not intended, but there's nothing stopping us fans from doing so and no real harm done, is there?

[srb]

Originally Posted by Shinova

Stuff

First of all, I never claimed mech superiority. I'm a believer in combined arms, and if mechs somehow could fit into the picture then why not discss it based on that assumption?

I will return with more detailed replies to the other arguments in this thread later but I have to prepare for school now.

[Newprimus]

Originally Posted by srb

First of all, I never claimed mech superiority. I'm a believer in combined arms, and if mechs somehow could fit into the picture then why not discss it based on that assumption?

I will return with more detailed replies to the other arguments in this thread later but I have to prepare for school now.

I personally believe mecha have a place as heavy infantry support. I could imagine them taking the brunt of small arms fire in place of the troops themselves and dishing out some severe 50 cal fire in return.


I was talking about mecha in the scale of the likes of Gundams and Battletech. Just doesn't work, or it works just not as well as you could have them.

[srb]

Originally Posted by Shinova

First, mobility:

All true, which is why I believe that mecha should be used as a sort of combined arms. Now Mobile Suits are pretty large but "real" mecha would probably be some sort of powered armor or small walker and not 18 meter giants.

Originally Posted by Shinova

Operator numbers:

So in that regards, both tank and mecha can conceivably require only one operator each to pilot. Any more for one or the other and it can only be reasonably attributed to simple plot device.

True, but I'm all for two operators, especially in a beast such as an MS, with the work load similar to that of an attack helicopter.

Originally Posted by Shinova

Space use:
I assume you mean using their arms to aim at different targets at once? If so, then why not simple mount a starfighter's weapons on turrets instead, allowing them the same multiple-targeting ability with only a fraction of space or engineering required, since a simply turret is obviously far easier to operate, design, or maintain than an entire mechanical arm.

True, but the arm pretty much functions as a turret with a target lock, and a mech in space would have a larger "combat radius" around itself when compared to a regular fighter.

Originally Posted by Shinova

Secondly, why would you need legs in space combat? Would a mecha need them to rapidly maneuver, if their thrusters are located on the bottom of their feet? If so, then why can't starfighter's simply have adjustable thrusters as well, achieving the same effect at less cost and stress to the machine (think about it. A starfighter's thrusters are more closely located to its central body, allowing for more secure placement, while a mecha's legs must endure the stress on themselves which in the starfighter's case will simply be distributed more equally over its entire frame)

The limbs are used for maneuvering and can be used to turn the mobile suit without using valuable fuel (as said in a technical manual), and the legs are used as a sort of thrust vectoring. When you take transforming mechas like the Z into account (not very realistic but still) you have both a fighter mode for high-speed combat and a MS mode for regular combat to use as required.

Originally Posted by Shinova

And lastly, the concept of combined arms warfare. If you're going to make an infantry unit, then make an infantry unit, pure and simple. Don't add extra junk like jetpacks to let them fight in the air. You want air? Why not have things dedicated to combat in the air such as planes and choppers? Or want those planes to be able to land in water and traverse the water and fight on water as well? Why go through the wasteful effort trying to make the airplane into something it's not, instead of simply building a boat or a ship?

True, but versatility within combined arms can also be useful when lacking one or the other and since mechs are supposed to be general support units for basically everything I don't see a problem.

True on all counts except for the range bit.

An artillery mobile suit with high-mounted arcing guns would have a longer range than an ordinary artillery piece with the same guns due to elevation wouldn't it? I'm no master of physics but that's true isn't it?

Originally Posted by Shinova

You need greater range? Then instead of turning yourself into a mecha and giving yourself a much larger target profile, why not just build yourself a better, more longer-range gun instead?

Artillery aren't supposed to be involved in close combat so the big target profile thing isn't a very good argument here, but since mechs would be so expensive it would probably be a waste of having dedicated artillery mecha.

And speaking of guns, unless these are some magical, energy some-thing guns, there will be recoil. Which do you think can handle recoil better: a human-shaped mecha standing on two flimsy legs or a tank that lies low to the ground with a wide surface area to brace with? I don't think I need to explain this bit.

Well, the legs aren't flimsy from what I've seen and in the case of a Zaku for example the recoil is absorbed by the arm when firing its weapons.

If a gundam can be armored with luna-titanium, then why not a tank? Is there a logical reason why a tank can't have equal armor as a mecha?

No, and it would probably be cheaper as well but I just said that luna-titanium doesn't exist so current armor materials that we know of would be even weaker and the leg would have been blown right off.

Originally Posted by Shinova

If you're willing to accept mecha superiority purely as a result of plot device, then that's fine with me.

Just to clarify this again, I don't believe in "mecha superiority" and I really don't believe that mecha will ever be developed as a military weapon.

Of course, the show's creators neglected to take into account that the people could simply take what technology Gundams have that makes them so unique and simply apply them to things like tanks and fighters instead.

Of course, you see how the Sky Grasper for example has a beam turret as well as some rather extreme maneuverability but I've yet to see a tank with beam weapons.

You could of course just drive the tank to the top of said hill, park it there, cover it with camo, and have its main gun ready to blow away its assigned target. Unless it's some hilly, woodland area. In which case a better idea would be to simply set up a dedicated fixed sniper cannon that will devote its entire power to its gun and its gun only without any concern for maintaining any of the other functions a gundam may have to worry about.

You could also dig in to decrease the amount of visible tank.

There, now I've responded to the comments aimed at me as well as a couple I was a part of.

[JohnSilver]

Twin operators would most likely be useful in very large bipeds (like a MS) because of the amount of control required for it to work correctly, but in small power armours (Infantry Support Vehicules, as in Heavy Gear) it would be unthinkable to use a two pilots...