PRE-Zentraedi arrival Destroid action

[promethuem5]

Hi all!

I have a whole bunch of smaller scale models and stuff of Destroids and other things like scale tanks and infantry and was wondering if there is any materiel covering pre-Zentraedi arrivla Destroid usage... I was going to assemble a small combined arms task force with infantry, IFV (infantry fighint vehicles tanks, and Destroids in place of MBTs (main battle tanks). I am doing them up in a camo scheme and am planning on getting some more infantry support and maybe non-vairable fighter craft if I can find them in scale. My question is weatehr or not there is any material covering their usuage before the Zentraedi arrival and and or anything about enemies.

Thanks alot!

Ben

EDIT: crap,...i spelled the title wrong...

Edited April 7, 2005 by promethuem5

[Phyrox]

I don't know about that, but destroids would fare pretty poorly against comparably armed tanks. Where is a 30-40 foot robot going to get cover?

See first, shoot first. I can't image them being used to any real affect until they fight huge giant aliens (and even then I would rather have a low profile tank...but that runs against "anime logic," so nevermind).

edit - spelling

Edited April 7, 2005 by Phyrox

[promethuem5]

hmmmm... I can see your point, but then agian, Battlemechs can do it, and we all love anime magic as it is

[azrael]

The only destroids we know that were around were the:

Cheyenne

and

Monster Mk I

[promethuem5]

Actually I thought that the Destroids were compelted first... maybe I'm getting my Macross and Robotech continuity mixed up.... There are still bound to be ground forces used and deployed outside of the Macross... like all of the ones seen on Earth after the Macross leaves. I'm sure I can make up some kinda back story for them....

[JB0]

Actually I thought that the Destroids were compelted first... maybe I'm getting my Macross and Robotech continuity mixed up.... There are still bound to be ground forces used and deployed outside of the Macross... like all of the ones seen on Earth after the Macross leaves. I'm sure I can make up some kinda back story for them....

Yah. Destroids came first.

I'm sure there was a good reason. Psych warfare?

[Goshawk]

LOL you see a thirty foot robot coming at you, ROFL I be scared pantless. But yes the tanks esp. modern days would have a bit advatadge as long as they get the first shot in in a suprise action. but in all out battle I think maybe the mechs come out in the lead.

[azrael]

LOL you see a thirty foot robot coming at you, ROFL I be scared pantless. But yes the tanks esp. modern days would have a bit advatadge as long as they get the first shot in in a suprise action. but in all out battle I think maybe the mechs come out in the lead.

Well, as demonstrated very well in M0, Destroids are great movable anti-air defenses. Asuka II had slots for the Cheyenne. But when Asuka was being attacked at a lightly protected area, they got up and moved to that area. Now you don't have to worry about repositioning defenses, they can move themselves.

[ewilen]

Personally, I think part of the logic of the Macross universe (and pretty much all Japanese animation) is that mecha are superior to tanks. Ghost in the Shell is sort of an exception that proves the rule.

A possible real-world justification, at least in Macross, is that because they use nuclear ("reaction") power plants, mecha have a lot more power to play around with, so they can still be heavily armored (as much or more than a tank) on a bigger frame. Not that I really buy it, mind you.

In the Ogre series of board/miniature wargames, there's a similar justification for why there are giant, 50-meter-long cybernetic tanks.

Edited April 7, 2005 by ewilen

[wolfx]

In Gasaraki, they show how the tanks get pwned by mecha, more maneuverable than the tanks. The tanks pivoting cannons can't do anything against the more dexterous raiden/shinden armour.

And the walking/running is all controlled by AI. Only thing the pilot needs to do is choose the path to take.

[1st Border Red Devil]

so they can still be heavily armored (as much or more than a tank) on a bigger frame.

Part of the armour of modern tanks is glacis sloped to deflect incoming shells. Destroids shown in Macross have almost zip for glacis, so they would be very subsceptible to modern 120mm tank shells (say from an M1A1 Abrams).

[JB0]

so they can  still be heavily armored (as much or more than a tank) on a bigger frame.

Part of the armour of modern tanks is glacis sloped to deflect incoming shells. Destroids shown in Macross have almost zip for glacis, so they would be very subsceptible to modern 120mm tank shells (say from an M1A1 Abrams).

That only applies to the front face. Hit an Abrams in the side or the back and it's a LOT more vulnerable. And a Spartan or a Tomahawk can move fast and nimbly enough to take advantage of this(only 2 original series mechs that are likely to go into front-line combat).

And a tank looking up at a mech will HAVE to hit at an angle. Unless they're shooting at legs.

[Tomato]

With reaction power plants, wouldn't destroids make use of SWAG energy converting armor? I'm not too sure if destroids actually used that armor, but with all that extra energy produced by the reactor it would make sense. If they did utilize SWAG armor, that coupled with the greater mobility of the front line destroids, destroids would have a much greater advantage over tanks. Even if tanks could spot and shoot first I'm pretty sure the Destroid could just shrug off anything the tank could throw at them, until it could locate the tank and deploy its ordinance...or close the distance and step on the tank

[JB0]

With reaction power plants, wouldn't destroids make use of SWAG energy converting armor? I'm not too sure if destroids actually used that armor, but with all that extra energy produced by the reactor it would make sense. If they did utilize SWAG armor, that coupled with the greater mobility of the front line destroids, destroids would have a much greater advantage over tanks. Even if tanks could spot and shoot first I'm pretty sure the Destroid could just shrug off anything the tank could throw at them, until it could locate the tank and deploy its ordinance...or close the distance and step on the tank

That makes a lot of sense.

I keep forgetting that little piece of tech because it wasn't introduced untill Zero.

...

Though it raises a question. If they already had energy shields on fighters, why bother with the pin-point barriers in Plus?

[Final Vegeta]

Though it raises a question. If they already had energy shields on fighters, why bother with the pin-point barriers in Plus?

Because if they were energy shields you would have seen something that looks like them.

FV

[JB0]

Though it raises a question. If they already had energy shields on fighters, why bother with the pin-point barriers in Plus?

Because if they were energy shields you would have seen something that looks like them.

FV

It's called SWAG armor, moron.

[azrael]

I keep forgetting that little piece of tech because it wasn't introduced untill Zero.

Actually, IIRC, they've had SWAG since before Zero...It's just that Kawamori never put a name to that face....

Though it raises a question. If they already had energy shields on fighters, why bother with the pin-point barriers in Plus?

SWAG would only be effective against kinetic weaponry (of course, both sides are using armor-piercing ammo so...). SWAG doesn't work for energy weapons.

[JB0]

I keep forgetting that little piece of tech because it wasn't introduced untill Zero.

Actually, IIRC, they've had SWAG since before Zero...It's just that Kawamori never put a name to that face....

Though it raises a question. If they already had energy shields on fighters, why bother with the pin-point barriers in Plus?

SWAG would only be effective against kinetic weaponry (of course, both sides are using armor-piercing ammo so...). SWAG doesn't work for energy weapons.

Sounds like a good excuse to me.

[Totoro242]

This book, Macross Hobby Handbook 1: Macross Model World, an official release, contains developement information on the Destroids and Valkyries, mostly illustrated by scratch-built and kit-bashed models. It also gives dates, specs, and squadron art for each Destroid.

At one point one of our members had translated the section on the history of the Valkyrie project, but the page isnt up anymore. Maybe he could post it again?

The book may not be considered 100% canon anymore, but parts of it were used in Egan Loo's offical Macross timeline.

There are some nifty pics in there also of the ASS-1 and VE-1 Funny Chinese which became the Elint-Seeker in DYRL.

Back to Destroids, I dont know that anyone has ever done a complete translation of the book, so the information you are looking for may be there like alternate paint schemes and battle formations.

[Mislovrit]

In Gasaraki, they show how the tanks get pwned by mecha, more maneuverable than the tanks.

Which scene, and not to mentioned total disregard to the accurate use of tanks and their abilities.

The tanks pivoting cannons can't do anything against the more dexterous raiden/shinden armour.

Anime magic prevents tank from any where what their fully capable of. Which for real life tanks and their crews are more than able of tracking and plinking attack helos, low flying aircraft and UAVs.

[Mislovrit]

That only applies to the front face. Hit an Abrams in the side or the back and it's a LOT more vulnerable.

Actually despite the armor being just steel back there it still far from being vulnerable to hits

And a Spartan or a Tomahawk can move fast and nimbly enough to take advantage of this(only 2 original series mechs that are likely to go into front-line combat).

Could you list a scene where they do that? Problem with the is they're such a big frelling target to which any version of the Abrams, Leopard II, LeClerc , Challenger II, and etc. can spot and shoot them at range as well as maintaining the range difference should the mechs try to close the distance.

And a tank looking up at a mech will HAVE to hit at an angle.

If a tank is close enough to have to look up at it, it deserves to be step on.

Unless they're shooting at legs.

Or at weapons and the cockpits.

[hellohikaru]

I think tanks just lack the size to carry weapons powerful enough to kill a mech plus the already mentioned lack of mobility.

In mechwarrior and gundam at least the tanks are no more than pest since they are so small.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Tanks and destroid are probably still vulnerable to those little anti-tank people. You guys all saw what the little ewoks could achieve in star wars did you not?

But destroids only require 1 guy manning them. (apart from the monster) They are more like suits which fit the profile of the human and maybe this was important to matching the soldier-to-soldier close combat ability, over the vehicle-to-vehicle long range combat that un spacy wanted? A zentradi soldier which lies down on the ground is a harder target to hit if you aren't standing high. A robot might even have a better angle to shoot from by being upright and seeing from a slightly higher vantage point. If it wanted to have a low profile, just kneel. Now imagine if the enemy had snipers with giant bullets that pierce the armor, (a giant man holding a gunpod with long range scope? And don't say that the zentradi couldn't have stolen our technology to use agaisnt us: in war you must consider all situations) and thier own anti-tank soldiers?

Heck if the zentradi wanted to: they could micronise thier soldiers to make them smaller targets.

But I'm sure tanks were still being used. In fact we see a tank get blown apart when the zentradi destroy the earth. It's probably that un spacy being primarily focused on air and space, and scared about encountering giant men, needed to focus more on robots in case a rush of zentradi overtook thier front line. A tank that does not fall flat on its tread in frictionless space or in enviroments where there is not much gravity would be helpless compared to a robot. Space fighting may have necessitated that each pilot was independant of others' assistance and that it's own limbs would be an aid in many situations like when the artificial gravity failed in DYRL. I can totally imagine the hands of the spartan being used to help with cleanup here. Pick up vehicles that were upside down and placing them neatly the right-side up again.

I often wonder why the un don't just make transformable tanks? A destroid that can transform from a tank into a robot. We have seen a transforming sub. (the octos)

And why did they get rid of the limited flying ability (seen in mac zero) of the destroid? I thought that would have been helpful to keep in SW I. Did they run out of funding from all the valkyries they made and decided to take a cheaper alternative with the other destroids? From now on, I would like to see more transforming ground vehicles from macross. Alright, bring on the macross remake!

Edited April 7, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[ewilen]

so they can  still be heavily armored (as much or more than a tank) on a bigger frame.

Part of the armour of modern tanks is glacis sloped to deflect incoming shells. Destroids shown in Macross have almost zip for glacis, so they would be very subsceptible to modern 120mm tank shells (say from an M1A1 Abrams).

Sloped armor has been around since WWII, but you need to understand why it does what it does. It all has to do with the angle of incoming shell's trajectory relative to the armor's face. When tanks are duelling at roughly the same elevation, incoming shells will have a roughly flat trajectory and the sloping armor both (a) increases the effective thickness of the armor plate and (b) causes shells to glance off the surface.

In the general case, there's nothing unique about "glacis", which is simply the upper part of the forward hull. Saying that a destroid has "zip for glacis" is true, but irrelevant. The difficulty of penetrating a destroid's armor is determined entirely by the thickness and composition of the armor at the impact point, and the angle of the shot. Similarly, as has been pointed out, the "sloped glacis" of a tank ceases to be "sloped" relative to an incoming shot from a higher elevation.

The 120mm penetrator of the Abrams certainly has a frightful ability to defeat armor, but it's not infinite. There is undoubtedly a level of armor composition/thickness which could prevent penetration as well as, if not better than what is possible on a modern tank regardless of the angle. I will make an exception for extreme cases such as very low angle shots, where shells would skip off of a thin piece of rolled steel like a rock skipping on water. But I don't see much about a tank's design that would encourage more of these types of hits.

[Mislovrit]

I think tanks just lack the size to carry weapons powerful enough to kill a mech plus the already mentioned lack of mobility.

Swipe the diesel powerpack for a fusion powerpack or what whatever powers the destroids. Also swipe the maingun for one of the cannon off a Tomahawk, type of armor is use couple with RL 2000-2005 FCS and presto a superior anti-tank, anti-mech vehicle.

In mechwarrior and gundam at least the tanks are no more than pest since they are so small.

Better not use mechwarrior as example of the creator already admitted they deliberately nerfed the tanks and the rest of conventional armored vehicles just so the mechs wouldn't be slaughtered in mass by them. As it is only thing keeping Mechwarrior by slaughtered by real life armor vehicles is the future armor as the mechs hard pressed to get within firing distance while being hit from several kilometers aways.

Gundam is anime magic at it's worst not to mentioned having some of the worst designed tanks and aircraft ever designed.

1/1 LowViz Lurker, RL tanks almost never operate without infantry, artillery, and close air support just because of

those little anti-tank people

. Especially considering what happened to the Isrealis armor during the Yom Kippur War and to the Russians in seige of Gronzy back in 2000. Edited April 7, 2005 by Mislovrit

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Hoo boy here we go again.

We shouldn't make assumptions about the usefulness of tanks in macross just based on what we saw in the original. Tanks existed in macross like they do today in the real world. They are not portrayd as useless, just that we don't see them very much, similar to how we didn't see much of the octos but now that macross zero is here we know the humans also had transformable sea vehicles. Which is why I asked the question of why they didn't have transformable tanks.

As I mentioned tanks might not be as usefull in space as opposed to a vehicle piloted by a single guy with limbs. At least with a spartan you could help with construction. And please don't just say: "well we can give them limbs like the destroids so they can pick themselves up off the ground or if they fall on thier side" because then they would cease being tanks. A tank needs more than 1 guy. A robot doesn't, which you could assume is easier to use, has more than 1 use (hands to pick up objects) and may not have much luxury to shoot from afar because of the zentradis tactics of flooding them in superior numbers and getting up close. What they were used mostly for in the series was as extra defense that could change positions so mobility wasn't as crucual a thing. (Think of fixed guns but with legs)

I think the argument about range is a moot point since you could just say the destroids could be outfitted with treads like the gun tanks in gundam and given all the features of the rgular tanks. (have you seen the movie terminator? the robots had treads just like the UGV we use now)

Then where would the argument go? Would the gun tanks be classified as robots, or would they be tanks with the OT abilities?

Would they be usefull in a close combat urban situations where there are many hiding places in a confined space? I don't think so. Treads can offer speed and that is great in open spaces, but so can a ferrari in a traffic jam. But is that ferrari as agile as say, a guy on a bike with another drone carrying antitank weapons? I think the ride armor in mospeada would be the ultimate tank and mech killers since it means you can hide and still have the ability to kill the more heavy vehicles. In a combat situation there may be obstructions like walls and other things that get in the way. Perhaps a mech can see above those walls and shoot from a heightened postion?

You got to think of all situations as well as what the machines might be primarily designed for. Because to assume tanks don't exist in macross and were superceded by destroids is silly. There is no limit on what the human could use in macross in relation to what we use today. The fighting methods of the zentradi favoured vehicles which would jump around like grasshoppers and hover in the air. Maybe a destroid has an easier time shooting them down with it's height because the pilot is both gunner and driver?

1/1 LowViz Lurker, RL tanks almost never operate without infantry, artillery, and close air support just because of

QUOTE 

those little anti-tank people

Exactly! So why are we even having the argument of Tanks vs mechs when in the macross world you could complement any vehicle type with any robot type? You must have automatically assumed that we all thought destorids were invincible and they would just go out there to fight the tanks on thier own and not have valkyires taking out the obstacles first.

Some are useful for some task, and other useful for other tasks. Macross has both of them along with bikes, trains, anti-gravity hover vehicles, giant alien infantry, beams that can slice through any tank armor, gravity mines etc No single vehicle by itself is perfect, including tanks fighting by themselves or destroids which to me are just fixed guns with legs to enable more firing positions based on limited resources to have the guns placed all over the ship.

Edited April 7, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Sundown]

The destroid's problem isn't so much as that it doesn't have sloping armor to deflect incoming rounds. It's just that it has a huge profile, being upright, with its main weaponry mounted on arms that would require it to expose at least a good deal of its torso in order to engage a target. Modern tanks take advantage of "hull down" positions, which uses hills as cover and exposes only the gun and a portion of the turret when firing. And even in open terrain, it has a significantly smaller profile. Ie. it's much harder to hit than something sticking upright.

Sure, a destroid's fusion powerplant would allow it to carry better armnament and protection, but then it just makes you wonder why they don't slap it on a tank, upgrade its weapons and armor and be done with it. Okay, a destroid would theoretically be able to navigate terrain that tanks can't get at, but now it makes you ask why they don't also simply stick four legs on a tank, giving it newfound mobility while retaining all of a tank's advantages.

This is why I love crab, multi-legged mecha, like the tank mecha in Patlabor or Appleseed. They make a case for giant robots and limbed vehicles without straining plausibility by throwing out everything we know about armored combat today.

Finally, I suppose an upright HIT-ME mecha might be slightly more useful in navigating urban terrain, having a smaller footprint and all... and if it were agile enough, it could actually use upright building structures as cover while engaging, as human soldiers might. But it'd still be insanely easy to take down with smaller and more mobile anti-armor units, unless the sudden additional armor it can now carry far exceeds the progress of portable anti-armor weapons development.

-Al

Edited April 7, 2005 by Sundown

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

The destroid's problem isn't so much as that it doesn't have sloping armor to deflect incoming rounds. It's just that it has a huge profile, being upright, with its main weaponry mounted on arms that would require it to expose at least a good deal of its torso in order to engage a target. Modern tanks take advantage of "hull down" positions, which uses hills as cover and exposes only the gun and a portion of the turret when firing. And even in open terrain, it has a significantly smaller profile. Ie. it's much harder to hit than something sticking upright.

Well they could have a hybrid design destroid: have legs with treads. If it gets dangerous it crawls on the ground and crouches down while rolling. The hybrid mode would be the GERWALK, the tank mode would be the fighter mode, and the fully robot mode would be Battroid.

In space maybe the enemies are NOT firing from the ground and are looking down from above 90% of the time, making the tanks even more vulnerable than a destroid because more of its body is exposed. Also keep in mind that regult and glaug can jump into the air and see targets from a height. The angle of the shot is changed just from this ability. Why roll up and down hills when you can leap?

The zentradi fighting tactics may be different from our own. Thier greater numbers and size means close combat would be thier specialty and may attack in herds. As a result, maybe UN spacy got scared and made robots the main fighting force while leaving the more conventional ground vehicles like tanks on earth? It doesn't mean the tanks are useless, just that all the technology and funding went to the UN spacy and to the use of robots because of what we knew about giants. They would have been more of a threat to us than humans using conventional weaponry. Meanwhile Valks could do all the rest. Remember though that these were kept secret so we would never get a chance to see humans vs humans using combinations of conventional weapons and alien ones. All the previous wars would have been fought using the conventional ones like tanks.

If you can't have a machine that adapts to all environments (even space) what's the point? It means you have to bring extra assistance and this wastes time and resources. So transformable robots became the new thing that made groups of specialised vehicles obsolete. If they show some sort of vehicle like a transformable tank than this would end the need for destroids, but I think it might be a cost thing: if you already have valks why even bother with tanks when most of your time is floating in space exposed from every angle with limited cover?

Edited April 8, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[ewilen]

1/1 Lowviz, why do you think a tank needs more than one person in a world where mecha only need a single pilot?

Sundown, you are right, of course. The general rule of anime is that mecha are superior to tanks and infantry, but in real life, they'd be a waste. I don't think anyone has yet mentioned that on open terrain, if not asphalt, their legs would probably sink into the ground.

[Sundown]

Well they could have a hybrid design destroid: have legs with treads. If it gets dangerous it crawls on the ground and crouches down while rolling. The hybrid mode would be the GERWALK, the tank mode would be the fighter mode, and the fully robot mode would be Battroid.

That's an interesting idea, although that's a lot of engineering just for a battroid mode on a heavy, slow, ground-borne unit with arguable usefulness. Armor should just avoid urban combat if they can at all help it, and be supported by troops if they can't. But being now easier to hit by being upright and blotting out half the skyline makes their support troops' jobs so much the tougher.

Wonder if small scale exoskeletal armor might be useful in bridging the gap between armor and infantry in urban combat. They would be more mobile than tanks and be harder to hit, with the added advantage of being able to use building corners as cover. They would also be able to withstand small arms fire while supporting infantry who would be supressing and rooting out anti-armor squads. Of course the trick is finding a power source small and powerful enough.

The general rule of anime is that mecha are superior to tanks and infantry, but in real life, they'd be a waste. I don't think anyone has yet mentioned that on open terrain, if not asphalt, their legs would probably sink into the ground

Yeah, ground pressure. I've heard it mentioned being one of the primary reasons multi-ton mecha just won't work. Again, multi-legged spider tanks would help with that problem, but I don't know if throwing a few extra legs would really be enough. Maybe if we gave them all giant clown shoes.

-Al

Edited April 8, 2005 by Sundown

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

1/1 Lowviz, why do you think a tank needs more than one person in a world where mecha only need a single pilot?

The same reasons why an f14 is not the same as a vf1. OT made vast advancement in robotics and controls that allowed the humans to create giant walking robots that have features that weren't there before. SWAG armor, planes that could crash straight into concrete bridges without killing the pilot because the armor was so strong, strafing and runnning manuevers as if the valks were giant people, pinpoint barriers that can slice through armour, precision flying manuevers allowing people to dodge groups of missiles with ease etc..

In real life there is no SWAG, no aliens with beam weapons, no giant robots, but by entering into a debate about mechs you have to consider that aliens that built them have had thouasands of years to perfect this stuff, making thier machines superior to the controls we have today. Possibly solving the problems we have like the way we still see sci fi movies with hovercars and antigravity but are never told how this stuff works. We just have to accept it. Maybe Sci-fi authors gather that from UFO sightings of craft doing manuevers that are physcially impossible to perform with our fighter jets, (ufos are reffered to as foo fighters in WWII) they make the logical connection that the aliens had some ability to alter the gravity to perform them, and access to materials so strong that it would not stress the machine and fall apart if we humans ever tried it. UFOs dart about instantaneously that no pilot should be able to live unless the problems was solved somehow. (maybe its controlled remotely and there is no pilot come to think of it)

Ok so why not make an OT-enhanced tank?: I say it might be costs - valkyries might have been so successful that they could easily fullfill the roles that a OT-enhanced tank or an OT-enhanced destroid would, so why bother? to me a gerwalk could outmanuever a tank and strafe sideways, and if it is out numbered it just has to fly away.

Edited April 8, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Hurin]

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but in the Hobby Handbook, there are images of destroids being used alongside infantry, trenches, etc. I would assume that this is against other humans. But, then again, this is probably just model makers having fun and not necessarily canon.

H

[Sundown]

The same reasons why an f14 is not the same as a vf1. OT made vast advancement in robotics and controls that allowed the humans to create giant walking robots that have features that weren't there before.

. In real life there is no SWAG, no aliens with beam weapons, no giant robots but by entering into a debate you have to consider that aliens have had thouasands of years to perfect this stuff.

I believe his point is that in an OT world we'd also have single pilot tanks, which takes away the argument that "tanks must be multi-crewed" and are thus at an inherent disadvantage. And the argument remains that if OT was available, we would probably be better off implementing it in tank or close-to-tank form.

Still, multi-tank crews might be a good thing. We can probably get rid of the loader and commander with improved auto-loaders and wraparound displays. But having one person concentrating on driving while the other shoots is just a nice thing to have. A commander does provide the additional ability of being able to plan out the targets to engage in advance even as the gunner is focused on one target and working out the shot... but if targetting and situational awareness is significantly improved with technology, this advantage might also go away.

Bye multi-crews. Oh wait... or not. See Mac II Monster. Destroids don't inherently forgo the need for multiple crew members. It really depends on the function and complexity of the unit involved.

-Al

Edited April 8, 2005 by Sundown

[ewilen]

It's doubtful if any of the Hobby Handbook is canon. Much of it definitely is not. Let me see if I can dig up the post from Egan Loo...

Okay, look at the posts from March 2 onward in this thread.

Edited April 8, 2005 by ewilen

[ewilen]

Sundown: yup. As any tank simulator shows, with sufficient automation there's no physical need for more than one crew. But as many sims also show, actually managing all the tasks involved in piloting a combat vehicle while maintaining SA can be rather difficult for an individual human. Whether the platform has treads or legs (or wings) doesn't really affect the basic equations.