Anti-Armor VF-1?

[promethuem5]

Hi all!

I was wondering if any of you had any thoughts on the feasibility of an anti-armor role VF-1? I was considering how it could work/look the other day on the school bus... like, having a bazooka type weapon mounting like a FAST Pack booster, and then being shoulder- held like a bazooka in battroid mode. It seemed like it would work better as an above-fusalage mount then underneath like a gunpod... I think it was just that I wanted to see a Valk weilding a big assed bazooka.... but how do you think it could work? I plan to do some prelim-sketches soon. Fluffwise, it could have been developed on Earth bc/ we know they had Valks as we see them in a couple of scenes if I remeber right... I think an anti-armor Valk would be hot.

[Shadow Skull]

I suppose the UNG might have created an anti-armor VF-1. Sadly I haven't seen the orginal version of Macross, so I have idea if there were any active anti-UN forces left that had access to tanks. I say use the orginal armored VF-1 as a reference, I doubt it would really need to transform and trying to do so with a big assed bazooka would probably be more trouble then its worth.

[ewilen]

The VF-1's gunpod is a 55 mm Gatling gun. The A-10's is a 30 mm Gatling gun.

While these may seem small compared to a modern MBT's 105mm-120mm gun, bear in mind that an aircraft will be firing onto the roof of a tank, which is generally not armored as well as the front.

Remember the general rule of anime: mecha are better than tanks. If a VF-1's gun can take out a Queadluun Rau or a Glaug, it can shred a tank.

[Mr March]

I'll provide some thoughts.

The basic technologies of variable fighters already make them far more advanced and combat effective than any dedicated anti-armor hardware. Macross Zero established that the armor of a Valkyrie is as strong as any tank. Since the 55mm GU-11 Gunpods are more than capable of penetrating the armor of Valkyries and other OT mecha like Battlepods, Powered Armor, and Destroids, every Valkyrie is anti-armor capable by default.

In addition, the Destroids would already be more powerful and versatile than any comparable tank, so a dedicated anti-armor aircraft would be totally unecessary. Comparing conventional mecha of the Macross era, the Destroids have been shown as no match for a Valkyrie (even the mighty Monster), so as it stands the Valkyrie sits comfortably on top of the military hardware food chain in the Macross universe.

Keep in mind, muzzle velocity and kinetics. Get a penny going fast enough, and it'll go through a battleship. The actual size of the round being fired is less important than the mass of the projectile and the speed at which the gun can accurately and efficiently fire those projectiles. A 55mm round fired at 3,000 m/s is going to have more penetrating power than a 105 mm round fired at 1,500 m/s (assuming the masses involved are the same). Fire a round from a gun mounted on a Valkyrie already travelling at Mach 2 and you can see the kind of kinetic energy involved.

[JB0]

I'll provide some thoughts.

The basic technologies of variable fighters already make them far more advanced and combat effective than any dedicated anti-armor hardware.  Macross Zero established that the armor of a Valkyrie is as strong as any tank.  Since the 55mm GU-11 Gunpods are more than capable of penetrating the armor of Valkyries and other OT mecha like Battlepods, Powered Armor, and Destroids, every Valkyrie is anti-armor capable by default.

It's not known that zentradi used any form of defensive overtechnology.

And Valks VS destroids? Only instance I can think of is MacPlus, which was an exotic weapon to start with.

But I intend to leap to the defense of the oft-slandered destroid here anyways.

Comparing conventional mecha of the Macross era, the Destroids have been shown as no match for a Valkyrie (even the mighty Monster), so as it stands the Valkyrie sits comfortably on top of the military hardware food chain in the Macross universe.

When equipped with an exotic beam weapon, sure. And I got the impression it was a limited fire device, based on the usage pattern of the similar device present in Macross 7.

No valk has, to the best of my knowledge, ever been shown taking down a destroid using a normal gunpod.

Keep in mind, muzzle velocity and kinetics.  Get a penny going fast enough, and it'll go through a battleship.  The actual size of the round being fired is less important than the mass of the projectile and the speed at which the gun can accurately and efficiently fire those projectiles.  A 55mm round fired at 3,000 m/s is going to have more penetrating power than a 105 mm round fired at 1,500 m/s (assuming the masses involved are the same). 

But that's an unrealistic expectation.

A. A 105mm gun has room for a bigger, and thus more massive, slug.

B. A 105mm gun has room for a bigger charge, allowing for more massive slugs to be fired at higher velocities.

This will be explored in depth shortly.

Fire a round from a gun mounted on a Valkyrie already travelling at Mach 2 and you can see the kind of kinetic energy involved.

Aside from the impracticality of strafing ground targest at supersonic speeds, the inherent high velocity of projectiles is also something to consider.

Let's crunch some real-world examples now...

All numbers here come from quick Google searches, and in a few cases required basic arithmetic to extract. There is some variation among sources(mainly in projectile mass), but they're as close as I can make them.

The A-10's GAU-8 fires slugs at roughly mach 3(speed of sound = 1130 feet/sec, muzzle velocity of GAU-8=3400feet/sec).

The muzzle velocity for the Abrams cannon while firing depleted uranium penetrators is close to MACH 5(1676 meters per second VS 344 meters/sec).

And the Abrams has a heavier projectile, too.

Even though the DU penetrator is a sabot round, and the penetrator is roughly 27 mm wide, it's also a lot longer, and thus heavier, than the GAU-8's DU round(A-10=2/3s lb, Abrams=11.8 lb). But thanks to the sabot that fits it into a 120mm shell, it can get a MUCH larger charge behind it, enabling it to not only equal, but MASSIVELY EXCEED, the smaller projectile's velocity.

So the tank has far more firepower than the airplane. IF you accelerate a jet to mach 2 in a straight line toward the target, projectile velocity becomes similar.

But the tank still has far more punch, especially as in the above-described showdown the relative velocity of the tank penetrator has been increased to MACH SEVEN due to the mach 2 dive of the fighter.

Now keep in mind that the Abrams is designed to shrug off a tank cannon impact on the front surface. The A-10 can ONLY kill tanks because it hits the lighter armor on the top. Otherwise it'd be like a mosquito among elephants.

The Air Force WISHES it could claim blurbs like this...

But the longest confirmed kill of the war{Desert Storm} was by a British Challenger tank, which destroyed an Iraqi tank with a DU round over a distance of 5,100 meters (over 3 miles). Even over these extended ranges, the DU rounds proved highly effective in penetrating Iraqi tank armor. In one case, a DU round "hit the turret of a Russian-made Iraqi T-72 tank, passed completely through the turret, and hit (and destroyed) a second T-72."

For the record, the Challenger 2 cannon is the same NATO-standard 120mm caliber as the M1A1 Abrams(but the Challenger is rifled VS the Abrams' smooth-bore, though I don't believe it matters with sabot rounds).

Now back to the show...

I propose flying the Valkyrie down the throat of a Defender destroid.

With 78mm autocannons firing 2000 rounds/minute at our Valk, at velocities of 3300 meters/second.

Whatever the Valk's muzzle velocity is(sadly unspec'ed), the smaller caliber implies it's a slower velocity with a less massive projectile. We know the fire rate is a relatively paltry 1200 rounds/minute.

If we assume destroids have heavier armor than Valkyries, since their lack of flight capability makes light weight less of a priority, and that they have the same defensive tech as a Valk(which is logical), the Valk would be eaten alive.

...

Perhaps this isn't really fair, as the Defender is an anti-aircraft mech, DESIGNED to eat Valkyries alive(well, eat SV-51s alive, at least).

But the Tomahawk's primary weapon is a particle cannon. That's exotic weaponry that I'm not learned enough to guess at, especially as no power output is given.

I assume, however, that it's intended for use on land targets, and consequently that it is more powerful than the Defender's autocannons, as land units are usually more heavily-armored than aerial units, for the above-mentioned weight concerns.

Edited April 12, 2005 by JB0

[ewilen]

As far as I can tell, there's nothing really conclusive in canonical sources about the Valk vs. Destroid question. It makes for a more interesting scenario if you assume that Destroids have superior armor to compensate for their lack of tactical flexibility, but unfortunately there's nothing to explicitly support that.

For example, it's not clear that destroids have SWAG technology. The Valkyries' engines are far more powerful--650 MW each vs. 2800 bhp + 450 kW for the Tomahawk, which is only a little over 2.5 MW in all. That may not be enough surplus power for even a minimal SWAG system. (It's pretty likely that SWAG uses a majority of the normal capacity of a Valk's engines. Otherwise, SWAG would be available in fighter mode.)

In conclusion, if destroids don't have SWAG, then Valks may be just as well protected, if not better, at least in battroid mode.

BTW, note that the Cheyenne destroids were taken down by the SV-51 gunpods. (Maybe not a perfect example, since Cheyennes look lighter than the SDF Macross destroids.)

As for offensive firepower, the Defender's gun is almost certainly more powerful than a Valk's, but that doesn't mean they aren't BOTH capable of defeating tank armor. I'd think most likely that if Valks were called upon to fight a bunch of tanks, they'd start by bombing them, then strafe the survivors from above. Operating in a "tank destroyer" mode (employing long range weapons from static positions) wouldn't make much sense.

(Edit: if you use another rating from the Compendium, which says that the Valk's engines generate "17,680 PS for ground combat", that still comes to 13 MW.)

Edited April 12, 2005 by ewilen

[Lynx7725]

Uhm, folks? The Valk is a transformable fighter. With arms and hands. I'll just fly over and kick the tank apart. Or flip it over with the hands.

Oh, you're talking about range combat.. well, if you are talking about current tanks, like it's been said, a 55mm gatling capable of shredding a Zentran mecha isn't likely to be fazed by conventional armour. At worst, I'm going to just drop a couple of reflex warheads on top of the armour column..

And don't forget, the Valk can carry iron bombs -- and probably deliver them a lot more accurately. American football with mecha and live ordnance anyone?

[JB0]

As far as I can tell, there's nothing really conclusive in canonical sources about the Valk vs. Destroid question. It makes for a more interesting scenario if you assume that Destroids have superior armor to compensate for their lack of tactical flexibility, but unfortunately there's nothing to explicitly support that.

True.

For example, it's not clear that destroids have SWAG technology. The Valkyries' engines are far more powerful--650 MW each vs. 2800 bhp + 450 kW for the Tomahawk, which is only a little over 2.5 MW in all. That may not be enough surplus power for even a minimal SWAG system. (It's pretty likely that SWAG uses a majority of the normal capacity of a Valk's engines. Otherwise, SWAG would be available in fighter mode.)

The Valk cold also just be a very lossy system. There's a LOT of inefficency added by the variable configuration.

Observation: it's impossible to get power from the stats provided for the VF-0, which was an important stepping stone. Unless one assumes a direct relationship between jets and thermonuclear turbines(that is to say, a given amount of force from a TnT generates the same amount of power as the same amonunt of force from a jet). This seems grossly illogical to me, as the VF-1 has a fusion generator that should be tapped directly for electricity, IMO.

I'm just assuming that the VF-0 has severely limited electrical power available. Which could explain why the SWAG can only be enabled in battroid mode.

Supposition that SWAG works in other modes in the VF-1 supported by Hikaru crashing a GERWALK early on(if I recall, he rammed the first building before he'd made it even close to battroid).

In conclusion, if destroids don't have SWAG, then Valks may be just as well protected, if not better, at least in battroid mode.

Indeed.

BTW, note that the Cheyenne destroids were taken down by the SV-51 gunpods. (Maybe not a perfect example, since Cheyennes look lighter than the SDF Macross destroids.)

My thoughts, too.

The Cheyenne seems to have sacrificed durability for maneuverability.

Also possible: Assuming the "original" destroids can use SWAG, Cheyenne could be even lighter on power than regular destroids, dropping it below the threshold level.

As for offensive firepower, the Defender's gun is almost certainly more powerful than a Valk's, but that doesn't mean they aren't BOTH capable of defeating tank armor. I'd think most likely that if Valks were called upon to fight a bunch of tanks, they'd start by bombing them, then strafe the survivors from above. Operating in a "tank destroyer" mode (employing long range weapons from static positions) wouldn't make much sense.

Well, yes. I was looking at it from a bullet standpoint.

Personally, I'd bet against either of them being able to kill a tank from the front. Top, sides, back, sure(provided said tank isn't overtech-enhanced).

(Edit: if you use another rating from the Compendium, which says that the Valk's engines generate "17,680 PS for ground combat", that still comes to 13 MW.)

...

Is anyone else getting the impression that the VF-1's specs are a lot of numbers thrown together at random?

Heck, we've even got references to an "overboost" mode, which is borderline nonsensical(if I HAD to guess, I'd say it refers to running the turbines beyond their rated speeds/temperatures).

Also possible: SWAG sucks out most of the energy available from the system when active.

Like I said earlier, Hikaru's first crash seems to have been in GERWALK, and is certainly before the transformation to battroid is complete, so I'm hesitant to accept this theory. I offer it mainly in the interests of completeness.

Observation: Looking at Compendium entries, it seems most of the destroids are based on the very earliest overtech designs.

It'd be nice to see a destroid incorporating everything learned since the original was blueprinted.

But if we just want to know who would win in a fight...

Entry for the Monster: "The armor was designed to be rigid and extremely thick to withstand a reaction weapon explosion at close range..."

Nuke incoming fighters. Stand still as the blast washes over you. Game, set, match.

...

Designed to stand up to a nuke, and that beam weapon they used in the MacPlus OVA ripped through it like paper...

...

...

...

Why do they still have reaction weapons, again?

[promethuem5]

Destroid argument aside, I still just want a Valk weilding a big assed rapid fire bazooka....

[Gui]

May I ask how this SWAG thing work?

Because looking into the Compendium I found only this (about the VF-0):

STRUCTURE: Space metal materials are used for the composition of the fuselage's frame, but titanium/carbon composite is used for the outer skin. Due to AWAG/RA 105 SWAG energy converting armor which uses Overtechnology, the VF-0 can employ surplus power to triple the Fighter mode's armor strength in Battroid mode. (Future variable fighters will incorporate similar technology.)

And that (about the SV-51):

SW-51 SWAG energy converting armor system, other equipment

What the SWAG acronym stand for exactly? And what this 'energy converting armor' is supposed to do? Sorry if the question looks dumb but these infos look quite unclear from here...

Thanks in advance

Edited April 12, 2005 by Gui

[azrael]

What the SWAG acronym stand for exactly?

We don't know.

And what this 'energy converting armor' is supposed to do?

From your own post...

Due to AWAG/RA 105 SWAG energy converting armor which uses Overtechnology, the VF-0 can employ surplus power to triple the Fighter mode's armor strength in Battroid mode. (Future variable fighters will incorporate similar technology.)

[bsu legato]

IIRC, don't some of the rogue Zentraedi fire captured GU-11's at Hikaru when he pilots the Spartan? The shells seem to have little or no effect on the Spartan whatsoever, and he promptly beats the crap out of them. It could be argued that maybe the gunpods were loaded with some sort of non-lethal ammunition, like the wooden and rubber bullets used in the 20th century, but that's pure conjecture.

[twich]

We do see a future Destroid incorporate all the advances of the times....the VB-6 Koenig Monster.

I believe that every valkyrie from VF-1 on, incorporates the SWAG in all three modes, even in Macross 7 you see VF-19 Fire Valk crash into the ground and not get hurt.

Twich

[JB0]

We do see a future Destroid incorporate all the advances of the times....the VB-6 Koenig Monster.

I was thinking more a Tomahawk or Spartan. Point taken, though.

[JB0]

May I ask how this SWAG thing work?

[azrael]

I believe that every valkyrie from VF-1 on, incorporates the SWAG in all three modes...

Actually, every VF, starting with the VF-0 on, has it.

[twich]

I made the distinction because it says that the SWAG only is in Battroid mode on the VF-0, where as others said they believed that SWAG was in all three modes of all later Valkyries.

Twich

[ewilen]

JB0, about the method of getting electricity from the fusion reactors, I suppose it could be done directly but under the model of the Valk's engines that we've bandied about, it seems most likely that, even while not flying, the fusion reactors simply produce heat which in turn powers the turbines, and these then produce electricity.

Against this is the fact that the leg intakes are closed in battroid, at least some of the time. If anyone can suggest a mechanism, or even point to a part in a diagram, that explains how power is generated/stored while in battroid mode, I'd like to see it.

Gui, we just had a discussion of how we think SWAG might work over toward the end of this thread. Basically, several of us think that the system uses energy to actively strengthen the molecular bonds in the materials making up the Valk's body, so that it becomes more resistant to damage.

[ewilen]

IIRC, don't some of the rogue Zentraedi fire captured GU-11's at Hikaru when he pilots the Spartan? The shells seem to have little or no effect on the Spartan whatsoever, and he promptly beats the crap out of them.

Sounds likely, although I also don't remember the details of the scene--i.e., was the Spartan hit, or did Hikaru dodge all the bullets?

I hate to say it, but trying to figure out how combat works in Macross by watching the cartoons is pretty much like researching World War II by reading Sgt. Rock. There are rules...but they aren't the ones that hardware geeks are interested in.

[ewilen]

I made the distinction because it says that the SWAG only is in Battroid mode on the VF-0, where as others said they believed that SWAG was in all three modes of all later Valkyries.

Twich

I was going to say the same thing, but note that Egan has

[...]Shoji Kawamori said that variable fighters in general employ surplus energy to strengthen armor in Battroid mode.

(link)

Okay, it's not definitive, but the implication is that SWAG is only used in battroid.

But even if that's the case, some or all later Valks could be made of super-tough advanced materials.

[azrael]

I was going to say the same thing, but note that Egan has

[...]Shoji Kawamori said that variable fighters in general employ surplus energy to strengthen armor in Battroid mode.

(link)

Okay, it's not definitive, but the implication is that SWAG is only used in battroid.

But even if that's the case, some or all later Valks could be made of super-tough advanced materials.

[...]Shoji Kawamori said that variable fighters in general employ surplus energy to strengthen armor in Battroid mode.

The implication there, as I see it is, it can be used in Fighter mode but the standard is to use it in Battroid mode.

Of course, we can sit here and analyze the sentence all day...

[JB0]

JB0, about the method of getting electricity from the fusion reactors, I suppose it could be done directly but under the model of the Valk's engines that we've bandied about, it seems most likely that, even while not flying, the fusion reactors simply produce heat which in turn powers the turbines, and these then produce electricity.

If the model is just theory, I'm of the opinion that seperate electrical and propulsion systems makes more sense.

Spinning turbines IS, however, the traditional way to get electrical power from nuclear reactors.

If by model you mean the cutaway diagram I've seen posted a few times, you COULD have a more-or-less transparent electrical generator. Thermocouples in the reactor vessel skin would do it. Though not as efficient as other mechanisms, it's one of the simpler, and more reliable, arrangements.

In the real world, NASA uses thermocouples around a lump of radioactive material to power their probes if solar power isn't an option, and they last for decades untill neutron bombardment damages them too far to be useful. If the valk burns a clean fusion formula(like the He-3 reaction used in Gundam), there's no neutron radiation to worry about, and the reactor and electrical system should last essentially forever.

Against this is the fact that the leg intakes are closed in battroid, at least some of the time. If anyone can suggest a mechanism, or even point to a part in a diagram, that explains how power is generated/stored while in battroid mode, I'd like to see it.

Another, bigger, problem... constant use of reaction mass in space(remember, VF-1 is a space fighter too, even if it's not a particularly great one).

You have to have something to stick in your engine. Otherwise, nothing expands with heat, the turbine doesn't spin, and nothing happens.

In an atmosphere, that something is air. In a vacuum, that something is your onboard reaction mass.

Constantly spraying reaction mass out the engines is going to drastically cut your practical flight time, as well as making your valk hard to control(constant thrust = constant acceleration in space).

And when you run out of reaction mass, the whole valk will shut down because you can't spin the turbine anymore. Comm systems, weapons, running lights, life support, everything.

And yes, I DO realize this is how the show animates things.

Virtually every space show ever made uses the constant thrust = constant speed fallacy, at least for visuals. It's what people expect to see. If the engines aren't firing, it looks like they're off, and we can't have our fighter powered down in mid-dogfight.

Some take it a step farther, and show vessels coasting to a stop when the engines die. These shows exist to be mocked.

I don't consider the animation of constant engine thrust to be representative of the actual engine operation any more than I consider the sounds of gunfire and explosions to imply that space isn't a vacuum in the Macross universe.

It's an artistic liberty taken to make the show more appealing to the average viewer(who doesn't think too hard about the physics involved).

[ewilen]

Ah, okay, I just learned about thermoelectric generators. Regardless of efficiency in real life, yes, I suppose that overtechnology which can make fusion reactors to power airplanes, and SWAG armor to protect them, might be able to make a highly efficient thermoelectric generator/thermocouple. The discrepancy in the power rating for the Valk might even reflect the difference in power output between the turbines and the thermocouples.

The model I'm referring to isn't one of the cutaway diagrams, but something I've discussed several times. Briefly, working from ideas suggested by others, I envision the heat from the reactor being transferred to compressed air via a heat exchanger inside the engine. The air exits the back of the engine, providing thrust (when in flight) and spinning a turbine which is connected to a compressor at the front of the engine. In space, the Valk injects stored reaction mass into the engine; this is heated and expands, shooting out the back of the engine which now functions as a rocket. (Keeping the turbine in the loop allows electricity to be generated even if the compressor isn't needed.)

I agree with the problems of using this in space; however, some big rechargeable batteries can partly overcome the problem by not requiring the turbines to run all the time. It could be that thermocouples are used in combination with turbines, so that even if all reaction mass is used, you still have some power generation ability.

It might be interesting/instructive to guess at how the Destroids generate power. All but the Cheyenne are listed as having thermonuclear reactors, and all but the monster have their engine rated in terms of shp. To me this suggests that they do in fact use turbines. (The monster's engine is rated in bhp.)

[Goshawk]

IIRC, don't some of the rogue Zentraedi fire captured GU-11's at Hikaru when he pilots the Spartan? The shells seem to have little or no effect on the Spartan whatsoever, and he promptly beats the crap out of them.

Sounds likely, although I also don't remember the details of the scene--i.e., was the Spartan hit, or did Hikaru dodge all the bullets?

In the scene when fired upon the rounds looked like they hit around the legs but with no pentration into the legs them selves.

[JB0]

Ah, okay, I just learned about thermoelectric generators. Regardless of efficiency in real life, yes, I suppose that overtechnology which can make fusion reactors to power airplanes, and SWAG armor to protect them, might be able to make a highly efficient thermoelectric generator/thermocouple. The discrepancy in the power rating for the Valk might even reflect the difference in power output between the turbines and the thermocouples.

Oooh, I hadn't even thought of overtech thermocouples...

Overtech might even provide a device that uses just heat, instead of diffrence between heat and cold.

The model I'm referring to isn't one of the cutaway diagrams, but something I've discussed several times.

That answers the question.

Briefly, working from ideas suggested by others, I envision the heat from the reactor being transferred to compressed air via a heat exchanger inside the engine. The air exits the back of the engine, providing thrust (when in flight) and spinning a turbine which is connected to a compressor at the front of the engine. In space, the Valk injects stored reaction mass into the engine; this is heated and expands, shooting out the back of the engine which now functions as a rocket. (Keeping the turbine in the loop allows electricity to be generated even if the compressor isn't needed.)

Pretty much how I'd guessed they worked too. Except I figured electricity was on a diffrent loop.

I agree with the problems of using this in space; however, some big rechargeable batteries can partly overcome the problem by not requiring the turbines to run all the time. It could be that thermocouples are used in combination with turbines, so that even if all reaction mass is used, you still have some power generation ability.

Batteries/supercapacitors is a good idea.

And the dual-source electrical system ... wish I'd thought of it earlier.

It might be interesting/instructive to guess at how the Destroids generate power. All but the Cheyenne are listed as having thermonuclear reactors, and all but the monster have their engine rated in terms of shp. To me this suggests that they do in fact use turbines. (The monster's engine is rated in bhp.)

They use .... thermonuclear diesel engines!

Yes, I'm aware of the absurdity of that statement.

[Mr March]

I'll provide some thoughts.

The basic technologies of variable fighters already make them far more advanced and combat effective than any dedicated anti-armor hardware.  Macross Zero established that the armor of a Valkyrie is as strong as any tank.  Since the 55mm GU-11 Gunpods are more than capable of penetrating the armor of Valkyries and other OT mecha like Battlepods, Powered Armor, and Destroids, every Valkyrie is anti-armor capable by default.

It's not known that zentradi used any form of defensive overtechnology.

And Valks VS destroids? Only instance I can think of is MacPlus, which was an exotic weapon to start with.

But I intend to leap to the defense of the oft-slandered destroid here anyways.

On the contrary, not only must Zentradi mecha use some form of defensive technology (what sane military would build top-tier hardware with no more protection than your average Jeep), but a Zentradi mecha was shown partially resisting fire from a GU-11 gunpod (Max vs Milia).

Valkyries vs. destroids has been more than shown. Macross Zero showed the weaponry of the SV-51 easily dispatching destroids. Zentradi mecha of all types dispatched Destroids with ease (SDFM). To assume Valkyries could not do the same is to suggest Zentradi mecha enjoy a large firepower advantage over the Valkyrie. This is obviously not so based the comparable combat performance of vehicles on both sides as shown in the anime. To extend the thought further, to assume Valkyries are invulnerable to each other is absurd. Even if we put aside the fact that M+ more than proves this is not the case and Zentradi using GU-11 gunpods against Valkyries succesfully (SDFM), no offensive dedicated military hardware yet created is invulnerable to weapons fire from another of its type.

I was wondering, where's it written the YF-19's optional weapons pack is some "exotic" technology? As far as I'm aware, it's not known whether the weapons pack is officially a beam or projectile weapon. Even if we did know, to assume the weapon is some one-shot, exotic new design that sprouts from some previously unknown area of technology is more than a logic leap.

I disagree. Mass and velocity are not only important factors in ballistics, they are THE factors considered when ultimately designing a projectile with more penetrating power. Everything the military does with ballistics is to get a more massive and faster projectile to fire accurately and reliably from a gun. As an example, Tanks exist today that fire projectiles as large or larger than that of an Abrams, but the Abrams uses a projectile with greater mass (DU) and utilizes a combination of technologies to fire the projectile at 1,700+ m/s. Unrealistic to expect mass and velocity to be the deciding factors? Quite the opposite as I understand it.

Impracticality of any of the crazy feats that Valkyries do in the many animes should be more than ample proof that manuvers impossible for modern craft are not only possible with OT, but the norm. Many examples exist of Valkyries firing gunpods at ranges and speeds ordinarily out of the question for conventional projectile weapons. Not only that, flying through bridges in GERWALK mode (DYRL?), crashing into the ground in fighter mode (DYRL?, SDFM, M+), and all the other ridculously high damaging impacts that Valkyries have survived in ALL THREE modes prove they have superior structural strength and armor. Any aircraft yet would shatter to pieces under such stress. The SWAG doesn't even need to be brought into the equation except to drive the point home. Eaten alive is a good term to use against any Armor that engages a Valkyrie, tanks and destroids included. Might as well argue that Stormtroopers have great aim

[Mr March]

As far as I can tell, there's nothing really conclusive in canonical sources about the Valk vs. Destroid question. It makes for a more interesting scenario if you assume that Destroids have superior armor to compensate for their lack of tactical flexibility, but unfortunately there's nothing to explicitly support that.

BTW, note that the Cheyenne destroids were taken down by the SV-51 gunpods. (Maybe not a perfect example, since Cheyennes look lighter than the SDF Macross destroids.)

I would disagree, but I hope I've provided enough evidence in my previous post to give you some food for thought.

I've always felt the advantage of the Destroid over the Valkyrie lies in weapons diversity, far greater ammunition payload, and economy of design. Even in the original SDFM, the Destroids were far more numerous than the Valkyries. Although it seems that the UN Spacy abandoned destroids years later (probably because construction of Valkyries were perfected and engineering methods were refined), they do have a place as a more dedicated ground/surface unit.

I've mentioned the SV-51 against destroids above and I agree. There may be some "unknowns" that would describe why the Cheyenne was easily toppled by the SV-51, but that's too much speculation. I prefer to work from as many knowns and examples in the actual animes as possible...and they don't prove favourable for the destroids.

Edited April 13, 2005 by Mr March

[Mr March]

IIRC, don't some of the rogue Zentraedi fire captured GU-11's at Hikaru when he pilots the Spartan? The shells seem to have little or no effect on the Spartan whatsoever, and he promptly beats the crap out of them. It could be argued that maybe the gunpods were loaded with some sort of non-lethal ammunition, like the wooden and rubber bullets used in the 20th century, but that's pure conjecture.

I've often thought about that scene myself. But at the same time, it doesn't even appear that the Zentradi even hits the destroid. The shots hit mostly the ground and area around the feet of the mecha. The possibility that the shots were repelled remains a valid interpretation.

The scene may also have been (and this is the most sensible interpretation I've yet heard in any discussion) an attempt to dramatically portray to the audience the great disparity in arms between the UN Spacy forces and the malcontents. The episode wanted to show that once Hikaru and other mecha showed up in force, the Zentradi were badly outgunned and out of their league. Hence the scene attempted to describe this visually rather than weigh down the scene unecessarily with a lot of verbal exposition (a very wise choice creatively).

[JB0]

I'll provide some thoughts.

The basic technologies of variable fighters already make them far more advanced and combat effective than any dedicated anti-armor hardware.  Macross Zero established that the armor of a Valkyrie is as strong as any tank.  Since the 55mm GU-11 Gunpods are more than capable of penetrating the armor of Valkyries and other OT mecha like Battlepods, Powered Armor, and Destroids, every Valkyrie is anti-armor capable by default.

It's not known that zentradi used any form of defensive overtechnology.

And Valks VS destroids? Only instance I can think of is MacPlus, which was an exotic weapon to start with.

But I intend to leap to the defense of the oft-slandered destroid here anyways.

On the contrary, not only must Zentradi mecha use some form of defensive technology (what sane military would build top-tier hardware with no more protection than your average Jeep), but a Zentradi mecha was shown partially resisting fire from a GU-11 gunpod (Max vs Milia).

Mmm, forgot that sequence. I always figured Max just missed the important bits.

As for it being insane to not use defensive tech... it assumes they have it.

Remember, our barrier system completely mystified them. They were SURE the omnidirectional barrier was some sort of weapon.

While we're on the subject...

The zentradi reguld platoons seem to operate on the principle of overwhelming numbers. I'm not entirely sure it's top-tier equipment.

Valkyries vs. destroids has been more than shown.  Macross Zero showed the weaponry of the SV-51 easily dispatching destroids. 

The Cheyenne is an oddity. It has a massively diffrent design style than the SDF destroids do. We've discussed this one already.

To recap: SDF destroids are built slower and bulkier. The Cheyenne is believed to have sacrified much of the armor of the HWR series for greater speed(heck, it has WHEELS).

Zentradi mecha of all types dispatched Destroids with ease (SDFM).

And Valks.

Which is what I was saying to start with. The Valk isn't massively superior to the destroid.

To assume Valkyries could not do the same is to suggest Zentradi mecha enjoy a large firepower advantage over the Valkyrie.  This is obviously not so based the comparable combat performance of vehicles on both sides as shown in the anime. 

Armor and weapons tech evolve alongside each other.

Basically, the zentradi mecha were built to resist beams. Not metal slugs flying at them.

I would bet the zentradi armor would've worked a lot better against beam weaponry, because that's what they and (presumably) the supervision army use nearly exclusively. Zentradi missiles are far less common, and slug weapons are non-existent as near as I can tell.

To extend the thought further, to assume Valkyries are invulnerable to each other is absurd.  Even if we put aside the fact that M+ more than proves this is not the case and Zentradi using GU-11 gunpods against Valkyries succesfully (SDFM), no offensive dedicated military hardware yet created is invulnerable to weapons fire from another of its type.

Front face of an Abrams is essentially, if I recall.

I was wondering, where's it written the YF-19's optional weapons pack is some "exotic" technology?  As far as I'm aware, it's not known whether the weapons pack is officially a beam or projectile weapon.  Even if we did know, to assume the weapon is some one-shot, exotic new design that sprouts from some previously unknown area of technology is more than a logic leap.

Exotic = non-standard and uncommon in this case. I would file a GBP as exotic, too.

The animation presents the appearance of a beam weapon to me.

It's clearly not standard equipment, as Isamu isn't lugging it around the whole show, and it makes no future appearances.

The closest relative I am aware of is Gamlin's Mac7 gunpod beam adapter, which is used as a single-shot device.

I disagree.  Mass and velocity are not only important factors in ballistics, they are THE factors considered when ultimately designing a projectile with more penetrating power.  Everything the military does with ballistics is to get a more massive and faster projectile to fire accurately and reliably from a gun.  As an example, Tanks exist today that fire projectiles as large or larger than that of an Abrams, but the Abrams uses a projectile with greater mass (DU) and utilizes a combination of technologies to fire the projectile at 1,700+ m/s.  Unrealistic to expect mass and velocity to be the deciding factors?  Quite the opposite as I understand it.

I thought I just said that. Heck, I put the numbers up earlier.

Impracticality of any of the crazy feats that Valkyries do in the many animes should be more than ample proof that manuvers impossible for modern craft are not only possible with OT, but the norm.  Many examples exist of Valkyries firing gunpods at ranges and speeds ordinarily out of the question for conventional projectile weapons. 

Usually in space. The rules of modern combat fly out the window for space combat. No wind resistance, no gravity(or at least vastly diffrent gravity).

Not only that, flying through bridges in GERWALK mode (DYRL?), crashing into the ground in fighter mode (DYRL?, SDFM, M+), and all the other ridculously high damaging impacts that Valkyries have survived in ALL THREE modes prove they have superior structural strength and armor.  Any aircraft yet would shatter to pieces under such stress.  The SWAG doesn't even need to be brought into the equation except to drive the point home. 

I cited that.

SWAG is very likely the REASON valks can be crashed through bridges, rammed into the ground, etc. So it DOES need to be brought into the equation.

And I assumed destroids have similar defensive tech to Valkyries.

Eaten alive is a good term to use against any Armor that engages a Valkyrie, tanks and destroids included.  Might as well argue that Stormtroopers have great aim 

Again, you missed that I assumed destroids have similar defensive tech to Valkyries.

And the Monster is designed to take close-range nuke blasts.

There's no evidence a Valk can take anything near that sort of damage.

And barring reaction missiles or what appear to be single-shot beam weapons, both exotic loadouts(and the beam adapter is only available on much later-gen VFs), a Valk can't DISH OUT that kind of damage, either.

Stormtroopers ... I assume have poorly-calibrated weapons. Empire apparently doesn't want to spend the cash for accuracy when they can use superior numbers.

[JB0]

As far as I can tell, there's nothing really conclusive in canonical sources about the Valk vs. Destroid question. It makes for a more interesting scenario if you assume that Destroids have superior armor to compensate for their lack of tactical flexibility, but unfortunately there's nothing to explicitly support that.

BTW, note that the Cheyenne destroids were taken down by the SV-51 gunpods. (Maybe not a perfect example, since Cheyennes look lighter than the SDF Macross destroids.)

I would disagree, but I hope I've provided enough evidence in my previous post to give you some food for thought.

I've always felt the advantage of the Destroid over the Valkyrie lies in weapons diversity, far greater ammunition payload, and economy of design. Even in the original SDFM, the Destroids were far more numerous than the Valkyries. Although it seems that the UN Spacy abandoned destroids years later (probably because construction of Valkyries were perfected and engineering methods were refined), they do have a place as a more dedicated ground/surface unit.

I've mentioned the SV-51 against destroids above and I agree. There may be some "unknowns" that would describe why the Cheyenne was easily toppled by the SV-51, but that's too much speculation. I prefer to work from as many knowns and examples in the actual animes as possible...and they don't prove favourable for the destroids.

Working solely from animation is an uncomfortable standpoint, as the animation has ALWAYS focused on VFs. And hero VFs, no less.

We barely ever see cannon fodders, unless they're exploding.

We don't really KNOW that UN Spacy has abandoned destroids. We've not seen a situation where they're really appropriate since SDF Macross.

Mac7 is mostly space battle, with properly-equipped ships(the big diffrence between SDF and 7 is that clause there).

Mac+ is a test flight program. It's like expecting to see the Abrams figure prominently in a movie about the F-22 development.

MacZero's only really practical destroid moments were used by the Cheyenne(new mech, poor performance) and Monster(which performed as devastatingly well as the fans expected it to).

The manufacturing techniques that ALLEGEDLY make Valks better could all be applied with equal effectiveness to next-gen destroids.

[Mr March]

I'll provide some thoughts.

The basic technologies of variable fighters already make them far more advanced and combat effective than any dedicated anti-armor hardware.  Macross Zero established that the armor of a Valkyrie is as strong as any tank.  Since the 55mm GU-11 Gunpods are more than capable of penetrating the armor of Valkyries and other OT mecha like Battlepods, Powered Armor, and Destroids, every Valkyrie is anti-armor capable by default.

It's not known that zentradi used any form of defensive overtechnology.

And Valks VS destroids? Only instance I can think of is MacPlus, which was an exotic weapon to start with.

But I intend to leap to the defense of the oft-slandered destroid here anyways.

On the contrary, not only must Zentradi mecha use some form of defensive technology (what sane military would build top-tier hardware with no more protection than your average Jeep), but a Zentradi mecha was shown partially resisting fire from a GU-11 gunpod (Max vs Milia).

Mmm, forgot that sequence. I always figured Max just missed the important bits.

As for it being insane to not use defensive tech... it assumes they have it.

Remember, our barrier system completely mystified them. They were SURE the omnidirectional barrier was some sort of weapon.

While we're on the subject...

The zentradi reguld platoons seem to operate on the principle of overwhelming numbers. I'm not entirely sure it's top-tier equipment.

Let's keep the irrelevant parts to a minimum please. I'm not talking barriers, I'm talking armor and have not deviated. The point stands.

The Cheyenne is no oddity just because it was given wheels to operat on the deck of a battleship in an anti-air role. Nothing has been stated in official literature nor seen in the anime that suggests the Cheyenne is any less/more armored than other destroids. All that is known without running off and creating my own set of standards is that the SV-51 destroyed a Cheyenne; a destroid. Precedent established.

Never said Valkyries were "massively superior" to destroids. Return to sender.

There is no precedent or established rule for the Macross universe that states beam/ballistic weapons enjoy more penetrating/destructive potential over one another. Any attempt to say so is pure speculation.

Exotic or no, the weapon remains within the realm of established Macross OT. Until we see a GU-15 gunpod's effect on a stationary Monster, no precedent has been established for comparing magnitudes of weapon yeild.

You argued it was an unrealistic expectation and I said it was not. If you're not calling the theory into question, don't waste time reiterating facts you don't want to debate. Point remains.

SWAG specifically states "battroid mode" which would certainly NOT provide a reason for survivability of a Valkyrie under such stresses in fighter or GERWALK mode. Again, assuming the destroids use SWAG is not known and wouldn't increase their armor strength any more than a Valkyrie.

Near misses and fine point peneration are two entirely different things and would make all the difference in a discussion of the Monster's armor strength. Much of a weapons destructive potential lies in the amount of force DIRECTED at the target. Explosions, even near misses, inflict mere fractions of their damage potential while a beam or projectile inflicts zero to maximum based on a hit or miss (keeping all other factors equal). Does the Monster's armor enable it to survive a one kiloton blast from a distance of 100 meters? How about a 100 megaton nuke at 1 km? What is considered the vague description "nuclear" and "close range"? Again, we are brought back to knowns rather than unknowns amd vagaries. To place the optional weapons pack of the YF-19 at the same level of a nuclear blast is ludicrous given the known limit of mecha mounted beam/ballistic weaponry and the power generation ability of Valkyries in the Macross universe.

Working off the animation, official literature, and basic application of physics to the fictional Macross universe is all we have. If we don't use that, than what better method do you propose by which you intend to debate why my opinion that a Valkyrie is already an Anti-armor unit within the confines of the Macross universe true or false? I can sit here all day and come up with any explanation I want for everything I see so it supports a whimsical theory (light armored Cheyennes, lightly armored mecha, massive firepower disparities between otherwise comprable mecha, beam/ballistic disparities, arbitrary definitions of near and nuclear, et cetera, ad naseum), but I won't go anywhere but in a circle. Basing an analysis upon what has been seen and what is written is all we have. I can say destroids have strong enough armor to repell gunpods, only to be proven wrong by events in the anime. I don't then make an excuse or come up with speculation to support my theory that is clearly wrong based on the facts; I take what is known and established, then work from that KNOWN ESTABLISHED base.

Destroids could have been seen in numerous occassions in later shows, but were not. M+ could have used them in the base, on the Macross itself, et cetera. M7 would be too numerous to list. But they were not seen. A trend towards fewer destroids has been set, regardless of the speculation I came up with to describe WHY they are not in fashion any more with the UN Spacy military.

[nathan]

When Hikaru crashed into the buildings he wasn't in GERWALK mode. He was on his way to battloid so the VF's energy armor thing was probably active.

The SWAG is supposed to tripple the VF-0's armor in battloid mode. Since the whole point was to make the VF's ground capabilities comperable to the Destroids the Destroids must have armor 3at least 3 times stronger than the VF's armor. I would think that the Defender and Phalanx would have weaker armor as they're more support unit's and not frontline but that's just a guess on my part. And the Cheyenne must sacrifice armor for manueverability. It has wheels for high speed movement as well as limited flight capability. The other destroids don't have that.

The Defender's 78mm cannons have a rate of fire of 500 rpm not 2000. It is only by having 4 cannons can the rate of 2000 rpm be achieved. The velocity is still 3300 m/sec. The GU-11 fires at 1200 rpm. The Gun pod has a higher rate of fire but the Defender has more guns. The standard Defender also has twice the ammo and presumably much greater range than the GU-11. So if a Valk tries to strafe with a Defender around it's likely going to get shot down.

[Gui]

May I ask how this SWAG thing work? 

[Mr March]

When Hikaru crashed into the buildings he wasn't in GERWALK mode. He was on his way to battloid so the VF's energy armor thing was probably active.

Moment of impact was GERWALK and if anything, being in mid-transformation during a crash speaks even more highly for the structural durability and armor strength of VF without using SWAG armor than a lack of it. Not too mention the numerous examples of such crashes outside of battroid mode that I've already posted. It's getting fun repeating myself endlessly

Edited April 13, 2005 by Mr March

[ewilen]

I really don't think we can draw any hard conclusions from the anime. The great equalizer really is the fact that Valks are hero mecha and so we often see them winning, while destroids are nearly always piloted by extras, so they blow up a lot.

I will note that several of the Zentradi mecha are armed with "impact cannon" which sounds to me like something that shoots bullets/shells.

Also,

Mass and velocity are not only important factors in ballistics, they are THE factors considered when ultimately designing a projectile with more penetrating power. Everything the military does with ballistics is to get a more massive and faster projectile to fire accurately and reliably from a gun.

Actually, there's a little bit more to it, namely design of the shell/penetrator. For example, the modern Abrams gun fires something that's more like a dart than a bullet. This not only reduces wind drag but also provides a greater penetration ability than, say, a bullet-shaped slug of the same mass travelling at the same speed. With bullet-shaped projectiles, the shape of the nose and the composition of the metal (use of an armor-piercing cap, for example) are also factors in the design. Some discussion can be found at

http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_2.html

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-055.htm

At some point I'd like to get some of the old Macross board wargames by Tsukuda. They might at least provide a semiofficial view of the relative abilities of the various Macross hardware, though I really don't know to what extent they were sanctioned by Big West and/or Kawamori.

Edited April 13, 2005 by ewilen