GU-11 Gunpod question

[newca]

Is it necessary to make GU-11 so big? Even not use the super tech we can do a smaller gunpod now.

And as the GU-11 can fire in fighter mode, why we need a telescope structure in batriod mode?

[Graham]

The GU-11 fires a 55mm round. Even with advances in technology, there is a limit to how small you can make the barrels, feed mechanism, drive motor and ammuntion storage, i.e. the size of the gun mechanism and working parts is dictated by the size of the round it fires. And don't forget that the GU-11 also holds 200rds of ammuntion.

As for the extendible stock, it's probably supposed to be just like the stock on real rifles, to allow aiming from the shoulder.

The size of the GU-11 is actually quite realistic for a 3 barreled 55mm weapon with internal ammo storage.

One of the many reasons I prefer Macross to Gundam and one of the things I find very unrealistic about Gundam is that there is absolutely no way, you could fit 2 x 3 barreled 60mm guns (or 75mm in SEED!) in the head of a normal size Mobile Suit, the head would just not be big enough, as a 60mm or 75mm multi-barreled Gattling type cannon would be huge, far bigger than the head of a typical MS. 12mm or perhaps 20mm rotary guns yes you could fit, but nothing larger.

As I said, Kawamori knows his stuff and gets it as realistic as possible within the constraints of a giant robot show. Gundam designs like Okawara just wing it and make up stuff that doesn't make sense, but just sound cool.

Graham

[JB0]

As I said, Kawamori knows his stuff and gets it as realistic as possible within the constraints of a giant robot show. Gundam designs like Okawara  just wing it and make up stuff that doesn't make sense, but just sound cool.

I was under the impression it had more to do with marketing being responsible for making the weapon calibers up than any real problem with the designers(not that some of them AREN'T clearly insane anyways).

Even Kawamori's own Gundams(he's listed as the designer of the GP-01 and GP-02) have the weapon size issues. And as you said, he knows his stuff.

[Graham]

I would guess that with the GP-01 and GP-02, Kawamori was probably just given a spec sheet and told to design a mecha around it which had to follow the usual Gundam design rules, i.e. be blue, white & red have V antenna, twin head guns, two beam sabers etc. I also doubt very much that he had any control over the weapons, unlike with Macross.

Graham

[JB0]

I would guess that with the GP-01 and GP-02, Kawamori was probably just given a spec sheet and told to design a mecha around it which had to follow the usual Gundam design rules, i.e. be blue, white & red have V antenna, twin head guns, two beam sabers etc. I also doubt very much that he had any control over the weapons, unlike with Macross.

Graham

332393[/snapback]

Which is what I was saying.

Marketing, not the mecha designers, is responsible for the absurdly out-of-proportion weaponry. The mech designers just make the best mech they can within the confines of the license.

Goes all the way back to the original. The plan was white powered armor, and marketing demanded brightly-colored mecha.

[Mr March]

Various technologies are involved in the design of gunpods as are design considerations such as muzzle velocity, ammunition, function, cost, reliability, etc. Sure we can build smaller guns with current tech...but "current tech" weaponry isn't going to do much good against war machines armed with OverTechnology. Hypercarbons, SWAG armor, etc are all a major consideration. These considerations might necessitate the need for a bigger gunpod; a gunpod that can defeat these new defensive technologies which now rule the battlefield.

Your "current tech" 55 mm gun, built so small it can fit on a jeep, doesn't have the muzzle velocity, ammunition capacity, nor penetrating power to defeat OverTechnology. You need a bigger gun to propel more rounds, fire them faster, and hold more ammunition. So you build a GU-11

[Berttt]

Don't forget that German tanks (Panzer III's) used a 50mm gun as their main armament.

The GU-11 is both larger caliber and probably uses a more advanced type of ammunition. I would consider that it would be a very effective weapon against a range of threats. It needs to be big to deal with firing such a big round. After all you can't get a .50 AE handgun the size of Derringer now can you?

Berttt

Edited September 29, 2005 by Berttt

[azrael]

... probably uses a more advanced type of ammunition....

332439[/snapback]

Probably not. They still used AHEAD rounds in M0. I imagine the same forms of ammo used in a GPU-9 are avaliable by the time the GU-11 is produced. Only in larger-caliber-form. But, consider that the SV-51 also used 55mm ammo as well. I doubt much would change in 2 years.

[Gideon Krieg]

The GU-11 gun pod was no doubt inspired by the late 1960s USAF and US Navy, F-4C Phantom's SUU-23/A 20 millimeter, 6 barrel, gun pod.

Seen here on the centerline;

and from behind here;

Combined with the more modern GE/GPU-5 or FFV unipod type weapons, it would almost look exactly like a GU-11 gun pod. Kawamori knows his aircraft weapons that is for sure.

No doubt the 55 millimeter tri-barrel (is it a gattling or vulcan cannon?) was chosen because it would make more sense to have a weapon capable of penetrating thick or advanced armor plating.

The premier autocannon currently in service is the good ol M61 20 millimeter six barrel gun. Its used on various aircraft including the F-4 Phantom 2, F-15 Eagle, F-18 hornet, and F-16, and F-14 Tomcat. The most powerful aircraft autocannon currently in service is the GAU-8/A Avenger 30 millimeter 9 barrel gun, mounted on the Tank killing Fairchild/Republic A-10 Thunderbolt 2.

A 55 millimeter autocannon would be very devastating. Thirty mil can chew through even the toughest tank armor of today, so a 55 mil would be very impressive to say the least.

I have to hand it to Kawamori, he made an excellent choice with a 50 millimeter class weapon for the VF-1. Very believable and practical.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Ah..if only we could see those transform into giant robots.. Bring on the transformers binaltech jets..

[JB0]

Ah..if only we could see those transform into giant robots.. Bring on the transformers binaltech jets..

332470[/snapback]

I'm still waiting for Binaltech handguns.

...

Yes, I keep pushing for a faithful Megatron just to annoy the PC people.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

If they were to actually go ahead with it, mmmmm...Jetfire as his old school vf1 self. This could be customised and depending on price of it and quality of it, could compete with the macross toys for attention.

[F-ZeroOne]

The most powerful aircraft autocannon currently in service is the GAU-8/A Avenger 30 millimeter 9 barrel gun, mounted on the Tank killing Fairchild/Republic A-10 Thunderbolt 2. 

A 55 millimeter autocannon would be very devastating.  Thirty mil can chew through even the toughest tank armor of today, so a 55 mil would be very impressive to say the least.

Slight correction - the GAU-8 is 7 barrels, not 9. Also, its designed to hit tanks from their more vunerable sides and rear, not the front - traditionally the most heavily armoured part of a tank; there are reports of modern American tanks surviving direct hits from Russian-type 125 mm guns on the front.

British tanks of World war II mostly used a "2 pounder" - roughly 40mm. German panzers started the war with 37mm guns - slightly contrary to the widely-held belief that German tanks were automatically superior; it was only later that the true monsters like the Tiger appeared. At the start of the war, it was German tactics that did a lot of the work.

Mind you, British tanks did tend to suck quite a bit...

Edited September 29, 2005 by F-ZeroOne

[Goshawk]

Russian T-80

main gun 125 mm 2A46M-1 smoothbore

In Saudi an M1A2 main battle tank got hit with 2 full, head on shots from a T-80. In which the crew survived both direct hits. They had a documenty on the Military channel with that tank crew and all of the said that the tank saved thier lives.

[JB0]

The most powerful aircraft autocannon currently in service is the GAU-8/A Avenger 30 millimeter 9 barrel gun, mounted on the Tank killing Fairchild/Republic A-10 Thunderbolt 2. 

A 55 millimeter autocannon would be very devastating.  Thirty mil can chew through even the toughest tank armor of today, so a 55 mil would be very impressive to say the least.

Slight correction - the GAU-8 is 7 barrels, not 9. Also, its designed to hit tanks from their more vunerable sides and rear, not the front - traditionally the most heavily armoured part of a tank; there are reports of modern American tanks surviving direct hits from Russian-type 125 mm guns on the front.

I thought the A-10 usually struck at the top...

[promethuem5]

Not to go horribly OT< but what exactly is teh difference btw/ gattling and vulcan guns?

[azrael]

but what exactly  is teh difference btw/ gattling and vulcan guns?

332578[/snapback]

Absolutely nothing. "Vulcan" refers to a model of gatling gun, namely the M61 Vulcan made by General Electric. The name stuck to most electronic-motor gatling guns. But these days, almost all gatling guns are run by an electronic motor so we use the term "vulcan". But you can use "gatling gun" and we'd still know you'd be talking about the same thing. But if you are going to refer to Richard Gatling's original gatling gun, then it's just easier to differentiate between the 2 by using "vulcan".

[F-ZeroOne]

I thought the A-10 usually struck at the top...

332552[/snapback]

Its an aircraft, it can do just that and a tanks armour is typically weakest there. However, the side is also less well armoured - you can't armour a tank everywhere, because then it can't move! - and the engine on most tanks is typically at the rear (the Israeli Merkeva is an exception; they treat the engine as additional armour and place it at the front), so that is also a good place to hit.

[Penguin]

but what exactly  is teh difference btw/ gattling and vulcan guns?

332578[/snapback]

Absolutely nothing. "Vulcan" refers to a model of gatling gun, namely the M61 Vulcan made by General Electric. The name stuck to most electronic-motor gatling guns. But these days, almost all gatling guns are run by an electronic motor so we use the term "vulcan". But you can use "gatling gun" and we'd still know you'd be talking about the same thing. But if you are going to refer to Richard Gatling's original gatling gun, then it's just easier to differentiate between the 2 by using "vulcan".

332590[/snapback]

If you want to leave out the specific names (Vulcan, Gatling) entirely, the more technical label would be "electric rotary cannon" or simply "rotary cannon".

[Zentrandude]

rotary cannon, rotary autocannon, and electric rotary cannon is too much of a battletech/mechwarrior thing so I would never say those, most of the time ill use Gatling in honor of the inventor or rarely say mini-gun.

[Gideon Krieg]

Slight correction - the GAU-8 is 7 barrels, not 9. Also, its designed to hit tanks from their more vunerable sides and rear, not the front

Whoops

Yep, has 7 barrels. My mistake.

The lethality of the 30 x 113 ammunition has been proven against both top and side armor of T-72 MBTs and all medium and light tanks used by the Iraqs in the Gulf War as well as all types of armored vehicles. Individually the ammunition is incapable of penetration frontal armor, however the USAF has speculated that bursts of 30 mm DU rounds are capable of penetrating the frontal armor/heavy armor of T-72 tanks. As these tests were conducted in the 1970s it is probably safe to assume that the 30 mm is not able to penetrate modern frontal armor like that of an M1A1 or T-80.

There actually is a difference between the Gatling gun and the Vulcan. According to the book "Rapid Fire" by Antony G. Williams (Pg. 80-81). A Vulcan cannon is only an electrically powered Gatling gun (developed by the American "Project Vulcan" in 1940s and 1950s) while a Gatling gun is the general classfication used by the US for all types of rotary cannons.

This includes gas powered types (like the GAU-4/A, the self-powered version of the M61A used for installation on craft with limited electrical power, mostly Huey helicopters), the air-powered types (like the SUU-16/A gun pod), and engine-gas powered types (like the GAU-12/U fitted to the AV-8B).

Gatling guns also come in various action types, from types which have barrels riding on a cam which draws the barrel back (to eject and extract cartriges) to simple action types which have a traditional machinegun style bolt/bolt carrier action.

There is also a third type of action, the revolver type, which is more common in naval Gatling weaponry (like the Oerlikon KBD 7 barrel revolver cannon).

So not all Gatling cannons are Vulcans but all Vulcans are Gatlings.

Oh and as a Gundam fan I would like to add that 60 millimeter is a ridiculous caliber for the head mounted cannons on the RX-78-2 and 75 millimeter is only adding insult to injury.

The Tomahawk destroid's head cannons are only 12.7 millimeter, which makes far more sense. The Gundam's head guns should be 20-30 millimeter maximum.

Oh well.

[Noyhauser]

Russian T-80

main gun 125 mm 2A46M-1 smoothbore

In Saudi an M1A2 main battle tank got hit with 2 full, head on shots from a T-80. In which the crew survived both direct hits. They had a documenty on the Military channel with that tank crew and all of the said that the tank saved thier lives.

332527[/snapback]

I'd be careful to make any assumptions about the Iraqi army however. I don't think the T-80 was ever sent to Iraq, they certainly had T-72s though ( a complementary and some say better design than the T-80). It is also questionable if the USSR made available the best warheads to the Iraqis, such advanced penetrators for their tank guns, ect.

And I caution you about making any assumptions about the quality of Western Tanks vs Eastern ones. In the early 1980s, NATO was worried sick that the Soviet Tank armies would just walk over them and take over Western Europe with impunity. Soviet tanks were considered to be technologically up to snuff, if overly mechanically simple, as to be able to operate in a nuclear battlefield. If M1s are getting destroyed in Iraq by RPG hits, they certainly can be destroyed by Tank shells from a certain angles.

The Iraqi army on the otherhand was poorly trained, saw its ranks significantly thinned by the Iran Iraq war, and operated with a completely different doctrine to their soviet and US counterparts. In 1991 they were woefully inequipped to handle the massive Coallition effort, because they didn't even know how to fight such a war.

[Penguin]

There actually is a difference between the Gatling gun and the Vulcan.  According to the book "Rapid Fire" by Antony G. Williams (Pg. 80-81).  A Vulcan cannon is only an electrically powered Gatling gun (developed by the American "Project Vulcan" in 1940s and 1950s) while a Gatling gun is the general classfication used by the US for all types of rotary cannons. 

332712[/snapback]

That's a great book. I'd recommend it to anyone with an interest in the history of automatic cannons.

rotary cannon, rotary autocannon, and electric rotary cannon is too much of a battletech/mechwarrior thing so I would never say those, most of the time ill use Gatling in honor of the inventor or rarely say mini-gun.

While Battletech/Mechwarrior has rotary autocannons in the game, the term "rotary cannon" predates the game by quite a bit. I encounter it often when reading more official or serious literature on automatic cannons. "Gatling" seems to be more of a colloquialism, common to American writers more than the rest of the world.

The minigun is a specific weapon in its own right (7.62 or even 5.56 mm in calibre). The term is hardly interchangeable with Gatling. To paraphrase Gideon Kreig, all miniguns are Gatlings, but not all Gatlings are miniguns (calling the "Avenger" a "minigun" would just be so wrong ).

Edited September 30, 2005 by Penguin

[Graham]

And I caution you about making any assumptions about the quality of Western Tanks vs Eastern ones. In the early 1980s, NATO was worried sick that the Soviet Tank armies would just walk over them and take over Western Europe with impunity. Soviet tanks were considered to be technologically up to snuff, if overly mechanically simple, as to be able to operate in a nuclear battlefield. If M1s are getting destroyed in Iraq by RPG hits, they certainly can be destroyed by Tank shells from a certain angles.

332793[/snapback]

I don't think that NATO was worried so much about the quality of Soviet tanks, but rather the quantity. I'll have to go re-readup on the subject, but IIRC back in the 80's the Warsaw Pact forces outnumbered NATO forces by a significant margin.

Graham

[F-ZeroOne]

I don't think that NATO was worried so much about the quality of Soviet tanks, but rather the quantity. I'll have to go re-readup on the subject, but IIRC back in the 80's the Warsaw Pact forces outnumbered NATO forces by a significant margin.

Graham

334756[/snapback]

NATO was worried about the quality of Russian tanks for a while; they were smaller, relatively high performance, and had things like auto-loaders. Until the M1 came along, American tank designers had a little bit of an inferiority complex. But, yes, numbers was the big worry.

However, the Gulf War showed up quite a few flaws in Russian tanks. The T-72 has a fuel line that goes across the front of the turret; this caused some interesting examples of unpowered turret flight after hits by 120mm rounds; also, there are some horror stories about gunners getting limbs loaded into the gun by the auto-loaders!

I understand that after the Gulf War, the Russians reviewed why so much of their equipment failed so badly; a lot of interesting equipment started turning up on Russian tanks afterwards, such as improved reactive armour, anti-missile systems and even on one modified prototype, a couple of 20mm AA guns...!

[Zentrandude]

Penguin and Gideon Kreig reminds me of those guys who complain and puts up a huge detailed reason why a clip is not a mag and usualys messes up the flow of a thread.

A multi barrel projectile pea shooter by any other name still smells as sweet

Think that why American tank designers had a little bit of an inferiority complex was that army of one mentality. It would proly be cheaper in the long run to put out a overbuilt tank in fewer numbers than many times that with underpowered cannonfodder tanks. With cost of training the all the people, having more support for the large number of tanks, and not to mention all the supplies like fuel,ammo, and food.

Think it was Graham that posted a great cutaway pic of the gunpod but I can't find it anymore. Gman or Anyone still have it?

Yah death. I had to realy cut it down so I could use it as an avatar, Im a huge 80s kid . Also reason why I like macross.

Edited October 7, 2005 by Zentrandude

[DeathHammer]

Please Delete Thanks

Edited February 8, 2010 by DeathHammer

[Penguin]

Penguin and Gideon Kreig reminds me of those guys who complain and puts up a huge detailed reason why a clip is not a mag and usualys messes up the flow of a thread.

334781[/snapback]

Hey... I resemble that remark!!

I don't know if it was the animators, but don't the Valks have the standard loadout for the Tomcats (i.e. from the RPG guide as well, etc) ? I.E. a 25mm internal cannon for fighter mode?

The design for the gunpod never bothered me, I do wonder however if 200 rounds at 55mm is the best combination for battling 50 foot giants. IIRC, the standard loadout for a US rifleman is seven 30 round mags totaling 210 rounds. But I gotta figure many are realistically carrying more than seven mags around. Which makes me wonder if its possible to carry a GU11 reload somewhere on the Valk. Then again that presupposes that if its internally loaded , whether thats even feasible or practical. In either case, SDF Macross suffers from John Woo-itis of the endless mags past episode 2. Well, any way you cut it, the Valk pilots definitely have to show some extreme fire discipline in Battaloid mode if they are stuck at 200 rounds with a three barreled weapon that can empty in seconds.

Nope... no internal cannon for the VF-1. Although, the head-mounted laser(s) could serve the same purpose. They don't get a lot of play in the series, but I do remember a scene from when Roy rescues Hikaru from the VF-1D of where his VF-1S turns its head towards a battle pod on the ridge and wastes it using the head lasers. So, there's gotta be some power there.

As for ammo capacity, I always thought it sounded about right considering the design of the plane (with modern fighters carrying around 400-500 20mm rounds, 200 55mm rounds sounds right), but the weight of the story itself would seem to render that a little soft. The whole notion of a mere 100-200 VF-1s against the Zentraedi hordes leads to the inevitable "Woo-itis" you mentioned, or else they'd have to animate a whole bunch of VF-1s running out of ammo and resorting to head lasers.

[JB0]

Nope... no internal cannon for the VF-1. Although, the head-mounted laser(s) could serve the same purpose. They don't get a lot of play in the series, but I do remember a scene from when Roy rescues Hikaru from the VF-1D of where his VF-1S turns its head towards a battle pod on the ridge and wastes it using the head lasers. So, there's gotta be some power there.

\

I've always wondered exactly how much play those were SUPPOSED to get?

Due to animation errors tehy were remounted in the nosecone IR sensors a few times.

And a few times they were done up shooting bullets instead of lasers, again due to errors.

So how many more times were they written in as used but weren't drawn in use because someone flubbed the scene?

...

Maybe Kawamori should've written in eye lasers insetad It'd be goofy, but the animators wouldn't have been confused.

[azrael]

And a few times they were done up shooting bullets instead of lasers, again due to errors.

So how many more times were they written in as used but weren't drawn in use because someone flubbed the scene?

...

Maybe Kawamori should've written in eye lasers insetad It'd be goofy, but the animators wouldn't have been confused.

334833[/snapback]

Well...the Compendium implies that the head laser can fire in pulses as well as single continuous beams...

Fixed Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon (One in VF-1A, two in VF-1D and VF-1J, and four in VF-1S), firing 6000 pulses per minute,

Although, when you think about it...it's firing so fast (and it is a laser) that it probably looks like a single beam...

[Noyhauser]

I don't think that NATO was worried so much about the quality of Soviet tanks, but rather the quantity. I'll have to go re-readup on the subject, but IIRC back in the 80's the Warsaw Pact forces outnumbered NATO forces by a significant margin.

Graham

334756[/snapback]

NATO was worried about the quality of Russian tanks for a while; they were smaller, relatively high performance, and had things like auto-loaders. Until the M1 came along, American tank designers had a little bit of an inferiority complex. But, yes, numbers was the big worry.

However, the Gulf War showed up quite a few flaws in Russian tanks. The T-72 has a fuel line that goes across the front of the turret; this caused some interesting examples of unpowered turret flight after hits by 120mm rounds; also, there are some horror stories about gunners getting limbs loaded into the gun by the auto-loaders!

I understand that after the Gulf War, the Russians reviewed why so much of their equipment failed so badly; a lot of interesting equipment started turning up on Russian tanks afterwards, such as improved reactive armour, anti-missile systems and even on one modified prototype, a couple of 20mm AA guns...!

334770[/snapback]

You're right on a lot of these points, although the T-72 autoloader problem was largely solved after the first flight, and again, most of the Iraqi equipment was not even clost to par to what the USSR or the Warsaw Pact could field during the late 1980s. T-72s and T-55swithout reactive armour manned by basic conscripts, sitting out in a open desert was paired off against the creme American armored divisions... if it was a more equal pairing, people would be complaining about dust problems with the Challenger Tank, the M1's voracious fuel intake ect.

Quantity was most certainly a worry during the late cold war, but you have to remember that Soviet kit was all designed to be very sturdy... and mechanically reliable. In a nuclear environment, they would be completely resistant to EMP, while the M-1's tracking systems would be quickly fried.

I'm not saying that the M1 isn't a superb tank.... its only bested by the New Leopards (thats another argument) but I was just pointing out that soviet tanks often get a really bum rap, when they are fairly good in their own right.

[JB0]

And a few times they were done up shooting bullets instead of lasers, again due to errors.

So how many more times were they written in as used but weren't drawn in use because someone flubbed the scene?

...

Maybe Kawamori should've written in eye lasers insetad It'd be goofy, but the animators wouldn't have been confused.

334833[/snapback]

Well...the Compendium implies that the head laser can fire in pulses as well as single continuous beams...

Fixed Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon (One in VF-1A, two in VF-1D and VF-1J, and four in VF-1S), firing 6000 pulses per minute,

Although, when you think about it...it's firing so fast (and it is a laser) that it probably looks like a single beam...

334850[/snapback]

Strictly speaking, it shouldn't have been visible at all. The whole point of a laser is it's focused. You can't see it if the photons are all travelling towards the target.

While in an atmosphere you could get something out of the air dispersing light or reacting to it, space should provide you with a nice invisible beam.

I cut them some slack on that because no one likes to see stuff blow up without a visible reason.

As for making it a white beam... BAD CARTOON! BAD!

If we get very picky, there's an awful lot of problems with the animation of the laser weapons in MOST animation. I was just sticking to the most basic issues.

[Noyhauser]

And a few times they were done up shooting bullets instead of lasers, again due to errors.

So how many more times were they written in as used but weren't drawn in use because someone flubbed the scene?

...

Maybe Kawamori should've written in eye lasers insetad It'd be goofy, but the animators wouldn't have been confused.

334833[/snapback]

Well...the Compendium implies that the head laser can fire in pulses as well as single continuous beams...

Fixed Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon (One in VF-1A, two in VF-1D and VF-1J, and four in VF-1S), firing 6000 pulses per minute,

Although, when you think about it...it's firing so fast (and it is a laser) that it probably looks like a single beam...

334850[/snapback]

Strictly speaking, it shouldn't have been visible at all. The whole point of a laser is it's focused. You can't see it if the photons are all travelling towards the target.

While in an atmosphere you could get something out of the air dispersing light or reacting to it, space should provide you with a nice invisible beam.

I cut them some slack on that because no one likes to see stuff blow up without a visible reason.

As for making it a white beam... BAD CARTOON! BAD!

If we get very picky, there's an awful lot of problems with the animation of the laser weapons in MOST animation. I was just sticking to the most basic issues.

334875[/snapback]

But like if the laser was powered by protoculture, then, therefore there should be a colours because of the power of the invid seed of life...

Another reason why Robotech continuity is better than Macross!!!

[azrael]

But like if the laser was powered by protoculture, then, therefore there should be a colours because of the power of the invid seed of life...

Another reason why Robotech continuity is better than Macross!!!

334879[/snapback]

Great....you've been sniffing too much of that flower haven't you?

[Noyhauser]

But like if the laser was powered by protoculture, then, therefore there should be a colours because of the power of the invid seed of life...

Another reason why Robotech continuity is better than Macross!!!

334879[/snapback]

Great....you've been sniffing too much of that flower haven't you?

334892[/snapback]

Sigh... yes. I admit it... I... have... a... problem. I need help