Macross Ground Variable Mecha

[Mit]

Hello ladies and gentlemen.

As a fan of "Macross" of the universe, I have long been concerned about a difficult question (I apologize in advance for my English )...

The symbol of the saga for a long time and deservedly became a transforming fighter "VF-1 Valkyrie", but a very promising idea of a new generation of combat (and not only) machine, for some reason, bypassed the attention of ground equipment ...

In the original "Macross", ground robots are represented by numerous "Destroids", large bipedal with an extensive arsenal of mechanisms, but limited running performance ... Actually they puzzled me at first view - why, have are excellent variation`s fighters, they did not create ground equipment of this type, the same tanks, for example?

I should note that the use of technology transformation would give the land a robotic technique many advantages, such as changing the height profile, the ability to use a wheeled platform for rapid movements on relatively flat terrain, the mode of transport for maximum compactness, combat flexibility and versatility humanoid form and more...

Although, if you look at history, the "Macross Zero" contains real transformable submarines "Oktos"

http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrosszero/octos.htm

In "Macross 7 PLUS" is a variation technique used by the police, but against the general background of comedy happening they seem rather a joke ...

In general, if you take the components of "Robotech", the original model of variational tanks there are ...

"Spartan" - http://www.robotechresearch.com/rpg/mecha/sc/vht_1_hovertank/vht_1_hovertank.htm

"Hoplite" - http://www.robotechresearch.com/rpg/mecha/ref/veritech/vht_2_hoplight/vht_2_hoplight.htm

"Centaur" - http://www.robotechresearch.com/rpg/mecha/rdf/veritechs/centaur/VBT_Centaur.htm

... but originally belonging to another "universe" just does not correspond to the total number of techno-design in "Macross"

As a result, there is a paradoxical situation where the "Macross" originally using convertible model was not able to create anything other than spectacular "Valkyrie", but the "Gundam" UC managed to create a very impressive transformer tank

http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/D-50C_Loto

In my opinion, something similar to a series of "Terminus" or "MonSoono" (from "Eureka 7") as variational wheeled tanks, it would fit in the "Macross"...

http://eurekaseven.wikia.com/wiki/Mon-soono

http://www.mahq.net/mecha/eureka7/tr1/r505.htm

(I already asked a similar question on "Mechatalk" - http://www.mechatalk.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=16578 - and exchange of views came out quite interesting, but I would like to know your opinion on this idea...)

Edited January 15, 2016 by Mit

[azrael]

(I already asked a similar question on "Mechatalk" - http://www.mechatalk.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=16578 - and exchange of views came out quite interesting, but I would like to know your opinion on this idea...)

And that thread got locked because we were running around in circles trying to explain to you how different universes have different mechanics, i.e., things from Gundam, Eureka 7, VOTOMS, Code Geass, etc., don't necessarily work in other franchises, despite what Super Robot Wars or Another Century-games makes you think.

[Nazareno2012]

This is the closest thing in the Macross universe to your idea of a variable ground mecha.

[kajnrig]

For my part, I'd just like to see some toys/models of the Cheyenne Destroids. They may be the series' cannon fodder, but they make a fine picture in the process.

[Seto Kaiba]

As I (and others) pointed out on MechaTalk last time you asked this question, the reason that Macross doesn't bother with variable ground mecha is obvious... the majority of combat takes place in space, where ground mecha in general are practically useless. Also, it's adding unnecessary cost to a part of the military's operations where numbers matter more and there's no bloody need for such a thing.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Seto Kaiba

[kajnrig]

As I (and others) pointed out on MechaTalk last time you asked this question, the reason that Macross doesn't bother with variable ground mecha is obvious... the majority of combat takes place in space, where ground mecha in general are practically useless. Also, it's adding unnecessary cost to a part of the military's operations where numbers matter more and there's no bloody need for such a thing.

Not necessarily. A ground-based mecha with strong and plentiful enough thrusters would be just as effective in space as a VF. The Cheyenne from M0 has a large main thruster that would be perfectly serviceable in zero-G (given an upgrade in output), and its simpler, cheaper construction would probably increase its cost-effectiveness. Limbs made for traversing actual terrain (instead of using your main engine exhausts) would be better-suited for navigating asteroids and the like. The main advantage of the VFs is that they can operate in atmosphere, and the main reason they get top billing on the show is because they're the franchise's poster boy. In a more realistic setting, I'd imagine Destroids would have become the de facto mecha of Macross (the same way the Ball would realistically be flying circles around every Gundam ever).

But then we're not talking so much Destroids as VF-style transforming land vehicles, in which case... well, see above about atmosphere navigation. I seriously doubt an APC that transforms into a robot would be very useful, or comfortable for the P that it's C-ing.

[jenius]

As I (and others) pointed out on MechaTalk last time you asked this question, the reason that Macross doesn't bother with variable ground mecha is obvious... the majority of combat takes place in space, where ground mecha in general are practically useless. Also, it's adding unnecessary cost to a part of the military's operations where numbers matter more and there's no bloody need for such a thing.

The problem with this argument is that you could say the same thing for transformation or basing space fighters on atmospheric fighters.

[JB0]

In a more realistic setting, I'd imagine Destroids would have become the de facto mecha of Macross (the same way the Ball would realistically be flying circles around every Gundam ever

And in a more realistic setting we wouldn't have thirty-foot-tall humans that can change size by taking a nap in a test tube for a few hours. No zentradi and there's no development of destroids OR variable fighters.

Edited January 16, 2016 by JB0

[kajnrig]

And in a more realistic setting we wouldn't have thirty-foot-tall humans that can change size by taking a nap in a test tube for a few hours. No zentradi and there's no development of destroids OR variable fighters.

Too true, lol.

[azrael]

And in a more realistic setting we wouldn't have thirty-foot-tall humans that can change size by taking a nap in a test tube for a few hours. No zentradi and there's no development of destroids OR variable fighters.

Or anything that transforms in that case. How much do we spend on cars, APCs, tanks, etc? Those things don't transform but have a crap load of moving parts.

[anime52k8]

Given the logic that Macross works with, a transforming tank would be kind of redundant. The value of Valks and the reason they're the main military unit of macross is that they fill the roll multi-role fighter, Helicopter (gerwalk mode) and tank (battroid mode) in a single package.

A tank/ground vehicle turning into a robot is just two modes serving the same purpose.

[JB0]

Or anything that transforms in that case. How much do we spend on cars, APCs, tanks, etc? Those things don't transform but have a crap load of moving parts.

Hey, we build transforming cars for monster truck rallies here in the real world, so I expect that would survive in Macross Super-realistic Edition.

[wmkjr]

You thinking about something along the likes of a Gunhed? I think a variable tank wouldn't be needed. As of the the most current Macross, I think the Cheyennes are capable enough with the weapons they carry to fill that role and they're smaller than the VF-25's. The Cheyenne's got wheels they can drop down to improve speed and maneuverability. VFs can get to target in a quicker response time. Terrain wouldn't be a factor for a VF. Need more firepower? If the super/armored/tornado type parts are atmospheric capable you can strap them on to supplement or call in a VB-6. If that don't work then call in a orbital strike.

[Kelsain]

It's the only way to be sure.

[Mr March]

I think this is the same topic as the one we had on the MAHQ a few months back. It's a fine topic, to be sure. Just saying

Macross very rarely features any ground transformable vehicles, but it has in the past and certainly could in the future. No production reason prevents more such transformation-capable ground vehicles in the Macross universe. Naturally, anyone is free to imagine Macross with more of them and you couldn't be faulted. It's a fun idea.

As for why there haven't been such ground transformables thus far, I believe the points I raised in the MAHQ thread retain their merit:

Ground-based mecha already exceed performance of conventional ground vehicles for speed and armament. Hence a "tank" mode might not be practical, even if enhanced with OverTechnology

The existence of current Macross mecha (destroids, valkyries) make ground vehicles obsolete, whereas the reverse cannot be said. Destroids are described as "the most successful land-combat weapon"

As it is said, the fiction of Macross - by default - implies the Battroid/Destroids are superior land-weapons to tanks (that includes an OverTechnology-built tank). They have to be superior, otherwise there is no point to building Battroids/Destroids. Hence, the fiction of Macross kinda falls apart and essentially there’d be no reason to make a show about transformable “real robots” titled Macross. I think that's basically the "story" reason why they haven't been included.

[JB0]

I have to admit, I DO think it'd be cool if most of the defensive weapons on the ships were replaced with destroids, like in SDF.

Sure it was a retrofit originally but being able to put guns where they're needed as they're needed has advantages over fixed emplacements, not the least of which is that if an emplacement in a given area is destroyed, you haven't permanently lost coverage in that area.

You could even put power sockets on the hull so the larger guns can be mobile. Use the ship's power systems for the primary armament, and internal power for mobility/secondary weapons. Suddenly the Monster isn't the biggest destroid, just the biggest one that's standalone.

...

And then we reach the obvious end-game, with a New New Macross class vessel walking across the surface of the Earth, and we retire all space ships in favor of titanic destroids(the New Macross class was halfway there already).

[sketchley]

I have to admit, I DO think it'd be cool if most of the defensive weapons on the ships were replaced with destroids, like in SDF. (...)

{Apologies if I've missed something in the conversation preceding this post}

Didn't they start returning to that in MF on the Macross Quarter? Come to think of it... the last two (pre-Delta) Macross anime had it (Zero and F)!

It'll be interesting to see if the trend continues in Delta - what with both elements already present (a Macross Quarter class and the Cheyenne II).

[JB0]

They probably did, now that you mention it. My memory of Frontier is a bit fuzzy, and all I really remember of destroids is the transforming Monster being ridiculously awesome.

[kajnrig]

I remember Cheyennes existing, but I don't remember seeing them en masse on the exteriors of the Macross(es), only as complementary forces (and deployed in interior settings). Memory's fuzzy, though; I haven't watched that show in years.

[sketchley]

I remember Cheyennes existing, but I don't remember seeing them en masse on the exteriors of the Macross(es), only as complementary forces (and deployed in interior settings). Memory's fuzzy, though; I haven't watched that show in years.

http://monkeybacon.mywebcommunity.org/Stats/Statistics/Cheyenne/CheyenneII.php

The picture at the top of the page has a pair of screen grabs from the series in action on the Macross Quarter. Note that they are in the 'armoured booths' that also first appeared in M0 on the Asuka II.

They also pop up out of the handheld Macross Cannon when the Quarter uses it in a Daedalus Attack near the end of the series.

[M'Kyuun]

Valks aside, the 3rd iteration of the Nirvash is the full package- it has a ground vehicle mode, robot mode, and a flight mode, giving it an excellent range. But this is Macross, so variable fighters will always be front and center. While the Destroids, and GERWALK have ground covered, I think it'd be interesting if they had to fight an undersea enemy, requiring a new type of mech. It's unexplored ground, so to speak, in the Macross Universe, and the fighters in space thing can only be done so many times before it starts to become stale. The direction they're taking with Delta does little to capture my interest, although I do hope to see at least a few eps to give it a fair shake.

I do like the idea of valk vs valk; Plus and Zero both did it well, so that may be the most interesting aspect of Delta.

[VF-1A Grunt]

In the original "Macross", ground robots are represented by numerous "Destroids", large bipedal with an extensive arsenal of mechanisms, but limited running performance ... Actually they puzzled me at first view - why, have are excellent variation`s fighters, they did not create ground equipment of this type, the same tanks, for example?

I should note that the use of technology transformation would give the land a robotic technique many advantages, such as changing the height profile, the ability to use a wheeled platform for rapid movements on relatively flat terrain, the mode of transport for maximum compactness, combat flexibility and versatility humanoid form and more...

Personally, I look at this from a practical, economic standpoint. Transforming mecha like the Valkyries would be expensive to manufacturer and complicated to operate, requiring longer and more extensive training (just like a fighter aircraft vs. a tank). Destroids are mobile ground combat vehicles, but they're not as complex and would be easier to train an operator to handle. The Valkyries and their crews are the elite of the U.N. Spacy who perform long range, critical missions, while the Destroids are the foot soldiers who can seize or hold ground, provide security and close-in defense, etc. While you could use Valkyries to secure the perimeter of a base, it would be a waste of those assets when a cheaper Destroids can provide the same security and free up the Valkyries to perform more complex missions. If you compare it to today's military vehicles, yes, you could use a tank to guard the perimeter of a base, but why tie up an expensive asset like that when a Humvee or MRAP with a machinegun can do the same job?

[Mr March]

That would be consistent with the official trivia. The VF-1 Valkyrie is officially described as 20 times the cost of a Destroid. Also, aboard the SDF-1 Macross, the Destroids were far more numerous than the VFs (initially, 212 VF-1 Valkyries vs. 587 Destroids).

[Mit]

The problem with this argument is that you could say the same thing for transformation or basing space fighters on atmospheric fighters.

Well, you can always say that it is because Aerospace fighter need wings to fly in the atmosphere and as fuel tanks, for example...

However, you are right that it all-just aesthetics - not so long ago I opened a couple of branches discussed at / m / dedicated to the issue of variation tanks in "Macross" and another about transforming tanks "D-50C Loto" from "Gundam." So, in a branch of "Macross" anons aggressively argued that this technique is not necessary; and in branch "Gundam" persistently argued the validity of the existence of such ones

Somehow it seems to me that if in the first "Macross" instead of "Destroids" would show mecha-tanks, that would protect them no less strongly than now reject

Valks aside, the 3rd iteration of the Nirvash is the full package- it has a ground vehicle mode, robot mode, and a flight mode, giving it an excellent range. But this is Macross...and the fighters in space thing can only be done so many times before it starts to become stale.

Hmm? My idea is based on "Mon-Soono" from "Eureka-7" is transformed as a replacement for "Destroids", and thanks to the plug-in module and the handle-shaped manipulators, they are easily adapted for any combat mission, when fighting on planets and identities within the "Islands" + thanks to the rocket engines can be applied in a limited space in the capture of military facilities

.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/SKGundam/Mon-SoonoType20vehicle.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/SKGundam/Mon-SoonoType20.jpg

There are lighter models for exploration and patrols

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/eurekaseven/images/3/31/ScudBikeVehicle.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150127045647

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/eurekaseven/images/e/eb/Scudbike.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150127045536

and heroic unit

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/SKGundam/505Kaivehiclecopy.jpg

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/eurekaseven/images/6/68/505.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120527183834&path-prefix=pl

If you compare it to today's military vehicles, yes, you could use a tank to guard the perimeter of a base, but why tie up an expensive asset like that when a Humvee or MRAP with a machinegun can do the same job?

Because, "unification", is easier to use a universal platform which has some common features with the technological "Valkyrie" than to produce and deliver many different techniques out there somewhere

The VF-1 Valkyrie is officially described as 20 times the cost of a Destroid. Also, aboard the SDF-1 Macross, the Destroids were far more numerous than the VFs (initially, 212 VF-1 Valkyries vs. 587 Destroids).

That's just a fact does not prevent the mass production of a series of "VF" after a destructive war ... By the way, as well as a cost "Destroid"?

Edited January 21, 2016 by Mit

[Nazareno2012]

Because, "unification", is easier to use a universal platform which has some common features with the technological "Valkyrie" than to produce and deliver many different techniques out there somewhere

Actually, even if they have common features (such as transformation) the parts used would be different. For example, in real life while aircraft with similar capability (let's say F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet) have similar technologies used, the subsystems in them would be different due to different requirements by their end users.

[Seto Kaiba]

Somehow it seems to me that if in the first "Macross" instead of "Destroids" would show mecha-tanks, that would protect them no less strongly than now reject

As some have pointed out already, there's no reason for a variable tank because a Destroid and a tank perform essentially the same battlefield role... and the destroid does it better (in-setting). If both modes do the exact same job, why bother with the extra expense and maintenance headache of transformation? The Valkyrie's transformation is justified (in-universe) by the fact that each mode is ideal for a different job... Fighter for multirole fighter operations, GERWALK for attack helicopter-type operations, battroid for ground combat, and (in one rare instance) Gundroid for space dogfighting.

(Even in Gundam, the idea of a transforming robot-tank combo was a flop... SNRI's D-50C Loto proved to be pretty much useless in anything resembling a stand-up fight because the design concessions to make it transform from tank to mobile suit, two modes that did the same job with the exact same weapons, had a significant negative impact on its performance... so significant that it was not capable of fighting modern non-transforming mobile suits on an even footing, and was thus relegated purely to ambush tactics and long-range fire support. Considering those jobs could be done just as well or better by normal mobile suits, the transforming tank-MS concept got canned by SNRI.)

Because, "unification", is easier to use a universal platform which has some common features with the technological "Valkyrie" than to produce and deliver many different techniques out there somewhere

But there is already a universal Destroid platform that does the jobs that were originally done by several different Destroid models... it's called the Cheyenne II, and it functions as a Main Battle Robot and Surface/Air Defense Robot. The only Destroid roles that the Cheynne II doesn't fill are the heavy artillery role (unnecessary) and the hand-to-hand combat role (taken by Battroids).

It does the jobs of three different families of Destroid without any need to transform... which keeps the costs down, and lets the New UN Forces field a lot more of them.

That's just a fact does not prevent the mass production of a series of "VF" after a destructive war ... By the way, as well as a cost "Destroid"?

Yes, the cost of Valkyries doesn't put the UN (later New UN) Gov't off buying them... but they do make efforts to reduce their overall cost with less expensive models (e.g. the VF-5000, VF-5, VF-9, VF-171 etc.) or offsetting the cost by reducing the number of VFs in their air/space forces and operating increasing numbers of unmanned, non-transforming fighters (Ghosts). Some entire fleets have gone to using air forces that are made up entirely of Ghosts.

The chief virtue of the Destroid is, like the Ghost, that it is considerably cheaper than a Valkyrie and therefore can be made in much larger numbers for roles where numbers matter more than versatility (like air defense or land warfare).

[kajnrig]

The Valkyrie's transformation is justified (in-universe) by the fact that each mode is ideal for a different job... Fighter for multirole fighter operations, GERWALK for attack helicopter-type operations, battroid for ground combat, and (in one rare instance) Gundroid for space dogfighting.

I remember reading somewhere that Gerwalk was nothing more than a fortunate and useful byproduct/stage of the transformation from fighter to battroid.

Am I just completely talking out of my butt? Maybe it was something from Robotech...

Some entire fleets have gone to using air forces that are made up entirely of Ghosts.

Which fleets are these?

[azrael]

(Even in Gundam, the idea of a transforming robot-tank combo was a flop... SNRI's D-50C Loto proved to be pretty much useless in anything resembling a stand-up fight because the design concessions to make it transform from tank to mobile suit, two modes that did the same job with the exact same weapons, had a significant negative impact on its performance... so significant that it was not capable of fighting modern non-transforming mobile suits on an even footing, and was thus relegated purely to ambush tactics and long-range fire support. Considering those jobs could be done just as well or better by normal mobile suits, the transforming tank-MS concept got canned by SNRI.)

*cough* F-50D (RXR-44) Guntank from F91*/cough*

Which fleets are these?

They don't mention which fleets, but the entry for the AIF-7S Ghost from Frontier mentions that since Ghost are cheaper upfront and to maintain over the long term in addition to having equivalent or better performance than a manned fighter, some fleets dropped VFs in favor of Ghosts. Ghosts cost 1/3 the price of a VF-171 to manufacture and maintain. It's easy to understand this for fleets where finances and resources are more constrained.

[Mr March]

That's just a fact does not prevent the mass production of a series of "VF" after a destructive war ... By the way, as well as a cost "Destroid"?

I don't recall anyone saying that it does. But cost IS a factor. Cost being a serious consideration comes up time and again in all the official written fiction for Macross. This is because in-universe, it's a real limitation that has to be considered when building anything. From a writers perspective, cost was likely written time and again to make the Macross fiction feel more "real robot" and hence more like our own world.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Mr March

[Seto Kaiba]

I remember reading somewhere that Gerwalk was nothing more than a fortunate and useful byproduct/stage of the transformation from fighter to battroid.

Am I just completely talking out of my butt? Maybe it was something from Robotech...

Pretty sure it's your fingers doing the talking on this one... because Great Mechanics.DX 9's "Variable Fighter Evolutionary Theory" article has a heading titled "Accidentally Discovered GERWALK" that describes it as a mode resulting from a failure in the fighter's transformation system.

*cough* F-50D (RXR-44) Guntank from F91*/cough*

... what about it? The F-50D Guntank in Mobile Suit Gundam F91 was a prototype built for a canceled program... the transforming Mobile Suit-Tank concept's (Formula 50's) last gasp before SNRI and the Federation concluded the idea wasn't workable. The one that appeared in the film was a dismantled prototype that Roy Jung salvaged in UC 0107 and rebuilt for his museum on Frontier IV.

They don't mention which fleets, but the entry for the AIF-7S Ghost from Frontier mentions that since Ghost are cheaper upfront and to maintain over the long term in addition to having equivalent or better performance than a manned fighter, some fleets dropped VFs in favor of Ghosts. Ghosts cost 1/3 the price of a VF-171 to manufacture and maintain. It's easy to understand this for fleets where finances and resources are more constrained.

Not to mention the Ghosts don't have fleshy meats inside, so if they lose one there's no loss of life (on their side) and they don't have to train a pilot to fly it... which contributes to keeping pre-flight and non-combat operation costs down. (After all, in peacetime you don't have a bunch of pilots cooling their heels at the pub and drawing a salary...)

[azrael]

... what about it? The F-50D Guntank in Mobile Suit Gundam F91 was a prototype built for a canceled program... the transforming Mobile Suit-Tank concept's (Formula 50's) last gasp before SNRI and the Federation concluded the idea wasn't workable. The one that appeared in the film was a dismantled prototype that Roy Jung salvaged in UC 0107 and rebuilt for his museum on Frontier IV.

The RXR-44 appeared (animation production-wise) well before the D-50C Loto (and well after within the Gundam-timeline) and they still couldn't make work in Gundam. In Gundam.

Speaking of other mechs, in Delta, we now see other Zentradi mecha (Regults) besides the power armors are still in use. And those mecha have been used for centuries by the Zentradi and now by the NUN.

[Seto Kaiba]

The RXR-44 appeared (animation production-wise) well before the D-50C Loto (and well after within the Gundam-timeline) and they still couldn't make work in Gundam. In Gundam.

's kind of my point, really. Mit is pointing to examples of transforming tanks in other mecha anime series as examples of how effective a transforming robot tank could be... apparently in blissful ignorance of the slight problem that, of his examples, only Eureka Seven depicts applying transformation to a ground vehicle as producing a result that isn't somewhere between moderately ineffective and entirely redundant. If you have a tank mode and a robot mode that are both for land warfare, you have a lot of unnecessary complexity in the design.

Even in Macross, the idea quickly takes one on the chin from the simple fact that, after the UN Wars end, there was no real benefit to a variable ground mecha... as in Gundam, it's adding unnecessary cost and complexity in an attempt to fix what isn't broken. There's no real advantage to changing the height profile if the enemy is either 10m tall or piloting a 10m+ tall robot, transforming won't improve land speed when a destroid can already run at 180km/h and will only limit what terrain it can cross, it limits, rather than expands, the armaments the unit can carry... etc.

Speaking of other mechs, in Delta, we now see other Zentradi mecha (Regults) besides the power armors are still in use. And those mecha have been used for centuries by the Zentradi and now by the NUN.

Millennia, really... most of the base designs go back to the Schism War or earlier, ~500,000 years before Macross's present day. Though it's worth noting that even the Zentradi mecha drive home the point that a design should only be as complex as it needs to be to get the job done. Writeups for the Regult and many other units emphasize that their excellent maintainability and reliability springs, in part, from the simplicity that makes them easy to produce on a colossal scale.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Seto Kaiba

[VF5SS]

https://youtu.be/0Dq6TPPXaz8?t=3m53s

So you want the Space Griffon VF-9?

(3:53)

[Mit]

apparently in blissful ignorance of the slight problem that, of his examples

It was pretty rough, please do not consider other people's narrow-minded idiots just because they have a different point of view

only Eureka Seven depicts applying transformation to a ground vehicle as producing a result that isn't somewhere between moderately ineffective and entirely redundant. If you have a tank mode and a robot mode that are both for land warfare, you have a lot of unnecessary complexity in the design.

The "Eureka 7" tank mode used for high-speed movement on areas with low "trappa", so it is quite necessary, for the "Mon-Soono" tank mode is also used to compact during transport...

In the case of "D50C Lotto", a tank mode is needed for the transportation of special forces in the earth's gravity +/-, but the robot mode is suitable for the urban environment (etc.) for firing at the enemy in terms of having multiple obstacles

https://patrickgrade.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/93.jpg

http://orig13.deviantart.net/3824/f/2012/139/3/d/d_50c_loto_by_progv-d50bv6w.jpg

By the way, is not the only, here, for example, "Hussar Tank-Strider" from "Heavy Gear"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBgRVF-ww2k&feature=youtu.be

The most interesting thing in the scheme of transformation - is very similar to the principle of transformation "D-50C Lotto" and "Mon-Soono" - it seems the easiest option

There's no real advantage to changing the height profile if the enemy is either 10m tall or piloting a 10m+ tall robot, transforming won't improve land speed when a destroid can already run at 180km/h and will only limit what terrain it can cross, it limits, rather than expands, the armaments the unit can carry...

So in fact we have to fight not only with zentradi... However, in-universe it doesn't make sense for a civilization as paranoid and as competent as the NUNS to completely skip out on their ground forces. This is especially the case with VFs where they are known to have fairly low ammo and cannot fight in extended battles for too long until the quantum beam guns came into development.

About the same "Destroids" - their specialization has played a cruel joke with them, for example, Cheyenne II, which is virtually all four original Destroid types rolled into one:

2x converging beam cannon

2x heavy electric gatling cannon

2x 4-tube medium range missile launchers

1x AP chaingun

Thrusters on shoulders & back for space movement/jumps/hovering

High speed mobility Rollers (for speed and conserve feet)

While being SMALLER then any one of the original production models... The universalization and unification in action - we must save money...

Best roles for them would be just as we see in MacF, where they can either be 'fixed' turrets, standing inside a semi-protected tube that locks them in place while also partially providing armor around them, or as roving 'mobile' turrets, using the magnetic rollers to safely adhere them to their ship's hull (plus judicious use of their thrusters at key moments, likely an automated feature). That would be for space usage when they're outside a hull.

Inside a hull, like inside a colony ship or one of the larger open-area craft (SDFNs, any Zentradi/Meltrandi vessel), or down on a planet, leave them in tank mode until things reach near melee range, and they'd get the advantage of a much smaller and more compact shape, hull-down tricks to hide behind cover that even a Battroid couldn't dream of getting behind without seriously compromising the amount of weapons it could use (think of D.D. Ivanov's attack on Roy when D.D. was in the canyon - all he could fire was his gunpod, while the rest of his SV-51's armament couldn't be utilized). The tank mode could at least use all its armament while still being near completely covered. Addtionally, as likely has FAR less need for pure speed, as the tracks would require a helvalot less power then the thrust needed to keep a VF in the air, it could devote a very large percentage of it's power into maxing it's energy conversion armor. So much so that by Mac7 era, you really should be able to mount at least one PPB on it, and keep the PPB active as long as the VT was turned on, no matter which mode it was in.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Mit

[Mr March]

So in fact we have to fight not only with zentradi... However, in-universe it doesn't make sense for a civilization as paranoid and as competent as the NUNS to completely skip out on their ground forces.

To be fair MiT, I think statements like this one that you've made is the reason some folks feel frustrated addressing your points and posts. The UN Spacy has not - and never has - ignored ground forces. Not only do TANKS and MOBILE GUNS still exist in the UN Forces all the way up to 2059, but INITIALLY Destroids ARE ground forces for the Macross universe (in addition to being space-capable). Further, the VF-1J GBP-1S Armored Valkyrie was designed specifically for ground combat (GBP-1S Ground-combat protector weapon system), and the armored systems appear in all the Macross eras.

I think the point many have made is that after Space War I, variable vehicles become so wide-spread, cost effective and better armed that the variable fighters ground capabilities could fulfill MOST of the ground combat needs of the UN Forces. The UN Forces then likely supplemented any gaps the variable fighters could not fill with less numerous (and likely the cheapest) conventional armored fighting vehicles and destroids.

Having said all that, I keep feeling the need to repeat that this is all just "how" and "why" variable tanks don't appear in Macross in any serious way. No one is preventing you from imagining variable tanks and certainly it is "possible" for such mecha to appear in the Macross universe. All we're saying is a variable tank doesn't fit all that well with what the creators want the Macross fiction to be.

I will say this: I wish I could just design, draw and color a Macross-style variable tank for you. I think that would satisfy your enthusiasm

Edited January 23, 2016 by Mr March