Macross Ground Variable Mecha

[Seto Kaiba]

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...

Yes, I know... but those are issues unique to the Eureka Seven setting. Your other examples are all cases where the robot mode's role was nothing more than "a tank that walks", making the transformation pointless and impractical. Your other examples fall into that exact problem... in their own shows, the transformation was pointless and made the mecha less effective, not more.

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

As I pointed out previously, the D-50C Loto's transformation explicitly made it less effective than either a traditional mobile suit or a conventional main battle tank. The tank mode was just plain unnecessary in a setting where almost every warship can transport a number of full-size mobile suits and mobile suits are perfectly capable of walking, jumping, or flying under their own power. That's why SNRI gave up on the design as unfeasible just a few years after Unicorn... so please stop pretending it's an example of the idea's practicality.

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.

... they didn't. What the heck do you think the Cheyenne II and Super Defender destroids are for? (To say nothing of the Beatrice 8x8 armored fighting vehicles and EX-Gear suits...)

Of course, if the enemy has already reached the surface of your planet you have already screwed up horribly, so most defense is focused on keeping the enemy away from your planet or fleet in space.

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:

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

That was the point... to economize the ground forces by producing one multi-role Destroid that could perform the interrelated and highly similar functions of three specialist units.

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

There's no practical advantage to that... inside of a ship or in a surface city, something as large as a Destroid is not going to escape notice by anyone. The power of the weapons being used is such that buildings are not going to provide meaningful protection from enemy fire, and Destroids are designed for ranged combat so getting close to the enemy (especially an enemy like the Zentradi) is handing the enemy the advantage on a silver platter...

Not to mention the transformation increases the cost of the mecha, which means the defenders would be able to field fewer units to confront the enemy.

(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).

Just because all he fired was his gun pod doesn't mean that was all he could fire... just that that was all that was advantageous to use when a missile detonation could've brought tons of rock crashing down on him as easily as Roy.

The tank mode could at least use all its armament while still being near completely covered.

That's debatable.

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.

The problem with this line of thinking is that a VF's energy conversion armor is very expensive... and so are the high-output reactors necessary to power it. If you build a variable ground mecha with energy conversion armor and reactors fit to match a modern VF's capabilities, you haven't built a transformable destroid... you built a crippled Valkyrie. Once you've gone that far, it's much more practical and cost-effective to just send the Valkyrie (and maybe strap some Armored Packs to it) rather than replace the cost-effective, simple, easy-to-maintain Destroids with expensive, complex, high-maintenance transformable substitutes.

[azrael]

Mit, we've had this same conversation with you now on 2 different websites with the same result. Going around to different websites isn't going to change anything.

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...

Again, it works for Eureka 7's universe. Not Macross. Different universes have different rules. Mixing universes like in the Super Robot Wars and Another Century-games also have their own rules which generates a different set of reasons which only exists in those games. When you bring those concepts to other universes, they start falling apart because it doesn't work outside the universe it was created for. If I tried to blend Battlestar Galactica's ideas into Star Wars, concepts would break down because those ideas were not made for another universe.

[Mr March]

Given what's been said on this topic across multiple web forums now, I feel it's important to restate that I don't object to the idea of these variable tanks. I just want that made clear (speaking only for myself), because I think the fervor with which we've had to explain the writing of the Macross universe might make this topic feel more adversarial or objectionable than is the case.

Personally, I like the idea of a variable tank. As entertainment, I'd find them almost as fun as Valkyries. And given the few similar vehicles shown in the Macross universe, it is not a stretch to imagine variable tanks could be featured. I'm just posting the reasons why such vehicles aren't currently present and that I (personal opinion) think including variable tanks - in any big way - is at odds with the fiction established for Macross. That's not to say Macross can't be written differently, because Kawamori and Co. do that with each installment; that's just not how it is right now.

At the end of all of this, I still want folks to feel free to dream!

Edited January 23, 2016 by Mr March

[JB0]

The problem with this line of thinking is that a VF's energy conversion armor is very expensive... and so are the high-output reactors necessary to power it. If you build a variable ground mecha with energy conversion armor and reactors fit to match a modern VF's capabilities, you haven't built a transformable destroid... you built a crippled Valkyrie. Once you've gone that far, it's much more practical and cost-effective to just send the Valkyrie (and maybe strap some Armored Packs to it) rather than replace the cost-effective, simple, easy-to-maintain Destroids with expensive, complex, high-maintenance transformable substitutes.

I know suspension of disbelief and all that, but I still find it hard to believe that it's more cost-effective to build a transformer.

Of course, even if the expense IS all in the armor and reactor, the destroids still win the maintenance war. Fewer parts to worry about breaking, fewer parts to work around while replacing broken parts, and much simpler electrical and hydraulic systems. Which winds up being very important for a ground force.

Especially since so much effort has been spent on making sure no one GETS to the surface. It may well be that any ground equipment is designed to operate without support for an extended period of time, because the ground forces have to be prepared to maintain a guerrilla resistance effort after the planet is in enemy hands.

...

In which case thirty-foot robots may not exactly be the kind of reliable and concealable equipment they want...

[sketchley]

JB0, those are good points. I think it's fairly safe to say that we haven't seen what constitutes ground forces in Macross - simply because the focus is always on the Valkyries, and the stories never get around to making space to tell the story of the ground forces.

We do have a few hints here and there (E.g. the Humvee like vehicles in M+), but as long as the story tellers don't feel a need to develop that side of the universe (like they did in SDFM), what we've got so far is more or less what we're going to continue getting.

All that said, some of the games based on Macross do flesh things out a bit. Like the hover tanks in VF-X, the Destroids still in use in M+ Game Edition and VF-X2, or the new Destroid design* in Remember Me. One of the common traits among those games (other than reusing existing designs) is the presence of Zentraadi Mobile Weapons (mecha). Which begs the question: to what extent are the ground forces composed of Zentraadi troops and their equipment?

* SDR-04 Mk.XV Maverick: http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/rememberme/sdr-04.htm

Edited January 23, 2016 by sketchley

[Seto Kaiba]

I know suspension of disbelief and all that, but I still find it hard to believe that it's more cost-effective to build a transformer.

... it isn't, and in fact that it isn't more cost-effective is a big part of my point.

Even Macross's creators have hung a lampshade on the fact that a transforming mecha should be nowhere near as cost-effective to build and operate as a normal giant robot. That's why the Valkyrie is said to cost 20 times what a Destroid does, and the UN Forces supplement the necessary Valkyries with unmanned fighters and (occasionally) non-transforming combat aircraft.

If someone in-universe built a variable tank with all the same technology as a Valkyrie and managed to keep the cost to only 1/2 of what a Valkyrie costs, you could still field 10 Destroids for what you're spending on the one variable tank. As the Destroid has just about the same armor strength as the Valkyrie, will likely carry more direct-fire weaponry, and can be fielded in larger numbers, it really torpedoes the idea that a variable tank would be a viable platform... and that's not even considering the setting offering zero tactical advantage to the transforming ground mecha.

Of course, even if the expense IS all in the armor and reactor, the destroids still win the maintenance war. Fewer parts to worry about breaking, fewer parts to work around while replacing broken parts, and much simpler electrical and hydraulic systems. Which winds up being very important for a ground force.

It's not ALL in the armor and reactor, but a lot of it is... energy conversion armor is expensive stuff, and at least at first the Destroids of the First Space War were able to achieve better armor strength than a Valkyrie at a fraction of the cost because they could use a greater thickness of "conventional" (overtechnology materials) armor instead of energy conversion armor. The latest ASWAG ECA was so expensive in 2059 that the VF-25 only used it in one or two places on the entire airframe and the Armored Pack, which uses the stuff extensively, is so costly that only the most experience pilots are allowed to use it.

All that said, some of the games based on Macross do flesh things out a bit. Like the hover tanks in VF-X, the Destroids still in use in M+ Game Edition and VF-X2, or the new Destroid design* in Remember Me.

Eh... we do see infantry and armored fighting vehicles, and the EX-Gear special forces, though I wouldn't lump the Maverick in with them as that's not a front-line unit. That was an improvised design for long-range artillery support (a missile-toting miniature partner to the Monster) built for anti-warship operations in space.

[anime52k8]

The problem with this line of thinking is that a VF's energy conversion armor is very expensive... and so are the high-output reactors necessary to power it. If you build a variable ground mecha with energy conversion armor and reactors fit to match a modern VF's capabilities, you haven't built a transformable destroid... you built a crippled Valkyrie.

Kind of a tangential observation here but the amount of energy it takes to operate ECA is just insane. I mean even in the frontier era we have these ridiculously powerful fusion turbines and they still can't generate enough power to run the ECA at full power in every mode unless you've got 4 of them augmented with fold quarts.

[sketchley]

Eh... we do see infantry and armored fighting vehicles, and the EX-Gear special forces, though I wouldn't lump the Maverick in with them as that's not a front-line unit. That was an improvised design for long-range artillery support (a missile-toting miniature partner to the Monster) built for anti-warship operations in space.

That's all true, but it's missing my point: the producers are still occasionally giving us brief glimpses of ground forces - and even the ship-based Destroids count, being walkers and all that.

[Seto Kaiba]

Kind of a tangential observation here but the amount of energy it takes to operate ECA is just insane. I mean even in the frontier era we have these ridiculously powerful fusion turbines and they still can't generate enough power to run the ECA at full power in every mode unless you've got 4 of them augmented with fold quarts.

Not to diverge too far from the central topic, but the problem with energy conversion armor and transformation is at least as much a case of the fighter earmarking most of the output of its reactors for the (admittedly inefficient) production of the massive amounts of thrust of which they're capable as it is the energy conversion armor technology's power requirements. What changed in Macross Frontier's (5th Generation?) Valkyries is that Stage II thermonuclear reaction turbine engines seem to have finally reached a point where the increase in reactor energy production is outstripping the increase in system demands on that output. Having four engines (or a fold dimension resonance system) just increases the available surplus to a more usable level.

Destroids can get by with relatively low-output (and therefore substantially less expensive) thermonuclear reaction furnaces because not being weight-sensitive means they can use conventional armor instead of energy conversion armor and they don't have to siphon a large percentage of heat energy or plasma off the fusion reaction to heat intake air or provide a plasma stream for thrust production. All of the energy produced in the reaction can be harnessed to meet energy requirements for onboard systems.

[JB0]

You know, it strikes me as odd that the one destroid that's had the variable mode treatment is also the one with the greatest apparent need for durability and sturdiness.

I mean, I suppose there's a good argument for moving a Monster from point A to point B as fast as possible, and it DID already carry the largest generator of the destroid family, but... it just seems weird that the behemoth built so heavy that it smashes hull plating every time they deploy it is the one they decided to add all the extra hinges, servos, and panels to.

[sketchley]

You know, it strikes me as odd that the one destroid that's had the variable mode treatment is also the one with the greatest apparent need for durability and sturdiness.

I mean, I suppose there's a good argument for moving a Monster from point A to point B as fast as possible, and it DID already carry the largest generator of the destroid family, but... it just seems weird that the behemoth built so heavy that it smashes hull plating every time they deploy it is the one they decided to add all the extra hinges, servos, and panels to.

The Monster is the only one who's mission role hasn't been largely replaced by Valkyries in-universe (not depunking or disputing the manufacturing/deployment cost discussion with this post).

Out of universe, the Monster is probably the only Destroid that everyone really remembers, especially among non-fans! (Ie: Masamune Shirow mentions it in one of his art books).

[JB0]

Both fair points. And it seems like Chronicle says it was difficult to make the transformation mechanisms hold up under the stress of being a variable Monster. Which makes sense, and that they'd keep trying does suggest it was considered to be of significant value.

[Mit]

...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 ...

Well, I will wait for the results of your creativity Speaking of which, you are a genius ...

Judging from the development of the discussion, all over again repeats the same arguments as in the topic on "MechaTalk" and, as a result, no one nothing will convince and will cover the topic ...

So, I suggest to change the format and to reflect on "what might be transformable tanks in the universe of "Macross"?

In the end, fan fiction on the original project "Valkyrie" enough, so why not design the mecha-tanks?

Edited January 24, 2016 by Mit

[Gubaba]

Then you should probably move it to the Fan Works section.

[Mit]

Then you should probably move it to the Fan Works section.

Hmm? I could try to write something like "test notes" about how there and realized the idea of transformable tanks in an alternate version of "Macross", but is obliged to inform about my terrible English ...

[azrael]

Hmm? I could try to write something like "test notes" about how there and realized the idea of transformable tanks in an alternate version of "Macross", but is obliged to inform about my terrible English ...

It's still fan-fiction. This section is for discussing topics from Macross, about Macross. What you want to do is talk about something that came from your head and isn't in Macross. You want to create your version of Macross. In that case, that's fan fiction and we have a section where you can explore your creative potential.

http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showforum=5

[Mit]

It's still fan-fiction.

http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showforum=5

Yes I know.

Just being a newcomer in the forum I have not yet figured out where and what topics ...

But thanks for the link

[Mit]

Hey guys, I've found a description of variations of the wheeled tank by Kawamori

Also, Kawamori has done completely unofficial VT (variable Tank) designs in the past. Just that they look more like the Stryker with a remotely operated mini-turret, then what we'd normally view as a tank. Split tread (aka: 4 treads, not 2, with the rear treads being longer then the forward ones). Arm location is split between acting as the upper armor over the front of the treads and the actual 'nose' of the chassis, and the forward treads themselves are part of the upper arm/shoulder area after an armored flange slides down to near completely conceal them. Legs are the rear treads but spun 180 (like on the SV-51's transformation) with the lower leg part actually being folded back over the tops of the rear treads. Turret slides back and basically becomes a backpack with a bigass gun on it that can fire over the shoulder. The VT's 'gunpod' actually is the co-axial mount next to the main cannon, which pops off and then is hand carried. Head looks to be where a driver's location would be, with what's most likely either an AP light pulse laser/beam gun or an AP light (for Macross) machine-gun/machine-cannon/autocannon. Couldn't tell you where the cockpit(s?) was. There were areas that looked like a hatch, but could just have been raised plating.

One key thing though is that there was NO obvious thrusters for flight and/or jumping/dashing. So it's strictly for ground combat only. Also, no text, so I don't have a clue as to whether or not the cannon was energy or projectile based. Could be either version - ModA being a smoothbore/railgun, while a ModB being a beam cannon - if that is, there were two models.

Artwork was on display waaaaaaaaaaaay back when he was at AX one year. Annoyingly the only image out of all of the ones in the informal set he did, that did end up in print as far as I can see, is the 'Mobile Infantry dune-buggy' in the Shoji Kawamori Design Works artbook.

Has anyone seen this picture? Or, I apologize for the audacity, it can draw on the basis of the description?

I looked at the book and found only this, but unsure

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, we even have a sketch Kawamori transforming boats

http://i.imgbox.com/aawpal5c.jpg

[RedWolf]

There are only two known variable ground vehicles in Macross and those are the VGPV-07 Chiron Patroid and the tank-submersible Octos.

The former is intended as a police unit dealing with civilian destroids. Macross 7 fleet had a number of converted Destroids. The later, Octos, is basically a four legged tank destroid that is a variable sub.

The only reason I can see UN Forces or NUNS not using the Octos is that the VA-3 Invader has already filled its role of being both a submersible and a destroid.

[sketchley]

VGPV-07 Chiron Patroid

Where does that name and designation come from?

The only sources I can find for it are both by the same MW member - linking to a personal HP with a URL link that contains "Harmony Gold" [which raises all sorts of alarm bells - even though its in Japanese!].

[Gubaba]

Where does that name and designation come from?

The only sources I can find for it are both by the same MW member - linking to a personal HP with a URL link that contains "Harmony Gold" [which raises all sorts of alarm bells - even though its in Japanese!].

If it's Yui, yes, she often makes up her own canon. She knows a hell of a lot about the production of the three shows used for RT, though.

[azrael]

Hey guys, I've found a description of variations of the wheeled tank by Kawamori

Has anyone seen this picture? Or, I apologize for the audacity, it can draw on the basis of the description?

I looked at the book and found only this, but unsure

The key phrase in the quote you quoted is "Shoji Kawamori Design Works".

http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/books/shoji/shoji_design_works.htm

Great book for looking at all the work Kawamori has done in his 1st 30-some years of designing.

By the way, we even have a sketch Kawamori transforming boats

Advanced Valkyrie and Air Cavalry Chronicles. We know about those. Most of those never made it beyond a sketch. A lot of those designs ended up elsewhere or inspirations for other stuff (like Escaflowne)

Kawamori has been in the business for the better part of 30 years. He's worked on A LOT of other projects besides Macross. Kawamori has designed A LOT of stuff. Enough stuff to fill volumes of books. He's designed variable tanks, cars, and even cars with Nike shoes. But that stuff doesn't appear or apply in Macross. And we've told you why. Several times now.

[Mit]

The key phrase in the quote you quoted is "Shoji Kawamori Design Works".

http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/books/shoji/shoji_design_works.htm

Great book for looking at all the work Kawamori has done in his 1st 30-some years of designing.

Have you ever read what they write in messages? This picture I took from this book - there I have it in electronic form ...

He's designed variable tanks, cars, and even cars with Nike shoes. But that stuff doesn't appear or apply in Macross. And we've told you why. Several times now.

And I have, more than once, argued objected ... No offense, but you're boring

The fact that in the "Macross" focuses on the "Valkyrie", does not mean that other types of transformers can not be used at all - at least, variational submarine has already appeared on the screen, as well as convertible Destroyer

In the end, use the sketches and designs for inspiration is not prohibited

[Seto Kaiba]

Have you ever read what they write in messages? This picture I took from this book - there I have it in electronic form ...

Yes. Many of us own paper copies of the book. Several of us own multiple copies. We know what the book says, and that the things you're referring to here are mostly design studies that never went anywhere.

And I have, more than once, argued objected ... No offense, but you're boring

That would be your problem, not his... as you seem determined to plow ahead with a thoroughly discredited premise.

The fact that in the "Macross" focuses on the "Valkyrie", does not mean that other types of transformers can not be used at all - at least, variational submarine has already appeared on the screen, as well as convertible Destroyer

Yes, the fact that Macross focuses on the Valkyrie does not mean that over types of variable mecha cannot exist... but it's also a fact that the Macross setting is one in which a transforming ground mecha has no practical advantage. The variable submarine "Octos" was so expensive that only 120 were built, and it really wasn't useful for much besides coastal attacks. It was far slower and less heavily armed than a conventional Destroid.

The City-7 patroid... well... it was a bloody joke.

In the end, use the sketches and designs for inspiration is not prohibited

It's not prohibited... but it doesn't belong here either. It belongs in the fan-fiction section.

[azrael]

Have you ever read what they write in messages? This picture I took from this book - there I have it in electronic form ...

Yes. Do you have a copy of the book that was mentioned in the quote you quoted? Do you know what it's contents are? I have the book. It's not just Macross art in that book, but all of Kawamori's works from his 1st 30-some years of designing. Kawamori has design tanks, just that they were not used for Macross. He's done A LOT of projects in his life; not all of them Macross and not all of them made it to a production. And that is what that book covers; his life's work.

...No offense, but you're boring

None taken. I'm just telling you what is in Macross based on what we've seen and what is written. And we don't have variable tanks. At least none in the 30 years that this franchise has existed, and likely none in the foreseeable future.

In the end, use the sketches and designs for inspiration is not prohibited

Of course it's not prohibited. It's your fan fiction. It's your world. Do whatever you want. Be inspired by whatever you want. But since we are talking about fan fiction, you should start your thread in the fan fiction section of the forums.

[sketchley]

Have you ever read what they write in messages? This picture I took from this book - there I have it in electronic form ...

What they said.

Plus, the text in question (Pg 016 of the book) says "(...)「機甲天使ガブリエル」のイメージイラスト。(...)" I trust that you're fluent enough in the ways of the internet to figure out a translation of that line.

[Mit]

... as you seem determined to plow ahead with a thoroughly discredited premise.

You can formulate this thought more specific? What do you mean?

Just do not write again, "we have already talked about this"

Yes, the fact that Macross focuses on the Valkyrie does not mean that over types of variable mecha cannot exist... but it's also a fact that the Macross setting is one in which a transforming ground mecha has no practical advantage. The variable submarine "Octos" was so expensive that only 120 were built, and it really wasn't useful for much besides coastal attacks. It was far slower and less heavily armed than a conventional Destroid.

So, "Octos" effective on the coast, that is, to a certain specialization battlefield as "Destroyer" for anti-air and anti-space defense, artillery support and close combat.

The only difference between them is that "Octos" is a transformer ...

If you compare "Octos" and "Tomahawk" in figures, you get a very interesting picture:

1)"Octos" mass: fully loaded 55.15 metric tons, "Tomahawk" mass: 31.3 metric tons (fully or not unknown), considering about the same dimensions, "Octos" can carry 5 or 6 marines;

2)compare power generators will not work due to lack of data on "Octos", but we know that his performance enough to operate energy conversion armor;

3)"Octos" performance:Destroid Mode: walking 45 kmph, rolling 95 kmph, Submarine Mode: 40 kt, 45 kt maximum (74.08 kmph, 83.34 kmph max.); operating depth 250 meters (375 meters max.); "Tomahawk" performance to walking unknown, but he can jump (нeight and distance unknown)

4) "Octos" armament - guns: 1 x 12.7mm dual beam machine gun turret, 1 x Bifors 57mm multi-use rapid-fire cannon, 1 x anti-personnel machine gun turret; bombs & missiles: 1 x missile launcher with 8 missiles, 2 x torpedo launchers, utilized in submarine mode; optional armament: 1 x machine gun, mountable from cockpit when cockpit hatch is open (In principle, heavy weapons from commandos also possible to deduct)

"Tomahawk" armament - guns: 2 x Mauler PBG-11 liquid-cooled electrically-charged particle beam gun, 2 x Ramington M-89 12.7 mm air-cooled MG, 2 x Astra TZ-III gun cluster with each cluster featuring the following: 1 x laser gun, 1 x 25 mm MG, 1 x 180 mm grenade launcher, 1 x flamethrower; bombs & missiles: 2 x Bifors close-in self-guided rocket launchers with 12 rockets per launcher (24 rockets total), 1 x Erlikon anti-aircraft self-guided missile option pack with 6 missiles

As can be seen from this comparison, even against the backdrop of an extremely rearmament "Tomahawk", "Octos" looks pretty good for a specialized combat vehicle, in addition, it can interact with the infantry to the level of transportation, besides, it has one important advantage "energy conversion armor "

And finally, the most important - "The U.N. Forces continued production of the Octos, producing some 28 units until Space War I when the production line was destroyed." - in other words, the variation submarines were appreciated and further production was interrupted not by the "financial and political considerations", but destruction, "Space War I"

The City-7 patroid... well... it was a bloody joke.

Simply put, you ignore the "official" if it is inconvenient for your point of view?

I have the book. It's not just Macross art in that book, but all of Kawamori's works from his 1st 30-some years of designing. Kawamori has design tanks, just that they were not used for Macross.

Therefore, I find the description of variations of the tank by Kawamori, referring to the book and asked about that - I found the right image? - that's all.

I never said that this war machine must necessarily belong to the universe of "Macross", I was interested in the concept of such a mechanism in terms of Kawamori - and that's why I want to find a picture for a description

Plus, the text in question (Pg 016 of the book) says "(...)「機甲天使ガブリエル」のイメージイラスト。(...)" I trust that you're fluent enough in the ways of the internet to figure out a translation of that line.

Thank you for your work, but the fact that it is a sketch of "Gabriel" is indicated in the upper left of the page in English

Edited January 29, 2016 by Mit

[wmkjr]

And finally, the most important - "The U.N. Forces continued production of the Octos, producing some 28 units until Space War I when the production line was destroyed." - in other words, the variation submarines were appreciated and further production was interrupted not by the "financial and political considerations", but destruction, "Space War I"

But right before that it says "production costs for the Octos were high and thus only a small number were manufactured" so wouldn't that be considered a financial reason not to?.

Edit: I can see the reason as being produced in small numbers for it's specialized role such as a SpecOps or SAR transport or something along that line. Try comparing the Octos to the Cheyenne Mk II. I know the Octos can carry troops but would you want to be fighting these huge aliens as combat infantry?

Edited January 29, 2016 by wmkjr

[Seto Kaiba]

You can formulate this thought more specific? What do you mean?

What I mean, and what most of the other contributors in this thread have also told you, is that there is no practical advantage to a transformable ground mecha in Macross.

You keep banging on with examples that actually disprove your point and acting as though they support it...

So, "Octos" effective on the coast, that is, to a certain specialization battlefield as "Destroyer" for anti-air and anti-space defense, artillery support and close combat.

The Octos is only effective in coastal warfare... and while Earth does have a lot of coastline, we also have a LOT more inland area where the Octos would be pretty much useless. There isn't any coastline in space either, and the Octos is not spaceworthy.

(Never mind that it's also slower, and not nearly as well armed or armored, compared to the other Destroids.)

If you compare "Octos" and "Tomahawk" in figures, you get a very interesting picture:

1)"Octos" mass: fully loaded 55.15 metric tons, "Tomahawk" mass: 31.3 metric tons (fully or not unknown), considering about the same dimensions, "Octos" can carry 5 or 6 marines;

Being able to carry five or six troops who would be completely useless in a fight against the Zentradi or other mecha is not an advantage. Infantry stopped being the default currency of warfare in 2009 in Macross.

2)compare power generators will not work due to lack of data on "Octos", but we know that his performance enough to operate energy conversion armor;

Both of your premises here are false.

The Tomahawk has a definitive advantage in power plant function because it's using a thermonuclear reactor, the Octos had to use two different power systems: a diesel turbine for land warfare and fuel cells for underwater operation.

Also, the Octos did not acquire a generator output sufficient to use energy conversion armor until after the UN Wars, when the few units produced after the war were outfitted with thermonuclear reactors.

3)"Octos" performance:Destroid Mode: walking 45 kmph, rolling 95 kmph, Submarine Mode: 40 kt, 45 kt maximum (74.08 kmph, 83.34 kmph max.); operating depth 250 meters (375 meters max.); "Tomahawk" performance to walking unknown, but he can jump (нeight and distance unknown)

The Tomahawk's officially-listed maximum land speed was 180km/h, making it almost exactly twice as fast as the Octos's rolling speed and four times as fast as the Octos's walking speed.

4) "Octos" armament - guns: 1 x 12.7mm dual beam machine gun turret, 1 x Bifors 57mm multi-use rapid-fire cannon, 1 x anti-personnel machine gun turret; bombs & missiles: 1 x missile launcher with 8 missiles, 2 x torpedo launchers, utilized in submarine mode; optional armament: 1 x machine gun, mountable from cockpit when cockpit hatch is open (In principle, heavy weapons from commandos also possible to deduct)

"Tomahawk" armament - guns: 2 x Mauler PBG-11 liquid-cooled electrically-charged particle beam gun, 2 x Ramington M-89 12.7 mm air-cooled MG, 2 x Astra TZ-III gun cluster with each cluster featuring the following: 1 x laser gun, 1 x 25 mm MG, 1 x 180 mm grenade launcher, 1 x flamethrower; bombs & missiles: 2 x Bifors close-in self-guided rocket launchers with 12 rockets per launcher (24 rockets total), 1 x Erlikon anti-aircraft self-guided missile option pack with 6 missiles

As can be seen from this comparison, even against the backdrop of an extremely rearmament "Tomahawk", "Octos" looks pretty good for a specialized combat vehicle, in addition, it can interact with the infantry to the level of transportation, besides, it has one important advantage "energy conversion armor "

The Octos was massively outgunned by the Tomahawk... and, really, it was outgunned by the Cheyenne as well.

Yes, the Octos was a specialized combat vehicle, but its problem was that it was overspecialized. It could do one, and only one thing well. It was really useful in coastal surprise attacks, but other than that it was a resolutely mediocre unit. Being able to transport one fireteam's worth of infantry is no advantage in a giant robot fight, and as I pointed out earlier it didn't have energy conversion armor capability during the UN Wars either.

(Plus you're assuming that energy conversion armor is automatically superior to composite armor regardless of the thickness... and that isn't accurate either. Per Macross Chronicle, the heavy composite armor of Destroids surpasses the defensive ability of energy conversion armor used by Valkyries.)

And finally, the most important - "The U.N. Forces continued production of the Octos, producing some 28 units until Space War I when the production line was destroyed." - in other words, the variation submarines were appreciated and further production was interrupted not by the "financial and political considerations", but destruction, "Space War I"

That's only half-true. Yes, the UN Forces restarted production of the Octos and built 28 more... but Macross Chronicle's coverage of the Octos explicitly states that its production cost was so high that very few units were built. (That's said right in the first paragraph on the Mechanic Sheet.)

There were almost four times as many Tomahawk Mk.VI destroids assigned to the SLV-111 Prometheus as there were Octos units built for the Anti-UN Alliance and UN Forces combined.

Simply put, you ignore the "official" if it is inconvenient for your point of view?

Talking to yourself, mate? Because it seems I've caught you ignoring official information inconvenient to your point of view an awful lot in this last post.

Therefore, I find the description of variations of the tank by Kawamori, referring to the book and asked about that - I found the right image? - that's all.

I never said that this war machine must necessarily belong to the universe of "Macross",

Then, as pointed out previously, this is not the right forum for your topic.

[JB0]

As can be seen from this comparison, even against the backdrop of an extremely rearmament "Tomahawk", "Octos" looks pretty good for a specialized combat vehicle, in addition, it can interact with the infantry to the level of transportation, besides, it has one important advantage "energy conversion armor "

Now let's compare the Octos to the most relevant comparison. If it's only useful for coastal attacks in which it will be deploying infantry... then it should be compared to other amphibious vehicles and landing craft.

So the question is... how many destroids and troops can a Daedalus-class landing ship carry? The canon answer is apparently simply "many", though one can infer from the Daedalus Attack that it's significantly more punch than an Octos.

And a Daedalus is self-sufficient. It doesn't need another vessel to carry it to the combat zone, as I imagine the Octos does(size precludes it carrying extensive stores for vehicle maintenance or human biological necessities, or even really much in the way of sleep facilities).

I could see an argument for the Octos being used to secure a landing site FOR the Daedalus. We shall assume for the moment the target has strong anti-air defenses so we can't just call in the air force to carpet-bomb the beach ahead of us.

But one would think a Monster on the deck would do the job more effectively and more economically. And when a Monster is the CHEAPER solution to the problem, it is time to step back, take a long hard look at things, and seriously reconsider what you're doing because something has gone VERY wrong somewhere.

In that perspective, the first thing I would do with a second-gen Octos is ditch the crew compartment entirely. It's bloating the size of the vehicle for no benefit. Put a missile launcher in there, a large beam cannon, or just excise it entirely and shave a third of the vehicle's size in one shot, making it smaller, faster, and more capable.

Edited January 30, 2016 by JB0

[Mit]

What I mean, and what most of the other contributors in this thread have also told you, is that there is no practical advantage to a transformable ground mecha in Macross.

However, the "Destroyer" is still widely used and successfully upgraded, despite the ground-based robots "useless" ... And among them already twice been examples of ground transformers

The Octos is only effective in coastal warfare... and while Earth does have a lot of coastline, we also have a LOT more inland area where the Octos would be pretty much useless. There isn't any coastline in space either, and the Octos is not spaceworthy.

For these inland areas came to variational tanks, but so far for this are "Destroyers"

By the way, even in the era of space war in "Macross" submarine needed for hydro-planets, though they seemed to have decided and crossed atmospheric space fighter with submersibles, and the result was "VA-3M Invader" ...

Frankly, such a solution is even more doubtful than the convertible "Octos"

Being able to carry five or six troops who would be completely useless in a fight against the Zentradi or other mecha is not an advantage. Infantry stopped being the default currency of warfare in 2009 in Macross.

I am afraid that the "Macross Zero" does not agree with you, though there were already "Valkyrie" and "Destroyers" but the infantry still play a role...

By the way, why did you decide that the antitank grenade launchers can not be adjusted against the "Destroyer" or automatic grenade launcher (caliber 30-40 mm) useless against zentradi?

Also, the Octos did not acquire a generator output sufficient to use energy conversion armor until after the UN Wars, when the few units produced after the war were outfitted with thermonuclear reactors.

So what? It changes something in the fact that "Octos" had energy conversion armor?

The Tomahawk's officially-listed maximum land speed was 180km/h, making it almost exactly twice as fast as the Octos's rolling speed and four times as fast as the Octos's walking speed.

In its technical data "Macross Mecha Manual" this information is not specified, and therefore would be happy to link...

In the meantime, to protect "Octos" I can indicate its amphibious capabilities...

The Octos was massively outgunned by the Tomahawk... and, really, it was outgunned by the Cheyenne as well.

It is ironic, given how easy it is "Cheyennes" died under fire "Octos" in "Macross Zero"

Yes, the Octos was a specialized combat vehicle, but its problem was that it was overspecialized. It could do one, and only one thing well. It was really useful in coastal surprise attacks, but other than that it was a resolutely mediocre unit.

Like the "Defender", "Monster", "Phalanx" and "Spartan". He specializes in landing operations on the coast, and with its role as "Ostos" copes perfectly

Plus you're assuming that energy conversion armor is automatically superior to composite armor regardless of the thickness... and that isn't accurate either.

I guess the "energy conversion armor" can provide a high level of protection for small thickness (if I remember correctly, the armor "Valkyrie" at the aircraft thickness correspond to the modern tank), and thus allows, among other things, to reduce the overall weight of the combat vehicle and the load on its structure

That's only half-true....There were almost four times as many Tomahawk Mk.VI destroids assigned to the SLV-111 Prometheus as there were Octos units built for the Anti-UN Alliance and UN Forces combined.

The main thing is that they continue to build up despite the high cost and other costs, and thus in this sense was

And a small remark to sink the transport with "Tomahawk" need only a couple of "Octos"

Talking to yourself, mate? Because it seems I've caught you ignoring official information inconvenient to your point of view an awful lot in this last post.

Alas, I can not double-check your data, and is forced to use only the materials available to me ...

But in this debate, all the time you are operating terms, such as "useless" and "do not need" - this can not be called a valid argument

For example:

------------------------------

You - in the "Macross" is not necessary ground equipment

I - but it uses "Destroyers" (and even tanks, according to the intro "VF-X 2")

You - all of them older models

I - but that "Cheyenne Mk II" is a new model

-----------------------------

You - for analogue "D-50C Lotto" in "Macross" no suitable targets

I - But there asteroid base, like the one shown in the "M7 Dynamite" + various space stations

----------------------------

You - they are too expensive

I - But even the poor planetary garrisons using variational fighters "Sutlass"

You - "Valkyrie" is still being squeezed, "Ghosts"

I - But thanks to the inertial control "Valkyrie" can compete with the "ghost" (if I remember correctly, then tests YF-24 was able to successfully bring down two robots)

Etc. and so on

Well, in this case, you prefer to be called "City Police Patroid" a joke, not a precedent

In that perspective, the first thing I would do with a second-gen Octos is ditch the crew compartment entirely. It's bloating the size of the vehicle for no benefit. Put a missile launcher in there, a large beam cannon, or just excise it entirely and shave a third of the vehicle's size in one shot, making it smaller, faster, and more capable.

Interesting idea, thank you

Edited January 30, 2016 by Mit

[Mr March]

In its technical data "Macross Mecha Manual" this information is not specified, and therefore would be happy to link...

While I am flattered that fans look to the Macross Mecha Manual for trivia about the mecha of Macross, just keep in mind that the Macross Compendium is the number one official source for English language Macross trivia. Should there be a debate, it never hurts to double check the Compendium just to be sure my facts (and your own) are in order

Nonetheless, I've taken this opportunity to update and re-upload a new version of the Destroid Tomahawk profile (refresh your browser cache) to the M3 website. The new profile includes all the updated weapons, design features and written text descriptions from the Macross Compendium. Including the impressive 180 kilometers per hour land speed

Edited January 31, 2016 by Mr March

[wmkjr]

Mit, I only see the term "useless" being used when it's describing the use of ground based mecha for combat in space or am I not reading it right?

Perhaps we should replace "do not need" with "not as effective as"? For example: At this point in time in the Macross Universe, the use of variable ground mecha for combat would not be as effective as the use of currently existing Destroids. That way you can fanfic your own variable ground mech and find closure to this. I would love to see someone's take on this.

Who knows about the Octos, maybe in Delta they'll have some type of variable submarine mech if they ever visit Chuck Mustang's planet and find it 90% covered by water.

The role infantry played in Macross Zero was as cannon fodder. Looks like a good example of why infantry is probably not used in the same capacity some 50 years later as they got worked on that beach pretty good.

[azrael]

There's that sense of deja vu....

However, the "Destroyer" is still widely used and successfully upgraded, despite the ground-based robots "useless" ... And among them already twice been examples of ground transformers

Let me underline the piece of text for you re-read.

What I mean, and what most of the other contributors in this thread have also told you, is that there is no practical advantage to a transformable ground mecha in Macross.

For these inland areas came to variational tanks, but so far for this are "Destroyers"

Again, read the underlined sentence.

What I mean, and what most of the other contributors in this thread have also told you, is that there is no practical advantage to a transformable ground mecha in Macross.

I am afraid that the "Macross Zero" does not agree with you, though there were already "Valkyrie" and "Destroyers" but the infantry still play a role...

Macross Zero takes place in 2008. Now, focus on the part I'm underlining.

Being able to carry five or six troops who would be completely useless in a fight against the Zentradi or other mecha is not an advantage. Infantry stopped being the default currency of warfare in 2009 in Macross.

It is ironic, given how easy it is "Cheyennes" died under fire "Octos" in "Macross Zero"

Same could be said about an Octos versus a VF.

Like the "Defender", "Monster", "Phalanx" and "Spartan". He specializes in landing operations on the coast, and with its role as "Ostos" copes perfectly

Yet the Octos production ended while all the others flourished.

[Seto Kaiba]

However, the "Destroyer" is still widely used and successfully upgraded, despite the ground-based robots "useless" ... And among them already twice been examples of ground transformers

"Widely used" may be a bit of a stretch... we don't actually know how widespread the deployment of the Cheyenne II is, but it is well worth noting that Destroids basically disappeared from military service for twenty or thirty years before a new model emerged. The battlefield role they occupy has shrunk significantly as well, to the extent that they're no longer front-line combat mecha... their fleet role has been almost totally eradicated by static defense turrets.

It's true that we've had two units of transforming ground mecha... but it is also true that the Octos and City-7 police patroid were not widely used or produced in large numbers. They couldn't match the all-purposefulness of the Valkyrie or the cost-effectiveness of a conventional Destroid.

For these inland areas came to variational tanks, but so far for this are "Destroyers"

We haven't seen any transforming tanks because there is no practical advantage to a transforming tank in the Macross setting. You would have two different modes that are for the exact same purpose. Transformation in Macross (and, really, most other mecha shows) is used so that a mecha can operate in a different operational role in each mode... like the Valkyrie being a fighter jet, an attack helicopter substitute, and a combat robot, or the Octos being a submarine and a land warfare robot.

By the way, even in the era of space war in "Macross" submarine needed for hydro-planets, though they seemed to have decided and crossed atmospheric space fighter with submersibles, and the result was "VA-3M Invader" ...

Frankly, such a solution is even more doubtful than the convertible "Octos"

Actually, the VA-3M Invader makes a reasonable amount of sense... the thermonuclear reaction engines of a Variable Fighter use MHD systems for space propulsion, and that same technology can also be used to power boats and submarines. All VFs can be operated underwater, so making a VF that was optimized for underwater operation is a logical step that eliminates the need for a dedicated submarine mecha.

I am afraid that the "Macross Zero" does not agree with you, though there were already "Valkyrie" and "Destroyers" but the infantry still play a role...

Where are there Zentradi in Macross Zero? Oh that's right... NOWHERE.

Infantry is useless against the Zentradi, being the infantry don't carry weapons big enough to hurt a giant that can live through being shot with a 55mm armor-piercing cannon. The infantry in Macross Zero are only viable because the war was being fought between humans on Earth prior to first contact with the Zentradi. Even then, they're basically window dressing once the giant robots start to fight.

By the way, why did you decide that the antitank grenade launchers can not be adjusted against the "Destroyer" or automatic grenade launcher (caliber 30-40 mm) useless against zentradi?

So far, we have not seen any evidence that weapons that infantry can carry can hurt something armored as heavily as a Valkyrie or Destroid. We saw Gilliam using a linear rifle against a Vajra that had armor roughly equivalent to a VF-25, and all it did was ricochet everywhere without doing any damage. If we look to some of the old data, a Valkyrie or Destroid have armor equivalent to at least three meters of steel armor plate, or about triple the heaviest armor of a main battle tank. That's not armor that infantry weapons are going to get through without being so powerful that they could kill or severely wound the firer too.

(The warheads of the missiles are equivalent to a 1,000lb bomb's explosive filler... and it usually takes two or three to get through a Valkyrie or Destroid's armor.)

So what? It changes something in the fact that "Octos" had energy conversion armor?

It means that only a tiny fraction of Octos units had energy conversion armor, and only after they weren't being used in combat. The Octos models that actually fought in the UN Wars were using composite armor and weren't as well-protected as a Space War 1-era Destroid.

In its technical data "Macross Mecha Manual" this information is not specified, and therefore would be happy to link...

The Macross Mecha Manual is what you'd call a "living document", in that it's constantly being revised and updated by myself and Mr March as translations of new material are made available by myself and the other translators on MacrossWorld.

It is ironic, given how easy it is "Cheyennes" died under fire "Octos" in "Macross Zero"

They were outnumbered and ambushed, so it's not surprising they didn't fare well... but the Octos didn't exactly fare well itself when it had to fight the VF-0's.

Like the "Defender", "Monster", "Phalanx" and "Spartan". He specializes in landing operations on the coast, and with its role as "Ostos" copes perfectly

The difference being that the Defender, Phalanx, Spartan, and Monster can operate on land, underwater (to limited depths), and in space... whereas the Octos is only viable in combat underwater and at the coast.

The main thing is that they continue to build up despite the high cost and other costs, and thus in this sense was

They built a handful... not enough to actually matter, and of course they never saw combat in the First Space War.

And a small remark to sink the transport with "Tomahawk" need only a couple of "Octos"

Unlikely! The Daedalus was a heavily-armored ship, and we see in Macross the First that submarine attacks don't actually do enough damage to be a serious threat to it.

You - in the "Macross" is not necessary ground equipment

I - but it uses "Destroyers" (and even tanks, according to the intro "VF-X 2")

In Macross VF-X2? That's no Destroid, that's a VB-6 Konig Monster... a Variable Bomber.

There were some conventional tanks shown, but they were... well... ineffective as hell against a VF.

You - all of them older models

I - but that "Cheyenne Mk II" is a new model

The Cheyenne II is not new, it's an upgraded version of a Destroid design that is 51 years old as of Macross Frontier.

The Super Defender from Macross the Ride is also five decades old.

-----------------------------

You - for analogue "D-50C Lotto" in "Macross" no suitable targets

I - But there asteroid base, like the one shown in the "M7 Dynamite" + various space stations

Which a Valkyrie is infinitely more suited to attacking, because they can freely maneuver in space... unlike a Destroid or a tank.

(Even in Gundam, the D-50C Loto was not nearly as capable in space as a conventional mobile suit.)

----------------------------

You - they are too expensive

I - But even the poor planetary garrisons using variational fighters "Sutlass"

You - "Valkyrie" is still being squeezed, "Ghosts"

I - But thanks to the inertial control "Valkyrie" can compete with the "ghost" (if I remember correctly, then tests YF-24 was able to successfully bring down two robots)

The whole point of Destroids is that they're cheap and can be deployed in large numbers where numbers matter most.

Poor emigrant planets do use inexpensive Valkyries like the VF-9 Cutlass or VF-5000 Star Mirage, but those fighters still have all of the versatility of the Variable Fighter design. They can be aerospace fighter jets, attack helicopter substitutes, and combat robots... while a variable tank can be a tank for land warfare or a robot for land warfare, which is redundant.

Also, a planet's defenses are mostly oriented around keeping the enemy AWAY from the planet... so a Destroid on the ground isn't gone to see any action unless something goes horribly wrong. If something does go wrong, what's going to be more effective if an enemy makes it to the planet's surface? 1 variable tank, or the 10-20 Destroids you could build for the same money? You get way more firepower with the conventional Destroids.

Ghosts are eating into the number of VFs being built because they cost a fraction of what a VF does... and the technology which enables a VF to rival a Ghost's performance is prohibitively expensive because it depends on a rare material that (as far as we've been told) cannot be replicated by human science.