Technical question: Macross Valkyrie

[marx]

Okay, I saw dyrl. I've also seen 1,2 and 4 (woops skipped 3) episodes of Macross zero. Now I got more questions. My questions really pertain to the Mecha designs in Macross.

From a technical standpoint when in war, I think people would generally agree that it would be better to have guns for arms instead of hands. But I was told that the reason why the Valks have hands is so they can take on the giant Zentradi in hand to hand combat. (that sounded reasonable) Yet in the movie they don't seem to know anything about Zentradi, and they still have valks with hands. In Macross Zero I haven't seen any zentradi yet but valks with arms and fingers are still there. I was told the purpose of a valks head was so that the Zentradi would aim for the head instead of the chest. But from a technical standpoint I think it would cause problems with wind resistance in fighter mode.

So my question Boils down to what is the purpose of having a robot with a head and hands?

Maybe I'm looking to far into it.

[azrael]

To look cool. Cuz they wanted it that way. Cuz it was neat.

If you don't like mechs with heads or fingers, go look at a Destroid.

[Cdr Fokker]

Guns for arms greatly reduces the versatility of the Valkyrie. With arms and hands, it may perform utility work as well as combat, and for combat, it could utilize multiple types of gunpods without physically changing any "modules" (well, if more than one type of gunpod was standard, that is)

As for the "head" - this is to look cool, plus a place to house sensors on a movable/traversable platform.

[Druna Skass]

And with hands you can flip the enemy the "bird"...

[Graham]

That's some good questions.

I tend to disagree with you that in the movie nothing was known about the Zentradi. I think that in both the DYRL movie and the SDF Macross TV series, there was a certain amount of knowledge to be gleaned from the wreakage of the SDF-1 prior to the Zentradi attacking Earth. At very least, it was already known that the aliens were giant humanoids.

While this may not have been general public knowledge, it was certainly known by the Valkyrie and Destroid design teams, hence the reason for putting hands (for punching and grappling) on the mecha. One presumes that the Valk and Destroid pilots were also briefed to some extent on the possible threat they could one day have to face. In the TV series, Focker certainly seems to have been already aware about the potential alien threat.

As for the reason for having a head, it is cetainly a convienient and practical location for a sensor cluster (TV, IR, Thermal, Radar(?) Cyclops(?)) to be used in battroid mode. In a fighting machine, you usually want your sensors high up to let you peek over walls, buildings trees etc, without exposing the rest of your fighting machine. A good real world example is the mast-mounted radar on the Longbow Apache.

Given that the VF head is capable of quite a wide range of movemen (it rotates side to side and up and down), the head is a convenient location for the anti-missile lasers in battroid mode. Also, in fighter mode the heads are mostly recessed into the plane (much more than on the toys), so wont create much drag.

Graham

[eugimon]

just want to second the head being an anti-missile/anti aircraft type feature on the valk... if you consider just how tall these things are in battroid mode, they make pretty big targets.... like walk buildings... and then with the heat signature, anyone with a heat seeking missile could take pot shots at them... the anti-missile aspect of the head just gives the valk that extra measure of defense.

[polidread]

without Battroid hands, how would Hikaru catch Minmay in mid-air and start off the Macross love story? never question the purpose of the Hoary Froating Head of Kawamori

[Graham]

Okay, I saw dyrl. I've also seen 1,2 and 4 (woops skipped 3) episodes of Macross zero.

highly recommend you watch episode # 3 of Macross Zero, it has probably the best action scenes of the entire series so far.

Graham

[marx]

Cdr Fokker

Guns for arms greatly reduces the versatility of the Valkyrie. With arms and hands, it may perform utility work as well as combat, and for combat, it could utilize multiple types of gunpods without physically changing any "modules" (well, if more than one type of gunpod was standard, that is)

That seems like a pretty good explanation for hands. You're in the heat of battle, your weapon gets dammaged. You just pick up your fallen buddy's weapon and continue fighting or if the enemy is also employing similar design with the use of hands, you could pick up enemy weapons. You could use various objects in your suroundings, throwing boulders and cars, etc.

Graham

One presumes that the Valk and Destroid pilots were also briefed to some extent on the possible threat they could one day have to face. In the TV series, Focker certainly seems to have been already aware about the potential alien threat.

This also seems like a logical explanation, that doesn't require a leap of faith. Surelly scientists could uncover something on who built the SDF, somone had to have built it. Preparation to fight these aliens would probably occur, cause we would fear that these aliens might be hostile. Works for me

Graham

As for the reason for having a head, it is cetainly a convienient and practical location for a sensor cluster (TV, IR, Thermal, Radar(?) Cyclops(?)) to be used in battroid mode. In a fighting machine, you usually want your sensors high up to let you peek over walls, buildings trees etc, without exposing the rest of your fighting machine. A good real world example is the mast-mounted radar on the Longbow Apache.

Given that the VF head is capable of quite a wide range of movemen (it rotates side to side and up and down), the head is a convenient location for the anti-missile lasers in battroid mode. Also, in fighter mode the heads are mostly recessed into the plane (much more than on the toys), so wont create much drag.

Having sensors up as high as possible definatelly works, I've heard of radar towers, and being able to overlook the battlefield has been common since at least the 1800's when hot air balloons were used for reconnaissance in war and now we have the more modern spy satellite.

I guess part of my problem is when I think of modern warfare, I'm not sure how valks would be used. It seems a lot of war today is fought by shooting long range weapons. Sure there is a ground war but a ground war seems to be apart of political implications. In a futuristic war, we're fighting aliens, would we bother fighting a ground war when we could simply shoot large destructive weapons. I think I'm looking to far into again.

Anyways, I still like the mecha designs and I would still like the designs even if I had gotten bad answers to my questions. But the answers were good and I like the fact that the design makes sense.

[F-ZeroOne]

War has its fashions too - in the 50s, everyone was flying at Mach 2 plus and shooting missiles at each other 50 miles away. Then Vietnam seemed to prove that close air combat was actually a good thing, and a lot of 70s designs were built with at least some dogfighting in mind.

Then came stealth, and now everyone seems to think that long range is the in thing again. But if everyone starts using stealth, won't you have to get closer to actually detect an opponent...?

The same things happening with ground combat. World War I rifles were sighted to a mile or more. The someone invented the submachine gun and the assault rifle, and war got close again. Now there are reports that the US Army is looking into long range small arms again, because technology gives them an edge over shorter-ranged assault weapons...

...theres an old military maxim that the next generation often prepares to fight the last war, rather then the new one...

[platypiman247]

I guess part of my problem is when I think of modern warfare, I'm not sure how valks would be used. It seems a lot of war today is fought by shooting long range weapons. Sure there is a ground war but a ground war seems to be apart of political implications. In a futuristic war, we're fighting aliens, would we bother fighting a ground war when we could simply shoot large destructive weapons. I think I'm looking to far into again.

In the Macross universe, battling fleets do shoot each other at long range with large destructive weapons, but they also use mecha to attack critical points on enemy ships, such as external weaponry and command centers (in DYRL, a single powersuit almost toasts the entire SDF-1 bridge crew during the first battle) and/or infiltrate enemy ships to destroy them from the inside-out (Hikaru's flight at the end of DYRL). Mecha also provide a solid defensive shield to protect against these types of tactics.

The SDF-1 Macross relied heavily on these tactics due to their shortage of ships and heavy weaponry.

[marx]

I guess part of my problem is when I think of modern warfare, I'm not sure how valks would be used. It seems a lot of war today is fought by shooting long range weapons. Sure there is a ground war but a ground war seems to be apart of political implications. In a futuristic war, we're fighting aliens, would we bother fighting a ground war when we could simply shoot large destructive weapons. I think I'm looking to far into again.

In the Macross universe, battling fleets do shoot each other at long range with large destructive weapons, but they also use mecha to attack critical points on enemy ships, such as external weaponry and command centers (in DYRL, a single powersuit almost toasts the entire SDF-1 bridge crew during the first battle) and/or infiltrate enemy ships to destroy them from the inside-out (Hikaru's flight at the end of DYRL). Mecha also provide a solid defensive shield to protect against these types of tactics.

The SDF-1 Macross relied heavily on these tactics due to their shortage of ships and heavy weaponry.

I do like the idea that the mecha could walk on the surface of the spaceships vs having a bunch of turrets on the surface, just cause the mecha would be mobile and be able to dodge incoming attacks. Whereas turrets could be targeted and destroyed a little easier, rendering a ship completely defenseles. But having defenses based on mecha, 50% of ship could be destroyed yet the ship could still be fully armed and able to continue fighting to the bitter end and possibly beyond. Another advantage would be the possibilty of mecha jumping from ship to ship, like for instance a ship could be on the verge of destruction, a friendly ship could swing by and pick up the mecha defenses, the loss of the ship in a fleet wouldn't be so catastrophic if you could still retain the same amount of firepower. Downside would probably be reloading weapons, and the possibility of just getting knocked off the surface of the ship and floating off into space.

Edited July 23, 2004 by marx

[ewilen]

Just to add to Graham's answer, in fighter mode the head probably functions as a "turret" for the anti-missile lasers. Not unlike what's being considered for a future laser weapon in the JSF.

As well, it may be useful to be able to pivot the sensors even in fighter mode.

[Penguin]

In a futuristic war, we're fighting aliens, would we bother fighting a ground war when we could simply shoot large destructive weapons. I think I'm looking to far into again.

For that to work, you have to make sure the enemies stay in the skies. If the aliens make it to ground, and you haven't got an adequate ground defence, you're pooched.

[CoryHolmes]

In a futuristic war, we're fighting aliens, would we bother fighting a ground war when we could simply shoot large destructive weapons. I think I'm looking to far into again.

For that to work, you have to make sure the enemies stay in the skies. If the aliens make it to ground, and you haven't got an adequate ground defence, you're pooched.

See, that's where these walking behemoths called "Destroids" come into play and promptly stop all advancing Zennie forces into itty bitty alien bits

The Destroids have always gotten the shaft and never really been given their due, always being passed over for the more marketable transforming mecha. Heck, the only Destroid to get any love had to be reengineered into a transforming mecha before it got its time in the limelight.

[mikeszekely]

In a futuristic war, we're fighting aliens, would we bother fighting a ground war when we could simply shoot large destructive weapons. I think I'm looking to far into again.

For that to work, you have to make sure the enemies stay in the skies. If the aliens make it to ground, and you haven't got an adequate ground defence, you're pooched.

See, that's where these walking behemoths called "Destroids" come into play and promptly stop all advancing Zennie forces into itty bitty alien bits

The Destroids have always gotten the shaft and never really been given their due, always being passed over for the more marketable transforming mecha. Heck, the only Destroid to get any love had to be reengineered into a transforming mecha before it got its time in the limelight.

The Destroids would probably get their due if they made a show/movie/ova about the UN Army. But we've basically just seen the Spacy (maybe the Navy in M0)... as in Space Forces. The Destroids are fine for ground combat, but, they don't really work for space combat.

[Chronocidal]

Hmm.. one other purpose I've realized that the head serves in fighter mode...it may stick out a little, but it partially streamlines those big blocky shoulders. Those things would cause such turbulence, it'd be ridiculous without something to direct the airflow around them.

[Final Vegeta]

See, that's where these walking behemoths called "Destroids" come into play and promptly stop all advancing Zennie forces into itty bitty alien bits

Destroids are not behemoths. They are severely underpowered (I am talking about power output) compared with VFs and Regults, and their agility sucks.

FV

[JB0]

See, that's where these walking behemoths called "Destroids" come into play and promptly stop all advancing Zennie forces into itty bitty alien bits

Destroids are not behemoths. They are severely underpowered (I am talking about power output) compared with VFs and Regults, and their agility sucks.

FV

That Spartan Hikaru drove in that one episode was agile enough.

'S also one of the few destroids that NEEDS to be particularly agile.

Things like the Phalanx, Monster, and Defender don't have much need for fast movement.

The power diffrence is, IMO, largely because they don't fly or transform.

And a naked destroid tends to pack far heavier weapons and armor than a naked Valkyrie.

That's important.

You will never see a Valk firing a 30 centimeter railgun because the recoil would rip it apart.

By the same token, you will never see a Monster leaping into the middle of a pack of enemies and inflicting pain and suffering on them, because it just can't leap. Well, it might could, but it would almost certainly be seriously damaged on landing. And once it was there, it would be little more than a slow-moving target.

It's sole reason for being is to tote those railguns around. It is a long-range artillery piece. Agility is not needed.

The Spartan is explicitly designed for melee combat. Agility is needed, and it delivers.

The Valk is a jack of all trades. It's fast and nimble enough for melee combat, but lacks enough mass to do a whole lot of damage.

[Final Vegeta]

That Spartan Hikaru drove in that one episode was agile enough.

The Spartan is 4 times more agile than the Tomahawk. The VF-1 is 16 times more agile than the Tomahawk, and that means it is 4 times more agile than the Spartan. The VF-1 is still the "shiznit".

'S also one of the few destroids that NEEDS to be particularly agile.

Anyway, the VF-1 vastly outclasses it in its field.

Things like the Phalanx, Monster, and Defender don't have much need for fast movement.

That means they are sitting ducks.

The power diffrence is, IMO, largely because they don't fly or transform.

But horsepowers will still affect movements. A Spartan couldn't lift and throw Zentradi giants like Max did.

And a naked destroid tends to pack far heavier weapons and armor than a naked Valkyrie. That's important.

That's absurd. A Destroid without ammos can do nothing more than a "naked" Valkyrie could. A Valkyrie can carry up to two times its weight in armaments. A Valkyrie can hold more micro-missiles than a Tomahawk or a Spartan, and it can deliver them in the heat of the fight.

You will never see a Valk firing a 30 centimeter railgun because the recoil would rip it apart.

You won't ever see it because the barrel would be several meters longer than the Valkyrie, and it would look ludicrous.

By the same token, you will never see a Monster leaping into the middle of a pack of enemies and inflicting pain and suffering on them, because it just can't leap. Well, it might could, but it would almost certainly be seriously damaged on landing. And once it was there, it would be little more than a slow-moving target.

It's sole reason for being is to tote those railguns around. It is a long-range artillery piece. Agility is not needed.

I can agree the Monster could be properly called a behemoth. The other destroids are over-rated, though

The Spartan is explicitly designed for melee combat. Agility is needed, and it delivers.

As far as agility goes, Spartan's is still cheap. That's why the VF-1 was reported to cost 20 times more than a Destroid.

The Valk is a jack of all trades. It's fast and nimble enough for melee combat, but lacks enough mass to do a whole lot of damage.

Its 5 times greater strength compensate this.

FV

[JB0]

That Spartan Hikaru drove in that one episode was agile enough.

The Spartan is 4 times more agile than the Tomahawk. The VF-1 is 16 times more agile than the Tomahawk, and that means it is 4 times more agile than the Spartan. The VF-1 is still the "shiznit".

Document this claim.

'S also one of the few destroids that NEEDS to be particularly agile.

Anyway, the VF-1 vastly outclasses it in its field.

Things like the Phalanx, Monster, and Defender don't have much need for fast movement.

That means they are sitting ducks.

Yeah, well they were never intended to be deployed alone. They're always gonna have support when used properly.

Same concept applies to modern-day hardware like the patriot missile.

The power diffrence is, IMO, largely because they don't fly or transform.

But horsepowers will still affect movements. A Spartan couldn't lift and throw Zentradi giants like Max did.

What also affects things is efficiency of the mechanisms.

I can guarantee that a Valkyrie has very inefficient systems.

And structural strength. A spartan is built to vastly higher tolerances than a VF-1. IT's heavy and durable, and can very likely support masses that would crush a VF-1 like a pancake.

BTW, there ARE NO horsepower stats for a VF-1.

And a naked destroid tends to pack far heavier weapons and armor than a naked Valkyrie. That's important.

That's absurd. A Destroid without ammos can do nothing more than a "naked" Valkyrie could. A Valkyrie can carry up to two times its weight in armaments. A Valkyrie can hold more micro-missiles than a Tomahawk or a Spartan, and it can deliver them in the heat of the fight.

Internal weapons on a Spartan(not the most heavily-armed, but perhaps the closest in nature to a Valk): 24 missiles, a "laser gun", a 32mm machine gun, a 180mm grenade launcher, a 12.7 mm machine gun, a flamethrower, 2 anti-aircraft lasers.

Internal weapons on a Valkyrie: 1, 2, or 4 anti-aircraft lasers, depending on head type.

But hey, I'm in a generous mood, I'll give them the standard issue external gunpod. So that adds a 55mm gattling gun.

I might even give them the 12 AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles that seem to be the standard loadout in the TV series, though I consider this clothing the Valk.

I repeat: A naked destroid is far more heavily armed than a naked Valk.

You will never see a Valk firing a 30 centimeter railgun because the recoil would rip it apart.

You won't ever see it because the barrel would be several meters longer than the Valkyrie, and it would look ludicrous.

Didn't stop anyone from building the monster.

By the same token, you will never see a Monster leaping into the middle of a pack of enemies and inflicting pain and suffering on them, because it just can't leap. Well, it might could, but it would almost certainly be seriously damaged on landing. And once it was there, it would be little more than a slow-moving target.

It's sole reason for being is to tote those railguns around. It is a long-range artillery piece. Agility is not needed.

I can agree the Monster could be properly called a behemoth. The other destroids are over-rated, though

See above.

The Spartan is explicitly designed for melee combat. Agility is needed, and it delivers.

As far as agility goes, Spartan's is still cheap. That's why the VF-1 was reported to cost 20 times more than a Destroid.

Yeah. And I'll bet 99% of that went into the transformation mechanisms.

Destroids are cheaper largely because they don't transform.

The Valk is a jack of all trades. It's fast and nimble enough for melee combat, but lacks enough mass to do a whole lot of damage.

Its 5 times greater strength compensate this.

Agan, document said claim.

And strength only gets you so far. If you can't hold up strucutrally while applying this strength, it's useless.

Remember the pinpoint barrier punch in Macross Plus? That isn't just for show. A VF's hands are not meant to be punching other mecha, and serious damage would result, especially with the "rocket punch" effect they were using.

The Spartan's hands, by contrast, are big, ugly, and very heavily-built. Perfect for close combat.

The feet are even worse. A VF-1's feet double as it's engine exhausts. If a pilot runs around kicking things, he will very soon find himself in a vehicle incapable of returning to fighter or GERWALK modes.

A valk is built far more lightly than destroids. This is painfully evident from the plane-first design. They're very thin-skinned, while most destroids are built like, well, tanks.

A valk with a GBP-1 has roughly similar armor to a Spartan in several places, I would bet, based on appearance. But it still has weak girly-man hands and feet, as well as the upper arms.

[azrael]

Didn't stop anyone from building the monster.

Correction: König Monster

Monster = Destroid.

[JB0]

Didn't stop anyone from building the monster.

Correction: König Monster

Monster = Destroid.

I was still thinking of the original, which DOES still have guns that are signifigantly longer than it's body.

I intensely dislike the König and wish it would go away.

[Final Vegeta]

Document this claim.

http://www.anime.net/macross/mecha/united_.../vf1/index.html

DESIGN FEATURES: four times the mobility of the Destroid Spartan

It's actually "mobility" more than "agility". It makes more sense.

I can't find anymore the reference about the agility of the Tomahawk. Maybe it was changed and become unofficial. The Compendium has erased all records of the SV-52, too.

That means they are sitting ducks.

Yeah, well they were never intended to be deployed alone. They're always gonna have support when used properly.

Which means that if enemy is faster than supports it would easily crush them. I think that's how low tech armies win battles today.

What also affects things is efficiency of the mechanisms.

I can guarantee that a Valkyrie has very inefficient systems.

What mechanisms? Fluid pulse actuators inefficient?

http://www.ecu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/new/kick.htm

And structural strength. A spartan is built to vastly higher tolerances than a VF-1. IT's heavy and durable, and can very likely support masses that would crush a VF-1 like a pancake.

You forget energy converting armor, which triples VF-1's armor up to the tip of fingers.

If you add too much mass on the Spartan it wouldn't move anymore, simply because it doesn't have the power.

Just a note: Standard T/O mass is 18500 kg. Maximum T/O mass without FAST Packs is 37000 kg. Of this, the gunpod and fuel for vernier thrusters should be what compose standard mass. That means that wings could support 10 tons (of missiles) each, which are not peanuts (or whatever word English people use to mean "a light weight").

Also, even swinging the gunpod around shouldn't be that easy, since it should weight at least more than a ton with full ammo.

BTW, there ARE NO horsepower stats for a VF-1.

Pferde Staerken (PS) means "horse power" in German (measures differ though, like meters and feet). Even watts could express horse power.

Internal weapons on a Spartan(not the most heavily-armed, but perhaps the closest in nature to a Valk): 24 missiles, a "laser gun", a 32mm machine gun, a 180mm grenade launcher, a 12.7 mm machine gun, a flamethrower, 2 anti-aircraft lasers.

Internal weapons on a Valkyrie: 1, 2, or 4 anti-aircraft lasers, depending on head type.

But hey, I'm in a generous mood, I'll give them the standard issue external gunpod. So that adds a 55mm gattling gun.

I might even give them the 12 AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles that seem to be the standard loadout in the TV series, though I consider this clothing the Valk.

And I would consider foolish send my men without weapons, just to see what they could do.

I repeat: A naked destroid is far more heavily armed than a naked Valk.

Correction: robots can't be properly "naked". You could say an armed Destroid is more heavily armed than an unarmed Valkyrie. Can you see what would be the point of it?

The VF-1 has the option of versatility in armament, because of FAST Packs and GBP-1S. The VF-1 can have the weapons most needed at the time. Destroids don't have versatility.

You won't ever see it because the barrel would be several meters longer than the Valkyrie, and it would look ludicrous.

Didn't stop anyone from building the monster.

It did stop people from building a monster with 178 cm railguns, like the ones SDF-1 has, "just because someone else has it".

I can agree the Monster could be properly called a behemoth. The other destroids are over-rated, though

Now, don't get me wrong on this: the Monster deserved to be called behemoth for its sheer size, but it is clearly not made for close combat, and the fire rate and turning speed negate any hope against fast moving targets, therefore a Monster wouldn't be useful to fight battle pods.

Actually, I recall seeing a Regult destroying a Monster.

Destroids are cheaper largely because they don't transform.

Destroids are cheaper for several reasons, one of that is that the engines are underpowered. Actually, maybe the armor of the VF-1 costs more than that of a Destroid. It could be wrong assume they are made of the same alloys.

And if you give your best pilots to your best mecha, you can give your best equipments to your best mecha. Just the fact that it cost you that much make it the best mecha.

Well, of course the Monster would be the most expensive, but they are only 3 and they are mostly anti-ship, they are not you army.

Its 5 times greater strength compensate this.

Agan, document said claim.

17,680 PS translates into about 13 MW (or about 17,438 HP/BHP/SHP).

And strength only gets you so far. If you can't hold up strucutrally while applying this strength, it's useless.

Valkyries have been proven they can.

A VF's hands are not meant to be punching other mecha, and serious damage would result, especially with the "rocket punch" effect they were using.

Animation proves you wrong.

http://home.primus.ca/~trevor.worthy/macross/mac11.jpg

Also, the PPB is not simply a shield. It hurts. I think it is made of superdimensional energy confined in a super magnetic field.

The Spartan's hands, by contrast, are big, ugly, and very heavily-built. Perfect for close combat.

The feet are even worse. A VF-1's feet double as it's engine exhausts. If a pilot runs around kicking things, he will very soon find himself in a vehicle incapable of returning to fighter or GERWALK modes.

Animations says mecha kick with shins, not with feet (there are several examples of this), but you forget throws like in judo. Punching and kicking is not all. Do you remember Nousjadel-Ger throwing destroids in episode 31 (Satan Doll)?

A valk is built far more lightly than destroids. This is painfully evident from the plane-first design. They're very thin-skinned, while most destroids are built like, well, tanks.

Correction: a Valkyrie in Battroid has the same armor of a tank, due to energy converting armor. It is perfectly comparable to a Destroid.

A valk with a GBP-1 has roughly similar armor to a Spartan in several places, I would bet, based on appearance.

I would bet a VF-1 with GBP-1S has more armor than a Spartan.

FV

Edited July 27, 2004 by Final Vegeta

[JB0]

Document this claim.

http://www.anime.net/macross/mecha/united_.../vf1/index.html

DESIGN FEATURES: four times the mobility of the Destroid Spartan

It's actually "mobility" more than "agility". It makes more sense.

I can't find anymore the reference about the agility of the Tomahawk. Maybe it was changed and become unofficial. The Compendium has erased all records of the SV-52, too.

Mobility and agility aren't synonomous.

That could just mean it can be deployed faster owing to it's fighter mode.

That means they are sitting ducks.

Yeah, well they were never intended to be deployed alone. They're always gonna have support when used properly.

Which means that if enemy is faster than supports it would easily crush them. I think that's how low tech armies win battles today.

And if they can overrun the pack of spartans, tomhawks, phalanxes, conventional vehicles and good ol-fashioned infantry around that Monster, they EARNED the kill.

What also affects things is efficiency of the mechanisms.

I can guarantee that a Valkyrie has very inefficient systems.

What mechanisms? Fluid pulse actuators inefficient?

http://www.ecu.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/new/kick.htm

I don't see what that link has to do with anything.

What I'm saying is that a Valkyrie's systems aren't optimised because the transformation system adds a lot of loss into the equation. There's tons of couplings, gears, pistons, etc. that don't need to be there in any given mode.

The Valk hardware is jack of all trades, master of none.

And structural strength. A spartan is built to vastly higher tolerances than a VF-1. IT's heavy and durable, and can very likely support masses that would crush a VF-1 like a pancake.

You forget energy converting armor, which triples VF-1's armor up to the tip of fingers.

Not spec'ed on VF-1. If we assume the VF-1 has it, we can assume destroids have it.

FURTHERMORE, energy shields won't do jack squat for joint strength. It STILL has to be able to support whatever forces it's exerting. Which means joints will still fail, gears will still strip, lines will still burst, etc. when it exceeds the design limits of it's internal structure. Energy shields are only good for actual armor.

Even something like Mac+'s pinpoint barrier punch. The barrier floats out ahead of the hand, which protects it from shock. The force of the punch is still transferred somewhere according to the 3rd law of motion. It's just going to the shield disk, which absorbs the shock before the hand ever hits anything. But as far as I know, a pin-point barrier is only good for momentary force, not continuous.

And really, force should probably be exerted back to the barrier generator, which is responsible for the creation and location of the barrier disk.

If you add too much mass on the Spartan it wouldn't move anymore, simply because it doesn't have the power.

As I stated, if we assume the VF-1 has energy armor, we assume the destroids have it.

Just a note: Standard T/O mass is 18500 kg. Maximum T/O mass without FAST Packs is 37000 kg. Of this, the gunpod and fuel for vernier thrusters should be what compose standard mass. That means that wings could support 10 tons (of missiles) each, which are not peanuts (or whatever word English people use to mean "a light weight").

I pulled my missile loadouts from Macross Compendium. I guessed at standard loadout based on what I saw planes carrying most often in SDF Macross(which was NEVER micromissile pods).

Also, even swinging the gunpod around shouldn't be that easy, since it should weight at least more than a ton with full ammo.

So? The spartan was BUILT to do such tasks. Close combat is EXPLICITLY STATED in the mech description. Its hands are cited as armament, for Pete's sake!

A valk can carry a gun. Big deal. The spartan's got one too, it's just internal. So it's clearly capable of lugging the mass around.

BTW, there ARE NO horsepower stats for a VF-1.

Pferde Staerken (PS) means "horse power" in German (measures differ though, like meters and feet). Even watts could express horse power.

So that's what that means.

Okay...

I still maintain that most of that is eaten up in all the additional couplings needed for the transformation mechanism, as well as the jet propulsion.

Internal weapons on a Spartan(not the most heavily-armed, but perhaps the closest in nature to a Valk): 24 missiles, a "laser gun", a 32mm machine gun, a 180mm grenade launcher, a 12.7 mm machine gun, a flamethrower, 2 anti-aircraft lasers.

Internal weapons on a Valkyrie: 1, 2, or 4 anti-aircraft lasers, depending on head type.

But hey, I'm in a generous mood, I'll give them the standard issue external gunpod. So that adds a 55mm gattling gun.

I might even give them the 12 AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles that seem to be the standard loadout in the TV series, though I consider this clothing the Valk.

And I would consider foolish send my men without weapons, just to see what they could do.

What you say is irrelevant. My original statement was a naked Valk was less well-armed than a naked destroid. Which is still true.

But EVEN WITH A COMPLETE STANDARD LOADOUT the VF-1 is less well-armed than most destroids.

I repeat: A naked destroid is far more heavily armed than a naked Valk.

Correction: robots can't be properly "naked". You could say an armed Destroid is more heavily armed than an unarmed Valkyrie. Can you see what would be the point of it?

I thoguht "naked" would be understood to mean "without external attachments".

Or it could just mean "without optional packages that are not standard equipment".

The VF-1 has the option of versatility in armament, because of FAST Packs and GBP-1S. The VF-1 can have the weapons most needed at the time. Destroids don't have versatility.

FAST packs and GBPs are the only way to get a VF-1 armed equal to or better than a destroid. The GBP is, as near as I can tell, the only way to get it equivalent armor.

A Valk with the GBP package is essentially a Spartan with less guns and more missiles.

May I ask what versatility is lost by having weapons built-in instead of by requiring optional, non-standard expansion packages to add them?

You won't ever see it because the barrel would be several meters longer than the Valkyrie, and it would look ludicrous.

Didn't stop anyone from building the monster.

It did stop people from building a monster with 178 cm railguns, like the ones SDF-1 has, "just because someone else has it".

The monster's guns are still signifigantly longer than it's body, which you stated as the reason a VF-1 would never carry a Monster's railgun.

The Monster is essentially a giant shock absorber for the guns. A lightweight vehcile like the Valk would be slung around like a rag doll from recoil.

The monster is a full 20 times more massive, and I'd bet the crew STILL feels the kick.

Your mass limits what you can field, due to the 3rd law of motion.

If you can't absorb the recoil, you can't shoot the gun.

I can agree the Monster could be properly called a behemoth. The other destroids are over-rated, though

Now, don't get me wrong on this: the Monster deserved to be called behemoth for its sheer size, but it is clearly not made for close combat, and the fire rate and turning speed negate any hope against fast moving targets, therefore a Monster wouldn't be useful to fight battle pods.

Actually, I recall seeing a Regult destroying a Monster.

What's your point?

I've already said the Monster is an artillery piece, not a close-combat mech.

You're just restating what I already stated.

And I recall seing Regults destroy a LOT of Valks.

Destroids are cheaper largely because they don't transform.

Destroids are cheaper for several reasons, one of that is that the engines are underpowered. Actually, maybe the armor of the VF-1 costs more than that of a Destroid. It could be wrong assume they are made of the same alloys.

No one in their right mind would build a battle tank and a jet plane out of the same alloys. Planes, which is clearly what the VF-1 is first and foremost, are made of light materials. Not really armor at all, just a skin to keep everything inside and keep the plane aerodynamic..

Tanks, which is more like the role destroids fill, are built with much heavier, but much stronger, armor.

And Destroid engines aren't underpowered. They have no need to go through elaborate transformation mechanisms, so they don't HAVE to be as powerful.

And if you give your best pilots to your best mecha, you can give your best equipments to your best mecha. Just the fact that it cost you that much make it the best mecha.

Hmm?

You give pilots the mech they trained with.

If someone was trained for heavy artillery work, they drive a Monster. If they were trained for high-speed dogfights in transformable vehicles, they get Valks. If they were trained for close-in ground combat, they get a Spartan.

And best is a situation-specific term. If you need the big guns, your best mech is a Monster. If you need supersonic speed, it's a Valkyrie.

You don't drive an Abrams into a situation where you need a Jeep any more than you fly a Raptor into a situation where you need an Abrams.

Well, of course the Monster would be the most expensive, but they are only 3 and they are mostly anti-ship, they are not you army.

The monster is NOT an anti-ship mech!

Its 5 times greater strength compensate this.

Agan, document said claim.

17,680 PS translates into about 13 MW (or about 17,438 HP/BHP/SHP).

Which DOESN'T directly translate to strength.

And strength only gets you so far. If you can't hold up strucutrally while applying this strength, it's useless.

Valkyries have been proven they can.

Only real melee action I ever saw was when they were on Britai's ship. And he beat Hikaru senseless.

It's never been shown that a Valk can adequately hold it's own in melee combat.

A VF's hands are not meant to be punching other mecha, and serious damage would result, especially with the "rocket punch" effect they were using.

Animation proves you wrong.

http://home.primus.ca/~trevor.worthy/macross/mac11.jpg

Also, the PPB is not simply a shield. It hurts. I think it is made of superdimensional energy confined in a super magnetic field.

Which means what exactly? That's just a bunch of gibberish.

It's an energy shield.

And that punch, assuming he landed it with the fist, did a LOT of damage to the hand mechanism.

And you will note that it failed to pierce said Regult's armor. As near as I can tell, that's still a fully functional mech.

The Spartan's hands, by contrast, are big, ugly, and very heavily-built. Perfect for close combat.

The feet are even worse. A VF-1's feet double as it's engine exhausts. If a pilot runs around kicking things, he will very soon find himself in a vehicle incapable of returning to fighter or GERWALK modes.

Animations says mecha kick with shins, not with feet (there are several examples of this),

Thereby losing a fair bit of leverage.

but you forget throws like in judo. Punching and kicking is not all. Do you remember Nousjadel-Ger throwing destroids in episode 31 (Satan Doll)?

Throws are more defensive in my book.

And what does a NosGer have to do with ANYTHING?

Oh, wait, let me guess... it proves destroids are underpowered because they don't stay magically glued to the ground!

A valk is built far more lightly than destroids. This is painfully evident from the plane-first design. They're very thin-skinned, while most destroids are built like, well, tanks.

Correction: a Valkyrie in Battroid has the same armor of a tank, due to energy converting armor. It is perfectly comparable to a Destroid.

Again, a VF-1 is not spec'ed as having energy armor, and if we start putting energy armor on it, we may as well put it on destroids too.

A valk with a GBP-1 has roughly similar armor to a Spartan in several places, I would bet, based on appearance.

I would bet a VF-1 with GBP-1S has more armor than a Spartan.

I would bet you're insane.

Particularly with the propulsion pack in the back, the missile compartment in the chest, and the naked upper arms.

...

Okay, why aren't these quote tags working right?

Edited July 27, 2004 by JB0

[azrael]

Okay, why aren't these quote tags  working right?

Cuz someone forgot to close a tag...Use "Preview post " if you're gonna make a long reply.

edit:

The Compendium has erased all records of the SV-52, too.

Actually, it appears that the SV-52 became the SV-51γ.

http://www.anime.net/macross/mecha/anti_un...sv51/index.html

How about you guys just use bold-face to quote. I feel like I'm debugging code here....

Edited July 27, 2004 by azrael

[JB0]

Okay, why aren't these quote tags  working right?

Cuz someone forgot to close a tag...Use "Preview post " if you're gonna make a long reply.

But, but...

I already ran through it. The tags all match.

[motley]

too many tags and the software overloads and drops them all.

[JB0]

too many tags and the software overloads and drops them all.

Figures.

Ah well, at least it doesn't just totally crash any time there's mroe than one set of quote tags...

[azrael]

too many tags and the software overloads and drops them all.

Figures.

Ah well, at least it doesn't just totally crash any time there's mroe than one set of quote tags...

Nope. Someone didn't close a tag.

Look for this line:

A valk is built far more lightly than destroids. This is painfully evident from the plane-first design. They're very thin-skinned, while most destroids are built like, well, tanks.

Fix what is in red.

Edited July 27, 2004 by azrael

[JB0]

too many tags and the software overloads and drops them all.

Figures.

Ah well, at least it doesn't just totally crash any time there's mroe than one set of quote tags...

Nope. Someone didn't close a tag.

Look for this line:

A valk is built far more lightly than destroids. This is painfully evident from the plane-first design. They're very thin-skinned, while most destroids are built like, well, tanks.

Fix what is in red.

Thanks.

I DID go over it several times. Missed that little slash.

[Final Vegeta]

Mobility and agility aren't synonomous. 

That could just mean it can be deployed faster owing to it's fighter mode.

Since it can travel at least two machs faster than the Spartan, I can't see why it's only four times, and why it should be meant deploying.

And if they can overrun the pack of spartans, tomhawks, phalanxes, conventional vehicles and good ol-fashioned infantry around that Monster, they EARNED the kill.

A mob of mecha is one of the easiest things to hit from distance, and when a mecha blows it shrapnels nearest things. That's why mecha can't be concentrated in a single point. Besides, usually they must guard several objectives at the same time. When you blow the weakest point you can advance between enemy lines which now must care from friendly fire. Now the Monster can't shoot anymore.

Well, obviously one must choose also a retreat path.

In space EMC can nullifies radar, as shown in episodes 8 and 19, therefore Monster long range guns would become almost useless.

What I'm saying is that a Valkyrie's systems aren't optimised because the transformation system adds a lot of loss into the equation. There's tons of couplings, gears, pistons, etc. that don't need to be there in any given mode.

No pistons or gears. Fluid pulse actuators, they work with magnetic fields influencing fluids.

The Valk hardware is jack of all trades, master of none.

Actually, it is master of speed among mecha. Documented. Also, it has the most powerful engines, saved the Monster.

You forget energy converting armor, which triples VF-1's armor up to the tip of fingers.

Not spec'ed on VF-1. If we assume the VF-1 has it, we can assume destroids have it.

Maybe not. I think that's why destroids are cheaper. They were already sturdy enough. Besides, they wouldn't have enough power for it.

http://www.anime.net/macross/feedback/index.html

Macross co-creator and mecha designer Shoji Kawamori said that variable fighters in general employ surplus energy to strengthen armor in Battroid mode. The designation SW-AG was specified for Macross Zero's VF-0, although Mr. Kawamori publicly described the general technology of energy converting armor before Macross Zero and actually conceived it longer before.

FURTHERMORE, energy shields won't do jack squat for joint strength. It STILL has to be able to support whatever forces it's exerting. Which means joints will still fail, gears will still strip, lines will still burst, etc. when it exceeds the design limits of it's internal structure. Energy shields are only good for actual armor.

These are not energy shields, otherwise you would have seen them. They are internal. I believe they exploit the same energy which runs through the joints.

How energy converting armor works is still not known here, I think maybe it uses magnetic fields.

Even something like Mac+'s pinpoint barrier punch. The barrier floats out ahead of the hand, which protects it from shock. The force of the punch is still transferred somewhere according to the 3rd law of motion. It's just going to the shield disk, which absorbs the shock before the hand ever hits anything. But as far as I know, a pin-point barrier is only good for momentary force, not continuous.

After seeing those scene I still think the PPB has punch on its own. Mecha hit with PPB seemed to fly farther than with a normal punch.

And really, force should probably be exerted back to the barrier generator, which is responsible for the creation and location of the barrier disk.

Therefore there wouldn't be any load on the arm.

As I stated, if we assume the VF-1 has energy armor, we assume the destroids have it.

Since Destroids have 5 times less power, if they had energy converting amor it would be 5 times less powerful than that installed on VFs.

I pulled my missile loadouts from Macross Compendium.  I guessed at standard loadout based on what I saw planes carrying most often in SDF Macross(which was NEVER micromissile pods).

The actual design style on sequels and prequels is taken from DYRL?. Micromissile pods are official.

I specify I don't know accurate informations on what does constitute standard mass. I made a guess.

Also, even swinging the gunpod around shouldn't be that easy, since it should weight at least more than a ton with full ammo.

So? The spartan was BUILT to do such tasks. Close combat is EXPLICITLY STATED in the mech description. Its hands are cited as armament, for Pete's sake!

A valk can carry a gun. Big deal. The spartan's got one too, it's just internal. So it's clearly capable of lugging the mass around.

It's the same difference between carrying a big weight on your back or in your hand. Your arm will get tired faster than your back.

Also the Spartan need to turn its torso to aim the gun, and that makes it a slower movement. The Valkyrie can use its gun to shot down approaching missiles, and that requires speed and dexterity. A Spartan couldn't use a gunpod with the same effectiveness.

While the Spartan was built with close combat in mind, no-one built it to really carry external weapons, although it could do it.

I still maintain that most of that is eaten up in all the additional couplings needed for the transformation mechanism, as well as the jet propulsion.

Jet propulsion and transformation only require power while they are used, not after. The generation of energy is constant, it's a thermonuclear reactor after all (and it employs anti-matter!).

What you say is irrelevant. My original statement was a naked Valk was less well-armed than a naked destroid. Which is still true.

But EVEN WITH A COMPLETE STANDARD LOADOUT the VF-1 is less well-armed than most  destroids.

Those missiles in Spartan's and Tomahawk's shoulders seem short range micro-missiles. The AMMs should have more range and destructive power because they are bigger. The Spartan also doesn't seem to have anything really comparable to a GU-11. The grenade launcher seems the only anti-mecha useful weapon of the pack, but its actual rate of fire and ammunitions is not stated, even if I think they are inferior to a machine gun like a gunpod.

Also, a really complete loadout on a VF-1 includes GBP-1S with 80 between micro-missiles and grenades, or super FAST Packs with 46 micro-missiles plus wing hard point options (it could be another 60 micro-missiles). Reaction weapons standaside.

I thoguht "naked" would be understood to mean "without external attachments".

Or it could just mean "without optional packages that are not standard equipment".

I think they are actually called "standard", somewhere. Maybe not under the word "equipment" but still standard.

Anyway, you are making it sounds like that Spartan was born with those missiles build-in. It even dies with those missiles, it never fires them.

FAST packs and GBPs are the only way to get a VF-1 armed equal to or better than a destroid. The GBP is, as near as I can tell, the only way to get it equivalent armor.

A Valk with the GBP package is essentially a Spartan with less guns and more missiles.

If you think 80/100 micro-missiles against 24 micro-missiles are nearly equal or only slightly better we have a problem.

May I ask what versatility is lost by having weapons built-in instead of by requiring optional, non-standard expansion packages to add them?

They may be considered expansion, but they are standard. That's why each Valkyrie type is shown with its own gunpod.

Anyway, let's say you need long-range missiles. They won't fit into Spartan's shoulders, while VFs' hard points can hold them. This is versatility.

The monster's guns are still signifigantly longer than it's body, which you stated as the reason a VF-1 would never carry a Monster's railgun.

Monster has liquid-cooled cannons, VB-6 has railguns.

I was half-joking, but this is pointless. The Valkyrie doesn't have the weapon of a bigger mecha (Monster) for the same reason the Monster doesn't have the weapon of a mecha bigger than the Monster (bigger mecha being the SDF-1). Yes, the recoil and all. But giant guns aren't everything, and they specialize a mecha thus giving it a weakness.

What's your point?

I've already said the Monster is an artillery piece, not a close-combat mech.

You're just restating what I already stated.

Well, originally the question started because one was talking about behemoths fighting battle pods. I laughed at that.

And I recall seing Regults destroy a LOT of Valks.

Since Valkyries are the main mecha, the one that is seen most of the time, it shouldn't be weird. According to screen time Destroids were worse, though.

Destroids are cheaper for several reasons, one of that is that the engines are underpowered. Actually, maybe the armor of the VF-1 costs more than that of a Destroid. It could be wrong assume they are made of the same alloys.

No one in their right mind would build a battle tank and a jet plane out of the same alloys. Planes, which is clearly what the VF-1 is first and foremost, are made of light materials. Not really armor at all, just a skin to keep everything inside and keep the plane aerodynamic..

And then you do a fast turn and you start thinking you need a stiffer plane. The Blackbird couldn't be so fast if it weren't made entirely of titanium.

Tanks, which is more like the role destroids fill, are built with much heavier, but much stronger, armor.

Tanks are allowed to carry more armor than planes, but mostly they are made of cheeper steel. They simply have thicker armor.

Low atomic elements like titanium, lithium and wolframium are known to be light but tough. Heavier elements are softer.

And Destroid engines aren't underpowered. They have no need to go through elaborate transformation mechanisms, so they don't HAVE to be as powerful.

Your transformation nonsense. A valkyrie needs more powerful engines because it has to fly, but the engines remain powerful even during ground combat.

The monster is NOT an anti-ship mech!

While on Mars it was deployed for ground combat but in all the series I don't recall it hitting a Regult ever. Besides, what else could it do in space? Aircrafts are too fast for him.

17,680 PS translates into about 13 MW (or about 17,438 HP/BHP/SHP).

Which DOESN'T directly translate to strength.

Horse power is measured on how much weight someone can lift up a meter in a second.

Tell me what else strength could be.

Only real melee action I ever saw was when they were on Britai's ship. And he beat Hikaru senseless.

It's never been shown that a Valk can adequately hold it's own in melee combat.

While Hikaru was defeated, the VF-1 itself showed it was able to easily throw Britai, which by the way is not the average Zentradi (he survived an explosion and open space).

There are also some scenes with Max in those episodes.

Also, the PPB is not simply a shield. It hurts. I think it is made of superdimensional energy confined in a super magnetic field.

Which means what exactly? That's just a bunch of gibberish.

It's an energy shield.

Which energy? Charged particles or atomic interations?

I have learned magnetism, gravity and inertia are the same force. I still have the feeling PPB repels thing that can be repelled, and trash the others.

And that punch, assuming he landed it with the fist, did a LOT of damage to the hand mechanism. 

And you will note that it failed to pierce said Regult's armor. As near as I can tell, that's still a fully functional mech.

True, but in SDF Macross a Spartan punched a Nousjadel-Ger, and then the Nousjadel-Ger got up undamaged and shot the Spartan.

Anyway, even the Spartan is supposed to be damaged if it punches anything. Look at how thin the arm is between shoulder and elbow. That point would be stressed.

Animations says mecha kick with shins, not with feet (there are several examples of this),

Thereby losing a fair bit of leverage.

If you are a mecha it doesnt' matter. Besides, I think it is not proven a Spartan can kick

but you forget throws like in judo. Punching and kicking is not all. Do you remember Nousjadel-Ger throwing destroids in episode 31 (Satan Doll)?

Throws are more defensive in my book.

And what does a NosGer have to do with ANYTHING?

Oh, wait, let me guess... it proves destroids are underpowered because they don't stay magically glued to the ground!

The Nousjadel Ger has an engine more powerful than that of a Spartan. Actually, I think it's more powerful even than the one of a VF, even if actual power output is not stated (2.4 GGV = 2.4 GW class). The easiness of smashing the Spartan showed by the Nousjadel-Ger was awesome.

And throwing a mecha against a wall can also stun the pilot.

Again, a VF-1 is not spec'ed as having energy armor, and if we start putting energy armor on it, we may as well put it on destroids too.

Kawamori didn't mention Destroids.

I would bet a VF-1 with GBP-1S has more armor than a Spartan.

I would bet you're insane.

Particularly with the propulsion pack in the back, the missile compartment in the chest, and the naked upper arms.

Three points where the Spartan surely is no better, everything else is added armor to a humanoid tank.

Okay, why aren't these quote tags  working right?

A mistery which has been solved. Thanks to Azrael.

FV

Edited July 27, 2004 by Final Vegeta

[Final Vegeta]

Cuz someone forgot to close a tag...Use "Preview post " if you're gonna make a long reply.

Err... sorry ^^;;;

The Compendium has erased all records of the SV-52, too.

Actually, it appears that the SV-52 became the SV-51γ.

Nope, the SV-52 was supposed to have thermonuclear engines, and I think originally it should have been a new design (whose 3D modelling would have taken too much time). SV-51γ is only a squadron leader version.

How about you guys just use bold-face to quote. I feel like I'm debugging code here....

Thanks again for your hint.

FV

[JB0]

And if they can overrun the pack of spartans, tomhawks, phalanxes, conventional vehicles and good ol-fashioned infantry around that Monster, they EARNED the kill.

A mob of mecha is one of the easiest things to hit from distance, and when a mecha blows it shrapnels nearest things. That's why mecha can't be concentrated in a single point. Besides, usually they must guard several objectives at the same time. When you blow the weakest point you can advance between enemy lines which now must care from friendly fire. Now the Monster can't shoot anymore.

My only response to this is that you have no concept of tactics at all.

No military int eh world would deploy one unit, and have everything standing alone by itself.

It's what's known as "really stupid."

In space EMC can nullifies radar, as shown in episodes 8 and 19, therefore Monster long range guns would become almost useless.

Radar is hardly the only sensor package available.

Visible light and infrared are 2 really good ones.

And what you say applies to ANY mech.

Valkyries use targettings ensors as much as everyone else.

What I'm saying is that a Valkyrie's systems aren't optimised because the transformation system adds a lot of loss into the equation. There's tons of couplings, gears, pistons, etc. that don't need to be there in any given mode.

No pistons or gears. Fluid pulse actuators, they work with magnetic fields influencing fluids.

It doesn't really matter what the drive system is.

And that's only spec'ed as the actual transformation mechanism driver.

You're totally ignoring the point.

The Valk hardware is jack of all trades, master of none.

Actually, it is master of speed among mecha. Documented. Also, it has the most powerful engines, saved the Monster.

Fine. It's fast.

As I've stated, the engine power is not directly relevant, since the variable design incorporates losses at several points, as well as overly complex actuators for the systems.

You forget energy converting armor, which triples VF-1's armor up to the tip of fingers.

Not spec'ed on VF-1. If we assume the VF-1 has it, we can assume destroids have it.

Maybe not. I think that's why destroids are cheaper. They were already sturdy enough. Besides, they wouldn't have enough power for it.

Not proven, or even implied.

This is little more than rampant speculation to shore up a shoddy argument.

http://www.anime.net/macross/feedback/index.html

Macross co-creator and mecha designer Shoji Kawamori said that variable fighters in general employ surplus energy to strengthen armor in Battroid mode. The designation SW-AG was specified for Macross Zero's VF-0, although Mr. Kawamori publicly described the general technology of energy converting armor before Macross Zero and actually conceived it longer before.

In general does not mean always.

And note that it does not say "but not destroids".

ALSO NOTE that if a VF-0, running on JET ENGINES, has surplus power, than you can be damn sure that a destroid, with its fusion generators, has surplus power.

FURTHERMORE, energy shields won't do jack squat for joint strength. It STILL has to be able to support whatever forces it's exerting. Which means joints will still fail, gears will still strip, lines will still burst, etc. when it exceeds the design limits of it's internal structure. Energy shields are only good for actual armor.

These are not energy shields, otherwise you would have seen them. They are internal. I believe they exploit the same energy which runs through the joints.

Not all energy emits gobs of visible light.

And if it was internal, it wouldn't be very useful, as it couldn't protect the exterior. Which is a vital part of a vehicle.

I have the impression that it's a "force field" projected immediatly on top of the external surfaces of the vehicle.

How energy converting armor works is still not known here, I think maybe it uses magnetic fields.

Magnetic fields? I'd love to hear how that works.

*rolls eyes*

Even something like Mac+'s pinpoint barrier punch. The barrier floats out ahead of the hand, which protects it from shock. The force of the punch is still transferred somewhere according to the 3rd law of motion. It's just going to the shield disk, which absorbs the shock before the hand ever hits anything. But as far as I know, a pin-point barrier is only good for momentary force, not continuous.

After seeing those scene I still think the PPB has punch on its own. Mecha hit with PPB seemed to fly farther than with a normal punch.

That was due to the use of propulsion systems. Essentially the diffrence between a straight punch and a running tackle.

And really, force should probably be exerted back to the barrier generator, which is responsible for the creation and location of the barrier disk.

Therefore there wouldn't be any load on the arm.

I said that.

In fact, I believe I stated that the REASON for the pinpoint barrier punch was to avoid damage to the hand.

As I stated, if we assume the VF-1 has energy armor, we assume the destroids have it.

Since Destroids have 5 times less power, if they had energy converting amor it would be 5 times less powerful than that installed on VFs.

Except that a Valk is several times less efficent than a destroid.

I pulled my missile loadouts from Macross Compendium.  I guessed at standard loadout based on what I saw planes carrying most often in SDF Macross(which was NEVER micromissile pods).

The actual design style on sequels and prequels is taken from DYRL?. Micromissile pods are official.

I acknowledge that they exist.

I just don't see them as the standard loadout.

Also, even swinging the gunpod around shouldn't be that easy, since it should weight at least more than a ton with full ammo.

So? The spartan was BUILT to do such tasks. Close combat is EXPLICITLY STATED in the mech description. Its hands are cited as armament, for Pete's sake!

A valk can carry a gun. Big deal. The spartan's got one too, it's just internal. So it's clearly capable of lugging the mass around.

It's the same difference between carrying a big weight on your back or in your hand. Your arm will get tired faster than your back.

Tired is not a cocnept that applies to machines.

IF it can lift it once, it can lift it over and over untill it runs out of gas.

Also the Spartan need to turn its torso to aim the gun, and that makes it  a slower movement. The Valkyrie can use its gun to shot down approaching missiles, and that requires speed and dexterity. A Spartan couldn't use a gunpod with the same effectiveness.

Perhaps not. I have doubts that the Spartan's larger hands can fit a VF-1's gunpod.

If it could, or has it's own dedicated gun, I imagine it could make a go at it.

Though its design goals probably don't leave it with the proper sensor/input packages for shooting down missiles. You'd probably want a mecha-scale shotgun to do it with a Spartan.

While the Spartan was built with close combat in mind, no-one built it to really carry external weapons, although it could do it.

True.

Flexiblity combined with firepower is the Tomahawk's gig. It has arm-mounted firearm assemblies as I recall, and as far as agility goes, it's considered good enough for policing full-size zentradi in an urban setting(strikes me as overkill, but whatever...). That requires a fair degree of dexterity.

I still maintain that most of that is eaten up in all the additional couplings needed for the transformation mechanism, as well as the jet propulsion.

Jet propulsion and transformation only require power while they are used, not after. The generation of energy is constant, it's a thermonuclear reactor after all (and it employs anti-matter!).

Thermonuclear = fusion.

You can't have fusion with antimatter.

Now then...

While it is true that those systems only actively draw power while in use, that's only half the story.

The transformation mechanism requires serious structural changes in the rest of the system. Many of these changes will serve no purpose but to reduce the effeciency of the system.

The jet propulsion system a heat exchanger to draw heat out of the thermonuclear reactor and transfer it to combustion chambers.. This doesn't just go away when the engines are shut down. You have to keep cooling the heat exchanger, or risk it being damaged. So you're constantly pulling heat out of hte reactor, and that heat will go to waste.if the engines aren't in use.

On the up side, since the fusion reactors are in the legs along with the (primary) combustion chambers, you don't have a lot of fancy couplings and long pipe runs to reduce your heat exchanger's effeciency. So you aren't pulling out much more than the engines need.

What you say is irrelevant. My original statement was a naked Valk was less well-armed than a naked destroid. Which is still true.

But EVEN WITH A COMPLETE STANDARD LOADOUT the VF-1 is less well-armed than most  destroids.

Those missiles in Spartan's and Tomahawk's shoulders seem short range micro-missiles. The AMMs should have more range and destructive power because they are bigger.

And valkyries kill mroe stuff with their gunpods than anything else anyways.

The Spartan also doesn't seem to have anything really comparable to a GU-11.

Errr... what's wrong with the 32mm machine gun? Seems pretty equivalent to me.

The grenade launcher seems the only anti-mecha useful weapon of the pack, but its actual rate of fire and ammunitions is not stated, even if I think they are inferior to a machine gun like a gunpod.

And the 32mm machine gun. And the micromissiles. And the "laser gun". Maybe even the anti-aircraft lasers, depending on how heavy the target is.

Also, a really complete loadout on a VF-1 includes GBP-1S with 80 between micro-missiles and grenades, or super FAST Packs with 46 micro-missiles plus wing hard point options (it could be another 60 micro-missiles). Reaction weapons standaside.

Neither package is a standard loadout.

I thoguht "naked" would be understood to mean "without external attachments".

Or it could just mean "without optional packages that are not standard equipment".

I think they are actually called "standard", somewhere. Maybe not under the word "equipment" but still standard.

Yes. I grant the gunpod and 12 missiles as standard equipment.

Anyway, you are making it sounds like that Spartan was born with those missiles build-in. It even dies with those missiles, it never fires them.

It's fired them before.

And the launchers ARE integral.

FAST packs and GBPs are the only way to get a VF-1 armed equal to or better than a destroid. The GBP is, as near as I can tell, the only way to get it equivalent armor.

A Valk with the GBP package is essentially a Spartan with less guns and more missiles.

If you think 80/100 micro-missiles against 24 micro-missiles are nearly equal or only slightly better we have a problem.

You forgot the guns the Valk doesn't have.

The extra missiles of a GBP are compensating for less options.

And the FAST packs... ALL they add is missiles. And the backpack and leg attachments are filled with fuel, so they are essentially tiny little bombs just waiting to take a hit and blow up.

May I ask what versatility is lost by having weapons built-in instead of by requiring optional, non-standard expansion packages to add them?

They may be considered expansion, but they are standard. That's why each Valkyrie type is shown with its own gunpod.

Anyway, let's say you need long-range missiles. They won't fit into Spartan's shoulders, while VFs' hard points can hold them. This is versatility.

You could give a Spartan a mech-scale bazooka.

Though it's not in the mech's planned use. The Defender and Monster are your long-range weapons. So tehre was likely never long-range weaponry designed for the Spartan.

The monster's guns are still signifigantly longer than it's body, which you stated as the reason a VF-1 would never carry a Monster's railgun.

Monster has liquid-cooled cannons, VB-6 has railguns.

Mfft. I thought they were rail-cannons. My mistake.

Note that a railgun can be liquid-cooled too.

I was half-joking, but this is pointless. The Valkyrie doesn't have the weapon of a bigger mecha (Monster) for the same reason the Monster doesn't have the weapon of a mecha bigger than the Monster (bigger mecha being the SDF-1). Yes, the recoil and all. But giant guns aren't everything, and they specialize a mecha thus giving it a weakness.

De-specializing adds weakness too, and that's what you don't get.

Nothing is perfect for everything.

The VF-1 fills the role of a modern day fighter plane. The destroids fill the role of your ground-based forces.

What's your point?

I've already said the Monster is an artillery piece, not a close-combat mech.

You're just restating what I already stated.

Well, originally the question started because one was talking about behemoths fighting battle pods. I laughed at that.

Ah.

And I recall seing Regults destroy a LOT of Valks.

Since Valkyries are the main mecha, the one that is seen most of the time, it shouldn't be weird. According to screen time Destroids were worse, though.

Not if you count the Daedalus Attack team.

Destroids are cheaper for several reasons, one of that is that the engines are underpowered. Actually, maybe the armor of the VF-1 costs more than that of a Destroid. It could be wrong assume they are made of the same alloys.

No one in their right mind would build a battle tank and a jet plane out of the same alloys. Planes, which is clearly what the VF-1 is first and foremost, are made of light materials. Not really armor at all, just a skin to keep everything inside and keep the plane aerodynamic..

And then you do a fast turn and you start thinking you need a stiffer plane. The Blackbird couldn't be so fast if it weren't made entirely of titanium.

True, but not for the reason you think.

The Blackbirds weren't very agile vehicles. Solid titanium was just the only thing that would hold up to the thermal stresses while still being light enough to fly. And even then it needed the black paint on the leading edges.

But had they started doing much more than straight-line runs at Mach 3, the wings would've sheared right off.

Tanks, which is more like the role destroids fill, are built with much heavier, but much stronger, armor.

Tanks are allowed to carry more armor than planes, but mostly they are made of cheeper steel. They simply have thicker armor.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tank armor is actually layers of several diffrent materials. Reason being that if they stick to one kind, people build projectiles intended to pierce that one kind. But layering diffrent materials lets them mess multiple types of projectiles up.

And the front face of the Abrams is one of the most heavily-armored surfaces on any vehicle in the world.

Low atomic elements like titanium, lithium and wolframium are known to be light but tough. Heavier elements are softer.

Steel isn't even an element. It's an alloy.

And you're confusing strength/weight ratio with overall strength. A chunk of steel is stronger than an equivalently-sized chunk of titanium. It's also a lot heavier, which means more to a plane than to a ground vehicle.

And Destroid engines aren't underpowered. They have no need to go through elaborate transformation mechanisms, so they don't HAVE to be as powerful.

Your transformation nonsense. A valkyrie needs more powerful engines because it has to fly, but the engines remain powerful even during ground combat.

Sad fact of physics. Increased complexity = decreased efficiency.

A Valk in battroid has a far more complex actuation system than a destroid.

The monster is NOT an anti-ship mech!

While on Mars it was deployed for ground combat but in all the series I don't recall it hitting a Regult ever. Besides, what else could it do in space? Aircrafts are too fast for him.

It wasn't intended for space combat to begin with. They were making the best of a bad situation. If you recall, the Macross was stranded without much of it's weapons(which were mounted on the ARMD 1 and 2) and mech compliment(ALSO in the ARMD 1 and 2).

FAST packs were created for a similar purpose. The VF-1 sucked for space combat, but it was what most of the Macross's flyable mechs were(undoubtedly owing to the assimilation of the Prometheus). It lacked a lot of the maneuvering jets it needed, as well as adequate firepower for running battles with the Zentradi.

17,680 PS translates into about 13 MW (or about 17,438 HP/BHP/SHP).

Which DOESN'T directly translate to strength.

Horse power is measured on how much weight someone can lift up a meter in a second.

Tell me what else strength could be.

You're ignoring all the intermediaries between teh engine and the arms and legs. Nothing in a Valk is direct-drive. Therefore, power output doesn't directly translate to strength.

Only real melee action I ever saw was when they were on Britai's ship. And he beat Hikaru senseless.

It's never been shown that a Valk can adequately hold it's own in melee combat.

While Hikaru was defeated, the VF-1 itself showed it was able to easily throw Britai, which by the way is not the average Zentradi (he survived an explosion and open space).

And I'd expect a 6-foot robot to be able to throw Arnold.

I would NOT expect Arnold to be able to throw it around just as easily, then rip it apart by hand.

Enhanced or not, Britai was still just flesh and bone(aside from his forehead).

The fact that he COULD beat up a Valk does not bode well for mecha melee.

(I THINK I recall a Glaug giving a VF the smackdown with it's gunarms once, but I'm not sure)

There are also some scenes with Max in those episodes.

Yes. The jet kick, for example(which should be useless against mechs). That was a cool move.

Also, the PPB is not simply a shield. It hurts. I think it is made of superdimensional energy confined in a super magnetic field.

Which means what exactly? That's just a bunch of gibberish.

It's an energy shield.

Which energy? Charged particles or atomic interations?

I have learned magnetism, gravity and inertia are the same force. I still have the feeling PPB repels thing that can be repelled, and trash the others.

Errr...

Under physics as it curently stands, magnetism, gravity, and inertia are DIFFRENT things.

There is no working unified field theory.

And I see the PPB as more like a wall than anything else. Though we DO know that it "bounces" a bit. They've showed several times that when a barrier disk is shot, it dissipates for a moment, then reforms.

And that punch, assuming he landed it with the fist, did a LOT of damage to the hand mechanism. 

And you will note that it failed to pierce said Regult's armor. As near as I can tell, that's still a fully functional mech.

True, but in SDF Macross a Spartan punched a Nousjadel-Ger, and then the Nousjadel-Ger got up undamaged and shot the Spartan.

Anyway, even the Spartan is supposed to be damaged if it punches anything. Look at how thin the arm is between shoulder and elbow. That point would be stressed.

Yes.

But I was dealing primarily with the weakest link. That's the hand, due to the large # of small actuators. Joints give way first, as a general rule. And smaller joints bust easier.

Animations says mecha kick with shins, not with feet (there are several examples of this),

Thereby losing a fair bit of leverage.

If you are a mecha it doesnt' matter. Besides, I think it is not proven a Spartan can kick

Leverage DOES matter. It ALWAYS matters. The leg is a lever. When you swing it forward, the part right at the hip will hit with almost no force. The further down you go, the more power you have in your kick.

This is basic physics.

And I would be very surprised if a Spartan can't kick, given it was explicitly designed for melee combat.

but you forget throws like in judo. Punching and kicking is not all. Do you remember Nousjadel-Ger throwing destroids in episode 31 (Satan Doll)?

Throws are more defensive in my book.

And what does a NosGer have to do with ANYTHING?

Oh, wait, let me guess... it proves destroids are underpowered because they don't stay magically glued to the ground!

The Nousjadel Ger has an engine more powerful than that of a Spartan. Actually, I think it's more powerful even than the one of a VF, even if actual power output is not stated (2.4 GGV = 2.4 GW class). The easiness of smashing the Spartan showed by the Nousjadel-Ger was awesome.

And what in the HELL does engine power have to do with how easy you are to throw?

Mass and momenteum is all that matters.

And it's really to be expected that zentradi equipment has more power than human equipment. Aside from the larger size, it's a much more advanced design.

Dunno if the NosGer is true powered armor, or a hybrid QRau-style design. I'm betting hybrid, but...

And throwing a mecha against a wall can also stun the pilot.

Yes. So can punching it, kicking it, shooting it, or anything else that imparts a sudden change in velocity.

Again, a VF-1 is not spec'ed as having energy armor, and if we start putting energy armor on it, we may as well put it on destroids too.

Kawamori didn't mention Destroids.

He didn't specify the VF-1 either. And not mentioning them doesn't mean they don't have it. It just means "no one cares about destroids, so I'm not talking about them."

Same reason there's no specs for most of the ships, and no detailed specs for anything but the VFs that have been animated. The destroids have a pleasnalty large amount of detail, but nowhere NEAR what the VFs get.

I would bet a VF-1 with GBP-1S has more armor than a Spartan.

I would bet you're insane.

Particularly with the propulsion pack in the back, the missile compartment in the chest, and the naked upper arms.

Three points where the Spartan surely is no better, everything else is added armor to a humanoid tank.

The Spartan's chest and back are pretty solid. And it's upper arms, while scrawny, are made of the higher-grade armor used in destroids. Not lightweight aircraft alloys.

And I wash my hands of this now.

I'm bored, and we're clearly not going to get anywhere.

Edit: THERE! Working now.

Edited July 28, 2004 by JB0