S.W.A.G. Energy Converter? Macross technology

[taalismn]

Nope..never heard of it...although 'electronically strengthened metal' has occasionally appeared in sci-fi before; Simak and Lester Del Rey both made use of it for exploring Jupiter and the depths of the oceans in their works...

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

What do you guys think?

I prefer the idea that a mecha is armoured with a low mass composite laminar, sort of a super-tech version of Chobham. That and many of the later UEF mecha have a special ablative armour added to the forearms/shields.

[taalismn]

What do you guys think?

I prefer the idea that a mecha is armoured with a low mass composite laminar, sort of a super-tech version of Chobham. That and many of the later UEF mecha have a special ablative armour added to the forearms/shields.

Seems to be the way modern aircraft construction is moving anyway...and mecha like Bioroids and Invid are probably made up of carbon composites as well...

[NMI]

I like the Macross/Robotech setting a bit. I own a couple of the collectible toys in fact, some of which are quite expensive. In fact the orginal Robotech RPG was how I got started buying my Palladium books (never did the D&D game as a result, and added Heroes Unlimted, Recon, and of course Rifts and Palladium Fantasy to my collection).

As I was reading up on non-Palladium websites and I came across this factoid that I thought was really interesting.

Acording to the site about the original Japanese descriptions of the setting the war machines are built of an odd metal, that for a lack of a better term they just called "space metal". What happens is that you can run electricty through the metal and it becomes much stronger, like armor.

So, in the case of the Valkyrie, or Veritech here in the USA the "jet" engines are reactors. You knew that, and in jet mode they convert all of their energy into thrust to move the jet around at supersonic speeds. It's a fairly conventional jet, including not being terribly durable if hit by enemy fire.

In Batroid/Battaloid mode the reactors are still running at full power. They're not just sitting idle in the lower legs. However, now instead of making a lot of energy and then blast it out the feet as noisy thrust, they instead run the energy through the SWAG Energy converter and turn the machine into a walking tank that can take a beating.

Now I actually think this is a very neat idea. It helps to explain why the three modes are useful, other than looking cool. It also gives each mode an advantage, and more importantly a disadvatage over the others. Speed or armor? Sorry, can't have both, but you can choose which you want and when you want it.

What do you guys think? Or even have you ever heard of this thing before?

You got any links to this information?

Game mechanics wise, I dont see how this could work. Cuz basically you are saying that the armor is stronger in battloid mode.

[taalismn]

[

Game mechanics wise, I dont see how this could work. Cuz basically you are saying that the armor is stronger in battloid mode.

My first thought would be to treat it like a forcefield applicable only in Battloid Mode, with the damage coming off the added MDC value first before scratching the Varitech Mode values...
The alternatives would be to give Battloid Form the equivalent of an MDC Armor Rating, higher than that of the Varitech Mode...
The BRUTAL Alternative(at least from the bleeding fingers hammering on the calculator and scribbling out math) is to make the damage proportional....If the Battloid form takes 2 pts of damage, the Veritech Mode only takes 1 pt when it transforms back(pray, Rick Hunter, pray)....

Just my two cents; I favor advanced composite armor, instead of Gundanium or Implausinite...

[drewkitty ~..~]

HUmmeee.. it sounds like the Quantum Armor from the Gundam Seed series. *shrugs*


The first thing I thought of when reading the title was ,"they can make power from swag?"
swag being the (free or bought) stuff you get from conventions.

[Drakenred®™©]

suposedly its also why converting from jet mode to battloid mode allowes the unit to function despite previous damage. . . and why you can rip one to bits with your hands if your a full sized zentradi. . .

the only problem is that aparently the mechas armor is (or should be) operating at full power in any mode and they seem to be so succeptable to even minor damage anyway.

theirs times when to be honest its probably a good idea to just smile and ignore what the creators come out with because its just too goofy for words.

[Seto Kaiba]

As a note SWAG so far means that once the Variable Fighter (Veritech) transforms it doesn't fall apart due to stresses.

Eh... no. In actual fact, the energy conversion armor technology doesn't have anything to do with structural strength. What it does is it compensates for the fact that the actual armor material itself on a VF has to be comparatively thin in order to accommodate transformation. They can't just put big, thick plate armor on a Valkyrie the way they do on a destroid without sacrificing performance... so they use SWAG to make up the difference.

Essentially, it helps the relatively thin material of a VF's armor punch way above its weight in terms of damage resistance. It's not the only technology beefing up the VF's resistance to damage, but it is the most important.

[Grand Paladin]

Game mechanics wise, I dont see how this could work. Cuz basically you are saying that the armor is stronger in battloid mode.

Well, it could be something quite simple as a basic multiplier based on the mode of the Veritech mecha. Say the fighter configuration is the base armor strength, increase by 50% when in Guardian mode, and 2x in Battloid modes might be the mechanicss you could use. It's just a thought though.

[Colonel Wolfe]

all this sounds alot like... http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Polarized_hull_plating

[Seto Kaiba]

I had originally thought that, but other discussions I've read on the other board say different things. [...]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the other board", as there are many different forums on the net, but you seem to have misunderstood my statement to be some kind of guess or an opinion. It was simply a statement of fact.

From the rest of your post here, you seem to have misunderstood my point.

So, it is in fact a reinforcement of the aircraft/mecha skin by energizing the material to virtually increase the density.

As I had indicated previously, what the energy conversion armor affects is the armor material in the airframe skin. It does not operate upon the underlying structural frame of the aircraft, or the actuators that transform the craft... it's not necessary for transformation, or involved in it directly.

You had previously asserted that SWAG gave the fighter the structural strength to survive a transformation. That's got no basis in fact, I'm afraid. If you actually look to the one time the series gives us a graphical representation of a VF's ECA switching on, the system doesn't go live until after the transformation is complete. The VF's structural members are made from a material more or less identical to the insanely tough material the Macross's hull frame and armor are, so they don't need the help. What does need the help is the comparatively thin composite of the airframe skin, which is what the ECA system enhances.

As far as how ECA makes the armor of a VF more resistant to damage, very little detail is offered in official sources like Variable Fighter Master File, Macross Chronicle, or Great Mechanics DX. All we can say for certain is that it's a property of the material itself, not some kind of internal forcefield.

Then by that fact, in reference to game rules, the Energy Converter Armor could be seen as why it has it's MDC value.

Not really, no.

Variable Fighter Master File, etc., indicate the VF itself is already made of super-tough OTM materials (hypercarbon and OTMat composite materials), which you might recognize as the same material warship spaceframes and hulls are made of. That alone justifies the fighter's MDC value. Energy conversion armor further enhances that durability, by a variable factor depending upon mode and the availability of excess energy.

This has been a long hard debate among my players, as some think the MDC should be lower.

I've seen a couple of different approaches for homebrew energy conversion armor rules. My own take on it is to treat the MDC value for a fighter as its unmodified armor strength when ECA isn't running (such as in fighter mode on all pre-5th gen VFs). I treat ECA as a damage modifier, dividing incoming damage according to what mode the fighter is in. Fighter mode is unmodified, since ECA is not operating in that mode, while GERWALK divides all damage the mecha takes by 1.5, and battroid divides that incoming damage by 3x. Please note that this modifier is applied last, after any others from things like ablative anti-beam coatings. The 2nd Gen Advanced SWAG uses 2.5 and 5 in the respective modes, except in cases where the armor is in an "always on" configuration (mostly the APS-25). Layered ECA, like that used on antiprojectile shields, uses the same modifiers, but just has a higher MDC value.

I know some folks modify the MDC value itself, either multiplying or dividing it accordingly, but since MDC is supposed to reflect both system health and physical integrity, I feel that my approach is probably the most consistent with the spirit of the canon info, even though my modifiers aren't quite obscene enough to be in line with the letter of the thing. (4x and 10x is a bit much for game balance's sake, IMO.)

Am I right to assume that later models have a similar system but are more efficient?

Yes. ECA technology improved a lot along with the other materials used in VF design, and the 5th Generation designs make limited use of a new, 2nd Gen advanced ECA that offers much greater protection, supposedly rivaling that of battleship armor in some applications, but is a hideously expensive commodity. As such, the ASWAG tech is only used for the antiprojectile shields on 5th gen VFs, and on certain FAST pack options like the VF-25's Armored Pack. IIRC, SMS retrofitted their Konig Monster to use ASWAG as well, to reinforce the lighter composite armor they used to get the mass down.

[Seto Kaiba]

My stats that I created for derivatives of SDF Macross (I cannot post them here) are calculated based off the information given by the official sources. [...] For example, every doubling of the power to weight ratio gives a bonus of one.

That could get REALLY messy once you reach 4th or 5th generation VFs. For some of what's there, you could easily find yourself with a VF that gets a bonus of +5 or greater... though it gets bigger still if you use the combat loaded thrust-to-weight ratio of ~2.5 instead of the almost 3.5 empty ratio. You get some fighters there that easily exceed a T/W ratio of 16... sometimes climbing well into the 50s.

I have a chart that I've been updating, I will post a link to it tonight.

I think it's a little unsound, as raw thrust is not the sole determining factor in maneuverability. There are all sorts of factors, like the fighter's thrust vectoring axis (or axes), the number of verniers, the type of verniers, the optimization of the design for a particular regime, the other concessions to agility like the BLCS, VFC, and canards, enhancements to the controls such as the Block 6+ style cockpit, the supporting BDI system on the VF-22, or the adoption of EX-Gear, a full BDI, or other avionics improvements.

[Seto Kaiba]

I understand all that. I suppose I'm just trying to make things simple and balanced, without making the game too complex for players. I've been trying to figure how the ghost series X-9 and up maintain their superiority. That is if not to much has been modified since the X-9.

Well, if it helps, the QF-4000/AIF-7 Ghost from Macross Frontier has a T/W ratio of 19.299, making it slightly better on that front than the very best mass-production 4th Generation VF (the VF-19S, with a T/W ratio sitting pretty at 18.316). The QF-4000's basically a slightly modded Ghost X-9, with restraints put on the AI. The ones used by Macross Galaxy are pretty much identical, except for the cut-down version of the BGP-01 beam rifle they sport on their heads. They should have higher dodge bonuses than anything piloted by fleshy pilots, since those drones don't have any cardiopulmonary systems or brains to turn into chunky salsa under high g-force loads.

Here's the Macross-only version of the revised T/W ratio chart

[Seto Kaiba]

Other adjustments may be needed due to number reaction thrusters used in the RCS, and of course canards in an atmosphere (it's like pushing rope for aircraft) etc.

Didn't I just say that? VFs have a couple other concessions to maneuverability besides things like canards and verniers. They also commonly employ boundary layer control for airframe lift manipulation and vortex flow control systems for attitude control.

...Or even an ASAS system? I figure they must have both an SAS and ASAS as part of the avionics package. [...]

That would likely fall under the domain of the airframe control AI, which manages the flight, maneuvering, and stability control aspects of operation. The first three generations of VFs used the various versions of the ANGIRAS AI platform, while the fourth and fifth use a next generation version called ARIEL. Everything from the myriad flight control systems to the battroid's body posture and its AMBAC-style propellantless maneuvering ability is under that computer's direction.

Any thoughts? I certainly wish they mentioned the amount of force used in the RCS on the Valkyries.

Apart from "enough", I don't believe there has been any specific thrust figure ascribed to the verniers beyond either "high" or "low". Space optimized VFs like the VF-19F/S have a vernier slit around the engine nozzle that bleeds some propellant out of the engine exhaust flow.

[slade the sniper]

It makes sense, actually. This is one of the technologies that was to be used on the cancelled Future Combat System... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_armour#Electric_reactive_armour looked good on paper, not so good in practice. It makes the object very obvious on the EM spectrum. With Over-/Robo-Technology it makes it more understandable. Especially when you wonder why big, simple metal boxes (tanks) have LESS MDC than a light, extremely complicated mecha.

-STS

[Seto Kaiba]

I must say your information has been invaluable. I'll try out your ECS system.

If you include the ablative anti-beam coatings on the armor too, I highly recommend using a calculator.

I'm still curious if the VF-1 used active stealth or which fighters did.

By all accounts, the adoption of active stealth on VFs started with the VF-0 and SV-51. The active stealth systems aren't operating alone though, the fighters also use passive stealth in the form of radar-absorbant material coatings.

[Seto Kaiba]

Would you think that adding the ECS and Ablative anti-beam coatings as a combined form of "damage reduction" work?

That's how I use it... the anti-beam coating is shaving 30% off damage from a mecha-scale beam or laser weapon, and then, depending on the mode the fighter's in, tha damage the mecha is taking gets divided by the factor for the energy conversion armor. Projectiles and missile damage ignore the anti-beam coating step.

Hmmmn... I've been always curious of that because the YF-22 Omega One was visible on radar in Plus. Once the active stealth was switched on, it disappeared. It didn't appear to have any passive anti radar abilities to my knowledge. [...]

The passive stealth aspects of the design are something Kawamori focused on a good deal until Macross Frontier, when he decided to get away from passively stealthy airframes. Passive stealth coatings are a relatively minor feature that, used in conjunction with stealth oriented design and the active stealth system, contributes to the overall stealth performance of the craft. All in all, the active stealth didn't really start pulling its weight until the 3rd Gen active stealth systems used on the VF-19, the VF-22, and the VF-171. Passive stealth was a pretty big factor in older designs, especially on the VF-17.

I always felt that the active stealth in Zero was more of a ret-con.

I think it's one of those cases where the actual decision to include the tech and its visible use in the animation were separated by a bit. ECA was an example of this, as were the anti-beam coatings. For the VF-1, it could easily be called a retcon.

Also, what is the cyclops radar or cyclops system that gets referenced in the series, specifically Zero.

It's cross-dimensional radar... what you might call the earliest human-made version of a fold wave radar. The tech existed as far back as in the original series, but the Macross lost all its fold-related systems, including its FTL comms and radar, when its fold system went walkabout.

[ShadowLogan]

Especially when you wonder why big, simple metal boxes (tanks) have LESS MDC than a light, extremely complicated mecha.

The question though has to be asked why the technology doesn't find its way into those simple metal boxes. Which they should logically to improve their survivability and capabilities.

Hmmmn... I've been always curious of that because the YF-22 Omega One was visible on radar in Plus. Once the active stealth was switched on, it disappeared. It didn't appear to have any passive anti radar abilities to my knowledge. I always felt that the active stealth in Zero was more of a ret-con.

There may be several explanations for the YF-22 sighting on Radar.

Passive Stealth still can appear on Radar, the detection range though is reduced. So if the receiver is close enough, the passive stealth platform will appear. It is also possible the Radar is powerful enough to see a passive stealth platform (AESA radars are supposed to be able to see small RCS, and stealth can be effected by frequency used by the radar).

Range safety might be another explanation. They may modify the platform to have a stronger radar return to prevent accidents and allow them to track the prototype.

The Passive Stealth may have been in a degraded condition (stealth coatings on the F-117, F-22, B-2 do need to be maintained) to save time (and/or cost) during testing.

The Passive Stealth may have angles that are more visible than others (ex. the F-15SE is supposed to be more visible from the back than the front).

[Seto Kaiba]

Especially when you wonder why big, simple metal boxes (tanks) have LESS MDC than a light, extremely complicated mecha.

The question though has to be asked why the technology doesn't find its way into those simple metal boxes. Which they should logically to improve their survivability and capabilities.

Oh, there's a simple enough explanation for it all. In Macross, tanks are kind of a minor and depreciated option in military hardware... the fundamental problems of using an AFV to fight something like a Zentradi make having a destroid or Valkyrie more attractive. That said, tanks did benefit somewhat from OTM... their armor was improved via the adoption of OTM composites, their guns were enhanced for an anti-mecha role through the adoption of high explosive anti-conversion armor rounds, and so on.

The catch is that the high-end power plants on VFs are complex and EXPENSIVE... and energy conversion armor is also expensive stuff. For a rear echelon unit like an AFV, the cost of that technology is such that it applying it to a tank would make that tank prohibitively expensive.

Valkyries go in for the high cost option not by choice, but by necessity. The armor on a VF's airframe skin has to be thin and light to avoid negatively impacting performance or hindering the transformation system, making ECA and a high output power system the best option. On destroids, there's a bigger margin, so similar levels of defensive capability can be had with less reliance on ECA (and therefore a reactor that's less high spec) through cheaper means like thicker armor plate. Tanks are smaller still, which means less room to work with for armor and power plants, making emphasis on purely physical armor more sensible and attractive... and it probably helps that it's cheaper by far.

(There is, after all, a reason the VF-1 is down as being something like ten times as costly on a per-unit basis as the average destroid.)

Passive Stealth still can appear on Radar, the detection range though is reduced. So if the receiver is close enough, the passive stealth platform will appear. [...]

At the time of the scene in question, Isamu's VF-11B was only about 50m from YF-21 #2, so it's not surprising that it was able to spot the prototype on radar before Guld turned its active stealth system on.

[Seto Kaiba]

Yet, they still use the Beatrice 8 wheeled tank in Frontier.

As a light, rear echelon fire support vehicle for use inside the island modules. That's about as far behind the lines as you can get in a colony ship like the Macross Frontier. Odds are those tanks were chosen for the same reason those Cheyenne II destroids were... they're so small they can easily operate on the roads inside of the islands, and they don't wreck those same roads because they use wheels to get around instead of tracks or feet. They also have that great virtue of being cheaper than a Valkyrie, the same as a destroid or ghost.

You're absolutely right about distance. Even in real life an old (yes they are not going to be used anymore) F-117 can be detected at a very short distance by radar, yet still with distorted reflection.

Yep, and the radars on the VF-11 Thunderbolt (and pretty much every other VF) are far more potent than what modern jet fighters use. The range alone is better than double what top of the line modern AESA radars boast, and they have a considerably wider field of view too.

[ShadowLogan]

Oh, there's a simple enough explanation for it all. In Macross, tanks are kind of a minor and depreciated option in military hardware... the fundamental problems of using an AFV to fight something like a Zentradi make having a destroid or Valkyrie more attractive. That said, tanks did benefit somewhat from OTM... their armor was improved via the adoption of OTM composites, their guns were enhanced for an anti-mecha role through the adoption of high explosive anti-conversion armor rounds, and so on.

4/5ths of the Destroids (seen in SDF:M/RT) though really aren't the best to fight Zentraedi in close range, which really puts their mission as being better handled by conventional vehicles armed with their weapons. Not to mention Part of the Destroids' bulk comes from the anthromorphic form, making it an easier target (since it is bigger than necessary). Now one could try for a super-sized tank (WW2 had several in development) to give them better weapon selection (like on the Tomahawk, as opposed to the Defender/Phalanax and Monster), though it might not be necessary for the super-sized tank.

You really only need those antromorphic forms if one intends to engage the Zentraedi at close-range (melee), and if so the Tomahawk, Phalanax, Defender, and Monster really are not up to the task like the Spartan and Valk. are.

The catch is that the high-end power plants on VFs are complex and EXPENSIVE... and energy conversion armor is also expensive stuff. For a rear echelon unit like an AFV, the cost of that technology is such that it applying it to a tank would make that tank prohibitively expensive.

The question is though do you need the "high-end" power plants to use SWAG effectively. A tank with SWAG and a low to medium level power plant may be up to the task since it would be supporting a thicker material layer of armor so the result (SWAG+Material) is equal or greater than a VF-1 with it's light armor and high output engine for protection.

Another thing to consider is how much of that complexity (and expense) on the VF engine assembly would really be necessary for a conventional vehicle. Does the variable nature of the platform it is used on add to the complexity? Does a conventional vehicle even need the same raw output?

[Seto Kaiba]

4/5ths of the Destroids (seen in SDF:M/RT) though really aren't the best to fight Zentraedi in close range, which really puts their mission as being better handled by conventional vehicles armed with their weapons. [...]

The most prominent of the reasons that using conventional vehicles in place of the destroid platforms is that walkers like destroids have a much easier time on rough terrain than tanks and other AFVs. Destroids also have a large advantage in that their larger size means the destroid doesn't have to worry about how far turret-mounted guns can elevate when used against a target with vitals 7m off the ground, and they aren't constrained in the quantity or power of their armament by a cramped AFV's chassis. With limited room for a power system and limited elevation capability, tanks would never be able to fight the Zentradi nearly as effectively... particularly in an AA or antiship capacity in space, which destroids were also designed for.

Not to mention Part of the Destroids' bulk comes from the anthromorphic form, making it an easier target (since it is bigger than necessary).

That size is also what allows the destroid to take power systems potent enough to make the destroid's mobility and firepower work. That size and bipedal design also makes a destroid faster and more agile, and allows it to take thicker, heavier armor than a tank could.

Now one could try for a super-sized tank (WW2 had several in development) to give them better weapon selection [...]

Which only exaggerates the limitations on the tank design that made destroids advantageous in the first place...

The question is though do you need the "high-end" power plants to use SWAG effectively.

Officially? Yes... if you want to get the most out of energy conversion armor, you need a high-output powerplant. Even using it in the secondary role that destroids do requires a good deal of power... and the thermonuclear reaction energy systems necessary to make that workable are rather large.

Another thing to consider is how much of that complexity (and expense) on the VF engine assembly would really be necessary for a conventional vehicle.

As far as the official coverage of ECA goes, the energy conversion armor system itself is rather versatile... the system itself doesn't seem to be adding much complexity to a VF, but there are many mentions of how the armor material and energy systems to power it are quite costly. In fact, the cost of the armor material is cited as the reason for the limited deployment of some VF hardware (e.g. the VF-25's Armored and Tornado packs) and the limited adoption of the ASWAG technology on regular fighters.

[Seto Kaiba]

Here's one for you, Seto, how long do you think a VF can stay operational in space?

Nothing specific has been said on that, since that's principally dependent on how much of the propellant aboard is used per maneuver.

Easily several hours on a routine patrol, since VF-1s were used to patrol the Earth-Luna area in the OSM. Hikaru himself was a patrol pilot out of Apollo Base during the series time skip, per The Lost Two Years content in the Perfect Memory artbook.

The initial type thermonuclear reaction turbine engines were a little more thirsty than engines that came along later, but later designs were a lot bigger and therefore had more room to use for fuel storage. They probably had hours with the propellant they carried internally or in any FAST packs. The later thermonuclear reaction burst turbine engines that appeared on the 4th Gen VFs (VF-19/22/171) and the late VF-17 variants (D/S) were more efficient and had an accordingly higher performance ceiling, tho a VF probably still only had an operational time measured in hours. The latest Stage II engine designs appear to have enough endurance to fly from a natural satellite to a planet's surface without external tanks, and still have more than enough fuel for a combat sortie. Fighters in Macross aren't really used for ranges of interplanetary scale, since it's faster to fold.

In space, the VF must store fuel for space flight.

Pretty much... the waste plasma from the engines reactors is the propellant of choice.

Unless you count the forward section before the leg articulation it could be considered a weird three stage fusion reaction turbo-fan engine, but there is no way to tell since the turbine and nozzle were not drawn.

The actual body of the engine is entirely in the lower leg, the hip is a superconducting ram air precompressor. The diagrams in Master File are a lot more useful in gauging the engine design.

[ShadowLogan]

The most prominent of the reasons that using conventional vehicles in place of the destroid platforms is that walkers like destroids have a much easier time on rough terrain than tanks and other AFVs.

Somehow I doubt that is the actual case. The point comes up in the mecha vs tank threads. I'm not saying any/all can compete, but from an engineering standpoint they can be made to.

Destroids also have a large advantage in that their larger size means the destroid doesn't have to worry about how far turret-mounted guns can elevate when used against a target with vitals 7m off the ground

A feature that can be built into conventional platforms does exist as the Praying Mantis prototype at the Bovington Tank museum shows (it is conceptually similar to the old RT comics Centaur Tank) that would allow them to alter their profile. Certainly such a system is more complex than a conventional platform, but not nearly as much as a legged mecha (transforming or non-transforming).

I'm not convinced Destroids make the best use of all that extra volume they have at their disposal either given all the open areas and odd shaping that goes into them. And it isn't like conventional vehicles can not grow in size to meet the new demands being placed on them.

and they aren't constrained in the quantity or power of their armament by a cramped AFV's chassis.

One of the Super Tanks on the drawing boards in WW2 featured a single 800mm cannon, and another had 2 280mm cannons plus both feature secondary weapons. Granted these tanks are a bit bigger than modern MBTs, but the issue with armament does not stand up really.

With limited room for a power system and limited elevation capability, tanks would never be able to fight the Zentradi nearly as effectively... particularly in an AA or antiship capacity in space, which destroids were also designed for.

As for the space capacity, that is something that could be engineered into them.

The main disadvantage with tanks is in listed ground speed, but by taking advantage of the new technologies (more powerful powerplant, lighter & stronger materials, etc) it can be overcome. What is required is a wiliness to do so, instead of allowing technologies to be monopolized by certain users (which can drive up costs).

[Seto Kaiba]

Somehow I doubt that is the actual case. The point comes up in the mecha vs tank threads.

Thus far, what we've got for official material on the subject of tanks vs destroids does indicate that destroids do in fact outperform tanks by a considerable margin when it comes to stability, speed, and maneuverability over rough terrain.

That, combined with the far superior armament a destroid carries, compared to a tank, gives a destroid considerable advantages over regular AFVs... which were leveraged by both sides in the Unification Wars, and during testing of the Series 04 Tomahawk platform. During live fire exercises in desert conditions, the Tomahawk Mk.IV test article destroyed ten MBTs in mere seconds without sustaining any damage.

A feature that can be built into conventional platforms does exist as the Praying Mantis prototype at the Bovington Tank museum shows (it is conceptually similar to the old RT comics Centaur Tank) that would allow them to alter their profile.

Clearly it did not meet the UN Forces needs in the development of anti-giant weapons. Tanks never fare well against destroids in practice... which is why the UN Forces and Anti-UN used them so extensively.

I'm not convinced Destroids make the best use of all that extra volume they have at their disposal either given all the open areas and odd shaping that goes into them.

Destroids use that extra space for a powerful set of generators and a diverse array of high powered weapons, a drive train as agile as a Valkyrie's, and enough armor to protect it all from most weapons.

As for the space capacity, that is something that could be engineered into them.

They tried... and, unsurprisingly, a small and comparatively lightly armed tank did not fare all that well. Even the Beatrice light IFVs are nominally airtight, but they're nothing like as capable as the destroids they fight alongside.

[ShadowLogan]

Thus far, what we've got for official material on the subject of tanks vs destroids does indicate that destroids do in fact outperform tanks by

a considerable margin when it comes to stability, speed, and maneuverability over rough terrain.

But how much of this type of "superiority" comes from bias toward a certain outcome/justification on the part of the creators/writers? And they support it by having in-unviverse 1/2-hearted attempts.

Weapon systems IMHO are really multi-platform and could be mounted effectively on either anthromorphic mecha or conventional platforms and really don't justify one platform being superior to another because of their inclusion since it is highly unlikely the weapon system (or powerplant) even cares if it is on a tank or mecha in general (that doesn't mean specific combinations might not work). Now a larger platform can certainly mount more (and carry more ammo), but it comes with the catch-22 that you are now easier to hit since you are physically larger target.

Maneuverability and Speed can be enhanced. They don't have to use tracks for locomotion, they could switch to hover/anti-gravity systems, which would completely negate any mentally perceived terrain advantages a legged platform has.

If a conventional ground vehicle is smaller than a Destroid or Battloid (in surface area), then it may not need as much power to get the same result on a per unit area, so it won't need the high-output engines/powerplant. Does the OSM list the actual dimensions (length x width x height) of the powerplant as that would go a long way in determining if it can fit in a conventional platform (M1A1's engine by comparison is ~1.6m x ~1.0m x ~0.8m per the Honeywell, the Manufacturer)

And the only real Destroid that is needed is the Spartan to deal with Zentraedi infantry inclose, for Defender/Phalanx/Tomahawk/Monster their artillery jobs can be handled better by conventional platforms.

And a legged platform will be more unstable than a conventional platform due to their respective center of gravity.

[Sgt Anjay]

Shadow, giant robots beat armored vehicles purely through plot. The setting requires it, so it is so. Real Robot series' like Macross and Gundam will usually give a handwave and such, generally for the sake of verisimilitude, while Super Robot series generally won't bother, but its true in either case.

[glitterboy2098]

Game mechanics wise, I dont see how this could work. Cuz basically you are saying that the armor is stronger in battloid mode.

Well, it could be something quite simple as a basic multiplier based on the mode of the Veritech mecha. Say the fighter configuration is the base armor strength, increase by 50% when in Guardian mode, and 2x in Battloid modes might be the mechanicss you could use. It's just a thought though.

One possible option is that in fighter mode the Valkyrie is reduced to 1/3rd the MDC (rounded up or down is the GM call). This becomes something similar to the MDC value of the Dragon II whilst in fighter mode. As for GERWALK/Guardian mode and Battroid/Battloid mode, the full MDC is returned. I've tried this with much success. My players understood that the bonus to auto dodge is in exchange for the MDC value giving mode transformation a new life and requiring the players to make decisions within a given situation. Damage to fighter mode weakens the base airframe skin, so when it is energized in Battroid this will reflect the damage accordingly.

the machic i'd use would be similar to how i've seen things like reactive armor treated in other games i've played. instead of altering the damage capacity of the unit (thus increasing the paperwork), when the system is active it would reduce damage from enemy fire by a certain amount. say, 25% in guardian and 50% in battloid, or something like that. then you can use one set of damage capacity numbers, but still have a unit that is much tougher in one mode than another. and you could tweak the reduction too.. older units might have lower reduction in each mode, while more advanced units could have higher. same for power.. a unit with a lot of power fed into the system could have a higher reduction.

plus this makes handling countermeasures (like the "anti-SWAG ammo") easier.. it modifies the reduction, either by making it reduce less or bypassing it entirely.

[Seto Kaiba]

But how much of this type of "superiority" comes from bias toward a certain outcome/justification on the part of the creators/writers?

Will I be wasting my time by replying to this? I have to say that, from your tone, it sounds like you've already decided it's pure bias, in direct contradiction to the facts.

The answer is "none", by the way. The design of a conventional AFV is such that they won't be able to fight nearly as effectively as robotic platforms like destroids. Destroids have a very clear advantage in rough terrain and in space, and they don't have to contend with the limits a turret mount imposes on arc of fire. The size of the destroid allows it to take power systems robust enough to power the high-output beam weapons and other systems they need. A tank is too small to take the kind of armor, reactor, or weapons systems a destroid can... they just won't fit, and a bigger tank won't address their other major limitations against Zentradi.

Weapon systems IMHO are really multi-platform and could be mounted effectively on either anthromorphic mecha or conventional platforms and really don't justify one platform being superior to another [...]

That's your opinion... the facts of the setting's info don't bear your argument out. The robust power systems needed to drive such powerful beam weapons won't fit inside a chassis that's the size of a modern tank, and there won't be enough room to mount enough weaponry that taking it is worthwhile. Armor is the same story.

Maneuverability and Speed can be enhanced. They don't have to use tracks for locomotion, they could switch to hover/anti-gravity systems, [...]

Hovercraft systems have all manner of issues, most notably that they don't work in space... meaning that you'd have a largely useless brick, not a tank. Gravity control systems are rather power intensive, and generally aren't made small enough to fit in mecha... let alone an AFV. There's a reason even destroids and VFs don't use gravity control for flight. Only one human-built mecha in Macross has an antigrav propulsion system... but the only reason it was adopted was to make it easier for the largest destroid ever to get around, and that was almost a century after destroids were adopted.

Does the OSM list the actual dimensions (length x width x height) of the powerplant as that would go a long way in determining if it can fit in a conventional platform (M1A1's engine by comparison is ~1.6m x ~1.0m x ~0.8m per the Honeywell, the Manufacturer)

I believe there is some detail on that front for the Spartan, I'll check when I get home.

And the only real Destroid that is needed is the Spartan to deal with Zentraedi infantry inclose, for Defender/Phalanx/Tomahawk/Monster their artillery jobs can be handled better by conventional platforms.

The facts do not support your opinion.

[Colonel Wolfe]

But how much of this type of "superiority" comes from bias toward a certain outcome/justification on the part of the creators/writers? And they support it by having in-unviverse 1/2-hearted attempts.

its bad Science, when you look to "prove" something you already favor, and you control the rules of the universe...
Robotech shows that a Tank-based Platform is very viable compared to a Destroid.
The tiny Hovertank mounts the same armor as Destorids 8x its size. and has quite a bit of firepower compared to the Giant destroids.
Frankly giving a Missile-launcher a Human-profile only increses the profile of the unit, making it a larger, clumsy target on 2 legs...

[Seto Kaiba]

Shadow, giant robots beat armored vehicles purely through plot. [...]

Less so than you'd think... usually the robots have some kind of tangible advantage over a conventional AFV. Usually it's either agility in land maneuvers or raw power output which is provided by a power source that either won't fit into a tank chassis without unduly making said chassis much larger.

For Macross and Gundam, tanks did benefit from many of the same advances which went into giant robots... but their smaller sizes usually mean they can't take full advantage of those tech items that don't scale gracefully. A tank can still (theoretically) do some harm to a robot, but their lack of agility and their inability to elevate their guns high enough to engage a robot or similarly sized foe at close ranges is a significant limiting factor in their combat utility.

Mobile Suit Gundam: MS IGLOO 2 played with both sides of this in the episode featuring the M61A5... which made for great viewing.

In this specific case, the destroid design has a number of significant practical advantages that tanks do not... they adopted OTMat armor and HEACA ammunition, but their small size and a need to preserve mobility means they can't go and use nearly as thick an application of those advanced armor materials, or take a generator powerful enough to justify mounting an energy conversion armor system or high-output beam weaponry. Ultimately, the large size of destroid platforms works in their favor, because they've got enough room to take the reactors and the excess output to take the thicker armor without compromising mobility.

Tanks are just not an ideal choice to fight a highly agile foe like Zentradi mecha, which all tend to have their center mass sitting high, so the tanks with their turret-mounted guns and low evasion are at a significant disadvantage. They still have their uses (esp. AA platforms), but they're not viable frontline units.

Even Robotech follows this line, more or less... their tank-like robots weren't meant as frontline units, and couldn't hold their own in combat against highly agile or numerous foes that actually meant business.

[Sgt Anjay]

Shadow, giant robots beat armored vehicles purely through plot. [...]

Less so than you'd think... usually the robots have some kind of tangible advantage over a conventional AFV.

No, robots don't actually possess those advantages, you're drinking the Koolaid. Also? Mistake assuming I haven't thought about this. Tank vs. Mech is not a new debate.

The "themonuclear reaction" and space-metal swag and so on is literally made up. Fiction. Doesn't actually exist. The writers stacked the deck of the rules of reality to fit what they want. Those of us in the real-world are not obliged to treat fiction as if it was fact. Therefore, what I said stands: giant robots beat armored vehicles purely through plot. Though maybe I'll revise it to "giant robots beat armored vehicles purely through handwave physics and plot devices."

And often, that plot requires ignoring the fact that armored vehicles are configured the way they are for a reason that is battle tested and proven through real-life combat and not plot made up by writers. To wit...

The 69.54 ton M1A2 Abrams MBT has a ground pressure of just 19 psi. 19 PSI! For those unfamiliar at home, that's less than a car. Treads, you see, combat ground pressure, dispersing the weight of the vehicle over a wide area. Mud and other terrain that would bog down human infantry on foot, because their clompy feet have to take the entire weight of the human while they pick up the other foot to take a step, thus concentrating a lot of weight on a small point, does not bog down vehicles with treads who chug along just fine, thank you very much, because their weight is distributed. Putting feet on tons and tons of vehicle does not help you in most terrain; it takes the infantryman's problem and increases it exponentially courtesy of square-cube law. Square-cube law is of particular note for something with feet: as you increase volume by cubes, you only square the surface area of a foot which is already tiny compared to total surface area, whereas a tank has a much larger proportion of surface area impacting the ground to help with this.

Infantry can go places tanks can't not because of superior means of locomotion, but because they're smaller and so fit in the first place, and have less mass and so square-cube law is much easier on them all around. Neither of those things are in play when it comes to destroids. Now, hands are useful for climbing, but of course when you're climbing your hand-holds and your fingers have to be able to support your weight, which is sometimes dicey for a human...for a destroid? That better be a hell of a handhold, though I'm willing to grant a Spartan wicked finger strength for the sake of argument. There's one last thing though...part of what lets bipeds and semi-bipeds and such traverse steep slopes and climb is...a flexible spine. You lean when you go up and down slopes and you bend all sorts of ways when you climb. Destroids rather inherently lack this anatomical feature.

So what terrain are legs many times the size of a human's better at? Well, stepping over a vertical barrier a tank can't muscle or blow away. I know of tankers who talked about bursting up and over concrete highway barriers in Iraq, so we're not talking a few feet, we're talking sizable stuff before you add in things like the ability of tanks to be mounted with dozer blades and suchlike, as well as them being accompanied by engineering vehicles. Of course, because a tank is designed to be as low as it can be, that same barrier will cause someone to need to pop up over it to fire on the tank much sooner than the destroids, which can be plinked from that cover from farther away. But more on height later.

OF course modern, top-end tanks are more agile than they look, when they don't have the power to brute their way. I enjoyed wathing this Challenger 2 main battle tank vs. a freakin' Land Rover. Check it out. It's quite informative how the tank's agility and ability to traverse rough terrain surprises and stymies the guy in the Land Rover even though his vehicle is the more nimble one.

a power source that either won't fit into a tank chassis without unduly making said chassis much larger.

This is weak because its a double standard. The size of tanks is determined by how practical it is to build armored vehicles with the technology available. A tank isn't "unduly" large unless its size is impractical, and if heavily armed and armoredvehicles the size of destroids are practical it is double-standard to say that large tanks are impractical, because the same technology that built destroids would be available to build big tanks. This is especially true because treads mitigate ground pressure and are have no need for external stabilization (they're inherently stable at rest) while feet don't and legs aren't, so a large vehicle on treads is more practical inherently than one on legs and feet.

Not to mention that thanks again to real-world physics as opposed to fictional physics, a tank with the equivalent mass of a destroid inherently has much less surface area to cover due to the shape of a tank; tanks are shaped the way they are for a reason, not because of rule of cool! That means that inch for inch the armor could be thicker on a tank of equivalent mass.

Oh, and where turrets meet hull are harder for an enemy weapon to impact than a limb with a joint. The same tech that lets a torso and limb rotate lets a turret rotate and a gun traverse just as fast, and the turret is inherently more durable.

It is much easier to build a tank that can't stumble and fall than, y'know, something balanced on legs. Pure real-world physics make upending a tank much harder than knocking over bipedals. Oh, and all that money you're spending on the mechanical systems, electronics, and computers to keep destroids as balanced as possible while fighting and taking impacts and maneuvering and even just standing there (a feature of bipedalism)? BAM, you just bought another tank.

Then there's the height thing. Go ahead, find anyone with the slightest bit of combat training and ask if its better to fight standing or to fight prone. That sound you hear is the sound of them rolling their eyes at such an asinine question: learn it fast, learn it well, Get Low. Hug the dirt, the dirt is your friend, embrace Mother Gaia, kiss it. Prone good. Its such a prevalent rule of combat that tons of war movies have the scene where the guy peeeeeeks up just a lil' to get a view...and BLAM, shot to the head. That is no Hollywood fiction, that is combat fact. Tanks are designed to be as prone as possible. That's no accident. Destroids are standing.

their inability to elevate their guns high enough to engage a robot or similarly sized foe at close ranges is a significant limiting factor in their combat utility.

Their what? Uh, no. Tanks don't generally have that high a traverse for a couple of reasons, but it's not because they're impossible to make. Turrets with that much traverse are very real, and no big deal to make. This is easily demonstrated by self-propelled artillery, which are of course also guns on treads, sometimes even bigger than that on tanks, with all the traverse you could want since their primary purpose is indirect fire.

Also, um, guys? This whole "it uses less energy as a robot so the robot is tougher than the fighter jet"? Fighter jets are designed to fly. The shapes and angles and planes of every bit of the thing is optimized to keep the thing in the air as efficiently as possible. Someone please explain to me why it uses MORE energy to fly while shaped like a fighter jet than when its shaped like a giant robot? Or is it only tougher when on the ground in gerwalk and battroid?

[Sgt Anjay]

The discussion here is why not tanks in Macross. We're talking about giant aliens that can destroy cities and make fighters in the middle east pee their pants before being vaporized by a cannon never before seen by human kind. Alien machines that dance around tanks like they were a yappy little dog getting swat with a stick. We're talking about a work of fiction. Not reality and thus neither is this RPG.

Yes, I know its fiction. I say that very same thing several times. We’re basically in agreement. Hence my statements about the reason that destroids “beat” tanks being that writers stack the deck as opposed to it being realistic. The whole point of my post is showing that mecha beats tanks due to the plot and handwave of the writers rather than realism, because if you apply the technology demonstrated in the fictional show to real war machines, you can see how artificial their alleged superiority is.

I agree tanks are formidable in real life. They're short to medium ranged artillery

As much as I dearly love the Challenger II it is still an artillery vehicle

Pleasepleaseplease don’t call tanks artillery or artillery tanks. Take it from someone with a military background, they are not the same. I know plenty of tankers and red-legs who’d flip the heck out at hearing statements like these; it grates at me and I wasn’t either one.

The ECA is used in Battroid and GERWALK modes because there isn't as much need for thrust, so the engines can put it's output energy into running a generator. Destroids use a similar system.

And this is my problem. It would take MORE thrust for a gerwalk or a giant freakin’ robot to fly than it would for a jet fighter, because a jet fighter is designed specifically for high-performance flight. So anytime a variable fighter is flying/hovering in battroid or gerwalk (and how useful is gerwalk in combat at all if the thing is just walking?), it should be using MORE energy and be MORE fragile, not stronger.

Anyway, why are we arguing about this

Because someone implied that it is “realistic” for mecha to trump tanks, when it isn’t; mecha trumps tank because of author fiat in a fictional world.

[ShadowLogan]

@Sgt Anjay & Col. Wolfe
Yes I agree, we are seeing the use of call it what you want "plot", "bias", "fantasy science" (or whatever else) to justify certain outcomes that really would not hold up upon close inspection.

That's your opinion... the facts of the setting's info don't bear your argument out. The robust power systems needed to drive such powerful beam weapons won't fit inside a chassis that's the size of a modern tank, and there won't be enough room to mount enough weaponry that taking it is worthwhile. Armor is the same story.

The "facts of the setting" really bear out that it is created with a bias toward a certain outcome.

[Alrik Vas]

I see both sides of this argument pretty clearly (I think anyway) and I'd have to say that Destroids are way better at defeating Regults than a tank would be.

Armor is effective against armor, as stated, and real military actions tend to prove this. However, if you have an enemy moving at 300 miles an hour and leaping at gittery intervals while firing missiles at you...you're basically screwed in a tank, it doesn't matter that your target is a 60+ foot tall ostrich. Presenting a larger target isn't always the problem. Being held up and defeated by terrain however, is always a problem. A destroid can walk over what a tank has to go around.

Now, if tanks in Robotech or Macross were built with the same systemry as destroids, they would have long-range capability to defeat things like missiles, but...they would still have to achieve much better field position to be able to fire because of terrain...unless they were much bigger, more specifically, taller (which you could argue they would need to be if they wanted to mount the same weapons destroids do). Essentially, against zentradi tactics and mecha, tanks are sitting ducks. Hell, destroids have superior mobility and even they were sitting ducks half the time vs Regults.

Call it hand-wave if you want, but for what they were fighting, Destroids were a much better tool for the job.

[Sgt Anjay]

Regults don't run at 300 miles per hour.

Tanks built with the same technology as destroids could track and engage targets as well as destroids, so their ability to dodge and jump doesn't put tanks at any greater disadvantage than destroids when it comes to shooting at battlepods. And again: humans can jump and roll and perform flips and all sorts of acrobatics. Ask someone with combat training if they would rather jump and flip on a battlefield, or if they would rather be in a prone supported fighting position.

And seeing as how tanks built with modern technology can reach 40-50 miles per hour at least for high-end main battle tanks, tanks built with advanced technology would certainly be capable of speeds to match or exceed destroids. Humans think bipedal locomotion is pretty snazzy since, y'know, it's the one we're born with, and as far as evolutionary niches go it has served us pretty well. But that doesn't make it inherently superior to the wheel we invented to make up for our locomotion short-comings, and certain doesn't make it inherently better than treads for a huge, heavy vehicle.

Destroids only have terrain advantage in terrain that destroids can step over but tanks can't maneuver around (keep in mind the footage of the Challenger vs. the Land Rover), bull through, blow up, or burst over (and a modern tank can burst over things at least as tall and solid as concrete highway barriers). Can anyone offer an example from the footage wherein there is fighting on such terrain? Meanwhile, in EVERY kind of terrain, it is easier to target destroids. In EVERY kind of terrain, tanks have a more stable means of locomotion (you can't trip a tank). In soft terrain, tanks have much better ground pressure mitigation while the cube-square law screws things with feet. And, of course, being able to be obscured by terrain also means you're much better at being able to use terrain as cover!

Destroids can do things that look cool in an action scene, but as for actually having better mobility applicable on a real battlefield? Dubious, at best.

Also, by presenting a torso, the destroids offer a solid wall 'o destroid to aim at and impact against (and if hit hard enough knock over), whereas tanks are designed to be as sloped as possible so that shots incoming hit at an angle and are more likely to deflect doing less damage on armor that oh-by-the-way can be made thicker because tank design allows for less surface area.

Now, Zentraedi battlepod swarming is an issue for tanks, but then again that's why destroids got destroyed (heh). Glass-cannon swarms would probably be better served by armored cavalry fighting vehicles which have smaller, but high rate-of-fire cannons. Or even some repurposed air-defense artillery vehicles, which will be especially good at targeting at the absurdly tall and jumpy battlepods and making the whole jumpy thing a suicide move.

Of course, we're ignoring that the whole justification for the whole big humanoid thing is that Zentraedi are giant humans, which right off the bat is scientifically absurd and probably one of the biggest handwaves in the series.

The fact is, Macross is really really great at creating the illusion of realism to help create suspension of disbelief. But its just not very hard sci-fi, for all of that.

[Seto Kaiba]

I see both sides of this argument pretty clearly (I think anyway) and I'd have to say that Destroids are way better at defeating Regults than a tank would be.

That's the key point that the "oh it's bias" crowd keeps tactfully forgetting to mention... the unique characteristics of the enemy in question make tanks an EXCEPTIONALLY unattractive option, if not an outright liability, largely because of those design choices they keep citing as advantages.

Armor is effective against armor, as stated, and real military actions tend to prove this. However, if you have an enemy moving at 300 miles an hour and leaping at gittery intervals while firing missiles at you...you're basically screwed in a tank, it doesn't matter that your target is a 60+ foot tall ostrich.

No kidding... a tank is about the worst possible option for confronting something that is fleet of foot, highly agile, and flight capable. There's a reason they don't send tanks to fight attack helicopters or fighter jets, and the Regult and other mecha on both sides are a damn sight more agile than anything a tank is designed to fight. Tanks are, fundamentally, designed for fighting other tanks. Their low profiles, armor contours, and so on are designed to maximize their defensive potential when fighting something with those same advantages. They're simply less than ideal for confronting a target whose center mass happens to be sitting ten meters or so off the ground, which is equally capable of running better than twice as fast as your average tank can drive and flying at a pace that'd shame most attack helicopters... with agility to match.

The tank's low profile is ideal for fighting other tanks, but its shaped armor is designed to repel fire from either troops on the ground or other tanks... it's not designed to protect from fire from above. The larger mecha have exactly the right vantage point to exploit that weakness, and the firepower to make it count from far away or up close. Their ability to fly, jump, or walk over terrain that'd bog down or block a tank column's advance doesn't hurt either, nor does their far greater weapons capacity resulting from that upright stance and bipedal drive train. To fight effectively, tanks have to stand off at range to hit a taller mecha, while the superior mobility of the mecha means they can either pick the tanks off from afar or get close enough that the tanks can no longer fight effectively.

Regults don't run at 300 miles per hour.

They're perfectly capable of topping 120mph in a run, according to the official info. That's better than double what modern tanks can do. Tracks are more a high-stability option than a high-speed one though.

Tanks built with the same technology as destroids could track and engage targets as well as destroids, so their ability to dodge and jump doesn't put tanks at any greater disadvantage than destroids when it comes to shooting at battlepods.

That's a rather unfounded assumption... tanks are more limited in their ability to carry weaponry than the larger mechanized platforms, and they don't have as much freedom of motion in main weapon traverse capability compared to, say, any of the Tomahawk marks.

And again: humans can jump and roll and perform flips and all sorts of acrobatics. Ask someone with combat training if they would rather jump and flip on a battlefield, or if they would rather be in a prone supported fighting position.

A misleading statement if ever there was one... that's only true if you're fighting a conventional foe, and the enemies that the destroids and other mecha were designed to fight are anything but. If you're fighting a foe who relies heavily upon an inordinately high level of mobility, then that sort of runny-jumpy-acrobatty nonsense is exactly what you want if you don't have a death wish.

And seeing as how tanks built with modern technology can reach 40-50 miles per hour at least for high-end main battle tanks, tanks built with advanced technology would certainly be capable of speeds to match or exceed destroids.

Possibly... it depends on whether or not they can fit a power plant to match what a destroid's can, though a reduction in mass from improved armor material should help considerably. (A Mk.VI Tomahawk weighs about half what a M1A2 Abrams does... 31.3t vs 61.3t) It won't address the terrain issue, PARTICULARLY in space... which is where destroids spend the bulk of their service life in Macross. (and I'll remind you we ARE talking Macross in this thread, not RT)

Destroids only have terrain advantage in terrain that destroids can step over but tanks can't maneuver around (keep in mind the footage of the Challenger vs. the Land Rover), bull through, blow up, or burst over (and a modern tank can burst over things at least as tall and solid as concrete highway barriers). Can anyone offer an example from the footage wherein there is fighting on such terrain?

I will, at this juncture, remind you that we're talking about Macross, not Robotech... and that there is a lot more to canon Macross than just the animation. It's just as well, since the best examples I can think of come from a canon video game, a canon light novel, and a manga. My favorite is probably Max's performance as during his tenure as a destroid driver in Macross the First, that prominently featured him leveraging the Tomahawk Mk.VI's bipedal maneuvering and ability to rocket jump to its best advantage.

Meanwhile, in EVERY kind of terrain, it is easier to target destroids.

Until they get close, then it's just easier for them to step on you. (Yes, that HAS happened in animation.)

Of course, their larger size means they can also take much thicker armor than a tank can... so it might be easier to target destroids, but it's a lot harder to HURT them.

In EVERY kind of terrain, tanks have a more stable means of locomotion (you can't trip a tank).

On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to lead tanks into terrain where they'll get stuck, throw a track out, or generally find themselves incapable of maneuvering. Destroids and other mecha are able to maneuver underwater, where a tank is going to get stuck. They can jump or rocket jump over significant obstacles that a tank would be unable to drive over or blast a path through. Most telling, if a destroid DOES trip and fall... it can get back up unaided. If a tank gets stuck, it's going to need a hand from some heavy equipment.

Also, by presenting a torso, the destroids offer a solid wall 'o destroid to aim at and impact against (and if hit hard enough knock over), whereas tanks are designed to be as sloped as possible so that shots incoming hit at an angle and are more likely to deflect doing less damage on armor that oh-by-the-way can be made thicker because tank design allows for less surface area.

That only counts if you're shooting at the tank from its level or slightly above. The mecha in question would be firing from rather higher up, meaning the tank is presenting a nice, flat, rectangular target for a particle beam, solid round, or shaped warhead. (Unsurprisingly, this is why the favored anti-tank methods usually involve attack helicopters or aircraft)

Now, Zentraedi battlepod swarming is an issue for tanks, but then again that's why destroids got destroyed (heh).

Yet, their track record's pretty good in the original series and later... it'd be a worse issue for tanks than destroids, since a tank only has one main weapons system to engage with, and a destroid has rather more options.

Glass-cannon swarms would probably be better served by armored cavalry fighting vehicles which have smaller, but high rate-of-fire cannons. Or even some repurposed air-defense artillery vehicles, which will be especially good at targeting at the absurdly tall and jumpy battlepods and making the whole jumpy thing a suicide move.

*cough-Series03Cheyenne&Series04Defender-cough*

[Sgt Anjay]

Regults don't run at 300 miles per hour.

They're perfectly capable of topping 120mph in a run, according to the official info.

Which is still not the 300 miles per hour that had been claimed by the person I was responding to.

That's better than double what modern tanks can do. Tracks are more a high-stability option than a high-speed one though.

Ah, but we're not talking about modern tanks, are we? We're talking about tanks built using Overtechnology. If a modern tank can near match destroids in speed, then logically the OT tank has the ability to trump them. Again, its the double standard of thinking of tanks in terms of what modern ones can do and thinking of destroids in terms of a vehicle built with futuristic technology.

Tanks built with the same technology as destroids could track and engage targets as well as destroids, so their ability to dodge and jump doesn't put tanks at any greater disadvantage than destroids when it comes to shooting at battlepods.

That's a rather unfounded assumption

No it isn't. Adapt a simpler version of what they using to rotate torsos or the shoulder joint to rotate tank turrets. A barrel traverse is a simplified elbow/hinge simpler but not that different from the one on the Tomahawk arm. Ergo, tanks built with the same technology as destroids could track and engage targets as well as destroids because the weapon mount is a simpler, cheaper, but hardier version of what's moving destroid armaments.

And again: humans can jump and roll and perform flips and all sorts of acrobatics. Ask someone with combat training if they would rather jump and flip on a battlefield, or if they would rather be in a prone supported fighting position.

A misleading statement if ever there was one... that's only true if you're fighting a conventional foe

No it isn't. The claim that in ranged combat being tall and acrobatic is the bees knees doesn't hold up when you look at how ranged combat works in the real world.

If you're fighting a foe who relies heavily upon an inordinately high level of mobility, then that sort of runny-jumpy-acrobatty nonsense is exactly what you want if you don't have a death wish.

Care to quote any source with any credibility in real combat that would concur? Now don't get me wrong: being able to have a high top speed and serious punch is wonderful for combat. Being tall and jumpy is not, it will get you targeted and destroyed sooner than hugging the ground.

And seeing as how tanks built with modern technology can reach 40-50 miles per hour at least for high-end main battle tanks, tanks built with advanced technology would certainly be capable of speeds to match or exceed destroids.

Possibly... it depends on whether or not they can fit a power plant to match what a destroid's can

If a vehicle the size of a destroid is a practical war machine, then a tank of similar size is just as practical, which means the whole “big enough to fit the engine” thing is a non-starter.

I'll remind you we ARE talking Macross in this thread, not RT)

Actually, I'll remind you I'm talking about how Macross tech would translate when viewed from a real-world perspective as opposed to the fictional setting which is constructed to accommodate giant humans vs. giant robots. Within the setting, and within the setting only, such things make sense, thanks to handwave physics and such. When looked at objectively? Not even the giant humans which are the reason for the giant robots are realistic.

Destroids only have terrain advantage in terrain that destroids can step over but tanks can't maneuver around (keep in mind the footage of the Challenger vs. the Land Rover), bull through, blow up, or burst over (and a modern tank can burst over things at least as tall and solid as concrete highway barriers). Can anyone offer an example from the footage wherein there is fighting on such terrain?

I will, at this juncture, remind you that we're talking about Macross

That would actually be the second “reminder”.

My favorite is probably Max's performance as during his tenure as a destroid driver in Macross the First, that prominently featured him leveraging the Tomahawk Mk.VI's bipedal maneuvering and ability to rocket jump to its best advantage.

Acrobatics in ground-based long-range combat=fictional gun-fu that simply isn't realistic to an actual battlefield, outside of an occasional combat roll. Also, ignores how destructive to terrain something with that much mass would cause when impacting on something as horrible at ground pressure mitigation as feet; pretty soon you're creating your own trip hazards...a hazard that ONLY exists for things with legs.

Meanwhile, in EVERY kind of terrain, it is easier to target destroids.

Until they get close

Except that's hard when modern tanks can just about match destroid speeds, which means a super-advanced version is going to be quite hard for a destroid to catch.

it's just easier for them to step on you. (Yes, that HAS happened in animation.)

Of course it's happened in animation, and I'm sure it looked hella bad-ass. But unfortunately for the argument the real world doesn't operate on Rule of Cool. Gun-fu and rhythmic gymnastics combat look amazing on-screen or on a page. Real combat doesn't obligue.

Of course, their larger size means they can also take much thicker armor than a tank can

I answered this false argument already. If the technology makes destroid size practical, then so is a tank of equivalent size. Stop restricting tanks to modern tech while retaining OT for destroids. And a tank of equivalent mass to a destroid can field thicker armor, as it has a much smaller surface area to armor.

In EVERY kind of terrain, tanks have a more stable means of locomotion (you can't trip a tank).

On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to lead tanks into terrain where they'll get stuck, throw a track out, or generally find themselves incapable of maneuvering.

That, of course, is a factor of tactics. Yes, it is possible to use superior tactics than an opponent using tanks to mire enemy tanks. That doesn't speak to the raw advantages of the equipment itself.

Destroids and other mecha are able to maneuver underwater, where a tank is going to get stuck.

Amphibious tanks are a thing. They're usually light tanks when built with current or earlier technology...but again, Overtechnology.

They can jump or rocket jump over significant obstacles that a tank would be unable to drive over or blast a path through.

Jumping like that in the real world is another word for “please shoot me I'm an awesome target” because unfortunately, the real world not run on audience appeal and is thus absent of rule of cool.

Most telling, if a destroid DOES trip and fall... it can get back up unaided. If a tank gets stuck, it's going to need a hand from some heavy equipment.

While a destroid is being tripped, during its fall, and while it recovers from the fall it is flailing. It gets up only if the enemy fails to capitalize. A tank that's stuck is probably still shooting at you; inherently stable is a good thing. You've made the job easier with a tank that's stuck, no doubt about it, but that's it. There are actually recorded kills made by tanks that have been rendered immobile.

Also, by presenting a torso, the destroids offer a solid wall 'o destroid to aim at and impact against (and if hit hard enough knock over), whereas tanks are designed to be as sloped as possible so that shots incoming hit at an angle and are more likely to deflect doing less damage on armor that oh-by-the-way can be made thicker because tank design allows for less surface area.

That only counts if you're shooting at the tank from its level or slightly above. The mecha in question would be firing from rather higher up, meaning the tank is presenting a nice, flat, rectangular target for a particle beam, solid round, or shaped warhead. (Unsurprisingly, this is why the favored anti-tank methods usually involve attack helicopters or aircraft)

You get that angle by being at aircraft height, not by just being a couple tens of meters tall, and of course attack helicopters and low-flying aircraft in turn have to be very careful of air-defense while getting into position to go armor-busting; being tall and jumpy makes you similarly if not more vulnerable without the advantage of actual flight.

Now, Zentraedi battlepod swarming is an issue for tanks, but then again that's why destroids got destroyed (heh).

Yet, their track record's pretty good in the original series

In the original series? You mean SDF:Macross the original series? PFFFHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

a tank only has one main weapons system to engage with, and a destroid has rather more options.

Again, that's a MODERN tank. Stop limiting Overtechnology to the destroids. And even some modern tanks have been getting missiles added on. But yes, tanks are not designed to be everything and operate in a vacuum. Combined arms is a beautiful, terrible thing. Cavalry screens both armored and aircav, airborne infanty, air assault infantry, mechanized infantry, artillery in various flavors, air-defense artillery in its varieties, combat engineers, close-air support, and more. A whole symphony, designed to fulfill individual mission parameters to the utmost while working in concert to delivery a very bad day.

Glass-cannon swarms would probably be better served by armored cavalry fighting vehicles which have smaller, but high rate-of-fire cannons. Or even some repurposed air-defense artillery vehicles, which will be especially good at targeting at the absurdly tall and jumpy battlepods and making the whole jumpy thing a suicide move.

*cough-Series03Cheyenne&Series04Defender-cough*

*cough*there's-a-freakin-metric-crapton-of-weapons-and-vehicles-designed-capable-and-battle-proven-for-filling-that-role-cough*

Although, a relatively small, foot-and-wheel, more narrow role war machine like the Cheyenne is much more in the realm of the practical. Not bad at all.

[Alrik Vas]

I would stop applying Overtechnology to tanks when you claim your tired of hand-wave on Destroids.

[Sgt Anjay]

I would stop applying Overtechnology to tanks when you claim your tired of hand-wave on Destroids.

You misunderstand me. I'm not objecting to fictional settings, fictional physics, fictional war machines based on the above, or anything like that. What I'm objecting to is Claiming that the war machines in the fictional setting aren't effective for the very reason that they're in a fictional setting built to accommodate them.

In other words, I've no problem with the fictional justifications, my issue is saying that the fictional justifications would carry over into the real world, such that a real-world warmachine must be inferior because that's what the fiction says.

[Colonel Wolfe]

I would stop applying Overtechnology to tanks when you claim your tired of hand-wave on Destroids.

You misunderstand me. I'm not objecting to fictional settings, fictional physics, fictional war machines based on the above, or anything like that. What I'm objecting to is Claiming that the war machines in the fictional setting aren't effective for the very reason that they're in a fictional setting built to accommodate them.

In other words, I've no problem with the fictional justifications, my issue is saying that the fictional justifications would carry over into the real world, such that a real-world warmachine must be inferior because that's what the fiction says.

I gotta say that any tech you can apply to a Bipedal mecha you can apply to a Tank...
if Over-tech makes everything so much better than if it was put in a tank, it would work just as easily...
I'm reading ton of explinations that this tech can only work on a bipedal mecha... and if that's true, then its a set up via hand-wavium that
destroids have to be better period....

[Sgt Anjay]

It’s not about liking or disliking the series or its story elements. It's about realizing that the story elements are story elements, and not actual reality.

Destroids trump tanks is demonstrably a story element. It is, in fact, the story element that lets them tell a military story while also including cool giant robots, two great tastes that taste great together. There’s nothing wrong with a fictional story using story elements. Identifying and discussing the story elements can be very useful when one intends to tell their own story within the setting, which is something you can do through the RPG.

Discussing the story elements of Macross, how they compare to the real world and their relative place on the scale of science fiction "hardness" IS discussing Macross just as much as praising it to the high heavens.

Discussing gets spirited, but please don't let that discourage you from sharing what you will around here. However...this board is about more than just Macross, so even if someone were to actually dislike Macross that does not mean they should “go somewhere else”.

[ShadowLogan]

Possibly... it depends on whether or not they can fit a power plant to match what a destroid's can,

At least from an output perspective
Tomahawk Destroid Main Reactor 2800shp, Secondary 450kw
Defender Destroid Main Reactor 2800shp, Secondary 510kw
Phalanx Destroid Main reactor 2800shp, Secondary 970kw
Spartan Destroid Main Reactor 3200shp, no secondary

M1 Abrams Tank Engine output: 1500shp or 1120kw.

The M1 is easily putting out more power (kw) than the Secondary Engine on any of the small Destroids (not counting the Monster) using conventional fuels versus fusion. It is also easily 1/2 the output of the Main Reactor (majority), even though it only has ~90m^3 of volume versus >400m^3 of the 4 small Destroids to work with (Volume calculated by max dimensions in all cases).

Said engine as previously mentioned is only 1.6m x 1m x 0.8m (all rounded) in size (or ~62inches x 39inches x 31.2inches). The GE engine on an AH-64 is only 25inches in diameter and 47inches long) with an output of 1698shp, the GE engine on a MH-53 is 24.2 x79 inches in size and puts out over 4000shp. The M1's engine has a helicopter derivative that competed to be the engine on the AH-64 (it lost), so adapting the engines either way is possible.

This shows that from an output perspective, an armored vehicle can certainly get an engine in the same class for it's size as a Destroid with several times the volume.

I am avoiding comparing the Monster to the M1, since it would be closer in concept and oversized nature to the Super-Tanks of WW2.

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

The M1 is easily putting out more power (kw) than the Secondary Engine on any of the small Destroids (not counting the Monster) using conventional fuels versus fusion. It is also easily 1/2 the output of the Main Reactor (majority), even though it only has ~90m^3 of volume versus >400m^3 of the 4 small Destroids to work with (Volume calculated by max dimensions in all cases).

I would imagine they could also get away with having an engine crammed into a tank that didn't require the same power output levels of a Destroid to have it perform equally or even better. A tank is going to be a better bang for your buck because it would be considered a 'Low End Alternative' to the 'High End' Destroid. You can field a platoon of tanks (4) for the same amount of resources you put into 1 Destroid. Its the economy of scale thing again.

[Alrik Vas]

A great deal of vehicles are made as a platform for a weapon however. I think the advantage of destroids in that regard would be their capability for armament. I don't see tanks that are less than half the size effectively carrying the same guns.

Tomahawks/Excaliburs carry large particle beams for instance. They're pretty big, i don't see those being mounted on a tank because the tank isn't as big and also has less surface area for mounting the weapons. You'd need a smaller weapon that could result in shorter range and less damage.

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

A great deal of vehicles are made as a platform for a weapon however. I think the advantage of destroids in that regard would be their capability for armament. I don't see tanks that are less than half the size effectively carrying the same guns.

Tomahawks/Excaliburs carry large particle beams for instance. They're pretty big, i don't see those being mounted on a tank because the tank isn't as big and also has less surface area for mounting the weapons. You'd need a smaller weapon that could result in shorter range and less damage.

:facepalm:

Really? The M109A6 Paladin has a 155mm howitzer as its cannon, which is the same bore diameter as that on the Tomahawk per RAW. The length of the howitzer on the Paladin is also about the same length (or possibly even longer) than that of the Tomahawk. You're seriously going to sit there and say that an energy weapon's bore length determines range and damage?

[Colonel Wolfe]

Honestly, it becomes the idea of costs.
for one destroid you could produce several tanks with the same level of technology.
sure the "benifits" of the destroids are present, but its deficencies are as well.
Macross has shown that isn't not focused on even destroids, since in Macross Plus they don't show them except as target practice, and the only "destroid" to get real screen time in Mac frontier, is the Konig Moron Variable-destroid.

[Alrik Vas]

:facepalm:

Really? The M109A6 Paladin has a 155mm howitzer as its cannon, which is the same bore diameter as that on the Tomahawk per RAW. The length of the howitzer on the Paladin is also about the same length (or possibly even longer) than that of the Tomahawk. You're seriously going to sit there and say that an energy weapon's bore length determines range and damage?

No, i'm not sitting here and saying, i said "could" because it's just my supposition. It wasn't a generalized claim i was attempting to pass off as fact, it was a guess. I don't mind being corrected on things, but don't /facepalm at me like i'm some kind of jerk.

That said, I'm not certain what you're trying to say about the Paladin howitzer and the Tomahawk's particle beam. Is it like, "A tank can carry a howitzer, so it can carry a particle beam?" If that's the case, i don't disagree. It could carry a single beam weapon of that size, but . However, is there a tank or other piece of armor that can carry the 30 missiles, the two gun clusters and machineguns, as well as the two particle beams and still break 50mph?

If ShadowLogan's numbers are correct, and his own supposition sound, I think the particle beams on a tank actually are fine. My issue is it's lack of height and firing angle. It's still terrible against a regult. If tanks were great at downing helicopters, i'd be more inclined to agree that tanks are better suited to the task.

[glitterboy2098]

However, is there a tank or other piece of armor that can carry the 30 missiles, the two gun clusters and machineguns, as well as the two particle beams and still break 50mph?

and is there a giant bipedal robot that can carry all that stuff and do that?

if you limit the tank to modern real world tech, but allow the robot to use all the fictional super-tech, of course the robot looks better. but that's not a fair comparison. it's apples and anvils. you have to hold both to the same technological assumptions for it to be fair.

and the problem is, that any technology that you can come up with to offset the limitations of a walking robot design as a combat unit, a tank can use far more effectively. so the tank still wins.

in settings where mecha exist, the writers have either chosen to ignore the issue, or have arbitrarily decided that no one would apply any of whatever super-tech macgufins they are using to tanks.

[Colonel Wolfe]

Honestly, it becomes the idea of costs.
... Konig Moron Variable-destroid.

König Monster (King Monster), and the Cheyenne Mk II.

I know the Konig Moron had lots of screen time, but the other one you mention the Cheney II honestly was a blink-and you miss it destroid...

Then again, anything cannon fodder was made into smoldering metal fire in seconds....
Generally if you're not a hero character, you're good as dead.

Honestly in SFD-Macros even the VF-1 Valkeyeree is Canon fodder when not piloted by a main character, since they are shown to blow up in a single hit through most of the 36 episodes... Plot-armor works well for main characters.. put Fokker or hickcarru in a Tank and it would last an entire episode....