Perhaps you're right, then I will try to use less irony, sarcasm, allegory and accurately formulate thoughtsAreku wrote:...My "boorish" statement was actually an expression of how your responses make you appear to others; if you don't like it, you should strive to correct it by changing your behavior and the way you present yourself and your questions and ideas, rather than supporting my comment by telling me to read carefully.
Because it most clearly represents the concept of well-armed mecha in the original "FMP!"Areku wrote:So if it's not about specific models, why did you focus on nitpicking irrelevant details about the clearly-under-performing Mistral rather than discussing weapons and design philosophy?
https://pp.vk.me/c311116/v311116602/60c ... RGVhis.jpg
Although, perhaps I should not have put him alone in an argument - as began to find fault with its design
However, I might add, as an example, and "Type 96". "Model 96" has two suspension assembly on the "back" that allows it`s to carry additional weapons like recoilless gun / missile unit or equipment, such as infrared illuminator.
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/sohryu_l ... iginal.jpg
http://film.thedigitalfix.com/protected ... 2front.jpg
Not really, since it's part of the same issue...Areku wrote:Also, your questions are asking very different things; the first is broadly about specialization vs versatility in mecha weaponry...
In the original "FMP!" prevails equipment AS with light weapons, but but in the third generation already appear specialized models such as "sniper", is equipped with a long-range gun
At the same time there is a "Mistral II", nominally be equipped with missiles with a decent range, in addition to the autocannon
Rather, the need for such weapons, because even very fast and supermaneuverability "M9" forced to use rocket launchers against well-protected military equipment and facilities...Areku wrote:the second seems to be asking about the utility of "heavy" weapons on mechs...
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n29/ ... 10_037.jpg
It was a figurative comparison of units are betting on the maneuverability or firepower, respectivelyAreku wrote:and the third clearly asking about the mecha themselves (humanoid vs vehicle with limbs).
So, in the end there is the question "What is better?" - model using heavy weapons as a subsidiary + unit specialized under a powerful weapon on the basis of the standard model or an ordinary model equipped with heavy arms as a standard part of the arsenal?
Frankly, nothing like that. Just interested in aspects of armaments AS as a real-mecha, and in the best suited combination to regular troops...Areku wrote:For example, are you creating some kind of fan-design Arm Slave, maybe for a fanfic or something?
His reply concerned more mecha themselves, or rather their actions in different environmentsAreku wrote:Brave Fencer Kirby's first post is about as good an answer as you can possibly expect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now мore time, carefully, read the quotationSeto Kaiba wrote:Mobility is the most important factor in an Arm Slave's survivability. ... The larger weapon is a good deal bigger and less versatile, and harder to employ in maneuver warfare.
"Armor-plating humanoid fighting machines, in principle, could not resist the ingress of shells powerful tank guns, and their main weapons - small-caliber automatic cannon - was not able to hit the tank in the front. ... AS could not expect to win in a direct duel with tanks fire, so "Mithril" AS used dug around the base of "Alamo" ditches as trenches to escape the whistling over the desert piercing billets. Firing anti-tank missiles, they quickly replaced the position jumping from one ditch to another, and using smoke screens, tools and infrared jamming traps."
Agility, of course, a good characteristic, but it is not always possible implementation ... Equally important is the mecha`s ability to use and create shelter ... But in any case, to defeat tanks and other heavily armored military vehicles, need anti-tank (and even better multi-purpose) missiles...
(...
So what's the problem? "Mistral II", or rather its designers, have focused on the protection and firepower, combined with the maintainability... By the way, if the term "mobility" in this case is used in the sense of "transportability"?Seto Kaiba wrote:The problem with this contention is that nobody has been able to corroborate the allegations that the Mistral II's mobility is good. We know, from the DVD liner notes and official art books that it has better than average armor for its generation and that, despite its simple electronics, it has a fire control system that compares favorably to the export "monkey model" version of the Rk-92...
In fairness, I have never met the precise characteristics "Drache", so do not argue that it was "Mistral" worst AS in his generation ... By the way, according to the maximum operating time "Mistral" is superior to "Cyclone"...Seto Kaiba wrote:but based on the printed specs its land speed is the slowest in its generation...its jump height is on the low end of average, physical agility is said to be lower than any of its competitors, and its maximum operating time's 15% less than its competing designs ....
In general, it is time to finish the discussion of the "Mistral", as we are talking, after all, the concept of weapons... )
I check the information on the basis of sources available to me...Seto Kaiba wrote:The only problem here is that you're not even checking that the material you're quoting from is 1. canon, 2. accurate, or 3. actually in support of your argument.
1. Remember, you are trying to announce the entire twelve-volume sequel history "FMP Another!" are dubious canon, also very strange interpreted quotations from "Full Metal Panic Vol.12:! Approaching Nick of Time." trying to prove your thesis (one of the leaders of the "Amalgam" Japanese, another Italian-born Yankees, remaining unknown - means "Amalgam" controlled by the Soviet Union!...This is some nonsense.)
2. There are translation errors, but I'm trying to verify the information -
...armour defence and electronics are actually better than Savage/it has better than average armor for its generation and that, despite its simple electronics, it has a fire control system that compares favorably to the export "monkey model" version of the Rk-92...
- and apparently, the information is quite accurate
3. re-read, please, again, decryption quotes about maneuverability and missiles...
"Armor-plating humanoid fighting machines, in principle, could not resist the ingress of shells powerful tank guns, and their main weapons - small-caliber automatic cannon - was not able to hit the tank in the front. ... AS could not expect to win in a direct duel with tanks fire, so "Mithril" AS used dug around the base of "Alamo" ditches as trenches to escape the whistling over the desert piercing billets. Firing anti-tank missiles, they quickly replaced the position jumping from one ditch to another, and using smoke screens, tools and infrared jamming traps."
Agility, of course, a good characteristic, but it is not always possible implementation ... Equally important is the mecha`s ability to use and create shelter ... But in any case, to defeat tanks and other heavily armored military vehicles, need anti-tank (and even better multi-purpose) missiles...