Why no artillery in Gundam?

The future is now. This is the place for mecha and science.
User avatar
Black Knight
Posts: 598
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:20 am

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

Seraphic wrote:A second reason why I wouldn't use shelling in space is because targetting would have to rely on optical sensors, but that's the exact spectrum range that Minovsky interference would screw up. =/ You notice all the massive missile shelling in CCA, but they hardly hit anything unless it was a giant rock.
Minovsky particles, last I checked, blocked radiowaves, and interfered with but did not negate IR, but somehow left the optical spectrum alone. Which is rather why every UC MS relies almost entirely on optical sensors, with long-range ship sensors being predominantly infrared, since it provides better contrast against the background of space.

So, frankly, finding your position via optical sensors would be a snap. And all of the strategic targets I mentioned would also be plotted with high degree of accuracy due to their relatively immobile nature.
Seraphic wrote:As mentioned before, what I find attractive about an artillery gun attack in a MS scenario is that the gun has an arcing trajectory, so it can shoot around the terrain basically. MS would have no cover from that. And if your gun is good enough, you can shell the MS well outside of their counterattack range. And while they're weakened from taking artillery fire, send in your own MS or something. Combined arms, like MrMarch said. (And I would love to see an A-11 MS killer!) =p
Being able to shoot above terrain would be a bigger factor if 1) accuracy was good, because an artillery shell is going to need a direct hit against a hardened target like an MS and 2) communication was sufficient to allow for accuracy. Unfortunately, Minovsky particle distribution ruins communication, and MS mobility prevents other options for direct hits.

Combined arms does, of course, beat one-trick ponies any day of the week and thrice on Sundays. Which is why the US Marine Corps and other intelligent militaries introduces the combined arms dilemma at the fire team level (four infantrymen), and just makes it a bigger problem for enemies as the formations get bigger.

Sadly, the closest Gundam ever gets to combined arms is still within the MS community, with the close-combat/ranged combat teams, such as the GM/GM Cannon (or GM/Ball), and the Gyan/Rick Dom.
Seraphic wrote:Mostly, I just wanted to discuss a simple artillery gun, and not a "mobile weapon" but those seem to be very rare cases in Gundam. For the hell of it, you can just discuss anything that can employ artillery-based tactics.
You still have to define what you mean by "artillery", however; modern armies use it solely to refer to high-angle indirect howitzers, but most "artillery mobile suits" operate primarily as direct-fire elements; you don't often find a Guntank firing at a target the pilot can't see. In fact, I can't think of a single case where that happened; I don't remember the Guntanks in 08th MS Team lacking line-of-sight on their targets.

As for A-11 MS Killers...there's a reason that the Federation Ground Force's aircraft are said to have been the most effective means of destroying Zeon's MS until the introduction of the GM.
User avatar
Seraphic
Posts: 1434
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:56 am
Location: Inside the barrel of Wing Zero's left Buster Rifle.

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

Minovsky particles, last I checked, blocked radiowaves, and interfered with but did not negate IR, but somehow left the optical spectrum alone. Which is rather why every UC MS relies almost entirely on optical sensors, with long-range ship sensors being predominantly infrared, since it provides better contrast against the background of space.
Really??? :shock: What about when the Whitebase disappeared from a photo due to interference? And I could swear that I heard in many many threads that the optical range was a main victim of interference. I mean, people are constantly talking about not being able to see very far because everything got really blurry after a certain range. I'm not always working with the most updated information, so I'll believe what you'll tell me. =/

Just as a sort of FYI, in a lot of these scenarios, I'm thinking of artillery guns that have been scaled up in performance so that they damage MS in the same manner that an infantryman might be "damaged" by one of our modern day artillery cannons.

Hm...let me think about what qualifications I'm wanting: large bore cannons, usually projectile and not beams. High-angle, indirect fire for the most part. (Though I don't mind the rare case of direct fire.) Targets out of visual range either due to distance or terrain blockage.

I was avoiding defining the discussion too closely in fear of limiting our topics of discussion. Hopefully we're out of the phase of everyone just throwing links and names at me. =p
"Red particles are bad, they mutate you into... dead? But green/blue particles are good, apparently, for reasons and for purposes yet to be determined. Isn't science sometimes nicely color-coded?"
-Antares

GW: The Sword . Sera's Art . Gameplay . The Lost Citadel
User avatar
Brave Fencer Kirby
Posts: 1308
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:14 pm

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

Seraphic wrote:Really??? :shock: What about when the Whitebase disappeared from a photo due to interference?
That would presumably be do to the effect of the interference on the camera, not the light itself. Minovsky interference scrambles unshielded electronics in addition to blocking particular bits of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Fighting evil so you don't have to!
User avatar
Seraphic
Posts: 1434
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:56 am
Location: Inside the barrel of Wing Zero's left Buster Rifle.

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

Yeah, I figured something was weird about that. Why should it be visible to the eye but not the camera if interference is blurring the spectrum. (Still, it's funny how in the photo just the Whitebase disappeared while everything else looked normal. The thing producing the interference vanished.)

Still, what's this talk of visible range being shortened? Am I just citing false memories again?

I'm still iffy on Minovsky interference blocking communications. It seems very light or nonexistent in the parts I've watched. Like the GM sniper, the guntank, and the core fighter being able to receive/transmit info when they're all far away and isolated. And then there's freaking Gato in 0083 tracing the speech's signal all the way to Solomon.... I know the interference is supposed to be a serious problem, but it's just very non-obvious to me.
"Red particles are bad, they mutate you into... dead? But green/blue particles are good, apparently, for reasons and for purposes yet to be determined. Isn't science sometimes nicely color-coded?"
-Antares

GW: The Sword . Sera's Art . Gameplay . The Lost Citadel
User avatar
Kuruni
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:43 am
Location: sitting next to a yandere loli
Contact:

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

MrMarch wrote:But this is one of the conceits of giant robot shows, real or super:
OT and nitpicking, but saying convention weapon can beat super robot is like saying our tech can wipe Azathoth from universe (and Demonbane did that to Azathoth...) :mrgreen:
My girlfriend was a loli.
User avatar
Brave Fencer Kirby
Posts: 1308
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:14 pm

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

Seraphic wrote:I'm still iffy on Minovsky interference blocking communications.
Minvosky jamming isn't shown particularly consistently (though I suppose that may be because they're at varying levels of Minovsky particle density throughout the shows?). Radar is never used at any range, and communications at long range (ie ships talking to each other) is done via laser signals (though we don't know what part of the spectrum they're using), but communications at short ranges (ie mobile suits talking to each other) is never seen to be disrupted (and it presumably uses radio, given that maintaining line of sight for a laser comm would be a nightmare in a battle situation; there's also funky things like Gyunei's "optical voice" trick in CCA that raise questions). Long-distance detection seems to rely almost entirely on infrared, and its effective range is surprisingly short, given that it seems the first indication of an attack frequently seems to be the sensor operator yelling "heat source detected!" when a missile or a mobile suit appears on their scope immediately before attacking.

So radio and infrared are both apparently blocked more-or-less completely at long range but not at short range. Laser communication isn't blocked at all, but we don't know what wavelengths they're using. Visible light is fairly ambiguous, but given that Gundam never uses visual sensors to snipe at people halfway across the Earth Sphere (which would most definitely be possible in real life), we can probably assume that it get blocked too -- eventually -- but at longer distances than radio or infrared. We can probably assume that the visible light spectrum is never blocked completely (or else we wouldn't be able to see the stars and such), but distorted to the point of uselessness, at least for the purpose of detecting enemy vessels, at some point. I'm imagining something like unpredictable drifting clouds of Minovsky particles obscuring different parts of the sky at changing rates; it'd have to be pretty bad to keep computer-controlled cameras from noticing everything from thruster exhaust (which is, after all, really really bright) to star occultation (that is, an object like a star disappearing from view because another object like a mobile suit or a ship has moved in front of it).

This seems to suggest that Minovsky particles are better at blocking lower-frequency radiation. Radio is at the "bottom" of the electromagnetic spectrum (lowest frequency, longest wavelength), then microwave, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-ray, etc. Radio seems most affected; we never see it used for anything but close-range communication (if that; that's really just an assumption). Microwave isn't mentioned, but infrared is used for long(ish)-range detection, so it seems to work better than radio, and visible light even better than that (though it's still apparently affected by the jamming at least somewhat). Ultraviolet and up isn't mentioned either, but the pattern seems pretty well set from what we do know. Though that simply raises questions about why no one's using ultraviolet cameras in Gundam...
Fighting evil so you don't have to!
User avatar
Black Knight
Posts: 598
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:20 am

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

I don't think the complex gravitational effects between the Earth, moon, and sun would really allow for traveling clouds of minovsky particles, though the gravitationally stable LaGrange points (L4 and L5) probably have relatively permanent effects from Minovsky particles which have drifted there, much like Earth is said to be fairly permanently covered by minovsky interference.

Since it's long-range optics which discover Axis heading to Earth, I'm fairly confident that long-range optical sensors aren't inhibited by minovsky particles. The lack of sophisticated automated sensors we'll probably have to chalk up to the limited scientific knowledge of Gundam's staff in the '70s and '80s; after all, they didn't predict anything like the internet, either, and their missiles are even less sophisticated than the ones fielded by most militaries at the time First Gundam and Zeta/ZZ were produced.
User avatar
Brave Fencer Kirby
Posts: 1308
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:14 pm

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

Black Knight wrote:I don't think the complex gravitational effects between the Earth, moon, and sun would really allow for traveling clouds of minovsky particles
Really? I think it would cause them. You've got ships of all kinds dumping varying amounts of Minovsky particles as they travel about the Earth Sphere, with different sizes, densities, and velocities. Once they're emitted by the ship, they wouldn't stay with the ship, but would be subject to the whims of gravity and various other forces in space (such as solar winds, or getting scattered around by the exhaust of ships and MS). These clouds might not last particularly long before getting caught in the gravity of the Earth, Luna, or an L-point, but they'd be completely unpredictable until they did, and I think that there's enough traffic in the Earth Sphere that there'd be a cloud or twelve drifting along somewhere in the Earth Sphere at any given time.
Black Knight wrote:Since it's long-range optics which discover Axis heading to Earth, I'm fairly confident that long-range optical sensors aren't inhibited by minovsky particles.
Yeah, but Axis is huge, which means it's much harder to miss than a ship or a mobile suit, and its engines are correspondingly brighter as well. Nor do I recall when Our Heroes™ get the news that Axis is heading to Earth, so they may not have actually detected it until it got fairly close.
Black Knight wrote:The lack of sophisticated automated sensors we'll probably have to chalk up to the limited scientific knowledge of Gundam's staff in the '70s and '80s; after all, they didn't predict anything like the internet, either,
It's less failing to predict a major advance and more failing to understand the physics of the situation. It's not like the fact that rocket exhaust is really hot compared to the background temperature of space is a recent discovery. One can't really blame them too much -- they're not rocket scientists, after all -- but it falls to us to rationalize the result of their lack of expertise into something that makes sense.
Black Knight wrote:and their missiles are even less sophisticated than the ones fielded by most militaries at the time First Gundam and Zeta/ZZ were produced.
Well, that we can safely blame on Minovsky jamming affecting the electronics in them. That's the whole point of it, after all -- radar-guided fire-and-forget missiles blowing mobile suits to pieces en masse would ruin the giant robot show, after all.
Fighting evil so you don't have to!
User avatar
domtropen
Posts: 502
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:07 am

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

For 08th team while it can be argued that shelling the base entrance may not be curved shot, the shelling of the highway Norris is running on seem like curved shot based on coordinates from Eledore for me.
User avatar
crashlegacy14
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:38 am
Location: In the Zaku's cockpit. Yes, the one that just exploded.
Contact:

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

here my general thoughts on why we don't see many artillery pieces in gundam.

this goes for combined arms in general. communication is limited.
while yes it wouldn't effect a group of infantry supporting a mobile suit or other mixed unit deployment groups in combat certain things come to mind. first artillery and air support as we know them in combined arms is out of the question, unless you're dealing with a group of aircraft trailing and maintaining visual with the group it's suppose to be supporting or groups running lines from artillery pieces during patrols, once combat insures or general particle interference gets high enough said interference would prevent the group from calling those assets into play.

on the end of infantry I recall, probably falsely, there's at least one instance of infantry/personnel not being able to communicate with a mobile suit until they nailed it with one of those nifty grapple/tow line gun (you know what the hell i'm refering to). I don't remember exactly why, weither it was the pilot suit's helmets self contained radio was being interfered with, the din of noise was too high for the mecha's audio sensors to detect the person yelling at him, or what not.
in 08th we see the use of cables being ran from I want to say one of the gundams into the guerrilla village so shiro can maintain contact with the ms team. In a mobile battle situation (i.e. not sniping) running a cable between two moving units would be severely limiting.
we see in general infantry verus ms combat is all about infantry maneuvering in to ambush locations and firing anti armor weapons into the joints of a MS. while this could be done with a MS or two acting to draw the enemy's attention away from infantry and eventually into the ambush's line of fire it seems more of a waste of resources if the job could already be done by the MS alone. I could how ever see a tank and infantry combination making use of this for greater effect then either unit could achieve alone. but this all assumes that communication can be maintained.

tanks are really the only combination I could see really being able to consistently help ms teams. the reasoning behind this is simple. they carry fire power that should be able to defeat ms armor, they are able to effectively keep up with MS, and they should be able to easily mounted several different communication options allowing it more flexibility in keeping in contact with it's attached team.

now that I think of it there's no real reason why infantry couldn't use a tank as a relay for communicating with mecha if their own communications are unable to keep up provided they stay within radio range of tanks. likewise during larger operations communications relays could be set up to allow for stand communication and thus standard combined arms pratices being more viable. and what I mean by this is say you have a battle group heading towards an enemy encampments within an urban center using relay posts laser communications could be maintained with base.
...arhg tangent.

at any rate in the manner we see most ground based battles occurring in gundam, that being autonomous MS patrols through mostly urban and jungle/forest environment, unless they have a white base tucked away nearby, artillery and aircraft support would be largely impossible due to communication problems. on the other hand, in larger battles or assaults on strongholds, there's little reason why a combined arms approach wouldn't work. spotters at point where they have a communication line run could be used by previously placed artillery to gain coordinates on targets.

oh and most of the jabruo cannons seemed to be defense turrents akin to anti aircraft guns rather then artillery pieces.
Crash's Mecha Design Works
Crash's Mecha Based RPG
-----------------//-----------
ShadowCell wrote: Perspective. It's great.
CrashLegacy14 wrote: my immortal enemy: Perspective.
Gelmax
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:51 pm

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

Regarding IGLOO's Jormungand long-range beam cannon, the problem wasn't really directly due to interference. Rather, the gun was built with the intention of having targeting data relayed to it from the frontlines (presumably using laser communication), but the higher-ups decided to try out the mobile suits instead, and thus refused to send the Jormungand any targeting data, rendering it effectively unable to fire. Crew members even went out in a shuttle to try to acquire the data, but were ordered off the battlefield by the mobile suit officers. Thus its poor performance - it only destroyed two ships because it only fired two shots, both done manually and relying on nothing but the gunner's good eye. And this is in IGLOO too, where the effects of Minovsky interference are so severe that even color TV doesn't work.

There was also, of course, the Hildofr. I'm not sure why it hasn't been mentioned, given that it WAS a versatile artillery platform with close combat capabilities (although it wasn't able to really show off the artillery part, as it fired only one short upward bombardment and it all missed), and that episode pretty much set the standard on artillery vs MS, even though it was stacked in the mobile suits' favor. There's other use of artillery in Gundam as well, though it rarely appears due to the focus on mobile suits; large land battleships like the Big Tray and Zeon's equivalent, for example, tended to have weaponry reminiscent of naval guns, including indirect-fire ones.

Putting everything together, the issue seems to be that mobile suits are fast, agile, close-combat weapons. Their speed is less stable compared to a tank's, and unlike a tank, they can jump out of the way when they hear an incoming shell. Without mobile suits of your own to stop them, enemy MS will get inside your artillery's range and take it out. If you do have mobile suits of your own, then the artillery is useless because in battle, enemy troops will be a little too close to your troops to be used well, save perhaps in large battles. Additionally, poor communication makes precision fire difficult, and the tough armor of mobile suits would be difficult for artillery to deal with - the performance of various similar weapons in MS IGLOO imply that you'd need a direct hit to even faze the MS with regular artillery, and it's difficult to scale up a mobile artillery platform by much.

That said, 08th MS Team showed that artillery does still have some role (and many limitations) in important but rare situations: fighting over a very strong defensive position held by one side. In this case, the movement of both sides is considerably hampered, and both sides necessarily have their support units and command structure within the enemy's artillery range so they can take potshots at each other's rear lines while their mobile suits fight each other, with the winner's MS advancing to take out the loser's artillery and cripple their defensive fortifications and supply routes.
User avatar
Deathzealot
Posts: 979
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:08 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

Honestly, I would think that in the age Minovsky interference armies would have to go back to old cable laying from World War II. But this of course would only work on Earth and not in space, also like mentioned before it would be useful for big and planned landbattles like Odessa. Though this of course would not work with Artillery spotting from aircraft, but again from WWII you can use forward observers with direct landlines to the Artillery Section to direct the fire. As for Space it is mentioned that they use some sort Laser Communication to get around the Minovsky interference. Anyways my two cents to this discussion.

Off topic here but I can not believe anyway has brought this baby out in reference to the A-11 "Mechkiller". :twisted: Granted, it would not be much use later in the war, but given some upgrades and I think we got our Mechkiller.

EDIT: Fixed some Typoes
User avatar
Crimson-Lightning
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: san jacinto california

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

Black Knight wrote:This was my biggest problem with the Earth Alliance in the CE shows (and ZAFT, indirectly); the OMNI Lunar bases were perfectly capable of wiping out every single PLANT given a decent hand-held calculator. And ZAFT should have realized that, and made more of an effort to conquer the moon and less of trying to subject the nations of Earth by force.
ZAFT did try. They established a Lunar base but gave up after getting their fleet cyclopsed at Endymion. After that they seemed to be content blasting the hell out of any other EAF base they came across while their ground forces focused on trapping them on earth by capturing their mass drivers. You also have to consider that the Alliance as a whole had no intention of destroying all the PLANTs. They wanted them back. Blue Cosmos later gained enough influence to swing things into their view but by that point they pretty much had nukes back.

As for artilery the EAF and Orb both had Linear Artillery peices running about: http://www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/seed/l ... illery.jpg. The EAF also seemed to use fixed artillery which can be seen at Panama.
User avatar
Black Knight
Posts: 598
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:20 am

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

Given that the war started 11 February 70, and ZAFT begins to invade Earth less than a month later, with the First Battle of Victoria on 8 March, and, when that fails, ruins Earth's economy with the April Fools Crisis and, the next day, Earth Invasion 2.0 making a "friendly" landing at Carpentaria, and then not attacking Luna until 3 May, I think I'm justified in my earlier comment that "ZAFT should have realized [the danger posed by Luna], and made more of an effort to conquer the moon..."

But in the battle of physics versus story, story always wins.
User avatar
MrMarch
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:58 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

Deathzealot wrote:Off topic here but I can not believe anyway has brought this baby out in reference to the A-11 "Mechkiller". :twisted: Granted, it would not be much use later in the war, but given some upgrades and I think we got our Mechkiller.
That's kinda what I was thinking when I made the post, but again, it is the lack of technological equilibrium across that is the biggest failing of the fiction. They even say how outdated the Mongoose is, serving many decades before the era of MS. The point I was making is that if a military has the technological capability to build a practical machine as fast, agile, armored, armed and complex as a mobile suit, logic demands all that associated technology be made available for ANY piece of military hardware.

There wouldn’t be CONVENTIONAL tanks, aircraft or ships in an era where mobile suits are a reality: all these vehicles would have much greater capabilities equal to the same technology that makes mobile suits possible. That means tanks, aircraft or ships with ultra compact fusion, beam weaponry, luna titanium, etc. Perhaps not immediately, but six months to a year later anti-MS weapons would flood the battlefield. After the war, anti-MS weaponry would be the norm, just like anti-tank weaponry is the norm today.
Gadget
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:13 am

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

MrMarch wrote:
That's kinda what I was thinking when I made the post, but again, it is the lack of technological equilibrium across that is the biggest failing of the fiction. They even say how outdated the Mongoose is, serving many decades before the era of MS. The point I was making is that if a military has the technological capability to build a practical machine as fast, agile, armored, armed and complex as a mobile suit, logic demands all that associated technology be made available for ANY piece of military hardware.
Not really true. Most armed forces will try to stretch their machines as long as possible. A good example is the WW2 designed attack plane, the A-1 Skyraider. It was used right up to the Vietnam war.
As for artilery the EAF and Orb both had Linear Artillery peices running about: http://www.mahq.net/mecha/gundam/seed/l ... illery.jpg.
And as for EAF and Orb artillery, I though they were more desperate self propelled howitzers that are modified for anti MS use. The old British 25 pounder, can be used as a HE field gun, or fire an anti-armor round in anti-tank. It's the same as the German's 88 flak gun.
User avatar
MrMarch
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:58 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

Gadget wrote:Not really true. Most armed forces will try to stretch their machines as long as possible. A good example is the WW2 designed attack plane, the A-1 Skyraider. It was used right up to the Vietnam war.
That has no relevance at all. How many new weapons were designed and built while this A-1 Skyraider was in service? Anti-tank weapons of all kinds have existed since the tank was invented: anti-MS weapons would develop just as quickly at the beginning of the MS era. An artificial technological disparity would be the only way to prevent it, at which point we're back to my original argument about the fiction itself.
User avatar
Ryujin
Posts: 1350
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:43 am
Contact:

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

To elaborate further, the piston-engined A-1 Skyraider lasted as long as it did because the USAF & USN, so enamored of their jet-propelled record-breaking fast-movers, didn't really have anything in their inventory, at the time, that was geared for the sort of rough-and-dirty close air support that was needed in a counter-insurgency campaign.

With its 10-hour endurance, it could loiter around all day until called for, and respond more quickly since it was already airborne. Its ability to fly low & slow meant that it could deliver its 3+ tons worth of ordnance very accurately, even in close proximity to friendly troops, and its toughness and armour meant that it could deliver that ordnance where it was needed, in spite of whatever light AA the guys in black pyjamas or pith helmets could bring by way of the Ho Chi Minh trail. In combat situations where other factors counted far more than speed, they even managed to down the occasional MiG with their 20mm's!

It's a tribute of sorts that the A-10 was first conceived as an "up-to-date Skyraider" when the USAF conceded that it needed a dedicated close support aircraft because of the unsuitability of its existing equipment.

But, make no mistake, it wouldn't have lasted long at all over the skies of early 1970's Europe if it were to encounter the first- or second-category Warsaw Pact forces of the time.

In short, it was a special case--an airplane whose very low-techness gave it qualities & strengths that perfectly suited it to a particular kind of low-tech battlefield.

A better example of what Gadget meant would probably be the B-52 bomber and the Centurion MBT. It should be noted though that these have benefited from various upgrades, reconditioning and modernization packages throughout their service lives.
Last edited by Ryujin on Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:42 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Gundam Genki
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:38 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

Heavy land based artillery really needs two things. It's own position. And the target's position. Both would be hard due to minovski interference. So even mobile artillery will probably have to remain on a fixed position. It's quite possible to accurately map the artilleries own position. Then one takes a few guys with a LOT of cable, these will be the forwards observers. They keep their heads down. Best use for artillery is when the pilots are sleeping and thus the mobile suits stationary.

24 Phz 2000 (an entire battalion) would be capable of landing 120 shells simultaneously on an encampment. It's not inconceivable that one 155 mm round would rip apart an MS in one shot. But let's say the improbable situation that they survive 3 impacts. An encampment of 25 MS would still be totalled in less than 2 seconds.

And I guess that's why modern artillery or tanks aren't in robot-shows much, and if they are, they are downplayed. Modern tanks have a mass quite similar to mobile suits, but are WAY smaller. Yet I've seen more than one MS kick a tank into oblivion. Reality dictates however, that most likely the mobile suit will take it's own leg off in the process... Modern weaponry is mostly already capable of SciFi-like feats.

This is one of the few things we'll just have to swallow in Anime. Modern day missiles that are fire and forget can fly in the general direction of the enemy, and visually identify it's target by itself. In other words, it can easily get close enough to actually SEE the MS. There's just no way a massive vertical target like a Mobile Suit would be practical in reality. That's why we need to forget a part of the military doctrine, and just have to accept that some things work like they do. Otherwise, we would continuously see massive robots get owned by artillery or other conventional weapons. What's the fun in that? I want to see giant robots beat the crap out of each other, not watch a military documentary ;)

- edit -
I realise that I'm dangerously close to violating the 'plot shielding' rule. What I actually mean here is that though we're not sure, we should accept that long range wire communication is out of the question. Perhaps cables are also influenced by minovski particles at longer ranges. Though I would think that Morse code would be back with vigour. But alas.
<Gundam Genki???
>Do I LOOK fine???
User avatar
domtropen
Posts: 502
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:07 am

Re: Why no artillery in Gundam?

Well it is stated in official site that Minovsky particles does affect long range wireless communications and electrical circuitry, so a small yet very smart self-control weapon is not easy to make in UC would. Since the "magic dust" exists in its respective universe it would be better to discuss things within its universe, isn't it?

It is shown in Igloo and 08th MS team that MS can be shelled, aerial-bombed or destroyed by small anti-MS missile in appropriate situations, but other vehicles including tanks and ships would be shellable to metal scraps in appropriate situations as well. On the other hand showing MS betting scraped by such weapons would make the mecha show the cannon queen show or Area 88 instead :mrgreen: And it is said that Zeon MSs on Earth are heavily destroyed by the fed's air force, so yes MS can be destroyed by aircraft, A-11 or not. As for MS feats that are not animation errors:

- even normal Zaku can hop quickly without even using its rocket backpack, and it can also use only the rocket backpack [no leg movement] to jump too.
- Tank can be kicked without damage to Zaku's leg and foot.
- GM groundtype can fall into a deep pit without crippling damage, but Zakus can be strucked in the tight pit though [but probably just immobile and not damaged].
- EZ-8 can ripped its own arm off, and Gouf custom can push a chunk of highway and lift the whole EZ-8 with one arm.
Last edited by domtropen on Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply