Is "attack use" a misnomer?

The future is now. This is the place for mecha and science.
Post Reply
False Prophet
Posts: 789
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:40 am

Is "attack use" a misnomer?

Post by False Prophet » Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:07 am

So, the box art of the HG Hyaku Shiki Revive labels the MS as "A.E.U.G Attack Use Prototype Mobile Suit".

What is exactly "attack use"? Isn't it like... 99% OF ALL MS EVER PRODUCED?

User avatar
Arsarcana
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:26 am

Re: Is "attack use" a misnomer?

Post by Arsarcana » Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:04 pm

That's literally what the kanji means but it could also be translated as 'Strike-use'. So basically, a suit made to launch attacks on enemy assets, as opposed to a more specific designation like a transforming suit or an environment-specific suit. But yeah, it's a very broad designation.

User avatar
Areku
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:00 am

Re: Is "attack use" a misnomer?

Post by Areku » Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:20 pm

"Strike-use" may be quite a bit more specific than it seems. "Strike fighter" is a designation used to identify small, fighter-like platforms that are designed primarily for anti-ground and anti-surface operations while still performing well as an air-to-air fighter; you can think of "strike" as a sub-categorization of "multirole" that's geared more towards attacking ground targets. Planes such as the F-15E Strike Eagle, F/A-18C/E/F Hornet/Super Hornet and the F-35 Lightning II are all classified as strike fighters, while the predominantly air-to-air F-15C Eagle and F-22A Raptor and poor air-to-air A-6 Intruder and A-10 Thunderbolt II Warthog are not.

Considering that the Hyaku Shiki employs (and seems to be designed around) the powerful Mega Bazooka Launcher for long-range operations against ships and other slow "ground" targets while still performing well in medium- and close-range combat with other "air" MS (as long as it isn't lugging the Launcher around), the fighter-inspired "strike" designation seems like a respectable fit.

User avatar
SonicSP
Posts: 1393
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:38 am
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Is "attack use" a misnomer?

Post by SonicSP » Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:43 am

When I think of attack-use, I think of attacking enemy assets like a bomber of sorts as opposed to attacking the enemy's fighters. Just an opinion from someone who is not an expert on all these terms in real life.

It also helps that I read that thread on designations on what they mean some time ago, that was pretty enlightening.

It beats all the non-UC RG box designations though, which defaults to just "insert organization name" mobile suit (and I think some MGs too?). I really disliked that because I always wanted to see an RG Exia box with the caption "close combat mobile suit" at the bottom ever since I saw the first RG RX-78 box.

E08
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:00 am

Re: Is "attack use" a misnomer?

Post by E08 » Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:00 am

I believe this is the thread SonicSP is referring to: http://www.mechatalk.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=15947

According to toysdream in that thread, this is what the "attack use( or type)" mean: These are meant to break through enemy lines with minimal fuss and make high-speed hit-and-run attacks on major enemy targets - bases, ships, and so forth. Most high-end AEUG machines fall into this category, and since the Doms from Gundam 0083 are classified this way, the original Dom and Rick Dom probably qualify as well. (So the Rick Dias plays the same role as the Rick Dom.)

You can look through the thread for the other MS type.

toysdream
Posts: 3250
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:24 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Re: Is "attack use" a misnomer?

Post by toysdream » Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:26 am

Basically they're just borrowing terminology from modern military aircraft. Unless otherwise specified, the average mobile suit is analogous to a fighter plane, but some of them are classified as attack craft, interceptors, bombers, support craft, etc.

-- Mark

User avatar
Gelgoog Jager
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:09 pm

Re: Is "attack use" a misnomer?

Post by Gelgoog Jager » Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:48 pm

I think that the Neo Zeon MS from ZZ seems to have been designed to perform very specific roles:

Attack:

-Bawoo (air)
-Dreissen (ground)
-Zaku III (space)

Bombers:

-Capule (water)
-Ga Zowmn (space)
-Zssa (air)

Intercept:

-Dooben Wolf (anti-ship)
-Gaza D (quick interception)
-Geymalk (all range attacks)

Support:

-Gallus J (urban control)
-Ga Zowmn Gunner Type (long range support)
-Gaza E (atmospheric flight support)

Post Reply