ReZEL Defenser B Redundant Weapons?

[TDR-10M Thunderbolt]

I've been fascinated by the ReZEL Type C's Defenser packs lately. Defenser Pack A makes plenty of sense, but Defenser B is... bizarre, and I'm hoping someone can explain the design choice to me.

Basically, a ReZEL Type C with Defenser B attached carries 2x Mega Beam Launcher and 2x Mega Particle Cannon. Why would it have all four of these? Aren't they redundant? I can see two of EITHER of these weapons, but what purpose is fulfilled by having all four? I'd think swapping the particle cannons out for Defenser A's missile pods would be a wiser choice to give it a more well rounded loadout?

If anyone has insight on this, I'd love to hear it.

[MythSearcher]

I've been fascinated by the ReZEL Type C's Defenser packs lately. Defenser Pack A makes plenty of sense, but Defenser B is... bizarre, and I'm hoping someone can explain the design choice to me.

Basically, a ReZEL Type C with Defenser B attached carries 2x Mega Beam Launcher and 2x Mega Particle Cannon. Why would it have all four of these? Aren't they redundant? I can see two of EITHER of these weapons, but what purpose is fulfilled by having all four? I'd think swapping the particle cannons out for Defenser A's missile pods would be a wiser choice to give it a more well rounded loadout?

If anyone has insight on this, I'd love to hear it.

Sounded just like an argument of a twin barrel turret or 4 barrel turret to me.

I am not a fan of having tons of similar weapons on a mobile weapon, it is less realistic, but it does give it higher fire power on a barrage.
In real life we do have(or did have) 4 barrel turrets on a warship, so it is not that far removed from our world. My main concern is the reduced mobility, the difficulty in aiming such weapons with a single pilot vehicle, and the economic problem(you don't see tanks with 2~4 main guns nowadays and that's the reason)

[TDR-10M Thunderbolt]

Well, most of the official materials (Unicorn episodes) and the games featuring the unit suggest it can maintain that barrage fairly well. I'm just sitting there wondering, "Why four beam weapons? Why not two beam, two missile so it has an answer to I-Fielded mobile armors? Not a GREAT one since it's still a lot of armor to chew through, but it could at least TRY to rip the otherwise beam-resistant foe up..."

Is there something special about Mega Particle Cannons to justify including them on a unit that already has two beam launchers?

[MythSearcher]

Well, most of the official materials (Unicorn episodes) and the games featuring the unit suggest it can maintain that barrage fairly well. I'm just sitting there wondering, "Why four beam weapons? Why not two beam, two missile so it has an answer to I-Fielded mobile armors? Not a GREAT one since it's still a lot of armor to chew through, but it could at least TRY to rip the otherwise beam-resistant foe up..."

Is there something special about Mega Particle Cannons to justify including them on a unit that already has two beam launchers?

Ok, there is no canon support, but I always think of Mega Particle Cannons as self reliance weapons, meaning the vehicle charge the weapon by its own generator, as oppose to beam rifles/launchers, etc. that uses e-cap technology(including e-packs, and even if the vehicle charges the weapon, they charge the e-cap instead of the weapon itself)

The canon part comes from ZZ, where it got a mega condesor for its head cannon, so the weapon does not work like a e-cap weapon.(mechanically they are really similar though, I assume the condesor does not provide long term storage and thus more efficient in power but provide poor rapid fire capability)

So a Mega Particle cannon is good when you use up your e-cap. It fires slowly but you can always fire it without recharging the e-cap.
The e-cap, on the other hand, is good for short burst of multiple shots, but you can use it up and it takes more time to charge back the bigger energy bank.

Back to the original question, I think we don't have that many I-Field equipped MAs around, and beam weapons are just that much more powerful than kinectic/chemical weapons. Even warships cannot take powerful beam shots, and it would be pretty effective to use multiple close proximity shots to overcome the beam resistant coatings.

[Dark Duel]

I-Fields are extremely uncommon for the most part, to begin with.

Second, the other factor to take into consideration is mass. I don't have the stats in front of me ATM, but the Defenser Type-A's missile pods, since you mentioned it, are enormous. That means they're going to be heavy, which translates to a negative impact on maneuverability that can only be partially offset by additional thrusters, since more thrusters means more propellant, which means more weight. And the Type-A doesn't do that. It doesn't have any more thrusters than the Type-B does, and in fact has fewer since the Type-B's binders(which mount the MPC, and are based on the equipment used nearly a decade earlier by the Gaplant IIRC) incorporate additional thrusters that are absent on the Type-A.
So why the extra MPCs on the Type-B? Greater firepower with less of a tradeoff in terms of sacrificing mobility.

And let's be objective here, the Type-B alone, even within the ReZEL line, isn't the only one with multiple similar weapons equipped. No offense, but it's kind of disingenuous to single out one particular variant for having purportedly redundant weapons systems just because it has two weapons of similar type, when every single variant of the same unit has the same thing going.

Since your argument is that the much larger Mega Beam Launchers make the Mega-Particle Cannons redundant, I could make the same argument about the Type-A or even the basic ReZEL standard and Type-C models.

Why would the Type-A need Hyper Beam Sabers that don't even function as additional beam guns, if it already has beam sabers in the first place?

Or why would the ReZEL in general need to have a beam gun in its shield, since it already has either a beam rifle(standard) or a Mega Beam Launcher(Type-C)?

[TDR-10M Thunderbolt]

I-Fields are extremely uncommon for the most part, to begin with.

Fair point, though they're absolutely devastating when they show up (which is, amusingly enough, roughly 'once per war... usually near the end of it!'). It has always surprised me there isn't more effort focused on dealing with those things, that's all.

And let's be objective here, the Type-B alone, even within the ReZEL line, isn't the only one with multiple similar weapons equipped.

Granted. I was mostly curious about this since the ReZEL is pretty much top of the mass production line in its era. The design choice was unusual in my eyes.

No offense, but it's kind of disingenuous to single out

Offense taken, actually. You're seeing malice when there is none. It's not 'disingenuous', it's "I was curious why this design would split these aspects of its equipment between Defenser packs, when it seems plausible at first glance - and maybe it actually is not plausible - to combine the design traits to get something that seems more well-rounded. Maybe I should ask those with some better insight on the topic what they think."

Interestingly enough, you provided some of those insights. Thank you for doing that (no sarcasm; text lacks tone and I want to be clear that I do appreciate it)

Why would the Type-A need Hyper Beam Sabers that don't even function as additional beam guns, if it already has beam sabers in the first place?

Or why would the ReZEL in general need to have a beam gun in its shield, since it already has either a beam rifle(standard) or a Mega Beam Launcher(Type-C)?

The Hyper Beam Saber choice did puzzle me, actually. The only thing I can think of is they had spare generator power lying around on Defenser A machines and decided to use it on SOMETHING...

As for the shield beam gun, that one I can actually defend. On most ReZELs, it's possible to remove their ability to make a ranged beam attack by just shooting off their right arm (or left arm, if the pilot set it up so the equipment swaps arms, I guess?). The shield beam gun would provide a viable backup option that can be used by the remaining arm.

Anyway, the notion that the Defenser A would presumably be far less agile than the Defenser B due to the extra weight of the missiles is interesting. I had not considered that possibility, so thank you for bringing it up.

[yazi88]

From seeing the specs of the A and B types... even with the extra equipment, they are still quite better and more balanced units compared to the other Federation models of that time. Most standard and modern mass produced Fed MS lacked heavy firepower apart from the Stark Jegan. I'm not including the GM III cause that is quite old by that time given its from the 1st Neo Zeon War and its performance is not that good even in when it rolled out.

And given how outnumbered Londo Bell was during the Laplace incident, they need as much heavy equipment as they can get, plus... I'm guessing they can always eject the extra parts... or maybe not if some like the thrusters are locked into place.

[TDR-10M Thunderbolt]

The GM III was part of what made me ponder the question! I always liked its mix of firepower, even if the overall mix wasn't quite right in the end and it got replaced by the Jegan for good reason.

Actually, this reminds me that the ReZELs all have wrist grenade launchers. I'm curious, how many shots do they hold? Is it just one per tube, with two sets of two-tube launchers (1 per arm) for 4 shots total?

[Dark Duel]

Nope. Only one arm holds two grenade launch-tubes, which presumably don't hold much more than one or two shots per tube. The other arm stores the ReZEL's beam sabers.

[yazi88]

If you think about it, ReZel's have ALL the same weapons as the Zeta Gundam... aside from the beam sabers that double as beam cannons, but has a beam cannon in the shield...

It has the similar beam rifle with saber tip, grenade launcher, beam cannon/beam launcher. Just no biosensor nonsense... it is a very balanced suit that seems to be a better unit than the ReGZ that predated it, as well as being easier to manufacture given it uses a Jegan frame but with the Methus's transformation and chassis, or rather... the Z-II.

[TDR-10M Thunderbolt]

Oh, so THAT'S what the other arm panel is for? Neat. I was wondering where the heck it kept the sabers, couldn't tell from looking at a model kit. Cool. Thanks for the info!

Building on something Yazi mentioned... I've also seen a lot of people attach a beam saber blade to the ReZEL's shield beam cannon (EDIT: That is, they attach it to the shield cannon on model kits). Is that a thing it has been shown to do in other materials?

[MythSearcher]

Let me elaborate a bit on my own military views in mixing and matching different types of equipments.

It really depends on what mission you are on, but in UC, most of the times you don't face enemies with I-Fields, and if they are equipped with I-Fields, they are really likely to be heavily armoured as well, so small missiles, granades will also likely be pretty ineffective to begin with. So you either need to use bazookas and lots of rounds in barrage and actually hit a few dozens of times, or you need to have larger missiles to hit(which would be pretty hard under M particle dispersion unless you are aiming at a rather slow target like a ship)

The mini/micro-missiles that MSs scatters a lot in the Macross Missile Massacre mode are only good against MS and likely not very effective in long range.
They will be like Shotgun shots, high density in short range and thus really likely to hit a lot of times, and thus doing high damage. But against a large opponent that is not very likely to cause too much damage due to the thicker armour.
This kind of equipments are usually for CIWS function, like the FAZZ missile pods are really just for the "in case someone gets close enough and your Hyper Mega Cannon really can't aim that fast" of situation.

The ReZELs are deployed by the EFSF as high performance MSs in the Hi-lo mix but still as regular force. They will likely be used against higher performance enemy MS units, and thus standard equipments will be designed against such.
Notice in Evolve 4, the experienced Zeon remnants also used beam weapons as a counter measure when they encounter MA type enemy (GP03), so unless the enemy is known to have an I-Field equipped, beam will be the weapon of choice against more powerful enemies. You can always have other supporting units using bazookas(pretty standard in the EFSF inventory of GMs) or large missiles(GM III and Jegan both have such weapon packs, the GM III has both shoulder and waist packs)
With the ReZELs having the mobility to retreat and resupply, or simply spread out and destroy enemy target ship (and the beam weapons with a barrel that long should excel in doing so in long range) The I-Field MA should be least of their concern.

[E08]

Time to clear somethings up.

First, the ReZEL's forearm-mounted grenade launchers and beam saber racks are exchangeable, they are not restricted to either arms. Based on the specs from this scan, the ReZEL can be equipped with four beam sabers and zero grenades or vice versa. About the beam cannon in the shield, AFAIK, they cannot emit beam saber. However, the protrusions/blades at the rear of the shield can be used as a ramming/punching weapon in close combat.

Second, about the mobility/maneuverability between ReZEL Defenser A and B, it is worth nothing that in terms of base weight, A type is lighter at 28.3t, while B type weights at 29.3t. It should also be noted that the B type's binders is not fully based on the Gaplant's, only the binders' MPC and weapon layout is based on the Gaplant's. The B type's binders have extra vents at the back, but i'm not sure they function as thrusters. Perhaps, someone want to check the OVA/anime? And really, only the top part of the A's and B's binders are different, they share the same lower binder parts. Overall, i don't think there is much of a difference in mobility/maneuverability between the two. As an aside, both versions are said to have better propulsion power and mobility than the normal ReZEL, so the extra weight is not much of an issue.

Lastly, the weapons of the Defenser A and B type are different due to them serving different purposes. The A type's armament is meant for widespread/wide area effect at close-mid range, thus the hyper beam saber (which can hit multiple unit in a single slash ) and micro missiles. The hyper beam sabers' beam gun function is omitted as priority is placed on stable energy supply. The B type's armament is meant for focus/concentrated single point attack in mid-long range, which i think justify the use of only beam weapons, since they deal more focus damage than the missiles.

[TDR-10M Thunderbolt]

Interesting info. Thanks!

Talking of a ReZEL pulling back to change equipment... hmm. It has been a while since I watched Zeta. How quickly can a Defenser unit be attached? Was the Super Gundam able to do it in the field pretty fast? I want to say "yes", but that's going off very old memories. If so, the idea of flying off to swap Defenser packs actually makes plenty of sense for a ReZEL.

[Gelgoog Jager]

First, as quick follow up on what Mythsearcher said, different weapon layouts can be more efficient at particular situations. The most simple example I can think of is the case of a Zaku II fighting against tanks/fighters and warships. Obviously the Zaku bazooka would be the weapon of choice against battleships, but against many minor targets its limited ammo would make it a poor choice. On the other hand, the Zaku machine gun would excel at taking out many minor targets in a short time, but it would have trouble destroying a heavily armored warship.

As for the case of the Rezel's Defenser B pack, another possibility for the redundancy of its weapons is the durability or energy supply of these. For instance, particularly powerful weapons could be greatly limited in the amount of times they can be fired, of how often they can do so without wearing out their barrels faster than designed to. Also, the generator of the Rezel might not be able to resupply them as fast as it can fire them. In such case being able to use one weapon while leaving the second one stored and recharging, and swapping them as needed, could be a viable way to keep a more or less constant barrage over a long period of time.

[E08]

Talking of a ReZEL pulling back to change equipment...

Err.. i don't think that's the case, it is more likely the ReZEL is launched in the Defenser A/B equipment from the get-go. The Defenser A/B is stated to be deployed for quick, first strike attack on the enemy. Difficult to launch a first strike attack if your MS have to return for a change of weapon if you ask me...

In terms of Defenser B's weapon, i think it is hard/unfair to call them redundant due to what Dark Duel said earlier. As for energy supply, the Defenser B equipment has its own generator (unknown if singular or plural), and furthermore, the mega beam launcher has its own sub-generator. So, energy wise, it doesn't look to be much of a problem.

It is specifically said that the Defenser B's twin mega beam launchers allow the suit to fire the weapon at their max power continuously, something that the ReZEL with the box or wing backpack cannot as they are typically armed only with one mega beam launcher. The comparison here between the use of one vs two mega beam launchers lead me to believe that the ReZEL Defenser B is supposed to fire its two mega beam launchers alternately. So, i feel the rational behind having two mega beam launchers seem to be more about compensating for their relatively slow rate of fire and having a constant barrage.