Realistic Mobile Weapon Classification Systems

The future is now. This is the place for mecha and science.
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:10 pm

Re: Realistic Mobile Weapon Classification Systems

Post by DragoMaster009 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:30 pm

Say Freighttrain, what opinions do the people over at Gundam Wikia have regarding your system?

Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:19 am

Re: Realistic Mobile Weapon Classification Systems

Post by Freighttrain » Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:43 pm

Well Kuruni said he thought that I did good job with my mobile weapon classification systems but that he had yet to read through them all and someone on Reddit recently said that they also made a lot of sense to her.

Also recently another on the Gundam wiki was kind enough to let me know of the battlespace viability of a few of the After Colony mobile weapons that I was inquiring about in the questions section of my first blog post, and mobile weapon battlespace viability is one of my primary interests regarding data for accurate classification.

Though why do you ask?

User avatar
Posts: 1424
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:26 am

Re: Realistic Mobile Weapon Classification Systems

Post by Arsarcana » Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:27 pm

Hey Freighttrain, since you don't seem to have figured it out yet, this board doesn't use the @ feature to notify users, learn to use the quote tags instead. I shall now demonstrate how this works:
Freighttrain wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:10 am
But I figured since no one else had posted any messages on this thread for a few days I might as well reply to what you brought up there.
I suspect most of us were hoping you'd get bored and go away once it became obvious that literally nobody here thinks your classification system makes any sense and nobody else considers it an improvement on what already exists in-universe.
Well if you would go back and read my messages on this thread, you will notice that I have actually taken care to respond to each and every argument brought up by yourself and others.
Lies. I refer you to a point I made back on the first page which you have still not bothered addressing: The US Navy didn't call its primary fighter for thirty years a N-VG-MR-ASF (Naval Variable Geometry Multi-Role Air Superiority Fighter), they called it the F-14, full stop. People knew what it was for; they didn't need to create a word salad to describe every possible aspect of it. Why do you think any military would adopt such a clunky system as what you're proposing when it's nothing like what they actually do to describe vehicles that fill a comparable (ie, one or two-seat vehicles) in the Big Blue Room that is the real world?
Regarding the HMMVW, I only referenced it due to its coincidental similarity in the pronunciation of its acronym to the base acronym that I devised, that being SHMV,
The problem here is that there's already a perfectly good term in existence for these machines, Mobile Suit. If a hypothetical real-world example could be made (and no, it can't without a whole lot of hand-waving) everyone would call them by whatever name the makers designated (whether it be Mobile Suit, Wanzer, Gear or whatever), they wouldn't add an extra designation on top of that which is completely extraneous. Since you're trying to work within the bounds of the Gundam franchise, you're doubling down on the redundancy.

Oh, and as already pointed out your term (which isn't an acronym, you need a bloody vowel in there somewhere for it to be pronounceable by people without a severe throat infection) is bollocks because these vehicles aren't 'super-heavy'. Mobile Suits in Wing are some half the wait of a WW2-era light tank and heavy tanks outweigh them by a factor of five or more. I've pointed out to you that MS mass-to-volume ratios are simply ludicrous (another point you seem unwilling to address) and I suspect that if we had mass figures for the various ground vehicles we'd find that they outmass the MS by a considerable margin. With 00 you're doing the same thing for machines between 50 tons (ie, around what a WW2 heavy tank would be, not 'super-heavy') and 120 tons. Or since you also classify MA as super-heavy, you're trying to force that definition on things between fifty and six hundred tons. Do you not see how this makes zero sense?
My use of those acronyms/initialisms is only one type of classification for such vehicles, obviously in other documentation pertaining to other information regarding those vehicles they would be designated otherwise or in addition to those acronyms but I have only listed them using my acronym and initialism designations in that one format, so my classification systems are still quite valid regarding this.
Rarely have I seen so many words spilled to say so little. Let me shorten that for you: 'My classification is completely redundant'.
Well despite this I kept my classification systems as close to preexisting military classification as I thought was necessary so you seem to be slightly contradicting your previously stated beliefs regarding mecha classification with what you've said afterwards.
At some point, it would be nice if you at least pretended to acknowledge that the in-universe classification systems convey all the necessary information about what a given design is and does, while also not including stuff that is completely unnecessary and outside the bounds of what any real organization would ever use as a classification system, like your bizarre fixation on body shape.
so I don't have anything to say regarding that other than it has always seemed like an obnoxious and annoyingly superficial hobby.
Funny, that's exactly what this exercise in 'classification of yours looks like to the rest of us.
You say that GIs or marines aren't going to know what words like xerocolous means, well why would they unless they are driving those vehicles or need to know otherwise
And what purpose, pray tell, would there be for anyone to know that information, whether they're operating it directly or not? It conveys precisely no relevant information. There's this amazing invention known as the Mark One Sensor which can tell anyone that information with no stupid made-up words necessary. In case you're hard of thinking, that sensor is better known as the 'eye'.

Again, go read the thing I posted way back at the start of this topic on how nobody classifies machines like this in the real world. When it comes to classification schemes It's not relevant to anybody whether for example a plane is fixed-geometry or variable-geometry, so that's left out. Body shape is the exact same thing.
It's plain to see in your writing that you're disgruntled by my progress as an individual regarding the feasibility of mecha in real world militaries, I don't know why this would be because I haven't given you any reason to speak to me like that and I only made this post to talk about a topic that I wouldn't have thought could cause such a reaction.
And this right here is the problem, you're so convinced that you're a genius that you can't see the gaping flaws in your scheme and you're so full of yourself that you assume that you're beyond reproach and we all must have something against you, instead of that your idea is complete and utter bollocks and you've been acting like a colossal jerk from the start

User avatar
Posts: 4580
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:20 pm

Re: Realistic Mobile Weapon Classification Systems

Post by Chris » Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:46 pm

Freighttrain wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:10 am
TL;DR nonsense
You were officially warned to cease your sealioning behavior, and yet you have continued anyway. This farce of a thread has gone on for too long. Locked.