Destroids, Battloids, Changing Battlefield Doctrine and what everyone basically gets wrong

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

Okay,

like my post on the VF-8 Logan, I'm going to assert that almost every last thing you think about with regards to the 1st (Macross Saga) & 2nd (Sentinels) Generation Destroids, 1st (Masters War) & 2nd (New Generation) Generation Battloids (and the single 3rd Generation Destroid) is probably wrong. First we have to define their roles because, in all honesty, this is the immediate problem. All but the Spartan and Gladiator of the Destroids are designed as Fire Support/Mobile Artillery weapons platforms. They are, in fact, NOT designed for Close Quarters Combat. The exceptions are the aforementioned Spartan & Gladiator. All of the 1st Generation Battloids are designed for Close Quarters Combat. It is, in fact, their primary function: to get in close with enemy mecha and shred them. The 2nd Generation Battloids are a half-step backwards, being a mix of both Fire Support and Close Quarters Combat, with the exception being the Boxer (which is purely CQB) and the Jackal (which is a semi-variable Aerospace Assault platform). The Tiger, being the lone non-Battloid (and thus way closer to the Destroid designation) is purely Fire Support.

So, okay, now that we have our definitions, some basic facts. The 1st Generation Destroids should have the absolute worst armor of the 4 generations of non-transformable vehicles. They're big, which means they have Galileo's Square Cube Law working against them. On top of that, they're exceedingly heavy and their hulls are crammed full of weapons systems. They've literally got nothing left over in their mass budget for armor. This is why they're for Stand-Off battle (other than the Spartan, which probably sports the best armor of the 1st Generation mecha overall). They never were, and cannot possibly be, walking tanks unless you mean Light Tanks. They are also forced, due to their shape and lack of articulation, to fight in a stand-up position, being incapable almost any range of human action/motion other than walking. They also all suffer from being unable to be easily/rapidly resupplied in battle, especially for any kind of expendable ordnance like missiles as there are no vehicles designed to do so.

The 2nd Generation Destroids, which were probably the mecha that actually fought The Malcontent Uprisings, were obviously designed and produced either in the interim Reconstruction Period (2011-2013) or immediately after the Automated Factory Satellite and Robotech Repair Factory were captured (the latter was probably either sometime between Viva Miriya and Season's Greetings or else in the time between Season's Greetings and To the Stars, which likely covered a 2 month period, thus while Dana was still a 'baby'). If they were produced onboard one of the Factory Satellites they would be manufactured in a way that defies anything other than modern mass produced vehicles (or more like US WW2 tanks and armored vehicles). Being shorter and relying more on beam weaponry (either right out of the gate or else after at least one Service Life Extension), they would be able to benefit from at least a marginal increase in armor over even the Spartan. However, their size (~10m) and weight (~20-25 metric tons each, other than the MAC II) is going to hamper that. They would get some survivability but ultimately they would suffer from the same deficiencies as the 1st Gen Destroids. Only the Gladiator would mount appreciable armor in comparison and the MAC II (like Monster before it) would have the least armor, due mainly to its size and its weight.

It's by the time that the 1st Generation Battloids have come along that we see a massive shift in doctrine. Gone are the days of walking artillery in favor of heavily armored, fast moving mecha that are designed from the ground up to engage in Close Quarters Combat with other mecha. From being able to crouch/kneel (Star Dust), fight in the prone position (Half Moon) and using terrain for cover/concealment (False Start), the Battloids show a remarkable difference in capabilities. And with that difference is the shift in doctrine. Artillery is now handled by easier to mass produce, field and resupply vehicles (the 3 'barrels' shown firing artillery in Half Moon may indicate something that, with the backwards canon, indicates the MAC II was still in use by 2029 as shown in Robotech: Love, Live, Alive). If the weight listed is any indication (and this seems to be the last 'approved' one), then the Battloids are demonstrably better armored than their predecessors. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out that a platform that is 1/8th the volume of the Tomawawk, and only weighs 9 metric tons less (when dry), sporting only a pair of head mounted beam cannons and carrying a beam gunpod, that weight has to come from somewhere. At ~7m tall, the Salamander (as an example) is almost perfectly in the 'sweet spot' for great armor protection (for a mecha, let's remember that we know enemy beam weapons are demonstrably Anti-Tank Grade). This should be a no-brainer. It's purpose built for Close Quarters Combat. Assuming further capabilities are needed, add-on weapons systems (armored missile packs, heavy beam cannon) could be possible and/or they could carry a mecha-sized Railgun, Recoilless Rifle and/or Rocket-Propelled Grenade Launcher.

The 2nd Generation Battloids are almost a step back, except their definitely not designed for Stand-off Battle but somewhere between Close Quarters Combat (like the Spartan/Gladiator and 1st Gen Battloids) and Mid-Range Combat (about where the Tomahawk was). Their design gives them a full range of motion, including being able to kneel. Hands mean they can grip gunpods. And their height (~7m) means they benefit from not being screwed by Galileo's Square Cube Law, but they have to sacrifice some armor in favor of increased weapons systems. Unlike the earlier mecha, their missiles are all micro-missiles of some sort, meaning they occupy less volume and weight in comparison to the Destroids. Of course, given they cannot be functionally reloaded rapidly in battle shows they lack some capability, which is made up for in beam weaponry. That also cuts down on the weight. Seriously, they likely just have power busses and some kind of fuel reservoir (probably just several gallons of water) that is then heated up by a laser to convert to plasma to spit out the barrel of their weapons. The Boxer is definitely for CQB (and since no canon version is yet shown, I think it could benefit from the shoulder launchers on the Shadow Drone and the blades on the old Gladius Destroid from the 1E Strike Force book). Like the 1st Gen Battloids, additional capabilities would likely be moved to a myriad of gunpods, from more beam weapons to rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

The fact is the assumptions many have about these weapons platforms is just, well, wrong. The Destroids simply cannot be walking tanks. Not the 1st Generation, they're only half-understood alien technology and most of their weapons systems are not even using Robotechnology. The 2nd Generation are better, in terms of more understanding of Robotechnology and more reliance on advanced weaponry, but they're still almost all designed for non-CQB and instead for Stand-off Assault. The 1st Generation Battloids clearly show the shift in doctrine away from artillery mecha and a shift to survivability, speed and reliance on advanced beam weaponry alone. The 2nd Generation, likely having benefited from 'Lessons Learned', take a half-step back but not completely to mobile artillery. What they sacrifice in armor, they make up for in weaponry designed (presumably) with the Invid in mind (who all do extremely poorly against beam weapons).

[taalismn]

I was always afraid with the Tomahawk/Excalibur that it had so many weapons systems that the pilot would either freeze in the middle of combat trying to decide what to use...or with a 'smart' cockpit system would accidentally sneeze and cause a cascade-reaction weapons activation, firing off EVERYTHING in seconds and wiping out not just the enemy but everything(including allies and bystanders) immediately around the destroid.

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

I was always afraid with the Tomahawk/Excalibur that it had so many weapons systems that the pilot would either freeze in the middle of combat trying to decide what to use...or with a 'smart' cockpit system would accidentally sneeze and cause a cascade-reaction weapons activation, firing off EVERYTHING in seconds and wiping out not just the enemy but everything(including allies and bystanders) immediately around the destroid.

I think they have to have some sort of computer-assisted automation to help in combat.

[ShadowLogan]

Personally, I think that the show (alone/itself no other media) establishes that the Destroid concept failed as the artillery specialized battloids* where overly complicated for their mission profile. Which is why we saw the nt-battloids of the ASC and the Condor Battloid of the UEEF (which is more of a heavy assault unit than an artillery unit IMHO) and the continued use of conventional vehicles for these roles.

*basically the Monster/MAC, Defender/RaiderX, Tomahawk/Exacliber, Phalanx/Spartan, but not the Spartan/Gladiator as it is closer to a "heavy assault" battloid than an artillery unit.

[Peacebringer]

1st generation was designed to mirror the Zentraedi, with some close-combat and a few fire-support; the Mecha of the REF, are designed to fight the Invid, which the swarm-tactic.

[Jefffar]

I see the Battloids as Mechanized Infantry, not Armor.

[ShadowLogan]

I see the Battloids as Mechanized Infantry, not Armor.

I have to wonder though if modern classifications might be off for this. What if the way modern armies develop their mecha roles doesn't translate easily to Robotech (or other scifi/anime mecha) but might work better under "outdated" methods. For example, modern armies use Main Battle Tanks, which nt-battloids (and even general destroids) don't seem a good fit, but what about Tank classifications of WW2 (where they might qualify as a light tank, or tank destroyer concepts that aren't really used today). Now my concept of "mechanized infantry" might be skewed leading me to think this would be a poor classification (IFVs typically transport infantry, something the nt-Bs don't seem to do which brings me to my point about proper classification, I'm not saying IFVs can't exist that don't transport infantry but in general the concept would seem to call for it).

[Peacebringer]

My introduction to Palladium's Robotech was the Zentraedi-book, and from the start, I understood the different roles each type of Battle-Pod played, (Recon, Artillery etc.): I really don't see Destroids as infantry.

Also, Destroids are a bit vulnerable, as are Veritechs; when running or playing Robotech, I can't count how many times I heard, "Called-shot: cockpit". Least with a tank, you can't make that kind of a called-shot.

[Jefffar]

I see the Battloids as Mechanized Infantry, not Armor.

I have to wonder though if modern classifications might be off for this. What if the way modern armies develop their mecha roles doesn't translate easily to Robotech (or other scifi/anime mecha) but might work better under "outdated" methods. For example, modern armies use Main Battle Tanks, which nt-battloids (and even general destroids) don't seem a good fit, but what about Tank classifications of WW2 (where they might qualify as a light tank, or tank destroyer concepts that aren't really used today). Now my concept of "mechanized infantry" might be skewed leading me to think this would be a poor classification (IFVs typically transport infantry, something the nt-Bs don't seem to do which brings me to my point about proper classification, I'm not saying IFVs can't exist that don't transport infantry but in general the concept would seem to call for it).

The reason I say mechanized infantry is that at Infantry in a modern context is the arm that seizes and holds ground. It's role is to close with the enemy and destroy them in clsoe battle. I add the emchanized part because mechanized represents all the goodies that armoured vehicles bring - mobility, survivability and lethality. I prefer mechanized to armoured in this case as I view armoured more as a branch that is there primarily to provide firepower, like the artillery, but it prmarily operates in direct fire whereas artillery is primarily indirect fire. I also prefer mechanized as the battloids are more in the weight class of most APCs or IFVs instead of soemthing like an MBT.

So in my mind, the Battloids are used like infantry, but they are as mobile, protected and lethal as IFVs. Hence, Mechanized Infantry.

[The Artist Formerly]

That's always been the thing, the second you stop and think about actual combat doctrine, is the second that rule of cool breaks down. My TSAWs threads are pact full of statements in which I'm contradicting myself to support lore vs game mechanics use or efficiency.