Forums of the Megaverse®

They could be firing APCR rounds (Armor Piecing Composite Rigid), a more or less normal looking bullet that has a harder metal for a core and with the core in the right shape to hit armor hard. Sort of like a AP sabot, except that the outer part is a regular bullet.
That makes it well suited for both hard and soft targets.
It may or may not be the same thing as some rounds that have steel cores.
If it hits something soft, the outer part does hefty damage, but if it hits something hard, the outer part sort of "splats" while the AP core's own momentum drives it into the target like a nail into wood... or something to that effect if I understand the basics.

which actualy would make more sence in that a Sabo round being fired by a jet would be somewhat counter productive since no matter how soft the material, you dont want dozens of Sabo bits being dumped into the slipstreem of a jet

here is a image that should clear up once and for all just how big a 55 mm round is, (granted this is based on a spent shell casing) http://www.robotechresearch.com/picture ... _large.jpg

looks more like a 20mm or a 30mm to me. but then, it's officially 55mm....hmmm
i always did think 55mm was a bit big for the size of the gun shown


it's possible the orginal design material was 20mm or 30mm gatlings, but it was later listed as 55mm to be more impressive.

Maybe a 30 or 35 mm necked up to 55 mm (therefore having the straight sided cartridge)? Lower velcoity than a 30 or 35 mm still, which would lead to less range or armour penetration, but more explosive filler.

As for the Sabot vs Armour Piercing Core rounds. The Sabot will still have more spectacular penetration than the APC round because the penetrator will have a much higher velocity while the penetrators would be the same approsimate weight.

For good APC or Sabot rounds you still need to have a long bullet, I get the impression these are fairly stubby bullets.

not realy, they make 45cal CAP rounds that are saboted

and to me thoes things look more like a shotgun caseing than anything else.

Drakenred®™© wrote:not realy, they make 45cal CAP rounds that are saboted

and to me thoes things look more like a shotgun caseing than anything else.

I'm not saying you can't make a sabot out of a short,s tubby round. I am saying it's more effective if the round is already long to begin with.

Like I mentioned earlyer it is posible that advances in chemisty were posible due to the arrival of the Visitor, meaning that the same energy would have been avalible in a smaller cartrige post Crash than is currently posible now.

For that matter, using (for example) the original 1911 loading tables with new powder is overpreasure just waiting to happen with some of the new powders we have now.

Regardless of the propellant used, a longer round makes a better penetrator.

you realy cant tell how long a round is by the caseing! for example, for all we know the round is 2-3 embeded in that caseing.

It could be a telescoped round entirely embedded within the case too.

But unless its a short, stubby round, I doubt it's going to fit well in that cartridge. Modern automatic cannon and heavy machinegun rounds, if intended to be armour piercing, tend to have long, tapered points. If the round was pushed 2/3rds back into the cartridge case the tapered tip likely wouldn't fit right.

I'm chalking this up to the animators not knowing jack about effective military hardware.

That or the round was designed by comittee.

I guess Cowboy bebop has made us have too high a set of demands for just how realistic guns are

Never seen it actually, just spent a lot of time researching.

Well, I think there was a bit of souping up of the ballistics - new propellant technology, new materials technology for the shells. I know the novels are a bad source of information, but they presuppose the MAC II's 16 inchers use eletromagnetic propulsion intead of chemical to get the shell up to speed.

The 16 inchers of themselves are an unusual case. There are no active military 16 inchers at this point. There are active 8 inch howitzers and 240 mm (approx 10 inch) mortars, but that's about as big as we get for active service. I could definitely see development MACs with a battery of the 8 inch pieces before the apaprently reduced recoil 16 inchers were in service.

But as I said, the ballistics would get souped up. Obviously new typers were created as well. The GU-11s 55mm, the Excaliber's 32 mm and the Raidar-X's 78 mm are all new calibres. That tells me that entirely new ballistic weapons were developed after the arrival of the SDF-1. Had they not been developed, I would expect to see the GU-11 using either the extra potent 30 mm Avenger cannon from the A-10, or a Bofors 40 mm piece. The Excaliber would use a 25 mm or 30 mm cannon similar to those mounted on a lot of infantry fighting vehicles. The Raidar-X would use either 57 mm or a fast firing 76mm weapon.

I suppose it was easier and faster to soup up the existing ballistics (a sort of crash program) to get anti-mecha weapons online, then develop more advanced ballistics to improve upon the early designs and finally switch to energy weapons, which are more efficient but harder to develop.

Post Count 10 000 - 22

Major Fury wrote:My point being that they still wouldn't have ballistic weapons inline with what you see in Rifts. While there might be minor advances which probably came about prior to the global civil war (just look at today's artillery compared to WWII), they still wouldn't be as great as what the advances in Rifts are due to the fact that in Rifts alot more time has passed. You also have to remember that when Robotech was done there were still battleships carrying the big guns in service. At that point not everyone was fielding the missile cruisers of today's naval forces. With that in mind I can easily see the navy of the GCW era have the big 16" guns as that was the tech (in most cases) at the time of the show first being aired.

Actually, everyone was fielding missile cruisers - that's why the US Navy took the battleships out of mothballs - they wanted a surface asset that could reasonably expect to survive a missile attack and could carry launchers for TLAMs and fuffil the shore bombardment mission.

After a few years they found out that a battleship was too expensive to operate, the 16 inchers were less effective at attacking shore installations than air power and missiles, the Ticonderoga cruiser class could carry more missiles and the battleship probably wouldn't survive a hit from one of the bigger Russsian anti-ship missiles anyway.

In short, the battleships added nothing unique to the force while draining money and manpower.

But yes, the 16 inchers on the Iowa were the biggest guns in service at the time that Robotech was written. They would still need extensive modifications to fuffil the primary mission the MAC had - surface based anti-starship defense.

If what had been developed in the Real World by today had been adapted to Robotech - with the tweakings of overtechnlogy to make it work right - I would expect the MAC to be armed with four 6 to 8 inch rail cannons firing hyper velocity, precision guided munitions.


Now, as to the Robotech and Rifts comparisons, the first generation of Robotech balistics - with only minor overtechnology enhancements, would not be as powerful as Rifts weapon systems of the same weight and size. Even giving the Robotech Defence Force a comfortable 40 year leap in technology because of the SDF-1, that still puts the Excaliber about 40 years behind the Glitterboy.

Which is about the difference between the Iraqi Tanks and the American Tanks during the latest Gulf War and we all know how well that worked out for the Iraqis.

Post Count 10 000 - 19

Does it say how it's referbished? Different shell propellants? Different shell contents (I'm sure the 1936 version didn't use a plasma shell)?

Yeah, there needs to be improvements along the way. Heck even the M2 .50 MG has been improved several times over - though the basic mechanism has been the same since 1919.

Post Count 10 000 - 17

Well, assuming they improved the propellent (and strenghtend the chamber and barrel to compensate) they could produce much greater muzzle velocity, which in turn would result in a greater impact from a kinetic AP round.

Alternatively they could improved the shell filling (remember the CS can make hand grenade sized nuclear weapons) which would result in a more powerful explosive charge in the shell creating a bigger blast and a larger radius of effect in both the AP and fragmentation.

Quite honestly, given the CS has about a century and a half of tech improvements to toss into the 16 inch cannon they unearth - other than the loading and breech mechanisms, I'd be surprised if anything worked in a similar fashion to the origional.

Personally I would have repalced the bag propellent with a liquid or electrothermal propellent if possible and added some EM 'boosters' to the system to create an even greater muzzle velocity. The rounds themselves I would make precision guided an option and have a selection of useful payloads including armour piercing, plasma, high explosive, thermo-baric, cluster and tactical nuke.

Then I would have scrapped the whole idea because of the excessive weight and cost and added another bank of VLS carrying multi-purpose missiles and another company of marines.

Post Count 10 000 - 16

Jefffar wrote:The Excaliber would use a 25 mm or 30 mm cannon similar to those mounted on a lot of infantry fighting vehicles.

I changed the 32mm to a 30mm, and the 180mm grenade launcher to a 120mm mortar (gave the damm thing more ammo too).

Anyhow one can simply change the caliber of the Raider X/Defenders cannons to 76mm, and the GU-11 to a 30mm (would mean less damage but more ammo) if they wanted to.

In regards to the MAC II I think it was designed to as more of an anti-aircraft mecha, with Zentraedi warships intended as the primary targets.

Sure after the RoD there wasn’t many Zentraedi warships to shoot down anymore, and possible the MAC II was removed from service.

But I’m sure after Khyron’s attack on the SDF-1 the MAC II was put back into service.

Jefffar wrote:
Then I would have scrapped the whole idea because of the excessive weight and cost and added another bank of VLS carrying multi-purpose missiles and another company of marines.

Yeah the Spartan/Phalanx fills that roll quite well.

The 30 mm Avenger seesm like a good starting point for the GU- series. High rate of fire, able to penetrate the armour of hostile mecha, good ammunition capacity. I could also easily see a 35 mm or 40 mm weapon there as well before they went on to the newly developed 55 mm.

As for the 180 mm GL during development., I typically went 120 as well, and gave it an appropriate range. There are 160 mm mortars in service, but those things are really more like artillery pieces and would probably need the arm mount for proper use.

A thought just occured to me regarding the 165 mm demoliton guns popular on western combat engineering vehicles. Large, slow moving projectile with relatively low recoil. Could be mounted in the turret of an IFV, so why not on the destroid?

I figure the Raidar-X's guns would be an outgrowth of the fast firing 76 mm weapons being used on ships or in the OTOMATIC SPAAG. The only other comperable weapon in service these days seems to be the 57 mm guns. They would certainly be adequate for anti-mecha. They'd also have a higher rate of fire than the 76 mm weapons.

I could also see an early version of the Excaliber sporting a pair of 120 mm tank cannons - but the recoil of firing both at once would probably put it on its rear.

Post Count 10 000 - 15

some thoughts on 40 cm Rail guns

1) the creator could have ment Liquid propelant-electricaly ignited,
2) some rail gun designes actualy use a proplant stage to get the slug up to speed before the "rail" kicks in to provide the full acceleration
3) the rounds may simply be a rocket assisted projectile that is 400 cm in diamiter and the launchers look like 400mm Battleship guns because that was simply the easest way to get the round to work properly
4) the creator may have simply liked the idea of having 400mm guns on a big walking turret

Incidentaly their are companys that use a 400mm and 500mm "cannon" to test launch scale mockups of their rocket designes, however the barrel lining on thoes is interchangable between smooth bore and "Groved" (not rifled) I think that the 500mm set a muzzle velocity record in fireing a test reentry vechicle for a chemicaly propeled round.

Hopefully this will all be fixed in RTUE (if it happens...)

There is one thing that bothers me about the gun sizes...
For the MAC II, on page 62 of RT book 1, there is a pic of a MAC II with a little human figure for scale... almost giving the impression those guns are 1000+ mm, definitely enough width of barrels to have space for some sort of electromagnetic system.

For the Raider-X on the next page, it has a little figure next to it also. It seems like 78mm guns would be a bit 'smaller'.
Looking at the Defender on Robotech.com, I can't help but notice a pic from the animation, and the guns are a bit 'thinner' than as drawn in the RT book.
But anyways, for some real punch, how about a variant that packs 88mm dual purpose anti-tank/anti-air cannons?

Back to the MAC II, since it was supposed to be anti-ship and whatnot, I'm wondering if it should be packing armor piecing or HEAP type rounds instead of explosive rounds.
Hmm... How much damage should be done for the equivalent of a train slamming into a 40cm diameter area?

There's an old artilleryman's rule of thumb that you want your gun to weigh about 100 times what your round does. A 16 inch AP shell weighs 2700 lbs. Which means to properly absorb the recoil of firing one such gun you need a weapon system / vehicle weighing in at 270 000 lbs - or 135 tons. A two gun salvo needs 270 tons, a three gun salvo needs 405 tons and a four gun salvo needs 540 tons.

So - unless the MAC II limits itself to 2 guns firing at once - it doesn't have the mass to stand up to its own weaponry.

Incidently, for comparison, those 78 mm pieces should be just over 3 inches wide on the inside of the barrel. I think the Raidar X illustration looks pretty close to that.

Jefffar wrote:There's an old artilleryman's rule of thumb that you want your gun to weigh about 100 times what your round does. A 16 inch AP shell weighs 2700 lbs. Which means to properly absorb the recoil of firing one such gun you need a weapon system / vehicle weighing in at 270 000 lbs - or 135 tons. A two gun salvo needs 270 tons, a three gun salvo needs 405 tons and a four gun salvo needs 540 tons.

So - unless the MAC II limits itself to 2 guns firing at once - it doesn't have the mass to stand up to its own weaponry.

Incidently, for comparison, those 78 mm pieces should be just over 3 inches wide on the inside of the barrel. I think the Raidar X illustration looks pretty close to that.

Looks like I resurrect another old thread.

Not sure the Mac II would want to shoot all 4 given each round SHOULD have a 200 meter burst radius: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 91/KMC.htm

A few rounds, shot at diferent elevation would spread the devestation. I don't believe a full 4 salvo would tumble the mac II same reason the Iowa class battleships are NOT pushed sideways when they broadside.

Well the Iowa class weighed in at around 57000 tons, plenty of mass to absorb the recoil.

obsessed wrote:Not sure the Mac II would want to shoot all 4 given each round SHOULD have a 200 meter burst radius: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 91/KMC.htm

Well, yes... if they were firing conventional, unguided, high-explosive artillery shells.

One of the things the Robotech RPG does that really severely misrepresents the Monster as though it's meant to be a lightly armored field artillery piece. That's not what it was designed for... and, indeed, not how it's used in the Macross universe. The HWR-00 series "Monster" destroids (and its successors) are mobile, super-heavy, anti-warship grade gun turrets built to deliver ship-cracking thermonuclear reaction ordinance. Not only are the guns themselves able to adjust their aim individually for spread or volley fire, but the shells themselves have evidenced an ability to maneuver after firing to maximize the devastation wrought from shells with yields anywhere from a few dozen kilotons to a megaton or so.*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwxlwBya_To
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfpxki_7ocE

'course, they can also displace a lot of that recoil force through the linear system in the feet and the dozer blade used for bracing that's stored on its "back". The reason they're so heavy is that they're armored to stand up to the blast force of a near miss with a nuclear weapon.


* Source is official Macross encyclopedia Macross Chronicle, Technology Sheet 03B "Destroids", and Mechanic Sheet SDF:M TV UN 11A "HWR-00-Mk.II Monster Destroid".

Seto Kaiba wrote:

obsessed wrote: ...

One of the things the Robotech RPG does that really severely misrepresents the Monster as though it's meant to be a lightly armored field artillery piece. ...

'course, they can also displace a lot of that recoil force through the linear system in the feet and the dozer blade used for bracing that's stored on its "back". The reason they're so heavy is that they're armored to stand up to the blast force of a near miss with a nuclear weapon.

...

[/size]

I agree Monster is under armored in the RPG. Strategically, I consider a SINGLE Monster replacing an entire battery of heavy artillery. One Monster being a 4 gun battery, but in one machine. Heavy is an understatement since the biggest self-propelled guns were 175mm, 8 and 11 inch. 11" guns were fielded in 2 gun batteries (one battallion having 3 such two gun batteries). So a single monster makes for an entire battery (or most of a battalion in smaller artillery).

The only hurdle with my monster is number of rounds carried.

Heavy guns of 16 in would equally be apt in artillery and anti starship roles.

I cannot agree more about the dozer blade. Clearly it is there to brace the Monster into the ground.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

obsessed wrote:Not sure the Mac II would want to shoot all 4 given each round SHOULD have a 200 meter burst radius: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 91/KMC.htm

Well, yes... if they were firing conventional, unguided, high-explosive artillery shells.

One of the things the Robotech RPG does that really severely misrepresents the Monster as though it's meant to be a lightly armored field artillery piece. That's not what it was designed for... and, indeed, not how it's used in the Macross universe. The HWR-00 series "Monster" destroids (and its successors) are mobile, super-heavy, anti-warship grade gun turrets built to deliver ship-cracking thermonuclear reaction ordinance. Not only are the guns themselves able to adjust their aim individually for spread or volley fire, but the shells themselves have evidenced an ability to maneuver after firing to maximize the devastation wrought from shells with yields anywhere from a few dozen kilotons to a megaton or so.*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwxlwBya_To
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfpxki_7ocE

'course, they can also displace a lot of that recoil force through the linear system in the feet and the dozer blade used for bracing that's stored on its "back". The reason they're so heavy is that they're armored to stand up to the blast force of a near miss with a nuclear weapon.


* Source is official Macross encyclopedia Macross Chronicle, Technology Sheet 03B "Destroids", and Mechanic Sheet SDF:M TV UN 11A "HWR-00-Mk.II Monster Destroid".

those examples don't apply to robotech, since they come from materials developed after SDF:macross and not liscensed by HG or used in robotech. (and that 2nd one isn't a monster, it's a veritech from a much much later time period)

in robotech, the times we see the Monster used (such as in "broken heart" (about 14 minutes in) we see the Monster's big cannons firing what appear to be fairly conventional explosive shells.

in "Bye-Bye Mars", which the only other time we see the monster in major use, we don't see any on screen using their guns, but given the number we know were involved in the battle, it seems unlikely they relied entirely on missiles. and we don't see nuclear level explosions going on.

so for robotech, the Mac-II's ammunition seems to be conventional, not nuclear.

now could it fit a nuclear weapon? probably. there is real world precident for it in the 406mm W23 "katie" shell, which used a 15-20 kiloton atomic warhead, and designed for use on Iowa class battleships. said shell was derived from the W19 version that was designed for an 11inch/249.4mm gun.

but in UEDF service in robotech, conventional munition seem to be the norm.

obsessed wrote:I agree Monster is under armored in the RPG.

In terms of its stats, they armored it with crepe paper and attributed its mass to the drive train... while the original creators intended for the design's mass to be principally armor, with a very light drive train, because it was designed to be a capital ship gun turret cut loose to walk the Earth of its own accord, dispensing a small navy's worth of ersatz-nuclear ordinance.

Not counting what it's packing in those missile launchers, that's one unit carrying TWENTY-EIGHT variable yield megaton-class thermonuclear reaction warheads, able to deliver them at ranges of 160km+ with terrifying accuracy.

The Monster isn't field artillery by any stretch of the imagination. It's too slow and unwieldy to be of much use against any land-based foe with Macross's trademark high mobility. You stick it on the outer hull of a warship, or around a base in static defense formations, and let it cheerfully plant its payload of thermonuclear reaction warheads where they'll count the most: in the hulls of enemy warships, and in the middle of enemy formations on the ground. It doesn't have the endurance for a sustained artillery barrage or extended operations in the field. That's what the lesser destroids are for... chasing light foes around and protecting the Monster while it takes its "profound argument" directly to the enemy's center.

You wouldn't send a Monster to do the job of normal field artillery, like fight human infantry. It'd just be a waste.

glitterboy2098 wrote:those examples don't apply to robotech, since they come from materials developed after SDF:macross and not liscensed by HG or used in robotech. (and that 2nd one isn't a monster, it's a veritech from a much much later time period)

Unless there's a time machine involved (there isn't), the official data for the Monster predates Robotech... and indicates that the Mk.II Monster had four different types of shells, but principally fired thermonuclear reaction ordinance in its primary operational role.

The video examples and the Monster's successors in Macross's sequels, of course, came out later.

Robotech only shows the Monsters actually fight once in any detail... and that's in a very atypical battle for them... and the written material tends, as noted earlier, to be wildly inconsistent with the design, the show, and itself.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

glitterboy2098 wrote:those examples don't apply to robotech, since they come from materials developed after SDF:macross and not liscensed by HG or used in robotech. (and that 2nd one isn't a monster, it's a veritech from a much much later time period)

Unless there's a time machine involved (there isn't), the official data for the Monster predates Robotech... and indicates that the Mk.II Monster had four different types of shells, but principally fired thermonuclear reaction ordinance in its primary operational role.

The video examples and the Monster's successors in Macross's sequels, of course, came out later.

Robotech only shows the Monsters actually fight once in any detail... and that's in a very atypical battle for them... and the written material tends, as noted earlier, to be wildly inconsistent with the design, the show, and itself.

The stuff for Macross is not Robotech..... so yah....the added source materials (out side the show) that came with Macross....don't have anything to do with Robotech since they are not part of the Robotech IP...
Now if you have something FROM THE ANIMATION about nuclear shells, or the HG materials then by all means. But the other stuff....is just well....secondary sources that are kinda-helpful-but-not-really-relevant-since-they-are-not-for-this-show

Jefffar wrote:So - unless the MAC II limits itself to 2 guns firing at once - it doesn't have the mass to stand up to its own weaponry.

&

obsessed wrote:Not sure the Mac II would want to shoot all 4 given each round SHOULD have a 200 meter burst radius: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 91/KMC.htm

A few rounds, shot at diferent elevation would spread the devestation. I don't believe a full 4 salvo would tumble the mac II same reason the Iowa class battleships are NOT pushed sideways when they broadside.

Yet firing 4 cannons at once is something that is depicted. The Mac2 was shown 3 times (one of which is basically recycled) to fire all four top mounted cannons together in FoA. It is also what's depicted in "Broken Heart" (though here given the difference in cannon layout it might be some relative IF one CHOOSES to not see it as an AE that it likely is).

As for mass. If the Monster/Mac2 (or even mecha in general to combat ground pressure) has gravity control capabilities (a technology we know is available in RT on some scale)...

ShadowLogan wrote:Yet firing 4 cannons at once is something that is depicted. The Mac2 was shown 3 times (one of which is basically recycled) to fire all four top mounted cannons together in FoA. It is also what's depicted in "Broken Heart" (though here given the difference in cannon layout it might be some relative IF one CHOOSES to not see it as an AE that it likely is).

As for mass. If the Monster/Mac2 (or even mecha in general to combat ground pressure) has gravity control capabilities (a technology we know is available in RT on some scale)...

Yes, but it is a cartoon.

ShadowLogan wrote:As for mass. If the Monster/Mac2 (or even mecha in general to combat ground pressure) has gravity control capabilities (a technology we know is available in RT on some scale)...

Probably unnecessary for everything that isn't the Mk.II Monster... even the heavier units from the "Macross Saga" weigh a good deal less than a main battle tank and have more surface area in contact with the ground. They actually beat out most modern tanks for ground pressure by a substantial margin*. Even the Monster's ground pressure is shockingly low for what it weighs because of its colossal feet.

* The Mk.VI Tomahawk, per OSM spec, has a mass of 31,300kg. The lightest of all M1 Abrams variants, the first model M1, had a mass of 55,701kg. That means the Tomahawk, whose feet are roughly 1/3 the size of the entire M1 frame, are going to be putting less mass on a far greater area.

As seen in "the cartoon" in space combat, the 40 cm are anti-starship. Planet bound, it would be an artillery piece. It fires shells. It would be in-practical to think it can hit a starship from the ground UNLESS this starship is under 10 km altitude.

obsessed wrote:As seen in "the cartoon" in space combat, the 40 cm are anti-starship. Planet bound, it would be an artillery piece. It fires shells. It would be in-practical to think it can hit a starship from the ground UNLESS this starship is under 10 km altitude.

Eh... the official Robotech information, spotty and occasionally error-prone as it is, echos almost everything that's in the Macross sources on this. Because of the configuration of its armaments, the Monster is said to be principally for use in anti-starship and anti-fortification attacks, and don't really measure up when used against anything else. The Monster rather emphatically is NOT designed for conventional field artillery roles. Its drive train just isn't capable of the kind of speeds that they'd need to operate in the field as mobile artillery, and isn't really suited to rough terrain. Its operational endurance is very limited because it doesn't carry much ammo for either of its primary weapons systems. They have four times as many guns but only about 2/3 the ammunition of a modern self-propelled gun like the M109 Paladin.

Pretty much everything about the Monster is a lousy fit for conventional artillery roles... because those aren't the jobs that it was designed for. Indeed, in the series, when we see them forced to fight on the ground against highly mobile mecha, they end up doing quite poorly.

Hey Seto Kaiba,

If it fires a shell, than its an artillery piece. The Monster was NOT a replacement for mobile 105mm or 155mm self-propelled guns. It was equivalent to 175mm, 8", and 11" gun battery and batallions of the 1950s.

No, it is not made to follow Destroids into battle. It is made to stay far off and give stand off artillery support, even nuclear if called upon. Fire salvos, relocate, fire again, and pull back to reload.

Addition: No, they can't move fast but they would need a detachment of anti-air Defenders and close support destroids and re-supply cranes, etc.

obsessed wrote:If it fires a shell, than its an artillery piece. The Monster was NOT a replacement for mobile 105mm or 155mm self-propelled guns. It was equivalent to 175mm, 8", and 11" gun battery and batallions of the 1950s.

Oh, the Monster's guns are artillery pieces by the most general definition, but the Monster itself is NOT field artillery. It just doesn't have the mobility to keep up with an army in the field, and it doesn't have the versatility or operational endurance for confronting anything other than ships and fortifications. We're told that much point-blank both by the creators of the original show... a line echoed by Harmony Gold's official Robotech sources. This is corroborated in the animation, where we're shown that the Monster is pretty rubbish at engaging the high-mobility mechanized infantry that is the basic currency of the era's tactics.

In definition, it straddles the line between shipboard artillery, coastal artillery, and siege artillery. An extremely low-to-zero mobility super-heavy artillery piece designed to deliver colossal amounts of firepower against relatively static targets.

obsessed wrote:No, it is not made to follow Destroids into battle. It is made to stay far off and give stand off artillery support, even nuclear if called upon. Fire salvos, relocate, fire again, and pull back to reload.

It doesn't have the mobility to do that... it's not made for rough terrain, and it's not fast enough to relocate quickly. Indeed, OSM sources describe its mobility as (literally) "almost nonexistent".

obsessed wrote:Addition: No, they can't move fast but they would need a detachment of anti-air Defenders and close support destroids and re-supply cranes, etc.

That would be rather at odds with the description in the official Robotech sources, and even more at odds with what Macross's creators set down about destroid tactics...

I tend to think of the MAC II as a railway artillery piece. A heavy gun platform with strategic mobility, even if it doesn't have tactical mobility. As a result there will need to be resources assigned to protect it from more mobile threats.

BTW, anybody else notice that in the battle of mars the MAC II moved wthout lifting its feet?

Jefffar wrote:I tend to think of the MAC II as a railway artillery piece. A heavy gun platform with strategic mobility, even if it doesn't have tactical mobility. As a result there will need to be resources assigned to protect it from more mobile threats. [...]

Might be a decent comparison... 'course, the legs, like the dozer blade, are mostly there for shock absorption and to extend the gun battery's elevation. Walking long distances isn't really in the cards for something like that.

Jefffar wrote:BTW, anybody else notice that in the battle of mars the MAC II moved wthout lifting its feet?

Yep, they can do that... for short distances anyway. The Macross II design descendant of the Mk.II Monster, the "Giant Monster" destroid, did away with walking altogether in favor of a linear tread system for space use and a gravity control and hovercraft system in atmosphere. Legs were, for the job it was doing, largely surplus to requirements.

Jeffar wrote:BTW, anybody else notice that in the battle of mars the MAC II moved wthout lifting its feet?

Yes. IINM it does it at least twice more, once more in "Bye Bye Mars" and in a later episode that recycled the animation cells though changed the background from Sara Base to SDF-1/Macross City (during the failed Deadelus Attack). There is also an instance in "Bye Bye Mars" that might offer another example if the mecha doing this sans legs completely (battle damage? a VHT? etc, plenty of options for HG to work with IF they wanted to).

Jefffar wrote:Since the issue of MAC ammunition was brought up, here's what I think it should load.

A kinetic energy penetrator - mostly for use when it has direct fire oppourtunities agaisnt Zentraedi ships.

A smart fuzed fragmentation munition - capable of use in Anti-Aircraft or Artillery mode.

Concrete/Earth Penetrating explosive round - for use on fortifications

Tactical Nuke - do I really need to tell you why?

There should also be a guidance package available formost of these too.

Any thoughts to AA range for this frag round? As in, what altitude would a 16" shell reach and blast radius?

The 16" nuke (I think someone else mentioned it) was 15 to 20 kt yeild. That would wipe your game board of friend and foe alike unless attacking a cruiser.

Jefffar wrote:

...

A thought just occured to me regarding the 165 mm demoliton guns popular on western combat engineering vehicles. Large, slow moving projectile with relatively low recoil. Could be mounted in the turret of an IFV, so why not on the destroid?

...

Post Count 10 000 - 15

I see you raised the 165mm demo gun similarity years ago LOL
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=93007&p=2820683#p2820683

Kudos Jeffar, kudos.

obsessed wrote:

Jefffar wrote:Since the issue of MAC ammunition was brought up, here's what I think it should load.

A kinetic energy penetrator - mostly for use when it has direct fire oppourtunities agaisnt Zentraedi ships.

A smart fuzed fragmentation munition - capable of use in Anti-Aircraft or Artillery mode.

Concrete/Earth Penetrating explosive round - for use on fortifications

Tactical Nuke - do I really need to tell you why?

There should also be a guidance package available formost of these too.

Any thoughts to AA range for this frag round? As in, what altitude would a 16" shell reach and blast radius?

The 16" nuke (I think someone else mentioned it) was 15 to 20 kt yeild. That would wipe your game board of friend and foe alike unless attacking a cruiser.

Well this site includes the capability of the 16 inch guns from an Iowa in the anti-air role http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

At 45 degrees elevation they could get a time fuzed shell bursting just over 5000 yards up with an effective anti air range of about 7500 yards. As this was a standard explosive shell with a modified fuze the effects would be comparable to an airburst above a target.

i'm not sure i'd trust that site.. the 406mm's of the iowa were never designed for anti-aircraft work, and as far as i am aware, there was never any actual attempts to test it in that role. it seems unlikely anyway given their limited vertical arc and restricted traverse speeds.. i doubt the iowa's could have aimed their guns at aircraft in the first place.

however, the 460mm guns on the Yamato were designed to fire Flak shells, called San Shiki. it's max altitude was 10,000ft, it used a mix of steel fragmentation and incendiary in its warhead (very effective vs the wooden planes of the day), and it produced a cone of fire several meters long but only about 12 degree's wide.

apparently the big gun's blast was so powerful that they disrupted the dedicated AA-guns, so the shells, while carried, never saw use in combat.

obsessed wrote:Any thoughts to AA range for this frag round? As in, what altitude would a 16" shell reach and blast radius?

... considering the guns on the HWR-00-Mk.II Monster have an OSM effective range of 160km or more? I'd think it could reach pretty much any conventional aircraft without breaking a sweat. With the cannons at a maximum elevation, I'd imagine a Monster could shoot several dozen kilometers into the air, if not higher.

obsessed wrote:The 16" nuke (I think someone else mentioned it) was 15 to 20 kt yeild. That would wipe your game board of friend and foe alike unless attacking a cruiser.

At the ranges the Monster is capable of... you can cheerfully lob megaton-scale reaction warheads without any fear of harming your own troops. The Monster's capable of lobbing shells 160km or more, while a one megaton warhead affects an area about 25km in diameter. That's what artillery is for... hitting the enemy before he can engage your troops.

glitterboy2098 wrote:i'm not sure i'd trust that site.. the 406mm's of the iowa were never designed for anti-aircraft work, and as far as i am aware, there was never any actual attempts to test it in that role. it seems unlikely anyway given their limited vertical arc and restricted traverse speeds.. i doubt the iowa's could have aimed their guns at aircraft in the first place.

however, the 460mm guns on the Yamato were designed to fire Flak shells, called San Shiki. it's max altitude was 10,000ft, it used a mix of steel fragmentation and incendiary in its warhead (very effective vs the wooden planes of the day), and it produced a cone of fire several meters long but only about 12 degree's wide.

apparently the big gun's blast was so powerful that they disrupted the dedicated AA-guns, so the shells, while carried, never saw use in combat.

Not saying AA was a designed purpose, just that there was a capability there . I know the British also experimented with using the big guns of their BBs against aircraft and the Bismark engaged attacking torpedo bombers with her big guns during her short career. The navies at the time were desperate for ways to protect their ships against aircraft and would use any and all means to do so.

glitterboy2098 wrote:
...

however, the 460mm guns on the Yamato were designed to fire Flak shells, called San Shiki. it's max altitude was 10,000ft, it

...

- no altitude for the big 460mm, only the 203mm (8 inch): "the 203 mm (8 in) round weighed 125.86 kg and contained 255 incendiary tubes and a 2 kg burst charge in its base. It used the 91 Shiki delay fuze. Its maximum altitude was 10,000 m."

If I could calculate the ballistic arc of a 16in or 18in naval shell, I'd have a better idea of AA range for such a large pre-fragmented HE shell.

Yes, in terms of armor penetration, iN THEORY a 406mm shell would tear through any tank even at 30 km range. Chances of hitting one are another matter.

Stumbled upon an actual US Navy trajectory chart http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS ... s-page.jpg

It has ranges and altitudes for up to 60 degrees, which 45 degrees was the maximum elevation.

Good reference for AA ranges of a high capacity frag shell busting up a group of flying targets.

The use of the big guns in AA role was mostly to try to break up an incoming air attack. The time of flight meant that all but the luckiest of shots would be not close enough to damage an individual aircraft, but a volley of big shells bursting amoung an incoming squadron would likely do a considerable amount of damage (note that most of the target aircraft were actually metal, but so thin skinned that the Japanese style incindiary shells could expect to have a chance of ignighting the fuel tanks).