Forums of the Megaverse®

So, the Army of the Southern Cross is able to field some 8 Battloids of various types based on terrain type. Of the 8 developed for the show, 5 made it to screen (with the poor Dryad being reduced to a leg). Like a lot of mecha shows from the era, not much is actually known about these vehicles other than names and maybe an inference to weapons systems and height.

Militaries the world over are ALWAYS searching for parts commonality and military mechanics are ALWAYS looking for a way to ease the maintenance hours necessary to keep their units in the field. Given the fact all but the Golem AI version of the Garm are roughly the same height (6-7m), it stands to reason they all use a commonly produced internal skeleton. The powerplants would be the same and there would be slots for power hookups (since some of the Battloids like the Basilisk, Triton, Dryad and maybe even Satyr have beam cannons built into the forearms) and other equipment like Jump Jet Packs.

The real trick is going to be taking said skeleton and building the mecha around it. But, given the advances in Robotechnology, why shouldn't every one of these designs be classed as a 'parts kit'? The UEF would order so many Battloid Skeletons and Terrain Kits to be shipped to all their units. Depending on where they arrived, they could then be 'built' by the unit in question to its terrain requirements. So, in theory, if you had a surplus of, say, Salamanders and needed instead to have more Basilisks, you take those common skeletons and outfit the Desert unit with their specialized vehicle.

But wait, it gets better. Why should this be a massive labor intensive activity? Certainly the UEF's capabilities could have evolved to where this can all be done in the field as necessary. And within a short time. A damaged Salamander comes in, the armor and external equipment is removed and the skeleton given over to a Recon team in need of a Cyclops. And what if said turn-around is maybe a few hours or even less (currently, the real world Boxer MRAV has IINM a turn-around time of about an hour to remove and replace a mission module).

This system would allow for further specialization via weapons modules and such. Maybe an over-the-shoulder heavy beam cannon, or dual Hammerhead Multi-Launch Missile Pod on each shoulder for the Salamander or what have you. And, reduction in terms of weight and space by continued miniaturization of equipment means you should be able to easily replace modules as necessary to keep the mecha at current tech levels.

The list of "parts kits" would be thus:

CBH-4 Salamander
SCB-5 Garm*
CBH-6 Unicorn
FRB-7 Cyclops
CEB-8 Dryad**
SRB-9 Satyr
CBL-10 Triton***
CBL-11 Basilisk***

* - The OSM gives it the classification GMP SCP-5, but I think changing the P for B works better: Security & Combat Battloid
** - Combat Engineering Battloid
*** - These being Light instead of Heavy (given their internal beam cannon armaments) is just a guess based on the differences between the Salamander and Unicorn, which look more rugged, and the Basilisk (which looks thinner ala the Cyclops) and the Triton (which is probably a Riverine and/or Deep Sea mecha).

I think technically the term you are looking for is chassis or frame rather than skeleton.

This is also not an alien concept to Robotech, in the Macross era we have the -04 series of destroids with a common basic chassis and of course the Regults have multiple different equipment kits and roles. The ultimate expression is probably the variety of add on kits available for the Valkyrie.

That being said, there is a danger of trying to stretch this concept too much. Looking at the Boxer, or the Danish Navy's Stan-Flex modular systems, in practice these are not used ot do quick and easy mission role swaps for deployed units. Generally the module swaps would happen back at a depot or port facility so that the force could be easily transitioned/upgraded for a new overall structure.

So, what I would expect is more lke two common frames that are then built out into one of the specific bodies as above. In practical terms, yes you can take one back down to the frame and build out the other body, but this is not done very commonly because it's very expensive for the ASC to have a bunch of unused body kits around. Instead there's a bunch of swappable mission kits and the like.

I'd imagine one frame is a heavy ground combat model. It's built to be more resiliant and is able to support much heavier armour packages. Because it's heavier it can't make as much use of some of the add on kits, especially air, space and water mobility systems.

The other frame is a more multi-purpose/multi-environment design. It's lighter in construction because it's not expected to need as much armour. On the flip side it's more flexible in terms of the modules attached, especially air, space and water mobility systems.

The models then seen/listed become some of the most common 'baseline' configurations.

Salamander, Garm and Unicorn would typically be built on the heavy frame and loaded out with relevant systems as baseline. And yes, in a world opulated with 40 foot aliens, your internal security forces need the heavy battloid frame.

The rest would typically built around the lighter frame as they either need to focus on mobility or are primarily used in a support role and thus don't need heavy armour.

My slight twist on your concept.

IINM the 2E RPG already does this in some form based on the IMU "guidelines" makes a specific reference to this feature for the ASC nt-Bs. (Though Palladium has broken the OSM take down into 2 size ranges for some reason, though here the sizes adhere to their "internal" standard for what can constitute a PA or a 'bot).

I'm not sure I agree they would do the major work in the field, possibly at a maintenance depot but more likely delivered in this configuration. Though what you are describing makes me think of the units from GenLock (S1, haven't seen anything beyond S1) where the core TI Giant Bots are customized externally for their users (which covers looks and capabilities, though one of them IIRC redid the leg architecture massively).

One thing you could do with this approach is allow for mix-match of parts from different kits for expanded missions and environments without needing new kits. I could even see, as you suggested, additional modules taken from their Veritech Inventory for further commonality (thinking primarily in reusing their weapon systems, like the VHT Armshields TF G1 Seeker style armguns, or the AGAC shoulder pods, the AGAC forearm gunpod).

ShadowLogan wrote:One thing you could do with this approach is allow for mix-match of parts from different kits for expanded missions and environments without needing new kits. I could even see, as you suggested, additional modules taken from their Veritech Inventory for further commonality (thinking primarily in reusing their weapon systems, like the VHT Armshields TF G1 Seeker style armguns, or the AGAC shoulder pods, the AGAC forearm gunpod).

I kind of already thought of that. Say a Salamander unit trades out the arm shields for the forearm beam cannons mounted on the Basilisk and/or Dryad (don't know if the one on the Triton would work). And of course, all the Battloids can use each all of the carried beam cannon gunpods: EU-10 (Cyclops), EU-11 (Spartas), EU-12 (Triton/Garm), EU-13 (Salamander), EP-20 (Logan). Fun fact: a group of Spartas are shown carrying the EU-13s (they're also grouped with Salamanders) at the start of Star Dust.

I played around with this when fiddling with d6 Space version of Robotech; my solution was that, while many parts were interchangeable, you also could not radically alter a standard design, most of the time.

"Built from a standard, 6 meter, frame, they were then equipped with purpose-built sensor nodes in the "head", and various tools and weapons in the arms and shoulders, with the pilot nestled in the chest. Not truly interchangeable, as the later Cyclone weapon systems would be, the common frame nonetheless allowed for more rapid deployment of designs, and a pool of common replacement parts, easing the logistical difficulties faced by the nascent "Army of the Southern Cross" (so named for the arrangement of stars that Aeolian primitve stellar cartography perceived Tirol to be in)."

Library Ogre wrote:"Army of the Southern Cross" (so named for the arrangement of stars that Aeolian primitve stellar cartography perceived Tirol to be in)."

i continue to hate that claimed origin for the name.. in both the masters saga segment, the sentinels movie, the novels and both the canon and non-can comic, leonard and the southern cross have always been presented as being fanatical believers in the defense of earth specifically, and that efforts to proactively locate threats like the robotech masters are at best a waste of resources better used to increase earth's defenses, and at worst total folly that would endanger earth.

so it makes zero sense that they would name their organization after the perceived origin of the masters. it especially gets even less plausible given that the origin of the ASC dates back to the end of the 1st war, before anyone on earth even knew abotu the robotech masters much less where they supposedly lived. heck, the wildstorm comics have hints implying that the ASC might have pre-dated the 1st war entirely, as we see its logo blazoned across the wall of Leonard's office during the time of the destroid and veritech development programs (while General Leonard talks to Colonel Edwards about the temporary demise of the AUL and waiting for the right time, when they can take over the new UEG from within)

i find it much more likely that it was named southern cross due to the fact that the constellation Crux is a highly visible and well known constellation in the southern hemisphere, where most of the takes on the ASC's origins have them starting, and is a common symbol and name for flags and organizations in the southern hemisphere (particularly in Brazil, which has it on their national flag as well as their national seal, several of their military insignia, their coinage, and they have an Chivalrous order of knighthood.. oh and look, nearly every take on the ASC's origins have them operating largely out of whats left of brazil, to start with..)

Oh dear....I'm now stock on a mental image of Field Marshal Leonard crooning the lyrics to Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young's 'Southern Cross'.

In his younger years he was in a cover band.

glitterboy2098 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:28 pmas we see its logo blazoned across the wall of Leonard's office

Ugh, yet more stupidity by Harmony Gold (which is partially the fault of Macek and Streamline) as that's not the ASC's eagle but the Tactical Air Force eagle. The ASC eagle has wings displayed and lowered while the TAF eagle has wings displayed and expanded.

The TAF Eagle is based on the Eagle of Charlemagne (and clearly seen in the Polish coat of arms).