Ricky Lai (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:26:32 -0500
The 0083 specs had better override the earlier ones, which must have come out of a
smoked-up brain. After all, the Gwazine class is the pride of Zion.
Mark Simmons wrote:
> True. The 290-meter figure was a reasonable estimate based on the model
> kit (or vice versa). But I think the 0083 specs override these earlier
> indicators - after all, it would be silly for the near-unique Gwazin to be
> smaller than the common Magellan class...
What about other magnificent Axis vessels such as Gwadan and Gwanban class?
> It's been reprinted in a couple of books - probably the ZZ 100%
> Collection, for starters. I'll dig up some sources later.
Hold on! How big is the Reyullura class, which appears to be rather small (and
not just compared to the Lar Kairam class)? I can't seem to even imagine
comparing the Reyullura class to the Sadaran class. The latter is much grander
and more impressive.
> > Given that Sadaran is described as a well-rounded battleship, certainly
> > its MS capacity should be more impressive.
> Not necessarily - like I was saying, ten mobile suits is quite a lot, more
> than the Federation's Lar Kairam-class battleship and probably equal to Neo
> Zeon's Reyullura.
Then what about superships like the Gwadan class? Also, the Dogosgear class has
so many MS catapults, it triggers much speculation about its MS capacity.
Certainly the Titans wouldn't provide an exclusive catapult for each MS, right?
> Any more than that, and it probably _would_ qualify as a carrier...
Yet another indication of how disgraceful the U.N.T. lineup is...
> They were probably expecting to fight puny civilian ships and space
> fighters - hence all the anti-aircraft gun turrets. Its design probably
> indicates how badly the Federation underestimated its enemy. Still, the
> basic design remains in service for another 80 years, so it can't be _that_
> bad. In fact, it's the gun-packed Magellan that becomes obsolete and goes
> out of service, replaced by more lightly-armed and versatile ships.
> > The Musai is definitely small compared to the two U.N.T. ship types.
> > However, I wonder if the Magellan class used in 0079 are designed to
> > accomodate MS's. If not, then it is only natural for it to possess
> > more firepower than the MS-carrying Musai.
> Scott DiBerardino writes,
> >> Granted. I'd love to see the line art though.
> > Doesn't the old Side 3 government have some Musai cruisers in Z Gundam?
> > There's line art for a Z-era Musai in any case.
> I think I see the confusion here - Ricky was listing the quoted text
> _after_ his response, so his "line art" reference was to the Sadaran, not
> the Musai. :-)
As mentioned before, having puny guns sticking out in all direction is not going
to do much good. But at any rate, the Musai class is more powerful than ever in
0083 -- the late production type. Not only does it come packed with anti-MS
weaponry, the number of double guns was increased to five, with one of them
positioned at the back.
> > The Salamis has 7 main guns covering every possible arc of fire. The Musai
> > has 3 double main guns, with nothing to cover their aft. The Musai, unlike
> > the Salamis, notably lacks any reasonable anti-MS armament, other than its
> > own MS (which we shouldn't discount).
> The Federation designs, which have gun turrets guarding all angles and
> lots of anti-aircraft guns, are more self-sufficient. It's worth noting that
> this thinking was used for almost all post-One Year War ships - even Zeon's
> later designs, like the Gwazin and Doros, are designed along these lines.
> The Musai, designed to stand back from battle behind a mobile suit escort,
> actually appears to have been a tactical failure!
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Sep 23 2000 - 07:37:46 JST