 |
 |
||||
|
|
||||
Lim Jyue (lim_jyue@pacific.net.sg)
Sat, 04 Nov 2000 03:32:58 +0800
At 16:44 11/03/2000 +0800, Zhou Tai An wrote:
>1. The cost is probably going to be the worst factor.
Actually.. I agree with you. =) Cost is a big factor here. As for
mass-production of I-field, I think it's possible we will get to see it if
Sunrise ever decide to further the Gundam timeline. The I-field technology,
at least in this aspect, is just about mature by F91.
Which is why I don't suppose Sunrise would go into an expansion of
the timeline. Because what we will end up with is a version of Nadesco.
>2. Remember what Char did in the Battle of Rumm?
Sigh. Yes, a defensive I-field can't cover all avenues, but it does
provide some protection from beam weapons, which, towards the end of the OYW
has became practically the de facto weapon for ship killing.
Considering the naval battles we see in 0083, CCA and probably Z
(I'm not too sure about this series..). Most of these battles involved large
fleets of warships firing mainly mega-particle weapons and missiles at
opposing fleets.
MSes, once both sides got them, do contribute to the kill counts,
but given their very limited endurance (20 minutes, tops) and the massive
battles we see in CCA, naval warships still tend to dominate the battles,
especially MS carriers.
Given the importance of warships in the UC era, is it worth the
expense to equip the ships with some defenses against the most common
weapons in the era? I would say yes, within acceptable economical reasons.
While I-fields does not provide protection against missiles and MSes, there
has never *been* an adequate defense against these in UC anyway.
What I'm proposing does not cover all the bases, but it does provide
protection against a widespread weapon. Considering that a long range beam
shot would core a warship the same as a close in beam shot, the added
protection from beam weaponry is worth the effort.
Of course, all this is assuming that the economic cost and the
technical problems can be both overcome. Sure, there are ways to get around
a defense; Just as the development of beam barriers made MS combat much more
in close, so will the adoption of defensive I-field technology by ships
change combat in some way. But that's arms race for you.
>3. I'm not too sure about the VSBR/I-Field argument,
Too technical for you, I think. I don't want to rehash grounds I've
covered in another mail, so I'll leave you to read that.
>4. In reference to another point, just because beam rifles were
>warship-class weaponry in the OYW doesn't mean they still are decades later...
They are. Watch F91, read Crossbone Vanguard. =) 40 years down the
road, and the beam rifle is alive and kicking.
>5. My aforementioned multi-stage rocket is pretty powerful, you know. ^_^
>Are you familiar with HEAT and SABOT tank rounds?
Come on, a Mecha freak unfamiliar with HEAT and SABOT? (^_^)
Your point is valid, but I never intended the I-field to cover
projectile and missile anyway, so it's OT. =)
>You're right in that if fired anywhere, it won't do much - but then again, no
>weapon would.
Difficult to say. I've heard of Amuro simply broadsiding a Musai,
shooting into it from the side -- and killing it. Probably hit something
vital, but with beam weapons, you can probably shoot through a warship from
bow to stern..
>6. Working on the shot lancer theory, it'd be pretty simple to design a
>powerful railgun that can puncture warship armor
Well, you can, but will it be portable? And what about the ammo? The
power requirements?
>(Actually, I find it strange that there are no railguns in Gundam (or at least
very few) - I wonder why.
IIRC, the moon has a massdriver -- or was that another series?
>Perhaps they deem beams more effective?)
MUCH more effective. Each MS carries a fusion reactor, which could
power the beam weapon -- although in OYW, the designs weren't feasible. With
the development of E-caps, beam weapons could be made smaller and carry more
shots.
Railguns, OTOH, requires large amount of power to run (as I
understand it) and is still ammo dependant. =) And ton for ton, beam weapons
are much more bang-for-buck.
-------------
Lim Jyue
ICQ: 24737555
I am careful not to confuse excellence with perfection.
Excellence I can reach for; perfection is God's business.
-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 04 2000 - 04:19:01 JST