From: rcfg@chem.ucsd.edu (Fahey group)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.anime
Subject: Re: MS Gundam Film #1
Date: 29 Sep 1992 06:10:39 GMT
Organization: University of California San Diego, Chemistry
NNTP-Posting-Host: chedccf0.ucsd.edu

In article <1a8i9oINNg5t@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> as413@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric William Paslick) writes:
>
>I do understand that an I-Field would not work against projectile
>weapons. (realy, I do :-)) I also understand that I-Field generators
>arn't very reliable.  But I just watched episode 11 again, and I swear
>that the Neu Ziel was as big (if not bigger) than the cruiser (I think
>it was a Magellan class, but it might have been a Salamas) it came up
>beside and destroied.  And even if the current ships are unsuitable, the
>technology can be designed into later classes.  SOME defensive
>capability is better than none at all.

1. Neue Ziel or other mobile armors can have reactors larger than
ships of same size because they don't have to devote spaces for
living quarters, hangars, and other sections that are not directly
needed for cobat.
2. It might be OK to test an unreliable technology like I-Field with
a MA with a pilot but I don't think crews will be very happy about
having untested technology that can blowup a ship. The problem with
I-Field generators are that they tend to overheat the reactor and
therefore can be used for only limited period of time (less than an
hour).

>By the time of Zeta, if I'm reading my various background books
>correctly, most MSs were using beam rifles as their main weapon.  Also,
>beam barrier technology does seem to improve over the coarse of time.
>The one (and only one) thing I liked about F-91 were the beam shields.
>They were logical extentions of previous technology.  Some form of beam
>barrier technology for the ships would also be an eventuality, in my
>opinion.

Yes, the beam barrier techonology improved over the time. That's
why you see more efficient reflector incom and reflector bits
in ZZ and Sentinel. In CCA, MSs and MAs have funnel that can 
generate I-Field with far greater accuracy than I-Field generators
in the past.

>Were they lost because they wore out or because they scared the s**t out
>of the other side and were thus singled out for destruction. :-)  Also,
>given the shortness of the wars (the One Year War would not have left a
>lot of time for mass production, in spite of what Tomino believes),
>there was probably not enough to build more (much to the relief of the
>Feddies).

Well, problems with MAs are:
1. TOO expensive
2. Require pilots who can resist high Gs
3. Bad user interface
4. Very difficult to maintain
5. Consumes energy rapidly

Considering these problems, I don't think anyone would be interested
in massive quantity of these monsters. Nor you can replace the fleet
completely with MAs, since a mobile armor will probably require
1 Pegasus class ship or 2-4 Salamis class ships to effectively
maintain them.


*******************************************************************
*                       Tonghyn "Vajra" Kim                       *
*                      Operation X/UC HERALD                      *
*                                                                 *
*  A. Delaz Dead (UC0048-0083). But the spirit of Jion lives on.  *
*                            SIEG JION!                           *
*******************************************************************
DON'T reply to this account. E-mail to tkim@sdcc3.ucsd.edu instead.