The issue of suspension arms...

[-Mit-]

One interesting point related to humanoids mecha - weapons in the "hands" combat robot is set at least two different ways:

1) http://www.stompybot.com/img/15.jpg - "humanly", in the sense, that it is used "palm" of mecha manipulators for fixing arms

2) http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/war ... 1006145237 - "mechanical", that is, weapons are placed on the bottom or side of the forearm at the manipulator, like the suspension of arms from helicopter

If we look at these two types of installation of arms from a practical point of view, it raises questions, such as: which one is more reliable? which aims at easier? etc.

What are your thoughts on this?

[v_zubko]

"Mechanical" mounting does not require complex manipulators, and is therefore more reliable due to fewer potential points of failure. "Humanly" allows for wider range of geometric configurations. That is to say there is more than one way to hold a weapon as opposed to only one way to mount it on a hard point. Assuming the weapon does not require extensive bracing when fired, having more ways of orientating it to fire in a particular direction would make aiming quicker as the choice of articulation could be optimized.

[MythSearcher]

Pretty much what the above poster said.
Fingers has lots of joints and thus lots of point of failure, you also have a lot of torlerance points in the system in which reduces the accuracy of the weapon.
Hardpoints are, well, simply a single connection and thus will be much more reliable and accurate.
I'd say the fingers are completely useless in most if not all combat situations. You can always use a much more simple design to get the "Hold & Release" mechanism done in a much more efficient, reliable and accurate way.

Simply put, the hand is efficient in living beings only because Evolution is a blind watchmaker. It is only efficient in a comparative way, not in an absolute way. You can't backtrack evolution and redesign a better way like mechanical items.

You might also want to consider the recoil of the weapon.
You get a muzzle rise with humanly designed grip, that's because the moment arm of the recoil is on top of your grip. If you mount the gun under the arm, you get a recoil that lowers the arm every time you shoot. Sideway mounts are similar.
I don't see a lot of difference if you are fighting in air or space, or have really low recoil weapons(lke beam weapons or laser) but having your aim drop everytime you shoot in ground combat seems to be a pretty strange design.

[Sabersonic]

I think the primarily advantages to a manipulator-wielded "humanly" as opposed to hardpoint/weapon station-mounted "mechanical" are two fold: Rapid Customization and Retrieval, and Cross-Compatibility.

For the first point, Rapid Customization and Retrieval, one simply has to look at the wide range of human-scaled small arms to see such an advantage. The wielder in particular, in this case the mecha, simply grasps the handle of the desired weapon and its (theoretically) ready for deployment with limited (if any) involvement by the flight crew to prep and ready said weapon to be mounted upon the mecha, let alone mounting the weapon.

Arguably, the same could be said of hardpoint/weapon station mounts but I have a feeling that precise alignment might be an issue if said weapon draws any resource in the form of fuel or electrical energy from the mecha in question. That and I'm not too sure if a hardpoint/weapon station sans weapon system would take a direct shot from hostile fire or environmental conditions would make mounting such a weapon ideal, let alone safe. Granted, the same could be said of manipulators, but I can only assume that the hardpoint/weapon station would be a slightly bigger target at the very least.

As for the second point, Cross-Compatibility, one can only assume a similar manipulator "anatomy" of the mecha no matter the model type so weapons could be exchanged between units even under heavy fire. With hardpoint/weapon station designs, with even real world examples sub-categorized into wet and dry types, there's not a large enough guarantee that the hardpoint/weapon station would allow a similar ease of logistical design without over complicating said hardpoint/weapon station to be more universal in what weapon systems could be mounted and thus increasing the points of failure even further.

But, and this is if I am allowed to go Meta on the topic, I think the real reason "humanly" weapon mounts are as serious if not more so compared to "mechanical" weapon mounts is that 1) it allows graceful usage of melee weapons if modeled after the human hand and 2) hardpoint/weapon station mounts are too much like the weapon arms of Battletech fare that would call into question the need for mecha to even have hands if all of their "optional" weapons are simply mounted instead of carried like regular infantry.

[MythSearcher]

I think the primarily advantages to a manipulator-wielded "humanly" as opposed to hardpoint/weapon station-mounted "mechanical" are two fold: Rapid Customization and Retrieval, and Cross-Compatibility.

For the first point, Rapid Customization and Retrieval, one simply has to look at the wide range of human-scaled small arms to see such an advantage. The wielder in particular, in this case the mecha, simply grasps the handle of the desired weapon and its (theoretically) ready for deployment with limited (if any) involvement by the flight crew to prep and ready said weapon to be mounted upon the mecha, let alone mounting the weapon.

Arguably, the same could be said of hardpoint/weapon station mounts but I have a feeling that precise alignment might be an issue if said weapon draws any resource in the form of fuel or electrical energy from the mecha in question. That and I'm not too sure if a hardpoint/weapon station sans weapon system would take a direct shot from hostile fire or environmental conditions would make mounting such a weapon ideal, let alone safe. Granted, the same could be said of manipulators, but I can only assume that the hardpoint/weapon station would be a slightly bigger target at the very least.

As for the second point, Cross-Compatibility, one can only assume a similar manipulator "anatomy" of the mecha no matter the model type so weapons could be exchanged between units even under heavy fire. With hardpoint/weapon station designs, with even real world examples sub-categorized into wet and dry types, there's not a large enough guarantee that the hardpoint/weapon station would allow a similar ease of logistical design without over complicating said hardpoint/weapon station to be more universal in what weapon systems could be mounted and thus increasing the points of failure even further.

But, and this is if I am allowed to go Meta on the topic, I think the real reason "humanly" weapon mounts are as serious if not more so compared to "mechanical" weapon mounts is that 1) it allows graceful usage of melee weapons if modeled after the human hand and 2) hardpoint/weapon station mounts are too much like the weapon arms of Battletech fare that would call into question the need for mecha to even have hands if all of their "optional" weapons are simply mounted instead of carried like regular infantry.

If you look at the changeable tip of drill, it is actually quite easy to design a hardpoint that has a very adaptable and field changeable grip with none of the weak point factors of a humanly hand.
If you upgrade that design with a pole and hole section where you get a standard format of poles that can slide into a funneled hole where the end is slightly larger than the pole with a screw on grip of a drill, you can basically mount anything on with a much simpler design than a human hand.

[Gelgoog Jager]

Given the issue at hand, I wanted to point out some units known to have used both setups, the Zaku Tank and Dra-C:

1- Zaku Tank:

A) With manipulators: MS-06V Gundam Battle Operation version, equipped with two MMP-80

B) Without Manipulator: MS-06V-8 "White Boar" MSV-R version, equipped with a fixed two barrel 105mm (120mm?) Zaku machine gun

2- Dra-C:

A) With manipulator: MS-21C HGUC version, equipped with gatling gun, and MS-21D1, equipped with 120mm Zaku machine gun

B) Without manipulator: MS-21C 0083 version, with fixed 40mm Vulcan and Sleeves version, equipped with fixed gatling gun

My take is that fixed weapons that can entirely skip manipulators are both more simple/practical and probably cheaper to produce and maintain. That being said, reloading or even replacing said weapons in mid-battle would probably require the unit to have a manipulator on its other arm for such purpose.

On the other hand, handheld weapons allow many different type of units to operate them and even quickly retrieve them in mid-combat: In the 0081 OVA a Rick Dom loses its bazooka while fighting a GM but is able to quickly retrieve a beam bazooka to engage approaching enemies. We also see the Hildolfr retrieving and using the 120mm machine gun of a fallen Zaku II. Also, some of the swordplay some MS pull sometimes would seem to be doable only with hand shaped manipulators.

[Sabersonic]

Okay, first off, is anyone having any issues logging onto the forum via Windows Edge or Firefox? I could only do so via Internet Explorer.



Second:

If you look at the changeable tip of drill, it is actually quite easy to design a hardpoint that has a very adaptable and field changeable grip with none of the weak point factors of a humanly hand.

If you upgrade that design with a pole and hole section where you get a standard format of poles that can slide into a funneled hole where the end is slightly larger than the pole with a screw on grip of a drill, you can basically mount anything on with a much simpler design than a human hand.

Oh I'm quite familiar with the changeable drill and driver bits and to be honest I'm not a hundred percent convinced that they're a suitable weapon station set up for any given battlefield.

For starters, it's a noticeably long pole for a rather small hole (please, no innuendos) and to make sure the alignment is correct enough for a smooth connection would be rather difficult for a machine under laboratory circumstances when one has all the time in the world. Not what I would call a wide margin of error if one missed.

Second, for the more rugged of interchangeable "bit" designs utilize the screw claw method (for lack of a better terminology) that takes a while for said claws to grasp onto said pole within the drill hole just through the screwing part alone. Time enough for some lucky sod to take advantage of when one is unarmed.

I would go on, but Gelgoog Jager already beat me to the punch on that front.