balance between beam and physical weapons

[GAT-X109 Truth]

no matter which gundam universe beam weapons have always been said to be more destructive than physical weapons. i have a different theory though. i think physical weapons are just as good as beam weapons whether they are melee or ranged weapons. when bullets hit a mobile weapon's armor the armor cracks causing external damage and some internal damage if it was fired from a strong gun (like a linear gun). beams however do not wedge into the armor like bullets. instead they burn through the armor causing internal damage. my theory is that beam weapons can be deadly if they penetrate the armor and cause internal but if the enemy has armor so thick that a beam rifle's beam cant burn through it then that beam rifle is not very effective unless the beam is fired at the same spot. that is where physical weapons become effective. physical weapons can break the armor exposing vital spots below the armor. this is just my theory though. i would like to hear other opinions about this

[HalfDemonInuyasha]

no matter which gundam universe beam weapons have always been said to be more destructive than physical weapons. i have a different theory though. i think physical weapons are just as good as beam weapons whether they are melee or ranged weapons. when bullets hit a mobile weapon's armor the armor cracks causing external damage and some internal damage if it was fired from a strong gun (like a linear gun). beams however do not wedge into the armor like bullets. instead they burn through the armor causing internal damage. my theory is that beam weapons can be deadly if they penetrate the armor and cause internal but if the enemy has armor so thick that a beam rifle's beam cant burn through it then that beam rifle is not very effective unless the beam is fired at the same spot. that is where physical weapons become effective. physical weapons can break the armor exposing vital spots below the armor. this is just my theory though. i would like to hear other opinions about this

Beams may not be necessarily more "destructive" than physical weaponry, but they are certainly more effective. (which is why they become the new primary armament over machine guns and such). As you said, physical weaponry only damages the armor, meaning it takes more shots to break through it and actually destroy it (depending on the strenght of the weapon of course. A good bazooka shot can still take out a MS or at least disable it thanks to how armor got thinned out with the movable frame).

On the other hand, as you said, beam weapons completely penetrate armor entirely and right on through. That means, unlike physical weaponry which, as you said, would really only crack armor, expose parts, or cause more minor internal damage, a beam weapon can go entirely through an MS (unless it has anti-beam coating or REALLY thick armor), completely searing through all those internal parts through the front, middle AND back of the MS and right on through thus it would cause much more extensive damage overall.

And very thick armor means a MUCH slower and more costly Mobile Suit to construct unless you add in tons of thrusters and extra verniers to compensate, which only adds to the cost of construction and maintenance, so such a MS will probably only be a one-time prototype and, most likely, end up failing in the end. Even stuff like the Totuga from Crossbone Gundam or the Gable from Gundam X, while having very thick armor, still had backup systems (very strong beam shields for the Totuga and an anti-beam barrier system for the Gable) and even then, they fell from simple up-close-and-personal attacks by other MS (a simple beam saber through the body with the Totuga and bullet pelting from the Leopard for the Gable at the cost of HEAVY damage to the Leopard).

But the fact that both types of weaponry still work is WHY you still see both types of weaponry still used a lot even as far as UC 0153 even with the creation of the beam shield more than 30 years previously. Vulcans are still commonplace. Bazookas, rockets, grenades, and missiles are still used all the time and even heat rods.

The only things that could really up against BOTH types of weaponry are much more costly Mobile Armor with all the extra features...I-Field, very thick armor, maneuverability, and whatnot. But even then, they can still fall.

[Recon 5]

I believe in early (post- Stardust Memories or maybe later) to mid UC mobile suit designers actually began reducing MS armor because MS have the alarming tendency to get taken out with a single hit from a beam weapon. Therefore, the designers figured that agility (read dodging) would be a more economical and practical way for a mobile suit to survive that giving it armor as thick as your average cruiser.

Logically, that would swing the balance of power back to physical weapons but somehow MS designers overlooked that little fact.

[toysdream]

As HalfDemonInuyasha notes, beam weapons generally have greater penetrating power than projectiles, which is pretty much the opposite of GAT-X109 Truth's suggestion. As a result, it's fairly pointless to try and stop them with heavier armor.

Beam weapons have their shortcomings, though. For one thing, their effectiveness decreases dramatically over distance; for another, they tend to shoot straight through the target and out the other side, so if you're firing on a large target like a ship then you'd better hope you hit something vital. For these reasons, missiles and bazookas remain in use for a long time, at least in the Universal Century world. It's only with the introduction of beam bazookas and VSBRs, which can fire slow-moving wide beams that do damage over a large area, that projectile weapons become obsolete.

-- Mark

[GAT-X109 Truth]

As HalfDemonInuyasha notes, beam weapons generally have greater penetrating power than projectiles, which is pretty much the opposite of GAT-X109 Truth's suggestion. As a result, it's fairly pointless to try and stop them with heavier armor.

Actually i agree with HalfDemonInuyasha. I also think beam weapons have greater penetrating power than projectiles, but i still think heavy armor is effective. Thick armor may not be able to completly stop a beam by the time it reaches the interior, but it could at least weaken the beam so that it does little damage. Suppose a mobile suit 's armor were made out of the same metal shields are made of. That way it might be able to withstand a beam rifle shot. The mobile suit would definatly have to sacrifice some speed, but what if the mobile suit had armor like a movable frame. This way the mobile suit only has one layer of this kind of armor, which probably would be enough to stop a beam rifle shot.

Another disagreement I have is about projectile weapons becoming obsolete because of the development of beam bazookas. I dont know too much about the U.C. after Zeta Gundam, but i would think that beam bakzookas have some downsides to them. You already said they fired slow-moving beams, and you also said they cover a large area. This must mean that each shot consumes a lot of power. That does not seem good enough to cause projectile weapons to be outdated.

[toysdream]

Actually i agree with HalfDemonInuyasha. I also think beam weapons have greater penetrating power than projectiles, but i still think heavy armor is effective.

Not really. Huge monster machines like The O can shrug off enemy beams, and for some reason shields can be made fairly beam-resistant, but as far as the Universal Century series is concerned very few mobile suits can survive a direct hit from a beam rifle.

Another disagreement I have is about projectile weapons becoming obsolete because of the development of beam bazookas.

But they do. Once beam bazookas are introduced in F91 and Victory Gundam, they pretty much stop using the projectile variety. By this point, mobile suit reactors are powerful enough that they can easily spare the extra energy.

-- Mark

[Oruma]

Another disadvantage you may want to consider regarding physical, non-beam weaponry is that a machine gun would have little use against the now popularized Gundarium alloy, while more powerful weapons such as bazookas will be severely limited by the number of rounds it can carry, and the additional weight they put on your MS. On the other side, beam weaponry does not bright additional weight (at least, not as significantly) while being just as efficient in its offensive capacity.

[Black Knight]

Another disadvantage you may want to consider regarding physical, non-beam weaponry is that a machine gun would have little use against the now popularized Gundarium alloy, while more powerful weapons such as bazookas will be severely limited by the number of rounds it can carry, and the additional weight they put on your MS. On the other side, beam weaponry does not bright additional weight (at least, not as significantly) while being just as efficient in its offensive capacity.

Curiously, Gundam F91 shows Crossbone Vanguard MS equipped with machine-cannons (like Dorel Ronah's Berga Dalas) butchering Federation Heavyguns and G-Cannons, despite their Gundarium Alloy armor. I'd guess that in the course of the miniturization of MS which happened early in the Second Century UC, armor was thinned to the point of near uselessness, although I note only the CV's commander-use MS use these "heavy machineguns"; the rank-and-file Den'an Zons are equipped with beam guns.

[mcred23]

I think that's more to due with those shot lancer-mounted machine guns often being used at point blank range, or pointed at the cockpit or some other vital area on the Federal MS, not to mention the fact that the Crossbone MS boasted better performance and could get an upper hand on, and use their weapons against, EFSF MS like the Heavygun and G-Cannon (And the older, even less effective Jegans). There's also the matter of us not knowing jack about the machine guns mounted in those shot lancers, they may be of a very high velocity or of a large size, and that could be part of why they look to be so effective.

Also, the rank and file Den'an Zons used shot lancers.

[Wingnut]

I agree. Many times that I saw the machine guns on Shot Lancers being really effective was when they hit a weak spot of some kind such as an exposed knee joint or in one case, the rockets stored in the shield of a Jegan, otherwise they're not really that powerful compared to any other machine gun carried by a MS.

[Recon 5]

I always thought the shot lancer machineguns were harmonized to a point just ahead of the lance tip, so that they would fire into any internals exposed by the impact of the lance itself.

[mcred23]

I always thought the shot lancer machineguns were harmonized to a point just ahead of the lance tip, so that they would fire into any internals exposed by the impact of the lance itself.

They may be, but seeing how the shot lancer is a short range weapon to begin with and the guns don't look all that large to begin with (To me, they appear roughly vulcan sized), their effective range probably isn't that great anyway.

[crashlegacy14]

I thought the shot lancers where fireing beams... ofcourse I only watched the f91 movie once so I could easily be mistaken.

[mcred23]

I thought the shot lancers where fireing beams... ofcourse I only watched the f91 movie once so I could easily be mistaken.

Nope. As the name implies, it's pretty much a lance-like weapon ment for close range combat, although it can be launched at targets over short distances.

[volrath77]

no matter which gundam universe beam weapons have always been said to be more destructive than physical weapons. i have a different theory though. i think physical weapons are just as good as beam weapons whether they are melee or ranged weapons. when bullets hit a mobile weapon's armor the armor cracks causing external damage and some internal damage if it was fired from a strong gun (like a linear gun). beams however do not wedge into the armor like bullets. instead they burn through the armor causing internal damage. my theory is that beam weapons can be deadly if they penetrate the armor and cause internal but if the enemy has armor so thick that a beam rifle's beam cant burn through it then that beam rifle is not very effective unless the beam is fired at the same spot. that is where physical weapons become effective. physical weapons can break the armor exposing vital spots below the armor. this is just my theory though. i would like to hear other opinions about this

Beams may not be necessarily more "destructive" than physical weaponry, but they are certainly more effective. (which is why they become the new primary armament over machine guns and such).

*snip*

In relation to energy beams, it depends on the output of the energy beam. In relation to physical projectiles, it depends on velocity and mass of the projectile. Thus the energy needed to accelerate the mass of the projectile becomes a critical factor. However, if you can harness sufficient energy to propel the mass of the projectile to the desired speed, the destructive effect dwarfs anything that beam weapons could muster save and except superweapons. Hell, if you do it right, I'd dare say that they put even superweapons in Gundam to shame.

Most or all other mechanimes often make the mistake that beam weapons = better/cool whereas they never properly explored what projectile weapons can do when done right. Lets say I have a 1-ton shell in front of me and I accelerate it to 50% speed of light (c). If the online convertors I'm using are correct, the shell will impact the target with the KE of 1.123E+19 joules or 2684.034 megatons or 2.684 gigatons. That's in Newtonian KE. If we take relativistic KE, it's 1.390E+19 joules or 3.322 gigatons. That is going to screw anything it hits, be it either Gundams, ships, superweapons, entire bases or entire cities or all of them in one go if we group all those targets together.

And IIRC even in hypersonic impacts (at speeds substantially lower than c-fractional velocities i.e above Mach 5), both the impactor and the impacted act like liquids. What I understand in this case is that even as such low velocities, a hypersonic impactor will leave an entry hole that will be much wider than the circumference of the projectile. That doesn't include accompanying effects like superheated material from pulverised material caused by the impact going into the cavity, the subsequent transfer of kinetic energy, etc. At this point, making a shell explosive would be pretty much redundant.

As such, the potential of projectile weapons was, or I should say, IS very much unrealised in Gundam or most mechanime. Beam weapons are not necessarily better. They just look cooler. That is all.

EDIT: If I may add, the closest Gundamverse AFAIK to negate the firmly held belief of "beam weapon = better" is, paradoxically or otherwise, SEEDverse. Afterall, they extensively utilise EM-propeled projectile weapons in various weapon concepts from mobile suit to spaceships.

[Recon 5]

I'd like to point out that beam weapons actually fire particle beams.

[razgriz]

quick beam weapon question, how hot is that beam that it is able to pierce through armor so easily? lets use the zeta gundam's beam rifle for example. translate into degrees farenheit how hot a typical beam shot is at however many Kw they are capable of.

[volrath77]

That depends on the physical properties of the material and its thickness. IIRC size/width of damage and time are also taken into account. Since actual physical properties of sci-fi is often unknown or even contradict each other in separate examples, Earth materials are used to establish low/mid/high end estimates.

EDIT: Oh...and when energy estimates are done, they're usually done in joules, not kW.

[Black Knight]

The beams themselves aren't necessarily at a high temperature; particle beams such as UC's ubiquitious Mega-particle firing beam guns are powerful more because of the speed at which the particles are shot than because of the temperature of said beams. The reason armor frequently seems to be partially melted after being hit with such a beam is due to the heat of friction as the particles of the beam penetrate the material of the armor & other structures of whatever got shot.

No one really knows just what the power-rating (in mega-watts) of so many UC beam weapons (both ranged and melee) means; it might be an indication of how much energy is required to launch the particle beam in the case of ranged weapons, with higher figures denoting either faster shots or ones with more Mega-particles.

[Haros_Pet_Kat]

In response to the original question... There are instances where solid surfaces can survive beam hits, but it is a rare occasion and cannot be counted on for serious MS combat, because heavy MS = Bad.

I think as technology has shown in UC development, the best things to protect oneself against beams is to use a beam shield (which also protects against solid bullets) and to simply be able to dodge everything.

Though I do like V2 Gundam Assault Gundam's extra armor. It's somewhat heavy and lowers maneuverability somewhat, but it's like a really thick layer of Anti-Beam Coat, and is shown in animation to actually work, showing up close the shoulder deflecting up to three beam shots before shattering. Again, it degrades performance, but judging by Uso's battle against Katejina, it didn't degrade it too much where the V2 became a sitting duck.