Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

The future is now. This is the place for mecha and science.
User avatar
SonicSP
Posts: 1489
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:38 am
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

Underrated GM Custom wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 10:49 am
Seto Kaiba wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 9:31 pm On IBO MS's, only the frame is made out of the obligatory extremely-rare high-hardness alloy. Anything other than the frame, which houses the Ahab reactors, is dependent on nanolaminate armor for its defensive ability.
Little confused on this one. When I think Frame I think all the metal structures that house the MS internal components. I can't tell if you're saying the obligatory super-metal is just around the reactor or on the whole suit?
In IBO, frame means the skeleton. So the skeleton is made from High Hardness Rare Alloy (高硬度レアアロイ).

Not to be confused with Rare Metal (希少金属), which is a stronger material that is used on a few rare weapons like Bael's swords. And they can destroy frames cos they're the stronger material.

https://gundam.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_ ... uit_Frames
User avatar
yazi88
Moderator
Posts: 1494
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:53 am
Location: Scopedog Bed

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

The rare metal is also used for certain weapons such as Barbatos Lupus Rex's Nails, Toe Nails and its Tail Blade taken and modified from the Hashmal. I believe the Grimgarde also used the same material for its blades, but I don't think they were as strong as the Bael's swords.

Funny enough, the Hashmal's original Tail Blade used a different unique metal too before it was converted to the Lupus Rex's weapon.
User avatar
Seto Kaiba
Posts: 1712
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

Underrated GM Custom wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 10:49 am Little confused on this one. When I think Frame I think all the metal structures that house the MS internal components. I can't tell if you're saying the obligatory super-metal is just around the reactor or on the whole suit?
Mobile Suits in the Iron-Blooded Orphans timeline have a structural endoskeletal frame that houses its Ahab reactor (or reactors), the powertrain needed to drive the suit's joint actuators, onboard computer, and the key sensors inside the Mobile Suit's head. Everything else, from the cockpit to the thrusters to the integrated weapons and the plating that the nanolaminate armor is applied to is mounted directly (or indirectly) to that load-bearing endoskeletal frame.

That endoskeletal frame is made out of a super-strong alloy whereas the actual armor is not and relies on coatings of nanolaminate armor for its defensive strength. They literal grey areas you can see on many IBO MS's are exposed sections of endoskeletal frame.

(That's why, at the end of S1 when Mikazuki finally gets the hang of that giant katana, Ein is quite startled to see that he was able to cut through both the armor AND the frame in a single blow... he sliced not just through the nanolaminate armor-coated armor plating but also the super-hard alloy skeleton of the Graze Ein.)

It's not like most UC mecha where the armor itself is a load-bearing structure.


Underrated GM Custom wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 10:49 am I'd wager the hammer would still be very effective against Luna TItanium. We do see the heavy metal arm of an AC Guy massively dent the Gundam Ground Types heavily armored torso.
It's a paradigm that went untested, however... and luna titanium is known for its impact-resistant properties.

Underrated GM Custom wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 10:49 am That's really interesting since I had thought the weakness of an I-Field was that it only affected particles and conventional munition still went through the I-Field.
It might be more accurate to call it using a Minovsky Craft system... which is using a dense I-field to produce lift.
The Macross Mecha Manual
Yes, we're working on updates...
User avatar
MythSearcher
Posts: 1661
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

Underrated GM Custom wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 10:49 am That's really interesting since I had thought the weakness of an I-Field was that it only affected particles and conventional munition still went through the I-Field.
In almost all of UC, yes, an I-Field barrier is not dense enough to block conventional munitions.
(Other than the few times you have NT attracting the M particles and creating a very dense area like Axis being pushed away from Earth)
But think of the Minovky Craft system, the I-Field lattice is able to support a whole vehicle on top of it as long as the material it supported is an electrical conductor. It only matters how thick and how much power you put into the EM field that controls the I-Field lattice to keep it there in front of the munition being shot at it. (However, if you put in enough power, why not just make something like a beam shield)
In Turn A, there was an in show mention about a unit blocking munitions with an I-Field, I don't recall if it was the Flat or the Wodom though.
User avatar
Underrated GM Custom
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

yazi88 wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:59 pm The rare metal is also used for certain weapons such as Barbatos Lupus Rex's Nails, Toe Nails and its Tail Blade taken and modified from the Hashmal. I believe the Grimgarde also used the same material for its blades, but I don't think they were as strong as the Bael's swords.
It makes sense that Gundams would have premium weapons with the ultra-hard, ultra-rare material. I do wonder though, if there's enough material to armor the frame/endoskeleton of a MS like the average Graze then I wonder why they couldn't produce it for their weaponry as well.
Seto Kaiba wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 3:49 pm That endoskeletal frame is made out of a super-strong alloy whereas the actual armor is not and relies on coatings of nanolaminate armor for its defensive strength. They literal grey areas you can see on many IBO MS's are exposed sections of endoskeletal frame.

It's not like most UC mecha where the armor itself is a load-bearing structure.
Hey thanks for taking the time for that explanation, it painted a crystal clear imagine in my mind for what you were describing. Sounds like MS from IBO are more of the movable frame concept (components, skeleton, armor) whereas I was thinking more of the OYW (skeleton, components, armor) monocoque / semi-monocoque style. Although if I recall correctly the traditional monocoque (no skeleton only load-bearing armor) was retconned [/url]out of existence. Edit: Found the thread I was thinking about.

MythSearcher wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 9:37 pm But think of the Minovky Craft system, the I-Field lattice is able to support a whole vehicle on top of it as long as the material it supported is an electrical conductor. It only matters how thick and how much power you put into the EM field that controls the I-Field lattice to keep it there in front of the munition being shot at it. (However, if you put in enough power, why not just make something like a beam shield)
The Minovsky craft system makes sense, although I do think it's humorous that after centuries of technological progress they take an impressive levitation system and use it to make a giant spiked metal ball move.

On the topic of beam shields has there been a consensus reached on whether they stopped conventional munitions or not? Does it stop machine guns or vulcans? Does it stop a shot lancer where fired and/or deflect it? What about a Gundam Hammer? :D
Last edited by Underrated GM Custom on Mon May 31, 2021 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
yazi88
Moderator
Posts: 1494
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:53 am
Location: Scopedog Bed

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

I don't know if it there is much of a comparison between the IBO Gundam frames and UC's movable frame. They were very different systems especially with how the 2 reactors for the Gundam frames is a big aspect of it too including the outer armor.
User avatar
Underrated GM Custom
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

Oh definitely not saying the two methods of construction are the same. Just that they share a core common concept of internal components within the skeleton instead of components being bolted on top of a skeleton.
User avatar
MythSearcher
Posts: 1661
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

Underrated GM Custom wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:02 pm
The Minovsky craft system makes sense, although I do think it's humorous that after centuries of technological progress they take an impressive levitation system and use it to make a giant spiked metal ball move.
I was talking about the ability to block physical ammunition.
On the topic of beam shields has there been a consensus reached on whether they stopped conventional munitions or not? Does it stop machine guns or vulcans? Does it stop a shot lancer where fired and/or deflect it? What about a Gundam Hammer? :D
Yes, they basically burn through the stuff. In theory you can make a long and narrow projectile puncturing the beam shield by saturating the local plasma, and I always assume the short lancer on the RGM-122 can be used for that purpose(I don't think it is mentioned anywhere though), but since it also depends on the design parameters and how powerful the beam shield is, and RGM-122 was designed pretty early in the beam shield technology emergence, they likely aren't really useful in 0153 against the newest models.
Gundam Hammer just seems to be too massive to be vaporised, but considering the beam shields can slice through MS, this might not work and can only be used as a last ditch attempt. (And it likely wouldn't work the second time provided that the first would have depleted most of the mass on the hammer.)
Last edited by MythSearcher on Tue Jun 01, 2021 2:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kuruni
Posts: 3156
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:43 am
Location: sitting next to a yandere loli
Contact:

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

Underrated GM Custom wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:02 pm
The Minovsky craft system makes sense, although I do think it's humorous that after centuries of technological progress they take an impressive levitation system and use it to make a giant spiked metal ball move.
In the case of Turn A, they already use I-field to move the whole MS, adding hyper hammer to it isn't big deal.

Anotger interesting melee MS in Turn A is Eagel. With that mining shield drill and hammer for head.
My girlfriend was a loli.
User avatar
SonicSP
Posts: 1489
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:38 am
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

Underrated GM Custom wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:02 pm It makes sense that Gundams would have premium weapons with the ultra-hard, ultra-rare material. I do wonder though, if there's enough material to armor the frame/endoskeleton of a MS like the average Graze then I wonder why they couldn't produce it for their weaponry as well.
Probably could if they wanted too. If cheapskate Maruba Arkay can obtain a Mace made out of [High Hardness Rare Alloy] for Barbatos' use, then Gjallahorn can probably make their axes out of them. However it may not be economically efficient since the materials you could use for Battles Axes can easily be made into more frames. The Battles Axes are more than sufficient as weapons anyways.

Rememeber the Graze is primarily made for deterrent and security purposes, not just for anti-MS combat. MS are extremely rare in IBO because of the high maintanence and acquisition costs. Not to mention that only Gjallahorn can make new Ahab Reactors anymore, and other than them only Teiwaz were making new MS from old designs and recovered reactors.

For the most part, the Grazes only have mostly deal with infantry and mobile workers. They don't even have to deal with aircraft and only rarely with MS. They are also extremely energy efficient and easy to maintain, the opposite of the Gundams.

That is why Tekkadan's campaign that ultimately ended with them winning Edmonton was significant. It showcased the practical use of MS again and as noted at the start of Season 2, after that everyone and their brother wanted one.
User avatar
Underrated GM Custom
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

MythSearcher wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:01 am Gundam Hammer just seems to be too massive to be vaporised, but considering the beam shields can slice through MS, this might not work and can only be used as a last ditch attempt. (And it likely wouldn't work the second time provided that the first would have depleted most of the mass on the hammer.)
Oh my! I didn't realize a beam shield was used to slice a MS in half. Was that feat performed by Seabook, Uso or someone else?
SonicSP wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:11 am For the most part, the Grazes only have mostly deal with infantry and mobile workers. They don't even have to deal with aircraft and only rarely with MS. They are also extremely energy efficient and easy to maintain, the opposite of the Gundams.
That is some great world building from S1, I had completely forgotten Gjallerhorn had the keys to the MS kingdom.

Were the Gundams from the calamity war harder to maintain because they were higher performance, because twin Ahab reactors were unrefined tech, or another reason?
Kuruni wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 1:42 am
Another interesting melee MS in Turn A is Eagel. With that mining shield drill and hammer for head.
A MS with a drill and hammer? Now I've really got to see Turn A
User avatar
SonicSP
Posts: 1489
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:38 am
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

Underrated GM Custom wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 9:32 amThat is some great world building from S1, I had completely forgotten Gjallerhorn had the keys to the MS kingdom.

Were the Gundams from the calamity war harder to maintain because they were higher performance, because twin Ahab reactors were unrefined tech, or another reason?
Its because of the twin reactors, they were extremely hard to make even with the more advanced technology of the time and by the PD calendar the Gundam Frames were considered lost tech like many other things. Maintaining them were also difficult and this was cited as the main reason why only 72 were made originally.

In the anime series, maintaining the Gundams were rarely an issue for Tekkadan. The only time it was an issue was when Tekkadan faced Teiwaz for the first time where it was mentioned in the dialogue. Aside from having much less power, it also made Mika feel more G-Forces due to being less Ahab Particles reducing it for him.

Not sure whether it affected thrust but Thermal Phase Transitions Thrusters relies on heating Hydrogen using the reactors, while Ahab Thrusters used for apogee would be too presumably.

As for MS, it was both a supply and demand issue. Most thought it wasn't worth it and Gjallahorn were the only ones who could made the reactors. The groups that did want them though, such as the Brewers pirate group, usually could get them with some effort and maybe luck. This was probably why Graze needed Battles Axes as an option at all, cos some groups still had them and maybe to crack ship armor too if needed.
User avatar
MythSearcher
Posts: 1661
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

Underrated GM Custom wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 9:32 am Oh my! I didn't realize a beam shield was used to slice a MS in half. Was that feat performed by Seabook, Uso or someone else?
It happened in the manga of V, slicing through might not be the best word but I can't think of a better one.
Uso activated beam shields for both elbows and held its knees, did a Taiikuzuwari pose and rolled in mid air, creating a spherical shell and rammed into the enemy.

Considering beam shields are just shield shaped beam sabres, it makes sense that they are ultimately powerful enough to slice through MS.
User avatar
Underrated GM Custom
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

SonicSP wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 10:13 am In the anime series, maintaining the Gundams were rarely an issue for Tekkadan. The only time it was an issue was when Tekkadan faced Teiwaz for the first time where it was mentioned in the dialogue.
Very informative, thank you for sharing! I recall then mentioning maintenance after unearthing the Gundam but I just assumed the staff they had on hand was used to mobile workers vice mobile suits. The lostech explanation makes a great deal of sense, I had always suspected the calamity war debuted a lot of experimental tech but after the war there wasn't much appetite to perfect it. It would certainly be interesting if they decide to a series set in the calamity war.

Now if the Ahab reactors on a ship produce stronger Ahab waves that makes their nano laminate armor more effective would a MS Ax still be effective?
MythSearcher wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 10:17 am Uso activated beam shields for both elbows and held its knees, did a Taiikuzuwari pose and rolled in mid air, creating a spherical shell and rammed into the enemy.

Considering beam shields are just shield shaped beam sabres, it makes sense that they are ultimately powerful enough to slice through MS.
Haha! You know I never realized there was a specific term for that pose.

So if a beam shield is just a beam saber with a different I-Field lattice, what was the explanation given for why they were developed so late in the Universal Century? Power supply issues I'm guessing?

Have we ever seen interactions between beam shields and heat or physical weapons?
User avatar
SonicSP
Posts: 1489
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:38 am
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

Underrated GM Custom wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:09 pmNow if the Ahab reactors on a ship produce stronger Ahab waves that makes their nano laminate armor more effective would a MS Ax still be effective?
Yes, there is a confirmation from a magazine interview that the ships' armor are stronger due to their reactors being bigger and have larger output. The reason why ship boardings like what Tekkadan did to Teiwaz is a popular strategy in IBO is cos it is easier to do than destroying them.

On that note, we know now that they are powered by Ahab Particles and not Ahab Waves, cos their strength comes from the gravity pulling them in and filling them with energy. Gravity generation is exclusively the department of Ahab Particles.

Ahab Waves' only "use" so to speak is identification, jamming and electronics damage. Even then it affects you as much as the other side, so not really a net positive all things equal.
Underrated GM Custom wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:09 pm I recall then mentioning maintenance after unearthing the Gundam but I just assumed the staff they had on hand was used to mobile workers vice mobile suits. The lostech explanation makes a great deal of sense, I had always suspected the calamity war debuted a lot of experimental tech but after the war there wasn't much appetite to perfect it.
Barbatos was never unearthed in the show, it was always in their possession. CGS was using its reactors to power their base for a long time in fact. In any case, its reactor performance was not an issue in its first battle presumably cos they have been maintaining that. They were however caught off guard for the Teiwaz encounter and without re-looking it up I recall its battle performance being down from usual was mentioned in that episode's dialogue when Mikazuki was launching.

About experimenting tech, mobile suits themselves were made as a response to combat the rogue mobile armors during the Calamity War. In addition, Alaya-Vijnana System itself was deployed on the Gundams for the first time and considred necessary requirement for taking advantage of Twin Reactor's full output. The Original system was even lost tech until McGillis' faction redeveloped it, partly because if was banned by Gjallahorn.
Underrated GM Custom wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:09 pm Very informative, thank you for sharing!
Sure thing, I love nerding out on IBO and 00.
User avatar
Arsarcana
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:26 am

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

Underrated GM Custom wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:09 pm I had always suspected the calamity war debuted a lot of experimental tech but after the war there wasn't much appetite to perfect it. It would certainly be interesting if they decide to a series set in the calamity war.
I'd be all for that, because each of the Gundams we've seen so far has done its own interesting thing even before you start to factor in how mutable their equipment actually is. Seeing what else they could come up with would be a lot of fun.

And yeah, we know there was a lot of experimental stuff being worked on. My personal favorite among the revealed Gundams is the Astaroth Origin and it's noted to have made use of highly experimental technology using compressed Ahab Particles which would theoretically let its sword disrupt nanolaminate armor, and that it's now a completely lost technology.
Now if the Ahab reactors on a ship produce stronger Ahab waves that makes their nano laminate armor more effective would a MS Ax still be effective?
Yeah, it might take more whacks to chip off the paint that's actually providing the protection but the principle is still the same.
So if a beam shield is just a beam saber with a different I-Field lattice, what was the explanation given for why they were developed so late in the Universal Century? Power supply issues I'm guessing?
Yeah, it's explained as a power supply thing. Presumably the main reasoning behind this is that a beam shield needs to have enough power to actually stop an incoming solid projectile completely (instead of just melting some of it away and leaving the rest to impact the suit) which isn't really a concern that beam sabers have to deal with, and the plane of a shield isn't terribly thick so it has to vaporize those incoming projectiles in a very short span of time. There's probably a source somewhere that says as much, I'm just basing this on intuition.
User avatar
MythSearcher
Posts: 1661
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

Underrated GM Custom wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:09 pm Haha! You know I never realized there was a specific term for that pose.

So if a beam shield is just a beam saber with a different I-Field lattice, what was the explanation given for why they were developed so late in the Universal Century? Power supply issues I'm guessing?

Have we ever seen interactions between beam shields and heat or physical weapons?
Yeah, I don't know anyone other than the Japanese made a term for that pose. Actually, the Japanese seems to like to give terms to different poses, there is even a tag in Pixiv "What's the name of that pose?"(Or more like "Want to know the name of this pose" ポースの名は知りたい), and no, don't go searching for that tag on Pixiv, you can search for it on Google, but don't do it on Pixiv before you turn off the 18+ results.(yeah, no surprise in people being interested in knowing the pose name of their favourite sex poses)

I wouldn't say the lattice is different, its like the salt lattice is still the same cubic no matter you cut it in rod shape or as rock salt. The shape difference of the beam sabre and shield is more like water coming out of a hose and water spray on your lawn(where you have the opening facing up with a stopper on top so water sprays in all 360 degrees)

I'd say they appeared late because nobody thought about it. It is one of those concept problems where it does not need a scientific or technological breakthrough to make, just that no one had the concept at the time. I mean, I thought of utilising multiple beam sabres to be placed on top of the armour in parallel as a shielding, but it seems like nobody thought of using that in the official material yet.
MS-14S already have a primitive beam shield by spinning the beam naginata, RX-93's FF Field is also a primitive beam shield(in terms of trapping high energy M particle plasma in a weak I-Field, here being the barrel I-Field of the Fin Funnels)
With such a petty power output from the early model like MS-14S and the Fin Funnel. I'd guess power isn't really an issue.
Another reason they don't do it is likely because there are no data stating the beam sabre can block beam shots. It would be pretty useless and risky if you hold up a bright shield in space telling everyone you are there, and it cannot block beam shots fired at it. And I assume no one really want to test that on the field, and even if they are willing to, very little people have the skills to pull it off. I wonder how many MS-14S returned to be able to pass the data to the engineers to tell them it worked. Probably none.(not all sortied blocked beam shots as well), so AE probably don't have the data until maybe RX-93's return, and that data is also likely very limited(system collapsed pretty fast and with all the NT nonsense going on, how much concern and eyes goes on this small set of data is doubtful)
There is also possibly the focus in minimising the I-Field barrier onto MS that made efforts put elsewhere. We can see that AE was partially successful in putting an I-Field barrier onto Ex-S and I've seen people trying to present sources about the Full Armour ZZ with an I-Field barrier.(don't see it in the MG Manual and the old setting book (Z & ZZ perfect collection edition). RX-0's shield also has a limited ability as an I-Field barrier(that split second during the transformation) and RX-104XX, RX-105 had virtual tips which are essentially I-Fields slicing through air to make the MSs more aerodynamic. So things are likely doing well enough with that and people didn't really put too much though in the beam shield until after 0105, but that was way after the major conflicts and the isn't too much need. So it was until the major competition between AE and SNRI that trigger the new arms race that made the beam shield concept float up in the minds of engineers, because the next generation of simplified, smaller MS made installing an I-Field barrier harder again and they might have hit some kind of tech border they cannot over come and just switched to another technology path.

I don't recall any interactions between those. I mean, surely there are physical bullets shot against a beam shield and doesn't work? (but can't think of a specific scene) but I assume you want to ask about melee weapons and they don't seem to have a lot of those after OYW and none came in mind in late UC.
Arsarcana wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 1:46 pm Yeah, it's explained as a power supply thing. Presumably the main reasoning behind this is that a beam shield needs to have enough power to actually stop an incoming solid projectile completely (instead of just melting some of it away and leaving the rest to impact the suit) which isn't really a concern that beam sabers have to deal with, and the plane of a shield isn't terribly thick so it has to vaporize those incoming projectiles in a very short span of time. There's probably a source somewhere that says as much, I'm just basing this on intuition.
Nothing about that in the settings I can recall, but real life calculations do show that it would be pretty impossible to melt the whole bullet with even a pretty thick plasma wall. But that is mainly because the heat capacity of a low density gas is too small and any larger projectile going through it will be vaporised on the outside first and not heated up and melt as a whole. M particle plasma are fictional and we are always shown that they have an ultra high heat capacity and melts/vaporise through almost anything in a quick slice through action and the only time someone survives near it is Ramba Ral and the Shiro couple going in to a hot bath heated by a weakened beam sabre.
User avatar
Kuruni
Posts: 3156
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:43 am
Location: sitting next to a yandere loli
Contact:

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

Technically, Sinanju use yet another proto beam shield when activate the beam axe without detach from the shield.

One may also want to take a look at RXF-91's beam shield, aknock-off model by Anaheim. It's far larger than SNRI's model and only emits beam from two ends.
My girlfriend was a loli.
User avatar
MythSearcher
Posts: 1661
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

Kuruni wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:07 am Technically, Sinanju use yet another proto beam shield when activate the beam axe without detach from the shield.
That reminded me of the Beam Tomahawk of Sazabi, it seems to be pretty large and thin beam plate, wonder if it can be used as a beam shield.
User avatar
Underrated GM Custom
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Practicality of Physical Melee Weapons in Gundam

SonicSP wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 1:10 pm Barbatos was never unearthed in the show, it was always in their possession. CGS was using its reactors to power their base for a long time in fact. In any case, its reactor performance was not an issue in its first battle presumably cos they have been maintaining that. They were however caught off guard for the Teiwaz encounter and without re-looking it up I recall its battle performance being down from usual was mentioned in that episode's dialogue when Mikazuki was launching.
Ah shoot, I suppose unearthed was a poor choice of words since it conjures images of an archaeology dig site. Perhaps it would have been better to say brought out of retirement, hah!

I've got the same recollection as you, there was mention of either lower performance or maintenance issue with the first encounter with Teiwaz. I believe it was also over-using propellant at that time period, but I suppose you could chalk that up to a pilot issue rather than a performance/space compatibility issue.
About experimenting tech, mobile suits themselves were made as a response to combat the rogue mobile armors during the Calamity War.
The on-screen invincibility to beam weapons was a big reveal in S2 against the rogue mobile armor. Was it ever explained if that beam resistance was something unique to Gundam type units or any Mobile Suit with nano-laminate? Do we ever see a beam-saber or similar weapon in the manga or supplemental weapons?
Arsarcana wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 1:46 pm And yeah, we know there was a lot of experimental stuff being worked on. My personal favorite among the revealed Gundams is the Astaroth Origin and it's noted to have made use of highly experimental technology using compressed Ahab Particles which would theoretically let its sword disrupt nanolaminate armor, and that it's now a completely lost technology.
Sounds like a really fun technology. What you described is always how I assumed 00 physical weapons worked in conjunction with GN particles since they don't seem to have an obvious heat or vibration mechanic like you'd see in a heat hawk or progressive knife.
Yeah, it's explained as a power supply thing. Presumably the main reasoning behind this is that a beam shield needs to have enough power to actually stop an incoming solid projectile completely (instead of just melting some of it away and leaving the rest to impact the suit) which isn't really a concern that beam sabers have to deal with, and the plane of a shield isn't terribly thick so it has to vaporize those incoming projectiles in a very short span of time. There's probably a source somewhere that says as much, I'm just basing this on intuition.
Your intuition makes perfect sense to me. Beam Sabers were often shown to have very limited run times, so a beam-saber shield would have significant power storage issues. Plus you'd need advanced onboard sensors with a long enough range and a fast enough onboard computer to be able to detect an incoming beam shot and activate the beam shield in time.
MythSearcher wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 9:43 pm I'd say they appeared late because nobody thought about it. It is one of those concept problems where it does not need a scientific or technological breakthrough to make, just that no one had the concept at the time.


So this one seems a little far-fetched to me. With all the time money and effort spent researching I-Fields I'm certain at some point someone considered using something else as a shield or deflection mechanism for deadly beams. I-Fields are fantastic and it makes sense they dedicate a lot of research to miniaturizing them, we do get the scaled down I-Field for Sentinel as you mention, it's just hard to believe that none of their researchers every spitballed an idea of using a wide beam saber field to block a beam shot as a stopgap solution. My hunch is there is some kind of technical limitation that would prevent it's usage, power consumption and sensor ranges seem like the main restriction to me.
Another reason they don't do it is likely because there are no data stating the beam sabre can block beam shots. It would be pretty useless and risky if you hold up a bright shield in space telling everyone you are there, and it cannot block beam shots fired at it.
Hahaha! Great point. A beam shield certainly would make a great 'please target me' beacon. Testing without a pilot wouldn't be too hard though, you could easily try that out in a lab or field test where the MS is connecting to something like a hover truck, like you'd see in the Blue Destiny, and the truck/mobile lab simply turns on a proto-beam shield from a distance.
I don't recall any interactions between those. I mean, surely there are physical bullets shot against a beam shield and doesn't work? (but can't think of a specific scene) but I assume you want to ask about melee weapons and they don't seem to have a lot of those after OYW and none came in mind in late UC.
This is why I need to rewatch F91. I know we see machine guns and vulcans fired often but I can't recall if we ever seem them getting disintegrated by the beam shield. We do see vulcans used to great effect in Victory but I also don't recall if the beam-shields or derivatives block them. Personally I'd rather rewatch F91, a bit shorter and a bit happier :D

As for melee weapons I am curious what the interaction would be. Since a beam saber blocks a heat hawk then a beam shield should block a heat weapon due to the field interaction. Now the interaction with physical weapons certainly becomes interesting, with no field it becomes a question of how much of the weapon survives moving through the plasma and how effective a partially melted weapon is after a MS. Shot-Lancers to me seem like a weapon whose intent is for anti-beam shield combat. Long enough to not get fully melted by the shield and an additional hydraulic thrust mechanism to deliver a killing strike after getting past the shield with a melted and possibly blunted weapon. Just a thought.
Post Reply