~*Anime*~ fans rejoice : Japan to produce real Gundam

Gzero said:
Didn't stop the Americans trying to make the F22, nor did it stop the production of the Typhoon.

Why do we need these when we have nukes? :p
Click to expand...

Back in the 80's when the YF22/EF2000 programs started people didn't know the USSR was going to die off. And we do need the F22/Typhoon. F35's and the like are fine for invading Durkadurkastan but against newer stuff they would have issues. I.E the SU-35BM that's now in production is on paper superiour to the latest model F15/16/18 and the Tornado, also the F22 is the only thing that will be able to dance with the T50 (Russia's 5th gen jet that's being developed atm).


Gzero said:
A Gundam can fight in space (anime wise) and can also act as an artillery unit. The idea is they are stronger than a tank and can either be faster or heavier armoured than a tank. Gundam Age would be a good example as they retro fit the Gundam for different battles.
Click to expand...

........They are talking about building a mechwarrior/metal gear type mech, not wing zero, the Gundam reference was just because its the Japanese talking about giant robots.
 
Russia can't really afford to operate the jets it's got, can it?

Smaller suits would probably make some sort of sense.

They're already looking at exoskeletons to make up for a soldiers basic load getting heavier and heavier. They'd also allow soldiers to carry more... cheap ATGWs.

Masamune Shirow (author of GiTS) has some interesting ideas on this.

See for example his "SWAT Tank" (small) or his Fuchikomas (small, stealthy). They're all designed to nip around cities being kinda stealthy and not getting bummed by missiles.

When he does put in a big tall walking tank thing it always gets taken out by smaller lighter things.

In most Sci Fi settings with BGWTs (big giant walking tanks) there's usually some distortion of reality to render either armour more effective, give the things shields or somehow otherwise make them not ATGW bait.

Doesn't the Gundam universe have some magic McGuffin particle that stops guided missiles working?
 
The world is ******* turning to ****
The earth don't stand a chance
Hurricane typhoon will destroy the city

We've got to clean up the skies and recycle
We've got to stop the overpopulation

But most important of all
We've got to build a Death Star!!!! :D
 
Bring it on. A large 100 ton mech armed with lasers and giant *****s would scare the frap out of any opposition purely wIth the wtf factor
 
wannabedamned said:
How many Gundam haters were fine with transformers? hmmmm?
Click to expand...

This is a good point, I cant tell the difference between the two at all, and have no interest in either.

Now how many people that hate anime are fine with games like the Final Fantasy series which uses an anime graphical style?

Judging 100% of anime as being bad is the same as stating that 100% of must is terrible because of Justin Bieber.
 
Last edited:
Liampope said:
Ha ha ha lol! The first tanks didn't have guided air to surface missiles to worry about, did they? They went up against blokes with guns. So they were awesome weapons despite their crapness compared to today's tanks. Some potential 'first mech' which, let me remind you again, would be a ridiculous slow lumbering hulk with 0 advantages over a modern tank, would be wiped out instantly by already existing technology. Sorry to bust your teenage fantasies but mech wars ain't gonna happen, cool as it would be.
Click to expand...

Each weapon be it old, current and future has it's positives and negatives but we still design them and produce them because we need them. The drawbacks of everything we have today is only limited by our current technology and process.

But as history has shown, we in time, always overcome everything as we develop new technology and new science. The first Mechs produced will be slow and lumbering, but as time goes by, they will change into fast, agile and deadly killing machines as we learn how to make them like that.

I hope you understand that all modern weapons today can be destroyed in a instant? But again, we still make these weapons.

If you still don't agree, think and look at old and current technology.

How big was the first computer? It needed a whole building to house it and how small is it now? How small will it get in the next 50 or 100 years?

Chip die sizes keep getting smaller and smaller, it won't be long till we all have chips inside our heads, the only reason we don't have such things is because our current technology and science hasn't invented how.

Compare the weight brothers plane to a modern day fighter jet like the Typhoon. The difference is night and day. Also, fighter jets can be shot down with air to air missles, but we still make them and use them.

Compare the old black and white TV's or Radios's to what we have today, we now have screens as thin as paper that Sony are playing around with. How long will it be till we all be replacing our big old monitors for these things?

The first mobile phone was nicknamed the "brick" because it was huge... in-fact I think one of the first ones had it's own case and how big are they now? Again, compare a old one to a new mobile phone today which can work as a phone, is internet ready, can play music or watch video.

You have no argument and in-fact you sound like generals from World War 1 and World War 2 who said Tanks have no use or value on the battlefield and that the horse was still the king of the battlefield, how much was they proven wrong in both wars.

They said the same about planes and the first planes that was used was for recon missions untill someone was smart enough that you could drop bombs from them, how quickly things processed from there.
 
Last edited:
IronWarrior said:
Each weapon be it old, current and future has it's positives and negatives but we still design them and produce them because we need them. The drawbacks of everything we have today is only limited by our current technology and process.

But as history has shown, we in time, always overcome everything as we develop new technology and new science. The first Mechs produced will be slow and lumbering, but as time goes by, they will change into fast, agile and deadly killing machines as we learn how to make them like that.

I hope you understand that all modern weapons today can be destroyed in a instant? But again, we still make these weapons.

If you still don't agree, think and look at old and current technology.

How big was the first computer? It needed a whole building to house it and how small is it now? How small will it get in the next 50 or 100 years?

Chip die sizes keep getting smaller and smaller, it won't be long till we all have chips inside our heads, the only reason we don't have such things is because our current technology and science hasn't invented how.

Compare the weight brothers plane to a modern day fighter jet like the Typhoon. The difference is night and day. Also, fighter jets can be shot down with air to air missles, but we still make them and use them.

Compare the old black and white TV's or Radios's to what we have today, we now have screens as thin as paper that Sony are playing around with. How long will it be till we all be replacing our big old monitors for these things?

The first mobile phone was nicknamed the "brick" because it was huge... in-fact I think one of the first ones had it's own case and how big are they now? Again, compare a old one to a new mobile phone today which can work as a phone, is internet ready, can play music or watch video.

You have no argument and in-fact you sound like generals from World War 1 and World War 2 who said Tanks have no use or value on the battlefield and that the horse was still the king of the battlefield, how much was they proven wrong in both wars.

They said the same about planes and the first planes that was used was for recon missions untill someone was smart enough that you could drop bombs from them, how quickly things processed from there.
Click to expand...



However, the inception of all those weapons had a practical and verifiable advantage at the time of their introduction.........on going development and tactical progression in rival weapon systems ensures advancement as you have said....however, the idea that Giant Battle Robots have any distinct and identifiable advantage on a modern battlefield is the issue here......

There is none that can be readily identified, the Robot would be simply obsolete before it was put into production and furthermore their would be no development of the design as it would, like the Battleship, simply be obsolete....for every successful weapon design there are hundreds of designs and ideas that fail.

So your post ascribing analogies between typhoons and sopwiths etc is largely immaterial, as all those initial weapons systems had an identifiable and distinct tactical advantage which led to their development.

Gundams do not, so no-one in their right mind would continue to develop a system that had no practical tactical or operational advantages over current technology, let alone a system that has little or no operational purpose to begin with.

The person with no argument is you, unless you can demonstrate a practical and identifiable operational and tactical purpose for a giant robot that is not currently filled by a better or more practical solution?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom