Mr March

Perhaps initially in the 1999-2012 era, the different branches would train pilots specifically for their vehicles. The UN Army would train pilots just for Destroids, the UN Air Force/Spacy would train just for Valkyries, et cetera. But I would think that given the proliferation of variable vehicles later in the Macross history, most training distinctions would become blurred. The VB-6 König Monster in Macross Frontier is obviously a Destroid that requires the pilot to be trained if not the same, then similarly to a Valkyrie pilot. The Police Patroid in Macross 7 would require multi-mode training as well and so on. I think that by the time the 2040-2059 eras arrive, most pilots/operators will be trained in very similar ways whether they pilot a valkyrie, a variable destroid or any other variable vehicle.

I'm pretty sure Max Jenius proved that there is no superior mode and that transformation itself is the greatest "mode". The whole Bruce Lee thing; be fluid, like water

I couldn't agree more. Though it does make things difficult sometimes for those of us fans that love to engage in "fictional anthropology" of our beloved Macross universe, the ultimate benchmark is whether a fantastic Macross production results from Kawamori and Co. Everything else matters not

There is no explanation. Kawamori and Co. will take elements from both the TV and Film versions of SWI while ignoring any continuity issues that might arise from merging the two. That appears to be the only definitive answer we're ever likely to get. And ultimately, even Kawamori himself must bow to canon (despite what he may say during interviews well after the fact). He can retcon whatever he likes; it's his creation after all. But the moment a contradiction appears between the anime productions, even Kawamori's own theory is blown out of the water, leaving us all back at square one

Looks like they are pulling a Casino Royale with the first home video release of The Dark Knight. They got a 2-disc DVD edition that has crap for extras and a 3-disc Blu-Ray edition that is an embarrassment to call 3-disc with the lame features they are describing. Even The Digital Bits says that the Blu-Ray edition gives one the impression that a true special edition set is coming somewhere later down the line. Compared to the impressive (though commentary-less) Batman Begins release, this "special edition" release of The Dark Knight is a real disappointment, just in time for Christmas. Perhaps that's the point; this is likely a rushed version made to hit the shelves in time for the holiday. And they know that the major portion of the audience for The Dark Knight wants their 2-disc special editions on home video, so they're gonna try to fool us I'm going to check out the stores tonight to see if they have a single disc version and I'll likely pick that one up until they feel it fit to release a multi-disc edition worthy of a major movie event like The Dark Knight.

Awww...*sniffle* I feel so loved I honestly don't watch nearly enough anime to come up with a best or worst list. I have watched several series this year including a dabbling of anime movies, but some of them are really old. For example, only just this year did I actually give the totality of Evangelion a chance (seen parts many times before, never got into it, but became intrigued due to the upcoming movies; end result, the series turned out awful. oh well). I watched Planetes which was good, Macross Frontier which was very good, Afro Samurai, which I didn't like and some Tytania and Gundam 00, neither of which have I watched enough to form an opinion as yet. Best films this year have been The Dark Knight, There Will Be Blood, and Iron Man. I avoided most of the turkeys this year, so I don't really have a worst list

I think Macross does an excellent job of showing as much air/space craft diversity and varied fighter roles as it can, especially for a kids show. Remember, Macross is primarily entertainment for a broad audience and as in-depth as it is, it is not a show strictly for aviation buffs. Kawamori said himself he dropped the VF-19 Excalibur because it looked too much like a hero valkyrie and wanted audiences to easily identify/distinguish the new VF-25s from the VF-171s. I think that Macross shows are better off without a vast landscape of varied fighters sending the audience into a spin. Besides, I'm not that crazy about the idea of filling new Macross productions with all the old designs. That's what the books are for and productions like "All That VF" (and of course, home videos of all the old Macross shows). Given the scope of a single series, I think it's more than enough to have seen what we did in shows like SDF Macross and Frontier. I say leave the broadening fiction of the Macross military forces to embellishment text in fan books like the Macross Chronicle and don't waste time trying to stuff cameos or throwaway designs into the anime productions. With a few exceptions, most of the old Valkyries have had their moment in the sun, brief though those moments may have been. I think it's best Kawamori and Co. spend more time and effort on the new stuff.

While I take even my most trusted review sources with a grain of salt when deciding to watch any film, I must say I am taken aback by the near universal dislike for this latest Punisher film. Being a long time Punisher fan from way back in the Mike Zeck and Jim Lee days of Punisher limited series/Punisher Return to Big Nothing/Punisher War Journal, I've been waiting for a good Punisher film for some time. Neither the awful Lundgren flick nor the boring Tom Jane movies did the franchise any good and from the sounds of it, this newest one might be even worse. I hope I hear at least something good about War Zone soon. So far this latest Punisher outing is receiving some of the worst reviews of the year

You can see the circle and lane markings clearly in these pictures: SDF-1 (TV) lane markings SDF-1 (Film) lane markings

I agree. Very good points. To go a step further, all the fictional elements of the Macross battlefield would have an impact upon the chosen caliber for a given variable fighter gun pod. Advances in Energy Converting Armor, advances in pin-point barrier technology, advances in ballistics, advances in electromagnetic technologies, and so on will all affect what kind of gun pod is needed. Then you have operational roles; what is a given variable fighter designed to do? Is the gun pod built for a main line fighter, fighter/bomber or strike fighter? All these factors could influence the caliber of a given gun pod.

LOL Troublemaker

The gun pod calibers in Macross range all over and there doesn't appear to be any consistent reason why. Here is a list of the calibers we know: GPU-9 (VF-0 Phoenix) 35mm with 550 rounds, no field swap Gsh-371 (SV-51) 55mm with 120 rounds, +1 spare magazine GU-11 (VF-1 Valkyrie) 55mm with 200 rounds, no field swap not designated (VF-11 Thunderbolt) 30mm, +2 spare magazines GA-22 (VA-3 Invader) 60mm, ammunition count/reload unknown GU-17A (VF-25 Messiah) 58mm, ammunition count/reload unknown SSL-9B Dragunov (VF-25G Messiah) 55mm, ammunition count unknown, + unknown number of spare magazines The ever changing calibers in Macross likely means that the destructive potential of a given gun pod is more a function of munition design/material and muzzle velocity. All other factors being equal, a smaller, better designed bullet shot at a greater speed can be as destructive or more than a poorly designed, larger caliber bullet propelled at a much slower speed. As for ammunition, try to put the gun pods in perspective. The average soldier uses an automatic rifle with typically no more than 20-30 rounds per clip. Now, they may carry much more ammunition, but the fact is they have to reload after only 30 shots (much less when fired in burst or auto). So a gun pod loaded with 120-200 rounds is quite significant, especially since they are much more accurate OverTechnology weapons. Here is a look at the P90 clip which shows how the bullets pivot into firing position from the perpendicular position inside the magazine: Now we don't know for sure if this is EXACTLY how the 30mm gun on the VF-11 Thunderbolt works, but it should at least give you an idea how such a clip would function.

The ARMDs use both flight decks and launch bays. With 262 x VF-1 Super Valkyries and 66 x Ghosts it stands to reason the ARMDs can launch those fighters quite quickly. The OPENING ANIMATION to the original SDF Macross series shows the VF-1 Valkyries launching from the dorsal surface of the main guns of the SDF-1. It also shows catapults being used. The line art for both the TV and FILM versions of the SDF-1 clearly show lane markings on the dorsal main guns that are very similar to the lane markings seen on the launch decks of the ARMDs. So the dorsal forward deck of the SDF-1 Macross was one big flight deck. We also know the SDF-1 Macross has hangar bays on the port and starboard sides and that these bays link with the ARMDs/Aircraft Carriers to allow air/space craft to be ferried from the docked carriers to the SDF-1 and vice versa.

Those are launch ports that run along the side of the forward arms, just below the edge of the flight deck. You can even seen the edge of the flight deck in the second picture. All NMC ships appear to have those. Like I said, as long as they have a method to ferry craft to and from the ports, any open bay or door can serve as a launching port in space. The ARMDs were littered all over with launching ports and used launch arms to spit out VF-1 Super Valkyries

The Battle Galaxy was a NMC ship, so it can launch a lot of fighters very quickly. The primary advantage of the NMC is the two large dorsal hangar bays across the forward launch decks. With those open, the NMC could rapidly launch six catapults with very little ferrying time. The valkyries would roll out from the hangars directly toward the six catapults and would launch very quickly in sequence. Any gaps could be filled in with elevator lifted craft from beneath the flight decks. But if I recall the Battle Galaxy was performing mostly launch arm deployments; the catapults likely weren't needed because the Frontier fleet was already right on top of the Vajra/Galaxy forces. While certainly an advantage, I don't think catapults are as necessary to space-based fighter warfare as they are at sea. Basically any space carrier, as long as it's designed properly, should be able to just dump a ton of fighters into space very quickly. Technically any elevator or hangar port can act as a launch zone in space and with the type of technology available in Macross, all they need to do is ferry the craft near the exit under it's own power or on launch arm.

It's hard to say either way. It's either 3 or 6 catapults. If the white line is the catapult, then it's three. If each yellow line is a catapult, then it's six. Either way, it doesn't have that many.

Well, technically Macross does use both. The ARMD and SDF-1 Macross Class used launch bays/deployment arms to rapidly scramble valkyries immediately and the NMC Class has the three electromagnetic catapults designed to instantly scramble the VF-17 Nightmare fighters. There's been virtually nothing published on the Macross Quarter so far, but I would expect the Quarter - as a much smaller ship with a different operational role - to have fewer launch options than the Battle Class ships. Looking at the artwork, the Macross Quarter carrier arm appears to have 6 catapults and 21 elevators on the flight deck. Oddly enough, the cannon arm actually appears capable of launching craft as well. We can clearly see 2 elevators on the port side of the cannon arm and I can assume another 2 elevators on the starboard side. The NMC doesn't need the central hangars to launch craft, but it's really a mute point anyway since the hangar doors can be opened at any time. The NMC does have 23 elevators spread across both the two forward "arm" decks and the two rear "calve" decks, so it can lift fighters to the flight deck in Carrier or Attack mode. Since most often the ship would be transformed in space, the individual orientations of the four flight decks is really irrelevant. The valkyries should be able to launch while the Battle Class is in either mode (just like the Guantanamo launches VF-171 fighters both right side up from the dorsal flight decks and upside down from the ventral flight decks, as seen in Macross Frontier episode 1). The only problems I can see is the NMC angled flight deck on the port side has the edge folded back upon the deck when the NMC is in Attack Mode. So it's likely the three catapults on the rear port angled deck/left leg can't be used.

LOL I suppose it was only a matter of time before my site became an online reference for a "versus" debate

There are advantages and disadvantages to launch tubes, at least those shown in Battlestar Galactica or Babylon 5 (yes, some of us know them well). While the BSG launch tubes and B5 drop bays both enjoy extremely rapid deployment, they are both limited to fighter launches perpendicular to the carrier craft/station. In the case of combined fighter/carrier combat, in order to gain catapult advantages launching fighters toward the enemy, the BSG/B5 solution must ensure the carrier's flank is facing the enemy. Not only is this not an ideal solution for most warship weapons (whose armaments are typically arranged to bear the most firepower on the forward arc) but it also presents a much larger prospective target to enemy fire. You'll also note that because the fighter tubes and drop bays are so close to each other, they don't launch the fighters simultaneously but rather in succession. In the case of Macross, the number of fighters launched may be less overall, but the variable fighters can be launched directly toward the enemy while the carrier faces the enemy with it's best guns and the smallest target cross-section. Correspondingly, the variable fighters can be launched in larger simultaneous waves. While the Vipers of BSG or the Starfuries of B5 arrive into combat with the first fighter followed quickly by the second fighter a few seconds later and the third and so on, the valkyries can arrive in simultaneous waves of multiple fighters from a single launch. This allows that many more valkyries to attain firing range upon the enemy sooner and to do so initially in greater numbers. The New Macross Class, with it's 12 standard catapults and 3 electromagnetic catapults, can launch valkyries in waves of 15 simultaneous craft. The disadvantage is the greater delay time between launch waves. So I guess it depends upon which way you look at it. Would you want to fly into battle alone with all your nearest friendly trailing a second, the next 5 seconds behind, the next 7 seconds behind, etc OR arriving to face the enemy with 14 wingmen at your side?

I have no idea how the SV-51 docking situation would work. But since the SV-51 is OverTechnology much like the VF-0, I would assume short term underwater operations are not a problem for the fighter. The carriers and variable fighters are designed as all-environment craft, functional in space, the atmosphere and at sea. The Uraga, Macross Quarter and New Macross Class vessels have all been shown landing at sea. The most logical reasons for storing the valkyries in fighter mode would probably be ease of storage on board a carrier and to make conveyance that much simpler. In space, artificial gravity might also play a role and could be set for dynamic intensity to assist in launching the valkyries. The aft half of the flight deck might hold close to 1 gravity, while the forward half reduces gravity the farther on the deck you travel until gravity becomes near zero at the forward tip of the launch deck. The Guantanamo Class vessels, with their four launching decks in the diamond shape of the main hull, are obviously a unique craft and are likely designed to be used in space almost exclusively.

Keep in mind the gun pod for the VF-11 Thunderbolt uses a much smaller 30mm shell as opposed to the larger 55mm shells of the older GU-11 gun pod for the VF-1 Valkyrie. The VF-17 Nightmare gun pod caliber is unknown, but it may be 30mm as well. Also, the original GU-11 55mm gun pod for the VF-1 Valkyrie never did carry that much ammunition anyway (it's carrying capacity was 200 rounds, in a cyclic feed belt that wasn't field swappable).

Remko My website, the Macross Mecha Manual, is separate from the The New UNS QuarterMasters Tactical Database. Both websites are hosted on the same webspace, but I have no control over the material that is not a part of my own sub-site. I've not yet had the Auerstädt or Monster Mk I featured on my website because I have no access to high resolution line art of those vehicles. Some Macross Zero line art is slowly starting to trickle in as the Macross Chronicle is published, so eventually more profiles will appear in the Macross Zero section. Sulendil Ang The transformation guides worked out very well, but they were a lot of work. I've got 27 of them completed, so I'm almost done. jedimech Thank you. I hope you enjoy this upcoming update.

I guess it depends upon the mandate of the Macross Chronicle. What kind of material is it going to cover? So far, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of non-anime production trivia. And how thorough are they going to be in cataloging the Macross universe? So far they don't appear to be covering that much. The Macross Compendium seems more comprehensive in some ways, with the exception of the new information that the Chronicle has "invented" to fill out the Macross universe. I think at the snails pace they are currently going, they could easily fill out 50 issues if they go through just the main valkyries and mecha. If they go further, into vehicles and ships, then it could easily expand much further.

Well, just imagine what could have been. Comparison pictures are my specialty