Advantages of an "upright" ship

[Druna Skass]

I was just leaning back looking at my Macross wallscroll and thinking about Air Force Delta Strike when this thought came to mind. Wouldn't an upright spac battleship be able to point more guns at an opponent, than one based off an ocean going style? In Delta Strike, the enemy has these upright cross shaped battleships, and the whole front of the ship was just a bunch of guns.

If they had mounted more guns on the New Macross-classes wouldn't they be able to bring more firepower to bear in attack mode?

Don't know if this has been brought up before, I don't think anyone can keep track of all the proposed reasons.

[Southcross]

while from a "assault" standpoint I agree, more room for more weapons to be aimed on target.... but from a defensive standpoint, you really want to make as small of a target as possible for enemies to hit.

[Druna Skass]

while from a "assault" standpoint I agree, more room for more weapons to be aimed on target.... but from a defensive standpoint, you really want to make as small of a target as possible for enemies to hit.

Well since Macross-class ships are variable, it could just switch back to cruiser mode when the fleet starts comming under heavy attack.

[Agent ONE]

There is no "UP" in space...

[Druna Skass]

There is no "UP" in space...

Hence the quotes around upright, couldn't think of a better word to use.

[Agent ONE]

Well if that ship is "Upright" yet it attacked to the aft, it isn't really upright at all is it?

[Druna Skass]

Can you re-phrase the question...

As I said, I only used "upright" for lack of a better term. What word would you suggest I use in it's place?

Edited May 21, 2004 by Druna Skass

[Hurin]

His point is that, if you had a space-ship based on a WWII battleship (think Yamato). . . and it had its guns arrayed in a "broadside" fashion, that ship would be able to spin and maneuver to point its "broadside arsenals" at you just as easily as a Macross-style "upright" ship.

In other words. . . you could mount the weapons on any shape. . . as long as it is able to maneuver along all three axes to point at you.

Put all the weapons on a humanoid looking ship's front, or put them all on one side of an octagon. It doesn't really matter, it's still just going to spin around and kill you.

H

[Druna Skass]

What I'm pointing out is if you had fleet of those cross shaped ships advancing on a fleet of "traditional" ships, those cross shaped ships allready have all their guns trained on the other fleet, while the other fleet would need to either rotate themselfs or change heading. Since most if not all it's guns would be facing the direction the ship is going it doesn't need to rotate to deliver a broadside style attack.

[Hurin]

while the other fleet would need to either rotate themselfs or change heading.

Nope. In reality, a battleship-type vessel would not have to be pointing in the direction it is travelling.

In space, there is no drag. . . so once you have accelerated to a desired speed, you are free to re-orient yourself and face any direction. As long as no thrust is applied, you will continue to travel in the original direction. This can give the impression that a ship is travelling backwards or sideways. But that's a "terrestrial" way of looking at things.

Space travel is portrayed very unrealistically in most anime and even most movies. You always see jets firing and boosters constantly on. . . but in reality, rockets/engines only fire for a short time. . . and then you just coast from there.

So, in your hypothetical situation, the battleship-type vessels could have their broadsides pointed towards the enemy while still travelling towards the enemy.

H

Edited May 21, 2004 by Hurin

[Druna Skass]

Wouldn't that re-orientation affect your speed or heading in some way?

If they need to get up to a desired speed before having to re-orient (I'm pictureing a fleet speeding up, then rotating, so that they're moving sideways) then wouldn't that cross shaped ship have a faster response time then, since all it needs to do is face the enemy, without haveing to re-orient themselfs to bring all guns to bear?

[Hurin]

Wouldn't that re-orientation affect your speed or heading in some way?

No.

[Anubis]

The "autoslide" from wing commander.

Always loved that one. Strafe the hell out of a ship, and then kick out in whetever direction you want.

The Star Furies in Babylon 5 looked like they could do it too.

The SDF-1 had to transform to Storm Attack to connect the power relays. M7 It just wasted time. By the time it took to separate, transform, charge the cannon, and fire, the fleet should have taken more damage than it did.

It's useful to aim the cannon in every direction while you fly in the heading ou want, but realistically it wouldn't seem necessary due to actual space physics. This would entail a LOT of thrusters though to have a quick turn radius though. M7 could easily have been designed to just open up the bow and fire like the SDF-1 was supposed to. If it wasn't for the power relay problem, the Macross crew never would have bothered developing the storm attack mode.

Because the original ship transformed, the new M7 ship had to. That's about the only reason.

Edited May 21, 2004 by Anubis

[ewilen]

You make a good point, Druna Skass. (Edit: and I disagree with Hurin.) Even though there's no drag, there would still be limitations based on the primary axis of acceleration vs. the axes in which fire can be brought to bear.

In answering the question, though, you need to postulate answers to a bunch of questions about space combat, though. Detection ranges and effective ranges of various types of weapons (beam/projectile/guided missile) would be important. Also crucial is whether there would be a practical limit on velocity. If not, then for most purposes you can replace velocity with acceleration when considering the tactical effects of weapon facings. Yet another issue is whether space warfare will generally be conducted in deep space or in orbit.

Consider the development of naval tactics from the advent of cannons on warships through the mid-20th century. Due to the geometry of naval architecture (ships must be longer than they are wide), from an early date the greatest concentration of firepower was on the broadside. This led to primarily linear tactics in fleet engagements from the 18th century through the era of the dreadnought battleship. (Other considerations included command control and, before the advent of steampower, dependence on the wind.) Fleets of ships lined up bow to stern to present their broadsides to the enemy; the ultimate tactical maneuver was either to cross your fleet in front of the other line so that you could concentrate firepower on the enemy's lead ships while minimizing the amount of return fire he could bring to bear, or if you were more daring, to cut through the enemy line with one or more lines of your own, thus achieving a similar concentration of firepower in several places. Nelson achieved the latter at Trafalgar, while Jellicoe managed the former at Jutland. (Weather and daylight denied Jellicoe a tactical victory, but he did force the German fleet to run for its life, thus achieving the strategic goal of maintaining the naval blockade which eventually contributed to victory in World War I).

Around the early 20th century up to the First World War, some naval theorists believed that "end on" fire was more important than broadside firepower. Notably, Jackie Fisher, who revolutionized the British Navy and was the force behind the Dreadnought, insisted on designs which sacrificed broadside firepower by having "wing turrets" capable of firing both forward and aft. The Dreadnought itself was armed with ten big guns, of which six to eight could bear on the fore and aft quarters, while eight could bear on the broadside. The image was of a ship which was designed as much to bear down on the enemy as to slug it out. However, the wing turret layouts rapidly lost favor compared to designs where the turrets were exclusively along the center line. In some cases, this meant that a battleship might only be able to fire two or three guns fore and aft compared to eight or twelve on the broadside. By the 1920's and 1930's, new battleship design had largely adopted the pattern introduced by the Americans, with "superfiring" turrets along the centerline. I.e., the foremost and aftermost turrets were placed below the turrets immediately behind or in front of them. This allowed the guns of two turrets to be fired fore and aft, while all the guns could be brought to bear on the broadside. The most typical arrangements provided a ratio of "end-on" to "broadside" firepower of between 2:3 and 1:3. In my opinion, this represented a recognition of the fact that battleship guns were so powerful that charging the enemy was a highly dangerous maneuver. (The advent and improvement of torpedoes may also have been a factor in encouraging battlships to keep their distance.)

At the same time that all this was going on, though, the aircraft carrier had come into existence, and by 1940-1942, it was apparent that aircraft would dominate surface combat, at least during daylight. Since the facing of an aircraft carrier is irrelevant to the direction its bombers can strike, carrier groups had no use for the linear formations of battleships. Instead, carriers and their escorts were arranged in a concentric formation designed to provide maximum layered coverage of antiaircraft artillery. During night battles, fleets continued to employ linear tactics in battles dominated by guns and torpedoes.

But since WWII, aircraft and guided missiles have become the weapons of choice both day and night for modern surface combat. Furthermore, submarines and antisubmarine warfare have increased in importance; both employ weapons for which the bearing to the target relative to the launch platform is either relatively inconsequential or easily and rapidly adjusted. Consequently, large linear formations are a thing of the past.

I feel I'm digressing, though, so let me bring this back to space warfare...

It sounds like you're interested in a scenario where detection and targeting are essentially automatic at the effective range of weaponry, and that the weapons are essentially "dumb" beams/projectiles with a high velocity relative to the target. In this kind of situation, you would want to be able point a maximum number of weapons at the enemy regardless of your axis of acceleration. If you had to compromise, you'd need to consider whether it is more important to be able to engage the enemy while maintaining a constant range, or to be able to engage while closing range. The extreme case would be two ships, one of which can only fire perpendicular to its axis of acceleration (call this a "cruiser"), with the other only capable of firing in the direction it is accelerating (call this a "gunboat"). If you assume that both ships have equal firepower, equal ability to absorb damage, and equal acceleration, and further postulate an engagement where each ship's goal is simply to destroy the other, I think it would be an equal fight. However, the gunboat would be able to control the range of engagement, and as long as it maintained at least parity in acceleration, it would be able to pursue or retreat at will since the cruiser would not be able to fire while approaching or retreating.

But if you consider other scenarios, I think you'd find there are situations where the cruiser might have an advantage. Things get even muddier when you consider less extreme designs, where the guns/lasers can be aimed to a greater or lesser degree independently of the axis of acceleration.

Edited May 21, 2004 by ewilen

[Zentrandude]

i think i agree with ewilen (ill let you know for sure when i get a masters on physics and space combat). space combat won't realy matter which way you point with proly ball turret type (like in the WW2 bombers) weapons plus Loads of Missile launchers which proly be the main weapon for space ships till either energy based weapons is a reality. just unload the missiles on your enemy and use countermeasures to take down as many enemy missiles as you can.

[Hurin]

You make a good point, Druna Skass. (Edit: and I disagree with Hurin.) Even though there's no drag, there would still be limitations based on the primary axis of acceleration vs. the axes in which fire can be brought to bear.

Limitations on what?

Regardless of the primary axis of acceleration, you would still be able to use attitude adjustment thrusters to orient a ship along all three axes.

Late Edit: I think I may be wrong here. I think I should be saying that you can still adjust the other two attitudinal axes. But adjusting the third would actually mean a change in vector. But regardless, a ship would still be able to bring to bear whatever "face" it wishes without limitation. Albeit, in order to maneuver effectively, a Yamato-like battleship would have to then re-orient itself appropriately.

Obviously, G-forces would still be experienced, and stress to the structure would be a problem, when actually applying thrust to change a vessel's vector. . . for any type of vessel. But, changes in course/vector causing stress and G-forces does not constitute a limitation on adjusting a vessel's attitude as long as the vessel's vector remains unchanged.

I can see where there might be a slight simplification of tactics if the majority of your weapons were aligned with your axis of acceleration. But I think that advantage would be hardly decisive.

I got the impression that Druna was unfamiliar with basic zero-g behavior in a vacuum . . . and his further questions have only enhanced that impression. No offense intended of course. I only know this crap because I played Aerotech and developed an interest in zero-g environments. In other words, I'm a geek.

So, to sum up. . . I think that, in a fanciful space-war environment (as portrayed in Macross and most anime and even most sci-fi), there would be a substantial advantage given to a Macross-style vessel with all its weapons pointing forward along its primary axis of acceleration. But, that advantage would be largely negated in "real" space combat.

H

P.S. I'm loathe to disagree with ewilen. He's one of the intellects on this board that I truly fear!

Edited May 21, 2004 by Hurin

[JELEINEN]

Limitations on what?

Regardless of the primary axis of acceleration, you would still be able to use attitude adjustment thrusters to orient a ship along all three axes.

But, if you wanted to maintain acceleration while firing weapons, then orientation is giong to make a huge difference. That's the limitation.

[Hurin]

But, if you wanted to maintain acceleration while firing weapons, then orientation is giong to make a huge difference.  That's the limitation.

Well, yes and no. Let's say the Macross (in storm attack mode) is fighting the Yamato.

They are both cruising directly at each other. The Yamato then re-orients itself so that it can fire a broadside volley at the Macross. Assuming that it has already reached its desired velocity, this does not represent a disadvantage at this point.

Now, they have exchanged volleys. If either ship now desires to change their course (vector), they will need to first re-orient themselves so that their primary engines/thrusters are pointing in the desired direction. So, while the Yamato is essentially attitudinally aligned perpendicular to its current course, its "drive" may not be too far out of alignment for where it should be to correct the course to the new heading. Both the Macross and the Yamato will need to adjust their attitude. . . unless they will be making only minor course corrections that auxiliary boosters/engines might accomplish.

Which, brings up another point: The Macross also seems to use secondary engines to propel itself "forward" (sorta face-first) when in Storm Attacker mode. So, given this capability, it would appear to have an advantage over a Yamato-type vessel. It can adjust course by merely firing up a different set of engines.

So, really, another thing to think about is that a space vessel, in order to be most maneuverable in combat, should have lots of equally powerful engines/rockets/boosters so that it can change course and accelerate equally well regardless of its attitude relative to its current vector.

H

Edited May 21, 2004 by Hurin

[ewilen]

Jeleinen is right.

Just think of the Yamato trying to chase down a fleeing enemy. Both ships want to accelerate at maximum rate, in the direction that the enemy is trying to escape. If Yamato turns to bring its broadside to bear, it can only apply part of its maximum acceleration in the direction of the enemy. So the Yamato will close the range less rapidly (or the range will increase more rapidly).

If there's some kind of absolute limit on velocity relative to a local frame of reference, though, it would mitigate this effect. For example, since even a vacuum isn't completely empty, if you keep accelerating, you'd eventually be hitting hydrogen atoms at such a high relative velocity that the impact would release a huge amount of energy. Sort of like absorbing a particle beam. Long before that point, though, you might run out of fuel. A great deal depends on the underlying physical/technological assumptions of the scifi scenario.

(Hurin--shucks! Thanks for the compliment.)

[Hurin]

I've been trying to think of a good example of how this all works. . .

Think about playing the game Asteroids. Remember how you would use the thrust button to go faster. . . but the only way you could slow down was to spin around and apply thrust in the opposite direction? Otherwise, you just continued in the same direction at the same speed forever. You could also change course by spinning a bit and giving it a bit of thrust.

I hate to say it. . . but that's a pretty good illustration of the principles in play here. But when the Macross goes off the edge of the screen, it doesn't appear on the other side.

H

[ewilen]

Hurin, yes, a space ship needs to be able to apply thrust in different directions both to adjust its vector and to change its attitude. But if you add equally powerful thrusters in all directions, you'll be giving something up relative to a ship which only has primary thrusters in one direction. That is, unless you posit some kind of reactionless drive that can move the ship in any direction with equal ease.

[Zentrandude]

Which, brings up another point:  The Macross also seems to use secondary engines to propel itself "forward" (sorta face-first) when in Storm Attacker mode.  So, given this capability, it would appear to have an advantage over a Yamato-type vessel.  It can adjust course by merely firing up a different set of engines.

for the macross that would be a double edge sword. if the yamato and the macross in storm where faceing each other directly and the macross used its main engine which only propels it upward then the yamato just needs to point all its turrets up exposing macross to more while the same to yamato.

if yamato was broadside to the macross when it happen then maybe it would favor yamato, being broadside it would be a smaller profile from the above view.

edit:

if the macross was upside down to yamato then macross would win cuz i dont think yamato has turrets on the bottom of the ship.

Edited May 21, 2004 by Zentrandude

[Hurin]

If there's some kind of absolute limit on velocity relative to a local frame of reference, though, it would mitigate this effect. For example, since even a vacuum isn't completely empty, if you keep accelerating, you'd eventually be hitting hydrogen atoms at such a high relative velocity that the impact would release a huge amount of energy. Sort of like absorbing a particle beam. Long before that point, though, you might run out of fuel. A great deal depends on the underlying physical/technological assumptions of the scifi scenario.

My understanding of physics starts getting even more fuzzy around here (and, I think that our last two posts that were posted nearly simultaneously actually largely agree underneath it all). But, my understanding is that a vessel will not continue to accelerate indefinitely even with unlimited fuel. Though weight is not an issue, mass remains. Eventually, the source of propulsion reaches its limit against the mass of the object it is propelling.

Further, an object's mass actually increases as its velocity increases. . . so, by the time an object starts approaching the speed of light, it is infinitely massive, and no conceivable source of thrust could move it.

Anyways. . . as I said, I think that a vessel such as a Macross or Yamato would be limited in its velocity, even given unlimited fuel. Given that. . . let's assume that the Yamato is fleeing from the Macross. Once the Yamato reaches its maximum velocity, I don't see any real disadvantage in needing to alter its attitude to return fire.

Now, to be clear, I realize I'm splitting hairs here. Having its weapons aligned with its primary axis of acceleration would probably be the ideal situation. I'm merely pointing out that this would be less of an issue as it might at first appear in a space combat.

And, of course, reverse the situation. What if the Macross were fleeing [/i]from the Yamato! It would have to rotate 180 degree on its X axis to return fire!

But, of course, the Macross would never run from the Star Force.

H

Edited May 21, 2004 by Hurin

[Hurin]

But if you add equally powerful thrusters in all directions, you'll be giving something up relative to a ship which only has primary thrusters in one direction.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that: For the price of twenty smaller engines designed to provide more flexibility and maneuvarability, you could put a set of huge primary thrusters on a vessel whose performance in raw acceleration would far outstrip the maneuverability and velocity of the vessel with the smaller thursters.

I think I agree. There is definitely a trade-off.

[ewilen]

First, correction to my earlier post. I wrote,

Both ships want to accelerate at maximum rate, in the direction that the enemy is trying to escape. If Yamato turns to bring its broadside to bear, it can only apply part of its maximum acceleration in the direction of the enemy. So the Yamato will close the range less rapidly (or the range will increase more rapidly).

Actually, while part of the Yamato's acceleration would be in the direction of the enemy, the other part would be away from the enemy (perpendicular to the axis of retreat). So the situation would be even worse than I suggested.

Now, in response to Hurin regarding "maximum speed". I can't claim to have a specialist's knowledge of physics, or even a physics B.S.'s, but I think you're somewhat mistaken. The limitation of the speed of light is always in relation to a specific inertial frame of reference. I.e., my spaceship can never appear to have an instanteous velocity at (or beyond) the speed of light relative to your spaceship. However, if at any given moment we're both moving at the same velocity and vector, say 0.9999c relative to a nearby star, that actually makes us motionless relative to each other. So if my engines are more powerful than yours, I can continue to accelerate relative to you.

Overall, it would be very weird. Furthermore, the scenario becomes impossible as soon we accept that there's no such thing as "unlimited fuel". And regarding that nearby star, the particles in its solar wind would be buffeting us terribly if we were moving at a such a high relative velocity.

So for practical purposes, there has to be a maximum velocity for a starship starting "at rest" relative to some part of the universe. The question is whether the maximum would be a factor in space combat. I'm inclined to think that for any real-world scenario, it would be. Certainly if we tried to fight a battle between robotic ships based on current state of the art interplanetary probes, their ability to maneuver would be severely limited by fuel/reaction mass limitations, unless they had ion drives. In that case, they could probably maneuver a lot, but very, very slowly.

[ewilen]

Talk about relativity--this conversation is seriously out of synch!

Anyway, yes, having many thrusters imposes costs, not only in direct monetary expenses, but also in terms of mass. They also take up surface space that could be used for other things, like guns.

[Druna Skass]

I got the impression that Druna was unfamiliar with basic zero-g behavior in a vacuum . . . and his further questions have only enhanced that impression. No offense intended of course. I only know this crap because I played Aerotech and developed an interest in zero-g environments. In other words, I'm a geek.

None taken, the only naval warfare stuff I know about are terrestrial fights.

Anyway both of you (ewilen, Hurin) had some intersting things to say.

[Mr March]

I was just leaning back looking at my Macross wallscroll and thinking about Air Force Delta Strike when this thought came to mind. Wouldn't an upright spac battleship be able to point more guns at an opponent, than one based off an ocean going style? In Delta Strike, the enemy has these upright cross shaped battleships, and the whole front of the ship was just a bunch of guns.

If they had mounted more guns on the New Macross-classes wouldn't they be able to bring more firepower to bear in attack mode?

Don't know if this has been brought up before, I don't think anyone can keep track of all the proposed reasons.

You bring up a valid and very intelligent point Druna Skass. But don't forget, there's a lot more to the practicality of capital ship design than just the number of guns you can bring to bear on your enemy.

The ability to target and destroy your enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible is one of the most basic and important rules of warfare. In this regard, the Macross 7 transforming so that all of it's guns can target the enemy and destroy it is valid.

Unfortunately, the Macross 7 transformation breaks one of the other important rules of warfare...avoid being hit. In the Storm Attack/Robot mode, the Macross 7 is a much larger target and far easier to hit. Not only that, the surface area becomes so large in Robot mode, virtually every section of the craft can be struck in this mode...even areas that an enemy would not normally be able to target in Fortress mode. Lastly, the many "appendages" of the Robot mode means the ships superstructure will self-obstruct its own weapons depending upon the angle of attack.

This is very bad.

Ideally, you want your craft to shoot at the enemy as much as possible, ensure that as little of the craft as possible is vulnerable to enemy fire, and that you can move to avoid as much enemy fire as possible. This is basic warfare, and yes, it's not always possible to acheive this...even with modern technology.

I always like to use the Star Destroyer from Star Wars as a good example of proper use of military thinking for a fictional space craft. It's one of the few space ship designs in science fiction that actually makes sense AND it maintains continuity with the fictional level of technology within the franchise itself.

A Star Destroyer is wedge shaped and the majority of its guns are along the equitorial trench. In combat, the SD can fire 100% of its weapons at any target in a cone of about 20 degrees in front of the ship. At the same time, the majority of the ship is nearly flat and the forward profile of the SD is the least amount of surface area visible to the enemy (compared to all the other angles from which it can be struck). Lastly, the ship can evade enemy fire while still utilizing all of its guns. This is want you want in a warship.

Of course there are literally hundreds of other factors in warfare, but these are the basics.

I once did an exhaustive analysis of the pros and cons of the Macross Class ship on the old boards a few years back. I concluded the ship was most effective in Fortress mode and it was best never to transform

[ewilen]

Hurin, I just realized that the best compromise for the single/multi-thruster problem would probably be to employ some form of vectored thrust for the main engine. One design might put the engine at the center of the "hole" of a donut-shaped ship, with struts and moving joints to connect it to the ship, feed fuel from the storage tanks, and allow the engine to point in nearly any direction. Another design would place the main engine off-center longitudinally. Even with limited vectoring capability, the engine could rotate the ship; as the ship rotates to point in the desired direction, the vector of the thrust can be adjusted back to match the central axis of mass and propel the ship forward.

Either design would probably still employ auxiliary thrusters, but they wouldn't need to be as powerful as with a fixed main engine. A Valkyrie in space is actually an example of the second design combined with auxiliary thrusters.

(Edited to correct a conceptual error.)

Edited May 22, 2004 by ewilen

[Zentrandude]

I once did an exhaustive analysis of the pros and cons of the Macross Class ship on the old boards a few years back. I concluded the ship was most effective in Fortress mode and it was best never to transform

i agree about that. playing with a 3d model of the macross on lightwave i noticed that about 5 of the larger weapons don't face forward in storm.

[Ghadrack]

Just to further confuse the issue, isn't there a necessary co-efficient between engine thrust and weapon fire reverse-thrust that must be maintained in space combat to keep your ship from whirling out of control? For instance, if you were to bring to bear an armament that was not on the same axis as your thrust/inertia such as a ballistic type missle, or for that matter an extremely powerful energy weapon would these weapons not "unbalance" the craft and cause it to spin and change course?

I bring this up because the upright ship model in "real" space combat could not maintain attitude control if it were firing an unbalanced payload off of it's legs, arms and head unless it had proportional engine thrust to offset.

I notice that in many of the macross mecha, specifically missle launching mecha the missles appear to have a 2 stage booster which I rationalize to be a limited thrust launch stage and a heavy thrust propulsion stage that kicks in after the missle has left the launch bay of the mech. You know, the way they sort of slowly spread off to the side then suddenly accelerate towards their targets.

Some of you guys seem to have studied the effects of Zero-0G space flight and this is something that I have always wondered about, from the battleship yamato to the SDF, it seems like many of these series don't take the "Kickback" of major weapon fire into account.

[dna]

Would an energy weapon produce any kickback?

[ewilen]

Missiles should have virtually no inertial effect on the launch platform. A small charge may be used to separate them, or they can be popped out using springs, etc., before the engine kicks in.

Guns are another matter. They would have an effect, though I'm guessing it wouldn't be so great that it couldn't be compensated for automatically by the steering mechanisms. It is true that battleships are significantly affected by the force of a full broadside.

Even particle beams and lasers (according to a quick web search) would produce some recoil, but not much (apparently).

[Mr March]

I once did an exhaustive analysis of the pros and cons of the Macross Class ship on the old boards a few years back.  I concluded the ship was most effective in Fortress mode and it was best never to transform

i agree about that. playing with a 3d model of the macross on lightwave i noticed that about 5 of the larger weapons don't face forward in storm.

One of the many reasons. Very sharp Zentran Dude!

[Mr March]

Just to further confuse the issue, isn't there a necessary co-efficient between engine thrust and weapon fire reverse-thrust that must be maintained in space combat to keep your ship from whirling out of control? For instance, if you were to bring to bear an armament that was not on the same axis as your thrust/inertia such as a ballistic type missle, or for that matter an extremely powerful energy weapon would these weapons not "unbalance" the craft and cause it to spin and change course?

I bring this up because the upright ship model in "real" space combat could not maintain attitude control if it were firing an unbalanced payload off of it's legs, arms and head unless it had proportional engine thrust to offset.

I notice that in many of the macross mecha, specifically missle launching mecha the missles appear to have a 2 stage booster which I rationalize to be a limited thrust launch stage and a heavy thrust propulsion stage that kicks in after the missle has left the launch bay of the mech. You know, the way they sort of slowly spread off to the side then suddenly accelerate towards their targets.

Some of you guys seem to have studied the effects of Zero-0G space flight and this is something that I have always wondered about, from the battleship yamato to the SDF, it seems like many of these series don't take the "Kickback" of major weapon fire into account.

Wow, lots of good questions in this thread.

From my limited knowledge of physics, yes there would need to what is known as counter force to balance the recoil of a hull mounted weapon system on a spacecraft. In fact, in the real world, some naval ships cannot fire all their weapons at once on a broadside attack for fear of capsizing their own ship

In the case of space warfare, ballistic weapons will still produce recoil require some kind of properly angled counter force (like thrusters) to fire during each shot. Now if the ship is big enough and the weapon produces a smaller recoil, the issue becomes less important the more the disparity in ratio increases. But it could be possible for a poorly designed vessel to be spun out of control just by firing a high recoil ballistic weapon.

Missiles can be taken care of with two stage firing. First stage the missile is released (thus seperating it from physical contact with the hull) and second stage fires the missiles thrusters and self-propels the missile toward a target. Of course, firing a missile close to one's hull means the particle thrust from the missile's engine could adversely affect the spacecraft's inertia if it's angled poorly

Energy weapons are touchy. It really depends upon the TYPE of energy weapon. Particle projection weapons use mass to hurl at a target, just in a different way than a ballistic weapon. Regardless, the particles have mass and thus they would produce recoil when projected. The amount of recoil would depend on the amount of particle mass being projected and how fast. Get a particle cannon shooting at near the speed of light and that's gonna produce one helluva recoil. Energy weapons that shoot particles with very little mass would produce little or no recoil. Lasers project photons (and yes, there is debate whether photons truely have zero mass) and would theoretically produce no recoil.

Now to examine a Macross example, the Main Guns of the Macross are clearly some kind of massive particle projection cannons. Although the Main Guns do indeed cause incredible damage to a target via heat (sometimes to the point of vaporization), it's clear the guns primarily cause damage kinetically. The first time they were used in a tight beam firing mode in "Booby Trap", they punched through starships. By all rights, a particle projection weapon like that would produce enough recoil to send the Macross hurtling in the opposite direction at a significant portion of the speed of light Even more interesting is the fact the Macross could never hope to store enough particle mass inside the ship to supply mass for the projection of all the particles in even one shot from the Main Guns. Funny isn't it

But don't get ready to crush your suspension of disbelief for Macross science fiction just yet. Kawamori and co were clever too. We know OverTechnology makes extensive use of alternate dimensions in many technologies. The Fold Drive, the Barrier system, the Cyclops Radar...they all use some as yet undisclosed dimension(s) to help the function of these fantastic effects. By that way of thinking, the Macross Cannon may not "project" particles for its main gun so much as it DISPLACES particles from another dimensional source. The guns may simply act as a doorway, opening a temporary portal to some dimension where particles quickly stream. This fictional explanation also conveniently solves the problem of ammunition...weren't they smart