Tanks vs. Mechs: 1941 Force Sub Part 3

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2003-01-20 03:49am

My reaction to your non-argument retort might not have been funny to everyone, but it certainly was warranted, especially considering just how exasperated I was upon first reading the post's irrational claims. Hell, I still don't want to touch it's aimless idealistic attempt to justify making wild unrealistic claims.

You obviously missed the point of my comment in the first place. I said that you shouldn't act like it's realistic or accurate when it isn't. Taking it "serriously" has nothing to do with it, and I really don't know anyone who does.

Admitting that it's impossible for mechs of the sizes or weights in Zoids, Gundam, and such to move at such high speeds or handle such high recoil or damage (unless they use super-strong lightweight materials that would require technology levels far highter than depicted or just be more useful on conventional vehicles) doesn't mean you're just saying 'oh, we don't need to debate it, it's just a show'.

In fact, I'd say you'd have to take it less serrious to dismiss it like that. What I'm talking about is the bullshit that makes people insist stuff like a 50-ton, 20m tall mech with a 1000KW Fusion reactor (that's expected to blow up like a fission bomb in one series) can take on modern-day tanks in a modern-day setting. The evidence is neither objective nor accurate. The statistics don't add up to what's depicted(note to self: don't trust model-makers with writing stats), and most of these series don't have an order of canonicity to sort out what we're supposed to be anaylizing first and foremost. There's no reason to pretend it does. These mechs aren't feasable without technology and materials that would end up making them useless.

My comments still stand. You're the one who basically responded with "you rained on my parade and now I'm upset. I'm going to call you mean and make more insane claims." But then again, you said you already rested your case before that, So I guess I can't expect a new point.

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2003-01-20 08:53am

Of course, we weren't even arguing that.

Oh, we should've been arguing that, but instead, we wasted about six pages trying to argue the validity of their physics in their own universe!

It does not matter if it's impossible by our laws of physics.

Now can we get back to the fighting?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-20 11:13am

yes, by our laws...as if we are US, and anime shows are Uganda

.

Plus look at the header...you're going have to fit into our world or we get to say Tanks are armed with Nukes with no fallout.

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-01-20 12:41pm

sounds like the nukes thy use in the game RIFTS...I mean a nuke with a blast radius of 50 feet and nothing happenes outside of it

Shaka[Zulu] · Post by **Shaka[Zulu]** » 2003-01-20 01:45pm

you have completely missed the point of my first response to you, as I seem to have missed the point you finally make clear here...

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:My reaction to your non-argument retort might not have been funny to everyone, but it certainly was warranted, especially considering just how exasperated I was upon first reading the post's irrational claims. Hell, I still don't want to touch it's aimless idealistic attempt to justify making wild unrealistic claims.

what part of that post was irrational? the one about how serious contemplation of how a piece of tech in sci-fi/anime might lead to inspiration in some other real endeavour? example: Buck Rogers -- the original books dating to 1928, the radio serial from 1932-1947 and the 1939 film -- served to help inspire an entire generation of future engineers & scientists, who in their own way eventually made spaceflight a reality (although that achievment is not in the form envisioned in the fiction).

What I am trying to say is that the serious discussion of the idea has its' own rewards, even if those rewards come only as a deeper understanding of just how difficult any engineering project can be.

You obviously missed the point of my comment in the first place. I said that you shouldn't act like it's realistic or accurate when it isn't. Taking it "serriously" has nothing to do with it, and I really don't know anyone who does.

I dont take it as either realistic or accurate. The discussion of why it is neither -- and how that knowledge might be applied elsewhere on something that might be realistic & accurate -- is the point (at least for me).

Admitting that it's impossible for mechs of the sizes or weights in Zoids, Gundam, and such to move at such high speeds or handle such high recoil or damage (unless they use super-strong lightweight materials that would require technology levels far highter than depicted or just be more useful on conventional vehicles) doesn't mean you're just saying 'oh, we don't need to debate it, it's just a show'.

I never said that... I thought that is what you said. sorry about that.

In fact, I'd say you'd have to take it less serrious to dismiss it like that. What I'm talking about is the bullshit that makes people insist stuff like a 50-ton, 20m tall mech with a 1000KW Fusion reactor (that's expected to blow up like a fission bomb in one series) can take on modern-day tanks in a modern-day setting. The evidence is neither objective nor accurate. The statistics don't add up to what's depicted(note to self: don't trust model-makers with writing stats), and most of these series don't have an order of canonicity to sort out what we're supposed to be anaylizing first and foremost. There's no reason to pretend it does. These mechs aren't feasable without technology and materials that would end up making them useless.

1) I dont insist on any of that junk
2) I happen to agree that they arent feasible... I just like to understand why & why not... remember the part about inspiration?

My comments still stand. You're the one who basically responded with "you rained on my parade and now I'm upset. I'm going to call you mean and make more insane claims." But then again, you said you already rested your case before that, So I guess I can't expect a new point.

I was not upset at your first post, and my reply to it was in no way an insane or irrational claim... I was/am upset at the unfounded insults that began with your second. YOU were the one who started the insults & wanton sarcasm.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2003-01-20 03:59pm

Well, at least we've cleared up a few points. I was mostly reffering to this thread and it's previous incarnations in general, not you specifically (In fact, I was more reffering to SAMAS, if anyone, as he made most of those claims about gundam). I've seen too much crazy stuff proported in these threads to put up with the lesser stuff.

If you switched around the order of things in your first 'retort', then we'd be closer to agreeing. But as it stands, it is neither an accurate representation of the advancement of technology nor does it validate aimless arguments over fantasy mechs. TV shows of futuristic technology may inspire us to build models or write short stories, but pretending that it has actually furthered technology and engineering in some notable way is absurd.

The scientific principles of space travel were being developed long before Buck Rogers came along, and even then such books and series were inspired by earlier, much more simplistic concepts, such as Jules Verne, and that yet again was inspired by... (get ready for this) science! That's right, fiction builds their stuff upon what we already know, and everything else rests on what we imagine and rely upon suspension of disbelief, which we really can't use to develop engineering principles. If it wasn't for the progression of scientific principles, we'd still be writing about giant slingshots putting brick-sphere colonies into orbit of the moon, where on its surface farmers pick muchrooms. Even on this site, while we discuss the properties of gigaton particle cannons, all we're really doing is applying modern scientific principles to internally-consistent artistic depictions. We're observing and concluding, not pioneering new physics theories.

Sure, it's quaint and all to say these threads go somewhere because if we claim 'these giant robots would move really fast', we can hope it'll lead to great things like actually developing them in the near future, but as most people here know, I can't be bought out by sugar-coated red herrings.

Otherwise, my post was warranted in the fact that your retort truly did:
1) Merely prove my original point further
2) Leave me feeling exasperated rather than amused by the above point
3) Leave me at a loss for words other than posting a picture that alluded that your retort was comparable to sticking a flaming bag on your head.

And I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather have those 3 statements made against me than to have been quoted as making such an irrelevant claim as you did.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-01-20 04:56pm

Okay, all this is now is both sides going back and forth. It's enough, thread closed.