Gunhead wrote:
Yeah. that's all true. But I'm extremely leery of the "we must assume X" way of doing analysis because then that becomes the magic pony that is used to justify outlandish claims of firepower or other abilities, usually by taking an event then using figures from it to claim ridiculously high power figures etc.
so let me rephrase then: depending on the methods of analysis being employed or discussed, we will invairably have to assume certain things, simply to maintain consistency. Exactly what must be assumed will vary, because not every approach will be the same, but there's still going to be a certain amount of consistency required for this shit not to become totally arbitrary.
And even then it STILL won't work if people can't reach some sort of consensus, because people trying to apply two completely different approaches will go nowhere. Ideally you try to opt for as many possibilities as possible, evne silly ones, because some people will only accept silly answers. It even doesn't even require one particular answer to be true in this case - all that really matters is pointing out that there is more than one alternative, rather than being a simple either/or scenario.
Connor MacLeod wrote:
Again, that is correct. But to add to my previous statement, we have to make some assumptions and those assumptions must have a basis on some fact either something we can derive from the series or RL considerations that might apply.
True, but this again gets back to the approach one is using. We could, for example, cling strictly to visuals over dialogue the way 'traditionally' done with Star Wars (and to a lesser degree Trek, although some leeway is given there as in inconsistent ship sizes.) That however can lead to some real problems unless you bend over backwards or make compromises (much like trying to ratoinalize blaster behaviour/nature based strictly on visuals. Its a nightmare.)
Another possibility is to cling to dialogue or text - such as spinoff literature. This can have problems too, as the spinoff materials don't always quite mesh with the stuff in the animated shows (or with itself.) This gets into the dangers inherent in 'interpreting dialogue' which is made worse by the fact much of the dialogue/text is going to be translated (unless the person doing the analysis can read the language.)
A third approach is to take it on a case by case basis, and rather than adhereing to singular bits of evidence, cling to a more broader, generalized view of things. We know they have guns of a certain caliber that fire projectiles. We've seen cased ammo, rifling, fun stuff like that. We can make certain (rough) approximations based on that would guide us and treat the rest as outliers (stuff that is too slow or too fast.) Whether the outliers are ignored or treated as exceptions rather than the rule is up to personal preference/invidual case.
There's probably others, but each one will involve its own approach to the evidence and rules, each will have its own advantages and drawbacks, etc.
I know, and while some of this comes from simple assholeness, some of this is caused by the simple fact that people do not stop and think what they are looking at. When you're looking at a piece of fiction, the events are predetermined. You can do calcs to see what sort of energies were involved etc. But what is a lot harder, sometimes even impossible is to try and figure out how often things work out like they did. People can get into their heads that a single instance is how it will always play out, no matter what and will insist on it to no end.
Well yes, thats one way to look at it. But the problem is 'people don't stop and think' because whilst I've known plenty of people who adopt absurd or silly ideas, I've known plenty of people who are NOT stupid who do. And its very easy to get into disagreements simply because you cannot agree on how a single piece of evidence should be viewed. You can even encounter variations of even 'broad' approaches to fiction - some that will be inconsistent because people don't really bother or feel they NEED a consistent approach (or may call it 'over analyzing.')
The obvious question then becomes: how do you sort the people going on preconceived (and wrong) ideas from the people who simply have an honestly different perspective/interpretation of things, and don't hold to the way you view evidence?
Well my main point was that the velocity can be high if the round being fired is light. But if you're asking me to speculate further, that does look like a moderate velocity full bore round, probably rifled too if the swirls it leaves behind are indications of anything. If we take the clip as the bible truth.. well I have a few ideas but those are highly speculative.
The major problem is, that no matter what mr. roboto is spewing out, being that close to the business end is probably going to fuck you over. No amount of low velocity can explain it.
A HEAT round is low velocity, and those leave the barrel of a MBT somewhere around 800 m/s.
-Gunhead
Again alot of this comes down to how one figures alot of the gundamverse weaponry might work. There was a blurb on the 'Gundamofficial' site that mentions that machine guns (or at least the ones packed by the Zaku) were as powerful as a tank gun. Which seems pretty straightforward, but may not be. What kind of tank gun? Does it mean 'of the same caliber as the Zaku machine gun' or does it mean some other kind of tank gun? Is it impacted by other factors (size/shape of the casings, the barrel length, whether its full calibre/sub-calibre, etc.) Is it talking about KE and/or momentum, or something else? is it comparing individual shots, or is it 'sustained' firepower' or some variation (eg a single burst from the Zaku MG is equal in power to a tank cannon.) There's lots of variables involved in interpreting it, but all have the potential of significantly altering the outcome of the passage (and how it impacts the effectiveness of the weapon.)
And lets not forget that not all machine guns are the same, even when the calibres are the same. That alone can further add variation ot the case.
What's more, what about recoil? That's going to be a non-trivial issue and its one that sci fi analysis nerds all too often ignore. With solid propellant and cased ammo (lets say) there's going to be the recoil of the projectile.. PLUS the recoil of the propellant, and both for a tank gun is significant. Yet a mobile suit is supposed to be able to fire these guns with a pretty high ROF, yet that would multiply the recoil issues (and the problems with recoil) quite a bit if you assume high rates of fire. So recoil could quite likely result in individual 'machine guns' being less powerful per shot than tank guns, but perhaps comparable in power (but not necesarily other traits like penetration and such.) when taken as however big a burst you figure.
This is analogous to alot of flawed assumptions people make. Many 'sci fi' RTS/First or third person shooters feature guns or weapons with fictional calibers but closely resembling RL weapons, and its often assumed that .50 cal might mean (for example) 'equal in power to .50 BMG' which is a pretty erroneous thing to make, because there are lots of different .50 cal ammos, and there are also other factors (barrel length, again) affecting performance. (Recoil is often ignored in these cases too. The most hilarious being that an EM Gun used casings and propellant for the 'spin stabilization' in some hybrid setup.)