Talk:Mobile weapons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Gundam, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Gundam related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project.
Looking to help? Check out the to-do list:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Please do not change armour back to armor for Mobile ARMOUR. and whoever deleted the full form of Mobile SUIT and Mobile ARMOUR, please go and learn Japanese and read Gundam Officials, Gundam Sentinel, Developers, etc.

and yes, I know the full form sounds stupid and does not make sense but please do not try to take away other people's chance to know the truth by being simply ignorant.

Armor is an American spelling and not used in any other country other than America, this is an international page and should use English spelling and not American spelling. To whoever is interested Armour is a good page to refer to as why we should use Armour over Armor.


Sidenote, GundamOfficial.com uses the term "mobile armor", not "mobile armour" in the definition of the said machine. User-Name 18:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sidenote, the book Gundam Officials published by Bandai Japan uses the term "mobile armour", not "mobile armor" in the definition of the said machines.

Contents

[edit] Note

Please see Japanese page for full form of MS and MA.


To each their own. As an American, I typically use the term "armor", rather than "armour". However, you don't have to mock my opinion by reposting it in a near identical way. Anyway, here are the words from the Gundam Guru Mark Simmons himself from a recent topic in Gundam Official Forums:

The classic Gundam Century sourcebook claimed that it's an acronym for "All Range Maneuverability Offence Utility
Reinforcement" (the accompanying kanji explanation literally translates to "all-region general-purpose support
weapon," which is a little odd since mobile armors are specialized for particular regions and have never been used
to support mobile suits, but there you have it). This explanation has since been pretty widely accepted in the
Japanese publications, and it appears in the Sunrise-approved Gundam Officials encyclopedia, so I'd say there's
pretty solid grounds for spelling it as "armour." However, I'd draw the line at an all-caps "Mobile ARMOUR" because
that's just annoying.

At any rate, the wording of the Wikipedia entry on mobile weapons could stand some improvement. It currently reads
"In the Universal Century timeline, Mobile ARMOUR (MA in short) is an acronym for All Range Maneuverability Offence
Utility Reinforcement (according to the official definition announced by Bandai, used originally in Gundam
Sentinel)." Original credit should go to Gundam Century, a much more historically important work that predeced
Sentinel by several years, and instead of "announced by Bandai" - what, they put out a press release?! - I'd
suggest "endorsed by Sunrise," which is after all the creative entity here.

While I'm critiquing, the Wikipedia entry's subsequent mention of "Gundam Official (the ultimate UC guide book
published by Bandai)" should also be corrected. The book's title is "Gundam Officials" plural, it's published by
Kodansha, and it was created with the cooperation of the Sunrise studio. Crediting everything to Bandai makes about
as much sense as saying that AOL-Time Warner is the creator of Superman.

"Armor or Armour?" User-Name 06:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About Bandai and Sunrise

I have corrected Official to Officials, which is a typo.

Gundam Century is the first book that uses the full form of Mobile Armour. however, when it was first published, it is just a fan book, as well as Gundam Sentinel. However, Gundam Sentinel's mecha design was accepted by Bandai (because of the profitable model sales) before both Gundam Sentinel novel and Gundam Century.

However, credit should be given to Gundam Century as well because it is THE first Gundam Universe technology guide book. However, after a few changes in the official settings, the Minovsky Partical Physics in Gundam Century became inacurate and seldom used as a reference now.

Bandai basically holds more than 50% of Sunrise Stock. (As I recall, it holds about 60%, but I am not sure about the correct number) Therefore, Sunrise is just a branch of Bandai.

Should we add that term Mobile Weapon also used to called unmanned MS in G-Saviour? L-Zwei 12:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let's settle this before constantly changing the article, Mr. Iceberg3k

Where on earth did you get the information about Gundam Sentinel is just a totally unofficial side story? Okay, if you do not like the series, what about the instruction manual from the Bandai Model of S Gundam and Ex-S Gundam? What about Developers? MS Era 0001~0080 and MS Era 0099? How do you like Or do you claim the book Gundam Officials to be unofficial?

Also, not only I claim this to be true, please read the little paragraph from the above:

The classic Gundam Century sourcebook claimed that it's an acronym for "All Range Maneuverability Offence Utility
Reinforcement" (the accompanying kanji explanation literally translates to "all-region general-purpose support
weapon," which is a little odd since mobile armors are specialized for particular regions and have never been used
to support mobile suits, but there you have it). This explanation has since been pretty widely accepted in the
Japanese publications, and it appears in the Sunrise-approved Gundam Officials encyclopedia, so I'd say there's
pretty solid grounds for spelling it as "armour." However, I'd draw the line at an all-caps "Mobile ARMOUR" because
that's just annoying.

If you still think that I made up the whole thing, very well then, you can make up your own "official" series and disapprove all others that you do not like.

BTW, the all-region general-purpose support weapon part sounds also kinda odd in the Japanese community. However, considering the Bit/Funnel attack is called All Range, it should just mean "high offensive power that can attack on all sides."

  • But not all MA units incorperate Bits/Funnels/any form of all range warfare. In the case of the Bigro or Zakrello...

Mobile Armour is indeed normally specialized for particular regions, however, at least one have supported Mobile Suits. The MAM-07 was on a mission to support MS units on the assault. It is really odd to consider MAs to be supportive because they were designed and manufactured by MIP, which is a rival of Zeonic co. However they lost the bid and MAs were not mass-produced, so it would be really strange to see MAs supporting MSs in the same battle field within the One Year War. MythSearcher 18:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

sidenote, to those who do not know about "Gundam Century", please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_Century_Technology

[edit] Gundam Type vs Zaku Type

Mobile suit design in the UC universe follows two lineages - the Gundam line and the Zaku line. Zaku type mobile suits are "fatter" than Gundam type mobile suits, though neither is necessarily faster or more maneuverable than the other; it's largely a matter of body styling and design. Zaku-derived mobile suits tend to have a mono-eye sensor and a more bulky, "slouchy" design than Gundam-derived suits; more of a "soldier" appearance to the Gundam's "superhero" look. This is due to a difference in design philosophies - Zeon manufacurers designed mobile suits by creating an external shell, and then fitting components within, while the Federation designed mobile suits by creating an internal skeletal structure and then fitting components and armor to the support structure, a philosophy eventually fully realized in the creation of moveable frame construction.

I can't help but feel inclined to point out the technical innacuracy of this particular statement on several levels. First and foremost, it is important to note that the Gundam was, in fact, the third of a series of Federation MS prototypes which all saw later incarnations and variants of their own. The Guncannon, as a prime example, is most assuradely not based uppon the Gundam. In that same regard, Zeon's Dom series was produced by a rival company to the one that designed the Zaku series thus far, subsequently, the Dom and its decendants share very little in common with the Zaku and its decendants. And please, don't get me started on the obvious Zaku decendants that incorperate a movable frame without sucumbing to the 'superhero' look... I beleive what we're seeing here is an overzealous attempt to simplify the definitions of monosoque and semi-monosoque frames as incorperated by the Zeon and Federation forces respectively, taken overboard to the point where the article has become misleading. Would someone be averse to modifying the article in question into a more accurate (albiet a bit lengthy) account of how Mobile Suits evolved?

I changed it a bit, if anyone can make the grammar better, it would be of great help. MythSearcher 03:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Definition of Mobile Weapon, and the Mobile Pod

The opening line of the article states that "The term includes all self-propelled military used vehicles including traditional tanks and aircraft." Since when has this been the case? The term mobile weapon is used precicely to differentiate between things like mobile suits and mobile armors and conventional weapons like tanks, aerospace fighters, and warships. I'd reccommend changing that like to "This term includes combat vehicles such as mobile suits and mobile armors, as opposed to "conventional" weapons such as tanks, airplanes, space fighters, and warships." and deleting the sections on tanks and aircraft.

One other thing: the only vehicle I'm aware of that was ever given the designation mobile pod was the RB-79 Ball and it's varients (like the K-type seen in 08th MS Team) which I think should be mentioned. Also, they were NOT used as a stopgap weapon before the Earth Federation developed mobile suits, they were used to cheaply bolster the number of mobile weapons in the Earth Federation's space offensive against Zeon. The ONLY time they are used in large numbers is in this offensive, in conjuction with mobile suits (though I realize that they appear other places, such as the aforementioned K-type in 08th MS Team and guarding the Solar System II in 0083). The point is that they were never meant to be used without mobile suit support; thus calling them a stopgap unit (implying that they were used before mobile suits were deployed and phased out once mobile suits became common) is inaccurate.

This page doesn't seem to have seen any activity in a while, so I'll wait a few days before making the edits. Speak now, or be forced to revert later! --Jepalmer 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned in Gundam Century. Tanks and planes are also mobile weapons. The term itself includes everything that are mobile excluding battleships (which requires a lot amount of people to control). Also, Zeon mobile pod include MP-02A Orgg. RB-79 are used before teamed up with GMs, they form a group of 6 to combat against mobile suit groups of 3. These appeared twice in MS igloo ,mentioned in EX model (Megellan & Salamis) and Gundam Officials. MythSearcher 03:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
One thing I think worth to mention is that the term Mobile Weapon also used to classify unmanned MS in G-Saviour.L-Zwei 11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I've never, ever seen anyone (either characters in animation or fans during discussion) use the term "mobile weapon" to refer to tanks or planes or space fighters or anything like that. The problem with using stuff like Gundam Officials as sources is that Gundam's been around so long that there's a thousand different sources (many of which are contradictory and some of which are just flat out wrong). Besides, GundamOfficial.com defines a mobile weapon as "A general term which encompasses mobile suits, mobile armors, and any other machines based on the same technology" which most definately does NOT include conventional vehicles like tanks, planes, space fighters, and warships. I wasn't aware of the existance of the Orgg (that thing is UGLY...) but I stand by the rest of my points; I still say scratch the tank/plane sections, and start calling Balls "supplimentary" or "support" units rather than "stopgap" units. --Jepalmer 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Mobile weapon comes from the term 機動兵器. Which is actually the term used on any weapon that is mobile. No matter how long it has been, unless other official sources says Gundam Officials has error in it, the super expensive (15000 yen) book is the official source of everything said in it. and any other machines based on the same technology. In universal century, tanks and fighters/space fighters did based on the same technology and thus are mobile weapons even in your quote. I agree with your point in changing the term to support, stopgap sounds very... unprofessional. MythSearcher 03:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


First of all, just because the term literally translates as "weapons that are mobile" doesn't mean that's actually what it refers to. If it did, we'd also have to include things like warships in with "mobile weapon" (which you've already agreed that we shouldn't). Hell, even something like the Gryps II colony laser would technically fall under that definition of "mobile weapon" and I doubt anyone would agree with that. The term "mobile suit" could be seen as refering to "suit that can move" but a mobile suit is still different than, say, a normal suit, or a pilot suit, or a business suit, etc etc. Secondly, GundamOfficial.com DOES contradict Gundam Officials, and I'm more inclined to the more modern, more common-sense definition provided by GundaOfficial.com than what's in Gundam Officials. Last of all, mobile weapons and conventional weapons are NOT based on the same technology. I'd say the basic technologies of mobile weapons are AMBAC, the Minovsky-Ionesco ultracompact nuclear fusion reactor, the auto-balancer, and the complicated in-cockpit camera system. If it's got even ONE of those, then you've got a case for calling it a mobile weapon. Conventional weapons like tanks, airplanes, and space fighters don't have any of these systems. That's why they're called conventional weapons -- to distinguish them from mobile weapons, which are based on these new technologies. What "same technology" are you refering to when you say that they're based on the same technology as mobile suits/armors? --Jepalmer 22:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Mobile SUIT actually is not a suit that is mobile. (same for MA) Therefore have a different meaning than Mobile weaponry. The mobile part makes it very hard to distinguish the difference, but the original Japanese actually means that the weapon itself have to be both mobile and manoeuvrable, to a point where it can react fast in combat. This places the term mostly in a field of tactical units (and ships are normally considered strategic units.). There are a few exceptions since mobile armour and things like RX-78GP03 are strategic units since they can too use to react against emergencies. If you ask what technology is used in tanks, fights and such, type 61 is a hard one, but Magella Attack uses the same propulsion system as Mobile suits, same firing mechanism (and therefore the 175mm cannon could be stripped off and used by a Zaku). The Fighters like FF-X7 Core fighter uses the same computer technology, the same propulsion system. FF-X7[Bst] even have Mega Particle Cannon using the E-Cap technology on it and it is still a fighter/space fighter. The FF-XII-Fb incoporates the Full vernier system (and the AMBAC function of it as well) of RX-78GP01Gb, FXA-08GB[Bst] installed a Minovsky Ionesco Fusion reactor, beam cannon(12MW+) X 2 and thermonuclear jet/rocket system(which can also be equiped on the FF-08GB). If you think that these are only core fighters of a MS and cannot be considered fighters/space fighters, you have just ignored most of the official settings. However, I can still list FF-08WR which is a space fighter that have a tail binder installed to be used as a AMBAC system on board the fighter. And in fact, FF-S3 and Gattle (EFSF and Zeon Space fighters) are listed under mobile weapons in the Battle of Loum in the book 機動戦士ガンダム 戦略戦術大図鑑～1年戦争全記録～. MythSearcher 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


You're missing the point. The term "mobile weapon" is meant to incorporate mobile pods, mobile suits, mobile armors, and a few odd things that can't be strictly classified as either but are similar to both (the GP-03 is a good example of this). Tanks and fighters are not in the least similar to mobile suits or mobile armors, and as such are not considered mobile weapons. I think you need to stop getting so caught up in the technicalities of defintions and just look at how the phrase is USED. Like I mentioned earlier, I've never heard ANYONE use the term "mobile weapon" to refer to tanks, planes, or space fighters. I'm not sure why you're being so stubborn on this -- mobile weapon is a catch-all term used to describe anything that's generally mobile suit-ish, SPECIFICALLY contrasted AGAINST conventional weapons like tanks and fighters. --Jepalmer 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point here, this is an encyclopedia, it collects things by definition, NOT how it is commonly used. And by the way, your reasoning starts to have no supporting references. And please define mobile suit-ish MythSearcher 01:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I am using a definition. GundamOfficial.com's definition. That's what I've been using this entire time. I'm arguing that we should use that definition instead of Gundam Official's definition because a) it's more modern, b) GundamOfficial.com is the de facto authority for everything Gundam in the English language, and c) it's more in line with how the term is actually used. Based on the GundamOfficial.com definition, tanks and aerospace fighters are not mobile weapons because they're not based on the same technology as mobile suits.
And the definition I'm using for "mobile suit-ish" is "a general term which encompasses mobile suits, mobile armors, and any other machines based on the same technology." I was using it as a synonym for mobile weapon (as per GundamOfficial.com's definition) for the sake of convienence. I'll be more careful to use precise language from now on if that makes you happy.
I also noticed you added back the information about the Ball being used BEFORE the EFF had mobile suits. Could you provide a source for this? Going by GundamOfficial.com's pages on the Ball and the K-type Ball they were developed specifically as support units for use in conjunction with mobile suits, and the K-type's page mentions how they are unsuited for anti-mobile suit combat when used alone, which you've also removed. I'm changing it back until you can provide sources for the use before mobile suits, and the number produced, though I wasn't aware of the 133 type so I'm leaving that in. --Jepalmer 22:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem about gundamofficial.com is that it is the only source supporting you argument. I can provide a lot more source supporting my points other than Gundam Officials. Gundam Century, 機動戦士ガンダム 戦略戦術大図鑑～1年戦争全記録～, Model manuals, Gundam Mechanics, データコレクション②機動戦士ガンダム～一年戦争編～. BTW, you edit just show that you have ignored almost all other sources other than gundamofficial.com. 1200 SP-W03 was used to build RB-79s and this data comes from at least 4 written sources(Gundam Century, Gundam Officials, MG Ball Ver. Ka Manual, MSV), 1 English website source (MAHQ.net), and I still have more sources I did not go through yet. If you want to ask what sources I have regarding the Ball unit was used for. I have already included 2 visual sources above: MS igloo:The hidden one year war and MS igloo:Apocalypse 0079. The first appeared in episode 3 and the latter in episode 2. RB-79s was used idependently with 6 units and no mobile suit is in sight when they first appear. In written sources, Mobile Suit Variation(MSV), Gundam Officials, Gundam Century, MS Encyclopedia, MG model manuals all said Ball was used alone in situations when they do not have enough MS teaming with them. (In fact, 1200 RB-79 were produced and only a 42early type+288late type RGM-79 were produced and about 100 other types like RGM-79G, GS, SC, SP, and whenever they team together, 3 RGM-79 and 2 RB-79 teams were formed. Therefore RB-79 can never find enough RGM-79s to team with them.) Also, due to RB-79 having no Fusion generator and no beam weapons, it does not require the mother ship having MS cooling systems onboard to support the maintainance and thus was used separately on small transport ships (like the K-type used in 08MS team) This information appeared not only in Gundam Officials, it first appeared in the official guide book of 08 MS team.
MS igloo and the MG model manual of RB-79 and RB-79K is inarguably more modern than gundamofficial.com (with information staying the same after those were released) and still used Gundam Officials information instead of gundamofficial.com's information.
You asked for technology used in fighters and tanks that was used in Mobile suits and I have provided information regarding those. Propulsion systems, E-cap, Minovsky Ionesco Ultracompact Fusion Reactor, Tail binder(and thus AMBAC) were used on not only one space fighter and appeared on tanks. Prove me wrong or you have to accept the fact that these too are using the same technology like mobile suits and mobile armours. (And hail to the Gallop and Big Tray using the same thermo-nuclear hover-craft system like the MS-09 Dom though I do not think these two are listed as mobile weapons in any other source other than the gundamofficial.com listing mobile weapons as things using the same technology as MS and MA other than using the definition of 機動兵器 like the other sources.)
MythSearcher 08:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Type 133 is 133式(133shiki) and does not need the The in front of it.
P.S.2 Forgot to list, the history of RGM-79 and RB-79 are as follow:
RGM-79E (Experimental type) piloted by Sanders (08th MS team) saw battle on July. RGM-79[G] (Ground type) saw combat somewhere in Semtember (08th MS team). RGM-79 mass-production started on September (MSV, written about mass-production started after the E type and Ground type testing) and first saw combat in late November. (MS igloo:the hidden one year war ep 3)
RX-76 Prototype Ball started testing UC0076, rolled out UC0079 June. UC0079: RB-79K (early production type) piloted by Shiro (08th MS team) saw battle on July, Mass-production rolled out on August (MG RB-79 Ver. Ka manual).
And thus, RB-79 mass production start at least 1 month earlier than RGM-79 and the mass production unit saw combat at least 3 months earlier than RGM-79.
I'm not just using GundamOfficial.com to support my argument; I'm using logic, common sense, and usage of the term to support it, with GundamOfficial.com as an official source to make you happy. Tanks and areospace fighters do NOT use the same technology as mobile suits or mobile armors -- there may be a few exceptions such as the more advanced core fighters, but they are the EXCEPTION rather than the RULE. A Type 61 or a Magella Attack Tank, a Saberfish or a Dopp, a Public or a Gattle don't have any characteristics of a mobile weapon. Tanks, airplanes, and space fighters are NOT MOBILE WEAPONS. Those few exceptions (the core fighter, for example) would be classified as "mobile weapons" rather than aerospace fighters for this purpose. I'm going to delete the tank, plane, and space fighter sections but I'll add in "miscellaneous types" section and include a mention of these kinds of craft.
As far as the Ball goes, I'm not saying that it didn't operate independantly on occation, I'm saying that it wasn't DESIGNED to be used against enemy mobile suits without GM support. They were cheap, essentially disposable units used to easily and quickly boost the number of mobile weapons that the EFF had available -- but they WEREN'T meant to fight mobile suits on their own. For the number of Ball units, well, Gundam background information is notoriously convoluted and contradictory; I'd rather not list anything at all than list one specific (and quite possibly wrong) number. Why would you even put that number in this article? It's not important to either the definition of "mobile weapon" or the role of the "mobile pod" so it doesn't belong here anyway.
Going into the history of the mobile suit/mobile pod development, since you brought it up for some reason: the Gundam was completed in July, underwent testing through August, and entered combat with Amuro at the helm in September. 08th MS Team doesn't begin until October, and we really don't know how long the GM E-type or Gundam Ground Type had been in use before that (again, sources are contradictory). The RX-76 existed only on paper until 0079 (much like the RX-75, -77, and -78), and the earliest we see it in action is when Shiro takes his K-type for a spin in October (which is about the same time that the EFF begins mass producing GMs, but well after they've started building the various experimental and pre-production types).
What you need to remember is that nearly all the Gundam sources are essentially unreliable, as they contradict each other constantly and we really have no reason to choose one over the other. Failing that, we're forced to rely on the animation itself and a few definately reliable sources like GundamOfficial.com (which is the only official English-language Gundam site, and has general enough information that it manages to avoid most of those contradicitons) and Gundam Unofficial (which is run by Mark Simmons, generally acknowledged to be the most knowledgable person in the English-speaking Gundam community).
--Jepalmer 20:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. -- The sentence about the Type 133 Ball is grammamatically incorrect and generally awkward sounding without putting the word "the" in front of Type 133, so I'm adding that back in.
This is the problem, you are using logic, common sense and such and thus it is Original Research. The fact here is, no matter how contradictory the official data are, we have to stick to them. The term was seldom, or never if you insist, used in the English gundam community, to refer to tanks and fighters, fine, you can ignore the official sources and claim that. However, when writting an encyclopedia entry, it is NOT a time you use the general usage of the term as an argument to go against most of the official data. You have one source supporting you. And THAT source has been proving you wrong and your keep saying those are exceptions are just being ignorant since only the ones used before OYW are the usual ones and all the other fighters(not only the core fighter) built and developed during and after the OYW uses either e-cap technology or fusion reactor and thermo-nuclear propulsion system and some even have AMBAC binders on them. Fine, the Type 61 is old enough to not have any of those systems onboard(it is in fact designed and produced before most of the Minovsky Technological advancement.) However, if you dig into more in depth sources like the Gundam Century, you will find that the Dopp was designed inside Space Colonies and uses technology and design ideas like Mobile Suits and that is why it got a short body(unlike planes nowadays) and large canopy. The Saberfish uses a special type of verian that is used on Mobile Suits (and Ball). The Gattle actually can use its wings as wing binders and this is the reason of why a space fighter got wings on it altough no aerodynamics is required in space. (it is in a flat plate form because that can reduce the cross-section area in front to minimize the chance of getting hit.)
The RX-76 Prototype Ball was original designed to run on its own, it was cancelled due to its expensiveness(And do not ask me why is it expensive) and the manufactured units used as a test bed of mobile suit weapons. Later, it was used to test if this kind of units can team up with MS and acted as a support unit of the RRf-06 Zanny. And yes, the RB-79 Ball was build as a mid-range support unit, however, not specific for MS, but just a general support unit. In fact it is used to support ships more than MS. And another fact is, it is used on its own and manufactured before any MS appearance for at least 1 month. The mass production of GM did not start until 4 months after the Ball unit mass production. Experimental types do not count as mass production. The first batch of EFSF mass peoduction MS(ground units can never recieve support from a space unit Ball, right?) saw combat in MS igloo ep 3, which is after Odessa day. Where an RB-79K(which is definitely a mass production unit) saw combat in July and by more than one official source, the RB-79 rolled out in June.
However, I must add, the Ball was designed by the EFSF with the concept of having their own small MA to go against MS and that is why although it is generally viewed as not suitable for combat, it is in fact a high performance/high spec unit. (MG Ball manual)
What you need to see here is, most of the sources are proving you wrong and there is no reason for choosing the one that goes against all the others to be the correct one and using it on an encyclopedia entry.
About the number of RB-79 built, I agree it should not be included here, but I must say that I had included more than one source suppoting this fact unlike what you mentioned above. Either go read the sources I have listed above and prove me wrong with more sources supporting your argument, or stop saying everything out of your assumption and knowledge is an exception. MythSearcher 07:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Since when is using logic or common sense original research? We have a variety of contradictory sources to choose from; I'm using logic and common sense to decide which is the most reliable. Not to mention that GundamOfficial.com is the only official English language Gundam resource; where it disagrees with other sources, it takes precidence.
As far as what counts as a mobile weapon under GundamOfficial.com's definition, I maintain that tanks, airplances, and space fighers are not mobile weapons. They, on the whole, do not rely on mobile suit technology to operate. Some of them (the Dopp, for example) may be designed to operate in areas of high Minovsky particle density, but that does NOT mean they are mobile weapons. They have few or no characteristics in common with mobile suits or mobile armors; they are NOT mobile weapons.
You apparently agree with me that Balls were meant as support units rather than independant fighting platforms, so I'm not sure why we're still arguing about it. When the Ball was first deployed or when it actually saw combat is irrelevant; it was DESIGNED as a fire support unit, NOT as independant fighting machines.
Keep in mind that most older Gundam sources reference each other a lot, so when you have three or four sources saying the same thing they're likely just parroting each other. GundamOfficial.com is not only the source that agrees most with logic and common sense (as well as what little we can verify in the animation itself) in this particular situation, it is also the only official source of Gundam information in the English language, and as such trumps all other sources that disagree with it. GundamOfficial.com is the definitive source for everything Gundam in the English-speaking world; if you want to quote another source to verify something that ISN'T covered at GundamOfficial.com, then that's fine. But GundamOfficial.com takes precidence over any other source.
--Jepalmer 21:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a world out there, my friend, and the English official source does not override the Japanese official sources, which they originally were written in, the Japanese did the work, not the Americans or any other English speaking country. How the sources reference each other does not matter, the fact is they are official sources and thus they can be referenced.
Notice this line in the definition of gundamofficial.com: and any other machines based on the same technology. Your have decided yourself tanks and planes are not mobile weapons before you read the definition and predefined the term when reading it. It does not matter if they rely on the technology or not, the fact is they are based on it. This is why you keep thinking the other sources contracdict gundamofficial.com, they are not. Mobile weapons does not rely the same technology as well, they are just simply based on using those. The best example is the Ball unit. It does not have any Minovsky Technology, uses only fuel cell and no AMBAC program, yet it is still one of the units to be called a mobile weapon. What are the differences between the ball unit and a FF-S3 Saberfish? They use the same propulsion system, verian system, power system, armament technology (which are bullets and missles). They have manipulators, fine, but the manipulators onboard are not programed to do AMBAC, they are of no use to combat. (Even the Orgg unit can take probably uncountable strikes by those and still remain in combat) As I have said, starting from the OYW, almost all of the space fighters and fighters have integrated the same technology into them and they are the any other machines listed under the gundamofficial.com definition. You can say that those are no longer conventional weapons, but you cannot say they are not mobile weapons. Your argument has started to shift to the characteristics instead of the technology, and this is totally irrelevant to whether they are mobile weapons or not. How they look like does not matter, what technology they use is the main point here. You keep saying the sources contradict each other, but I do not think so, even if I stick to the one and only source you claim to be correct, I can still prove that tanks and fighters based on the same technology are all mobile weapons and I did so above already. Having E-cap powered weaponry, AMBAC(binders), Minovsky Ionesco ultracompact fusion reactors, thermonuclear propulsion systems powered by it, means based on the same technology as mobile suits and/or mobile armours. These are the technology the mobile suits and mobile armours are based. And I am using your argument from the second reply up there:
Quote:
I'd say the basic technologies of mobile weapons are AMBAC,
the Minovsky-Ionesco ultracompact nuclear fusion reactor, the auto-balancer,
and the complicated in-cockpit camera system. If it's got even ONE of those,
then you've got a case for calling it a mobile weapon.
If we got 3 tanks out of 4(megallan attack, G-bull, YMT-05 Hildolfr and the 4th is Type 61), at least 15/20 fighters/space fighters have used at least one of these technologies, I'd say we can be pretty sure about them being mobile weapons.
And now, let me start to use logic to tackle this idea step by step.
  1. Gundamofficial.com never specificly claim that tanks and fighters are not mobile weapons.
  2. Gundamofficial.com's deifinition of mobile weapons includes all machines that based on same technology as MS and MA, and there are indeed 3 out of 4 tanks and 15 out of 20 fighters based on at least one technology the MS and MA uses.
  3. If the gundamofficial.com never specificly mentioned the information, more sources should be included to verify the fact.
  4. At least 6 written Japanese sources(Gundam Century, Gundam Officials, 機動戦士ガンダム 戦略戦術大図鑑～1年戦争全記録～, Gundam Mechanics, データコレクション②機動戦士ガンダム～一年戦争編～, MS igloo DVD booklet) published at different time frames (both before and after gundamofficial.com's data) supported that fact, listing either space fighters, fighters, and/or tanks as 機動兵器, which, literally means mobile weapons.
By these 4 points, I have used your rules to play your game, which uses the gundamofficial.com as the primary source supported by Japanese sources and proved that by definition, most tanks and fighters in the Universal Century are indeed mobile weapons based on mobile suit and moible armour technology and by simple definition of the Japanese sources, they are mobile weapons(機動兵器).
About the ball, no, I am not saying it is not a support unit, I am just saying it is not a fire support unit designed specificly to support MS. It is designed as a support unit, and served as both fighter and support unit. It must be mentioned in the article that how it was used, not just what they are designed for.
MythSearcher 16:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armours or Armour

Hi guys, not being familiar with Gundam I felt best not to edit this. The thing is, armour is an uncount noun (meaning the plural is armour) usually, it is only a count noun (meaning the plural would be armours) when used about tanks or 'other heavy mobile assault vehicles'. So if someone with more knowledge of Gundam would just make sure it's all correct, that'd be great! :) - ChrisWar666 13:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)