- ferrrari
- |
- Intrepid Legendary Member
I am alpha, i am omega.
I am the last of the primes.
Posted by: RotaryCookie
Posted by: ferrrari
First off, the abrams tank only fires a 120 sabot round which turns into a 40mm dart... While the scorpion fires a 90mm slug at far higher velocity... Also the scorpion armour is far stronger then any of todays armour. Trust me it is very strong... It packs more firepower and defanse then modern day tank... Also it's turret is smaller, making it a smaller target...
Abrams =/= Challenger II. although your right about the 40mm dart.
However, I will not "trust you" about the armour. I have provided the closest comparisons of each of the armours capabilities using evidence provided and, using my admittedly limited knowledge to come to the conclusion that Titanium Ceramic (battleplate) armour is, at the given thickness and weight, less effective against convenant weapons than current reactive/composite armours. As well as providing examples of other synthetic materials capable of absoring the heat energy fully.
Just saying UNSC armour is better is not a proper counter argument.
Yes, it has a smaller turret, but it has exposed workings and a horribly high profile. Overall much easier to hit and cause damage to.
Even if we assume the 90mm surpasses the 120mm in raw firepower, I still feel the Scorpion would lose against a Challenger II or other modern MBT in any engagement except for maybe in a defensive role.
I kno what your trying to say... But trust me, the scorpion has very hard armour, it can take a wraith shot and survive... That thing can hit 10,000 c, theres no way an abrams or challenger could survive that... As for the joints, there only really exposed when the scropion is firing high into the air, not when it's going toe-toe with a ground target.
Modern day tanks aren't suited for plasma, they would melt.