Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Something i noticed on the Reach scorpion.
  • Subject: Something i noticed on the Reach scorpion.
Subject: Something i noticed on the Reach scorpion.
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Time was your ally human. But now it has abandoned you. The Forerunners....have returned. And this tomb... is now yours". - The Didact

In Halo ce and Halo 2 the scorpion had a single main gun and one machine gun on the main gun.But it's replaced in the later games by another turret manned by a Marine.People think the UNSC became retards for not having two 7,62 mm turrets.But i think it's just gameplay

Look here,you can see the the two 7,62 mm turrets on the main gun and the other one.Bungie just did this for gameplay that's all.

http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/Reach/images/cutouts/cutou ts_033110/Reach_MPBeta_Scorpion2.jpg

2)Why do some think the modern day tank is superior?

  • 02.23.2011 5:38 AM PDT

2)
Challenger II MBT; 63 tons, Dorchester/Chobham armour*, 120mm rifled gun, 59/37 kph on/off road

Scorpion MBT; 66 tons, titanium ceramic armour**. 90mm smoothbore gun, 54 kph on road (wiki, although it has never shown to do more than a jogging speed), exposed driver and gunner. Not to mention the raised gun that exposes the hydraulics.



* the specifics are classified but there are many examples of Challengers (and Warrior IFVs) surviving multiple Anti-tank shaped charges.

** If it can't stop super heated plasma, it can't stop anti-tank rounds that cause brute force (non composite) armours like titanium battleplate to melt due to the super-heated plasma generated by the impact.


Result: Challenger II would tear a Scorpion to peices.

  • 02.23.2011 6:05 AM PDT

Well Cookie has completely blown the second part out of the water so I'll put in my penny for the first part.

I preferred the Halo 2 Scorpion. The machine gun being controlled by the driver was way easier, although it wasn't really balanced to be fair.

  • 02.23.2011 6:09 AM PDT


Posted by: RotaryCookie
2)
Challenger II MBT; 63 tons, Dorchester/Chobham armour*, 120mm rifled gun, 59/37 kph on/off road

Scorpion MBT; 66 tons, titanium ceramic armour**. 90mm smoothbore gun, 54 kph on road (wiki, although it has never shown to do more than a jogging speed), exposed driver and gunner. Not to mention the raised gun that exposes the hydraulics.



* the specifics are classified but there are many examples of Challengers (and Warrior IFVs) surviving multiple Anti-tank shaped charges.

** If it can't stop super heated plasma, it can't stop anti-tank rounds that cause brute force (non composite) armours like titanium battleplate to melt due to the super-heated plasma generated by the impact.


Result: Challenger II would tear a Scorpion to peices.


Is the 90mm the main cannon or the machinegun?

Though speed issue is more of gameplay. Same with weapon ranges.

And... I'd like to see something survive super-heated plasma... what I'm getting from that line is "If the Covenant can blow it up, then a modern tank can."

  • 02.23.2011 6:10 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Time was your ally human. But now it has abandoned you. The Forerunners....have returned. And this tomb... is now yours". - The Didact


Posted by: RotaryCookie
2)
Challenger II MBT; 63 tons, Dorchester/Chobham armour*, 120mm rifled gun, 59/37 kph on/off road

Scorpion MBT; 66 tons, titanium ceramic armour**. 90mm smoothbore gun, 54 kph on road (wiki, although it has never shown to do more than a jogging speed), exposed driver and gunner. Not to mention the raised gun that exposes the hydraulics.



* the specifics are classified but there are many examples of Challengers (and Warrior IFVs) surviving multiple Anti-tank shaped charges.

** If it can't stop super heated plasma, it can't stop anti-tank rounds that cause brute force (non composite) armours like titanium battleplate to melt due to the super-heated plasma generated by the impact.


Result: Challenger II would tear a Scorpion to peices.


The opening of tip of the spear shows the scorpion at high speeds.

The damage done by the main gun doesn't only depends on the size but also the speed.An exemple a 25 mm round from gauss hog goes at 40 mach,that brings more damage a 102 mm gun,i think.

The driver isn't exposed,it's protected by the scorpion hull unless you blow the hatch off.

  • 02.23.2011 6:17 AM PDT


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
Is the 90mm the main cannon or the machinegun?

Though speed issue is more of gameplay. Same with weapon ranges.

And... I'd like to see something survive super-heated plasma... what I'm getting from that line is "If the Covenant can blow it up, then a modern tank can."


90mm would be the main gun, not the machine gun! If there was a 90mm machine gun that only a few second's fire from that baby would blow up a Phantom!

  • 02.23.2011 6:27 AM PDT


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Is the 90mm the main cannon or the machinegun?

Though speed issue is more of gameplay. Same with weapon ranges.

And... I'd like to see something survive super-heated plasma... what I'm getting from that line is "If the Covenant can blow it up, then a modern tank can."


That is exactly what I'm saying. :P

From my somewhat amateur understanding of ballistics, and tank warfare. I believe that upon impact of a KE penetrator on armour the surrounding material is vaporised/melted, creating a plasma of many thousands of degrees, if only for a few seconds. This is what makes them so effective.

As compisite armour (read: Dorchester/Chobham) can sucsessfully survive such temperatures, and T-Battleplate cannot, I would assume a 120mm rifled gun, with KE round, followed by a HEAT, would make mincemeat of a scorpion.


Also, the ceramics on NASA's shuttle can withstand temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun and still be held in your hand without and heat transfer. Why isn't the UNSC utilising this family of ceramics to combat covenant weapons?


Edit: I apologise for my spelling today. D:

[Edited on 02.23.2011 6:43 AM PST]

  • 02.23.2011 6:42 AM PDT


Posted by: hotshot revan II


The opening of tip of the spear shows the scorpion at high speeds.

The damage done by the main gun doesn't only depends on the size but also the speed.An exemple a 25 mm round from gauss hog goes at 40 mach,that brings more damage a 102 mm gun,i think.

The driver isn't exposed,it's protected by the scorpion hull unless you blow the hatch off.


If a Guass cannon is more effective than a 120mm gun, why isn't the Scorpion fitted with a pair of them instead of a 90mm gun?

Lighter weight projectiles have bad energy retention compared to heavier ones.
Larger projectiles are generally less accurate than smaller ones.

This is why intermediate rounds, (5.56, 6.8 in rifles) 120mm, as opposed to 90mm or 155mm, are used. They have the best of both worlds. Or more accurately, have the least cons. :P

  • 02.23.2011 6:47 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Time was your ally human. But now it has abandoned you. The Forerunners....have returned. And this tomb... is now yours". - The Didact


Posted by: RotaryCookie

Posted by: hotshot revan II


The opening of tip of the spear shows the scorpion at high speeds.

The damage done by the main gun doesn't only depends on the size but also the speed.An exemple a 25 mm round from gauss hog goes at 40 mach,that brings more damage a 102 mm gun,i think.

The driver isn't exposed,it's protected by the scorpion hull unless you blow the hatch off.


If a Guass cannon is more effective than a 120mm gun, why isn't the Scorpion fitted with a pair of them instead of a 90mm gun?

Lighter weight projectiles have bad energy retention compared to heavier ones.
Larger projectiles are generally less accurate than smaller ones.

This is why intermediate rounds, (5.56, 6.8 in rifles) 120mm, as opposed to 90mm or 155mm, are used. They have the best of both worlds. Or more accurately, have the least cons. :P



Ask the Bungie.Gauss ammunitions are seen going through multiple conrete building(contact harvest).A 25 mm gauss cannon would leave a hole on a tank or at least cripple it.

  • 02.23.2011 7:02 AM PDT

I am alpha, i am omega.

I am the last of the primes.


Posted by: RotaryCookie
2)
Challenger II MBT; 63 tons, Dorchester/Chobham armour*, 120mm rifled gun, 59/37 kph on/off road

Scorpion MBT; 66 tons, titanium ceramic armour**. 90mm smoothbore gun, 54 kph on road (wiki, although it has never shown to do more than a jogging speed), exposed driver and gunner. Not to mention the raised gun that exposes the hydraulics.

And if you really want to play modern day vs halo...

See what happens when grizzlys and cobras team up...



* the specifics are classified but there are many examples of Challengers (and Warrior IFVs) surviving multiple Anti-tank shaped charges.

** If it can't stop super heated plasma, it can't stop anti-tank rounds that cause brute force (non composite) armours like titanium battleplate to melt due to the super-heated plasma generated by the impact.


Result: Challenger II would tear a Scorpion to peices.


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...



[Edited on 02.23.2011 10:58 AM PST]

  • 02.23.2011 10:56 AM PDT


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.

  • 02.23.2011 12:57 PM PDT

Well, I'd say don't quite use gameplay for direct information about certain things.

Though... Something I just noticed...

The scorpion hasn't been used much in the books. Or at least stated how much of a beating it could take.

  • 02.23.2011 1:06 PM PDT

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.

  • 02.23.2011 1:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Fact that few realise: The Scorpion from Halo 1/2 canonicly requires two people to operate, one to manoeuvre and one to fire teh cannons, unless they have a neural link like Spartans do.

  • 02.23.2011 1:21 PM PDT

Posted by: RotaryCookie
54 kph on road (wiki, although it has never shown to do more than a jogging speed)
The scorpion's max speed in Halo 3 is 55 kph.

  • 02.23.2011 1:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

whatever

  • 02.23.2011 1:34 PM PDT

Posted by: RotaryCookie
2)
Challenger II MBT; 63 tons, Dorchester/Chobham armour*, 120mm rifled gun, 59/37 kph on/off road

Scorpion MBT; 66 tons, titanium ceramic armour**. 90mm smoothbore gun, 54 kph on road (wiki, although it has never shown to do more than a jogging speed), exposed driver and gunner. Not to mention the raised gun that exposes the hydraulics.



* the specifics are classified but there are many examples of Challengers (and Warrior IFVs) surviving multiple Anti-tank shaped charges.

** If it can't stop super heated plasma, it can't stop anti-tank rounds that cause brute force (non composite) armours like titanium battleplate to melt due to the super-heated plasma generated by the impact.


Result: Challenger II would tear a Scorpion to peices.


You are forgetting something, the scorpion only requires one person, the challenger II requires a team. Were there an even number of people the scorpions would undoubtedly win.

  • 02.23.2011 4:21 PM PDT

Have you seen my mind anywhere? I seem to have lost it...

0x0 x0x 0x0 000 000 x0x 000
x0x 0x0 0x0 0xx 000 0x0 000
x0x x0x x00 0xx 0x0 x0x 0x0

I have seen you future

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...

The Abrams tank (or a challenger II) can fire several types of ammunition. The sabot is only used for armor piercing purposes. They can also fire HEAT rounds (high explosive anti tank) rounds that keep their size.

Scorpion tanks use ceramic-titanium armor. This is inferior to current main battle tanks, which use similar composite armor, as well as layers of heavy metals (depleted uranium for one) and reactive armor.

  • 02.23.2011 4:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Time was your ally human. But now it has abandoned you. The Forerunners....have returned. And this tomb... is now yours". - The Didact


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.


It's called Titanium A,it's a molecular strenghted version of the normal titanium,in other words titanium A>>>>>>titanium.

What?Do you have evidence on the tickness of it's armor?

Where do you see exposed workings?

What's wrong with the high profile?

I don't care what you feel,if you are in a debate then you have to prove your ponit with facts and not "feelings"

  • 02.24.2011 8:26 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Time was your ally human. But now it has abandoned you. The Forerunners....have returned. And this tomb... is now yours". - The Didact


Posted by: CTN 0452 9
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...

The Abrams tank (or a challenger II) can fire several types of ammunition. The sabot is only used for armor piercing purposes. They can also fire HEAT rounds (high explosive anti tank) rounds that keep their size.

Scorpion tanks use ceramic-titanium armor. This is inferior to current main battle tanks, which use similar composite armor, as well as layers of heavy metals (depleted uranium for one) and reactive armor.


Scoprion has different ammunitions as well:
http://www.halopedian.com/M512_90mm_Smooth_Bore_High_Velocity _Cannon

No,it's composed out of Titanium A-ceramic.Titanium A is stronger then normal titanium.And the abrahms tank isn't compsoed out of titanium A.

  • 02.24.2011 8:29 AM PDT


Posted by: hotshot revan II


It's called Titanium A,it's a molecular strenghted version of the normal titanium,in other words titanium A>>>>>>titanium.

What?Do you have evidence on the tickness of it's armor?


I meant to say "For any given thickness". Not "the" thickness. Although you can disregard the "weight" comment I made.
My point is, while Titanium-A plate is strong, and very light, it is weaker for any given thickness. But at equal weights, much much stronger. That however would require huge amounts of it, seeing as it is only 25% denser than air...

Posted by: hotshot revan II
Where do you see exposed workings?

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/4159/scorpionexposes.png
The grill may or may not be a weak point. I have no idea of it's function.
However, the turret would be disabled with a single HEAT or airburst/fragmentation (what is the technical term?) round.


Posted by: hotshot revan II
What's wrong with the high profile?

High profile makes for a bigger target, and generally makes the whole design weaker, putting more stress on the taller but thinner structure.

Posted by: hotshot revan II
I don't care what you feel,if you are in a debate then you have to prove your ponit with facts and not "feelings"


I have proved my points as best as I can given what I know, and my "feelings" are my conclusions and opinions based on the evidence shown.
If someone wishes to come here and prove me wrong, that is fine. I shall conceed. I know I am no expert.
However, we are all entitled to our own opinions and if you do not believe me, and I do not believe you, that is fine. :)

[Edited on 02.24.2011 9:15 AM PST]

  • 02.24.2011 9:13 AM PDT

Wake me when the jews are gone.

i think that the scorpion shouldn't be qualified as MBT it should be classified as IST and the grizzly should be the MBT

  • 02.24.2011 9:19 AM PDT


Posted by: fsabran
i think that the scorpion shouldn't be qualified as MBT it should be classified as IST and the grizzly should be the MBT


IST? Infantry support tank?

Anyway, the Grizzly, being a personalized customization with at least 2, at most 3 current ones we have seen, all on Spirit of Fire, we can't truly call it "the" MBT.

  • 02.24.2011 9:38 AM PDT

@RotaryCookie

I agree with you that modern day tanks such as the Challenger II and the Abrams would be deadly to the Scorpian. But I don't understand why the Scorpian doesn't have a multiple Gauss cannons similar to the ones mounted on the Gauss warthog or the Cobra from Halo wars. Who wouldn't want a tank with high penatration, high rate of fire cannon? Additionally the tank crew wouldn't have to worry about carrying thousands of pounds of explosive munitions.

  • 02.24.2011 9:46 AM PDT


Posted by: BOSOX599
@RotaryCookie

I agree with you that modern day tanks such as the Challenger II and the Abrams would be deadly to the Scorpian. But I don't understand why the Scorpian doesn't have a multiple Gauss cannons similar to the ones mounted on the Gauss warthog or the Cobra from Halo wars. Who wouldn't want a tank with high penatration, high rate of fire cannon? Additionally the tank crew wouldn't have to worry about carrying thousands of pounds of explosive munitions.


Could be issue of power(as in, powersource for the gun.), or that it is cheaper to make a Scorpion tank cannon and ammo then a Gauss cannon.

  • 02.24.2011 9:55 AM PDT