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.


Posted by: BOSOX599
@RotaryCookie

...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....


Rail/Coil guns are too fragile, expensive, power hungry, difficult to maintain and a logistical nightmare. :P

Fragile: EMP does nasty things to anything electrical powered.

Expensive: I can't prove this one, but I can logically assume that a conventional weapon is cheaper.

Power hungry: As proved by ship-borne MACs. That extra power could go unused and conserve fuel instead. A mobile platform cannot provide nearly as much power as a stationary one.
See: SMAC vs ship-borne MAC for an example.

Maintainance: A conventional weapon can be repaired in the field. Spare parts of fairly easy to obtain and light enough to be carried. A rail-gun requires a specialist to repair and doesn't make a unit self-contained.

Logistical nightmare: As above. Requires a much more constant and maintainable supply line, as well as more support teams to "look after" the tank while it is on the frontline.


A conventional gun is just that much easier to field, and really your not gaining a vast improvement with a Rail/coil gun. Maybe for staitionary guns they would be better, due to a more powerful power supply but not for mobile units. The Guass-hogs gun being the exception, but even then the penetration power isn't that much better than a modern 25/30mm cannon. Not to mention the lack of ammunition types availible for it.

  • 02.24.2011 10:17 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

I think ensemble studios is far better at making great vehicles then Bungie.

*points to the grizzly and rhino design*

  • 02.25.2011 10:00 AM PDT

They have both proven to be able to make rocking sci-fi vehicles that fit the universe, if not realistic. The Cobra being by far my favourite. It beats a Scorpion any day IMHO.

  • 02.25.2011 10:11 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
They have both proven to be able to make rocking sci-fi vehicles that fit the universe, if not realistic. The Cobra being by far my favourite. It beats a Scorpion any day IMHO.



I mean vehicle designs that make sense,after you showed the screenshot of the scoprion exposed workings i realised that the turret could be disabled far easy then other.

Those are tanks from the future,bungie probably has an explation.

Halo Wars vehicles are far powerful ,rail gun tanks ,splazer wielding aircrafts.But again i doubt we will see this in a FPS or else it would be overpowered.

[Edited on 02.25.2011 10:22 AM PST]

  • 02.25.2011 10:22 AM PDT

Oh god, can you imagine the carnage in MM when one of the mandatory 12 year olds gets in a Splazer armed gunship? XD
It'd be like a private fireworks display. haha.

Ah, yes, I see what you mean now. Yes, the Rhino and Grizzlys are much better.

  • 02.25.2011 10:51 AM PDT


Posted by: RotaryCookie
Oh god, can you imagine the carnage in MM when one of the mandatory 12 year olds gets in a Splazer armed gunship? XD
It'd be like a private fireworks display. haha.

Ah, yes, I see what you mean now. Yes, the Rhino and Grizzlys are much better.


The sparrowhawk would destroy, with the two cannons on the wings, the blue splazer on the nose, and some concept art has them with rockets as well.

Rhino, it's an artillery tank, so not as big a fan. The grizzly? Super-heavy tank, if only the 2-3 in existence weren't on the spirit of fire lost...

Loved the Cobra and Wolverine, whenever I do halo fanfic thoughts or shorts, I include Halo Wars vehicles.

  • 02.25.2011 11:11 AM PDT

Weapon of Oppression



Posted by: hotshot revan II

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.


Heh This again, just like factpile.
Umm actually it takes multiple rounds from the Gauss gun to even destroy a scorpion tank, and the canopy is too exposed to small arms fire and anti tank weapons.
I'd say that the m1 Abrahams has superior...everything compared to the Scorpion.

  • 02.25.2011 12:02 PM PDT

Weapon of Oppression


Posted by: hotshot revan II

Posted by: RotaryCookie
They have both proven to be able to make rocking sci-fi vehicles that fit the universe, if not realistic. The Cobra being by far my favourite. It beats a Scorpion any day IMHO.



Those are tanks from the future,bungie probably has an explation.



Explanation ?
These are the same guys that gave the Unsc 500 years into the future, still use chemical propellants in their weapons.
The mjolnir armor, was vulnerable to 30 cal rounds without shields.
You'd think that the Unsc would employ some sort of super alloy fabricated from nanotechnology, but nah...they still use basic standard straight up raw metal for their armor.

  • 02.25.2011 12:06 PM PDT

Vunerable to 30 cal, but in Cole protocol the mk IV takes two battle rifle bullets to the chest and is only "scratched".

Inconsistant as usual. :/

  • 02.25.2011 12:17 PM PDT


Posted by: ExcellentSix

Posted by: hotshot revan II

Posted by: RotaryCookie
They have both proven to be able to make rocking sci-fi vehicles that fit the universe, if not realistic. The Cobra being by far my favourite. It beats a Scorpion any day IMHO.



Those are tanks from the future,bungie probably has an explation.



Explanation ?
These are the same guys that gave the Unsc 500 years into the future, still use chemical propellants in their weapons.
The mjolnir armor, was vulnerable to 30 cal rounds without shields.
You'd think that the Unsc would employ some sort of super alloy fabricated from nanotechnology, but nah...they still use basic standard straight up raw metal for their armor.


UNSC didn't do weapons research and development until the rebels starts popping up.

They focused on economy and colonization, not war.

  • 02.25.2011 12:28 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: ExcellentSix


Posted by: hotshot revan II

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.


Heh This again, just like factpile.
Umm actually it takes multiple rounds from the Gauss gun to even destroy a scorpion tank, and the canopy is too exposed to small arms fire and anti tank weapons.
I'd say that the m1 Abrahams has superior...everything compared to the Scorpion.


Game mechanics.

I don't think the abrahms is superior to it al all categories.

  • 02.26.2011 2:45 AM PDT

Spartans never die... they just revert to last checkpoint.

Warfare is problably the biggest influence on human civilization. 500 years down we'll be well past SECTION 8

  • 02.26.2011 3:42 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: Apocalypse 1313
Warfare is problably the biggest influence on human civilization. 500 years down we'll be well past SECTION 8


And still stuck on a ruined Earth if you don't spend your budget on colonisation,clean energy and space travel.

That's the reason why the UNSC are far better then us.

I hope we stop spend money on warfare and spend money on saving the planet.

Sometimes i really hate humanity.

UNSC FTW

  • 02.26.2011 3:49 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Two words: Unlimited. Ammo.

  • 02.26.2011 3:54 AM PDT

Even an amateur Engineer can verify that the Scorpion MBT is one of the biggest jokes in ground warfare, alongside the UNSC's selection if small arms that is.

  • 02.26.2011 4:30 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: Zero_Patience
Even an amateur Engineer can verify that the Scorpion MBT is one of the biggest jokes in ground warfare, alongside the UNSC's selection if small arms that is.


Not all of 'em are bad.

  • 02.26.2011 4:34 AM PDT


Posted by: Zero_Patience
Even an amateur Engineer can verify that the Scorpion MBT is one of the biggest jokes in ground warfare, alongside the UNSC's selection if small arms that is.


The AR, BR, SMG and DMR are all good weapons on the surface, considering we have little idea of the technology that powers them we cannot compare them to modern weapons.

For all we know they could be using advanced propellent, be putting about 40,000 fpe and have an advanced recoil control mechanism to stop the soldier from being turned into soup every time it's fired.

  • 02.26.2011 4:39 AM PDT

Actually, canon says otherwise. In fact the information on this very site disagrees with what you've said entirely:

- AR: http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&link =BAGAssaultRifle

7.62mm ammunition, a maximum effective range of 300m and a muzzle velocity of 905m/s, hardly what would constitute as an arm shattering weapon, is it?

- SMG: http://www.bungie.net/projects/halo3/content.aspx?link=h3smg

5mm caseless rounds, 427m/s muzzle velocity and a maximum effective range of 50m. I can count pistols off the top of my head that are better than this, never mind actual real world SMG's. The UNSC has had nearly 500 years of R&R in interstellar warfare from the 20th century on, and yet their small arms are straight out of the 1960's.

Sorry folks, nothing impressive or uber advanced going on here (never mind that the Battle Rifle - which you listed - has an effective range of 200 meters).

  • 02.26.2011 5:06 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: Zero_Patience
Actually, canon says otherwise. In fact the information on this very site disagrees with what you've said entirely:

- AR: http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&link =BAGAssaultRifle

7.62mm ammunition, a maximum effective range of 300m and a muzzle velocity of 905m/s, hardly what would constitute as an arm shattering weapon, is it?

- SMG: http://www.bungie.net/projects/halo3/content.aspx?link=h3smg

5mm caseless rounds, 427m/s muzzle velocity and a maximum effective range of 50m. I can count pistols off the top of my head that are better than this, never mind actual real world SMG's. The UNSC has had nearly 500 years of R&R in interstellar warfare from the 20th century on, and yet their small arms are straight out of the 1960's.

Sorry folks, nothing impressive or uber advanced going on here (never mind that the Battle Rifle - which you listed - has an effective range of 200 meters).


You realise that the UNSC stopped at improving weapons because of space colonisation.The cost of thousands of war ,supply ship,FTL drives,colonizing 800 planets,...is massive.It's wise that they stopped focusing on war or else they would still be stuck in the solar system like us.

The only ones improvving weapons are ONI who had awesome secret tech at their disposal.

Why would you need AR's with a range of 500 if that range isn't needed in urban warfare,during the innsurrection.

The encyclopedia stated that it's 200 meters but i wouldn't trust the encylopedia that much with it's errors .

An AR having better range then a marksmen weapon doesn't makes any sense.

  • 02.26.2011 5:16 AM PDT

907m/s for a tungsten core bullet? That's impressive. Gives a much higher muzzle energy than today's 7.62x51 cartridge. Which incidentally fire a steel core at 790-850 m/s.

I'll give you the SMG.

The BR has a range of 950m, a much more likely range.

  • 02.26.2011 5:20 AM PDT


Posted by: hotshot revan II
You realise that the UNSC stopped at improving weapons because of space colonisation.The cost of thousands of war ,supply ship,FTL drives,colonizing 800 planets,...is massive.It's wise that they stopped focusing on war or else they would still be stuck in the solar system like us.

The only ones improvving weapons are ONI who had awesome secret tech at their disposal.

Why would you need AR's with a range of 500 if that range isn't needed in urban warfare,during the innsurrection.

The encyclopedia stated that it's 200 meters but i wouldn't trust the encylopedia that much with it's errors .

An AR having better range then a marksmen weapon doesn't makes any sense.


- First question, the UNSC has stopped making improvements after the 20th century? That's a terrible excuse, as even now we have weapons programs that exceed UNSC small arms in modern field tests, and in the space of 500 years we progressed from the Musket to the almighty Carbine, chambered Rifle and even mitigation in small scale Gauss technology. Are you sincerely telling me that the UNSC made no such advancements in a similar time frame?

- ONI aren't producing military small arms, and haven't produced a mass scale weapon that has advanced significantly since the 20th century. Your argument is invalid.

- Urban combat has also been a major consideration in modern warfare since Panama and WWII (which occurred in the mid 20th century), does that mean we should handicap our weapons just because almost every major war has been fought in cities? Despite the fact that the weapons that performed so well in said wars (possessing superior ranges to UNSC small arms) were universally praised for their capacity to perform in urban environments (such as the M16 or M60).

- The Encyclopedia is still canon, and still rationalizes any contradictions by stating that the Battle rifles used on Harvest were prototypes, unlike the mass produced variant.

And again, it doesn't matter if it makes sense. UNSC weapons generally don't make sense (.50cal pistols? Assault Rifles that perform like WWII rifles?), so why should the BR be exempt from this?

  • 02.26.2011 5:31 AM PDT

Posted by: RotaryCookie
907m/s for a tungsten core bullet? That's impressive. Gives a much higher muzzle energy than today's 7.62x51 cartridge. Which incidentally fire a steel core at 790-850 m/s.

I'll give you the SMG.

The BR has a range of 950m, a much more likely range.


- A tungsten core round generates a small fraction of the KE and momentum of a modern 7.62mm jacketed round, hardly what one would call 500 years of progress when compared to our own leaps in a similar time frame, is it? Especially when you take the effective range into consideration and realize that it's best relegates as a LMG in a modern battlefield.

- Actually the BR used on Harvest was a prototype according to the Encyclopedia, the BR used circa 2550 has an effective range of 200m; I wouldn't trust the wiki as a reliable source if I were you given the Reach time line debacle.

  • 02.26.2011 5:36 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: Zero_Patience

Posted by: hotshot revan II
You realise that the UNSC stopped at improving weapons because of space colonisation.The cost of thousands of war ,supply ship,FTL drives,colonizing 800 planets,...is massive.It's wise that they stopped focusing on war or else they would still be stuck in the solar system like us.

The only ones improvving weapons are ONI who had awesome secret tech at their disposal.

Why would you need AR's with a range of 500 if that range isn't needed in urban warfare,during the innsurrection.

The encyclopedia stated that it's 200 meters but i wouldn't trust the encylopedia that much with it's errors .

An AR having better range then a marksmen weapon doesn't makes any sense.


- First question, the UNSC has stopped making improvements after the 20th century? That's a terrible excuse, as even now we have weapons programs that exceed UNSC small arms in modern field tests, and in the space of 500 years we progressed from the Musket to the almighty Carbine, chambered Rifle and even mitigation in small scale Gauss technology. Are you sincerely telling me that the UNSC made no such advancements in a similar time frame?

- ONI aren't producing military small arms, and haven't produced a mass scale weapon that has advanced significantly since the 20th century. Your argument is invalid.

- Urban combat has also been a major consideration in modern warfare since Panama and WWII (which occurred in the mid 20th century), does that mean we should handicap our weapons just because almost every major war has been fought in cities? Despite the fact that the weapons that performed so well in said wars (possessing superior ranges to UNSC small arms) were universally praised for their capacity to perform in urban environments (such as the M16 or M60).

- The Encyclopedia is still canon, and still rationalizes any contradictions by stating that the Battle rifles used on Harvest were prototypes, unlike the mass produced variant.

And again, it doesn't matter if it makes sense. UNSC weapons generally don't make sense (.50cal pistols? Assault Rifles that perform like WWII rifles?), so why should the BR be exempt from this?


-I already explained why they did so,they focused on colonisation.A single FTL drive alone is the most expensive tool built by men,the UNSC built thousands of them.
Do modern day humans focus on colonisation??I think not, US spends alot of their budget on war alone.
I'm sure that if you want to colonise hundreds of planets you will have to use all your resources for that and not war.There wasn't even war during the colonisation till the innies showed up,then the UNSC went back to war businness like building space weapons.

History looks upon this time as an unfortunate (and perhaps inevitable?) misunderstanding between Earth and her colonies, but those fighting for the last decade also realize that it was the most amazing piece of blind fortune the human race has ever stumbled upon. Had we not been armed and learning how to fight in space... what would have happened in the years that followed, when we faced an enemy a hundred times worse? Oblivion, no doubt.

-I wasn't only talking about small firearms,but about all the things they did like MJOLNIR,spartans,pulse lasers,bubble shield etc.

-*sigh*
The UNSC don't need AR's with that kind of range,the AR's were developped during the innie war,the battles only took place in urban and the AR's did well.Which idiot would need an AR with a range of 600 meters on a open wield unless you charge into enemie lines (star wars style aotc)

M16 fail in some environments,you can savely throw a MA5C in a river and mud and it will still work.

  • 02.26.2011 5:48 AM PDT

- Just to put in context, during the 1500's the standard projectile of open warfare was the Longbow: 70 joules of kinetic energy

- By the 1700's we used the Smoothbore rifle: Worth roughly 500 joules of kinetic energy.

- 1800's, the muzzle loading rifle: 1655 joules of KE.

- 1900's. the bolt action rifle: 3100 joules of KE.

- 2000's, the MK16: 3600 joules of KE.

- 2500 (UNSC era), the MA5 series assault rifle: ~3600 joules of KE (based on empty vs loaded MA5C mass).

  • 02.26.2011 5:55 AM PDT

@ Hotshot Revan:

- Actually (as proven with my above chart) even when we were colonizing much of the planet we were still progressing in leaps and bounds in small arms, far faster than the UNSC anwyay.

- So the FTL drive being the single most expensive piece of equipment is your reason for their poor small arms? You do realize that's an excuse right. A valid excuse, but it still doesn't make UNSC weapons anymore powerful than modern small arms.

An excuse is an excuse, not a rebuttal.

- And yet none of those ONI technologies have seen widespread UNSC adoption, ergo they have nothing to do with my argument in regards to UNSC small arms. Can you shut up with the pointless excuses, please? It's starting to get annoying.

- We have many weapons that were purpose built for dealing with urban combat, it still doesn't mean that you handicap their effective range as to limit their formal adoption and increase the per-unit cost (and you yourself argued that cost was a mitigating factor); unless you were mentally retarded.

But then again, being mentally handicapped seems to be the UNSC arms design policy.

- You do realize that there are many modern weapons that can cite such durability (the AK series comes to mind)? However I'm not seeing a cite for this, so I will only have to take your somewhat stunted word for it.

  • 02.26.2011 6:05 AM PDT