Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: M1A Abrams vs...
  • Subject: M1A Abrams vs...
Subject: M1A Abrams vs...
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

SC = Supreme Commander/Supreme Canadian.

De Facto leader of the military of the APE (Allied Planets Empire).

Coup = Admiral Asskicker, ZPM hive ship


Posted by: otterboyz
It's a shame that that wouldn't be useful, considering that the entire of the scorpions front is armor.
Posted by: Raptorx7
The dart it fires uses a molten copper to pierce the armor allowing the shell to detonate inside the armor. Destroying the tank.


I remember there being almost no front to the Scorpion, just a cannon and treads. Not much armor at all. And the driver's seat is RIGHT THERE.

  • 07.30.2011 10:20 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

Op,you might update your text as a scoprion tank could go faster then that other.

Watch the Tip of the spear cutscene and you know what i'm talking about.

Saying that 120 mm>>>>>>90 mm is flawed,size of the slug isn't the only thing that matters but the SPEED is too. For all we know the 90 mm could do more damage because it might be faster but we don't know,we need more stats.

  • 07.31.2011 6:04 AM PDT

I am alpha, i am omega.

I am the last of the primes.


Posted by: hotshot revan II
Op,you might update your text as a scoprion tank could go faster then that other.

Watch the Tip of the spear cutscene and you know what i'm talking about.

Saying that 120 mm>>>>>>90 mm is flawed,size of the slug isn't the only thing that matters but the SPEED is too. For all we know the 90 mm could do more damage because it might be faster but we don't know,we need more stats.

Agreed, it does say it's a high velocity cannon, so i'm thinking its way more power then the abrams.

Another example is mac rounds, a 600 ton slug takes between 3-4 shots to destroy a covie ship with shields, while the super macs do weigh 3000 tons and can knock out 3 shielded assualt carriers in 1 hit, it's the far higher speed not the extra weight that does more damage.

  • 07.31.2011 8:05 AM PDT

People seem to think that the Scorpion tank is slow. But the truth is that in Halo 3 it goes 35mph off-road. When it comes to speed, the two tanks are evenly matched.

  • 07.31.2011 8:49 AM PDT

Welcome to bungie, you have no rights. play nice!
CLICK!

The scorpion goes faster than the abrahams.

  • 07.31.2011 9:20 AM PDT

Scorpion beats Abrams, armor is better, and the profile is more angled, making it thicker, 90mm high-velocity gun most likely>modern-day 120mm gun, as for speed, the Scorpion does not go 9kph, thats about 5 mph..when it can actually go about 20mph in the game..and they slow it down to make it fair.

  • 07.31.2011 9:51 AM PDT

Weapon of Oppression


Posted by: Mutoid Log
People seem to think that the Scorpion tank is slow. But the truth is that in Halo 3 it goes 35mph off-road. When it comes to speed, the two tanks are evenly matched.


So where'd you guys get this piece of info from ?
I love how one guy goes about saying that there isn't enough info on the scorpion tank, then on the second page, using there fanboy logic there goes saying if itz from the futurze then itz stronger...right...
So how are you guys so sure that the 90mm shell is strong enough to get past the armor ?
Do you guys even know what tye of explosive it uses ?

  • 07.31.2011 10:42 AM PDT

Weapon of Oppression

More angled ?
Hell I the only one who relizes how exposed the cockpit is ?

  • 07.31.2011 10:48 AM PDT

Um, doesn't a high velocity cannon cause more damage regardless?

I mean, if you put a simple rock into a mass driver it'd tear through a tank.

  • 07.31.2011 10:56 AM PDT

Weapon of Oppression

Umm no, that makes no sense at all, it's all about the density of the projectile in question, regardless, the rock would fail to pentrate the take if it isn't dense enough.

And high velocity means nothing if you don't even know the velocity.
The M1 abrahams has a "high velocity" cannon as well.
This can be in the form of a kinetic energy penetrator.

  • 07.31.2011 11:05 AM PDT


Posted by: ExcellentSix
Umm no, that makes no sense at all, it's all about the density of the projectile in question, regardless, the rock would fail to pentrate the take if it isn't dense enough.

And high velocity means nothing if you don't even know the velocity.
The M1 abrahams has a "high velocity" cannon as well.
This can be in the form of a kinetic energy penetrator.


The cockpit can open and close, at least on Reach, and the Scorpion fires a high-velocity 90mm tungsten shell, tungsten is just about like depleted uranium, minus the radiation

The Abrams does fire a high-velocity penetrator in the form of a 120mm sabot, but the way a sabot works is that the caliber or width of the actual projectile impacting the target is smaller than the normal caliber, which is how it is able to go faster, the 120mm sabot penetrator might equal like 60mm or 70mm, most likely with comparable velocity with the 90mm high-velocity tungsten shell that's half a millenium in the future. Scorpion wins.

  • 07.31.2011 11:18 AM PDT


Posted by: hotshot revan II
Op,you might update your text as a scoprion tank could go faster then that other.

Watch the Tip of the spear cutscene and you know what i'm talking about.

Saying that 120 mm>>>>>>90 mm is flawed,size of the slug isn't the only thing that matters but the SPEED is too. For all we know the 90 mm could do more damage because it might be faster but we don't know,we need more stats.


If memory serves, a sabot round breaks apart upon hitting the air, so 120mm isn't the actual meassurment of the shell itself.

A Scorpion's 90mm round is a full 90mm tungsten shell, not a sabot. Just as well, all information we have on projectile velocity suggests that it travels at significantly higher speeds then the Abram's.

Now consider targeting. A Marine's HUD is linked with that of the Scorpion, so the accuracy of players in game can be used as a basis to determine how accurate a real operator would be. Obviously the advantage of having a third person view in game must be ignored, but still.

Add onto that the auto-reload speed, and the Scorpion just strikes me as being a superior tank, and its considered a light tank.

But of course, armor plating for the Scorpion isn't as good as that of the Abrams. Still, all other facets equal or surpass it.

  • 07.31.2011 11:33 AM PDT


Posted by: ExcellentSix
Umm no, that makes no sense at all, it's all about the density of the projectile in question, regardless, the rock would fail to pentrate the take if it isn't dense enough.

And high velocity means nothing if you don't even know the velocity.
The M1 abrahams has a "high velocity" cannon as well.
This can be in the form of a kinetic energy penetrator.


Let's not forget the often used statement about faster then light travel "A microscopic object can tear a hole through the ship."

Mass is part of it, but the velocity is a major part. A rock fired from a MASS DRIVER CANNON (like the one at the end of Reach), would destroy a tank.

  • 07.31.2011 11:48 AM PDT

Posted by:ScubaToaster
Posted by: HipiO7
This man, this man right here put it so eloquently that I actually cancelled my own 2000+ word long post.
/slow clap for respect


:)
The person who said participating is important, not winning, obviously never won anything.

Posted by: Onyx81
Unfortunately, the Grizzlys didn't see action outside of Harvest, Arcadia, or the unknown shield world.


It's a huge shame. I wonder if they were part of a specific, elite, seek and destroy units that were destoyed early in the war...

I guess Scorpions were easier to mass produce, and werent such a significant loss on the battlefield as a couple Grizzlys would have been. Grizzlys would have been the first thing the Covenant would target on the field.

  • 07.31.2011 11:52 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: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: ExcellentSix
Umm no, that makes no sense at all, it's all about the density of the projectile in question, regardless, the rock would fail to pentrate the take if it isn't dense enough.

And high velocity means nothing if you don't even know the velocity.
The M1 abrahams has a "high velocity" cannon as well.
This can be in the form of a kinetic energy penetrator.


Let's not forget the often used statement about faster then light travel "A microscopic object can tear a hole through the ship."

Mass is part of it, but the velocity is a major part. A rock fired from a MASS DRIVER CANNON (like the one at the end of Reach), would destroy a tank.


This

It fires just a 15 cm slug yet it is rated at 1.1 gigajoules.

  • 07.31.2011 11:53 AM PDT


Posted by: hotshot revan II

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: ExcellentSix
Umm no, that makes no sense at all, it's all about the density of the projectile in question, regardless, the rock would fail to pentrate the take if it isn't dense enough.

And high velocity means nothing if you don't even know the velocity.
The M1 abrahams has a "high velocity" cannon as well.
This can be in the form of a kinetic energy penetrator.


Let's not forget the often used statement about faster then light travel "A microscopic object can tear a hole through the ship."

Mass is part of it, but the velocity is a major part. A rock fired from a MASS DRIVER CANNON (like the one at the end of Reach), would destroy a tank.


This

It fires just a 15 cm slug yet it is rated at 1.1 gigajoules.


If you're talking about about the Onager....damn, thats fast enough to shatter a Phantom like glass.

  • 07.31.2011 12:00 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: ROBERTO jh

Posted by: hotshot revan II

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: ExcellentSix
Umm no, that makes no sense at all, it's all about the density of the projectile in question, regardless, the rock would fail to pentrate the take if it isn't dense enough.

And high velocity means nothing if you don't even know the velocity.
The M1 abrahams has a "high velocity" cannon as well.
This can be in the form of a kinetic energy penetrator.


Let's not forget the often used statement about faster then light travel "A microscopic object can tear a hole through the ship."

Mass is part of it, but the velocity is a major part. A rock fired from a MASS DRIVER CANNON (like the one at the end of Reach), would destroy a tank.


This

It fires just a 15 cm slug yet it is rated at 1.1 gigajoules.


If you're talking about about the Onager....damn, thats fast enough to shatter a Phantom like glass.


Then we have the Stanchion sniper rifle from Johnson that pierced many buildings.

  • 07.31.2011 12:08 PM PDT

Weapon of Oppression


Posted by: hotshot revan II

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: ExcellentSix
Umm no, that makes no sense at all, it's all about the density of the projectile in question, regardless, the rock would fail to pentrate the take if it isn't dense enough.

And high velocity means nothing if you don't even know the velocity.
The M1 abrahams has a "high velocity" cannon as well.
This can be in the form of a kinetic energy penetrator.


Let's not forget the often used statement about faster then light travel "A microscopic object can tear a hole through the ship."

Mass is part of it, but the velocity is a major part. A rock fired from a MASS DRIVER CANNON (like the one at the end of Reach), would destroy a tank.


This

It fires just a 15 cm slug yet it is rated at 1.1 gigajoules.


Ok, but those microscopic projectiles, would be found in space, where there would be little to no friction.
A rock fired from a mass driver in atmosphere, would if anything vapporize as soon as it left the barrel.
The rock wouldn't be able to handle the stress, or friction imposed upon it.

  • 07.31.2011 12:14 PM PDT


Posted by: ExcellentSix

Posted by: hotshot revan II

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: ExcellentSix
Umm no, that makes no sense at all, it's all about the density of the projectile in question, regardless, the rock would fail to pentrate the take if it isn't dense enough.

And high velocity means nothing if you don't even know the velocity.
The M1 abrahams has a "high velocity" cannon as well.
This can be in the form of a kinetic energy penetrator.


Let's not forget the often used statement about faster then light travel "A microscopic object can tear a hole through the ship."

Mass is part of it, but the velocity is a major part. A rock fired from a MASS DRIVER CANNON (like the one at the end of Reach), would destroy a tank.


This

It fires just a 15 cm slug yet it is rated at 1.1 gigajoules.


Ok, but those microscopic projectiles, would be found in space, where there would be little to no friction.
A rock fired from a mass driver in atmosphere, would if anything vaporize as soon as it left the barrel.
The rock wouldn't be able to handle the stress, or friction imposed upon it.


Sigh.

The fact remains, that rock upon hitting a tank could break through the tank easily.

  • 07.31.2011 12:17 PM PDT

Weapon of Oppression


Posted by: ROBERTO jh

Posted by: hotshot revan II
Op,you might update your text as a scoprion tank could go faster then that other.

Watch the Tip of the spear cutscene and you know what i'm talking about.

Saying that 120 mm>>>>>>90 mm is flawed,size of the slug isn't the only thing that matters but the SPEED is too. For all we know the 90 mm could do more damage because it might be faster but we don't know,we need more stats.


If memory serves, a sabot round breaks apart upon hitting the air, so 120mm isn't the actual meassurment of the shell itself.

A Scorpion's 90mm round is a full 90mm tungsten shell, not a sabot. Just as well, all information we have on projectile velocity suggests that it travels at significantly higher speeds then the Abram's.

Now consider targeting. A Marine's HUD is linked with that of the Scorpion, so the accuracy of players in game can be used as a basis to determine how accurate a real operator would be. Obviously the advantage of having a third person view in game must be ignored, but still.

Add onto that the auto-reload speed, and the Scorpion just strikes me as being a superior tank, and its considered a light tank.

But of course, armor plating for the Scorpion isn't as good as that of the Abrams. Still, all other facets equal or surpass it.


Wait, wait wait.
Everyone is saying the scorpian would win, but what about the m1 abraham ?
You guys act as though the tank would sit there dumb founded while getting shot at, I'm more than willing to believe that the scorpian tank wouldn't even be able to survive one hit from the M1, add to the fact that the M1 could still fire while on the move and retain its accuracy.
I could just as easily say that the M1 wins, scorpian tanks are unable to with stand the damage imposed upon them by the UNSC's own anti tank firearms, which are of course explosive shaped charges.
The M1 is capable of with standing siimilar shaped explosives from Rpg and the like. And it even takes multiple successive hits from a kinetic energy penetrator to kill an M1.
These rounds are capable of traveling at 975/ meters per second, and are made up of depleted uranium which is comparable to tungsten just cheaper.
Rpgs are capable off traveling at mach 1 and faster, but they're still not enough to destroy the M1.
The M1 can even have just as much accuracy as the scorpian.
The scorpian isn't anymore superior.

  • 07.31.2011 12:24 PM PDT

"The object of war is not die for your counrty but to make the other bastard die for his."

There really isn't that much too this argument...

The Scorpion has a tiny little cover that folds over the driver. The Abrams shell would shred that thin of armor, even given what it is made out of. Depleted Uranium at those speeds would shred titanium no matter what kind've compound that it's been integrated into; (It's a simple matter of weight ratios-cookie if you get it).

Now if that cover were bigger etc; then I would agree that Scorpion would win, if we want to argue that it's just like that for gameplay reasons then debate on, but as it stands currently that little trap door is way too small to block an Abrams shell.

Given the way I outlined it...Abrams wins, but only cause knocking out the driver is easy...

btw, just to correct what was said earlier...Depleted uranium is hardly hardly hardly radioactive; so much so that it is negligible compared to other things; even natural uranium is barely radioactive; you can hold it in your hands and be unaffected by it (as long as the uranium hasn't be used; such as in a reactor)

[Edited on 07.31.2011 12:31 PM PDT]

  • 07.31.2011 12:26 PM PDT

Weapon of Oppression


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: ExcellentSix

Posted by: hotshot revan II

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: ExcellentSix
Umm no, that makes no sense at all, it's all about the density of the projectile in question, regardless, the rock would fail to pentrate the take if it isn't dense enough.

And high velocity means nothing if you don't even know the velocity.
The M1 abrahams has a "high velocity" cannon as well.
This can be in the form of a kinetic energy penetrator.


Let's not forget the often used statement about faster then light travel "A microscopic object can tear a hole through the ship."

Mass is part of it, but the velocity is a major part. A rock fired from a MASS DRIVER CANNON (like the one at the end of Reach), would destroy a tank.


This

It fires just a 15 cm slug yet it is rated at 1.1 gigajoules.


Ok, but those microscopic projectiles, would be found in space, where there would be little to no friction.
A rock fired from a mass driver in atmosphere, would if anything vaporize as soon as it left the barrel.
The rock wouldn't be able to handle the stress, or friction imposed upon it.


Sigh.

The fact remains, that rock upon hitting a tank could break through the tank easily.


Ok fine about that.
But we don't know how the scorpian fires its ordanance.
Doesn't use a coil gun ? I doubt it, if anything it uses a chemical propellant.
And the highest muzzle velocity you could possibly achieve with a chemical propellent is around a 1000 meters per second, which is very generous.

  • 07.31.2011 12:27 PM PDT

Am I supposed to write something funny here?


Posted by: ExcellentSix
Wait, wait wait.
Everyone is saying the scorpian would win, but what about the m1 abraham ?
You guys act as though the tank would sit there dumb founded while getting shot at, I'm more than willing to believe that the scorpian tank wouldn't even be able to survive one hit from the M1, add to the fact that the M1 could still fire while on the move and retain its accuracy.

But would M1 survive one hit from Scorpion? And Scorpion can move while firing it's weapon aswell.

I could just as easily say that the M1 wins, scorpian tanks are unable to with stand the damage imposed upon them by the UNSC's own anti tank firearms, which are of course explosive shaped charges.
The M1 is capable of with standing siimilar shaped explosives from Rpg and the like. And it even takes multiple successive hits from a kinetic energy penetrator to kill an M1.
These rounds are capable of traveling at 975/ meters per second, and are made up of depleted uranium which is comparable to tungsten just cheaper.
Rpgs are capable off traveling at mach 1 and faster, but they're still not enough to destroy the M1.

Gameplay =/= canon. Has SPNKr ever destroyed scorpion in book or a cutscene?
EDIT: It's also a rocket launcher from the future! It's probably more powerful than modern stuff.


The M1 can even have just as much accuracy as the scorpian.
The scorpian isn't anymore superior.


[Edited on 07.31.2011 12:52 PM PDT]

  • 07.31.2011 12:38 PM PDT

Weapon of Oppression


Posted by: Gamer Whale

Posted by: ExcellentSix
Wait, wait wait.
Everyone is saying the scorpian would win, but what about the m1 abraham ?
You guys act as though the tank would sit there dumb founded while getting shot at, I'm more than willing to believe that the scorpian tank wouldn't even be able to survive one hit from the M1, add to the fact that the M1 could still fire while on the move and retain its accuracy.

But would M1 survive one hit from Scorpion? And Scorpion can move while firing it's weapon aswell.

I could just as easily say that the M1 wins, scorpian tanks are unable to with stand the damage imposed upon them by the UNSC's own anti tank firearms, which are of course explosive shaped charges.
The M1 is capable of with standing siimilar shaped explosives from Rpg and the like. And it even takes multiple successive hits from a kinetic energy penetrator to kill an M1.
These rounds are capable of traveling at 975/ meters per second, and are made up of depleted uranium which is comparable to tungsten just cheaper.
Rpgs are capable off traveling at mach 1 and faster, but they're still not enough to destroy the M1.

Gameplay =/= canon. Has SPNKr ever destroyed scorpion in book or a cutscene?
EDIT: It's also a rocket launcher from the future! It's probably more powerful than modern stuff.


The M1 can even have just as much accuracy as the scorpian.
The scorpian isn't anymore superior.


Yeah in ALL these verses matches PROBABLY is a key word.
Just because it's from the future doesn't mean in can be any better. You'd think that they'd improve upon some of the weapons instead of downgrading some of them. Just look at the smg and pistols, the assault rifle which uses the same cartridge as many of our firearms and yet only has a range of 300 meters...weapons in the UNSC aren't so different compared to their modern counterparts, sometime's inferior.
I'd much rather be armed with an AK47 than an MA5C

  • 07.31.2011 1:11 PM PDT

Am I supposed to write something funny here?


Posted by: ExcellentSix

Posted by: Gamer Whale

Posted by: ExcellentSix
Wait, wait wait.
Everyone is saying the scorpian would win, but what about the m1 abraham ?
You guys act as though the tank would sit there dumb founded while getting shot at, I'm more than willing to believe that the scorpian tank wouldn't even be able to survive one hit from the M1, add to the fact that the M1 could still fire while on the move and retain its accuracy.

But would M1 survive one hit from Scorpion? And Scorpion can move while firing it's weapon aswell.

I could just as easily say that the M1 wins, scorpian tanks are unable to with stand the damage imposed upon them by the UNSC's own anti tank firearms, which are of course explosive shaped charges.
The M1 is capable of with standing siimilar shaped explosives from Rpg and the like. And it even takes multiple successive hits from a kinetic energy penetrator to kill an M1.
These rounds are capable of traveling at 975/ meters per second, and are made up of depleted uranium which is comparable to tungsten just cheaper.
Rpgs are capable off traveling at mach 1 and faster, but they're still not enough to destroy the M1.

Gameplay =/= canon. Has SPNKr ever destroyed scorpion in book or a cutscene?
EDIT: It's also a rocket launcher from the future! It's probably more powerful than modern stuff.


The M1 can even have just as much accuracy as the scorpian.
The scorpian isn't anymore superior.


Yeah in ALL these verses matches PROBABLY is a key word.

Yeah, because I'm not 100% certain.

Just because it's from the future doesn't mean in can be any better. You'd think that they'd improve upon some of the weapons instead of downgrading some of them. Just look at the smg and pistols, the assault rifle which uses the same cartridge as many of our firearms and yet only has a range of 300 meters...

If it has the same cartridge, the attributes can't be that different. Maybe the range part means the range the weapon is intended to be used in? Which is about 300 m for modern assault rifles too.
EDIT: This seems to be the case. Contact Harvest states that BR55 is "deadly accurate up to 900 meters" and the range in it's halopedia page is stated to be 950 meters.


weapons in the UNSC aren't so different compared to their modern counterparts, sometime's inferior.
I'd much rather be armed with an AK47 than an MA5C


[Edited on 07.31.2011 1:44 PM PDT]

  • 07.31.2011 1:26 PM PDT