Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: M1A Abrams vs...
  • Subject: M1A Abrams vs...
Subject: M1A Abrams vs...

Weapon of Oppression


Posted by: hotshot revan II

Posted by: JDYeash937 MkII
First off, the Abrams doesn't fire slugs. It fires rounds known as APFSDS. Slug implies full-bore.

Second, the Abrams might win again versus the Grizzly. It's slow, heavy and cumbersome, and going beyond ZOMG TWO GUNZ, a twin-barrel turret actually has no desirable advantages.

The Rhino would obviously lose again to the Abrams. It's an artillery piece, it'd be cut to shreds at Abrams range.

I don't even like the Abrams, I just acknowledge it's a far better tank than the Scorpion, Grizzly or Rhino (which isn't even a tank anyway).


You got's any evidence to back up your claim?(grizzly speed)

It has already been proven that the scorpion is faster then an Abrams.

A Rhino is an artillery piece which means it will engage an Abrams at long range.


How has it been proven ?
You guys can't simply use a cutscene as canon statistics, how are you guys so sure that it actually travel at 40 mph, and do you guys even know if it can even fire while travelling at those speeds ?

And about the artillery piece, there is absolutly in information regarding the accuracy of the rhino, how does any one even know that it can hit a vehiclt travelling at 33 mph at a distance.
Just because it's an artillery piece doesn't mean anyone can automatically assume it will be engaging at a far away distance, if that's the case, then each vehicle should start off at an equal distance.
The scorpion tank has a more noticable rofile than the M1 abrams tank, as well as leving it's crew less vulnurable than that flimsy cockpit of the scorpion tank.
Titanium ceramic isn't super dense, one shot to that main canon, of the scorion tank and it's disabled.

  • 08.01.2011 7:47 AM PDT


Posted by: JDYeash937 MkII
Whilst the majority of western tanks are not autoloaded, the PzH2000 is. That rate of 20rpm is cyclic for a 3-round "burst". 15rpm from the Scorpion is actually on par with manually-loaded 120mm guns on the Abrams and other platforms for brief periods, and a match for the autoloaded 125mm gun of the Russian T-90.

Unless the 90mm Scorpion has an insane and inexplicably high muzzle energy, it should be capable of a much higher rate of fire by modern capabilities of the autoloader itself and barrel cooling.

The artillery in this table are based upon records of artillery expenditure for:Notes:
The table lists HE-F shell expenditures. Fragmentation-submunition shell expenditures are listed in brackets, while a dash notes that firing to hit is not useful.
Shell expenditures assume:
- Firing up to and including ten kilometers, targeting assumes full preparation or using a sight-in gun's data, whereas for rocket artillery full or partial preparation is assumed.
- For firing over ten kilometers, the expenditure is increased by one tenth for every kilometer beyond the first ten kilometers.
When firing data is adjusted by sight-in shooting, fire adjusting using aimpoints or when ammunition effects can be verified, expenditures are reduced by 25%. When the partial preparation method is used, the ammunition expenditure grows 150%.
When an unarmored target is entrenched, the shell expenditure is increased by a factor of three. When a battery/platoon of towed guns/mortars is deployed openly, the shell expenditure is decreased by a factor of three.
When the target is an armored RADAR station, a single armored target or an APC-carried CP, the shell expenditure triples.
and aiming of the example against entrenched armour is well within visual range and would be done by the SPH itself.


PzH still requires some manual operation

  • 08.01.2011 8:14 AM PDT

If a cutscene can't be used, then neither can ingame.

(Talking about the "A single sniper round can pierce it!")

I mean, let's look at the halo 2 tank. I had a bank of 3-5 people unloading ALL 12 rounds from the sniper rifle into the hatch with no damage. That's if we use ingame which is pretty much the ONLY information source we have.

  • 08.01.2011 9:02 AM PDT

it were a war the Abraham would beat the grizzly considering it was a prototype and only a few were made

  • 08.01.2011 9:48 AM PDT


Posted by: monkDAN
it were a war the Abraham would beat the grizzly considering it was a prototype and only a few were made


Um... what?

The grizzly was not a prototype, it was a upgrade scorpion designed by Forge and built on the SoF, thus there is only 2-3ish in existence, all on board.

Secondly, prototype does not = weak. That's what you are sounding like.

  • 08.01.2011 9:56 AM PDT

On hiding dead bodies:
Posted by: Psuedo
Posted by: teh Chaz
Inside another dead body. It's the last place they'll look
A corpse within a corpse.
CORPSEPTION.
Win.

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
If a cutscene can't be used, then neither can ingame.

(Talking about the "A single sniper round can pierce it!")

I mean, let's look at the halo 2 tank. I had a bank of 3-5 people unloading ALL 12 rounds from the sniper rifle into the hatch with no damage. That's if we use ingame which is pretty much the ONLY information source we have.
Regardless, you can tell even by looking at the hatch that it's far thinner than the hatches on current-gen MBTs. Plus, it's not recessed, it's atop the hull, and rather large. A bullseye if I ever saw one.

  • 08.01.2011 10:17 AM PDT

Weapon of Oppression


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
If a cutscene can't be used, then neither can ingame.

(Talking about the "A single sniper round can pierce it!")

I mean, let's look at the halo 2 tank. I had a bank of 3-5 people unloading ALL 12 rounds from the sniper rifle into the hatch with no damage. That's if we use ingame which is pretty much the ONLY information source we have.


What ???
That thing you call a hatch is like 6-7 inches thick.
An accuratly placed 50 caliber round would be more than enough to incapitate the pilot.
The 50 caliber machine gun on the m1 is more than able to shred that cockpit up.
Let alone a high explosive shell, aimed at that overexposed cockpit and turret.
I'm pretty sure a single 50 cal accuratly placed round could ierce

  • 08.01.2011 11:37 AM PDT

Overexposed cockpit? Not really... and can 50 cal punch through titanium?

I'd agree with the overexposed cockpit if the driver's body was exposed, however this is far from true, the driver's entire body is surrounded by the tank.

  • 08.01.2011 11:53 AM PDT

I am alpha, i am omega.

I am the last of the primes.


Posted by: ExcellentSix

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
If a cutscene can't be used, then neither can ingame.

(Talking about the "A single sniper round can pierce it!")

I mean, let's look at the halo 2 tank. I had a bank of 3-5 people unloading ALL 12 rounds from the sniper rifle into the hatch with no damage. That's if we use ingame which is pretty much the ONLY information source we have.


What ???
That thing you call a hatch is like 6-7 inches thick.
An accuratly placed 50 caliber round would be more than enough to incapitate the pilot.
The 50 caliber machine gun on the m1 is more than able to shred that cockpit up.
Let alone a high explosive shell, aimed at that overexposed cockpit and turret.
I'm pretty sure a single 50 cal accuratly placed round could ierce

Dude calm down, you look like your life depands on proving something...

  • 08.01.2011 12:09 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Veteran Legendary Member

Don't be stupid like I was! Check to see what that Forum Ninja is saying to you!

"I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to the death to say it!"

"Tolerance is a virtue, and virtue builds character."
-Onyx81


Posted by: ferrrari

Posted by: ExcellentSix

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
If a cutscene can't be used, then neither can ingame.

(Talking about the "A single sniper round can pierce it!")

I mean, let's look at the halo 2 tank. I had a bank of 3-5 people unloading ALL 12 rounds from the sniper rifle into the hatch with no damage. That's if we use ingame which is pretty much the ONLY information source we have.


What ???
That thing you call a hatch is like 6-7 inches thick.
An accuratly placed 50 caliber round would be more than enough to incapitate the pilot.
The 50 caliber machine gun on the m1 is more than able to shred that cockpit up.
Let alone a high explosive shell, aimed at that overexposed cockpit and turret.
I'm pretty sure a single 50 cal accuratly placed round could ierce

Dude calm down, you look like your life depands on proving something...

It's called dedication. it's a good quality to have.

  • 08.01.2011 12:36 PM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"

It really comes down to maneuverability and profile. The scorpions cockpit is no match for an Abrams shell and its to fast for a scorpion so far.

  • 08.01.2011 12:54 PM PDT


Posted by: ExcellentSix

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
If a cutscene can't be used, then neither can ingame.

(Talking about the "A single sniper round can pierce it!")

I mean, let's look at the halo 2 tank. I had a bank of 3-5 people unloading ALL 12 rounds from the sniper rifle into the hatch with no damage. That's if we use ingame which is pretty much the ONLY information source we have.


What ???
That thing you call a hatch is like 6-7 inches thick.
An accuratly placed 50 caliber round would be more than enough to incapitate the pilot.
The 50 caliber machine gun on the m1 is more than able to shred that cockpit up.
Let alone a high explosive shell, aimed at that overexposed cockpit and turret.
I'm pretty sure a single 50 cal accuratly placed round could ierce


The only way I can see someone getting harmed inside the cockpit is if it takes a direct hit from a 120mm sabot round that the M1 fires, other than that, they're basically fine. The hatch isn't really that big a deal, it would be impossible for it to take a direct hit, because it isn't facing forward where a tank round could go right through it, the cockpit is protected by the highly angled armor in the front where the armor is thickest, and the tank is best protected.

And you say 6-7 inches thick? That's pretty thick for a door. And you're crazy if you think a .50 BMG round can penetrate over half a foot of titanium ceramic armor that's engineered half a millenium in the future. 30mm depleted uranium round? Sure, but a .50, theres no way. A .50 BMG can penetrate 1-2 inches of RHA steel at best, and that's with API (armor-piercing incendiary) rounds.

[Edited on 08.01.2011 1:47 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2011 1:44 PM PDT

I am alpha, i am omega.

I am the last of the primes.


Posted by: MisterBraz

Posted by: ExcellentSix

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
If a cutscene can't be used, then neither can ingame.

(Talking about the "A single sniper round can pierce it!")

I mean, let's look at the halo 2 tank. I had a bank of 3-5 people unloading ALL 12 rounds from the sniper rifle into the hatch with no damage. That's if we use ingame which is pretty much the ONLY information source we have.


What ???
That thing you call a hatch is like 6-7 inches thick.
An accuratly placed 50 caliber round would be more than enough to incapitate the pilot.
The 50 caliber machine gun on the m1 is more than able to shred that cockpit up.
Let alone a high explosive shell, aimed at that overexposed cockpit and turret.
I'm pretty sure a single 50 cal accuratly placed round could ierce


The only way I can see someone getting harmed inside the cockpit is if it takes a direct hit from a 120mm sabot round that the M1 fires, other than that, they're basically fine. The hatch isn't really that big a deal, it would be impossible for it to take a direct hit, because it isn't facing forward where a tank round could go right through it, the cockpit is protected by the highly angled armor in the front where the armor is thickest, and the tank is best protected.

And you say 6-7 inches thick? That's pretty thick for a door. And you're crazy if you think a .50 BMG round can penetrate over half a foot of titanium ceramic armor that's engineered half a millenium in the future. 30mm depleted uranium round? Sure, but a .50, theres no way. A .50 BMG can penetrate 1-2 inches of RHA steel at best, and that's with API (armor-piercing incendiary) rounds.

Well said...

  • 08.01.2011 1:54 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX

Why do people keep thinking that somehow tank armor got worse in 500 years of warfare, it's not like the UNSC forgot the Abrams existed or something.

If anything, the biggest problem is the graphic design team at Bungie, in Halo 1 the tank was much more practical, without the stupid cab/hatch and the idiotic gunner hole in the body. Notice what might be ER pannels on the frontal plate and turret base.

Halo 1 Scorpion

Any way, not enough information really exists about the Scorpion to really have an objective comparison.

[Edited on 08.01.2011 1:58 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2011 1:57 PM PDT

I am a monument to all your sins

the scorpeon's gun is probably more high tech than the abrams and can do more damage inspite of its smaller size. the scorpion's armor is built to withstand high tech future weapons including multiple wraith shots capable of melting titanium. It may not have reactive armor, but it could cetainly hold its own against an abrams

  • 08.01.2011 1:59 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX


Think About This:

An Abrams wieghs almost the same amountas a Scorpion. The Scorpion's body is the same size as the entire Abrams. The Scorpion has it's gun and amunition in a large turret above the main chassis. The Scorpion has a crew of 2 vs the Abrams 4.


But the main body's of the tanks are the same size.


In modern ballistic vests they use Kevlar and ceramic inserts. You know why? Because ceramics are much lighter than solid metal plates.


What was the Scorpions armor again?


Ceramic-Titanium Armor.





I'll let you figure out what this means.

  • 08.01.2011 2:34 PM PDT

Weapon of Oppression


Posted by: ferrrari

Posted by: ExcellentSix

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
If a cutscene can't be used, then neither can ingame.

(Talking about the "A single sniper round can pierce it!")

I mean, let's look at the halo 2 tank. I had a bank of 3-5 people unloading ALL 12 rounds from the sniper rifle into the hatch with no damage. That's if we use ingame which is pretty much the ONLY information source we have.


What ???
That thing you call a hatch is like 6-7 inches thick.
An accuratly placed 50 caliber round would be more than enough to incapitate the pilot.
The 50 caliber machine gun on the m1 is more than able to shred that cockpit up.
Let alone a high explosive shell, aimed at that overexposed cockpit and turret.
I'm pretty sure a single 50 cal accuratly placed round could ierce

Dude calm down, you look like your life depands on proving something...



Well, hey I'm just trying my best over here, it's not like the majority of Bungie.net would back me up. I'm willing to bet that most of them...if they were partaking in the current discussion, would presumably be voting for the scorpion tank, I don't exactly have numbers on my side here.

  • 08.01.2011 3:55 PM PDT

Weapon of Oppression


Posted by: Makko Mace

Think About This:

An Abrams wieghs almost the same amountas a Scorpion. The Scorpion's body is the same size as the entire Abrams. The Scorpion has it's gun and amunition in a large turret above the main chassis. The Scorpion has a crew of 2 vs the Abrams 4.


But the main body's of the tanks are the same size.


In modern ballistic vests they use Kevlar and ceramic inserts. You know why? Because ceramics are much lighter than solid metal plates.


What was the Scorpions armor again?


Ceramic-Titanium Armor.





I'll let you figure out what this means.


But hey,I was just struck with a strain of ingenuity. If all that ammunition and explosives are stored in that over sized turret, wouldn't that make the turret a great hazard for the tank if it were to be struck by an explosive shell travelling at 2 181.01288 miles per hour ? (converted from 975 meters per second)

  • 08.01.2011 3:59 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX


Posted by: ExcellentSix

Posted by: Makko Mace

Think About This:

An Abrams wieghs almost the same amountas a Scorpion. The Scorpion's body is the same size as the entire Abrams. The Scorpion has it's gun and amunition in a large turret above the main chassis. The Scorpion has a crew of 2 vs the Abrams 4.


But the main body's of the tanks are the same size.


In modern ballistic vests they use Kevlar and ceramic inserts. You know why? Because ceramics are much lighter than solid metal plates.


What was the Scorpions armor again?


Ceramic-Titanium Armor.





I'll let you figure out what this means.


But hey,I was just struck with a strain of ingenuity. If all that ammunition and explosives are stored in that over sized turret, wouldn't that make the turret a great hazard for the tank if it were to be struck by an explosive shell travelling at 2 181.01288 miles per hour ? (converted from 975 meters per second)



Yes.... but, you do realize that "all that ammunition and explosives" are stored right next to the Abrams crew in their much more ammo storage/ crew seating and not armor plated chassis.

If the gun is hit, because it is so far from the Scorpion's body it's likely that the tank body and crew would survive saving lives and making it a more simple repair rather than straight to the scrap heap, whereas the Abrams on the other hand...

  • 08.01.2011 5:42 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias

What? Wasn't it was over that Abrams beats Scorpions easily? Oh come on, several guys already explained that! read their posts again! And I have no choice but bring my post up again.


Scorpion is useless against Wraith anyway. their Titanium-A armor is useless against plasma. It has been proven countlessly that titanium-A aren't designed to withstand 5,000c direct plasma hit! And plasma mortar obliterating in 20 meters, Look this word of obliterating. It means destroying EVERYTHING in 20 meters. And, 90 mm high velocity is useless against wraith as well, it takes two to three shots to take it down.

I am sorry but Abrams wins on this. Because 90mm high velocity is useless to Abrams because Abram's armor is made of depleted uranium, Rh armor and Chobham armor, which it is designed to stop any kinetic energy penetration warhead, HEAT rounds, RPGS and high heat warhead as well. I would suggest you to research about Abrams and Scorpions before you post.

Also, there is massive flaws in design of Scorpions, I'm afraid. Their large profile makes this Scorpions a big target and easy to hit. Also, they have vulnerable cockpit and exposed turret.

Also Abrams does have 120mm high velocity smooth-bore cannon, with rounds of kinetic penetration warhead with depleted uranium dipped in arrow shaped that can penetrate armor like tungsten.

Therefore, Abrams wins.

Halo Nation is not acceptable source because it is full of errors, no canon sources to back it up and grammar errors is there too. So it discredits the site greatly. In future, please do not use that site ever again. This time, go look for hard source (novels and encyclopedia) that states that scorpion using that round.

  • 08.01.2011 5:56 PM PDT

Weapon of Oppression


Posted by: Makko Mace

Posted by: ExcellentSix

Posted by: Makko Mace

Think About This:

An Abrams wieghs almost the same amountas a Scorpion. The Scorpion's body is the same size as the entire Abrams. The Scorpion has it's gun and amunition in a large turret above the main chassis. The Scorpion has a crew of 2 vs the Abrams 4.


But the main body's of the tanks are the same size.


In modern ballistic vests they use Kevlar and ceramic inserts. You know why? Because ceramics are much lighter than solid metal plates.


What was the Scorpions armor again?


Ceramic-Titanium Armor.





I'll let you figure out what this means.


But hey,I was just struck with a strain of ingenuity. If all that ammunition and explosives are stored in that over sized turret, wouldn't that make the turret a great hazard for the tank if it were to be struck by an explosive shell travelling at 2 181.01288 miles per hour ? (converted from 975 meters per second)



Yes.... but, you do realize that "all that ammunition and explosives" are stored right next to the Abrams crew in their much more ammo storage/ crew seating and not armor plated chassis.

If the gun is hit, because it is so far from the Scorpion's body it's likely that the tank body and crew would survive saving lives and making it a more simple repair rather than straight to the scrap heap, whereas the Abrams on the other hand...


Simle repair ???
What have you been smoking ?
All that ammunition and explosive will send the scorpions main cannon sky high, that one man crew couldn't possibly survive or even think about reparing the damage.
Lus without a working cannon, you're a sitting duck.
And the m1 abrahams chassis is armored, unlike the UNSC, the manufacturers of the m1 did take into consideration the safety aspects for the numerous crew members.

  • 08.01.2011 6:06 PM PDT

Weapon of Oppression

Besides, even if the turret of the m1 is shot at, it's not like the ammunition is stored there, as you said.
But the scorpions crew doesn't know where the ammunition is stored.

  • 08.01.2011 6:09 PM PDT

In the fell clutch of circumstance, I have not winced nor cried aloud. Under the bludgeonings of chance, my head is bloody but unbowed. - From Invictus

The Abrams will run circles around the stationary rhino and blow it to bits.

  • 08.01.2011 6:11 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX


Posted by: ExcellentSix
Besides, even if the turret of the m1 is shot at, it's not like the ammunition is stored there, as you said.
But the scorpions crew doesn't know where the ammunition is stored.


I said body. Also your logic is "The Abrams has armor"

What I said was that the Scorpion has more room for it's lighter armor because the gun is mounted away from the body and it has a crew of one or two people depending on variant.

You have done nothing to dissprove what I said, even if ammo was stored in the main body of a Scorpion the smaller rounds and two less crew would still mean plenty of room for it's lighter armor.

  • 08.01.2011 6:26 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX


Posted by: raganok99
What? Wasn't it was over that Abrams beats Scorpions easily? Oh come on, several guys already explained that! read their posts again! And I have no choice but bring my post up again.


Scorpion is useless against Wraith anyway. their Titanium-A armor is useless against plasma. It has been proven countlessly that titanium-A aren't designed to withstand 5,000c direct plasma hit! And plasma mortar obliterating in 20 meters, Look this word of obliterating. It means destroying EVERYTHING in 20 meters. And, 90 mm high velocity is useless against wraith as well, it takes two to three shots to take it down.


So you reason, because the Scorpion cannot kill a wraith with 1 shot or survive a " 5,000c direct plasma hit" "obliterating in 20 meters" It is worse than an Abrams.

I am sorry but Abrams wins on this. Because 90mm high velocity is useless to Abrams because Abram's armor is made of depleted uranium, Rh armor and Chobham armor, which it is designed to stop any kinetic energy penetration warhead, HEAT rounds, RPGS and high heat warhead as well. I would suggest you to research about Abrams and Scorpions before you post.

Because the Abrams has X armor the Scorpion is worse.

Also, there is massive flaws in design of Scorpions, I'm afraid. Their large profile makes this Scorpions a big target and easy to hit. Also, they have vulnerable cockpit and exposed turret.

Turret design is made for shooting over or around things, but yes, it's profile is bigger. The cockipit varies from model to model, take a look at the variant from Halo 1.

Also Abrams does have 120mm high velocity smooth-bore cannon, with rounds of kinetic penetration warhead with depleted uranium dipped in arrow shaped that can penetrate armor like tungsten.

The gun on the Abrams can penetrate an undisclosed thickness of a metal not used in the armor of the Scorpion, therefore it is superior.

Therefore, Abrams wins.

Halo Nation is not acceptable source because it is full of errors, no canon sources to back it up and grammar errors is there too. So it discredits the site greatly. In future, please do not use that site ever again. This time, go look for hard source (novels and encyclopedia) that states that scorpion using that round.

You do realize that a lack of information about the Scorpion does not make it inferior?




You have made one valid point. "The Scorpion has a big profile."


I'm not super pro scorpion or any thing, I just can't help but notice these arguments hold no water what so ever. Do to Bungie not knowing much about warfare, I could see the Scorpion being dismally inferior, but as of yet no one has prove this with valid arguments and facts.

[Edited on 08.01.2011 6:40 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2011 6:39 PM PDT