Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Halo Marine Corps vs Modern Warfare Trilogy
  • Subject: Halo Marine Corps vs Modern Warfare Trilogy
Subject: Halo Marine Corps vs Modern Warfare Trilogy


Posted by: GeneralRafa

Posted by: mojeda101

Posted by: GeneralRafa
Anyone who votes for Halo/UNSC Marines in this thread is an idiot. The only thing that the UNSC has that could rival MW technology is space.

A lot of the UNSC arsenal compared to modern day technology is actually worse:

-You can only hip fire the Assault Rifle.
-The DMR is equivalent to hundreds of present day rifles.
-The Sniper Rifle is comparable to the Barrett .50 Cal.
-The Grenade Launcher is weaker and only single shot compared to semi-automatic grenade launchers and the M203.
-Rocket Launchers have horrible lock-on capabilities compared against the Stinger and other launchers.
-The Shotgun has less than half the range of present-day shotguns.

Don't even get me started on the vehicles:

-The Humvee is definitely better armored than the Warthog.
-Apaches could take out Falcons/Hornets with ease.
-The Scorpion is too weak and poorly designed to take on modern tanks like the Abrahms or T-90.

The only thing from Halo that's pretty much equal to current-day vehicles is the Mongoose.
Cocerning the weapons, they have plenty of advantages, the AR is not hip fire exclusive, it can have a scope, books confirm this. Add to the fact it's faster, with Armor Piercing FMJ rounds. I love how you compare game weapons that are meant to be weak to what they really are in the books. Oh, and the Sniper fires a .57, not a .50 like the useless Barrett.

It wouldn't matter, the armor alone would be the key to war. What good is the firepower if the modern rifles if they wouldn't do ANYTHING to the ODST's or Marines armor. The Army's armor is even superior than the Military of the modern army, hell even the Police force of New Mombasa is better! It is confirmed that ODST armor could deflect .50 cal rounds, the only way you're taking down an army of over a billion is using vehicles which the UNSC are still superior.

Apaches would be gutted by Hawks. Abrams would be vaporized by Grizzly's, Rhino's and Cobra's. Even Pelicans would take down AC-130's with the missile systems and 70mm auto turret.

Learn your facts before you assume things.

What I don't understand is how you critisize me for comparing the Halo games to the MW Trilogy as mentioned in the title. The MW Trilogy is made up of games, and is not as accurate to actual real world technology. We are comparing two different types of games, nothing more nothing less. By using book canon, I might as well use more examples from real life then.

One mistake I made coming here is that I forgot that most of the people in this specific forum believe that book canon is superior to the game canon. While that's something completely different to debate about, it makes a huge difference.

"Gameplay =/= book canon"

Yes, but game canon trumps it.
In terms of story you moron. Explain the differences in weapon damage when damage is multiplied due to difficulty and skulls. There is no confirmed canonical difficulty. Master Chief's shields are supposed to be stronger than the Elite's personal shielding by far, yet it never is unless on Easy. Now lets look at the marines, even on legendary they survive dozens of plasma rounds, yet they can go down in about 2. Game story is canon, not the mechanics you idiot.

  • 10.15.2011 10:09 PM PDT


Posted by: mojeda101

Posted by: GeneralRafa

Posted by: mojeda101

Posted by: GeneralRafa
Anyone who votes for Halo/UNSC Marines in this thread is an idiot. The only thing that the UNSC has that could rival MW technology is space.

A lot of the UNSC arsenal compared to modern day technology is actually worse:

-You can only hip fire the Assault Rifle.
-The DMR is equivalent to hundreds of present day rifles.
-The Sniper Rifle is comparable to the Barrett .50 Cal.
-The Grenade Launcher is weaker and only single shot compared to semi-automatic grenade launchers and the M203.
-Rocket Launchers have horrible lock-on capabilities compared against the Stinger and other launchers.
-The Shotgun has less than half the range of present-day shotguns.

Don't even get me started on the vehicles:

-The Humvee is definitely better armored than the Warthog.
-Apaches could take out Falcons/Hornets with ease.
-The Scorpion is too weak and poorly designed to take on modern tanks like the Abrahms or T-90.

The only thing from Halo that's pretty much equal to current-day vehicles is the Mongoose.
Cocerning the weapons, they have plenty of advantages, the AR is not hip fire exclusive, it can have a scope, books confirm this. Add to the fact it's faster, with Armor Piercing FMJ rounds. I love how you compare game weapons that are meant to be weak to what they really are in the books. Oh, and the Sniper fires a .57, not a .50 like the useless Barrett.

It wouldn't matter, the armor alone would be the key to war. What good is the firepower if the modern rifles if they wouldn't do ANYTHING to the ODST's or Marines armor. The Army's armor is even superior than the Military of the modern army, hell even the Police force of New Mombasa is better! It is confirmed that ODST armor could deflect .50 cal rounds, the only way you're taking down an army of over a billion is using vehicles which the UNSC are still superior.

Apaches would be gutted by Hawks. Abrams would be vaporized by Grizzly's, Rhino's and Cobra's. Even Pelicans would take down AC-130's with the missile systems and 70mm auto turret.

Learn your facts before you assume things.

What I don't understand is how you critisize me for comparing the Halo games to the MW Trilogy as mentioned in the title. The MW Trilogy is made up of games, and is not as accurate to actual real world technology. We are comparing two different types of games, nothing more nothing less. By using book canon, I might as well use more examples from real life then.

One mistake I made coming here is that I forgot that most of the people in this specific forum believe that book canon is superior to the game canon. While that's something completely different to debate about, it makes a huge difference.

"Gameplay =/= book canon"

Yes, but game canon trumps it.
In terms of story you moron. Explain the differences in weapon damage when damage is multiplied due to difficulty and skulls. There is no confirmed canonical difficulty. Master Chief's shields are supposed to be stronger than the Elite's personal shielding by far, yet it never is unless on Easy. Now lets look at the marines, even on legendary they survive dozens of plasma rounds, yet they can go down in about 2. Game story is canon, not the mechanics you idiot.

Then why bring up the examples from Halo Wars? Just like the rest of the Halo games, Halo Wars had its own set of various difficulties and skulls which changed the effectiveness of the vehicles you mentioned previously. They don't have an agreed upon strength in canon, yet you are using them as an example against the real world vehicles I mentioned. What about them is so much better, and how could you prove it?

Game developers don't know everything, and neither do they need to include every aspect of modern warfare into a game. Better yet, unlike real world technology, game developers don't have to prove why a faction's technology is better. For example, how can an ODST's armor stop a .50 cal bullet aside that it was just mentioned in the books? What is the composition and knowledge of ballistics behind the ODST's armor that could justify its capabilities? You assume that their word alone is enough, when it might not even be possible in reality. I might be taking this too literally though.

The problem is that if you bring aspects of modern warfare from real life that aren't seen in Halo, you couldn't really argue against it or find a counter. If I brought something like ECM capabilities to the table justifying present day military technology in electronic warfare, nothing you could ever get from your book canon, Halopedia, or game canon would be able to explain a viable counter because the developers just never came up with a UNSC version. Instead, you would just have to assume that Halo had it better because of "technological superiority". But then again, you critisized me for assuming things anyway.

[Edited on 10.15.2011 11:15 PM PDT]

  • 10.15.2011 11:14 PM PDT


Posted by: GeneralRafa

Posted by: mojeda101

Posted by: GeneralRafa

Posted by: mojeda101

Posted by: GeneralRafa
Anyone who votes for Halo/UNSC Marines in this thread is an idiot. The only thing that the UNSC has that could rival MW technology is space.

A lot of the UNSC arsenal compared to modern day technology is actually worse:

-You can only hip fire the Assault Rifle.
-The DMR is equivalent to hundreds of present day rifles.
-The Sniper Rifle is comparable to the Barrett .50 Cal.
-The Grenade Launcher is weaker and only single shot compared to semi-automatic grenade launchers and the M203.
-Rocket Launchers have horrible lock-on capabilities compared against the Stinger and other launchers.
-The Shotgun has less than half the range of present-day shotguns.

Don't even get me started on the vehicles:

-The Humvee is definitely better armored than the Warthog.
-Apaches could take out Falcons/Hornets with ease.
-The Scorpion is too weak and poorly designed to take on modern tanks like the Abrahms or T-90.

The only thing from Halo that's pretty much equal to current-day vehicles is the Mongoose.
Cocerning the weapons, they have plenty of advantages, the AR is not hip fire exclusive, it can have a scope, books confirm this. Add to the fact it's faster, with Armor Piercing FMJ rounds. I love how you compare game weapons that are meant to be weak to what they really are in the books. Oh, and the Sniper fires a .57, not a .50 like the useless Barrett.

It wouldn't matter, the armor alone would be the key to war. What good is the firepower if the modern rifles if they wouldn't do ANYTHING to the ODST's or Marines armor. The Army's armor is even superior than the Military of the modern army, hell even the Police force of New Mombasa is better! It is confirmed that ODST armor could deflect .50 cal rounds, the only way you're taking down an army of over a billion is using vehicles which the UNSC are still superior.

Apaches would be gutted by Hawks. Abrams would be vaporized by Grizzly's, Rhino's and Cobra's. Even Pelicans would take down AC-130's with the missile systems and 70mm auto turret.

Learn your facts before you assume things.

What I don't understand is how you critisize me for comparing the Halo games to the MW Trilogy as mentioned in the title. The MW Trilogy is made up of games, and is not as accurate to actual real world technology. We are comparing two different types of games, nothing more nothing less. By using book canon, I might as well use more examples from real life then.

One mistake I made coming here is that I forgot that most of the people in this specific forum believe that book canon is superior to the game canon. While that's something completely different to debate about, it makes a huge difference.

"Gameplay =/= book canon"

Yes, but game canon trumps it.
In terms of story you moron. Explain the differences in weapon damage when damage is multiplied due to difficulty and skulls. There is no confirmed canonical difficulty. Master Chief's shields are supposed to be stronger than the Elite's personal shielding by far, yet it never is unless on Easy. Now lets look at the marines, even on legendary they survive dozens of plasma rounds, yet they can go down in about 2. Game story is canon, not the mechanics you idiot.

Then why bring up the examples from Halo Wars? Just like the rest of the Halo games, Halo Wars had its own set of various difficulties and skulls which changed the effectiveness of the vehicles you mentioned previously. They don't have an agreed upon strength in canon, yet you are using them as an example against the real world vehicles I mentioned. What about them is so much better, and how could you prove it?

Game developers don't know everything, and neither do they need to include every aspect of modern warfare into a game. Better yet, unlike real world technology, game developers don't have to prove why a faction's technology is better. For example, how can an ODST's armor stop a .50 cal bullet aside that it was just mentioned in the books? What is the composition and knowledge of ballistics behind the ODST's armor that could justify its capabilities? You assume that their word alone is enough, when it might not even be possible in reality. I might be taking this too literally though.

The problem is that if you bring aspects of modern warfare from real life that aren't seen in Halo, you couldn't really argue against it or find a counter. If I brought something like ECM capabilities to the table justifying present day military technology in electronic warfare, nothing you could ever get from your book canon, Halopedia, or game canon would be able to explain a viable counter because the developers just never came up with a UNSC version. Instead, you would just have to assume that Halo had it better because of "technological superiority". But then again, you critisized me for assuming things anyway.
Becuase the vehicles in Halo Wars have statistics that back their firepower. A Grizzly fires TWO 120mm TUNGSTEN Armor Piercing Ballistic Capped Rounds. A Cobra fires a 320mm. I could tell you their armor, fire speed, etc...

Well coming from someone who thinks game mechanics is more canon than the books, shoot a Marine with a sniper, he lives. Must I say more?

Well it's not my fault that Halo is limited. Games will be coming out soon, as well as more books, it will definitely get into more weapons. Just be patient.

  • 10.16.2011 12:32 AM PDT

In memory of those fallen in the defense of Earth and her colonies.

March 3, 2553

Halo would -blam!- hands down. Better tech. AI. Vehicles. Aircraft.
It would be a massacre.

  • 10.16.2011 2:36 AM PDT
  • 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: jross1993
Umm, Halo Marines would win.

They have more advanced tech + an extra 500+ years of training and experience at their hands.


More advance... wtf...

The UNSC's infantry weapons/vehicles, compared to modern day weapons, SUCK. Don't get me started on the inadequacy of the Warthog and the Scorpion tank... the Hornet makes me laugh, having your main aircraft be a flipping Little Bird analog is a BAD IDEA.

  • 10.16.2011 10:27 PM PDT

Elight

Did you even read the books?

  • 10.16.2011 10:43 PM PDT

People should incorporate the phrase "Suck It" into everyday life. That shows people you're speaking to that you are a real go getter.

Why wouldn't the Halo marines win? They have an entire galaxies marine force behind them.

  • 10.16.2011 11:14 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Member

Lord Admiral Shadow of the Special Warfare division 9

Halo wins.

Reason?

Superior weapons technology. How?

The Gauss turret, the Spartan Laser, the MAC, the 120mm and 320mm brought up by Mojeda, and lastly everyone's favorite, the M99 Stanchion Gauss rifle.

Superior aircraft. How?

The Hornet is vulnerable yes, but carries a combined firepower to match up with even the AH-64D Apache Longbow. And the famous Vulture can easily dominate over the Chinook and the UH-60 and MH-60 Blackhawks.

The Longsword bomber has much more protection than any modern fighter, as well as firepower. While the Saber is just superior in every way.

As well, the UNSC ships such as Marathon class-cruisers and Leviathan class-super carriers.

Individual armor. How?

Armor worn by ODST's is made up overall of Kevlar, titanium-A and ceramic alloys. Thick black kevlar undersuit with the rest of the armor being made up of titanium-A and ceramic alloys, giving ODST ballistic armor near inpenetrable properties when going against modern age weaponry.

[Edited on 10.17.2011 11:06 AM PDT]

  • 10.17.2011 10:52 AM PDT

Please god make it stop!

These VS threads are the new BR>AR trolling.

  • 10.17.2011 11:23 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: Fatal Factor
Please god make it stop!

These VS threads are the new BR>AR trolling.


This thread is stupid, and anyone who defends modern day over Halo, is an idiot.

It's like you're defending an army of caveman with sticks and rocks against the Roman Legionnaires. There is nothing to discuss because common sense and logic should tell you there is no comparison between the two.

  • 10.17.2011 11:28 AM PDT

_____________ (__||____||__)______
|-------------.===.-.~,~~:_____:______|================[_]=
|_______/___/_/``` |___|


Posted by: spud
Halo wins.

Reason?

Superior weapons technology. How?

The Gauss turret, the Spartan Laser, the MAC, the 120mm and 320mm brought up by Mojeda, and lastly everyone's favorite, the M99 Stanchion Gauss rifle.

Superior aircraft. How?

The Hornet is vulnerable yes, but carries a combined firepower to match up with even the AH-64D Apache Longbow. And the famous Vulture can easily dominate over the Chinook and the UH-60 and MH-60 Blackhawks.

The Longsword bomber has much more protection than any modern fighter, as well as firepower. While the Saber is just superior in every way.

As well, the UNSC ships such as Marathon class-cruisers and Leviathan class-super carriers.

Individual armor. How?

Armor worn by ODST's is made up overall of Kevlar, titanium-A and ceramic alloys. Thick black kevlar undersuit with the rest of the armor being made up of titanium-A and ceramic alloys, giving ODST ballistic armor near inpenetrable properties when going against modern age weaponry.


Let us not forget the dear old NOVA bomb... Or even a SHIVA nuke...
Or MAC cannons... Archer Missile Pods...
Modern day military would have problems with one frigate, never mind larger ships/defense stations *cough* Orbital defense stations *cough*
And my personal favourite, slipspace technology.

  • 10.17.2011 1:04 PM PDT

GTFO CoD fan boy.
Halo would win by a mile. They have better weapons, vehicles, technology, and tactics.
Havn't you fan boys learned your lesson yet?

  • 10.17.2011 3:24 PM PDT

Posted by: spud
Halo wins.

Reason?

Superior weapons technology...

Superior aircraft...

Individual armor...

Yeah, just like what the Covenant had against the UNSC and just like what America/France had during Vietnam.

Posted by: spud
Armor worn by ODST's is made up overall of Kevlar, titanium-A and ceramic alloys. Thick black kevlar undersuit with the rest of the armor being made up of titanium-A and ceramic alloys, giving ODST ballistic armor near inpenetrable properties when going against modern age weaponry.

A lot of the UNSC small arms arsenal is just a rehash of modern day weapons. If UNSC weapons could penetrate ODST armor, which is aldo composed of materials accessible on Earth, then I'm sure current day weapons can penetrate said armor as well.

Posted by: HipiO7
This thread is stupid, and anyone who defends modern day over Halo, is an idiot.

It's like you're defending an army of caveman with sticks and rocks against the Roman Legionnaires. There is nothing to discuss because common sense and logic should tell you there is no comparison between the two.

Yet the Roman Empire was taken over by barbarians. Interesting...

[Edited on 10.17.2011 6:00 PM PDT]

  • 10.17.2011 5:38 PM PDT


Posted by: GeneralRafa
Posted by: spud
Armor worn by ODST's is made up overall of Kevlar, titanium-A and ceramic alloys. Thick black kevlar undersuit with the rest of the armor being made up of titanium-A and ceramic alloys, giving ODST ballistic armor near inpenetrable properties when going against modern age weaponry.

A lot of the UNSC small arms arsenal is just a rehash of modern day weapons. If UNSC weapons could penetrate ODST armor, which is aldo composed of materials accessible on Earth, then I'm sure current day weapons can penetrate said armor as well.
Actually if you actually checked your facts it took rounds as strong or stronger than the SRS99. They were basically mini-Spartans in terms of armor which withstood .50 and even up to a .57, they are very durable. The modern army cannot spare the resources to arm all their troops with weapons that strong, while they are shooting at ODST's with no success, the ODST's would be shooting right through the helmets of the modern troops with an MA5B or an M7. Easy and simple.

  • 10.17.2011 6:49 PM PDT


Posted by: jross1993
Umm, Halo Marines would win.

They have more advanced tech + an extra 500+ years of training and experience at their hands.

  • 10.17.2011 6:51 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX

Why people after seeing the spread of an AR in Reach, believe that technology is worse 500 years in the future is beyond me.

  • 10.17.2011 7:09 PM PDT

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

Learn your history correctly General Rafa.
The barbarians were no cavemen.

The UNSC would win.
Remember that the UNSC is good at fast deployment too.

So someone set up a scenario.

  • 10.17.2011 7:25 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX


Posted by: Spartan 100
Learn your history correctly General Rafa.
The barbarians were no cavemen.

The UNSC would win.
Remember that the UNSC is good at fast deployment too.

So someone set up a scenario.


No modern day army can airlift tanks from orbit at a moments notice last I checked.

  • 10.17.2011 7:28 PM PDT

yas334229812


Posted by: mojeda101

Posted by: GeneralRafa
Posted by: spud
Armor worn by ODST's is made up overall of Kevlar, titanium-A and ceramic alloys. Thick black kevlar undersuit with the rest of the armor being made up of titanium-A and ceramic alloys, giving ODST ballistic armor near inpenetrable properties when going against modern age weaponry.

A lot of the UNSC small arms arsenal is just a rehash of modern day weapons. If UNSC weapons could penetrate ODST armor, which is aldo composed of materials accessible on Earth, then I'm sure current day weapons can penetrate said armor as well.
Actually if you actually checked your facts it took rounds as strong or stronger than the SRS99. They were basically mini-Spartans in terms of armor which withstood .50 and even up to a .57, they are very durable. The modern army cannot spare the resources to arm all their troops with weapons that strong, while they are shooting at ODST's with no success, the ODST's would be shooting right through the helmets of the modern troops with an MA5B or an M7. Easy and simple.


Actually the Romans were beat by Gauls considered Barbarians, but they were well equiped and well advanced with superior number. Also their General was very good at moving his forces winning the battle due to his placement of forces. Another reason why is due to how spread the Roman empire was. Its millitary spread thinly and unable to hold their territory.

Another reason incompetent and backstabbing leaders. So leave that they lost. The enemy was advanced.

All great nations that fell to barbarians were due to thinly stretched millitary, supperior tactics, high intellegence, and up to date millitary equipment.

  • 10.17.2011 7:53 PM PDT

yas334229812


Posted by: GeneralRafa
Posted by: spud
Halo wins.

Reason?

Superior weapons technology...

Superior aircraft...

Individual armor...

Yeah, just like what the Covenant had against the UNSC and just like what America/France had during Vietnam.

America and France did not lose the war due to superior tactics but due to a relentless enemy. They could have nuked them to hell like the Covenant but no they did not. Also the politics affected tactics and the people were against the war. Also the American could have stayed longer and ended the war in a brutal fashion but it would be long. Dissent amongst them led them to fail.
This dissent is also found in the Covenant and they lost due to time taken and a Spartan who was superior in all ways to any Covenant forces with luck in him.
Posted by: GeneralRafa
Posted by: spud
Armor worn by ODST's is made up overall of Kevlar, titanium-A and ceramic alloys. Thick black kevlar undersuit with the rest of the armor being made up of titanium-A and ceramic alloys, giving ODST ballistic armor near inpenetrable properties when going against modern age weaponry.

A lot of the UNSC small arms arsenal is just a rehash of modern day weapons. If UNSC weapons could penetrate ODST armor, which is aldo composed of materials accessible on Earth, then I'm sure current day weapons can penetrate said armor as well.

Not really they are updated version. With more of a punch. The sniper rifle is able to go through shields which shows it has a stronger punch. Mainly what determines the speed and strength of the bullet is based on the chemicals in the ammo.

A bullet contains a little piece of pure metal which is the bullet the bigger and greater part of it is the gunpowder which if bigger contains a bigger punch and a longer range. Also the chemicals give a better shot.

Also the longest shot modern day by a sniper is around 2 miles. and these are mainly due to higher ground otherwise if on ground level would likely hit the ground before that happened.

The UNSC sniper rifle could go alot further with a scope that could see at least 2 miles.

Modern sniper rifles scope can't see as far as 2 miles. For them at a 2 mile distance you could not tell the difference between a human or a camel.
Posted by: GeneralRafa
Posted by: HipiO7
This thread is stupid, and anyone who defends modern day over Halo, is an idiot.

It's like you're defending an army of caveman with sticks and rocks against the Roman Legionnaires. There is nothing to discuss because common sense and logic should tell you there is no comparison between the two.

Yet the Roman Empire was taken over by barbarians. Interesting...

The Roman Empire was not takent over by barbarians but by highly trained army. Also take note the Empire was already in decline due to social and political instability.

The military of Rome was also too thinly stretched and the uprising from within its land caused a strain on their millitary. Also migration and crossing from various groups of people caused this. Also their enemies had weapons that were of equal level. Both sides had spears swords etc. Not much technological importance was needed.

  • 10.17.2011 8:21 PM PDT

F34R Team Hunter

Technically longswords would be up against stealth bombers and then the f22's and c130's would decimate the pelicans.

An M1 Abrams could probably murder the crap out of a scarab so the scorpion and grizzly are definatly screwed.

The Hornet, Hawk, & Falcon would fight apaches, cobras,pavelows, etc.

And since I'm only considering the units that are of almost equal tech to the MW soldiers...it seems pretty hard to decide who would win.

Hogs excluding Gauss Hog
Elephant
Scorpion
Grizzly
Wolverine
Hornet
Hawk
Falcon
Vulture
Shortsword
Longsword
Marine
Flamethrower Marine
All weapons excluding Spartan Laser & Target Locator

  • 10.17.2011 8:34 PM PDT

F34R Team Hunter

UNSC Marine < US Marine (Weaker)
Vulcan Hog < Hummer
Longsword > B7 Spirit or F117 Stealth (Better Weapons)
M808B Scorpion < M1 Abrahms (Easier to kill)
C-130 < AC-220 Vulture (Almost equal firepower, but the 130 has a speed advantage)

If you don't bring in spartans, odst's, or space related weaponry...It could be a draw.

Plus both sides have .50cal snipers, 8-gauge shottys, rockets, noob tubes, machine guns, mini-guns, strong pistols.

Plus MW has the US Army Rangers & US Navy Seals...which both could handle fighting UNSC Marines, and maybe even ODST's.

Saying that MW would loose would be an insult to the US military in a way cause your saying they would lose...america has backed down but never lost.

Just admit it, if you make it fair, it would end in a draw...MW has superior soldiers & vehicles, but UNSC has more troops.

  • 10.17.2011 8:55 PM PDT

yas334229812

not true it depends how you use them.
Posted by: GAMERXD001
Technically longswords would be up against stealth bombers and then the f22's and c130's would decimate the pelicans.

The longswords have never been seen in battle and it depends how they are used plus they aren't stealth they are able to take alot of hits and are to get into dangerouse areas. design was based on stealth
Posted by: GAMERXD001
An M1 Abrams could probably murder the crap out of a scarab so the scorpion and grizzly are definatly screwed.

Another mistake, it all depends on the metal also the Abram would not be able to get through the Scarab armour as they are specially made.
Also we are talking about how few are used they can't go anywhere. Also Scorpions were made to be cheap and deployed in huge numbers as well they have also pack a punch equal to the M1 plus the M1 rounds are of different and more primitive structure, while the Scorpions have a more advanced round, these being better chemical composition.

Also the Grizzly has the ability to pierce an M1A2 armour and not only that cause a blast radius to kill anyone inside. Also increased armour give better ability to survive a round from an M1.

You forget to notice that rounds aren't dependent on how big the gun is but how much punch the shell has. It mainly depends on chemical composition. The less the size of the actual shell and more size the chemical it could easily pierce through. Also the chemical composition determines how much punch it has, quality.
Posted by: GAMERXD001
The Hornet, Hawk, & Falcon would fight apaches, cobras,pavelows, etc.

The hornets are small but also have enough missile to hit them anything hard. Many UNSC aircraft will have superiority in this due to high speed with some planes i can't remember their names and small ones like hornets that can turn 360 take an aim at you and fire a couple of missiles.
Posted by: GAMERXD001
And since I'm only considering the units that are of almost equal tech to the MW soldiers...it seems pretty hard to decide who would win.

Hogs excluding Gauss Hog
Elephant
Scorpion
Grizzly
Wolverine
Hornet
Hawk
Falcon
Vulture
Shortsword
Longsword
Marine
Flamethrower Marine
All weapons excluding Spartan Laser & Target Locator

You seem to fail to realize the nature of the UNSC weapons they are more advanced but have been weakened also there are many weapons that aren't included there and some they may have for simples sake and gameplay sake removed. I bet the UNSC would have alot more vehicles in their disposal.

  • 10.17.2011 9:03 PM PDT

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

In an overexageration, we could say he's "obbsessed" with the US army. Just look at what he says, saying that the US army wouldn't win is to disrepect them.
See what I mean? In a box.

Also he doesn't know how to us > and < signs.

But I do have a question, what role could the elephant play?

Let's say the attack was on Manhattan.

  • 10.17.2011 9:15 PM PDT


Posted by: GAMERXD001
UNSC Marine < US Marine (Weaker)
Vulcan Hog < Hummer
Longsword > B7 Spirit or F117 Stealth (Better Weapons)
M808B Scorpion < M1 Abrahms (Easier to kill)
C-130 < AC-220 Vulture (Almost equal firepower, but the 130 has a speed advantage)

If you don't bring in spartans, odst's, or space related weaponry...It could be a draw.

Plus both sides have .50cal snipers, 8-gauge shottys, rockets, noob tubes, machine guns, mini-guns, strong pistols.

Plus MW has the US Army Rangers & US Navy Seals...which both could handle fighting UNSC Marines, and maybe even ODST's.

Saying that MW would loose would be an insult to the US military in a way cause your saying they would lose...america has backed down but never lost.

Just admit it, if you make it fair, it would end in a draw...MW has superior soldiers & vehicles, but UNSC has more troops.
So many things wrong with your post I won't even bother to correct it all...I'm just going to state the obvious. The UNSC issue a .57 calibur Sniper, not a .50. Modern Military do not use an 8 gauge, they are illegal and if you fired one you would be knocked down on your butt.

The Marines of the UNSC would be superior in terms of weapons, armor, tactics, speed, strength, and technology, no doubt about it.

Modern Hummer would be vaporized by a Gauss Hog.

The Abrams might be able to take on the Scorpion, but that isn't the strongest battle tank, it's just the cheapest, the Grizzly would vaporize the Abrams in 2 volley's.

The Rangers, Navy Seals and even the Green Beret would all be overpowered by even the Military Police, solely due to superior armor.

  • 10.17.2011 9:20 PM PDT