Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Could MAC guns be used for large scale terrestrial bombardment?
  • Subject: Could MAC guns be used for large scale terrestrial bombardment?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Could MAC guns be used for large scale terrestrial bombardment?
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member

http://www.bungie.net/fanclub/halohaven/Group/GroupHome.aspx

Join Halo Haven! (Group Leader: A 3 Legged Goat)

(To discuss Halo 4.)

Since Super Macs have an incredible amount of energy with them when fired, could they be used to destroy cities?

Each slug weighs 2 721 554.22kg at rest.
They travel at 120,000,000ms-1, 0.4 the Speed of Light.
Ek=0.5x2 721 554.22x120,000,000^2

Energy= 1.95x10^22J

4660611.8546845 Megatons of TNT.
466.06 Tera Tons of TNT.
The TSAR Bomba was 50 Megatons.

Lets say, with all this juicy Forerunner tech makes UNSC ships invincible to it's own MAC cannon opposing force or recoil.

Why would you use nukes? They are dirty, MAC guns are far more efficient.

Edit: Do you realize how much energy that is? It would eradicate anything, and a sniper rifle concept doesn't work in the same fashion. Heaps of energy would be diverted outwards.

Asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs= 60000000 Megatons
That is around 75% of the energy from that 10 mile wide asteroid.

Imagine the havoc it could do.

And a sniper rifle analogy does not apply in this case. The energy would not all be directed into the ground, if it did it would penetrate an extremely deep distance,and probably disturb all the trolls in the Mantle.

[Edited on 04.04.2012 2:46 AM PDT]

  • 04.04.2012 2:09 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Poy357
  • user homepage:

A SMAC is just a giant sniper rifle.

There's no point in bombarding a place only at one location.

  • 04.04.2012 2:18 AM PDT

Too pinpoint, It's better to simply use a Frigate to broadside the planet.

  • 04.04.2012 2:25 AM PDT

"Dear humanity, we regret being alien bastards, we regret coming to Earth, and we definitely regret that the corps just blew up our raggedy-ass fleet"

OORAH!!!

Exactly Poy Poy, MAC-esque weapons take up ridiculous amounts of energy, and would possibly be more likely to act like a giant drill rather that a widespread weapon of mass destruction.

In any case, would the UNSC have any opportunity, and if they did, would they have the inclination to engage in a large scale bombardment of a planet?

[Edited on 04.04.2012 2:27 AM PDT]

  • 04.04.2012 2:27 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member

http://www.bungie.net/fanclub/halohaven/Group/GroupHome.aspx

Join Halo Haven! (Group Leader: A 3 Legged Goat)

(To discuss Halo 4.)


Posted by: MACKFLAK 3
Exactly Poy Poy, MAC-esque weapons take up ridiculous amounts of energy, and would possibly be more likely to act like a giant drill rather that a widespread weapon of mass destruction.

In any case, would the UNSC have any opportunity, and if they did, would they have the inclination to engage in a large scale bombardment of a planet?

Remember that analogy works only for a certain energy scale.

Lets imagine a rock falling on me. Sure, lots of energy, and spread of damage.

Now, imagine me getting hit by an extremely fast object, except that I am impenetrable to a certain extent like the Earth's crust.

Where would that energy go?

  • 04.04.2012 2:50 AM PDT
  • gamertag: tsassi
  • user homepage:

The energy of a SMAC round isn't actually exactly that high. First of all, you got the speed of an SMAC round incorrectly. Instead of your 0.4c it's actually 0.04c. Secondly, the actual formula for objects of such speed would be Ek=mc^2-m0c^2.

Doing my own calculations with the correct formula and correct projectile speed, I got an energy of 195.916 EJ. In TNT tons that is 46.825 Gigatons.

But even then, 46.825 Gigatons is a lot of energy, roughly 937 Tsar Bombas. But that much energy is kind of an overkill in orbital bombardement. I mean, if I want precision bombaredement, I don't use that much power. If I want to blow up the whole planet, I just use a NOVA bomb.

  • 04.04.2012 3:20 AM PDT


Posted by: Poy Poy
A SMAC is just a giant sniper rifle.

There's no point in bombarding a place only at one location.


And that one location would be vaporized in a very large radius. You know asteroid impact craters? Same thing.

Collateral would be the big concern.

[Edited on 04.04.2012 7:15 AM PDT]

  • 04.04.2012 7:15 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.

SMAC and regular MAC rounds are too powerful to be used in extended orbital bombardment.

The UNSC most likely used lighter versions of regular MAC rounds and nukes.

  • 04.04.2012 8:45 AM PDT

I'm not sure if this is mentioned in any of the books...
But 500 years from now, isn't it a fair assumption to make that atomic bombs become more efficient? Today fission bombs only use something like 40% of their atoms... and only a tenth of their mass is turned into energy.. If nukes get more efficient they get less dirty.. so less downsides..

[Edited on 04.04.2012 8:56 AM PDT]

  • 04.04.2012 8:49 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?


Posted by: HipLunchBox13
I'm not sure if this is mentioned in any of the books...
But 500 years from now, isn't it a fair assumption to make that atomic bombs become more efficient?


If you read the books you would know the answer to this.

[Edited on 04.04.2012 11:28 AM PDT]

  • 04.04.2012 11:22 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Heroic Member
  • gamertag: Mikal7
  • user homepage:

You need to take into consideration atmospheric re-entry and velocity in-atmosphere constantly decreasing. Also, mass-change from however much of the slug is deteriorated from friction in the atmosphere.

Even after that, such a large "explosion" would create a very large dust cloud. It would essentially be akin to a meteor hitting the planet, so the same devastating consequences would apply. You could inadvertently cause a "nuclear winter" (without the radiation, yadd yadda).

  • 04.04.2012 12:11 PM PDT

Sing for me, will ya?

I think they could. The power that I felt when I used it in PoA was amazingly fun :)

  • 04.04.2012 12:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag: tsassi
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Mikal7
You need to take into consideration atmospheric re-entry and velocity in-atmosphere constantly decreasing. Also, mass-change from however much of the slug is deteriorated from friction in the atmosphere.

Even after that, such a large "explosion" would create a very large dust cloud. It would essentially be akin to a meteor hitting the planet, so the same devastating consequences would apply. You could inadvertently cause a "nuclear winter" (without the radiation, yadd yadda).

At 12,000 km/s penetrating the atmosphere would take less than ten milliseconds to penetrate the whole atmosphere. There are two possibilities with this:

A) The round penetrates the atmosphere like a piece of paper, directing 99% of it's energy into the ground and causing a massive explosion and an earthquake.

B) The atmosphere has the same effect on the round as water has on a supersonic bullet, behaving like a massive wall and absorbing all the energy of the MAC round. In other words, the round blows up at some height in the atmosphere producing a massive explosion and a pressure wave.

Either way, the effects would be pretty much devastating. But sa you said, a MAC round shot at Earth would have devastating effects on impact.

By the way, MAC guns aren't very efficient in comparison to nuclear weapons. Whereas nuclear weapons release 0.04% of their mass-energy, MAC rounds only release about 0.0008% of their mass-energy.

  • 04.04.2012 12:36 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Do not waste your tears, I was not born to watch the world grow dim. Life is not measured in years, but by the deeds of men.

Posted by: goldhawk
We should know better, because we are better.

No matter which version of MAC we are using, teratons or gigatons, they are still hugely overkill. A multiple gigaton shot will deal massive damage in a wide area around the target. Good if you are attacking, not so good when you are using it on your own planet. I doubt the UNSC would willingly ruin their planets like that.

  • 04.04.2012 2:17 PM PDT

RIP Ginger

Spring 1997 - 6 January 2012


Posted by: tsassi2
The energy of a SMAC round isn't actually exactly that high. First of all, you got the speed of an SMAC round incorrectly. Instead of your 0.4c it's actually 0.04c. Secondly, the actual formula for objects of such speed would be Ek=mc^2-m0c^2.

Doing my own calculations with the correct formula and correct projectile speed, I got an energy of 195.916 EJ. In TNT tons that is 46.825 Gigatons.

But even then, 46.825 Gigatons is a lot of energy, roughly 937 Tsar Bombas. But that much energy is kind of an overkill in orbital bombardement. I mean, if I want precision bombaredement, I don't use that much power. If I want to blow up the whole planet, I just use a NOVA bomb.
The rounds do travel at 0.4c.

  • 04.04.2012 4:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Chris marines
The rounds do travel at 0.4c.

"point-four tenths" was mentioned in the Fall of Reach. This sounds like it is saying 0.4 of a tenth, i.e. 4%. If it were 40% then I think it would have said "4 tenths" instead.

  • 04.04.2012 5:10 PM PDT

Me gusta

If they didn't need such massive amount of energy to use them they could be, but thats the problem.

  • 04.04.2012 5:16 PM PDT

"I may not be perfect, but always been true."

Son, the Orbital Defense Platforms are nowhere near 466 Teratons.

They are 51 Gigatons.

  • 04.04.2012 10:23 PM PDT

"I may not be perfect, but always been true."


Posted by: tsassi2
The energy of a SMAC round isn't actually exactly that high. First of all, you got the speed of an SMAC round incorrectly. Instead of your 0.4c it's actually 0.04c. Secondly, the actual formula for objects of such speed would be Ek=mc^2-m0c^2.

Doing my own calculations with the correct formula and correct projectile speed, I got an energy of 195.916 EJ. In TNT tons that is 46.825 Gigatons.

But even then, 46.825 Gigatons is a lot of energy, roughly 937 Tsar Bombas. But that much energy is kind of an overkill in orbital bombardement. I mean, if I want precision bombaredement, I don't use that much power. If I want to blow up the whole planet, I just use a NOVA bomb.


You want overkill? Forerunners are overkill (They can literally melt the crust of a planet with their point defense guns) and pretty much make stars go supernova with their main ship guns.

  • 04.04.2012 10:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Yes, they could. If you have a reentry vechile that can punch through the atmosphere and stay intact enough to keep its momentum game over. Just like when a cop is shot in his body armor by a small caliber round in the chest, the whole chest is bruised. If that same 9mm bullet can cause 38,500 psi on an object you can safely say without any resistance an object that's larger and traveling faster with intern create more psi.

  • 04.04.2012 10:45 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member

http://www.bungie.net/fanclub/halohaven/Group/GroupHome.aspx

Join Halo Haven! (Group Leader: A 3 Legged Goat)

(To discuss Halo 4.)


Posted by: Neutrino
Posted by: Chris marines
The rounds do travel at 0.4c.

"point-four tenths" was mentioned in the Fall of Reach. This sounds like it is saying 0.4 of a tenth, i.e. 4%. If it were 40% then I think it would have said "4 tenths" instead.

I am referring to SMAC rounds. Normal mac rounds aren't powerful enough.

  • 04.05.2012 1:34 AM PDT

Friends before pixels.

Too easy to damage the MACs.

In FoR, Keyes first gets stationed on the Iroquois, and just from not being serviced for a while, the MAC gun was inoperable.

It requires a tremendous amount of labor to keep those heaps of magnets running, but it is worth it.

It's sometimes better to rely on old tech that's been working rather than relying on new tech that has been working a little bit.

  • 04.05.2012 1:43 AM PDT
  • gamertag: tsassi
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Quantam

Posted by: Neutrino
Posted by: Chris marines
The rounds do travel at 0.4c.

"point-four tenths" was mentioned in the Fall of Reach. This sounds like it is saying 0.4 of a tenth, i.e. 4%. If it were 40% then I think it would have said "4 tenths" instead.

I am referring to SMAC rounds. Normal mac rounds aren't powerful enough.

And the speed for SMAC rounds is 0.04c as stated by Fall of Reach. If my memory serves, the 0.4c comes from Halo Encyclopedia in which case it was probably a typo as, to my knowledge, the later edition of Fall of Reach still reads "point-four tenths".

  • 04.05.2012 1:54 AM PDT

I am the light in a dark world...
All that is dark and currupt shall fall before me...
May you all live long and die strong.


Posted by: RKOSNAKE

Posted by: tsassi2
The energy of a SMAC round isn't actually exactly that high. First of all, you got the speed of an SMAC round incorrectly. Instead of your 0.4c it's actually 0.04c. Secondly, the actual formula for objects of such speed would be Ek=mc^2-m0c^2.

Doing my own calculations with the correct formula and correct projectile speed, I got an energy of 195.916 EJ. In TNT tons that is 46.825 Gigatons.

But even then, 46.825 Gigatons is a lot of energy, roughly 937 Tsar Bombas. But that much energy is kind of an overkill in orbital bombardement. I mean, if I want precision bombaredement, I don't use that much power. If I want to blow up the whole planet, I just use a NOVA bomb.


You want overkill? Forerunners are overkill (They can literally melt the crust of a planet with their point defense guns) and pretty much make stars go supernova with their main ship guns.


Warhammer 40k Inqusition.

They understand the true meaning of Overkill.

:)

Also I'd like to apply why the Imperium of Man doesn't use MAC weapons on planets... The energy required isn't worth the damage you do as it's very pin point. All that would happpen is the round penerates the crust and causes a hole the size of the Mass Drivers round and cause earthquakes. Which works well on very weak structures. But otherwise, it's useless except as a "Bunker Buster".

It's not very effective on ground targets. You have better weapons at your disposal for Orbital weapons.

[Edited on 04.05.2012 2:43 AM PDT]

  • 04.05.2012 2:39 AM PDT

"I may not be perfect, but always been true."


Posted by: BicolorZulu

Posted by: RKOSNAKE

Posted by: tsassi2
The energy of a SMAC round isn't actually exactly that high. First of all, you got the speed of an SMAC round incorrectly. Instead of your 0.4c it's actually 0.04c. Secondly, the actual formula for objects of such speed would be Ek=mc^2-m0c^2.

Doing my own calculations with the correct formula and correct projectile speed, I got an energy of 195.916 EJ. In TNT tons that is 46.825 Gigatons.

But even then, 46.825 Gigatons is a lot of energy, roughly 937 Tsar Bombas. But that much energy is kind of an overkill in orbital bombardement. I mean, if I want precision bombaredement, I don't use that much power. If I want to blow up the whole planet, I just use a NOVA bomb.


You want overkill? Forerunners are overkill (They can literally melt the crust of a planet with their point defense guns) and pretty much make stars go supernova with their main ship guns.


Warhammer 40k Inqusition.

They understand the true meaning of Overkill.

:)

Also I'd like to apply why the Imperium of Man doesn't use MAC weapons on planets... The energy required isn't worth the damage you do as it's very pin point. All that would happpen is the round penerates the crust and causes a hole the size of the Mass Drivers round and cause earthquakes. Which works well on very weak structures. But otherwise, it's useless except as a "Bunker Buster".

It's not very effective on ground targets. You have better weapons at your disposal for Orbital weapons.


Forerunners are more powerful actually. We are talking about them using their ships point defense guns to gorge the surface of a Halo (ancient Halo for that matter, way bigger than the actual ones), to do that you need Exatons of fire power, at least 7 to be precise. Now, they were also said to be able to make stars go supernova with their ships (Energy needed would be in the Yottatons range and it makes their ship basically suncrushers from star wars, only mass produced and waaaaay bigger).

  • 04.05.2012 4:57 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2