![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ![]() |
|||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() |
Interesting.
So, what do you make of the "Mil-Spec R2 Unit" on the turret? It's supposed to be some kind of sensor station. Good position? Bad position? Worse than someone who can stick their head out the cupola? The turret is shorter than that of the Abrams, but it looks taller too. Is that so they can depress the gun further? Are those cans under the front turret some kind of TROPHY system?
Also, the Russians are talking like the Armata will be wired for war. There's even talk of fully robotic versions being produced in the future. Is this just salesmanship, or do you think drone escorts are on the way?
: You could go back and forth about the advantages and disadvantages about
: both. It's really all about the sort of tank you want and can afford, and
: the added responsibilities you want to put on their crew. The latter point
: is a guarantee for both camps.
: Personally, I'd go with a human loader. The Middle East has been a proving
: ground between Eastern and Western doctrines for the past century, and
: it's usually the West that comes out on top.
I don't think the absence of an autoloader contributed anywhere near 1% of those victories. Training, yes. Doctrine, certainly. Armor design, definitely in the medium double-digits. But autoloaders?
: Centurions, Challengers, and
: Abrams all showed great flaws in Soviet and derivative designs and in the
: way they were used.
An Abrams against anything in the Middle Eastern armory just isn't a fair comparison. Iraqi tanks were comparatively undergunned, underarmored and almost always undersupported.
Centurions would be a better comparison, but I'm not really up to scratch on the Arab-Israeli wars.
: Essentially they were always outnumbered but were
: rarely ever outclassed.
And always backed up by air support.
: Scorpion is really nothing more than some titanium plating with a gun to poke
: people with and an engine to move it forward. I've never really saw it as
: all that effective in the main battle tank role. They're far too
: cumbersome for close engagements, too slow in fast maneuvers,
Gameplay vs. Story. =P
: and too big
: to transport from ship-to-shore.
I have yet to see Pelicans or frigates facing trouble in transporting them.
: I see the Scorpion as more of a direct
: contender to the Wraith than anything. They packed a good gun aboard a
: heavy platform to take on an equally flawed design. So yeah, in this case
: I would call Scorpion very disposable.
I think that even a more sensible design would be considered disposable, in that it would still be outgunned by Covenant armor and likely abandoned on the battlefield when the Covenant start glassing.
: I couldn't say the same of an actual main battle tank between 60-75% of
: Scorpion's size and mass, armed with the same 90mm gun, a coaxial machine
: gun, and remote weapons stations for the commander and/or loader.
Heh. My headcanon has already reduced the Warthog and Scorpion's size in all dimensions by 15%. Essentially, this scales them to Marines and Army Troopers, rather than the Chief.
If I were to go with a redesign, I'd keep the look, and the headcanon scale. There would be three crewmembers (Loaders are a thing of the past) each with their own hatch. The driver would be in the same place, the gunner would be where the secondary MG is mounted on Halo 3/Reach style Scorpions, and the commander would be placed ahead of them. That said, the roles aren't completely analogous to modern-day tankers. The Scorpion is self-driving, and the driver is mostly there as backup in case the AI does something really stupid. Likewise, the gunner is a taskmaster. The guns are primarily computer-controlled, and he sets priority on the targets that the sensors identify.
"Humans should do the driving and shooting in case the machines get it wrong" doesn't hold up when the crew is relying on the machine to do their spotting for them, and it has much more coverage and sensitivity than the Mark-1 Eyeball.
For weapons, I'd go with the standard 90mm main cannon, a coaxial 30mm autocannon, and two or three independently-targeted MG turrets. Not sure about their placement. Smoke/Grenade launchers would be nice, but I don't know how well they'd mesh with Halo's gameplay. Drone escorts would be a given after Halo 3, when the UNSC has had time to breathe and needs to supplement its limited manpower.
Those crazy Russian bastards have gone and done it | Quirel | 5/7/15 1:12 am |
Re: Those crazy Russian bastards have gone and don | Grizzlei | 5/7/15 4:21 am |
I thought this was about Halo Online :( *NM* | gamerguy2002 | 5/7/15 11:13 am |
Oh no you don't! | Grizzlei | 5/7/15 2:57 pm |
^This | Quirel | 5/9/15 4:23 am |
Re: ^This | Grizzlei | 5/9/15 1:38 pm |
So... gun talk. | Quirel | 5/11/15 12:43 pm |
Re: Those crazy Russian bastards have gone and don | Quirel | 5/9/15 4:15 am |
Re: Those crazy Russian bastards have gone and don | Grizzlei | 5/9/15 2:42 pm |
Re: Those crazy Russian bastards have gone and don | Quirel | 5/9/15 5:29 pm |
Re: Those crazy Russian bastards have gone and don | ZackDark | 5/9/15 10:07 pm |