Mukita12
-
Posts
572 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Mukita12
-
-
12 hours ago, FleshJeb said:
Had some time to myself on Sunday, so I parked outside the fence of an air museum. See if you can name the aircraft. I always forget how absolutely huge these things are in person. Teaser pic, the rest spoilered below:
EDIT: High res here: https://imgur.com/a/12kS0m5
Man i would love to see those myself
-
Earlier today. I was talking to a friend of mine about military equipment and hardware and such, and then a guy comes to me saying that the Eurofighter Typhoon is better than F-35 in everyway possible and will always defeat the F-35 in anyway possible
I told him no that wasn't the case, and even if that's even the case, what are the reason that it will be the F-35 most of the time. He then explained some stuff that isn't well supported by any data that's available (because of course, this is military hardware, most of it is classified) and pulled stuff out of thin air. I told him that wasn't the case and explain the reason why the f-35 will absolutely win supported with Data, Pilot Testimony and other Factual Sources. He then flatout called me "a propagandanist" despite the fact most of my data comes from a reliable sources. 10/10 wouldn't recommend experiencing this
-
Hmmm this is Interesting. Give me a week and i'll create a buggy that's capable of going around the track
-
Uh this
Long Story Short: I forgot to put enough dV on the landing stage of my lander but still managed to land thanks to my Orbital stage of my lander. However, upon docking with the mothership, i forgot to transfer Jeb to the Mothership... which mean i kill him.
-
remembering the amount of dV you need.
I've been playing this game for 4 years now... and i still managed to screw up my mun landing mission because i didn't have enough dV on my Lander
-
-
A-10 Warthog Replica. (I named it A-12 on the game because i use this for a military RP)
Spoiler
F-15 Replica (Well technically it's @BahamutoD's FJ-105 that i rearmed but still it looks cool)
Spoiler
F-16 Replica (My first ever self-made replica)
Spoiler
-
On 5/10/2021 at 5:50 PM, swjr-swis said:
Please do! The planes are what matters in this challenge, not the carrier. You don't need to actually build or use a carrier to prove your planes' capabilities - you can use the section between the SPH and the runway as a replacement, like I did.
Alright then
-
I want took part in this challenge but like.... my Laptop cannot handle the high part count of a stock carrier. so yeah that's a shame
-
Haha no
Senpo: Kuchiyose no jutsu
@kerbinorbiter -
Just now, modus said:
Search for r-t-b 's stable branch.
(On mobile right now so a bit limited in my linking abilities)
Alright, thanks lad for the help appreciate it
-
I was wondering where should i get the kopernicus for 1.11.2 considering the page that i found is mostly limited to version 1.8
-
Press X to doubt
@SebastiazSeb please -
4 hours ago, Dr. Kerbal said:
What about Camera Tools.
10/10 would agree. Camera Tools would be nice
-
On 4/7/2021 at 10:54 PM, DarkOwl57 said:
Good news everyone! After the success of the last chapter, I'm continuing work on Chapter 40! I hit a brief snag of writers block earlier, but now I'm back at it! A quick little Q&A I've prepared, to pass the time:
Q: How do you decide what the tracks look like?
A: There are a few tracks that I have saved to my computer that I use, but most of them come from my head. I have the custom tracks drawn out on (very worn) sheets of notebook paper that follow me wherever I go.Q: What are the teams?
A: Fantastic question. In the 2038 season, the teams are OTech Race Team, Monster Racing, F-Tech Velocidad, LakeFront Racing Team, Carthia Motors, Racing Line Kindia, PhantomTech Engineering, OTech GP Racing, TT Motorsports, Vitesse Courses, and Archer Motorsports.Q: Who are the drivers, and is there any analogues to real-life drivers?
A: To get a full list of drivers for the 2038 season, I have a spreadsheet that also has all of the season results for each race. However, I can't share that with y'all, since it would spoil the story! I can, however, tell you some analogies. Max Kerman (OTech) is obviously drawn from current F1 driver Max Verstappen, but only on the racing side (Aggressive and bold). Louie Kerman (Monster) is semi-based on current F1 driver Pierre Gasly. Juan Kerman (F-Tech) is a comparison to current F1 driver Charles Leclerc, while LakeFront's Marty Williams is based off of former F1 driver Mark Webber. Riley Mitchell (Kindia) is a loose tie-in to current F1 driver Sergio Pérez, and fellow RLK driver Emily Walker is a female tie-in to Romain Grosjean, former F1 driver and current IndyCar driver. Mark Kerman (TT) takes the role of 7-time NASCAR champion and current IndyCar driver Jimmie Johnson, while Lewis Kerman (OTech GP) takes the role of, you guessed it, 7-time F1 champion Lewis Hamilton. Some drivers share their numbers with current F1 drivers (Michael Kerman: #3 (Daniel Ricciardo); Max Kerman: #33 (Max Verstappen); Jesus Costa: #22 (Yuki Tsonoda), etc.), as well, but some coincidences are unintentional. I will spoiler a full list below.Intended reference: Meant to match personality and car driving style (with number)
Semi-reference: Number reference but not much personality continuity
#3: Michael Kerman (Monster) + Daniel Ricciardo (McLaren, F1). Unintended driver number connection.
#4: Chris Kerman (PhantomTech) + Conor Daly (Ed Carpenter Racing, IndyCar) + Lando Norris (McLaren, F1). Semi-reference for Daly + Norris.
#5: Marty Williams (LakeFront) + James Hinchcliffe (Andretti, IndyCar) + Sebastian Vettel (Aston Martin, F1). Intended Reference (Hinchcliffe); Unintended for Vettel.
#6: Kelli Blu (LakeFront, 2039 season) + Nicholas Latifi (Williams, F1) + Nico Rosberg (Mercedes, F1). Intended reference to Rosberg; unintended for Latifi.
#8: Emily Walker (Kindia) + Romain Grosjean (Dale Coyne Racing, IndyCar). Intended reference.
#9: Nikolai Aleksandrov (PhantomTech, 2039 season) + Nikita Mazepin (Haas, F1). Unfortunately intended reference.
#10: Louie Kerman (Monster) + Pierre Gasly (AlphaTauri, F1). Intended reference.
#11: Riley Mitchell (Kindia) + Sergio Perez (Red Bull, F1). Semi-reference.
#13: Jebediah Kerman (OTech) + Pastor Maldonardo (Lotus, F1). EXTREMELY UNINTENDED REFERENCE I JUST REALLY LIKE THE NUMBER 13.
#14: Hope Anker (Vitesse) + Fernando Alonso (Alpine, F1). Semi-reference if you ignore how old Fernando is.
#15: Hayden Green (Archer, 2039 season) + Graham Rahal (IndyCar). Unintended Reference
#16: Juan Kerman (F-Tech) + Charles Leclerc (Ferrari, F1). Intended reference.
#17: Retired by K1 + Jules Bianchi (Marussia, F1). Intended reference.
#21: Saul Kerman (OTGP) + Esteban Gutierrez (Sauber, F1). Unintended reference.
#22: Jesus Costa (F-Tech) + Yuki Tsonoda (AlphaTauri, F1). Unintended reference. (Reference to Helio Castroneves, #3 in IndyCar)
#24: Gabby Ward (TT) + Jeff Gordon (NASCAR). Semi-reference to number.
#27: Felicia Dürr (Kindia, 2039 season) + Nico Hülkenberg (F1, Former). Intended Reference.
#31: Alexia Ellis (Vitesse) + Esteban Ocon (Alpine, F1). Intended Reference.
#33: Max Kerman (OTech) + Max Verstappen (Red Bull, F1). Intended Reference.
#44: Lewis Kerman (OTGP) + Lewis Hamilton (Mercedes, F1). Intended Reference.
#48: Mark Kerman (TT) + Jimmie Johnson (NASCAR). Intended Reference.
#55: Carlos Kerman (CM, 2039 season) + Carlos Sainz Jr. (Ferrari, F1). Intended Reference.
#77: Arcazon Kerman (CM) + Valtteri Bottas (Mercedes, F1). Unintended Reference.
#88: Lucas White (Archer) + Robert Kubica (Williams, F1, Former). Unintended Reference.
#99: Matthias Blomqvist (CM) + Antonio Giovinazzi (Alpha Romeo, F1). Unintended Reference.
Q: How do you keep up with what happens in a race?
A: The spreadsheet that was mentioned before, mainly. In big events like crashes or retirements, I comment what happened to cause the event. This includes a brief description of the incident, as well as lap numbers, where they retired, and what actions were taken (Safety Car, VSC, Local Yellow, etc.). This helps a lot when it comes to races that are way off in the future, so that I know what happens!Q: Is there a place I can understand exactly what's going on?
A: I'm working on a dictionary.That's all for now- back to the racing!
Awesome. As the great palpatine would say
"We'll watch your career with great interest" -
DARK REMEMBER THE HERMISH GP
-
-
52 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:
Granted, you have a micromachine toy car. (Do you feel old if you did not need to google that?)
i wish for a nice dr pepper
072402132021
new page post 2
I don't see how micromachine car corrupts my wishes but ok
*Cough*Granted but the taste will be the same as Red Hot habanero
I wish for spinach
-
Granted but everyone creates a giant super weapon and suddenly have a large asteroid that could cause mass extinction
I wish for a car
-
"Too bad Buddy, this twisted game needs a reset. We'll start over with this V2 and entrust the Future with the next generation" - Pixy (at least that's what i remember from the line)
-
I wrote an insanely detailed post on why the Scorpion is a bad tank in quora
Quotetime to get dirty using IRL Physics and basic logic than using picture without an explanation nor Ingame lore that can be debunked using again IRL physics
> Take the Abrams for example. Show it to someone from WWII, and they will say that the Maus carries more firepower. But wrong, their guns are about the same size.
While the diameter of their cannon are the same (I.E 120mm). It’s not the same cannon nor does it have the same amount of firepower as the L/44 equipped on the Abrams. Take a look at their muzzle velocity. The cannon used in the Maus is
950 m/s (3,100 ft/s) while the L/44 has an estimated muzzle velocity of 1,580 to 1,750 m/s (5,200 to 5,700 ft/s). And not too mention, the Maus advance munition at this point is AP shell with their variant (except Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot or just the Discarding Sabot) and HE. While the L/44 fire APFSDS, HEATFS for Anti Tank which makes it deadly, and Canister round for infantry. Not to mention that the APFSDS was more effective, powerful, and deadly than the MAUS could ever field.> Most battles in Halo are apparently short-ranged combat, with LDA (long-distance artillery) being practically extinct due to artillery being capable of targeting anything at further ranges than LDA, and the ground tends to be riddled with pits and craters due to said artillery.
Bringing an Abrams into this situation would be like trying to use trench warfare against a guerrila army.
*cough* The battle of 73 Easting was close-range combat between Soviet Made T-70 and US Abram and the only casualties in that combat was a Bradley taken out by the T-70. The Abram only suffers minor damages and that damage wasn’t even considered damage in some nation’s tank doctrine so I don’t get what you’re saying.
If halo’s futuristic warfare, then a towed artillery by this point would be severely outdated. I would opt for an SPG instead. Do a better job.
Your metaphor is easily debunked considering That’s How the US currently dealing with Insurgency forces in the middle east and not too mention they use an excessive trap that puts trench warfare to shame.
> The Scorpion vs an MBT has the similar issues.
bUt ThE mG gUnNeR iS eXpOsEd
Yes, however, explain this:
BuT tHe FoUr TrEaDs MaKeS iT eAsY tO tHrOw
If the rear treads are free, the Scorp can get out.
If the front treads are free, the Scorp can get out.
If all four treads are stuck, the Scorp can (at least in theory) claw itself free.
That’s a huge advantage, especially when the field is riddled with craters from this:
First, of all, the T-90 crew would only use that MG incase the Secondary armament located co-axially right next to the main armament is toasted. The M1A2C which is the latest variant of the Abram heck even variant before this already fixed this issue by using a remote control for the gun in their TUSK package. Secondly, Although the 4 Threads could have an exponential ground pressure performance. By separately putting those tracks with an axle, you’re causing too much stress to that axle. Even if you could build a large warship in space, physics is physics, and you can’t change it. Even if you create a working small replica, the Square Cube Law will immediately render that replica useless. Let’s go back to the track, now if the track ain’t separated, your explanation would work. However, by separating the track, that explanation will not work as the Track would move freely. Spookston once said “you want your track to be aligned with your hull. If the Scorpion tried to climb a steep hill, the front tracks would begin climbing, but since they have free range of motion, the hull would not angle to crest the hill. The hull would dig straight into the hill while the tracks tried to keep ascending. Not to mention that making a mechanism which would be capable of transferring power to the tracks while they are freely rotating would be difficult and a maintenance nightmare.”.
Now with the pic that uses. Yes, the Abram have difficulties in muddy terrain. However, you’re forgetting (or ignoring more correctly) that the Abram is designed to be used everywhere across the world. It’s also designed to be low profile to fit their philosophy of “You can’t kill us if you can’t spot us.” and basically finding their enemy before their enemy did. However, many other MBT such as Leopard 2 already went around this problem and have Upgrade Package to deal with the terrain, for example, the Revolution Package used by the Singaporean Leopard 2 and the Indonesian Leopard 2RI.
> The Scorpion makes use of a 90mm gun, however, its not puny.
The Scorpion is capable of penetrating a Scarab’s armor. For reference, its equal to two meters of battleship-grade naval steel.
“Why bother using 90mm when you can use more powerful 120mm”The Scorpion has a 90mm gun, yes, but it carries far more ammo.
The 90mm gun has enough firepower for most situations, but carrying a lot more shells then an MBT of today will give the Scorpion a larger advantage in battle.
If the Scorpion can penetrate two-meter battleship-grade naval steel especially with their gameplay mechanics which the 90mm have a muzzle velocity of a subsonic speed, then Bungie and Eric Nylund literally miss their calculation A LOT. Using an educated guess, the mass of the 90mm munition used by the Scorpion is around 19 kg while the mass of the M829A3 has a total mass of 22.3 kg (49 lb) and length of 892 mm (35.1 in).
So therefore a rough calculation of Kinetic Energy without accounting the material used by each side and how the shape of the munition is then it should be like this:
90mm:
Kinetic Energy=1/2 x Mass (19kg) x Speed (273m/s)
=9.5x273m/s
=2,593.5 KE (Kinetic Energy)M829A3:
Kinetic Energy=1/2 x mass (22.3kg) x speed (1,555 m/s)
=11.5x1,555m/s
=17,882.5 KEThe amount of Kinetic Energy in the US Sabot literally is better and better is an understatement. And when we take into account the material used by each shell (I.E Tungsten for the 90mm and Depleted Uranium by the M829A3 Sabot), The M829A3 literally cut clean the Forerunner metal, due to it being pyrophoric material, it will generate sparks that could basically explode any munition or fuel inside. While the Tungsten would basically mushroom inside the armor when penetrating. And if we’re getting too cozy, let’s take into account the shape of the shell. The APHE used by the Scorpion has the same shape as a regular outdated APHE, while the M829A3 Sabot has the shape of a long rod with a fin on the back to stabilizes its trajectory midair. With the shape of the rod, all of the energy is concentrated on the front of the Sabot which could create more damage than a regular-shaped shell which distributes its energy along the shell.
And now with the amount of Ammo carried. The US did experiment with this using the HSTV-L back in the 70s. It fires 2 shot for every 1 second, carries more round than the Abrams. However, it turns out. The Abram out-performed the HSTV-L in every single way possible. and not too mention. The abram only carries enough ammo for a mission that they’re assigned to. More than that then it’s a waste of space and ammo and not to mention it decrease the survival rate of the crew when in combat. Just look at how the US uses their Abram and how the Iraqi uses its abram. The Iraqi over filled the ammo compartment with excessive ammo that they don’t need and look at what happened. The tank burst up like a Roman candle.
> The Scorp uses Titanuim-Ceramic armor.
But its not weak.
Just about everyone makes the mistake of thinking of the Scorp as a big ceramic cooking pot with a glass lid.
No, its not.
Extract from Halopedia:
The M808's thick ceramic-titanium armor can withstand a direct hit from a Covenant fuel rod cannon and survive with enough armor to keep fighting.
A fuel rod cannon, from Halo, fires a heavy rod at 72m/s.
That will surpass far in exess of any Arr Pee Gee of today.
Now although Titanium-Ceramic armor is used in today’s MBT, like the Leopard 2 for example which used this type of armor in their later variants. But since the Halo universe takes place 5 and a half centuries ahead of our universe, they sure don’t develop or uses a futuristic one. Also compared to the M1’s Armour, the Leopard 2’s armor is uh… eh I guess compared to the US Chobbam that’s complemented with an extra DU layer in front of it. Depleted Uranium armor outperformed the Titanium armor so yeah.
Also if the M808 can tank a covenant fuel rod that has a velocity of 72m/s, then with kinetic energy, in THEORY, the Abrams could tank the covenant fuel rod. The Radiation may have an effect although the Abram is shielded enough from radiation and heck they’re entire armor and munition uses Depleted Uranium,
“hurr durr but I don’t see any Abram tank a fuel rod”
that’s because they don’t exist you mumboAnd not to mention, The US-made TOW 2 ATGM, surpassed RPG Performance by a metric tonne.
And also. talking about armor, in the previous post, you mentioned that the Scorps could tank again plasma. the IRL version of plasma is a HEAT Warhead. why? It used shaped charges that literally create a super-sonic plasma to penetrates tank armor. and not too mention it has a copper on its tip that melts to help penetrates the armour. However, HEAT is considered useless against MBT Armour specifically NATO tanks. Hence why most NATO Vehicle uses Sabot to deal with Anti-Tank and HEAT to deal light armour.
> Next: crew.
The Scorpion has a three-man crew.(one driver, one gunner, one machine gunner)
That would be equal to a T90.
Next up: mantainence.
And no, its not a mantainence nightmare.
If you can make 907 million metric tons of Titanium 5,6 kilometers long hover soundlessly with no visible propulsion system whatsoever, then you can do anything.
Okay the Crew is nice, although it may underperform when it comes to a regular maintenance compared to the Leopard or the Abram, but still it’s nice
The mechanical issues, however, the Scorpion has more con in IRL tank design than it has pros. From its track, to how the gun’s automatic reloader works, it’s a maintenance nightmare. Just because you can create a large warship in space doesn’t mean you don’t have to deal with maintenance and reliability problem. Most of UNSC warship have thousands upon thousands crew maintaining its complex design, while the scorpion only have 3 to maintain its flawed design.
> Next up: turret mounting.
It has a low profile, with a very small turret that extends above the main hull. This allows for great use of cover while exposing the minimal amount of target to the enemy. It uses a fast autoloader to facilitate this.
The turret mounted far back is due to the turret being unmanned.
Modern tanks mount the turret in the center to facilliate acess and ease of loading and mounting, because the turret is crewed. That, however, coupled with an autoloader and the ammo down below results in (scroll to 3:50)
yes no joke thing sent the turret with two poor guys flying, no pun intended.
The Scorp mounts its ammo so that no, it cannot explode jack in the box.
First off, by how the Scorpion’s turret mounted, one shot in the turret ring will render the gun USELESS. It has an exposed turret ring compared to modern MBT that literally puts T-70 to shame. And by how the Autoloader is designed and how the Ammo is placed, the Scorpion has a worse Auto-loader than the Merkava or the Russian tanks. Yes, the Ammo is mounted outside, but you’re forgetting the fact that the Auto-loader will have to reach the ammo one way or another which increased design complexity, which resulted in more unreliable performance. The Merkava has a better design than the Scorpion, in general, it's literally designed to save crew with anti-tank capabilities.
> Next up: Targeting.
Scorps mount a REALLY advanced gyro.
I once used the main gun as an AA gun, to SMAC Ghosts, whack Banshees, and smash Phamtoms.
I’ve played a lot of War Thunder and I don’t recall an Abrams being used as an AA gun.
Next up: Speed.
The Scorpion, in addition, posseses a top speed of 60mph.
It will outrun far in exess of any tank of today.
TLDR, the Scorpion will outclass far in exess any tank of today on a Halo battlefield.
And vice versa.
First off, I will take for granted that the Scorpion does indeed have a really advanced Gyro (it’s literally set in the future duh). Secondly, A skilled MBT Gunner could take out any attack aircraft flying at low speed or any rotor-wing aircraft. And thirdly, the Abram wasn’t designed to be used as an anti-air vehicle. The US would pick chaos and total air supremacy before putting their ground troops and even if Air Superiority isn’t achieved, SHORADs MEDRAD, SPAAG could deal with those. Now yes, just because the Scorpion can be used for anti-air That doesn’t mean it’s a good anti-air or tank. Hell, flipping tank ace Otto Carius shot down a Yak back in WW2. and also, you literally uses a broken game that isn’t even realistic compared to milsim games to prove your point while im here using IRL knowledge to debunk those
Now for mobility, this is a good design. No MBT can top this. Only IFV and APC can. so this is the only point that I give to you
TLDR: Scorpion is only good when you ignore physics, how Tank warfare works, how combat even works, and how maintenance even work.
literally complete with calculation
-
12 hours ago, DDE said:
Relevant - Object 490
the problem with scorpion is that the four independence set of track is not in the hull but rather outside the hull.
-
On 12/17/2020 at 2:34 PM, kerbiloid said:
They are hungry.
Why wouldn;t you use brushes instead?
I don't know, you tell me
Why Kerbal taste like vegetable?
-
" Bad science in fiction"
Hmmmmmm Oh yeah. i know what's up
The flipping Scorpion MBT from Halo. Halo itself has a novel so technically it counts as Sci-fi so yeah. Anyways
Here's a long chart that i made in Quora when debating someone on why the Scorpion is a stepbackward for MBT
SpoilerM8O8B Main Battle Tank "Scorpion"
Weight: 66 Metric Tonne (Eh like the average MBT)
Tops speed: 54Km/h (Abrams is faster than that)
Armour: Titanium Ceramic Armour (What the heck why?)
Armament: 90mm Smoothbore gun (For a futuristic main battle tank, sure is weaker)
One Crew Member
|
->--- (What could possibly go wrong)
|
Four Independent Set of Tracks
Let's go with their cons
Gun
90mm APHE sure is a weak gun considering the last time we saw them in Action with an MBT was in 1950
Nowadays we only saw them in IFV or Force Recon vehicle although they upgraded it to 105mm'
I mean it makes sense if it were a light tank but... the weight is 66 and the designation is 66 tonne
"a 90mm round can gut a fully shielded wraith." wow that Wraith armour sure is weaker than most modern MBT including the leclerc And then we have the ammunition used by the Scorpion. APHE? Ah yes last time i saw them was like what? 1950?also smoothbore? Pfft, Musket would probably have better accuracy than it. Now we know the composition of the 90mmAPHE shell from Johnson line in Halo 3
"Hey, How does 90mm of tungsten strike ya."
Although eh... It's based with reality considering japanese did the same with their APHE round back in WW2.. in WW2.
In game Scorpion could kill Infantry and Armour efficiently without ammo change... Ingame... WHy uses APHE when High Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT) could do a better job
Also.. APHE isn't that Explosive... like for real.
To quote FAQ from Spookston video:
"If you can make a future 90mm that is more effective than a modern 120mm, why would not make a future 120mm and make it exponentially more powerful than a modern 120mm? A 120mm is, by principle, more powerful than a 90mm, regardless of the timeframe. The same goes for the ammunition. HEAT and APFSDS is, by principle, more effective than AP/APHE. A 90mm APHE shell has less explosive potential than a hand grenade, while a 90mm HEAT shell had around 7 times the explosive potential of an APHE shell, and has the added benefit of being much better at penetrating armor. In Halo lore, it's confirmed that the Scorpion's 90mm isn't seen as adequate by the existence of the Grizzly, which has two 120mm cannons firing HEAT shells. If the Grizzly's armament is what is seen as necessary to be adequate or surpass Covenant armor, then the Scorpion should at least have one 120mm firing HEAT. The existence of the M820 Scorpion with a 152mm ETC gun also confirms this."
Now let's go with the tracks and suspension
I mean yeah, the Quad Tracks are what made the Scorpion Iconic.
There's also not a lot of disadvantage or advantage with quad tracks... unless you put them separately
Not only it will causes a mechanical issue, it also worsen their off track performance as to quote Spookton
"you want your track to be aligned with your hull. If the Scorpion tried to climb a steep hill, the front tracks would begin climbing, but since they have free range of motion, the hull would not angle to crest the hill. The hull would dig straight into the hill while the tracks tried to keep ascending. Not to mention that making a mechanism which would be capable of transferring power to the tracks while they are freely rotating would be difficult and a maintenance nightmare."
Now let's go with the crew
One crew design? really? Although the amount of crew in tanks has decreased from 8 to 4/3 since their inception in Modern Warfare.
There's a reason why they use 4 or 3 crews. For example who shoots the gun? Who drives the tank? Who command those tank? Who reloads the gun (unless you're using autoloader)
"Hurr hurrr but less crew meaning less casualties" Granted but that'll mean you give more stress to the crew which do more harm than good.
Also it will be impossible for the Scorpion to do maintenance as only one person there to check a large ass main battle tank
"Hurr durr but computers" yes but who will do the maintenance of that as well?
Also the hatch. The hatch opens vertically and uses computer or electric help to opens it unlike tanks that today uses.. this maybe futuristic and cool and stuff, but if an EMP hits it. The crew would be stuck inside the tank making it a grave yard
"And the Scorpion can tank 3 plasma mortars.
MBTs don’t.
The Scorpion can be airdropped.
MBTs don’t."
I mean we don't have plasma gun as of right now to test it out but i have a feeling modern mbt would be shielded just fine especially if they're able to disperse the heat evenly
And air drop? As of right now, we don't have the helicopter or the plane that can air drop a tank in the middle of combat
Many militaries around the world have experimented with this with the most popular being the russian with their A-40 flying tank. and guess what it do more harm than good
the only reason i can think off why Scorpion can be airdropped is the Pelican cargo capacity
aand there's more reason
Thread to discuss negative things in a very general way, just see where it goes y'know?
in The Lounge
Posted
Why you gotta pull an article made by David Axe when the man is famous for not giving factual stuff, and obviously Fighter Mafia are a bunch of goofs who don't understand the realities of Modern Air Combat
For starters, the 1 trillion cost accounts for the entire life span of the F-35 program which includes all of the maintenance it requires, future upgrade capabilities... Basically all of the stuff that comes from the F-35 until 2070 where the Aircraft is projected to be retired. This also accounted the Inflation rate of the economy and other numeric stuff that only economist would understand. Cost overruns and delays are nothing unique and something that’s very common across similar programs. Rafale took 15 years between first prototype to achieving IOC (which is same as F-35 program), exceeding the deadline by 5 years. Eurofighter Typhoon took 20 years between demonstrator’s first flight and IOC, exceeding the deadline by 4.5 years
Secondly. Many Air Exercise such as Red Flag or Northern Edge alone proved the F-35 capabilities outshine its Legacy predecessor (F-15 to F/A-18) with it alone having a KDR of 28-1 against legacy aircraft.