[quote]Han Shot First wrote...
@Maxter,
The only thing you know about the real world militaries, is stuff you read online while surfing the net from his mother's basement. In addition to being a slackjawed simpleton, you're also a worthless coward.
[/quote]
Said by incompetent moron, who have no idea about military tactics, modern weaponry, no idea about tanks and artillery roles, branching of artillery, and military history.
Especially funny when that one, who so desperate for any credibility, and using his supposed military service, as a method of self-promoting himself to a state of an "expert", and then appealing to own "expertise".
So much credibility, it hurts
:lol:
:lol:
[quote]
You simply have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]
Ingorant moron like you is in no position to make such claims. Well,
credible claims, for that matter.
[quote]
Howitzers are in indirect fire weapon that do in fact have a direct fire capability and have been used in that role on a few occasions in Iraq, during the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and during the Second World War.
[/quote]
I like how you completely ignored my post about artillery's history.
So much credibility.
I like how you demonstrating your ignorance. Talking about artillery having no idea about it's braches. What an idiot.
Howitzers, dear ignoramus, is a very broad term.
For example,
MSTA-S is an
strategic artillery, never meant to be used as a close range support, with a range of 6.5-36(29) km.
It is not designed for close encounters with infantry, and it's only machine gun is meant for helicopters and unarmored vehicles, with ammunition of
300 rounds.
SU-152, on the contrary, assault gun-howitzer, designed for close-range support of assault and used also as a tank-killer when needed, with a range of 3-6 km.
I doubt you have any idea about differences between self-propelled howitzers branches, like anti-tank, strategic, assault guns.
[quote]
That including against dismounted infantry. When a howitzer is used in a direct fire role against infantry, depending on the weapon system, timed fuzes are equipped on either HE rounds or beehive rounds. The round is fired at infantry that is within close range and the time fuze causes it to explode before impact, sending either a wall of shrapnel (if HE round) or a wall of flechettes (if beehive) in the enemy's direction. It basically functions like the modern equivalent of the old Napoleonic canister.
[/quote]
Shows how much you know about artillery branches.
And MSTA-S howitzer never designed as an direct fire system, and anyone who uses that to fight infantry at close range is an incompetent moron.
I'm not even saying about MRLS or missile artillery like 9k720 with range of 400 km.
Continue to demonsrate your ignorance, it is entertaining.
[quote]
As I've said before however, artillery is primarily an indirect fire weapon.
Being involved in a direct fire is not an ideal scenario, and is generally going to happen only if the artillery unit's position is coming under attack and/or is danger of being overrun. [/quote]
Of course that is pure nonsense, which only demonstrates your ignorance.
For strategic artillery(like msta-s, or 2c5), or missile artillery, infantry overrunning their position means only that commanding officers are dumb morons. And those units already destroyed, with a slight possibility of crew surivival, using hand weapons.
And specifically for missile artillery, that also means that war is already lost.
Especially given any
modern infantry capabilities with sophisticated anti-tank weaponry, not some wild barbarians from desert.
No machinegun could ever save from things like
this one, with tandem cumulative rounds, which is easily annihilates tanks, not some strategic artillery with anti-bullet armor.
[quote]
At any rate, you've missed the point. The point was that the argument that the Reaper's main gun is more powerful than its supporting weapons, and thus should have been used during the beam rush instead of Harbinger's supporting weapons, does not necessarily hold water.
[/quote]
Of course i missed the point, lol. I said that this scene makes no sense because there is no reason for a reaper to descend from orbit to engage infantry at a close range.
Harbringer is a moron, like any one who uses strategic howitzers to engage infantry at a close range.
[quote]
The rounds fired from a 155mm howitzer are much more devastating that the rounds fired from a medium machine that fires 7.62 mm rounds.
That doesn't mean however that the 155mm howitzer is better suited to securing an artillery unit's position than crew-served machine guns. That is why on emplacing in a new position, artillery batteries always secure their perimeters with machine gun crews. Machine guns are
better at direct fire than howitzers.
[/quote]
*facedesk*
Dear alternatively gifted person, any idiot who uses artillery units to secure
their position, is a dumb moron deserved to be executed on sight, for loss of life and equipment.
Your "example" is pure garbage. You completely ignored my post about design of artillery branches and tanks are made as function derived from their
role.
Why short range artillery, like m109 howitzer, have machine guns? Because of their role, which is close range artillery support. Unlike PzH2000 or MSTA-S, which have range more than 30 km. Or MLRS, or missile artillery for that matter.
And reapers, dear ignoramus, never designed as close range artillery support, in no sane mind's produced scenario such ships would ever engage infantry at a close range.
Their
role completely different.
They are designed for space combat and orbital bombardment. And, in ME lore, which you obviously ignore, there is a atricle "planetary assault", which is plausibly derived as an application of me technology, weapons and space combat tactics.
[quote] Space Combat: Planetary Assaults
Planetary assaults are complicated if the target is a habitable
garden world; the attackers cannot approach the defenders straight on.
The
Citadel Conventions prohibit the use of large kinetic impactors against habitable worlds.
In a straight-on attack, any misses plough into the planet behind the
defending fleet. If the defenders position themselves between the
attackers and the planet, they can fire at will while the attacker risks
hitting the planet.
Successful assaults on garden worlds hinge upon up-to-date
intelligence. Attackers need to determine where the enemy's defenses
are, so they may approach from an angle that allows them to fire with no
collateral damage. Note this is not necessary for hostile worlds.
Once control of orbit has been lost, defensive garrisons disperse
into the wilderness. An enemy with orbital superiority can bombard
surface forces with impunity. The best option for defenders is to hide
and collect reconnaissance in anticipation of relief forces.
Given the size of a planet, it is impractical to garrison entire
conquered worlds. Fortunately, colonization efforts tend to focus on
building up a dozen or fewer areas. Ground forces occupy the spaceports,
industrial facilities, and major population centers. The wilderness is
patrolled by
unmanned aerial vehicles1 and satellite reconnaissance. If a defender unit is spotted, airmobile
rapid deployment units and satellite artillery are used to pin down and
destroy them.
[/quote]
Especially
[quote]Once control of orbit has been lost, defensive garrisons disperse
into the wilderness. An enemy with orbital superiority can bombard
surface forces with impunity. The best option for defenders is to hide
and collect reconnaissance in anticipation of relief forces.
[/quote]
This my dear ignoramus, means, that whoever commanding officer who made up plan as ground solution for a space problem, is a
MORON. Hackett is a moron. Anderson is a moron. Shepard is a moron.
There were no need for this retarded ground assault in first place.
And you know, when your plot
requires characters to be dumbed down - it is a badly written plot.
And before you continue your nonsensical gibberish about this being headcanon - it is a CANON. IT IS STATED IN CODEX.
Not your nonsensical mumblings about things you have no idea of, which fits exactly to a "headcanon".
This is CANON. And not just as a statement in codex, it is correct and plausible application of ME lore also.
[quote]
Likewise the rounds fired from the main gun of the main battle tank are much more devastating than machine guns, yet tanks still field machine guns to deal with dismounted infantry. Sometimes those machine guns can be more effective at close range for that role when dealing with dismounted infantry.
[/quote]
Whoever used artillery squads to secure area is a incompetent moron. It is that simple.
[quote]
Those are undisputed FACTS.
[/quote]
Nonsensical ignorant gibberish, actually. Nonsensical example, completely unrelated to a topic, which demonstrates that author have no idea about what he is talking about.
[quote]I'll ask again, though I don't expect an intelligent answer. If in real world militaries there are different tools for different tasks, why should it be any different for the Reapers? Why must the Reapers' main gun be a jack-of-all-trades?
[/quote]
Another example of ignorance.
[quote] Reaper Variants
The Citadel races have classified the known variants of Reapers into four types:
* CAPITAL SHIPS are Sovereign-class Reapers two kilometers in
length. They typically target the dreadnoughts, defense installations,
and industrial cities of organic civilizations. Experts believe the
Reapers harvest a single species of organics during each cycle of
extinction to create these massive ships. Some capital ships are capable
of launching small drones equivalent to fighters.
* DESTROYERS are 160 meters long and, in astounding numbers, make
up the bulk of the Reaper fleet. They engage cruisers and other,
smaller ships, as well as communications posts and enemy command
centers. Research suggests
destroyers are created from those species that are not harvested to make capital ships.
* TROOP TRANSPORTS carry
husks to unconquered planets and bring victims of the harvest to Reaper
processing centers. They vary in length from 200 meters to one
kilometer, but, unlike capital ships and destroyers, do not appear to be
self-aware. Instead, other Reapers operate troop transports remotely.
* PROCESSORS, also called "slaughter ships," are mobile centers
for mass DNA harvesting. Like troop transports, processors appear to be
remotely operated by sapient Reapers.
[/quote]
[quote]
The argument that Harbinger using its supporting weapons instead of the main gun during the beam rush scene is somehow an error on Bioware's part, is complete and total rubbish. Its based entirely on your individual head canon regarding the capabilities and limitations of Harbinger's main gun.
[/quote]
Gibberish.
This entire mission, with all its nonsense, only possible because Harbringer(and reapers in general), Hackett, Anderson, Shepard deliberately dumbed down.
Guessing from your constant inappropriate use of a term "headcanon", i think that is just another demonstration of you using terms you have no idea what they even means.
[quote]
As for the argument that Harbinger should have never descended to Earth to begin with, and should have bombarded London from orbit...that is a different discussion. It then becomes a discussion on Harbinger's motives and not his capabilities. In any event, its not some kind of lore error.
[/quote]
Logical fallacy, as always.
It is
you who said that i said that this scene is a lore error. You said that deliberately, because you can not defend your point without demagogy.
I think that logical fallacy is called "strawman".
Modifié par Maxster_, 18 janvier 2013 - 12:35 .
Retour en haut
