[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]Han Shot First wrote...
I agree with the OP.
From a military point of view Harbinger not firing on the Normandy makes perfect sense. The Normandy posed absolutely no threat whatsoever to Harbinger or the Reapers, and if the Normandy had attempted to engage Harbinger it is lucky if it would have even scratched its paint. The Normandy was totally outclassed.
[/quote]
From a military point of view Harbringer not turning off the beam, or not using his main gun makes absolutely no sense.
[/quote]
You are making the assumption that Harbinger 1) had control over the beam, and 2) that the main gun and the supporting weapons have the same capaibilities and limitations.
That is a rather large assumption, and also head canon.
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]Han Shot First wrote...
Based on what exactly? Your head canon about how Harbinger's main gun and targeting systems work?
[/quote]
Lol.
Therefore your headcanon now stronger than game's canon?
That gun used by reapers in space combat and
orbital bombardment. As is for any dreadnought in any fleet.
This is main weapon of all dreadnoughts, reapers included.
I like how you are demonstrating that you don't give a damn about ME lore.[/quote]
You are making the assumption that just because the Reapers' main guns are able to track and adjust for targets travelling at FTL speeds in space, that they are well suited for tracking and adjusting for man-sized targets on the ground travelling at between 5 and 8 miles per hour, or that they are even capable of firing at dismounted infantry at close range. You are comparing apples to oranges and basing your conclusions entirely on your personal head canon on the capabilities and limitations of the Reaper's main gun, and how its targeting systems function.
Unfortunately for you, head canon does not make for a compelling argument.
Just because the Reapers main gun can track and adjust for targets travelling at FTL in space doesn't necessarily mean that the main gun would be well suited to perform a similar task for dismounted infantry.
A Patriot missle battery can track and adjust for incoming missles travelling at hundreds of miles per hour. That doesn't mean that it can used to engage dismounted infantry.
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]Han Shot First wrote...
We know next to nothing about how Harbinger's weaponry functions. The codex entries are rather vague and sparse on details.
[/quote]
We know enough. It is used in precise orbital bombardment of an military installations.
As is for every dreadnought in ME.
It also used in space combat, which requires a lot more precision due to a greater range.
You just demonstrating again that you ignoring ME lore.[/quote]
Again, you are making large assumptions and arguments based entirely on head canon.
Please quite the section from the codex where we are given details on the targeting systems for both the Reapers' main guns, and their supporting weapons? Please quote the section where we are given the capabilities and limitations of both in regards to tracking and engaging dismounted infantry.
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]Han Shot First wrote...
How do we know that the weapons being fired by Harbinger during the beam rush scene were in fact the betters tools for that particular task, due to both the capabilities and limitations of both weapons systems?
[/quote]
We know that it is used in orbital bombardment. Therefore, this entire sequence with descending Harbringer makes absolutely no sense.[/quote]
We don't know, and you are making assumptions based on head canon.
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]Han Shot First wrote...
I'll give you a real world example.
A shell fired by 155mm howitzer is much more destructive than rounds fired by a medium machine gun firing 7.62mm rounds. That doesn't however, mean that a 155mm howitzer is a better direct fire weapon against dismounted infantry than a machine gun that fires 7.62 mm rounds. In fact, the opposite is true.
[/quote]
You just demonstrating your ignorance again.
Artillery is meant for indirect fire, especially howitzers.
And reapers using their
kinetic weapons in orbital bombardment.
Your example is laughable. So, a howitzer squad, for some unknown reasons, decided to move from his position to attack some dismounted infantry using assault rifles.
So much for a "military point of view"
[/quote]
Incorrect.
I'm afraid I'm much more versed on how artillery weapons function than you. I'd suggest you refrain in the future from discussing topics you are completely ignorant of.
While howitzers are indirect fire weapons, many weapons systems do in fact have direct fire capabilities. The M-198 howitzer that was used for many years by both the US Army and Marine Corps (as well as the Australian military), is capable of direct fire against both armored vehicles and dismounted infantry. In fact there are a couple of examples of it being used in exactly that capacity during both the Gulf War and the more recent invasion of Iraq.
Direct fire however is not the primary function it was designed for, and would generally be used only when artillery unit's position was being attacked or in danger of being overrun. In the direct fire role it is also, because of the limitations of the weapon, generally going to be a less effective weapon in engaging dismounted infantry than machine guns despite firing a far more destructive round. That is why artillery batteries also field machine guns to secure their positions. Those machine guns, rather than the howitzers, are the primary defense against an assault by dismounted infantry.
I'll give you another example of why your argument that a Reapers main gun must by default, have the same capabilities of its supporting weapons, completely fails
Why do tanks have machine guns in addition to their main guns? I'll tell you why...because generally speaking those machine guns are going to be a more effective weapon at engaging dismounted infantry at close ranges than the tank's main gun.
Different tools for different tasks. Why should it be different for the Reapers? That is after all, how the real world works.
In fact with the absence of any codex entry detailing the capabilities and limitations of Reaper weapons in engaging dismounted infantry, the best we have to go by is the actual scenes in the game.
While not absolute canon, we can at least surmise that the Reapers' supporting weapons are in fact better than the main guns for engaging dismounted infantry, because that is what Harbinger uses in the beam rush scenes. At least
that has some actual basis on in-game content, rather than declaration that the main gun would be better based entirely on one's own personal head canon.
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]Han Shot First wrote...
Second, Harbinger's objective was to stop the ground team from getting any personnel to the beam. The tanks, dismounted infantry, and the gunships providing air support were the real threat. Any one from the ground team that made it to the beam could potentially doom the Reapers. At the time the ground time posed a very serious threat to the Reapers, unlike the Normandy, which posed none.
[/quote]
One shot from his main gun - and entire offesive is instantly annihilated.
And no one would got to the beam.
They were never a threat, one shot - and all dead instantly.[/quote]
An assumption based on head canon.
Once again there is nothing in the lore that indicates that the main gun was suitable to firing at dismounted infantry at close range. There is absolutely nothing in the lore regarding capabilities and limitations of the Reaper's main gun and its targeting systems in regards to dismounted infantry at close range.
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]Han Shot First wrote...
Also destroying the Normandy in no way guarantees that you wipe out the ground team. If the destruction of the Normandy SR1 was anything to go by, the destruction of the SR2 would not have been that dramatic. At best it would have killed and wounded some people in the immediate vicinity, but it certainly wouldn't have eliminated the entire ground team. And it would have been a distraction that potentially buys enough time for someone to make it to the beam.
[/quote]
Explosion of a Cruiser in earth:intro. SR-2 have roughly same size drive core.
Anyway, one shot of 400kt tnt equivalent kinetic impact explosion is enough to glass entire area with no survivors.
[/quote]
It was a dreadnought. Ashley and Kaidan refer to it as such in dialogue.
Even if it were a cruiser however, the comparison would still fail. The SR2 was a frigate and the closest comparable ship would be the Normandy SR1, not a heavy cruiser.
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
In real world situations, howitzers squads don't deliberately dismount to engage enemy soldiers with handguns.
I like how you making up nonsensical explanations, and mark them as "real world examples".
[/quote]
Now you're just making up stuff.
I never said that artillery crews would abandon their howitzers and engage the enemy with pistols.
What I did say, and is that artillery weapons are much
less well-suiited to engaging dismounted infantry at close ranges than medium machine guns, despite the howitzer firing a much more destructive round.
That is an undisputed, stone cold FACT. That is why artillery batteries in the US Marine Corps secure their own positions with crew-served machine guns like the M2 .50 caliber machine gun, the MK-19, and the M240G.
Unlike you, I also have real world experience in this field. But if you would like to continue by all means, go ahead. I'd love to continue owning you.
[quote]
Given your "examples", you never had any experience in the military.
[/quote]
Unfortunately for you I served four years on active duty in the United States Marine Corps.
I'm afraid its you here who doesn't have a single clue what they are talking about. But by all means continue, I rather enjoy dishing out ownage
.
Retour en haut
