NavySeel
"I don't know what I'm doing."
- Location
- Places
That could make a good quest actually.
Pilgrimage quest.
Last edited:
Shepard Quest Mk VI, Technological Revolution
- Thread starter Hoyr
- Start date
Pilgrimage quest.
So dreadnoughts and superdreadnoughts are still viable in space warfare?
And if we improve shields for fighters will they be able to take on ships like the pydnae?
Last edited:
- Location
- Leeds
According to one analysis. As I said in my post, maths needs to be pulled up to be tested. It is possible that the analysis is wrong.
- Location
- Little Rock, AR
But isn't that a non starter?
We need to get political influence to risk helping them.
But to get political influence requires helping them.
One thing to keep in mind is that this holds true for frigate-class systems; that's ships ~200m or less in length, judging by size estimations for the Normandy series.
It does not hold true for dreadnoughts, which are in excess of 800m long, and have power plants, cooling systems and weapons to match.
The broadside lasers of a refitted dreadnought from our techbase are quite likely to be in the same class, if not stronger than the spinal weapon of a frigate.
In Fleet combat, Pyndas use wide beams to damage surface emitters on cruisers and the like, because your laser does not have the power to punch through cruiser and dreadnought armor.
Frigate armor is much thinner, so if a bigger ship should fire back with even broadside lasers, you're going caput.
Mass effect main gun engagement range for dreadnoughts in space combat is in the tens of thousands of kilometres.
We punked lastgen Batarian cruisers with frigates.Mass Effect Space Combat said:
Do not make the mistake of thinking that means you can do the same thing to a dread.
The SA Everest class, for example, had a 38kt-yield main gun in addition to 156 broadside guns, 78 to each side.
That's a ton of brute force to bring to bear.
Odds are, if the Batarian dread had been refitted for space combat, instead of planetary assault and troop carrying, it would have added enough force to crush our space fleet, regardless of new space tricks.
Last edited:
I do not think so
I mean as long as we help them in non military matters such as prolonging the lifespan of the migrant fleet
They would not be under pressure to retake rannoch and by helping them in non military matters
We not only help the quarians but gain political influence to stop a potential quarian attack on the geth
Two birds with one stone
Also we do not have to directly help them just release tech that will potentially help the quarian
I mean
We are not going to deny them access to our tech as long it non military and they pay for it
Last edited:
- Location
- Leeds
Laser damage is more closely related to wavelength than intensity so size the size of the power source is secondary. The key limit as I see is that a frigate or even a dreadnought is a 1km long target moving at a fraction of the speed of light attempting to dodge your shots at distances measured in Light Seconds.
Depending on what assumptions you use it varies but you'll be hard pressed to get a cone with a degree with an angle of less than a thousandth of a degree. That is not an easy margin of error even before you consider things other than target size and range.
Cone Calculator
Its the processing power to calculate where that target will most likely be, the opposing pilots ability to be unpredictable and the time to get enough shots that you're statistically likely to hit it.
Secondly I'm not sure what assumptions you're using but, muzzle velocity of an ME weapon, and by extension its effective range, doubles as its length quadruples. Classic constant acceleration equation. So while we are outranged but not as badly as it might be.
Finally are you trying to make me laugh? Tens of thousands of kilometers? A light second is thirty times that. ME weapons are shivs compared to lasers.
1)The delta-v of ME ships in normal space is unknown.
But given that this is the same techbase who are able to calculate straight course FTL jumps over light years, ballistics calculations over tens of thousands of km is not at all an issue.
Not when they can code VIs.
Furthermore, when laser wavelength is the same, intensity matters and power source matter.
Being able to deliver that gigawatt of laser energy to your target area in a microsecond rather than over 10 seconds is the difference between a usable weapon and a laser signalling system.
2) The range of dreadnought main guns is pretty well documented.
Alliance Navy
Starships
That's a main gun throughput of 17kt/second. Translated into joules, that's 6.997 × 1013 joules.
Roughly 70,000 gigawatts per second.
Doesn't count propulsion, or life support, or secondary weapons, or shields, or whatnot.
Yes, dreadnoughts are scary.
3)Lasers are subject to the inverse square effect rule, so they weaken with range; GARDIAN only has a range of 10km for that reason(100km for the salarians, I think, when they started using UV lasers).
Even our bullshit lasers suffer the same effect.
Furthermore, mass effect tactical sensors are all STL, so to fight at ranges where your radar/IR/optical/particle sensors are giving you data that human-speed minds can react to, tens of thousands of kilometres IS the sweet spot.
Any more and you'd have to leave it to computers.
EDIT
Re: Dreadnoughts
Do note that the geth are reputed to have almost as many dreadnoughts as the turians.
There are many, many reasons why Quarian engagement should be entered with extreme caution.
Last edited:
I am sure this question got asked already but I was wondering what sort of tech should Revy be researching now to support the SA war effort?
I personally want to research mammoth tanks. There is nothing better than a full on assault on an enemy position by massive tanks but should we research better ships instead?
I mean we are already in a proxy arms race with the reapers since the reapers are clearly backing the batarians so how should we counter the new tech that the reapers have given to the batarians?
I personally want to research mammoth tanks. There is nothing better than a full on assault on an enemy position by massive tanks but should we research better ships instead?
I mean we are already in a proxy arms race with the reapers since the reapers are clearly backing the batarians so how should we counter the new tech that the reapers have given to the batarians?
- Location
- Budapest, Hungary
The only significant improvement compared to an up to date Tiger would be a longer cannon.
you mean compared to command and conquer mammoth tanks?
because those would likely be armed with starship guns?
- Location
- Budapest, Hungary
Starship weapons are too powerful for surface combat.
We are talking about casually firing kiloton yields.
You are better off using athmosphere capable ships to to ravage planets.
We had a discussion about tanks earlier, and the concusion was, that the only practical design was esentially a scaled up Tiger with a longer MAC, and maybe with more armor.
Last edited:
Well that depends on the certain circumstances
we may not able to to use our ships due to things such as surface antiship guns.
And in certain situations, the surface shield may be too powerful for our ships guns
Ships are good but they can not be used to attack enemies which are too close to our soldiers
Mammoth tanks would be able to not only outgun any tank in the galaxy but also they are designed to just plow through enemy lines in a front on assault
They are heavily armored and can only be destroyed by orbital bombardment
it would be a nice tribute to the mass effect commander and conquer crossover Renegade
Renegade Chapter 1: Gateway, a Command & Conquer + Mass Effect Crossover fanfic | FanFiction
I'm sorry if I seem annoying
I'm just a huge fan of tanks
Last edited:
hey, It´s possible to make a gravitational shield strong enough to distort space ?
maybe it isn´t a very cost effective way to defend our ships, but I can´t see nothing that can bypass space itself.
we also will be probably incapable of firing back, still a nice thing to wonder about. your opinions on this ?
maybe it isn´t a very cost effective way to defend our ships, but I can´t see nothing that can bypass space itself.
we also will be probably incapable of firing back, still a nice thing to wonder about. your opinions on this ?
Last edited by a moderator:
What it means is that we need to be cautious and deliberate in our interactions with the Migrant Fleet. If we just buy a planet and give it to them, in exchange for researchers (which @Hoyr might disallow since RP limitations are one of the core balance points in this Quest) as @Slamu suggests, they're likely going to dump their civilian population on it, strip-mine the asteroid belt, and gather their fleet together to make even more provocative runs at the Geth, much like how the Quarians took their civilian population with them and make a suicide run on the Geth in canon the second they discovered a possible software exploit. This isn't a problem of logistics or technology or economy; it's a problem of politics, and we need to treat it as a political problem, not something we can just throw money at.
No. Gigawatt is a measure of power, which is energy over time; our lasers literally deliver 5 gigawatts, which means 5 gigajoules per second.
Gigajoules per second, not gigawatts. Scary powerful, yes, but there are two issues with that:
1) All that power is being scattered by the target's kinetic barriers, which are literally designed to scatter and deflect this type of energy, and do so very effectively. This is in contrast to lasers, which completely ignore traditional kinetic barriers (but TIR defeats lasers, and Gaver Dor's tech tree promises to do the same).
2) All that power is very "slow", at least compared to lasers, which translates to short engagement ranges. As your quotes have said, those guns fire at a rough 4,000 kilometers per second, meaning that the maximum engagement range is probably 20-40,000 km. That's 5-10 seconds of shot travel time, which is plenty of time for an enemy ship to see the bullet coming and dodge if they're using antimatter engines, and that range is half as long when engaging a Repulsor-equipped ship since we can use Repulsors for our maneuvering thrusters as well as main engines (and will be even shorter than that since we're using improved VIs and optical computing to speed up our processing speed and therefore reaction time), allowing our ships to random-walk a much wider area.
Note the word "random-walk". That's how an evading ship evades a targeting VI: maneuver in a random pattern that cannot be predicted, in order to prevent a shooter from having a realistic chance of hitting beyond the maximum engagement range.
Inverse square effect? Good Lord no; inverse square is for unfocused waves propagating in a two-dimensional area, like ocean waves. Lasers deal with Gaussian beam optics and ray optics, both of which essentially make engagement ranges vary directly with frequency and intensity of the beam. Our beams are roughly 100-500 times as powerful as a traditional 10-50 MW GARDIAN laser, which means we can engage at 100-500 times the range of normal GARDIAN systems, or 10-50 times the range of the current Salarian State of the Art UV lasers (if we get UV lasers as well we can also add another 10x to our lasers' maximum engagement range, which is why I want to get them).
In other words, our lasers can engage a target near the outer ranges of a dreadnought's main gun, and our Repulsor engines' increased maneuverability nearly push us over that limit, to the point where only massed suppressive fire by a dreadnought has a realistic chance of taking out a Pynda.
Last edited:
- Location
- United states
I think the major issue with this is you are assuming that your interpratations of the Quarians are fact rather than the fact that people writing them actually thought through everything. I mean if you really put some thought into the story of a lot of fiction out there you could point out at least a few plot holes that the writers themselves missed. Considering that the Quarians were meant to be portrayed as a perpetrated people like several IRL examples it is extremely more likely that the writers at Bioware didn't put as much thought into this as other people have and I would bet 20 bucks that if you told them about your analysis that they would flat out tell you that you were wrong.
Hell the other races were guilty of holding the idiot ball as well so they are not the only ones guilty of making stupid decisions-
********
Council and SA: "Hey let's pretend that the Reapers don't exist despite all the evidence and not bother preparing for them at all!"
Turians: "Hey lets attack those humans without telling them what they did wrong!"
Salarians: "Hey let's try to uplift the yahg, a race even more dangerous then the Krogan! Afterall that turned out great!"
Asari: "Hey lets keep our intact Prothean beacon completely hidden even though we are going to be wiped out by a super advanced race if we don't!"
Cerberus: "..."
So yeah,
**************************
You also seem to have left out the part where there were actually quarians that were against the genocide of the Geth and that it is probably like that the anti Geth quarians that survived used propoganda to make it look like it was the Geth's fault instead of the idiots that advocated genocide. As I recall there were in fact some people that were all for peace and some just wanted a world. So that said I think we could assume that Hoyr is not going to be giving the Quarians the idiot ball this time around.
As for how to deal with the Quarians I still think that fixing the Quarians immune system and getting them on a planet could work. Of course now that you brought some things up I am thinking that instead of outright giving them a planet we 'rent' them a planet instead with the deal that if they don't start trouble we will give them the planet for them to claim permanently. So basically a trial to make sure they won't try to screw us over with us maybe having a few people watching them to make sure they don't try anything we won't like. During this trial period we could try to use the goodwill we earned to influence their politics subtly in a way that we want that would have the majority supporting the actions we want. Hopefully we can influence and convince the majority that they don't need to fight the Geth like Shepard accomplished in ME3.
We could also make it so that we would benefit from this as well by doing something like getting them to sell or scrap many of their ships(they are poised to get their own planet anyway) so that they would be even less inclined to go to war with the Geth. Hopefully after several years of living the good life most would feel a lot less inclined to start a war that would kill most of them. It should be pointed out that it is in our interests to discourage the Quarians to go to war with the geth since that would cost us allies and resources that could go to fighting the Reapers.
1% might be overstating the numbers of engineering expertise here (how many people are any kind of engineer today as a percentage of the population?), but I'll agree to use that as a hypothetical number. Partly, it's because they have institutional knowledge that no simple 'book learning' could compensate for, partly it's because they have experience with a wide range of design philosophies (how many Volus or Elcor-built ships do you think humans have hands-on experience with?), partly it's because I have a soft-spot for the Quarians and want to help them somehow.
I doubt we'll be hiring all 17 million Quarians, but I'd love to have the top 17 Quarian engineers working for us.
So, some ideas on how we might help the Quarians without (overly?) strengthening their military;
- Coordinating with the Migrant Fleet about how to make Mindoir especially Quarian-friendly. On the one hand, there's likely the little things we could do to make the community that much more inviting (have a more palatable selection of dextro-friendly foods, do a charitable grant for the Landing hospital to have a Xenobiology wing that can handle more complicated stuff, having a friendly chat with the Mayor about how we're being friendly with the nice space nomads), maybe work out a standing deal that Quarians on pilgrimage can stop by for a bit of hospitality, help us with some projects working for PI as they save up for...whatever they need (passage to another system, buy important widgets for their home ship, etc). Pro: Seen as a friendly port, shouldn't be too hard to pull off, trickle of ship-based RP? Con: Already did something like this a few turns ago ('the SA is a pretty pro-Quarian place already'), lost in the noise (I'm sure there's already several places that have 'Quarian Ghettos' of sorts)
- Offer to build civilian ships for the Migrant Fleet, such as cruise liners or custom-made liveships. Pros: Quality of life visibly improves for the average Quarian, artificially increases Admiral vas Qwib Qwib's supporters in the Conclave, practice for us in shipbuilding on larger scale (may include 'free' techs on how to build larger ships? Cons: As seen with the canonical attack on Rannoch, civilian ships can be up-armed to serve as additional combatants, possible issues of payment? (I'd prefer to be paid in brain-sweat, obviously, but I'm open to suggestions here)
- Offer to retrofit Quarian ships to the PI standard so as to simplify fleet logistics, new parts for everyone! Pros: Simplifies their logistics, lots of new customers, resolve some outstanding maintenence issues(?) Cons: probably tie up our shipyards for a while, expensive undertaking unless there's some major hat-passing going on, possibly get seen as an attempt to get leverage over the fleet by becoming the sole parts-provider
- Fix their immune system problem. Pros: Pretty unambigious that we give a shit, saves a lot of Quarian lives, simplifies their living conditions rather a bit. Cons: Requires Shepard's patented magical science pixie dust, may help their military arm anyway(?), ongoing problems on the fleet (they're still going to be allergic to hard vacuum unless I missed something)
- Lease a system in SA space to them for a few decades. Pros: Should be fairly straightforward, economic stimulus to nearby colonies, gives them a chance to overhaul their ships, additional anti-piracy patrols, possible increase in dove-ishness in populace. Cons: Chance that this would be seen as an attempt to make the Quarians a client race to the humans, political problems from all sectors, expensive (possible payment problems), risk of Quarians strip-mining an entire system, would give SA defense planners heartburn
Would you care to expound on that? I never got the DLC for any of the games...
Is it the extended family with the in-laws that invite themselves over all the time and lay on the passive-aggressive schtick pretty thick?
I believe consensus was that, so long as we maintain technological superiority over peer opponents on the ground (Legionary suits, Tiger IFVs, drone spam vs largely traditional Mass Effect militaries or ones only now introducing powered armors to the warfare paradigm) the important thing is to dominate in space (something we've got a head start on with the laser Wunderwaffe and cheap-for-its-weight frigates we've designed, but without the kind of one-sidedness I think we'd all prefer). Navies are expensive, but I think there's likely to be a bit more funding we'll get from the SA Department of the Navy after this; between 'we are now on wartime footing, everyone start making more ships' and the miracle we saw over the skies of Mindoir, they're likely quite interested in whatever new golden eggs we happen to lay.
No problem. I want me some giant stompy robots, but we both have to recognize that there's a persistent
Also, I find that the more RP there is to go around, the more people are willing to chip in on the less 'essential' projects, such as super-tanks or giant stompy robots. That's one of the reasons I'm trying to scare up void-based engineering RP in the form of Quarian science teams. (Also I'm hoping for omake where Tali and Kasumi cosplay as Overwatch characters, but that's secondary)
-I was planning to lease the planet, not gift it
-dumping the civilian population to do a death-or-glory run is less bad than an all-in Hail Mary as seen in canon
-I don't see the Quarian Admiralty being comfortable with leaving a major settlement undefended if at all possible
-Creating a cultural divide between the 'ship Quarians' and 'settled Quarians' may reduce the monoculture, make for a political crisis of sorts in the Migrant Fleet
-What is the problem of them strip mining the asteroid belt (unlikely to be a fast event even if the entire fleet was able to do it) if no one else owns it? (What else are you going to do with an asteroid belt, make it a nature reserve?)
-the more of their scientists we tie up working for our projects, the fewer of their scientist will be available to look for coding flaws (this may run afoul of
-I saw this as an attempt to work within the system's inherent RP restraints than working around them. Sort of an expensive bid for a hero scientist/research team rather than "lol, buy planets build labs". Have I erred in making this assumption?
- Location
- Latvia, Riga
Mass Effect 3: Leviathan short version:= there are some evidence that in the past number of Reapers were destroyed by something (in-universe speculations renegade Reaper). Shepard tries to find it, but the artefact it left behind was used by the "Leviathan" to midncontrol some people and kill leading scientists to hide its location.
skipping a lot, "Normandy" managed to find a colony that had a similar artefact and every human, asari, etc. that populated that place were under ITs control for many years. Again Leviathan destroyed evidence and clues for it's location.
Skipping = at the end Shepard managed to find it, but that is something more than he imagined. Somehow he convinced the arrogant Leviathan's to assist the Galaxy......they are still douchbags.
- Location
- Leeds
No you are not understanding just what a nightmare this is as a targeting problem. With a Laser you take a guess where your target will be in a few seconds and shoot there, if the other pilot guessed where you guessed and avoided there then you miss and need to start again.
With ME weapons you take a guess where your target will be in a few seconds and shoot there, the other pilot sees your shot incoming because its traveling at sub light speeds and avoids it.
All lasers have a much greater effective range regardless of power because they aren't as easily predictable.
I did not dispute these numbers or that dreadnoughts are scary (However now that you put it out there, 1.3% of lightspeed is really slow given that when at FTL velocities ships travel at about 0.2 c of the local ME field, which suggests a ship could just outrun one of these slugs even without engaging FTL.). What I am saying, is frigates are not as badly outmatched as you think they are.
Theeyes basically covered this very well so I won't go over it too much just make these points.
We have discussed and (unless Hoyr speaks up to tell me that I am wrong) I shall assume we are using ferrofluids in magnetic fields to provide a focusing lens that can be adapted and altered to provide the perfect lens for each shot.
This means that even wide beam fire which will diverge and reduce from the inverse can be controlled so that when it arrives at the target it still presents the correct amount of power to damage the target.
Furthermore you dissmissed my attempts to make it clear how difficult fighting at light second ranges can be by saying a VI does it and then turn around and claim that human reaction speeds have any bearing on this? Increasing the distance does not make it harder to react, infact it means the literal opposite, there is more time to react and consider.
Our current gen Lasers give 1GW per meter of length. So if the lasers are broadside size:
would be 14GW while spinal lasers would be 160GW. Having run the numbers the 2.8x increase in power gives a 1.67x increase in range while maintaining the same intensity at the target. What's more important however is that at the same range the 14GW laser would have 2.8x the intensity.
So the question becomes: is 2.8x the energy required to burn out the ship's shield emitters enough to damage the ship? Because if it's not then the Pynda wins. My reason being that the Pynda should be able to engage the Dreadnought at such a range that the Pynda's MACs can hit the Dreadnought but the Dreadnought's can't hit the Pynda due to the differences in cross-sectional area and maneuverability.
The spinal canon of a Dreadnought is never going to be an issue for a Frigate, let alone the super-maneuverable Pynda, because they can easily just move outside its firing cone. The threat to Frigates is the Dreadnought's massive banks of broadsides.
You do remember that power plants aren't at all an issue for ships nowadays right? A 40TW Arc Reactor is only 1.2m across and costs a cheap 120 million credits. As for cooling, the real issue for spaceships, Dreadnoughts are kinda worse at it then Frigates due to the square-cube law giving them less surface area for their increased volume, and thus likely increased head production.
Not in the slightest. 14GW lasers output 14GJ of energy per second. An equally sized MAC outputs 1.672kt per second which is equivalent to 6,996GJ of energy per second. Put simply MACs output ~500 times energy per second then lasers. The real difference is that lasers trade the focused impact of a slug for their ability to bypass shields.
Except as I showed earlier in this post broadside lasers are only 2.8x more powerful so I'm not confident they can penetrate the armor of Frigates at the ranges involved.
And? Dreadnoughts can't use their main guns against anything besides other dreadnoughts, especially at those ranges, because everything smaller then a dreadnought is fast enough to dodge. At 10,000km a projectile going 4,025km/s takes ~2.5 seconds to cross the distance. That's a long time in space combat. A 100m frigate would only need an acceleration of 32m/s^2 to dodge in the absolute worst case scenario, needing to move the full 100m length out of the way, and more realistically could do it with just 6.4m/s^2, shifting half the ships length/width out of the way.
Now if we look at the range data we have:
we only have numbers for what CLOSE and EXTREME range are like. However I think we can estimate what the others are:Codex: Space Combat said:
Extreme range: Greater then 10,000km
Long Range: Less then 10,000km and Greater then 1,000km
Medium Range: Less then 1,000km and Greater then 10km
Close Range: Less then 10km
Now Medium Range is a larger relative size (100x step rather then 10x step) but with the scale of things in space I think the absolute difference is more important here.So by my estimates medium range, the point at which broadsides start being used, is also the range at which lasers become effective for taking down shields:
Given the increased maneuverability granted by Repulsors I'd wager the Pynda could sit at the edge of Long/Medium range where it could take down a dreadnought's shields, and deal damage with it's MACs, while being able to dodge the counter attacks of the dreadnought's broadside MACs.
Honestly for ground war our best bet would be getting Miniaturized Energy Weapons to upgrade the laser turret of the Tiger IFV. That would go straight through enemy shields and, if set to wide-beam mode, be absolutely devastating to enemy infantry. Plus at the ranges involved the default setting would have tiny, well setting aside atmospheric effects, diameters making cutting through enemy armor a breeze.
There aren't any hard numbers, at least that I found with a quick search, but apparently in the USA in 2015 there were 237,826 graduates with engineering degrees. If you assume half those actually become engineers and an average 20 job life then we get an estimate of 2,378,260 engineers in the USA which is 0.75% of the total population. If we then assume that percentage still holds true in ME then of the ~13 billion humans there should be roughly 97.5 million engineers.
Mammoth tanks are terrible tanks. You'd have a much more effective tank by tearing out the dual cannons and replacing them with a single cannon that's at the edge of the turret's capacity to cope with.
And as noted, there's really not that much improvement to be had in ground combat through dedicated main battle tanks of any sort, the ME field of ground combat simply doesn't support it when orbital fire would be focused on tanks, and if you've got orbital supremacy you'd be hitting every target worth sending a tank at would be just as easily dealt with by some judicious orbital fire from a frigate.
As I said before orbital fire can not be the answer to everything
That only applys if you have orbital supremacy and even with orbital supremacy there are many situations that would require a main battle tank
Battle tanks are more heavily armored than IFV and are a better support for supporting attacks on the enemy
To assume that orbital fire can solely wins wars ignores the reality of warfare
Tank are fast and heavily armored vehicles that are designed to break and enemy line
Also you can not use orbital bombardment against every type of enemy
If we could use bombardment to solve everything
World War One would not have been the long stalemate it was
Only with the appearance of the tank did warfare become mobile
Without orbital control your MBTs get bombarded to dead.
Missiles. Harder on the logistics than shells, admittedly, but capable of the same job in the same niche and generally man portable for the same yields. And as such not as easily spotted and targeted by enemy air and orbital support.
Tigers are faster, well armoured, and don't exactly do less damage than an MBT does. And carry troops.
In the places orbital bombardment is not a valid answer neither will be tanks, as it'd be enemy fortresses entrenched under thick layers of rock with extremely limited routes of ingress. A tank is useless and going to be shot to shit in such confined spaces.
... Actually it wasn't.
I mean, the development of the tank was important, but changes in infantry and artillery doctrine was actually much more important than the tank was. Creeping barrages to wash out the enemy while the infantry advanced, curtain fire to keep enemy reinforcements at bay and early infiltration by infantry so the attack could be pressed before the defenders could retake their positions did most of the doctrinal shift in getting the First World War unstuck from the trenches. The tank helped, but it did that by basically being direct fire artillery that could move with the infantry.
The tank required decades of improvement before it became fast and strong enough to start dictating the pace of a battle, rather than the artillery.
You make valid points but orbital bombardment
Requires that you have complete control of space surrending the planet
In a unconventional war, fighting inferior equipped forces you can gain complete orbital control
But the Batarians are not that kind of foe, we are fighting a conventional enemy in a conventional war
Tanks are capable of taking out enemy armor, support enemy attacks and provide the ability to hold ground
Ships can not hold ground and neither can infantry without armor support
Tigers can do the same role as tanks but they are not good as the real thing
Tigers for example can never be fitted with the same armor and gun that tanks can be fitted it because it meant to carry and support infantry
Also with improvement with technology
It is without question that tanks will be more able to withstand missiles and anti tank weapons
The best weapon to take out a tank is another tank
Also
Thanks for the criticism
I always love to see how I may be wrong
Also I am sorry if I sound annoying
I just am a big fan of tanks
Last edited:
- Location
- Leeds
...
Pydna...
Tanks are cool. Just... they're already heading towards obsoleteness, or at least the large kinds are.
They are to use authentic military nomenclature, a honking great target, which means they're kinda easy to destroy. Strange to think about I know but thats modern missile technology for you.
You can try and mitigate this by adding more armour. But that makes them a slow moving honking great target. Removing one of the big advantages of mobile warfare and making the process of destroying them from quick to slow but inevitable.
Basically the reason that we haven't seen any Maus esque tanks since WWII isn't that we can't make them. They are just bad.