Redesign/Design: Main Battle Tanks

Community Halo Universe
1

You are tasked with designing a new Scorpion Main Battle Tank for the UNSC to replace the M808 Scorpion, you can use existing pieces of equipment and weaponry, or even modify it (examples below) but it must fit the requirements of the UNSC:

Must have 4 Tracks

Must have Auto-loader Fed Main Gun, and Turret mounted on the back of the chassis the same as other Scorpions

Must maintain at least the same speed as the M808 Scorpion

And finally it must be Air Liftable via D77 Pelican (meaning must weight under 70 tons)

Examples Follow:

Modification example:
Using a 9.5mm Co-Axial over a 7.62mm Co-Axial

Using Pre-Existing Tech Example:
Replacing M512 90mm SB-HV gun with M310 120mm SB-HV gun

Adding Example:
Adding Energy Shields to the Scorpion

For Fun. Completely redesign the Scorpion, you are given a blank check and free reign to design the new MBT as you see fit. however, it must be at least the same speed as the M808 and be air-Liftable via D77 Pelican, other than those 2 requirements, you can build as you please

2

Wow this is a really sweet thread, but I don’t know a ton about guns and engineering. I hope someone who does sees this!

This was kind of a bump…but it’s legal if it’s another user right? By the way ssshhhhhhh

3

> 2535445555605570;2:
> Wow this is a really sweet thread, but I don’t know a ton about guns and engineering. I hope someone who does sees this!
>
>
> This was kind of a bump…but it’s legal if it’s another user right? By the way ssshhhhhhh

Thanks, And it’s not really really a bump either so I wouldn’t worry about it. The thread is only an hour old as of this post. Regardless, do you have anything to contribute to building a new Scorpion?

4

> 2535450981578803;3:
> > 2535445555605570;2:
> > Wow this is a really sweet thread, but I don’t know a ton about guns and engineering. I hope someone who does sees this!
> >
> >
> > This was kind of a bump…but it’s legal if it’s another user right? By the way ssshhhhhhh
>
> Thanks, And it’s not really really a bump either so I wouldn’t worry about it. The thread is only an hour old as of this post. Regardless, do you have anything to contribute to building a new Scorpion?

Welll…I don’t have all those fancy terms, but I think it would be nice to elongate the scorpion by about 6 feet and have a space for a turret behind the main cannon. The back is one of the most exposed and weak places because a turret isn’t there to back it up and it takes forever for the cannon to turn all the way around and also affects steering. It’d be cool to have a turret back there to mow down the bad guys that sneak behind.

5

Honestly the current Scorpion is a pretty solid variation. My main additions would probably be some kind of coaxial machine gun again (probably an M343 since those seem to be ubiquitous), possibly a second on the opposite side, for additional anti-infantry firepower. And aplaque armor packages that would attach to the exterior, coated with anti-radiation material to protect against plasma.

6

> 2533274907200114;5:
> Honestly the current Scorpion is a pretty solid variation. My main additions would probably be some kind of coaxial machine gun again (probably an M343 since those seem to be ubiquitous), possibly a second on the opposite side, for additional anti-infantry firepower. And aplaque armor packages that would attach to the exterior, coated with anti-radiation material to protect against plasma.

I dunno if a Co-Axial .50 would be a good idea, you could however mount a M343a2 on a ROWS (taking the Mastodon’s M41 ROWS and updating for Post-war UNSC) and have that on top turret to replace the Pintel-Gunner turret. giving the gunner a 360° firing range and modest protection from banshees and light armored vehicles.

7

> 2535450981578803;6:
> > 2533274907200114;5:
> > Honestly the current Scorpion is a pretty solid variation. My main additions would probably be some kind of coaxial machine gun again (probably an M343 since those seem to be ubiquitous), possibly a second on the opposite side, for additional anti-infantry firepower. And aplaque armor packages that would attach to the exterior, coated with anti-radiation material to protect against plasma.
>
> I dunno if a Co-Axial .50 would be a good idea, you could however mount a M343a2 on a ROWS (taking the Mastodon’s M41 ROWS and updating for Post-war UNSC) and have that on top turret to replace the Pintel-Gunner turret. giving the gunner a 360° firing range and modest protection from banshees and light armored vehicles.

Not a bad idea really. The turret would need a bit of modifying, but it should be modified anyway. The sides are wide enough to mount some kind of machine gun…no reason to have the only anti-infantry weapon be on the tank’s front.

8

Complete overhaul:
First, the turret is lowered, in order to lower the overall profile. The 4 tracks are replaced by 2, and the treads are wider, in order to travel over more difficult terrain.
Overall height is 7 feet, only slightly taller than a man. Tank overall is shorter, but also wider and longer (the ratio of width to tread length needs to be roughly between 1:1.5 and 1:1.8). When the turret is pointed to the side, the main gun clears the treads in the horizontal position, and can aim below horizontal up to 10 degrees. However, it is not possible to turn turret when barrel is below 0 degrees without striking the treads’ protective covering.

The turret still has an auto-loader, but is easy to access inside the turret in case of malfunction. Manual overrides for all critical systems are included. Turret is designed to fire high-angle shots, as well as negative elevations (i.e., below horizontal line). Coaxial machine guns are mounted to turret. One is 7.62, the other is .50 BMG. There is a matching pair of fixed frontal machine guns on the tank’s body.
Crew of 3: driver and main gunner share the turret, while frontal gunner is below them in the hull operating frontal machine guns.

There are 2 types of armor plating: heavy and light. Light is equal to current scorpion model, heavy is equal to grizzly. Frontal armor is sloped at an angle, in order to cause shots to glance off. Side and rear armor are also sloped, to compensate for relative thinness.
Engine is located in rear of the tank, and comes in 2 variants: the mule and the gazelle. The gazelle is used with light armor for mobile tanks, while the mule is used with heavy armor for shock tanks.

New tank doctrine calls for the ‘Hammer-and-Anvil’ strategy: mobile tanks, supported by warthogs, will encircle and outflank enemies, while heavy tanks pin them in place. Then, at the commander’s discretion, the shock tanks and grizzlies can either smash immobilized enemy formations, or can form a blocking force while the mobile units drive the enemy into the kill zone.

9

lets see make them more manuverable give the driver accecc to a machine gun and cannon like the Halo CE and Halo 2 Tanks.increase speed and armour and thats it

10

> 2535429705233183;8:
> Complete overhaul:
> First, the turret is lowered, in order to lower the overall profile. The 4 tracks are replaced by 2, and the treads are wider, in order to travel over more difficult terrain.
> Overall height is 7 feet, only slightly taller than a man. Tank overall is shorter, but also wider and longer (the ratio of width to tread length needs to be roughly between 1:1.5 and 1:1.8). When the turret is pointed to the side, the main gun clears the treads in the horizontal position, and can aim below horizontal up to 10 degrees. However, it is not possible to turn turret when barrel is below 0 degrees without striking the treads’ protective covering.
>
> The turret still has an auto-loader, but is easy to access inside the turret in case of malfunction. Manual overrides for all critical systems are included. Turret is designed to fire high-angle shots, as well as negative elevations (i.e., below horizontal line). Coaxial machine guns are mounted to turret. One is 7.62, the other is .50 BMG. There is a matching pair of fixed frontal machine guns on the tank’s body.
> Crew of 3: driver and main gunner share the turret, while frontal gunner is below them in the hull operating frontal machine guns.
>
> There are 2 types of armor plating: heavy and light. Light is equal to current scorpion model, heavy is equal to grizzly. Frontal armor is sloped at an angle, in order to cause shots to glance off. Side and rear armor are also sloped, to compensate for relative thinness.
> Engine is located in rear of the tank, and comes in 2 variants: the mule and the gazelle. The gazelle is used with light armor for mobile tanks, while the mule is used with heavy armor for shock tanks.
>
> New tank doctrine calls for the ‘Hammer-and-Anvil’ strategy: mobile tanks, supported by warthogs, will encircle and outflank enemies, while heavy tanks pin them in place. Then, at the commander’s discretion, the shock tanks and grizzlies can either smash immobilized enemy formations, or can form a blocking force while the mobile units drive the enemy into the kill zone.

Must have four tracks.

11

> 2533274943975523;10:
> > 2535429705233183;8:
> > Complete overhaul:
> > First, the turret is lowered, in order to lower the overall profile. The 4 tracks are replaced by 2, and the treads are wider, in order to travel over more difficult terrain.
> > Overall height is 7 feet, only slightly taller than a man. Tank overall is shorter, but also wider and longer (the ratio of width to tread length needs to be roughly between 1:1.5 and 1:1.8). When the turret is pointed to the side, the main gun clears the treads in the horizontal position, and can aim below horizontal up to 10 degrees. However, it is not possible to turn turret when barrel is below 0 degrees without striking the treads’ protective covering.
> >
> > The turret still has an auto-loader, but is easy to access inside the turret in case of malfunction. Manual overrides for all critical systems are included. Turret is designed to fire high-angle shots, as well as negative elevations (i.e., below horizontal line). Coaxial machine guns are mounted to turret. One is 7.62, the other is .50 BMG. There is a matching pair of fixed frontal machine guns on the tank’s body.
> > Crew of 3: driver and main gunner share the turret, while frontal gunner is below them in the hull operating frontal machine guns.
> >
> > There are 2 types of armor plating: heavy and light. Light is equal to current scorpion model, heavy is equal to grizzly. Frontal armor is sloped at an angle, in order to cause shots to glance off. Side and rear armor are also sloped, to compensate for relative thinness.
> > Engine is located in rear of the tank, and comes in 2 variants: the mule and the gazelle. The gazelle is used with light armor for mobile tanks, while the mule is used with heavy armor for shock tanks.
> >
> > New tank doctrine calls for the ‘Hammer-and-Anvil’ strategy: mobile tanks, supported by warthogs, will encircle and outflank enemies, while heavy tanks pin them in place. Then, at the commander’s discretion, the shock tanks and grizzlies can either smash immobilized enemy formations, or can form a blocking force while the mobile units drive the enemy into the kill zone.
>
> Must have four tracks.

For fun section at the bottom.

12

Well this is an interesting one. Hope you continue this to encompass all of the UNSC vehicles and move even include the Covenant or Forerunner types. Beta 5 operator you might like this. I will see how best I can refit the Scorpion. Also I am going by the assumption this is the design which would become the M820.

  • Powerplant. While we don’t know exactly what powers a Scorpion, it would be fair to reason it’s a larger version of the Warthog’s 12L liquid-cooled hydrogen-injected ICE I/C plant. So i would install a 26L supercharged ICE I/C plant with the aspiration for a speed of 80/90 mph. Positioning of the power plant will be midships/middle and right of the tank chassis. This eliminates the exposed rear issue and better protects the engine from damage as it is more well armoured.

  • Chassis - Length; 10.5 meters - Width 9 meters - Height 5.2 meters - Weight 40 tonnes.

Reduced silhouette especially with the turrent to improve combat survivability. Chassis widen to accommodate defensive systems, weapon payload and crew compartment. Track necklaces widened for improved maneuverability. Power plant positioning to the middle of the chassis to improve survivability during combat. Exhaust directed downward to decrease IR signature. Mine resistant construction with floating crew compartments.

  • Defensive/ C&C suite - Twelfth generation composite armour as base. - Tenth generation reactive armour tiles. - Reactive blow panels for ammo storage and engine bay. - Tenth generation active defensive systems, soft and hard kill capable( Hard kill being actual energy shielding while soft kill are various ECM and IR jammers to hinder lock on and guidence.) - Integrated neural network for use of AI, semi smart or smart, for autonomous control. UPS, Orbital link, IR (White,Black), low light systems.

  • Offensive CapabilityX1 150mm M990 electrothermal-chemical smoothbore cannon. Main gun various munitions payload, including gun launched ATGMs. 360° rotation. +75 -10 degree elevation

X1 .5 HEAP three barrel bushmaster in articulated arm in main turrent. 360 degree horizontal traverse, +75 -5 degree elevation. Bushmaster fitted on top main turrent and can be moved independently, also automated.(HEAP High Explosive Armour Piercing)

X1 .5 HEAP single barrel coaxial bushmaster.

X1 7.99mm pintle mounted machine gun. Can be slaved to either the main turrent, top turrent or operated independently. Can be autonomous or manned.

X2 8 cell 40mm multi threat grenade launchers. Mounted either side of the tank. Firing ExHE, MSCM, AAKV.

ExHE are exacto HE grenades which are given the target by the targeting AI. They are either fired upward to do a top down attack on armour or fortifications or at an angle and with the use of mini thrusters correct their flight to the target. Useful in dense urban combat. Capable of contact or air burst detonation.

MSCM. Multi Scenario Counter Measures are used for obscuring enemy observation during and advance or withdrawal. They use a high density mix of smoke infused with IR, Chaff and nanos to disrupt tracking systems. Scorpion crews are advised to pre select targets before use as MSCM can hinder friendly trackers as well.

AAKV. Anti Air Kill Vehicles are as the name implies are a defence system for airborne attackers. It is fired upward towards an incoming aircraft, firing a claymore styled shaped charge. The explosion and shrapnel can immobilize most airborne threats. Tests are underway for a laser variant for use against tougher and more exotic threats.

Compliment

X2 human crew unagmented/ X1 augmented X1Dumb AI.

Rear internal space for x4 marines/ x2 Spartans
Track necklaces weighted for x2 marines on each/ x1 Spartan.

13

> 2533274943975523;12:
> Well this is an interesting one. Hope you continue this to encompass all of the UNSC vehicles and move even include the Covenant or Forerunner types. Beta 5 Operator you might like this. I will see how best I can refit the Scorpion. Also I am going by the assumption this is the design which would become the M820.

Ha, I glanced through this thread yesterday and figured it would tickle your fancy.

> 2533274943975523;12:
> - Powerplant. While we don’t know exactly what powers a Scorpion, it would be fair to reason it’s a larger version of the Warthog’s 12L liquid-cooled hydrogen-injected ICE I/C plant. So i would install a 26L supercharged ICE I/C plant with the aspiration for a speed of 80/90 mph. Positioning of the power plant will be midships/middle and right of the tank chassis. This eliminates the exposed rear issue and better protects the engine from damage as it is more well armoured.

Not a bad assumption. But 26L for a tank? Doesn’t that seem kind of… light? There’s a double-digit difference in tonnage between a warthog and a tank.

I would have actually focused on bringing down max speed to 60mph. Wouldn’t want the polizei to pull me over and hand me a ticket, right?
<.<
>.>
I recall hearing something from tank crews about platforms becoming unstable when they hit high speed (hitting a bump at 20mph is a lot different then hitting it at 80mph), leading to a bunch of mechanical problems - plus you’ve gotta sacrifice combat performance to fulfill those high-speed requirements, no bueno. Realistically, you wouldn’t hit 80+ mph anywhere off the test track to begin with, so I’ll stick a governor for 60mph (58mph)

From here on out, I’ll refer to my own design as the “Deathstalker” Scorpion:

Chassis - Length: 8.3 meters - Width: 6 meters - Height: 3.9 meters - Weight: 55 tonnes. - Vehicle treads double for legsThe M808 scorpion design is iconic… and very impractical. It’s abnormally large, a super-heavy tank. I would certainly decrease it’s chassis dimensions by a minimum of two meters. Compared to modern tanks, its still very much impractical, but who cares.

As with VerbalStatue, sticking with a hydrogen fuel cell is a good idea, but what I’m less concerned about its operational range or maximum speed, then how quiet it is. The United States Army Tank Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center is testing/evaluating a platform called the HZ2. It features a hydrogen fuel cell (truth be told I was going to go down the HCNG route): what makes it special is its reduced thermal signature compared to traditional combustion engines, reduced noise level, and ‘instant’ torque. Figure a more efficient design and larger cell to accommodate the increase in mass could work here. Apply intelligent design (some edge orientations, smaller profile) for reducing Sensor-CS, add some passive electronic countermeasures… and you’ve got a tank that will only be seen when it wants to be.

You’ll notice a few similarities between the Silver Devils and the Deathstalker here, that’s because I’m removing the organic middleman entirely. Organic assets are hefty investments, the loss of an M808 follows the loss of good, expensive manpower and resources. But any battle that means 100 causalities for the enemy and 0 for me is a tactical victory.

Defensive/ C&C suite - Next-generation CNT-MMC armor - N/XA reactive armor tiles (Electromagnetic Reactive Armor) - Active Protection Systems (ECM and ECCM) with wireless guided projectile jamming, laser-guided munition disruption, and laser-connect computer subversion (‘Return to Sender’). - Electronic-Scanned Trophy System, but instead of kinetic projectiles, it launches bursts of plasma inches away from the projectile target. - COFFIN. COckpit For Functional Insight Nexus. Autonomous system with uplink capabilities for orbital communications network and A.I Shard downloads. - Ultraviolet, Infrared, LIDAR, and Visual sensors using a management and pattern recognition suite originally developed for Spartan (VISR) - 4 four-barreled smoke grenade launchers with "360 degree coverage, can be loaded with chaff and flaresOffensive Capability - Single 'barrel M66 LRG (50mm Light RailGun). +80 -5 elevation. Definitely allows room for more ammunition with its smaller size then conventional cannon-fired shells. - Two Micro-missile pods fitted on top of the main turret - 7.62x51mm pintle mounted LMG - Four LaWS, multi-kilowatt lasers that can be used to slowly burn through infrastructure, civilian vehicles, or unshielded aircraft (although its usage has been legally disputed when post-battle assessments revealed its repeated repurposing against organic combatants…*).*A.Is play dirty.

14

Ha you called it Beta 5 operator.

> Not a bad assumption. But 26L for a tank? Doesn’t that seem kind of… light? There’s a double-digit difference in tonnage between a warthog and a tank.I would have actually focused on bringing down max speed to 60mph. Wouldn’t want the polizei to pull me over and hand me a ticket, right?
> <.<
> >.>
> I recall hearing something from tank crews about platforms becoming unstable when they hit high speed (hitting a bump at 20mph is a lot different then hitting it at 80mph), leading to a bunch of mechanical problems - plus you’ve got sacrifice combat performance to fulfill those high-speed requirements, no bueno. Realistically, you wouldn’t hit 80+ mph anywhere off the test track to begin with, so I’ll stick a governor for 60mph (58mph)

It does seem a bit light and I was originally toying with the idea of a 30-32L engine. Part of the reason I chose 26L, partly giving credit to 25 century engine advances in that the engine may not be limited to real world constraints needing a hefty engine to move that amount of tonnage.
As for the high speed it was to meet the Scorpion need to be part of manouve warfare in being air transportable and rather rapid on the ground. The Grizzly being the real heavy MBT for seige ops.

I am guessing you are referring to your Silver Devil UCAVS? If not I am not familiar with the vehicle you are referring to. Sounds like your variant is an IFV/tank destroyer considering the rapid firing raligun and missile launchers. Top points for the self defence laser systems.

15

I just want the Grizzly from Halo Wars to be a high value REQ pack in Warzone… :stuck_out_tongue:

If I were to also modify the scorpion, why not replace the turret with a small MAC gun? Or even a Covenant hybrid testing platform with a Wraith cannon mounted on the Scorpion chassis?

16

> 2533274943975523;14:
> Ha you called it Beta 5 Operator.
>
>
> > Not a bad assumption. But 26L for a tank? Doesn’t that seem kind of… light? There’s a double-digit difference in tonnage between a warthog and a tank.I would have actually focused on bringing down max speed to 60mph. Wouldn’t want the polizei to pull me over and hand me a ticket, right?
> > <.<
> > >.>
> > I recall hearing something from tank crews about platforms becoming unstable when they hit high speed (hitting a bump at 20mph is a lot different then hitting it at 80mph), leading to a bunch of mechanical problems - plus you’ve got sacrifice combat performance to fulfill those high-speed requirements, no bueno. Realistically, you wouldn’t hit 80+ mph anywhere off the test track to begin with, so I’ll stick a governor for 60mph (58mph)
>
> It does seem a bit light and I was originally toying with the idea of a 30-32L engine. Part of the reason I chose 26L, partly giving credit to 25 century engine advances in that the engine may not be limited to real world constraints needing a hefty engine to move that amount of tonnage.

But the laws of physics still apply? Streamlining of gathering energy from specific chemical reactions reduces the amount of fuel needed (and mass presumably, disregard previous discussions about hydrogen since we’re talking about tanks not aerospace frames) to move an object a certain distance. Apply more force to move farther, faster. Larger engines, high oxygen intake, and greater fuel supply means biggest bang for your buck. Tanks, being massive slabs of anti-materiel resistant armor and a an anti-armor cannon mount, will need that larger supply.

> 2533274943975523;14:
> As for the high speed it was to meet the Scorpion need to be part of manouve warfare in being air transportable and rather rapid on the ground.

But… but muh platform stability. Remember the higher the speed, the more noisy your tank is going to be and the more maintenance hours your gonna need. That kind of high speed performance is unnecessary since your armored vehicles won’t be outrunning cheetahs or Banshees anytime soon.

> 2533274943975523;14:
> The Grizzly being the real heavy MBT for seige ops.

Don’t get me started on the Grizzly… XD

> 2533274943975523;14:
> I am guessing you are referring to your Silver Devil UCAVS?

That’s the one!

> 2533274943975523;14:
> Sounds like your variant is an IFV/tank destroyer considering the rapid firing raligun and missile launchers. Top points for the self defence laser systems.

Actually it was more generalized then that. I was thinking more along the lines of armored vehicles deployed with QRFs, replacing certain until specialized armored vehicles came unto play. The high elevation of the cannon line-of-fire allows it to engage the one weakness of any ground asset, the enemy profiles over their heads, like Banshees or drop-pods undergoing atmospheric entry (although “85+” would have been better, but beggars can’t be choosers).

The micro-missile launchers are anti-personal ( in the sense that their designed to engage the Covenant’s bane of armored vehicles, Hunters or heavily shielded combantants with anti-armor loadouts) and infrastructure (capable of demo work on small or soft structures, like Mantis cannons or enemy encampments).

The idea here was reliability against a portfolio of potential engagement profiles. A Deathstalker can do okay on its own, against any target - be it land, air or sea, so long as the enemy isn’t bringing in superior numbers or quality armor.

17

First I’d make the scorpion way smaller, (seriously the scorpion is so big you can use light tanks as escape pods) then I would place the 4 track pods under the hull, (ideally I’d do away with the quad tracks altogether…) after that I would redesign the the turret to hug the hull like any self respecting modern tank, I’d then put the machine gun turret on top of the main turret so then the gunner doesn’t become deaf everytime the cannon fires, I would make room for 3 people in the scorpion because having 3 people do separate jobs is a lot better than having 1 person trying to drive, spot, and shoot the enemy at the same time, finally I would give the scorpion energy shields, a spartan laser for point defense, and nano bots for repairs.

18

I was gonna suggest replacing the main gun with a gauss cannon but saw a rare version of this being used in Warzone last night.

Just like the Russian BMP-T in real life, there could be a redesigned turret that uses dual or quad auto cannons of 25 - 30mm coupled with a rocket launcher for urban warfare.

The machine gun secondary armament is pretty weak against anything larger than a grunt or crawler - perhaps it could be supplemented with an automatic grenade launcher, but such a weapon and its associated ammo would be tough to fit in without blocking the turret traverse. The MG gunner’s station shouldn’t be exposed anyway, there’s no protection from small arms fire or explosions.

19

> But the laws of physics still apply? Streamlining of gathering energy from specific chemical reactions reduces the amount of fuel needed (and mass presumably, disregard previous discussions about hydrogen since we’re talking about tanks not aerospace frames) to move an object a certain distance. Apply more force to move farther, faster. Larger engines, high oxygen intake, and greater fuel supply means biggest bang for your buck. Tanks, being massive slabs of anti-materiel resistant armor and a an anti-armor cannon mount, will need that larger supply.
>
>
> > 2533274943975523;14:
> > As for the high speed it was to meet the Scorpion need to be part of manouve warfare in being air transportable and rather rapid on the ground.
>
> But… but muh platform stability. Remember the higher the speed, the more noisy your tank is going to be and the more maintenance hours your gonna need. That kind of high speed performance is unnecessary since your armored vehicles won’t be outrunning cheetahs or Banshees anytime soon.

I see and agree with your logic about the engine size and being relative to the size and tonnage of the tank. So 30-32L would be the more appropriate engine size. As for the speed it is worth mentioning that in canon a Scorpion has a top speed of 70mph so one would assume that issues with suspension and stabilisation at high speeds have been minimised, likewise with the overall maintenance, I shudder to say I am using the F-35 as an example, where the projected maintaining cost will get much lower over time.

> Don’t get me started on the Grizzly… XD

I thought you loved the Grizzly for all its practicality and overwhelming firepower haha.

> Actually it was more generalized then that. I was thinking more along the lines of armored vehicles deployed with QRFs, replacing certain until specialized armored vehicles came unto play. The high elevation of the cannon line-of-fire allows it to engage the one weakness of any ground asset, the enemy profiles over their heads, like Banshees or drop-pods undergoing atmospheric entry (although “85+” would have been better, but beggars can’t be choosers).The micro-missile launchers are anti-personal ( in the sense that their designed to engage the Covenant’s bane of armored vehicles, Hunters or heavily shielded combantants with anti-armor loadouts) and infrastructure (capable of demo work on small or soft structures, like Mantis cannons or enemy encampments).The idea here was reliability against a portfolio of potential engagement profiles. A Deathstalker can do okay on its own, against any target - be it land, air or sea, so long as the enemy isn’t bringing in superior numbers or quality armor.

Yeah that is quite similar to the role of an IFV in that it they are meant to engage fairly armoured targets that are missed by MBT or can act as fire support to dismounted infantry that run into up armoured opponents. Not that I need to explain this to you. With your micro missiles are they impact, proximity or duel detonation? Also with the lasers, when you say a slow burn to kill structures vehicles and aircraft is this a long range weapon or more of a snapshot weapon?

20

> 2533274943975523;19:
> > > 2533274943975523;14:
> > > As for the high speed it was to meet the Scorpion need to be part of manouve warfare in being air transportable and rather rapid on the ground.
> >
> > But… but muh platform stability. Remember the higher the speed, the more noisy your tank is going to be and the more maintenance hours your gonna need. That kind of high speed performance is unnecessary since your armored vehicles won’t be outrunning cheetahs or Banshees anytime soon.
>
> I see and agree with your logic about the engine size and being relative to the size and tonnage of the tank. So 30-32L would be the more appropriate engine size. As for the speed it is worth mentioning that in canon a Scorpion has a top speed of 70mph

The M808 has a top speed of 60 mph. The M820 has a top speed of 80 mph (holy smokes).

> so one would assume that issues with suspension and stabilisation at high speeds have been minimised, likewise with the overall maintenance, I shudder to say I am using the F-35 as an example, where the projected maintaining cost will get much lower over time.

I don’t think we actually see either one of those vehicles hitting that top speed in-canon. And nor does it mention the environmental/situational conditions for hitting that mark. With that in mind, I try to keep my numbers conservative, because they are easy to acknowledge and explain then the wicked specs provided.

> I thought you loved the Grizzly for all its practicality and overwhelming firepower haha.

It’s a land battleship. I can appreciate the beauty of the monstrosity from a distance.

> Yeah that is quite similar to the role of an IFV in that it they are meant to engage fairly armoured targets that are missed by MBT or can act as fire support to dismounted infantry that run into up armoured opponents. Not that I need to explain this to you.

Yeah, yeah. Truth be told, I took inspiration from the Bradley. In the place of organic troops though, it carries digital daemons, net-war/info-war specific subsystems that target the enemies communications, battle networks. I also messed around with the concept of loading a small bay for six TARDS, remote-controlled infantry platforms with fixed-comms that can physically link themselves to foreign interfaces, like artificial intelligence linked to their Spartans occasionally do when encountering an alien terminal. Though that can just be a variant of the Deathstalker, with modifications to the chassis to accompany their (TARDS) integration.

> With your micro missiles are they impact, proximity or duel detonation?

Proximity, air-burst. Short-range and “low” velocity can be contributed to its composition, a significant portion of which is explosive filler. Less fragmentation, more concussive blast - I’m calling these missiles… Newtons.

Eh. Okay… maybe not.

> Also with the lasers, when you say a slow burn to kill structures vehicles and aircraft is this a long range weapon or more of a snapshot weapon?

It really comes down to how you appropriate your energy budget (and of course the quality of the components used, so I’ll just stick with high-quality stuff)

Spartan Lasers/snapshoting just means launching an intense beam of energy at matter until it superheats and explodes (high energy density per square unit of distance, typically meter). It’s unstable and consumes a significant amount of energy in it’s brief usage. Not to mention serious degradation of internal components (optics especially), plus the fact that it’ll blind you and everyone else around you (going with the different wavelength lasers for this example), regardless of how tinted your shades might be.

Slow burn is more like our modern-day stuff: LaWS simply burns a hole into a target’s delicate zones until it malfunctions. Among components, the lens will probably last longer then ‘snap-shot’ counterparts, its usage is also less limited and leaves it’s destructive capabilities more controllable. Against organic targets though? I’ll leave the reactions up to the imagination.

So really you could do both here. There’s tradeoffs either way.

Speaking of which, I actually had a concept for Anti-Aerospace Defenses for the ‘Rebuild War Machine’ thread based off using X-Ray lasers.