(Minor Halo 5 spoilers ahead)
Ever since playing Halo 5 and seeing the Kraken on Kamchatka and Sanghelios, I’ve been mildly irritated with the existence of the Kraken. It’s design seems impractical for both combat use and mining use/ excavation. So I’ve put together some thoughts on the purpose of the Kraken - I should note, however, this is written when we have very minimal (Note: nonexistant) information on this vehicle.
The Design
The Kraken has a… unique design when compared to other excavator classifications, big and small (Each word is a different image, namely all variations of scarab we’ve seen, the harvester and the locust). Namely, the odd number of legs (A tripodal configuration vs. a quadrupedal or octapedal configuration) and it’s tall, top heavy body. Curiously, it seems to bear more resemblance to the T-54 Drop Pod or the Spire. Even more interestingly, the reactor of the Kraken is massively exposed, compared to that of the Scarab or Lich, which were both shielded to avoid being damaged or destroyed (No images available).
Another curious property of the Kraken is it’s ability to fly - although we have seen what appears to be some kind of re-entry thruster on the Deutoros variant of the Scarab (Seen on Halo 3, The Covenant), where it appears to use some kind of thruster to slow it’s descent from orbit. On the Kraken, these ‘engines’ do more than allow it to merely slow a fall through the atmosphere, but actually allow it to travel a short distance over potentially rough terrain, at a considerable velocity at that. It could be logically concluded that such powerful thrusters are capable of allowing the vehicle to ascend the atmosphere, into low orbit or direct space flight. Or descend from orbit, from a larger, slipspace-capable craft such as a CAS, CSO or ORS. However, this is unlikely; it is never seen flying for long, and it is reasonable that the craft uses extremely powerful engines to help descend from orbit, requiring a quick burn that would overheat the craft and potentially overload the reactor. I would even argue the existence of legs support this theory, as why include legs on a vehicle that could hover? If the engines were designed for extended periods of use, then the existence of legs on such a craft would be literally useless. Instead, it would seem the engines on the Kraken are more designed for quick bursts of speed, be it for a quick getaway or to get over particularly horrid terrain. However, the legs are the primary method of movement, and an incredibly slow one at that.
However, some problems do amount with the design. Quite a lot, actually. With only 3 legs, and a massively top-heavy design, the Kraken is poorly outfitted for combat duties. One well-placed missile strike, MAC round or plasma torpedo would be able to put down the Kraken simply by shifting it’s centre-of-mass or destroying a leg and causing the structure topple. Even if this did not destroy the vehicle, this would cripple it and put it out of action permanently. As stated before, the legs are not particularly speedy, and are not particularly suited for combat operations (IE dodging projectiles) as movement too fast would almost certainly topple the Kraken without any action on the enemy part.
Unlike the scarab, Locust or (Presumably) the harvester, the Kraken does not appear to contain any kind of main weapon, be it an actual weapon or a makeshift mining beam like the Protos Scarab (H2) and the Harvester. In fact, the only weapon boasted by the Kraken are a dozen anti-air shade turrets for close defence against enemy aircraft, a small flight of aircraft for scouting and close-range air defence and whatever complement of infantry is stationed on-board to protect the vehicle from boarders (Not including using the legs as a weapon to crush enemies). Owing from this design, the only feasible way such a design could have a main weapon is if there were to be one mounted in the bottom of the vehicle, facing down, to dig mineshafts extending deep into the Earth. If so, such a beam would be extremely impractical and situational for use in a combat scenario - to use it, the Kraken would have to be literally on top of the enemy emplacement/ army. Of course, there is an argument to be mde than the Kraken is more like the Reapers (Mass Effect) than just it’s sound effects, particularly in the area of space combat - the logical location of engines/ replusors based on in-game flight would suggest otherwise. Even then, I would say no to this as a stance, the vehicle has a lot of weak points, namely separating the top area from the bottom (Where you land the Phaeton in enemy Lines) that would be obliterated by any moderate anti-ship weapon. As an anti-fighter craft, it would have a nonexistant role because it’s defences are shade turrets; these would require infantry in space, and would be easily dislodged/ destroyed. Even so, there is no discernable airlock on the craft to seal in the interior of the ship from the vacuum of space, requiring all infantry to wear space suits at all times. This is not practical. (I will concede, however, that there could be some kind of plasma shield on the doors to keep the air in, but such a system would not only be susceptible to boarding, but also projectiles and power fluctuations. Suitable for, say, a short drop from orbit but not for combat)
Overall, it’s pretty clear that the design of the Kraken excludes it from being any kind of combat vehicle. It performs poorly in the atmosphere both in speed and being easily crippled, and performs poorly in space due to bad design that would not fare well against any weapon designed to take on a capital ship - bear in mind that Prometheans and the Swords had difficulty taking down this behemoth because they couldn’t use their ship-borne weapons; the prometheans would likely not want to damage Kamchatka (If they had such capable weapons) and the Swords probably don’t want to use a glassing beam or plasma torpedo near a major historical site or forerunner structure - you don’t nuke a city to take out an anti-air emplacement, and you don’t use a glassing beam on your home planet to take out a walker.
Purpose
So now we’ve established what the Kraken isn’t good for, we need to ask what is it good for? On first glance, nothing. It’s trying to be too many things at once and as such, is overextending itself. After taking some time to think about it, I’ve considered a few options. However, the general consensus throughout them is the same; the Kraken is a vehicle designed for being pretty much as far from a combat situation as it gets, but was forced into combat in the waning months of a failing Covenant. It makes sense, after all; Jul is losing power. His prometheans have deserted him, his Covenant is splintering with wannabe warlords like Sali 'Nyon rising up and his troops are starting to break his doctrine with things like speaking human languages and mass defections to other causes like the Arbiter. As Halo 5 eloquently puts it, the Covenant is finally breaking. With such losses logically comes a loss of territory, resources and manufacturing facilities - in such situations, you have to use what you have and so, Jul is pressing normally non-combat equipment into combat, including a vehicle such as a Kraken.
So what purposes could the Kraken serve? Well. I’m about to hit the character limit so That will be in the below post.
