Units that should never have been made

[Sarevok]

Yeah true.

But if they actually make a Halo movie you will see master chief riding in a warthog with marines. There willl be no other vehicles except the tank.

[AMT]

Yeah, I mean we never saw any kind of tank in any Halo.

And yet the Warthog not the Scorpion tank is the most iconic vehicle in Halo universe. The warthog is so absurd and useless it should fit only small niche roles. But the Warthog seems like the most common vehicle in UNSC military. The Warthog would be a death trap in real world conditions never mind fighting the Covenant.

What does iconic mean when we speak of effectiveness. That just means it looks the coolest and is what the fans like, not that its the main vehicle of the military.

[open_sketchbook]

Yes, the warthog shouldn't be nearly as iconic as, say, the Humvee is for the US military. Because, you know, they are not basically the same goddamn vehicle.

[adam_grif]

Come on guys, you chose THAT of all things to criticize Halo about? How about the fact that the UNSC battle plan goes something like this:

- Send in Master Chief with an Assault Rifle and a little bit of ammo.
- ???
- Victory.

[Srelex]

Come on guys, you chose THAT of all things to criticize Halo about? How about the fact that the UNSC battle plan goes something like this:

- Send in Master Chief with an Assault Rifle and a little bit of ammo.
- ???
- Victory.

But it works.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I am surprised no one mentioned the Halo warthog.

Piccy

In 26th century mankinds greatest fighting vehicle is a Somali technical.

You realize that the US military routinely uses Humvee variants that are even more open and unarmoured, right? The Warthog is a recon platform, mobile machine-gun, gunship killer and otherwise multipurpose light vehicle, and seems a fairly well-designed machine for the job.

What the hell is a "mobile machine-gun"? I mean what's the tactical role of such a vehicle, that is other than a technical, which are of course useful in low-tech bushfire wars, but hardly relevant to any modern military? As a light recon and utility vehicle the Warthog could be feasible, just like the HMMWV. The HMMWV was not intended to be a front line combat vehicle either, although the lack of convoy escorts and such pushed it to more serious roles in Iraq.

"Gunship killer" is of course ridiculous; real life SPAA vehicles have missiles or at least 20 mm autocannons. The last time a heavy machine gun was considered a legitimate designated AA weapon for vehicles was in the 1950s and even then it was two 14.5 mm machine guns (the Soviet BTR-40A). That vehicle was retired in the 1960s since it was clearly obsolescent even then.

[open_sketchbook]

The Covenant are retarded enough that the Warthog can fill the role of shooting down their flying machines. Obviously this wouldn't work against a human enemy.

[FSTargetDrone]

I always felt that the APU war built so poorly because Zion was so short of material that they only had what the machines had basically supplied them with. The machines basically gave them poor design APUs.

What I thought was stupid was how Zion never got smart enough to remove some of the EMP weapons from their ships and deploy them basically as area denial mines. Remote detonate them to take out tons of enemy squids and never risk a ship in the process.

I still find it very difficult to believe that the humans could not scrounge up even some protective "armor" to weld onto the cockpit frame of the APUs. The Machines almost exclusively use melee attacks (with, as I recall, the exception being that "thrown" device used in the tunnels), so you have to keep their tentacles away from the APU pilots. As I said in another thread, the human APU pilots are in danger of being struck by the spent casings of other nearby APUs, never mind being slashed to death by the machines. Even some closely-spaced metal bars and chicken wire welded over the framework of the APUs would be better than nothing. And nothing is exactly what we see.

But then again the humans' tactics also involve the APUs being reloaded by people running out in the open, completely exposed to attack, so...

Simply using the APU guns in turreted emplacements scattered around the city would have been better. The APUs are next to useless if the Machines get within melee distance, so what is the benefit of having pairs of guns walking around? With turrets, you can reload under cover until the ammo supply runs dry AND you will (or should) have a much harder time knocking the turrets over as opposed to flipping the APUs on their asses. Having walking machines sucks up resources better spent on turreted weapons.

[adam_grif]

I am surprised no one mentioned the Halo warthog.

Piccy

In 26th century mankinds greatest fighting vehicle is a Somali technical.

You realize that the US military routinely uses Humvee variants that are even more open and unarmoured, right? The Warthog is a recon platform, mobile machine-gun, gunship killer and otherwise multipurpose light vehicle, and seems a fairly well-designed machine for the job.

What the hell is a "mobile machine-gun"? I mean what's the tactical role of such a vehicle, that is other than a technical, which are of course useful in low-tech bushfire wars, but hardly relevant to any modern military? As a light recon and utility vehicle the Warthog could be feasible, just like the HMMWV. The HMMWV was not intended to be a front line combat vehicle either, although the lack of convoy escorts and such pushed it to more serious roles in Iraq.

"Gunship killer" is of course ridiculous; real life SPAA vehicles have missiles or at least 20 mm autocannons. The last time a heavy machine gun was considered a legitimate designated AA weapon for vehicles was in the 1950s and even then it was two 14.5 mm machine guns (the Soviet BTR-40A). That vehicle was retired in the 1960s since it was clearly obsolescent even then.

The Gauss hog is a more legitimately useful weapons platform, but why it's a "hog" is still unknown. At least put a thin plate over to cover people's head from the rain, c'mon.

Although TBH the Scorpion tank is so damn slow that I'd still probably take a Hog over it, even without armor. It's not as though the Scorpion does much of anything to stop enemy tank fire (i.e. wraith), and the Warthog armor is clearly enough to stop infantry fire for the most part. Just cover the damn passengers.

[Eviscerator]

Oh, it gets worse when you examine the model/minature of the warthog closely

1:1 real vehicle
http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/File:Warthog01USE.jpg

in game model
http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/File:Snow_Warthog.jpg

The ammo canister seems to be attached to the mount, so when your MG runs out of ammo you need to, you know, reload?
Imagine doing that standing up, or asking the driver to driv to a place, stop, and wait for you to change belts. hmm.

Even the Troop transport variant is odd that it's still open topped.
http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/M831_Troop_Transport
If only the Covenant have flechette/shrapnel weapons instead of all directed beam and no, the needler doesnt really count.

[Sarevok]

The Covenant are retarded enough that the Warthog can fill the role of shooting down their flying machines. Obviously this wouldn't work against a human enemy.

In that case a tunguska style SPAAG would eat covenant aircraft like a fat kid and box of candies. The UNSC is still stupid for not exploiting the fact Banshees are worse than biplanes.

[Eviscerator]

The Russian Tunguska is an fully contained, mobile SPAAG/SAM system. Which means its carry its own radar and functions by itself etc etc.
While it is true that Anti-aircraft fire can be accomplished by putting ungodful amounts of stuff in the air, its far more efficient when theres radar and computer targetin systems to help them aim.

An comparable Halo system would be http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Wolverine

Shooting down something flying at high speeds while you yourself is in an all terrain vehicle bumping up and down (without computer assistance) is a very tough deal

[adam_grif]

Aforementioned somali technicals with a 14.5mm MG would rip through Covenant forces just as well as a Warthog would. That's what the sniper rifle in the game fires, the Soviet 14.5. They instakill all unshielded enemies and 1-3 rounds kills an elite, depending on shot placement.

The 'Hog fires 12.7x99mm NATO rounds, apparently. The disparity between sniper rifle 14.5's and the Hog 12.7's seems far larger than it should be, but whatever, it's a stupid game anyway.

In any case, I agree. Tunguska would butcher Covenant aircraft, and as long as it doesn't have any problems aiming at them (I'm unsure whether it would or not, I don't think my experience using them in Battlefield 2 counts for much...), ground forces too. Ghosts, Banshees, infantry. 30mm rounds will kill them all to death, and then some.

Might not be able to kill Their tanks, but then again, it might. They don't seem armored all that well. They've been shown to be vulnerable to 102mm HE-Frag rounds (the Halo rocket launcher), after all.

[Eviscerator]

Sometimes one wonders how much real stuff they bother to illustrate/show in game scenarios. By peeking at the mounds of SAM and AA stuff avail in a modern army, translating even half of those systems into Halo would mean the Covenant's dropships and fighters will falling like flies.

Modern self-contained AA systems would sweep the skies, and Theater level SAMs like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
Patriot, Hawk, THAAD, etc etc networked together would gurantee air superiority.

But just maybe they all decided to invest in those huge ass MAC gun platforma instead rather than an modern SAM network.

[Marcus Aurelius]

An comparable Halo system would be http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Wolverine

Shooting down something flying at high speeds while you yourself is in an all terrain vehicle bumping up and down (without computer assistance) is a very tough deal

As the Halo Wiki page even says, a closer life equivalent of the Wolverine is actually this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1097_Avenger

Although they fucked it up, too, by making the Wolverine a half-track and omitting the machine gun. Half-tracks are a an extinct branch of land vehicles, since they manage to combine some of the worst inherent features of tracked and wheeled vehicles into one. No new half-tracks have been designed after WW2. The machine gun is important as well, since it provides the Avenger at least some AA capability1 if the missiles run out and some self-defence capability against ground threats. Instead the Wolverine has an automatic grenade launcher, which admittedly is more efficient against ground targets, but useless against air targets.

1 Referring to earlier discussion, the M3P is quite underwhelming as an AA gun, but that is somewhat compensated by a reasonably advanced fire control, making it useful against low flying threats such as gunships. There have also been proposals to replace the M3P with a 25 mm Bushmaster autocannon, but so far they have not been accepted to service. In practice the M3P has of course been used exclusively against ground targets, since no aerial threats exist in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[PeZook]

But just maybe they all decided to invest in those huge ass MAC gun platforma instead rather than an modern SAM network.

Well, an S-300 will be able to do precisely fuck all against a starship glassing your planet, so it does make sense to prioritize orbital defences over SAMs, if you can't afford both.

[Eviscerator]

*wrinkles eyebrows '

An true self contained AA system would be the Tunguska. cannon, radar, and missiles. A US equivalent would be the LAV Air Defense cannon with an 25mm cannon (but still using Stinger though). Strangely, US tactical AA systems have gone down in strength after they phased out Vulcan and Chapparal.

I find it odd that an entire armed force would discard an entire range of capability I.E medium to long range SAMs and put all the resource into anti-warship capability. Cant be all that expensive to maintain some can it? Besides all the MAC guns didn't do Reach or Earth any good

[Serafina]

A weapon capable of targeting and damaging a warship would cost a lot - an anti-air weapon a fracion of that.

Therefore, it really does not make sense to put all your resources into anti-space weaponery - just build a few less and you have lots of resources for anti-air.

[Shroom Man 777]

If you have less anti-space weaponry, your SAMs are going to do shit for all when the enemy warships in space start throwing rocks at you because you're a bunch of blueskinned Na'vi.

Seriously, killing the enemy while he's in space is way more useful than killing the enemy when he's already up there and sending down wave after wave of landing craft.

If you can neutralize the space ships, you won't NEED anti-air weapons. Well, you can and should certainly have some. But it's strategically more prudent to defend yourself against the enemy BEFORE he's in a position to invade you.

[Bilbo]

I always felt that the APU war built so poorly because Zion was so short of material that they only had what the machines had basically supplied them with. The machines basically gave them poor design APUs.

What I thought was stupid was how Zion never got smart enough to remove some of the EMP weapons from their ships and deploy them basically as area denial mines. Remote detonate them to take out tons of enemy squids and never risk a ship in the process.

I still find it very difficult to believe that the humans could not scrounge up even some protective "armor" to weld onto the cockpit frame of the APUs. The Machines almost exclusively use melee attacks (with, as I recall, the exception being that "thrown" device used in the tunnels), so you have to keep their tentacles away from the APU pilots. As I said in another thread, the human APU pilots are in danger of being struck by the spent casings of other nearby APUs, never mind being slashed to death by the machines. Even some closely-spaced metal bars and chicken wire welded over the framework of the APUs would be better than nothing. And nothing is exactly what we see.

But then again the humans' tactics also involve the APUs being reloaded by people running out in the open, completely exposed to attack, so...

Simply using the APU guns in turreted emplacements scattered around the city would have been better. The APUs are next to useless if the Machines get within melee distance, so what is the benefit of having pairs of guns walking around? With turrets, you can reload under cover until the ammo supply runs dry AND you will (or should) have a much harder time knocking the turrets over as opposed to flipping the APUs on their asses. Having walking machines sucks up resources better spent on turreted weapons.

Very poor but possible arguements could be.

1. Humans have no way to modify the gyros used in the APU unit and adding any armor upsets the system. Hell the machines could have designed this flaw into the APU system so that armor could not be added.

2. Insufficient technology to add cameras to the outside of the APU. Armor doesnt do much good if it creates huge blindspots for the driver which allows enemies to attack easily. One positive point in the APU is by virtue of the open cockpit the driver has an excellent field of vision for everything except directly behind them.

What we really do not know is how much the humans of Zion built and how much they "salvaged" IE found where it was left for them to find by the Machines. We do not even know how well the humans understand the gear. They may know how to use it very well with no real ability to anything beyond very basic maintenance or repairs.

[Eviscerator]

Ah ha but the UNSC knew pretty well before then that they got Pwned in Space but they still stood some chance on the ground. While we have no concrete cost ideas for one of those MAC gun platforms, we can safely presume one costs as much as a LOT of Patriot/Hawk equivalent SAM systems

Even Reach failed against an concerted Covie fleet attack, so it would have been clear to those ONI and higher command you cant stop them in space, figure on trying on the ground.

On the APUs, its been said even by the people that designed it that a cockpit makes practical sense but they decided it would be easier to ID the pilot without one. How much weight would even simple mesh or a cage add? Besides the APU as is is completely blind to the rear.

[PeZook]

Ah ha but the UNSC knew pretty well before then that they got Pwned in Space but they still stood some chance on the ground. While we have no concrete cost ideas for one of those MAC gun platforms, we can safely presume one costs as much as a LOT of Patriot/Hawk equivalent SAM systems

The fact they were getting spanked in space doesn't mean they shouldn't try to build bigger and better space defences: quite the opposite.

Now, I don't know much about the Haloverse, but if you try to wage an interstellar war by automatically conceding the orbital space in favor of ground engagements, you lose the war by default. The enemy will simply nuke all your defences and casually sweep aside the light forces you manage to hide. If the UNSC couldn't afford both robust space defences and integrated air defence networks (which, by the way, are not cheap. at all. in fact, an IADS system capable of functioning against an enemy with orbital bombardement capability would be insanely expensive), it makes perfect sense for them to buy orbital defence platforms.

I obviously don't know if that's the explanation given, I just say saying "hey, they don't have theatre SAMs" is not enough to say they're stupid.

Even Reach failed against an concerted Covie fleet attack, so it would have been clear to those ONI and higher command you cant stop them in space, figure on trying on the ground.

So if you can't stop the enemy in space, you should stop trying and concentrate on stopping him from doing what he doesn't actually need to do to win the war?

[Marcus Aurelius]

But just maybe they all decided to invest in those huge ass MAC gun platforma instead rather than an modern SAM network.

Well, an S-300 will be able to do precisely fuck all against a starship glassing your planet, so it does make sense to prioritize orbital defences over SAMs, if you can't afford both.

It's a different matter to prioritize than to completely forget about air defense. If you know for certain that the enemy is always going to glass your planet, any suborbital defenses are of course useless. But if there is a chance of ground combat, you should allocate some resources to atmospheric combat as well, since the atmosphere kind of sits between the ground and orbit... Allocating resources to ground combat assets and forgetting air defense is the stupidest thing you can do. Either you have balanced planetary defense forces or you don't. Half-assed measures are no measures at all.

[Crazedwraith]

If you've lost control of your orbital space; air defence is going to be frigging useless. People are not going to send their forces into the teeth of your air defence when they can just blast it from orbit before hand are they?

[PeZook]

It's a different matter to prioritize than to completely forget about air defense. If you know for certain that the enemy is always going to glass your planet, any suborbital defenses are of course useless. But if there is a chance of ground combat, you should allocate some resources to atmospheric combat as well, since the atmosphere kind of sits between the ground and orbit... Allocating resources to ground combat assets and forgetting air defense is the stupidest thing you can do. Either you have balanced planetary defense forces or you don't. Half-assed measures are no measures at all.

Isn't that precisely what the Covenant did? Glassing planets if they lost on the ground?