Star Wars Weapons

[Darth_Ravage]

Quote:

Ravage obviously has never handled a weapon, or realizes how little room ammo takes, or anything on the workings of weaponry.

I have handled multiple different types of handweapons. If you would liketo prove that multiple homing missiles can fit in a meter long tube, my point stands concerning hte golaith.

Quote:

One could even debate that he has even lost sight of the original purpose of the weapon we were designing, turning it into a tank rather than a mobile AA platform.

You brought up the golaith.

Quote:

One could even go further to point out that in the truest battlefield sense, all weapons besides the missle are obsolete, and tanks, aircraft, and otherwise all weapons are thus useless as even the largest piece of scrap,

I will remind you that missiles cannot occupy territory or conquer cities and are prohibitivly expensive. Your statement is ridiculous.

Quote:

and to even point out the missle is obsolete in the power of simple political decimation. And until he actually uses a weapon, and works one correctly, rather than assuming to know the tricks of the trade, I will not be convinced of otherwise.

The missile isn't good for doing anything other than taking out a single target. Why do you think all the nations of hte world, wealthy or otherwise, continue to use tanks, planes, guns, and infantry?
To say that because I disagree with your statement that the golaith is a realistic, efective walker and that it can't hold enough ammo for a prolonged fight, proves that I have never handled a weapon is ridiculous. If you look carefully, my argument was that the golaith couldn't carry enough ammo for a prolonged fight, which is more than the two minutes you claimed it had enough ammo for (just the machine gun mind you, only one volley of the missiles), not that it couldn't carry ammo. You have yet to prove that two minutes of ammo is sufficent for a practical fighting vehicle. You look at great military conflicts, and you will notice that many vehicles have to fight for hours without resupply (aircraft and anti-terrorist work excluded). That is why the golaith is impractical. And you were the one who brought the golaith into it.  

[Sol Walker]

Nelowulf

There goes the quickdraw.

I mean, I'm not even sure what that is supposed to do in the first place. I mean a laser targeting system seems too.... old fashioned for something like that. Plus, since you have a scope on the thing anyways, its redundant.

Its like they want you to shoot your foot off.

And what's with the side thingys, they look as if they could be rubber band launchers for the lack of usable praticalility. I'd say its a safety, but its so big. I mean, the AK has a safety that big, but that's because it intereferes with the moving bolt, something that isn't present on blasters.

Hey, thats why I prefer the pic I use as the DL-18. Seems a better and more easily drawn weapon. I can't eve begin to explain all the doodads on the side of the gun. maybe its the stun setting.  

[Nelowulf]

You constantly use the example of the tank. Why? Last time I checked, tanks were not designed for anti-air fighting. Though one could argue that there are tanks specially designed for teh task, I beg to differ, and say that many of the armored anti-air platforms are not tanks at all. I broght up the golaith, stating that it was a practical walker. Nowhere did I say that it was supposed to outdo the tank.

In fact, the tank itself is an extraneous tangent, as the two have different mission profiles. A tank is used with the mission objective of breaking a defensive position, with a secondary function of protecting ally infantry and providing disruptive attacks to enemy infantry. The goliath, however, is designed with the role of mobile AA weaponry, with the machine gun placing a defense agaisnt being totally incapable against infantry. It is not designed as a defense buster. Hence, why the tank is uncomparable and every mention of it is just flouting one's opinion about a "superior vehicle", of which, is not designed for the mission profile which we are trying to prove or disprove.

I know you did not read my post many posts ago, when I said that I would modify it to hold missle pods instead of simply having two barrels. Even four missles would work, though you do not see how, I do. And unfortunately, I am unable to really describe it without a picture, and due to my lack of artistic capability, I am forced to deal with a hindrance.

My comment on you never picking up a weapon comes in the form of you not knowing your ammo sizes, or your comprehension on how the "reloading" could easily be solved. You do not seem to be capable of metally visualizing the weapons components well enough for me to attempt to show the system I would use.

Please concede on the point that the machine gun's ammo is, however, irrevelant, as 5000 rounds would be quite easy to fulfill much longer than the sustained role of only a minute length of fighting. It is also irrevalent, as though you consistantly mention "prolongued" fights between vehicles, you fail to identify the key points of this. Though I will admit to the fact that many times vehicles do fight long battles, one must NOT skip over the fact that they are not constantly firing. 40 rounds in a tank last about... half an hour, if they fired consistantly, at full speed. We both know that that is not a long time at all.

So, in approachign the subject, one must agree to the line of though. One does not, when in war, just pull the trigger and let all hell fly. Many vehicles and machine gun nests are often staggering their fire. I should not have to point this fact out to you. But since you must have the tank as your only plane of though, I am reduced to having to use the golaith in a role which it is not designed for.

The staggering effect of firing allows for up to 500% more time in battle. It also allows for the weapons to cool off, and the ammo to last much longer. If we take into consideration that machine gun nests only have enough ammo for 10 minutes of fighting, we know they last much longer than that if they stagger.

Another thing to consider is that many spider nests and vehicle wars are fought not between one vs the world, But there are many tanks often assaulting the fight, and there are many machine gun nests. A single goliath is prone to being doomed, but a squad of them can provide a much more effective tactic, saving fuel, ammo, and protecting each other while they are at it.

In summary, a single goliath is about as useless as a single tank. While useful against the infantry, or a single target, they are unable to attack multiple targets effectively without risk to themselves.

I will discuss the Anti-air portion later. I must go now to rifle practice. Please wait for my next post, if you will, before commenting on this one, as I have to use the second post to make a point which is incomplete here.

does that sound good? or will I have to sacrifice my training to berate someone who plays with pistols? That was a retorical statement.  

[Sol Walker]

Tarkin's Teeth, they're at it again.
(Throws on stormtrooper armor and braces self.)  

[Darth_Ravage]

Quote:

You constantly use the example of the tank. Why? Last time I checked, tanks were not designed for anti-air fighting. Though one could argue that there are tanks specially designed for teh task, I beg to differ, and say that many of the armored anti-air platforms are not tanks at all. I broght up the golaith, stating that it was a practical walker. Nowhere did I say that it was supposed to outdo the tank.

Actually, there are anti-air tanks. and the golaith isn't practical, because its job could be done more effectively by a cheaper, tougher, easier to make and use vehicle.

Quote:

In fact, the tank itself is an extraneous tangent, as the two have different mission profiles. A tank is used with the mission objective of breaking a defensive position, with a secondary function of protecting ally infantry and providing disruptive attacks to enemy infantry. The goliath, however, is designed with the role of mobile AA weaponry, with the machine gun placing a defense agaisnt being totally incapable against infantry. It is not designed as a defense buster. Hence, why the tank is uncomparable and every mention of it is just flouting one's opinion about a "superior vehicle", of which, is not designed for the mission profile which we are trying to prove or disprove.

Yes, two missiles with no possibility of easy reloading is immensely useful rolleyes

Quote:

I know you did not read my post many posts ago, when I said that I would modify it to hold missle pods instead of simply having two barrels. Even four missles would work, though you do not see how, I do. And unfortunately, I am unable to really describe it without a picture, and due to my lack of artistic capability, I am forced to deal with a hindrance.

Then it wouldn't be the golaith. And the same weapons could be carried by a cheaper tracked vehicle.

Quote:

My comment on you never picking up a weapon comes in the form of you not knowing your ammo sizes, or your comprehension on how the "reloading" could easily be solved. You do not seem to be capable of metally visualizing the weapons components well enough for me to attempt to show the system I would use.

I do know ammo sizes, I am also usign the numbers you gave me.

Quote:

Please concede on the point that the machine gun's ammo is, however, irrevelant, as 5000 rounds would be quite easy to fulfill much longer than the sustained role of only a minute length of fighting.

Conceded

Quote:

Though I will admit to the fact that many times vehicles do fight long battles, one must NOT skip over the fact that they are not constantly firing. 40 rounds in a tank last about... half an hour, if they fired consistantly, at full speed. We both know that that is not a long time at all.

It is more than one volley or two minutes

Quote:

So, in approachign the subject, one must agree to the line of though. One does not, when in war, just pull the trigger and let all hell fly. Many vehicles and machine gun nests are often staggering their fire. I should not have to point this fact out to you. But since you must have the tank as your only plane of though, I am reduced to having to use the golaith in a role which it is not designed for.

There are anti-air tanks

Quote:

The staggering effect of firing allows for up to 500% more time in battle. It also allows for the weapons to cool off, and the ammo to last much longer. If we take into consideration that machine gun nests only have enough ammo for 10 minutes of fighting, we know they last much longer than that if they stagger.

Quote:

So ten minutes of firing its secondary weapon, and one volley of its primary weapon. Great. An anti-air tank would be better and cheaper

Quote:

Another thing to consider is that many spider nests and vehicle wars are fought not between one vs the world, But there are many tanks often assaulting the fight, and there are many machine gun nests. A single goliath is prone to being doomed, but a squad of them can provide a much more effective tactic, saving fuel, ammo, and protecting each other while they are at it.

Squad of anti-air tanks would be better than a squad of golaiths.

Quote:

In summary, a single goliath is about as useless as a single tank. While useful against the infantry, or a single target, they are unable to attack multiple targets effectively without risk to themselves.

 

[Sol Walker]

...hey, what part of "wait for his reply" did you have trouble figuring out?  

[Darth_Ravage]

I understood it, but I have duties to attend to, and I have found that if I don't answer these things early, they start piling up and I don't get the time to ever fully answer them.  

[Darth_Ravage]

American M19 Anti-Aircraft tank


German Flackpanzer Gepard


Isreali Kilshon Anti-Aircraft tank


Crotale Anti-Aircraft Missile Tank  

[Sol Walker]

what was the point of that? this is STAR WARS weapons.  

[Nelowulf]

Since someone can't even wait, I don't think its worth the time to waste trying to continue the discussion. I told you not to post until I finished. I don't care if you have duties or not, becuase everyone has their duties. I also specifically stated that the points were incomplete. You however, took to effect that you had to post right then and there, and made my statements useless, since you couldn't wait until they were fully prepared.

If you won't wait for someone to finish, then you don't even deserve credit to hear the rest of the arguement.

You should learn on the rules of debates. You don't just cut into someone's debate until they are finished. If you do, then not only do you look arrogant, but inattentive as well. not to mention, you don't know what they were going to finish off with either.

How many times must I ask that you READ my posts, and COMPREHEND them? This is why I have trouble debating anythign with you because you dogmatically attack points in my posts without even trying to see the picture.

Lets move on. Obviously someone doesn't have the patience to make my posts worthwhile. Hell, I would have proven that the goliath was a practical walker, but he can't even sit still for another post.

Do what you want. I'm not hindering you. Come on, fire away! Respond to the rest of my arguement! I'm waiting to hear it. Respond to the rest of the arguement I was going to give.  

[Darth_Ravage]

The golaith is not practical, and I do not have the time to post according to your schedule. If this was a continous debate, I could go by those rules, but as it isn't, my own life neccessitates responding as time permits.  

[Darth_Ravage]

Quote:

what was the point of that? this is STAR WARS weapons.

Just validifying my statement that there are anti-air tanks. And the golaith is most certainly not SW. Nor are most mechas (all of them if you exclude walkers).  

[Nelowulf]

You can't wait one day? I don't have time to respond to everyone as much as I like, but at least I can wait. I'll be nice enough to prove my statement, just because I know you're itching to know why I still subscribe to insanity.

I would have shown that it was a practical walker. Not to mention, the entire arguement with the tank is unnecessary, as I said it was a practical walker, not necessarily a practical war machine.

Religeon by far takes the prize notion of the most deadly and effective war machine ever devised. seconded by political power, thirded by the missle. But to go into this debate would just once again loose what the arguement was about.

Review-

Topic: Is a goliath an effective walker? Yes.

Rebuttal: A tank is more effective.

Contrapositive: Is a tank a walker? No. Hence, it is not arguable that a tank is a better walker, and thus, one cannot say that the goliath is an impractical walker on the basis a tank is a more effecitive walker, since that was the original topic I was debating. If the topic was 'is the goliath an effective weapon', then the tank could be used in referendum.


On a side note, I noticed your pictures. I also, if you read my first post, stated that you may consider them tanks, but for the simplicity of the arguement, and because I am defending my ideas, I do not classify those as tanks, persay, strictly because defining those as tanks would entitle things such as APCs and Mobile command bases, which are armored vehicles, the right of tank status as well in my opinion. Hence, why I was trying to use the basic definition of the tank, instead of a tank body retrofitted for missile usage.  

[Darth_Ravage]

Quote:

Topic: Is a goliath an effective walker? Yes.

Rebuttal: A tank is more effective.

Contrapositive: Is a tank a walker? No. Hence, it is not arguable that a tank is a better walker, and thus, one cannot say that the goliath is an impractical walker on the basis a tank is a more effecitive walker, since that was the original topic I was debating. If the topic was 'is the goliath an effective weapon', then the tank could be used in referendum.

I believe I repeatedly refuted that the golaith was practical, not that it was a practical walker, since in most cases walkers are inherently impractical.

Quote:

On a side note, I noticed your pictures. I also, if you read my first post, stated that you may consider them tanks, but for the simplicity of the arguement, and because I am defending my ideas, I do not classify those as tanks, persay, strictly because defining those as tanks would entitle things such as APCs and Mobile command bases, which are armored vehicles, the right of tank status as well in my opinion. Hence, why I was trying to use the basic definition of the tank, instead of a tank body retrofitted for missile usage

What is your definition of a tank? I consider anything that is an enclosed armored military vehicle and moves on caterpillar treads to be a tank.  

[Nelowulf]

Darth_Ravage

Quote:

Topic: Is a goliath an effective walker? Yes.

Rebuttal: A tank is more effective.

Contrapositive: Is a tank a walker? No. Hence, it is not arguable that a tank is a better walker, and thus, one cannot say that the goliath is an impractical walker on the basis a tank is a more effecitive walker, since that was the original topic I was debating. If the topic was 'is the goliath an effective weapon', then the tank could be used in referendum.

I believe I repeatedly refuted that the golaith was practical, not that it was a practical walker, since in most cases walkers are inherently impractical.

Quote:

On a side note, I noticed your pictures. I also, if you read my first post, stated that you may consider them tanks, but for the simplicity of the arguement, and because I am defending my ideas, I do not classify those as tanks, persay, strictly because defining those as tanks would entitle things such as APCs and Mobile command bases, which are armored vehicles, the right of tank status as well in my opinion. Hence, why I was trying to use the basic definition of the tank, instead of a tank body retrofitted for missile usage

What is your definition of a tank? I consider anything that is an enclosed armored military vehicle and moves on caterpillar treads to be a tank.

1) The arguement was whether or not it was a practical walker. I wasn't arguing about whether or not it was a practical weapon. In that, it doesn't matter if you were trying to refute if it was practical in the face of a weapon, but instead practical in the face of a walker. But, you argued too openly. You must compare walker to walker, not to cost, not to tanks, but to walker. Hence, no matter how inheriently you believe teh walker to be impractical, you are stuck battling on the grounds of comparison to like usages, not to extraneous components. If I was to argue on the grounds that it was a practical vehicle, then you would have a ready reply. But I was debating on its effectiveness as a walker, whereas you are debating its effectiveness as a weapon. Hence, you were using points and topics which were irrevelant to the debate. Dig? Its like saying which is better, horses or oxen to plow a field, and saying that technology has surpassed it and it is more economically efficient to plow with a John Deere Tractor. while pertaining to the subject, it doesn't qualify in the topic.

2) I consider a tank a treaded vehicle, that is armored, that has offensive capability that involves a rifled projectile. Note how I did not say military vehicle either. But it must have the treds, armor, and gun barrel for it to be a tank.

Your definition would involve adding Mobile commmand bases that were treaded, or even APCs. An armored personel transport would be a tank if it had treads. And by your definition, a bulldozer or farm tractor owned by the military would constitute tankhood, if we consider them being sold in monopsony. In which, I believe your definition is too loose, by saying "military-owned, treaded, enclosed armored vehicle". You dont' even state it has to ahve any weaponry, so technically, many vehicles can go by that standard.