Star Wars Weapons

[Darth_Ravage]

Quote:

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.

If that was the argument you were going for, I will concede that it is a practical walker. I will not concede it is a practical weapon, which I don't think you believe either judging from your second to last post.

Quote:

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.

So how about this, "military oriented, treaded, heavily armed, enclosed, armored, battlefield vehicles." Sure "heavily" is subjective, but I can live with that. Is a bulldozer armored and enclosed? Or or is it merely enclosed?
I think that the vehicles I showed qualify as tanks while  

[Nelowulf]

A bulldozer can be armored with bulletproof glass and reinforced treads to make sure sabotague is less likely.

I wouldn't be suprized though if one used a bulldozer as an offensive weapon. It would make an effective "shield".

though the time for that has passed. In WWI context, a bulldozer with a little modification (I know you hate that word, as it opens up much more possiblities and tangents) would have been deadly.

And yes, that was the arguement I was going for.


Though I still believe the role of the walker should not be undermined. I mean, this is purely subjective, the goal of tanks and walkers and such is to protect the soldier and transform him into a stronger fighter. I believe that a walker would provide a role which makes it much more effective than the beloved tank.

Please do not argue on this point, as while this is my opinion, we have no examples to back any arguement up.

A walker has two advantages over a tank: fluidity, and realism. Both of these points can be heavily contested, though I don't want to argue. I've gotten plenty of that from my parents over the last couple of days over my money, and I'm not ready to contest this.

A walker is more fluid than a tank- My opinion is that though a tank can traverse certain terrain better, there is a certain grace to the walker. Certain coordination must be used to make the walker. While you could argue that the cost and the effectiveness per cost is in favor of the tank, the walker is a work of art. Some people believe that War is an art. In such one can say that the soldiers themselves make up the ballet of the field. Also, while vastly more complex than the tanks crude effectiveness, the Walker can provide a grace to the field, even the crudest of walkers achieve this. Its natural, and links to my next statement.

A walker is more realistic than a tank- Okay, this is the burning point. I don't mean realistic as it practicality. I don't mean realistic in effeciency, or anythign that can be charted on paper or seen in the field. What I mean is this: A tank is basically a rectangular piece of metal with treds and in my definition, a gun. A walker is an extension of a warrior. The most primitive walkers were the Cavaliers and European knights, one could say. But the thing is, a tank can inspire fear and courage in a soldier. But what psychological advantage does the walker have? I believe that it would be more effective mentally (i.e. remember the AT-AT, the illusion of it being slow?) than a tank ever could. It could be an avatar of death, or a guardian angel...

But my opinions also come from the spirit of the battle. Also, since we never really have designed a walker program, we never really realized how effective they can be. On paper, they are more than likely to be worse than a tank. But then again, on paper, a bumblebee cannot fly either. There is always a spark of chance that maybe, the walker can be better than a tank.  

[Darth_Ravage]

Quote:

Please do not argue on this point, as while this is my opinion, we have no examples to back any arguement up.

Acceptable. I guess this ends this debate then. Although I must ask, are you trying to provoke me into arguing the points?

 

[Nelowulf]

No, since lack of realtime testing limits the true extent of which the arguement could go. I mean, you have the advantage by being in the defending position, having data on the tanks abilities, where I am on the offense using hypothetical outcomes. It can't be fought in any shape or form.

I'm simply trying to express what I believe the nitche of the walker could be. The psyche is something nobody can fully understand, and the walker represents something that though impractical on paper, could defy what tests prove, and instead, turn out to be better than any box with treads.

But, until we advance to the point of using such weaponry, we cannot say anything either way. And in our world, walkers are useless, since I cannot think of a single battlefield where they would fit right. Our planet has no place where they are capable of making themselves useful.

And really, the past four days have been hell at my house. If you walk in the door, you're getting into a fight, whether or not you like it at all. So really I've wasted all my energy fighting over trivial matters about things I never even did to begin with. Example: Because my cousin died while passing on a rainy day, I'm wrong in putting my money in the O'fallon Bank.

So really, my nerves are frayed, my mind is shot, and my temprament is really... small.  

[Darth_Ravage]

Quote:

No, since lack of realtime testing limits the true extent of which the arguement could go. I mean, you have the advantage by being in the defending position, having data on the tanks abilities, where I am on the offense using hypothetical outcomes. It can't be fought in any shape or form.

I'm simply trying to express what I believe the nitche of the walker could be. The psyche is something nobody can fully understand, and the walker represents something that though impractical on paper, could defy what tests prove, and instead, turn out to be better than any box with treads.

But, until we advance to the point of using such weaponry, we cannot say anything either way. And in our world, walkers are useless, since I cannot think of a single battlefield where they would fit right. Our planet has no place where they are capable of making themselves useful.

And really, the past four days have been hell at my house. If you walk in the door, you're getting into a fight, whether or not you like it at all. So really I've wasted all my energy fighting over trivial matters about things I never even did to begin with. Example: Because my cousin died while passing on a rainy day, I'm wrong in putting my money in the O'fallon Bank.

So really, my nerves are frayed, my mind is shot, and my temprament is really... small.

By no you mean you want to continue the argument? I thought it was over. Another post containing anything not related to this question will be considered a declaration of war.  

[Nelowulf]

huh? How do you get that?

Sometimes when I think you understand what I mean, you instantly douse that thought and stupefy me yet again...

Oh well.  

[Darth_Ravage]

You said not to respond to earlier statements because they were your opinion. And you said there wasn't enough info for a good argument. I assumed that meant it was over as the statements seemed pretty explicit. I expect some contrition for that statement. but if you are suggesting that you never said anything of the sort.... Let the War begin!

 

[Nelowulf]

Do I have to explain what yes and no mean now?

The arguement is over. But you want to start it up again. I'm not contributing anything else. We both agreed it was over, and now you claim ignorance?


You stated:

I guess this ends this debate then.

You also stated after that:

Although I must ask, are you tryting to provoke me into arguing the points?

To which I responded:

NO.

In this case, no means thusly: "I do not wish to provoke you into arguing the points". The previous statement, "I guess this ends this debate then" is unaffected, as it was a statement, not a question. The question has priority over the statement. If I wished to contest the statement, I would have stated "No, this does not end the arguement." To which I would not have stated "No" to answer your question of "Are you trying to provoke me into arguing the points".


But what piece of s**t are you pulling now? When did I ever state the words "I never said anything of the sort"?

It is OVER. DONE. FINISHED. FINITE. COMPLETED. CEASED TO BE. IF IT WAS STILL ALIVE IT WOULD BE CALLING FOR SOMEONE TO KILL IT, BUT NOW IT IS PUSHING UP THE DAISIES.

the arguement is done. Quit wasting time on asking about "are we starting it?" as the thing is over already, not beginning.  

[Darth_Ravage]

If this is over, should this topic be continued as the OP specified or deleted?  

[Nelowulf]

This thread's about Star Wars weaponry. Meaning it stays, until someone wants to bring up soemthing about weaponry.

It stays. The rule is, if GAT started it, its prolly going to stay.  

[Nospai Deathous]

i have a topic idea... what do you think about firearms classification? is the term 'carbine' really necessary? couldn't it be a 'light blaster?' what makes a blaster 'light'? size, weight, or power? or combonations of the 3?

why even have different designations and sizes? they could theoretically make 'heavy' blasters smaller... why not do it?

just random musings from my brain  

[Nelowulf]

because then, they couldn't classify them.

I dunno. I guess it gives someone something to do and get paid for out of Lucas's pocketbook...

Possibly because they wanted to designate the power it packed?  

[Nospai Deathous]

then is a disruptor considered light or heavy?  

[Darth_Ravage]

Disruptors are heavy, they have more powerful, but fewer, shots than regular blasters.

Generally, carbines have auto, semi-auto, and single shot, rifles have single shot and auto, pistols have single shot, and everything else is case sensitive.  

[Nelowulf]

There really isn't any rhyme or reason to it though.

I think they just slap a label on it wherever it sounds cool. I know that's what I do with my chairs...