Reach bump

The Mass Driver is a lot weaker.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] PLUT0NIUM 235 your bothered about that? and not the fact that a 80+ kiloton weapon did absolutely nothing to the ground or surrounding environment? think about it, the mass driver that six uses to take out the CCS is tiny, the rounds can only be a few kilograms at best, the rounds fired by frigates are 600,000 kilograms (600 metric tons). to be honest the physics of halo are pretty messed up, mainly due to lack of attention to detail i might add. the grafton would outright vapourise that spire and put a sizable hole in the ground, level a decent area around the blast, probably damage itself, definately kill noble team, all from a single MAC round...! edit: also the logic above is pretty whack at best as well, you do know that frigate mass is almost certainly a million + tons right? not to mention the MAC is mounted down the spine of the ship, the engines would counter-act any recoil, not to mention coilguns aren't really big in the recoil department since they don't use a chemical explosive to fire the projectile...?[/quote] Learn some physics and get your facts straight before challenging my logic. [u]Newton's 3rd Law of Motion[/u] [b]"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"[/b] This is the exact reason that a HEAVY MAC cannot be installed onto a frigate, due to the fact that the friction and forward momentum would not be enough to counteract the opposite acceleration generated to launch a kinetic slug at such high velocities. [quote]"The firing process uses electromagnetism to fire a ferromagnetic-tungsten slug at high velocity. An extremely large amount of current is put through the first solenoid (coil of conducting wire) which creates a strong magnetic field which attracts the metal slug. As the slug passes into the solenoid, the solenoid is quickly turned off and the second solenoid, which is further up, turns on, which attracts the now high velocity metal slug just like the first solenoid, and the process is carried on. By the time the slug is fired out the end of the barrel it has been accelerated to a speed of approximately 30 kilometers per second for a ship-based MAC and around 12,000 kilometers per second for a "Super" MAC. For ODP, [b]a pair of thrusters on the bottom side of the station fire for a couple of seconds to counteract the acceleration imparted to the station.[/b] It normally takes five seconds to recharge the capacitors as well as load the slug, which is why boarding craft are usually deployed to take the stations out.[/quote] UNSC Frigates, like the [i]Grafton[/i], use Light MAC guns due to the fact that it is the only gun that their forward acceleration (which is why the ship was MOVING when it fired at the spire) can compensate for. Halo isn't broken, kids. Nice try.

The onager is much more different.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] PLUT0NIUM 235 edit: also the logic above is pretty whack at best as well, you do know that frigate mass is almost certainly a million + tons right? not to mention the MAC is mounted down the spine of the ship, the engines would counter-act any recoil, not to mention coilguns aren't really big in the recoil department since they don't use a chemical explosive to fire the projectile...?[/quote]Newton's Third Law of Motion says otherwise in regards to recoil. If it didn't have recoil, then the only force would be in the direction of the round. That's getting something for nothing with an imbalanced force, and that's not allowed. All forces must be balanced by an equal force in the opposite direction, excepting acceleration. Frigates are officially 4000 tons, but that figure is known to be BS, since taking a weightless box the size of a Frigate and filling it with air gets roughly the same mass. 'Cruisers' were retconned in GoO to being 'a hundred thousand tons', and Frigates are much smaller than those. I reckon a sensible mass is 20-40 thousand tons on that basis.

AHHH, SCIENCE [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] JDYeash937 MkII [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Ktan Dantaktee [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] JDYeash937 MkII [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Ktan Dantaktee Well, I don't know why. @ People who say the Onager isn't the same as the MACs on a Reach Frigate, they are. And they do the same thing in Halo 3, with even more MACs.[/quote]You failed to read my post didn't you? There is a difference in round impact by a factor of over 303,000. Yes they are different. Very different. You basically just said that an M16 is the same as a 16-inch gun on a Battleship.[/quote] The Reach Onager and the Reach Frigate MAC are the same. [/quote]Fix'd. No, they aren't. This is exactly like saying an M16 and 16-inch artillery piece are the same, as I've already said. Sure, they both use electromagnets to pull a heavy slug up their barrel, but the differences in scale between the two are just so extraordinary that you cannot call them the same.[/quote]Finally, something that I can understand.

your bothered about that? and not the fact that a 80+ kiloton weapon did absolutely nothing to the ground or surrounding environment? think about it, the mass driver that six uses to take out the CCS is tiny, the rounds can only be a few kilograms at best, the rounds fired by frigates are 600,000 kilograms (600 metric tons). to be honest the physics of halo are pretty messed up, mainly due to lack of attention to detail i might add. the grafton would outright vapourise that spire and put a sizable hole in the ground, level a decent area around the blast, probably damage itself, definately kill noble team, all from a single MAC round...! edit: also the logic above is pretty whack at best as well, you do know that frigate mass is almost certainly a million + tons right? not to mention the MAC is mounted down the spine of the ship, the engines would counter-act any recoil, not to mention coilguns aren't really big in the recoil department since they don't use a chemical explosive to fire the projectile...? [Edited on 12.19.2010 2:02 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Shepherd214 I guess that makes sense. The story didnt do a great job at explaining the difference. I figured it was a regular MAC gun since you were using to take down Phantoms in one shot and a Supercarrier.[/quote] It makes perfect sense, silly. The Mass Driver that was mounted on the drydock has several key differences than a weaponized Magnetic Accelerator Cannon. - The Mass Driver was [b]significantly[/b] smaller than a ship-based platform, only able to destroy a Carrier because it breached the charging excavation beam's reactor. - The Mass Driver was attached to the planet, more or less, allowing the titanic support of Reach itself to take the recoil, while a MAC is used on a 'floating' platform, if you will. When the MAC fires in atmosphere, they thought that it, being a rather large kinetic gun, the recoil on the ship would be tremendous. - The Mass Driver doesn't fire a slug at the same velocities a medium, weaponized, shipbased coilgun would, thus the recoil resultant from firing would be drastically less on the MD platform.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Sigma617 the entire campaign is full of retarded holes like this. What the goddamn hell was the Grafton thinking?! even if she wasn't destroyed she was cruising forward and would have struck that folded fault block Mountain directly behind the spire. why, for the love of god, couldn't she snipe the damn thing from her position way out back?[/quote]Why didn't the Falcons in ONI: Sword Base use their cannons on the Covenant infantry, rather than send in two SPARTANS who made have been killed? Why didn't 6 signal to the two Falcons at the start of Exodus for pick-up? Why did the Covenant army completely disregard their only true sniper weapon (Beam Rifle) for a single campaign, using it in previous and future engagements, and never using its 'replacement' of the Focus Rifle outside of that engagement? Why does a 64m long interceptor designed to be launched from a space ship and harass enemy capital ships with a 110mm gatling gun, 120mm cannons and 'heavy' missiles have to wait for a half dozen banshees and a phantom be destroyed before chasing away a 500m+ long Covenant warship armed with AA batteries and the Longsword's actual counterpart? Why does PoA engage its 50mm AA system to cover 6 at the end of PoA, which would have meant that neither 6 or Emile died, and 3 SPARTANS would have fought on Alpha Halo? The storyline is stupid.

the entire campaign is full of retarded holes like this. What the goddamn hell was the Grafton thinking?! even if she wasn't destroyed she was cruising forward and would have struck that folded fault block Mountain directly behind the spire. why, for the love of god, couldn't she snipe the damn thing from her position way out back?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xMAx DaDuff666 "One way to get their attention." -Carter-259[/quote]Damn well got their attention all right, they lost the [i]Grafton[/i].

"One way to get their attention." -Carter-259

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Ktan Dantaktee [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] JDYeash937 MkII [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Ktan Dantaktee Well, I don't know why. @ People who say the Onager isn't the same as the MACs on a Reach Frigate, they are. And they do the same thing in Halo 3, with even more MACs.[/quote]You failed to read my post didn't you? There is a difference in round impact by a factor of over 303,000. Yes they are different. Very different. You basically just said that an M16 is the same as a 16-inch gun on a Battleship.[/quote] The Reach Onager and the Reach Frigate MAC are the same. [/quote]Fix'd. No, they aren't. This is exactly like saying an M16 and 16-inch artillery piece are the same, as I've already said. Sure, they both use electromagnets to pull a heavy slug up their barrel, but the differences in scale between the two are just so extraordinary that you cannot call them the same.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Ktan Dantaktee Well, I don't know why. @ People who say the Onager isn't the same as the MACs on a Reach Frigate, they are. And they do the same thing in Halo 3, with even more MACs.[/quote]You failed to read my post didn't you? There is a difference in round impact by a factor of over 303,000. Yes they are different. Very different. You basically just said that an M16 is the same as a 16-inch gun on a Battleship.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] oQ Nil Qo The MAC blast felt very anti-climatic. It shot right through the tower as if it just cut through it. I was expecting blackened earth for at least 2km.[/quote]Same here.

The MAC blast felt very anti-climatic. It shot right through the tower as if it just cut through it. I was expecting blackened earth for at least 2km.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Nocbl2 If it was weaker, why can it one-shot a cruiser?[/quote]Struck bare hull in an unshielded point, directly into the power coil of a major weapons system. Plus - ship MAC fires a 600ton round at something like Mach 43, with a closing impact force roughly equivalent to a 71 kiloton detonation. The Onager[sp?] fires a round weighing no more than a few kilos with an energy of 1.1GJ - this is equivalent to 'just' 234kg of TNT. Slightly less than a quarter ton, and 1kg of explosive is generally enough to obliterate a car. The main reason for concern with a ship MAC is its vacuum trail, in atmosphere. A 5-inch long kinetic dart used in Flechette rocket systems aboard Apache gunships travels at Mach 3.3, and can strip muscle from bone by passing within a few feet of a person. A MAC round is 10 metres long at travels at over ten times that speed. If the Falcon had been between the Spire and Grafton (though as far away horizontally as you'd like), they'd probably have been knocked out of the sky, if not been shredded. [Edited on 12.19.2010 5:43 AM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Mini Spartan but whats so bad about mac rounds [/quote] Anything close by would be deafened or destroyed by the intense heat and pressure waves generated.

but whats so bad about mac rounds

He was most likely surprised because of the amount of damage one round can do. Not only does it release a ridiculous amount of energy on the impact, but some of that energy turns into heat and sound as well.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Mr Owen L He was probably questioning the fact that it's a bad idea to use mac rounds in atmosphere as they would have a lot of Kinetic energy some of which would be lost to friction which would generate alot of heat and it would also create a very loud sonic boom.[/quote]] also creating a temporary vacuum

He was probably questioning the fact that it's a bad idea to use mac rounds in atmosphere as they would have a lot of Kinetic energy some of which would be lost to friction which would generate alot of heat and it would also create a very loud sonic boom.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Gruntpocalypto You shot the Supercarrier right in it's gut, at the weakest point though. [/quote] That wasn't a supercarrier. A spuercarrier is 27 kilometers long. That was a CCS class battlecrusier. It was shot in the weakest point while the shields were down, that's how you killed it.