Stupid weapons that never should have been....
- Thread starter Ralen-Sharr
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The problem with tanks as presented in video games is a classic example of arbitrary adherence to reality. The minimum Crew for the M1 Abrahms (The US Main Battle Tank) is 3 - a driver, a gunner and a loader. The standard crew is five - with the additon of a second loader and a Tank Commander.Ironic Pirate said:
Beyond that, you have to realize that a tank, in all reality, is one of the most terrifying pieces of equipment to take the field of battle. The armor at the glacias plate (the bit most likely to get hit when tanks are slugging it out) is several feet thick and the tanks main gun is designed such that it can punch through said armor inside a certain range in a single shot. Unlike what video games demonstrate, simply pounding away at the armor isn't going to do the job. Yes, there is a quantity of 40mm HEDP rounds that will eventually destroy a tank but that quantity is far more than even a platoon carries. There is of course a catch - a tank is a machine with any number of moving parts and poorly protected electronic bits attached to it. While a 40mm HEDP won't punch through the armor, it is sufficient to damage a track rendering the tank immobile. The electronic bits on the outside of the tank are what make modern MBTs so lethal and those too are vulnerable to much lighter weapons. Luckily for the poor crunchies (how tankers refer to infantry), one need not actually physically destroy the tank to get the job done. If one can punch a round through the tanks armor, the resulting fragmentation of said armor is generally sufficient to kill everybody inside. Thus a tank's defenses are sufficiently brittle that a single hit is sufficient to knock it out of service for the duration of a battle.
This is in contrast to an infantry unit. A platoon can lose several members and remain combat effective. Better still, thanks to the fact that people are much smaller and far more agile than tanks, infantry has the advantage of being able to fight from hiding. That said, even in the best of circumstances, a light infantry unit (that is, a unit without proper artillery or armor - Airborne, Air Assault and Motorized infantry are examples) can certainly delay the advance of armor and knock out tanks from time to time but they are woefully outmatched and losses in such an engagment are staggering even when they have numerical superority (See Operation Market Garden for more information on how this plays out in reality).
Of course, modern armies have plenty of tricks that even light infantry can use to get the job done. The Javelin (and american Anti-Tank missile system) is more than capable of destroying a modern MBT in a single shot and AT missile systems are often the gravest threat a tanker will face.
Thus we have a problem - tanks have gobs of firepower and the thickest skin you'll find in a land battle but a solid hit is all it takes to destroy them. Infantry can disperse and fight a highly mobile close quarters fight, and using modern AT weapons they are more than capable of causing horrendous damage to advancing tank units. The reality eventually comes down to this - without air support Armor bests infantry in open terrain. Nobody likes reality.
The Battlefiled model is, I feel, a respectable compromise. Most soldiers are given a weapon capable of harming a tank in some capacity, and a coordinated infantry defense is more than sufficient to halt a tank advance. The problem with this model of course is that it relies on cooperation and teamwork - something unlikely to happen in a drop-in game. Thus, the tanker gains an inherent advantage - they, at best, need to cooperate with only one person (a reasonable scneario), meaning that a skilled tank crew can often wreck utter havoc upon their adversaries thanks to disorginaztion inherent to the drop-in experience.
No. The general concept of gunblade is "a sword and a gun combined". The addition of a bayonet does not make one's rifle into a sword but rather into an impromptu spear or pike. Attaching one to the end of a handgun is utter sillyness. In exchange for flexibility and ease of handling, you gain a few scant inches of reach. Worse still, you already have, in your hand, something substantially better in close combat (generally speaking) than a knife.LordNue said:
If it's a realistic (And thus, good) game, then it'll take 3 people co-ordinating to operate the tank.Ironic Pirate said:
You remember those little damned roaches, or skeleton things? Just push Y all the time, and you will be an invincible twirling death. It isn't for the bigger guys, but for a large amount of small annoying ones. And you get the Vigorian flail later, so it is somewhat unique.UncleUlty said:
Oh OT: The halo 2 Pistol. Terribly weak, and not enough ammo for it to be of any use at all.
Do you know what an autocannon is, and that in modern terms an autocannon is the same thing as a Vulcan gun in most usages. Also, of course the Gatling gun is impractical, it's been out of use since 1911. Modern versions are called Vulcan guns, and they are not impractical. Look at the A-10 and the GAU-8 Avenger 30mm Vulcan around which the whole airframe is based. That 30mm gun is the plane's primary weapon against tanks, even with it's awesome payload of various bombs and air-to-surface missiles. Just that example not good enough for you? Try looking at every US Air Force fighter. F-22 uses the M61 20mm Vulcan, as does the F-15, the F-16, the F/A-18, and the F-14 Tomcat (its decommissioned, but still).AccursedTheory said:
I was referring to the gatling gun as an infantry weapon (And there are games that use the 30mm+ gatling guns as hand mounted, or tripod mounted weapons, despite the ridiculousness of such an idea). I should have clarified.Teddy Roosevelt said:
The gatling gun itself is outdated, I'm refering to the style. The vulcan is the same principle weapon, merely upgraded heavily.
And when I speak of an autocannon, I refer to the terms use as a higher calibre machine gun, much like the XM307. While heavy, a weapon like that might possibly be carried by a space marine/spartan/whatever genetic freak.
Gatling (Vulcan) guns (Cannons) make sense in air frames. They hardly make sense in ground vehicles (baring anti-air platforms, or the ridiculous gatling towers used to guard FOBs in Iraq).
The Keyblade. I like Kingdom Hearts. I think the weapon is really lame. In fact, I still "LOLOL" when I see little kids actually swinging around one covered in tin foil to make their weapon "shine."
That is still not a sword combined with a gun, it is a handgun disguised as a knife. The only advantage such a weapon offers is that it does not actually LOOK like a gun, and to be fair, there have been plenty of firearms with similar design intentions in mind.twasdfzxcv said:
Reaper scythes. They're one of the silliest and most impractical weapon in existence. Although they do look really cool in action.
But NOT in Aliens vs. Predator 2.Tkail said:
That grenade launcher was great fun, not overpowered either.
On-topic, I'll go with the Gunblade.
Or the Instant Divide By Zero button.
real gun-sword type thing. pistol sword.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_sword
not exactly a modern weapon, but on technicality, a real gun-blade.
dual-wielded guns in any game ever. why? because no one, NO ONE shoots like that and hits anything. even if you somehow justified carrying two guns slung over each shoulder, you would still only shoot one at a time, with both hands on the gun you were firing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_sword
not exactly a modern weapon, but on technicality, a real gun-blade.
dual-wielded guns in any game ever. why? because no one, NO ONE shoots like that and hits anything. even if you somehow justified carrying two guns slung over each shoulder, you would still only shoot one at a time, with both hands on the gun you were firing.
I saw a real test video of a Javelin being used. it was freaking beautiful. Better than the games made it out to be, even.Eclectic Dreck said:
I would say that I think the most idiotic weapon in a game would be any pistol in GRAW 2 (campaign perspective) I can't remember ever starting off with one, and when you get the choice it seems as though they say, take the handgun or the relatively accurate smg with more firepower, a larger clip, and more ammo.
And a really idiotic gun in a game would be the minigun in Just Cause Two. Rip it off of its tripod, and you have a gun which slows you down, yet has more power, accuracy, and rat of fire than anything else in the game, and unlimited ammo.
OK, the first mission culminates in you waiting for evac. I ended up using the minigun carried at my side to blow up everything and everyone, sitting there bored for about a minute waiting for evac. As this happened, the silence was pierced only by the character telling the dispatch that he was getting desperate, and how urgent the evac was.
That mission, you only had a handgun and an smg at your disposal. The inclusion of a "point here and win" gun like the minigun ruined the small amount of tension the mission had, and it takes away any challenge when you get you hands on one.
Granted, you don't trip on them, and you cannot transport them, but the story missions are pretty consistent with giving you one in a pinch, which isn't a good thing IMO.
Still a fun as hell game. Wow contradictory sentence is contradictory.