|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2869
   |
Posted - 2015.02.05 13:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Why is this? Why does an explosive projectile the size of a golf ball do more damage and have a larger radius than a missile the size of a human, with its warhead probably the size of a human head?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2870
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 16:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Low Velocity, Anti-Personnel vs High Velocity, Armor-Piercing
If they were armor piercing, they would be more like railgun rounds rather than explosive warheads.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2875
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 19:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Low Velocity, Anti-Personnel vs High Velocity, Armor-Piercing If they were armor piercing, they would be more like railgun rounds rather than explosive warheads. Perhaps I should've said "anti armor" rather than "armor piercing". And by armor, I mean vehicles which are resistant to small arms fire. The missile turret excels at destroying armor. The flaylock pistol excels at destroying infantry.
But why does a golf ball have more splash and do more damage than a missile the size of a person?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2875
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 19:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:Tanks aren't supposed to kill infantry Spkr. You know this.
So even though I can aim with all the turrets, I'm not allowed to kill infantry?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2876
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 20:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
One Eyed King wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Low Velocity, Anti-Personnel vs High Velocity, Armor-Piercing If they were armor piercing, they would be more like railgun rounds rather than explosive warheads. Perhaps I should've said "anti armor" rather than "armor piercing". And by armor, I mean vehicles which are resistant to small arms fire. The missile turret excels at destroying armor. The flaylock pistol excels at destroying infantry. But why does a golf ball have more splash and do more damage than a missile the size of a person? Why do massive armored behemoths move so fast? Why do those incredibly heavy turrets spin around so easily?
M1A1 Abrams travels 45 mph on a road. Why shouldn't a tank 20,000 years in the future travel just as fast or faster?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2876
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 00:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
TooMany Names AlreadyTaken wrote:Logical that High-Explosive shells will do more splash damage than Armor-Piercing ones.
It's a golf ball vs a man-sized missile.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2878
|
Posted - 2015.02.06 01:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
One Eyed King wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:One Eyed King wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:But why does a golf ball have more splash and do more damage than a missile the size of a person? Why do massive armored behemoths move so fast? Why do those incredibly heavy turrets spin around so easily? M1A1 Abrams travels 45 mph on a road. Why shouldn't a tank 20,000 years in the future travel just as fast or faster? Why wouldn't a golf ball size explosive 20,000 years in the future do that kind of damage? Also, it takes 7 seconds for an Abrams to reach less than half of its top speed.
20,000 years in the future. You really think it's going to have the same motor?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
|
|
| |
|