I recall shield glare, but I think it's in Halo Wars, when some Spartans ride those space bikes with shields and try to board a small Covenant ship to detonate it close to a big one.
Those bikes, having no hull, had shields instead (of course, what a wonderful design). And I think one of them gets hit, and the shield flares. But I don't recall seeing any shield glare in any cutscene. I know the equivalent of the EU in Halo has plenty of drawings and text descriptions of shields showing up upon impact, but I'd like to see that in some game at least.
His last post I've read yesterday contains several errors.
Let's see.
Nattuo wrote:Four of the impacts hit the solid purple 'armoured' areas of the ship, two of the impacts hit the areas dotted with pretty lights and complicated looking bits.
Actually, one of the two missiles which caused the burning leak hit in the slick hull surrounding the areas dotted with pretty lights. It's so fucking obvious on the picture he provides and the video itself. It's the same slick hull as on other parts of the same ship, and pretty much the logic behind the claim that it's armoured hull.
That impact just happened to be close enough to a region without slick plating to perhaps cause some leaks and had the supposedly unarmoured outer hull burst in flames.
Nattuo wrote:I used the immediate fireball(one can be seen in the screenshot I linked), which would not be influenced by reflection. Rather than maximum fireball airburst/groundburst, which would be influenced by reflecting from any potentially present ground.
I really have to wonder what he means by the initial fireball, because there's one thing clear: the screen capture he uses shows the expanding rings of doom. Those appear
after the explosion's flash.
If you are fast enough, you can actually freeze the video on the explosion before it bursts into a large flash. At that point, you do have a more or less spherical fireball of some sort.
After the flash, you have the rings, and the fireball has grown into a cloud that cools down, and above all,
it still expands as it cools down beyond the frame he chose to make his measurements.
Besides, how can he claim that the explosions he measured wouldn't be affected by reflection against the hull? That is so wrong. The fireball growth of a fireball is extremely fast at those yields. It's in the low kiloton scale, and perhaps totally ends some microseconds after detonation. Simply put, you won't be able to freeze the video before the fireball has already expanded and, thus, been reflected.
It's even more absurd since he used a screencap wherein the fireballs had obviously begun distorting themselves into mushroom clouds, at which point they'd be past reflection since eons, relatively speaking. And that's if you think the blast expands at the speed of sound, which is not exactly true, as it expands faster, and that despite the altitude of detonation (less air, slower speed of sound).
He should watch the video again, at timestamp 9:50.
Also, why use a nuclear calculator when the nuclear reaction will be different to some degree when the missiles have all reasons to be chemical missiles, namely Archers fired from the ground or something very close?
We want to look at chemical effects. A nuclear explosion dispatches its energy into different forms of energy, some of which will crucially lack in chemical reactions. That's also why we generally say that effects are comparable when the yields start to become enormous.
Nattuo wrote:Can I ask what your point is? The detonations you linked look almost identical to the ones we see the strike the Corvette. The only discernable difference being the altitude and ambient temperature(New Alexandria is surrounded by snowy fields). Which likely wouldn't have much influence on the detonation.
The black cloud doesn't persist for as long, but then it wouldn't anyways, being mounted in smaller, presumably lighter, case, and being influenced by the gigantic turbulence an 800 metre unaerodynamic brick travelling at 50-100 metres a second would create.
Trying to confuse the reader are we?
Since when the shape of the ship would explain the fact that the clouds turn totally invisible within two seconds after detonation?
We're still looking at chemically propelled missiles, most likely housing chemical warheads themselves. Not that it makes a big difference since even the nuclear explosions leave, well, you know, mushroom clouds.
So if I were him, I wouldn't spend too much time on measuring explosions which are bogus to begin with, and just accept that missiles, most likely chemical in nature and thus, due to their size, limited in payload, did puncture the hull of a corvette that's about 800 meters long, more or less.
