This is getting way too long. It iakes me several days to go through it, and wears down my patience.
Obviously if I sense that there's some obtuse mind behind silly arguments that makes my bullcrap meter reach for the stars, I'm not going to display any kind of friendly affection.
We'll see to that.
sonofccn wrote:There is nothing "magic" about smoke attenuating in open atmosphere.
There is when you think it will dissipate fast enough as not to leave any sign of what is going on and where.
The point is simple. Either there's so much distance between both forces that the GAR can afford shooting at buildings and then moving walkers in, or they can't and will be spotted.
In the former case, of course, all the time the AT-TE spend at climbing to those positions is all the more time the machines will have to spread.
Fact is, however, than explosions make a ton of noise over many kilometers and it's very easy to have a rough idea of which direction the sound came from.
Frankly the whole idea that the holes could be produced in any kind of discretion is bound to fail, and if you count on distance to attenuate the problem and induce a lag that will compensate for the origin and time of production of the sound, you'll be dealing with a city so stupidly large that I don't even see why both sides would have any chance of ever crossing each other.
No matter what, the sound of explosions will reach the machines (over 300 meters per second) and the HKAs will be already active.
Rubble falling during explosion or eventually bits falling off later, including when the AT-TEs generate tremors and slide into the holes when walking on the damaged sections of the building (quite a silly plan in fact, they'll need to stick to surface they have voluntarily weakened)? Same.
In fact, forget the explosions. These machines make an awful lot of noise when walking. No way in hell they'll not get noticed the moment they start moving, even on the ground.
Sure, HKTs are no match for AT-TEs and I never pretended the contrary. Whatever Skynet used before to clean all armour the humans had over the globe, decades later, the HKTs we saw have been anti-infantry vehicles. The humans never had any mechanized units left other than technicals at best. Things that a HKT would easily destroy. Although I have not seen any impresse armour capacity on the AT-TE's part either (technically, droidekas can destroy them and they have a firepower nowhere superior to that of HKTs), the AT-TEs still have several guns and above the main cannon, its superior range and firepower. The shot to kill Obi-Wan was very good. Wasn't that a range of one kilometer or so?
The problem is that AT-TEs are rather easy to pick for HKAs and the secondary guns on AT-TEs are yet to demonstrate a level of firepower better than what might a T-800 in one shot. This leaves us with the main cannon, which for obvious reasons whill be most ill suited to shoot down Skynet's aerials.
And it isn't like blasters and the like produce copious amounts of the stuff anyway.
Several shots needed to put holes in buildings plus weapons largely thermal in nature are bound to trigger fires, also powderize materials. It's a no brainer.
I don't see where you even think you'll get some conveniently clean enough explosions when damaging buildings with the intent to clearly gouge large holes in them.
Just looking at the mess done to the cliff just in front of Obi-Wan is rather telling.
Smoke will come out of both pulverized materials and whatever would start to burn because of the exposure to heat.
Not to say that buildings aren't built as bunkers: they don't rely on nor are stuffed with military-grade materials.
The idea is just plain bad. Yet it seems it was the best trick according to you. Or more precisely, it is the main poney trick you really can only think of, instead of being pragmatic and going for a no BS attitude.
Noise? HKA might have a long range sound detection system as found on the motos.
I suppose asking for clarification of "long range sound detection" would be too much?
Forget the long range, I realized that echo is going to be a bitch down a city's streets.
If so, they might either fly to the source slowly, or fast.
Assuming they have "long range sound detection" and assuming its refined enough for them to trail it back.
Not going to be hard to avoid the sound of both LAATs and AT-TEs on the move.
AT-TEs are horribly slow when climbing.
Faster than a HK-T at it.
Perhaps here would be a relevant remark if I claimed they'd ever attempt to?
All in all, chances of them reaching their holes before being caught on scans by machines are slim.
Why? The HK-A is, so far, far from impressive as a detector.
Noise, smoke, noise and smoke. Those are not stealthy.
No need to spend more time debating the obvious.
It also goes without saying that we haven't seen the GAR rely on any of such methods.
Never said they would, I said they could. We've mainly been discussing feasbility and practicality.
Which also include probabilities. The difference between the would and would not is related to the chances of this ever being devised.
We already know what would happen if Anakin considered this plan.
We also know that if the AT-TEs are used in the most mundane way, here goes the attempt at being original and obtaining a greater view of the battlefield.
Anakin is a smart dude, so we can expect him to exploit the topology as best as possible, but only to the extent of what we've seen him do: stick AT-TEs in unusual places.
Not to state the bloody obvious but putting AT-Tes in buildings is sticking them in unusual places.
Yes, it is.
But is there any other trick that seems remotely plausible?
I don't see any that doesn't involve a rather complicated mind that would be equal to a death note for an entire legion on the battleground.
Like, hey! perhaps we could make an AT-TE pyramid!!
:/
The GAR could hopefully take down groups of machines that way, but not the whole army.
Well that is the thing, no tactic or trick is going to take down the "whole army" and if that is your only criteria of success then...you lost. In War, like life, there are no silver bullets.
If AT-TEs are not going to take down the whole army, since clones are useless and HKAs superior to LAATs, how are they supposed to win against the machines then?
Future war scenes have not shown legions of infantry walking in packs.
It shows a sizable number. It isn't just a T-800 or two bumbling along as sentries.
Context is important here. By pack, one has to understand a form. Like a pack.
What they do, at best, is spread and cover terrain. They don't walk shoulder to shoulder when they're scouting.
Plus they've been seen to run when needed anyway.
infantry units moving forth in no particular configuration, especially considering the ruins they were walking through.
The fact they have no "particular configuration" is a bad thing. Ruins or no does not excuse such a performance.
It is not a bad thing when there's no gain to it, no reason to force a unit into a given formation just for the sake of parade. Squares? Triangles? What next? No point.
As we saw, they were spread and basically walked where one could walk.
T3 is the only movie to have featured massive amounts of T-800/850s at once, and there clearly were no signs of much resistance as machines advanced over that terrain
There is no sign of a battle honestly and they are still packed shoulder to shoulder and showing the tactical ability of a B1 battledroid.
No sign of battle? And the explosions and T-850s shooting at something is no sign of the enemy I suppose?
Do I need to point out that in T3, they literally swarmed a whole area btw, and yet managed not to be literally shoulder to shoulder?
You know, even human infantry bataillons in modern times tend to be quite cramped when advancing through such areas in large numbers.
Nothing to blame for the terminators.
As for the smartness, it's quite disingenuous to compare the stupidity of a battledroid to what we've seen terminators do in the movies, were they on the good side or bad side, really.
That's quite mind boggling that in order to force a desperate issue, you literally negate rather solid evidence of superior intellect. You don't really try hard enough now.
Some terminators were firing at the distance, but not a single shot was thrown at them
There isn't any evidence there was anyone there to throw it. Simply put the T3 scene is vastly inferior to the T2 scene in terms of gauging combat.
Hello? Good lord. Terminators shoot whne they have a good reason to do so. They're not really known to waste ammo for nothing.
Besides, the machines had largely been fighting humans on feet. We have never seen much of how would Skynet use the full extent of modern warfare if to fight heavy armour and more mobile units.
The idea that the machines will adopt the same kind of formations when advancing through a non-devastated area and tracking anything else than packs of humans largely reduced to guerilla warfare is odd.
Well unless Skynet is a Resistence symapthizer there is no reason for it to deliberate hamper the effectiveness of its forces and employ them in suboptimal manners.
Indeed, so we can expect a level of adaptation when fighting against properly mechanized legions.
And its formations are a bad idea against ragtag militia let alone a professional military, which TS shows formed the core of the Resistence, irregardless.
To put it simply bunching up makes delicious targets for IEDs or mortar strikes or asymmetrical warfare in general.
And what makes you think Skynet, a databank and a networked military-organizing system intelligence, wouldn't know that?
Infantry robots are deployed in very unique and short times, and Skynet obviously also has to count on limitations. Again, what makes you think Skynet is going to deploy troops in the same way when fighting anything else than groups of humans moving on foot exclusively, through ruins?
In all timelines, Skynet has always been a military global supervision system, both strategical and tactical. It has everything ever typed and put onto a computer that deals with war, weapons, strategies and tactics.
How could have Skynet ever defeated anything mechanized the humans would still possess if applying the same formations seen in the future war scenes?
Skynet's meagre forces would have been disposed of rather swiftly.
The area and conditions are totally different, and Skynet isn't really that thick for a villain AI you know?
Nor that it matters, since the T-X is smarter than a T-800/850, and it leads this army.
If this were true, Skynet would have stood zero chance at winning against human units and vehicles pushed back to post-WWII/non-modern tactics because of a lack of network.
Especially considering that it would have a limited amount of machines to work with.
Well one has to debate what there is not what one thinks there should be. So provide evidence of Skynet performing superior tactics or that is what we'll go with.
Not so much. In order to reach the state observed in future times, Skynet would first have to survive everything that the humans still had at their disposal.
Not to say that back then, Skynet would have probably not gotten anywhere close to the capacity to build itself such massive legions.
If anything, TS quite proves that Skynet was damn limited and needed human labour. And it goes without saying that Skynet's maximum range was largely limited to what it took control of under US/NATO influence, which still leaves massive areas out of its reach.
Skynet couldn't establish itself firmly in the future if solely knowing and using such tactics suited for post apocalyptic guerilla warfare in ruined urban environnements.
Right from the future timeline which triggered the events of T2, we know that Cyberdyne computers were mounted in stealth bombers.
The question is, have we seen terminators being tricked by flanking maneuvers?
Due to the sparse examples of large scale battles such a question, which itself would require further clarification before answering, can not be answered in the postive. Extrapolating on the T2 scene would suggest a vulnerabiltity to it.
Based on what clues precisely?
The question isn't if the HKA can do impossible maneuvers down some city streets, but if it has the edge over a LAAT.
No. I posulated that within the urban area the HK-A would be forced to traverse at a reduced speed, optimally switching to its hover mode, and you argued it was agile enough to manuver without issue. Do you still argue that yes or no?
Define "without issue" please.
Did I say the HKA would run into walls? It can easily zap ahead and a HKA was shown capable of making a rapid vertical ascension and loop back as well.
If HKAs are going to have LAATs in narrow streets, they can move up quickly and get the clearance and superior range.
Also, its front cannons literally dictate the machine to have its target in front or below, so it's bound to try to obtain a superior altitude.
Now, can HKAs do barrel rolls under a second? Yes. Why? Because they can rotate their engines for such maneuvers. Which means that this same possibility for angular thrust will also allow them to quickly bank left or right, or anything else you can come with that uses that kind of vectoring.
So, after all of it, your basing its superior agility not on its performance but an extropolation of what you think it should be able to do. And that this unquantifiable agility should give it an advantage over the observed manuverbility of the LAAT. Wouldn't it just be simplier to give me an example of its manuvering, surely if its so badarse it must have done it sometime in the movie.
I don't feel like producing a transcript of the whole canyon run, you know? I'd expect the roll, the quick acceleration, the equally rapid ascension and following dive, the zig zag in the canyon, to be kinda enough.
If streets are narrower, LAATs will suffer even more, have even more difficulty to have a good firing cone for missile launch, even more chances of seeing the enemy at the last moment. AT-TEs will just be as squeezed and putting them on building faces will offer them nothing advantageous much because they'll basically be stuck at firing down the same narrow streets. What prevents HKAs from flying over of making passes the other way round, I don't know.
Wouldn't it just be simplier to give me an example of a LAAT's equal capabilities?
For the moment you have provided none.
The only advantage I pointed out is that the LAAT goes down to firepower that is extremely low
In relation to us discussing it vs the HK-A implying it was relevent.
Actually I don't recall my point only being stuck in the confines of a duel.
All units and forms of attack were to be taken into account. In the end it doesn't matter, since point is that HKT's do also have more than enough firepower to take them down.
It doesn't matter if it was a lucky shot or not, because the simple fact that it could happen is more than enough to know that the ship isn't armoured enough to protect itself from a dramatic hit in a sensible area.
The how and why a shot did what it did is important I'm afraid. Or would you consider it accurate dismissing the Death Star because it can be taken out by a pair of proton torpedoes.
All we see the LAAT's aft blowing up after being fired at. Asserting that it's a lucky shot is unsubstantiated conjecture.
Now, excuse me believing that (obviously dedicated) Geonosian fighters are ought to take down enemy crafts with odds greater than anything limited to "lucky shots", whatever you wish to pass as that.
A LAAT taken out because its engine was set off in a chain reaction is different than if the LAAT was taken out with a hit directly against its hull armor.
Proof of chain reaction?
And where did the culprit bolt land, then, btw?
A close flak burst that doesn't do any better than knocking a character off balance at a range of 2 meters is just as ridiculous.
It does however indicate that it is not the weapon in and of itself which is destroying the LAAT.
How?
And that "steed of impartial evidence" is not subjective.
I am, and have been, open to discussing the evidence. Hence why I stress posting of clips and screencaps with time caps so it can be impartially observed. You don't seem to be so much.
I have nor the time nor the material to produce the necessary clips.
It already took me ages to make animated GIFs.
Why should I even bother since you could not defend your theory if you had not the video to observe at hand's reach?
Why ask me to produce material you already have?
If you feel my observation is derogatory, perhaps that's because you had put too much stock into the LAAT's resilience?
No. I find your observations "derogatory" because in leiu of arguments or evidence you offer a paragraph stating X is so made of fail it fails. You talk down on the abilities/person/thing in question but seldom show what you are talking about or demostrate how "your side" is better in the area. You do this even when I make a specific request for evidence.
I state what we see. Shitty bolts still manage to take down a LAAT without any clear evidence of whatever form of chain reaction resulting from a preliminary lucky shot whatsoever.
Now it is definitely time you produce your evidence or I'll have to consider that after two long posts, you have nothing more than pure speculation to press forward, which is so weak I don't need to draw a picture.
There's nothing you have opposed to the obvious low display of firepower from the Geonosian fighters and I'm not under the impression that you will provide anything, so my point firmly still stands.
Said point was only that, the disparity between what was known to take down HKAs (missiles thus far), and what was shown to take down LAATs (much lower firepower).
As I have shown it is far from as cut and dry as you state. Or if I stuffed a match into the HK-A fuel tank, just supposing it has a liquied fuel tank and that it would work for the moment, and it blew up would you agree that the match's "firepower" was enough to take down the HK-A?
Conjecture, conjecture.
Or perhaps that missile that downed a KHA also hit a fuel tube, who knows?
Perhaps the warthog pilot shot two missiles because he wasn't sure that one only could take a HKA? Or perhaps he tought the HKA could actually evade one missile?
Etc.
On the other hand, we saw HKAs of various iterations from being able to shoot through troopers (low firepower) to blow huge volumes of rock.
In fact in the very TS movie we see varying levels of firepower coming from the same weapons.
We even see one of those bolts hitting a clonetrooper squarely and that simply tips him off the platform!
Timestamp? I don't recall a Clonetrooper being struck squarely by one of those beams.
Yet you seem to have enough evidence for your theory about the LAAT's odd demise.
Please, just watch the movie or whatever clip you can find, it shouldn't be hard to spot.
FYI, it's the second geonosian fighter that did it.
let's compare that to the bolt that literally vaporizes the woman soldier in T1 if you want)
I would love it if you'd post the revelent scene. I definatly don't remember a woman literally vaporizing in T1 but then again that's why I prefer video instead of relying on memory.
Terminator 1, Reese and that woman lob heavy explosives under the tracks of a HKT, but the woman exposes herself too much and the HKT fires three bolts, the third one blowing her to bits.
The LAATs have missiles though and a good number of energy weapons, but I also pointed out that they won't use them in air battles, because of undisputable evidence right from AOTC
"Undisputable evidence" which I'm still unclear on. Are we talking about Dooku or some other scene?
I'm not.
Dooku is right in front on his lousy motobike, the craft has two front guns to use and could even gain altitude in order to use the globe-weapons embedded at the tip of the wings (we know they're weapons, as demonstrated by the very first LAAT to open fire in the arena), or even stick out the two other manned big ones.
Thus far, we haven't seen LAATs acquire particularly agile vehicles. The most mobile vehicles they took down were the CIS' droid missile launchers, which didn't look to be particularly armoured either.
Here and
here should show LAATs firing on Geonosian fighters.
Good, now we have a complete contradiction. Not that the LAATs were particularly good at shooting the fighters down anyway, all weapons counted.
Basically, you just replaced an incapacity at shooting with an incapacity at hitting anything, unless eventually it's literally right in front of them.
Oh, and it also shows those fighters taking down LAATs with shots from totally different angles than those of AOTC. All shots damage them easily, passing their armour, and screwing LAATs big time.
Lucky shots and chain reactions again? :)
In the city, for both sides to find each other, Skynet's T-X will rely on the HKAs while Anakin will rely on the LAATs.
If the LAATs find and acquire most of the HKAs for a missile lock, then that's a good thing, they'll take enough of the HKAs down.
If LAATs can't clear ALL HKAs, then they're most likely fucked, as they'll be taken down by the remaining HKAs one by one.
LAATs are, over all, the more versital and useful of the two through. It has been observed better supporting ground forces and it can transport troops quickly. Avoiding direct confrontations but keeping the possibility of ambushes open would serve to create an area of denial and keep the LAATs in use.
To create an "area of denial", LAATs have to be active.
Active LAATs are an easy find for HKAs.
If anything, the two clips you provided tell me enough about how the LAATs would be ruined by HKAs. Plus LAATs still don't use missiles against fighters, suggesting a lack of AA capacity (Dooku might have been an acceptable target because just hovering in front of them basically, that is, relatively moving even slower than the wheel droids shot down earlier on).
But all we can assert is that missiles are used against at least vehicle-sized targets, slow moving or immobile (the fastest target I can remember are those wheel droids firing missiles, nothing spectacular).
This alone has pretty much nailed the LAAT's coffin.
He may be good at deflecting some bolts, but not only he'll have to deal with a better enemy aim and a higher rate of fire (again, most of the time seen used on full auto), he won't be able to block all shots.
Again compared to the Christophsis clip if there is any difference in the rate of fire its in favor of the Clones/Droids rather than the Terminators.
And Clone Wars has demonstrated some the shittiest aim ever seen in all history of video entertainment.
Christophsis: Clones charging... against a wall of droids... and even managing to reach fucking
punching-range point.
LOL.
You persist to use it literally, so be it.
What do you make of the pitiful and utterly embarrassing display of "aim" here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE_CVWMWK74
... geez
I don't need to prove that droids in SW have plain crappy accuracy. That, straight from the movies.
The issue is not that SW has "crappy" accuracy or not but if Terminators have better accuracy and if so by how much.
To the terminator's defense, it used heavy weapons against mobile targets and often had to go through several layers of metal before having the possibility to reach its targets, or successfully shot through windows but the targets were taking cover. That while the terminator held the weapons one handed and had to drive as well. By judging on the impact holes and the metal bounces, most shots hit.
Now, did people manage to run in
his direction and still get miraculously unhit by bullets he'd fire at close ranges?
Because that's the kind of shit we get served with a lot in Star Wars.
First of all, have we ever seen a human come close to a terminator handling a plasma rifle?
Depends upon definition of "close". Terminators have been observed to miss humans at ranges comparable with Star Wars ranges ala Christophsis.
Like when and under what conditions precisely? And what are those ranges? How any times in general?
In T2 the reprogrammed model didn't have problems to hit padlocks in one shot with a shotgun while riding a motorbike and attempting to catch up with John Connor, in ranges of 5 to 10 meters.
T2 and T3 provide, on the average, good demonstrations. At least anything better than the abyssal aim demonstrated by CIS droids which can't even hit a single man walking up stairs at a low runner's pace straight at them.
Which does beg the question why they did so poorly in the T2 scene. Normally I'd chalk it up to rule of cool and that you can't expect wholesale constistency but I feel that would be in violation of the hardline approach we've decided to take to analysis.
I have the scene, and we don't see any clear evidence of shots coming, for
sure, from terminators and wholly missing at close ranges.
There is precisely nothing under the form of a terminator shooting and missing at a shitty range, because we simply don't even get to see one single terminator shooting at a human trooper.
The entire sequence is done with terminator shooting at stuff offscreen. Did you watch the clip you provided?
We see plenty of shots flying in all directions, often times short full-auto bursts, but how do we define which bolts came from terminators?
I also jsut said "auto", without bothering to be particularly specific back then because it didn't strike me as important.
In any event you distinghished between "auto" and semi-auto and clearly argued the latter was a better excuse for poor performance. You now argue the reverse.
In any event, it's an other thread, another context, another mood and that is all. You have way too much time on your hands. Way too much.
I can't believe you need to drag an entirely different thread, old at that, and pick material partially out of context.
Let's stick with this thread.
It's also from the CGi show, isn't it?
Yes, as the video makes clear, it is from the CGI show.
This is a stupid question but you can view Youtube videos correct?
I just asked to be sure if it were me commenting on the CGI show.
I didn't reread the whole of my post.
Notice that I don't use it much. I pointed that out in this very thread I believe
I'm aware you dislike the Clone Wars. I'm also aware we have a disagreement on how accurate a protrayal of the Star Wars universe it is. All that said its still canon.
Canon in general, in substance, but the protrayal, the cartoonish rendition and therefore minute details are hardly something I'll be stuck onto as far as this show goes.
It's just too silly and Disneyish (oh... oh, but---).
Of course, as I said, we already have the movies. Superior canon.
Except if we want information on the actual Clone Wars the Clone Wars show is the highest canon we have. From mortars, to heavy cannons to the grappling gun the Clone Wars has expanded our understanding on how the Clones fought.
And how many times have we seen those devices used on the average in face of the torrent of clones deployed time and time again, over the entire length of the show and movies who never ever used anything special?
That's the thing!
Exceptionnal elements are exceptionnal.
Otherwise, HKAs get missiles and goodbye.
Notice, in fact, that the occurances of a HKA with missiles largely surpass any occurance of a clone trooper sporting annything else than a blaster rifle or carbine.
Meaning that itf you could tweak the parameters of this scenario on the move, like changing server parameters, by lowering the outlier shreshold, HKA missiles would appear much much sooner than the moment clone troopers would begin to get their desperately needed superior weapons.
You have a particularly strong bad faith when comparing battles scenes in the T movies and in SW ones.
I made comparison between Clones and combat T-800s via a scene of a pitched battle. You certainly could have posted counter examples instead of wasting my time with an evidence less rant.
SW movies are the epithome of bad robot aim seen in the latest 15 years or so.
Having the gal to put terminators and CIS droids on equal footing is baffling. Even more when praying support from the CGI show, which just made things worse!
You make ridiculous claims, really.
And this is where my patience really begins to die, honestly.
There's simply no comparison to be made. You can pick any engagement, all action on Naboo, anything in Geonosis' battle arena or its plains, even Pau City's port or inner roads, or up to inside the Invisible Hand, it all plain sucks.
The odds are totally stacked against the CIS droids. It wouldn't even matter if you were to find one or two good shots, because they'd be completely lost in an ocean of aim-suckage.
Again its not do Droids or Clones aim good its do Terminators aim better. At the moment we have a seemingly consistent datapoint of flesh covered Terminators aiming good but fleshless ones don't be they T-600s with a minigun or a T-800 with a plasma rifle.
So you admit that for the limited number of cases of terminators shooting, they aim quite well, but that isn't enough?
You then speak of bad unskinned terminator aim from T2, but reality actually provides absolutely no case at all to analyse, contrary to your pure hot air claim.
Conclusion: T-800 terminators aim better.
And considering the abysmal aim displayed by CIS droids, it's literally night and day.
Talking about night and day, T2 confirms that terminators have enhanced night vision.
Much like the Geonosis scene we need to focus and shift through the evidence rather than spout trite generalizations.
Hahaha.
This is really getting silly.
Please point out those
trite generalizations you think might exist on my side.
In the comparison between T2 and T4, you consider that if TS were not to breal continuity, the T-800 should have been damaged to the point of the CPU stopping to function after several seconds
Incorrect. While I personally feel the T-800 should have been damaged, through not neccessarly "fatally", I am in no way arguing its CPU should have ceased to function "after several seconds".
Bull, that is exactly what you claimed.
Besides, the CPU stopping to function is precisely the only sensible damage we get to know in T2.
The CPu is stuck deep down the skull, so it would still some time for heat to reach it.
We never see the exoskeleton liquifying in any shape or form.
So you don't really know what you're talking about.
had to show then that, as I claimed, the cases were different enough so as not to contradict each other.
I had not claimed they had to support each other, merely that there wasn't a contradiction.
Due to the ambigiousness of the T2 scene it is by nature a relatively flexiable scene.
Oh, now it is flexible?
What is that?
And how is it going to be useful for that contradiction of yours, now that this scene is "flexible"?
In the end, you come to agree with me that these events are different. So why force a contradiction when there's no need for any?
Unless you can precisely show one, I don't see any reason to reject T4 and believe that a T-800 cannot endure heat, and therefore more or less tank clonetrooper's standard fire (assuming they can hit).
To recap:
1. Due to observed technological features incongruious with T2 T-800s (hydrogen fuel cells)
2. Due to observed endurance greater than T2 T-800s, taking grenades to face/chest with no apparent "internal" damage
3. Due to the T-800 prototype being incongrously developed years ahead of the previous timeline
4. Due to Resistence fighters converting to/employing hand held energy weapons in field operations against T-800s
This I fell is more than sufficent grounds to question the viability of using the TS Terminator as a baseline.
T1 and T2 don't provide enough material.
The inclusion of a T-X implies a better level of technology and it is very likely that the future war scene in T3 is where/when the T-X was sent from. As we can see, vehicles are different from the designs in T1 and T2, which were not totally identical either.
This T-X, after transporting to the past, triggers another newer timeline in T3 with hacking and perhaps, a faster update of Skynet (conjecture on my part), which for all intents and purposes seems to be the one continued in TS.
If you want to leave TS out, we're left with the mysterious intermediary timeline the T-X came from.
You also quickly brush away the importance of fluid metal pressure, despite the fact that aside from the obvious difference of volume, in one case the metal can flow off the sides of the machine, and in the other case has nowhere to go and will obviously apply more pressure onto the machine.
Fine, enlightment me. What is the pressure per square inch?
Do we need to get into such details?
Isn't it obvious enough that having a layer of metal which flows to the sides (T4) is not the same as having a volume of metal ontop of the terminator's body which not only remains constant, but actually keeps increasing because the robot... sorry, the cybernetic organism goes deeper into the pool?
Oh yes it is.
Even if both molten materials had the same density, obviously the greater and greater quantity piling up ontop of the exoskeleton is going to provide a greater mass, thus a greater pressure. And that is leaving aside the metal's flow of T4.
What do you really
need for proof of an obvious difference of exposure to pressure (and heat)?
Basically everything the T-800 has to cope with is greater than what the T-800 in T4 did.
Cumulative heat, higher and increasing pressure, and a longer time.
Besides, the T-800 in T4 wasn't exactly totally invincible. The molten material still hit him on the head. Notice how it seems to go off before reawakening, like if it had to reroute power.
All in all, both T2 and T4 represent very good cases of resilience to pressure and heat in large quantities.
We can even compare that with the first terminator, which got literally smashed right in the head and top upper torso by a heavy fuel truck clearly driving at more than 70 kph, then toasted later on as the entire fuel container of the same truck blew up (while the cyborg was driving it), the cabin included. Then the machine kept burning for a while and felt to the ground... until all flesh would be gone and system good for another go.
And it kept coming... only to be cut in half by a home made grenade which boom recipe relied on a close cousin of nitroglycerine... which still didn't stop the machine from working.
It only got destroyed once compressed into a third of its thickness.
Oh and if the red eye thing is indicative of its activity, then let's just point out that said red eye was still ON until the very end of the squishing procedure.
Yeah, like if there was any doubt about the resilience difference between a CIS "battle" (target practice) droid and a terminator.
Pressure + heat = more damage than heat alone. It presses against metal that sees its strength disminished because of the application of energy. It presses against the weakest sections, such as those found all around the neck. It completely presses against the eyes... heck, do we even know for sure that when the camera cuts, it's the CPU that really goes off and not just the eyes, which are obviously far more exposed?
We have no reason to assume its only weak points which are being affected. That is your assumption which presumes the T2 T-800 and the TS T-800 are comparable which would need to be independently verified, preferably by side by side benchtests, and is not a given.
Aside from the fact that it's the weakpoints that would fail first?
You're denying the most obvious now. I find that both desperate and silly.
Next to a potential difference in the power source (former termies might have had very advanced batteries), there's nothing to jump at.
You initially tried your best to pit T2 against T4 but now you've admitted to T2 being "flexible".
As said just above, in this debate about resilience, we still know that a terminator will continue to hunt even if bisected (The Terminator).
It took a homemade explosive straight to the chest to actually disable a terminator, and that didn't stop it from trying to kill.
The hyper-alloy used for the machines is of higher quality, so the explosive cannot be shitty either. The fact that it still could cut the machine in two means it had to be powerful.
Yet that power was bound to generate shrapnel, but that never hampered the machine. Shrapnel is bad, it sends metal at sonic/supersonic speeds.
All incapacitated terminators we can observe are constantly getting finished, shot for good, when already pinned down.
The very basic T-600 takes several shots straight in the head at very close range from a pistol and survives. A very dangerous thing to do at close range, because of metal shards and ricocheting bullets.
A heavy assault rifle got rid of the thing after a massive rain of shots at less than three meters (helicopter scene, point blank range). Even more dangerous!
It took an assault rifle, at an even closer range, the muzzle aimed at the temple, to get another T-600 really destroyed (after getting squished by an helicopter). Equally dangerous but Connor is both badass and desperate I guess.
Contrary to what you think, why the terminator was thrown into the pool in T2 is irrelevant, especially as I never disputed that much heat and pressure would not destroy the CPU.
The context established it was extreme overkill ie its likely closer to melting into a ball of goo than totally intact save for a weakpoint snapping. Context is extremely important when we have an ambigious event to try and analysis.
The "context" never said how long it would take to obtain said ball of goo.
It also still takes time to heat up material.
TS shows that this "enough" is leaps and bounds beyond what SW generally brings to the table.
The TS Terminator is not involved in this discussion and I have laid out multiple reasons why it is incongruent with T2 Terminators.
First two movies' terminators are still plain good enough.
They tank levels of firepower, heat and momentum that would decimate clonetrooper squads: all droids and clones go down to firepower that doesn't leave impressive marks on walls.
Oh I'm sure you might gouge out an extreme outlier here and there eventually, which would you do no good but confirm that probabilities in this debate say it won't matter, because the vast majority prevails.
This is not helped by the fact that in the prequels, blaster firepower is piss poor as well, hardly any more significant than a .45 bullet or anything lesser in fact.
Meh. In the Hunt for Ziro, from the Clone Wars, a hand blaster blew a gaping hole through Ziro the Hutt. I'd like to see .45 caliber amunition do that.
"A" handblaster, one shot... all that from the CGI Clone Wars, a dubious source when it comes to details and not general plot points or overall impressions. Paint me unimpressed, really.
Let's just stack that against the gazillion of shots from clones and droids combined in AOTC and ROTS for example.
That kind of firepower, a T-800 can reasonnably cope with it before really going down.
If clones want to stand a chance, they'll have to rely on the mechanized units.
And conversly, pegging a blaster set to high somewhere between fifty caliber and anti-material, am not sure they can "reasonably cope". T1 and T2 style Terminators have, to my knowledge, never been subjected too anything greater than assault rifle fire, likely hollow points to try and prevent perforation, so its an open question how well they'd resiest.
In T1, most likely yes, although we never get a view at the ammo in the clips of the assault rifles which are picked in the police station for example.
In T2, it gets a bit more complicated but it's possible that even the heavy police forces would use hollow point ammo.
Now, the loss of penetration isn't that huge, it above all defines the behaviour of the projectile if it gets inside the target. With metal against metal, it's largely reduced to a question of momentum over a given diameter, and there hollow vs. plain don't differ much safe for the slight loss of mass due to the hole.
Now, please provide a sizeable amount of cases of great firepower in favour of the clones in order to increase the odds.
Other than that, extreme outliers are not going to get you anywhere.
T-600s aren't even funny. Nor are the sort of sentries guarding the base's tunnels. Skynet makes advances in its tech very rapidly.
However I don't recall similar assault rifles doing anything really impressive against T-800s.
Could be, as I suggested, the difference of load out,
Full metal Jacket for instance.
What? Do you claim that AP rounds were used against the tunnel sentry, hydrobots and the T-600s (from HK416s), but softcore whatever rounds against the T-800?
Because the very first assault the fresh T-800 has to deal with precisely is a three seconds close range rain of bullets from a M4A1 carbine (that should be at least 30 rounds, all the clip if it's a standard one), which has no reason to be fitted with foam rounds. Rounds have all reasons to be
5.56x45mm NATO, at least at 1.68 KJ per round.
We've got plenty of videos here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2leiCxmc5Ao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLitgXZnjjw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLitgXZnjjw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50_3Yyo0Nt0 (like this one, gel wobbling reminds me of... err.... it's like my byrd's... complement... in motion... oh ok here's some info about the
M193 and other cartridges)
In Terminator, if humans have largely switched to energy weapons, it's because they're available. So is their ammo. Now, the only case of a terminator going down to plasma rifle involves one already downed machine (stuck under rubble in fact) being shot at point blank range.
The trooper feels the need to fire two bursts and we don't even get to see the effects on the exoskeleton.
If you have evidence those soldiers' weapons were ineffective, that Conner was sending them to die uselessly, you may present it. Otherwise we may safely assume the guns issued to the footsoldiers in an infantry heavy War are reasonbly effective in killing the opposing side.
I didn't say they were ineffective. But you assume they were marvellous. We simply haven't seen one single use of a plasma rifle against a pristine terminator.
Perhaps they have to fire multiple times. Perhaps there has to be two or three troopers focusing their fire on one terminator to start to damage it seriously.
Humans are far less resilient than terminators, and hardly wear any bullet-proof or plasma proof gear. Why would Skynet equip its infantry with weapons which will surely kill its precious terminators if collected, instead of something weaker and good enough to still mow down fleshbags by the dozen?
We simply have no idea how much firepower from such a plasma rifle it takes to destroy a terminator.
The plasma rifle used by the infiltrator in TT did some good damage to humans, the plasma bolts burning flesh and clothes once released, in great splendour sometimes even.
I think the concept that humans in T1 and T2 scavange plasma rifles may have nothing to do with an easy capacity to defeat terminators, but rather with the problem that they may have fuck else to use against Skynet.
It is a simple question of logistics here.
Are you asking me if handguns deliver more than 40W?
I want you to provide an example yes. The vaporization of the lady from T1 would be a good start.
Are you screwing with me or something? Requiring proof that handguns are more lethal than lightbulbs?
It seems that you just have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and you've set a new low in your (debilitating) standard of "debating" skills.
At a moment I thought you were serious enough but this is just looking like a pissing contest and you'll throw at me anything silly that flies beyond your feet's range.
Come on, you can do better than that.
Like stop at once and concede.
We're obviously dealing with a writing mistake if it was meant to be a reference to firepower.
I'll ignore it. It's silly, you can't kill shit with 40W.
You can't ignore it, its canon. A lot of what we deal with is "silly". Inconsistent weapons effects, infantry tactics Napolean wouldn't have used but we have to make do and soldier on. You want to be critical and exact concerning Star Wars, I'm fine with that but we have to be just as hard on the Terminator franchise and the Terminator says 40 watts.
Lulz, no dude, on one side there's the tolerable and on the other we find the plain retardedly impossible and anyone sensible would obviously ditch the later, while a moron would stick to it.
Not to say that the cases I pick in Star Wars are actually verified several times in the movies.
40 W would mean that the torchlight attachment on a rifle would be lethal. Do you copy?
Somehow, I'm expecting a "roger roger!" here.
Perhaps you could suffocate someone by gagging a person with a lightbulb.
Although technically, it would not be using its wattage into any lethal way, but I guess that by present (retarded) standards, it's good enough? :)
Now, if say a single shot from a plasma rifle was rated at 2 KJ, and the thing could fire 60 shots on full auto before going black, at 40 W you'd still need at least 3000 seconds of recharge. Or 50 minutes.
Recharge rate seems a barely decent explanation, although it makes the weapon shit.
Or it's about the kickstart power, the one that activates the chamber that generates the bolt (the real energy of the bolt being far superior).
Well then that seals the deal. If you think it's suicide while it's one the ships' best advantage, and one that doesn't even require the application of a face-climbing tactic never seen in order to merely attain greater sight, the clones should really blow their brains out, indeed.
No. Blatantly wasting good resources in a no hope situation is what I disagreed with.
What? It's not a waste of ressources.
I'm sorry if the tactic you're so in love with and which obviously warranted that thread is actually totally mediocre. But we have to be pragmatic here.
The LAATs have 14 missiles each and can fire them in pairs (the reload takes around two seconds I think or less).
If they don't take the advantage ASAP, HKAs will.
Goodbye clones.
The basic issue is your assuming the Terminators are so much "better" that anything in regards to a straight up fight is a huge curbstomp in the Terminators favor. That the Clones will be useless.
They will. Mobility doesn't make up for a lack of punch. If they can't do more than scratch termies, clones are precisely useless. Not to say that according to your deployment model, clones will be moved around by LAATs, which implies out of AT-TE support. Meaning that there'll be nothing to prevent the clones from being mowed down by HKTs and HKAs.
Considering their past behaviour at Geonosis, PauCity and Christophsis, I'm not really in the mood of giving them the benefit of any doubt.
They'll just be whiter targets than the usual human in rags. A new definition of point blank, really. :)
I in turn am assuming a performance closer to the T2 scene, that they'll sporadicly hit the Clones and can not tank blaster fire as well as they can 20th century small arms.
Blaster fire during the clone wars hasn't really demonstrated a firepower that superior to assault rifles' firepower. And it still takes more to take down a terminator for sure.
Like, you know, even having an explosive destroy something like 50% of the exoskeleton on contact, producing supersonic shrapnel from the very material it blew, didn't stop the very first terminator seen in theaters.
Said terminator has tanked a total of 10 bursts from an ithaca 37 (most likely 12 gauge since it was a police weapon) at distances between 2 and 5 meters.
That's point blank (the first five shots were the most distant ones and we didn't see people being hit among those running behind the terminator).
As for destruction:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 801AAd1TP3
What 12 gauge shotgun load will do most damage to a human at point blank range, aiming at the chest?
Crimsontide'13 asked 5 years ago
What 12 gauge load will do most damage to human (if hit in chest) at point blank? I have a 10 gauge load I want to build, it has a hollow point slug, with bbs in its deep core, so when it expands, it will blow a hole and send bb's through your body. Behind the slug is 6 000 sized pellets, and behind that is a bird shot mixed with hundreds of razor blades. Will this load do more damage than any other known load? Or any hand gun cartridge hollow point? im worried about damage because I dont want an attacker getting away.
Additional Details
Can someone tell me what the exact damage would be? If they were shot in the chest, what would happen my the load I want.
---------
Best AnswerVoter's Choice
thinkingblade answered 5 years ago
Well, depending on exactly the load at the muzzle a 12 gauge shotgun generates something in the neighborhood of 2,500 foot pounds of energy give or take. With that much energy, virtually regardless of what the load is you will have a shot go all the way through a human target.
12 gauge shotgun slug has a diameter of about .73 inches, or almost 3/4 of an inch. Not too many ways to survive a through and through hole augered through your chest at that diameter.
A 3 1/2" magnum 00 buck shell has between 9 - 15 00 buck pellets in it at .33 inches diameter per. Again at point blank range all are going through. So now you are looking at an aggregate of at least a 3" hole (9 x .33) and something like a 5" (15 x .33) hole max.
Step back and think about that for a minute.
A 5" hole is something that you could put your clenched fist through and for most people have clearance all the way around. A 3" hole you can get 4 fingers into the hole to 2nd knuckle on most people before you touch skin anywhere.
So, to close a long answer to your question ... the load you are talking about is not going to be any more effective than a standard 00 buck load.
In fact, because of the total quantity of different bits of stuff you want to stick in the shell it will arguably be less. Remember, you have a fixed amount of energy which is propelling all of this. So, the more items that the energy is divided up between the less each one of them has. This is why fine bird shot has much less range than buck shot, which has less range than a slug because the energy is spread over more projectiles.
Now, at point blank, it isn't really going to matter.
As an aside, gently, remember this - professional ammunition people get paid good money to develop defensive loads for use by people who have crazed armed armored felons as part of their typical scenarios. Further, those special ops sort of groups, whether in police, military or private, will pay a premium (check the price of defense loads in anything compared to range loads) for those sorts of rounds.
If you are asking us about the effectiveness of a round which you are jigging up, what do you think the odds are that you know more than the people who design this stuff for a living in a really competative market?
Thinkingblade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_sh ... hell_sizes
Shotgun shells are generally measured by "gauge", though in Britain and some other locations outside the United States the term "bore" is used with the same meaning. Rifles and handguns are almost always measured in "caliber", which is simply a measurement of the internal diameter of the barrel measured in millimeters or inches and, consequently, is approximately equal to the diameter of the projectile that is fired. By contrast, shotguns are usually measured by "gauge", which is the weight, in fractions of a pound, of a pure lead round ball that is the same diameter as the internal diameter of the barrel.
For example, a shotgun is called 12-gauge because a lead sphere that just fits the inside diameter of the barrel weighs 1/12 of a pound. This measurement comes from the time when early cannons were designated in a similar manner—a "12 pounder" would be a cannon that fired a 12 pound (5.5 kg) cannonball; inversely, an individual "12-gauge" shot would in fact be a 1/12 pounder (38 g). Thus, a 10-gauge shotgun has a larger-diameter barrel than a 12-gauge shotgun, which has a larger-diameter barrel than a 20-gauge shotgun, and so forth.
No.of lead balls in one pound: 12
diameter of the requisite pure lead ball: 0.73" (18.5 mm)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 841AA1GBue
3" 1oz slug vs. 3" 00 buckshot for bear protection (12 gauge)?
One Dollar asked 2 years ago
Which would you choose and why?
----------------
Best AnswerAsker's Choice
Bear Crap answered 2 years ago
Forget the buckshot. Each buckshot ball has less energy than a .38 special. In fact it has around 250 ft lbs per pellet;
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index...
I looked up the energy of buckshot and its from 170 foot pounds to as high as 240 ft lbs per pellet. Another way to figure this is divide the energy of the shotshell by the number of pellets. In the case of 00 buck with 9 pellets you divide the 2000 ft lbs or so by 9, this results in about 222 ft lbs. That’s about the energy of a .380 pistol.
There have been instances where a person shot a black bear just a few yards from them several times with 00 buckshot and the bear was still able to move just fine. I have seen it fail on black bears that weighed hardly 300 pounds. There are a few instances where it did kill a black bear because one or more pellets entered the brain at point blank range. And there are documented cases where a black bear was shot numerous times with buckshot and when they finely killed it and skinned it out they found most of those buckshot balls just under the hide.
The problem is buckshot will not penetrate deeply enough for a quick kill, slugs will. This is why in some states buckshot is illegal to hunt bears with.
People who advocate buckshot for bears are placing others lives in danger.
I have a great deal of experience with bears. I don’t give a crap about best answer but I DO care about people not getting killed by a bear like a dear friend of mine did. And if buckshot preformed so badly on black bears just imagine how it would do on a grizzly.
Here in Alaska you will find locals and law enforcement load their 12 ga shotgun with slugs for bear. Buckshot is not bearshot. So load that puppy up with slugs. I prefer the 12ga 3 inch magnum 1 oz or heaver slugs. But the 2 ¾ inch slug shells will do.
Source:
I am a retired Alaskan big game guide, have hunted black bears and Griz for years.
I know my bears, I have to they are every place I go in Alaska and are on my property every year.
http://world.guns.ru/ammunition/smooth- ... ges-e.html
You get an average of 3.166 KJ of muzzle energy. Which is acceptable since we're dealing with point blank range, which means the mass is still largely one big group of ballsand seems to act more or less like one single element for a brief amount of time. This is interesting once compared to the values I posted here:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... f=5&t=1542
That they are far from useless and employed with a modicrum of intellgience could actually defeat the rather straightfoward and simplisitic Terminators.
Based on wishful thinking.
Time to stick with reality. T-800s far from being stupid (I think all movies shall largely demonstrate that).
But I guess that clones and their superior intellect will put it to good use, like to assault the machines with witty remarks perhaps?
Because, certainly, the absurdity of the Christophsis charge will forever stick in my mind.
This is nothing very new either since the whole bay lagoon battle at Kashyyk didn't look that well thought out either, with both forces charging at each other, even the one on the defensive, with the massive star destroyer sitting in plain sight a few km behind.
The thing you miss is that if the LAATs are to fly unspotted, because of the size of the city or else, it also means that they won't be dropping clones anywhere close to the machines.
Finding and converging upon a footbased army is far different than intercepting an aircraft.
My point is that if they don't want to be spotted, they'd have to drop clones at a good distance, a very large one, and that leaves the clones condemned to proceed on foot from there.
To their dooom, of course.
Oh yes, nothing. Clones approach machines, try to sneak, they're more mobile but it changes nothing in the end.
Actually it would likely be closer to a LAAT screaming in softening them up with missiles before the Clone Troopers deploy and finish turning them to scrape metal.
Like HKTs were not going to lay down defensive fire, and HKAs magically would not intervene.
Of course, if clones ever are to deploy somewhere, you haven't demonstrated that they could take down terminators.
What I see here, is that you're imagining scenarios that won't come to fruition.
If T-800s have to get inside each damned building to find the clones, clones would have to assume the same.
I have said nothing about the T-800s having to get inside "each damned building". I have posulated the Clones are more posed to exploit that enviroment and the Terminators, being foot based, are more vulnerable to it.
Yes, they'd be more tempted to get inside buildings. And then what?
Shoot from windows or roofs?
With their crappy aim and weak firepower?
They'd have more chance to kill terminators by jumping and landing on them.
In this silly game of cat and mouse, I largely give the advantage to the machines indoors, sorry.
And in any game of anything but simple brute force I lean towards the Clones. Skynet has not impressed me with its battle prowess or the independent thinking it allows its soldiers.
The brute force part is solved on the infantry level by the sheer superiority of machines.
Although HKTs are the most useless unit there (unless they have hidden missiles we never see), the vehicle domain is covered by the superiority of HKAs.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the missile run was a fire and pray kind of tactic.
Your plan is to find an enemy you have, at best, a general idea where they are at, converge upon it quickly enough to destroy the bulk of the enemy's conviently bunched togather troops before being overwhelmed by the enemy air units you have repeatedly argued are far superior in air to air operations. Unless you have one helluva example of Clones possesing a forward air command there is no way this is going to be anything but a hectic mess.
Because it's going to get better once the machines are fully deployed and all robots on full alert? Oh.
As I said several paragraphs above, your clone army is far from being discrete even when simply on the move. Womp chomp and vvrrrrbbbrrrr in a desert city hardly are subtle.
I'd expect the clones to be smart enough to spot the enemy first and try to take down as many as possible, on focusing on the heavy units first you know?
Your honestly expecting to catch HK-As on the ground or to fight them head on?
I'd honestly try to blast Skynet's forces ASAP.
Otherwise they'll be the ones finding the GAR -- which, anyway, is what I consider will happen because HKAs are, above all, HUNTER killers.
Or how do you expect clones to hide their noisy machines from the HKs' sensors?
Tough eh?
Besides, having watched T1 again, it is actually confirmed that HKs DO have IR sensors for night patrols. They seem to act like fiendish dogs, especially the aerials.
With that in mind and with the behaviour shown in T4 and how Reese escaped a HKA in T1, it's clear that the HKAs are vicious once on the run, but rather simple minded.
The trouble is that the clones have never been shown to come out on top of enemies displaying any particular form of good enough tactical acumen.
They win against droids because they are probably built to suck, literally, giving the GAR a chance to win against an enemy of massive proportions, which is all good for war propaganda.
The droids have the resilience of a redfish against a grenade: you can shoot down the run-of-the-mill B1 droid by shooting it anywhere in head or torso, and that pulls one done for good, despite the fact that we know their "head" and body can work separately. Even Force pushes which we don't even see or hear compress metal take droids down easily.
CIS droids are just an excuse for the Republic to waste tibanna gas.
The reasons for the droids sucking that much are irrelevant though, and the observations of battle events are what matters.
Clone troop deployment hardly shows any kind of subtlety either in the vast majority of cases. It's not like they have much to do aside from "drop me here" and "I'll walk to objective A".
This will not suffice to evade Skynet's machines.
But if you consider this a frantic push and even "unlikely to be effectively coordinated", then they're toasted. You have precisely removed them the only way to even the field against the HKs, especially the HKAs.
In your opinon. My evaluation of the topic, obviously, differs.
An unsubstantiated opinion is barely acceptable at the very beginning of a debate.
We're way past that point, in case you didn't notice.
Heavy repeaters and rocket launchers are actually only seen in the CGI show. That is, after seeing legions after legions of clones not using such weapons.
We see a solitary battle in AOTC and only fragments of some others in ROTS. So we do not see legions of anything. One could certainly review the Clone Wars and try and make some sense to the distribution of heavy weapons but trying to result to some rules lawyering to try and effectively erase them from existence is low.
HAHAHA
Stop lying, we do see legions.
We see entire regiments of clones at Geonosis, in plain daylight. Not a single of them carries a single damned rocket launcher or some original blaster weapon.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... Charge.jpg
http://cdn2.planetminecraft.com/files/r ... 484110.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images ... rocket.jpg
We see
plenty of squads in ROTS, never do we see them using those so much needed weapons.
Odds are so totally against the use of those exceptionnal weapons that they can safely be discarded sa
total outliers, certainly not part of the standard gear mentionned in the OP.
Probabilities are a bitch, I know.
As a whole, it would be nothing more than a mistake to believe that I restricted evidence to Salvation, really.
Between the two of us you do seem to cite Salvation almost exclusively.
Because it is quite rich in content, especially as far as war-type scenarios are concerned. Is that surprising?
But other movies do very well for a study of resilience.
Now, I'm not remembering when I said I'd limit the evidence to the first two movies. It's possible I typed that, but I can't find it again.
I've never asked you to limit it to the first two movies, have in fact posted evidence from all four movies, so I don't know where this is coming from.
Edit: If you mean in refrence to the T-800
You wrote:
Sonofccn wrote:No issue then as that should be the 850 series Terminator rather than the 800. And in any event I intended these to be the Terminators from One and Two, the kind you can crush, blow up and dissolve in molten lead without any mini-nuke explosions.
In TS, the nuclear fuel cells are intended for T-800s.
Although that was quite silly.
T1 and T2 bots, ok.
Thanks.
There are few things I'd like to cover about those post T2 fuel cells.
First of all, terminators formerly used
Iridium nuclear-energy cell. Likely cold fusion, if you want (data obtained from the novelization of the first movie).
Let's quote the entire data set:
The Terminator, written by Randall Frakes and Bill Wisher wrote:
The Series 800 Terminator is powered by an iridium nuclear-energy cell.
The cell could supply enough power to run the lights of a small city for a day and could allow a T-800 to operate at full power for twenty-four hours per day for 1,095 days.
It could last significantly longer than this if the unit dropped off-line into economy mode. In this mode, power was cut to 40 percent of nominal function.
Compact energy sinks collected and stored excess energy for later use, optical systems switched to infra-red only and motivation units lost 40 percent of hydraulic pressure as the pumps slowed. Combat situations notwithstanding, the T-800 has a functional period of 120 years on one power cell.
It's either that, or some nuclear device that's unknown, or a super duper battery.
in T2 it's again said to be a power cell, which does provide a "liefspan" of 120 years (max?).
Anything else would be too problematic in terms of size and power, and exhaust.
In T3, the fuel was hydrogen. Fusion is obviously the method for power production.
Secondly, nuclear explosions don't happen just because you expose nuclear fuel to some pressure and some heat.
You have to attain
very specific high levels of pressure and heat, and this has to be focused and confined.
Thing is, you could most logically crush and melt a billions termies before ever triggering the slightest nuclear reaction.
How the fuel cell of the T-850, once damaged, started to turn into a bomb (aside from plot fiat) is quite hard to explain.
Thirly, the process in T3 which led to the explosion of a fuel cell seems rather odd, because we're facing a case where the fuel in question was almost like transmutating into its own supercritical mass.
Nuclear fuel isn't supposed to be a ticking bomb. Hydrogen doesn't do that by any chance. It's got plenty of energy to deliver, but under very specific and hard to obtain circumstances!
The T-X was built to destroy other machines. Skynet had built T-X for that purpose, and it was superior by all means. Even the T-850s was obsolete.
It appears that massively overtaxing a fuel cell in T3, like ordering an overload, induces a reaction that a cascade of particles which themselves trigger an alteration in nearby molecules and all neutrons start bouncing around like crazy, more and more, with some kind of reflecting process happening. This phenomenon must be inherent to the taxing of power out of the fuel. Under normal levels, this threshold, I suppose, is never crossed.
But to go supercritical, the whole fuel cell or perhaps the outmost layers at least, begin to form a crude
neutron reflector.
And then, somehow, a tamper even has to manifest. I doubt it would be fissible, so that would be shitty to emphasize the explosion, but the alloy would be dense enough to provide the barrier needed. In the case of the 850 in T3, the fuel cells were already encased in metal. Although the mass would be terribly small, maybe it might suffice to produce the reaction resulting into an explosion such as seen in the desert (hard to peg, IEDs have been shown to produce large explosions).
But it just doesn't happen *like that*.
So there's no reason for it to happen anytime a Terminator is destroyed. You actually pretty much kill any chance to achieve such a reaction, because it requires a form of controlled environment and, still, fragile conditions.
Although that's totally weird to me, the fact that Skynet found a technology where the smallest fuel cell can build its own supercritical mass and turn into a mini-nuke is impressive.
Now, that said, we can go back to TS.
In that movie, the first explosions were of a very low level, and oddly spread. This suggests that if the fuel cells are the source of those explosions, they did not blow up properly.
Either the nuclear reaction was very, very limited, or it didn't happen and therefore we'd have to consider the fuel used by Skynet to be somewhat volatile, assuming it's exposed to some kind of high explosive.
Otherwise, even when exposed to pressure and heat (like dropping in a laval pool), nothing like that would ever happen.
The second option is the one of low nuclear reaction: most of the fuel is actually wasted and minute quantities of it ever undergo a chain reaction.
We still have to assume that the fiber John uses is that kind of high explosive. Once directly put into contact with the fuel, it can eventually provide enough heat and pressure for a limited amount of time against the first millimeters of nuclear fuel closest to the explosive fiber, basically reproducing the triggering mechanism of a kiloton atomic bomb.
We'd have to assume John knew this would be a limited explosion. Therefore, the final super explosion at the end was something else which he didn't count on.
In the end, the T-700/800 in TS is perhaps a hybrid design, a step above the T-600, but with a newer fuel cell design.
You deny the GAR the only tactic that will exploit their best strength, under the form of missiles used as fire and forget, perhaps all that in order to enforce some kind of fantasy of a romanticized tactic involving AT-TEs climbing on walls.
Ok, I'm getting a little steamed. I point out AT-TEs can climb walls and that it is an advantage. You argue that there is no point to it and we get into a little scuffle over it.
I have at no point argued the Clones will do it, merely that they could, and I certainly don't consider it the end all be all.
Climbing walls offers no advantage for all inconvenients I presented. Aside from building instability and the fact that puts the walkers in a very exposed position, either to hit with a larger profile btw than if they were on the ground, the element of surprise is totally screwed by the fact that they walkers make too much noise and shooting at building will also make smoke and likely start fires.
And they're terribly slow.
Now, looking at the heroes again, let's think about the T-X here.
SW computer tech is hardly that advanced: hydrospanners, wires and even an artificial limb that could be of a Skynet infiltration M101, a T-X might manage to hack any GAR vehicle.
The T-X processor would have to acquire a compatibility by reading the vehicles electronic protocols first. This could take some time to achieve, or not. It's hard to tell, because we can't really pick the achievement times from the terminator movies since Skynet knows that technology.
However, electronic computers still process the same way once the core code is understood.
The T-X is already a dangerous oponent to Anakin: it can hit and possesses various weapons, including plasmathrower and chemical gun, and even some kind of slug-launcher it seems.
But in close combat, unless it manages to hit Anakin rapidly, I cannot see the machine surviving more than a couple seconds once the Jedi is on top of it and waves his lightsabre.
However, the T-X can manage the army on a level that is inaccessible to the Jedi.
The T-X is an infiltration model so it follows that it would do its best to acquire forces to its advantage, like it did in T3.
Most likely, it would try to acquire a few vehicles. A LAAT is the prime candidate, mostly because they'll be the first to come close to Skynet's forces and they'd be deploying troops at some point anyway.
The T-X just has to mimic a clone trooper. The T-X took a rocket at its right shoulder and that didn't even incapacitate it.
The impact during the pursuit damaged the fragile appendage and merely incapacitated its main weapon system. Needless to say, clonetroopers stand no chance to take it down.
The robitch also has the firepower to take down a LAAT or her own, as demonstrated with her energy cannon which she uses to blow a variety of things up, displaying a firepower that's already in exess of the Geonosian fighters' spits.
So the T-X isn't useless, even if it couldn't hack into GAR vehicles. Well of course if it could, oh boy what a mess in perspective we'd have here, lol, no Jedi could handle that.
