Does anyone disagree with the statement that sniping involves ballistics, which is artillery? Simant 00:53, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that an argument can be made against that assertion. I think the first difference is volume of fire. Sniping is about "One shot. One Kill." It can be used to engage point targets with high precision.
Conversely, artillery is an area effect system. It is used to engage multiple or area targets, simultaneously. The two really diverge when the second mode is considered. If a sniper doesn't have detailed information on their target's relative position, then they can't engage the target. Artillery can simply engage the target's general, or even suspected area. --Nkuzmik 13:02, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
Ballistics does not immediately associate with just artillery. Ballistics refers to the characteristics of firearms and their effect on the propulsion of missiles (missiles meaning projectiles so it could be anything from bullets to cannon shells). Basically it covers any type of firearm or shooting weapon that uses projectiles (so technically the Gundam's weapons wouldn't count). Though the word does have its origins from ballista which was an ancient weapon that hurled stones and other missiles so it would probably count as artillery.
Also when it comes to artillery while I believe having a wide area of effect is important, what is even more important is the power behind each shot. One of the primary purposes of artillery weapons is their use against heavily armored and fortified targets, whether its a fortress wall or a tank. Ordinary guns like a sniper rifle, an assault rifle, or a sub-machine gun simply don't have the punch needed to get through such defenses that's where cannon's and bazookas come in. Though it should be noted that many artillery weapons are useful against groups of "soft targets" because of their power.
Granted the distinctions can get a bit murky when you're dealing with beam weapons, but the general idea is still there. A sniper rifle is for long range attacks against a single target with normal armor. Sub-machine guns are for rate-of-fire. And Artillery is for destroying heavily armored targets, and often enough large amounts of targets.
I will also agree that snipers are less effective when they lack information. Just think of Celestial Being's assault on the first Memento Mori. Seravee destroyed most of its armor allowing Cherudim to strike the critical component.--Animefan29 14:25, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
Sniper tactics can be used to great effect against hard targets because no target is truly "hard" everywhere. Tanks have sensors, antenna, portholes. Any number of which can be destroyed by a single, well placed bullet. A few well placed shots can achieve a soft kill on any tank.
I think the big difference is area effect, versus point target. The relative durability of a target a factor, that helps choose which method of engagement.--Nkuzmik 14:47, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
- ok then, i'll agree that it should be sniper. Simant 16:54, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
With all that in mind, as I talked about this on the Arios page, what of the official data releases on Bandai's part? Whenever they release a toy, they also list the type of the Gundam or MS. So what do we do if we see Regnant listed as merely a "Type: Mobile Armor" or 00 Gundam as "Type: Twin Drive Gundam" or something of that sort? Do we comply to their official typing of the Gundams or we do this based on their combat characteristics? Wasabi 22:22, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
- I would say... go with combat characteristics, and put that info elsewhere like in trivia. Simant 22:57, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
- I concur with Simant. --Nkuzmik 12:50, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
Info box contents
I suggest that we remove the references to assault mode and defense mode from the info box. The box is for listing features of the topic of the article, not for features of the features. Furthermore, bits different modes are discussed in the body of the text. --Nkuzmik 14:02, October 26, 2009 (UTC)