The Ark cutscene in Halo 3 is IMO one of the greatest of the whole series, the music and everything is just baller

at first i was like "i wonder if he's going to talk about orbital mechanics" and then he said kerbal space program, and i stopped worrying

I really liked the depiction of Mass Space Warfare on the show “Legend of the Galactic Heroes”: thousands of ships fighting at exrteme distances with well-thought ships for said purpose and the problem of interstellar logistics

"Shipmaster they outnumber us three to one!" "Then it is a fair fight" Absolutely classic line! 😁👍👍

"Reality doesn't always make sense." PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO EVERYONE.

Children of a Dead Earth is an excellent simulation of this, definitely the best I’ve found. I’m also drawing on The Expanse. I also disagree with a number of points in this video. As I see it, space warfare will be carried out primarily by drones and missiles. A drone is capable of surviving many orders of magnitude more acceleration than a human body, allowing much more nimble flight. Drone/Missile combat would also minimize loss of human life, allowing armies to keep around a very highly trained corps of pilots without undue risk to their lives. Therefore, capital ships/super carriers could serve an integral role in space warfare, namely that of drone carrier. Even in areas as small as our solar system, communication lag due to the speed of light quickly becomes significant, so a command post on a planet is not viable. The drones would also not carry enough dv for the larger orbital maneuvers, as too much fuel would slow it down. As such, a carrier would both serve as the C&C for the drone fleet, and as a way for it to move around a solar system. I also disagree with your assessment of projectile weapons. If the first priority was keep orbital paths clear, people wouldn’t fight in the first place, since any combat is going to shear bits and pieces off a ship, leaving shards in orbit as dangerous as a standard projectile. Also, projectiles maintain energy much, much more efficiently over distance compared to lasers, so while lasers might be instant, they’re much more energy hungry compared to simply chucking a bunch of rail gun rounds or similar at the enemy. See worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/32549/attenuation-of-a-laser-in-space for more info. On a totally unrelated note, if anyone is really interested in this kind of realism, along with light orbital dynamics, I very highly recommend Children of a Dead Earth Edit: The discussion down below is excellent, fleshes out some issues I had with my criticisms, as well as making some entirely new excellent points. It may not be your area of expertise Spookston, but some of your fans are clearly passionate about it

I've heard the "Space combat will be long range sniping matches with lasers and/or missiles" a lot, and let me tell you. In 1914 people thought normal infantry combat would be long range sniping matches with long rifles and formation maneuvers. Point is that we have no idea what Space combat looks like because we've never had it. Maybe we get to that point and all our space fighters end up so heavily armored they just ram each other to death, we don't know.

That heavily depends, but given that modern materials and energy (weapon) science is going the trajectory established by Battletech... Well, it'll be 'fun' in the 'hundreds of km' sort of way.

I think the best example of space combat in the future can be found in The Expanse. When we look at their spacecraft, the only thing that cant be properly explained in real world physics is the Epstein drive, wich is a very fuel efficient engine. Long range missiles for primary combat, Gauss rifles for medium range and CIWS autocannons for point defense. There are no gravity on these ships, no aerodynamic shapes, no magical G force absorbing materials. No superfast engines. You travel like in real life. Planetary orbits, slingshotting using gravity bodies. Pretty much what Spookston said. Perhaps the only part were they drift is the G-juice they inject in mass accelerations and de-accelerations

Dude, have you seen The Expanse? Space battles there are almost everything you said, with orbital tragectories, no energy shielding, guided munitions and active protection systems, super long BVR ranges, spacecraft are usually only for space and not atmosphere, etc...

My money's on missiles being the primary weapon, maybe bomb-pumped laser warheads like in the Honorverse, with ship mounted lasers being secondary or point defense armament. Why let the enemy closer than you have to? I suspect battles will be short; a massive missile volley at the start, then whoever came out worse trying to break off while the other side tries to finish them off with lasers and/or kinetics. Speaking of the Honorverse, I think David Weber initially was just doing Hornblower in Space (ships-of-the-wall exchanging broadsides with gamma ray lasers instead of 64 pounders) but eventually realized that's probably not how combat would work, hence podnaughts, a much more realistic take, at least by space opera standards. Edit: My deepest apologies for overestimating the intelligence of a KZfaq comment section. You would think we'd all know better by now. A bomb-pumped laser uses a nuclear explosion to power lasing rods (the Strategic Defense Initiative planned on up to 50 rods per bomb), generating a very brief X-ray laser. As a missile warhead, this means it doesn't need to make it all the way to the target, greatly reducing the chance of interception by point defense. When in range, lasing rods separate and point themselves at the target, the nuke goes off, and in the moment before the rods are destroyed they shoot a powerful beam at whatever they're pointing at, ruining it's day. I could easily see it becoming the weapon of choice in future space combat. It's already well within our technical abilities with today's technology.

Go play, "Children of a Dead Earth" to get a (very) rough idea. It's my current benchmark for realistic space combat* *Still ignores several concepts that I would consider key, but I haven't found anything better

The expanse's depiction of space combat is pretty good, and the peculiarities of space combat create some odd/interesting situations, like penetrating shots quite often inflicting only minor damage, missile chases, and using orbital mechanics to be stealthy.

I like the way the Expanse went about it, even though the more complex mechanics are largely ignored: - very low ranges would use either ballistic weaponry or lasers (since at higher distances a laser can't be focused enough to be of significant use), which would also be used to neutralize missile weaponry - middle ranges outside the focus of a laser or dispersion of a turret would use a rail gun, up until the limits for the targeting system to accurately aim it or the target's reaction time - guided missiles for anything above

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe... Attack ships on fire off shoulder of Orion...

If you want my opinion, I personally think that space combat would be similar to how it's portrayed in the Expanse. Spacedock has a very good breakdown of how Expance space combat works, I think you'll find it enlightening.

Uploaded: 42 seconds ago Views: None Likes: 1 Yes I gave the like

See The Expanse series, and more realistically, Children of a Dead Earth :D :D #theexpanse #childrenofadeadearth

There's a game on steam called "Children of a Dead Earth" which does a pretty good job of showing near future hard sci-fi space combat. It is basically a murderous version of kerbal space program with more in depth component design. I would recommend it if that sounds appealing to you.

Please do a video on the ships of The Expanse.

Hey Spookston look up Atomic Rockets if you can they could help you out with this type of stuff.

That Mass Effect clip is my favorite thing about space combat. A missed shot could be just as devastating to your enemies somewhere as it would be to your allies. It could keep traveling until it strikes a space station or even Earth. Basically, it would be a massive bruh moment.

2:00 gundam uses this in the original series from 40 years ago. A giant space colony was Gassed then sent on a collision course with Earth. The plan was to bring a swift end to the war so people born in soace could gain independence...but it missed the HQ in a geo front in the Amazon rain forest and hit Sydney Australia(F for Australia). So the war continued. 2:20 Gundam also covers this. With battles that take place after the war are sometimes fought amongst the rubble of the original war. Edit:But thats gundam and thus not realistic. Just something to point out about one of my favorite franchises. As it likes to keep more track of stuff like that than other series do.

There’s a game called “Children of a Dead Earth”. Good game, if we enter into “Space combat” that’s a fantastic example, and is very very pretty to watch fights in, and it proposes a trifecta of options. Missiles, Kinetic Weapons and Lasers. Kinetic weapons are great at putting out massive amounts of damage, as even 2-5mm k-slugs would do horrific damage to most lightly armored ships. Lasers can burn through hulls, but only at close range, doubling as effective countermeasures to missiles- which can swarm and overwhelm k-slug defenses and multipurpose guns but struggle against far more accurate laser systems which can prematurely detonate missiles, their heat dispersion panels, or their engines, dodge them outright with clever maneuvering or deploy distracting countermeasures, but are also equally effective at all ranges, but can be made to excel in a niche. Agile countermeasure evaders, long-range nuclear cruise missiles, or close-in swarmers to swamp even laser defenses, or a big, armored missile designed to deflect all incoming fire before slamming into the ship and detonating, or my favorite- unmanned drone swarms that swamp the enemy with k-slugs before slamming themselves Into enemy ships- terminally ending both careers. Warfare will be a trifecta between those three aspects, short ranged lasers, medium ranged rapid-fire guns, or long-ranged missiles.

One thing you might want to consider in ship size is that bigger allows you more room for supplies and systems, the farther you want your ship to go, the bigger it needs to be to hold supplies. Food, water, air recycling. Biig capital ships would be a must if you wanted to attack another planet, or something even further away like bases in the Oort cloud, or another star. (At least assuming you wanted to go there in person.) If you didn't, you'd probably just send asteroids or relativistic kill missiles. If we want to factor in light lag, you'd definitely want to send people if it's combat in the Oort cloud or farther. Having to wait hours for drones to respond to new orders would be very disadvantageous to the home force. So a big capital ship that houses your people, and acts as a drone control point would be ideal. You'd also likely want something big if it contained an AI too, more room for more memory and power/cooling for your AI fleet controller. That big ship can also have really big engines with massive nozzles that get you better ISP, thus better fuel efficiency. Make this massive high efficiency ship a carrier for your smaller combat drones, and you get a lot of advantages. The square cube law can also work in favour for big ships too, if you double the internal volume, you don't need double the armour, or double the systems/crew. a 25x25x50 ship versus a 50x50x100 ship likely doesn't need to double the crew, meaning less proportional space dedicated to sleeping, life support etc. More space for supplies, propellant, munitions or weapons. As for crushing under change in velocity, you'd have to plot your maneuvers to take your structural integrity into account, or spread the force out with smaller RCS thrusters to spread out the structural load more. You'd want to keep your big long-range ships far from the engagement though, as far as you can, while maintaining good signal time to your drones.But inevitably some enemy drones or missiles will slip through, so you'd want your big ship to be able to defend itself. Big ships can also mount big weapons, useful for threatening whole planets with orbital barrages, or taking out targets too tough for your drones. Depending on how far you're going, you might need to bring an entire self sustaining city with you if you were bringing people, even if you could move close to, or at light speed. Realistically, there's no 'one size fits all' answer for space combat, just like there isn't for naval, air or ground combat. I'd argue space is even less one size fits all than any other, due to the vast disparity of distances involved. Before anyone goes and responds to this, _please_ at least understand the square cube law, and how it can work in the favour of larger things, I recommend watching Issac Arthur for further perspective on how a larger ship can be more efficient than a smaller one. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jJqUl9Gjp7qamHk.html

You should watch the expanse! That shows what space combat could be like.

Re: kinetic weapons and missiles being bad because of debris. 1. I fail to see how bullets flying around on likely decaying orbits (you've just added a km/s to their velocity that probably isn't pure prograde) to harmlessly reenter are anywhere near as dangerous as the debris created by blowing up ships with said bullets.

Ther is a book series called “the lost fleet” that shows how space warfare will play out with some limitations

Answer: Look at Halo. Well, NOTHING like it:D

4:12 "Starting a fight in space is kind of like being the first to use nuclear weapons in actual combat. Nobody would want to be the first person to do it. America: *whistles while avoiding eye contact*

Amazing. Thanks for this video. Educative! :)

only 500 hours on KSP? pathetic.

Ace Combat 7 had an example of Kessler synthcool in modern times. Both sides of the war launched anti-sat missiles at each others satellites, and the cascading effect destroyed all commercial satellites along with it, putting the world in an information blackout. Pls do a video on Ace Combat

Actually, capital ships being larger is better. One main reason; the square-cube law is on your side. Quadruple the surface area of the ship and you have eight times the space inside for more missiles, facilities, armour and accommodations. The internal volume of the ship being immense is great.

I predict that in space warfare the combatants will rarely, if ever, come within visual range of each other. Most likely, the most they'll ever see of each other will be miniscule pinpricks of light, that only stand out among the sea of stars because they are moving.

The problem with guided munitions is that you could see the munition incoming long before it reaches you, especially if its a long distance fight like you described.

My favorite youtuber that looks at stuff

You should do Resistance: Fall of Man for your next tank video. That game has pretty realistic looking human tank and jeep and two Chimeran vehicles you will probably have a field day with

Great video mate

a common trope in sci-fi or sci-fantasy stories is some kind of shielding unit/grid on ships that can protect from light space debris. assuming such is possible irl one could use that same concept for a number of purposes. For instance a non-combat role that shielding units could be used for is debris-cleanup and controlling kessler syndrome by extending a large net-like structure out of a satellite with shielding units on the intersections of the structure to catch small pieces of debris(or at the very least slow them down enough to go sub-orbital. honestly as a literary exercise it's so fun to just go "Here is a potential technology from a sci-fi universe, what can/could people use that for in a way that makes sense?"

40K music in the background. Most realistic of sci-fi universes hehehe.

The game "Children of a dead Earth" is said to be the most accurate simulation of space war fair.

Fascinating. One thing I didn't see mentioned was how spacecraft were used the Starship Troopers book. While spacecraft were capable of fighting each other, their main purpose was transporting troops, and dropping them onto the surface. The main requirement was carrying the assigned amount of troops, and being tough enough to last long enough to pick them back up.

love the video!

I don’t think soldiers will feel any pressure from fighting in space.

I recommend y’all watch the expanse it’s the closest to what space combat would be

The warfare you described is exactly like legends of the galactic hero, I’d suggest everyone look up that show it’s fun

FINALLY. a realistic projection of an exospheric/ orbital battlespace and space warfare. God bless you.

Well. Tbh for me at least, we will never know what space combat will be like, because we doesn't have the technologies for that to happen yet. I mean, there's a reason Halo or any sci fi setting have a very standard fleet roster not very different than today Navy, because they base space combat on modern naval warship roster to develope their navy ( Fighter, Frigate, Carrier, etc....) and base their space combat tactic on modern naval tactic. The only series, for me at least, have *the most realistic* space combat that is based on our current technological advance is *The Expense* . For example, even the smallest warship class both UN and MCR have a sizeable crew component , and there's no single man fighter craft in there. Also ship combat each other using regular projectile weapon, missile. The only weapon that can somewhat count as fictional is railgun, and even that is already in prototype stage. ;)

just see "homeworld" saga :D

So on top of tanks and mechs, you're also covering space-related topics... Now I REALLY would love to see you cover Gundam since they have stuff for all three. (Would recommend sticking with UC Gundam since it's more grounded than the spin-offs)

My thoughts on it are it would most likely be used as orbital bombardment with a giant railgun like a irl mac cannon not accually fighting ships in space they would just find ways to bring ships down and burn up or crash as the ships would most likely be so small that it wouldn't be a massive issue for things on the ground

Spookston, I'd strongly recommend reading some pages on Atomic Rockets.com Lots of information on these subjects.

Begin the Meteorblitzkrieg

Another thing to add about when it comes to exiting the planet's atmosphere, is the planet's gravitiantional forces or pull. I'm not an expert when it comes to astronomy and science or anything related to both, but I knew that different gravity would mean different effects on the spacecraft upon exiting and entering the atmosphere The higher the planet's gravity the more power it would require for the spacecraft to exit or enter into and that would mean more resources and fuel being spend. But I'm pretty sure in the sci fi fiction or in the future there would ships that has engines that're able to have enough power and efficiency to go out the planet's atmosphere without issues or entering it safely without being burned to crisp while spinning out of control

You may like a book called Expeditionary Force, its about a US Army specialist whom teams up with some SF cats from other nations and a super advanced AI, the thing i like about the series is how intricate and planned out the space combat is, every single battle has weeks of planning behind it all leading up to an either sneakily hyper jumping a bomb into another ship or getting to a system last so theyd get hours old data on the other ship and be able to lob some mazer beams (super lasers) at its flight path, finishing a battle in the same nanosecond it began

Logic: space combat is overestimated, too dramatic and has nothing to do with real life. (enters the Vengeful Spirit aka Traitor's Hand) Logic: well... on the other hand it's just a theory, e-he... pls don't kill me.

An effective counter to SPAAACE LAAASEERS would be literally to point a giant mirror in the general direction you believe you are being shot from. It is light after all, how else do you see your pretty face in the morning.

It will completely depend what part of space we are looking at. Combat in the dark and icy reaches of the outer solar system will likely look similar to submarine warfare; being all about stealth and endurance and staying hidden. Combat in low earth orbit could look in parts like you imagined it.

I would assume larger craft would be used for longer distance missions and that weapon range would probably never be a problem again too, just to add to what you said.

Every star wars Ship formation is an extrapolated 2D, and has no effectiveness in real life. and in alot of scenarios star wars is a blatant rip off of WW2 tactics. literally a triangle, shape is better than flat starwars crap.

Never thought I'd be hooked into military style videos by a furry.

The lost fleet book series has interesting space combat with time delay for communications and visual spotting, the most used weapon are grape shot and solid projectiles all fired on computer predictions, its a good read and an interesting view on the effects of long term conflict.

Cool video. A nearish future and grounded in reality take. The rules change when faster than light tech is on the table. If the technology is sufficiently advanced and compact you could have FTL rockets. If you also have the sci fi trope that breaking out of a gravity well is trivial (and doesn't even require explanation) then sufficiently thick armour and counter measures could deal with debris. Could make an interesting video.

"There's more resources in space than we are ever likely to need, so there is no reason for conflict." My friend, have you heard of capitalism? hahaha

As an SFIA channel regular, a few points 1. There is no such thing as stealth in space, a sufficiently powerful telescope or radar could see you halfway across the universe. 2. Lasers would be common, but I suspect gamma ray lasers or meson beams (rapidly decaying particles) would be more popular. As these could go straight through any armor. 3. Kinetic weapons would be very popular at long range. They don’t lose power over distance and are much easier to deal damage with. Additionally, our current lasers, even if absurdly powerful, could not hope to hurt something at even lunar distances, RKMs are a different story there. 4 and finally. Kessler syndrome would be a nuisance at worst for any major spacefaring civilization at ship-sized scales, but would still have great political influence due to the difficulty to clear debris with point defense lasers. This changes when the number of ships involved increases to what a heavily industrialized power would have. Which would be capable of producing millions of ships per day.

Also actually in the Halo lore many of the space engagements were long range shooting matches. Fighter and boarding craft were used to a lesser degree

also, lasers dont stay as tight beams, but a small pellet of iron moving at a few tens of KM/s stays just as deadly no matter the range. another benefit of hypervelocity projectiles like that is that they will escape the solar system entirely if just fired into the void, so no leftover debris.

Very good video! I was worried for a minute that you hadn't played enough KSP, but I see I was wrong. Also, there might be a place for kinetic weapons of relitavely small caliber in space combat. Due to delta-v limits, .223 caliber weapons might well be more than adequate for the main gun of a cruiser.

I was a little worried that orbital mechanics wouldn't be covered in depth, considering it is the only movement you can do efficiently and within the realm of reason without some sort of 'warp drive' tech. But I was quite pleasantly surprised when Kerbal Space Program was mentioned! Great vid!

Hey Spookston, thanks for this! This video is very educational and informative! After doing a lot of reading on space combat, I have come to the same conclusion as you as to why space combat in sci-fi will be nothing like in real life. It just goes to show you that truth is stranger than fiction, eh? Hopefully, that will never happen for the reasons you stated. Anyway, I look forward to seeing more of your videos! You just earned a new subscriber! :)

Tbh one of the best ways that space combat was shown in my opinion was in series "star carrier" by Ian Douglas. He thought about most things others ignored not only in combat aspects but also society, aliens, and politics are much more though out then in nearly any other book I have ever seen maybe except "the expanse" which I consider equal. He took into consideration so much, starting from time dilation caused by extreme speeds, communication difficulties caused by ships being multiple light minutes apart, the different ways alien biology would influence the design of their ships and their strategy. He even considered that due to the insane distancing in the cosmic environment stealth would just be trying to seem like a chank of space rock instead of the ship.

Here are ideas for your next vid 1. What's wrong with tanks and ifvs used in Endwar 2. What's wrong with tanks and ifvs used in fuel of war Frontline 3. What wrong with Tau vehicles in Dawn of war

I highly recommend you the simulator Children Of A Dead earth. Its a pure blood space warfare simulator that explores the physics and the engineering of space warfare.

Me: *clicks on video, expecting a good explanation about the topic* **Ark soundtrack starts** Me: *E P I C*

Next video idea, Space close combat (personal to personal). There is a game call *Boundary* , a space fps game that you might interest in.

In Mass Effects Codex, it mentions space combat between ships usually happen outside visible range. Hundreds of Miles away or thousands

All hail Spookston, Master of Space Flight (through 500+ hours of Kerbal Space Program)!

Pretty sure the 2004 Battlestar Galactica Show did a good representation on space combat, with how the fighters have side thrusters, to manuver, take advantage of no gravity to glide or strafe, use conventional cannon shells and missiles for space combat.

I do believe that there would be capital ships in space combat because it could fill multiple roles it can fight when needed, it could be used to repair and rearm smaller craft, it could also be used to gather materials for repair, rearm and possible building new ships kind of like the mothership in the home world games.

Idk if you read my comment tgat had some suggestions and praise spook, but one of my points was to mix up your content, and add more personality. You covering space combat was exactly what I meant and it seemed like the tone was much more conversational which is a step in the right direction as sometimes, especially if you watch multiple of your videos in a row, it can feel like your reading an essay rather than having a cool conversation about warfare and tanks and such with us. Anyway, great job man, keep on being one of my favorite youtubers. (One of the VERY few that I will click on everytime no matter the title or content)

One of the best ideas for minimizing kessler syndrome is lasers. We already have computer controlled lasers that are accurate enough to fry parasites on farm salmon, and if we just scale one up, we can use the laser to heat up said space debris to either accelerate it away or decelerate it into a suborbital velocity.

There is a series of sci fi books called the lost fleet which has an interesting take on space combat. Essentially the ships joust, making fast passes in fleet formations and spitting out grapeshot for the other fleet to run into with particle beams (called hell lances) being for more precision close range work, and missiles being more of a longer range clean up weapon. Railguns are primarily for stations and planetary bombardment since it would be too hard to effectively use against ships. The tactics are closer to age of sail ship combat with it being more about the fleet formation and approach.

you could have used Space Engineers - as space combat is used with custom builds and sorta good physics or the expanse

Lasers dissipate over longer distances. The most likely weapon that will be used is rail assisted missiles, similar in function to GPS guided bombs or artillery using the initial burst for closing distance and using maneuvering thrusters to course correct.

The moment you talked about KSP I got scared. This is going to be good.

I always liked the idea that unas ships would just stay far away and fire sniper shots with their mac cannon

i think an important question would be how big does an engine have to be to get to one star to another then work off of okay if you are forced to be big then what be a giant carrier or maybe massive hulls would be a thing as if built in space and if you keep a massive distance to large objects then the hull can be as tick as needed or more.

You should check out Children of a Dead Earth. It´s a very realistic Space Combat simulator. You can actually just burn towards where you want to go. It´s just horribly inefficient. However if somehow fuel wasn´t a factor which is usually the case in space operas then you could absolutely do this. It is much faster than normal orbital maneuvers. If you had plenty of Delta V you´d just burn towards where you want to go in combat. In a realistic scenario at least missiles would likely just burn towards the target at most ranges.

My guess will be a lot of clock counting and a lot of computational controlled weapons. 1st hit always win and distance will be the shield. You miss by a mm, you miss by passes. Imagine 2 ballistic missile submarines. One in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific. Each one trying to nuke the other but has to find the other as both oceans are big. So they will need satalites to locate the other then launch their nuke missile.

You should do a video covering The Expanse, best live action portrayal of space-warfare I've seen.

This channel answers the most complex combat consequences such as vehicle and war themes

My personal favourite depiction of future space combat is by polish author Michał Cholewa in his books: There are ships roughly corresponding to naval fleets in terms of size and firepower. Yes, lasers are a thing, both short and long range and they are devastating, short burst wrecks a ship. However every ship is covered in deflection coating which disperses laser energy and makes it harmless. That's why mostly combat is based around attack and defense rockets. Attack rockets are really fast, their objective - get close to the ship, explode and send out gigantic DU splinters to break through ships hull. If the strike damages deflection coating then long range laser is used if angle is right to finish the enemy off. Defensive rockets are designed to intercept the above in a thermonuclear blast. Tungsten rods are also an option as they are practically undetectable and can take out stationary/predictable target without warning. There is electronic warfare involved as well. Oh, and battles are fought over tens of thousands of kilometers, no visual contact. Unfortunately I am not sure if books are available in English.

The Expanse.... awesome show and keeps it simple, railguns, torps and point defence turrets.

The expanse is the closest future of space warfare that ive ever seen also spook pls make these kind of vids again

2:02- I think Legend of Galactic Heroes covered this. Where battles near a planet and sun had starships crashlanding on a planet the moment they got hit.

You didnt mention long range missiles. I think that would be a common use aside from lasers. Simply because missiles can travel massive distances and can correct their path to the movement of the target. Probably similar to how the expanse portrays space combat

If fleet battles like in major sci fi franchises actually happen I bet lanchester's square law will sudenly become incredibly relevant

It's amazing Noble 6 wasn't killed by being too close to where the remains of the super carrier hit. It's also amazing that the area it hit wasn't turned into a giant crater with a large part of the planet being affected by the impact.

Yo spookston, can you do a video on everything right with a tank, like show us a tank or battle mech that has a good solid design with little to no flaws