Talk:Operation: TORPEDO

Number of Spartans is wrong

• Operation: TORPEDO.The number of active spartan IIIs is wrong, there were 291 not 298.—This unsigned comment was made by Omrifere (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

According to the book, 300 were sent, but 9 were killed in the landing before the operation began. -ED 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Core overload

Is it possible that the overload could have killed Spartans that might have survived, since the blast was extremely large and powerful. This could mean that the extreme losses were only partially due to the "hidden" covenant cruisers and also Team Foxtrot's fault since they didn't warn any other possible survivors that the core was detonating. Krono 'Zulamee 18:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Overlooked Date

The date of the attack, July 3, appears to have been overlooked. But July 3, 1863 was the final day of the Battle of Gettysburg. On this day, the Confederates launched the famed, yet ill-fated, charge (Pickett's Charge) on the Union lines, with many of the Confederates slaughtered in the attack. It doesnt seem coincidental that the day of the Spartan III charge was also July 3. Pickett's Charge Mobius 22 23:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Another thing about that, just with the Numbers this time, there were 300 spartans here, and in the battle of thermopylae... (or was it hte other one? lol) there were 300 spartans. Both times they got wipe dout, but accomplished something amazing

Page is messed up

The coding needs some fixing. I tried to fix it, but I am not to exprienced so I can't completely fix it.—This unsigned comment was made by Sgt.T.N.Biscuits (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

You, sir, just phailed. Page is fixed.--Lol@Phailure 00:21, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

About that quote.

So the quote that starts off the page is from the VGA Trailer. However, it would seem that the quote itself no longer appears in the final game, from what I recall. So if it is removed from the final product, is the quote still usable (i.e.- canon)? XRoadToDawnX 04:08, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Numbers after noble

With Kat and Noble 6 pulled out before the battle began, I suggest the number is decreased to 298. I think this follows the canon policy, as games are higher than books. Grupa 'Zamamee 18:58, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Nope. According to everything we know, 300 were sent into battle. The communiques sent by Kurt suggest that he intentionally created extra Spartans and removed them from the main class, thus there were actually 302 Spartan-IIIs in the entire class, but he only handed over 300 to Ackerson.-- Rusty - UserWiki:Rusty-112|112 ]]03:33, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

As my knowledge of GoO and the SIIIs in general, is rudimentary at best I bow to your superior knowledge. Grupa 'Zamamee 12:33, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Alpha and Beta companies had more than 300 trainees. We don't how many graduated as S-IIIs or as trainers for the next company.-- Forerunner 13:56, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Not a pyrrhic Victory

Pyrrhic: - •of or relating to or resembling Pyrrhus or his exploits (especially his sustaining staggering losses in order to defeat the Romans); "a Pyrrhic victory" - Successful with heavy losses If you kill TENS OF THOUSANDS for the loss of a couple hundred, you did well. SomethingDifferent 19:03, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

It's not comparative numbers, it's proportionate. Alpha and Beta had a nearly 100% fatality rate during those missions, accompanied by massive victories. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 19:06, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

It works either way. Alluding to the battle this is based upon, the ancient battle is known to be a pyrrhic Persian victory. So going by your logic is shouldn't be? Because the enemy suffered a higher ratio of casualties? This battle is not a pyrrhic victory. SomethingDifferent 19:11, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

That's not the point - Pyrrhus won a number of engagements, but lost so much of his men that any other battle on the scale of the previous engagements would have led to his defeat - it did lead to his defeat, in fact. The SPARTAN-IIIs were the only force capable of attempting these engagements due to the strategic element (heavily-fortified; outside of UEG space and thus without defencive support). After the Beta force was almost entirely wiped-out, the UNSC was incapable of sending S-IIIs on large-scale operations they were designed for, of which they were, again, the only force capable of attempting. Therefore, a battle with the same statistics as those encountered in TORPEDO (minus the S-IIIs; plus a company of 300 ODSTs) would have been a UNSC failure.-- Forerunner 19:13, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

We must remember that the SPARTAN-IIIs were very important to the UNSC, despite their few engagements. Both PROMETHEUS and TORPEDO pushed the Covenant back temporarely, and even slowed them down, but the enemy held more than enough resources to recover from their loss. The UNSC, on the other hand, did not. The destruction of both companies in their respective engagements each put the war in the Covenant's favour on the long-term - there was now no longer a company of elite supersoldiers capable of destroying entire shipyards or refuelling plants. This would major engagements afterwards, which could have been avoided by later S-III deployments, take place and push the UNSC back even further.- Forerunner 19:26, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Pyrrhus had "staggering" losses in order to achieve his goal. The UNSC did not. For the incorporation of pyrrhic into this article, you have to consider only the numerical result and consequences. 298 people lost their lives in order to take out tens of thousands of Covenant + whatever. If the Spartans failed, than it would be a COVENANT pyrrhic victory. SomethingDifferent 19:19, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Besides, it mentions the company's inability to operate after the engagement, which stands alone from the anything to do with pyrrhic, but still satisfies the ratio of casualties the Spartans had (ratio =/= pyrrhic). SomethingDifferent 19:21, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

It's not deaths, it's replacability that judges what is a pyhrric victory. The Covenant could quickly replace the troops they lost in TORPEDO - it took the UNSC several years, and perhaps an equal number of missed chances, to recover.-- Forerunner 19:30, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

It's not replacability! Do you think the covenant could replace 7 warships, a whole refinery and tens ouf thousands of troops and Elites, which stand on equal terms if not greater than the S-IIIs (Depending on ranks) in the time it takes to produce cheap SPI armour, augment 300 guys and give them training? I find that to be debateable. Anyway, it is simply a numbers game that determines the nature of the victory. Alas, it is not pyrrhic. SomethingDifferent 20:22, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Those numbers don't relate to a pyhrric victory. Operation Bodenplatte was a pyhrric victory because, while the luftwaffe was successful in its mission, it completely drained its reserves, rendering it useless. It took several years in all three cases to train SPARTAN-IIIs - you are treating them like the standard marine. Furthermore, you have the time and money to find three-hundred children of a particular age-range with a particular, and rare, genetic make-up allowing them to be augmented safely without the drugs simply killing them. The Covenant on the other hand could replace their machinery very effectively - remember that Scarab facility on High Charity? Further, I don't see how the possibility of Beta company loosing would make it a Covenant pyhrric victory - while the refinery was important in that area, it would have by no means have been their only source of fuel near UEG space. They can adapt.-- Forerunner 21:10, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

While I find your argument to be an intelligent one (been on B.net forums lately, lol), I just want to go back to basics. The Covenant lost a LOT more, as I orignally said, tens of thousands of troopers. And so what if they're S-IIIs? The UNSC has many other equally effective assets. It took the lives of only 298 Spartans to take the lives of an armada. SomethingDifferent 21:25, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Again, I feel that your view on the SPARTANs is that they are equal to regular marines - they are far more important and combat-effective. Had the Fall of Reach instead been a UNSC victory, it would have been pyhrrical even with the UNSC outnumbered by the Covenant because of two things: a major loss of life in SPARTAN supersoldiers and the UNSC's inability to replace its men and women and warships at a rate comparable to the Covenant, whose war machine has shown itself in fleets consisting of hundreds, and their liking for attacking minimally-defended systems en masse.-- Forerunner 21:34, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

The Covenant lost more, that's why it was a UNSC victory. Being an empire though, the Covenant will just be set back for a year or so, then they'll recover and fight at the same speed again. The UNSC, however, doesn't have any way to back itself up after that. Using ODSTs, for example, would take up to a thousand, and there's little way any person could organize a thousand ODST together, as well as destroy them all in one suicide rush. An S-III company was still cheaper than 75 S-IIs, but still would take at least half a decade or more to push out. Their hope was that the battle would slow down the Covenant long enough that the UNSC could recover for a bit and build up a larger force. That was the gamut of its strategy for most of the entire war. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 21:39, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

I'm not saying the UNSC lost, I'm saying they won. And judging by your quote of "Their hope was that the battle would slow down the Covenant", and it did. They won. They knew what their losses could be, it didn't surprise them. It is a UNSC victory, not a pyrrhic one though. SomethingDifferent 22:22, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Yes, they did win. But a Pyrrhic victory doesn't mean a victory that hasn't completed its objective. Its a victory that takes more effort to win that it can be equated with a loss. Take a look at it this way.

" In both of Pyrrhus's victories, the Romans suffered greater casualties than Pyrrhus did. However, the Romans had a much larger supply of men from which to draw soldiers, so their casualties did less damage to their war effort than Pyrrhus's casualties did to his"

— -

Now let's interchange it a bit.

"In Operation: TORPEDO, the Covenant suffered greater casualties than Beta Company did. However, the Covenant had a much larger supply of ships and fleets, so their casualties did less damage to their war effort than the UNSC's casualties did to theirs."

— -

It's as simple as that. For the Covenant, it would be a stumble, but for the UNSC, another attack like that would be crippling, and take well up a decade to try again. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 23:22, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Reluctantly I agree with your point. So if there was say, another company of 300 at the same time, it would not of been pyrrhic? But anyway, well played :) SomethingDifferent 23:57, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Another company, do mean of Marines or something? That depends based on the proportion. If say, Spartans are Scorpions, ODSTs are Warthogs, and Marines Mongooses, and Covenant ships Scarabs, then the outcome can be seen like so.

8 Mongooses lost to defeat Scarabs. = Ah well, they had no chance. But we can replace Mongooses.

8 Warthogs lost to defeat Scarabs. = Ouch. But we might be able rough it out.

8 Scorpions lost defeat Scarabs. = SKJGSDAKRHKABKJAWAAAAAAAAATT!??!!?!

Like that, it all depends on how well the UNSC can recover for what ever it had to sacrifice. So if it had been another company, of Marines or ODSTs, the chances of victory would have been smaller, but the cost of losses would have been different. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 00:20, 20 April 2011 (EDT)

I see it like this. Alpha and Beta Company did their jobs, inflicted hundreds, if not thousands of casualties, and set the Covenant war machine back months. But they were absolutely destroyed. It was pyrrhic for them, because they were left totally inoperable afterwards. The Spartans at Thermopylae did the same - killed vastly more than their own number, but were killed to the last man (except for Eurytus and Aristodemus) as they held the pass. It was still a pyrrhic victory - they didn't hold the pass long, and didn't even survive the battle, but they allowed the other Greeks time to prepare their own defences and marshal more forces, and to eventually defeat the vastly larger Persian empire. Do you see the point?

I also have to agree with Forerunner on your apparent attitude towards Spartan-IIIs - the UNSC do not have assets that are just as effective, except for the fewer and more experienced and visible S-IIs, who they can't afford to lose for morale purposes. It's still a difficult and expensive process to "recruit", train, equip and deploy them. The difference is that they use cheaper SPI armour - cheaper compared to MJOLNIR, thirty suits of which cost as much as an entire battlegroup. Kelly even notes that not even the ODSTs use similar gear yet. S-IIIs are still far ahead of the curve, just not as far as their S-II predecessors. These are still highly effective, efficiently and expensively trained supersoldiers who are skilled at what they do. They aren't just thrown away, every Spartan gives their life in high0risk, high-reward missions that will buy months, if not years, not to mention billions of lives, during which time the rest of humanity can try and find better ways to counter the Covenant. Like Thermopylae. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 20:13, 20 April 2011 (EDT)

I'd like to point out to SomethingDifferent that killing more than the other only related to a "War of Attrition". The Battle of Staligrad was a decisive Soviet victory, and even though they lost nearly 200,000 more than the entire Axis-contingent combined, it was not a pyhrric victory - this is because the Soviets were able to quickly replace their numbers from a large pool of potential "volunteers". Further, Soviet production was begining to advance rapidly, to the point where only a small percentage of produce was deemed necessary enough for the defence of the city. Because of their impressive ability to replace resources, this Soviet victory can not be defined as pyhrric.-- Forerunner 10:49, 7 May 2011 (EDT)