Talk:M850 Grizzly

Tank with a flamethrower? I'd call that overkill.

Capt. Daget J. Sparrow 09:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Overkill,were talking around the medals of Invincible or killionaire.Sith Venator 23:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only a variant
As said on John Forges card, it is more than a mere variant, because it states that "Grizzly tanks can be requested when Scorpions come up short.."; guess it's an independent tank, which shares with the Scorpion part of the design. 14:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Grizzly
Anyone want this in a future Halo Shooter?

Main Battle Tank?
After reviewing both this page and the Scorpion's page I have come to the conclusion that the Grizzly is, or USED to be the UNSC's main battle tank. My main reason is that the Grizzly fires more appropriate rounds (120mm compared to the Scorpion's 90mm). It may be possible that sometime during 2531 and 2552 that the Grizzly was replaced as the main battle tank by the Scorpion. It may have been that the UNSC didn't have enough money, or resources to continue building an effective amount of Grizzlies. It's also possible that the Grizzly and Scorpion are both main battle tanks, but one is "heavier" in terms of firepower.SNOR { 3 } 07:20, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Is this a Grizzly Tank?


Hey, this image was in the Halo Encyclopedia, and it is labeled as a Grizzly Tank, yet it does not have two barrels, like it normally has in Halo Wars. I was going to post it, but I can't be sure that it is a Grizzly tank at all, and it definitely cannot be a Scorpion Tank. Can anyone provide any information on this? Like maybe how and why it is a Grizzly Tank, or how and why it cannot be a Grizzly Tank? Xamikaze330 13:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)Xamikaze330


 * It's actually an early concept art of the Grizzly, like this concept art. Thus not canon. :) — subtank  13:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)


 * I do agree with the early concept art part, but to me, it seems relatively canon. I mean, the image File:001 grizzly.jpg was posted, and it is labeled as early concept art, same as this one. What's so different between the two? Xamikaze330 13:41, 6 September 2011 (EDT)Xamikaze330


 * Concept arts are not true canon; they are treated like deleted content. They can be canon; however if they do not appear in the final product, they are treated otherwise. Note that this does not prevent from being added to the article. Both are the same vehicle; File:001 grizzly.jpg is basically a rendered model of the concept art (see right thumbed image).— subtank  13:59, 6 September 2011 (EDT)


 * Does that mean I can post this in the article, even though it is not canon, same as File:001 grizzly.jpg? 'Cause that's what you seem to be saying, that it is alright to do so, if I'm reading and interpreting this correctly. Xamikaze330 14:00, 7 September 2011 (EDT)Xamikaze330
 * Yes. :P — subtank  14:02, 7 September 2011 (EDT)