Trek Designers have moved to SW!

[Sea Skimmer]

Novel > Comic

Yet the same people who write novels have written comics too...

*cough* stackpole *cough*

Wraith Squadron wasn't written by him.

[Vympel]

For one thing, we saw the LAATs with shields DOWN shrugging off small arms fire in the Arena without problem.

Two:

There is a pilot and a gunner.

The pilot is responsible for flying the aircraft.

The gunner is responsible for:

1: The composite beam lasers mounted on the wings
2: The rockets mounted on the wings
3: The missile launchers mounted on the top
4: The laser turrets on the front and rear

And you also want him to be responsible for the door guns as well?

[Vympel]

I doubt a TIE could make re-entry into a planets surface with such fragile view ports. Comic rubbish. The Wraith Squadron Novels are obviously higher on the canonocity food chain anyways.

Woah hold up right there sonny jim. Offical is official, there are no levels of officaldom.

[Darth Wong]

In any case, the targeting difficulties of a ground-strike aircraft are a lot different than they are for a bomber defending itself against fighters. The bubble turrets provide not only very large fields of fire, but also very good visibility for their gunners.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

I doubt a TIE could make re-entry into a planets surface with such fragile view ports. Comic rubbish. The Wraith Squadron Novels are obviously higher on the canonocity food chain anyways.

Woah hold up right there sonny jim. Offical is official, there are no levels of officaldom.

If you say so....I guess it's just one painfully large inconsistency then.

[Uraniun235]

So there's only one type of pistol in Star Wars?

Isn't that like a little derringer pistol being the same as a Desert Eagle .50 AE?

[Vympel]

So there's only one type of pistol in Star Wars?

Isn't that like a little derringer pistol being the same as a Desert Eagle .50 AE?

Wah?

[Darth Garden Gnome]

So there's only one type of pistol in Star Wars?

Isn't that like a little derringer pistol being the same as a Desert Eagle .50 AE?

Are you saying that Kir Kanos used a disrupter or something? I wouldn't know I've never read Crimson Empire, but I do know that a disrupter is perhaps the only thing that could be more powerful than the Wraiths multiple shots from a blasterrifle.

[Lord Pounder]

Actually for Vympel's information there are levels of officialdom. All movies are Cannon and the books are cannon too unless something in the movie contradicts that. Comics are somewhat less than novels.

[Vympel]

Actually for Vympel's information there are levels of officialdom.

All movies are Cannon and the books are cannon too unless something in the movie contradicts that.

Nope- those are levels within the canon- the famous movies/scripts/books/radio drama group. All else is official.

Canon and official are the only two groups. Nothing more. There are no levels of officialdom.

Comics are somewhat less than novels.

I defy you to find one lucasfilm quote that says that is the case.

The only arbiter of whether something is not so in Star Wars is whether it contradicts CANON.

[Warspite]

OK, let's see what do we have here...

The most direct equivalent we have to the LAAT's is the UH-1 Huey and the UH-60 Blackhawk. Both are troop transports, and I would like to emphasize the word "transports", with a array of weaponry to provide supressive fire and close support.
Now, time for some pictures... (All aknowledgements to Mike Wong, and that stuff)



This pictures provides a nice head-on shot of the LAAT. First I would like to point out the main problem posted by MKSheppard, the outstretched turrets (henceforth known as fish bowls). Sure, they provide wide fields of fire, and allow for easy visibility. But, the same could be accomplished with carefull placement of semi-recessed turrets, either with operators or remotely-operated, the visibility is a moot point, since carefull placed turrets allow for good visibility. Also, they will cause a more complex shield geometry, "probably" being more power intensive than for semi-recessed turrets.

I would like to advance a little, and say that the turrets were an update/refit to the LAAT's, not included in their original specifications. This belief will be enhance in the next picture:



AHAH, die you droid scum! Feel the power of... *Ahem*

This shot is one of the most informative. We see the mechanism of the fish-bowl, and... and... Clonetroopers firing from a door! Where did I saw that? Hum...
Anyway, from here we see the distance

[Warspite]

SHIT!!!!!! I HIT SUBMIT TOO SOON! AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!






Okay, continuing....


It's clear from the last picture the distance from the fish-bowl to the Main body of the LAAT, emphasizing the complex shield geometry, and the unnecessary instalation. And if clonetroopers are firing from a door, why not put some turrets in there?

As I said earlier, clearly the fish-bowls were an add-on to the original design. A transport with a little more teeth. If in the original specifications we could put the co-pilot in charge of the front guns, and maybe 3 to 4 gunners, with semi-recessed turrets to cover most angles, the same objective could be achieved, with more protection provided for the gunners, and less power for the shield and for the fish-bowls.

A true close support craft, would be more frontal fire heavy, with lateral and rear fire supression, as an example, I drect you to the B-25J Mitchell... a close support bomber, with 8 - 12 frontal .50 machine-guns and a 75 mm cannon (ouch!). Another note, close support craft are allways directed by front controllers, who direct their fire, so good visibility for gunners is also a moot point, since they will be employed in a supressive fire role, with the pilot doing the close support bussiness.

So, in conclusion, those fish-bowls are a coolness factor design. With suspension of disbelief active, they were "bolted" on the craft to give it more teeth, maybe due to the lack of a dedicated close support craft, or due to the urgency of deployment. Either way, the same purpose could be achieved with carefull placed turrets.

[Vympel]

OK, let's see what do we have here...

The most direct equivalent we have to the LAAT's is the UH-1 Huey and the UH-60 Blackhawk.

Incorrect. The most direct modern equivalent is the Mi-24 HIND Assault Transport.

This pictures provides a nice head-on shot of the LAAT. First I would like to point out the main problem posted by MKSheppard, the outstretched turrets (henceforth known as fish bowls). Sure, they provide wide fields of fire, and allow for easy visibility. But, the same could be accomplished with carefull placement of semi-recessed turrets, either with operators or remotely-operated, the visibility is a moot point, since carefull placed turrets allow for good visibility. Also, they will cause a more complex shield geometry, "probably" being more power intensive than for semi-recessed turrets.

Where are you going to put these semi-recessed turrets? These two swing out from the crew cabin. When they're swung out, there's more space for troops.

As to this shield geometry thing, the evidence is that LAATs have wide shields when they're activated. See where the Geonosian fighters are chasing the LAAT- shield interactions occur a good distance away. This is presumably to protect the troops from the harmful interaction effects (see Tantive IV in A New Hope). It's not an issue.

It's clear from the last picture the distance from the fish-bowl to the Main body of the LAAT, emphasizing the complex shield geometry, and the unnecessary instalation. And if clonetroopers are firing from a door, why not put some turrets in there?

Because that's where the troops are. Duh The gun swings out from the inside of the troop compartment- obviously. If you were to put a turret in there you would have a far inferior field of fire.

[Vympel]

I should also point out that placing a gun where those troops are firing, without the swing out mechanism that you dislike, not only totally SCREWS field of fire, but also greatly complicates ingress and egress from the compartment by the troops- and blocks the field of fire during a crucial stage of the vehicle's mission. The swing out design eliminates all these problems. It gives the crew compartment maximum room to play with combine with maximum field of fire.

The LAAT is a great design. Doug Chiang did it right. Which is what I expect when someone admits that they used the Mi-24 HIND as inspiration for making it.

[MKSheppard]

The LAAT is a great design. Doug Chiang did it right. Which is what I expect when someone admits that they used the Mi-24 HIND as inspiration for making it.

Agreed. Except for those fucking micro SL pods that DOUBLE the frontal
target profile of the LAAT when deployed, it's a good design, worthy of
Imperial engineers...

I just can't shake the feeling that they were tacked on at the last moment
to appease the toy companies because the LAAT didn't have enough
"cool" positions...

My LAAT would have kept those micro SLs, but they'd be mounted like the
30mm gun on the Apache... remotely controlled. All the gunner has to do
is point his head to move SUPERLASER DEATH across the droid hordes,
mWHAHAHHHA

Allows the micro SLs to have large fields of fire, and reduces their
profile by making them remotely guided...they're for GROUND targets,
not for rapidly moving aerial targets...

[Warspite]

I should also point out that placing a gun where those troops are firing, without the swing out mechanism that you dislike, not only totally SCREWS field of fire, but also greatly complicates ingress and egress from the compartment by the troops- and blocks the field of fire during a crucial stage of the vehicle's mission. The swing out design eliminates all these problems. It gives the crew compartment maximum room to play with combine with maximum field of fire.

The LAAT is a great design. Doug Chiang did it right. Which is what I expect when someone admits that they used the Mi-24 HIND as inspiration for making it.

Okay, I stand corrected on the shields, and on the Hind comparation...

But, if the LAAT had turrets from it's inception, there wouldn't be a problem with fields of fire, or troop ingress/egress, these problems would already been adressed in the design stage. With the adopted solution, the gimbals ocuppy precious internal space, precluding the carriage of more troops. In the UH-60, the pintle mounts are in a diferent area than the exit doors, they do not complicate troop ingress/egress.

Once, again, fields of fire and good visibility is a moot point if there's a well thought out positioning of the turrets.

Final note, the Hind is a crap to enter/exit, and when it's equiped with the stub wings, it's impossible to use the troop compartment, it's too small, cramped, and was a late design addition. The Soviet's never used the configuration in Afghanistan, they prefered to go with the Mil-8, with the -24 doing the support work, the Spetnatz might have used, but they were small teams, not the ordinary troop deployment.

[Admiral Piett]

The turrets on the wings are even more stupid.Visibility cannot be great from there,with the wing into which the turret is encased blocking at least a portion of the visual arc.A remote controlled gun attached under the wing would have a better arc of fire.They do not make sense.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Russian's didn't use Hind's for assault work in Afghanistan because they didn't have enough of them for gunship duties alone; hauling the assault forces in them just wasn't possibul. Things got so bad that at one point the Russians took Hind's they where overhauling for East Germany and sent them to fight.

The turrets don't double the frontal target profile of the gunship; they increase it by maybe 1/3. In any case frontal target profile is the one that matters the least. A transport is far far more likely to be fired on and hit from below or the flank.

The turrets add almost nothing to the bottom profile, especially compared to the wings. And nothing to the side profile.

[Sea Skimmer]

SHIT!!!!!! I HIT SUBMIT TOO SOON! AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!






Okay, continuing....


It's clear from the last picture the distance from the fish-bowl to the Main body of the LAAT, emphasizing the complex shield geometry, and the unnecessary instalation. And if clonetroopers are firing from a door, why not put some turrets in there?

As I said earlier, clearly the fish-bowls were an add-on to the original design. A transport with a little more teeth. If in the original specifications we could put the co-pilot in charge of the front guns, and maybe 3 to 4 gunners, with semi-recessed turrets to cover most angles, the same objective could be achieved, with more protection provided for the gunners, and less power for the shield and for the fish-bowls.

A true close support craft, would be more frontal fire heavy, with lateral and rear fire supression, as an example, I drect you to the B-25J Mitchell... a close support bomber, with 8 - 12 frontal .50 machine-guns and a 75 mm cannon (ouch!). Another note, close support craft are allways directed by front controllers, who direct their fire, so good visibility for gunners is also a moot point, since they will be employed in a supressive fire role, with the pilot doing the close support bussiness.

So, in conclusion, those fish-bowls are a coolness factor design. With suspension of disbelief active, they were "bolted" on the craft to give it more teeth, maybe due to the lack of a dedicated close support craft, or due to the urgency of deployment. Either way, the same purpose could be achieved with carefull placed turrets.

The B-25J was not built for close support of ground troops. It was designed to destroy small intercoastal freighters and barges, and suppressed the anti aircraft armament of larger vessels. The 75mm cannon was carried by the B-25H, which had the same mission.

The A-26 also had a gun heavy variant, the 26B. It was also used for interdiction tasks, though generally over load.

[Sea Skimmer]

The turrets on the wings are even more stupid.Visibility cannot be great from there,with the wing into which the turret is encased blocking at least a portion of the visual arc.A remote controlled gun attached under the wing would have a better arc of fire.They do not make sense.

The wing turrets are remote controlled. They also have two emitters, one on the top half and one on the bottom. The arc's of fire are actually massive and each half has an arc of fire nearly equal to that of a centerline belly or top turret.

They are mounted exactly the way you say they should be.

[Warspite]

The B-25J was not built for close support of ground troops. It was designed to destroy small intercoastal freighters and barges, and suppressed the anti aircraft armament of larger vessels. The 75mm cannon was carried by the B-25H, which had the same mission.

The A-26 also had a gun heavy variant, the 26B. It was also used for interdiction tasks, though generally over load.

I'm always confusing the J with the H, sorry...
(side note: the A-26B had six forward firing guns, and two rearward.)


Anyway, about Hind deployment in Afghanistan...


From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... vasion.htm:

According to the account published by Jacobs, "efforts were being made to raise two added infantry divisions (to ten); to raise the strength of the tank units (200plus T 55s and 40 to 45 T 62s were being delivered during this period); and to begin modernising the air force (adding later model MiG 21s, delivery of 12 Mi 24 Hind As and a few Hind Ds and possibly augmenting the 12 Czech L 39s delivered in late 1977)."

Helicopters

Estimates of the number of Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan has ranged from 500 to 650, and, of these, it is estimated that up to 250 have been the Mi 24 Hind gunship. The Hind, with up to 192 unguided rockets under its stub wings and machine guns or cannon in. the nose turret; has room for eight to 12 soldiers and their equipment. The Hind has been used not only for search and destroy missions but also for close air support, assaults (sometimes along with fixed wing aircraft) on villages, and armed reconnaissance missions against guerrillas.

Hind helicopters have been deployed in Afghanistan since before the 1979 invasion; but Soviet tactics in using them have changed since then. Up to as late as 1985 several Hind helicopters would be used in a circular pattern to engage guerrillas directly, attacking in a dive from 1,000 meters with 57mm rockets and with cluster and high explosive 250 kilogram bombs. In 1985 Soviet use of Hinds began to change somewhat, and a wider variety of tactics began to be employed: using helicopters (either Hinds or Mi 8 Hips) as scouts; running in from 7,000 to 8,000 meters away, rising to 100 meters and drawing fire, and having other aircraft waiting behind a ridge to attack whomever opened fire; and using helicopters in mass formations.

I did mention they weren't used in troop deployment, that task was left to the Hips, the high altitude was too much on the engines to carry troops, and since they could carry only 8, while the Hip could carry 10-12(?).

But I guess we're side stepping on the topic, heh?

[Sea Skimmer]

I did mention they weren't used in troop deployment, that task was left to the Hips, the high altitude was too much on the engines to carry troops, and since they could carry only 8, while the Hip could carry 10-12(?).

But I guess we're side stepping on the topic, heh?

As I already said, Hind's could not be used as transports reguardless because they where all needed for attack roles. If the Russians had wanted to they could not have.

[Vympel]

On the HIND diversion:

and when it's equiped with the stub wings, it's impossible to use the troop compartment

With the stub wings the HIND couldn't use the compartment? Wah? Where'd you hear that nonsense from? Those wings are an essential part of the HIND design- it can't fly without them (the modernized Mi-24 HINDs that are coming into service in small numbers have smaller stub wings combined with more powerful engines and the rotor blades from the Mi-28 HAVOC, but anyway).

HINDs in 'the Stan' often used their troop compartmnets to carry ammo/supplies etc.

But, if the LAAT had turrets from it's inception, there wouldn't be a problem with fields of fire, or troop ingress/egress, these problems would already been adressed in the design stage. With the adopted solution, the gimbals ocuppy precious internal space, precluding the carriage of more troops. In the UH-60, the pintle mounts are in a diferent area than the exit doors, they do not complicate troop ingress/egress.

The turrets swing out from a portion not occupied by the troops- you should really get the ICS.

The UH-60 pintle mounts field of fire is inferior to that of the LAAT- it's a design trade off.

[Admiral Piett]

The wing turrets are remote controlled. They also have two emitters, one on the top half and one on the bottom. The arc's of fire are actually massive and each half has an arc of fire nearly equal to that of a centerline belly or top turret.

Wow,evidently I must have mistaken the gun apparatus for a clonetrooper.
After all the design is not so stupid as I feared initially.

[Admiral Piett]

With the stub wings the HIND couldn't use the compartment? Wah? Where'd you hear that nonsense from? Those wings are an essential part of the HIND design- it can't fly without them

As far as I know the wings provide the 25% of the lift,so it is not like that in theory it could not fly at all without them.But in effects I never heard that they could be detached.They are an integral part of the helicopter.