StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why did this ship seem to be armed to the teath? THere doesn't seem to be a logical reason for this. Why does a transport need such heavy weapons? If there was a threat it could simply have TIE fighters escort it.

Adamskywalker007 wrote:Why did this ship seem to be armed to the teath? THere doesn't seem to be a logical reason for this. Why does a transport need such heavy weapons? If there was a threat it could simply have TIE fighters escort it.

And if the TIE's are intercepting other fighters and the Landing Ship needs to clear a landing zone (Both types of clearing)?

Maybe it's supposed to be able to fight its way through and clear its' own landing zone without external assistance?

A reason may be the fact that if the craft lost its escort, for any reason, it could not only have a fighting chance, but even have a somewhat decent chance.

Adamskywalker007 wrote:Why did this ship seem to be armed to the teath? THere doesn't seem to be a logical reason for this. Why does a transport need such heavy weapons? If there was a threat it could simply have TIE fighters escort it.

The Sentinel? Apart from fitting the Empire's idea that a ship isn't complete unless it has guns, I don't see the problem with arming a vessel that routinely has to fly into combat zones. The heavy lasers and missiles can help breach defences or disable ground-based heavy weaponry, the blasters can provide cover for disembarking troops and ion cannons can disable fleeing ships. Sure, all of those can be covered by fighter escorts, but at least your troops aren't defenceless when the escorts get picked off.

Sounds like a bit of a retarded question to me. What? Arm our dropships that may have to insert troops into a contested battleground under heavy enemy fire, dealing with groundfire from anti-aircraft weaponry and possible enemy fighters? Nevers!

If nothing else it seems a logical extension of the LAAT philosophy. Ships that are the interstellar equivalent of the Hind helicopter seem to be both popular and effective.

I can see your point to some extent. Lasers alone appear more than sufficient for defending against fighters during insertion as well as being serviceable for taking out land positions, as shown when the X-wings strafed the surface of the death star.

The ion cannon however could be useful in hitting secured positions that are needed to be taken in tact, disabling heavy defences while the stormtroopers move in and mop up, taking not only prisoners but also the facility intact.

Its only the missiles that seem extreme to me, but I suppose they offer greater flexibility in terms of target acquisition than line of sight lasers.

Adamskywalker007 wrote:Why did this ship seem to be armed to the teath? THere doesn't seem to be a logical reason for this. Why does a transport need such heavy weapons?

A better question, when discussing why the Empire puts so many guns on its shit is, why not?

Seriously. Do the weapons significantly impact the landing ship's ability to carry troops and/or effect landings? If not, then why shouldn't they arm that thing with everything they can?

If I were a stormtrooper landing in one of those puppies, I'd rather have a lot of useless guns and missiles, rather than needing them when the shit hits the fan and being SOL.

Darth Tanner wrote: The ion cannon however could be useful in hitting secured positions that are needed to be taken in tact, disabling heavy defences while the stormtroopers move in and mop up, taking not only prisoners but also the facility intact.

You're saying a transport-mounted ion gun should be able to disable a bunker? Are you serious?

Stark wrote:
You're saying a transport-mounted ion gun should be able to disable a bunker? Are you serious?

Well perhaps a small one then, we don't really know the firepower levels of any ion cannons over than a massive planetary based one that can disable Star Destroyers, its not beyond the realms of possibility that a small ship based model could knock out the electronics on a reasonably small building.

If you go by the games, a small ion cannon on a Y-wing can disable ground-based radar installations. It might be useful.

By 'games' you mean 'Rogue Squadron', right? Oh dear.

No doubt it'd be useful, but serious widespread disabling (if even POSSIBLE, since nobody ever does it) would best be done by full-size warships. I just hate the EU ubiquity of ion cannons (as Bounty says, in the games the only reason to ever use a Ywing is to disable shit left and right).

By 'games' you mean 'Rogue Squadron', right? Oh dear.

Rogue Squadron...and Rogue Squadron II! That's two games with ion cannons!

...

No doubt it'd be useful, but serious widespread disabling (if even POSSIBLE, since nobody ever does it) would best be done by full-size warships.

Oh, I dunno...a gun that turns off your enemy's guns has got to be handy.

As for Y-wings, they can also drop bombs that go boom. Y-wings are cool.

Bounty wrote:Rogue Squadron...and Rogue Squadron II! That's two games with ion cannons!

...

Rogue Squadron does have such a great record of seamlessly fitting in with the movies and stuff, too.

Bounty wrote:Oh, I dunno...a gun that turns off your enemy's guns has got to be handy.

As for Y-wings, they can also drop bombs that go boom. Y-wings are cool.

So handy you've got to wonder why nobody ever uses it! Even in the RS games the ion gun is mission specific, and all kinds of things are just immune. I'm getting horrifying flashbacks to the goddamn Fondor level now, look what you've done!

My pleasure. Honestly, your pain gives me joy.

RogueIce wrote:Seriously. Do the weapons significantly impact the landing ship's ability to carry troops and/or effect landings? If not, then why shouldn't they arm that thing with everything they can?

It's not a matter of significant impact; it's a matter of tradeoffs. Every gun and missile you stick on removes a little bit from the transport's ability to carry troops and effect landings, even in Star Wars. Isn't that the whole point of combined arms, specialize so that everyone does his job as effectively as possible?

If I were a stormtrooper landing in one of those puppies, I'd rather have a lot of useless guns and missiles, rather than needing them when the shit hits the fan and being SOL.

How many guns or missiles does a C-130 or a C-141 have?

How many guns or missiles does a C-130 or a C-141 have?

Isn't the landing craft more comparable to, say, a Huey or Black Hawk? A C130, I thought, isn't brought in until a reasonably secure air strip has been set up, while the Imperial landing craft is supposed to spearhead ground assaults. Or is that something else the games made up?

Frankly, it's more akin to a flying tank or APC. Four shield generators tend to do that.

It's a fucking Hind. But a Hind capable of carrying more people. That wins.

Besides, LAATs also have copious amounts of armaments.

the Sentinel is the Emperial replacement for the LAAT (or so I've read)

Lord Revan wrote:the Sentinel is the Emperial replacement for the LAAT (or so I've read)

Both of them are built to drop small groups of troopers, but one is an open airspeeder, the other a hyperdrive-enabled transport several sizes bigger. They don't have the same role, so I doubt one is the direct replacement of the other.

Surlethe wrote:

RogueIce wrote:Seriously. Do the weapons significantly impact the landing ship's ability to carry troops and/or effect landings? If not, then why shouldn't they arm that thing with everything they can?

It's not a matter of significant impact; it's a matter of tradeoffs. Every gun and missile you stick on removes a little bit from the transport's ability to carry troops and effect landings, even in Star Wars. Isn't that the whole point of combined arms, specialize so that everyone does his job as effectively as possible?

If I were a stormtrooper landing in one of those puppies, I'd rather have a lot of useless guns and missiles, rather than needing them when the shit hits the fan and being SOL.

How many guns or missiles does a C-130 or a C-141 have?

As pointed out, the Sentinel is more like a Blackhawk than a C-130 or 141. And we do arm them. I suppose the question is, is what the Sentinel has comparable in Star Wars terms to the M60s we stick on our Blackhawks?

Additionally, we can arm these suckers to the teeth as well, though somebody more versed in them than I will have to say whether they can still carry troops in that configuration.

Bounty wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:the Sentinel is the Emperial replacement for the LAAT (or so I've read)

Both of them are built to drop small groups of troopers, but one is an open airspeeder, the other a hyperdrive-enabled transport several sizes bigger. They don't have the same role, so I doubt one is the direct replacement of the other.

Well, to nitpick, from what we've seen the LAAT/i and LAAT/c can be deployed from orbit (not sure if the LAAT/i can achieve orbit from surface again).

Of course, admittedly, that's a far cry from an actual shuttle like a Lambda- or Sentinel-class, which is an actual all-out galaxy-crossing Star Wars ship..

cykeisme wrote:Sentinel-class, which is an actual all-out galaxy-crossing Star Wars ship..

An idea just occured to me. The Sentinels are both heavily armed, and equipped with a hyperdrive. Maybe they are designed so that they can be fully self-supporting in situations where TIE fighters cannot escort them.

Say if one Sentinel with a small team was sent on a mission to some backwater world, but no larger ships were being sent. Then the Sentinel could defend itself without the need for a large capital ship to escort it, since TIE fighters couldn't go into hyperspace for the journey.
Then the Empire has a few troops on the ground, and didn't need to send a capship.