StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In the Clone War Era warcraft design we see a very obvious attempt at covering all firing arcs with weaponary. For instance the AT-TE has balled laser turrets both forward and rear mounted in comparison the AT-AT which is the successor to the AT-TE is only covered with forward mounted cannons, no coverage to the sides or rear. The AT-ST also suffers from a similar weakness.

The LAAT has missile launchers, ball turret laser canons mounted in front, a laser canon mounted in the rear for almost complete coverage for all arcs. I can't think of a similar craft in OT era.

The ARC-170 fighter has laser canons mounted on top and to the rear of the fighter with individual gunners for each of those guns (from what I can tell on drawings and the LEGO model) covering all arcs yet we don't see that kind of arc coverage in any other fighter save for the Y-Wing which is a contemporary of the ARC.

What is the explanation for this kind of weapons coverage that isn't followed through in the more 'modern' era of the OT?

Stravo wrote: The LAAT has missile launchers, ball turret laser canons mounted in front, a laser canon mounted in the rear for almost complete coverage for all arcs. I can't think of a similar craft in OT era.

The only thing I can think of that is similar is the Imperial Landing Craft that, according to the EGTVV, took a similar role to the LAATs. The reason I brought it up is that it, along with Imperial shuttles, had laser cannons covering its rear.

Z-95 is from PT era but has only front weapons coverage.

As OT only B-wing is fighter that needs a rear arc coverage

think about it B-wing ang Y-wing are fighter/bombers or light bombers same with TIE Bomber

X-wing, TIE fighter, TIE Interceptor,A-wing, Vulture (droidfighter), Tri-fighter, N-1 and Z-95 are fighters

ARC-170 is Recon starfighter

LAAT is Gunship

only craft that have full weapon arc coverage are types that don't engage other starfighters as their primary mission.

The Y-Wing has a double-cannon on top that can fire backwards. (Most effective in a two-seater version, where there´s a gunner).

And the AT-TE is used by the Imps, so no need to change what works.

As to your AT-AT/AT-TE comparison. They play different roles.

AT-ATs are basically glorified troop-transports with secondary assault functions, while AT-TEs are primarily assault vehicles with troop transporting being its secondary function.

Different roles. The Empire probably has craft in its inventory that fill the roles of many of the prequel era craft, but judged them unnecessary in many cases.

Exactly, the Rebels had no heavy artilliary or combat vehicles at Hoth, so why bring out your heavy war machines, when Heavy Troop Transports will suffice?

AT-ATs and AT-STs were most certainly not the main, front line combat vehicles the Empire would use if it went up against a force like the CIS had. But there was no such challenger on the scene, so the Empire didn't need to use those heavy assault vehicles at Hoth or Endor.

but then what's the point of having superior fire power if you don't use superior fire power?

Or does the Empire not subscribe to the shock and awe / overwhelming firepower ideology that the US military uses?

The Original Nex wrote: AT-ATs and AT-STs were most certainly not the main, front line combat vehicles the Empire would use if it went up against a force like the CIS had. But there was no such challenger on the scene, so the Empire didn't need to use those heavy assault vehicles at Hoth or Endor.

But the Emperor had a legion of his best troops at Endor...without their best equipment?

Perhaps there is a 'no retreat' philosophy going on here. During the Clone Wars the Republic is facing a tough enemy where tactical retreating may be necessary. By the time of the Empire their forces are so big and established that there is no excuse to turn your back to the enemy.

SAC doesn't turn back!

Hey, can't we use this analogy for WWII aircraft and modern aircraft? Do you see B-52s or F117s or B-2s with tail gunners?

Also, we could rationalize this with the fact that the Republic faced an enemy who could mass produce a shitload of droids that could overwhelm their units from all sides, so they had to put guns in all sides of their craft. The Empire's vehicles weren't threatened by droids coming in at all angles, so they didn't need to slap guns everywhere. Also, the Empire's ground forces served a more...peacekeeping, enforcing role rather than an all-out combat one. It faced rebels, not overwhelming droid armies.

The Clone troopers equipment was optimized to fight Droid armies. The Kamonian(sp?) new they couldn't grow clones as fast as droids could be built, and designed the equipment to be able to kill droids in any driection. The AT/TE's and LAAT/i's smaller turrets are primarly anti-droid weapons, provided to even the odds for clone troops. The ARC-170 would fight droid fighters which would be more numerous also.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Do you see B-52s or F117s or B-2s with tail gunners?

BUFFs had a tailgun , which became wholly irrelevant later in it's career.

Stravo wrote:

The Original Nex wrote: AT-ATs and AT-STs were most certainly not the main, front line combat vehicles the Empire would use if it went up against a force like the CIS had. But there was no such challenger on the scene, so the Empire didn't need to use those heavy assault vehicles at Hoth or Endor.

But the Emperor had a legion of his best troops at Endor...without their best equipment?

1) He may not have been truthful with luke

2) The Imperials on Endor were GUARDING a facility. You don't use your heavy weapons of war to guard a facility. AT-ATs and AT-STs are sufficient enough to patrol the area, they didn't need to bring in heavier vehicles designed to go up against other combat vehicles (like AT-TEs, AT-HEs etc.). They expected (and got) a SQUAD of Rebel Commandos, you don't need to bring out the big guns for a single squad which doesn't even have any vehicular support.

Stravo wrote:

The Original Nex wrote: AT-ATs and AT-STs were most certainly not the main, front line combat vehicles the Empire would use if it went up against a force like the CIS had. But there was no such challenger on the scene, so the Empire didn't need to use those heavy assault vehicles at Hoth or Endor.

But the Emperor had a legion of his best troops at Endor...without their best equipment?

Actualy the Emperor had a legion of his most politicaly loyal troops at Endor, not his best troops.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Hey, can't we use this analogy for WWII aircraft and modern aircraft? Do you see B-52s or F117s or B-2s with tail gunners?

Lack of any guns on those planes are due to the lethality of today's missiles. That space and weight is better reserved for ECM equipment. The same does not apply for the Star Wars universe though, where fighters and AT-ATs still blast each other within visual range with laser cannons.

Stravo wrote: The ARC-170 fighter has laser canons mounted on top and to the rear of the fighter with individual gunners for each of those guns (from what I can tell on drawings and the LEGO model) covering all arcs yet we don't see that kind of arc coverage in any other fighter save for the Y-Wing which is a contemporary of the ARC.

Thats not all arcs. Doesn't cover the flanks. Or straight down.

Stravo wrote: The AT-ST also suffers from a similar weakness.

I don't see any reason why the AT-ST couldn't rotate it's side blaster and grenade launcher to fire to the rear. Granted there's no evidence that it can, but there's no evidence that it can't either.

The ARC-170 fighter has laser canons mounted on top and to the rear of the fighter with individual gunners for each of those guns (from what I can tell on drawings and the LEGO model) covering all arcs yet we don't see that kind of arc coverage in any other fighter save for the Y-Wing which is a contemporary of the ARC.

The ARC-170 has three crew- the rear guy, facing backwards, controls both rear guns. The front guy is the pilot, and the centre guy is the gunner (presumably the torpedoes).

ROTS ICS didn't give us any info on where the torpedoes are - I was disappointed.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:ROTS ICS didn't give us any info on where the torpedoes are - I was disappointed.

Yeah, I found that a huge artistic oversight given the superb treatment the systems were given in the OT:ICS and TPM:ICS. The Y-Wing especially was brilliant.

Looking at where the launchers might me, my guess is in the 'gap' between the engines and the main hull- there's a clear curve there.

The Clone Wars was the first true, large scale war fought in a 1000 years. Notice alot of stuff had either the look of being cobbled together or converted like Trade Fed battleships, CIS destroyers/frigates; or over engineered like the Gunships, AT TE's, ARC's, ect.

In the case of the CIS, they took pre exsisting ships and more or less strapped weapons on them. Sure they did some actual refiting too, but the huge ass HTL on the CIS frigate was just a strap on, as was the series of big guns around the Trade Fed battleship.

With the Republic, Kaminoian's and KDY over engineered and over armed the ships to make sure they did the job. By the time of the Empire, and by trial by fire of the Clone Wars, they were able to tone shit down a bit, after seeing what works well and what doesn't.

IMHO.