StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Reading Darth Wong's 'Ground Combat Technology' page made me think: maybe the SPHA-T was meant to be an air defense vehicle, countering the threat of a BDZ by engaging orbiting starships. The claim that a SPHA-T cannon is too powerful to be used on starships may be due to a design tradeoff-- sacrificing the number of shots, making it impractical to use on a warship, for the power to decisively damage an orbiting starship and stop it from bombarding friendly troops on the planetary surface.

Is this a likely function? Unlikely?

They already have fixed Turbolasers for air defense. They are on the scale of the Hoth Ion cannon. Most industrialised worlds have a large ground defense composed of Turbolasers and Ion cannons.

The SPHA-T doesnt have the ability to track a star ship fast enough for it to do much damage.

But a self-propelled artillery system is still very useful-- there's a reason the US Army is spending billions developing a next-generation self-propelled 155 mm howitzer.

Besides, when YOU'RE part of the invading army, it helps to have something to keep the enemy's warships off your back.

That's what your own capital ships are for. Its foolish to invade a planet with your own expensive army just to have it destroyed by a still operational enemy navy.

Its physically impossible for an SPHA-T to track a cap ship. There gears cant move the gun fast enough to stay on target. Plus the fact that a cap ships will hit any guns that come on line and start fireing at them.

Hey 500th post. I'm a Jedi Knight
Its been three years but I finally did it

Admiral Drason wrote:They already have fixed Turbolasers for air defense. They are on the scale of the Hoth Ion cannon. Most industrialised worlds have a large ground defense composed of Turbolasers and Ion cannons.

The SPHA-T doesnt have the ability to track a star ship fast enough for it to do much damage.

It took out the Core Ship on Geonoisis and SPHA-Ts placed by Anakins orders in some of the Open Circle Fleet's hangars made mince meat out of Banking Clan Frigates.

That's because both were barely moving.

rommel17 wrote:

Admiral Drason wrote:They already have fixed Turbolasers for air defense. They are on the scale of the Hoth Ion cannon. Most industrialised worlds have a large ground defense composed of Turbolasers and Ion cannons.

The SPHA-T doesnt have the ability to track a star ship fast enough for it to do much damage.

It took out the Core Ship on Geonoisis and SPHA-Ts placed by Anakins orders in some of the Open Circle Fleet's hangars made mince meat out of Banking Clan Frigates.

The Core Ship was still in the low atmosphere when it was fired upon. There's a big difference between that and a ship in orbit. As for the his mounted gun, yes, they can damage capital ships, but it's effective range thats the issue. The Venator and the frigate in that scene where virtually touching one another.

A basic requirement for an effective air defence weapon is the ability to fire over a 360 degree arc. The SPHA-T meanwhile appears to have a weapon fixed in train, and its walker legs aren't going to let it rapidly reposition its self. While it clearly has some AA capability, that can't be its primary job. More likely its was designed to engage heavy shielded and protected ground fortifications, and like sized armored vehicles.

Sidewinder wrote:But a self-propelled artillery system is still very useful-- there's a reason the US Army is spending billions developing a next-generation self-propelled 155 mm howitzer.

Besides, when YOU'RE part of the invading army, it helps to have something to keep the enemy's warships off your back.

If your part of an invading force, then you clearly have space superiority in the first place, otherwise you couldn't have landed.

I think that in role, it can be likened to assault guns, such as the Wehrmacht's famous StuG- it's clearly not an artillary weapon, what with it not having any indirect fire capability.

There is a sub-variant that can fire projectiles, it was used during the Battle of Muunilinst (SW: CW), levelling entire city-blocks.

In the same story, some SPHA walkers were seen in the background when the clone commander told Obi-Wan he had guns standing by against an unidentified aircraft, they might have had an AA role.

Slightly off-topic, what is the difference between self-propelled artillery and assault guns?

SP-arty provides mobile artillery support for ground forces. They can engage targets with direct fire, but being vulnerable to direct fire themselves this is done only in dire emergency.

Assault gun (such as the Stug-III/IV, ISU-152 etc.) are turretless tanks with the cannon mounted directly on the hull. These are used as the name suggests to assault enemy positions. Assault guns have gone out of favor, since modern tank warfare requires the tank to have a turret. Assault guns were effective when used in direct assaults or when firing from defensive dug outs or positions. Their lack of a turret hampered their ability to engage in mobile tank to tank duels.

-Gunhead

Gunhead wrote:SP-arty provides mobile artillery support for ground forces. They can engage targets with direct fire, but being vulnerable to direct fire themselves this is done only in dire emergency.

Assault gun (such as the Stug-III/IV, ISU-152 etc.) are turretless tanks with the cannon mounted directly on the hull. These are used as the name suggests to assault enemy positions. Assault guns have gone out of favor, since modern tank warfare requires the tank to have a turret. Assault guns were effective when used in direct assaults or when firing from defensive dug outs or positions. Their lack of a turret hampered their ability to engage in mobile tank to tank duels.

-Gunhead

I thought assault guns were merely replaced with SPGs? Their role as "tank destroyers" may had been removed, but the need for mobile fire support hasn't. It just that our guns don't provide direct support unless its badly needed.

I thought assault guns were merely replaced with SPGs? Their role as "tank destroyers" may had been removed, but the need for mobile fire support hasn't. It just that our guns don't provide direct support unless its badly needed.

Nope. SPGs are completely different in role from assault guns. A modern Stryker MGS is sort of like an assault gun, while a modern Paladin is an example of an SPG. Both have completely different roles.

Essentially, an armored vehicle that's not a full-on tank but is equipped with a powerful direct fire weapon is an assault gun, while an armored vehicle designed for indirect fire is a piece of self-propelled artillary.

Thirdfain wrote:I think that in role, it can be likened to assault guns, such as the Wehrmacht's famous StuG- it's clearly not an artillary weapon, what with it not having any indirect fire capability.

Indirect fire capability has never been a requirement for a weapon to be a piece of artillery.

Thirdfain wrote: Nope. SPGs are completely different in role from assault guns. A modern Stryker MGS is sort of like an assault gun, while a modern Paladin is an example of an SPG. Both have completely different roles.

Essentially, an armored vehicle that's not a full-on tank but is equipped with a powerful direct fire weapon is an assault gun, while an armored vehicle designed for indirect fire is a piece of self-propelled artillary.

okay. I always figured that assault guns were just meant to provide mobile fire support for the infantry.