StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Consider the Republic LAAT gunship and the hideously exposed
superlaser pods. Looked like a godfucking damn design that had
ONE PURPOSE ONLY: Because it looked fucking cool on the inevitable
kiddie toy spinoffs...

I would have deleted the superlaser bubbles and mounted a twin
barrelled chin mount for the Micro-superlasers on the LAAT instead
of those puny forward blaster turrets

MKSheppard wrote:Consider the Republic LAAT gunship and the hideously exposed
superlaser pods. Looked like a godfucking damn design that had
ONE PURPOSE ONLY: Because it looked fucking cool on the inevitable
kiddie toy spinoffs...

I would have deleted the superlaser bubbles and mounted a twin
barrelled chin mount for the Micro-superlasers on the LAAT instead
of those puny forward blaster turrets

Trek Designers couldn't have designed the LAATs. Simply for the fact LAATs were blowing up when someone sneezed around them.

World War II bombers had machine gun pods with almost the exact same design as the LAAT's mini-superlaser pod.

Trek designers wouldn't have thought to put the gun turret on the aft.

MKSheppard wrote:Consider the Republic LAAT gunship and the hideously exposed
superlaser pods. Looked like a godfucking damn design that had
ONE PURPOSE ONLY: Because it looked fucking cool on the inevitable
kiddie toy spinoffs...

I would have deleted the superlaser bubbles and mounted a twin
barrelled chin mount for the Micro-superlasers on the LAAT instead
of those puny forward blaster turrets

They are analagous to the door-mounted M-60s (and later miniguns) that cover the doors of Hueys and Ch-53s and such. Why is this inappropriate?

Howedar wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:Consider the Republic LAAT gunship and the hideously exposed
superlaser pods. Looked like a godfucking damn design that had
ONE PURPOSE ONLY: Because it looked fucking cool on the inevitable
kiddie toy spinoffs...

I would have deleted the superlaser bubbles and mounted a twin
barrelled chin mount for the Micro-superlasers on the LAAT instead
of those puny forward blaster turrets

They are analagous to the door-mounted M-60s (and later miniguns) that cover the doors of Hueys and Ch-53s and such. Why is this inappropriate?

I think Shep just needed a reason to rant about something

...maybe because the bubbles provide better zone of fire?

KG

I like the LAAT- excellent fields of fire and heavily armed. Those bubbles are protected by the shields- not to mention that there's no reason to think that they'd break upon being hit by small arms fire. They're not glass.

Howedar wrote:They are analagous to the door-mounted M-60s (and later miniguns) that cover the doors of Hueys and Ch-53s and such. Why is this inappropriate?

No they're not. They're just something tacked on just because it looked
cool on the toys....anyone remember the bad guys' vehicles in Jurassic
Park 2?

MKSheppard wrote:
No they're not. They're just something tacked on just because it looked
cool on the toys....anyone remember the bad guys' vehicles in Jurassic
Park 2?

Hang on a sec Shep

Do they or do they not offer a good field of fire? Are they not protected by shields? Do we ever see one get blown away? Those composite lasers did the most damage.

Durandal wrote:World War II bombers had machine gun pods with almost the exact same design as the LAAT's mini-superlaser pod.

My problem with those pods is that they are MANNED.Bad idea.
Yes WW2 era bombers had them.But as soon it became feasible they
switched to unmanned ones,like those mounted on the B29 and,if I recall correctly the B-36.
Sorry, mr MkSheppard is correct.

Admiral Piett wrote:
My problem with those pods is that they are MANNED.Bad idea.
Yes WW2 era bombers had them.But as soon it became feasible they
switched to unmanned ones,like those mounted on the B29 and,if I recall correctly the B-36.
Sorry, mr MkSheppard is correct.

For one thing, those machine guns were designed for self defense from aircraft, not for close air support. The pilot and gunner can only do so much- if you want the extra firepower provided by those beams, then you have gunners. They're SHIELDED, so what's the damn problem?!

Shields are not infallible, Vympel! And a turret needs not to have an operator in it, take again the B-29 example, it had two pilots, bombardier, navigator, radio operator and gunners.
The LAAT probably has few numbers of men, but it can have it's gunners inside, where at least they have a few more inches of protection... And if the field of fire can be the same with the turret alone, why put someone inside? (Just to look cool, that is...)

As soon as I saw those things, I thought imediately in the error of those big fish bowls.

Vympel wrote: For one thing, those machine guns were designed for self defense from aircraft, not for close air support. The pilot and gunner can only do so much- if you want the extra firepower provided by those beams, then you have gunners. They're SHIELDED, so what's the damn problem?!

You have misuderstood me.The problem with placing the gunners in the turrets is not protection.The problem is precision of fire.Gunners in the rotating turrets are partly disoriented by the rotation movement.This was the rationale behind the B-29 turrets design.Gunners handling remote piloted turrets have an improved accuracy.The LAAT ones might have some inertial dampers,but essentially it would be energy much better spent on shields or weapons.It is a small craft,after all,so it is relatively limited in the size of the generators it can carry.
It does not matter how you play with it, the fact is that is an inefficient design.

He's right...it is even odder that the rear composite laser turrets are not manned. Why would they just make the forward ones manned?

MKSheppard wrote:

Howedar wrote:They are analagous to the door-mounted M-60s (and later miniguns) that cover the doors of Hueys and Ch-53s and such. Why is this inappropriate?

No they're not. They're just something tacked on just because it looked
cool on the toys....anyone remember the bad guys' vehicles in Jurassic
Park 2?

What the hell do you mean, "No they're not"? Have you ever seen a Huey?

Howedar wrote:What the hell do you mean, "No they're not"? Have you ever seen a Huey?

I used to watch "Tour of Duty" as a kid...I know what the FUCK a Huey looks
like.

Those are the shittiest possible design for a DOOR gun...exposed enclosed
bubbles adding weight to the vehicle and increasing the TARGET PROFILE.

Remember, this is the SW galaxy where even PISTOLS can blast massive
chunks out of a concrete wall...

Better design would have been to have a pintle installed in the middle of
the doorways on select LAATs and have a dedicated gunner kept in
position with a seatbelt and firing a souped up version of the clonetrooper
rifles modded for sustained full auto fire....

THAT would have been more efficient than making such a hideously
inefficient turret-on-a-stick that means you have to EXTEND the area the
shields protect to keep your turreted guns from being shot off....

DUH...

MKSheppard wrote:

Howedar wrote:What the hell do you mean, "No they're not"? Have you ever seen a Huey?

I used to watch "Tour of Duty" as a kid...I know what the FUCK a Huey looks
like.

Those are the shittiest possible design for a DOOR gun...exposed enclosed
bubbles adding weight to the vehicle and increasing the TARGET PROFILE.

Remember, this is the SW galaxy where even PISTOLS can blast massive
chunks out of a concrete wall...

Better design would have been to have a pintle installed in the middle of
the doorways on select LAATs and have a dedicated gunner kept in
position with a seatbelt and firing a souped up version of the clonetrooper
rifles modded for sustained full auto fire....

THAT would have been more efficient than making such a hideously
inefficient turret-on-a-stick that means you have to EXTEND the area the
shields protect to keep your turreted guns from being shot off....

DUH...

Pistols blasted chunks out of walls, but the cockpit glass of TIEs shrugged off blast rifle fire in Wraith Squadron. The turrets would be made out of the same sort of material.

Door guns would have a fraction of the arc of fire. Pintle mounts suck for accuracy, thats why the Blackhawk went to fixed mounts with a dedicated ports.


The B-29 and B-36 used unmanned turrets because the requirements for aircraft performance would not allow such large bulges. The B-29 had horrible accuracy as a result of the lag time between the gunners tracking and the computer system moving the gun turrets. The B-36 had radar link directly into the control system, making its weapons very accurate.

Sea Skimmer wrote: Pistols blasted chunks out of walls, but the cockpit glass of TIEs shrugged off blast rifle fire in Wraith Squadron. The turrets would be made out of the same sort of material.

Yet in the CRIMSON EMPIRE comic, Kir Kanos shoots a TIE Pilot through
his cockpit glass with a pistol....

Door guns would have a fraction of the arc of fire. Pintle mounts suck for accuracy, thats why the Blackhawk went to fixed mounts with a dedicated ports.

In vietnam, they had a pintle mount mod that swung the mounts OUT from
the side, allowing them to be fired forward, effectively doubling the weight
of fire forward from a UH-1....

And the object of a door gun is not accuracy...that's what the heavy turret
mounted lasers in the nose of the LAAT are for...picking off stuff klicks
away...

the object of a door gun is to pour out so much suppressive fire that
the guys in the back have a chance of getting unassed from the craft
without being shot to pieces in the process by enemy return fire.

If said gunners were inside the ship wouldnt they have trouble spotting targets in time?I mean yes you have scanners but seeing and then traversing the weapons are seperate things

Typhonis 1 wrote:If said gunners were inside the ship wouldnt they have trouble spotting targets in time?I mean yes you have scanners but seeing and then traversing the weapons are seperate things

No more than being outside, they would still had to transvers to acquire the target(s).

MKSheppard wrote:Yet in the CRIMSON EMPIRE comic, Kir Kanos shoots a TIE Pilot through his cockpit glass with a pistol....

Novel > Comic

IG-88E wrote: Novel > Comic

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

*cough* stackpole *cough*

Not my point.

MKSheppard wrote:Yet in the CRIMSON EMPIRE comic, Kir Kanos shoots a TIE Pilot through his cockpit glass with a pistol....

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.