SW Fighters v. Trek Caps: Room For Heavy Warheads?

[Sea Skimmer]

Please, you don't know those protrusions are guns and are almost certainly not; they're never seen firing. You can only take the "what you can see" arguments to a certain point before its absurd.

They look like guns. Would you argue that most of a Star Destroyers weapon are something else just because we don't see them fire? Even when they look near identical to ones that do?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Canon argues with you.

With have two examples.

One has four wingtip guns.

One has at least two chin guns.

Prove we see a ten-gunned TIE Interceptor anywhere. Could those be sighting/rangefinger lasers? Sensors? Manuvering jets? We know how many guns are in an SD's turret because we count 8 guns and we know its a gun turret. You pointed a fixture and two holes and claim TIE Interceptor cannons.

I say, where's canon proof?

[FettKyle]

For the holes in the TIE interceptor's wings I believe ESVV States that those are targeting sensors.

[Isolder74]

For the holes in the TIE interceptor's wings I believe ESVV States that those are targeting sensors.

It does say that but it doesn't directly point at them so he can JUSTIFY caling them guns(Read I already tried that).

[Illuminatus Primus]

An official statement that isn't obviously retarded or inconsistent overrides bullshit fan opinions.

It's a targeting device. They're not cannons.

[Connor MacLeod]

But the weapons payloads in the game are wrong. Note the TIE Interceptor's lack of the two "chin" laser cannons from the game, even though they are established by canon. I don't think it would be a consistent position to give the TIE Interceptor 6 laser cannons but to use the missile and torpedo payloads from the games.

I suggest you read Saxton's description of the TIE interceptor on SWTC. He acknowledges the 4 gun model, but also indicates that variants exist with up to TEN guns. (I'm personally unsure about the ten gun model, but it seems possible)

I daresay it is NOT inconsistent to have a TIE/I with only 4 guns.

[Connor MacLeod]

Canon argues with you.

With have two examples.

One has four wingtip guns.

One has at least two chin guns.

Prove we see a ten-gunned TIE Interceptor anywhere. Could those be sighting/rangefinger lasers? Sensors? Manuvering jets? We know how many guns are in an SD's turret because we count 8 guns and we know its a gun turret. You pointed a fixture and two holes and claim TIE Interceptor cannons.

I say, where's canon proof?

Can you say "modular design?"

[Vympel]

An official statement that isn't obviously retarded or inconsistent overrides bullshit fan opinions.

It's a targeting device. They're not cannons.

That doesn't make sense. Only the structure the holes are mounted on are labelled as targeting sensors, not the holes themselves, which are exactly the same as those on the wingtips. Also, there are no such targeting sensor 'holes' on

- The TIE Advanced X1, from which the Interceptor is derived: this is especially important considering that the sensors on the X1 are mounted confomrally on the cockpit pod, according to the SW:ICS.
- The TIE Fighter (both the original white and post-ESB gray-hull)
- The TIE Bomber

These are all Seinar Fleet System designs.

In addition, no such targeting 'hole' is evident on

- The X-Wing
- The Y-Wing

The ICS clearly shows that both targeting sensors on these craft is mounted conformally (the nose for the X-Wing, the engine pods for the Y-Wing).

The 4-cannon model exists- with its origin based on either ill-defined concept drawings showing the four wingtip cannons firing (with no detail to ascertain the other holes), or a 1983 badly made commercial model which did not even SHOW the two cockpit pod cannons, or the four midship guns.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It doesn't matter: just because you don't see the precedent or don't like the Essential Guide doesn't mean you can play the semantics games. Here there's no reason the holes can't be rangefinger lasers (a la Ep. I ICSfor the AAT). The official word stands.

[Connor MacLeod]

It doesn't matter: just because you don't see the precedent or don't like the Essential Guide doesn't mean you can play the semantics games. Here there's no reason the holes can't be rangefinger lasers (a la Ep. I ICSfor the AAT). The official word stands.

No, you're doing what you claim he is. You're playing a semantics game. While you are essentially correct that there is no reason the holes could be rangefinder lasers.

But by that same token there's no reason that they could NOT also be lasers, or be designed to carry lasers. Canon is clear about the existence of at LEAST a six-gun variant (unless you can explain the bolt coming from the chin gun without resorting to breaking suspension of disbelief), and cannot be overriden by EU to the extent that a six gun (if not a ten gun) variant is impossible. (just as the canon existence of a six gun variant does not preclude 4-gun models from existing)

Official evidence supports the POSSIBILITY of a six gun variant (the only limitation is that they can't fit in extra power generators for the lasers - I dunno why they need separate generators for it though), and the targeting lasers could also be laser cannons. (If you aren't aware, the B-wing carries a single laser cannon that also doubles as a targeting laser. By firing it at low output, it can be used to provide near-perfect targeting data, but reveals the ship's location.)

I could go on to speculate other reasons (increasing the short term firepower of the vessel at the expense of more rapidly draining capacitors - assume that all the guns draw from the same capacitors the four guns would, for example.) or that they removed the lasers for other modifications (TIE Interceptors have been modified for hyperspace capability, shields, or "beam weapons" and occasionally even launchers, so they could equally be outfitted to carry laser cannons.

In short, there is no reason to believe that its IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a six or ten gun Tie Interceptor variant, and there is little wrong with them claiming so if they have a good reason. (which they definitely have for at least the six gun, and a good case can be made for the ten gun.) And you are wrong to arbitrarily attempt to limit the distinction.

[Alan Bolte]

In my opinion, a four gun varient must be accepted to exist, due simply to the wealth of official data. Six gun models are clearly canon. It may well be that all TIE models have chin protrusions, but that some lack internal components, sufficient power, or what have you to account for the four gun models that seem so prevalent in official material. As far as the other four gun possibilities go, the image posted on this thread, as well as the Brooklyn pics on SWTC clearly show that one cylinder is longer that the other. The significance of this is unclear. In addition, the cylinders appear to be angled very slightly towards each other, enough that emitted beams would cross at a distance to short to be useful in combat. It can be seen best here, thanks to Starship Modeler:
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/starwars/ti_side.jpg
I should note that the differences in model quality repeatedly make analysis uncertain at best. Clearly, however, the ten gun model is in doubt, not to say that any warsie like myself wouldn't welcome a fast fighter with ten kT-level guns. Speaking of power though, does it look to anyone like those wingtip guns might be longer than the other candidates? that is, that they extend back into the wing? i wouldn't have thought of it, really, until I also noticed those wire-looking things extending roughly halfway up the wing after curving around from a little box on the inside of the wing.

[Vympel]

I think the problem people have with the 6/gun 10/gun variant is that it just seems like too much based on official material preconceptions.

It's not a bad thing. It doesn't necessarily mean that it fires all 6/10 cannons at once.

For example, it could be that the fire control system decides which cannon to fire based on the position of the target- and we know for a fact that TIEs Fighters can fire their weapons off-axis; this could be why the orb-lasers are retained. The four-holes may be laser-rangefinders, but its quite far-fetched and has no official support- there are no such rangefinders on any other SW fighter.

[Connor MacLeod]

I think the problem people have with the 6/gun 10/gun variant is that it just seems like too much based on official material preconceptions.

It's not a bad thing. It doesn't necessarily mean that it fires all 6/10 cannons at once.

For example, it could be that the fire control system decides which cannon to fire based on the position of the target- and we know for a fact that TIEs Fighters can fire their weapons off-axis; this could be why the orb-lasers are retained. The four-holes may be laser-rangefinders, but its quite far-fetched and has no official support- there are no such rangefinders on any other SW fighter.

But why would "position" of the cannon make any difference to firing if they can fire off-axis? It would be easier to assume they're either redundant laser cannons in case the wing ones are shot off, secondary weapons (heavier laser cannons for larger targets like freighters or gunboats, or perhaps ion cannons).

Besides that, I am at a loss to what exactly proves "there are no such rangefinders on other SW vessels.) Just because they don't look like they do on other vessels? Because its never mentioned that they don't have rangefinders?

B-wings have targeting laser/laser rangefinders as well. And it doesnt need to be explicitly mentioned, I might add. That may simply be where they place the active targeting sensors (Radar and Lidar would naturally be apart of almost ANY targeting system, and a "Targeting laser" could in fact be simpy Lidar.)

IIRC the SWE also indicates that "electrorangefinders" (a glorified term for what is basically radar/lidar) is an integral part of all targeting systems.
Plus, the trilogy ICS mentions that the AT-AT medium cannons have "blaster rangefinders" attached to the turrets.