Most effective ground vehicle?

[Srelex]

Which ground vehicle in Star Wars would you say is the best designed and most efficient, be it in any sort of specific role or in versatility? Personally, I would say that repulsortanks, at least in principle, have a lot of potential in them.

[wookieeloaf]

I agree with you that repulortanks are the best as they can travel over water and don't require any fuel to float but if were going into specific models I'd have to say the tx-130

[Molyneux]

I agree with you that repulortanks are the best as they can travel over water and don't require any fuel to float but if were going into specific models I'd have to say the tx-130

I quite like the design, but I do have to admit I'm a bit boggled by the idea of a combat tank that needs to rotate its whole structure in order to fire the main cannon at a moving target. Maybe it's different for repulsor-driven vehicles, but doesn't that seem a little...inefficient?

[Aaron]

Well unless it can fly sideways then it's limited to engaging targets in front of it. So no firing at targets to side and rear while continuing in a different direction. The model wookieloaf linked to also has an open mount for the top weapon, leaving the gunner exposed.

[RedImperator]

Is there just a plain old tank anywhere in Star Wars? You know, armored chassis, big gun on a turret, crew all protected, nothing stupid like a giant window, tracks or repulsorlifts instead of legs?

[fractalsponge1]

Firehawke repulsortank:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/S-1_Fire ... pulsortank

T3-B tracked tank:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/T3-B_Heavy_Attack_Tank

T4-B:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/T4-B_Heavy_Tank

[Norade]

Looks like most tank designers in the Star Wars universe are retarded, giant windows, no turrets, exposed crew... Shields may make weak points moot, but I'd still rather have a proper design.

[starfury]

fractalsponge1, Looks like your APC/Hovertank will the only thing resembling a modern MBT in the Star Wars, the rest are too close to ground going aircraft, like the Tau and Eldar Designs of WH40k, the Eldar mostly whose tanks at times double as Gunship support. Except for the Firehawk I really don't like the Canon Designs and They aren't as Iconic as the AT-AT and Juggernaut Anyways.

The Trade Federation Light tank was the most normal looking tank in the Movies despite it's host of design problems and well I want something else to represent a real imperial medium battle tank, not superheavy or these less known designs.

[Noble713]

For G-canon vehicles, the AAT is probably the best tank: turreted main weapon, heavily armored prow, supporting anti-infantry weapons, no windows.

[Jim Raynor]

Crappy big-windowed designs or not, at least the SW universe does in fact have tanks. Unfortunately SW tanks, just like proper artillery (which exists as well!) are obscure and badly underrepresented in canon sources. Most of the EU is too busy rehashing the AT-AT and AT-ST, or making up their own walker variants. It's the "one type of ship/vehicle" mentality, where writers can't imagine anything beyond what was briefly shown in the movies (which have actual stories to tell and therefore won't spend too much time showcasing a variety of hardware).

Purpose-built fighting vehicles in general are underrepresented in SW, because of the brainbug that everything must be like the AT-AT and be a troop carrier on the side. Probably the worst example of this is the UT-AT that was briefly shown but remained unnamed in ROTS. The movie gave us a vehicle that could have worked either as a tank or as mobile artillery. The only designation we got from LFL was a vague "artillery transport" label.

But then we got some lame ass name and description written by Dark Mooseshit himself. Despite being a repulsorcraft, let's port over the tired __-AT designation anyway! That random "U" (insert letter) I thought up stands for unstable terrain (even though this vehicle would work equally well on stable terrain)! It's not a tank or artillery piece, but another half-assed troop carrier! And oh yeah, that preexisting "artillery transport" name that's tying me down and can't be easily dismissed? Um, uh, the UT-AT carries towed artillery pieces around which we never actually see, but nevermind that...

[Vympel]

Yeah, that was a fucking pathetic piece of writing. When I read it I was shaking my head in disbelief at how positively awful it was.

[Vympel]

At least this thing's original.

Seen from the back for a few seconds whilst Cody is talking to a Clone about Obi-Wan's survival.

[RogueIce]

But then we got some lame ass name and description written by Dark Mooseshit himself. Despite being a repulsorcraft, let's port over the tired __-AT designation anyway! That random "U" (insert letter) I thought up stands for unstable terrain (even though this vehicle would work equally well on stable terrain)! It's not a tank or artillery piece, but another half-assed troop carrier! And oh yeah, that preexisting "artillery transport" name that's tying me down and can't be easily dismissed? Um, uh, the UT-AT carries towed artillery pieces around which we never actually see, but nevermind that...

Yeah, that was a fucking pathetic piece of writing. When I read it I was shaking my head in disbelief at how positively awful it was.

That "What's the Story?" thing SW.com does is probably the worst idea in the history of sci-fi franchises. It's not enough that some hack writer making a 'sourcebook' can come up with stupid shit; let's have some random idiot off the Internet do it for us!

Anyway, to the subject at hand, the 2-M Repulsor Tank from EaW doesn't seem too bad. The viewports don't seem overly huge, and it has a turret for its primary weapon. There's also shields for a bit of added protection. And the anti-infantry laser is on top of the turret so it can fire around the tank as well, although I don't feel like firing up EaW to see if it can independently rotate. Add in a couple missile launchers and it seems to be a relatively decent design.

And viewports on tanks don't bother me, really. I mean, they have them on their starships and all, so why not tanks?

[Aaron]

Well it's not like we don't have them now. They just go up through the hull and pop up on top, so if they get shot you don't get a face full of glass and bullet. Vision blocks, there called.

Personally I find the AT-TE to be pretty damn dumb, all that effort to put the crew and troops under armour and the gunner is hanging out in the breeze. Totally exposed to the elements and enemy fire.

[BLACKSUN2000]

XR-85 tank droid

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:TankDroid_egvv.jpg

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/XR-85_tank_droid

I remember reading it could literally plow through the buildings on Coruscant and use that "heavy paticle canon" to raze buildings.

[Ekiqa]

I take it we need fractalsponge to come up with a new and effective tank?

[Darksider]

Looks like most tank designers in the Star Wars universe are retarded, giant windows, no turrets, exposed crew... Shields may make weak points moot, but I'd still rather have a proper design.

I understand what you mean about the oversized windows, but none of the tanks in the post above yours have exposed crews, and all of them have 360 degree rotating turrets. All of the T-series alliance tanks can fire their primary weapons in almost any direction, and the T-4 can fire it's missiles in a complete arc as well. The designs aren't quite as retarded as you think.

[Abacus]

I have to give my vote to the AT-AT. Heavily armored and armed, with a sufficient amount of support that can be deployed in the need for close combat. It's far from elegant, but the sheer brutal force it can bring to bear is exquisite. The fact that it can deal with difficult terrain about as well as any hover tank (minus going up mountains obviously), and can handle incoming fire a lot better, makes me want to invest in the AT-AT over anything else.

[Darth Hoth]

Oh, What's The Story certainly spits out retarded stuff more often than not, but occasionally it hits the spot. For example:

With the start of the Clone Wars, Scrambas, now a sergeant, had been told to expect limited action. His superior officers dismissed the war against the Separatists as a mere "brush fire" that the clones alone would easily handle. Those in the Core were expected to be insulated from the worst of the fighting. Scrambas knew better.

The wars engulfed the entire galaxy, and even the greatest worlds of the Republic were not safe. Alderaan was even threatened by droid forces multiple times, especially after the fall of Duro, and Scrambas found himself fighting on the front lines.

My emphasis added. Quite a funny jab at Traviss and Dark Moron when it first went up.

[Darth Hoth]

On the topic of armour, the old comic strip had a light tank that looked surprisingly un-retarded, as compared to what one has come to expect from the later EU. (Ignore the text in the article, that is your standard Wookieepedia fanon.) Traversing turret and a few smaller machine gun equivalents, no huge viewports and relatively small target profile.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

The S-1 Firehawkehttp://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/S-1_Fire ... pulsortank looks remarkably like a credible MBT.



Have to wonder about the details that aren't there, though- perhaps (wild speculation) it, like the Kuat fighters of the Clone Wars, was a victim of politics? There is nothing said about the manufacturer. They're fast, they carry half the armament of the AT-AT (one chin and one cheek gun) in much less than half the logistic footprint if the length and deduced proportions are anything to go by.

[Simon_Jester]

What's this about the Kuat fighters?

[fractalsponge1]

I think he means if you look at the published stats for the Clone Wars fighters, they seem to be exceptional in comparison to most of the newer Sienar fighters. So, why not keep making them?

Of course there may be perfectly reasonable military reasons why the shift happened, but makes you wonder...

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Essentially, yes.
The ICS description of the Kuat line is "technically excellent" after all- the idea is put forward there that galactic trade conditions, regional tariffs and contract arrangements, kept so many separate manufacturers of overlapping products in business;
the Empire tore most of those down, and in a level galactic economy, it made sense to redistribute contracts to avoid being beholden for too many things to any one source- something the EU subverts incidentally, by having Kuat do everything anyway.

It was the politics of issuing government contracts, according to the ICS which is as high as we're going to get until someone makes an official statement on film, that resulted in Sienar rather than Kuat doing the Imperial Starfleet's fighters.

This part is speculation, but as I think we've been over before, the Sienar fighters can't be so bad that it was all politics and only politics that got Sienar the contract, the list of things they trade in is so long- a lot of performance, combat shields (still navigation ones though), hyperdrive or hyperdrive link capability, astromech support, ordnance, they have to get something back for it all, and the obvous candidate is raw firepower.

Cheap, efficient, easily maintained, extremely hard hitting- it's entirely possible that the Etas and Deltas are superior individual craft, but the TIE integrates more effectively into a superior weapon system.

The politics of imperial military contracting is something I don't pretend to understand fully, but if redistribution, multiple redundancy, and avoiding overdependence on any one firm really was the plan, then Kuat are getting a hell of a good deal for their bribe money.

What this does to ground vehicles, what the Empire chooses to use and not use, is made even more baffling by the fact that so many of the big heavy things are KDY. The Imperial Standard repulsortank is Ubrikkian, interestingly.

I think there are three possibilities; that the S-1 is actually a KDY design, and to avoid looking too much like a wholly owned subsidiary of KDY, the procurement arm of the Imperial Army gave the tank business to somebody else regardless of quality;

that the S-1 is actually something like an equivalent of the german Leopard, heavily armed and fast but thin skinned, and not the blend of qualities the army wanted to move to, justifying it's replacement with a larger, heavier vehicle;

that the mania for 'big and scary' got the better of them, and they decided to replace a compact, effective unit with something that isn't much better armed, has four times the surface area to armour or better, and a massively higher ground, and transport, footprint.

Alternatively, a combination of all of the above. Is there any information anywhere on who produced the FireHawke?

[Simon_Jester]

Essentially, yes.
The ICS description of the Kuat line is "technically excellent" after all- the idea is put forward there that galactic trade conditions, regional tariffs and contract arrangements, kept so many separate manufacturers of overlapping products in business;
the Empire tore most of those down, and in a level galactic economy, it made sense to redistribute contracts to avoid being beholden for too many things to any one source- something the EU subverts incidentally, by having Kuat do everything anyway.

Well, a lot of theories don't work out in practice. At a guess: in practice, they rapidly learned that KDY and its subsidiaries were the foremost military engineering firm in the galaxy for a reason. Kuat may have intentionally cultivated this by building a relationship with the Empire that gave them the most potential for expansion into new areas beyond their core competency of building capital ships.

This part is speculation, but as I think we've been over before, the Sienar fighters can't be so bad that it was all politics and only politics that got Sienar the contract, the list of things they trade in is so long- a lot of performance, combat shields (still navigation ones though), hyperdrive or hyperdrive link capability, astromech support, ordnance, they have to get something back for it all, and the obvous candidate is raw firepower.

Reasonable. I'm reminded of WWII aces, for example, who would preferentially go for the heavily armed but otherwise unremarkable Yak-1. They were willing trade off on a lot of things to get into a plane with the most firepower, because that meant that if they could get a killing shot it would kill. And they could, being aces.

The politics of imperial military contracting is something I don't pretend to understand fully, but if redistribution, multiple redundancy, and avoiding overdependence on any one firm really was the plan, then Kuat are getting a hell of a good deal for their bribe money.

Heh. Do you know, that's probably what I was getting towards above?

that the mania for 'big and scary' got the better of them, and they decided to replace a compact, effective unit with something that isn't much better armed, has four times the surface area to armour or better, and a massively higher ground, and transport, footprint.

...Hmm. I think I just figured out where "big and scary" came from.

Production costs in Star Wars seem to scale very favorably, as demonstrated by the fact that they can almost casually build Death Stars that so greatly outmass the entire mobile Starfleet. And yes, I know, the chief limiting factor on the size of the Starfleet is the availability of truly reliable officers; that's not the point. The point is that for something like the DS-II to be built in secret, the Empire must be spending a sum of money large compared to what it took to build the DS-II every year, so that it can bury the costs in its operating budget.

But the Empire isn't building anything that comes close to the DS-II in sheer scale or power output; where's the money going? The most likely conclusion I see is that the cost of manufacturing X tons of spacecraft doesn't scale linearly with X- with some root of X, more likely. Probably not logarithmically...

Anyway, I think that would explain why the Empire can build superweapons in secret: the technology allows you to build very large constructs for only a modest multiple of the cost of a "merely" large construct. A thousand times more tonnage doesn't cost a thousand times more money, especially if it's loaded onto one or two gigantic platforms.

In that case, the Empire's fetish for "big and scary" becomes very logical: making the individual combat units as large as possible optimizes their fighting power, up to a point. If a 700-ton HoverMaus is only, say, √10 times more expensive than a 70-ton HoverAbrams and mounts guns big enough to polish off a squadron of HoverAbrams before breakfast, why not build the gigantic model?

And yes, there are reasons, cost factors that really do scale linearly with tonnage... but at the very least this gives a rationale for some otherwise bizarre decisions