Main Site Question: LoS limitations and SW artillery ranges

The Prime Necromancer · Post by **The Prime Necromancer** » 2003-10-24 11:32am

There's some information on the main site that as far as I can tell is contradictory.

In the ground technology portion of the site, DW talks about the AT-AT and how some of its perceived weakness are in fact strengths. Such as its high center of gravity (text highlighted by me):

Remember that an AT-AT must be capable of long-range bombardment, but its weapons are limited to a line of sight. Therefore, if it was built low (like a modern MBT) with a gun only 2 metres above the ground, its range would be severely limited in all but the flattest terrain types, and it would be unable to shoot above even relatively small obstacles such as disabled vehicles. Even on perfectly flat terrain, its maximum range on an Earth-like planet would be limited to the distance to the visible horizon, which would be a mere 5 kilometres. However, by elevating its guns to a lofty 23 metre height, the AT-AT gains the ability to shoot over the top of small obstacles, it gains a broad view of the battlefield, and the distance to the visible horizon jumps from 5 kilometres to more than 17 kilometres.

The page about SW artillery reiterates this weakness. However, in the descriptions for the Golan Arms DF9 and the Atgar P-Tower:

The SWEGWT also elaborates somewhat on their capabilities: the DF9 is said to have a range of 16km with a minimum 3 seconds between shots... The P-Tower's range is somewhat lower (10km instead of 16km) and it has a longer refire delay of 10 seconds.

See the contradiction? I can't think of a way to rationalize this. The P-Tower and the DF9 have nowhere close to the elevation of an AT-AT, yet the DF9's range is just a kilometer or so less! Shouldn't those ranges be dismissed as impossible? Or am I missing something important?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-10-24 03:31pm

That would be their typical range on most planets, suggesting most planets in SW are not earth sized.

The Prime Necromancer · Post by **The Prime Necromancer** » 2003-10-24 04:13pm

Ender wrote:That would be their typical range on most planets, suggesting most planets in SW are not earth sized.

But isn't planet size related to how intense the gravity is?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-10-24 04:26pm

The Prime Necromancer wrote:
Ender wrote:That would be their typical range on most planets, suggesting most planets in SW are not earth sized.
But isn't planet size related to how intense the gravity is?

Depends on what the planet is made up of. In reality yes, but Naboo is mostly water and it has normal gravity.

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2003-10-24 04:29pm

The P-Tower and DF-9 ranges are obviously atmospheric. As fixed artillery emplacements, they can hit atmoshpheric targets such as drop-ships and Trade Federation Core Ships. As for the AT-AT, which is an assault transport, its targets would tend to be on the defensive, and more likely to be on the ground, and so its height of 23 meters would be a lot more important in its combat role.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2003-10-24 04:33pm

They can be placed on an elevated position, or they can raise up with the repulsorlift they surely use to relocate. That would increase line of sight range.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-10-24 04:54pm

Certainly less complicated than suggesting that on average, SW planets are larger than Earth...

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-24 06:02pm

nightmare wrote:or they can raise up with the repulsorlift they surely use to relocate. That would increase line of sight range.

Recoil would cause a problem then, though. The cannon would have a tendency to be propelled backwards with each shot (and hopefully that would be all).

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-24 07:19pm

nightmare wrote:They can be placed on an elevated position, or they can raise up with the repulsorlift they surely use to relocate. That would increase line of sight range.

That, and simply shooting at a high target such as a walker, air speeder or hillside.

The Prime Necromancer · Post by **The Prime Necromancer** » 2003-10-24 10:23pm

Well, I suppose those are all as good answers as I'm going to get. Still, they have their problems. The DF9, for instance, is primarily for anti-infantry work. I also find it a bit of a leap to assume that they can fire the emplacements while hovering many meters above the ground. They appeared to need some kind of outside power source, and to utilize some kind of connecting cables. I would assume that if the rebels could have had them hover while firing, they would have done so to get greater range, as well as to present a moving target. Also, both the P-tower and the DF9 seem to be rather bulky and not particularly well suited to hitting fast moving targets, like airspeeders. The DF9's cannon would appear to be unable to elevate.

In the end it would seem that their range is heavily dependent upon a great number of variables. Therefore simply giving a maximum range is a bit misleading.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-10-24 11:58pm

1.) There's a difference between maximum and effective range.

2.) Range is also going to depend (as someone pointed out) on the elevation of the gun, but also the elevation of the target. Basically, if your enemy has line of sight on you, you're going to have LOS on him.

3.) Its already been noted that some classes of laser/blaster weapons may be more projectile-style weapons, which means that arcing is possible (like other artillery weapons.)

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-26 01:46am

The Prime Necromancer wrote:Well, I suppose those are all as good answers as I'm going to get. Still, they have their problems. The DF9, for instance, is primarily for anti-infantry work. I also find it a bit of a leap to assume that they can fire the emplacements while hovering many meters above the ground.

Considering that the weapon also comes in single or twin SP repulser mountings I'd say it's a near certainty it can fire while airborne.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-26 04:14pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Considering that the weapon also comes in single or twin SP repulser mountings I'd say it's a near certainty it can fire while airborne.

Not necessarily. Modern SP artillery usually has to stop and deploy stabilizers to fire. It does seem possible, but I'd still think recoil would be a problem. Like pre-French 75 artillery, it would have to be re-spotted after every shot, decreasing accuracy, even with computer targeting.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2003-10-27 07:43am

The Dark wrote:
nightmare wrote:or they can raise up with the repulsorlift they surely use to relocate. That would increase line of sight range.
Recoil would cause a problem then, though. The cannon would have a tendency to be propelled backwards with each shot (and hopefully that would be all).

Judging from the TPM landing platform, recoil may not be that much of a problem.