StarDestroyer.Net BBS

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:And, TIE Interceptors had up to ten cannons on-board.

Not the Ten Gun Interceptor thing again. A ten Gun Tie would vastly limit its performance. The size of the spaceframe itself makes this highly improbable since its not much larger than a standard tie frame the only major difference being the solor panels.

I agree with Isolder74 on this issue. Just because it looks like it could be a gun, doesn't mean it IS a gun.

It looks EXACTLY like a gun, and the only reason you think there's four is because of an EU error started from an inaccurate model. The TIE Interceptors in ROTJ have ten guns. Period. All else is official, and hence, cannot be used to contradict canon.



You have to provide evidence that ten guns would limit its performance; not just state it as fact.

Not every hole in a spaceship is a necessarily a gun. These holes could be anything. I'm not saying they are not guns, I'm saying that where's the *evidence* that they are.

Evidence: screenshots of the ship firing from those holes, or Interceptors firing more than four blasts at a time or in close concentration. Firing once from each hole every 10 seconds wouldn't be evidence, for instance, but firing 10 times in a second might be an *indication* that it is possible.

The problem is that we barely see each individual fighter fire 10 bolts IN TOTAL during the movie.

But I agree with you in that they COULD be guns.

I mean, for all I know, the wing tips aren't even the guns. Maybe only the cockpit holes are the gun, or the space between tips could be the guns. Or maybe two holes are bussard collectors and 6 are guns. Or maybe they're ALL guns. I don't know.

It's not that they're merely holes. That's not enough. The holes are all exactly the same.

- the four wingtip holes and four midwing holes are all the same, except the midwing guns are recessed.
- the two pod guns are the same as those on the TIE Fighter and TIE X1.

Hence, ten cannons.

Objections to this are like saying that there are structures on an Executor that are all exactly like the ocuptle HTLs on an Imperator II, yet they're not, because ...
"well ... there's too many ... because the EU says this ... and .... we've never seen them fire". It's simply unreasonable.

there is not enough proof for me to, without a doubt, say that they are ALL weapons
they don't all look exactly like a "gun" they all look like holes. and that is it

Well that's all I can do really. I'm showing you a model used in the actual film- I've shown visual evidence with close-ups that show that it's just unreasonable to arbitrarily call six of the ten holes 'something else' and only assign weapons to four of them- purely because you have an EU fetish born entirely out of a poorly made 1983 commercial model.

Perhaps several of the holes are exhaust ports/shield generators/condom dispensors. The point is they can't have 10 guns. All canon suggests 4 lasers. even the computer games & novels agree. If an interceptor had 10 guns they could vape an X-Wing in one pass. the Tie simply doesn't have enough mass to provide generators to power 10 guns

Muad'Dib wrote:All canon suggests 4 lasers

What canon? The only canon evidence presented by anyone is MINE- the picture of the actual model used during fliming of Return of the Jedi.

even the computer games & novels agree

Irrelevant. Canon trumps official. This is like saying that because all the games and novels agree that the Executor is 8km long rather than the actual 17.6km, it must be 8.

If an interceptor had 10 guns they could vape an X-Wing in one pass.

Irrelevant. We've seen the TIE Fighter, TIE Advanced X1 and TIE Interceptor kill an X-Wing firing less, in 'one pass'; in both ANH and ROTJ.

the Tie simply doesn't have enough mass to provide generators to power 10 guns

Assertion without any evidence. Prove that the TIE Interceptor doesn't have the power to mount ten guns.

if the model actually shot... well THAT would be definite proof...

also
I like how some people say that EU ships are crap cos they "just stick more guns onto it" and then they go on and say the TIE Interceptor has 10 guns (no offence to Vympel or anyone else, just a general observation)

Sardaukar wrote:if the model actually shot... well THAT would be definite proof...

By your standard of proof we can't be sure that the HTLs clearly visible on the Devastator models are HTLs, because we've never seen them fire. Yet they're there, and they're obviously turrets. Same situation, except that they are obviously laser cannons; and the only reason people have for arbitrarily turning SIX of them into something else is "well the EU says ..."

Sardaukar wrote:also
I like how some people say that EU ships are crap cos they "just stick more guns onto it" and then they go on and say the TIE Interceptor has 10 guns (no offence to Vympel or anyone else, just a general observation)

No offense taken. I don't subscribe to that view; the B-Wing is also very well armed from examination of the model.

I love some of the EU ships: the TIE Avenger and Defender are two of my favorites; though I am sick of the EU New Republic ships- K-Wing, E-Wing ... it's really tiresome and I wish they'd get original.

Vympel wrote:

Sardaukar wrote:if the model actually shot... well THAT would be definite proof...

By your standard of proof we can't be sure that the HTLs clearly visible on the Devastator models are HTLs, because we've never seen them fire. Yet they're there, and they're obviously turrets. Same situation, except that they are obviously laser cannons; and the only reason people have for arbitrarily turning SIX of them into something else is "well the EU says ..."
quote]

The ISD's turrets have been labeled in at least the EGVV and ICS. The Interceptor's 10 guns hasn't been labeled anywhere.

So until an obvious laser is labelled by an official source, we can't be sure its actually a laser?

I only agree with official sources if they comply with canon evidence; official is subservient to canon.

ISD HTLs

- they are turrets; this is obvious from looking at them. We don't need the EGW to tell us what they are. If you need an official source to hold your hand for everything ...

- The Interceptor's ten guns haven't been labelled, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. The sources that have modelled the TIE are all based off a SINGLE, under-detailed, erroneous model released in 1983, not the 'REAL' thing. I accord them no respect whatsoever; because they are obviously wrong, JUST LIKE THE 8KM EXECUTOR.

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Maby thy where a 10 gun sub-type??

or that the 10 gun interceptor has vary pore range??

Lt. Nebfer wrote:Maby thy where a 10 gun sub-type??

or that the 10 gun interceptor has vary pore range??

Oh definitely to the sub-type thing. That's the only way to harmonize the official with the canon: the four-gun interceptors are a different model.

Poor-range; I don't see how we can make a presumption like that with no evidence for it. TIEs have limited range by SW standards as it is.

But the point of this little sub-argument is that the 10-gun TIE Interceptor obviously exists. You can say that a four-gun model exists as well, and perhaps one day the EU will give an explanation for the 10-gun model (which is a newer model - if we go by chronology- the TIE Interceptor appears in X-Wing which takes place before the Battle of Yavin)- such as the volume of fire was good for strafing, etc. Saxton has a few theories.

Vympel wrote:It's not that they're merely holes. That's not enough. The holes are all exactly the same.

- the four wingtip holes and four midwing holes are all the same, except the midwing guns are recessed.
- the two pod guns are the same as those on the TIE Fighter and TIE X1.

The only identical part about the holes is the holes themselves... and let's be frank, all the round, dark holes in the universe look the same.

Objections to this are like saying that there are structures on an Executor that are all exactly like the ocuptle HTLs on an Imperator II, yet they're not, because ...
"well ... there's too many ... because the EU says this ... and .... we've never seen them fire". It's simply unreasonable.

I don't say that they can't be, but there's no evidence either way. The cannons might not even be the holes, but the rounded tips.

Slartibartfast wrote:
The only identical part about the holes is the holes themselves... and let's be frank, all the round, dark holes in the universe look the same.

I don't say that they can't be, but there's no evidence either way. The cannons might not even be the holes, but the rounded tips.

You haven't looked at it hard enough mate. The strucutres on the tips are the same as those in the midwing, only recessed, IMO.

The two pod holes are also indisputable. The TIE/In model has the same holes (wheras the original TIE has orange bulbs).

I frankly don't see why everyone is so obsessed with the four laser thing. Since when is 10 lasers a bad thing? There's good evidence for it, dubious evidence based on a crap model against it, what's to argue about?

Concept (storyboard?) art from ROTJ, showing only the wing tips firing.

[img]http://www.starwars.com/databank/starsh ... bts_bg.jpg
[/img]

So what? There's concept art from A New Hope that shows the Star Destroyer to be smaller than it actually is, with less guns that it ended up having- this is because the Star Destroyer was scaled up quite dramatically from under 1,000m to 1,600m. Should we therefore conclude that it only has six HTLs rather than the obvious eight, and should be smaller?

Vympel wrote:It's not that they're merely holes. That's not enough. The holes are all exactly the same.

- the four wingtip holes and four midwing holes are all the same, except the midwing guns are recessed.
- the two pod guns are the same as those on the TIE Fighter and TIE X1.

Hence, ten cannons.

Objections to this are like saying that there are structures on an Executor that are all exactly like the ocuptle HTLs on an Imperator II, yet they're not, because ...
"well ... there's too many ... because the EU says this ... and .... we've never seen them fire". It's simply unreasonable.

perhaps this will help you regarding the guns on a tie interceptor.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/zs/rotj/pincer5.jpg

we can be sure that the tie interceptors at endor did have chin mounted laser canoons just like a tie fighter

notice another blast coming from just below the main wingtip laser cannon hardpoint.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/zs/rotj/pincer5.jpg

I still stick to theory that the interceptors fire control system decides which guns to fire. If the int is engaging a fighter the system will decide the amount of firepower to use. It would then either prepare the center chin cannons to fire or the four wingtip mounted cannons, anything larger than a fighter, the Fire Control system will fire all ten cannons in a delayed pattern to inflict the maximum amount of damage against a small freighter or larger ship.

This system would conserve power and make maximum use of the fighters firepower, depending on target selection. I might add this fighter in this picture appears to be firing on the Falcon itself.

Cool theory. I make no assertions except for the obvious one that a 10-cannon version exists- in what manner the guns are used is anyone's guess really.

TIEs have a very advanced fire control system according to the SWICS, so it's entirely feasible that depending on the position and nature of the target the fire control will decide which cannon to fire. Remember that the TIE Fighter's cannons can swivel; I see no reason why the Interceptor's can't.