Lit GAVs Junkie Base- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Armored Cavalry thread)

They're basically hyperspace-capable versions of the TF repulsorlift troop transports, so it should be ok. In the film, we mainly see the Sentinel working in conjunction with Stormtroopers and Dewback riders, after all. The Lambda is also a glorified troop carrier that makes frequent planetary runs.

 

So, how does artillery in the GFFA work? In AOTC we had the SPHA-T, which can only shoot at stuff within its line of sight, so basically it's useless for anything other than shooting down large starships. In the Genndy Tartakovsky Clone Wars series, we had some kind of Republic artillery vehicle at Muunilinst which for some God-knows-why reason fires laser bolts in a ballistic trajectory. Those two are obviously ridiculous, so maybe artillery should just be some sort of railgun that fires explosive shells, just like here in real life? Or something like the MPTL-2a which fires proton torpedoes?

Then again, is heavy artillery even necessary in the GFFA? Here in real life we now have GPS-guided artillery shells, which allow for more accurate firing and reduces the number of shells needed to destroy a target. With the technology in the Star Wars universe, they could easily have far more accurate shells or missiles that could inflict damage on the enemy without needing big guns. Then again...maybe you could counteract light precision mortar fire with some sort of mobile shield generator vehicle. Then again...maybe you could just take a bunch of those Darth Maul probe droids and pack them full of explosives, sorta like what the Protoss Reaver from Starcraft does. But then, if you have these ultra-smart hovering bomb drones, do you need infantry either?

 

Many artillery emplacements, like the AV-7 or the AT-AP, use mass-driver cannons that shoot projectiles instead of lasers. The SPHA-T's turbolaser emplacement seems to be quite effective against capital ships so my explaination is that the republic army wanted to quickly stop the separatist escape, altough the real reason is probably that they made for cool visuals. It should be noted that in Legends there were other variants with different emplacements, including a mass-driver cannon and concussion missile launcher. The republic "stun tank" also seems have a similar weapon.

The closest thing to "proton torpedo artillery" I can think of is the separatist J-1 Proton Cannon, which seem to be just as effective against ground targets (second battle of Geonosis) and air targets (battle of Ryloth). Notably they were powerful enough to take down Acclamator assault ships, which makes me think giant mobile artillery like the SPHA was getting very outdated during the clone wars, possibly the reason why the AT-AP was introduced. And speaking of downscaled artillery, I always tought the SPMA fired from a mass driver cannon but apparently it's actually a turbolaser, like with the Muunlist cannons you mentioned.

 

The Muunilinst cannons became the massdriver SPHA variant you mentioned.

 

Rebels-styled AT-ATs on Jedi Fallen Order:

My guess is that the appearence of the modern model on the Battle of Mon Calamari is not to be considered canonical, and that these are indeed meant to be earlier variants of the walkers seen in TESB.

 

I don't see why you couldn't have multiple variants operating at the same time in different parts of the galaxy.

Higher res:

 

I'm personally against the introduction of redundant designs used to fill the role of an existent one if no good justification is given, especially when the Empire is so focused on cheap mass production. I used to really appreciate the AT-DP, as my first impression was that it was specifically a "police walker", used alongside the AT-ST but with a different, specialised role. As time passed by it simply ended up being the Rebels version of the scout walker, was mostly ignored in other content and is still given a generic description in sourcebooks. On the other other, vehicles such as the TIE Striker, the TIE Reaper or the TIE Brute, while rarely depicted in media outside of the movie they appeared in, were given pretty good explainations for their specific appearences and their rarity.
I probably would have been more tolerant on the Rebels variant of the AT-AT if it was called something else and given a slightly different role, or if there was at least any kind of refence to it outside of Rebels (which there was not since today) fearing it wouldbe left to rot like the AT-DP. If walkers so different are to be given the same designation, I personally prefer to believe in Wookieepedia's explaination that they are an earlier version of the same design, like the TESB walkers are predecessors to the First Order ones. Another reason I support this theory is that, as a side effect of their concept art inspiration, they really look like the missing link between clone wars era Juggernauts and imperial walkers.
Anyhow, thanks for the high res pic!

 

I guess I thought that too for a while, but then I changed my mind. It's a big galaxy after all, so it's not that implausible that certain local Imperial forces just have different equipment.

 

I think the walkers in the Vader comic are a flat-out mistake. There was a legitimate timeframe error in those stories that had to be retconned (or not even really retconned, just "changed") but my feeling is that even if that story were taking place when it was originally intended, there was just too much late-period Imperial tech, but there it is now. Otherwise there would be no problem with the Rebels walkers being what they were meant to be: earlier models of the AT-AT. Easily handwaved, but it certainly takes some of us "out of the story" a little bit.

 

Eh, before, during and after WWII tank, artillery, APC and scout vehicles were being designed and tested in their dozens. It's not really strange to see something similar in SW, especially given the vastly greater scope of each civilization.

 

We're talking about a period of time when mechanized warfare was relatively new, and war pushed new designs into production because there was an immediate need for them. I think that kind of situation would be more comparable to the clone wars, when the Republic Navy introduced V-19s, Z-95s, ARC-170s and V-Wings in a mere three years, mostly because testing the designs in an actual theatre of war underlined their flaws and their need to be immediately replaced by a different craft. The same goes for Phase I armor, which was completely replaced around two years after it was actually tested in war.

This obviously economically inefficient method was merely dictated by the republic's rush to quickly beat the CIS in the war effort, something that the Imperial Navy did not need having developed its fleet during peace time. In fact, imperial doctrine dictated "all-around" fighters and capital ships to be mass produced to not only efficiently cover a galaxy-wide military, but also for economical reasons. This is why, I believe, the navy turned down Kuat and Incom's proposals for A-Wings and X-Wings completely instead of using them alongside TIE fighters, and why better options for a main line starfighter than the TIE/ln (Interceptor, Defender, Striker..) were only developed after the first organised attacks on imperial targets, restarting the war effort.

Returning to the topic of GAVs, where I'm trying to get here is that if the navy rejected redundant designs for the sake of efficiency, I don't really see why some fleets would exclusively be transporting OT-styled AT-ATs and AT-STs while others (specifically each one encountered by the Lothal cell) would only carry Rebels-styled AT-ATs and AT-DPs. This is unless, as I said before, these AT-ATs were either designed to fill a slightly different role (such as being more focused on troop transport) or leftovers meant to be replaced by the newer variant, but this was never addressed in any sourcebook yet.

 

If you have leftover Clone Wars equipment that's still functional, why not just use it? Especially if it's just for second-line duties where you probably won't be expecting much trouble. So Death Squadron would probably be carrying around the latest models of tanks and walkers, whereas if you're sitting around on garrison duty on Chandrila you'd probably be using hand-me-downs.

 

This is how I look at it...the Clone Wars was only 20ish years ago. It would take time to update the entire Imperial Army and Navy with the latest tech. I would be interested to see a prominent fleet like Death Squadron show up at some back water mining planet in the Outer Rim and the Imperial presence is just Imp Army with Clone Wars era AT-TEs and other equipment.

 

I think you may have misunderstood my reply, as I never once referred to the usage of leftover equipment from the clone wars.

 

Interesting. That's definitely a better match than any previous image, though some elements like the narrower mid-section of the fuselage seem to be based off the EGtVV version...

They're civilian-spec speeders with lots of added armour?

As @Long Snoot basically said, there are three distinct types - beam weapons (colloquially "lasers") which fire a line-of-sight energy beam (e.g., the turret guns on AT-ATs); "lobbed" weapons which use some sort of external propulsion to fire a projectile and add loft to get range (e.g. the AV-7 introduced in the Clone Wars animated film); and "self-propelled" projectiles like concussion missiles and torpedoes (e.g. the shoulder-fired HH-12 in Rogue One).

The second and third types have immediately obvious rl equivalents, but I'll point out that the "lasers" are analogous to anti-tank guns and machine-guns, which are generally "direct-fire" weapons, designed to shoot in a straight line...

However, sci-fi "laser" weapons, while limited to "direct-fire", have the advantage that their ammo is drawn out of a compact power pack (conventionally thought of as energy, although in pre-reboot Star Wars, this is generally coupled with a chemical component, "blaster gas", which makes a lot more sense of their physical properties), so they don't need to carry around an (innately very limited and physically bulky and heavy) ammo supply of physical rounds and propulsion cartridges - less parts, less complexity, much more ammo; a "lobbed" weapon can use some sort of energy-based accelerator and a force-field packet "projectile", but will thus trade the usual restrictions for an expensive technological complexity which may have manufacturing and maintenance implications...

Note that "bazookas" like the HH-12, with their limited ammo load, are much less common in the GFFA than blaster rifles with their very large ammo capability...

GPS requires both a really accurate map coupled to an orbital satellite network, and a target without the tech to jam your signal, and also adds considerably to the cost of the individual round. Laser spotting can also be spoofed. There's a lot to be said for simplicity.

- Tthe Imperial Ewok

 

If it can lift off the ground, then it can climb higher than 250 meters. It's not like gravity is significantly less at that altitude for the repulsorlift engines to push against, also as an airspeeder you have to believe it has been designed to make use of the air to create lift also, and again air isn't significantly thinner at only 250 meters (less than 1000ft). There is absolutely no reason for that altitude to be a limit and probably goes against what is seen in TESB when Rogue sqaudron was searching for Han and Luke, flying over a mountain range.

No, @NCISliar was correct. It is a video game engine limitation ridiculously translated into a nonsensical inuniverse limitation.

 

They're still less than 250 metres above the ground. Note the way that they "dip" when they come over each ridge. That's apparently how repulsors work.

We don't actually know that much beyond that about how repulsors are supposed to work, except that they're a hillariously energy-cheap workaround on gravity which transforms the nature of our understanding of reality, but I'd imagine that the packs on a civilian speeder may be limited to a certain level of effect either as a matter of physics and power levels, or else artificially to enable greater range (compare how many real-world AFVs have a speed limiter for the same reason), and I see no reason why the T-47 should be properly aerodynamic, especially after stuff like the armour and the guns is added.

The T-47 seems, technologically and conceptually, to be more like a high-performance version of Luke's landspeeder or a really big speeder bike, than a sub-orbital version of the Y-wing.

I wasn't sure if he was just guessing, or possibly making a joke. Which video game are you identifying as the source?

- The Imperial Ewok

 

Rogue 2 does this over the mountain topstops, but his wingmen don't when they separate out to search, they actually climb once over the mountain side. You can also see Rogue 2's ventral airflaps open to push him into a dive to the snowplain below. So it has nothing to do with how close the ground is, Rogue 2 is actually flying aerodynamicaly and not just levitating at speed over a set distance from the ground.

Because it creates free lift when moving at speed and isn't limited to distance from ground. The T-47's design does produce lift, this can be seen with this....

Spoiler: RC model

added to that would be it's repulsorlifts which I am pretty sure are stated to push against gravity, not solid ground an this shouldvbe enough to allow the snowspeeder to get to at least helicoper like altitudes. After all, why would anyone use repulsor lift engines in a craft like this if they were so inferior to large wings or rotor blades?

I personally would say the snowspeeder has a maximum altitude of about 15,000ft, which is about that of the real world IL-2 Sturmovic, a heavily armoured tanked buster plane flown by the USSR against the Nazis.

 

Perhaps rogue squadron was hugging the ridge lines to stay at an optimal search altitude. High enough for a good line of sight radius, low enough to actually visually identify objects on the ground. Is the Falcon not using it's repulsor engines every time we see it in a planetary atmosphere?

 

How did I miss this before...the E-10 rifle has a stock....and still has the original folding stock.

 

Yes, obviously, a T-47 can climb by adding extra power, but that tells us nothing about "level" flight - whereas the way in which Rogue 2 flies over the ridges makes me think that a "steady" course is based on a fixed height above the ground rather than a fixed altitude...

Also - genuine question - where are you seeing the flaps being used for a dive rather than a turn?

That's really cool, and made me grin, but that does not have the same aerodynamics or power-to-weight ratio as the "real" T-47.

I'm not entirely why that needs a spoiler tag, either. Are we allowed to fanboy about that sort of thing in open discussion?

The ability to heft an armoured, unaerodynamic vehicle to a useful tactical altitude. obviously.

A repulsorcraft lacks the innate design compromises and mechanical vulnerabilities of a vehicle that relies on aerodynamic lift.

There may also be significant fuel-economy and mechanical-maintenance advantages, as well.

Also, the militarized T-47's service ceiling of 175m (~575ft) is set at a level for which there are valid tactical reasons for flying below - I get the sense that the lower the better is the rule for ground-strafing with manually-aimed direct-fire weapons like guns, and certainly 500 feet is about the maximum ceiling for flying beneath opposing radar, and - presumably for this reason - 600ft is quoted as a vertical ceiling used by the US military to divide the low-level airspace assigned to helicopter sorties from the higher airspace in which fighter jets fly. On the other hand, 150m/490 feet is about the minimum safe ceiling for avoiding obstacles when you're not flying a radar-dodging attack sortie.

Hold those thoughts.

Hmm. "Headline" ceiling figures for ordnance-toting aircraft do not represent an altitude that they can get to in a useful time with a useful warload while retaining a useful range (the B-29 being one of the greatest criminals in this regard, incidentally).

Nor do they represent an effective combat altitude for ground-attack with cannons and rockets.

The combat altitude for which the aircraft you cite was designed? 500 ft.

In practice, they may have flown somewhere above the T-47's ceiling (ground-attack altitude is a topic I realise I didn't know much about before this conversation - you may well know more than me!), but as far as I can make out, the addition of ground-controllers on your side combined with the need to keep in the ground clutter bring the height back down.

I've also seen references to the Luftwaffe flying ground attack sorties at 30 feet or lower in FW190s. Using iron bombs for tank-busting, which is insane, but very much reflecting the lower-is-better principle.

So, yes, I'd argue that the quoted altitude performance of the T-47 makes sense both tactically and mechanically. I'm sure you could hot-rod the repulsors to enable higher flight, but there would be no real advantage in doing so.

The Falcon has ridiculously powerful repulsors which are capable of breaking orbit in a matter of seconds, with a whole lot more power than any airspeeder, by definition. Yes, they're both using the same "repulsor" technology, but the performance gap is literally the difference between a helicopter and an insanely high-performance faster-than-light spacecraft...

Perhaps the fixed buttstock is an add-on designed to be used while wearing bulky armour (as used by the Rangers and Mudtroopers who use these guns), and that attachment can be removed and the original folding stock brought into play when you're shooting the thing wearing a less bulky uniform?

- The Imperial Ewok

 

That's the other thing...the 'fixed' stock is not fixed...The one they used slides back and forth on those posts along the bottom of the reaf or of the blaster. I get if they are just keeping the folder for aesthetic purposes and to put the pad on for the forearm. But I am a gun guy...I see something like that and I go "HUH?!?!?"

 

@0:10 (I often use spoiler tags on large pictures or slightly off topic video so that they arnt automatically loaded to the page).

Spoiler: Snowspeeder rescue

I think this shows that Rogue 2 was actually choosing to fly low over the terrain, he wasn't forced to by the limits of his craft.

 

From 0:47 to 0:55, the speeder is even moving horizontally while the surrounding mountainscape shifts in height. I think it's pretty clear the speeder doesn't need to keep a fixed height over the ground in order to have a level flight.

 

Or, you mean the Lothal Imperials supposedly have walkers that are concurrent with the up-to-date designs, yet they have different vehicles anyway? In that case, I dunno, maybe the AT-DP does...something...slightly different...enough for the local commander to want them instead of AT-ST's?

All other things being equal. shouldn't an airspeeder have more powerful repulsors than a spacecraft? A spacecraft would only really need its repulsors for take-off and landing planetside...anything more would just be waste because you're spending most of your time in space anyway. An airspeeder on the other hand is designed to operate within the planet's atmosphere and gravity well. So I would imagine that in an atmospheric fight, a V-wing or TIE Reaper would eat an X-wing for breakfast.