maybe the first Mod could be RL-HC Broadsword ( Repulsorlift Heavy Cannon )
Jason Skeans
3 years ago
damn that cannon is beautiful
Nathan Redder
4 years ago
I love the modular design with various turret attachments. I do wish those single cannons on the side could be swapped out for rotary cannons. Does it have warhead launchers on the belly?
Ben Johnsen
4 years ago
Top variant is a ‘self-propelled light artillery Turbolaser’ … It’s a SPLAT, a *SPLAT!* XD
I was thinking about a idea of the Flame tank variant for the broadsword that replace the main cannon with a large flamethrower and the troop compartment for flamethrower fuel.
Is this a good idea or not?
That just sounds too low-tech for me. I’m picturing something like a turret-mounted heat ray ala the Martians in War of the Worlds (the old school version), incinerating people, melting buildings (the ones that don’t spontaneously combust), that kind of thing.
why not a plasma thrower. I doubt it would be physics-friendly but not much less than how it’s portrayed in most of sci-fi (bolts encased in a magically self-sustaining energy field, often travelling at subsonic speeds that don’t seem to be affected by gravity etc etc…). Or a larger version of an ion disruptor.
Can the missile variant aim up and down or is it stuck that way?. Also in the standard Broadsword variant is there a turret hatch from which the commander can stand out sort of like a real world tank?. And last question what is the crew size of a Broadsword and what is the role of each crew member?.
So the Broadsword is more of a Main Battle Tank equivalent, with the Saber in the role of the AT-ST as an anti-personnel tank and the Scythe being the tank version of an AT-AT?
Sabre:AT-ST is a good comparison. The other vehicles aren’t direct analogues. Broadsword and Scythe sort of bookend the AT-AT in firepower and capacity. The Scythe is a lot more powerful than an AT-AT, but the AT-AT is more powerful than a Broadsword.
Daib#
The Scythe is a heavy tank which focus more on damage and amour at a cost the speed (Even though they are still fast since they are repulsor-craft and they focus more on deflector shields than armour.) plus they are too big to be a MBT.
The whole point of the MBT is that of a universal tank to phase out heavy/medium/light tanks, or infantry/cruiser tanks by the British system. Most of the disadvantages of heavy tanks IRL don’t apply to repulsorlift platforms, so we wouldn’t really get a convergence toward an MBT in Star Wars.
If anything in the SWU, walkers fill the Infantry Tank role while repulsorlift vehicles act as cruiser tanks.
However, do we really know enough about the relative power vs. mass limitations to say that something like the Scythe wouldn’t have it’s own issues with speed and maneuverability relative to something smaller like the Broadsword or the Saber?
There’s a common misconception that WW2 heavy tanks (Churchill excepted) were slow on the tactical level. The Konigstiger could hit 42 kph, which is pretty damn good. The real problem is on the operational/strategic level, where they guzzle oceans of gas, can’t fit on railway cars, can’t go over river bridges or fit on narrow roads, and have transmission breakdowns every 10 kilometers or so.
None of that applies to a Scythe, and Star Wars power densities allow for some blistering performance if we assume we can put in something more like a TIE power plant instead of a T-47 turbine. If the Scythe is truly a high end assault vehicle, and not a Jedha garrison MRAP, then it will be damn fast when not firing full power blasts or diverting maximum power to shields.
But inertia is still going to be a factor; even something as light and maneuverable as a pod racer can’t just stop and turn on a dime (RIP Ratts Tyerell). Something the size of the Scythe is still going to be slower to accelerate and slower to turn while at speed than something smaller like the Broadsword. There is also the fact that you can fit (approximately) two Broadswords into the transport volume required for one Scythe, which means you can pack more of them in. Certain types of warfare necessitate smaller, faster platforms that can be more places at the same time as limited by how much of them can be brought in by volume.
Pod racers shouldn’t be used as a baseline for maneuverability, as the crowd appeal seems to be from using deliberately outdated hardware with air-scoop turbines rather than a modern reactionless thruster. My argument was never that smaller platforms don’t have a niche, but rather that the constraints that eventually killed heavy tank development IRL don’t apply to the Scythe and thus there is no convergence in AFV development towards a universal MBT. If the mission set is reconnaissance sweeps, counter-insurgency, or supply convoy protection, by all means bring along the smaller stuff.
Using pod racers as an example was hyperbole. The point is that even advanced tech in the SWU is still subject to physics and tech limitations in its own way, and film evidence (see the Trade Federation army in TPM, for example) suggests that, even on the march, heavy armored vehicles have some form of speed limitation. So yes, AFV development in the SWU would not be subject to the same restrictions as heavy tanks in the real world. However, there is evidence in the films to suggest that heavy ground vehicles like repulsortanks are subject to certain forms of speed and performance limitations of their own.
You keep saying there’s film evidence for limitations – what kind of limitations are you referring to? There’s nothing about speed limits (if anything, repulsorlift can under the right setups enable insane accelerations – depending on your interpretation of the frame timing for AOTC Dooku’s solar pod thing reaches high orbit really really fast). We’ve already addressed strafing motion (there might be usage issues but certainly it’s not a hard limitation on the hardware).
The TF army marching on Theed was an occupation force for an open city, not making a combat approach, which might be guessed from them clumping up in dense columns. A slow march would also have given extra opportunity for any combatants to leave the city, which would be important if they wanted the city intact. Given the blockade density and the lack of any opposition, they might have felt it was unnecessary to push for rapid strokes (or the early model droid command structure suited for COIN or constabulary operations just can’t handle combined arms mobile warfare well). The battle against the Gungans was against non-mechanized foot infantry sheltering under a shield, so a slow approach would also have been fine there.
Now this doesn’t mean there aren’t performance limitations for repulsorlift vehicles that we do see (perhaps MTTs just aren’t designed for the power required or just don’t have a very high-end repulsorlift drive). But given the performance of repulsorlift vehicles (sometimes of quite small size, like any of the starfighters or gunships in atmosphere), there’s just nothing that convinces me that a repulsorlift vehicle strictly cannot have high performance if designed for it (with all the concomitant production and cost issues). It could be that MTTs and ATTs can be aerobats too, but their observed usage just didn’t require anything like that kind of effort. Or they are just cheapo civilian truck and engineering vehicle equivalents uparmored and upgunned without compensating drive enhancements and so they’re slugs.
Coupled with the big issue – we have no clue how repulsorlift actually works. We know that they do not exert reaction force on the environment. We know that they can be used by fairly arbitrarily large vehicles and structures. But we don’t know if they require continuous power, or why they might be (or even are) altitude- or acceleration-constrained. They supposedly use exotic components (knots of space time as I recall somewhere in an ICS) – maybe it requires power to set a certain amount of gravity compensation, and then the state of the system is “fixed” until another power input changes the interaction (sort of like once you enter stable orbit you don’t need any energy input until you want to change orbital position). So “ground” repulsorlifts just don’t have a lot of power to manage those transitions in a controlled way, so they are set once for a given vehicle mass in a gravity situation (relative to planetary center of mass for instance) and left, with minor tractor/push modifications to impart movement in the other two axes. Higher-end (and concomitantly expensive) vehicles with larger power budgets can arbitrarily exploit the drive, leading to the kinds of performance we see in gunships and starfighters in atmosphere. But there’s nothing that says you can’t make a small but extremely capable repulsorlift vehicle given potential SWU power density. The difference between a U-Wing for instance and a tank is aesthetic and in cost and usage, not fundamentally about the fact that they use repulsorlift.
This does not really settle very much of what we’re talking about. Does the effect require continuous power? Are there any directional limitations in its use? What are the limits to altitude change if any within the gravity well? It basically says they are ubiquitous and then some fluff.
The problem is that, in both films and in canon, there are two broad categories of repulsorlift vehicles: those that behave largely like cars (landspeeders) and those that behave largely like VTOL aircraft (airspeeders and most light starships). There are distinct differences between the performance and operational characteristics of both, with minimal overlap. Landspeeders, in particular, seem to operate within a very narrow envelope above the ground. There is at least one instance in Clone Wars where landspeeder vehicles have use a bridge to cross a canyon (2nd battle for Neimodia, IIRC) rather than simply float across it.
An additional factor seems to be that the “fast” subset of both categories are equipped with some sort of booster drive, whether its the turbines on Luke’s landspeeder or the ion or fusion drives on starships. Vehicles like the MTT and AAT, or Jabba’s sail barge move more sedately.
The EU hasn’t fully clarified why repulsorlift vehicle are classed as landspeeders / airspeeders (as well as sail barges, skiffs, and whatever else), but the classification has existed practically from the beginning, and isn’t contradicted / overridden by film evidence.
If you want to go with having a Scythe be able to fly like a U-Wing (I’m assuming that’s what you were saying), that’s your prerogative: your interpretation of the SWU is far more in-depth than anything I’ve attempted to this point. All I’m going to say is that there is nothing I’m aware of in the canon that supports it.
It’s not like I have a Unified Repulsorlift Field Theory. But I’m actually not saying a Scythe can fly quite like a U-Wing. I am saying that there’s no reason that it could not fly IF it can power turbolaser fire and were fitted with a starfighter or shuttle-grade repulsor system, which it definitely has the hypothetical space and power for. I am also saying that the distinction between a low altitude repulsorlift vehicle and a high altitude one is silly and arbitrary unless there is something fundamentally different about their repulsorlift technologies. I arrive at this through the following:
1) Repulsorlifts are known to be able to operate in gravity wells pretty much anywhere in an atmosphere. I know there’s older material talking about 6 planetary diameters, and that’s fine, but for our purposes here we can say that repulsorlifts should work at any definition of “surface” or “atmosphere”
2) Repulsorlifts can work at great altitudes independent of raw vehicle power. TAXIS on Coruscant can operate at several kilometer altitudes away from “ground” – whatever ground is on Coruscant.
3) Repulsorlifts can work in atmosphere with large objects – we see star destroyers casually operate from ground level on up on these drives
4) Starfighters and vehicles with starfighter power can operate with great agility on repulsorlift from ground all on up into orbital space
5) Repulsorlifts do not seem to draw a huge amount of power if they are not expected to change altitude. Luke’s car floated fine even when they got out and preusmably cut the engine. Repulsorlift sleds sit around without obvious power supplies.
Given this, a repulsorlift vehicle that offers starfighter power can fly like one on repulsorlift. A turbolaser-armed Assault Transport choosing to operate at low altitude like a “repulsortank” and an ATR that is doing full power maneuvers up into orbit is the exactly same vehicle. An LAAT skimming at 1m altitude is the same vehicle flying in stratosphere. The differences between them and a vehicle that just happens to look like a tank but uses the same power and the same technologies are aesthetic differences anchored in completely terrestrial tropes, and I don’t think science fiction needs to hew that closely to those limits.
I am on the fence about where the distinction between “ground vehicles” and “starships operating in atmosphere” is. I don’t actually think a Scythe can fly with the same agility as a starfighter, though again, a vehicle that size totally could, so it’s largely a question of storytelling. So why limit it below the potential the size offers? An in-universe reason, if you will. My betting is cost – ground vehicles need to be many orders of magnitude more numerous than starships, and they are probably orders of magnitude cheaper than ships. I bet (utter bullshit RPG credit values notwithstanding) that a true starfighter’s cost can probably pay for hundreds of light repulsorlift vehicles even with armor and light (atmospheric-friendly scale) weapons added. That cost difference cascades down into mobility – their repulsorlift systems may not be able to manage the rapid altitude and directional changes that a full starship repulsor system can do.
Now I do think that “ground” repulsorlift vehicles probably are not all *that* limited – a system set to maintain altitude to a surface like, say, Luke’s car – that system still needs to be able to adjust altitudes. After all, local gravity is not fixed to the dirt-air interface – it’s more relative to the center of the planet it’s on, and repulsors aren’t lift fans – they act on a world’s gravity well, not a surface. So, why CAN’T Jabba’s Barge lift itself up to the same altitude as…a PUBLIC TAXI on Coruscant? Why can’t Luke’s car not do the same? Why, if the effect is on gravity, can’t you fly a repulsorlift vehicle straight over a canyon gap? The planet’s center of mass hasn’t really changed. I mean, apart from naive stuff like “looks like car, must act like car”? It’s science fiction, not fanfiction, wtf?
But I get the aesthetic values – stuff that look like tanks flying like aircraft is jarring. In setting, having thousands of surface vehicles acting like starfighters make you wonder why starfighters are all that special. So, let’s go with cost. “Ground” vehicles are cheap, and they get fitted with cheap repulsorlifts that can’t manage rapid corrections.
So, the closest thing I got to a theory that fits screen evidence and some of the above considerations:
– Repulsorlifts use “knots of space-time” – sort of like a Mass Effect eezo setup, if you provide power to a repulsorlift generator with this exotic component in it, you can manipulate local gravitational effects
– Once “set” – the relationship of a repulsorlift platform to center of mass of local planet is fixed. No energy is required to maintain this, unless the distance needs to change. The magnitude of the distance change and the speed at which it needs to happen is correlated to power draw, possibly dramatically like to the square or more of power, and is the subject of drive performance limits.
– A vehicle at a set altitude can be set to maintain distance to center of planetary mass with no added energy use, or set for various reasons to maintain a certain distance from the nearest surface (the ground). Flying under sensors, avoiding weather at higher altitudes that stress the ability of these drive systems to stabilize, simple insurance against crashing into things. But this process is active – the vehicle is constantly using power to adjust its position relative to planetary center of mass to maintain this offset from surface, but it’s not a function of the drive itself that it needs to be within a certain distance from ground surface. Like cruise control in a car is about how the engine is used, not some intrinsic thing about the engine that HAS to run at whatever speed you set.
So, “landspeeders” have cheap drives that can’t take the power inputs to change altitudes FAST ENOUGH to “fly.” Airspeeders have better drives that allow for stronger and more precise adjustments to a vehicle’s relative position to planetary center of mass, so they can “fly” in the way we expect aircraft to be able to. Starfighters and starships are MUCH more powerful, and have drives that enable high performance, but just cost so much more that these systems are not typically installed in common non spacecraft. But landspeeders can use power to deploy in atmosphere and lower themselves to a more useful operational altitude, but after that they don’t change altitude dramatically because of power and repulsorlift drive performance limits.
Well thought out, as always. I took a slightly different path and, rather than having ground vehicles be less expensive, the designers instead decided to trade the maneuverability of a starfighter / transport for heavy armor and weaponry and very powerful shields.
Of course, I’m reverse engineering for a D6 game, and relative cost isn’t particularly inspiring when it comes to writing a story arc for a gaming campaign.
CRMcNeill
5 years ago
Very nice, indeed. I notice all of these either minimize or completely remove the prominent drum on the rear deck of the standard Broadsword. Is there any way to do the same with the original? Being able to fire effectively to the rear has definite tactical advantages for mobile warfare.
True, but an Earthbound AFV could take several seconds to traverse its hull towards a newly detected threat vector. A flying repulsortank could presumably make that rotation in a fraction of that time.
That doesn’t work for something like covering fire while making a tactical withdrawal. Unless the thing can fly sideways, it will have to stop, turn 90 degrees and sit stationary (making itself an easier target).
Why wouldn’t it be able to fly sideways? But yes, this is an intrinsically more limited vehicle than something that could mount the turreted version of the weapon. Tradeoffs – you get a large weapon on a smaller chassis but it’s less flexible.
I think the time to reorient is going to be less of an issue than an actual Earth fixed artillery piece:
1) no actual need to stabilize with spades (for a larger artillery piece like an M110)
2) repulsorlift is far quicker for vehicle traversal than tracks or wheels
3) I expect all rounds to be to some extent powered and guided – the rail gives it the initial velocity and a starting ballistic trajectory, but the round will still adjust in flight. I also expect whatever this thing is firing to have a large area effect (like a seismic charge)
4) It’s also not a direct combat vehicle – it wouldn’t need the same agility as something entering line of sight combat in any event
I’m unaware of any other vehicles in the SWU that fly “sideways.” Even VTOL spacecraft generally either spin “on the spot,” reorienting themselves toward their desired flight path before engaging in forward flight, or else they back slowly out of a bay (ala the Falcon on the Death Star). Either way, all lateral movement in the SWU seems to occur at much slower speeds.
Now, I don’t know exactly what the purpose of the rear-deck drum on the Broadsword is, so if there is some good reason why it must be mounted up that high, then more power to you. However, the variants you’ve included suggest that, whatever it is, the drum could potentially be located down in the hull or eliminated entirely, which would allow the Broadsword’s turret to fire into its own aft arc, which in turn comes with its own tactical advantages.
Again, if there’s a good reason for it to be mounted up so high, that’s fine; I’d just like to know for sure.
Are we really going to argue whether repulsorlift (however it works), which has no obvious directional projector, can move a vehicle in 2 axes (or 3?!) at once? It’s not a reaction drive engine, and has never been shown to work that way. Flying sideways is basically strafing while floating in game terms. Certainly IF a vehicle uses a reaction drive in addition to repulsorlift, strafing (off axis from reaction drive thrust axis) might not be as effective, but there’s nothing that suggests repulsorlift can’t enable fairly arbitrary directional changes.
Just a few highest-canon repulsorlift vehicles that demonstrate strafing motion, just off the top of my head:
1) LAAT – this actually is pretty damned fast and agile. Certainly for minor adjustments in direction to line up a ballistic shot for an artillery vehicle say, no problem. I’m sure one can calculate the observed angular change rate based on the footage, but I’m telling you now it’s faster and more precise than what a tracked vehicle can do.
2) The civilian freighter from AOTC that takes Anakin and Padme to Naboo slides laterally out of the docking bay
3) The technical used by Naboo forces in first shots of the Battle of Theed strafes into line of sight through an archway, fires a shot, and slides back into cover of the wall
Let’s say we go with this guy’s idea (I forget who :p) theory that repulsors can pulse and “drag” a vehicle along, there’s no reason why it can’t or won’t be doing off axis, since again, repulsorlift doesn’t seem to be particular directionally restricted.
The drum was originally designed to be aesthetic. If I absolutely had to justify it, I’d make it a combination capacitor and cooling unit for the main gun that isn’t needed for the gatling variant (otherwise similar turret) because that weapon it doesn’t draw as much instantaneous power. The base vehicle has a large crew compartment, so the drum can’t be mounted without restricting that internal volume, and it can’t be mounted low because it would also restrict internal volume, make the disembarkation ramp that’s already awkwardly raised by the repulsorlift system even higher, and interfere with the distribution of said repulsorlift drive.
Also, you absolutely can fire aft. The restriction is about 1-2 degrees elevation. Yeah, it’s going to have a dead zone right aft. But for a repulsorlift vehicle, tilting up 2 degrees is trivial. In any event, needing that main gun (AT-AT chin gun) to bear on something that close to a vehicle that should have aircraft speed sort of indicates you’re not really in an optimal battlefield situation. It’s not a close in weapon, it’s a vehicle and bunker killer.
For the close-in role, the dual anti-personnel blasters on the side of the turret are nice, but they definitely have a significant blind zone on the other side of the turret. How about a CROWS system on top for all-around coverage, and an extra rotating set of sensors for the vehicle commander?
I probably could’ve phrased it better. I agree that repulsorlifts can fly sideways or sideslip in some circumstances, but what we see in the canon doesn’t suggest it is a common or ideal use. It certainly isn’t an ideal solution for combat; having to drive sideways at full speed so that the turret can be brought to bear would be a lot harder on the driver, especially if doing so while also maneuvering around obstacles and/or taking artillery fire. And I’m with Chris as to the blind spot for the AP blasters; infantry getting in close with armored vehicles is never a good thing.
If it’s a capacitor and cooling unit, though, could it possibly be mounted on the back of the turret, instead?
While the New Order doesn’t go full Neimodian and automate everything, there has to be a substantial number of driver assist features on an AFV like this. Heck, without some degree of AI help, manually controlling any walker would be nigh-impossible. Presumably there would be systems that would make sideways flying easier on the crew, with certain degrees of automatic collision avoidance (perhaps not on the bikes though).
Putting the capacitor and heat sink in the turret might work, but from an aesthetic standpoint, really long turret bustles tend to make a vehicle look more like an MBT instead of an IFV. Also, thirded on the CROWS/pintle gun.
In all fairness, it sort of looks that way anyway with the capacitor on the back deck.
And I expect you’re right about the walkers; probably some sort of droid brain handles the actual details of taking the steps, with a human pilot providing directional input and some degree of oversight.
On a chassis this size, zero traverse. The vehicle does the traversing. I’ve already had to shorten the barrel compared to the turreted version mounted on a Scythe.
So now we’ve filled the 2S3 Akatsiya, 2K22 Tunguska, and the TOS-1 slots in CRMcNeill’s Red Imperial org chart. All this mobile artillery needs some dedicated reloading vehicles, eh? Fantastic job as always, Fractal.
There are going to be some noticeable differences, I think. If nothing else, the Red Army has nothing equivalent to walker-based units. There are aspects of the original ImpSB that are worth including, IMO, such as the distinction between Armored and Mobile Legions. The modern US Army is probably a better analogue for this, with its heavy Armored Divisions and lighter Stryker Brigades.
At the moment, the formula is Red Army in general – and in many particulars – incorporating as much of the Sector Group Organization chapter from the ImpSB as possible to maintain connection with the source material, referencing other military units as necessary to fill out the details of any discrepancies.
There is, for example, no clear SWU analogue of Airborne Regiments, and because of the tech level in the SWU, any sort of Airborne troops are best deployed as Air Assault aboard either airspeeders or troop shuttles. The closest equivalent would be some sort of orbital drop pod deployment, which – short of some sort of Starship Troopers-style mobile infantry equipped with power armor – is probably better suited to stormtroopers.
Tactically, they had shock formations – obviously not the tech, but the idea of breaching fixed defenses to allow for maneuver groups to enter is there.
And I feel like this is a good time to make absolutely clear that I personally do NOT base the Imperial Army or Stromtrooper Corps on the Red Army or any actual existing terrestrial force, certainly not on a 1:1 basis in terms of its maneuver units or equipment. I really do not care to see arguments about whether something is more a Gvozdika or Akatsiya analogue. Use any similarities as baselines for discussing usage, not as a direct slotting into an TOE that is NOT APPLICABLE.
Do whatever you want for your RPG, but I’m not answering for it. I really do mean this generally and this is not directed at any particular comment.
That’s a good point; Walker units as shock formations breaking through enemy lines, with Scythes and Broadswords constituting Operational Maneuver Groups to exploit any breakthroughs and start tearing up the enemy’s rear areas and annihilating them in detail.
One thing I’m really liking is the much larger scale of the Red Army’s deployment doctrine. Rather than a single Corps being sufficient to retake an entire planet (another WEG failing), FM-100-2-3 lays out a plan for Fronts composed of multiple Corps equivalents supported by dozens of supporting divisions and brigades. I picture a planetary invasion by the Empire being grouped under a single Theater Command, responsible for all Army operations on a given planet (or system, even), with multiple Fronts subordinated to it, each responsible for a particular axis of advance out from the initial landing site.
Why is there any standard-issue planetary assault package at all? No planet is the same, and the detachment you’d land to take an agricultural outpost of 4 million souls is going to bear no resemblance to the force send to assault a densely urbanized world of 70 billion.
Because military units are, by nature, modular. Most populated worlds are likely to require multiple corps to fully subjugate, and if less than a corps is needed, the corps itself can be broken down into sub-units – divisions, regiments, etc. – as needed.
That’s a good one, and certainly viable on a planetary scale. But strategic mobility is one of the big advantages of Airborne troops, and in the SWU, that translates into interstellar distances.
One scenario I picture is using orbital drop troops to capture or destroy high-value targets – primarily planetary shield generators, but also potentially enemy command & control assets – before the enemy can react. Per WEG, most planets couldn’t afford to keep their shield generator up all the time, and it took several minutes to bring it up to full power (thus the KDY v-150 ion cannon was developed to hold attacking ships at bay while the shield powered up).
To counter this, a paratrooper-analog drop unit would be deployed by either a high-speed or stealth starship platform in the corvette or frigate range, using drop pods to get to the surface as quickly as possible. Upon landing, they would secure whatever their target is (enemy leadership, air defenses, shields, etc) and hold until relieved by follow-on forces (a Star Destroyer or similar vessel with enough troops and firepower to either reinforce the drop troopers or extract them under fire)
I’m thinking something a bit larger, in battalion or regimental strength, ala a Ranger Regiment or an Airborne Division. There’s absolutely a place for Recon and other Special Forces units, but this would be more of a rapid assault unit, hitting a target hard and fast and holding it until relieved by heavier units. Recon units generally try to stay out of harm’s way and report back intel.
Taghmata Omnissiah
5 years ago
A railgun!
CFletch
5 years ago
Very nice. The added side guns on the refit turrets are great additions, and that arty plow/stabilizer is a smart modification to the base design that seems to be missing from a lot of canon hover-arty.
Cdr. Rajh
5 years ago
Hey maybe you could use that first main cannon on a future capital ship rather than the usual turbolasers! I think that would give the ship a very unique feel!
The whole point of the mass driver railgun is to lob ballistic artillery projectiles in an indirect arc. You don’t need that in space. Putting something like this on a Star Destroyer would also sacrifice the ability to actually hit maneuvering targets at typical combat ranges due to the much slower projectile.
I dunno, I’d imagine projectiles is actually faster than blaster/laser fire but the only reason it isn’t wide spread is because of the volume the ammunition would take compare to blaster gas storage and overall firepower.
I believe a common interpretation of turbolasers is that the visible component is a tracer that doesn’t go lightspeed but there is a much faster non visible destructive component – this is why you see shield flashes or explosions before the tracer actually connects.
Actually not necessarily, there are mass drivers in the star wars universe and mass drivers are a blankt term for railguns, coil guns, gauss guns, slug throwers and
electrothermal cannons ( plasma driven projectiles ). And star wars ships like the Keldabe were fitted with mass driver cannons, for anti-capital ship combat.
This looks amazing and so does everything else
maybe the first Mod could be RL-HC Broadsword ( Repulsorlift Heavy Cannon )
damn that cannon is beautiful
I love the modular design with various turret attachments. I do wish those single cannons on the side could be swapped out for rotary cannons. Does it have warhead launchers on the belly?
Top variant is a ‘self-propelled light artillery Turbolaser’ … It’s a SPLAT, a *SPLAT!* XD
Looking at the Anti-air variant I think Fractal might have base it on the M163 VAD. (Vulcan Air Defense System)
the flak variant looks more like an Urban Combat Vehicle or IFV. what are the specs on these?
I was thinking about a idea of the Flame tank variant for the broadsword that replace the main cannon with a large flamethrower and the troop compartment for flamethrower fuel.
Is this a good idea or not?
I’m wondering if a heat ray might be more versatile…
Or just incendiary rockets like the Rooskies eventually replaced their flamethrowers with.
That just sounds too low-tech for me. I’m picturing something like a turret-mounted heat ray ala the Martians in War of the Worlds (the old school version), incinerating people, melting buildings (the ones that don’t spontaneously combust), that kind of thing.
So, an LAAT/i compound laser turret.
Something like that, but on a wider focus, so it has an area effect.
Stay with me… Stay with me… Giant. Magnifying. Glass.
why not a plasma thrower. I doubt it would be physics-friendly but not much less than how it’s portrayed in most of sci-fi (bolts encased in a magically self-sustaining energy field, often travelling at subsonic speeds that don’t seem to be affected by gravity etc etc…). Or a larger version of an ion disruptor.
Plasma Thowers already exist in star wars anyway they fire explosive bolts of pure plasma, nasty weapons.
that Gatling blaster might as well be a flamethrower in terms of firepower. a constant stream of plasma bolts at what 6000 rpm?
Nah. Martians have a monopoly on those. Fun idea though.
Can the artillery variant fire when it’s not aiming up basically like a normal turret?.
What’s the variant with the disc used for?
Disc? The one with a sensor dish is a 3 barreled gatling variant for anti-aircraft work.
Can the missile variant aim up and down or is it stuck that way?. Also in the standard Broadsword variant is there a turret hatch from which the commander can stand out sort of like a real world tank?. And last question what is the crew size of a Broadsword and what is the role of each crew member?.
also excellent for Urban Combat and Close Fire Support.
So the Broadsword is more of a Main Battle Tank equivalent, with the Saber in the role of the AT-ST as an anti-personnel tank and the Scythe being the tank version of an AT-AT?
Sabre:AT-ST is a good comparison. The other vehicles aren’t direct analogues. Broadsword and Scythe sort of bookend the AT-AT in firepower and capacity. The Scythe is a lot more powerful than an AT-AT, but the AT-AT is more powerful than a Broadsword.
how big is it though
amazing
It is great to see these variants be made Fractal although it would be extra nice to also see the APC and Main battle tank variants be made.
Seconded.
You’ve already got the Scythe for all your MBT needs, and the APC version would just be a turret-less variant.
The versions mentioned above have already been discussed elsewhere on this site.
Here’s the reference…
https://fractalsponge.net/?p=3573#comment-38933
Daib#
The Scythe is a heavy tank which focus more on damage and amour at a cost the speed (Even though they are still fast since they are repulsor-craft and they focus more on deflector shields than armour.) plus they are too big to be a MBT.
The whole point of the MBT is that of a universal tank to phase out heavy/medium/light tanks, or infantry/cruiser tanks by the British system. Most of the disadvantages of heavy tanks IRL don’t apply to repulsorlift platforms, so we wouldn’t really get a convergence toward an MBT in Star Wars.
If anything in the SWU, walkers fill the Infantry Tank role while repulsorlift vehicles act as cruiser tanks.
However, do we really know enough about the relative power vs. mass limitations to say that something like the Scythe wouldn’t have it’s own issues with speed and maneuverability relative to something smaller like the Broadsword or the Saber?
There’s a common misconception that WW2 heavy tanks (Churchill excepted) were slow on the tactical level. The Konigstiger could hit 42 kph, which is pretty damn good. The real problem is on the operational/strategic level, where they guzzle oceans of gas, can’t fit on railway cars, can’t go over river bridges or fit on narrow roads, and have transmission breakdowns every 10 kilometers or so.
None of that applies to a Scythe, and Star Wars power densities allow for some blistering performance if we assume we can put in something more like a TIE power plant instead of a T-47 turbine. If the Scythe is truly a high end assault vehicle, and not a Jedha garrison MRAP, then it will be damn fast when not firing full power blasts or diverting maximum power to shields.
But inertia is still going to be a factor; even something as light and maneuverable as a pod racer can’t just stop and turn on a dime (RIP Ratts Tyerell). Something the size of the Scythe is still going to be slower to accelerate and slower to turn while at speed than something smaller like the Broadsword. There is also the fact that you can fit (approximately) two Broadswords into the transport volume required for one Scythe, which means you can pack more of them in. Certain types of warfare necessitate smaller, faster platforms that can be more places at the same time as limited by how much of them can be brought in by volume.
Pod racers shouldn’t be used as a baseline for maneuverability, as the crowd appeal seems to be from using deliberately outdated hardware with air-scoop turbines rather than a modern reactionless thruster. My argument was never that smaller platforms don’t have a niche, but rather that the constraints that eventually killed heavy tank development IRL don’t apply to the Scythe and thus there is no convergence in AFV development towards a universal MBT. If the mission set is reconnaissance sweeps, counter-insurgency, or supply convoy protection, by all means bring along the smaller stuff.
Using pod racers as an example was hyperbole. The point is that even advanced tech in the SWU is still subject to physics and tech limitations in its own way, and film evidence (see the Trade Federation army in TPM, for example) suggests that, even on the march, heavy armored vehicles have some form of speed limitation. So yes, AFV development in the SWU would not be subject to the same restrictions as heavy tanks in the real world. However, there is evidence in the films to suggest that heavy ground vehicles like repulsortanks are subject to certain forms of speed and performance limitations of their own.
You keep saying there’s film evidence for limitations – what kind of limitations are you referring to? There’s nothing about speed limits (if anything, repulsorlift can under the right setups enable insane accelerations – depending on your interpretation of the frame timing for AOTC Dooku’s solar pod thing reaches high orbit really really fast). We’ve already addressed strafing motion (there might be usage issues but certainly it’s not a hard limitation on the hardware).
The TF army marching on Theed was an occupation force for an open city, not making a combat approach, which might be guessed from them clumping up in dense columns. A slow march would also have given extra opportunity for any combatants to leave the city, which would be important if they wanted the city intact. Given the blockade density and the lack of any opposition, they might have felt it was unnecessary to push for rapid strokes (or the early model droid command structure suited for COIN or constabulary operations just can’t handle combined arms mobile warfare well). The battle against the Gungans was against non-mechanized foot infantry sheltering under a shield, so a slow approach would also have been fine there.
Now this doesn’t mean there aren’t performance limitations for repulsorlift vehicles that we do see (perhaps MTTs just aren’t designed for the power required or just don’t have a very high-end repulsorlift drive). But given the performance of repulsorlift vehicles (sometimes of quite small size, like any of the starfighters or gunships in atmosphere), there’s just nothing that convinces me that a repulsorlift vehicle strictly cannot have high performance if designed for it (with all the concomitant production and cost issues). It could be that MTTs and ATTs can be aerobats too, but their observed usage just didn’t require anything like that kind of effort. Or they are just cheapo civilian truck and engineering vehicle equivalents uparmored and upgunned without compensating drive enhancements and so they’re slugs.
Coupled with the big issue – we have no clue how repulsorlift actually works. We know that they do not exert reaction force on the environment. We know that they can be used by fairly arbitrarily large vehicles and structures. But we don’t know if they require continuous power, or why they might be (or even are) altitude- or acceleration-constrained. They supposedly use exotic components (knots of space time as I recall somewhere in an ICS) – maybe it requires power to set a certain amount of gravity compensation, and then the state of the system is “fixed” until another power input changes the interaction (sort of like once you enter stable orbit you don’t need any energy input until you want to change orbital position). So “ground” repulsorlifts just don’t have a lot of power to manage those transitions in a controlled way, so they are set once for a given vehicle mass in a gravity situation (relative to planetary center of mass for instance) and left, with minor tractor/push modifications to impart movement in the other two axes. Higher-end (and concomitantly expensive) vehicles with larger power budgets can arbitrarily exploit the drive, leading to the kinds of performance we see in gunships and starfighters in atmosphere. But there’s nothing that says you can’t make a small but extremely capable repulsorlift vehicle given potential SWU power density. The difference between a U-Wing for instance and a tank is aesthetic and in cost and usage, not fundamentally about the fact that they use repulsorlift.
This gives an explanation sort of how it repulsor lift tech works.
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Repulsorlift/Legends
This does not really settle very much of what we’re talking about. Does the effect require continuous power? Are there any directional limitations in its use? What are the limits to altitude change if any within the gravity well? It basically says they are ubiquitous and then some fluff.
The problem is that, in both films and in canon, there are two broad categories of repulsorlift vehicles: those that behave largely like cars (landspeeders) and those that behave largely like VTOL aircraft (airspeeders and most light starships). There are distinct differences between the performance and operational characteristics of both, with minimal overlap. Landspeeders, in particular, seem to operate within a very narrow envelope above the ground. There is at least one instance in Clone Wars where landspeeder vehicles have use a bridge to cross a canyon (2nd battle for Neimodia, IIRC) rather than simply float across it.
An additional factor seems to be that the “fast” subset of both categories are equipped with some sort of booster drive, whether its the turbines on Luke’s landspeeder or the ion or fusion drives on starships. Vehicles like the MTT and AAT, or Jabba’s sail barge move more sedately.
The EU hasn’t fully clarified why repulsorlift vehicle are classed as landspeeders / airspeeders (as well as sail barges, skiffs, and whatever else), but the classification has existed practically from the beginning, and isn’t contradicted / overridden by film evidence.
If you want to go with having a Scythe be able to fly like a U-Wing (I’m assuming that’s what you were saying), that’s your prerogative: your interpretation of the SWU is far more in-depth than anything I’ve attempted to this point. All I’m going to say is that there is nothing I’m aware of in the canon that supports it.
It’s not like I have a Unified Repulsorlift Field Theory. But I’m actually not saying a Scythe can fly quite like a U-Wing. I am saying that there’s no reason that it could not fly IF it can power turbolaser fire and were fitted with a starfighter or shuttle-grade repulsor system, which it definitely has the hypothetical space and power for. I am also saying that the distinction between a low altitude repulsorlift vehicle and a high altitude one is silly and arbitrary unless there is something fundamentally different about their repulsorlift technologies. I arrive at this through the following:
1) Repulsorlifts are known to be able to operate in gravity wells pretty much anywhere in an atmosphere. I know there’s older material talking about 6 planetary diameters, and that’s fine, but for our purposes here we can say that repulsorlifts should work at any definition of “surface” or “atmosphere”
2) Repulsorlifts can work at great altitudes independent of raw vehicle power. TAXIS on Coruscant can operate at several kilometer altitudes away from “ground” – whatever ground is on Coruscant.
3) Repulsorlifts can work in atmosphere with large objects – we see star destroyers casually operate from ground level on up on these drives
4) Starfighters and vehicles with starfighter power can operate with great agility on repulsorlift from ground all on up into orbital space
5) Repulsorlifts do not seem to draw a huge amount of power if they are not expected to change altitude. Luke’s car floated fine even when they got out and preusmably cut the engine. Repulsorlift sleds sit around without obvious power supplies.
Given this, a repulsorlift vehicle that offers starfighter power can fly like one on repulsorlift. A turbolaser-armed Assault Transport choosing to operate at low altitude like a “repulsortank” and an ATR that is doing full power maneuvers up into orbit is the exactly same vehicle. An LAAT skimming at 1m altitude is the same vehicle flying in stratosphere. The differences between them and a vehicle that just happens to look like a tank but uses the same power and the same technologies are aesthetic differences anchored in completely terrestrial tropes, and I don’t think science fiction needs to hew that closely to those limits.
I am on the fence about where the distinction between “ground vehicles” and “starships operating in atmosphere” is. I don’t actually think a Scythe can fly with the same agility as a starfighter, though again, a vehicle that size totally could, so it’s largely a question of storytelling. So why limit it below the potential the size offers? An in-universe reason, if you will. My betting is cost – ground vehicles need to be many orders of magnitude more numerous than starships, and they are probably orders of magnitude cheaper than ships. I bet (utter bullshit RPG credit values notwithstanding) that a true starfighter’s cost can probably pay for hundreds of light repulsorlift vehicles even with armor and light (atmospheric-friendly scale) weapons added. That cost difference cascades down into mobility – their repulsorlift systems may not be able to manage the rapid altitude and directional changes that a full starship repulsor system can do.
Now I do think that “ground” repulsorlift vehicles probably are not all *that* limited – a system set to maintain altitude to a surface like, say, Luke’s car – that system still needs to be able to adjust altitudes. After all, local gravity is not fixed to the dirt-air interface – it’s more relative to the center of the planet it’s on, and repulsors aren’t lift fans – they act on a world’s gravity well, not a surface. So, why CAN’T Jabba’s Barge lift itself up to the same altitude as…a PUBLIC TAXI on Coruscant? Why can’t Luke’s car not do the same? Why, if the effect is on gravity, can’t you fly a repulsorlift vehicle straight over a canyon gap? The planet’s center of mass hasn’t really changed. I mean, apart from naive stuff like “looks like car, must act like car”? It’s science fiction, not fanfiction, wtf?
But I get the aesthetic values – stuff that look like tanks flying like aircraft is jarring. In setting, having thousands of surface vehicles acting like starfighters make you wonder why starfighters are all that special. So, let’s go with cost. “Ground” vehicles are cheap, and they get fitted with cheap repulsorlifts that can’t manage rapid corrections.
So, the closest thing I got to a theory that fits screen evidence and some of the above considerations:
– Repulsorlifts use “knots of space-time” – sort of like a Mass Effect eezo setup, if you provide power to a repulsorlift generator with this exotic component in it, you can manipulate local gravitational effects
– Once “set” – the relationship of a repulsorlift platform to center of mass of local planet is fixed. No energy is required to maintain this, unless the distance needs to change. The magnitude of the distance change and the speed at which it needs to happen is correlated to power draw, possibly dramatically like to the square or more of power, and is the subject of drive performance limits.
– A vehicle at a set altitude can be set to maintain distance to center of planetary mass with no added energy use, or set for various reasons to maintain a certain distance from the nearest surface (the ground). Flying under sensors, avoiding weather at higher altitudes that stress the ability of these drive systems to stabilize, simple insurance against crashing into things. But this process is active – the vehicle is constantly using power to adjust its position relative to planetary center of mass to maintain this offset from surface, but it’s not a function of the drive itself that it needs to be within a certain distance from ground surface. Like cruise control in a car is about how the engine is used, not some intrinsic thing about the engine that HAS to run at whatever speed you set.
So, “landspeeders” have cheap drives that can’t take the power inputs to change altitudes FAST ENOUGH to “fly.” Airspeeders have better drives that allow for stronger and more precise adjustments to a vehicle’s relative position to planetary center of mass, so they can “fly” in the way we expect aircraft to be able to. Starfighters and starships are MUCH more powerful, and have drives that enable high performance, but just cost so much more that these systems are not typically installed in common non spacecraft. But landspeeders can use power to deploy in atmosphere and lower themselves to a more useful operational altitude, but after that they don’t change altitude dramatically because of power and repulsorlift drive performance limits.
Well thought out, as always. I took a slightly different path and, rather than having ground vehicles be less expensive, the designers instead decided to trade the maneuverability of a starfighter / transport for heavy armor and weaponry and very powerful shields.
Of course, I’m reverse engineering for a D6 game, and relative cost isn’t particularly inspiring when it comes to writing a story arc for a gaming campaign.
Very nice, indeed. I notice all of these either minimize or completely remove the prominent drum on the rear deck of the standard Broadsword. Is there any way to do the same with the original? Being able to fire effectively to the rear has definite tactical advantages for mobile warfare.
True, but an Earthbound AFV could take several seconds to traverse its hull towards a newly detected threat vector. A flying repulsortank could presumably make that rotation in a fraction of that time.
That doesn’t work for something like covering fire while making a tactical withdrawal. Unless the thing can fly sideways, it will have to stop, turn 90 degrees and sit stationary (making itself an easier target).
Why wouldn’t it be able to fly sideways? But yes, this is an intrinsically more limited vehicle than something that could mount the turreted version of the weapon. Tradeoffs – you get a large weapon on a smaller chassis but it’s less flexible.
I think the time to reorient is going to be less of an issue than an actual Earth fixed artillery piece:
1) no actual need to stabilize with spades (for a larger artillery piece like an M110)
2) repulsorlift is far quicker for vehicle traversal than tracks or wheels
3) I expect all rounds to be to some extent powered and guided – the rail gives it the initial velocity and a starting ballistic trajectory, but the round will still adjust in flight. I also expect whatever this thing is firing to have a large area effect (like a seismic charge)
4) It’s also not a direct combat vehicle – it wouldn’t need the same agility as something entering line of sight combat in any event
I’m unaware of any other vehicles in the SWU that fly “sideways.” Even VTOL spacecraft generally either spin “on the spot,” reorienting themselves toward their desired flight path before engaging in forward flight, or else they back slowly out of a bay (ala the Falcon on the Death Star). Either way, all lateral movement in the SWU seems to occur at much slower speeds.
Now, I don’t know exactly what the purpose of the rear-deck drum on the Broadsword is, so if there is some good reason why it must be mounted up that high, then more power to you. However, the variants you’ve included suggest that, whatever it is, the drum could potentially be located down in the hull or eliminated entirely, which would allow the Broadsword’s turret to fire into its own aft arc, which in turn comes with its own tactical advantages.
Again, if there’s a good reason for it to be mounted up so high, that’s fine; I’d just like to know for sure.
Are we really going to argue whether repulsorlift (however it works), which has no obvious directional projector, can move a vehicle in 2 axes (or 3?!) at once? It’s not a reaction drive engine, and has never been shown to work that way. Flying sideways is basically strafing while floating in game terms. Certainly IF a vehicle uses a reaction drive in addition to repulsorlift, strafing (off axis from reaction drive thrust axis) might not be as effective, but there’s nothing that suggests repulsorlift can’t enable fairly arbitrary directional changes.
Just a few highest-canon repulsorlift vehicles that demonstrate strafing motion, just off the top of my head:
1) LAAT – this actually is pretty damned fast and agile. Certainly for minor adjustments in direction to line up a ballistic shot for an artillery vehicle say, no problem. I’m sure one can calculate the observed angular change rate based on the footage, but I’m telling you now it’s faster and more precise than what a tracked vehicle can do.
2) The civilian freighter from AOTC that takes Anakin and Padme to Naboo slides laterally out of the docking bay
3) The technical used by Naboo forces in first shots of the Battle of Theed strafes into line of sight through an archway, fires a shot, and slides back into cover of the wall
Let’s say we go with this guy’s idea (I forget who :p) theory that repulsors can pulse and “drag” a vehicle along, there’s no reason why it can’t or won’t be doing off axis, since again, repulsorlift doesn’t seem to be particular directionally restricted.
The drum was originally designed to be aesthetic. If I absolutely had to justify it, I’d make it a combination capacitor and cooling unit for the main gun that isn’t needed for the gatling variant (otherwise similar turret) because that weapon it doesn’t draw as much instantaneous power. The base vehicle has a large crew compartment, so the drum can’t be mounted without restricting that internal volume, and it can’t be mounted low because it would also restrict internal volume, make the disembarkation ramp that’s already awkwardly raised by the repulsorlift system even higher, and interfere with the distribution of said repulsorlift drive.
Also, you absolutely can fire aft. The restriction is about 1-2 degrees elevation. Yeah, it’s going to have a dead zone right aft. But for a repulsorlift vehicle, tilting up 2 degrees is trivial. In any event, needing that main gun (AT-AT chin gun) to bear on something that close to a vehicle that should have aircraft speed sort of indicates you’re not really in an optimal battlefield situation. It’s not a close in weapon, it’s a vehicle and bunker killer.
For the close-in role, the dual anti-personnel blasters on the side of the turret are nice, but they definitely have a significant blind zone on the other side of the turret. How about a CROWS system on top for all-around coverage, and an extra rotating set of sensors for the vehicle commander?
I probably could’ve phrased it better. I agree that repulsorlifts can fly sideways or sideslip in some circumstances, but what we see in the canon doesn’t suggest it is a common or ideal use. It certainly isn’t an ideal solution for combat; having to drive sideways at full speed so that the turret can be brought to bear would be a lot harder on the driver, especially if doing so while also maneuvering around obstacles and/or taking artillery fire. And I’m with Chris as to the blind spot for the AP blasters; infantry getting in close with armored vehicles is never a good thing.
If it’s a capacitor and cooling unit, though, could it possibly be mounted on the back of the turret, instead?
While the New Order doesn’t go full Neimodian and automate everything, there has to be a substantial number of driver assist features on an AFV like this. Heck, without some degree of AI help, manually controlling any walker would be nigh-impossible. Presumably there would be systems that would make sideways flying easier on the crew, with certain degrees of automatic collision avoidance (perhaps not on the bikes though).
Putting the capacitor and heat sink in the turret might work, but from an aesthetic standpoint, really long turret bustles tend to make a vehicle look more like an MBT instead of an IFV. Also, thirded on the CROWS/pintle gun.
In all fairness, it sort of looks that way anyway with the capacitor on the back deck.
And I expect you’re right about the walkers; probably some sort of droid brain handles the actual details of taking the steps, with a human pilot providing directional input and some degree of oversight.
very cool
What would the traverse on that railgun be? Is it meant to engage larger airborne targets?
On a chassis this size, zero traverse. The vehicle does the traversing. I’ve already had to shorten the barrel compared to the turreted version mounted on a Scythe.
Thats pretty cool, awesome work as always!
So now we’ve filled the 2S3 Akatsiya, 2K22 Tunguska, and the TOS-1 slots in CRMcNeill’s Red Imperial org chart. All this mobile artillery needs some dedicated reloading vehicles, eh? Fantastic job as always, Fractal.
There are going to be some noticeable differences, I think. If nothing else, the Red Army has nothing equivalent to walker-based units. There are aspects of the original ImpSB that are worth including, IMO, such as the distinction between Armored and Mobile Legions. The modern US Army is probably a better analogue for this, with its heavy Armored Divisions and lighter Stryker Brigades.
At the moment, the formula is Red Army in general – and in many particulars – incorporating as much of the Sector Group Organization chapter from the ImpSB as possible to maintain connection with the source material, referencing other military units as necessary to fill out the details of any discrepancies.
There is, for example, no clear SWU analogue of Airborne Regiments, and because of the tech level in the SWU, any sort of Airborne troops are best deployed as Air Assault aboard either airspeeders or troop shuttles. The closest equivalent would be some sort of orbital drop pod deployment, which – short of some sort of Starship Troopers-style mobile infantry equipped with power armor – is probably better suited to stormtroopers.
But I digress…
Tactically, they had shock formations – obviously not the tech, but the idea of breaching fixed defenses to allow for maneuver groups to enter is there.
And I feel like this is a good time to make absolutely clear that I personally do NOT base the Imperial Army or Stromtrooper Corps on the Red Army or any actual existing terrestrial force, certainly not on a 1:1 basis in terms of its maneuver units or equipment. I really do not care to see arguments about whether something is more a Gvozdika or Akatsiya analogue. Use any similarities as baselines for discussing usage, not as a direct slotting into an TOE that is NOT APPLICABLE.
Do whatever you want for your RPG, but I’m not answering for it. I really do mean this generally and this is not directed at any particular comment.
That’s a good point; Walker units as shock formations breaking through enemy lines, with Scythes and Broadswords constituting Operational Maneuver Groups to exploit any breakthroughs and start tearing up the enemy’s rear areas and annihilating them in detail.
One thing I’m really liking is the much larger scale of the Red Army’s deployment doctrine. Rather than a single Corps being sufficient to retake an entire planet (another WEG failing), FM-100-2-3 lays out a plan for Fronts composed of multiple Corps equivalents supported by dozens of supporting divisions and brigades. I picture a planetary invasion by the Empire being grouped under a single Theater Command, responsible for all Army operations on a given planet (or system, even), with multiple Fronts subordinated to it, each responsible for a particular axis of advance out from the initial landing site.
Why is there any standard-issue planetary assault package at all? No planet is the same, and the detachment you’d land to take an agricultural outpost of 4 million souls is going to bear no resemblance to the force send to assault a densely urbanized world of 70 billion.
Because military units are, by nature, modular. Most populated worlds are likely to require multiple corps to fully subjugate, and if less than a corps is needed, the corps itself can be broken down into sub-units – divisions, regiments, etc. – as needed.
I always thought that a good SWU analog for paratroopers ought to be massed jumptrooper/jetpack assault. That’s the direction I took in my AU, anyhow.
That’s a good one, and certainly viable on a planetary scale. But strategic mobility is one of the big advantages of Airborne troops, and in the SWU, that translates into interstellar distances.
One scenario I picture is using orbital drop troops to capture or destroy high-value targets – primarily planetary shield generators, but also potentially enemy command & control assets – before the enemy can react. Per WEG, most planets couldn’t afford to keep their shield generator up all the time, and it took several minutes to bring it up to full power (thus the KDY v-150 ion cannon was developed to hold attacking ships at bay while the shield powered up).
To counter this, a paratrooper-analog drop unit would be deployed by either a high-speed or stealth starship platform in the corvette or frigate range, using drop pods to get to the surface as quickly as possible. Upon landing, they would secure whatever their target is (enemy leadership, air defenses, shields, etc) and hold until relieved by follow-on forces (a Star Destroyer or similar vessel with enough troops and firepower to either reinforce the drop troopers or extract them under fire)
Sounds like Imp type of AFC troopers
I’m don’t get the reference. Did you mean ARC Troopers?
No I do mean AFC Advance Force Commandos. They are similar to SAS in RL. Edit: ARF Advanced Recon Force
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Advanced_Recon_Force_trooper/Legends
ARC Troopers can fit here as well
I’m thinking something a bit larger, in battalion or regimental strength, ala a Ranger Regiment or an Airborne Division. There’s absolutely a place for Recon and other Special Forces units, but this would be more of a rapid assault unit, hitting a target hard and fast and holding it until relieved by heavier units. Recon units generally try to stay out of harm’s way and report back intel.
A railgun!
Very nice. The added side guns on the refit turrets are great additions, and that arty plow/stabilizer is a smart modification to the base design that seems to be missing from a lot of canon hover-arty.
Hey maybe you could use that first main cannon on a future capital ship rather than the usual turbolasers! I think that would give the ship a very unique feel!
The whole point of the mass driver railgun is to lob ballistic artillery projectiles in an indirect arc. You don’t need that in space. Putting something like this on a Star Destroyer would also sacrifice the ability to actually hit maneuvering targets at typical combat ranges due to the much slower projectile.
Oh, I see..
I was unaware of what the gun was, I just thought it looks pretty damn cool and would look cool on the batteries of a warship.
I dunno, I’d imagine projectiles is actually faster than blaster/laser fire but the only reason it isn’t wide spread is because of the volume the ammunition would take compare to blaster gas storage and overall firepower.
I believe a common interpretation of turbolasers is that the visible component is a tracer that doesn’t go lightspeed but there is a much faster non visible destructive component – this is why you see shield flashes or explosions before the tracer actually connects.
Maybe there ought to be a link to the SWTC somewhere on this page to get everyone on the same page.
I see, yes this would make sense.
Actually not necessarily, there are mass drivers in the star wars universe and mass drivers are a blankt term for railguns, coil guns, gauss guns, slug throwers and
electrothermal cannons ( plasma driven projectiles ). And star wars ships like the Keldabe were fitted with mass driver cannons, for anti-capital ship combat.
Mandalorians love their firepower variations
First off, awesome. Second, do you ever sleep?! haha.
Pfft~ Sleep? What’s that?
/sarcasm/