5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
55 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Revan
Revan
1 year ago

On the ventral side there looks to be 6 hatch looking things, are they hatches? Landing gear or what?

KurdtLives
KurdtLives
1 year ago
Reply to  Revan

Yeah they are deployed in the pic http://fractalsponge.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/atr15.jpg [at that angle it’s not hard to miss while scrolling by].

Hecatomb
Hecatomb
2 years ago

Does this vessel have any sort of name or designation beyond Assault Transport? If not, perhaps it deserves one.

Anonymous
Anonymous
2 years ago
Reply to  Hecatomb

ATR-6 Gamma Assault Transport. Its from the 90s Star Wars combat flight simulator games X-Wing, TIE Fighter, X-Wing Vs TIE Fighter Rogue Squadron X-Wing Alliance Etc. There was a variant that was called the Beta ETR something or other…

Anonymous
2 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Beta class ETR-3 escort transport.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago

Beastly-looking brick with snazzy upper hatches, punchy-looking thrusters, punchier-looking guns, and just enough radiator stub-fins to flow as a sci-fi craft. Not sure why it needs dorsal & ventral airlocks-one for cargo, one for deployment?

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Good point WRT up-for-down transitions potentially hampering a boarding action.

Anonymous
2 years ago

Fractal I just now realise that this Assault Transport is a mix of two gamma ships have the ATR-6’s weapons and a Assault shuttle’s size (Being 30 meters in length) and Spacetroopers complement.

Arbite
Arbite
6 months ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Yeah it’s definitely a combo of the two, also I didn’t even realize the Assault Shuttle and Assault Transports were different lengths. I feel like keeping the larger 45 meter total size would make the turrets seem better scaled to the rest of the ship.

Jason
Jason
2 years ago

Very cool! I have always wanted to do a physical model of this ship since the X-Wing/TIE games. This version looks very original Battlestar Galactica-y in these shots!

Annonymous
Annonymous
2 years ago

Gamma Class Assault Transport, iirc.

Anonymous
2 years ago

Right then i’l talk about the 4 vehicle designs and roles in Solo: A Star Wars Story.
1: TIE/rb heavy starfighter (Also known as the TIE Brute or Heavy TIE Fighter) just the less stupid, more boring version of the TIE Bizarro and meant to be well a heavy fighter.
2: AT-DT (All Terrain Defense Turret) look like a weird hybrid between the AT-ST and the AT-DP. Although this could be the predecessor to these two walkers and it was a self propelled artillery.
3: Y-45 Armored Transport Hauler (AT-Hauler) meant to carry light walkers or 2-M Hover Tank and it design look nice.
4: Imperial Arrestor Cruiser one of the weirdest designs I ever saw and it use it’s 3 powerful tractor beams to steer traffic away from contruction zones.

Here are the links so you can see what they look like.

1: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/rb_heavy_starfighter
2: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/All_Terrain_Defense_Turret
3: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Y-45_armored_transport_hauler
4: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_Arrestor_Cruiser

Valoren
Valoren
2 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

the Arrestor design is based (or rather completely copied) from a very early star destroyer concept art.

Anonymous
2 years ago
Reply to  Valoren

Huh did not know that. Where did you get that reference?

Anonymous
Anonymous
2 years ago
Reply to  Valoren

And the guy who designed it is a part of my group on Facebook Preserve the Expanded Universe.

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Same here. He was pissed. I think Disney used it and didn’t credit him.

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago
Reply to  Valoren

From what I know Cantwell who made the concept art for the Arrestor back in a new hope concept art actually signed up for one of the Legends group on Facebook. He was really mad Disney didn’t credit him. No I’m not making this up. How do I know, well I was in that group but it kinda went nowhere.

Anonymous
2 years ago

So Fractal since you done this I wonder if you could do this your were working on last year: http://fractalsponge.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/maav3.jpg

Winter eclipse
Winter eclipse
2 years ago

You should create some sort of imperial prison ship

Gruma
Gruma
2 years ago

Oh man, X-Wing Alliance memories are commung up. Those were tough oponents, without a blindspot. It looks so good fractal, that I want a new X-Wing game to play

Anonymous
2 years ago

So Fractal what are those 8 small doors above the main door on each side of the ATR-6?

Anonymous
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Right although Fractal I think those hatches could also be use for placing E-Web heavy repeating blaster cannons for a powerful broadside surprise attack. Do you think that a good idea or at least plausible?

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

That’s like saying a C-130 with firing ports for a few dozen .50 caliber HMGs on the sides would be an effective air combat platform in a theatre full of F-18s and SU-27s.

Dusk Raven
Dusk Raven
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

Well, Star Wars combat isn’t really analogous to real-life airplane combat – “beyond visual range” combat doesn’t seem to be as much of a thing in Star Wars as it is in real life, not with starfighters anyway. A better response would be to answer the question of, “Would E-Webs actually have an effect on (for example) other craft the size of the ATR-6 or even starfighters?”

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  Dusk Raven

Eh, even if the hypothetical Flankers & Hornets were operating under some ‘IR missiles & cannons only’ rule of engagement, doorgunner-style mounts were never intended for targets that fast. Toss in the question of E-webs even scratching your average fighter, and I’d say that analogy holds well enough.

Vons Barador
Vons Barador
2 years ago
Reply to  Dusk Raven

Star Wars combat is completely analogous to real-life airplane combat, just not modern combat. It’s all based mainly off of World War II aviation– a spirit revived, albeit in a different form, for the intro battle in The Last Jedi. It’s very heavily based on aerial combat from that era– long-range missile interceptions isn’t…. as much of a thing, at all.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  Vons Barador

Dunno how well that analogy holds when you factor in the setting’s use of fairly sophisticated missiles from the prequel trilogy onward. Granted, homing weaponry was in use near the end of WWII, but talk about teething stages.

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

Even in WW2, a C-47 filled with machine gunners would be relatively easy pickings for a few BF-109s or A6Ms. Sure, they might be able to get an occasional few hits on a particularly stupid Axis pilot, but your kill/loss rate relative to cost of airframe and trained personnel would be abysmal.

There’s a reason that daylight bombing raids over Nazi Germany even in ludicrously well armed B-17s were considered unsustainable before long range fighter escort was possible. The ability to maneuver with the best keeps you alive, which is why the Empire deploys TIEs and not gunship conversions of this in the space superiority role.

Xeno
Xeno
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve Bannon

There’s a reason the defenses are there, but they aren’t for space superiority, I agree. Still, larger volume = larger reactor complement, it’s possible with computer-guided targeting and shielding a larger Gunboat-type ship could give fighters a run for their money. But not a transport.

The issue with B-17s is that their guns were very inaccurate, firing at much smaller, faster targets, and that the .50 caliber guns they used had comparable range and punch to the 20mm-30mm autocannon and 7.92mm MMG pair used by German and Japanese fighters. A Star Wars gunboat will have heavier, longer-ranged, harder-hitting firepower than a TIE or X-Wing, and with better targeting than B-17s had in their day. The fight, IMO, would certainly be closer.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  Xeno

True enough: ships with an Assault Transport’s commitment to troop carriage could certainly defend themselves against most fighter attack ala the games, but actively *catching* such fast targets might be another story, and a bunch of tripod infantry pieces firing from viewports wouldn’t help one bit.

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

This boat having a temporary defense against small numbers of light fighters like Nimbus, Eta, and TIE/ln? Sure, why not. At this point on the scale, you become pretty vulnerable to concussion missiles from TIE/Sa or Y-Wings, the heavy lasers on something meaty like the ARC-170, and of course anything with LTL. Tradeoffs.

I think we get an extraordinarily swayed impression of small craft durability from the extended period of time the camera spends on the Falcon taking what look to be substantial hits from destroyers and fighters…. under explicit orders to not try and kill it.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve Bannon

Fair points re: missiles & punchier light guns, though I presume the ‘tender ’em up for capture’ orders were well & truly null as of ROTJ & TLJ’s respective finales (granted, that second one had Rey, so Acts of Force again). Plus, it seems like every other ST (and now Solo) Falcon setpiece was a promo reel for YT-series (particle?)deflectors/tensors/compensators (though terrain/collision avoidance was a *whole* ‘nother story). CEC must be raking in those kickbacks to sit on that plot-shielding patent.

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

The Empire Strikes Back: The greatest CEC marketing campaign ever told.

I can understand the Falcon being highly survivable in the opening fighter engagement, when it was screened by large numbers of elite Rebel pilots, while fighting unsupported Imperial light fighters in the comforting embrace of nearby Rebel capital ship point defense, jamming, and ECM.

The Death Star II chase in ROTJ was suspicious. There was a TIE interceptor only a few dozen meters behind the Falcon at all times, and it spent the whole chase doing….. absolutely nothing of note. My personal theory was that the pilot was hampered by wildly unreasonable restrictive rules of engagement mandating that pilots should not take shots that could potentially damage absurdly valuable Death Star internal components, but couldn’t get his request to engage through to someone senior enough to authorize a change in the ROE.

If the fighter engagement was controlled by an AWACs team on the Executor, Pride of Tarlandia, or the section of the the Death Star II that took a 19 kilometer kamikaze, the chaos in the Imperial command and control ranks might just prevent someone important from prioritizing his request in the queue. Vader and Palpatine were too busy with their family drama, and Jerjerrod was having too much fun with his moon-scale laser pointer.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve Bannon

One extra factor on Team Lando’s side in ROTJ: that might’ve been the only engagement in any film involving a fully-crewed Falcon bent on its very best gunboat impression (even Solo’s nu-canon Kessel run lacked enough bodies for both turrets, what with that volatile hyperfuel issue). As for the reactor run’s perplexing paucity of squint fire…frankly, your theory’s as close as anything gets to making sense, though one also wonders how the Falcon’s gunners missed ’em in such tight quarters. Everything shunted into thrust & deflectors in case Lando & Nunb clipped a wall?

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

There are actually some nifty deleted scenes from ROTJ featuring those extra Alliance Falcon crew running around inside the Falcon and getting jolted during the battle while running to the guns. I understand why those scenes were deleted though, as they weren’t really adding anything. Canonically, the guys behind Lando are Lieutenant Blount, the Z-95 pilot from the X-Wing minature game, and Colonel Airen Cracken. Yeah, that Cracken from the threat dossier. Lando must be pretty good at pulling strings to get someone that senior assigned as his turret gunner.

The full shielding and deflectors power allocation idea makes sense.
In the ROTJ chase, I figured that the chokepoint was narrow enough that even if the Falcon managed to pick off the lead squint, another would just slot into its place. Besides, if the one tailing you isn’t even shooting at you, why mess with your good fortune?

I’ve learned to tolerate surreal levels of incompetence in science fiction fleet engagements after looking at some IRL nonsense. After all, at the Yalu river, the Chinese flagship started the engagement by fragging its commanding admiral and his staff by blowing away the command bridge with the main battery. At Lissa, the Italian flagship spent the entire battle shooting blanks without shells and didn’t catch on for most of the fight. Far stranger things have happened in real life than a fighter jock not taking shots that he should be taking.

Joe Perry King
2 years ago

how many troops would this carry?

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  Joe Perry King

A platoon (40) of infantry, probably not enough internal volume for any repulsorlift armor.

KurdtLives
KurdtLives
2 years ago

Fractal you’re work is great and this is made my evening.
As to the debate to length, I always imagined that they were based on the Assault Shuttle and would be the same rough dimensions.

Alex
Alex
2 years ago

Thank you, it is awesome to see classic x-wing designs!

Anonymous
2 years ago

I wasn’t expecting to see this one Fractal but it is great nonetheless to see the ATR-6 like this.
But there are 2 things I want to ask you about.

1. There no WIPs for the ATR-6 and I want to know why didn’t you include them? I think it is nice to some some WIPS because it show progress, how the details was created and to give the idea on how to created the model properly.

2. The size of the ATR-6 last time I check this transport was 45 meters in length but you version is smaller at 32.5 meters in length so why is it smaller?

Anyway now that you done the DX-9 and the ATR-6 all that left is the ETR-3 if you want to make or not.

Anonymous
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Oh ok then as for the ETR-3 I guess you most likely not going to make one unless you do but with different changes that you want it to be. (Like the VSD)

Anonymous
2 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Also Fractal I forgot to mention that the ETR-3 have the same weapons of the ATR-6 but it also have the foward laser cannons of the DX-9 but only 2 instead of 8.
It also mention it have stronger armour and shields than the ATR-6 but that it mostly fluff execute to try to make the ETR-3 the upgraded ATR-6.

gejemica
gejemica
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I seem to remember the XWA flavor text saying it housed speeder bikes.

Gruma
Gruma
2 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

About the size, it´s highly debatable in many ways anyway.
Like we had with the executor, that was way to small in the beginning (8km)
and what we have with MC80 cruisers aswell, it´s said that they are only 1200m long, but you can clearly see in RotJ that they are much bigger, even dwarfing ISDs.

With the Movie Rogue One, we have even more proof that MC80s are bigger.
The Profundity is 1200m long and there are scenes where you can compare Y-Wings flying close to the Profundity and a Y-Wing flying close to a Liberty type MC80 in RotJ.
MC80s are more about 2.5-3km long

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago

Nice work, but I think the fins might look more Imperial if they were textured as TIE-style radiators.

Shaun
Shaun
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

And GonKar Ship Works probably wasn’t willing to pay the licensing fees…

gejemica
gejemica
2 years ago

Oh, hell yes.

These and the Escort Transports were a huge pain.

countvertex
2 years ago

Five thumbs up for doing another design from the classic X-wing games! I remember these transports as tough opponents. Looks like this is still valid.
Just for nostalgic reasons: could you one day do a panel showing all your designs from those games side by side?

chris pearson
chris pearson
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

MC80s have appeared anywhere between 1.2 and 1.5 km long. Home One is a whole other matter. The Profundity appears about right, looking at the docking bay on the FFG model.
Nice to the see the ATR-6 again. I guess the hatch COULD maybe be for moving heavy equipment into a boarding action?