5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
85 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jango Fett
Jango Fett
8 months ago

This looks amazing and so does everything else

john quinn
john quinn
1 year ago

maybe the first Mod could be RL-HC Broadsword ( Repulsorlift Heavy Cannon )

Jason Skeans
Jason Skeans
1 year ago

damn that cannon is beautiful

Nathan Redder
Nathan Redder
1 year 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
Ben Johnsen
2 years ago

Top variant is a ‘self-propelled light artillery Turbolaser’ … It’s a SPLAT, a *SPLAT!* XD

Ryadra777
2 years ago

Looking at the Anti-air variant I think Fractal might have base it on the M163 VAD. (Vulcan Air Defense System)

jean-luc martel
jean-luc martel
2 years ago

the flak variant looks more like an Urban Combat Vehicle or IFV. what are the specs on these?

Ryadra777
2 years ago

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?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

I’m wondering if a heat ray might be more versatile…

Daib
Daib
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Or just incendiary rockets like the Rooskies eventually replaced their flamethrowers with.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Daib

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.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Something like that, but on a wider focus, so it has an area effect.

Shaun
Shaun
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Stay with me… Stay with me… Giant. Magnifying. Glass.

Valoren
Valoren
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

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.

Phoenixx
Phoenixx
2 years ago
Reply to  Valoren

Plasma Thowers already exist in star wars anyway they fire explosive bolts of pure plasma, nasty weapons.

Jean-Luc Martel
Jean-Luc Martel
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

that Gatling blaster might as well be a flamethrower in terms of firepower. a constant stream of plasma bolts at what 6000 rpm?

Anon
Anon
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Nah. Martians have a monopoly on those. Fun idea though.

Jakub
Jakub
2 years ago

Can the artillery variant fire when it’s not aiming up basically like a normal turret?.

Jakub
Jakub
2 years ago

What’s the variant with the disc used for?

Jakub
Jakub
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

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?.

Jean-Luc Martel
Jean-Luc Martel
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

also excellent for Urban Combat and Close Fire Support.

GeneralVeers
2 years ago

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?

TheEpicDude
TheEpicDude
2 years ago

how big is it though

TheEpicDude
TheEpicDude
2 years ago

amazing

Ryadra777
2 years ago

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.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

Seconded.

Daib
Daib
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

You’ve already got the Scythe for all your MBT needs, and the APC version would just be a turret-less variant.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Daib

The versions mentioned above have already been discussed elsewhere on this site.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Daib
Ryadra777
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

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.

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

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.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve Bannon

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?

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

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.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve Bannon

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.

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

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.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve Bannon

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.

Phoenixx
Phoenixx
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

This gives an explanation sort of how it repulsor lift tech works.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Repulsorlift/Legends

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

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.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

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
CRMcNeill
2 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.

Daib
Daib
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

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.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Daib

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).

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

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.

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

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?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

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?

Steve Bannon
Steve Bannon
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

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.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve Bannon

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.

Gadji
2 years ago

very cool

Andrew Clear
Andrew Clear
2 years ago

What would the traverse on that railgun be? Is it meant to engage larger airborne targets?

Andrew Clear
Andrew Clear
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Thats pretty cool, awesome work as always!

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago

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.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

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…

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

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.

Daib
Daib
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

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.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Daib

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.

Vons Barador
Vons Barador
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

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.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Vons Barador

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)

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Sounds like Imp type of AFC troopers

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  PhoenixKnight

I’m don’t get the reference. Did you mean ARC Troopers?

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

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

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

ARC Troopers can fit here as well

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  PhoenixKnight

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
Taghmata Omnissiah
2 years ago

A railgun!

CFletch
CFletch
2 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
Cdr. Rajh
2 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!

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
2 years ago
Reply to  Cdr. Rajh

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.

Cdr. Rajh
Cdr. Rajh
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

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.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

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.

Daib
Daib
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Maybe there ought to be a link to the SWTC somewhere on this page to get everyone on the same page.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I see, yes this would make sense.

Phoenixx
Phoenixx
2 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

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.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
2 years ago
Reply to  Phoenixx

Mandalorians love their firepower variations

JamesMCGR
JamesMCGR
2 years ago

First off, awesome. Second, do you ever sleep?! haha.

Cdr. Rajh
Cdr. Rajh
2 years ago
Reply to  JamesMCGR

Pfft~ Sleep? What’s that?
/sarcasm/