I’ve been looking though some of your older posts and I was wondering how long, wide and high you actually made it. Because there’s no decent information anywhere online (that I could find). It looks to be somewhere around 1850m long but I have no idea about width and height.
Also with the Gladiator-class did you make it 500 or 600 long.
Thanks
rylan horning
2 years ago
Looks like a bulked up and longer
aclamator assault carrier
As I recall, It’s as long as, or a little longer than an ISD, but it has a greater volume. ‘Fatter’, if you will. There is a series of size comparison images of the different ships, if you look under the Galactic Empire that has this compared to some others.
Anonymous
4 years ago
Quick question, how many infantry troopers could this transport?
The same source states that the Imperial Army was in the process of greatly expanding the nominal strength of its units at all levels, and that the capacity for expansion was built into the Corps-level transports. As such, the numbers that we would assign to a Corps may not reflect the actual numbers. It could be 2-3 times higher, and that’s without factoring in all the equipment. An Armor Corps will take up a lot more parking space than an Infantry Corps, so if one were to cram in Corps types that are light on equipment, this should potentially carry the equivalent of a full Army Group.
And even then, the Imperial Sourcebook itself has serious flaws; a lot of the organizational aspects of it just don’t hold up to real-world military requirements.
MaNdO'a 333
4 years ago
Dang! how many point defense weapons does this thing have? cause that thing must be some great target practice for fighters and bombers.
This IS the Evakmar. If you search on: “evakmar” on this site you get all the WIPs of this ship. Evakmar is actually one of the manufacturers of that ship.
CRMcNeill
4 years ago
Regarding landing barges, is it possible that a modified Titan-Class could be used to deploy AT-SPs? Say, for example, if the interior was reorganized around one central bay instead of the subdivided ones seen in the cut-away model?
Also, do you intend to keep the “Theta” designation for the smaller landing barges, seeing as how the Emperor’s shuttle in RotS has been designated a Theta? Since Titan introduces Greek mythology into SWU nomenclature, perhaps Cyclops or Atlas are possibilities, maybe for the unnamed front-loading landing barge seen in the cross-section for the ISD?
If you look closely in the background, in the larger bay on the opposite side from the POV, you can make out AT-ATs walking out of / backing into some type of landing barge with a swing-up hatch in the bow. It does seem to bear at least a passing resemblance to the Incom Y-4 Raptor, just with a bow loading hatch instead of side-loading ones for AT-STs. It would be a nice bit of consistency for Incom to provide all of the Imperial Navy’s landing barges, with the above variant being the “medium” to the Titan’s “large” and the Raptor’s “small.”
That makes sense. Incidentally, does the Chi have a hyperdrive? I looked into it once, and most of the “Greek letter” series of ships are hyperdrive-equipped shuttles. For reference, here’s the list of assigned and unassigned Greek letters used so far in the SWU:
My carryall is also Zeta. I think given that ATRs and Assault Shuttles are both Gammas (even with similar functions) there’s plenty of room for overlaps if necessary.
Hyperdrive, shields, point defense. It ended up being less of a barge and more an independent transport, just one that happens to fit into the Consolidator. Really, it’s a corvette size ship – once you get that big there’s no reason to avoid hyperdrives except for cost. And having independent reach for a decent sized small unit is useful even when if it mostly bases off a bigger mothership.
Very nice. There was mention in the WEG material of a heavy combat dropship (the Warlord) that paralleled the Chi in many respects, but it lacked a hyperdrive and there were never any official images of it.
Regarding the ATR, I assume you’re referring to the Assault Transport and not the Stormtrooper Transport, correct? I always figured that ship was a better fit for the Beta-Class Assault Shuttle, the modular predecessor to the Gamma. IMO, there’s enough similarity there to see the family resemblance, with enough difference to be two different models. Of course, until you posted yours, I hadn’t seen any renderings of this ship worth getting excited over…
As for the Zeta? Well, yeah. At some point we all have to decide at which point we’re going to bend our own personal view of Star Wars to fit what’s in the latest films. Personally, I like your Zeta and I like the Zeta-Class from Rogue One, so I’m going to have to figure out a way around that.
For me, it’s as simple as this, the Theta-class shuttles from WEG & RotS are of a design group/lineage, just different models in the series with different specs & mission profiles. The name of the shuttle in RotS has T2c as part of its name, Theta-class T-2c shuttle, which singles it out as part of a line of related craft.
The multiple canon subtypes of Zeta confirm this, and leaves room for more; both EU/Legend’s & Fractal’s.
I’m zooming in on that shot and I really don’t think what you’re referring to is a ship. It looks like a bay or something built into the wall like the ones on the back wall of the far hangar. Even if it were a ship, I’d have absolutely no idea what it’d supposed to look like from that.
AT-AT dropships are vaguely problematic design wise actually. The legs of an AT-AT just don’t fold very much, making vertical clearance through known bay doors for a ship that fits around one of those walkers a bit dicey. If clearance is also required for one to *walk* on, then the problem gets worse, unless the roof opens up or something.
Yeah, that was the clearest shot I could find, and the pixelization really eats up the details. It’s not that much clearer in the Cross-Section book, but they are specifically labeled as “AT-AT” and “Landing Barge.” The barges appear to be slotted into bays around the perimeter of the hangar, with AT-ATs simply walking into them for loading.
There was a long-running discussion on ISDs over at the Rancor Pit, and the stowage of AT-ATs was one of the biggest hang-ups. The thigh section on each leg seems to be able to adjust its length 2-3 meters, but that’s about it. The closest we ever got to a solution was to speculate that an AT-AT’s knee joints could dislocate laterally, with the lower-leg section moving out, away from the center-line. This would render the leg useless for weight-bearing, but would allow it to scissor-fold the legs while in transit (although it would require some form of crane to hold it up while the legs redeployed).
But, if the Incredible Cross-Sections book is right, it wouldn’t need to; the book shows AT-ATs simply walking in/out of the barge without needing to fold the legs at all.
As for looks, I’d go with a larger, bulkier version of the Y-4 Raptor, except with a sheer bow instead of a rakish one, and a split-hatch in the bow with the lower half serving as a boarding ramp. It’s not a pretty ship, but neither are the Titan or the Theta. /revision/latest?cb=20081117222102
My AT-AT model can bend its legs to lose ~2.5-3m height without obvious geometrical issues. A dislocating knee would work in theory – but not with the studio model unless you postulate seams so small that they are not visible on that scale. In a hangar you can imagine all sorts of repulsor/tractor contrivances to make the loading and fitting work.
There is a pretty AT-AT scratchbuilt dropship that I really like, but it’s even bigger than a Theta and again I’m generally dubious about AT-AT dropship sizes for the known ISD main bay layout. I think Thetas or whatever the standard AT-AT dropship is is basically a drop pod for the walker with minimal engines. That’s the only way it’s going to fit.
I gave my new ISD model’s main bay doors about 26m max height clearance. It’s plenty for shuttles, but we’re getting pretty damn tight for an AT-AT dropship. Straight legs 22.5m clear height required, so the rest of the “ship” only has ~3m to play with for floors and roof. Now if one postulates that the roof lifts open or something, so that the AT-AT can walk on and then crouch for the roof hatch to close, then it’s a little better – say 19.5m internal clearance, and that means there’s room for 3m of “ship” on top and bottom of the crouched walker when the whole assembly is ready to launch. Tight, but *just* plausible. Don’t even get me started about how these damn things can land, and then take off *around* an AT-AT in all the games but not leave the bottom of the ship on the surface. My guess is the walker suspended in the barge, then the “floor” is really a telescoping assembly. This fits visually but adds further mechanical complication to an already physically highly restricted design brief. AT-ATs are a bitch and a half. Worthless if they didn’t look so damn cool :).
My AT-SE can fold (if in a very tortured looking way from standing gait) down to 14m – it’s wide, not tall, so no problems there.
Instead of a roof hatch, how about something like the telescoping floor you did with the Chi, but on a narrower footprint, as in just enough to take a crouched AT-AT or a couple AT-SE’s parked nose to tail? That could add to the solution of the height issue in the same way it did with the Chi, by having the cargo “up” behind the command section during flight, but lowered beneath it for loading / unloading.
So, for loading aboard the ISD, the barge extends to full height, the AT-AT walks onto the barge’s deck normally, then crouches down as low as it will go and is secured in place. Then, the barge lowers down around it and closes up for flight, leaving itself with plenty of vertical clearance to exit and leave the ship. Then just reverse the process for landing and repeat for recovering the walkers back to the ISD.
It would work for a walk-on-off approach, but it doesn’t fix the floor issue on landing – in every animation of AT-AT dropships (games) that I’ve seen, the dropship touches down, then lifts off leaving a crouched AT-AT. That suggests to me that the AT-AT is secured internally but not held by the floor, and the floor of the dropship opens somehow without disturbing the walker. Of course that’s also the most convenient place to place repulsorlifts….ugh. All of this has to fit within <3m of height. It's a nightmare.
I’ve never considered video game footage to be a serious obstacle to a good idea. What with the visual similarity between the Theta and the Titan (especially now that Theta has been officially used for Palpatine’s shuttle in RotS), I’d just say that the Theta footage from Force Commander is a badly-scaled Titan. Throwing out the Theta in favor of a walk-on/off barge eliminates most of the design headaches, and has official precedent as a bonus, depending on where one ranks the Cross-Section books relative to the video games. Even the lack of detail in the Cross-Section books works in its favor, as liberties can be taken with the design because there are so few clear details to take into account.
I thought the problem was getting ships to fit out of hangars? A Titan is great but it’s impossible to stage one out of an ISD. You need a compact dropship to do it, not a even more giant one.
That’s what I’m saying; throw out the Theta entirely – it’s essentially a mini-Titan, and it’s a major contributor to the two biggest headaches you’re having with the design: vertical clearance and deploying carried vehicles through the floor.
Once the Theta is off the table, use the low-detail boxy design from the Cross-Section book to design another barge in the same basic size range as the Theta, but designed specifically to work around the problems.
1). Make it a walk-on/walk-off, so the deck / floor can be heavily reinforced and mount repulsorlifts, without the need to work in a ventral hatch.
2). Use the “elevator” system you put on the Chi to allow AT-ATs to walk on and off at full height, but to crouch down once they are on board, so that the floor can be retracted “up” into the barge.
Basically, have the AT-AT walk on at full height, then crouch down and lock into place. The barge then “crouches down” around the AT-AT before take-off, then uncrouches when coming in to land. Once landed, the AT-AT stands up to full height and walks off, at which point the barge “crouches down” around the now empty bay and takes off.
Just as the Chi is “taller” when landed than it is in flight, so it would be in this case, with the added advantage that the barge is in “short” mode (closed up and ready to fly) at the only moment when height is an issue (fitting through the vertical clearance on the bay doors of an ISD).
CRMcNeill
4 years ago
How has the ground force complement for the Consolidator changed with the addition of new vehicles like the AT-SW and the Scythe-Class? I assume the Scythe makes up the bulk of the Heavy Armor Battalions, while the Broadsword fills out the Light Armor units, but where would the AT-SW’s go? Personally, I’ve always figured AT-STs were better relegated to providing heavy weapons and sensor support to infantry units than as part of front-line armored assault units. Maybe swap out the Consolidator’s AT-ST complement for AT-SWs?
Charles Spinks
4 years ago
Fractal could I possibly get some stats on how many turbolasers, laser cannons, ion cannons, concussion missiles, dropships and TIEs this thing would carry?
3 single ball 720 TT heavy turbolasers, 44 quad medium 200 GT turbolasers, lots of point defense cannons, no ion cannons and some concussion missile launchers.
Not much in fighters as this ship mostly carry dropships and land vehicles.
Length around Imperator’s, Armament lots of duel light turbolasers, a couple of quad medium turbolasers and it’s 3 powerful 720 teraton caliber heavy turbolasers but what really matters is it’s complement which is huge like this many: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3912093#p3912093
Anonymous
5 years ago
So Fractal how many fighter wings does this ship have as standard and pure fighter carrier? (The latter is what I’m more interested)
I always figured Evakmar-KDY was a KDY subsidiary that specifically manufactured troop transports or cargo ships, sort of like how Rothana Heavy Engineering was a KDY subsidiary that made ground vehicles (and the Acclamator).
Dan
6 years ago
Hey can you make more heavy repulsor tanks? As in can kill a wh40k Titan with its main gun heavy tank plz?
How should I know? 😛 It came from a reading of the old Imperial Sourcebook, which has its problems but at least is something to go on. I assume light armor is stuff like the Saber repulsortank, and Heavy would use Broadswords and other heavier repulsorvehicles. The exact type and breakdown of vehicles no one has detailed.
Usually, at least in reality, Light Armor is for smaller operations or antipersonnel/light vehicle, whereas Heavy Armor is for taing out starships, fortifications, etc.
Oh ok then. Also the broadsword repulsortank is part of the heavy battalion so if that the case then does that make it a heavy tank while the saber repulsortank is light or medium?
The Imperial Sourcebook says that Light Armor units generally have ~2x as many combat vehicles as Heavy Armor (i.e. a Heavy Armor Platoon will consist of 4 Heavy Tanks plus a Command Tank, whereas a Light Armor Platoon will consist of 8 Light Tanks plus a COmmand Tank). The distinction is made indirectly in the same chapter that Light Armor and Repulsorlift units are generally deployed in an area where there are multiple pockets of light resistance (where the more numerous light vehicles are better equipped to be in multiple places at once), while the Heavy Armor units are deployed against concentrated, well defended targets, where their heavy armor and weaponry will be needed to overcome enemy defenses.
Anonymous
6 years ago
Now that you got the All-Terrain Storm Walker (AT-SW) how many of these walkers can fit inside this carrier with the others?
Perhaps not the most elegant design in the Imperial fleet, but certainly one of the most detailed and interesting. And a far superior successor to the Acclamator.
The Consolidator is based off of the Evakmar-KDY Class Transport (I would believe, please correct me if I’m wrong), so it would have the same transport capacity as a full Imperial Corp. Regardless of variation.
I’ve been looking though some of your older posts and I was wondering how long, wide and high you actually made it. Because there’s no decent information anywhere online (that I could find). It looks to be somewhere around 1850m long but I have no idea about width and height.
Also with the Gladiator-class did you make it 500 or 600 long.
Thanks
Looks like a bulked up and longer
aclamator assault carrier
How big is this ship?
As I recall, It’s as long as, or a little longer than an ISD, but it has a greater volume. ‘Fatter’, if you will. There is a series of size comparison images of the different ships, if you look under the Galactic Empire that has this compared to some others.
Quick question, how many infantry troopers could this transport?
I don’t think its meant as an infantry transport, so probably just a garrison of like a few thousand
Imperial Sourcebook lists this as a corps transport, so roughly 70-75,000 personnel with 48-49,000 combat troops, depending on the corps type.
The same source states that the Imperial Army was in the process of greatly expanding the nominal strength of its units at all levels, and that the capacity for expansion was built into the Corps-level transports. As such, the numbers that we would assign to a Corps may not reflect the actual numbers. It could be 2-3 times higher, and that’s without factoring in all the equipment. An Armor Corps will take up a lot more parking space than an Infantry Corps, so if one were to cram in Corps types that are light on equipment, this should potentially carry the equivalent of a full Army Group.
And even then, the Imperial Sourcebook itself has serious flaws; a lot of the organizational aspects of it just don’t hold up to real-world military requirements.
Dang! how many point defense weapons does this thing have? cause that thing must be some great target practice for fighters and bombers.
If my calculationa are correct, it has around 100 PD weapons
Fractal, what is the difference between this and the Evakmar?
This IS the Evakmar. If you search on: “evakmar” on this site you get all the WIPs of this ship. Evakmar is actually one of the manufacturers of that ship.
Regarding landing barges, is it possible that a modified Titan-Class could be used to deploy AT-SPs? Say, for example, if the interior was reorganized around one central bay instead of the subdivided ones seen in the cut-away model?
Also, do you intend to keep the “Theta” designation for the smaller landing barges, seeing as how the Emperor’s shuttle in RotS has been designated a Theta? Since Titan introduces Greek mythology into SWU nomenclature, perhaps Cyclops or Atlas are possibilities, maybe for the unnamed front-loading landing barge seen in the cross-section for the ISD?
OK, I’m drawing a blank here – what front-loading landing barge? I don’t see it in the ISDI cross section. Is this from some other book?
Here.
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/dk/isdbay1.jpg
If you look closely in the background, in the larger bay on the opposite side from the POV, you can make out AT-ATs walking out of / backing into some type of landing barge with a swing-up hatch in the bow. It does seem to bear at least a passing resemblance to the Incom Y-4 Raptor, just with a bow loading hatch instead of side-loading ones for AT-STs. It would be a nice bit of consistency for Incom to provide all of the Imperial Navy’s landing barges, with the above variant being the “medium” to the Titan’s “large” and the Raptor’s “small.”
Something in this size range could conceivably also serve as your proposed company dropship, using the retractable multi-layered decking from the Chi.
The company dropship idea became the Chi, which turned out to be more of a battalion dropship (depends a lot on the unit in question).
That makes sense. Incidentally, does the Chi have a hyperdrive? I looked into it once, and most of the “Greek letter” series of ships are hyperdrive-equipped shuttles. For reference, here’s the list of assigned and unassigned Greek letters used so far in the SWU:
http://www.rancorpit.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6810&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
My carryall is also Zeta. I think given that ATRs and Assault Shuttles are both Gammas (even with similar functions) there’s plenty of room for overlaps if necessary.
Hyperdrive, shields, point defense. It ended up being less of a barge and more an independent transport, just one that happens to fit into the Consolidator. Really, it’s a corvette size ship – once you get that big there’s no reason to avoid hyperdrives except for cost. And having independent reach for a decent sized small unit is useful even when if it mostly bases off a bigger mothership.
Very nice. There was mention in the WEG material of a heavy combat dropship (the Warlord) that paralleled the Chi in many respects, but it lacked a hyperdrive and there were never any official images of it.
Regarding the ATR, I assume you’re referring to the Assault Transport and not the Stormtrooper Transport, correct? I always figured that ship was a better fit for the Beta-Class Assault Shuttle, the modular predecessor to the Gamma. IMO, there’s enough similarity there to see the family resemblance, with enough difference to be two different models. Of course, until you posted yours, I hadn’t seen any renderings of this ship worth getting excited over…
As for the Zeta? Well, yeah. At some point we all have to decide at which point we’re going to bend our own personal view of Star Wars to fit what’s in the latest films. Personally, I like your Zeta and I like the Zeta-Class from Rogue One, so I’m going to have to figure out a way around that.
For me, it’s as simple as this, the Theta-class shuttles from WEG & RotS are of a design group/lineage, just different models in the series with different specs & mission profiles. The name of the shuttle in RotS has T2c as part of its name, Theta-class T-2c shuttle, which singles it out as part of a line of related craft.
The multiple canon subtypes of Zeta confirm this, and leaves room for more; both EU/Legend’s & Fractal’s.
Amendment; i was not thinking of the Theta-class AT-AT barge
when i first read & commented, and i understand your position & query better.
I’m zooming in on that shot and I really don’t think what you’re referring to is a ship. It looks like a bay or something built into the wall like the ones on the back wall of the far hangar. Even if it were a ship, I’d have absolutely no idea what it’d supposed to look like from that.
AT-AT dropships are vaguely problematic design wise actually. The legs of an AT-AT just don’t fold very much, making vertical clearance through known bay doors for a ship that fits around one of those walkers a bit dicey. If clearance is also required for one to *walk* on, then the problem gets worse, unless the roof opens up or something.
Yeah, that was the clearest shot I could find, and the pixelization really eats up the details. It’s not that much clearer in the Cross-Section book, but they are specifically labeled as “AT-AT” and “Landing Barge.” The barges appear to be slotted into bays around the perimeter of the hangar, with AT-ATs simply walking into them for loading.
There was a long-running discussion on ISDs over at the Rancor Pit, and the stowage of AT-ATs was one of the biggest hang-ups. The thigh section on each leg seems to be able to adjust its length 2-3 meters, but that’s about it. The closest we ever got to a solution was to speculate that an AT-AT’s knee joints could dislocate laterally, with the lower-leg section moving out, away from the center-line. This would render the leg useless for weight-bearing, but would allow it to scissor-fold the legs while in transit (although it would require some form of crane to hold it up while the legs redeployed).
But, if the Incredible Cross-Sections book is right, it wouldn’t need to; the book shows AT-ATs simply walking in/out of the barge without needing to fold the legs at all.
As for looks, I’d go with a larger, bulkier version of the Y-4 Raptor, except with a sheer bow instead of a rakish one, and a split-hatch in the bow with the lower half serving as a boarding ramp. It’s not a pretty ship, but neither are the Titan or the Theta.
/revision/latest?cb=20081117222102
My AT-AT model can bend its legs to lose ~2.5-3m height without obvious geometrical issues. A dislocating knee would work in theory – but not with the studio model unless you postulate seams so small that they are not visible on that scale. In a hangar you can imagine all sorts of repulsor/tractor contrivances to make the loading and fitting work.
There is a pretty AT-AT scratchbuilt dropship that I really like, but it’s even bigger than a Theta and again I’m generally dubious about AT-AT dropship sizes for the known ISD main bay layout. I think Thetas or whatever the standard AT-AT dropship is is basically a drop pod for the walker with minimal engines. That’s the only way it’s going to fit.
I gave my new ISD model’s main bay doors about 26m max height clearance. It’s plenty for shuttles, but we’re getting pretty damn tight for an AT-AT dropship. Straight legs 22.5m clear height required, so the rest of the “ship” only has ~3m to play with for floors and roof. Now if one postulates that the roof lifts open or something, so that the AT-AT can walk on and then crouch for the roof hatch to close, then it’s a little better – say 19.5m internal clearance, and that means there’s room for 3m of “ship” on top and bottom of the crouched walker when the whole assembly is ready to launch. Tight, but *just* plausible. Don’t even get me started about how these damn things can land, and then take off *around* an AT-AT in all the games but not leave the bottom of the ship on the surface. My guess is the walker suspended in the barge, then the “floor” is really a telescoping assembly. This fits visually but adds further mechanical complication to an already physically highly restricted design brief. AT-ATs are a bitch and a half. Worthless if they didn’t look so damn cool :).
My AT-SE can fold (if in a very tortured looking way from standing gait) down to 14m – it’s wide, not tall, so no problems there.
Instead of a roof hatch, how about something like the telescoping floor you did with the Chi, but on a narrower footprint, as in just enough to take a crouched AT-AT or a couple AT-SE’s parked nose to tail? That could add to the solution of the height issue in the same way it did with the Chi, by having the cargo “up” behind the command section during flight, but lowered beneath it for loading / unloading.
So, for loading aboard the ISD, the barge extends to full height, the AT-AT walks onto the barge’s deck normally, then crouches down as low as it will go and is secured in place. Then, the barge lowers down around it and closes up for flight, leaving itself with plenty of vertical clearance to exit and leave the ship. Then just reverse the process for landing and repeat for recovering the walkers back to the ISD.
It would work for a walk-on-off approach, but it doesn’t fix the floor issue on landing – in every animation of AT-AT dropships (games) that I’ve seen, the dropship touches down, then lifts off leaving a crouched AT-AT. That suggests to me that the AT-AT is secured internally but not held by the floor, and the floor of the dropship opens somehow without disturbing the walker. Of course that’s also the most convenient place to place repulsorlifts….ugh. All of this has to fit within <3m of height. It's a nightmare.
I’ve never considered video game footage to be a serious obstacle to a good idea. What with the visual similarity between the Theta and the Titan (especially now that Theta has been officially used for Palpatine’s shuttle in RotS), I’d just say that the Theta footage from Force Commander is a badly-scaled Titan. Throwing out the Theta in favor of a walk-on/off barge eliminates most of the design headaches, and has official precedent as a bonus, depending on where one ranks the Cross-Section books relative to the video games. Even the lack of detail in the Cross-Section books works in its favor, as liberties can be taken with the design because there are so few clear details to take into account.
I thought the problem was getting ships to fit out of hangars? A Titan is great but it’s impossible to stage one out of an ISD. You need a compact dropship to do it, not a even more giant one.
That’s what I’m saying; throw out the Theta entirely – it’s essentially a mini-Titan, and it’s a major contributor to the two biggest headaches you’re having with the design: vertical clearance and deploying carried vehicles through the floor.
Once the Theta is off the table, use the low-detail boxy design from the Cross-Section book to design another barge in the same basic size range as the Theta, but designed specifically to work around the problems.
1). Make it a walk-on/walk-off, so the deck / floor can be heavily reinforced and mount repulsorlifts, without the need to work in a ventral hatch.
2). Use the “elevator” system you put on the Chi to allow AT-ATs to walk on and off at full height, but to crouch down once they are on board, so that the floor can be retracted “up” into the barge.
Basically, have the AT-AT walk on at full height, then crouch down and lock into place. The barge then “crouches down” around the AT-AT before take-off, then uncrouches when coming in to land. Once landed, the AT-AT stands up to full height and walks off, at which point the barge “crouches down” around the now empty bay and takes off.
Just as the Chi is “taller” when landed than it is in flight, so it would be in this case, with the added advantage that the barge is in “short” mode (closed up and ready to fly) at the only moment when height is an issue (fitting through the vertical clearance on the bay doors of an ISD).
How has the ground force complement for the Consolidator changed with the addition of new vehicles like the AT-SW and the Scythe-Class? I assume the Scythe makes up the bulk of the Heavy Armor Battalions, while the Broadsword fills out the Light Armor units, but where would the AT-SW’s go? Personally, I’ve always figured AT-STs were better relegated to providing heavy weapons and sensor support to infantry units than as part of front-line armored assault units. Maybe swap out the Consolidator’s AT-ST complement for AT-SWs?
Fractal could I possibly get some stats on how many turbolasers, laser cannons, ion cannons, concussion missiles, dropships and TIEs this thing would carry?
3 single ball 720 TT heavy turbolasers, 44 quad medium 200 GT turbolasers, lots of point defense cannons, no ion cannons and some concussion missile launchers.
Not much in fighters as this ship mostly carry dropships and land vehicles.
Here the ship’s latter complement: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3912093#p3912093
Also the reason why it have those heavy turbolasers here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3917972#p3917972
If you look up the original thread, somewhere on there he covers everything this carries.
love those venerator style brige towers
VENATOR, NOT VENERATOR!
Can I get the Specifications, like, length, width, height, armament, complement, and so on?
Length around Imperator’s, Armament lots of duel light turbolasers, a couple of quad medium turbolasers and it’s 3 powerful 720 teraton caliber heavy turbolasers but what really matters is it’s complement which is huge like this many: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3912093#p3912093
So Fractal how many fighter wings does this ship have as standard and pure fighter carrier? (The latter is what I’m more interested)
Based on the fact that it IS a land vehicle and transport carrier, I’d say it is probabl only around an Imperial-class complement, 2 wings.
I notice that the WIP name for this is the Evakmar transport. Was this intending to be the model for the Evakmar-KDY transport?
Yeah. Maybe Evakmar is first in class, and Consolidator is “type” name? :p
I always figured Evakmar-KDY was a KDY subsidiary that specifically manufactured troop transports or cargo ships, sort of like how Rothana Heavy Engineering was a KDY subsidiary that made ground vehicles (and the Acclamator).
Hey can you make more heavy repulsor tanks? As in can kill a wh40k Titan with its main gun heavy tank plz?
that would have to be massive though. like, heavy turbolaser massive…
Your joking right? A Shadowsword can one shot a Warlord and its nowhere near even light turbolaser power output.
Hey just saw a website that use your Assault Carrier but in the very different way here the link: http://starwarsrp.net/topic/73084-consolidator-class-first-order-carrier/
What your thoughts about it?
The numbers are all off. Check this thread for numbers discussion: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=124353&start=1950
Yeah i know this ship is too big to be 700 meters in length.
By away Fractal what does both the Light Armor & the Heavy Armor Battalion use to make them different from each other?
How should I know? 😛 It came from a reading of the old Imperial Sourcebook, which has its problems but at least is something to go on. I assume light armor is stuff like the Saber repulsortank, and Heavy would use Broadswords and other heavier repulsorvehicles. The exact type and breakdown of vehicles no one has detailed.
Usually, at least in reality, Light Armor is for smaller operations or antipersonnel/light vehicle, whereas Heavy Armor is for taing out starships, fortifications, etc.
Oh ok then. Also the broadsword repulsortank is part of the heavy battalion so if that the case then does that make it a heavy tank while the saber repulsortank is light or medium?
YES.
The Imperial Sourcebook says that Light Armor units generally have ~2x as many combat vehicles as Heavy Armor (i.e. a Heavy Armor Platoon will consist of 4 Heavy Tanks plus a Command Tank, whereas a Light Armor Platoon will consist of 8 Light Tanks plus a COmmand Tank). The distinction is made indirectly in the same chapter that Light Armor and Repulsorlift units are generally deployed in an area where there are multiple pockets of light resistance (where the more numerous light vehicles are better equipped to be in multiple places at once), while the Heavy Armor units are deployed against concentrated, well defended targets, where their heavy armor and weaponry will be needed to overcome enemy defenses.
Now that you got the All-Terrain Storm Walker (AT-SW) how many of these walkers can fit inside this carrier with the others?
A huge number.
Like around 100?
100-200 AT-SW walkers?
150?
prob about 500-1,000
Perhaps not the most elegant design in the Imperial fleet, but certainly one of the most detailed and interesting. And a far superior successor to the Acclamator.
Is this ship sea worthy like an Acclamator?
A UNSC frigate flying under an assault carrier. Note the size of the assault carrier and it’s hangar.
Is this supposed to be the Evakmar-KDY Corps transport mentioned in the Imperial Sourcebook? In any case this is an awesome design.
Cripes, whatta troop-slab. Uneducated guess: shuttles, airspeeders, repulsortanks & strike craft deploy from the side & dorsal bays, whilst grounded vehicle & foot-grunts embark from those ventral cavities.
The Consolidator is based off of the Evakmar-KDY Class Transport (I would believe, please correct me if I’m wrong), so it would have the same transport capacity as a full Imperial Corp. Regardless of variation.
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Evakmar-KDY_transport#:~:text=Affiliation&text=Evakmar%2DKDY%20transports%20were%20examples,the%20specific%20type%20of%20corps.
What are the dimensions and specifications for this vessel?