DK_Viceroy Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 there's been double posts galore:p Looks like I;ve got a lot to respond to:D The King Tiger using softer materials near the end of the war actually had better armour than the Tiger 1 because the softer metals helped to arrest momentum of a shell fired at it, They were gathered in strength for Wacht Am Rhein and were very succesful and caused a lot of shock, if they'd had the King Tiger 3-4 years earlier we'd all be doing the hitler salute. It's only Soviet Contender was the IS-2 or sometimes reffered to as the JS-2. Blame Petroglyph for the TIE Crawler being in the wrong time frame, the Chariot LAV was around well before that and was actually better. Windu define what is going on in your twisted mind so that we all may know how you think OT combat is based on WW2 combat and you need to give examples and lots of them or admit you are wrong and shut the hell up about OT being related to WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saberhagen Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Films are art/entertainment in a visual medium. The fact that the appearance of the Star Wars films was inspired by footage of WWII does not mean that combat in the Star Wars universe is exactly the same as combat in WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Originally posted by Darth Windu I should also point out that if you knew anything about WW2 ground combat, you would see that OT ground combat in fact is based heavily on it. Point in fact here, why is it that Imperial troops and Rebel troops never fire their weapons on automatic? Simple. Because during WW2, the rifles issued to the infantry of all sides with the exception of weapons such as the MP-40, were all exclusively semi-automatic weapons like the M-1 Garand and the M-1 Carbine. BS. That is really a weird comparison. The modern M16 has a single shot capability and so does the M14. Modern assault weapon being sold freely in the US are semi-automatic. BTW, why wouldn't there be any SMG-ish weapon if it was really like WWII? You cannot make a direct link therefore you rely on nothing more then possible coincidences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Ok ok ok, I know I kinda started this debate (and I was mixing the 2 Tigers together too ), but if you like to discuss how strong the King Tiger and the Tiger 1 is, take it to the Off-Topic. God know's it needs abit more life over there. For the "OT combat is same as WWII combat" debate, that's another Off-Topic debate you guys can have in there. Let's get back on track, shall we? BTW it is not the 'Medium Transport', they are specifically referred to as 'Heavy Transports' in ESB. Han calls a Destroyer for Cruiser, don't really see your point here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernaut1985 Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Anyone notice that Lucas has the Nazis in every one of his movies in some form or another? Windu may be on to something, although he may twist it to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirPantsAlot Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Originally posted by Juggernaut1985 Anyone notice that Lucas has the Nazis in every one of his movies in some form or another? Windu may be on to something, although he may twist it to be wrong. Ok, that's just WAY off subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 All the bad guys have british accents. >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 That's because he got half of the actors from Britian:p Heya Jugg, I never though I'd hear anyone say that Windu is on anything except crack cocaine maybe. No one can be that stubborn or ignorant naturally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad All the bad guys have british accents. >_> yeah .. don't put more into it than there is. And it's not all of them either, just most of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverlordAngelus Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad All the bad guys have british accents. >_> So do quite a few of the good guys too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 And I wasn't serious... That's why people use smileys...>_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 It wasn't as much towards you rather towards others. The effect of a smilie is alot better percieved if you actually use a smilie face though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Jan - although yes, Han does call an ISD a cruiser, the term 'cruiser' is used for basically any warship in the OT really, even the PT. However, they are also correctly referred to as Star Destroyers whereas the Transports are referred to only as "Heavy Transports". Ergo, another example of how EU gets things wrong, to go alongside the very poorly thought-out TIE Crawler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Finally, somebody else who thinks the TIE Crawler, in the competition for survival, would be selected for extinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Hey, there's atleast 4 of us, Vagabond. Including you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 just a note: the concept of a treaded vehicle does not indicate go-anywhere capability. when was the last time you've seen a treaded vehicle travel over very rocky terrain or travel through a swamp?? if you can't name any, then there's a good reason why: vehicles with treads easily get stuck in deep mud and cannot travel over rocks. sure you could try, but you also face the other big disadvantage of treaded vehicles: the treads could come off. in combat, the treads of a tank are always the weakest point of the vehicle. kill the treads, and the tank is a sitting duck. treads are also limitted in speed. there are several african countries that use wheeled tanks that travel in excess of 50-60 mph. currently, the only treaded tank that can match that is the M-1 (not the M-1A1 or the M-1A2, those are speed governed @ 45mph). it recorded a top speed of 70mph while competing for the job as the next american MBT back in the late 1970's, and only served as the base for the production MBT, which was the M-1A1. the only way it achieves that speed is with a turbo-shaft engine, which also makes the Abram a gas hog. and the african tanks use diesel engines, and require much less fuel. the idea of a treaded tank is a european concept, designed for northern europe where the battlefields were projected to be. treads are also much more complex, and thus much more expensive. (and now i'll connect this rant to the thread ) if the empire was really desperate, why didn't it use a wheeled chassis instead of treads?? its cheaper, requires fewer parts, and provides more tactical advantages on most battlefields than a treaded design. of course, the answer is simple: most europeans and americans can't stand the idea of any tank not having treads, thus the EU created a cheap tank that has treads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 There's one thing I can think of that a tracked vehicle is capable of doing that is a plus for the Crawler: It can turn on a dime ... errr, credit? A wheeled has a harder time doing that, atleast a thte speed of the tracked vehicle. And since those guns on the TIE Crawler is pretty much fixed, it would need to aim by turning the entire chassis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted February 3, 2005 Author Share Posted February 3, 2005 the reason why tracks are used is because if you have a wheeled tank... well... you had better have a really good parking brake. The tracks dig it in in order to stop it from rolling far back, and a wheeled vehicle would. Also, you couldn't fired a wheeled tank driving unless the gun faced backwards, and even then it wouldn't be a good idea. Also the fact that with today's MBT's, it would require some big tires in order to keep the chasis from blowing the tires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I do have to confess that I think treaded tanks are cooler - but I still think the TIE Crawler makes about as much sense as a porcupine juggling water balloons. However, regarding wheeled tanks in Star Wars, lest we forget: http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/artofrev/2004/10/artofrev20041011.html http://www.jed1kn1ght.fsnet.co.uk/-=matt=-worldofstuff/sw/ships/juggernaught.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 And you know it is like impossible for the Juggernaught to turn, right? It has a really poor turning radius. Which is why it can drive both ways. Plus, it it outdated compared to the ATATs and TIE Crawler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 It can turn on a dime ... errr, credit? A wheeled has a harder time doing that, atleast a thte speed of the tracked vehicle. And since those guns on the TIE Crawler is pretty much fixed, it would need to aim by turning the entire chassis. the ability to spin or turn a treaded vehicle is done by either having both treads tractioning in oppostite directions (spinning) or have one tread moving faster than the other (turning). a wheeled vehicle can do this if given the proper drivetrain, but most wheeled vehicles (aka, cars) simply rotate the wheels to turn. the reason why tracks are used is because if you have a wheeled tank... well... you had better have a really good parking brake. The tracks dig it in in order to stop it from rolling far back, and a wheeled vehicle would. Also, you couldn't fired a wheeled tank driving unless the gun faced backwards, and even then it wouldn't be a good idea. Also the fact that with today's MBT's, it would require some big tires in order to keep the chasis from blowing the tires. if your using a 4x4 drivetrain, then you will have this problem. make it a 6x6 or even an 8x8 drivetrain, and the problem is solved as long as you have a good suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I think they should put the Chariot LAV in instead since it was in the timeline concerned and it's repulsorlift and it wouldn't cause as much of an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak And you know it is like impossible for the Juggernaught to turn right? It has a really poor turning radius. Which is why it can drive both ways. Plus, it it outdated compared to the ATATs and TIE Crawler. Perhaps, but I hear it can turn left amazingly well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 *mumbles something about sarcasm and grammar* It is still a sucky tank. During the Galactic Civil War, it is obsolete. It could be used in the game as a unit.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Just for the record, I'm not necessarily an advocate for the Juggernaught. I'm merely citing it as an example of a wheeled vehicle in Star Wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.