Actually, in post RotJ situation, they must have relied on crappy last hope materials and designs.
It's like weapons created by the germans at the end of WWII.
I would compare the Tie Crawler with the King Tiger.
Krupp designed the turret for another chassis then the one created by Porsche.
Due to lack of materials and a losing war, they reused the turret and they put both together. They also used bad materials for the armor which made the side and rear armor very weak, even with the slope.
I see the Tie Crawler coming out of the same situation. You have lots of unused Tie Cockpits. You're in a desperate situation. No time for prestige weapons, gather what you can and fight with what you have.
Tactically, it sucks, just as the King Tiger tactically sucked. But it worked for their time.
I think that the King Tiger would be on the other end of the spectrum, but, yeah, similar idea.
The way I see it, its just the empire being economical. They cannot keep pace with the rebs quick and cheap tanks with their newly designed walkers, so they take overproduced cockpits, slap'em onto some treads, and bam, a cheap tank.
And remember, this is a video game about a made up universe. Things don't have to make sense. :D
Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin
Yeah, but I doubt thats how it will fit into this game, unless it is just designed to be used as a last ditch effort by the Empire if they are losing towards the end of the game.
That may be the case, but it is not the TIE Crawler's fault, or the EU. It is the developer's fault.
Perhaps when EaW.net sends in a Q&A, we should ask about its role in the game.
luke - I agree about the use of the Crawler as a last-ditch weapon, but isn't this game supposed to be based during the films, particually between Ep3 and 4? If so, the TIE Crawler doesnt exist and is obselete.
Also, your example with the King Tiger is incorrect. In fact, during the initial design of the Tiger, Porsche and Henschel came up with ideas for the chassis (Krupp designed the turret) with the Porsche design using being more complicated and using electric transmission. Anyway, the Henschel design was manufactured.
Then, after fighting the Soviets, the Germans wanted a better tank, and again Porsche and Henschel designed prototypes, with Porsche again going for the complicated design. However, Porsche was so convinced they would get the contract they made 50 turrets and 90 chassis. Subsequently, Henschel won (not enough copper for the Porsche idea) and so the first 50 King Tiger's had Porsche turrets, while the 90 chassis were made into Elefant Tank Destroyers which failed because the Germans forgot to give it any secondary armament, but that is beside the point.
The Tiger and King Tiger were hugely successful. On the battlefield, the King Tiger was almost impossible to destroy (making it the equivalent to the AT-AT) and there is even one recorded example of one, yes one, Tiger holding up an entire allied division, killing 25 tanks before the Tiger was destroyed.
As I was saying though, basically you have
Tiger/King Tiger = AT-AT
Panzer III/IV = AT-ST
Bf109 with tracks = TIE Crawler
Frankly, making something like the Cralwer is economically irresponsible and a tactical disaster.
Oh, I know its not the EU or TIE Crawlers fault. I'm not even sure it is innappropriate to have it in the game. All I'm saying is that you cant rationalize it being in the game by saying that it is ideal for hit and run tactics, when the idea behind the Empire in the game seems to not be hit and run tactics. I think we are gonna have to wait and see how everything plays out in order to know how it will or will not work. I just dont think there is enough information yet to jump to a definitive answer about whether or not it should be there.
Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin
Oh, I know its not the EU or TIE Crawlers fault. I'm not even sure it is innappropriate to have it in the game. All I'm saying is that you cant rationalize it being in the game by saying that it is ideal for hit and run tactics, when the idea behind the Empire in the game seems to not be hit and run tactics. I think we are gonna have to wait and see how everything plays out in order to know how it will or will not work. I just dont think there is enough information yet to jump to a definitive answer about whether or not it should be there.
You realize "hit and run" doesn't necessarily have to be a huge drop in, kill something, escape real fast tactic, right? It can be something as small as taking a small force (such as some TIE crawlers) and bringing them from another direction after removing them from the main force, blast an important target/objective, and move back to the main force. Not everyone's idea of "hit and run", but it still is it none the less. I never said the Empire was hit and run army, it isn't. I said this unit is good for this situation, shok.
nonetheless it is not the Empire's style to use this kind of tactic. its the Empire's style to crush with an overwhelming force. the Empire at this time is not likely to mass produce a unit that is only used in special cases. and i didnt mean to imply that you implied the empire was a hit and run army, i was just trying to figure out why a unit with this specialization would be used by the empire at this time, and why it is in there. i'm not saying that i dont think it should be in there. i have no problem with it being in the game, honestly. i'm just tossing ideas around, and hoping that we can figure out some rationalization that makes the most sense. if that made any sense.
Heavy - but that isn't 'hit and run'. The sort of tactic you are talking about there is more a diversionary strike, or even simply a small division of forces, but it is not 'hit and run'.
Windu: This isn't WW2 or Earth. The idea of the TIE Crawler is perfectly valid. Also, how does something that doesn't exist become obsolete? Wow that was fast!
As I said, it is the developer's fault for putitng it in, not the poor little Crawler's.
I think it's completely spurious to compare Star Wars starfighters to 20th century aircraft. The concept of aerodynamics doesn't apply to Star Wars. These are starfighters ie. they are primarily used in space where there is no atmopsphere. When they enter a planet's atmosphere they use repulsorlifts (a completely fictional technology!) to keep them off the ground. Lift is not generated by the combination of forward thrust and aerofoils like it is on earth.
Since TIE fighters don't need to be aerodynamic and don't have any problems with thrust to weight ratio, they don't have to be as expensive as aircraft as we know them.
Originally posted by saberhagen
I think it's completely spurious to compare Star Wars starfighters to 20th century aircraft. The concept of aerodynamics doesn't apply to Star Wars. These are starfighters ie. they are primarily used in space where there is no atmopsphere. When they enter a planet's atmosphere they use repulsorlifts (a completely fictional technology!) to keep them off the ground. Lift is not generated by the combination of forward thrust and aerofoils like it is on earth.
Since TIE fighters don't need to be aerodynamic and don't have any problems with thrust to weight ratio, they don't have to be as expensive as aircraft as we know them. Starfighters still experience aerodynamic drag in an atmosphere, which slows them down and introduces instability to their handling characteristics - repulsorlift or not. In this respect it is relevant.
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
...Actually, in post RotJ situation, they must have relied on crappy last hope materials and designs.
It's like weapons created by the germans at the end of WWII.
I would compare the Tie Crawler with the King Tiger.
Krupp designed the turret for another chassis then the one created by Porsche. Due to lack of materials and a losing war, they reused the turret and they put both together. They also used bad materials for the armor which made the side and rear armor very weak, even with the slope.... I totally agree with this. In the scenario described here, the birth of the TIE Crawler makes absolute sense, as I alluded to earlier in the thread. But again, this is post-Return of the Jedi. And the game takes place mid-saga, which is inconsistent with what we know. That's one issue.
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
...I see the Tie Crawler coming out of the same situation. You have lots of unused Tie Cockpits. You're in a desperate situation. No time for prestige weapons, gather what you can and fight with what you have.... What doesn't make sense for me here is the fact that some production manager would be so inept as to order, say, 1 million TIE cockpits, and only 500,000 sets of wings. Why in the world would there be so many extra TIE cockpits "lying around"? That doesn't pass the "sniff" test for me. That's the other issue.
I wouldn't exactly compare the King Tiger to the TIE Crawler.
I'd compare it to the Sherman perhaps rather than one of the heaviest and strongest tanks during the 2nd World War. :)
Except the weapon system on the TIE Crawler sounds alot more impressive than what the Sherman had.
The only tank that competed with the King Tiger was the Russian tank, T# something (forgot it's number, even though I saw a program about them only a few days ago :D ). And the King was a result of the encounter that the germans did with the Russian one, so technically, the King (not Elvis) is the competitor. ;)
It's true though, that the Tigers main weakness was the rear, but straight on shells just bounced off it (except on the Russian front, there they had a better chance of knocking them off than on the western front I believe, not just by outnumbering the german tank force). The sides weren't all that shabby either.
The King Tiger II again was an even bigger beast of a tank. :p
You know I got to thinking, cause maybe my comparison isn't exactly good either, so perhaps a mix? The Sherman tank, with the Tigers 88mm gun mounted on it? :D
Would probably flip the Sherman over when firing though. :p
Hrrmm, anyway, back on topic (yeah right, as if that will happen now for the next couple of posts ;) ).
Originally posted by Vagabond
But again, this is post-Return of the Jedi. And the game takes place mid-saga, which is inconsistent with what we know. That's one issue.
Like I said earlier, that's the developer's fault. Stop hurting the poor crawler!
Maybe they aren't available at the begining of the game.
King Tiger? Undestructible? I think not.
Size does not equal tactical advantage. The main problem with the King Tiger was its humongous size. Being so big, conceilment was not a very good option. You could spot it from quite far away.
Many consider the King Tiger as nothing more then a huge moveable bunker.
As a matter of fact, its unreliability along with low-speed forced many crews to destroy their own King Tiger after it ran out of fuel.
I know about reports of Tiger I and King Tiger destroying tons of tanks before they could come close enough to shoot. One such example is a small group of 12 Tigers annihilating 600(might be too much, I'll have to check it out, I think it might have been 300 only) Shermans before they even got a chance to shoot.
Also, Tiger I performed much better then King Tiger. Its armor was made from good materials but th one of the King Tiger was made with whatever was left(I think it was an alloy of nickel+something else, not nearly as strong as the Tiger I's plating).
But this is all irrelevant to the topic so let's get back to that shall we?
I only compared King Tiger and the Tie Crawler because of the salvaging of equipment, not because of firepower.
I barely mentioned a bit of tactical inneffectiveness for the King Tiger.
Focus on the good part of a post people!
Originally posted by Vagabond
What doesn't make sense for me here is the fact that some production manager would be so inept as to order, say, 1 million TIE cockpits, and only 500,000 sets of wings. Why in the world would there be so many extra TIE cockpits "lying around"? That doesn't pass the "sniff" test for me. That's the other issue.
Well, in their defense, they might have ordered say 1 000 000 Tie Fighters but found out they had already enough or not enough pilots but they needed a ground assault vehicle. Then, they salvaged what they had.
Phreak - but the point here is that OT COMBAT IS BASED ON THE SECOND WORLD WAR!!! Look at any documentary where Lucas describes how he developed the combat in the OT, and he says that he got it from watching old WW2 combat tapes to re-create both the fighter attack on the Falcon and also to re-create the fighter combat for the assault on the first Death Star. Simply take a look at the other two films and you will see i'm right. This then means that WW2 is relevant, because it is from WW2 that we can figure out what sorts of weapons the Rebels and Empire would have that we didnt see, and how they would be used.
luke - again, no. The King Tiger was never designed for stealth, mainly because it was really big and really powerful. Although you are right in that they ran out of fuel and had unreliable transmission, they were used as single units to slow down advancing allied units, and did so very well. In terms of being indestructable, they almost were, being the most heavily armed and armoured tank of the entire war apart from the Maus. Also, the Tiger had better armour than the King Tiger? Um...no. In terms of armour thickness, the King Tiger had almost double the thinkness of the Tiger, and it also had far greater ballistic protection because the armour was sloped due to the influence of the T-34 and its performance against German armour. I don't know where you get your facts from but I recommend a new source.
With the Crawler, I would agree with you luke but I keep coming back to "set between Ep3 and Ep4". If it was set after Ep6, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, although I would still call it the 'suicide machine'. But it simply doesn't make sense to have it between Ep3 and 4.
Jan - you are probably thinking of the T-34/85, although I would be thinking the KV-1 would have been more effective.
And I recommend you stop looking at things at face value, something you have done the second you got into this forum.
I know about the thickness of the King Tiger's armor and the slope. Yet it got pumelled by side shots from field guns. Why? Materials.
You do realize that not every metal or alloy is as strong as another right? Thus why I made the statement about King Tiger's armor being weaker. The sloped helped it but Tiger I did not have any and repelled shots more the well.
With the Crawler, I would agree with you luke but I keep coming back to "set between Ep3 and Ep4". If it was set after Ep6, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, although I would still call it the 'suicide machine'. But it simply doesn't make sense to have it between Ep3 and 4.
Will you start reading other people's posts for ****'s sake? People have constantly said that the game BEGINS, BEGINS between Ep.3 and 4. You should learn to listen other people. Geez...it's not like you can't read or you don't understand english or something...
Phreak - but the point here is that OT COMBAT IS BASED ON THE SECOND WORLD WAR!!! Look at any documentary where Lucas describes how he developed the combat in the OT, and he says that he got it from watching old WW2 combat tapes to re-create both the fighter attack on the Falcon and also to re-create the fighter combat for the assault on the first Death Star. Simply take a look at the other two films and you will see i'm right. This then means that WW2 is relevant, because it is from WW2 that we can figure out what sorts of weapons the Rebels and Empire would have that we didnt see, and how they would be used.
And we are talking about ground combat are we? Where did he mention he got every battle from WWII?
He only used tapes for the dogfights.
Thus you cannot make a direct link between Star Wars OT ground combat and WWII ground combat.
Oh and yes it is very relevant. I mean, all of the combat in Star Wars is based on WWII. I mean, those Ewok Catapults and one man glider throwing rocks...I mean wooo...
WWII discussion goes on the off-topic board we talking about Tie Crawlers and not whether the battles are based from WWII which I highly doubt only the X-wing formations and some dogfights and thats it plus you must admit the dogfights in OT were not spectacular like the Opening battle in Episode 3 will.
Nothing will beat Endor. Nuff said.
Holding onto the classics is good but you cannot say the dogfights in Endor were better when there was hardly any dogfights at all....
luke - any tank would get pummelled by field guns because they are artillery, and hence must have a high muzle velocity to lob their projectiles, hence the instand conversion of the 88mm AA gun to the best AT gun of the war. Also, materials dont make much difference. Sure, the Tiger's may have had better metal, but the sloping and thickness of the King Tiger far offset that.
Also, when are you going to start listening? The people on this board can say all they want about the game's timeline, but the fact remains that PETROGLYPH and LUCASARTS say that the game is SET BETWEEN EP3 AND EP4, not starts.
In terms of ground combat, opening your eyes would help. Certainly I cannot make a direct link, but to anyone with half a braincell it makes sense. As for the Ewoks, of course they fight differently because they have different weapons, it would be like the Italians fighting the Ethiopians just before WW2. Therefore, my comparison stands.
FroZ - this is about the TIE Crawler, and how is in no way resembles either the Tiger or King Tiger. As for battles, so you think that Lucas took the space battles from WW2 footage and then created a completely new and original way of waging war? I think not. Even if he didnt use WW2 ground combat footage, the footage from Ep4 would have been used as a base from which to build, and hence it is correct to say OT combat is based on WW2.
Originally posted by Darth Windu
luke - any tank would get pummelled by field guns because they are artillery, and hence must have a high muzle velocity to lob their projectiles, hence the instand conversion of the 88mm AA gun to the best AT gun of the war. Also, materials dont make much difference. Sure, the Tiger's may have had better metal, but the sloping and thickness of the King Tiger far offset that.
Materials ARE important. If I take a foot of aluminium and 6 inches of steel, which one do you think is better? Even with slope. (Not that the King Tiger's armor was made of aluminum, just as an example)
Originally posted by Darth Windu
Also, when are you going to start listening? The people on this board can say all they want about the game's timeline, but the fact remains that PETROGLYPH and LUCASARTS say that the game is SET BETWEEN EP3 AND EP4, not starts.
The new game will take place in the Star Wars universe all right, but its actual events will take place between the not-yet-released film Episode III and the 1977 film Episode IV (better known simply as Star Wars, the first movie in the original trilogy). The action will take place in the same galaxy and will include tours of duty on such planets as Hoth, Endor, Tattooine, and Dagobah
Set a few years before the events of Episode IV A New Hope, the game will let players rewrite history as well as experience the aftermath of Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith, the creation of the Rebel Alliance, and Darth Vader’s rise to power.
Posted by Phreak.
Anyway, I'm sure you are also against the inclusion of the Calamari Cruiser, the Tie interceptor, Airspeeder, A-Wing, B-Wing, Medium Transport and the Escort Frigate?
I mean, time frame error here!
But anyway, it makes you rewrite history. And if Hoth, Endor and Dagobah is included, then the game must span over the entire OT saga.
Originally posted by Darth Windu
In terms of ground combat, opening your eyes would help. Certainly I cannot make a direct link, but to anyone with half a braincell it makes sense. As for the Ewoks, of course they fight differently because they have different weapons, it would be like the Italians fighting the Ethiopians just before WW2. Therefore, my comparison stands.
Your comparison does not stand. You cannot make a good enough link. It's like saying a cake is a dairy product because I used milk to make it.
Originally posted by Darth Windu
FroZ - this is about the TIE Crawler, and how is in no way resembles either the Tiger or King Tiger. As for battles, so you think that Lucas took the space battles from WW2 footage and then created a completely new and original way of waging war? I think not. Even if he didnt use WW2 ground combat footage, the footage from Ep4 would have been used as a base from which to build, and hence it is correct to say OT combat is based on WW2.
For god sake's...
Like I said, I'm not talking about a ressemblance between the Tie Crawler and the Tiger I/II's performance.
Like I said, OT ground combat does not ressembles WWII ground combat. You can stretch it a lot and then try and make a comparison but you cannot make a solid conclusion.
luke - I never said materials aren't important, just that the thickness of the King Tiger's armour and the sloping far offset any difference in quality of materials.
As for timeline, to an extend yes and to an extent no. Basically, if LA wants to include all of those units, the game shouldn't be set between Ep3 and 4. If they want to set it between Ep3 and 4, those units shouldnt be in the game. What has happened here is that they have included as much film material as possible, which is great and is what they should do, but they've made the mistake of trying to capitalise on the release of Ep3 by setting the game between 3 and 4, when they should simply set the game during the OT. It makes for a better story line, less continuity errors, and overall a more believable game.
BTW it is not the 'Medium Transport', they are specifically referred to as 'Heavy Transports' in ESB. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :rolleyes:
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.
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.
All the bad guys have british accents.
>_>
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
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.
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
All the bad guys have british accents.
>_>
So do quite a few of the good guys too.
And I wasn't serious...
That's why people use smileys...>_>
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. ;)
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.
Finally, somebody else who thinks the TIE Crawler, in the competition for survival, would be selected for extinction.
Hey, there's atleast 4 of us, Vagabond. ;)
Including you.
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.
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? :D
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 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.
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)
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.
It can turn on a dime ... errr, credit? :D
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.
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.:p
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 :cool:
*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....
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.