It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Star Wars Tech

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
In Star Wars, why were the Ties manned and why were there human Stormtroopers instead of droids?




posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
How random, I have no idea why they didn't have robotically controlled fighters, but from the recent Episode 2 you should know that the storm troopers were a clone army that the Empire, uh, stole, somehow. They did say why the clones were better than droids, but I forget.

We need a true Star Wars fan methinks.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Thanks for the reminder. I think in Episode 2 they said that clones have the ability to think for themselves and come up with plans only a human could think of. Its like human plans vs machine plans.
Also in the Clone Wars they had droid fighters so the technology was there for the Empire to use.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Exactly.

Think about it, you can either have...

1. a droid limited by programming and experience, and logical thinking

OR

2. a clone, of an experienced and accomplished Bounty Hunter, who is capable of facing a full Jedi and living to tell the tale, capable of non-linear thinking as well

Another thing to realize. Not ALL Stormtroopers are cloned. In the books, etc. many also joined the military as well. For example, in Star Wars, when Luke was still on the farm, you can see him playing with a model T-16 Skyhopper ship, talking about joining the Imperial Navy as a pilot. He didn't know the Empire was evil yet. Only after what happens to his aunt and uncle, does he realize this.

In the Tie Fighter games, there is even a good backstory about the Naval Academy, and how it attracted TIE pilots from all over the galaxy.

However, it's pretty obvious the Empire didn't really care about it's pilots, as TIE-In fighters didn't have shields.

The X-Wing, was actually originally designed for the Empire, but the Incom design team took it with them when many of it's top engineers joined the Rebellion.

Damn, now I've completely shown my Star Wars geekiness, hehe...



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I could not have put it better myself.

But do fighters need the non-logical thinking of a clone or human? Also fighters could have many sensors and be much more quicker at reacting to enemies in dogfights than any human pilot.

Also, the Empire could have remote controlled soldiers which combines the benefits of the toughness of a droid with a personal shield and the thinking of a human.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   
yes computers can react faster then humans. And computers are better at chess then humans. But Space combat is alot more complicated then that...

One - Ships only turn so fast.
Two - there are No gravity in space
Three - inershal dampers counter geforces of turning.


So humans don't have to worry about G-forces also because Ties and X-wings can only turn so fast which is kinda slow. So no mater how fast the computer thinks in its way it can never make a ship move faster then the ship can go normaly.

Also space combat is alot more complicated then a chess game. not just a few pieces there could be 100's or thousands of targets all moving independly. As it stands right now the best computers can not move around on the ground at all with out the help of gps and tons of sencers.

So we got capital ships , Giant flooting rocks, gravitation forces from planets, other enemy fighters, other friendly fighters, radation, lots of other posible things that must be accounted for before a driod computer can even hope to fight with humans.

You also have to remember that the Humans are also being helped by computers with targeting along with many other things.

As for droids on the ground and being tuffer then men you do have a point but there are examples of people using personal sheild generators. Along with the fact that Dark troopers III are exoskeliton body armor with targeting assistance and person sheild generators.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Thanks for all the advice.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Just a thought. Are there any mech warriors in Star Wars that the Imperials use. They would wipe the floor with anything the Rebels have by using machine guns, missile launchers etc.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   


Just a thought. Are there any mech warriors in Star Wars that the Imperials use. They would wipe the floor with anything the Rebels have by using machine guns, missile launchers etc.


The only ones I could think of were the AT-ST (All Terrain Sout Transport)



or the AT-TE (All Terrain Tactical Enforcer)



A TIE Crawler




Or the AT-XT



Think thats it though, but who knows..



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
There was a smaller version of the AT-ST, also. I believe it was called the AT-PT (All Terrain Personal Transport), that was a one-man mech. I believe Han Solo used it in one of the novels.

The AT-XT almost looks like a Robotech Zentraidi pod, hehe....

There was also of course, the AT-AT used on Hoth (Empire Strikes Back), as well as a few others (I remember a spider-like variant of the AT-ST).

Of course, in ROTJ, the mechs were defeated by a bunch of miniature wookies using logs and stones, hehe.....



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
The reason space fighter combat in star wars came down to human pilots was really relativelly simple. You have to program a droid brain to either be expendable or self preserving, meaning you can't get on the command net and convey how urgently you need something done. If a droid had been pilotting that A-wing in ROTJ it wouldn't have suicide dived the Star Destroyer. Logic wise computers are much better than humans, but by definition heroism is composed almost entirelly of people abandoning logic and suicidally moving against an objective that is "impossible". The same goes for ground troops... look at world war 2 and G.I's charging machine gun pits.

On the walker thing, anthropomorphic technology seems really good on the surface but the second repulsorlift technology came out walkers essentially became psy-ops weapons. Without neutralizing naval aviation and speeders walkers are just shiny metal targets.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I think one you need to consider is that star wars was written about 30years ago, technology then especially computers, didn't have the influence it does now.

Micro-Computers(pc's) as they were known had less processing power than your mobile(cell) phone does now.

Who know's what computer technology will be capable of in another 30years?



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   

On the walker thing, anthropomorphic technology seems really good on the surface but the second repulsorlift technology came out walkers essentially became psy-ops weapons. Without neutralizing naval aviation and speeders walkers are just shiny metal targets.


Actually, this was explained too. On some planets, the terrain is unpredictable, and there are various natural radiation areas, etc. that can interfere with repulsorlift technology. Of course, no one is going to dispute the psi factor of seeing a bunch of AT-ATs walking towards your base!


A5H

posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Oh I see, star wars is real is it?
Doesn't seem like much of a conspiracy...



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   
What I could never understand about star wars tech, and Mech wars too as far as that goes, is the target profile.

You want something small hugging the ground like a tank not up in the air on 2-4 very vulnerable legs, it looks good on the movies but wouldn't last minutes in battle



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Isn't this more of a Movies thread?


Anyway, it's pretty simple, as others have stated. Master Cyper Diaz (spelling there?) foresaw the rise of the Sith, and secretly ordered the building of a clone army about a decade prior, without the Jedi Council's permission or knowledge, no less. The Jedi evetually find out about this, as Palpatine begins his rise to power in the Senate. Keep in mind Palpatine is also the Sith Lord instigating the Seperatists. The Seperatists are the ones with the droid army.

Also, if you saw Episode 1, you would have seen a young Anakin Skywalker fly into space around Naboo, where Naboo fighters battled in space against starships controlled by droids. I digress though...

Anyway, so the Jedi Council learns of this army that is being created, which already has tens of thousands of troops amassed and ready for combat. How else to fight a massive group such as the seperatists but to use this army that has already been paid for and whatnot.

That's all in Episodes 1 and 2... Anyway, in Episode 3 the seperatist factions will be decimated, the Sith will take control of the Galatic Empire (reavealing thier evil notions), and then the Rebellion will be born.

So now that I've laid out all that history, I can answer your question. In the later movies (Episodes 4-6) there were no more droid armies. They had all been destroyed, along with all those who controled them. Also, the Rebellion was dirt poor compared to the Empire and the Seperatists of long ago. So they couldn't afford droids even if they wanted them. The Empire still had thier surplus of clone stormtroops, so why would they want to use droids then? They were just doing what was simplest.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
What I could never understand about star wars tech, and Mech wars too as far as that goes, is the target profile.

You want something small hugging the ground like a tank not up in the air on 2-4 very vulnerable legs, it looks good on the movies but wouldn't last minutes in battle


heh, yeah, I think those big machines were more for intimidation.

I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, but none-the-less i'm still waiting for Episode III.

Episode III Trailer


[edit on 10-1-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Just wait for Episode III theres going to be a kick a$$ droid in it. General Greivous that guy is sweet better then any clone trooper.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
What I could never understand about star wars tech, and Mech wars too as far as that goes, is the target profile.

You want something small hugging the ground like a tank not up in the air on 2-4 very vulnerable legs, it looks good on the movies but wouldn't last minutes in battle


I believe the reason for the legs is to avoid mines. Not to mention the benifits of line of sight. But I dont no why the Empire never used the Trade Federations AntiGrav tech



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
To answer all of your questions:

Before continuing any further, it may be worthwhile to discuss the justification for non-repulsorlift vehicles in the Star Wars universe. Although it is tempting to employ the Trekkie philosophy and assume that "more advanced" = "better", that isn't necessarily the case. If it were, then real-life armies would have replaced all of their field guns with guided missile launchers a long time ago. Repulsorlifts reduce the importance of terrain, but as with many technological developments, they introduce problems of their own: according to the SWEGWT, repulsorlift vehicles can be negatively affected by unusual planetary magnetic or gravitational fields (particularly in unusual environments such as worldships, which are man-made planetoids with artificially enhanced gravity), as well as specialized anti-tank weapons that target repulsorlift fields. They may also emit particular radiation signatures which can be easily tracked, thus further reducing their tactical value.



  1. Poor concealment. It is often assumed that the AT-AT's poor concealment is an unfortunate design flaw, but how do we know it isn't intentional? As a weapon of assault, subjugation, and domination, it was undoubtedly designed with psychological warfare in mind, and deliberate high visibility would not be unreasonable in such a role. There are times when maximum visibility can actually be useful; for example, the US Navy uses enormous "supercarriers" even though they are obvious targets for enemy missile attack. However, their visibility serves the useful purpose of intimidation. Few sights can be more sobering for a tin-pot dictator than a huge, heavily armed American aircraft carrier and its task force, steaming within plain view of his coastline. In the Empire, highly visible weapons such as mile-long starships and hundred foot tall armoured transports are the psychological equivalent of "sabre rattling", and they work. The official literature actually describes entire star systems surrendering at the mere sight of a Star Destroyer, and soldiers being paralyzed with fear at the mere sound of AT-ATs.
  2. High centre of gravity. The AT-AT's great height may initially appear to serve no useful purpose. However, upon closer examination we can determine that its height does serve a useful purpose, just like its high visibility. Remember that an AT-AT must be capable of long-range bombardment, but its weapons are limited to a line of sight. Therefore, if it was built low (like a modern MBT) with a gun only 2 metres above the ground, its range would be severely limited in all but the flattest terrain types, and it would be unable to shoot above even relatively small obstacles such as disabled vehicles. Even on perfectly flat terrain, its maximum range on an Earth-like planet would be limited to the distance to the visible horizon, which would be a mere 5 kilometres. However, by elevating its guns to a lofty 23 metre height, the AT-AT gains the ability to shoot over the top of small obstacles, it gains a broad view of the battlefield, and the distance to the visible horizon jumps from 5 kilometres to more than 17 kilometres. This number may sound familiar if you've watched TESB recently; according to General Veers' driver, his AT-AT destroyed the Rebel shield generator facility at 17.28 kilometres.
  3. Poor close-in combat capability. The AT-AT's poor close-in combat capability is simply the inevitable side-effect of its sheer size and power. Real-life heavy armour is similarly limited at short ranges, hence the need for support from light vehicles and infantry. In the case of the AT-AT, it derives close-range support from its AT-ST escorts, which were seen in both TESB and ROTJ. While the AT-STs cannot do battle with enemy artillery, assault fortifications, and destroy large structures, they can support the vehicles which can, by keeping their flanks clear of infantry and light vehicles. This is a good example of the sort of complementary weapon classes which normally work together in real-life armies, as well as the Imperial army.
  4. High ground pressure. This will definitely limit the AT-AT's terrain flexibility. However, it is the inevitable side effect of its mass, which is an inevitable side-effect of its size, which in turn is required for its long-range bombardment capabilities. Moreover, the AT-AT's powerful weapons were capable of destroying large structures such as the Rebel shield generator with a single blast. Such heavy weapons would undoubtedly produce significant recoil, and the friction provided by high-pressure ground contact will give the walker enough stability to repeatedly fire such blasts without sliding out of position or losing its aim point. Gun recoil is a significant problem for repulsorcraft, as demonstrated graphically by the Trade Federation battle tanks in the Battle of Naboo. They rocked noticeably back with each shot, thus forcing them to steady themselves and reacquire the target before the next shot. Repulsorlift towed artillery wouldn't suffer from this problem since it sits on the ground once deployed, but repulsor tanks and repulsor artillery will definitely have a poorer rate of fire than vehicles which are stabilized on solid ground, such as the AT-AT.


PS: Great pics Klepto.


[edit on 11/1/05 by GodAtum]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join