Could even be a benefit in doing so as the backward facing ones could take a different path from the other two for pincer maneuvers or forcing the target to not put all shields in one facing.

That's true in terms of space, but not necessarily weight/mass-a bomber is a hell of a lot heavier than a fighter.

​@windwalker5765 you did see it carrying the AT-ATs right?

@@epleprekahnYeah, true enough.

@@windwalker5765 While that is fair, TIE fighters and TIE bombers clearly are able to levitate themselves already, and the Gozante has demonstrated itself as being more than capable of carrying AT-AT walkers, which are heavier and don't have repulsorlifts boosting them and lowering their weight.

The C-119, if that.

HEL YEAH AMERICA

Two of the ones that only really exists in the old X_Fighter games (X-wing, Tie and X-wing v Tie) and in the OG Star Wars Rebellion strat/tactical game. They would if expanded upon, *completely rout the rebels* were the Imperial Strike Cruiser and the Imperial version of the Nebulon B Frigate. The Imperial Nebulon B, in those games, is an escort carrier designed to attach to fleets, or frankly handle entire planets on its own, as its entirely designed to make life hell for enemy starfighters. It had a decent screen of medium turbolaser turrets(12), and another 12 laser cannon turrets, *AND* carried the gear to look after, launch, recover and maintain 24 starfighters. And it can carry a few medium freighters(so, multiple gozanti class) to boot. No wonder Thrawn liked to tool around in one of those, looks relatively innocuous, but punches *way* above its weight. Then you have the Strike Cruiser, which is functionally about quarter of the armaments and load of an ISD, *but a tenth of the cost*

Hahaahaha, you joking right? Because in Rebels we see it get abused all the time. That's one of the many reasons i hate Rebels. Like, there is no weapon the Empire could develop that would defeat a random small group of miserable untrained Teenagers.

​​@@authentic229.14It was not a well-made show on the vehicle-combat end of things. Worth noting, this is something a lot of people have brought up though: if the Empire had just kept turning out warships instead of Murder Moon passion projects, they could never have been militarily challenged in *any* meaningful way. Palpatine just wasn't really thinking in fully coherent terms by the end there.

@@Pyre That always made sense to me. He thinks like a sith lord not an effective emperor. He is entirely focused on the jedi, his mortal enemies, and causing fear, in accordance to the sith creed. He would sacrifice a good chunk of the empire if it meant wiping out a group of jedi survivors. A horde of small anti-fighter ships may be great for patrolling empire space, but it just doesn't have that sith pazazz that a star destroyer does.

@@authentic229.14 Right? Or how we see and Arquitens Command Frigate downed by 2 proton torpedoes, or how the gravity well generator gets taken out by blaster pistols and jet pack rockets, along with a Venator sized Interdictor Cruiser, despite being deployed on a warship meant to fare against turbolasers that can exceed an X-Wing in length. The Ghost crew being able to boarder, outmaneuver, and outwit the 30,000+ crew and complement of and ISD causing critical damage or outright destruction, makes one wonder why the entire Rebel force on Yavin didn't just attempt the same with the Death Star.

Tarkin doctrine working then

they should just permenantly weld the things on and lop the legs off, turn her into a gun ship

Considering the AT-AT can carry 40 troops each, you could potentially be dropping two platoons in addition to the heavy armor. So you could see the AT-AT clearing the area with the cannons and then immediately dropping soldiers once unlatched from the cruiser.

Which is...radar, not SIGINT or ELINT.

the dish reminds me of ncc1701 and derivatives

That's still active, not passive.

It probably scans using something that's not in realspace, not RADAR- we're looking at fictional instruments that use hyperspace to detect the passage of ships. It's not exactly an affront to the viewer to use a recognizable design language to communicate something about the craft, especially when there's plenty of unspecified technology at work within that familiar structure. Maybe actively scanning hyperspace is indistinguishable from passively receiving signals, but regardless assuming the inspiration from real-world tech means it functions identically in the fictional context it's a stand-in for is a bit silly even as far as geeking out about fictional pieces of hardware goes.

But it first appeared in Episode 1.

Old WEG materials, or even ESB concepts used brick like landing barges. Largest one with most sources could handle 4 AT-AT and double that of AT-ST, but was too large to fit into ISD hangar, so would require dedicated assault ship like in IMPS.

Firing the guns while the AT-AT is being held up by 2 docking rings and a tractor set-up would probably work out fine, but you'd really be putting your trust in the maintenance record of the Gozanti in question. And that's all assuming the legs aren't a major component of recoil compensation.

I like the idea of doing a strafing run with AT-AT's strapped to the underside.

@@MrZonehawk Make a specialised version. Remove the legs, keep the head and body. Add additional (ball) turrets to them. Flying fortress.

@@shoulderpyro I believe that's called the CR90.

Depends on the war I guess. The Brits made that excuse with the land cruisers in Afghanistan, but those were rolling death traps in that war... Something something IEDs make soft skin vehicle and it's contents into shrapnel...

@@Hebdomad7 The Humvee isn't hardly any more resistant to IEDs than any other vehicles, which is why the US developed the MRAP. They're larger and taller than the Humvee, but not much wider. You can armor up a Humvee but that further degrades its performance. That said, MRAPs have their own problems, among which is cost. Pretty much any vehicle in a combat zone is a rolling death trap if your enemy is well armed. In some respects a foot soldier is safer.

ironic sicne the Himvee was the replacement forthe Jeep

So the guy was begging for a vehicle to be brought in that had 0 logistical presence? Seems like a really smart thing to do. Probably should have asked for a CUCV or an LSSV depending on the exact time frame, I mean those were already in inventory.

​@@Hebdomad7The Humvee was never supposed to see any serious action. It was supposed to shuttle troops and supplies around FOBs and other secure areas.

Further, the C-ROC variant is the closest thing to a capital ship for the Scum and Villainy faction. Very similar, but with more underhanded/unconventional options instead of fighter-carrying. Love’m both

which is why nobody acknowledges the sequel trilogy.

As the sequels have proven with the VAAAST majority of the fan base just not acknowledging them as cannon

​​@@michaelsolomon3496It feels worth noting most of the actually good parts of everything Disney did with the IP, with the sole exception of the existence of one character, are derived from "Legends" anyway. Rey and Kylo are alternate takes on Jaina and Jaicen, supported beautifully by their actors and failed utterly by the script around them. Basically everything to do with Leia. Every single beat of The Mandalorian is SO much the Expanded Universe that if you were alive and reading those books in the 90s it's a borderline out of body experience. Disney the company doesn't *deserve* to be treated as if what it had the greatest hand in was legitimate. And the real, worthwhile human beings who put their effort into the films deserved better.

@@Pyre Oh I absolutely agree, John Favero and Dave Filoni make great content. Clone Wars, Bad Batch, Rebels, Mandolorian, Book Of Boba Fett, all phenomenal, and yes legends was great (Which is why I have VERY high hopes for Thrawn in the Ahsoka series because I read BOTH of the Thrawn trilogies and loved them) Also I really have been enjoying all the little tidbits from legends being brought back, like the death troopers, Luke's Jedi Academy, etc

@@michaelsolomon3496 Thrawn in Ashoka is an imbecile. Sorry to disappoint you but Disney is still high on progressivism (because the force is female...ffs).

I'm a big fan of the raider class corvettes personally!

Synthetic aperture is _radar_...which is what the E2/E3 carry for AWACS, not SIGINT/ELINT missions.

@@CyphDragon It doesn't just apply to radar, although that is the one most people think of. There is synthetic aperture sonar - that is one of the ways they get such detailed sonar pictures of the ocean floor. It is also used in medical imaging - both ultra sound and CAT scans are good examples of this. Also, if you want to include passive systems, you could look at the various arrays of radio telescopes used in astronomy around the world.

@@TheCoffeehound ah yes, because sonar, medical imaging, and radio astronomy are all famously related to signals intelligence and military electronic warfare systems...

@@CyphDragon Apparently, you are too much of an idiot to understand that the same technique can be used for both military and non-military applications. Synthetic aperture refers to the theory, not the piece of equipment. In active systems, the emitter is moving to give a larger emissions area. In passive systems, the receiver can either be moving or there can be multiple receivers to gather signals over a wider area. In all cases, the signals are then processed to give a better image. Now, just be a good little boy and take the L.

Eh, it's too small to be this 'verse's C-130. That'd be more like a Captor-Class or something like that.

That has never really been the case, back in Legends they employed several frigates and corvettes to supplement their Star Destroyers and this was established in the same source book that introduced the Tarkin Doctrine. In reality the doctrine didn't call for ditching escorts and other classes in favor of larger ships, it called for pressing the advantage that ships like ISDs had of not only being pretty combat effective but also pretty damn scary to go up against while still maintaining fleets of smaller ships, this is why the Strike-Class cruiser was called "the best-kept secret of the navy" as it was a ship many times smaller than a Star Destroyer but it was so damn good that whoever happened to go up against it would be surprised by it's firepower because it was not as big as other ships, people would tend to underestimate it.

I imagine some people had to see the writing on the wall and pushed for cheaper, smaller ships that could cover more ground as one big flashy battleship, especially before the rebellion, as dealing with pirates and small pockets of CIS holdouts would have been their main job.

Tarkin Doctrine could never have been so totalizing, even Tarkin doctrine acknowleged the need for a localy present 'tripwire' force which would call down the hammer uppon any who resisted so that the fear is rational and omni-present. The Empire spent 'too much' on big weapons but not everything, the fact they have a fleet AND the DeathStar shows that. It is completly reasonable, infact unavoidable that some kind of smaller ship exists in their arsenal, particularly a small logistical ship. The Empire might be a comically centralized and exagerated fasistic dystopia but their are belivability limits to that centralization (or at least their WERE limits before the Sequel trilogy).

Yes, just yes to this comment.

Now that you say that, that works weirdly well. I mean the big issue with the interdictions were they were always painfully obvious, expensive, and energy intensive to the point it was hard to power offensive or defensive systems alongside the gravity well. Making a cheaper version that could be easier to hide or cover behind larger ships and wouldn’t cost you 15 million credits for every loss wouldn’t be too bad an idea. Conversely it may not be possible to fit enough generators to power a gravity well generator, or even the gravity well generator itself, but to that I say: just use more. For the price of an Interdictor-class you could have 75 Gozantis and even if they become 3 times more expensive when adding interdictor systems you could still have up to 25 Gozantis. Have them network, or dock if they carry different components like modern Air Defense systems do, and now you don’t just have more interdictors but now you have a flexible system that can handle losing parts and not have a single point in your fleet that can be disabled by “heroic sacrifice” ramming attacks and can be better shielded by SDs, fighters, corvettes, etc. Even if you do lose some in this way, there’s plenty of other Gozantis to be converted into interdictors so replacements are plentiful and unless you lost over half your Gozantis your ability to interdict is at least partially functional.

That would be an interesting idea. Clearly the frame could only support one emitter, rather than the original four, but still.

I mean that many tractor arrays WOULD put a damper on the average starfighter velocity. Anything else would likely just turn the turrets on you tho.

Eh, give me the right resources and I'll give that ISD a run for its money that it'll never see coming, even if I tell it before hand! (I love concussion missiles and Ion torpedoes, and a Gozanti could carry *a lot* of them, and we know you can slave multiple launchers to 1 targeting computer. Imagine an ISD "pulling over" a Gozanti, getting 1 target lock confirmation and then seeing an endless stream of hellfire come your way)

...or one pod that just connects to all four couplings and pulls power from all the connectors. Less toasty couplings that way if you're just trying to fire the blasters on one side a lot.

Externally mounted fighters don't look like they can be re-armed with munitions like bombs or missiles, maybe fuel/liquids etc can be piped in but that's it. Their is clearly no routine maintence ability and I'd say that the TIE probably could not make more then a few hours of flight time before it would need to be moved to a larger ship to get a proper maintence cycle. In this they fighter carrying Gozanti would be a bit like the Aircraft transporter ships of WW2, they LOOK like carriers, but have basically none of the logistical functions that actually keep planes operational, just a landing spot and fuel. Most were used to just shuttle planes around as cargo.

@@kennethferland5579 Blaster ammunition is a compressed gas in the Star Wars universe. So reload guns, but not heavy ordnance. Unless there's like a reloading mechanism that comes out of a hatch inside the ship...

Oh absolutely! The C-ROC variant/update is my personal choice.

@@earlware4322 like that one too that is an extremely good one.

I agree that the hilux analogy isn't the best, but I think the best analogy is a cargo plane like the C47 or C130. Where a military cargo transport and a civilian version both exist; the C47 being developed from the DC3 airliner, and the C130 spawning a civilian L100 variant.

I kind of think of it like a space Half Track. Rag on its unorthodox design all you want there was next to no gun you could put in the back of one.

The Gozanti name predates the Empire adopting it in Disney-'verse, and it's far too small to fill the equivalent role of a C-130 in either 'verse. That'd be more along the lines of a Captor-Class.

No . In relative SIZE comparison , they're not that big . 60 metres length is Tiny in the Starwars Universe , they're a Technical for sure .

@@johncunningham4820 i wasn't exactly referring to the size...

Makes sense. A C-130 is less than 30 m long, with a wingspan of ~40 m, and a height of ~12 m, and also comes in the AC-130 gunship variant, can carry pallets for long range ALCMs for Rapid Dragon, or other munitions like Daisy Cutter, MOAB, or other pallet-based bombs, as well as recon and EW variants, hurrican hunter variants, refueling variants, and firefighting water tanker variants, as well as air-dropping Humvees and tanks.

C-130s have basically no civilian market and are definitely not armed in that market, even looking past the relative size differences. A C-130 equivalent in-'verse would be more akin to a Captor-Class.

@@SacredCowShipyards I think civilian airliners tend to be convertible to cargo carriers, so maybe that would fit, although I'm not sure which model is the most common since they're all variations on a theme. But now that I think about it, there have been proposals to adapt airliners/cargoliners so they can launch fighters or serve as bombers. So, could that mean the Boeing 7x7 family fit that role?

At least it's fast to load and unload

Per nu-Canon, they can put down ~1000kph in-atmo, and given that such vessels as Star Destroyers can pull in excess of 2000Gs of acceleration, it's fair to say the Star Wars 'verse has both inertial dampener tech but also structural integrity tech that is probably transitive to anything attached to the ship with the structural integrity field generator.

@@SacredCowShipyards Speaking of Structural inegrity, remember that the WINDOWS are made of "transparent" Dura Steel.

@@jaywerner8415 yeah that has always been a weird detail in star wars I've always found to be... kinda dumb..m the idea of being able to make transparent material out of OPAGUE METALS, wether it be durasteel, plasteel, OR APPARENTLY EVEN BESKAR... yeah doesn't make much sense

Mmm intresting...how do you reuse tardis crèche for manufacture

Hatch is supposed to be opened while hanging there, so it's rather reinforced barbette around it, designed as pickup point.

This is a 'verse with tractor beams, atmosphere containment fields, and structural integrity fields. Yeah. It'll work.

A little on the nose.

It was the 3rd Doctor story the Time Warrior where the Doctor's home planet, Gallifrey was revealed.

Better in what way? They maintain entirely different battle roles so what metrics are you comparing them on?

@@helghast1149 Every metric. Smaller target, better utility, better tactical equipment, comparable logistical performance. Everything. Just imagine if the Empire had Gravity Well generators in every battle with the Rebellion.

No offense but it seems you've ignored every metric that matters like: Shield Recharge Rate, Total Shield Capacity, Hull Armor, Weapon Armaments (Turbolasers, Laser Cannons, Quad Turbolasers, Proton Torpedos, Missiles), Reactor Output (Total Power Output). "Better Utility" It's a fragile and niche capital ship that exceeds in a support role. It works well for what it's *intended* to do. "Smaller Target" I agree here that the smaller profile is better. I'd like a ship on the Interdictor's chassis but replace the four reactors with one and essentially make it a more scaled down ISD. "Better Tactical Equipment" I agree with statement as well save for the fact that the equipment is necessary for survival due to the lack of heavy firepower. I love the Interdictor for the role it plays as it does so exceedingly well. As I said earlier, an ISD mounted on an Interdictor chassis would be optimal. I may actually attempt that feat in Lego! Cheers @@Gamerguy826

@@helghast1149 An ISD on an Interdictor chasis sounds like a nice compromise but my point is that the Empire's Star Destroyer's large Turbolaser armament was effectivley useless given the Rebellion's emphasis on strike craft. It simply had too many which was counterproductive. The Interdictor, on the other hand had missile jamming systems which made it a nightmare for things like Y-Wings which were extensively used by the Rebels. Oh, and let's not forget that Gravity Well generator that could completely shut down hit and run attacks which were the Rebels bread and butter. Completely wasted potential, in my opinion.

I would counter that the ISD's large turbolaser complement wasn't useless as the Star Destroyer was always intended for Capital ship v Capital ship warfare. It was never intended to fight swarms of fighters as if we're being practical no rebellion could have afforded to consistently sustain the naval/aerial losses incurred by the Rebels. Let's also take care to note that ISD-1's had Point-Defence weaponry that meant they actually could counter and thrive against small strike craft that the Rebellion employed. The ISD-2 was the Star Destroyer that removed Point-Defence weaponry but it was also intended to be a purely up-armored and upgunned Star Destroyer. It was meant to double down on it's original intended role of anti-capital ship. Typically, even in a small battle group you could assume that an ISD would have support from either an Arquitens or two; or even Raider-Class Corvettes. Either one of those spacecraft would be great in an Anti-Fighter role that could allow an ISD-2 to focus on the enemies capital ship. I think Star Wars has had a bad trend recently within the past decade of "lazy space battles" that play too much on plot armor rather than adhering to any sense of technological continuity. @@Gamerguy826

Check out the Bolo stories. Same idea, much much bigger guns.

Even though the smaller and more common one-walker-type had to transport the wlaker crouched😅,

@@chheinrich8486 at least it was protected and storaged

@@laisphinto6372 i know it just find the Image funny🤣

Much bigger ship, and much less flexible.

@@SacredCowShipyards its a Transport ship and i prefer a safe shipment over needless losses from being flexible

Except the ones that are landed on the ground/deck all over that series.

They could definitely load and unload the ships. Just couldn't do much in the way of repairs.

Well, I took a calculated risk, and apparently my math was wrong.

@@SacredCowShipyards Oh not me lol, I was just saying it would be funny if there was one. My bad🤣, love your videos by the way, any chance I'll be able to get some Sacred Cow Shipyards dice anytime soon?

We are working on it, with limited success.

@@SacredCowShipyards WOOO! I look forward to being able to get some whenever you have them ready. I completely understand if it takes awhile though lol

Right?