Talk:Low Altitude Assault Transport/Legends

(This variant should rather be called High Altitude Assault Transport).

Whether it's deployed from space or not, it's still designed for low altitiude assault, so is it accurate to say the above? --Fade 15:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any need to include that unless it is mentioned by an IU source. The "helicopter gunships" should probably be removed too. --SparqMan 16:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Seeing as they still call it the LAAT, I would surmise that it probably has a limited range at such high altitudes. --Beeurd 18:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, official military names aren't always entirely accurate, but yeah, Fade's right. Also, we should probably move the the "helicopter gunships" part to a "Behind the scenes" section, along with some info on their inspiration. I might do that.-LtNOWIS 21:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems all LAAT have some form of atmospheric containment shielding (can´t remember where I read it, though) so I´m removing the "Space-deployed" part and integrating it with the rest of the article. VT-16 19:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

AIAT/i?
Where is this "Aerial Initiative Armoured Transport" mentioned? I have never heard of it outside of this article. Please state an official source. VT-16 10:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Didn't the AIAT/i gunship Slave IV appear for the first time in Daniel Moran's short story The Last One Standing: The Tale of Boba Fett contained within the Tales of the Bounty Hunters book? I think the Galactic Empire still produced such gunships but in small quantities. I also think that the LAAT/i and LAAT/c gunships were still in use under the Empire. 222.152.167.149 21:28, 10 August 2005
 * All I know for sure of the Aerial Initiative Armored Transport/Infantry was that it was indeed the model of Boba Fett's Slave IV. The point is, it does exist. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 11:52, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * A search on CUSWE shows that the AIAT/i exists. However, I haven't found any evidence that the Slave IV is an AIAT/i.  The Slave IV has a hyperdrive, something I really doubt a dropship/atmospheric gunship is equipped with.  I think any connection between the Slave IV and the AIAT/i should be removed until evidence is found.  The AIAT/i should also be removed from the LAAT page, since it already has its own page, and there's no evidence to suggest it's a variant of the LAAT.JimRaynor55 15:09, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Second paragraph of LAAT/i (ARC Trooper transport)
What does the second paragraph have to do with the ARC trooper gunship? I don't see any point of it there in the article. Maybe, add a section right after the last gunship and chaning the wording a bit and give that section the name "Other Models" and then a subtitle: "AIAT/i Gunship" (then the information would go right under that). Cmdr. J. Nebulax 11:44, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Correct info on AIAT/i
AIAT/i actually stands for: Amphibious Interstellar Assault Transport/infantry It is spaceworthy. The most noted example of this class is Jaster's Legacy, from the game Bounty Hunter. More info can be found in the BH Prima guide. It was a predecessor to the LAAT/i, not a successor. The ship was built prior to 52 BBY, so certainly not a "new" model in the times of the Republic or Empire, as incorrectly stated by this article and CUSWE. Slave IV may be of this class, but if so, Slave IV was an older model ship.
 * Ever think that there might be another AIAT/i? Why would a spacecraft be an amphibious vehicle? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:37, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * No. What canon proof is there of this?  If there really are two canon AIAT/i ships, that is inexcusably lazy!  The spacecraft in question IS an amphibious vehicle because it can land on water.JustinGann 08:04, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, there is another AIAT/i as stated in an Insider issue. So, I take it you don't have the one on the history of the Mandalorians. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:37, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * And that ship is nowhere stated to be a new model of any sort. There's no reason to think that Slave IV is not the same class of ship as Jaster's Legacy. jSarek 21:00, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Still, it seems strange. The AIAT/i that was Slave IV did not stand for Amphibious Interstellar Assault Transport/infantry as far as I'm aware of. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:23, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Did the article in Insider say that AIAT/i stands for Aeiral Initiative Assault Transport? That could be fanon.  I concur with JSarek.  The only source I know that states the AIAT/i was a new post-Endor design is the NON-CANON CUSWE, the author of which apparently has not accessed the Bounty Hunter Prima Guide, which makes it clear that the ship is at least as old as 52 BBY.
 * Why would an Insider magazine print a fanon name, then? That would be stupid. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:08, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, to straighten this out, I went straight to the source: Abel G. Pena, in discussion at boards.theforce.net, under the lit thread about Kyle Katarn.

I wrote: “I, however, believe it to be the same sort of AIAT/i "Amphibious Interstellar Assault Transport" as Jaster's Legacy, as revealed in the Prima Guide for Bounty Hunter.”

Abel replied: Bingo.

I wrote: “Since you wrote the Mandalorian article, what was ur inent?”

Abel replied: Besides my intention, this was specifically ironed out with Leland Chee. Generally speaking, however, my intentions drift toward poetic irony or psychology, i.e. if Jaster’s Legacy, the ship of Ailyn’s grandfather, named after her quasi-greatgrandfather, was an AIAT/i, and you see that family seems like a very important theme in the Fett family, you can probably bet the farm that the Slave IV was meant to be an Amphibious etc etc etc.

IN conclusion, it seems that there is only one type of AIAT/i, and the Insider saying that it stands for Aerial Initiative Assault Transport is a continuity glitch (since the Bounty Hunter Prima guide came first).
 * Okay, then, it's settled. But I still think we should keep the Aeiral Initiative Assault Transport/infantry page, just in case. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:24, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think a redirect/merger is in order. The final page should have both names for thoroughness, with a note explaining the confusion!JustinGann 22:04, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * What kind of redirect/merge are you talking about, JustinGann? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:24, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Rockets and Lasers
I just got done reading a blog on starwars.com, somebody was wondering something,

At the end of the Battle of Geonosis, Anakin order the Clones to shoot down Tyranus, he reply "We out of rockets". Why didn't they use their Laser Cannons? Double D 21:14, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Simple&mdash;a gunship's rockets are the best weapons onboard. They are guided, whereas the lasers just shoot mainly random blasts. Plus, considering the gunship was chasing a fast speeder also says that even if they got a lock on his speeder, either Dooku would speed off or use a Force trick to screw the targeting system up. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:14, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, sometimes the engines can't power the weapons, if all of their power is devoted to manuevering.-LtNOWIS 01:43, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * In the original script, they used the word 'ordnance', which refers to weapons or more specifically, ammunition in general. Had they used this, there would be no doubt that they had no weapons left. Unfortunately, a lot of people (like me at the time) had no idea what 'ordnance' means, so they went with an easier word. VT-16 20:23, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Where did you find that? Admiral J. Nebulax 20:25, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it was in the shooting script or something. Been too long to remember the exact source. VT-16 11:50, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for it anyway. It was helpful. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:10, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * He also has a lightsaber for deflection.--LandoSystem1138 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * lol, against a gunship? maybe not...this isn't the episode 3 game lasers would rip him to shreds...(clone wars cartoon, Grevious, epidose 2 obi wan) Jedi Dude
 * Who knows. Maybe he could have. After all, Luke managed to deflect AT-AT cannon blasts in Dark Empire... And Dooku was more experienced with the dark side than Skywalker was at the time. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Death Star Reference
If you look closely at the side turrets firing in Episode II in the battle of Geonosis, the beginning of the battle, you'll see the laser comes from several smaller lasers, forming one huge one, a definite reference to the Death Star. This is found right at the very beginning of the battle, when the LAATs are used to save the Jedi. The one Yoda's in, I believe. Trust me, this is true.
 * Yes, so... ? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the manner in which the LAAT's lasers function is a fairly relevant technical detail. Red XIV 17:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose it's quite possible that the technology used in the laser turrets was a "pre-superlaser" effect. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Space Deployed?
I don't understand something here,If the LAAT Gunships were space deployed as well,then how could the riders on the gunship survive?Or did those doors on the gunship close?I just don't get the full concept of it.-Stoll 7234

Thanks for the help,i understand it now-Stoll7234
 * Yup, they do. to automatically put your name type "~ ~ ~ ~". without the spaces --Razzy1319 04:45, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, they only deploy in space in games and the Clone Wars micro-series. The micro-series and other games are known to go against canon. So, they probably don't. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:39, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * The micro-series, games and comics in which they are seen in space are all canon. So they do. --Master Starkeiller 17:55, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * There's even an Imperial LAAT in orbit around Coruscant in Republic 78. Anyway, the way it works is that each gunship has an atmospheric containment field, similar to the ones on the big ship hangars. The openings on each door probably close when entering vacuum as well. VT-16 18:42, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Equipment also had high-altitude and orbital LAATs. It's available for free online if you want to check it out. -LtNOWIS 19:01, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Basically, they're not ment for space, just deployed from space. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:27, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. VT-16 22:44, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Meaning that their "use" in Battlefront II as space vehicles is mainly incorrect. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:46, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. From what I've seen and heard, their use is similar to that of TIE boarding craft, bringing troops aboard a damaged or disabled ship. That's not outside their range of use, judging by previous sources. But their optimal use is in low altitude. VT-16 12:05, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the only places we've seen then in space combat are Battlefront II, which goes against canon, and Equipment. But from what I got reading Equipment, they weren't supposed to be fighting in space. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:09, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:49, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Physically they probably have magcon fields to prevent explosive decompression. They seem dirt cheap and safer than doors--Erl 20:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Probably" is the key word. We don't know for sure. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Equipment details
Have we seen greater detailed information on the weapons and systems of the LAAT? I'm surprised at how little is found here. --SparqMan 16:26, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:54, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Armament
Air to air rockets shouldn't be indented, right? I changed it myself but it seems to have been reverted so here it can be discussed.
 * Wrong. That was how many air-to-air rockets the mass-driver missile launcher holds. Therefore, it is indented. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the Databank, the AAR are a seperate weapon on the underside of the wing.211.30.75.248 12:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. Besides, the Databank has gotten plenty of things wrong. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the Databank, the article, visual inspection and the ICS confirms they are seperate weapons. Do you have anything to support your position, or shall I change it?Nemesis Two 09:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if three sources say otherwise, I guess it could be changed. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

VAAT/I
Just a heads-up that the VAAT/I is not Fanon, it appears in Omega Squad: Targets.
 * No it doesn't. But the VAAT/e does - Kwenn 15:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To think, a single letter is the difference between canon and fanon... Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, It wasn't ment to be fanon I just got letters mixed up. No need to get angry, everyone makes mistakes. well at least it wasn't stupidshadow stuffRuffles 07:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 18:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Shields?
Did the Lat have shields? On Geonosis bolts fired by Geonosian fighters expoded around them, was that because they hit the shields or were they meant to explode like flak? -Aiddat
 * I don't think so. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't think I've read about it, but it did look like the bolts exploded without doing any damage, or even before it touched them. Maybe it's the nature of the Nantex-Class starfighter's weapon to explode like flak.
 * It could be. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Passenger Capacity?
Can they really hold 30 passengers? In the movies, games, and books where they are seen or mentioned, the gunships are much to small to hold 30 people. From what I've seen they could hold maybe 10 people, 15 at most.
 * Yes. I believe the Episode II Incredible Cross Sections explains it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

LAAT/v image?
Is this:

|350px]]

a LAAT/v. I know the file name says /infantry, but maybe that's a mistake. A picture of the /v would be nice. -Aiddat 22:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's a LAAT/i. LAAT/is could carry four speeder bikes. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)