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)

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